So basically the same as the Germans.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑23 Dec 2021 19:14Again a fundamental misunderstanding of the way different Units recorded tank casualties.Since the Germans largely, AFAIK, didn't differentiate between combat write offs and abandonment write offs they'd all be lumped together in general loss reports
For a Tank Regiment there were just 3 types of tanks, runners, minor damage and needing major repair. The first two were kept with the Unit and the last sent to workshops. As far as the Unit was concerned that was the end of the matter and the 'major repair' tanks were struck from the count and treated as a total loss.
Strawman. No one but you is talking friendly fire, suicides, or whatever else being recorded by anyone.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑23 Dec 2021 19:14For the receiving Workshops those 'major repair' types were examined and detailed breakdowns of the repair needed made out with obvious total write-offs marked as scrap. It could be that mechanical issues were one reason for the repairs but as far as I am aware no Workshop was ever interested in finding out or recording if the damage was caused by the enemy or their own side. Friendly fire, enemy action or suicide played no part in the repair cycle and it is a completely-made-up classification invented by people who had wanted to minimise German tank losses to as small a number as possible by not counting the total of ALL written-off tanks.
There is a rather important distinction though between mechanical maintenance/repairs and combat damage however, which is an issue that has been pointed out and apparently there are differentiations in the Germans records about. If the British didn't make that distinction that's on them, but if you're going to make that claim that they never differentiated between combat damage and mechanical repairs/maintenance I'd like to see some sourcing on that.