The "myth" of German overclaiming analysed.

[Hanny]

By the way, in another thread (now closed), I asked you to provide details of "ambushes" where casualties were lower because crews bailed out. Any chance of you providing the details of these engagements.

I feel you may not have grasped the true purpose of these threads.

The purpose of these threads is not for a serious discussion to take place, nor is it for a mutual exchange of information; the purpose is solely for christianmunich to bully, badger and whine incessantly into getting others to do all his research for him.

Damn him and his Jedi mind tricks....

[MarkN]

23 Hussars claim destroyed for the period 26-30 June 1944 (minimum figures):
- 7 Tigers + 1 KO
- 2 Panthers + 1 KO
- 4 Pz.IV

For the same period, they note their own losses as:
- 12 Sherman V
- 1 Sherman Vc
- 3 Stuarts
- 2 Crusader AA

Overclaiming?
5:1 myth?

Overclaiming by a force that is weaker and sufferes more tank losses will actually manifest kinda as more equal result...

The British in nearly every major tank battle they fought suffered substantially greater losses. When a British unit claims comparable losses to knock outs you likely already found a substantial overclaim. Keep in mind the tank losses in the June-Mid August tank battles were massive for the British.

Got any evidence that the numbers presented above are incorrect?

If not, what was the point of your attention-seeking wibble?

[Michael Kenny]

The British in nearly every major tank battle they fought suffered substantially greater losses. .

Like the 38 Pz IV/Panthers 12th SS lost 26-27th June during EPSOM?

[Christianmunich]

I didn't lie about Zaloga as you have seen now since you went silent after I provided the screenshot. Somebody asked me for the document of the Red Army claims I said there is none. You claimed I lied but don't really show how.

Furthermore, you misunderstood the FHO reduction. You claimed I withhold data and cherry picked data, you then showed the reduction on the July claims, which was 50% I have given the full reduction for the entire year of 1943 including July obviously. Nothing was cherry picked. you have not acknowledged this.

Your post content are sufficient for me to be confident you deliberately were dishonest. I quoted where you lied, and what pages you misrepresented with those lies. Having shown you were you lied, i have moved on as nothing you claim can be taken in good faith.

Nope not true.

I will now just settle this by again wasting a lot of time by copy pasting:

Another user asked for the document that gives 70k losses:

Here:

Yes, but what document is he referring to?

Here my reply:

He does not say, sorry. Armored Champion is actually one of the few books where he uses any citation at all, normally he doesn't do that.

Zaloga gives no document and I tell that the other user.

Now you come in and quote my above quote to take objection:

Page 205 he gives German claims till Aug 44 as 100,748.

page 137 he comments GRU overestimated German AFV losses fourfold, using note 36 as the SU source.

Nobody to this point asked about the German claims you say "note 36" is the source. The other user asked for the document there is none. I actually later screened "note 36" there is no document just the claim of 70k.

Here you now reference the post 238 again, that is the quoted post above:

Please note in post 238 i showed you were you deliberately deceived the reader as to the contents of the book you cherry picked, ( omitting the right number was pardonable mistake) the cite is footnoted. And he gives the reason the Germans disocunted them, its not the same as yours.

Nothing of this is true, the other user asked me for the document I told him there is none, and there is none. After noticing your mistake you started talk about me withholding numbers which is also untrue but irrelevant because you initially claimed I withheld the source or whatever even tho there was no document mentioned and I was specifically asked for a document.

This is what I have to deal with here on regular basis. Here are the pages again so everybody can see from themselves.

Here the footnote:


There is no document for the 70k claims. Like I said from the very beginning. Case closed I hope.

[Hanny]

ou were you lied, i have moved on as nothing you claim can be taken in good faith.
Nope not true.

Asked and answered. Move on.

[Christianmunich]

The British in nearly every major tank battle they fought suffered substantially greater losses. .

Like the 38 Pz IV/Panthers 12th SS lost 26-27th June during EPSOM?

Kenny you know the British lost more tanks nearly always. Cherry picking doesn't change that, even during Epsom the British lost more. They always lost more. I am sure you can find some days or hours where the Germans lost more but overall we always come to the same conclusions. That is why I like bigger samples they are more representative and you like the cherries.

Per Napier the losses for Epsom: German losses: 125 British losses: 150.

Napier forgets to count the Martlet forces which will even increase the differential further. Even in the battle chosen by you the British suffered substantially more losses even with all the massive artillery et cetera.

[j keenan]

Have you actually read a book about the fighting in Normandy ? Try reading a couple by each side, then just maybe you will stop posting posts of complete an utter drivel !!

[Hanny]

The same goes for soviet forces that claimed about 70000 German tanks until the end of 1944.

I'll give it a shot, maybe i'll fail, lets go:
70,000/(Mean Force Ratio)= 28,000
8,992 written off vehicles (1943, Hildebrand) + average repairs (combat damage, 5% zone of interior, 95% in repair services of companies) - non combat causes (lets assume half of the value) = 22,622

Where does 2800 come from? mean of what?. 70000/40 months is when normalized to a 12 month timeframe, 21000 a year.

