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 » 20 Oct 2019 00:27

Michael Kenny wrote:
19 Oct 2019 19:19
Richard Anderson wrote:
19 Oct 2019 19:06
but if anyone was actually really interested in analysis rather than urine...
I am and thus the question I started the thread with. Unfortunately it did not turn out as planned but I tried. Anyway if you (a micturation veteran of old) say it is a pointless peeing competition then I bow to your experience!.
LOL! He has experience with peeing contests?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Oct 2019 02:46

Ulater wrote:
19 Oct 2019 19:21
Richard Anderson wrote:
19 Oct 2019 15:54
Uh, guys? This is all fun and all to read, but if you really want to do an analysis of German tanks lost and damaged, the Italian Campaign data set for 10. AOK is more complete and extensive...and they counted unit "losses" as well as the usual three categories.

Just sayin'. Now, by all means go back to your respective rants. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Where can one obtain such information?
NARA or BAMA. The 10. AOK KTB and Anlagen are very complete and offer nearly a continuous series of Panzerlage, which were compiled roughly every three to four days by that army. September 1943 is wonky as is January and February, because everybody hied off to Anzio, but it offers a remarkably complete series for various units.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Oct 2019 02:52

Yoozername wrote:
20 Oct 2019 00:27
Michael Kenny wrote:
19 Oct 2019 19:19
Richard Anderson wrote:
19 Oct 2019 19:06
but if anyone was actually really interested in analysis rather than urine...
I am and thus the question I started the thread with. Unfortunately it did not turn out as planned but I tried. Anyway if you (a micturation veteran of old) say it is a pointless peeing competition then I bow to your experience!.
LOL! He has experience with peeing contests?
Yep, in case you haven't noticed there are a lot of people here that will try to pee down your back and tell you its raining,
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

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

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Yoozername » 20 Oct 2019 04:32

I can see value in narrowing down the specific discussion to a certain theatre, thereby calling out theatre-jumpers that wonky back-and-frothing between the East and hedgerows, etc. But, it still needs to take in parameters beyond what a narrow-minded agenda driven type might consider. Hell, I am down for it! I will get my anti-knee-jerker mechanoid in the shop for further hijinx.

It is sunny there usually. making for nice snap-shots too!

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

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Yoozername » 20 Oct 2019 06:21

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 00:31
This is a Steve Zaloga assessment of the German reporting system

The other critical issue at the heart of this whole debate that the author fails to directly address is that the Germans in 1943-44 had a crappy and dishonest reporting system for unit Panzer strength. They did not make any attempt to dis-aggregate the status of non-operational tanks based on combat damage vs. non-combat mechanical problems. I do not agree with the quote from Friedl’s book on p.23 that this was simply due to local commanders trying to shield their stash of tanks from the prying eyes of Berlin bureaucrats. The whole categorization system of “Total loss/short-term/repair/long-term repair” is a system-wide problem on all the fronts in 1943-44 and 1944. This reporting system is very different from the more honest and clear one used in 1939-40. I am not sure whether it was done deliberately to hide combat casualties or was simply incompetent. I have never seen an adequate explanation for the system, and the reporting system seems to be taken at face value in many sources such as Zetterling. The problems of the reporting system are evident in looking at German Panzer loss reports for France in the summer of 1944 where Panzer losses in June, July and August are unbelievably low and then suddenly in September, they write off most of the Panzer inventory in one fell swoop.

This reporting system was so bad that in September 1944, OB West sent out instructions to Panzer units to cut the BS and only report operational tank strength and not the bogus x/y/z numbers (I cover this issue in my recent book Patton vs. the Panzers on the Lorraine tank fighting in Sep 44). BTW, it was not confined to Panzer strength reporting. The German higher commands were so annoyed at the crappy reporting system for combat strength in infantry divisions that they sent out instructions in April 1944 to change the system to a more useful one. This doesn't seem to have occured for Panzer strength reporting except at a local level as in the OB West case I mentioned.


Link:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... l#p1487015


Check out who 'liked' that post:

yoozername kkl.jpg

This is because I linked that thread in my post here on May 19 2017:


viewtopic.php?p=2079376#p2079376

and an AHF member decided to immediately register on ML and start post extremely offensive messages in the thread. He was banned almost straight away and his posts deleted but some of the replied mention him and one quote captured. It was someone calling himself 'Yowzername'.

