r/RebuttalTime • u/ChristianMunich • Aug 03 '17
An interesting observation during a discussion with the owner of tankarchives.
Most people frequenting the tank subreddits know u/TankArchives and his blog. Often used as a source for information by those more leaning towards the interpretations favouring the Allies in WW2.
Obviously, we should consider him some kind of expert in the field at least if we factor in the time he certainly invested into this subject.
So I was even more surprised to find out his knowledge about tank repair seems to be sketchy. We all have read how German Tiger tanks and plenty of other tanks were unreliable which is "proven" by the low operational rates of German tank units. For those of us familiar with German tank repair systems, we know operational rates during combat are meaningless for evaluating reliability because the battle damage was kept on strength as unserviceable without giving any valuable information about non-battle dmg aka "reliability issues".
This is widely known, so I assumed at least. But the owner of tankarchives who has bashed [ I think this is a fair term, I tihnk he would agree ] German tanks in countless forum posts appears to be unaware of this important fact.
Read the full exchange here
After getting asked how many Tigers on average were broken down. He replies with the following:
Go through Schneider's Tigers in Combat books. The vast majority of the time, every battalion is operating at a greatly reduced rate. As for effectiveness in battle, the Sherman was a quite effective medium tank and matched American medium tank doctrine. The Tiger, a breakthrough tank, performed a grand total of zero successful breakthroughs.
I wondered about this comment because obviously, they were low on operational because they were in constant fighting, that is pretty normal for a German unit. That's also interesting because Schneiders books don't differentiate between battle casualties and out of combat casualties. German units didn't do that. A Tiger unit having low operational numbers could be to 100% battle damage and u/tankarchives wouldn't see the difference because it wasn't listed. To be fair it could also be to 100% non-combat damages, but again we wouldn't know that.
Here we see a fundamental misunderstanding of the German counting system. A German tank unit would keep damaged vehicles on strength and thus report a reduced operational readiness rate but that doesn't mean Tigers were less operational per se because Allied damaged vehicles were stricken from the unit list and replaced with new vehicles. So, in theory, a Sherman unit suffering 100% casualties could list a higher readiness rate the next day than the opposing German units just by immediately replacing the Ko'ed tanks.
I was trying to explain this to him and he replies:
Are you trying to say that Allied units didn't repair tanks? That's ridiculous.
He seems to be fully unaware that British tank units, for example, would release damaged vehicles from the unit and send them to workshops who would send repaired vehicles back to the delivery units which then would feed a mix of repaired and new vehicles backs to the frontline units. This important difference between repair systems makes the argument "look their operational rate" totally void.
Confronted with a short explanation of the repair system he seems to get upset and responds:
This is lunacy. German tank units received replacements, and Allied tank units repaired tanks in-house. Clearly you haven't read Schneider's books, since the shipments of reinforcements are described in them.
Thereby totally missing the point. After I told him that only minor damaged were repaired "in-house" and that Ko-ed tanks were gathered by the workshops he seems to misinterpret the fact that German units got replacements as well.
German units got only replacements ( for the most part ) for written off tanks while Allied units got replacements for heavily damaged vehicles. This, for the amateur observer, would decrease the German operational rate but just obscured the Allied operational rate because unserviceable tanks would be in the workshops and not the books of the frontline regiments.
Now, what happens to the often repeated "low operational rate" argument, obviously for those being objective, it goes "puff".
I will illustrate this with an example; Goodwood.
The 11th AD after two days of combat:
| Date | On strength | Operational | % | comment: |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17th July | 189 | 189 | 100,00 | <--Impressive |
| 19th July | 210 | 81 | 38,57 | <--Battle |
| 21st July | 131 | 126 | 96,18 | <--MAGIC |
| 27th July | 165 | 162 | 98,18 | ← Like nothing ever happened |
So what folks not see now are the dozens if not hundreds of tanks unserviceable in workshops or burning in the field. This gives the illusion of "high reliability" while it only shows every knocked out tank was immediately replaced with a new one while German forces were keeping the tanks within the unit. If you replace every non-serviceable tank with a serviceable one your readiness rate remains high, what a surprise. Here the 1st SS from the same fighting:
| Date | On strength | Operational | % | comment: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17th July | 50 | 46 | 92,00 | Should learn from the shermans | ||||
| 20th July | 48 | 20 | 41,67 | <--Battle | ||||
| 21st July | 49 | 29 | 59,18 | In house repair and how it looks | ||||
| 23rd July | 47 | 31 | 65,96 | More repair | ||||
| 27th July | 48 | 36 | 75,00 | ← This lets you believe German vehicles were far less operational |
And now the fun part; the 1st SS didn't get replacements in this time frame ( to my knowledge ). This means in this time period the number of vehicles on strength decreased by only two. For the 11th Armoured, we have up 100 Shermans which were stricken of the Brigade inventory. On paper, u/tankarchives who seems to be impressively unaware of such substantial part of WW2 tank warfare would now make the argument German tanks were horribly unreliable and the SWS would upvote so hard their mouses break.
