Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 'No Patton'

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: 'No Patton' Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 1:34:27 AM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom



You know Ironduke, I am truly amazed over what you wrote above.

I simply can't comprehend you actually believe what you just wrote. . .



All the facts and figures are there for anyone to see for themselves. . .



I'm stunned. . .


LOL! Now, that's a losing argument if I ever saw one!

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 181
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 1:38:25 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
Now maybe that's a clue as to why a few of us have started to put Von Rom on our 'block' lists

Expect another one shortly

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 182
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 1:44:11 AM   
a19999577

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Lima, Peru
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

LOL! Now, that's a losing argument if I ever saw one!


You do know that you are now going to be accused of being in connivance with IronDuke, of being his secretary and of flawed argumentation, don't you?

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 183
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 1:46:24 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
to Anyone still reading this banality (for which I fully accept half the blame)

Before we upset the Moderator again, (who has far better things to do than watch all this) I think it is time to bring a halt to this. I wanted to explain why. I will no longer reply to Von Rom (joining several others) and will use four brief points from this argument to illustrate why. This stands as my last word for those who want to understand why, so they don't have to accept any other reason that is put forward for it on my behalf.

Point One: fairness

Von Rom said:

quote:

von Rom
He (Kev) questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.


quote:

Von Rom
From 20 to 25 September, the Fifth Panzer Army directed the 111th Panzer Brigade and the 11th Panzer Division into a series of attacks against the Arracourt position. Each assault followed the pattern set on 19 September. The Panzers attacked under the cover of morning fog, only to be thwarted by CCA's mobile defense and driven off by armored counterattacks of company or battalion strength. The defensive actions fought around Arracourt stalled the German offensive. The 4th Armored Division claimed 281 German tanks destroyed, 3,000 Germans killed, and another 3,000 taken prisoner in the fighting.


quote:

Von Rom
There were a series of battles between Third Army and German forces between Sept 18-19 to Sept 28-30, 1944 that resulted in some of the biggest armoured battles on the western front.


quote:

Von Rom
More than 60 years later, the number of German armoured vehicles destroyed by Third Army's 4th Armoured Division in Lorraine has never been disputed.

At the end of the week-long battle, Combat Command A reported 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers lost but claimed 285 German tanks destroyed.


Von Rom set the terms of this argument. It was about the battle of Arracourt 18-30 Sept. I gave a very detailed analysis of tank strengths at Arracourt, and then it was all dismissed because in the next post.

quote:

Von Rom
Therefore, because your study has not been conducted thoroughly to include all German fighting units in Lorraine at the time, you research is FATALLY FLAWED and cannot stand.


and

quote:

Von Rom
because you have omitted from your study TWO FULL WEEKS of fighting


The argument has changed from 12 days at Arracourt to one about a month in Lorraine (see later in VR's post as well where tanks are counted if 4th Armoured met them between 4th Sept and 30th Sept). However, rather than say this, and let us debate this new topic, Von rom has used this unilateral change of argument to dismiss everything I've said. That isn't fair, and I won't argue against that sort of tactic. For Von Rom to say we're arguing about 18-30 Sept, and then say I am missing things out because I haven't mentioned stuff that happened before this is unfair. It isn't debate.

Secondly, logic.

quote:

Sorry to tell you but when tanks have NOT been destroyed, and if they are in the repair shops, those tanks remain a potential force in being.

Most histories I have read INCLUDE tanks that are in the repair shops. Read any good history of the Afrika Korps or in Normandy to find out how important it was to have good mechanics and to get tanks back into action quickly.

Dietrich personally awarded the Iron Cross to his mechanics because they continually worked miracles returning damaged tanks back to the battlefield.

Tanks in repair shops are NEVER excluded in totals of tanks available. All OOBs list ALL tanks that have not been destroyed, even those in the repair shops


We were arguing about the number of tanks 4th Armoured destroyed. I didn't count these repair shop vehicles because 4th Armoured couldn't destroy tanks that were not in action. If 4th Armoured couldn't see these tanks, how could they shoot them? That this argument in the quote above should be used indicates (and the problem may be mine, I'm happy to concede) that my thought processes and Von Rom's are too different to be able to debate each other. All we can do is upset the moderator.

Point three - something the moderator wouldn't let me describe

quote:

Von Rom
When you initially started your project, I pointed out to you that you didn't include EIGHT German fighting formations in your research. If I had not mentioned them to you, you would not have included them at all.


I addressed these eight formations twice in between the period Von Rom mentioned them the first time, and the time he posted this. I showed how they either didn't exist at the time of Arracourt, didn't fight at Arracourt, or had no tanks (all of which make them irrelevant to a discussion of German tank strength at Arracourt between 18-30th September).

To therefore make this comment, as if I had done something wrong, and was deliberately missing them out, having read my explanation is unfair. There are other words for it, but either the forum wouldn't let me post it, or the moderator would give me two weeks holiday if I used them.

Fourth: Research

quote:

17th SS PzGdr Div - this is listed in Kursitis (The Wehrmacht at War 1939-1945, p.264), but is not listed in Nafziger.

Using the GrossDeutchland PzGdr div as an example, then the 17th SS could have had up to 130 Armoured vehicles.


