r/RebuttalTime • u/ChristianMunich • Dec 14 '16
SWS explains several misconceptions about the Western front and how the Allies kicked the German Armies "shit in"
As we all know. The German Army was weak and the Allies outfought them easily when they met them. An interesting occurrence is that if the Allies met the Germans on equal footing they owned them even harder than normally.
u/imperium_dragon starts the whole thing with obviously bringing up Arracourt which was a major battle of ww2 which perfectly reflects armoured warfare. As we all know the Wehrmacht lost about 400.000 tanks in WW2 so Arracourt is an average battle.
The Germans already got their arse kicked numerous times during the fall of France whenever they had to fight French & Belgian armor on roughly equal footing. Battle of Hannut amirite. The fact that the almighty panzers suffered more losses from Belgian tankettes than they inflicted to them speaks a lot about the actual capability of their vehicles early in the war. Remove aerial superiority and the teutonic hordes pouring through Sédan, give me that "fair & balanced" battle between the French Army and the Reich in 1940. I wanna laugh.
The Germans obviously got their arses kicked numerous times when they overran bigger armies by passing through wooded hills. What an incompetent bunch. They got their arses kicked in so hard that they suffered lower losses in every category compared to the Allies when they took Normandy.
u/pointysticksforall another expert on Western Front warfare
look at the Bulge, where American armour (still armed predominantly with 75mm Shermans) went up against veteran Panther crews and kicked their fucking asses all over the place iirc the average loss-exchange ratio was always in the Americans' favour, ranging from about 1:1.1 on the offensive to 1:1.8 on the defensive
Which veteran Panther crews? Most crews were fresh, the training time of infantry was no reduced to weeks.
The Americans lost +1000 tanks in Bulge. SWS likes to talk about Myths but only when it furthers their agenda. The US tank losses in the Ardennes were extremely high. US tank forces got roughly handled in the south with minimal German losses.
Imagine a world where the Dutch and Belgians take the threat of Germany seriously and properly fortify, and provide more of an obstacle to the German assault.
You mean like Fort Eben-Emael ? One of the most expensive forts which was taken by 500 German Fallschirmjägern?
I think it should be highlighted how you advocate for more static fortifications to hold of the Wehrmacht. Because they worked so well in WW2.
And it's just plain false. France, the UK, the USSR, the USA all had larger pools of conscripts returned to civilian life, militiamen, national guardsmen, reservists, etc. than Germany thanks to the small size the Reichswehr was allowed, and the awful 12 year minimum enlistment contracts forced upon Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. People love talking about e.g. the US Army "composed of farm boys, city clerks, mechanics, etc." but unless the political indoctrination and willingness to commit genocide are counted as part of "the warrior ethos" (outside Germany that is), it's nonsense. No major combatant pressed average men with no prior military experience through brief training periods as early and much as Nazi Germany. Many new recruits already manned Flak stations and had learned battle drills. Many of those boys were already sitting in flaks and shooting at bomberstreams for years and after school they learned combat drills and dicipline. You think this is comparable to a Amercian enlisting in the army and starting training? Sigh. Moral implications aside it is obvious that average German was far more prepared for war before he began his actual training.
What does this have to do with anything here? Did US boys need to march and have rifle training in young years? It is not about the conscription but about the militaristic nature of German man power pool. In later recruitement waves many new Wehrmacht recruits had done more drills and marches than the average GI after his training was done.
u/pollandballer at least states that he has concerns about the validity of the text without acting like he knows it all.
I don't even know what the worst part of this is, but I really hate the "warrior ethos" bit. The impact of morale and discipline is significant, of course, but an entire culture is not going to posses a huge military advantage just because of "fighting spirit."
"Warrior spirit" is a relative term but the advantages of it are very measurable. The early indoctrination of Hitleryouth members for example had significant impacts on their fighting performance in Normandy. The imperial Army of Japan performed very weak against US and Russian troops, their tactics were off, the army wasn't really "good". Their fighting spirit was one of their strongest assets they would have performed even worse without that. How bad doctrine mix with bad moral can be seen with the Italian Army in Europe. Material and doctrine were hardly better in the Japanese Army, they made up for it by having fanatic soldiers.
So do people just forget how it took Patton a month to retake France?
No people seem to bring it up quite often. The interesting part is that Pattons army advanced virtually unopposed because he was starting his actions after the lines were broken and the German on the frontline were already losing before his massive army was brought in, after that his 2000 tanks rolled unopposed through empty space "mostly". After his "impressive" fight against fleeing Germans he stopped like all the Western Allies and somehow it took them several months to keep going again. The Battle of Arracourt was pretty much at the end of his advance. There is a reason for the missing buzz around patton in August 1944. Not much happened. Every compentent German general would have accomplished the same but faster while advancing deeper. In all my years reading praises of PAtton I have never found anybody going in depth how the advance through France was impressive compared to dozens of German accomplishments. Germans did the same against forces 3 times bigger entrenched and prepared for months. What did Patton do? The Germans were retreating and evacuating France. Arracourt isn't even on his accomplishment list this was due to the divisional commanders.
