Testing the King Tiger at Kubinka

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Locked
Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#121

Post by Darrin » 23 Aug 2002, 04:45

Logan Hartke wrote:
Darrin wrote:At least 2 thirds of this or 3000 were committed to the EF so we have 1500 des from Dday on in the west. Thier were 6 western allied armies and the 6th was the third one present and was smaller than the 1st US army. It would be highly unlikly that the 3rd US army was even responsible for 500 german heavies des in reality.
You forget, however, that the Third Army covered more ground and engaged more enemy combat formations than any other single army in history in a comparable length of time. Also, the Third Army engaged huge numbers of Panthers in the Battle of the Bulge and destroyed most of those that they came across. Patton was as anal a historian as most on this forum - he wouldn't have printed it if he didn't believe the numbers were accurate. The numbers came from his book War As I Knew It.

Logan Hartke



The book claims the 3rd army killed and wonded more gers then the ger army lost to these causes in the entire western front to all 6 armies not just pattons. For six entire months from 1 aug 44 to 31 jan 45 after the 3rd army was activated. Clearly patton and his book are not all they are cracked up to be. Not to mention the book was published 2 years after his death.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
Location: Illinois, USA

#122

Post by Logan Hartke » 23 Aug 2002, 04:54

It may have been published then, but I bet that he checked those records. Also, you're telling me that the German Army, SS, and Luftwaffe didn't lose 500,000 troops on the Western Front during that timespan? I find that hard to believe.

Logan Hartke


Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#123

Post by Darrin » 23 Aug 2002, 05:17

Michael Kenny wrote:Did I miss somethig there? Allied losses in July '44= 500. German claims=1000.That an example of German acurracy. U.S. claims = 1000. German losses=500. This an example of Allied over-claim.?



If you have Zetterlings Normandy 44 book look at page 75 note 33 to find out why zetterling thinks the earlier CW report of des tanks were incomplete. For the entire normandy campagin to the end of aug the US lost about 1350 and the CW lost 1200 during the same period for a tot of 2550 tanks des. The ger for this period claimed 3650 so compared to the 45% reduction on the EF it was much closer a 30% reduction and much closer than western and rus claims. According to zeterling the CW tanks were clasified as short or long term fírst only after wards was the economical and military nessecity of repair considered and tanks reported as destroyed. Thier was a delay in the CW reporting system that didn't exist in the US or ger system.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#124

Post by Darrin » 23 Aug 2002, 05:25

Logan Hartke wrote:It may have been published then, but I bet that he checked those records. Also, you're telling me that the German Army, SS, and Luftwaffe didn't lose 500,000 troops on the Western Front during that timespan? I find that hard to believe.

Logan Hartke
The secret is I didn't count mias which were high on this front in general but esp in aug. His 3rd army pow claims account for half of all reported ger mias. Even though his army was but one of 6.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
Location: Illinois, USA

#125

Post by Logan Hartke » 23 Aug 2002, 05:35

But was that just Heer? The Third Army also went against many SS units in the Bulge and many Fallschirmjager as well (which would be listed under Luftwaffe).

Logan Hartke

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

#126

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Aug 2002, 05:36

As you yourself say Zetterling THINKS the British figures are wrong and then he goes on to admit his theory is not fully substantiated. We are talking if,buts and maybe aren't we. Tell me what adjustment is made to cater for the fact the Allies could afford to scrap Tanks rather than repair them because that had more tanks than crews whereas the Germans had to repair everything as nothing else was available.

b_c_ries
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 27 Mar 2002, 05:25
Location: California USA

#127

Post by b_c_ries » 23 Aug 2002, 06:41

Overclaiming kills in combat is something that every army does, If two tanks are engaging the same target they will often both claim the kill especially if they are not in communication with each other, this has nothing to do with dishonesty it is just people thinking that their shot is the one that counted, You should see some of the arguments that happen around here on opening day of dove season. I believe it was common for Allied tankers to confuse pzmkIVs with spaced armor on their turrets with Tigers. There is no way that King-Tigers had a better kill to loss ratio than Tiger 1s, the Tiger 1 enjoyed a much larger advantage over enemy vehicles when it was introduced than the King-Tiger had. The Tiger1 had similar side armor protection better mobility and allied tanks in early 1943 were much worse than allied tanks in late 1944. Christian, I don't agree that a Chrysler multi-bank had 370 hp my sources claim 425 or 460, the 425 seems more common. The Chrysler Multi-bank was a compromise that was inferior to the preferred engine, the 500 hp Ford GAA 18liter V-8 which could not be produced in sufficient quantity to power all shermans. It appears that the USA kept the best motors for their own tanks. Any properly designed AFV must be designed with sufficient power and chassis strength to allow for up-grades in Armor and Firepower. The Sherman and pzMk IV were designed with substantial development potential the King-Tiger was underpowered to begin with and would not be able to accept any meaningful upgrades.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#128

Post by Darrin » 23 Aug 2002, 14:22

Michael Kenny wrote:As you yourself say Zetterling THINKS the British figures are wrong and then he goes on to admit his theory is not fully substantiated. We are talking if,buts and maybe aren't we. Tell me what adjustment is made to cater for the fact the Allies could afford to scrap Tanks rather than repair them because that had more tanks than crews whereas the Germans had to repair everything as nothing else was available.

