Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

[Michael Kenny]

What current view? I think that your 'enemies' haven't lost much ground at all. Your posts on forums are impermanent like everybody else's and have disappeared into the sand, along with the very few that you 'may' have influenced. Don't overrate yourself. Unless you reach a larger audience 5:1 will still be a popular belief among the public.

I think I managed quite well in getting my message across. This book is the result of over a decade of pooled research (with Dan Taylor, Yann Jouault and Frederic Deprun) and will be long-lasting:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Villers-Bocage ... 284048384X

In short 'my' version is now 'the' version.

This is now out and I suggest you obtain a copy and get your eyes opened about EPSOM:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fontenay-Raura ... nay+Rauray

Its a brilliant account of the action with much linking of period film and photos to present day locations. Many puzzles solved and tank wrecks located. Fred and Baptiste have done a wonderful job.

Do you even use German records?

Does 'Wooden Heart' by Elvis count?

https://youtu.be/Hlbu6SsjlSE?t=90

If so then yes!

[Michael Kenny]

Also, the rest of Wittmann and Fey's record has been untouched.

That is because in Normandy neither Wittmann or Fey have any record. Their sole claim to fame is their single inflated actions. Both left no trace in Normandy other than that. Indeed Wittmann made two appearances on the record and in his second outing he was killed. I can't touch the 'rest' of their record because there isn't any record to touch. Contrast this to Wittmann's massive claims in a few months in Russia. Something not quite right there.

[Cult Icon]

The book on that subject is "Tigers in Normandy". According to Schneider the three tiger battalions reported 500 tank kills, and around half to the 102 SS tigers, which came in after the 101 SS tigers . For the 102 SS Tigers, they reported 600 in 44/45.

for comparison,eg. 21.Pz reported over 300 kills sometime in July, 12.SS reported 600 in Normandy.

So I go back to this on page 1. I don't have my books with me but lets halve the reports via a paper napkin (lots of time savings!). IIRC 17.SS reported around 50? in Normandy according to the unit history. 2.SS reported about 250.

let's say there was in the range of 250 kills for the Tiger battalions, 300 for the 12th SS HJ, 250 for Pz Lehr, 200 for 21.Pz., 125 for 2.SS, 25 for 17.SS. These were among the heaviest fighting divisions in the campaign. (1,200 kills)

Napier gives almost 2,700 knocked out for the campaign . This included write offs and the rest being repaired However, the tanks that were repaired more than once are not identified (both write-offs and those that were repaired). These would be tanks that were totally destroyed, and also tanks that were disabled. Repeat claims of tanks that were knocked out for the 2nd, 3rd , etc. time that were recovered and repaired or ended their life as a write-off. From the German side these would have been counted as inflated kills. So the actual figure of knocked out armor should be substantially higher than 2,700.

Is this snapshot very, very unreasonable given the confirmed figures of allied armored losses in Normandy ?

[Christianmunich]

This approach isn't necessary, I verified German claims directly by losses and area. Like pointed out this all but admitted by kenny.

I have also written extensively on overclaiming and analysed German overall claims with opposing losses, the majority of the discrepancy is easily explained by salvaged tanks. Massive German overclaiming is a myth and due to available numbers, one of the most easily dispelled.

US forces overclaimed significantly higher. German overclaiming is merely a talking point and doesn't withstand scrutiny. This thread as well was read by kenny and is silent approval was noticed.

[Michael Kenny]

So I go back to this on page 1. I don't have my books with me but lets halve the reports via a paper napkin (lots of time savings!). IIRC 17.SS reported around 50? in Normandy according to the unit history. 2.SS reported about 250.

let's say there was in the range of 250 kills for the Tiger battalions, 300 for the 12th SS HJ, 250 for Pz Lehr, 200 for 21.Pz., 125 for 2.SS, 25 for 17.SS. These were among the heaviest fighting divisions in the campaign. (1,200 kills)

Napier gives almost 2,700 knocked out for the campaign . This included write offs and the rest being repaired However, the tanks that were repaired more than once are not identified (both write-offs and those that were repaired). These would be tanks that were totally destroyed, and also tanks that were disabled. Repeat claims of tanks that were knocked out for the 2nd, 3rd , etc. time that were recovered and repaired or ended their life as a write-off. From the German side these would have been counted as inflated kills. So the actual figure of knocked out armor should be substantially higher than 2,700.

