Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

[Yoozername]

You have expressed in the past that you like things simple. I see no reason to disagree with that assessment of yourself.
Good luck trolling now.

[Michael Kenny]

Your dropping numbers from books is very 90s.

I posted this from Fey's book:

:

Which was kindly confirmed by Miles with a copy of the original German version

download/file.php?id=453308&t=1

All attempts to undermine the numbers are futile.

[Yoozername]

Yes, we get it. You posted it first, and made an assumption first, and then made a Fallacy of Composition. It has nothing to do with Miles posting the German version, it has to do with your poor argumentative style, simplistic understanding of data, and general arrogance. Nothing new here. I get a chuckle out of it.

Your assumption is that 1079 rounds could only be fired at armored targets. Another assumption is that they were all fired. Your assumptions seems to include that enough armored targets were present. You have not even bothered to say what forces were fighting the Tigers and infantry (and assault guns). Laughably, you think that it is up to others to back up the reasonable doubt that has been expressed here.

In any case, good luck with your agenda. And trolling.

[Michael Kenny]

You posted it first, and made an assumption first, and then made a Fallacy of Composition.

Can you quote where I made an assumption?

[Yoozername]

The above is an extremely high number of rounds fired v kill claims.

You assumed they were all fired. It is from your very famous first post. Were you referencing the machine gun bullets???

[Michael Kenny]

The above is an extremely high number of rounds fired v kill claims.

You assumed they were all fired. It is from your very famous first post. Were you referencing the machine gun bullets???

I showed the actual numbers.
You believe it is because the rounds were lost in an ammo truck loss, Tigers being destroyed with a full ammo load or AP rounds being fired at non-armour targets.
That is all assumption. You do not have a scrap of evidence to show that happened. It is in the nature of things that the reality will lie somewhere in the middle but you have fixated on the very high consumption total and ignored completely all the other examples.
Even if that total is wrong by a factor of 4 it does not change my overall point. Your total obsession with the high number has blinded you to that

I even made a point of stressing what I was not claiming:

The numbers have nothing to do with 'accuracy'.

Where in the above example (full version in the OP) does it say/hint/imply that 'a Tiger tank had to fire dozens of rounds before it hit a tank'?

So where is this windmill that troubles you so?

[Michael Kenny]

IF all the AP rounds were fired, and you do the actual math of number of runners available per battle day, it works out to less than 10 AP rounds fired per Tiger per Battle Day!

You never got back to me on this. I assume you consider it important and 'less than 10 AP rounds fired per Tiger per Battle Day' has some significance. Why?

Did you find the average rounds-per-day total for tanks in 21st AG 1944-45?
Do you think that number unusual as well?

[Yoozername]

You don't have a scrap of evidence either. Yes, you showed numbers, and commented on them. Your opinions and assumptions are no better than mine or anyone else that posted in this thread. So, stick that in your windmill. Oh, You have an overall point now? No pussyfooting around anymore?

Your poor argumentative style is rearing its head again. I was the voice of reason, you are were just being called on your arrogance. Again, you give me cause to chuckle.

The accuracy has nothing to do with anything. You made a nothing point. You are giving yourself a feather for that?!?! LOL!

[Yoozername]

IF all the AP rounds were fired, and you do the actual math of number of runners available per battle day, it works out to less than 10 AP rounds fired per Tiger per Battle Day!

You never got back to me on this. I assume you consider it important and 'less than 10 AP rounds fired per Tiger per Battle Day' has some significance. Why?

Did you find the average rounds-per-day total for tanks in 21st AG 1944-45?
Do you think that number unusual as well?

Get back to you? I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't 'Get back to you'. What does 21st AG 1944-45 have to do with any post I made?

Again, you typically jump around in threads, mixing data between your beloved Normandy and whatever else is actually being discussed. A truly awful posting style.

[Michael Kenny]

You don't have a scrap of evidence either.

Are you saying this is not evidence or that it is forged or manipulated?

Please highlight the errors .

[Michael Kenny]

Get back to you? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ah so you did check and found your Tiger example was not so low after all.

[Yoozername]

While MK tries desperately to put me on the defensive, and get off tilt, this is a summary of the battle that he posted raw data on. June 24-30

Note: The enemy was said to have a mixed brigade of tanks opposing the attack on the area (first data dump in OP post). KV1s, T34, shermans but also some AG. Considering the number of armored vehicles claimed, the Germans may have been running out of armored targets.

[Yoozername]

Get back to you? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ah so you did check and found your Tiger example was not so low after all.

Ah! I still have no idea what you are talking about. I have a wife, she expects me to read minds. Be a man, tell me what you are sputtering about now?

[Michael Kenny]

Note: The enemy was said to have a mixed brigade of tanks opposing the attack on the area (first data dump in OP post). KV1s, T34, shermans but also some AG. Considering the number of armored vehicles claimed, the Germans may have been running out of armored targets.

download/file.php?id=453619&t=1

Not correct. The actual wording is 'Elements' of a mixed Armored Brigade. Obviously you know that which is why you did not screen grab the actual quote from Google Books and used another section instead.

Note that on the 26th 7 Russian tanks are mentioned but only two are claimed. Maybe they didn't bother firing at the other 5?
A further 2 AG claimed on June 26.

Perhaps they used all their AP up when they were 'forced' to destroy a knocked out Tiger on June 27th?

Here are all the tank/AG mentions for June 24 & June 26

[Yoozername]

Not correct. The actual wording is 'Elements' of a mixed Armored Brigade. Obviously you know that which is why you did not screen grab the actual quote from Google Books and used another section instead.

LOL! You are accusing me of what? 'Elements of a mixed armored brigade' has the connotation of being some larger force to you? Or smaller force? Do you even have a moot point? You do have that desperation in your posts coming through though.

In other terms, actual engineering words (not a 'watt-plumber' terms), you don't know the actual enemy forces either. The term is uncertainty. Look into it.

Note that on the 26th 7 Russian tanks are mentioned but only two are claimed. Maybe they didn't bother firing at the other 5?
A further 2 AG claimed on June 26.

Note: AGAIN! What is your point? A massive onslaught of 7 AFV was seen? The heavies were knocked out?

As usual, a typical MK thread peters out. Starts another ambiguous thread, hopes people point out the obvious, he writhes around accusing people of motives, hysteria, etc. Thanks for the chuckles Kenny.