StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

[Toxn]

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

My primary goal in such historical analysis is the truth. This case is especially interesting because a proper analysis is new to me and because it appears to be one of those beleaguered "myths".

It is exciting to know that certain people of the past were capable of such performance against impossible odds, in times, where individuals became but insignificant gears in the machinery of industrial warfare. It is very unfortunate that they gave their best for a perfide regime, but those are some of the finest feats in the recorded military history.

Okay, firstly this is slightly fetishistic and creepy. Secondly, what's your thesis here?

 

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

What is fiction is Körner alone and 100 kills. That is also what I deemed unbelievable, if you recall. German army never claimed that and the point of that article and Beer's post was to prove that it did, is therefore untrustworthy. I don't care what propaganda or post-war writers said. You can call them biased, but not the German army. Facts were wrongly interpreted but the core of the story is real = extraordinary damage dealt by a few tigers and that the actual claims are credible.

So Korner's claims are fiction, but the 'core' of the story is real and heroic. What's the core here? That a bunch of Nazi units inflicted losses on leading Soviet units (without holding up the advance in any way) and that some of these units had Tigers? That the losses were disproportionate over and above the amount expected by a force on the defensive operating out of prepared positions? 

 

What's the actual event that you're cheering for here?

[delete013]

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

 

wait a fucking second... 

 

 

 

what the fuck are you arguing then?!

Oh sorry, I was all wrong. Merely ~50 ko-ed IS-2 in the area where those 9 tigers and 5 stugs operated + unknown t-34s. But since nobody can attribute exact shell to each wreck, it is all fiction..

[Sturgeon]

11 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Oh sorry, I was all wrong. Merely ~50 ko-ed IS-2 in the area where those 9 tigers and 5 stugs operated + unknown t-34s. But since nobody can attribute exact shell to each wreck, it is all fiction..

 

Nobody can even place tanks in that area, dude.

[Sturgeon]

28 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Okay, firstly this is slightly fetishistic and creepy. Secondly, what's your thesis here?

 

So Korner's claims are fiction, but the 'core' of the story is real and heroic. What's the core here? That a bunch of Nazi units inflicted losses on leading Soviet units (without holding up the advance in any way) and that some of these units had Tigers? That the losses were disproportionate over and above the amount expected by a force on the defensive operating out of prepared positions? 

 

What's the actual event that you're cheering for here?

 

The Nazis killing people, obviously.

 

Typical boo shit.

[Sturgeon]

You really gotta wonder what sort of perversions lurk in the mind of someone who sees a bunch of lying Waffen SS fudging kill counts and thinks they're heroic.

[delete013]

13 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Nobody can even place tanks in that area, dude.

Why not? All those areas are a few km apart. This is explicitly refuted in the comments.

[Sturgeon]

38 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Why not? All those areas are a few km apart. This is explicitly refuted in the comments.

 

You've demonstrated, so far, a complete inability to actually comprehend what you're reading, so pardon me as I laugh my butt off.

 

 

 

[delete013]

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

Okay, firstly this is slightly fetishistic and creepy. Secondly, what's your thesis here?

Don't judge facts with political orientation.

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

So Korner's claims are fiction, but the 'core' of the story is real and heroic. What's the core here? That a bunch of Nazi units inflicted losses on leading Soviet units (without holding up the advance in any way) and that some of these units had Tigers? That the losses were disproportionate over and above the amount expected by a force on the defensive operating out of prepared positions? 

Sigh, one more time. Körner claimed less than what was attributed to him later. But his claim is still big and fits in the Soviet loss numbers. Read the comments again, all bits are there.

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

What's the actual event that you're cheering for here?

Crew and vehicle performance.

[Korvette]

35 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Don't judge facts with political orientation.

Sigh, one more time. Körner claimed less than what was attributed to him later. But his claim is still big and fits in the Soviet loss numbers. Read the comments again, all bits are there.

Crew and vehicle performance.

[Sturgeon]

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

Crew and vehicle performance.

 

Nazi crews. Nazi vehicles. Performance you admit is fabricated.