Is this snapshot very, very unreasonable given the confirmed figures of allied armored losses in Normandy ?

Where do you make allowance for Tigers damaged or knocked out and then repaired?
You want to include all these tanks when you count Allied losses but where do you factor it in for German losses?
For example sSS Pz Abt 101 had all its Tigers in repair in early July and report only 15 total losses.
How many of the remaining 30 are you going to allow as casualties?
How many of that 30 were repaired more than once?
How do you allow for mistakes like Schneider counting (for example) the Tiger left in Marle as an SS 101 abandoned tank (and thus not a combat loss) when it is not even an SS 101 tank and it disguises the destruction/loss of a real SS 101 Tiger?
Do the '5:1' calculations with all those Tiger losses factored in and get back to me.

[Michael Kenny]

This approach isn't necessary, I verified German claims directly by losses and area.

I have been trying to do that for over 20 years. So far have not been able to even establish the fate of every one of the dozen TII in sPz Abt 503. and they are the most covered/photographed class of tanks in the Campaign. Anyone claiming they have 'verified' Allied losses is delusional.
What you means is this:
1, Find out how many claims Tiger Unit X make on any given date(A)
2. Check for a mention in Allied records (be it book or War Diary) of any casualties for any cause for that day(B)
3. If B is greater than A then declare all Tiger claims are verified.

[Cult Icon]

Once again, not reading what I was saying Kenny. "Global statements" characterizing the entire PzWaffe from a very small number of examples. Was I talking about German losses? Nope. I was talking about German reports. This is a recurring problem with these exchanges.

I do not have an opinion of 5:1 with the Tigers. I do know that the Tiger battalions however, were generally weak throughout their life (the equivalent of 1-4 platoons operational for the most part) and used in a manner not dissimilar from their assault gun and tank destroyer brothers. The platoon, company leaders had "aces" among them.

[Christianmunich]

There is a difference between knowing the exact loss area of every single tank and having a good idea who did what.

Do I know who knocked out every T-34 at Prokhorovka? No, but I am safe to assume the majority fell to the II SS Corps.

You are conflating uncertainty with doubt and this is just a poor argument. I don't need a video of a Tiger knocking out a Sherman I only need sufficient evidence to make educated evaluations.

My method is far more rigid like you make it look and you are fully aware, you have abandoned the argumentative route. You know full well that I didn#t simply account all losses to Tigers, I made for every single loss a case that the Tigers were the most plausible explanation. And most of my arguments are so air tight that you spend more time talking about my methods et cetera than actually showing mistakes. I already refuted your argumentation for the 7th, the rest is all the same.

You are wrongly describing my methods over and over. Just present your case kenny if you have one.

What you means is this:
1, Find out how many claims Tiger Unit X make on any given date(A)
2. Check for a mention in Allied records (be it book or War Diary) of any casualties for any cause for that day(B)
3. If B is greater than A then declare all Tiger claims are verified.

Show a single example where I relied on this only. Just a single one kenny. I crossverified more than 100 Allied losses to Tigers. Just show me a single one where I did this.

You are also, again it pains me to say this, simply lying. I pretty decreased nearly all Tiger claims, for not a single day ( I believe ) did I accept Schneiders claims, every combat action got reduced by me. You are lying about my methods kenny because you don't find counter arguments. Bad taste kenny.

[Michael Kenny]

but admitted by kenny................... was read by kenny .............Just present your case kenny.............Just a single one kenny........ lying about my methods kenny...............Bad taste kenny............you are also, again it pains me to say this, simply lying..........You are lying about my methods kenny ........

Clearly someone is irked by my refusal to validate his flawed theory..
A bit like Grasshopper seeking approval from The Master.

https://youtu.be/W2yIkDVs0cA?t=95

[Christianmunich]

but admitted by kenny................... was read by kenny .............

