German Tank Losses In Normandy

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
Laurent
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 16 Apr 2002 11:04
Location: Lyon, France

Post by Laurent » 26 Apr 2002 15:45

Darrin wrote:SS 17th PGD was supposed to have 685 motorcycles 1126 cars and 1686 trucks 255 primemovers, according to zetterling p365.


By 1944 that was highly theorical. If I remember well 2 or 3 batallions of the 17 SS Div had only bycicles to go to the front and arrive days after the rest of the division,... except the Panzerjäger bataillon, that had no Panzer before end July 1944 and never joined it, fighting and being destroyed after the Cobra breaktrough far from the division.

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 26 Apr 2002 19:47

Hallo Laurent,

On 15 May 1944 the 17.SS-Panzergrenadier-Division had 257 trucks and towing vehicles (BA-MA RH 10/112)

Only four Infanterie-Bataillonen could be partly motorized. The two remaining Bataillonen had to be moved to Normandy on bicycles. The Versorgungskolonne (supply unit) of the Division had no vehicles at all.

The Divisional StuG-Abteilung had 42 StuGs on 1 June 1944. The assigned Jagdpanzer were not delivered, so the Panzerjäger-Abteilung had to rely on 12 Marders in its 3.Kompanie (BA-MA RH 10/324)

Three Befehlspanzer IV (command panzer IV) were delivered on 12 August (BA-MA RH 10/349)

In the last week of June 31 Jagdpanzer IV were shipped to SS-Panzergrenadier-Division 17 (BA-MA RH 10/349). As soon as they arrived the 1. And 2.Kompanie of SS-Panzerjäger-Abteilung 17 moved to Normandy (3.Kompanie, the Marders, was allready there since early June), but they never made contact with the Division. They fought in the Laval area but suffered heavy losses when they tried to break out to the East.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Timo

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 26 Apr 2002 20:08

At least you have moved off zetterling.


Now, when will you move off Zetterling? Not yet, given your reply:
SS 17th PGD was supposed to have 685 motorcycles 1126 cars and 1686 trucks 255 primemovers, according to zetterling p365.


Darrin. You are to Zetterlings book what the Catholic Church is to the Bible. You provide your own interpretation of its contents and present it as the only true meaning of the word. If others, like Qvist, have a different interpretation, you condem them as heretics, without real debate. You keep repeating your view, yet you avoid to answer questions which do not fit your story.

Timo

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 26 Apr 2002 21:23

Laurent wrote:
Darrin wrote:SS 17th PGD was supposed to have 685 motorcycles 1126 cars and 1686 trucks 255 primemovers, according to zetterling p365.


By 1944 that was highly theorical. If I remember well 2 or 3 batallions of the 17 SS Div had only bycicles to go to the front and arrive days after the rest of the division,... except the Panzerjäger bataillon, that had no Panzer before end July 1944 and never joined it, fighting and being destroyed after the Cobra breaktrough far from the division.


While this div may have been signifcantly under motorized compared to what It was suposed to have it was the only ger unit that was the correct PGD that took part in normandy. I have no idea if other PGD had similar transport problems in general in 44. On 1 june the div had 275 motorcycles, 1104 cars, 275 trucks and 10 prime movers. It also had 12 marders and 42 stug IIIs on that date.

Its motorization problems were not the avg situation for the panzer div in france. For example on 1 june the 9, 10 and 12 SS PD had 7,783 cars and trucks operational or in short term repair over 2500 each. Just before the battle of falise the allied operational reserch team estimated the ger had 30,000 cars and trucks but this was probably lower than what they actually had.

At least according to my sources thier was no FULLY motorized US inf divs. Otherwise they would have called them motorized and used the little wheel symbols. Still waiting for a source with numbers of trucks etc...

User avatar
Christoph Awender
Forum Staff
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:22
Location: Austria

Discussion...

Post by Christoph Awender » 26 Apr 2002 22:05

Hello Darrin!

I am following the discussion since the beginning now and have some points.

Obviously you have a very limited knowledge of the Wehrmacht and rely on only one book.. which is undoubtly THE reference for Normandie operations. But not the only one.

