Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
User avatar
Simon K
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 19:25
Location: London U.K

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by Simon K » 22 Feb 2009 22:07

Thanks for that Sam.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8232
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Feb 2009 02:01

I am well aware of Fey's inability to get even the date right. Anyone looking at my earlier posts on this subject will find I mention it several times. However I decided to use the dates he gives in the JJF 1990 version of his book 'Armor Battles Of The Waffen SS 1943-45 (page 196 hardback). 7th August is also the date given in Tieke's 'In The Firestorm Of The Last Year Of The War' ( page 161). Reynolds also uses the 7th in his 'Sons Of The Reich' (page 72) and though he cites 'Armor Battles' as his source the uncritical acceptance of the claim is puzzling because he quotes from all the sources I used in my first post. Thus although he had the means to at least doubt the claims he chose not to use them.

aahoo
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 22:42
Location: FIN

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by aahoo » 23 Feb 2009 14:35

23 husars war diary :
Aug 8-10
LA BARBIERE 6 Sherman V, 3 Sherman Vc 1 3 Ton lorry 5 Half tracks received.
4 sc cars, 1 3ton lorry 4 half tracks 12 Sherman V 3 Sherman Vc struck off. 1 OR killed
The Shermans are the losses for the previous days fighting. Thus the 15 Shermans are for the fighting for the period Aug 1-7th.
The period 8-10th August were spent in the rear so they did not lose 15 Shermans in action on those dates.

Fey claimed those 14 shermans on august 7th, so what is the problem here?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8232
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Feb 2009 16:43

aahoo wrote: Fey claimed those 14 shermans on august 7th, so what is the problem here?
If you read the whole of the book extract you will notice 23rd Hussars were involved in very heavy fighting over the 6 days.
You can say that they suffered no losses at all until the 7th (or 8th) and Will Fey alone managed to knock them all out.
Is that what you believe?
If (for the sake of argument) he did then it is certain he did not do it on August 7th or 8th.
Either way Fey is wrong.

Bottom line is there was no attack by 23rd Hussars on the 7th or 8th and they did not lose 14 Shermans in any actions on either of those dates.
If there is any more confusion please ask.

aahoo
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 22:42
Location: FIN

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by aahoo » 23 Feb 2009 18:06

No, i havent read the book, that earlier
The Shermans are the losses for the previous days fighting. Thus the 15 Shermans are for the fighting for the period Aug 1-7th.
The period 8-10th August were spent in the rear so they did not lose 15 Shermans in action on those dates.
was just a bit confusing, since kill claims were on 7th day, quoted text there makes reader (at least me) first think that you were saying there were no losses at all on august 7th, then on 8-10th there was when they were in the rear, but yet again those 8-10th losses writed down were earlier, like 7th ?

Your last reply cleared it out though :)

Im not saying that it isnt possible to Fey be lying there, or remembering wrong, or that Hussars are doing same.

Its hard to know for sure what has happened, it could also be that Fey had knocked some shermans out, maybe just damaged them enough to crew bail out and counted them as kills, but tanks would be still operational afterwards and thus not counted as losses.

Good work anyway, these thing are always interesting, to trying figure out what was going on over battlefields over 60 ago.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8232
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Feb 2009 08:14

aahoo wrote: Im not saying that it isnt possible to Fey be lying
I do not say he lied. I am sure he had reasons for thinking he did it. I would say that because no one bothered to check the British accounts before accepting the claims the story gained a life of it's own.
A simple case that illustrates the perils of accepting unconfirmed 'raw'' kill claims.

User avatar
peeved
Member
Posts: 9109
Joined: 01 Jul 2007 07:15
Location: Finland

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by peeved » 24 Feb 2009 14:15

Michael Kenny wrote:A simple case that illustrates the perils of accepting unconfirmed 'raw'' kill claims.
Re armour kill claims vs. actual enemy losses, on the Eastern Front at least the German General Staff by 1943 had come to accept that the actual armour kills were ca. 50% of the claims due to double claiming and repairable armour left behind. Cf. the document below from "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.
Markus
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8232
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 May 2009 17:43

In Schneider's book 'Das Reich Tigers' there is an interesting document on page 401. It is the award recommendation for Egger dated 20/12/44. Paragraph 11 says:

"11. During- the fighting- north of Chenedolle, friendly
infantry disengaged from the enemy Despite broken
terrain and no infantry support, Egger remained in position
and knocked out 18 enemy tanks, 3 heavy antitank guns
and 5 vehicles with two vehicles, one of which had been
immobilized.
Egger is worthy of receiving the German Cross in Gold as a
result of his magnificent bravery and devotion to duty.