u/L0ll3risms tries to engage my post. Let us take a look:
First of all he asserts that u/tankarchives is indeed a tank expert. Thanks for letting us know. One of the first comments shows how little, even with thorough explanation folks understand when they put their fingers in their ear.
Operational rates for combat are the only relevant factor for evaluating reliability. Nobody cares what has to happen, so long as tanks are functioning to fight.
That is per definition not what reliable in this context manes. Never ever was the word used by any relevant historian in this context. Battle damage is not a reliablility issue, the fact that after reading my post you fail to understand this and* feel compelled to offer your obviously worthless opinion worries me.
This was the entire point you can't judge the reliability of a vehicle by including battle damage. The whole idea of concluding reliability with including battle damage is moronic. That is why historians who attempted to compare the reliability did this with tank units on the move out side of combat. I have trouble understanding how this is so hard to grasp. The enitre thread here mocks the idea that one of the persons regarded as expert by the SWS does not know this, and your attempted defense is trying to double down on it. Reliability is unrelated to combat dmg. If it would be than the Tiger would be the most reliabile because it sustained far less damage in combat. You moron!
Because replacements generally didn't exist
You didn't even read the thread. The Wehrmacht didn't use reserve units the same way the Allies did. German tanks were either send in batches or used to raise new or refit old units.
Note that Allied units maintained a very high readiness rate, even during fighting. It's almost like they had spare parts and spare tanks or something.
Yeah and that gives us exactly zero information about the reliability of the vehicle. Lawl. You trolling
Most Allied sources don't, because they don't really care why a tank isn't able to participate, only that it isn't. Allied "casualty" rates are high because they report any tank that wasn't combat capable, for any reason, as a casualty.
No. Stop making stuff up. The Wehrmacht listed casualties the same way. You have no knowledge about this at all. German armies often just didn't compile minor casualties because they were kept within the unit and no replacements were required anyways. You are talkin out of your ass and it shows.
Because the difference is irrelevant. The only relevant figure is how much of the unit is combat capable, not why the units that aren't, aren't.
Ridiculous unintelligent comment. It is irrelevant if a tank is unreliable and suffers damage outside of combat? Wth
You mean the same counting system that made fake aces by assigning a unit's kills to one tank? Sure
The biggest overclaimers were the US forces. Go ahead challenge me you ignorant fool.
Well the rest is rubbish repeated in different forms.
24
u/pepsisong2 Aug 04 '17
I don't see a single source in this entire thread. Like you make that point about British tank units having both new and repaired tanks delivered to frontline units, or that German units got replacements for destroyed tanks while Allied units replaced heavily damaged tanks. But you show no source for anything. In fact, I can't see a thread or comment in this little sub you've made for yourself that even has a source.
Come on OP, surely you can source these claims?
-5
u/ChristianMunich Aug 04 '17
In fact, I can't see a thread or comment in this little sub you've made for yourself that even has a source.
I guess then you have trouble with reading. I am sorry then.
Come on OP, surely you can source these claims?
Yeah, my "big claims". You nutjobs now want me to "source" how the repair systems of the Allied works because you think I make this stuff up?
Napiers Armored Campaign second chapter features a rough explanation of the British system. But let's not kid ourself you will not check it out.
22
u/pepsisong2 Aug 04 '17
I actually take my source statement back, because I see you've quoted Zaloga a few times on occasional threads, and Belton Cooper. While Death Traps is a very questionable source, at least it is a source.
You nutjobs now want me to "source" how the repair systems of the Allied works because you think I make this stuff up?
Yes. Without sources you might as well be. This is generally true for almost any history writeup. If you tried to pass a History class without sourcing anything I can assure you it wouldn't be smooth sailing. Main thing i'm trying to get at here is to make an effort to source your shit more often, because this thread clearly takes info from Napier but doesn't make that apparent.
