Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

[Simon K]

Thanks for that Sam.

[Michael Kenny]

I am well aware of Fey's inability to get even the date right. Anyone looking at my earlier posts on this subject will find I mention it several times. However I decided to use the dates he gives in the JJF 1990 version of his book 'Armor Battles Of The Waffen SS 1943-45 (page 196 hardback). 7th August is also the date given in Tieke's 'In The Firestorm Of The Last Year Of The War' ( page 161). Reynolds also uses the 7th in his 'Sons Of The Reich' (page 72) and though he cites 'Armor Battles' as his source the uncritical acceptance of the claim is puzzling because he quotes from all the sources I used in my first post. Thus although he had the means to at least doubt the claims he chose not to use them.

[aahoo]

23 husars war diary :
Aug 8-10
LA BARBIERE 6 Sherman V, 3 Sherman Vc 1 3 Ton lorry 5 Half tracks received.
4 sc cars, 1 3ton lorry 4 half tracks 12 Sherman V 3 Sherman Vc struck off. 1 OR killed

The Shermans are the losses for the previous days fighting. Thus the 15 Shermans are for the fighting for the period Aug 1-7th.
The period 8-10th August were spent in the rear so they did not lose 15 Shermans in action on those dates.

Fey claimed those 14 shermans on august 7th, so what is the problem here?

[Michael Kenny]

Fey claimed those 14 shermans on august 7th, so what is the problem here?

If you read the whole of the book extract you will notice 23rd Hussars were involved in very heavy fighting over the 6 days.
You can say that they suffered no losses at all until the 7th (or 8th) and Will Fey alone managed to knock them all out.
Is that what you believe?
If (for the sake of argument) he did then it is certain he did not do it on August 7th or 8th.
Either way Fey is wrong.

Bottom line is there was no attack by 23rd Hussars on the 7th or 8th and they did not lose 14 Shermans in any actions on either of those dates.
If there is any more confusion please ask.

[aahoo]

No, i havent read the book, that earlier

The Shermans are the losses for the previous days fighting. Thus the 15 Shermans are for the fighting for the period Aug 1-7th.
The period 8-10th August were spent in the rear so they did not lose 15 Shermans in action on those dates.

was just a bit confusing, since kill claims were on 7th day, quoted text there makes reader (at least me) first think that you were saying there were no losses at all on august 7th, then on 8-10th there was when they were in the rear, but yet again those 8-10th losses writed down were earlier, like 7th ?

Your last reply cleared it out though

Im not saying that it isnt possible to Fey be lying there, or remembering wrong, or that Hussars are doing same.

Its hard to know for sure what has happened, it could also be that Fey had knocked some shermans out, maybe just damaged them enough to crew bail out and counted them as kills, but tanks would be still operational afterwards and thus not counted as losses.

Good work anyway, these thing are always interesting, to trying figure out what was going on over battlefields over 60 ago.

[Michael Kenny]

Im not saying that it isnt possible to Fey be lying

I do not say he lied. I am sure he had reasons for thinking he did it. I would say that because no one bothered to check the British accounts before accepting the claims the story gained a life of it's own.
A simple case that illustrates the perils of accepting unconfirmed 'raw'' kill claims.

[peeved]

A simple case that illustrates the perils of accepting unconfirmed 'raw'' kill claims.

Re armour kill claims vs. actual enemy losses, on the Eastern Front at least the German General Staff by 1943 had come to accept that the actual armour kills were ca. 50% of the claims due to double claiming and repairable armour left behind. Cf. the document below from "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.
Markus

[Michael Kenny]

In Schneider's book 'Das Reich Tigers' there is an interesting document on page 401. It is the award recommendation for Egger dated 20/12/44. Paragraph 11 says:

"11. During- the fighting- north of Chenedolle, friendly
infantry disengaged from the enemy Despite broken
terrain and no infantry support, Egger remained in position
and knocked out 18 enemy tanks, 3 heavy antitank guns
and 5 vehicles with two vehicles, one of which had been
immobilized.
Egger is worthy of receiving the German Cross in Gold as a
result of his magnificent bravery and devotion to duty.

