The "myth" of German overclaiming analysed.

[histan]

Hi Hanny

Some people forget the amount of contemporary archive material there is out there, if you are experienced in archive researcher it's amazing what you can find in just a few minutes.

Pretty sure that there is a copy of every official German announcement that reports claims can be found somewhere.

The same goes for all the Russian announcements as well.

We have a primary source for these claims - the routine report of the German High Command.

Regards

John

[Hanny]

Hi Histan

Very true, with archives now digitally available to a casual user, the resource at a readers disposal are staggering to when i was kid, pre compter age, well BBC micro was a kind of computer i guess.

Depending on what you care to be interested in on any given day, you can find out no time, from home, what used to take a trip to the reading room of the Brit Museum.

Newspapers are a case in point, USA has been making them available online, here is one such i follow*, https://civilwartalk.com/threads/black- ... 65.129911/ what once was thought not to exist, has 00s to 000s of reported instances in the press, that along with post war federal census data on veterans and familys for the CSA states gives us a much better statistical understanding to go along other evidence, such as Freemnatles 3 months vist and comments.

In ww2 reading a newspaper account of Normandy makes it sound like a close run thing, that could have failed to break out, a very different from reading most accounts now that tend to show the outcome was never really in doubt.

*
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decenni...0a_v1p2-14.pdf
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/sla ... ioners.pdf

[Cult Icon]

The exact prisoner count for battle of the Don Bend can be found in Glantz's Stalingrad Trilogy. IIRC it was about 20,000 POWs.

[Michael Kenny]

I am so fu**in good....

Do you have to be so crude?

[Richard Anderson]

I am so fu**in good....

Do you have to be so crude?

Seriously. Is he twelve?

[Richard Anderson]

I am so fu**in good....

Do you have to be so crude?

Seriously. Is he twelve?

Never mind, I finally looked at his reddit...and want to take a mind-bath in Lysol now. Twelve is confirmed.

[Hanny]

as do the ancient authors refer to a spartan worth 3 thebans,

The Spartans at Leuctra surely wish...

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 !

Its called the fear factor, one wanted to fight them, once they established a pattern of victory, it created victory without military contest.

In 228BC Achaean army of 20,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry advanced on the 5,000-strong Spartan army at Pallantium. Aratus, who had accompanied Aristomachos who led the Achean, advised him to retreat because even 20,000 Achaeans were no match for 5,000 Spartans.

Where did the fear factor come from?

Spartan military achievemnts in the 4th century.

Wins
494 Sepiea 25 5000 4000 6000
480 Thermopolea 1 100 2700 1300 8000
480 Thermopolea 2 100 2800 1250 8000
480 Thermopolea 3 150 2650 550 7000
480 Thermopolea 4 50 2600 300 8000
479 Platea Moleis 250 6500 2500 22000
470 Tegea 100 5000 400 5000
464 Dipaea 40 2000 300 4000
457 Tanagra 1000 11500 2500 14000
423 Lynsestis 20 3000 400 1750
418 Mantinea 400 9100 1100 8000
403 Porus 50 1500 100 1000
403 Halea Marsh 100 7500 180 3000

Totals:
Spartan/Allies
strength 53850
Spartan/Allies
losses 2385

Openents
Strength 99750
losses 16300

Winning: Generaly outnumbered c2:1
number of spartans to effect a kill 3
number of Openents to effect a kill 42

Odd of staying alive while winning;
spartan 1 in 23
openents 1 in 6

Comments, in winning the spartan side is four times likly to survive, and 14 times more effeiecent at inflicting a casualty.


losses
480 Thermopolea5 950 1200 1000 7000
465 Stynlekares 300 300 30 600
461 Oeneo 150 2000 100 4000
425 Spaceteria 128 420 0 1000
424 Cytherea 100 1000 60 2000
424 Cotyra 20 300 10 1000
412 Panormus 80 500 20 800
411 Athens1 30 600 0 300
411 Cyzicus 15 750 50 300
409 Ta Kerata 470 2200 50 1000
407 Garium 250 1250 50 2500

Totals:
Spartan/Allies
strength 6190
losses 2493
Openents 20500
losses 1640


Losing: Generaly outnumbered c3:1
number of spartans to effect a kill 4
number of Openents to effect a kill 8

Odd of staying alive while Loseing:
spartan 1 in 2.5
openents 1 in 12

Comments, when loseing the spartan side is 5 times more likly to survive and twice as likly to inflict a casualty.

Combined totals
Spartan/Allies
strength 60140
losses 4978
Openents 120500
losses 17940

Spartan/Allies: 3 spartans to effect a kill, odd of staying alive in doing so: 1 in 12
All comers: 24 to effect a kill, odds of odd of staying alive in doing so: 1 in 6.

Comment, overal the spartan side is 8 times more likly to inflict a casualty, and twice as likly to survive.

Spartan v Theban in 4th and 3rd century.

418 Mantinea 400 9100 1100 8000
394 Nemea 1100 23000 2800 24000
394 2nd Corona 350 15000 600 20000


Spartan/Allies
strength 47100
losses 1850
Openents 52000
losses 4500

Spartan/Allies: 10 spartans to effect a kill, odd of staying alive in doing so: 1 in 25
Thebans: 28 to effect a kill, odds of odd of staying alive in doing so: 1 in 12.

Comment at even odds, a spartan was 3 times as likly to inflict a casualty and twice as likly to survive.


4th century Data from https://www.amazon.com/Land-Battles-5th ... 0786467738
3rd century data from https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Battles-R ... 0826430155

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Can we get the Spartan stuff onto its own thread.

