Classification of a wreck

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Yoozername » 11 Oct 2019 19:41

Here's a Panther (Command) tank being stripped...or is it being repaired? No Mulligans...

Image

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 11 Oct 2019 19:48

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 16:37
Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 14:37


And what exactly does this have to do with what Zetterling said?

Allies wrote off a back-log of vehicles after the operation.
Germans wrote off a back-log of vehicles after the operation.
If you are now saying only the delayed Allied total is the real number of their write-offs (which it actually is) then you are admitting all the accounts in German Unit histories that say anything like '''all the Allied losses are confirmed by the Unit War Diary'' which is written the same day as the events it describes are incorrect and are using an inflated total for Allied total losses.
If you accept that then we are on the same page. Welcome to the real world.

We are on the same page? Very good.

I would like to know then why did you post that completely misleading quote from Zaloga to mislead people, If you knew exactly that it wasnt true because you knew exactly what page numbers are those and what is written on them before.

And no, you are not making the argument you think you are making. Because if you agree that allies were writing-off back-logged vehicles from June and July, you agree that the best supplied, and completely motorised army was writing-off tanks after the operation has ended, in huge numbers.

Tanks that were, as you say, out of units due to being classified as longer than 24-hour repair job, and there were so many of them and so damaged, that the army with afore-mentioned advantages was incapable of sorting them out in timely manner.


So allies actually downplayed their losses to even bigger extent than Germans did?

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2077
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 11 Oct 2019 20:00

Hi,

Looking at 16 Panzer Division's reporting on 14 September 1943 during battle of Salerno they submit a report that says:
Totalausfall von 11 Panzern, Gesamtausfall von 30 Panzers und Sturmgeschützen.
Can anyone explain what the different classifications mean? "Totalausfall" = total loss, OK, but what about "Gesamtausfall"?

By 0100 hrs on 15 September 1943, they report:
Von 50 Panzern sind noch 22 einsatzbereit, 12 Totalausfälle eingetreten.
Which is great as it ties in with the British official historians translation of 16 Pz Div's report as "16 Pz Div WD have 12 tanks total loss, but confirmed 22 runners" but note that at the same time LXXVI Pz Korps report that 16 Pz Div's total losses were actually 13 "mainly from artillery hits", although they agree with the 22 runners.

Now I just need to work out why on 8 September the division reported having 87 Pz IVs, on 12 September it reported only having 35 "runners" and now on 14 September there are only "22 runners" but only 12/13 "total losses". Curious.

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5772
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Oct 2019 20:06

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57
Terry Duncan wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:31


Michael. This is a dead link, and therefore hardly a useful source for anything.
That is where I got it and I gave my link. I did not know it was gone until asked for the link and it was news to me as well.The owner obviously took it down. That was my link and my source. I then gave a screenshot that showed cameraman's name. He is a known Canadian Combat cameraman and a simple google gives links to other clips about him and clips from the film I used.
At first thought the person asking the question was serious but the increasing strangeness in his replies made me change my mind and I want nothing more to do with him.
I was under the impression that no one was forced to do another's research. That giving a link to the source was considered a valid response. That the source has been removed is outside my control.
I had no idea what a 'rick roll' was and had to look it up and the suggestion the footage ins faked or manipulated is completely and utterly absurd.
Dale Gervais, film conservator with Library & Archives Canada must be in on it because he narrates the clip about the discovery of the film.

Screenshot_69.jpg

This is Dale in his day job

https://canadianfilmandphotounit.ca/author/pipndale/

and a moments digging will give you a link to the new host for the film which has been updated (6th June 2019) to mention the death of the cameraman.





I think this old post is relevant:
David Thompson wrote:
17 Oct 2016 05:48
Michael Kenny -- You wrote:
I think a request for the exact Russian wording/description of the classes of destroyed/damaged tanks is far from an unreasonable request. Asking if they can read Russian is also relevant.
We don't require that level of sourcing here; the source originally given ("Russian document TsAMO f38 on11371 d16 l11,13") is sufficient for Interested readers to find out more on their own. As the rules state, AHF operates as an information exchange, not a research service.

Is that still board policy or has it changed?

Michael Kenny

Policy is that when you are asked for details you provide a link where possible. The second link with the date of 6th June as you specify links to a film with two people talking and not a single image of a Panther wreck, so this would constitute trolling rather than doing others research for them, and is certainly not in the spirit of friendly co-operation with other members. Is there a reason you cannot provide the actual link as it will save moderation staff having to deal with numerous reports deriving from this thread. I would rather this didnt become a matter for senior staff, but it is likely to end that way at the present rate.

Terry Duncan

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 11 Oct 2019 20:07

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
11 Oct 2019 20:00
Hi,

Looking at 16 Panzer Division's reporting on 14 September 1943 during battle of Salerno they submit a report that says:
Totalausfall von 11 Panzern, Gesamtausfall von 30 Panzers und Sturmgeschützen.
Can anyone explain what the different classifications mean? "Totalausfall" = total loss, OK, but what about "Gesamtausfall"?

