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

[general g]

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

The exact numbers do not have to be correct and a tankcommander may claim all disabled tanks as a victory.

[RichTO90]

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.

Okay then, I guess it's best to let you just continue to wallow in the ignorance of your impressions. At least that gives me, and everyone else that has studied the subject, the simpler option of ignoring you in future.

[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?

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

Not the same thing though is it? You stated: " a hit tanks is at least temporarily out of the battle". Where in reality a tank can be hit with the result that little or no repair is necessary or that said repairs can be readily defurred until after the battle.

[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.

Okay then, I guess it's best to let you just continue to wallow in the ignorance of your impressions. At least that gives me, and everyone else that has studied the subject, the simpler option of ignoring you in future.

Big words and no substance.This subject in itself already gives an indication that the data are not there to play your numbers game.On the one hand a claim of a number of disabled tanks on a date which is not absolutely certain and on the other hand a number of written off tanks over a certain period.Is not enough.
And you cannot ignore that particularly on the german side a lot of data are lost.

[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.

Not the same thing though is it? You stated: " a hit tanks is at least temporarily out of the battle". Where in reality a tank can be hit with the result that little or no repair is necessary or that said repairs can be readily defurred until after the battle.

I should have said 'disabled'.It should have been clear to you that that is what I meant in view of what I said before.

[LWD]

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.

Okay then, I guess it's best to let you just continue to wallow in the ignorance of your impressions. At least that gives me, and everyone else that has studied the subject, the simpler option of ignoring you in future.

Big words and no substance.This subject in itself already gives an indication that the data are not there to play your numbers game.On the one hand a claim of a number of disabled tanks on a date which is not absolutely certain and on the other hand a number of written off tanks over a certain period.Is not enough.
And you cannot ignore that particularly on the german side a lot of data are lost.

If not for his posting history I would thing that "g" was trying to inject some humor into the thread.

... 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.

Not the same thing though is it? You stated: " a hit tanks is at least temporarily out of the battle". Where in reality a tank can be hit with the result that little or no repair is necessary or that said repairs can be readily defurred until after the battle.

I should have said 'disabled'.It should have been clear to you that that is what I meant in view of what I said before.

And why should it have been clear? You've made errors like this before indeed your claims about the leathality of allied tac air in relation to tanks are a classic example. And as before once it's clear that you were wrong rather than admitting it your response is diversion. Note that claiming "disabled" opponents is hardly more accurate that claiming "kills" so your line of "reasoning" is flawed in any case.

[general g]

And why should it have been clear? You've made errors like this before indeed your claims about the leathality of allied tac air in relation to tanks are a classic example. And as before once it's clear that you were wrong rather than admitting it your response is diversion. Note that claiming "disabled" opponents is hardly more accurate that claiming "kills" so your line of "reasoning" is flawed in any case.

A tankcommander can only claim disabled tanks because he cannot know wether the tank will be able to be repaired or not.In german the word kill is not even used.I made that clear from the beginning as you knew.And claims can never be entirely accurate. Discussions about that are therefore without substance.
And about Tacair I made the correct point that kill ratio and hit ratio are not the same.Hitting does not equate killing.

[LWD]

And why should it have been clear? You've made errors like this before indeed your claims about the leathality of allied tac air in relation to tanks are a classic example. And as before once it's clear that you were wrong rather than admitting it your response is diversion. Note that claiming "disabled" opponents is hardly more accurate that claiming "kills" so your line of "reasoning" is flawed in any case.

A tankcommander can only claim disabled tanks because he cannot know wether the tank will be able to be repaired or not.In german the word kill is not even used.

Rubbish. He can claim a kill with as much authority as he can claim "disabled". I.e. very little.

I made that clear from the beginning as you knew.

No you didn't.

And claims can never be entirely accurate. Discussions about that are therefore without substance.

Wrong again. Just because something isn't entirely accurate doesn't mean it can't be discussed or that it isn't of some benefit. This is especially true when some data exist to check to verify at least one of the claims.

And about Tacair I made the correct point that kill ratio and hit ratio are not the same.Hitting does not equate killing.