This is the worst one. This research is amongst the poorest I have seen, for reasons I will describe shortly. However, there may be times when I do not have the sources to check something Von Rom says. Rather than lose an argument because I can't check something, I'd rather not argue at all with him, because the standard of this research gives me no confidence I can take his research at face value without cross checking. I am particularly sorry about this one, because the forum is all about swapping opinions and research, but the context of this research was that my figures were being questioned and dismissed because of the alleged facts above. If I hadn't been been able to prove otherwise, they might have been accepted by other forum readers.

quote:

17th SS PzGdr Div - this is listed in Kursitis (The Wehrmacht at War 1939-1945, p.264), but is not listed in Nafziger.


Von Rom has recently started quoting from Nafziger, I would venture he consulted it in the last 24 hours after I used it several times in my piece.

Nafziger does list the 17th SS. However, he does it in a different volume to the one I'm guessing Von Rom read. I'm guessing he consulted "Panzers and Artillery in World War II" as he seems to quote Nafziger in connection with Panzergrenadier formations. The 17th SS are featured in "Waffen SS and other units in World War II". Now, I don't mind
someone not realising this. There are a lot of sources out there. In this instance, though, the comment was made after I had said

quote:

Again, not a single source mentions it in the Arracourt accounts. The combined arms Library suggests on 10th it was fighting the 5th US Division.

Niklas Zetterling: "Normandy 1944" tells us this unit had ten Stugs in a strength return dated 23 July, and that further losses were sustained during the Cobra fighting at Coutances (pg 367). He reports it was built back up with the addition of 49th and 51st SS Panzergrenadier Brigades.

Nafziger: "The German order of Battle: Waffen SS and other units in WWII" tells us these formations were infantry formations and contained no tanks or assault guns. (Pg 134-135).


Again, I'm not too concerned that Von Rom never looked at the SS volume, but I clearly had, and anyone who does will see that the 17th SS had 34 Stugs in June, and never had an authorised strength above that sort of level. What troubles me is what happened in the absence of direct evidence. (or what happened when my evidence was ignored).

quote:

Von Rom
Using the GrossDeutchland PzGdr div as an example, then the 17th SS could have had up to 130 Armoured vehicles.


and

quote:

Clearly, between Sept 4-5 to Sept 27th, the 4th Armoured Divison encountered the following German units:

11th Pz Div - 176 AFVs (optimal)

111 Pz Brigade - 100 AFVs (optimal)

113th Pz Brigade - 100 AFVs (optimal)

15th PzGdr Div - 37 AFVs

3rd PzGdr Div - 37 AFVs

17th SS PzGdr Div - 130 AFVs (optimal)

2nd Pz Div - 130 Tanks and StuGs (optimal)

This total equals 710 AFVs.


The 17th SS was compared to another formation (GD), and with no direct evidence of it's actual strength, all 130 vehicles were counted.

The GrossDeustchland was a pretty unique unit. It's authorised strength at most times during the war was higher than any comparable German unit because of it's unique and elite status (it was the equivalent of the British Guards, say). It usually had a full Panzer Regiment, when other Pzgr formations would often just have carried a battalion of tanks on strength. At times the GD Panzer regiment also carried 3 Btns, which was pretty unique for the mid war German Army which was settling on a two battalion Regimental structure because of lack of tanks.

Now, to compare the 17th SS to the GrossDeustchland is difficult to justify as it is. What disturbed me, is that in the book I know Von Rom did have, there are the best part of 20 Panzergrenadier formations listed. These (with the odd exception such as GD and the Brandenburg PZGR Divison) all have the standard structure. However, 17th SS has been compared to the "example" of GD, rather than the mass of divisons listed which carry much smaller strengths. I know Von Rom knows these strengths because he quotes 3rd and 15th PGD tank strengths (correctly) as in the mid thirties (about standard).

In other words, trying to prove there were lots of tanks in Lorraine, and unable to show 17th SS had any, he compares it to the largest PGD he can find (without warning us it's strengths are higher than any other he has seen) and then lists that figure. He then takes this risky (and flawed) conjecture and quotes it in a further argument without qualification:

quote:

Von Rom
17th SS PzGdr Div - 130 AFVs (optimal)


To have my arguments roundly dismissed on the basis of research like this is unfair, and disturbing. Forum readers who do not know about 17th SS or the GrossDeutschland could have taken this seriously if I had said nothing. For the record, I repeat, 17th SS had an authorised (or optimal if you prefer ) tank strength around 100 less than the GrossDeutschland. (130 doesn't actually do some GD OOBs justice, as it misses out some self propelled Tank destroyers and assault guns (which we've been counting thus far), the real figure was sometimes as high as 170).

Taken with the other reasons above, it's time to bring my and Von Rom's "debate" to an end. I fully accept half the responsibility for the banality that this thread has become. I apologise to anyone (particularly Kev "no patton" Nugly) whose thread I've helped ruin.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 184
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 2:04:02 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
For the record, I wrote my piece whilst Keke's, Kev's and a19999577's pieces were being posted. I never saw their words before I hit OK on this. I in no way intend to suggest they are part of, or at fault for, this "banality". That is my fault, and the fault of one other (in my opinion, anyway, he's not going to admit it.)

