Classification of a wreck

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 14:57
Location: Pa

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Contender » 10 Oct 2019 09:59

Yoozername wrote:
10 Oct 2019 02:44
Is that possible? :lol: He made this thread a 'wreck'...
Well you got me to post as did pic below :D
Perhaps but there are plenty of places that would ban a regular poster for doing something another more well known poster does so I try to tread lightly.
To keep on the current topic of "Panther wrecks" & also because it made me genuinely curious
what is happening here:
Image

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 12:39

Yoozername wrote:
10 Oct 2019 05:18


Edit: I see some other people have reported your posts.
As far as I know only one person in the thread has been sanctioned for trolling
David Thompson wrote:
05 Oct 2019 05:12
A rubbish (no on-topic content) post from Yoozername was removed as superfluous.
and I never complained or commented on it at all.

There was a recent unsuccessful attempt to try and get my posts deleted in another thread but if failed.
Terry Duncan wrote:
19 Sep 2019 17:26


To all, there has been a request to close this thread as it has strayed from the original subject matter, but the thread has been allowed to remain open as it was offering historical information that was useful overall. Please try to stick to the topic and historical details.
PA 114368 Nr Vaucelles 18 July Pz IV wreck cd.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 13:24

Stiltzkin wrote:
10 Oct 2019 08:05
Photomaterial can be useful, but has its limitations,
Sometimes photos can trump all other sources.

See this thread
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=230187

where I started it with a general call for help in working out what we were looking at-the same as I am doing here.
By the end 'we' (as in all posters) had made identified the unit, location and worked out what had happened just through the photos. What is more I was instrumental in disproving a claim that Lehr was a had Panthers knocked out 'in a fair fight' at that location. These were wrecks that were being double-counted as German losses.
I confess I had already worked out why those Panther were in the location (but not the origin of the tanks) before I posted but I posed it as a question that I needed help to answer. I wanted to stimulate interest It worked spectacularly.
I could give you other examples of the same thing but I totally and utterly reject all claims that photo research is a an inferior area of research.

Stiltzkin wrote:
10 Oct 2019 08:05
unless you could draw upon an extensive collection of snapshots of all wrecks that were ever encountered or recorded.
I can't reveal too much but there are those who do intend to get photos of every German wreck in France 1944. I have made it my business to get a copy of all Commonwealth and German tank wrecks from Normandy (I don't bother too much with the US sector) and I think I have been quite successful. I also have every published IWM film from Normandy and have posts where I 'work out' what Allied vehicles appear in the German newsreels.

Samples:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... 03437.html

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... 03613.html


New stuff is always popping up so coverage is never going to be 100%.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 10 Oct 2019 13:55, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 13:30

Contender wrote:
10 Oct 2019 09:59

To keep on the current topic of "Panther wrecks" & also because it made me genuinely curious
what is happening here:
Image
Obviously the turret is caught-up in a part of the glacis(?) You have to get used to the idea that sometimes you just do not have enough information to completely explain everything you see. Beware of going down the conspiracy theory rabbit-hole and dismissing anything that does not fit your agenda is 'fake'!
This is part of a recently discovered film by a Canadian sailor who took a cine camera to Normandy

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 13:37

Stiltzkin wrote:
10 Oct 2019 08:05

I think the theory behind this is that the Germans had to keep up a "Tiger myth" for propaganda purposes and thus losses must have been significanty greater.
The driver was the chaotic German tank replacement system. No regular supply of replacement tanks and shortage of spares meant it was better to hang on to your wrecks and get some use from them instead of shipping them home and not getting a replacement until a few months down the line.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 14:29

