Classification of a wreck

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 16:09

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 15:36

Random pictures and your completely unreliable word doesnt mean anything to me.

Quite the opposite my good man. These Tigers are relevant

In the July 5 -Sept 21 1943 period you use the number of wrecks being carried by sPz Abt 503 was excessive
.......... fit/in repair
July 10...... 22/21
July 20..... 15/25
Aug 31..... 9/42
Sept 6..... 7/34
Sept 13...... 11/29

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

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 16:22

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 16:09
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 15:36

Random pictures and your completely unreliable word doesnt mean anything to me.

Quite the opposite my good man. These Tigers are relevant

In the July 5 -Sept 21 1943 period you use the number of wrecks being carried by sPz Abt 503 was excessive
.......... fit/in repair
July 10...... 22/21
July 20..... 15/25
Aug 31..... 9/42
Sept 6..... 7/34
Sept 13...... 11/29

You have the relevant info in post 111.

You are free to underline what is it that you consider to be "wreck" degree of damage.

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 16:39

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 13:30
Beware of going down the conspiracy theory rabbit-hole and dismissing anything that does not fit your agenda is 'fake'!
Photo manipulation & staged photos existed before & after WWII that is no theory, the conspiracy would be on the part of the publishing company or governments that decided that perhaps they wanted a more "exciting picture" or footage. In any case you jump to conclusions, the circled section seems odd & unnatural I merely question what caused that effect and if it can not be explained by the expert who posted the picture & made it his business of documenting all wrecks in Normandy I think this raises further questions.
Last edited by Contender on 10 Oct 2019 16:44, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 16:40

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 16:22


You are free to underline what is it that you consider to be "wreck" degree of damage.
Any tank unfit for action is a wreck. If you are claiming that some only had 'minor' damage then please explain WHY minor damage is keeping up to 60% of your tanks from the battlefield.

Tiger wreck , turret popped,,,,,,D,,,,,,,,,,.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 16:50

Contender wrote:
10 Oct 2019 16:39
the circled section seems odd & unnatural and if it can not be explained by the expert who is made it his business of documenting all wrecks in Normandy I think this raises further questions.
You think wrongly. I saw the original film and did a series of screen grabs to get the image. If you are going to start casting doubt them I afraid I am no longer in this conversation.
Here you can see the men move across the front of the Panther.
Panther wreck....-vert.jpg
Screenshot_6hjj7.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 10 Oct 2019 17:04, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 17:01

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 16:40
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 16:22


You are free to underline what is it that you consider to be "wreck" degree of damage.
Any tank unfit for action is a wreck. If you are claiming that some only had 'minor' damage then please explain WHY minor damage is keeping up to 60% of your tanks from the battlefield.


Tiger wreck , turret popped,,,,,,D,,,,,,,,,,.jpg
Thats so patently absurd we can end this thread here.

So with this hypocricy peaked to absolute top level with you, just let me ask you this.


Am I going to find in your post history about how you argued that Goodwood tank losses arent that bad because most of them are temporary losses that were out of action for 24 hours or not more than 7 days?

You dont need to answer.


Because it simpler than that - a whole concept of repair units is discarded in this statement by you. So congratulations.


Im not "claiming" anything.

240 Tigers were in and out of 503rd Werkstatt in the period of 78 days.

All of that damage except for the declared total losses is minor by any standard that isnt based on contrarian agenda.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 17:20

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:01


Thats so patently absurd we can end this thread here.
So sorry to see you go.



Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:01

Am I going to find in your post history about how you argued that Goodwood tank losses arent that bad because most of them are temporary losses that were out of action for 24 hours or not more than 7 days?

You dont need to answer.
But I will. I want to compare like with like. I want the rules used to mitigate German tank losses applied to Allied tank losses or the rules used to maximise Allied tank losses applied to German losses. That is it. Pick which way you want it to be and we will use those rules.

For example I bet it never enters your head that the following:
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:01
240 Tigers were in and out of 503rd Werkstatt in the period of 78 days.
could, if it were a quote in a British Regimental History claiming it knocked out 'X' number of Tigers between July and September, be used to say 'German records confirm 240 Tigers were knocked out in 78 days of action' But that is exactly how the 12th SS in Normandy book by Szamveber used comparable British tank count numbers to 'confirm' 12th SS kill claims. He is not the only one, Reynolds does it in his Waffen SS trilogy as do many others.

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

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 17:27

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:20
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:01


Thats so patently absurd we can end this thread here.
So sorry to see you go.



Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:01

Am I going to find in your post history about how you argued that Goodwood tank losses arent that bad because most of them are temporary losses that were out of action for 24 hours or not more than 7 days?

You dont need to answer.
But I will. I want to compare like with like. I want the rules used to mitigate German tank losses applied to Allied tank losses or the rules used to maximise Allied tank losses applied to German losses. That is it. Pick which way you want it to be and we will use those rules.