My apologies if any of the above thought the words below were a criticism of their latest posts in any way. It was not intended.

Regards,
IronDuke



quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

to Anyone still reading this banality (for which I fully accept half the blame)

Before we upset the Moderator again, (who has far better things to do than watch all this) I think it is time to bring a halt to this. I wanted to explain why. I will no longer reply to Von Rom (joining several others) and will use four brief points from this argument to illustrate why. This stands as my last word for those who want to understand why, so they don't have to accept any other reason that is put forward for it on my behalf.

Point One: fairness

Von Rom said:

quote:

von Rom
He (Kev) questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.


quote:

Von Rom
From 20 to 25 September, the Fifth Panzer Army directed the 111th Panzer Brigade and the 11th Panzer Division into a series of attacks against the Arracourt position. Each assault followed the pattern set on 19 September. The Panzers attacked under the cover of morning fog, only to be thwarted by CCA's mobile defense and driven off by armored counterattacks of company or battalion strength. The defensive actions fought around Arracourt stalled the German offensive. The 4th Armored Division claimed 281 German tanks destroyed, 3,000 Germans killed, and another 3,000 taken prisoner in the fighting.


quote:

Von Rom
There were a series of battles between Third Army and German forces between Sept 18-19 to Sept 28-30, 1944 that resulted in some of the biggest armoured battles on the western front.


quote:

Von Rom
More than 60 years later, the number of German armoured vehicles destroyed by Third Army's 4th Armoured Division in Lorraine has never been disputed.

At the end of the week-long battle, Combat Command A reported 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers lost but claimed 285 German tanks destroyed.


Von Rom set the terms of this argument. It was about the battle of Arracourt 18-30 Sept. I gave a very detailed analysis of tank strengths at Arracourt, and then it was all dismissed because in the next post.

quote:

Von Rom
Therefore, because your study has not been conducted thoroughly to include all German fighting units in Lorraine at the time, you research is FATALLY FLAWED and cannot stand.


and

quote:

Von Rom
because you have omitted from your study TWO FULL WEEKS of fighting


The argument has changed from 12 days at Arracourt to one about a month in Lorraine (see later in VR's post as well where tanks are counted if 4th Armoured met them between 4th Sept and 30th Sept). However, rather than say this, and let us debate this new topic, Von rom has used this unilateral change of argument to dismiss everything I've said. That isn't fair, and I won't argue against that sort of tactic. For Von Rom to say we're arguing about 18-30 Sept, and then say I am missing things out because I haven't mentioned stuff that happened before this is unfair. It isn't debate.

Secondly, logic.

quote:

Sorry to tell you but when tanks have NOT been destroyed, and if they are in the repair shops, those tanks remain a potential force in being.

Most histories I have read INCLUDE tanks that are in the repair shops. Read any good history of the Afrika Korps or in Normandy to find out how important it was to have good mechanics and to get tanks back into action quickly.

Dietrich personally awarded the Iron Cross to his mechanics because they continually worked miracles returning damaged tanks back to the battlefield.

Tanks in repair shops are NEVER excluded in totals of tanks available. All OOBs list ALL tanks that have not been destroyed, even those in the repair shops


We were arguing about the number of tanks 4th Armoured destroyed. I didn't count these repair shop vehicles because 4th Armoured couldn't destroy tanks that were not in action. If 4th Armoured couldn't see these tanks, how could they shoot them? That this argument in the quote above should be used indicates (and the problem may be mine, I'm happy to concede) that my thought processes and Von Rom's are too different to be able to debate each other. All we can do is upset the moderator.

Point three - something the moderator wouldn't let me describe

quote:

Von Rom
When you initially started your project, I pointed out to you that you didn't include EIGHT German fighting formations in your research. If I had not mentioned them to you, you would not have included them at all.


I addressed these eight formations twice in between the period Von Rom mentioned them the first time, and the time he posted this. I showed how they either didn't exist at the time of Arracourt, didn't fight at Arracourt, or had no tanks (all of which make them irrelevant to a discussion of German tank strength at Arracourt between 18-30th September).

To therefore make this comment, as if I had done something wrong, and was deliberately missing them out, having read my explanation is unfair. There are other words for it, but either the forum wouldn't let me post it, or the moderator would give me two weeks holiday if I used them.

Fourth: Research

quote:

17th SS PzGdr Div - this is listed in Kursitis (The Wehrmacht at War 1939-1945, p.264), but is not listed in Nafziger.

Using the GrossDeutchland PzGdr div as an example, then the 17th SS could have had up to 130 Armoured vehicles.


This is the worst one. This research is amongst the poorest I have seen, for reasons I will describe shortly. However, there may be times when I do not have the sources to check something Von Rom says. Rather than lose an argument because I can't check something, I'd rather not argue at all with him, because the standard of this research gives me no confidence I can take his research at face value without cross checking. I am particularly sorry about this one, because the forum is all about swapping opinions and research, but the context of this research was that my figures were being questioned and dismissed because of the alleged facts above. If I hadn't been been able to prove otherwise, they might have been accepted by other forum readers.

quote:

17th SS PzGdr Div - this is listed in Kursitis (The Wehrmacht at War 1939-1945, p.264), but is not listed in Nafziger.