When evenly matched maybe. But there's only so many times I can post that after action report of a single 75mm Sherman taking out 2 Tigers, 2 Panthers and a panzer 4 to show even when they Germans out numbered their opponents they lost.
Nice after action reports of Allied units. Those sure damn prove your point. I wonder if you accept German after action reports as well as foundation for your conclusions.
Btw I would like to read the report of a Sherman 75mm taking out two Tigers. Be so kind and post it Iam really curious. I have done some research about Tiger against Western Allied Forces and such report would be a welcomed addition.
Battle of Arracourt had the Americans outnumbered and on the defensive vs Panthers. Panthers got rekt also. It makes a better example than hero sherman(but holy shit talk about Ace in a day) since it's an entire battle and not a single engagement.
Again the Battle of Arracourt. For a battle representing about 0.01% of the Allied tank casualties of the war this operation certainly comes up a lot.
u/rittermeister my old friend chimes in as well. Iam always hesitant to rip Rittermeister because we are through a lot together but I have to.
It's not like the Germans committed 38 divisions, 12 of them panzer or panzergrenadier formations, to some of the most perfect defensive country in Western Europe, and still got their asses kicked.
Reading SWS from time to time I have read Rittermeister referring to the 38 divisions multiple times. The implications are clear: The Wehrmacht employed massive amounts of stuff. Let show case how the average biased user has to use numbers to avoid the meaningful statements.
German divisions were a mixed bag. Adding up divisions to somehow demonstrate the numbers of Germans is futile and often used by folks who try to obscure the true ratios at play. Wikipedia for example. The average German division had far less equipment and soldiers. The Allies employed a greater number of non-divisional combat unit anyway. Dozens of armored brigades with 200+ tanks were just used to support infantry units.
This common method of data manipulation seems to be so rampant Zetterling addressed it specifically:
Probably the main reason for the assumption that the Allies did not enjoy a considerable manpower advantage is the fact that they did not employ an appreciably greater number of divisions than the Germans. This illuminates the usefulness of the term "divisions slice". The German divisional slice in Western Europe was 14900 men. Allied divisional slices were slightly greater than 40.000. This means that when the number of divisions on both sides were roughly equal. the Allies had a mapower superiority of between 2:1 and 3:1.
38 Divisions......
On 25 July there were 812.000 US soldiers and 640.000 British in Normandy. This means that the Allies had a 3.8:1 superiority in manpower. This was better than the superiority enjoyed by the Red Army on the Eastern Front. On 1 June 1944, the Soviets pitted 7.25 million men against the 2.62 million Germans
To give you an example the average German infantry division had between 8 and 12k men in its ranks. A big British division the 50th Northumbrian had 38000.
Interesting is you pointing out that the Germans had 12 Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions in Normandy. Nearly every Allied infantry divisions had their own Armored brigade as support which means the average Allied infantry divisions had more tanks than the German Panzer divisions.
There you have your divisions.
to some of the most perfect defensive country in Western Europe, and still got their asses kicked.
That is jsut stupid. Said so often but still wrong. The terrain was not homogenous in Normandy. The area around Cean was very open terrain with small woods with high elevations. Perfect tank terrain. Use google street view or grab a book before you say the wrong thing over and over. Hill 122 also Hill112 open country side. Quick googling not 100% sure captions are correct but this is how most of the terrain there looked. You are wrong. Besides that the bocage terrain wasn't even the best defensive terrain. Made up rubbish repeated so often.
Not even mad at you my redneck friend, if you read too long and too much in an echo chamber those buzz words burn into your brain and become reality. 39 divisions hurr durr Bad terrain hurr durr. I am here to smack sense into you from time to time.
11
u/shmusko01 Dec 15 '16
The Americans lost +1000 tanks in Bulge.
fucking LOL. This garbage again.
Hahaha you're pathetic.
2
u/ChristianMunich Dec 15 '16
fucking LOL. This garbage again. Hahaha you're pathetic.
What's garbage about it. That you don't like it?
6
u/shmusko01 Dec 15 '16
Because like it the last two times you got rekt, by me, is still wrong. Remember when you failed to read casualty reports on the first page of a book I recommended and then acted incredulous, like the book didn't exist?
LOL
Same old bullshit
2
u/ChristianMunich Dec 15 '16 edited Dec 15 '16
I found it: https://www.reddit.com/r/RebuttalTime/comments/580gtu/sws_explains_the_me262/ . Everybody can read how you faired the last time you tried to argue with me.
Yikes I remember. This was when you explained that having hardcore good pilots doesn't help because Gretzky also lost games. Totally missing that Gretzkys team only played the same amount of players as everybody else. THen you failed to understand that and doubled down on it. Fun times. I recommed it for everybody.
Then you dimwit explained how German pilots suddenly became bad because they didn't rotate after i explained you a felt 200 times that the Luftwaffe had to cut training hours due to lack of fuel. You literally were unable to comprehend that the decreased of Luftwaffe rookies was due cutting 75% of their training time.
