Monty on Tanks

How many tank crew casualties do you believe there were?
Quantify your argument.

Remember we need a measure so we can figure out a 'norm' and thus see when numbers are 'above the norm'.
Let me make it a bit simpler. Show date that proves German tank crew losses per knocked out tank were lower than Allied crew losses.
Remember to make allowance for the fact a nation that fielded 50,000 AFVs must have lower casualties than 3 nations that fielded 300,000 AFVs

 

The casualties are not confined to tank crews if a war is prolonged.

The war was very nearly lost in North Africa, a thing worse than any number of casualties, and the critical factor at that point was tanks and their respective fighting qualities. When the tanks drove onto a position, the infantry generally surrendered, they were more or less helpless, or believed they were.

How many men were lost due to the toing and froing in North Africa from 1940-1943? How much was the war prolonged as all the while Albert Speer got Germany's war production up to speed? All one can say is "plenty!

And your assertion on the T34's suspension not being derived from Christie's designs?

 

That is not your original claim.

'Suspension' is not 'tank'

 

OK.

How many tank crew casualties do you believe there were?
Quantify your argument.

Remember we need a measure so we can figure out a 'norm' and thus see when numbers are 'above the norm'.

Let me make it a bit simpler. Show date that proves German tank crew losses per knocked out tank were lower than Allied crew losses.

Compared to the total loss of all German troops in Africa I would say the Allied came off best.

 

They will have to 'speak for themselves ' because there is no such 'kill ratio' either for Tigers or Panthers. It is an invention of those afflicted with WPE

 

Sorry Tom, but neither of these is correct. The first 75mm Special appeared in May during Operation VENETIA, aka the Gazala battle. None of these was in North Africa in January, they arrived in March at the earliest. All Pz IV in the January counteroffensive had the short 75mm, and all Pz III the short 50mm. There was one, maybe two, long 75mm on a made-for-measure half-track contraption, but not a tank. And 6x Russian 76.2mm on half-tracks. The Dianas.

The first Tigers appeared in November or December 42 in Tunisia. Or in September outside Leningrad. Take your pick.

All the best

Andreas

 

1) Yes, but there is no free lunch the other way either. Having better tanks means almost certainly (a lot) fewer tanks as well. That has an impact on the battlefield, and will lead to more casualties in the infantry who suddenly will have a lot less tank support.
2) You seem to presume that better tanks would have won BATTLEAXE/CRUSADER/INSERT BATTLE HERE. I doubt that very much. A poor workman blames his tools is what comes to mind, and the British desert commanders until Monty showed up were very poor indeed.
3) Not that many, actually, in the larger scheme of things. As for the second point, see 2) above.

All the best

Andreas

 

Yes, thank you, I'm sure you know that I know.

'Suspension' is not 'tank'



I didn't suggest it was, though it is the most obvious and prominent continuum from Christies's M31 to the T34. So you're still saying the T34 is not derived from the Christie?

Compared to the total loss of all German troops in Africa I would say the Allied came off best.


It would be an interesting exercise, but not one I have time for. Visualize the kind of tank or APC that could have been produced in 1941 or 42, or 43. How many lives might it have saved in North Africa alone? Do I need to know how many exactly? Does it change anything? I don't need to prove to myself that our tanks were outclassed; I just want to know why. It's generally recognized by those who where there that they were. Some may know better than they, but I can't claim to.

I see, so those veteran's who used to say it took five or more shermans to knock off a Panther or Tiger I were wrong? I assume you have information which corrects this misunderstanding? I would be interested to hear it.

Not being a regular here I haven't encountered "WPE" before; is it contagious?

 

I see, so those veteran's who used to say it took five or more shermans to knock off a Panther or Tiger I were wrong? I assume you have information which corrects this misunderstanding? I would be interested to hear it.


Which veterans other than Cooper are claiming that?

Where's the proof that that number is anything but made up?

It's impossible to prove a negative, by the way. If that was the rule, it is already starting from a bad point because the long-run average in e.g. Normandy was a 1-2 ratio, which includes of course all the tanks fallen to other causes. So what does this number actually mean? Is it 4-5 Allied tanks at the tactical level, whenever an engagement happened? If so, there should be plenty of examples? Or is it at the operational level? But if that, how did the person claiming it differentiate?

It reminds me of the nonsensical kill ratios claim for the Tiger battalions of 10:1 or whatever, which anyone who has looked into it knows is bollocks, but it's still the accepted wisdom.

All the best

Andreas

 

I see, so those veteran's who used to say it took five or more shermans to knock off a Panther or Tiger I were wrong? I assume you have information which corrects this misunderstanding? I would be interested to hear it.


Which veterans other than Cooper are claiming that?

In 35 + years of reading and listening I can't count how many have made such statements in film and print.

Whatever proof there is, if there is any beyond the abovementioned, must lie in statistics of tank kills, by other tanks or AT guns. I would be surprised if some study of this was not made in the immediate post-war period.

Losses from causes other than tank gun fire and perhaps also AT gun fire are irrelevant to a comparison of the respective merits of tanks, so if the 1:2 ratio is based on that it is meaningless. I imagine Villers Bocage is the most well known incident, though from the officers relieved of command as a result it must be said that tactical incompetence or simply negligence played a role in that case.

So actual statistical evidence to the contrary exists?

 

I do not know of any officers relieved of command because of Villers. I do know a couple who got medals for it.

I am going to be blunt here. Your content so far shows you are at the very early stages of your journey. Your reading/sources appear very dated and were the norm over a decade ago. Go to Axis History Forum and do a search on Tank losses & kill ratio and read all the threads you find (dozens!)
Once you have done that the enormity of your error will rapidly become apparent.

