Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

[Byron Angel]

Sorry, but your case remains patently unconvincing.

He has convinced me that in this one case Wittman's total was exaggerated. That doesn't mean the rest were, but it does mean it was possible. I suspect that some were and some weren't.

..... That's exactly my point. There is no dispute that, whatever the cause or the motive, the Villers-Bocage award citation over-counts Wittman's tank kills in that action (although I'd frankly like to see the citation in the original German just to assure myself that we are not dealing with a stupid language translation error). The real problem arises when this fact is so grotesquely inflated in an attempt to level a wholesale indictment of the integrity of all German battlefield kill statistics. I'm not saying that the possibility of intentional institutional fraud is zero, but at the end of the day there is simply no clear and obvious proof whatsoever that points in that direction.


Byron

[mkenny]

although I'd frankly like to see the citation in the original German just to assure myself that we are not dealing with a stupid language translation error

The real problem arises when this fact is so grotesquely inflated in an attempt to level a wholesale indictment of the integrity of all German battlefield kill statistics.

German kill claims have no integrity. They cut these claims by half. The unit that made a claim for say 100 kills still continued to claim 100 but only 50 were put on the Intelligence record.

I'm not saying that the possibility of intentional institutional fraud is zero, but at the end of the day there is simply no clear and obvious proof whatsoever that points in that direction.

I have looked into a number of cases where German kill claims turn out to be well in excess of reality.
Two examples:

Will Fey at Chenodolle
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1282104


IR Panther claims to have knocked out a Plattoon of Comets in 1945 and KC awards for 22 british tank kills at Stadensen in April 1945.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1273164

Wittmann is not an isolated case.

[boredatwork]

I'm sure if Mkenny was posting evidence that suggested Whitman deserved 20 MORE kills than he received credit for, most of the criticism against him in this thread would disapeer...

IMO, in the context of a thread that started off about "another tendency has emerged, which is dangerous because tends to deviate a truth in service of national pride," if people are going to use kill totals as an absolute measure of skill then I see nothing worng about presenting evidence to the accuracy... or otherwise... of those totals... I don't think I've heard Mkenny say that Whitman was a bad tank commander - merely argue there is reasonable evidence that the degree to which he was a good tank commander was exagerated in the interests of propaganda... isn't that after all what a balanced discussion is about?

[Byron Angel]

although I'd frankly like to see the citation in the original German just to assure myself that we are not dealing with a stupid language translation error

..... Thank you for posting the original German text of Dietrich's citation. I would be pleased to receive either confirmation or correction from native German speakers, but it is my understanding as an American with German language translation skills that the German term "panzer" (confirmed by various German technical dictionaries) nominally translates as "tank", but it is also employed as a shorthand term for a generic "armored vehicle". Take it for what it's worth.

German kill claims have no integrity. They cut these claims by half. The unit that made a claim for say 100 kills still continued to claim 100 but only 50 were put on the Intelligence record.

..... So what? 50 pct reductions of friendly unit claims were such a standard procedure for intelligence officers of all military services as to qualify as almost pedestrian; it's the nature of the beast they grappled with. On that basis, overall German tank claims were no more or less inaccurate than those of any other military service. It's fine if you want to argue that the numbers are not perfectly accurate; I will gladly agree. But don't tell me to uncritically accept your position that the German figures were PURPOSELY "inflated" or "bogus", or possessed "no integrity" when you once again offer absolutely no proof to support your claim of intentional number rigging.

I have looked into a number of cases where German kill claims turn out to be well in excess of reality.
Two examples:

Will Fey at Chenodolle
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1282104

IR Panther claims to have knocked out a Plattoon of Comets in 1945 and KC awards for 22 british tank kills at Stadensen in April 1945.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1273164

Wittmann is not an isolated case.

..... Except, sir, that there was no inflation of kill claims at Villers-Bocage, was there !?!? Everyone agrees upon how many Allied tanks and other vehicles were lost in that engagement. Dietrich did not claim that 150 British tanks were left burning on the battlefield; the claims in his citation almost exactly matched the Allied losses. The only difference was in the >>apparent<< awarding of the claims to the wrong individual. You are almost acrobatic in your attempts to evade this point.