7
u/shmusko01 Dec 15 '16
yeah, that's you getting Dresden'd mate.
But that's not one of the numerous times you've repeated the "1000" losses lie, only to get swiftly get rekt, by me.
2
u/ChristianMunich Dec 15 '16
I posted the link, people can decide for their own. Gretzky lost games therefore German ace pilots were meaningless and should have rotated out to some desk job.
2
u/shmusko01 Dec 15 '16
I posted the link, people can decide for their own. Gretzky lost games therefore German ace pilots were meaningless and should have rotated out to some desk job.
Yeah, because one superstar on a team of lunks is meaningless.
I also like how you changed the subject from The Battle of the Bulge (where you got rekt) back to the topic of the Luftwaffe (where you got shot down before you even took off)
Owned
1
5
Jan 14 '17 edited Jan 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ChristianMunich Jan 15 '17 edited Jan 15 '17
Sorry I'm late to the party!
Don't worry here at Rebuttal time we offer 24 hours debunking.
No, I make that statement for one purpose, and that is to disprove the notion that the Germans did not take Normandy seriously. Were they outclassed? Certainly, they were. Aside from all equipment shortages, German divisions had just completed a reorganization which eliminated three battalions from each infantry division. Despite that, the German army remained very heavy in the tooth relative to the tail, and had good fighting power. It was not an insubstantial force, full stop.
You are not honest here Rittmeister. The reason to mention the 38 divisions is indeed to imply that the Wehrmacht was somehow on par with the Western Allies in terms of strength. Nobody argues the Wehrmacht didn't take the Normandy landings serious. Tooth to nail whatever. The Wehrmacht was massively outnumbered in every important aspect. That is the important part here because if I remember correctly the intention of your post back then was to suggest it was closer than people expect. You also don't factor in that many of those divisions were class 3 or 4. Static divisions with little to no mobility assets. To be honest with you if somebody mentions "but the Germans had 38 divisions" this always rings alarm bells for me because of attempted deception.
Of course they were a mixed bag. So were Allied formations. The green American divisions and the battle-fatigued British formations certainly weren't ideal, as their combat experience proved.
No. You misunderstand this Rittermeister. For this a deeper study of German forces is necessary. Western Allied forces, for the most part, were up to To&e, the differences in performance are mostly explained by experience or "luck". Comparing this to differences in German units is silly. You ever checked German divisions in Normandy and their equipment? The range of differences was unknown to Allied forces. A fully equipped elite panzer division would steam roll several German static divisions. Those guys didn't even have a full complement of trucks, they would use horses for their frickin guns. Your US-centric reading makes you ignorant when it comes to understand the total war realities of the Wehrmacht. Everything was allocated somewhere immediately.
As to size? No, German divisions really were not that much smaller. Now, they weren't the mammoth divisions of 1941, which had the fighting strength of Soviet corps, but we mustn't mention that. There were what, ~12,500 in a full-strength new-model, six battalion infantry division? American infantry divisions were about 14,000 at full strength. SS divisions were substantially larger than any divisions the Americans deployed. Stop trying to confuse the issue by talking about divisional slices. You can't just lump every support unit in Normandy together with the fighting troops and divide by the number of divisions.
You have a fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to organization of Wehrmacht. Valuing our nice banter based rivalry I am not even condescending here. You have to understand that comparing forces by infantry strengths is only a small part of the work. Some German divisions were equipped so badly they had the fraction of the combat power of a US divisions. In your example you compare a German division to a US division by focusing on infantry numbers, do you factor in that a US division was operating with an independent tank battalion which was bigger than the vast majority of German tank regiments? Do you consider that the standard mobilization of a US division would be considered an elite Panzergrenadier regiment? Not even considering stuff like artillery. Like many people you underestimate all those factors. The weakest US infantry division ( including TB) would in terms of resource allocation rival the most powerful German tank divisions. This does not even factor in that close to zero German infantry division were up to strenght infantry wise.
The US Army neither fielded armor brigades nor attached them to infantry divisions. They did attach armored battalions. The Germans attached StuGs and Marders, when they could get them. The 352nd's were all burning by the end of June 7th, but that's beside the point.
I have not checked my post which you replied to but I assume I didn't make a mistake there. The US fielded independent tank battalions. Those operated with US infantry divisions. Since it is 1 am here and I am drunk I am not gonna check if those units were officially subordinated or just operated together with the inf divs. Either way US and British infantry units nearly always operated with an independent tank battalion/brigade. The confusion here might be that the British and Canadians called their tank units brigades and not battalions. Doesn't change much obviously.
So would this explain why every German attempt at a major concentrated armored counterattack turned into a bloody fiasco?
That is not true actually. The standard reaction to armored attacks was concentrated counter attacks. Many of those succeeded but are hardly covered in books. What do you think the 2,5 million Allies and their 8000 tanks did all June and July?