 

Generally speaking, I find that there are two types of idiot when it comes to WWII tanks. There are, firstly, the Panzer Fanboys, who think that all German tanks are awesome because they are awesome and German, like modern day BMW's. I personally find these people to be reasonably forgivable and amenable to correction, in the grand scheme of things.

The second type of idiot, usually British or American, is the type that has an exaggeratedly negative opinion of American/British/Western tanks because they have read "An Audit Of War"/"Death Traps"/"Death By Design"/"Overlord"/"The Great Tank Scandal" at an impressionable age, and erroneously believe that "incompetent bureaucrats and generals" deliberately sent British and American soldiers to their deaths, and, because they have done no original research themselves, are still wedded to this idea 20-30 years after it has been largely discredited.

"Over Here" is obviously the second type of idiot, but, like the apocryphal Japanese soldiers who held out on isolated islands 40 years after the war was over, I can't help but admire him for sticking up for his outdated, mid-90's viewpoint, long after anyone would be prepared to take it seriously. He contributes nothing of worth in terms of knowledge, but at least he is determined to be entertaining. For that, at least, I salute him.

 

Perhaps so, or perhaps not, if some of what has been posted here is any indication. "Dated"? WWII is rather dated now I admit. The historiography of the wars ebbs and flows with cultural trends and plain old demographics. No clearer example of that than the recent earnest attempts to convince us that Douglas Haig was a brilliant exponent of tanks and machine guns. Those who were intimately involved at the time were simply mistaken about that, so the scribes tell us. Some people believe it too, because it's more pleasant than the alternative.

I'm willing to be convinced, but I know what rivetted looks like compared to a welded seam. I know what vertical armour looks like as opposed to slanted, I can see whether an external gun mantlet is there or it isn't. Optics, well we don't even need to mention them do we? I've looked through enough German and British optics, worked on some as well. Not that there weren't exceptions, usually naval since the RN must have known what they wanted and insisted on getting it. Still very little approaching the German quality. Could be why you don't have an optical industry today? Or much of an auto industry for that matter, and most of that foreign owned, except what, Morgans?

"Use what you've got", "That'll be good enough", "File it till it fits". Same old song and dance that has done in a hundred industries since the war. Some people like you may have convinced themselves that WWII tank production was the exception to this rule, but it's amazing what people can convince themselves of when they want to. "We Were Not All Wrong!" to use Michael Foots phrase.

Quite. Negligence, incompetence, sabotage?

Yes, "Incompetent bureaucrats and generals" deliberately sent British and American soldiers to their deaths", and a good many Canadians too, in both world wars. Incompetent bureaucrats were mostly too obtuse to know, and probably to care, that their decisions would send soldiers to their deaths. They sit in offices and never see the results of their decisions. I think it was Fuller who remarked that it was a pity that so few generals understood that their soldiers were the only thing that could not be replaced. Leese and his stupid comment about having a thousand tanks to lose being a perfect example.

And no, I'm not a Germanophile; they do love to over-complicate and are inclined to technical arrogance, among other kinds, but no one who is honest can deny the work ethic, the determination to master a subject nor the quality of the products; it's a cultural trait just as it is in Japan. I have a sneaking suspicion this may have been even more true in the 1940s than it is today. And if I was feeling particularly bold, I might even venture to suggest they put their very best into their war production. Not that they didn't screw up technically sometimes...fortunately.

Yes, history takes a long time to write, and I may not be hip to the latest self-congratulatory revisionism, a symptom quite often of a society no longer posssessing the moral courage to look unpleasant truths in the face. Thank the "wastage" rates for that.

 

Well since you're unwilling to pony up any actual evidence for your claims other than handwaving 'I read it on a PanzerAces Trading Card in 1964', I'll go with Don Juan's view of you.

All the best

Andreas

 

A pity your first witness is contradicted by your second. Or perhaps you simply can not understand what Leese was saying?

 

No skin off my nose chum. I've yet to see any response to the evidence I did mention, so would there be any point in looking for more? I don't need to convince you; it's not a religion.

Perhaps you know someone whose dad was there and knew what Gen. Leese was trying to say? I have to go on the simple words themselves, and what I've read about the man. Regardless of what his intentions were, it was a stupid remark; such things have a way of travelling quickly through a military organization and can you imagine how the troops would have perceived such a statement? Monty may not have been the sharpest tack in the box, but he did understand the importance of morale.

Incidentally, why do you keep dodging the question about the T34?

 

Except you have not mentioned any evidence whatsoever, Chum. Which makes it difficult to engage with the nonsense you post.

All the best

Andreas

 

Oh dear, I might get in trouble here for my critical dominion infantry perspective opinions B)

Starting in my favourite WW2 theatre, North Africa '41-'42, the close support that the infantry did not get should have been unacceptable in the 20th century, particularly after the WW1 experience. A puny two pounder gun with no HE? You are joking, particularly with the Valentine, at least the Queen of the Desert had relatively decent armour. The Brit tankers tried hard enough to do their job and not leave the infantry alone at the sharp end facing everything that Rommel could throw at them, they tried and it cost them dearly. As it did the infantry.

Which leads to the fact that tanks were part of a all arms team and so most times the success of the team depended on how the tankers could perform. So their casualty rates are only part of the story which involves how well they were able to do their job and how much support they in turn got. In europe particularly air support and eventual domination was a big factor, tactically the Germans had to take into account that they were facing air attacks as well which could be a big disadvantage for them tactically eg in the use of ground, in their fight against Allied ground forces and of course a big advantage for Allied armour.

There is plenty more stored away but that will do for starters, get the flak rolling

 

Rather a different topic though, right?

All the best

Andreas