Well if the allied tank losses were accuurate during this time then in aug they lost more tanks des than the ger claimed. This would be the only incedence I EVER heard of undercliming of military losses. While the allies had made a HUGE number shermans they do not magically appear in france all by them selvës. Shipping constraints boats and harbours precluded this from being a factor until 1945 at least. The US was supposed to maintain a basic inventory of 25% of all shermans plus extra ammounts above that. During the actual battles they rarly met the min 25% level. And while shermans gettting scrapped because they had a few replacments may have been a small problem early on. The ger tank losses at least in aug were incresed due to many other factors than just getting blown up in combat. It is far more likly that during normandy the ger tank losses were high compared to normal then any allied discrepancy.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#129

Post by Darrin » 23 Aug 2002, 14:33

Logan Hartke wrote:But was that just Heer? The Third Army also went against many SS units in the Bulge and many Fallschirmjager as well (which would be listed under Luftwaffe).

Logan Hartke

See Zetterlings Normandy book p 100 note 11.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

#130

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Aug 2002, 21:55

Darrin whilst not disputing that Zetterlings work is a great source of data like any book that covers such a large topic it tends to rely too much on paperwork and it doesn't look as if he went too far down the chain of records to confirm all his 'findings'. I cant comment on the bulk of the book but his claim(using German records) that only 23 Tigers were lost by July 27 is way out(page 82). Returns for 101 on28/7/44 show it to have lost 20 Tigers and 102 on 31/7/44 had lost 15 Tigers. This is without the losses of 503 or any lost by Lehr from the 3 it had. It might not be Zetterling that is at fault but it shows something is out somewhere. It may not seem like much, 35+ instead of 23 but in % terms it is out by 33%. I am no maths genius so be kind to me if my % figure is wrong. The 12 Tiger IIs he says were in Normandy should be 14. He forgot the 2 Commanders Tigers in 1st Kp. 503 and strictly speaking the 5 Tiger IIs from Fkl 316 in Pz. Lehr were available even if they chose not to take them to the Front.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#131

Post by Darrin » 24 Aug 2002, 01:01

Michael Kenny wrote:Darrin whilst not disputing that Zetterlings work is a great source of data like any book that covers such a large topic it tends to rely too much on paperwork and it doesn't look as if he went too far down the chain of records to confirm all his 'findings'. I cant comment on the bulk of the book but his claim(using German records) that only 23 Tigers were lost by July 27 is way out(page 82). Returns for 101 on28/7/44 show it to have lost 20 Tigers and 102 on 31/7/44 had lost 15 Tigers. This is without the losses of 503 or any lost by Lehr from the 3 it had. It might not be Zetterling that is at fault but it shows something is out somewhere. It may not seem like much, 35+ instead of 23 but in % terms it is out by 33%. I am no maths genius so be kind to me if my % figure is wrong. The 12 Tiger IIs he says were in Normandy should be 14. He forgot the 2 Commanders Tigers in 1st Kp. 503 and strictly speaking the 5 Tiger IIs from Fkl 316 in Pz. Lehr were available even if they chose not to take them to the Front.

According to Zetterlings section on the 102 based on ger records it lost 3 tigers till 31 july 44 not the 15 you seem to believe. While no one is perfect and there are a few things I do disagree with zetterling seems much more reliable then your info. A doctor in military history who works at the swedish def college an expert on the ger army and archives wins out over you every day of the week.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