Von Rom has recently started quoting from Nafziger, I would venture he consulted it in the last 24 hours after I used it several times in my piece.

Nafziger does list the 17th SS. However, he does it in a different volume to the one I'm guessing Von Rom read. I'm guessing he consulted "Panzers and Artillery in World War II" as he seems to quote Nafziger in connection with Panzergrenadier formations. The 17th SS are featured in "Waffen SS and other units in World War II". Now, I don't mind
someone not realising this. There are a lot of sources out there. In this instance, though, the comment was made after I had said

quote:

Again, not a single source mentions it in the Arracourt accounts. The combined arms Library suggests on 10th it was fighting the 5th US Division.

Niklas Zetterling: "Normandy 1944" tells us this unit had ten Stugs in a strength return dated 23 July, and that further losses were sustained during the Cobra fighting at Coutances (pg 367). He reports it was built back up with the addition of 49th and 51st SS Panzergrenadier Brigades.

Nafziger: "The German order of Battle: Waffen SS and other units in WWII" tells us these formations were infantry formations and contained no tanks or assault guns. (Pg 134-135).


Again, I'm not too concerned that Von Rom never looked at the SS volume, but I clearly had, and anyone who does will see that the 17th SS had 34 Stugs in June, and never had an authorised strength above that sort of level. What troubles me is what happened in the absence of direct evidence. (or what happened when my evidence was ignored).

quote:

Von Rom
Using the GrossDeutchland PzGdr div as an example, then the 17th SS could have had up to 130 Armoured vehicles.


and

quote:

Clearly, between Sept 4-5 to Sept 27th, the 4th Armoured Divison encountered the following German units:

11th Pz Div - 176 AFVs (optimal)

111 Pz Brigade - 100 AFVs (optimal)

113th Pz Brigade - 100 AFVs (optimal)

15th PzGdr Div - 37 AFVs

3rd PzGdr Div - 37 AFVs

17th SS PzGdr Div - 130 AFVs (optimal)

2nd Pz Div - 130 Tanks and StuGs (optimal)

This total equals 710 AFVs.


The 17th SS was compared to another formation (GD), and with no direct evidence of it's actual strength, all 130 vehicles were counted.

The GrossDeustchland was a pretty unique unit. It's authorised strength at most times during the war was higher than any comparable German unit because of it's unique and elite status (it was the equivalent of the British Guards, say). It usually had a full Panzer Regiment, when other Pzgr formations would often just have carried a battalion of tanks on strength. At times the GD Panzer regiment also carried 3 Btns, which was pretty unique for the mid war German Army which was settling on a two battalion Regimental structure because of lack of tanks.

Now, to compare the 17th SS to the GrossDeustchland is difficult to justify as it is. What disturbed me, is that in the book I know Von Rom did have, there are the best part of 20 Panzergrenadier formations listed. These (with the odd exception such as GD and the Brandenburg PZGR Divison) all have the standard structure. However, 17th SS has been compared to the "example" of GD, rather than the mass of divisons listed which carry much smaller strengths. I know Von Rom knows these strengths because he quotes 3rd and 15th PGD tank strengths (correctly) as in the mid thirties (about standard).

In other words, trying to prove there were lots of tanks in Lorraine, and unable to show 17th SS had any, he compares it to the largest PGD he can find (without warning us it's strengths are higher than any other he has seen) and then lists that figure. He then takes this risky (and flawed) conjecture and quotes it in a further argument without qualification:

quote:

Von Rom
17th SS PzGdr Div - 130 AFVs (optimal)


To have my arguments roundly dismissed on the basis of research like this is unfair, and disturbing. Forum readers who do not know about 17th SS or the GrossDeutschland could have taken this seriously if I had said nothing. For the record, I repeat, 17th SS had an authorised (or optimal if you prefer ) tank strength around 100 less than the GrossDeutschland. (130 doesn't actually do some GD OOBs justice, as it misses out some self propelled Tank destroyers and assault guns (which we've been counting thus far), the real figure was sometimes as high as 170).

Taken with the other reasons above, it's time to bring my and Von Rom's "debate" to an end. I fully accept half the responsibility for the banality that this thread has become. I apologise to anyone (particularly Kev "no patton" Nugly) whose thread I've helped ruin.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 185
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 2:07:01 AM   
Error in 0


Posts: 236
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Taken with the other reasons above, it's time to bring my and Von Rom's "debate" to an end. I fully accept half the responsibility for the banality that this thread has become. I apologise to anyone (particularly Kev "no patton" Nugly) whose thread I've helped ruin.

Regards,
IronDuke


You know, even in all the madness threads like this produce, there is so much I learn. So dont worry, IronDuke.


JT

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 186
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 2:22:57 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom



You know Ironduke, I am truly amazed over what you wrote above.

I simply can't comprehend you actually believe what you just wrote. . .



All the facts and figures are there for anyone to see for themselves. . .



I'm stunned. . .


LOL! Now, that's a losing argument if I ever saw one!