By 0100 hrs on 15 September 1943, they report:
Von 50 Panzern sind noch 22 einsatzbereit, 12 Totalausfälle eingetreten.
Which is great as it ties in with the British official historians translation of 16 Pz Div's report as "16 Pz Div WD have 12 tanks total loss, but confirmed 22 runners" but note that at the same time LXXVI Pz Korps report that 16 Pz Div's total losses were actually 13 "mainly from artillery hits", although they agree with the 22 runners.

Now I just need to work out why on 8 September the division reported having 87 Pz IVs, on 12 September it reported only having 35 "runners" and now on 14 September there are only "22 runners" but only 12/13 "total losses". Curious.

Regards

Tom
Looks like one means complete loss declared on the spot, and other means loss to the unit. Or rather, 11 tanks were lost completely, out of 30 knocked-out.

Or 11 were lost completely and 30 additional knocked-out?

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2077
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 11 Oct 2019 20:26

Terry,

I found the video straight from the new link that Michael provided complete with kaput Panther, but no Austin K5 lorries, to my heart-felt disappointment.

Regards

Tom

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 20:31

Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 19:48



We are on the same page? Very good.

I would like to know then why did you post that completely misleading quote from Zaloga to mislead people, If you knew exactly that it wasnt true because you knew exactly what page numbers are those and what is written on them before.
That you believe Zaloga's claim to be 'not true' is not the same as it being untrue. This is a commom error of those who believe they are the only true keepers of the flame.

Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 19:48

And no, you are not making the argument you think you are making. Because if you agree that allies were writing-off back-logged vehicles from June and July, you agree that the best supplied, and completely motorised army was writing-off tanks after the operation has ended, in huge numbers.
This is the dictionary definition of 'disingenuous' An absurd claim that you know is absurd but use because you have nothing else.
I say it again. You can not have it both ways.
You either use:

A the Allied Unit's write-offs in their daily totals

OR

B the aggregated scrap totals from the workshops.


You can not use figure A for individual battles (the normal German historian method)and then use total B from months later and claim that total B is being hidden and is in addition to total A



In fact total B is total A minus tanks that were repaired and returned to service. By using only total A you get an inflated total of destroyed tanks. Total B is always lower than total A

Total bbbbbbbbbbbb A is a sub-set of total A and not, as you try and infer, in addition to total A

Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 19:48

Tanks that were, as you say, out of units due to being classified as longer than 24-hour repair job, and there were so many of them and so damaged, that the army with afore-mentioned advantages was incapable of sorting them out in timely manner.

Yes the Commonwealth did not land all their workshops on June 6 in the first wave and thus found it was easier to issue new tanks and park up Unit write-offs until such time as they had the capacity ashore to repair them. You can read about this problem in The Administrative History Of 21st Army Group.
Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 19:48
So allies actually downplayed their losses to even bigger extent than Germans did?
A completely absurd statement borne of your ignorance. The exact reverse was the reality. Allied losses were 'overplayed' and this led those who know of the problem to feign ignorance and deliberately ignore the consequences it so they can paint a flattering picture of the failed Panzer Units.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 20:46

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
11 Oct 2019 20:26
Terry,

I found the video straight from the new link that Michael provided complete with kaput Panther, but no Austin K5 lorries, to my heart-felt disappointment.
Do you want me to photo-shop one in for you?

That is just clips from the discovered film. Remember they found reels of the stuff.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 11 Oct 2019 21:00

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 20:31
Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 19:48



We are on the same page? Very good.

I would like to know then why did you post that completely misleading quote from Zaloga to mislead people, If you knew exactly that it wasnt true because you knew exactly what page numbers are those and what is written on them before.
That you believe Zaloga's claim to be 'not true' is not the same as it being untrue. This is a commom error of those who believe they are the only true keepers of the flame.

Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 19:48

And no, you are not making the argument you think you are making. Because if you agree that allies were writing-off back-logged vehicles from June and July, you agree that the best supplied, and completely motorised army was writing-off tanks after the operation has ended, in huge numbers.
This is the dictionary definition of 'disingenuous' An absurd claim that you know is absurd but use because you have nothing else.
I say it again. You can not have it both ways.
You either use:

A the Allied Unit's write-offs in their daily totals

OR

B the aggregated scrap totals from the workshops.


You can not use figure A for individual battles (the normal German historian method)and then use total B from months later and claim that total B is being hidden and is in addition to total A



In fact total B is total A minus tanks that were repaired and returned to service. By using only total A you get an inflated total of destroyed tanks. Total B is always lower than total A [/b]


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv



Tanks that were, as you say, out of units due to being classified as longer than 24-hour repair job, and there were so many of them and so damaged, that the army with afore-mentioned advantages was incapable of sorting them out in timely manner.


So allies actually downplayed their losses to even bigger extent than Germans did?

AAAAAAAAAAAAA
A

BBBBBBB B
You just said that germans writing off back-logs of vehicles in september and allies writing off back-logs of vehicles in August is us "being on the same page".

I quote: "If you are now saying only the delayed Allied total is the real number of their write-offs (which it actually is"

Meaning you agree with Zetterling's speculation you knew about when you posted Zaloga's misleading terxt.


I have literally no idea what you just wrote there.