At the end of the day, whatever figure you settle on has to account for an awfully large number of Allied tanks destroyed during the war. The Russians published a best effort academic reckoning of tank losses during the Great Patriotic War. I am willing to accept it as a realistic representation. If, as I believe, that accounting refers to tanks written off and not repaired and returned to service (can someone confirm or correct?), it suggests that they were suffering something on the order of 20,000 to 40,000 AFV disablements per year on average (assuming a 50 pct recovery & repair rate). After you allow for 15 pct or so disabled by infantry anti-tank action, 10 pct or so by artillery and aerial attack, perhaps 10 pct by mines, and even 25 pct knocked out by towed anti-tank weapons, what disabled those other 8,000 to 16,000 Soviet AFV's each year? If it was German AFVs, how does that compare to the average number of operational German AFVs on the Eastern Front in any given year?


Byron

[Byron Angel]

I'm sure if Mkenny was posting evidence that suggested Whitman deserved 20 MORE kills than he received credit for, most of the criticism against him in this thread would disapeer...

..... If as you say, mkenny was actually posting EVIDENCE, then yes, I agree that most of the criticism would disappear, regardless of the topic.

IMO, in the context of a thread that started off about "another tendency has emerged, which is dangerous because tends to deviate a truth in service of national pride," if people are going to use kill totals as an absolute measure of skill then I see nothing worng about presenting evidence to the accuracy... or otherwise... of those totals...

..... And it is equally necessary to keep a watchful eye out for deviations from the truth (whatever that might be) in service of national >>prejudice<<.

I don't think I've heard Mkenny say that Whitman was a bad tank commander - merely argue there is reasonable evidence that the degree to which he was a good tank commander was exagerated in the interests of propaganda... isn't that after all what a balanced discussion is about?

..... I find mkenny's rhetorical a bit more inflammatory and hyperbolic than your comment suggests. My impression is that mkenny believes that German tank commanders with 100+ kill scores were entirely dreamed up in the office of one of Joseph Goebbel's propaganda specialists. But perhaps that's just me; if I'm wrong, I welcome mkenny to set the record straight about his true opinion of the general tactical efficiency of the German tank arm.


Byron

[mkenny]

but it is my understanding as an American with German language translation skills that the German term "panzer" (confirmed by various German technical dictionaries) nominally translates as "tank", but it is also employed as a shorthand term for a generic "armored vehicle". Take it for what it's worth.

I will let someone else explain it to you.............

So what? 50 pct reductions of friendly unit claims were such a standard procedure for intelligence officers of all military services as to qualify as almost pedestrian; it's the nature of the beast they grappled with. On that basis, overall German tank claims were no more or less inaccurate than those of any other military service.

The difference is that many, including you, believe the German claims are the product of a superior confirmation process.
They were not.

It's fine if you want to argue that the numbers are not perfectly accurate; I will gladly agree. But don't tell me to uncritically accept your position that the German figures were PURPOSELY "inflated" or "bogus", or possessed "no integrity" when you once again offer absolutely no proof to support your claim of intentional number rigging

Yet again I do not care why they got it wrong. You seem to be the one who wants to know the reason behind the inflation. They were inflated.I can prove it. End of story for me. No doubt there will be a follow up post from one of the 'Germany was the best ' club where some big long list of Tiger ace claims will be submitted. List composed entirely of unconfirmed crew claims.

Except, sir, that there was no inflation of kill claims at Villers-Bocage, was there !?!? Everyone agrees upon how many Allied tanks and other vehicles were lost in that engagement. Dietrich did not claim that 150 British tanks were left burning on the battlefield; the claims in his citation almost exactly matched the Allied losses. The only difference was in the >>apparent<< awarding of the claims to the wrong individual. You are almost acrobatic in your attempts to evade this point.

Yes there was overclaiming. Other crew members claimed kills and these kills were added to their scores.
Agte page 32-325 hardback:
Hannes Philipsen "Hannes.........destroyed 8 tanks from a group of enemy vehicles attacking from out of the city"
Rottenfuhrer Lau "To the right in the direction of Caen we discovered 2 Cromwell tanks......we destroyed them"

Both of the above, because of the locations, can not refer to the bulk of the Cromwell tanks cut off in an orchard to the east of Villers. All of the 10 tanks are the exact same tanks claimed by Wittmann.
More:
Oberscharfuhrer Brandt "destroyed 3 Shermans and a number of tankettes"
Battalion Medical Officer Rabe "found himself confronted by 4 Churchill type tanks.............armed with a machine gun......forced the crews of the tanks to bale out"

only 4 can be a possible reference to the Cromwells in the orchard. Thus at least 5 Cromwells remain where we do not know who claimed them as kills.
Overclaiming was rife.