Well, a buddy of Ironduke's. . .

What a surprise.

Say, shouldn't you be busy designing scearios?

_____________________________


(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 187
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 2:24:14 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Now maybe that's a clue as to why a few of us have started to put Von Rom on our 'block' lists

Expect another one shortly


I've beat you to it

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 188
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 2:25:58 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

LOL! Now, that's a losing argument if I ever saw one!


You do know that you are now going to be accused of being in connivance with IronDuke, of being his secretary and of flawed argumentation, don't you?



Feeling paranoid are you?

Or are you just trying to get in the last word

_____________________________


(in reply to a19999577)
Post #: 189
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 2:34:28 AM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
Now that's a comeback!

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 190
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 2:41:49 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

to Anyone still reading this banality (for which I fully accept half the blame)

Before we upset the Moderator again, (who has far better things to do than watch all this) I think it is time to bring a halt to this. I wanted to explain why. I will no longer reply to Von Rom (joining several others) and will use four brief points from this argument to illustrate why. This stands as my last word for those who want to understand why, so they don't have to accept any other reason that is put forward for it on my behalf.

Point One: fairness

Von Rom said:

quote:

von Rom
He (Kev) questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.


quote:

Von Rom
From 20 to 25 September, the Fifth Panzer Army directed the 111th Panzer Brigade and the 11th Panzer Division into a series of attacks against the Arracourt position. Each assault followed the pattern set on 19 September. The Panzers attacked under the cover of morning fog, only to be thwarted by CCA's mobile defense and driven off by armored counterattacks of company or battalion strength. The defensive actions fought around Arracourt stalled the German offensive. The 4th Armored Division claimed 281 German tanks destroyed, 3,000 Germans killed, and another 3,000 taken prisoner in the fighting.


quote:

Von Rom
There were a series of battles between Third Army and German forces between Sept 18-19 to Sept 28-30, 1944 that resulted in some of the biggest armoured battles on the western front.


quote:

Von Rom
More than 60 years later, the number of German armoured vehicles destroyed by Third Army's 4th Armoured Division in Lorraine has never been disputed.

At the end of the week-long battle, Combat Command A reported 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers lost but claimed 285 German tanks destroyed.


Von Rom set the terms of this argument. It was about the battle of Arracourt 18-30 Sept. I gave a very detailed analysis of tank strengths at Arracourt, and then it was all dismissed because in the next post.

quote:

Von Rom
Therefore, because your study has not been conducted thoroughly to include all German fighting units in Lorraine at the time, you research is FATALLY FLAWED and cannot stand.


and

quote:

Von Rom
because you have omitted from your study TWO FULL WEEKS of fighting


The argument has changed from 12 days at Arracourt to one about a month in Lorraine (see later in VR's post as well where tanks are counted if 4th Armoured met them between 4th Sept and 30th Sept). However, rather than say this, and let us debate this new topic, Von rom has used this unilateral change of argument to dismiss everything I've said. That isn't fair, and I won't argue against that sort of tactic. For Von Rom to say we're arguing about 18-30 Sept, and then say I am missing things out because I haven't mentioned stuff that happened before this is unfair. It isn't debate.

Secondly, logic.

quote:

Sorry to tell you but when tanks have NOT been destroyed, and if they are in the repair shops, those tanks remain a potential force in being.

Most histories I have read INCLUDE tanks that are in the repair shops. Read any good history of the Afrika Korps or in Normandy to find out how important it was to have good mechanics and to get tanks back into action quickly.

Dietrich personally awarded the Iron Cross to his mechanics because they continually worked miracles returning damaged tanks back to the battlefield.

Tanks in repair shops are NEVER excluded in totals of tanks available. All OOBs list ALL tanks that have not been destroyed, even those in the repair shops


We were arguing about the number of tanks 4th Armoured destroyed. I didn't count these repair shop vehicles because 4th Armoured couldn't destroy tanks that were not in action. If 4th Armoured couldn't see these tanks, how could they shoot them? That this argument in the quote above should be used indicates (and the problem may be mine, I'm happy to concede) that my thought processes and Von Rom's are too different to be able to debate each other. All we can do is upset the moderator.

Point three - something the moderator wouldn't let me describe

quote:

Von Rom
When you initially started your project, I pointed out to you that you didn't include EIGHT German fighting formations in your research. If I had not mentioned them to you, you would not have included them at all.


I addressed these eight formations twice in between the period Von Rom mentioned them the first time, and the time he posted this. I showed how they either didn't exist at the time of Arracourt, didn't fight at Arracourt, or had no tanks (all of which make them irrelevant to a discussion of German tank strength at Arracourt between 18-30th September).

To therefore make this comment, as if I had done something wrong, and was deliberately missing them out, having read my explanation is unfair. There are other words for it, but either the forum wouldn't let me post it, or the moderator would give me two weeks holiday if I used them.

Fourth: Research

quote:

17th SS PzGdr Div - this is listed in Kursitis (The Wehrmacht at War 1939-1945, p.264), but is not listed in Nafziger.

Using the GrossDeutchland PzGdr div as an example, then the 17th SS could have had up to 130 Armoured vehicles.