You say for example that a PzGrDiv. should have 275 motorcycles, 1104 cars, 275 trucks and 10 prime movers. It also had 12 marders and 42 stug IIIs.
This would have been heaven on earth for a division commander if he would have these. If he would have them he would need the fuel for them and this was also a problem.

Why don´t you listen to some of the professionals here on the forum and learn. Maybe you get some more books...

First step would be to correct some of your spelling mistakes and provocate others by repeeting them. For example Falaise not Falise... Marder and so on.
If you want to be a serious researcher you have to learn from others and help them helping YOU. Ignoring them is not a very adult behaviour.

just my 2cents worth....
Christoph

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Re: Discussion...

Post by Darrin » 26 Apr 2002 22:57

Christoph Awender wrote:Hello Darrin!

I am following the discussion since the beginning now and have some points.

Obviously you have a very limited knowledge of the Wehrmacht and rely on only one book.. which is undoubtly THE reference for Normandie operations. But not the only one.

You say for example that a PzGrDiv. should have 275 motorcycles, 1104 cars, 275 trucks and 10 prime movers. It also had 12 marders and 42 stug IIIs.
This would have been heaven on earth for a division commander if he would have these. If he would have them he would need the fuel for them and this was also a problem.

Why don´t you listen to some of the professionals here on the forum and learn. Maybe you get some more books...

First step would be to correct some of your spelling mistakes and provocate others by repeeting them. For example Falaise not Falise... Marder and so on.
If you want to be a serious researcher you have to learn from others and help them helping YOU. Ignoring them is not a very adult behaviour.

just my 2cents worth....
Christoph



According to zetterlings work these are the numbers it had on the 1 june 44. Archive referce BA-MA RH 10/324. The ger had 4,000,000 L of fuel stored in normandy and sending in 1 train a day would proably bring in 500 tons of fuel or 500,000 L. Now I am not saying fuel was not a problem at all but I have not seen enough proof to say it was an incredible problem. The panther tanks in june and july only lost 15% due to being abandonned or des by crew. Yet the panther tank held 700L and may of needed fuel every 100km which to me implies fuel was not a huge problem in june and july.

The euroaxis production of fuel in 1943 was 9 million tons. Sending 500 tons on 1 train would represent the use of 0.006% of its '43 production.

Why is it many people here who consider themselves so superior can't seem to read to well. I said what this div actually had and in an early post said what this div was supposed to have. Look at zetterlings book or the archive reference above.

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 26 Apr 2002 23:17

Why is it many people here who consider themselves so superior can't seem to read to well.


Way to go Darrin. First you ignore and insult forum host number one, now you move on to forum host number two. Who's next?

The people you refer to as "feeling superior" are just trying to help you. My first replies were to underline that your conclusions point in the right direction, but that you make errors in the way you reach your conclusions. Unfortunately you decided to ignore my questions and comments because of some misunderstandings about an edited message. Despite the fact that I explained several times to you why the message was edited and told you that this was not on purpose. Yet you persist in ignoring me.

More people tried to point out to you where you went wrong in drawing conclusions, but they were labelled "amateurs" are not able to produce more then toilet paper. Yet you only rely on one book. A book that is indeed a standard in Normandy research, but it is not all that can be said and Zetterling is not allways right.

Now, why is it that several experienced researchers point out your mistakes and all you can do is ridicule them, without showing any prove for your assumptions? Why is it that you ignore the hosts of a forum only one week after you first posted? Why do you ridicule and ignore people who are trying to help you? Why do you call people who's research and achievements are unknown to you "amateurs" or arrogant?

Zetterling is good, but most of us are doing comparable research and are not amateurs compared to him. Now, on the other hand you are an amateur. So please lose the attitude and chill.

Timo

User avatar
Christoph Awender
Forum Staff
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 17:22
Location: Austria

Start of the discussion...

Post by Christoph Awender » 27 Apr 2002 01:45

Hello Darrin!

I am in the office right now and don´t have the book available but I stand corrected with the vehicle numbers as Normandie is not the field of my research right now.

I would like to come back to he beginning of the discussion. All "we" say is that the conclusions you draw have a high chance of being wrong.
It is impossible to determine losses just by expanding the period and add the same ratio of destroyed tanks.
Why should german commanders report lower losses than they had? In many cases commanders tended to report higher losses to receive more reinforcements.