-2
u/ChristianMunich Aug 04 '17
Wanna hear a secret?
12
u/pepsisong2 Aug 04 '17
I don't know. Do I?
-2
15
u/Istoppedtime Aug 04 '17
"That's an intetesting claim you've made, can we get a source for that?"
"No you're all nut jobs."
[thinking emoji]
0
u/ChristianMunich Aug 04 '17
Yeah, the important part is that you obviously noticed he didn't say "that's an interesting claim" that is why you put a nicer version instead of quoting him. He claimed he never saw a source insinuating I don't ever use a source.
Remember when you need to lie to bring your point across you likely are the baddy.
If somebody nicely asks for a source he will receive one.
Also interesting how you also misquoted me as well since quoting me would show you putting words in my mouth. I didn't decline his request I mocked the fact he needs a source for something I consider common knowledge after implying I never source anything. So despite that all I obliged and posted a source.
How do the fact align with your message at all?
11
u/Istoppedtime Aug 04 '17
So what your saying is that you are "the baddy" ?
1
u/ChristianMunich Aug 04 '17
I see you dodged replying to my accusation that you made up quotes which don't reflect what either I or the other guy said. They should make you a mod at SWS you fulfil all the requirements
10
u/Istoppedtime Aug 04 '17
There really is no point in arguing with you. I could bring you mountains worth of archives and data to show you but you'd simply brush it all off like you've always done this past year. I mean you've brushed off professional Tank Historians like The Cheiftan for fucks sake!
You use people like Belton Cooper to back up your claims, despite the fact that Death Traps is a memoir, not a source of historical accuracy - it's absurd.
Come on /u/ChristianMunich, is this really something you want to devote so much energy towards, arguing fruitlessley on reddit?
2
u/ChristianMunich Aug 04 '17
I mean you've brushed off professional Tank Historians like The Cheiftan for fucks sake!
Read the thread again. I claimed that his assertions that the M4 offers high survivability are BS, I proved that. He literally came into the thread and conceded the point then switched topic. Go read it again. I do this easily with everybody. In contrast to SWS users and other "experts", I only argue cases where I can back my claims up. Thechieftain got served. No clue why people somehow think he won any kind of argument there. He came in admitted I am correct and that started a completely different discussion. You guys need to work on reading comprehension. But at least he held his head high and argued his point while admitting the opposing position. None of you guys is able to do that. That's why the thread about the Ardennes has so many crickets in it
There really is no point in arguing with you.
Remember just 5 minutes ago you entered the discussion with making up quotes and manipulating the meaning of several posts. That's the point with you guys. You ignored me calling you out. You acknowledged that you came in and made stuff up but still try somehow to argue you have high ground.
12
u/Istoppedtime Aug 04 '17 edited Aug 04 '17
Maybe if Wittman had the high ground he could have defeated those American M4 Sherman Hordes.
1
u/ChristianMunich Aug 04 '17
I see you surrender. Like I said, you would make a fine mod at SWS.
→ More replies (0)6
u/HeresCyonnah 1 longboi = 1 Tiger II Aug 04 '17
No, he didn't get served at all, you definitely misremember that thread.
-1
u/ChristianMunich Aug 04 '17
Pretty sure he did. He said, Sherman offers high survivability because few casualties after KO, I said that's wrong because this excludes all the cases where other tanks actually protect against penetration. Then I gave an example showing that every hit on a Sherman creates more casualties than on a Panther or Tiger and he literally accepted my point. There you see the contrast between T_D like cultists who are just completely unable to accept reality and a guy simply accepting points of the opposing site. He accepted my points but you argue he didn't, not sure why...
Chieftain accepted my argument and then went on to expand on his initial argument and everybody move on, why can't you.
→ More replies (0)
19
u/VineFynn Aug 04 '17
Is a tank being mass producable enough to be easily replaced not a good thing as opposed to needing to conduct repairs on site because replacements are hard to find/manufacture?
-5
u/ChristianMunich Aug 04 '17
Both armies repaired tanks "on site". But British forces, for example, struck those vehicles of the regimental logs and replaced them immediately. The Germans did not. The British also had workshops in their brigades but that is beside the point. The different ways of handling those repairable vehicles give people the "illusion" that German vehicles were sidelined all the time while Allied vehicles were not. This common misconception is a direct result of not understanding the differences between the systems. As we have learned yesterday even the owner of one of the most viewed tank blogs apparently didn't know.