This is the worst one. This research is amongst the poorest I have seen, for reasons I will describe shortly. However, there may be times when I do not have the sources to check something Von Rom says. Rather than lose an argument because I can't check something, I'd rather not argue at all with him, because the standard of this research gives me no confidence I can take his research at face value without cross checking. I am particularly sorry about this one, because the forum is all about swapping opinions and research, but the context of this research was that my figures were being questioned and dismissed because of the alleged facts above. If I hadn't been been able to prove otherwise, they might have been accepted by other forum readers.

quote:

17th SS PzGdr Div - this is listed in Kursitis (The Wehrmacht at War 1939-1945, p.264), but is not listed in Nafziger.


Von Rom has recently started quoting from Nafziger, I would venture he consulted it in the last 24 hours after I used it several times in my piece.

Nafziger does list the 17th SS. However, he does it in a different volume to the one I'm guessing Von Rom read. I'm guessing he consulted "Panzers and Artillery in World War II" as he seems to quote Nafziger in connection with Panzergrenadier formations. The 17th SS are featured in "Waffen SS and other units in World War II". Now, I don't mind
someone not realising this. There are a lot of sources out there. In this instance, though, the comment was made after I had said

quote:

Again, not a single source mentions it in the Arracourt accounts. The combined arms Library suggests on 10th it was fighting the 5th US Division.

Niklas Zetterling: "Normandy 1944" tells us this unit had ten Stugs in a strength return dated 23 July, and that further losses were sustained during the Cobra fighting at Coutances (pg 367). He reports it was built back up with the addition of 49th and 51st SS Panzergrenadier Brigades.

Nafziger: "The German order of Battle: Waffen SS and other units in WWII" tells us these formations were infantry formations and contained no tanks or assault guns. (Pg 134-135).


Again, I'm not too concerned that Von Rom never looked at the SS volume, but I clearly had, and anyone who does will see that the 17th SS had 34 Stugs in June, and never had an authorised strength above that sort of level. What troubles me is what happened in the absence of direct evidence. (or what happened when my evidence was ignored).

quote:

Von Rom
Using the GrossDeutchland PzGdr div as an example, then the 17th SS could have had up to 130 Armoured vehicles.


and

quote:

Clearly, between Sept 4-5 to Sept 27th, the 4th Armoured Divison encountered the following German units:

11th Pz Div - 176 AFVs (optimal)

111 Pz Brigade - 100 AFVs (optimal)

113th Pz Brigade - 100 AFVs (optimal)

15th PzGdr Div - 37 AFVs

3rd PzGdr Div - 37 AFVs

17th SS PzGdr Div - 130 AFVs (optimal)

2nd Pz Div - 130 Tanks and StuGs (optimal)

This total equals 710 AFVs.


The 17th SS was compared to another formation (GD), and with no direct evidence of it's actual strength, all 130 vehicles were counted.

The GrossDeustchland was a pretty unique unit. It's authorised strength at most times during the war was higher than any comparable German unit because of it's unique and elite status (it was the equivalent of the British Guards, say). It usually had a full Panzer Regiment, when other Pzgr formations would often just have carried a battalion of tanks on strength. At times the GD Panzer regiment also carried 3 Btns, which was pretty unique for the mid war German Army which was settling on a two battalion Regimental structure because of lack of tanks.

Now, to compare the 17th SS to the GrossDeustchland is difficult to justify as it is. What disturbed me, is that in the book I know Von Rom did have, there are the best part of 20 Panzergrenadier formations listed. These (with the odd exception such as GD and the Brandenburg PZGR Divison) all have the standard structure. However, 17th SS has been compared to the "example" of GD, rather than the mass of divisons listed which carry much smaller strengths. I know Von Rom knows these strengths because he quotes 3rd and 15th PGD tank strengths (correctly) as in the mid thirties (about standard).

In other words, trying to prove there were lots of tanks in Lorraine, and unable to show 17th SS had any, he compares it to the largest PGD he can find (without warning us it's strengths are higher than any other he has seen) and then lists that figure. He then takes this risky (and flawed) conjecture and quotes it in a further argument without qualification:

quote:

Von Rom
17th SS PzGdr Div - 130 AFVs (optimal)


To have my arguments roundly dismissed on the basis of research like this is unfair, and disturbing. Forum readers who do not know about 17th SS or the GrossDeutschland could have taken this seriously if I had said nothing. For the record, I repeat, 17th SS had an authorised (or optimal if you prefer ) tank strength around 100 less than the GrossDeutschland. (130 doesn't actually do some GD OOBs justice, as it misses out some self propelled Tank destroyers and assault guns (which we've been counting thus far), the real figure was sometimes as high as 170).

Taken with the other reasons above, it's time to bring my and Von Rom's "debate" to an end. I fully accept half the responsibility for the banality that this thread has become. I apologise to anyone (particularly Kev "no patton" Nugly) whose thread I've helped ruin.

Regards,
IronDuke



Ironduke:

I thought we could have had an intelligent discussion.

Clearly, after reading your comments, you are simply too obtuse to deal with. And I am being kind in my remarks.

The fact that a few of your fanboys (the SAME ones every time) AGREE with you, makes me finally realize that facts mean nothing; you people are only interested in shutting down the debate if you can't win it.

