accuracy of zetterling s statistics

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
teg
Member
Posts: 340
Joined: 06 Jun 2007, 10:51
Location: russia

accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#1

Post by teg » 12 Sep 2015, 16:57

How accurate are the numbers of German losses in Kursk given in the book of Zetterling and Frankson? Are there any NARA divisional and corps verlustmeldungen?

User avatar
pintere
Financial supporter
Posts: 459
Joined: 03 Jan 2015, 23:04
Location: Moose Jaw

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#2

Post by pintere » 13 Sep 2015, 16:39

I haven't got Zetterling's book, but he seems like a fairly accurate source. Most historians I've read seem to approve of it.

There is a discussion of the book on this thread here.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=42396


Meyer
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 May 2006, 23:05
Location: a1

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#3

Post by Meyer » 20 Sep 2015, 09:16

teg wrote:How accurate are the numbers of German losses in Kursk given in the book of Zetterling and Frankson? Are there any NARA divisional and corps verlustmeldungen?
All german losses are taken from documents, so they are as accurate as those sources were. And yes they use NARA files but most sources are from BA-MA.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#4

Post by Mori » 11 Oct 2020, 22:59

Undigging an old thread...

I wasn't questionning the figures by Zetterling and Frankson in their "Kursk, 1943" book, but as I checked other documents, I bumped on their source and I couldn't help notice that...

I let you search for the differences.

First image is from the document given as a the source (RH 20-9/441, 10.7.43). Second image is their book. So much for "accuracy".
Attachments
Source.png
113 table.png
113 table.png (65.78 KiB) Viewed 1236 times

Dann Falk
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 19:34
Location: California - USA

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#5

Post by Dann Falk » 12 Oct 2020, 04:42

You should check out Christopher A. Lawrence book Kursk The battle of Prokhorovka 1,651 pages...well worth the effort and expense.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#6

Post by Mori » 12 Oct 2020, 14:05

Dann Falk wrote:
12 Oct 2020, 04:42
You should check out Christopher A. Lawrence book Kursk The battle of Prokhorovka 1,651 pages...well worth the effort and expense.
The point above was about German 9th army, that is the northern pincer :)

I had a very bad experience with Lawrence's War by numbers. The author takes pride of his quantitative effort but doesn't seem to know the most elementary statistics. He fails to ever discuss whether the samples he uses are representative, or what biais they include. He also fails to give sources - as far as I've heard, he belongs to an organization which considers historical data is a trade secret - so that nothing can ever be double checked.

At least with Zetterling & Frankson, I could access the primary documents and spot their typos.

Reigo2
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Jun 2015, 21:29
Location: Estonia

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#7

Post by Reigo2 » 14 Oct 2020, 18:33

Mori wrote:
11 Oct 2020, 22:59
First image is from the document given as a the source (RH 20-9/441, 10.7.43). Second image is their book. So much for "accuracy".
Are you sure that the figures for 10.7.43 were not adjusted by the following reports indicated under table 8.1?

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#8

Post by Stiltzkin » 15 Oct 2020, 06:45

At least with Zetterling & Frankson, I could access the primary documents and spot their typos.
These are corrected figures, usually listing the highest figure, e.g a good candidate is the 2nd PzA, the information on their casualties was incomplete and included later in the 10 days reports, at the end of the month (Nachmeldung). If a Nachmeldung was delivered, the figures would be adjusted for one of the three 10 day reports each month (usually dated 4 days after the respective 10 day interval).
I do not exclude the possibilty of typos though. The figures in the brackets refer to officers, which are included in the adjacent figure.
The system was far from perfect, but the availability of day to day information was rather unique to the Zitadelle operation, you will rarely find such accurate figures. I guess it may also depend on which level they were compiled.
he belongs to an organization which considers historical data is a trade secret - so that nothing can ever be double checked.
You can, no doubt a collosal task to gather and compile all information from archive material for all units of all the belligerents, in order to recreate the battles - it is afterall, their intellectual property. I have to agree though, it leaves room for potential manipulations.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#9

Post by Mori » 19 Oct 2020, 10:44

Reigo2 wrote:
14 Oct 2020, 18:33
Mori wrote:
11 Oct 2020, 22:59
First image is from the document given as a the source (RH 20-9/441, 10.7.43). Second image is their book. So much for "accuracy".
Are you sure that the figures for 10.7.43 were not adjusted by the following reports indicated under table 8.1?
If a later report was used instead, the footnote should have clarified the fact ("data for [date] are from [report 1] except for this and this which are taken from [report 2]).
Last edited by Mori on 19 Oct 2020, 11:03, edited 1 time in total.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#10

Post by Mori » 19 Oct 2020, 10:56

Stiltzkin wrote:
15 Oct 2020, 06:45
These are corrected figures, usually listing the highest figure, e.g a good candidate is the 2nd PzA, the information on their casualties was incomplete and included later in the 10 days reports, at the end of the month (Nachmeldung). If a Nachmeldung was delivered, the figures would be adjusted for one of the three 10 day reports each month (usually dated 4 days after the respective 10 day interval).
I do not exclude the possibilty of typos though.
More troubling are other losses report for the exact same dates I found in another folder. These other reports give ca. +15% losses vs the one Zetterling picked in the medical files (because, I suppose, more divisions are accounted for than in the medical file). Either Zetterling did not spot these files in spite of his research - which is all the more annoying since they are in a close by roll and really easy to spot (think 2 pages full of figures)- , or he decided to ignore them - but failed to explain why.