The discussion went nowhere in the last threads and maybe we could come back to a way of discussion using facts and not assumptions and mathematic methods.

Will check the numbers you gave for fuel... what´s your source for these numbers? Zetterling?

Christoph

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Re: Start of the discussion...

Post by Darrin » 27 Apr 2002 06:59

Christoph Awender wrote:Hello Darrin!

I am in the office right now and don´t have the book available but I stand corrected with the vehicle numbers as Normandie is not the field of my research right now.

I would like to come back to he beginning of the discussion. All "we" say is that the conclusions you draw have a high chance of being wrong.
It is impossible to determine losses just by expanding the period and add the same ratio of destroyed tanks.
Why should german commanders report lower losses than they had? In many cases commanders tended to report higher losses to receive more reinforcements.

The discussion went nowhere in the last threads and maybe we could come back to a way of discussion using facts and not assumptions and mathematic methods.

Will check the numbers you gave for fuel... what´s your source for these numbers? Zetterling?

Christoph



Thanks christoph,

I'm not saying the ger usually underreported losses on purpuse to a big extent but they did fail in a huge way in august. Zetterling est 1500 tanks, stugs, panzer jaegers lost Just up to 22 AUG in the normandy region alone. Germany up to the end of aug reported around 950 tanks etc des in ALL france esp southern france were anvil began. Near the end of july there were 500 tanks so there should have been around 450-500 tanks in aug. Plus this includes an extra week longer and areas outside of Normandy. While the underreported tanks in aug might equal the reported tanks in aug if we include the larger area and time frame. But they more than equal the reported losses in the smaller time frame. So either the underreported lose rate was higher in aug then even zetterling suspects or it was higher in jun-july by a smaller margin.

Now it seems from what little evidence is collected in Zetterlings book that the losses of des vechiles in the only div that are avilablee for this time rate the panzer lehr were very high. Unfortunatly out of the 5 PD/PGDs in june and the 5 more sent sent in the end of june of july thier is no other div whose records are complete to say this. In fact there is only one div that has records that almost coover this period. Its looses for the period shown also are also pretty high. It seems possioble that the ger also unreported in june and or july to a much less extent than aug.

Zetterlings is my source for fuel. Although I am basing most of my arguments on the data avilable in zetterlings book I am actually critizing him very slighltly to try and fwd my own understanding of the battles. He certanly is the expert on the gers in normandy to me but I don't agree with eveyrthing he says 100% either. I'm sure he might have more evidence at his disposal that he did not put in the book that might conflict with some of my opnions. Most of the time I agree with something being a problem but don't agree as to how big a problem.

I am not nor will I ever write a book. My incredibly bad spelling, writing and typing skills should be obvious. Neither did I ask for help to reserch this. I understand the problems of extraploating from 1 or 2 div to account for 10 divs. The ger records that exist are horrbly incomplete it seems mening to prove anything one way or the other is imposible. Even Zetterling could not prove his 1500 number in any way. As far as I know this is a forum for discussing any topic related to the thid riech. As far as I know this form is not soely for reserch discussion if it is tell me and I will erase all my topics and leave. I use zetterlings book as a refernce for the data I use here. I don't have any microfilm or readers here because I am not nor ever will try to reserch archive material on WWII. I've read and responded to Zetterling comments on other forms from about a year ago. A year ago he paid $10,000 for the partial microfilm copies he has. I'm never going to be able to do that and will never get the chance to check his sources. If you want my source it is zetterling if you want his source look it up yourself or ask me.

I'm going away for most of the week and will wait to discuss why the ger might have reported cas inacuratly when I get back.

Darrin

PS. Just let me know if this is an archive research only forumn then I will disappear. But as I understood it was for discusion of anything by anybody about the third reich so maybe you should change the title of this forumn if you don't want rif raf like me around.

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 27 Apr 2002 15:46

PS. Just let me know if this is an archive research only forumn then I will disappear. But as I understood it was for discusion of anything by anybody about the third reich so maybe you should change the title of this forumn if you don't want rif raf like me around.


It could be me, but did I miss something?