This confirms that the other Tiger with Fey was in fact Eggers. It would seem that at this date it was all Egger's glory and no one noticed Fey.

mattstat1
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 14 Jul 2010 15:45

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by mattstat1 » 14 Jul 2010 22:19

Hi,
I know this post has been quiet for some time, but can anyone tell me if the fighting went on through the night of the 6th August and carried on through the 7th August 1944?
I have read some reports that state that the fighting stopped and others that state the fighting went on through the night.

I'm doing some research in to the death of my Uncle's Father who was in the 23rd Hussars, a Trooper in Gilbertson's tank.

Thanks in advance,

Mattstat1

User avatar
general g
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 17 May 2010 10:45

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by general g » 28 Oct 2010 13:45

peeved wrote:
Michael Kenny wrote:A simple case that illustrates the perils of accepting unconfirmed 'raw'' kill claims.
Re armour kill claims vs. actual enemy losses, on the Eastern Front at least the German General Staff by 1943 had come to accept that the actual armour kills were ca. 50% of the claims due to double claiming and repairable armour left behind. Cf. the document below from "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.
Markus
Concerning tanks it is always better to speak about numbers of disabled enemy tanks as you can never know how many are total loss.In german the word kill is not used.Anyway,all tanks hit may be counted as a hit tank is at least temporarily out of the battle.
Makes verification of claims almost impossible as you would need to know from the other side how many tanks were destroyed and damaged by enemy tanks on a given day.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by RichTO90 » 29 Oct 2010 04:47

general g wrote:Concerning tanks it is always better to speak about numbers of disabled enemy tanks as you can never know how many are total loss.
Um, yes you can, if you dig into the records and they are preserved for the day/period/unit you are interested in. Here's a hint hotshot, it's part of the operational record and neccessary for logistics maintenance. :roll:
In german the word kill is not used.
Of course it wasn't, I'm not sure that "kill" means anything in German. The word they used was "totalausfalle". :roll:
Anyway,all tanks hit may be counted as a hit tank is at least temporarily out of the battle.
Uh, yeah. Is it really too much to ask that you come up with something other than the bleeding obvious on occassion? Count a hit as a hit...the boy's a genius. :roll:

BTW, what about all those tanks hit but not damaged? Are they still "at least temporarily out of the battle" in your wacked out worldview?
Makes verification of claims almost impossible as you would need to know from the other side how many tanks were destroyed and damaged by enemy tanks on a given day.
Um, no, since in general armies kept track of gross statistics on cause of loss for their tanks so with both sets of figures you can make some gross assumptions. Tracking claims and losses for individual units on individual days is pretty difficult though...on the other hand if, as in this case, there are effectively few or no enemy losses for the date or location when claims are made then the claims are likely invalid. But then that's just my biased view of reality. :roll:

Cheers!
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

User avatar
general g
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 17 May 2010 10:45

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by general g » 29 Oct 2010 07:04

Not only are may records disappeared but also you need the detail about the cause for which tanks in repair.
I do not have the impression that that amount of detail exists.
The germans use the word 'abschuss'and not kill.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by LWD » 29 Oct 2010 11:31

general g wrote: ... as a hit tank is at least temporarily out of the battle.....
I'd question this. I know it isn't true today nor was it true in Vietnam as I've read some of the damage reports. Have anything to back this up?

User avatar
John Hilly
Member
Posts: 2618
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 09:33
Location: Tampere, Finland, EU

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by John Hilly » 29 Oct 2010 12:56

peeved wrote: Re armour kill claims vs. actual enemy losses, on the Eastern Front at least the German General Staff by 1943 had come to accept that the actual armour kills were ca. 50% of the claims due to double claiming and repairable armour left behind. Cf. the document below from "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.
Markus
The Germany's enemy tank loss-count practice in orgnizational level is represented also in
"The Battle Of Kursk", by Anders Frankson & Niklas Zetterling.

It seems, however, that this didn't affect in Personal level e.a. in award recommendations, especially with "the Lonely Riders" like Wittmann, Barkmann, Eggers etc. (Propaganda reasons?)
So, if the practice was strict, personal victories were also decreased, but not publicly??? :?

With best
Juha-Pekka :milwink:
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"

User avatar
general g
Banned
Posts: 615
Joined: 17 May 2010 10:45

Re: Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

Post by general g » 29 Oct 2010 13:23

LWD wrote:
general g wrote: ... as a hit tank is at least temporarily out of the battle.....
I'd question this. I know it isn't true today nor was it true in Vietnam as I've read some of the damage reports. Have anything to back this up?
A tank hit and disabled by another tank will need repairs.Seems rather obvious.

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”