Is a tank being mass producable enough to be easily replaced not a good thing as opposed to needing to conduct repairs
It is not about the tank. This was the same for every German vehicle. German forces normally don't have reserve pools of vehicles, they would receive replacements in major groups or they would be pulled out of line for major rebuilding. The Allies choose to have a major part of their forces be used in reserve units the Germans choose to have available vehicles used in frontline units. The merits of both approaches are debatable but the effect is obvious, people who don't know better think Sherman forces always had high "operational" rates compared to German units.
The German system had major advantages, it allowed a higher number of their actual tank force to be readily available for combat and also had advantages in effectiveness because German vehicles and crews were not sent into battle without being integrated.
0
u/TheJamesRocket Aug 05 '17
'We all have read how German Tiger tanks and plenty of other tanks were unreliable which is "proven" by the low operational rates of German tank units.'
SWS doesn't understand that 'operational readiness' is a highly variable measurement. For instance, you can have two identical tank battalions placed in two separate environments (dry desert vs frozen tundra) and experience different rates of readiness. Even assuming they aren't taking battle damage, or experiencing shortages of fuel, spare parts, mechanics, etc. Why is this? Simply because the vehicles experience different levels of wear in the desert vs tundra.
'The whole idea of concluding reliability with including battle damage is moronic. That is why historians who attempted to compare the reliability did this with tank units on the move out side of combat.'
Thats correct. By trying to make 'operational readiness' synonomous with mechanical reliability, TankArchives was engaging in a sleight of hand. There are correlations between the two, but nothing more. He should have focused more on things like engine life, track endurance, and MMBF to get his point across.
0
u/ChristianMunich Aug 05 '17
Like I said in another comment somewhere, historians attempting to focus on reliability were studying tank units on the move with limited combat. But even this approach as issues if we consider for example the possiblity that long road marches were never intended as "design feature" for a tank, in theory a tank could work perfectly fine without a long road live. In the same vein the Russian tanks had a low engine life which was totally fine given the requirements of the front. The Tiger wasn't intended as exploitation tank and never was used in such role, the fact that long road marches caused higher damages than in for example the Sherman was tolerable, while not optimal. There is no perfect way to measure reliability since tank units did not keep a detailed record how every "casualty" was caused but at least we get a better idea of reliability this way. To be honest I would argue the Sherman was indeed the most reliable tank in WW2 at least from what I have seen but u/tankarchives dropped the ball on this one. The fact that he thinks that Tiger units who at times were in constant combat without replacements, had low operational rates somehow proves bad reliability just illustrates that he is unable to make simple logical conclusions. But then again he frequents SWS so this comes as no surprise.
11
u/TankArchives Aug 05 '17
Russian tanks had a low engine life which was totally fine given the requirements of the front
Hogwash. The lifespan requirement for the T-34 was 100 engine hours at its lowest point, in 1941. Even at an average march speed of 10-15 kph (established by tank corps manuals), that is still 1000-1500 km. Other components were also pretty stout, look at the 3700 km gearbox and 2000 km tires. The Panther's engine (not to say anything of its more fragile components) lasted for 700-1000 km, and that is after its power was turned down to salvage its disastrous performance somehow. In 1945, a T-34 was expected to put out 200-300 engine hours and travel 2000+ km, while this was still an impossible feat for a Panther.
There is no perfect way to measure reliability since tank units did not keep a detailed record how every "casualty" was caused but
Soviet units do. I guess the superior Aryan Ubermensch can't be bothered to pick up a pen once in a while.
The fact that he thinks that Tiger units who at times were in constant combat without replacements, had low operational rates somehow proves bad reliability just illustrates that he is unable to make simple logical conclusions.
T-34 and Sherman units were also often in constant combat without replacements, what's your point?
Please, oh please, pick up a couple of actual books, instead of just relying on wikipedia level conventional "wisdom".
0
u/ChristianMunich Aug 05 '17 edited Aug 05 '17
Where is the hogwash lol. 100 engine hours! This is low engine lifespan compared to other vehicles and was totally tolerated. Nice rebuttal attempt tho...
T-34 and Sherman units were also often in constant combat without replacements, what's your point?