At the end of the day, whatever figure you settle on has to account for an awfully large number of Allied tanks destroyed during the war.........................

I know the rest of that speech. It is the standard fall back when individual German claims are shown to be false.

[Byron Angel]

The difference is that many, including you, believe the German claims are the product of a superior confirmation process.
They were not.

..... You either have a reading comprehension problem or are being wilfully obtuse. Here is precisely what I wrote on that topic:

"So what? 50 pct reductions of friendly unit claims were such a standard procedure for intelligence officers of all military services as to qualify as almost pedestrian; it's the nature of the beast they grappled with. On that basis, overall German tank claims were no more or less inaccurate than those of any other military service. It's fine if you want to argue that the numbers are not perfectly accurate; I will gladly agree. But don't tell me to uncritically accept your position that the German figures were PURPOSELY "inflated" or "bogus", or possessed "no integrity" when you once again offer absolutely no proof to support your claim of intentional number rigging."

Please indicate where I made any assertion suggesting that German claims analysis was any more accurate than those of other nations.

My case here is simple and has nothing to do with the precision of anyone's count. It has to do with your still unsupported insinuations that the wartime German figures were being purposefully falsified. It is indeed possible that they might have been, but you need to present some proof before you can expect people to accept your claim. Can you grasp the difference? If not, let's just drop the issue because it will not be possible to pursue a rational or logical discussion with you.

Yet again I do not care why they got it wrong. You seem to be the one who wants to know the reason behind the inflation. They were inflated.I can prove it. End of story for me. No doubt there will be a follow up post from one of the 'Germany was the best ' club where some big long list of Tiger ace claims will be submitted. List composed entirely of unconfirmed crew claims.

..... Wrong again, sir. You keep taking mighty swings of the rhetorical bat at pitches that are not there. The degree of precision or imprecision of the German numbers is immaterial to me. What bothers me is your insistence that they were purposefully and intentionally inflated for propaganda reasons. It is absolutely beyond comprehension that you refuse to address that simple point. If your recent comment above ["I do not care why they got it wrong"] is meant to suggest that you do not insist upon the argument of intentional inflation, then Glory Hallelujah - we agree that German claims suffer from inaccuracies in a manner similar to those of other warring nations.

Yes there was overclaiming. Other crew members claimed kills and these kills were added to their scores.
Agte page 32-325 hardback:
Hannes Philipsen "Hannes.........destroyed 8 tanks from a group of enemy vehicles attacking from out of the city"
Rottenfuhrer Lau "To the right in the direction of Caen we discovered 2 Cromwell tanks......we destroyed them"

Both of the above, because of the locations, can not refer to the bulk of the Cromwell tanks cut off in an orchard to the east of Villers. All of the 10 tanks are the exact same tanks claimed by Wittmann.
More:
Oberscharfuhrer Brandt "destroyed 3 Shermans and a number of tankettes"
Battalion Medical Officer Rabe "found himself confronted by 4 Churchill type tanks.............armed with a machine gun......forced the crews of the tanks to bale out"

only 4 can be a possible reference to the Cromwells in the orchard. Thus at least 5 Cromwells remain where we do not know who claimed them as kills.
Overclaiming was rife.

..... What exactly do Philipsen, Lau and Rabe have to do with Wittman's action at Villers-Bocage on the morning of 13 June 1944? The four Tigers serving under Wittman in that action were Hantusch, Stief, Sowa, and Brandt.

I know the rest of that speech. It is the standard fall back when individual German claims are shown to be false.

..... More rhetorical misdirection. This has nothing to do with German claim figures. Take the Soviet sources and offer a reasoned analysis.


Byron

[minoru genda]

Mckenny, do you think Wittmann was a good tank commander?

[mkenny]

..... What exactly do Philipsen, Lau and Rabe have to do with Wittman's action at Villers-Bocage on the morning of 13 June 1944? The four Tigers serving under Wittman in that action were Hantusch, Stief, Sowa, and Brandt.