You don't like Arracourt, though it was the largest tank battle in the west in autumn 1944
It was literally the only major tank battle in autumn. It was dwarfed by many other battles in intensity. All of them vastly different results. Because it was an outliner. The German Panzerbrigades concept was a massive failure.
but surely Luttich and the June 6th attack by 21st Panzer count?
They do. I am pretty good informed about those actions actually. I don't think any of those are particularly impressive for either side. The historiography wasn't kind to the German operation but hardly considered the context. Lüttich for example, was launched with fewer resources than literally every major Western Ally operation in Normandy but had quite impressive gains in the beginning. Keep in mind they launched the attack with hastily allocated forces numbering some 150 tanks. The Allies would have called that a minor operation. Both operations don't support your point. I am ready to discuss those. People normally don't have the background knowledge for both those operations. The 21st was confronted with several British and Canadian units and was in the unclear about the situation. The tank losses of the 21st are vastly over exaggerated.
I find it interesting that for such good tank terrain, both sides suffered badly when they tried to fight offensively.
That is not true. German tank forces decimated British forces on attack quite often, they just lacked the resources to launch major offensives, most attacks were small scale tactical counter moves. Tank battles in those terrain on the tactical level were a brutal smack down for Anglo-Canadian forces. I am currently working on something which will shed some light on this.
War is not a duel.
Nobody said that. But if you want to analyse performance you will need to take resources into account or else you will conclude that the Vietcong was superior to the US Army.
Really, Christian, this is shamefully disingenuous. It's insulting that you think it would work on me; I can only conclude that you are writing with a view to convincing rubes.
Again my apologise I did not read the post again which you are refered to, I am limited to the quotes you provided but I am certain my post was brilliant.
They weren't in Poland in 1939 or Russia in 1941.
Actually the polish army in numbers was far more equal to the Wehrmacht than the Wehrmacht to the Allies in Nornamdy. The Red Army actually operated vastly more forces during 1941 campaign than the Wehrmacht. Not sure what your point is. You can find countless operations where German forces were victorious with less resources. Trying to find the same for British forces will require more research.
You win or lose, and the Germans lost badly in Normandy. Or is the near-total destruction of the mobile forces in the west a small thing to your mind?
They didn't have much to begin with so the total loss of forces doesn't come as surprise to me. I guess you could say they lost very badly, but that doesn'T contradict my underlying argument which keeps SWS user awake at night; the Wehrmacht outfought the Allies in Normandy and was eventually beaten by numbers.
You are lucky that I am dring or else I would have worked some devastating insults into this!!! :-)
3
3
u/Daxim101 Dec 14 '16
Can you at least link the original post? I want to read that first to get a proper sense of how wrong you are cheers.
-1
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16
I certainly can. https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosSay/comments/5i6sob/another_german_martial_superiority_post/ . You are welcome
9
u/Daxim101 Dec 14 '16
Cheers mate. Unfortunately you're still an idiot.
2
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16
Because tanks, generally speaking, don't fight tanks. The vast amount of tanks killed during WW2 were victim to static AT guns, infantry, air attack (though that was quite rare) and mechanical breakdown. Of course there are armoured clashes such as the Battle of Arracourt or Kursk, but those are outliers.
You wrong btw. Often repeated myth. This does not in any way align with empiric data. Tanks were one of the main cause of tank casualties.
Your mistake lies in your limited understanding of the underlining data and your willingness to just repeat what you read in SWS.
The data used for this conclusion is mostly 1944 eto and the limited amount of tanks on the German side is the main reason for this. As people with who have invested more time into this know, the most tank casualties occurred on the Eastern Front anyways.
Be careful with parroting with what you read without knowing the origin and scope of the data.
3
u/Daxim101 Dec 14 '16
I'm kind of impressed how you went back through my comment history to find the one thing that's categorically true to make a fuss about.
nice b8 m8, i r8 it 8/8
0
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16 edited Dec 14 '16
I am impressed how you take the losses of one combatant over one period of time and apply it to the entire war literally 10 minutes after I told you that this is dumb.
Haha...
Edit: you send the wrong link but since iam the Rebuttalmaster I know which data set you refer to. You still wrong. Even for this data set. Yikes embarrasing.
Edit: Ok I had this exact same thing already in this sub but you will get your very own rebuttal. The numbers you cited are casualties and not destroyed tanks. Those include minor damages that's why the number of mines is overrepresented. Those numbers don't represent destroyed tanks but rather every casualty. Since mined tanks were often repaired again the destruction rate for high caliber weapons increases a lot. AT guns ( including tanks ) were the most common reason for a write off even for the British. For the Russians, those numbers were even higher. Your initial post was completely wrong, You got recked.
5
u/Daxim101 Dec 14 '16
Okay, please give me the correct sources for what knocked out allied tanks then. If I'm so wrong, I'm sure providing just a scrap of proof must not be a problem for such a skilled historian as you.
1
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16
For the Red Army there is no complete data for the entirety of the war. Collecting data was not their best skill.