Clearly someone is irked by my refusal to validate his flawed theory..
A bit like Grasshopper seeking approval from The Master.

https://youtu.be/W2yIkDVs0cA?t=95

I am not beating around the bush your total concession in front of a guy who literally did what you claimed was impossible is one of the greatest tests for my research. If I would have made significant msitake you would have swooped on them. You didn't because I didn't. The 5:1 is likely truth despite your mockery. Again, present your case kenny, the 5:1 is online in the AH now. Have fun.

I am not irked because you don't "validate" my research. Your are physically unable to do so. It defeats hundreds/thousands of your posts. The majority of people is unable to ever accept such defeat. I never assumed you would "validate" is by admittance, I knew your lack of rebuttal was the actual validation.

[Michael Kenny]

Once again, not reading what I was saying Kenny. "Global statements" characterizing the entire PzWaffe from a very small number of examples.

I find that information from specific engagements is far superior to any other method.

Was I talking about German losses? Nope. I was talking about German reports. This is a recurring problem with these exchanges.

They are all intertwined. You have to know how they influence each other and some ability to check specific examples to see if they are verified. Simply parroting the mantra 'Schneider says.......' is not going to work with me. I have the means to check most claims footnotes, dates and locations. Try it sometime, the results will amaze you.

[Cult Icon]

Your methods to make global statements don't work. You don't need to take a course in statistics to know that you need a large enough % of verified skirmishes and even a strong generalization would be limited to the campaign.

I believe that you conclude that the kill ratio was 1 to 1 (that was what you were advertising on ACG for years)

[Cult Icon]

[*]

This approach isn't necessary, I verified German claims directly by losses and area. Like pointed out this all but admitted by kenny.

I have also written extensively on overclaiming and analysed German overall claims with opposing losses, the majority of the discrepancy is easily explained by salvaged tanks. Massive German overclaiming is a myth and due to available numbers, one of the most easily dispelled.

US forces overclaimed significantly higher. German overclaiming is merely a talking point and doesn't withstand scrutiny. This thread as well was read by kenny and is silent approval was noticed.

I have several unit histories on US armored divisions. They tend to misidentify tanks as "Tigers" and also overclaim. The worst overclaiming is from the Soviets. Their general staff studies , reports have estimated figures that seem to be taken out of a rabbit hat. (both German/Axis strengths and losses)

Example of Eastern Front reports on both sides: This author had salvaged tanks in-cooperated (and German losses) in his analysis for the series on the 2GTA :

https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/foru ... -tank-army

[Michael Kenny]

If I would have made significant msitake you would have swooped on them. You didn't because I didn't.

I knew what you were doing. The usual trick of trying out your claims on me so I would critique it and then you could incorporate this new information and keep repeating until (for all intents) it was me who wrote it. I have not got the time to correct your errors but it is obvious you are 'book bound' and far too narrowly focused on German accounts. You have no idea of the terrain, the overall situation or anything other that what 'Schneider says'. I tried caution you about SS 101 Tiger losses that do not appear 'on the books' in another thread but you refused to heed my warning.
For example (and it is just one of many) you claim for the actions around Mouen during EPSOM :
'There is little doubt the 101st was instrumental in stopping the already deep advance towards the Odon'


Firstly the advance towards the Odon was not stopped. The river was crossed at several points. What you should have said is despite local isolated German counter attacks the advance was not halted and the Odon was crossed.
it is also clear you know nothing about the 8 German wrecks recorded in that very area (Mouen) by a Canadian Survey team on 31/7/44. Two of the wrecks are Tigers. They are in addition to the 3 previously known Tiger wrecks.
What does that prove ?
That there are more Tiger losses than you know about and that they did not work in isolation.
British tanks could have been lost to the 6 other wrecks but you steadfastly refuse to allow for it.

[Cult Icon]

People can self publish these days:

The Great Panzer Ace conspiracy by Michael Kurkowski

Five Tigers One Sherman: The Final Verdict by Michael Kurkowski

Tommy Lafayette Green-Pool, Sherman Ace VC: 270 Kills ...