The "myth" of German overclaiming analysed.

[Cult Icon]

I was going to ask this question to users on the locked threads but what was the typical tank to tank engagement range in Normandy?

There are indications that it was far shorter than in the Eastern Front with its 1500 meters, 2000 meters , etc. shoot outs but was the range?

[Hanny]

Given in the pdf link.

[Cult Icon]

Given in the pdf link.

Thank you

[Hanny]

Given in the pdf link.

Thank you

Your welcome. Its 405 yards in close country, and 1204 yards in open country in that study, you may wish to compare to other studies


BRL Memo no. 798, "Data on World War II tank engagements involving the US Third and Fourth Armored Divisions", by D. C. Hardison

http://aws.psu.edu/98om/73-randi-marks/ ... lving-.pdf

My reading of Normandy is that 90% of engagements occur at less than 2200 yards; 80% of engagements occur at less than 1500 yards; 50% of engagements occur at less than 650 yards. And may be more usfull than an average in some samples, ie the average is not always as helpfull as it seems.400/400/400/1600 is avaerage range of 700, makeing no one particulry happy.

[Richard Anderson]

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

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

Ah, good old G-Gee's work. Nice. Note the "overclaiming" in Table 1? The Americans "only counted 'captured' tanks." And what did we have? 239 "KO" Mk III & IV and 213 "Dam." German reporting of Totalausfälle? 287 (including Beob and Befehl). Mk V "claimed"? 262 "KO" and 162 "Dam." German reporting? 207 (including Befehl and Berge). Mark VI? 132 "KO" and 81 "Dam." German reporting? 33. "Others"? 260 "KO" and 113 "Dam." German reporting? 160.

So the only outright exaggeration I can see are Tigers and "others". For the Tigers, we know the German count is low and for the others, guven the German reporting did not include the losses of Beutepanzer (including Becker's zoo), it is understandable. And, of course, the German count only covers to 31 July...those first twelve days of August are not included.

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.

Careful, doodle may pounce on your blatant error and misrepresentation there. It is Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkins.

[Richard Anderson]

Your welcome. Its 405 yards in close country, and 1204 yards in open country in that study, you may wish to compare to other studies

And the Johns Hopkins study gave 800 yards as average, with 900 in "Africa", 800 in Western Europe, and 350 in Sicily and Italy.

BRL Memo no. 798, "Data on World War II tank engagements involving the US Third and Fourth Armored Divisions", by D. C. Hardison

Yes, another excellent source.

[histan]

Hi Richard

Went searching for tank engagement data - looks like I might have found some of your old work.

Regards

John

[Richard Anderson]

Hi Richard

Went searching for tank engagement data - looks like I might have found some of your old work.

Regards

John

Which one?

[histan]

"New Engagements for the Breakpoints Data Base - Richard C Anderson" is that you?

Regards

John

[Richard Anderson]

"New Engagements for the Breakpoints Data Base - Richard C Anderson" is that you?

Regards

John

Yep, first research study I did for HERO/DMSi. Lots of fun. Got to interview Bruce Clarke, guys from the 7th AD, 28th, 36th, 106th ID and a bunch of others.

[Mori]

The US forces had very strong discrepancies between in claimed and destroyed vehicles, little mention of that by him or anybody else for that matter.

I'm surprised with this statement. At least when it comes to Allied pilots knocking down German vehicles, the overclaim discussion is immediate. Think of the end of the Normandy campaign and the Falaise pocket (some fighter-bombers claimed they destroyed whole German panzer divisions) or the insane casualties claimed during the battle of the Bulge.

Publication of the operational research assessment by Copp and their use by Ian Gooderson completely revised the official figures. That was research from the 1990's.

[Hanny]

Careful, doodle may pounce on your blatant error and misrepresentation there. It is Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkins.

Arf And now for my Agent smith impersonation Turns out ive been referring to them like that since 2010 on this forum


Why, Mr. Anderson? Why, why? Why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting... for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for Historical accuracy? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the AH forum, although... only a human mind could invent something as insipid as AH Forum. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

[Mori]

@Christianmunich

It's difficult to understand what you are trying do to given the way you do it. Challenging the casualties figures is interesting but I don't see the point in proving that a web site such a "tankarchives" is wrong - and that seemed to be the focus of your initial post. I don't think anyone cares about "tankarchives".

Instead of spending hours, if not days, writing your initial essay, why not embark into proper research, starting with identifying, collecting and reading source data? I was expecting you to detail how casualty figures were collected and where to read them in the available documentation. Then doing a proper assessment of their reliability. All such effort would deal with primary sources rather than whatever is reported in books / websites / Osprey / Z&Z.

Do not say that access to primary material is complicated. You mentioned a report from TUSA dated April 1945, so you are getting there. A lot more is available online (e.g., check the Int Sum and lessons learned reports from this site: https://firstdivisionmuseum.nmtvault.co ... /About.jsp).

[j keenan]

I was going to ask this question to users on the locked threads but what was the typical tank to tank engagement range in Normandy?

There are indications that it was far shorter than in the Eastern Front with its 1500 meters, 2000 meters , etc. shoot outs but was the range?

A summary of terrain for VIII Corps in BLUECOAT
The country itself is the closest "bocage" type at its fullest flower, for it abounds in orchards and small fields surrounded by banks
three or four feet high, often surmounted by thick hedges. A series of pronounced ridges extend to the south across the
axis of advance,whilst numerous streams in many places constitute tank obstacles owing to their width, depth or marshy approaches.
Good metalled roads are few and far between, and apart from the one leading southwards from Caumont to St.Martin
des Besaces,which is just wide enough for two-way traffic, there is little else except narrow farm tracks and by-roads,always
tortuous and often running between high banks and hedges, as in Devonshire.The area contains no places of any size, though
there are a few villages and isolated farm houses.
So from the above description it would be less than 200 meters in a lot of cases ?

[Richard Anderson]

Careful, doodle may pounce on your blatant error and misrepresentation there. It is Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkins.

Arf And now for my Agent smith impersonation Turns out ive been referring to them like that since 2010 on this forum


Why, Mr. Anderson? Why, why? Why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting... for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for Historical accuracy? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the AH forum, although... only a human mind could invent something as insipid as AH Forum. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

Because I can.