#132

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Aug 2002, 03:24

I did try to talk sensibly to you in my last post but it seems you will accept no criticism of this book which you constantly use to rubbish practicaly everyone who's post you answer. It seems this book is the Font of all knowledge and you seem unable to understand that it MIGHT not be correct in every little detail it publishes. Well as I am not of sufficient standing for you to take seriously let me now carefully guide you through some facts published by Authors who can't be dismissed as amateurs. Schieder in Tigers In Combat I and II lists the strengh of 503 on 18/07/44 as 32 tanks. A loss of 13 Tigers that only about 5 were Tiger II. This gives a loss of 8 Tiger I. 101 are listed as having 25 Tiger I on 20/7/44. A loss of 20 Tiger I. 102 are listed as having 38 Tiger I on 26/7/44. A loss of 7 Tiger I. This is a total of 35 lost Tiger I by July 27th. As Schneider is using mostly survivors testimony to reconstruct these loses(nearly all paperwork was lost in the retreat) this figure is on the conservative side but let us use them anyway. This is STILL 35 Tiger I NOT 23. Zetterling says the Germans admit to losing 23 Tiger tanks by 27/7/44 but as the Tiger II were also Tigers we shall add them to the total and we now have 40 LOST Tigers. There is still 3 Tiger Is from Pz.Lehr that no one knows how or where they were destroyed but they certainly were destroyed. Now where did I get the Figure of 15 lost by 102? Have you seen a book 'Waffen SS Panzer Units I Normandy 1944' by M.Wood and J. Dugdale?(Books International 2000). The Authors used only the surviving documents FROM GERMAN ARCHIVES to give a full listing of all the Meldungs,ready for action states and Panzer deliveries and allocations for divisional sub-units for all the Units that fought in Normandy. In it on page 187 SS sPzAbt 102 have 30 Tigers for 31/7/44. Nearly all these ORIGINAL documents are published on the right-hand page with a translation on the left page. Unlike Zetterling the Authors didn't give us their opinion on what they meant ,they published the originals so poorly informed non-Swedish Doctors in History and Experts on the German Army and Archives could use our basic maths skills to add up these totals. In doing so it seems we find the Swedish Emperor isn't wearing any clothes! To be fair Zetterling doesn't deserve that last remark. He has done a very good job in his books but he isn't infallible. You do him no favours with your never-ending barrage of statistics and percentages that can be twisted and turned to make black is white in some cases. My research,modest though it is,was into what happened on the Battlefield and it has shown me that all those figures on bits of paper rarely matched what was going on in the field. Try getting your feet dirty in a little practical research and please BUY ANOTHER BOOK! Then you will double your knowledge. As a parting shot Zetterling on page 181 says 102 only had 30 Tigers on 30/7/44. If they only lost 3 where did the other 12 go?. He also states on page 191 that 503 had 23 Tigers written off and on page 177 that 101 had only 25 Tigers on 1/8/44. That is a bigger total loss than my figure!. I think you have shot yourself in the foot here. Don't be too hard on yourself!
Attachments
0000000000000000001.jpg
0000000000000000001.jpg (25.73 KiB) Viewed 2180 times

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

#133

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Aug 2002, 13:49

Darrin can I take your failure to respond as an acknowledgment that Zetterling was wrong repeating the claim of only 23 Tigers lost by 27/7/44?. Maybe if you admitted it your standing here would increase. I hope you have learned from it and in future do not be so flippant when you don't like a post that contradicts Zetterling.
Attachments
falaise tiger.jpg
falaise tiger.jpg (32.55 KiB) Viewed 2161 times

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002, 11:44
Location: Canada

#134

Post by Darrin » 24 Aug 2002, 17:29

Michael Kenny wrote:Darrin can I take your failure to respond as an acknowledgment that Zetterling was wrong repeating the claim of only 23 Tigers lost by 27/7/44?. Maybe if you admitted it your standing here would increase. I hope you have learned from it and in future do not be so flippant when you don't like a post that contradicts Zetterling.

No! Mr flipant post a picture of a dead tiger after every post even if it has nothing to do with the post. Conatins no aknowlegemeants, anylsis or information. You are the one who is always rught here even if EVERY other person disagree with what you are saying. See earlier in this post about critisims of the rus firing test that everybody else agreed with but you.

b_c_ries
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 27 Mar 2002, 05:25
Location: California USA

#135

Post by b_c_ries » 24 Aug 2002, 19:17

I believe "mr. flippant" is using the pictures to illustrate that alot of Tigers were knocked out by the Allies. I enjoy those pictures and any other pictures of tanks regardless of who posts them or what point of view they are trying to illustrate. I wouldn't be to hasty to discount the tests done by the Soviet Socialists on the Armor of the King-Tiger. Tests like these were not done for propaganda purposes or after the war from the comfort of a University library. The commies conducting these tests were attempting to help their comrades in the field to know how best to fight against King-Tigers. They understood that false test results would result in dead comrades. If some commie researcher distorted the results to support some weird propaganda campaign and troops in the field subsequently attempted to engage King-Tigers at ineffective range Comrade Georgi Zhukov would have ensured that the commie researcher got a 7.62 x 25 bullet in the head. I'm not sure about the comment regarding reliability of the drivetrain but I believe that if the Russians drove it the way they drove BT-7s and T-34s it would certainly break.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.

Locked

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