Classification of a wreck

[Yoozername]

Not calling anyone disingenuous, but compare these numbers to the table above?

[Michael Kenny]

So again I must correct the Unit designation. The numbers I used were for 2nd Panzer Division. Double and triple checked this time and the numbers are valid .
You image is the page from Zetterling (pages 304 ) & the first paragraph of page 306. The page number (and last 2 lines of text) has been snipped from the page 304 attachment and, if you had the book, you could find the numbers for 2nd Panzer Division are on pages 315. 2nd Panzer Division are the very next Unit dealt with in that chapter in Zetterling.

[Contender]

You image is the page from Zetterling (pages 304 ) & the first paragraph of page 306. The page number (and last 2 lines of text) has been snipped from the page 304 attachment and, if you had the book, you could find the numbers for 2nd Panzer Division are on pages 315.

Not to be a dick but shouldn't you be the one posting these (truncated excerpts) as proof of your statement?

[Michael Kenny]

Not to be a dick but shouldn't you be the one posting these as proof of your statement?

Err I did Dick. . That is where the numbers I posted came from. I just conflated the 1st SS and 2nd Panzer Division numbers and presume I was careless when flicking through the book and skipped the 3 pages that separate the Units. I have the numbers for the 14 Tank Units in Normandy culled from a number of books. I think that Zetterling (Normandy 1944) and Wood & Dugdale https://www.amazon.co.uk/Waffen-Panzer- ... 0952886707
are the most complete. Wood & Dugdale show the actual German documents and I think it is the best reference book for Normandy SS numbers. The Heimdal Unit Histories usually have a few complimentary sets but it is still fragmentary and rarely do you get the full set for all tank holdings. The long-term repair total is normally missing and it is impossible to 'prove' anything. Its all deduction.

[Yoozername]

So again I must correct the Unit designation. The numbers I used were for 2nd Panzer Division. Double and triple checked this time and the numbers are valid .
You image is the page from Zetterling (pages 304 ) & the first paragraph of page 306. The page number (and last 2 lines of text) has been snipped from the page 304 attachment and, if you had the book, you could find the numbers for 2nd Panzer Division are on pages 315. 2nd Panzer Division are the very next Unit dealt with in that chapter in Zetterling.

Thanks for that useless misdirect.

I was trying to show that it isn't 1stSS. No need to thank me. I am confident enough in using my logical powers.

Its all deduction.

If you think so... but reading is fundamental

[Contender]

Errr I did Dick.

I prefer Richard, I'm just trying to follow along this is a mildly interesting thread.

Your image is the page from Zetterling (pages 304 ) <- claim not pictured
The page number (and last 2 lines of text) has been snipped from the page 304 <- claim not pictured
you could find the numbers for 2nd Panzer Division are on pages 315.<-claim not pictured
- 2nd Panzer Division are the very next Unit dealt with in that chapter in Zetterling.<- claim not pictured

Well you did imply in your remarks that the poster presumably doesn't own the book (nor do I) so you could in theory make any claim you want as to what is in that book other less reputable posters have done that in the past so I'm wary of "page numbers" & supposed "quotes" from rarer books rather than an actual excerpt.... The "show don't tell" take to writing applied to forum discussion.

[Michael Kenny]

Thanks for that useless misdirect.

No need to thank me. I wondered why the pages you used form Zetterling had been snipped and why you did not check the totals in Zetterling to find the correct Unit designation. It would have been very simple to check all the 11 Panzer Division entries to see who had 96 Pz IV & 70 Panthers on May 31st. Only 4 (12th SS, 21st Pz Div, Lehr and 2nd Pz Div.) had 90+ Pz IV.

If you think so... but reading is fundamental

It is indeed. If for example you had read Zetterling then just 4 pages later (from your scans) you would have found the numbers were for 2nd Pz Division.
Here the two pages side-by-side showing the snipped text for 1st SS from page 304 and the tables I scanned from 2nd Pz Div on page 315

I have no problem with my errors being corrected or highlighted. I am not one of those people who can never admit error.
I would never (for example) claim, after it was pointed out to me, I 'knew' it was lighting that was making tank turret look as if it was 'white hot'.

[Michael Kenny]

Well you did imply in your remarks that the poster presumably doesn't own the book (nor do I) so you could in theory make any claim you want as to what is in that book other less reputable posters have done that in the past so I'm wary of "page numbers" & supposed "quotes" from rarer books rather than an actual excerpt.... The "show don't tell" take to writing applied to forum discussion.

That is my real name in my posts. I do not hide behind an alias. You always know when you are dealing with me and I can not escape any falsification in my posting history. If I post it then you can be assured I can reference it. All challenges will be addressed.
I did 'show' and it is a simple matter for my 'show' to be checked. The Zetterling book is so common that I rarely bother further explaining the reference 'Zetterling'. I realise the Wood & Dugdale book is less well known which is why I linked to the actual book before you brought it up

[Ulater]

You can appeal to public opinion all you want.

My opinions are in no way influenced by the 'support' of anyone. By the time I post I am confident that I have made no serious factual errors. That you (or anyone else) disagrees with me is of no import to me at all. Those (like you) who cling to the old outdated and discredited myths are unlikely to put me on their Xmas card list but I can live with that disappointment.
No one is going to catch me out with a 'killer fact' the and the best the contrarians can come up with is 'I do not agree with your conclusions'.
As you yourself opined earlier 'so what'

Source clearly as a day states that given orders changed nothing about the number of tanks sent for homeland, that tanks that arrived for homeland repair were sometimes relatively lightly damaged, and that these tanks contained roughly 8 repairable tanks for 2 wrecks, or about few hundred wrecks in 4 years.