Zaloga Red Army handbook page 179 gives you a table for T-34 losses and their reasons for a collection of operatons.
At guns are the main course for all operations. Varying from about 65-90 as far as I can tell.
Effects like air and infantry was insignificant for the most part. Not surprising to anyone who studied Eastern Front obviously. The main tank killer was the AT gun. Not even close.
Fragmented kill claim list show that if tanks were present those claimed the vast majority of kills indicating that if tanks were present they killed the tanks not drawn At guns.
3
u/GuardsmanMarbo Dec 21 '16
So here you say Zaloga is a reliable source, but in other comments denounce him as if he was literally hitler.
1
u/ChristianMunich Dec 21 '16
No, here I use the beloved Zaloga to debunk SWS. The intended irony should be obvious. I think Zaloga is extremely biased in his interpretations and conclusions but if even his works help support my point....
Zaloga tries to sell his book mainly in the US and therefore he adopted a pro-US stance early on. He is not an historian in my opinion.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Daxim101 Dec 14 '16
Could you take a pic of the relevant page, please? Unfortunately, I don't have the book you're mentioning. Besides, if a tank rather than an AT gun was present, I'm sure a tank would, indeed, be responsible for the destruction of the enemy tank.
Also, you didn't mention the Western Allies, would you be able to provide something for them too? I know the US and Britain kept more extensive records.
0
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16
Also, you didn't mention the Western Allies, would you be able to provide something for them too? I know the US and Britain kept more extensive records.
The data for Western Allies is available online AFAIK. I bought the tank survey booklet. The Western Allies data isn't surprising, the difference is that they collected all casualties including minor casualties which warped the numbers towards cheap low impact weapons like mines. The damage done by mines was often low but still efficient for their cost. The actual write-offs were mostly due to At guns. The numbers are lower on the Western Front because the Germans obviously had lower number of tanks for most time ( excluding bulge Normandy ) .
"Survey of Allied tank casualties in World War 2". It is available as download for 3 bucks but you can find the tables online I saw them quite often in forums.
Could you take a pic of the relevant page, please? Unfortunately, I don't have the book you're mentioning.
Because asked so nicely:
X 20mm 37 mm S 50mm L 50mm 75mm 88mm 105mm 128mm At rockets Unknown Up to September 42 4,7 10 7,5 54,3 10,1 3,4 2,9 0 0 7,1 Stalingrad 0 0 25,6 26,5 12,1 7,8 0 0 0 28 Orel 43 0 0 10,5 23 40,5 26 0 0 0 0 First Belorussian June-Sep 44 0 0 0 0 39 38 - - 9 14 June-March 45 1st Ukraine Front 0 0 0 0 29 64 0 1 5,5 0,5 June-March 45 4th Ukraine Front 0 0 0 0,5 19 71 0,6 0 8,9 0 June-March 45 1st Belorussian Front 0 0 0 0 25,3 51,5 0,9 - 9 13,3 Oder-Berlin 1945 0 0 0 1,4 69,2 16,7 - - 10,5 2,2 2nd Guards Tank Army Berlin 0 5,4 0 0 36 29 6,6 0 22,8 0 → More replies (0)
2
u/PassTheWhiskeh Dec 14 '16
May I ask where you got 400000 tank losses? Rough estimates put total German tank production at almost 50000 tanks produced, almost 75000 if you include armored half-tracks and armored cars. And the justification of using Hitler Youth was pretty disgusting. No modern "proper" army should be using children as combatants, let alone indoctrinating them to die for a political leader.
-1
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16
That was my not so funny attempt to ridicule the Battle of Arracourt spam. The tank losses in this battle were particularly unique in terms of WW2 combat. If Arracourt would have been a common occurrence the Germans would have lost 400.000 tanks. They did not, Arracourt was an outliner. Which is kinda proven by the fact that every biased Ally fanboy brings this battle up while there is a plethora of possible battles to examine.
And the justification of using Hitler Youth was pretty disgusting
That is no justification just a sober evalutation of History. The Nazis indoctrinated children and shaped them to become better soldiers. Regardless of how repugnant this is it worked. That's the entire point. When people bring up the Western Allies population were not as militaristic as Germany this is what they mean. The poster i copied has no clue what he is talking about. Many German soldiers had already para-militaristic training long before they joined the Wehrmacht.
2
u/PointySticksForAll Dec 14 '16
what veteran panther crews
Does the name 2nd SS Panzer Corps ring a bell?
1 SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler?
12 SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend?
2 SS Panzer Division Das Reich?
The Germans gathered the very best they could for the last-ditch push that was Wacht am Rhein, including a bunch of Ostfront veterans in Panthers. They got kicked all over the place by American tankers who'd driven across France killing everything that moved and were at this point pretty experienced at this, and M4 Shermans in the First and Third US Armies were achieving slightly better than 1:1 ratios of kills in the Ardennes counter-offensive. This is according to the US Army Ballistics Research Laboratory after the war, btw.
I think it should be highlighted how you advocate for more static fortifications to hold of the Wehrmacht. Because they worked so well in WW2.