It is interesting in its own right, but not here.

Cheers,

Sid

[Hanny]

Hi Sid
I disagree, quality v quantity is a part of every military conflict. Understanding what qualitative difference proves decisive in conflict outcomes, bears heavily on the claims of ww2. How does German perceived qualitative advantage compare to other conflicts. Without context we are not going to be sure we have understood it.

If we know all things being equal, generaly as in hand to hand hoplite combat, what effect does quality have over quantity?, by comparing all hoplite engagements it shows 80% success from 30% advantage in numbers. Quality difference between hoplites is in post 307. No one lost at 3:1 advantage, only the cost against superior hoplites changed in the cost to win.

Roughly how much qualitative difference did German AFV actually have in ww2 is surely what the topic ought to concern itself with.


The British Army Operations Research surveyed the tank battles of Normandy and came to some interesting conclusions on this issue. Their Memorandum C6 (W/O 291/1218) examined all of the tank engagements from D-Day to 12 August, 1944, and observed that, in a tank vs. tank engagement, the allies always achieved victory when they held a 2.2-to-1 numerical advantage or better.

But that did not mean less than a 2.2-to-1 ratio resulted in a loss. The Germans, despite being on the defensive and having heavier tanks, needed a 1.5-to-1 numerical advantage to ensure their own success. In between those ranges it was a mixed bag dependant on many tactical considerations."
By Chieftain

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Hanny,

This thread has a title, a subject and an opening post, none of which contain the word "Spartan".

All the Spartan diversion is achieving is pulling the thread away from its subject.

Personally, I would happily engage further on the subject of Sparta, but when entire posts here (such as your three previous ones and some of the responses to them) contain not a single reference to the subject in the thread title, then the effect is disruptive and the diversion has gone too far.

Quality v. quantity was a central theme of this thread long before the Spartans began their march through its pages. A passing reference may be useful, but an ongoing Lakedaimonian occupation of its pages is probably not.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Hanny]

Hi Sid

I suggest your not comprehending the content very well. Let alone grasping that christan has got tired of having his lies shown up for what they are, and having his threads closed, and stopped posting nonsense, than god. If you have a problem thats your problem. The correct thing would to send me a pm, but you chose to be more public, so i respond in the same way. If your that pissed off, take it to mod, as thats their job not yours.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Hanny,

You write, "I suggest your not comprehending the content very well."

I suggest that you suggest wrongly, as I am not currently addressing the content regarding the Spartans, but the appropriateness of placing so much of it here.

You write, "If you have a problem thats your problem. The correct thing would to send me a pm, but you chose to be more public, so i respond in the same way. If your that pissed off, take it to mod, as thats their job not yours."

You are absolutely right, technically. However, my PMs are full and I don't see the point of escalating this to the moderators prematurely when a little whisper in your shell-like might achieve the same effect.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. You posted, "The British Army Operations Research surveyed the tank battles of Normandy and came to some interesting conclusions on this issue. Their Memorandum C6 (W/O 291/1218) examined all of the tank engagements from D-Day to 12 August, 1944, and observed that, in a tank vs. tank engagement, the allies always achieved victory when they held a 2.2-to-1 numerical advantage or better.

But that did not mean less than a 2.2-to-1 ratio resulted in a loss. The Germans, despite being on the defensive and having heavier tanks, needed a 1.5-to-1 numerical advantage to ensure their own success. In between those ranges it was a mixed bag dependant on many tactical considerations."

This is both on thread and is not in any way weakened by the absence of Spartans from its text, so it can be done!

[Cult Icon]

The British Army Operations Research surveyed the tank battles of Normandy and came to some interesting conclusions on this issue. Their Memorandum C6 (W/O 291/1218) examined all of the tank engagements from D-Day to 12 August, 1944, and observed that, in a tank vs. tank engagement, the allies always achieved victory when they held a 2.2-to-1 numerical advantage or better.

But that did not mean less than a 2.2-to-1 ratio resulted in a loss. The Germans, despite being on the defensive and having heavier tanks, needed a 1.5-to-1 numerical advantage to ensure their own success. In between those ranges it was a mixed bag dependant on many tactical considerations."
By Chieftain

PDF link for the 1952 memorandum?

An essay about this is in IIRC the book "Tank Tactics", however I don't know if the figures they used for the German forces were correct (perhaps using claims/estimates- and the bias towards overestimating). There was also a study that claimed that majority of hits were to areas other than the heavily armored front, making the Panther's front armor in Normandy not that useful. And another about "First strike" (side that shoots first) deciding engagements in a huge way. These are points that have been used by tank heads as pro-Sherman rhetoric.

I have all english language unit histories of panzer divisions in Normandy. The Germans spread out their armor in platoon and company sized group. Being on the defensive doesn't mean that they were lying around and waiting. The German defensive practice was generally not to put tanks far forward as pillboxes. The defending Tanks still have to approach the attacking force, with the traditional advantages of terrain knowledge.

[Cult Icon]

. Let alone grasping that christan has got tired of having his lies shown up for what they are, and having his threads closed, and stopped posting nonsense, than god.

Harsh, I read all his OPs and there were numerous good points. The problem is that his OPs take a long time to read and of course, have substantial portions that don't meet the research standards of some here. I think he'll be back, preferably with more diplomacy.

[Hanny]

PDF link for the 1952 memorandum?

http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/uploads ... Europe.pdf

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... r/C1824472

When the defenders fired first, attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties than the defender. When the attackers fired first, the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties than the attacker.

John Hopkins (ORO)study found defensive position/first fire have a 3 to 1 advantage over tanks attacking them.