Taking a higher view, I don't think reconstructing manpower data is possible with numbers down to the individual soldier. In other words, figures with 4 or 5 significant numbers, like we so often read, are nonsense. I can't explain why authors who pride themselves in doing a "statistical" analysis don't use confidence intervals, e.g., "20 000 +/- 10%".
Last edited by Mori on 19 Oct 2020, 11:03, edited 1 time in total.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#11

Post by Mori » 19 Oct 2020, 11:02

Stiltzkin wrote:
15 Oct 2020, 06:45
he belongs to an organization which considers historical data is a trade secret - so that nothing can ever be double checked.
You can, no doubt a collosal task to gather and compile all information from archive material for all units of all the belligerents, in order to recreate the battles - it is afterall, their intellectual property. I have to agree though, it leaves room for potential manipulations.
I agree, but read it differently. It's certainly a collosal task to "gather and compile all information": that's the barrier to entry to competitors aiming at the same business niche. Naming the exact source documents wouldn't simplify the work of said competitors.

It's like saying that a PhD shouldn't mention its sources because anyone would be able to write the same 300+ pages in no time should the NARA box numbers were disclosed.

Reigo2
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Jun 2015, 21:29
Location: Estonia

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#12

Post by Reigo2 » 19 Oct 2020, 14:12

Mori wrote:
19 Oct 2020, 10:44
Reigo2 wrote:
14 Oct 2020, 18:33
Mori wrote:
11 Oct 2020, 22:59
First image is from the document given as a the source (RH 20-9/441, 10.7.43). Second image is their book. So much for "accuracy".
Are you sure that the figures for 10.7.43 were not adjusted by the following reports indicated under table 8.1?
If a later report was used instead, the footnote should have clarified the fact ("data for [date] are from [report 1] except for this and this which are taken from [report 2]).
I'm not sure what is the exact case this time but reports can be used for casualty calculations in a combined way (not necessarily one report instead another). Theoretically the numbers from 10.7 could have been adjusted by later reports in a way that certain amount of men were added or taken away for the date 10.7 (without mentioning the the corrected full casualty figure for 10.7). If this is the case here, then I don't see any problem (all the sources for calculations are indicated), if not true, then there is of course a problem.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#13

Post by Mori » 19 Oct 2020, 15:54

Yes, you're correct. I should dig further to check whether further reports correct data from the initial report (although I suspect said reports should first and before all give the 12-20 July and 21-31 July data from Zetterling's table) but I just found this discrepancies while looking for something else. I'm not into Zetterling-bashing of something, I only shared a point I bumped across by chance.

Besides, what I have seen so far in many cases is army administration don't correct previous reports but "fix" figures in the new ones. For ex, if they declare 500 casualties for a period, while it's actually 510, and if they want to fix it somehow, they don't publish a correction to the initial numbers but just add 10 to whatever is reported in the next period.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#14

Post by Stiltzkin » 20 Oct 2020, 22:25

Taking a higher view, I don't think reconstructing manpower data is possible with numbers down to the individual soldier. In other words, figures with 4 or 5 significant numbers, like we so often read, are nonsense. I can't explain why authors who pride themselves in doing a "statistical" analysis don't use confidence intervals, e.g., "20 000 +/- 10%".
Indeed, you will never have a perfect picture, but I do not expect massive deviations and manpower generation can be still assessed based on the casualty reports nonetheless, as long as the error is marginal. Soldiers are wounded and may die, soldiers that were missing might be declared dead etc., the reports give a fairly decent overview of the losses a unit has sustained at given instance however. A snapshot, even in an enduring battle. Kursk gives us a good insight into the engagements on the Eastern Front. Envelopments may be a different matter. The error would obviously increase with cummulated losses and small scale contigencies are very volatile.
Most literature is targeted towards an audience that does not pay attention to intervals. I would definitely include them though (as it is actually a form of quality control), there are however reservations with intervals as well. Most scholars just pick their obligatory range and quite often do not understand the terms or even the system and do not put them into the proper context.

User avatar
I have questions
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 25 Nov 2018, 22:49
Location: North America

Re: accuracy of zetterling s statistics

#15

Post by I have questions » 21 Oct 2020, 01:49

Stiltzkin wrote:
20 Oct 2020, 22:25
the reports give a fairly decent overview of the losses a unit has sustained at given instance however.
But isn't there a risk that the unit keeping the casualty records would understate their own casualties? In that case it would seem impossible to get even a generally accurate picture.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”