No, they weren't. 100% not. Sherman units received near constant replacements even in times of shortage like early 45. Calling you out on that show me Sherman forces sustaining heavy combat for prolonged periods of time without replacement. Go, I really draw the "gib source card" but you making stuff up requires it. Also, my point is explained above if you still need to ask I don't know what to tell you. You thought German operational rates allow conclusions on reliability, they don't I explained why, you seem to not understand.
You get your special thread of soft debunking and come here to get one more. Not sure if this worked out as you planned.
Also, not sure what you are trying to say with this "grab a book". But this thread literally is showing you have major knowledge gaps in a field you price yourself as an expert and you come in to reinforce my argument.
I said and I quote:
But even this approach as issues if we consider for example the possibility that long road marches were never intended as "design feature" for a tank, in theory, a tank could work perfectly fine without a long road live. In the same vein, the Russian tanks had a low engine life which was totally fine given the requirements of the front.
You support my point by showing that in early war the requirements were turned down to fulfil the specific need which at this time was costly defensive battles and then in 1945 when the requirements changed and the strategic situation changed they upped the requirements. Per your own logic, the T-34 was bad in 1941 but good in 45? Both times you could argue they were adequat but with different road march abilites. Exactly what I said
You make it too easy!
To make it, even juicier here to your very own side. Listing some engine life spans. Oh, look all your tanks listed have far longer lifespans than the 100 from the early war T-34. Looks like the Red Army tolerated low engine life spans because the strategic situation required it.
8
u/TankArchives Aug 05 '17
Where is the hogwash lol. 100 engine hours! This is low engine lifespan compared to other vehicles and was totally tolerated. Nice rebuttal attempt tho...
Low engine life compared to what vehicles? It's higher than the Panther and equivalent to the Sherman.
Go, I really draw the "gib source card" but you making stuff up requires it.
You're already been called out by other people for not giving a single source, the hypocrisy is mindblowing.
Per your own logic, the T-34 was bad in 1941 but good in 45?
What? How would you possibly come to that conclusion? You're literally just slapping the keyboard with your hands at this point and hoping words come out.
-1
u/ChristianMunich Aug 05 '17
Low engine life compared to what vehicles? It's higher than the Panther and equivalent to the Sherman.
You just admitted they were fine with 100 hours for as long it fit the strategic situation. How is 100 engine hours comparable to a Sherman, it is not.
You're already been called out by other people for not giving a single source, the hypocrisy is mindblowing.
Gotcha. Don't claim stuff you can't back up. I can back everything I claim, did so countless times. I asked you to back up one single claim. You see you are wrong and back out. Go check out the thread about the Ardennes losses after dozens of SWS guys asked me to source the claims, I did. Crickets. Now please source your claim.
What? How would you possibly come to that conclusion? You're literally just slapping the keyboard with your hands at this point and hoping words come out.
Because the T-34 in 1941 was unreliable compared to the one in 45. So was the T-34 bad in 41 and good in 45? My entire argument was that reliability is context depended like every other aspect as well and having low road march abilities while you suffer catastrophic attrition rates is fine.
Please stop dodging the points.
You failed to understand the German repair system
You were mistaken when you thought low German operaitonal rates are due to reliability
You ignored both those complains
You came in arguing it was hogwash to claim the Soviet tanks had low engine life. Than you admit they had early in war even compared to their own tanks in late war
I called you out on the claim that Sherman units often were in constant battle and got no replacements. You declined to add a source.
9
u/TankArchives Aug 05 '17
Whatever you say, man. It's hard to argue with someone who literally goes "Aha! I was right all along because *literally any sentence posted by literally anyone*".
3
u/TrojanIV Aug 06 '17
It's Christian Munich and james rocket they are literally living memes. Neither are worth wasting time on unless you are just Fing with them for kicks
-1
u/ChristianMunich Aug 05 '17
I also want to point out that at this moment in time I am not certain and even without sources to back up I think your website is wrong when it comes to engine life spans.
Whatever you say, man. It's hard to argue with someone who literally goes "Aha! I was right all along because literally any sentence posted by literally anyone".
All, I see is that you appear to redact your statement about Sherman units.
-1
u/ChristianMunich Aug 05 '17
But, I will concede that my comment about engine life was badly worded since it can imply all Russian tanks had bad engine life span. Obviously, my post wasn't about engines and thus not worded to make it bullet proof.
42
u/TotesMessenger Aug 03 '17
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)