For example I bet it never enters your head that the following:
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:01
240 Tigers were in and out of 503rd Werkstatt in the period of 78 days.
Would, if it were a quote in a British Regimental History claiming it knocked out 'X' number of Tigers between July and September, be used to say 'German records confirm 240 Tigers were knocked out in 78 days of action' But that is exactly how the 12th SS in Normandy book by Szamveber used comparable British tank count numbers to 'confirm' 12th SS kill claims. He is not the only one, Reynolds does it in his Waffen SS trilogy as do many others.
I wont go anywhere.

I want to see even more absurd things from you.

What you just wrote is completely meaningless, so keep investing energy into writing more delusional stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

You arent going to use "German records confirm 240 Tigers were knocked out in 78 days of action" because german records, a page ago in this thread, in a book you pretended to read, describe exactly the extent and number of repairs performed on those Tigers.

So Im not even going to try to decipher that jumble of words you are trying to use to get away from this.

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 17:31

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 16:40
Tiger wreck , turret popped,,,,,,D,,,,,,,,,,.jpg
Is that not a Tiger at a repair yard? It doesn't look like the front-lines & there is that lovely crane in the background that appears to be from the repair unit vehicle pictured below (notice the pulleys).
Image
I'm not sure but unless there is more of this vehicle this might go either way I don't think it proves that this is a "wreck" nevertheless its a nice picture that I have saved so ty for that.
Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 16:50
I saw the original film..... [/attachment]
I don't believe you did because a "screen grab" would suggest otherwise this is "original film":
Image
aka an actual film reel which itself can was easily manipulated as well however your screen grab more so because it would be second hand footage at that point & thus more likely to be "a finished product". As far manipulation there are a lot of old special effect practices & techniques for example super imposition of different footage over another for instance so it is certainly possible to alter film. I suggest you find out more about the footage rather than take umbrage towards any queries about the still, it is an interesting still & it will inevitably illicit questions which is always a good thing.
edit Tbh you should post the footage you have.
Last edited by Contender on 10 Oct 2019 17:36, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 17:35

Contender wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:31
I don't believe you did because a "screen grab" would suggest otherwise this is "original film":
Image
aka an actual film reel which itself can was easily manipulated as well however your screen grab more so because it would be second hand footage at that point & thus more likely to be "a finished product". As far manipulation there are a lot of old special effect practices & techniques for example super imposition of different footage over another for instance so it is certainly possible to alter film. I suggest you find out more about the footage rather than take umbrage towards any queries about the still, it is an interesting still & it will inevitably illicit questions which is always a good thing.
I am afraid I have no time at all for crazy conspiracy theories and have no more to say on the subject.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 17:46

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:27


I wont go anywhere.
No problem. I have a soft-spot for the fickle.

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:27
What you just wrote is completely meaningless, so keep investing energy into writing more delusional stuff that has nothing to do with anything.
You keep reading it son and I will keep posting it.

https://youtu.be/HgzEBLa3PPk?t=24
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:27
So Im not even going to try to decipher that jumble of words you are trying to use to get away from this.
But you just did.................

Another one that didn't get away.
Pz IV wreck ,,.. .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 17:50

edit Tbh you should post the footage you have.
He doesnt have one.

And I would still question how it would be relevant to the matter at hand.
No problem. I have a soft-spot for the fickle.
You said you were leaving.
You keep reading it son and I will keep posting it.

https://youtu.be/HgzEBLa3PPk?t=24
Keep posting, as I said. It is entertaining to read.
But you just did.................

Another one that didn't get away.
Irrelevant image spam.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2077
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 10 Oct 2019 17:59

Actually, Goodwood tank losses weren’t that bad as it wasn’t tanks that were a wasting asset for Second Army.

Incidentally, in Italy in September 1943 16 Panzer Division talked about numbers of ‘runners’ at one point - or at least that is how the British official historians translated it. I’m working through 16 Pz Div’s war diary in the original at the moment and will see exactly what German term they used.

Regards

Tom

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

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 18:09

"Runners" are also used In Schneider's books If I remember it correctly.

Something relevant:

Image
Image

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 18:14

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 17:35
I am afraid I have no time at all for crazy conspiracy theories and have no more to say on the subject.
It's not a lack of time but rather the quickness to which you jump to conclusions, my statement is only there to make it clear that manipulation is not some silly new thing or conspiracy theory it existed since the beginning of film & pictures it was done for a variety of reasons. Admitting you don't have all the pieces but then deriding questions as casting doubt is diametrically opposed to open discussion or research for that matter.

I'll mention this one more time because you might have missed my edit (sorry about that bad habit) but I suggest if you are willing that you should post the film as it would certainly elevate discussion & it would be fun (yes discussions can be fun).

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