This confirms that the other Tiger with Fey was in fact Eggers. It would seem that at this date it was all Egger's glory and no one noticed Fey.

[mattstat1]

Hi,
I know this post has been quiet for some time, but can anyone tell me if the fighting went on through the night of the 6th August and carried on through the 7th August 1944?
I have read some reports that state that the fighting stopped and others that state the fighting went on through the night.

I'm doing some research in to the death of my Uncle's Father who was in the 23rd Hussars, a Trooper in Gilbertson's tank.

Thanks in advance,

Mattstat1

[general g]

A simple case that illustrates the perils of accepting unconfirmed 'raw'' kill claims.

Re armour kill claims vs. actual enemy losses, on the Eastern Front at least the German General Staff by 1943 had come to accept that the actual armour kills were ca. 50% of the claims due to double claiming and repairable armour left behind. Cf. the document below from "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.
Markus

Concerning tanks it is always better to speak about numbers of disabled enemy tanks as you can never know how many are total loss.In german the word kill is not used.Anyway,all tanks hit may be counted as a hit tank is at least temporarily out of the battle.
Makes verification of claims almost impossible as you would need to know from the other side how many tanks were destroyed and damaged by enemy tanks on a given day.

[RichTO90]

Concerning tanks it is always better to speak about numbers of disabled enemy tanks as you can never know how many are total loss.

Um, yes you can, if you dig into the records and they are preserved for the day/period/unit you are interested in. Here's a hint hotshot, it's part of the operational record and neccessary for logistics maintenance.

In german the word kill is not used.

Of course it wasn't, I'm not sure that "kill" means anything in German. The word they used was "totalausfalle".

Anyway,all tanks hit may be counted as a hit tank is at least temporarily out of the battle.

Uh, yeah. Is it really too much to ask that you come up with something other than the bleeding obvious on occassion? Count a hit as a hit...the boy's a genius.

BTW, what about all those tanks hit but not damaged? Are they still "at least temporarily out of the battle" in your wacked out worldview?

Makes verification of claims almost impossible as you would need to know from the other side how many tanks were destroyed and damaged by enemy tanks on a given day.

Um, no, since in general armies kept track of gross statistics on cause of loss for their tanks so with both sets of figures you can make some gross assumptions. Tracking claims and losses for individual units on individual days is pretty difficult though...on the other hand if, as in this case, there are effectively few or no enemy losses for the date or location when claims are made then the claims are likely invalid. But then that's just my biased view of reality.

Cheers!

[general g]

Not only are may records disappeared but also you need the detail about the cause for which tanks in repair.
I do not have the impression that that amount of detail exists.
The germans use the word 'abschuss'and not kill.

[LWD]

... as a hit tank is at least temporarily out of the battle.....

I'd question this. I know it isn't true today nor was it true in Vietnam as I've read some of the damage reports. Have anything to back this up?

[John Hilly]

Re armour kill claims vs. actual enemy losses, on the Eastern Front at least the German General Staff by 1943 had come to accept that the actual armour kills were ca. 50% of the claims due to double claiming and repairable armour left behind. Cf. the document below from "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.
Markus

The Germany's enemy tank loss-count practice in orgnizational level is represented also in
"The Battle Of Kursk", by Anders Frankson & Niklas Zetterling.

It seems, however, that this didn't affect in Personal level e.a. in award recommendations, especially with "the Lonely Riders" like Wittmann, Barkmann, Eggers etc. (Propaganda reasons?)
So, if the practice was strict, personal victories were also decreased, but not publicly???

With best
Juha-Pekka

[general g]

... as a hit tank is at least temporarily out of the battle.....

I'd question this. I know it isn't true today nor was it true in Vietnam as I've read some of the damage reports. Have anything to back this up?

A tank hit and disabled by another tank will need repairs.Seems rather obvious.