You said that the Wittmann total was just an attribution error. That they 'mistakenly' gave them all to Wittmann
They did not. They gave kill credits to others as well. They gave kill credits for 38 tanks at least.
Wittmann's share was 21.
Others got at least 17.
I also gave other examples where claims were greatly inflated.
Wittmann is not an aberration.
The claim system was not even trusted by their own Generals
The credit system was at best cavalier.
It is discredited.
Any ace list using these unconfirmed claims has no standing.



I will let you find the touchy feely reasons as to why this was unintentional and you can achieve 'closure'.

This has nothing to do with German claim figures. Take the Soviet sources and offer a reasoned analysis.

That is your baby. I only speak with authority in cases when I can find reliable sources. I suggest you watch out for those who criticise any findings because you fail to find 100% cast iron proof and signed statements confirming even the smallest detail.

do you think Wittmann was a good tank commander?

I have never looked at his record other than to tabulate his claims and the rate at which they were racked up. I did note that his kills seem to have all been made in single actions and in short bursts. Taking Normandy as an example he has a great big success and then completely vanishes from the record. There are no other claims made for him bar a single passing mention in Agte that he got another kill. I think he was chosen as some form of example of the superior German fighting man and his life was taken over by the propaganda boys. It would be difficult at this distance to seperate the fact from the fiction

[Byron Angel]

..... What exactly do Philipsen, Lau and Rabe have to do with Wittman's action at Villers-Bocage on the morning of 13 June 1944? The four Tigers serving under Wittman in that action were Hantusch, Stief, Sowa, and Brandt.

You said that the Wittmann total was just an attribution error. That they 'mistakenly' gave them all to Wittmann.

..... You are once again putting words into other peoples' mouths. I wrote as follows:

"There was no inflation of the true number of knocked out tanks, only a failure of some so far unidentifiable sort to award them to the proper crews. It does in fact remain a possibility that Dietrich or Wittman himself MAY have conspired to pad Wittman's number, but you have so far been able to provide absolutely no proof of that."

How you manage to have misrepresented that statement is a mystery.

They did not. They gave kill credits to others as well. They gave kill credits for 38 tanks at least.
Wittmann's share was 21.
Others got at least 17.
I also gave other examples where claims were greatly inflated.

.... I'm talking about Wittman's action on the morning of 13 June 1944 and the attendant citation written by Dietrich. What are you talking about?

Wittmann is not an aberration.
The claim system was not even trusted by their own Generals
The credit system was at best cavalier.
It is discredited.
Any ace list using these unconfirmed claims has no standing.

I will let you find the touchy feely reasons as to why this was unintentional and you can achieve 'closure'.

..... Rhetorical boilerplate droning that does nothing whatever to advance the discussion.

This has nothing to do with German claim figures. Take the Soviet sources and offer a reasoned analysis.

That is your baby. I only speak with authority in cases when I can find reliable sources. I suggest you watch out for those who criticise any findings because you fail to find 100% cast iron proof and signed statements confirming even the smallest detail.

..... More evasive rhetorical boilerplate. My baby? LOL. Here's your golden opportunity to check German tank victory claims against official updated Soviet figures on a battle by battle basis. I'd expect you to leap at the opportunity to demonstrate how bogus, imaginary, fraudulent, and inflated those German claim statistics are. Are you now saying that all the statistical work now available from Krivosheyev, Glantz, Nipe, Zetterling, Zaloga, etc, etc is suddenly not 'reliable' ? Exactly how reliable do they need to be to meet your particular standards?

[lwd]

...
Lwd, throwing random quotes of the internet won't help us in any way.

1) It they weren't random quotes
2) I disagree that they don't help.

...Those are all nonsense.

Then prove it. If they really are nonsense it should be easy.

I've read some books about the Me-262 in particular, and about air warfare in Europe in general. Also, the memoirs of several fighter aces, both allied and german.
I can quote from any of those books, if you'd like, but you can point a finger and say I'm just taking of the parts that favor my position.

Unless I can support such a postition with either logic or fact it would just be an opinion even if I did post it. Facts and logic trump opinions.

The articles you quoted ... have a completely different bibliography than they should.

??? What does this mean?

