Getting interviewed by the researchers produces more reliable infos then writing a unit history after the war together with your friends as shown by the survey.
Your ability to present stuff that was never in doubt is impressive.
I compiled the actual document. And summarizing the numbers is "not" interpreting them. My interpretation of the data is mostly at the bottom. Saying X amount of tans were ko'ed by 1 hit is no interpretation it is merely the summary of the British survey.No it does not. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between the actual document and your interpretation of what it says.
In this case you disputed the claim about Shermans being knocked out by a single hit, this is not my interpretation, it is the British survey that shows your beliefs to be false. The British survey studied more than 100 Shermans and reported a single case where a Sherman kept firing after penetration. So yes, it was unusual, I don't say that, the survey does. As I said about 4000 Shermans were lost by the British there are likely a couple dozen cases like the one you have cherry picked, even if you find them all they are sill a tiny percentage. And this is not my opinion this are the findings of the survey. I didn't write the data. It also shows why such events were so rare, in most cases a single hit was enough for the crew to bale the tank, so it is no surprise that continued fire was very rare. Nothing of this is my "interpretation" it is basic math. I want to repeat my prior points, that I personally believe, the data is explained by the equipment and not the crews. Like 10k Shermans were destroyed how many anecdotal entries in books/war diaries can you find from the German side describing how they hit a Sherman and it kept firing at them? A great number of such accounts would have to exist in you are correct.