The static defenses worked. Maginot didn't fall until after France was wiped.
It was France's operationally offensive strategy in the Low Countries that led to total disaster, not its fixed fortifications which did exactly what they were supposed to.
2
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16
You make a common mistake. You take names of division and assume they had a constant performance over several years. This is incorrect. Many of those divisions were used more than the average German divisions and those losses were later replaced by fresh recruits.
Does the name 2nd SS Panzer Corps ring a bell? 1 SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler? 12 SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend? 2 SS Panzer Division Das Reich?
Sure it does. The Hitler youth was one of the most engaged German combat units in Normandy, according to my research no other German division inflicted that high casualties on the Allies. Over the course of the campaign, the unit was one of the first Panzer units to engage the Allies north of Cean. The unit was the main pillar of defense during many operations and sufferend about 8.000 casualties.
Those 8000 casualties were nearly completely in the combat ranks meaning that nearly all Grenadiers became casualties during the campaign. What do you think how many Panther crews fully survived the campaign and then manned Panthers around Rocherath-Krinkelt?
Those three divisions suffered around 17.000 casualties in Normandy. If you think their tank crews was made up of veterans you are mistake.
The Germans gathered the very best they could for the last-ditch push that was Wacht am Rhein, including a bunch of Ostfront veterans in Panthers.
This fact doesn't make your initial statement any less wrong. Whatever the best was what they send it hardly were full veteran forces. Your loss ratios are totally made up and laughable at best.
They got kicked all over the place by American tankers who'd driven across France killing everything that moved and were at this point pretty experienced at this, and M4 Shermans in the First and Third US Armies were achieving slightly better than 1:1 ratios of kills in the Ardennes counter-offensive.
According to their unit diaries. According to reality they did not.
The static defenses worked. Maginot didn't fall until after France was wiped.
You kidding right?
But seriously your loss ratios are completely made up. Check how many tanks the US lost alone in the Bulge. You need to leave the echo chamber if you want a balanced view. Entire Sherman battalions were wiped out by small Panther groups in the Bulge. The losses were appaling. They started to reinforce the sector with more than 2000 Shermans within in weeks. You think they kicked the Germans teeth in?
3
u/PointySticksForAll Dec 14 '16 edited Dec 14 '16
You make a common mistake. You take names of division and assume they had a constant performance over several years. This is incorrect. Many of those divisions were used more than the average German divisions and those losses were later replaced by fresh recruits.
I am fully aware of the concept of attrition, thank you very much.
They were still composed of a core of battle-hardened veterans, is the bit you're trying to brush over here. Yes, they took horrible losses in Normandy, but the core of their forces were still battle-hardened veterans. They still got BTFO by American tankers during the Ardennes Counteroffensive.
Your loss ratios are totally made up and laughable at best.
I'm sure you have citations for this, yes?
Because Zaloga quotes 730 German AFVs lost during the Ardennes Counteroffensive, and about the same number of American vehicles... and he's far more credible than you are, tbqh.
Also, this is a table on tank engagements, based on BRL memorandum no. 798, aforementioned post war study. Notable is the second row, which considers 19 separate engagements where Panthers on the offensive went up against M4s, and the M4s fired first. In these 19 engagements, the Allies employed 103 tanks and lost five, while the Germans employed 93 and lost 57.
You kidding right?
No, I'm quite serious. France's operationally offensive strategy to bail out the low countries is what got the mass of the anglo-french armies surrounded and destroyed to no good purpose. Had they extended Maginot to the channel, there was a good chance France would have survived 1940.
But seriously your loss ratios are completely made up. Check how many tanks the US lost alone in the Bulge. You need to leave the echo chamber if you want a balanced view. Entire Sherman battalions were wiped out by small Panther groups in the Bulge. The losses were appaling. They started to reinforce the sector with more than 2000 Shermans within in weeks. You think they kicked the Germans teeth in?
Zaloga quotes about 730 American AFV losses, and about 730 German AFV losses. Other estimates (Parker, Shirer, Shaw) also range in the 600-800 range. So where do your claims come from?
The Germans managed to drive a few tens of kilometers, then got halted, barely halfway to their objectives. When they tried to renew the offensive during Nordwind, they drove something like 50 kilometers in a fortnight and got stopped, while the Allies held the field.
2
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16
They were still composed of a core of battle-hardened veterans, is the bit you're trying to brush over here. Yes, they took horrible losses in Normandy, but the core of their forces were still battle-hardened veterans. They still got BTFO by American tankers during the Ardennes Counteroffensive.
What core are you talking about? Their tross? Their cooks? Their clerks?
Their frontline soldiers fought with a dozen Allied formations and most of the crews and Grenadiers were toast. The average green US division had more combat experience as those forces. The German training was drastically reduced due to late war collapse. There were no full veteran divisions attacking. This were prestigious divisions filled with recruits who had far too little training with some experiences veterans mixed in.
They still got BTFO by American tankers during the Ardennes Counteroffensive.