 

Doesn't stop you. I wonder why.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

9 hours ago, Beer said:

I wonder what's the point of this obsession with propaganda-driven made-up stats of several individuals leaving the other millions of common German soldiers looking like a useless inept crowd. That applies twice more if those individuals are hardcore nazi from SS. That's not only weird but also rather sick fetish. 

 

 

 

Yeah, it makes you wonder if the pages of his Jentz books are stuck together.  It would explain why he seems so ignorant, hard to read pages stuck together with...  

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

9 hours ago, delete013 said:

My primary goal in such historical analysis is the truth. This case is especially interesting because a proper analysis is new to me and because it appears to be one of those beleaguered "myths".

It is exciting to know that certain people of the past were capable of such performance against impossible odds, in times, where individuals became but insignificant gears in the machinery of industrial warfare. It is very unfortunate that they gave their best for a perfide regime, but those are some of the finest feats in the recorded military history.

 

 

Trusting Nazis is no way to get to the truth, numbnuts. 

[TokyoMorose]

15 hours ago, delete013 said:

Full capacity of the production model was 84. Without rear turret stock, 68. Plus what they can store elsewhere. Plus what others can give him. Better go back to sleep.

 

Considering the treat, they likely put more AP shells that HE. But unless we have some testimony, I can't say for sure.

 

The report doesn't say that there were no other causes. But enough to get mentioned. Smth which very likely happened considering the availability and reliance of WAllies on artillery. This artillery was mostly indirect l that rarely hit the vehicle directly. Hence, k.o. is a matter of interpretation. Mobility kill, I guess.

Almost all failed German armoured attacks that Americans casually attribute to their skill and tanks were stopped this way. With many many many artillery shells (or by CAS). This usually had two important effects, destruction or retreat of German infantry and damaging of tanks. After the artillery finished, US tanks and infantry shot up what was left on the field. This includes a lot of immobilised and abandoned vehicles then appearing as kill claims, which is understandable. The only direct fire unit that likely did destroy many manned German tanks were TDs, because they were a dedicated defensive weapon with a single task of waiting in the back for panzer breakthroughs and placed on potential venues of attacks.

 

For one the turret stock is 22 - which both the official documents and captured examples show, 2 racks of 11. Furthermore, while the official claim was 86 (where in gods' name did you get 84?) rounds stowed - examination of actual, captured field issue tanks shows that the standard fitting was in fact 70. It would seem that not all of the official racks were actually issued, probably for ergonomic reasons. And yes, I will happily take what was found issued in tanks over what they say they will have issued any day.

 

15 hours ago, delete013 said:

Considering the treat, they likely put more AP shells that HE. But unless we have some testimony, I can't say for sure.

 

TO&E doesn't magically change based on short-notice intel, and the German intelligence apparatus was notoriously insufficient in any case. How would this German unit *know* they were about to get slammed by nothing but armor and not some other mix of forces, and thus load only AP?

 

15 hours ago, delete013 said:

The report doesn't say that there were no other causes. But enough to get mentioned. Smth which very likely happened considering the availability and reliance of WAllies on artillery. This artillery was mostly indirect l that rarely hit the vehicle directly. Hence, k.o. is a matter of interpretation. Mobility kill, I guess.

Almost all failed German armoured attacks that Americans casually attribute to their skill and tanks were stopped this way. With many many many artillery shells (or by CAS). This usually had two important effects, destruction or retreat of German infantry and damaging of tanks. After the artillery finished, US tanks and infantry shot up what was left on the field. This includes a lot of immobilised and abandoned vehicles then appearing as kill claims, which is understandable. The only direct fire unit that likely did destroy many manned German tanks were TDs, because they were a dedicated defensive weapon with a single task of waiting in the back for panzer breakthroughs and placed on potential venues of attacks.

 

How do you propose that the artillery managed to penetrate the drive sprocket covering the final drive housing and the final drive housing itself without also penetrating the sides of the tank and causing more direct issues? The total LOS thickness on the sides to strike the final drives is roughly 40mm thick give or take a few mm. And from the front, it'd have to penetrate both the track and the housing for a pretty similar LoS.