You posted your conclusions, based on Zetterling and some guessing. We reply to your posting in order to discuss the methods you used and to point out the mistakes in your conclusions. Like you said, you only use Zetterling. We have access to a lot of other sources, including the original documents used by Zetterling. But when we point out the mistakes to you, you just reply with "but according to Zetterling, page...". You only deviate from his text when it does not fit your theories. Everybody here, among them highly qualified researchers and experts, are labelled "amateurs". Later you say we think we're "so superior". Yet you note that you don't have the intention to do any research yourself.

Then why are you not willing to accept anything but your own findings based on Zetterlings work? Whats the use of your first post in this discussion if nobody is allowed to disagree with you? This forum is certainly not just for archive research, but information from archives is a very important addition to your thesis. We are not saying that you are not allowed to have an opinion about this topic. But its important to be open for other opinions. Its, like you underlined, a discussion forum. On discussion forums people discuss. In this case about your findings.

The bottom line:
Its time for you to accept that people with considerably more knowledge on this subject, backed by sources that you've never seen and of which you don't have the intention to ever look at them, punched large holes in your findings because they're based on wild guessing. If you're not willing to face this, and if you're not willing to listen to them or to learn from others, then there is indeed no place for you on this forum.

Timo

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 30 Apr 2002 21:57

Timo wrote:
...there is indeed no place for you on this forum.




You will have to do much better than that if you desire me to disapppear from this forumn even if you are the host. I will just go back to ignoring your post from now on on this thrad. Unless they concern exactly why I can't post my own opinons on this forum even if they happen to fly in the face of self proclaimed experts. If you can't stand pepole disagreeing with you then maybe you should reconsider your position here.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 30 Apr 2002 22:03

Relax people, there is no need to be unfriendly.

/Marcus

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 30 Apr 2002 22:24

Hmmm. Besides that:

If you're not willing to face this, and if you're not willing to listen to them or to learn from others, then there is indeed no place for you on this forum.


is not the same as:

there is indeed no place for you on this forum.


Didn't you notice how your strange behaviour cause alot of annoyance with people who were only trying to help you?

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 30 Apr 2002 22:35

You will have to do much better than that if you desire me to disapppear from this forumn even if you are the host.


...I don't have the desire to see you leave, but it would be quite a positive change if you would start to listen to people, answer their comments to your assumptions and mistakes and generally behave better;

I will just go back to ignoring your post from now on on this thrad.


...Thats ridiculous. You ignored all my replies to your posts, only to reply today to take part of a line from one of my replies completely out of context.

Unless they concern exactly why I can't post my own opinons on this forum even if they happen to fly in the face of self proclaimed experts. If you can't stand pepole disagreeing with you then maybe you should reconsider your position here.


If these people are self proclaimed experts, then who isn't. Certainly not Zetterling who is at the same level of expertise. And we all made perfectly clear that you can post your opinions as long as you want to listen to other people who point out whats wrong about your assumptions. Thats whats called a discussion.

And what do you mean I can't stand it when people disagree with me? You ignored me so when did you disagree with me? At the moment you've been the only one in this discussion who can't stand it when people comment on his opinion. You made a statement and when we comment on your mistakes we are first "amateurs" and then "self proclaimed experts". Very lame.

But go ahead, ignore.

Timo

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 01 May 2002 06:10

Timo wrote:
...behave better...



Timo,

I don't think you or anybody else will ever get people to behave better by telling them to. I will keep behaving exactly the same in this and all future threads just be forewarned.

What little info you posted was unlike others generally correct. I didn't read every one of your posts in great detail though I may of missed something. Your claims about proving or disproving anything were totally baseless. Can you tell me how zetterling proved that there were 1500 ger tanks, TDs and AGs des in normandy. He didn't prove anything and he couldn't provide one shread of ger archive information either According to your std of proof his claim is baseless and obviously could be wrong.

Zetterling nor I ever claimed our argument here was a proof behyond a shadow of doubt. I gave my opinion and what reason and info I have. You can disagree with me and point out that it might be incorrect but you certainly never disproved it beyond a shadow of a doubt eithier. Your attempt to force a higher std of proof on me then zitterling and you use is pointless.

Well I guess you will win another argument with yourself as I withdraw from commenting on your material in this thread again. In fact I don't have anything else to add to this thread right now and I certainly haven't had anything 'reveled' to me by you or any other experts. I'd much rather do a zillion other things like read a book than sling mud with you.

Darrin

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”