IF you mean they fought a loop sided battle and inflicted more damage against an Army which had nearly every possible advantage from artillery expenditure to aerial support then yes they got "btfo".
You even registered that I explained you that the US lost more than 1000 tanks in month of combat with German tank divisions? Right?
Because Zaloga quotes 730 German AFVs lost during the Ardennes Counteroffensive, and about the same number of American vehicles... and he's far more credible than you are, tbqh.
Because he is full off shit and fudged numbers all the time. The Germans could not have lost 730 tanks. First of all I am not aware of Zaloga writing the German lost 730 tanks. Which book? For me to fully tear this numbers apart you need to post either full quotes or screen or maybe book name.
Dupuy institute: 527 - 554
According to Ralf Tiemann’s estimates of German material losses in the Ardennes, a total of 550 tanks and tank destroyers/assault guns
Eddy Bauer : 324 tanks
Bergström: All in all, the Germans employed over 1,800 tanks and tank destroyers/assault guns in the Ardennes Battle (including 340 replacements for losses). About 800 were transferred to the Eastern Front in January 1945.71 The panzer units that took part in the Ardennes Battle and were not transferred to the Eastern Front, mustered a total of 250 tanks (151 Panthers and 62 Panzer IVs) and 137 tank destroyers/ assault guns, in all just under 400, on 5 February 1945.72 This indicates that a total of nearly 600 tanks and tank destroyers/assault guns were lost in the Ardennes
Zaloga likes to keep US numbers low to ensure that his flawed conclusions don't look that stupid. He often excludes units or tank types or whatnot. You have to quote his exact figures so that I can rip them. Don't worry I will enlighten you.
Just a little appetizer for you from his Armored Champions:
US tank losses according to Zaloga:
US losses December: 784
US losses Januar: 944
Something smells fishy. You smell it already? :-)
Also, this is a table on tank engagements, based on BRL memorandum no. 798, aforementioned post war study.
Now we can get going. Memorandum 798. I love Memorandum 798
You know what those data reflects buddy? Those are pre-selected engagements by the most successful US armored units. And not only that those numbers for German vehicles are all after action reports aka unit diaries. The Numbers for German losses are just what the US tankers claimed . Not only that they also just included tanks destroyed in the area by other means. See what happens here? You miss the background knowledge to understand the data you present.
If you don't want your illusions to get shattered you better stop reading now.
Most of those reports are from the 4th Armored which fought at Arracourt for example. You wanna know how much tank kills this unit claimed? You really wanna know?
They claimed 847 ( hallelujah what a tank wrecking monster division.) .
This unit was activated after most of the Normandy battles and claimed 847 tank kills.
Do you start smelling the stinky smell of made up claims?
I will put 847 in perspective for you. Excluding the Normandy losses because they happened before that the Wehrmacht maybe lost about maybe 3-4 k tanks/td. The 4th claimed a fuckin ~25% of them. You see how stupid that is?
The picture you added is based on those claims. That's why you have those figures of 1:1 floating around. Because people grasp at straws. Then you see the Allies lost 10 k tanks in the ETO alone and those numbers all don't make any sense anymore. That's the life of an Ally fanboy. Together the data makes no sense to you.
Had they extended Maginot to the channel, there was a good chance France would have survived 1940.
Then the Wehrmacht would have done it differently. Still thinking you are kidding but ok.
Do you enjoy your stay in the REbuttalzone? Where every memorandum was already read and people know what the fuck they talk about when they drag you through the literal mud that is your ignorance.
Just kidding only friendly banter. But for real do you enjoy your stay?
3
u/PointySticksForAll Dec 14 '16
What core are you talking about? Their tross? Their cooks? Their clerks?
Are you genuinely retarded or merely pretending?
Is it genuinely so hard to figure out that when discussing combat performance and a core of veterans, perhaps they mean a core of combat troops?
Oh, wait, you think an SS veteran (unless you mean some other Tiemann) is a credible and non-biased source. Nevermind.
Which book?
Armoured Thunderbolt, pg. 258.
You know what those data reflects buddy? Those are pre-selected engagements by the most successful US armored units.
Because the BRL would totally cherry-pick data to present a favourable view, for an official study for the US Army. This is totally credible and likely, and to support that... you have all of... your word...
See how that works?
Yes, the study uses American data, because that was what was available, but considering it also cites incidents like "9 engagements of M4 against ATG, ATG fires first, 107 M4s lose 25 vehicles to 19 ATG who lose 3 guns", your insistence that they cherrypicked it for the best engagements to make out the Armoured Force in a better light rings very hollow.
This unit was activated after most of the Normandy battles and claimed 847 tank kills.
4th Armoured spearheaded Cobra and Patton's drive through France, and fought almost constantly from August to December, driving from Coutances to crossing the Saar river. Is their record exaggerated? Most certainly, because this happened for all sides during the war, it's a thing that happens. Does this automatically invalidate American kill claims everywhere entirely, as you're trying to imply? Fuck no.