If americans wrote off :

June - 187
July - 280
August - 432

And Brits wrote off :

June - 146
July - 231
August - 834


If this looks like it looks, and allies, an army of huge means, in the offensive , were writting of magnitudes more tanks in a relatively quite month, against a broken enemy on the run, as you would put it, this can only mean that some very sizable collection points were finally being processed and one can only imagine if such fluctuation appears with total losses, a small degree of all losses, how many repairable tanks were sitting there for weeks and months, actually being losses without any good reason involved.

Your strawmen are getting really tiring, nobody is talking about any individual battlefield claims, try to wake up from your crusading fever.

If this is what allied aggregates truly look like, there is no reason why should they look like that other than tanks being retroactively written-off.

Like really, a guy writes that delayed writing-off is the one true way, and then he strawmans me and says I am making absurd claims. Seriously how long is this going to continue?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 21:18

Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 21:00


You just said that germans writing off back-logs of vehicles in september and allies writing off back-logs of vehicles in August is us "being on the same page".


Yes I did. I know you fully understand you are being deceptive but it suits your argument so you will keep running with it.

There is a critical difference in the two Armies 'wrote-Off' totals.
The Allied wrecks written off in August onwards had already been written of from the Unit totals. Every tank Regiment had reported those tanks as 'written off ' on the day the wrote them off. The data can be checked if anyone cares to look.

The delayed German write-offs in September are the first time they appear as write-offs.

So the Allies report their numbers twice. On a individual daily basis and then as an aggregated total in August.

The Germans report their numbers just once. Some Unit loss numbers on a daily basis and then in September write off several hundred tanks.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 11 Oct 2019 21:29

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 21:18
[quote=Ulater post_id=2227574 time=1570824015 user_id=66950]


You just said that germans writing off back-logs of vehicles in september and allies writing off back-logs of vehicles in August is us "being on the same page".
Yes I did. I know you fully understand you are being deceptive but it suits your argument so you will keep running with it.

There is a critical difference in the two Armies 'wrote-Off' totals.
The Allied wrecks written off in August onwards had already been written of from the Unit totals. Every tank Regiment had reported those tanks as 'written off ' on the day the wrote them off. The data can be checked if anyone cares to look.

The delayed German write-offs in September are the first time they appear as write-offs.

So the Allies report their numbers twice. On a individual daily basis and then as an aggregated total in August.

The Germans report their numbers just once. Some Unit loss numbers on a daily basis and then in September write off several hundred tanks.
No, im not being deceptive.

And absolutely. Germans report their numbers only once in September and thats why we have absolutely no idea about their losses in June, July and August and no such numbers exist. Good to know we are continuing in the good vein of absurdities.

And nobody cares about unit totals, not me, not Zetterling, as he is using a single aggregate document that has the numbers quite clearly given.

And Im always open to new things.


Im very interested in seeing how does the German process work. If they werent recording/reporting until september, and mind you, a claim of total loss was stamped only by a single individual within a german tank division, how did the units work?

How do commanders know how many runner do they have? How are repair units capable of making any plans and long-term repair schedules?

Image

How is it that this exists?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 21:34

Terry Duncan wrote:
11 Oct 2019 20:06

. The second link with the date of 6th June as you specify links to a film with two people talking and not a single image of a Panther wreck, so this would constitute trolling rather than doing others research for them, and is certainly not in the spirit of friendly co-operation with other members.
That is factually incorrect. The page gave does have a link to the film.

This is the page I linked to

https://canadianfilmandphotounit.ca/author/pipndale/


and the film I referenced is the second entry on the opening page.
This is a screen grab of the link I gave.
Screenshot_84_stitch.jpg
The second entry on my linked page will take you directly to the film with the images of the Panther wreck.

I was asked for a link to my original film and I found it was dead.
I then went out of my way to find out what happened and my first Google took me straight to the new version of the film.
It really was that simple.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 21:38

Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 21:29


And absolutely. Germans report their numbers only once in September and thats why we have absolutely no idea about their losses in June, July and August and no such numbers exist. Good to know we are continuing in the good vein of absurdities.

Are we?
Here is an exercise that might help open your eyes. What were the tank casualties for 9th SS in the first week of July?

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 11 Oct 2019 21:41

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 21:38
Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 21:29


And absolutely. Germans report their numbers only once in September and thats why we have absolutely no idea about their losses in June, July and August and no such numbers exist. Good to know we are continuing in the good vein of absurdities.

Are we?
Here is an exercise that might help open your eyes. What were the tank casualties for 9th SS in the first week of July?

Well, dont leave me hanging, Im interested.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Yoozername » 11 Oct 2019 21:44

Here is a list of Tiger I maintenance and repair times and who is expected to do it. Note that the repair for the transmission, which required removing turret and gutting out much of the internals, went to Vienna. This is mentioned in many books on Tiger tanks. In the link in Panzerworld, it suggests that much of the Homeland Repair is done at the manufacturing plants. This might be true for other Panzers. I have read that these Homeland Repairs would have a lag getting wherever they were going, as it was SOP to wait for enough of them built up to justify that trip.
listiger.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”