Stiltzkin wrote:
10 Oct 2019 08:05
Germans kept heavily damaged vehicles with their divisional repair units, in vacuum. Lets forget about 20 factors influencing this. So what?
I think the theory behind this is that the Germans had to keep up a "Tiger myth" for propaganda purposes and thus losses must have been significanty greater.
That was already discussed about 17 years ago.
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00050.html
to which Dr. Zetterling responded:
Furthermore, I have not seen any evidence suggesting that the Germans were haveing significant number of tanks in repair that were never repaired, but just kept there to bolster numbers. Rather, a panzer commander would be tempted to get them classified as destroyed, so as to motivate a shipment of new tanks.
I think the question here is not whether the reports are faulty, as this is self evident that they can inherit errors, but rather by how much they deviate. Photomaterial can be useful, but has its limitations, unless you could draw upon an extensive collection of snapshots of all wrecks that were ever encountered or recorded.
As for the classification: If there was a greater tendency in the Allied system relative to the German system, I see no reason as to why that would be the case, considering the circumstances.
It is Kenny's conspiracy theory that german tank losses are significantly skewed downwards in a given enviroment because germans refused to clasify dead tanks to be dead tanks.

That was the ultimate hidden, and false thesis behind this trainwreck of his confessed trolling attempt of a thread.

We have yet to reconcile his cherry-picked information with the rest of his source informations just 3-4 pages away . According to him, german units apparently held to their wrecks so hard that thousands were sent home, and they would have to be so extremely damaged that that representatives complained that vehicles with very little relative damage were sent home, and only about 15% could not be repaired and were scrapped.

I would just presume by this point that original Pz IV photo has nothing to do with the thread, same as the rest of his image spam.


And the original question? What would germans consider to be a wreck. Well the book Kenny very obviously didnt read has one such answer.

Image

Image


Notice that tanks were blown-up rather than carried away to be canibalised, because of relatively light damage, and all, including 4 sent for home due to cracked plates and penetrations, are declared losses. So it seems to me, that in given timeframe, 503rd wasnt inflating their numbers with dead vehicles for "propaganda purposes", which would only serve to cut them from any potential replacements, since why would you send any if there were enough vehicles, they seemed to have done the exact opposite.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2071
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 10 Oct 2019 14:45

Hi,

Thanks - interesting. Isn’t it likely that the decision whether to “blow up” a damaged tank is more reliant on the tactical situation rather than the extent of the damage. A possibly recoverable tank having to be blown up as about to be, or in danger of, being overrun by enemy?

Regards

Tom

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 14:50

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 14:29
So it seems to me, that in given timeframe, 503rd wasnt inflating their numbers with dead vehicles for "propaganda purposes", which would only serve to cut them from any potential replacements, since why would you send any if there were enough vehicles, they seemed to have done the exact opposite.
Sad that people have to resort to fabrication to make their case. I explained why some tank wrecks were carried by the unit and in a desperate attempt at deflection it is now claimed I say all tanks were carried. I guess if you were brought up on uber-panzer myths it is hard to let go.

But given that you brought up Tiger wrecks here are some wrecks knocked out in battle and then written off as 'abandoned' when the Germans broke and ran. I presume they are not to be counted as 'knocked out in a fair fight'?



Uman Potah Tiger wrecks graveyard (5).jpg
Uman Potah Tiger wrecks graveyard (3).jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 15:05

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
10 Oct 2019 14:45
Hi,

Thanks - interesting. Isn’t it likely that the decision whether to “blow up” a damaged tank is more reliant on the tactical situation rather than the extent of the damage. A possibly recoverable tank having to be blown up as about to be, or in danger of, being overrun by enemy?

Regards

Tom
Might be, you can imagine those Tigers to be in any situation thats convenient to you - some people in this thread do that a lot.

One more thing to notice in regard to this - If your integral repair unit is capable of putting 3 damaged Tigers daily back into action, why would you ever consider the paperwork around a vehicles loss?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 15:10

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 14:29

Notice that tanks were blown-up rather than carried away to be canibalised, because of relatively light damage, and all, including 4 sent for home due to cracked plates and penetrations, are declared losses.
If, as you claim, 'Homeland Repair' tanks had only light damage how is it that the 'Homeland Repair' Tiger are counted as 'total losses'?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 15:16