The fact that your fanboys have to converge on this thread like a pack of vultures is testimony enough to how you deal with people; much like a pack of cowardly bullies trying to shut down an opinion you don't agree with; and an argument you can't win. . .

These are the same people who tried to shut me down, and drive me out of the Dietrich thread. . .

I've seen a lot of tactics used in my day, but at least I thought you were honourable.

But all you seem to practice is intimidation.

I'm not intimidated; just disgusted with you.

After what I read today, and after what I have seen from others here (the same people BTW), I have lost ALL respect for you.

Frankly, I want nothing more to do with you and the handful of others here. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 191
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 3:15:35 AM   
JJKettunen


Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Ironduke:

I thought we could have had an intelligent discussion.

Clearly, after reading your comments, you are simply too obtuse to deal with. And I am being kind in my remarks.

The fact that a few of your fanboys (the SAME ones every time) AGREE with you, makes me finally realize that facts mean nothing; you people are only interested in shutting down the debate if you can't win it.

The fact that your fanboys have to converge on this thread like a pack of vultures is testimony enough to how you deal with people; much like a pack of cowardly bullies trying to shut down an opinion you don't agree with; and an argument you can't win. . .

These are the same people who tried to shut me down, and drive me out of the Dietrich thread. . .

I've seen a lot of tactics used in my day, but at least I thought you were honourable.

But all you seem to practice is intimidation.

I'm not intimidated; just disgusted with you.

After what I read today, and after what I have seen from others here (the same people BTW), I have lost ALL respect for you.

Frankly, I want nothing more to do with you and the handful of others here. . .


Who's paranoic now?

Since we have never met before, I have to ask why, after you have lost a discussion, you try to convince some imaginary people, who supposedly read only the last posts of threads, with that kind of nonsense?

< Message edited by Keke -- 9/4/2004 3:21:02 AM >


_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 192
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 3:21:09 AM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline
Keke, that's a very sly sig you have there I like

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 193
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 4:11:11 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Ironduke:

I thought we could have had an intelligent discussion.

Clearly, after reading your comments, you are simply too obtuse to deal with. And I am being kind in my remarks.

The fact that a few of your fanboys (the SAME ones every time) AGREE with you, makes me finally realize that facts mean nothing; you people are only interested in shutting down the debate if you can't win it.

The fact that your fanboys have to converge on this thread like a pack of vultures is testimony enough to how you deal with people; much like a pack of cowardly bullies trying to shut down an opinion you don't agree with; and an argument you can't win. . .

These are the same people who tried to shut me down, and drive me out of the Dietrich thread. . .

I've seen a lot of tactics used in my day, but at least I thought you were honourable.

But all you seem to practice is intimidation.

I'm not intimidated; just disgusted with you.

After what I read today, and after what I have seen from others here (the same people BTW), I have lost ALL respect for you.

Frankly, I want nothing more to do with you and the handful of others here. . .


Who's paranoic now?

Since we have never met before, I have to ask why, after you have lost a discussion, you try to convince some imaginary people, who supposedly read only the last posts of threads, with that kind of nonsense?



keke:

Both you and Ironduke bring absolute discredit upon the game Battlefields by your poor and childish conduct.

I have not lost any discussion over 4th Armoured.

There has been NO discussion.

Ironduke knew he was in trouble, he simply ignored the facts I presented, posted a bunch of nonsense, and then his fanboys showed up on schedule to shut down the debate. Just like a pack of wolves. . .

I have not answered any of Ironduke's posts simply because they are complete NONSENSE!

Have you actually read what I wrote in this debate?

What I found out about 4th Armoured (the fact that it counted those 281 tanks over a THREE WEEK period and not just during the Battle of Arracourt ) means that many of the historians are WRONG. I would have thought this would have been interesting to someone like yourself who designs scenarios and reads history.

Ironduke wrongly calculated those 281 tanks only during the Battle of Arracourt. The fault is not his; I didn't know better myself until I found that new info.

Like I said, I have loss ALL respect for Ironduke for pulling such a cheap and under-handed trick.

What has occurred is a typical "bullying" proceedure I have seen happen time and time again here. And it is carried out by the same handful of cowardly people.

I am surprised how Matrix could allow something like this to continue for such a long period of time.

Bullies are just cowards; they travel in packs because they can't face others on their own two feet. So welcome to the pack. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/4/2004 2:31:38 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 194
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 4:22:38 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Now that's a comeback!


Your actions, and those of Ironduke, are reminding me more and more about why I will NOT be buying Battlefields.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/4/2004 2:24:47 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JJKettunen)
Post #: 195
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 4:32:01 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
The savvy consumer buys games on their merits, not because of forum disagreements.

Lets quit withthe sarcasm and snide remarks all around, shall we?

< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 9/3/2004 9:43:30 PM >

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 196
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 5:02:07 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

The savvy consumer buys games on their merits, not because of forum disagreements.

Lets quit withthe sarcasm and snide remarks all around, shall we?



When scenario designers like Keke carry signatures like they do, I will make my buying decisions the way I please.