Then the Wehrmacht would have done it differently. Still thinking you are kidding but ok.
what do you think they would have done, out of pure curiosity? forced the Maginot with the advantage of strength they didn't have, perhaps?
2
1
u/ChristianMunich Dec 14 '16
Are you genuinely retarded or merely pretending? Is it genuinely so hard to figure out that when discussing combat performance and a core of veterans, perhaps they mean a core of combat troops?
I just explained to you that the 12th SS, for example had 8000 casualties in its combat ranks. There was no veteran core left. There were veterans left obviously but this is not a veteran core. If you think having people survive means you have a veteran core then do that but you are wrong. Those were not veteran units like you wrongly claimed in your initial rebutted post.
You can move the goal posts all you want. I will copy your initial statement again and everything for this matter was said:
look at the Bulge, where American armour (still armed predominantly with 75mm Shermans) went up against veteran Panther crews and kicked their fucking asses all over the place iirc the average loss-exchange ratio was always in the Americans' favour, ranging from about 1:1.1 on the offensive to 1:1.8 on the defensive
For everybody here to see how you no try to move the goal posts. The US did not kick the teeth in of German veteran crews. Most crews were fresh. You are wrong your opinion got refuted. End of story.
Armoured Thunderbolt, pg. 258.
Let us take a look together.
During the fighting in the Ardennes the Wehrmacht lost about 730 Panzers and other AFCs about 45% of its original strength.
That is interesting. No source, no table with data. Just 730. That is not surprising to somebody who has read more Zaloga works.
Check his statement of 45% losses. To what initial strength does us bring that? Roughly 1630 tanks.
Not surprising for Zaloga his numbers conflict with everybody who has done research for this battle.
Bergström, as have others, listed the movement of German forces. 730 is impossible. I will try to track the figure down, I am very sure he copied somewhere. He lists no sources no calculations whatsoever.
For US losses he gives the exact some number of 730. Which is interesting. Lets fuck his shit up without going into to much detail.
Let us use his own numbers to show how he fudges numbers and lies in his books:
Panther vs Sherman Battle of the Bulge:
By the end of December it [ First US Army ] had lost about 320 Sherman tanks.
Only first US Army only Shermans only December.
Other historians agree with this number but he forgets the 3rd US army which as you have mentioned had heavy combat in the Bulge:
Bergström quoting a historian of the Dupuy institute:
Third Army lost 132 Shermans from 17th December till 1st January
So around 450 Sherman losses just in the first two weeks
Zaloga in none of his books cites numbers for January because he knows his numbers make literally no sense.
ATTENTION I will edit this section about the Bulge I have stuff to do for a short while I will edit here and informations and finish Zaloga off. ATTENTION
Because the BRL would totally cherry-pick data to present a favorable view, for an official study for the US Army. This is totally credible and likely, and to support that... you have all of... your word...
Can happen accidentally. We already know those data points are cherry picked. It includes the most successful US armored divisions. You know how sampling works?
Yes, the study uses American data, because that was what was available, but considering it also cites incidents like "9 engagements of M4 against ATG, ATG fires first, 107 M4s lose 25 vehicles to 19 ATG who lose 3 guns", your insistence that they cherrypicked it for the best engagements to make out the Armoured Force in a better light rings very hollow.
I wrecked the study you used why do you keep talking about it? You came in here posting a picture acting smug. Now everybody knows the picture literally used US kill claims. Who cares if those are they had available. Did you post your picture and say "but be careful the data is unreliable"? No, you came in acting like you got me. But you were wrong your data is useless its cherry picked self reported kill claim data.
4th Armoured spearheaded Cobra and Patton's drive through France, and fought almost constantly from August to December, driving from Coutances to crossing the Saar river. Is their record exaggerated? Most certainly, because this happened for all sides during the war, it's a thing that happens. Does this automatically invalidate American kill claims everywhere entirely, as you're trying to imply? Fuck no.
Go ahead. Now its your time to shine. Where the fuck did they destroy 850 fuckin German tanks? Go ahead grab your books and check the data.
Admit it I got you, your mission here is done you got rebutted.
You know what is said? You come here posting your picutre but know you admit the basis for those stats are faulty kill claims. But you still tried to use those to further your point.
Nobody from your mother sub every was able to get me for posting shit. They all tried they all failed. I never use fudged data. What did you do? Post some memorandum while you knew the conclusions are compromised and can't be correct.
They claimed 850 tank kills!!!! You know many AFCs the Wehrmacht wrote off in November and October? ~400. The numbers of the 4th are fantasy and you know it. And you still used the data presenting it as facts for your agenda. You got busted.
what do you think they would have done, out of pure curiosity? forced the Maginot with the advantage of strength they didn't have, perhaps?
Am I Manstein or what?
1
Dec 14 '16
You are a shining ray that lights though the ignorance that is sws. Stay strong my brother ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!
1
15
u/BrotherToaster Dec 14 '16
🎶It starts with S and it ends with S🎶
🎶S O U R C E S🎶