[Hanny]

Dont take it bad, but since this subject is very close to my heart, i wd like to add :

Thebans were 3500
Spartans 700

So there was 5 thebans for 1 spartan at leuktra

Since 1 spartan worth 3 thebans, it is logic that 5 thebans beat 1 spartan indeed !

This is not how a battle analysis is established. Not to mention that any information on strengths from this era has to be treated with caution.

By all means share you understand of battle analysis for lectra and hoplite combat in general then. Or is this another case of you not using maths correctly?.

[Hanny]

Advertising my little subreddit aside.

I want to recap the arguments presented in the thread due to the increasing number of posts.

My initial post made the following claims:

* German overclaim was very moderate and mostly explained by repairing of claimed vehicles

* Systematic German overclaim is mathematically not possible

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/1 ... itish.html

BoB German air claims were wrong by 250%.

The same goes for soviet forces that claimed about 70000 German tanks until the end of 1944.

I'll give it a shot, maybe i'll fail, lets go:
70,000/(Mean Force Ratio)= 28,000
8,992 written off vehicles (1943, Hillebrand) + average repairs (combat damage, 5% zone of interior, 95% in repair services of companies) - non combat causes (lets assume half of the value) = 22,622

What makes you assume non-combat causes are 50%?

edit: Thanks for bringing the thread back on track.

What makes you assume 28000 claims for 1943 is acurate?, Zaolga gives us a number and a time frame, nothing more,70000/41*12 month=20500 for an average year. Yet you acepted his average of 28000. Zaloga gives us German losses of 23802/41*12=6966 for 1943. A four to one overclaim

You acepted his 8,992, doubled it to 17984 and add non combat losses of 4638.
Comments: 8992 already includes non combat write offs, so you double counted them by adding them in the end. Your only objection is to non combat being not 50%, how odd.

What do you think is the relationship and meaning of, SU 28000 claims and supposed German loss records of 22,622 for 1943?. Is it related to the rest of the war loss of 1180?. 1943 was a bad year, the SU claims of 700 AFv destroyed from the air during kursk suddenly look acurate after all.

[Christianmunich]

Tankarchvies is debunked as evidence forger comparable to some here.

Peter Samsonov, has forged entries of Schneider books in his "cheating at statistics" series, he cut together quotes of Schneider to make it look like Schneider Körner claimed all the tanks at Seelow, he did not. This is the just tip of the iceberg. People in the researc community should grow a spine and punish such actions relentlessly. Credibility has to be earned and defended.

In the same thread he claimed no Russian war diaries show much "action", Critial Mass showed he was lieing, Units with Is-2 were there, losses were there. He is the same as mkenny here. He will only ever produce evidence that helps his case. He is pure anti-science. Have written extensively about him on Reddit. Linking his posts is illustrating your weak reasoning.

[Hanny]

So your counter is its all lies. Considering you history of posting in bad faith, that simply want wash. You were banned there right?, and on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosS ... ops_up_in/ care to explain what for? Either concern yourself with the UK archive document linked to or continue being a troll. Your choice.

Btw you completly ignored the maths question.

[histan]

Hi Hanny

Interesting link and associated comments.

A British Intelligence report that contains details of a German propaganda claim and comments on it - all for internal consumption by the British military.

This is then twisted into British propaganda aimed at downplaying German accomplishments or creating a myth of German over claiming or simply a lie or a fake.

A serious researcher, before commenting on this British memo, would search the archives of German Newspapers of the period or look for information about German radio broadcasts to see if they could determine any details of German claims released to the public around 12th to 14th August 1942.

So much easier just to shout "fake news"

You won't get an answer to your question - he never answers these type of questions or requests to post information.

He made a statement that in an "ambush" tank casualties were likely to be lower than might have been expected based on an overall average. I have asked him on more than one occasion to provide details of ambushes where this was the case. Absolutely no reply.

Regards

John

[Christianmunich]

So your counter is its all lies. Considering you history of posting in bad faith, that simply want wash. You were banned there right?, and on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosS ... ops_up_in/ care to explain what for? Either concern yourself with the UK archive document linked to or continue being a troll. Your choice.

Btw you completly ignored the maths question.

My counter is Peter Samsonov forged evidence and was caught. Yes, that is my answer and it is a pretty good one.

I have no history of posting in bad faith, you can obviously claim otherwise.

What about reddit link? I am known debunker of Sherman Lawyers. I did there what I do here, exposing fake evidence and refuting of bad arguments.

I haven't even clicked on the tankarchives link btw, his blogpost should always be marked as possible forgery. I have shown his evidence tampering multiple times, there is no doubt. That he is your go to source for "evidence" just reflects poorly on you.

[Michael Kenny]

So your counter is its all lies. Considering you history of posting in bad faith, that simply want wash. You were banned there right?, and on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosS ... ops_up_in/ care to explain what for? Either concern yourself with the UK archive document linked to or continue being a troll. Your choice.

Note the comments about The Chieftan coming to answer his lies and 'completely destroying him'
He was totally crushed by Moran and in response just denies it happened!