Frankly, I am shocked at how Matrix has allowed a handful of people to intimidate and bully people in a thread, especially from those who are working on their games

If I have said anything to people they dislike, it is because they have attacked me first. And they know it. And they have attacked me in groups. It has always been 3-4 people vs myself. And it's always the SAME people.

It is like a pack of cowardly bullies.

I have been a member in good standing in this community for over 4 years; almost since its beginning. And not once since that time have I ever complained to the administration.

Isn't it interesting that this all starts now, and only when certain people have been involved

Anyway, I am going to remove myself from this forum as of today.

Now I know why many of the old gang are gone; they have been replaced by a handful of cowardly bullies.

And I will be spending my money elsewhere. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/4/2004 3:06:51 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 197
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 5:26:22 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
No, those who think they can snidely get away with "provoke and tattle" tactics and then try to turn it around and blame everyone else when they are at least 50% culpable. None of "this" would have happened if you didn't start spamming the mods with complaints about behavior you brought on yourself. All you have to is ignore it, be a bit more civil yourself and -the problem would go away.

It takes two to tango and if you can't take it when you spread it around you have only yourself to blame.

You have provided valuable contributions, but have an attitide that attracts a certain snideness in response.

You are free to do as you wish, and others are free to read the thread and judge for themselves if your leaving in a huff is victemization or sour grapes.

< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 9/3/2004 10:29:47 PM >

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 198
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 5:36:17 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

No, those who think they can snidely get away with "provoke and tattle" tactics and then try to turn it around and blame everyone else when they are at least 50% culpable. None of "this" would have happened if you didn't start spamming the mods with complaints about behavior you brought on yourself. All you have to is ignore it, be a bit more civil yourself and -the problem would go away.

It takes two to tango and if you can't take it when you spread it around you have only yourself to blame.

You have provided valuable contributions, but have an attitide that attracts a certain snideness in response.

You are free to do as you wish, and others are free to read the thread and judge for themselves if your leaving in a huff is victemization or sour grapes.


Frankly, you have a lot of nerve writing that, Paul.

My "snide" remarks?

Nothing like taking sides, eh?

Especially, when 5 people can hurl abuse on me all they want. . .

I give respect to people if they show me respect.

It was I who was attacked first in all instances. I then returned what they initially dished out.

And those people know that.

It's been me vs the same FIVE people. Fair and balanced, right?

In the Dietrich thread I was hounded post after post. Have you even bothered to read what went on in that thread? Or are you in agreement with those people?

Look at Keke's signature - you allow that sort of thing???

Clearly, those handful of people are expressing what the administraton is allowing them to express. . .

Man, thank goodness I'm leaving here. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/4/2004 3:46:08 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 199
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 5:42:43 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
Hmm, your first post on this thread is:

quote:

I know, let's have a thread titled: The best German Commanders in WW2, but we must leave out von Manstein.

Well boys, have fun

LoL


Followed by:

quote:

THE BEST ALLIED COMMANDER:


Wait for it. . .


GENERAL GEORGE PATTON





THen...

quote:

What?

And miss out on all the fun

Say, would you like me to post a list here of all the German Generals who praised Patton?


and

quote:

LOL

No, you go ahead and get some sleepy time.

And dream about reading thousands of pages of court documents. . .



That is what in general parlance is called "Trolling". No one provoked you. You have an attitude problem.

You are welcome here if you get the chip off your shoulder.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 200
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 5:51:43 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

Hmm, your first post on this thread is:

quote:

I know, let's have a thread titled: The best German Commanders in WW2, but we must leave out von Manstein.

Well boys, have fun

LoL


Followed by:

quote:

THE BEST ALLIED COMMANDER:


Wait for it. . .


GENERAL GEORGE PATTON





THen...

quote:

What?

And miss out on all the fun

Say, would you like me to post a list here of all the German Generals who praised Patton?


and

quote:

LOL

No, you go ahead and get some sleepy time.

And dream about reading thousands of pages of court documents. . .



That is what in general parlance is called "Trolling". No one provoked you. You have an attitude problem.

You are welcome here if you get the chip off your shoulder.


Well, I'm now developing an attitude problem with you.

Gee, I wonder why?

Well, I see you have taken the time to be as selective as some others here

When I posted that "Patton" post it was all in jest, and I told Kev it was in jest. And he knew it.

But you have some nerve selecting and posting that info.

Why not go through this thread and select all the abusive language that was initially hurled at me, eh?

Nope, you won't do that. . .

Man, I can't believe you.

Your actions now explain why Ironduke and Keke get away with what they do.

Don't worry, I'm leaving. You don't have to dig up stuff to ban me.

To think I actually had respect for you.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/4/2004 3:54:07 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 201
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/4/2004 5:59:52 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

Why not go through this thread and select all the abusive language that was initially hurled at me, eh?


Sorry, there IS NO "abusive language" directed at you amongst what I posted. You came in like a bull in a china shop and peole started rolling their eyes in response.

I'm not why you think you can pull this "I'm the poor victem" crap it the posts all out there for everyone to see.

I thought you were leaving?

Locking this up. And I'll help get you started on your vacation. You are welcome to return after a week of cooling off.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 202
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: 'No Patton' Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.180