Note that the Ian Michael Wood replying in the ML thread

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... l#p1487017

is the same Michael Wood who co-authored this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Waffen-Panzer- ... 0952886707

and I count 3 other published authors in the thread.
For those that either emailed me, or PM'd me regarding this thread, I did report this to the moderators. That is, the guys that Kenny feels he can read the rules to. I have never seen anyone do that to moderators.

There is no way that is me. It is someone, could even be Mr. Photo-Analysis himself. Such is the internet. In any case, how can it be allowed to be put on this website? I am brave enough to say that not only myself, but others, feel the moderation here is not exactly 'square'.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Oct 2019 07:40

I can't believe I missed Michael's post in this yellow blizzard of a pissing contest, otherwise I would have responded to it earlier.
Yoozername wrote:
20 Oct 2019 06:21
Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 00:31
This is a Steve Zaloga assessment of the German reporting system

The other critical issue at the heart of this whole debate that the author fails to directly address is that the Germans in 1943-44 had a crappy and dishonest reporting system for unit Panzer strength. They did not make any attempt to dis-aggregate the status of non-operational tanks based on combat damage vs. non-combat mechanical problems. I do not agree with the quote from Friedl’s book on p.23 that this was simply due to local commanders trying to shield their stash of tanks from the prying eyes of Berlin bureaucrats. The whole categorization system of “Total loss/short-term/repair/long-term repair” is a system-wide problem on all the fronts in 1943-44 and 1944. This reporting system is very different from the more honest and clear one used in 1939-40. I am not sure whether it was done deliberately to hide combat casualties or was simply incompetent. I have never seen an adequate explanation for the system, and the reporting system seems to be taken at face value in many sources such as Zetterling. The problems of the reporting system are evident in looking at German Panzer loss reports for France in the summer of 1944 where Panzer losses in June, July and August are unbelievably low and then suddenly in September, they write off most of the Panzer inventory in one fell swoop.
I'm afraid Steve is off the mark in this case.

The German "crappy reporting system" was not that much crappier than the Allied (British and American) "crappy reporting system". The Allies too did not make any attempt to dis-aggregate the status of non operational tanks based on combat damage versus non-combat. In some ways the Allied system was so crappy and difficult to follow that it is evident that some units followed what they thought the reporting was supposed to be rather than what was wanted...and no one ever corrected them (it is all too evident that the little proviso that tanks reported as "lost or damaged, not repairable in under 24 hours" were supposed to be dropped from subsequent reports was routinely ignored).

The Panzer losses in June and July are not unbelievably low, but rather pretty much match what I would expect. The June losses were 225 Panzer and Befehlspanzer and 27 StuG. In July it was 297 and 68. August was 124 and 98, which seems odd, until you realize that the reporting system itself broke down around the first week of August. I have long suspected that most of that "August" report actually related to c. 25 July-7 August. The figures for September are what they are, because they cover essentially two-thirds of August, including all those abandoned on the wrong side of the Seine, as well as the substantially losses in September. Blaming that simple fact of life on a faulty reporting system is unfair and you could argue the same thing for FUSA loss reporting for 16-25 December 1944.
For those that either emailed me, or PM'd me regarding this thread, I did report this to the moderators. That is, the guys that Kenny feels he can read the rules to. I have never seen anyone do that to moderators.

There is no way that is me. It is someone, could even be Mr. Photo-Analysis himself. Such is the internet. In any case, how can it be allowed to be put on this website? I am brave enough to say that not only myself, but others, feel the moderation here is not exactly 'square'.
That "Yoozername" was someone named "Arturo Vandelay". Are you "Arturo Vandelay"? If not, then it is simply another good reason to use real names rather than pseudonyms. Notice the problem that caused "Arthur001" as well...AHF tolerates pseudonyms, MissingLynx does not. Frankly though, I think it was a bit much for Michael to equate "AHF Yoozername" to "MissingLynx Yoozername" based on the pseudonym, but it is understandable given some shenanigans that go on here and at other even worse moderated sites (viz. "Aida1" who is obviously a generalg sockpuppet allowed to run free for some reason).

So what possessed you to suddenly drag this up after ten days? PMs that were egging you on? Sometimes its better just to point out the likely commonality of using "Yoozername" as a "User Name" and leave it at that.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

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 » 20 Oct 2019 10:22

Given the state of this thread, other than the interesting photos of damaged tanks, I think locking it for some time at least to allow people to have a think about their actions in general, and Richard's post is a good point to leave it. Moderation staff do attempt to be fair, but we all see things differently at times about what is and is not acceptable, and just because certain actions are not taken does not mean 'favouritism' or allowing someone to 'get away with it.

Terry Duncan

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