29,009 Total Soviet Armor Combat Losses 1944

[Miles Krogfus]

There are posts on this forum that explain what Totalausfalle includes, as well as many documents in archives, so AHF members check this if you need to do so. As well with "stuck in bogs" and other Russian terms relating to various types of losses. I gather data, organize it, live with it for awhile, use other documents relating to the matter to gain an adequate context for the material I am studying, then finally post here. I have no desire to post elsewhere, and recently after a fellow AHF member re-posted my AHF material on another site, I was told by Chris A. that this is illegal but alas, it is impractical to take action about this.
Thus I will continue to simply do my studies, not letting primary data loose to go who knows where . . .
Fellow AHF members, I welcome your research: "seek and you shall find."

[Michael Kenny]

There are posts on this forum that explain what Totalausfalle includes, as well as many documents in archives, so AHF members check this if you need to do so.

The question was can you post the documents that you used to make your claims.

Do you have a copy of the originals?

Can you read Russian or are you relying on others to translate?

I see a perfectly reasonable request by a native speaker to see the original wording.

Why is this a problem

[Michael Kenny]

Thus I will continue to simply do my studies, not letting primary data loose to go who knows where . . .

Once you post data then it is out of your control. I never make the mistake of believing something I 'find' belongs only to me and no one else has the right to post it somewhere else.

[Michael Kenny]

I have had problems with the way the impression is given that a poster is quoting original documents when in fact they are referencing an internet document.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p2002706

The above post and the three following show me twice asking for a link to the original 'document' which is ignored.
A few posts later I find (via Google) the 'document' that was used and post the link:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p2003701

There is no doubt this is what was used for the original post because of the identical map errors.

[Miles Krogfus]

Scholars who may later publish material they discover do not release such to others before they produce articles or books. Thus primary or secondary data can merely be quoted on the internet. I related to Werner Wendt for many years, obtaining Berlin Document Center files and archive data for him. He sent me the of the chapters as he wrote them of the history of the Leibstandarte's Tiger company then the 101/501 SS Tiger Abt. Patrick Agte got hold of Wendt's Ms. and published it without his consent.
I will not further belabor the past misuse of material by others. I follow the standards of scholars, those who neither know nor especially care about these standards may effuse as they will. I will continue to ignore such emissions.

[David Thompson]

Michael Kenny -- Our rules prohibit personal or insulting remarks about other posters. Please avoid this mistake in future posts.

[Miles Krogfus]

The Russian document I quote above for "evacuated" only covers 1943-1945, since in 1943 each Front received a facility to do major repairs, so evacuated armor was sent to (1) Front repair factories (2) the original tank building factories and (3) repair depots. The Soviet "evacuated" category and the German "totalausfalle" are equivalent, since both terms indicate that armor of Soviet and German combat units were "totally lost" to them.

[Miles Krogfus]

In the Spring of 1945, the Fremde Heer Ost IIC revised its 1944 Soviet Tank and SU Verluste data, showing that the 50% reduction for Heer claims of 30,077 was incorrect (it should be left at 30,007), and leaving the 50% reduction of Luftwaffe claims as is (1,090 at 50%). Thus the revised German claims were 31,167, the Soviet Official number 29,009 a .0743 % difference.
This change resulted from the FHO issuance of detailed charts and text material showing 1944 Soviet losses and replacement data for Russian Armor units taken from captured Soviet material.

[Michael Kenny]

Thus the revised German claims were 31,167, the Soviet Official number 29,009 a .0743 % difference.

This would mean that nearly every single Soviet tank lost was destroyed in combat. None were double counted. None wore out or were scrapped. None were hit by friendly fire. None were lost in accidents etc. A remarkable feat!

[Miles Krogfus]

The TsAMO document which I discuss that mentions some of the official loss categories of Soviet armor does not list tanks and SU's damaged in combat as well as suffering technical problems and so received short or medium repair at unit level (and not included in the 29,009 "evacuated" total). It does list armor in accidents as "stuck in mud and sunk in bogs" (also not included in the 29,009 total). It lists the number of armor "dismantled" (that are among the 29,009 "evacuated").

[Michael Kenny]

It does list armor in accidents as "stuck in mud and sunk in bogs" (and not included in the 29,009 total).

So where can we see this. Can you read Russian or are you relying on someone else translating. Post the exact Soviet words so the native speakers can check. Note that posting the exact words in no way allows or your 'research' to be stolen.

[Paul Lakowski]

It does list armor in accidents as "stuck in mud and sunk in bogs" (and not included in the 29,009 total).

So where can we see this. Can you read Russian or are you relying on someone else translating. Post the exact Soviet words so the native speakers can check. Note that posting the exact words in no way allows or your 'research' to be stolen.

Michael & Art I would advise you to do your own research IF you REALLY are concerned about differing figures.

Right now it just looks like you guys bias is drowning any chance to explore this any further.

[Michael Kenny]

Michael & Art I would advise you to do your own research IF you REALLY are concerned about differing figures.

Right now it just looks like you guys bias is drowning any chance to explore this any further.

See this post and the replies as to why I would like to check the 'source'.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p2002706


It could have easily been linked and saved me a lot of trouble but all requests were ignored.

If I have any original documents referencing my post I include them.


Also one point is already disputed in this thread and backed up with a reference.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p2036339

[Paul Lakowski]

Far-be-it my place to stir things up but ....Is it Miles job to " save me {you} a lot of trouble"?

You know I've followed Miles for decades and don't see him demanding sources from posters.

Clearly you have a difference of opinion and you might consider some patience.

You can always agree to disagree.

[Michael Kenny]

I am at liberty to ask anyone for their source and this is the type of forum where such a request is common.
The individual is under no obligation to comply and can decline to furnish a reference.

I think a request for the exact Russian wording/description of the classes of destroyed/damaged tanks is far from an unreasonable request. Asking if they can read Russian is also relevant.

I also used to post on Yahoo Tankers Forum by the way.