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
10 Oct 2019 14:45

Isn’t it likely that the decision whether to “blow up” a damaged tank is more reliant on the tactical situation rather than the extent of the damage. A possibly recoverable tank having to be blown up as about to be, or in danger of, being overrun by enemy?
Its semantics. If it is never repaired then the damage it received proved fatal. No one ever mithers over Allied tanks destroyed by their crews and they will be awarded as valid kills to any German 'ace' who makes a claim in the general area where the Allied tank is discovered. For example the Cromwells set alight by British crews at Pt 213 at Villers Bocage were falsely awarded as 'combat Kills' to one Michael Wittmann'.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 15:36

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 15:10
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 14:29

Notice that tanks were blown-up rather than carried away to be canibalised, because of relatively light damage, and all, including 4 sent for home due to cracked plates and penetrations, are declared losses.
If, as you claim, 'Homeland Repair' tanks had only light damage how is it that the 'Homeland Repair' Tiger are counted as 'total losses'?
No, I corrected your complete falsehood that tank has to be very heavily damaged to be sent home, as evidence by texts you wilfully decided not to disclose.

One can create some kind of picture with those tables along with this one.

Performance of the Tank Repair Services - At the front, ie, the tank repair shop companies of the regiments, armies and army groups, exclusive of repair services in companies, etc~:

Image


Which means that this miniscule share of a miniscule group of vehicles that needed specialised repair were actually scrapped because they were deemed unrepairable.


And how indeed?

If the devious germans wanted to deceive the honorable crusader of uber-panzer mythbusting, why is it that something as mundane as a molotov hit is declared as a total loss?
But given that you brought up Tiger wrecks here are some wrecks knocked out in battle and then written off as 'abandoned' when the Germans broke and ran. I presume they are not to be counted as 'knocked out in a fair fight'?
Random pictures and your completely unreliable word doesnt mean anything to me.
Sad that people have to resort to fabrication to make their case. I explained why some tank wrecks were carried by the unit and in a desperate attempt at deflection it is now claimed I say all tanks were carried. I guess if you were brought up on uber-panzer myths it is hard to let go.
Your fabrications maybe.

You are the one who finds it worth enough to argue about what I presume is a statistically big enough sample of carried wrecks within one unit.
Its semantics. If it is never repaired then the damage it received proved fatal. No one ever mithers over Allied tanks destroyed by their crews and they will be awarded as valid kills to any German 'ace' who makes a claim in the general area where the Allied tank is discovered. For example the Cromwells set alight by British crews at Pt 213 at Villers Bocage were falsely awarded as 'combat Kills' to one Michael Wittmann'.
Yes, those crews set their tanks on fire for laughs. It has nothing to do with one Michael Wittmann.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 15:49

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 15:36


Which means that this miniscule share of a miniscule group of vehicles that needed specialised repair were actually scrapped because they were deemed unrepairable.
Absurd logic. How is damage that could be fixed in the factory be compared to repairs in the field? You can rebuild/repair anything if you have enough resources/spares/materiel. By this standard no tank would ever be considered a total loss.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6366
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 15:52

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 15:36


Yes, those crews set their tanks on fire for laughs. It has nothing to do with one Michael Wittmann.
Ah so self-destroyed Allied tanks are legitimate 'kills' but not self-destroyed German ones? Thank you for admitting the double standard. Incidentally the tanks I was referring to did not have anything to do with Micheal Wittmann. He never saw them at all.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 15:58

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 15:49
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 15:36


Which means that this miniscule share of a miniscule group of vehicles that needed specialised repair were actually scrapped because they were deemed unrepairable.
Absurd logic. How is damage that could be fixed in the factory be compared to repairs in the field? You can rebuild/repair anything if you have enough resources/spares/materiel. By this standard no tank would ever be considered a total loss.
Considering that full penetrations with cracks or penetrations "with destruction of transmission"

Image

warrant journey home, I dont think there is any standard established here as to what is possible in the field, or at factory.

Ah so self-destroyed Allied tanks are legitimate 'kills' but not self-destroyed German ones? Thank you for admitting the double standard. Incidentally the tanks I was referring to did not have anything to do with Micheal Wittmann. He never saw them at all.
What self-destroyed german ones? What the hell are you talking about?

So of course, they set their tanks on fire just to pass time. I understand now.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”