You clearly have no idea what actually constitutes a total loss. Look up the ship of Theseus and see if you can work out how it might apply to factory rebuilds.

And strawmen incoming.

"Those (like you) who cling to the old outdated and discredited myths are unlikely to put me on their Xmas card list but I can live with that disappointment. "

Yes, finally I hear what this thread is really about. Congratulations, took you just a week to actually confess. Why do you need to post perpetually about one thing in a disingenous manner is beyond me.


Your pointless missdirection are just that.

- "A tank had to have suffered extremely significant damage to be shipped home." - claim unsupported by your source, by both stats and statement of concrete individuals, just a page or two from your cherry-picked excerpts. One can draw clear conclusion from a sample of thousands of repairable tanks with just a few hundred written-off wrecks in homeland repair, without looking up any random, inconsequental ships that I presume were transporting a similar proportion of repairable tanks to wrecks.

All challenges will be addressed.

[Yoozername]

My opinions are in no way influenced by the 'support' of anyone. By the time I post I am confident that I have made no serious factual errors. That you (or anyone else) disagrees with me is of no import to me at all. Those (like you) who cling to the old outdated and discredited myths are unlikely to put me on their Xmas card list but I can live with that disappointment.
No one is going to catch me out with a 'killer fact' the and the best the contrarians can come up with is 'I do not agree with your conclusions'.
As you yourself opined earlier 'so what'

I keep quoting you. No need to thank me.

I think you don't quite get the dynamic...you posted the information...I just deduced it was not correct. So...you were ....{drumroll}....Incorrect.

You posted that data...you said it was Lehr...I checked and Wiki had similar data...Then you said it was actually 1SS....I pointed out it couldn't be through readily available sources...and now you are going off on how I didn't read it in your book???? Learn to read a book.

Page 315 seems different also. This is not the same data????? Compare to the earlier data...

The numbers I used were for 2nd Panzer Division. Double and triple checked this time and the numbers are valid .

[Michael Kenny]

This is a Steve Zaloga assessment of the German reporting system

The other critical issue at the heart of this whole debate that the author fails to directly address is that the Germans in 1943-44 had a crappy and dishonest reporting system for unit Panzer strength. They did not make any attempt to dis-aggregate the status of non-operational tanks based on combat damage vs. non-combat mechanical problems. I do not agree with the quote from Friedl’s book on p.23 that this was simply due to local commanders trying to shield their stash of tanks from the prying eyes of Berlin bureaucrats. The whole categorization system of “Total loss/short-term/repair/long-term repair” is a system-wide problem on all the fronts in 1943-44 and 1944. This reporting system is very different from the more honest and clear one used in 1939-40. I am not sure whether it was done deliberately to hide combat casualties or was simply incompetent. I have never seen an adequate explanation for the system, and the reporting system seems to be taken at face value in many sources such as Zetterling. The problems of the reporting system are evident in looking at German Panzer loss reports for France in the summer of 1944 where Panzer losses in June, July and August are unbelievably low and then suddenly in September, they write off most of the Panzer inventory in one fell swoop.

This reporting system was so bad that in September 1944, OB West sent out instructions to Panzer units to cut the BS and only report operational tank strength and not the bogus x/y/z numbers (I cover this issue in my recent book Patton vs. the Panzers on the Lorraine tank fighting in Sep 44). BTW, it was not confined to Panzer strength reporting. The German higher commands were so annoyed at the crappy reporting system for combat strength in infantry divisions that they sent out instructions in April 1944 to change the system to a more useful one. This doesn't seem to have occured for Panzer strength reporting except at a local level as in the OB West case I mentioned.

Link:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... l#p1487015


Check out who 'liked' that post:

This is because I linked that thread in my post here on May 19 2017:


viewtopic.php?p=2079376#p2079376

and an AHF member decided to immediately register on ML and start post extremely offensive messages in the thread. He was banned almost straight away and his posts deleted but some of the replied mention him and one quote captured. It was someone calling himself 'Yowzername'.

Note that the Ian Michael Wood replying in the ML thread

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... l#p1487017

is the same Michael Wood who co-authored this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Waffen-Panzer- ... 0952886707

and I count 3 other published authors in the thread.

[Yoozername]

And strawmen incoming.

My God! If only that were true.

In any case, a couple years in the service might do Zaloga some good. But while he is wrong about the accounting system, I think that Canadian author did a horrible job. Eh, he will get a PhD for it.

[Michael Kenny]

You posted that data...you said it was Lehr...I checked and Wiki had similar data...Then you said it was actually 1SS....I pointed out it couldn't be through readily available sources...and now you are going off on how I didn't read it in your book???? Learn to read a book.

Page 315 seems different also. This is not the same data????? Compare to the earlier data...

Because I did not make a mistake after all. The original data I posted here is indeed Lehr. My mistake was in thinking I made a mistake. I was , as always, correct with my original post. Those with Zetterling can check by consulting page 390. I have idea where Google store it.

[Yoozername]

I know it was Lehr. Just look at the dates. You've been a pleasure.

PS No need to thank me, it has been my utmost pleasure seeing you writhe around.

[Michael Kenny]

Your pointless missdirection are just that.

- "A tank had to have suffered extremely significant damage to be shipped home." - claim unsupported by your source, by both stats and statement of concrete individuals,

Incorrect. The quoted source fully supports my assertion.