So, if you want to have a decent point of view regarding the status quo of the Me-262 relative to his rivals, and to wage an informed conversation, please bring in relevant and authorised information.

"Authorized information"!!

P.S.: The test which Boyd and Yaeger performed had been falsified, because the Me-262 was drasticaly superior to the US fighter. This showed up in the early '80s, and is explained in "Me-262 Arrow to the Future" on pg 139.
"The test were not combat manouvres, but comparisons of speeds, rates of climb at different altitudes, and turning radius. The Messerchmitt had better speed and acceleration and an equal climb. The P-80 was easier to handle and had much better visibility."

Your quote does not support your conclusions. Even with out getting into relliability and maintainability it list the 262 as superior in two out of 5 catagories and the P-80 as supperior in two.

P.P.S: there were some unfortunate accidents with the Me-262s, but to say that was the norm and that it wasn't an operational aircraft belongs to works of fiction. Again, please consult a dedicated source.
....

Did I say that they were the norm? No I didn't. Did I say the Me-262 wasn't an oeprational aircraft? No I didn't. You are constructing strawmen. What I did say was that the western allies would not have accepted it as an operational aircraft with as many problems as it still had. If you think it was all that reliable how about posting how often it did have engine problems while in flight?

[lwd]

With regards to Whitman my impression was that his kills while in Stugs were included in his totals.

[mkenny]

I'm talking about Wittman's action on the morning of 13 June 1944 and the attendant citation written by Dietrich. What are you talking about?

Sorry but there is no escape route.
If you want to nitpick and claim that Deitrich was only referening to the morning action then I ask why he included 21 tanks in the citation. Wittmann never saw or visited the location of the other 10+ tanks (i.e not the 11 he has a valid claim for) and they were only engaged later in the day
So if you want to say the citation is only about the morning action then explain why the afternoon total was added into the mix?

..

... Rhetorical boilerplate droning that does nothing whatever to advance the discussion.

As I am the only one posting anything of substance and your whole case is 'maybe but maybe not' I will leave the decision as to who is droning to others

More evasive rhetorical boilerplate. My baby? LOL. Here's your golden opportunity to check German tank victory claims against official updated Soviet figures on a battle by battle basis.

There are no such updated Soviet figures on a battle by battle basis. They do not exist. There is nothing at all that even remotely approaches a total on a battle by battle basis. It is as much a fiction as the claim that german kill claims were accurate and reliable. Krivosheev does have a general brakdown but it is useless for the task you have in mind.
I would urge you to publish these fabled updated Soviet figures on a battle by battle basis. In all my years at this I have never even some close to finding such a magnificent document..............

I'd expect you to leap at the opportunity to demonstrate how bogus, imaginary, fraudulent, and inflated those German claim statistics are. Are you now saying that all the statistical work now available from Krivosheyev, Glantz, Nipe, Zetterling, Zaloga, etc, etc is suddenly not 'reliable' ? Exactly how reliable do they need to be to meet your particular standards?

I have had a lenghty correspondence on this very subject with Zetterling in the past and I know Zaloga shares my views on the absurd high kill claims made for German tanks. Over the years I have had dealings with a good number of the great and the good and other authors who work in this area . Trying to cow me with those you consider 'the experts' will not work.

[mkenny]

With regards to Whitman my impression was that his kills while in Stugs were included in his totals.

Not so. By using the numbers in Agte you find that the whole of the 138 kills he was awarded are from July 1943-June 1944.
I was suprised when I discovered it as well. It shows that it pays to actualy count these things rather than taking it as a given.

[lwd]

...Of al 400+ German divisions the one on top (elite of the elite) is the Panzer Grenadier Division Gross Deutschland from 1943 !! It was the best division of WWII in every aspect.

You really should watch those superlatives. "every aspect" !!! I seriously doubt it.

A good account of the reality of life in GD is to be found in Guy Sajer's long account of his service from 1943 to 1945 in one of their motorised/mechanised light infantry battalions ( "The Forgotten Soldier" ).

1) As stated German artillery doctrine was signficantly inferior to that of the US and Britain. Thus this is one aspect where the above German division would not be "the best".
2) The account of an enlisted man is hardly the best source of deterning something like this.
3) The above book is widely regarded as fiction. While it still may give a good picture of what "life in GD" was like that's rather irrelevant to this topic.