Your initial point was that it was deadly to German tanks. This was clearly wrong. Then it got on to the effect of rockets. While no one has stated that there was a one to one relationsip between a hit and a kill on a tank with a British 60lb rocket it's clear that it was pretty close. Except for the frontal armor on the Mk V and Mk VI there weren't many areas on any of the German tanks that could take a hit from said rocket and still be operational. Furthermore given some of the quality control issues and the shock effects it's not clear that even the exceptions listed were always exceptions. And all this had to do with you argueing that damage was greater than the OR teams suggested it was which while it may be true your line of reasoning was inadequate to support. Thus rather clearly illustrating a history of diversion on your part when the preponderence of evidence refutes your possition.

[RichTO90]

Big words and no substance.

Really? And what have you added to any discussion besides buffoonish arrogance?

This subject in itself already gives an indication that the data are not there to play your numbers game.

Could you possibly be any more obtuse? There is extensive data available for cause of loss as well as good data on tank states. Especially for the Allies. So, if some German is claiming 14 Shermans hit/abschuss/totalausfalle/knocked out on a particular day at a particular place and no such losses were incurred, then it is unlikely that it is me playing a "numbers game".

On the one hand a claim of a number of disabled tanks on a date which is not absolutely certain and on the other hand a number of written off tanks over a certain period.Is not enough.

Yep, invincible ignorance will trump logic all the time folks.

And you cannot ignore that particularly on the german side a lot of data are lost.

No, I cannot, especially since I have spent a lot of time digging through those records and have what I suspect is a much better "impression" of what is available than do you. But, hey hotshot, don't let me get in the way of your bias!

Cheers!

[annewolstenholme]

Hello I am new to this forum, If this is in the wrong place forgive me and direct me to the correct forum. My father served with the British Army during WW2 and I have been trying to piece together his time in Europe. On looking through this forum I noticed extracts from the book "The story of 23rd Hussars 1940 - 1946" mentioned on p88-94 August 2nd 1944 a Sgt. Roberts with a 17pounder Anti tank gun crew. My late father told me a Sergeant Roberts was his crew commander and this is the first reference I have found and hope it is the crew my father was in. I have tried to get a copy of the afore mentioned book but its not available or its been deleted, I would love to read morer and find out what happened to Sergeant Roberts and his crew over the August and September period. Please could somebody who has a copy fill me in on their version of what happened to Sgt Roberts and his crew. Thank you

[Miles Krogfus]

2 official German mentions of Fey's Chenedolle combat time exist: (1) II SS Pz.Korps the night of Aug.7: SS Pz.Abt.102 shot 20 tanks, including 11 by 1 Tiger. (2) Paul Egger's DK in Gold recommendation, received on Dec.7th: no combat dates are mentioned, only Chenedolle-- Egger with 2 Tigers shot 18 enemy tanks.
British unit combat reports relating to Tiger attacks fail on a number of accounts such as: no end of day full breakdowns of tank losses, for each day no complete lists giving the times, locations and specific combat results. Here are comments in the Fife & Forfar August 7 report: "owning to their losses in tanks A and C squadrons amalgamated . . ." No specific tank numbers of these previous losses or Aug 7 strength given so the number of tanks also lost on that day are not stated. On what day or days did these losses occur? No statement on this. Then the report continues: "Tigers quickly caused A Sqn. 5 tank casualties." Then "That night . . . the Rgt. reduced to 25 tanks on the road." No specific number of tanks it lost that day is given.
It is impossible using British primary data and after the war British unit histories to either fully verify or dismiss Fey's claims. His combats in the Chenedolle area lasted more than one day. After the war, Fey took the diary of Tiger #134's fellow crewman Heinz Trautmann and touched it up, moving events around for dramatic effect. Fey didn't remember combat dates very well himself, and presented Trautmann's revised text as his own first person accounts.

[Michael Kenny]

Hello I am new to this forum, If this is in the wrong place forgive me and direct me to the correct forum.

This is the forum for your query.

http://ww2talk.com/forums/index.php

Ah just noticed you are already there in some depth!

The mention of Sgt Roberts:

One crew which was missing was that
of Sergeant Roberts, who had been isolated by the Germans and
could not get back. They had to spend two very uncomfortable days
amongst the German lines, being heavily shelled by our guns and
having constantly to hide from German patrols. Eventually Sergeant
Roberts managed to rejoin the Regiment, bringing his whole crew
with him, and having gained much useful information about the
enemy positions.


Clearly they are talking about a Sherman crew in 23rd Hussars and not members of the AT Regiment.

[Michael Kenny]

British unit combat reports relating to Tiger attacks fail on a number of accounts such as: no end of day full breakdowns of tank losses, for each day no complete lists giving the times, locations and specific combat results.

British Unit accounts fail at nothing. The fact they fail to confirm an exceptional event should be a warning to those who believe in these high kill claim myths. If the Unit that (it is claimed) got beat up did not notice it then chances are it did not happen.

Here are comments in the Fife & Forfar August 7 report:

There are 2 units named Fife & Forfar. To be precise 1st Fife & Forfar Yeomanry and 2nd Fife & Forfar Yeomanry.
We are concerned only with 2nd F&F Yeo.

"owning to their losses in tanks A and C squadrons amalgamated . . ." No specific tank numbers of these previous losses or Aug 7 strength given. On what day or days did these losses occur? No statement on this.

This is the very first sentence. It clearly means that on the morning of Aug 7 the remnants of A & C Squadrons were combined. It does not mean the days (7th) losses were so high that the 2 were combined.

Then the report continues: "Tigers quickly caused A Sqn. 5 tank casualties."

The full text
Meanwhile a number of Tiger tanks had established themselves on the high ground on our eastern flank at Le Haut Periere( M.R. 7233) and were able to engage A Sqn. from the rear at a range of about 2500 yds. These Tigers quickly caused A Sqn. 5 tank casualties.
Major Gilmore then went forward with a troop of B Sqn.to try and engage these tanks and succeeded in knocking out one of them

Far from it being a comment on how they sat transfixed and helpless it shows they went forward and dealt with the problem.

then "That night . . . the Rgt. reduced to 25 tanks on the road." No specific number of tanks it lost that day is given.

Context again:

During the day our position was continually under shell and mortar fire by the enemy.That night the Regt. remained in the same position. . The Regt. was now reduced to 25 tanks on the road.
Casualties were as follows:- Wounded 9 OR's, Killed 1 OR and missing believed killed 6 OR's. Comdg. Offr wounded.


This is a comment that notes heavy shelling and that they had 25 runners at the end of day count. It includes a full casualty count for the day, 17 men. If 14 tanks had been hit whilst fully crewed (as Fey/Egger claim) casualties would have been a lot higher.

It is impossible using British primary data and after the war British unit histories to either verify or refute Fey's claims

Incorrect. It is impossible for there to have been 14-15 Sherman casualties on Aug 7 in 23rd Hussars (the unit at Chenedolle). The Unit nearest to 23rd Hussars (2nd Fife) also do not not heavy casualties on Aug 7. All attempts to shift the losses on to other unamed units will not work. The losses can not be found in the only 2 tank units in the area.

Wedn6432016.jpg

[Miles Krogfus]

British combat reports are not adequately specific to render any final loss figures in relation to Fey's and other Tiger crew claims. Michael, it is supposition to assume that every time a tank is shot, that killed crew result. I state that Fey did not remember adequately, and that in his books and public stances he mixed, matched and fudged, so his actual British tank Ko's remain in limbo. He fought for a number of days, wanted to lump certain combats together to create more novelistic drama, but Fey debunkers also lack the data to simply dismiss his statements or German official documents. And why could no one for years in their comments about August 7 realize the source (Trautmann) and what the text Fey used does, as I now have stated ? I am something of a newcomer to this site, and am reading years old posts with pleasure, and normally refrain from commenting on flawed ones.

[Michael Kenny]

British combat reports are not adequately specific to render any final, specific loss to Fey's and other Tiger crew figures.

Because they were not written in order to help verify some Tiger crew's imagination. However if the Unit recieves a heavy blow it will be noted. The event (destruction of 14-15 Shermans and 'uncountable' infantry and afv losses) simply does not register.

It is supposition to assume that every time a tank is shot, that killed crew result.

I simply mention that crew losses are very light. If (as Fey or Egger claim) 15 fully crewed advancing Shermans were hit at close range casualties would be greater than 17 and this leaves out the possibility of any other German unit inflicting a single casualty in the very crowded battlefield of Aug 7 1944. It adds further weight to the charge the whole episode is at best an honest mistake or at worst outright invention.

I state that Fey did not remember adequately, and fudged in his books and public stances, so his actual British tank Ko's remain in limbo.

Fey's claim, as written in several books, is completely bogus. That is a fact. You now try and move the date, involve another British unit and introduce another Tiger ace to the mix. Perhaps the year is also wrong? Perhaps it was the eastern front?
Perhaps I am too cynical?
Can anyone provide a single verifiable Eastern Front type double digit multiple kill claim for a German tank ace in NWE 1944-45?