 

You also seem, in your wanking of frontal armor here, to wantonly ignore Hoak directly whining in the report that the armor was frequently penetrated by anti-tank *and* tank fire. While simultaneously 100% trusting him that it was totally the arty that blew up his final drives.

[Sturgeon]

9 hours ago, delete013 said:

My primary goal in such historical analysis is the truth.

 

Some genuine fucking advice, mate. The Americans lied all the time. The Soviets lied all the time. This does not mean that the reality is "actually our side is the liar culture and their side was the truth culture". Everyone fucking lied. Every society in the 20th Century (and many other centuries, but especially that one and this one), had a penchant for lies.

Just because the Americans lied about My Lai does not mean the Nazis didn't lie about kill counts. Or Auschwitz, and be careful how close one takes you to the other.

The key to becoming a good historian, speaking as someone who frankly is a pretty decent one, is to recognize lies. And you're not looking at truth, with this Korner dude.

[Toxn]

 

Quote

Sigh, one more time. Körner claimed less than what was attributed to him later. But his claim is still big and fits in the Soviet loss numbers. Read the comments again, all bits are there.

That's not a thesis, it's a vague wish. What do you think actually happened? The Nazi account has tigers ambushing a huge force of IS-2s and T-34s as they mass for an assault on the morning of 19 April 1945, in the area around Bellersdorf. Then, later in the day ("late afternoon"), the same force is attacked by "around 30" T-34s and then mauls that attack as well.

 

Meanwhile, the Soviet forces in the area have them pressing an advance over the previous few days, then overrunning the position on the 19th. They don't seem to notice the Tigers operating in the area, and it doesn't slow them down at all.

 

Now the second account is obviously true in terms of movement and casualties - you simply can't lie about your own movements and losses on an ongoing basis (such as a unit diary) without it becoming really obvious at some point. So the question becomes about how you can reconcile the contradiction of a unit taking a mauling that should have stopped their advance dead versus the unit itself neither stopping or noticing that they were the targets of special attention by an enemy heavy tank unit.

 

As I've said, you don't seem to have laid out a coherent thesis at all here, so the following is simply my first impression. But from where I stand the most likely account is that Nazi tiger 2s were operating more or less in the area (a few got knocked out in the process, it seems), did a day's work for a heavy tank unit on the defensive, and then came home to have their exploits bundled up for propaganda purposes while the position itself got overrun.

[delete013]

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

Meanwhile, the Soviet forces in the area have them pressing an advance over the previous few days, then overrunning the position on the 19th. They don't seem to notice the Tigers operating in the area, and it doesn't slow them down at all.

Not exactly. 18.-20. April Soviets gradually push Germans over Strausberg, which is where the last natural obstacle before Berlin is. In the process they suffer the biggest losses in the battle for Berlin but don't know what exactly is causing this (AT guns and Panzerfausts are mentioned and the inspection of wrecks shows mostly kinetic projectiles. Soviets claim one Tiger B).

 

Quote

"An account of events on 19 April 1945 from after-action reports of 12 Guards Tank Corps and subordinate tank brigades:

12 Guards Tank Corps:by 18.00 19 April 49 Guards Tank Brigade has captured Prädikow and started a battle for Prötzel. 48 Guards Tank Brigade captured Reichenberg and Ihlow then followed behind 49 GTBr. 66 Guards Tank Brigade and 34 Guards Motor Rifle Brigade after a short artillery barrage took Grunow. West of Grunow enemy was holding a strongly fortified position with antitank weapons. An attempt to attack it without preparation and a shallow flanking maneuver failed with heavy casualties. On 19 April the corps lost 25 T-34 destroyed and 27 damaged, 3 IS-122 and 2 SU-76 damaged, total 57 AFVs. Personnel losses – 75 men killed and 227 wounded. Most losses suffered in failed attack west of Grunow. In the early morning of 20 April the corps started a march to Tiefensee bypassing the Grunow area from the north.

48 Guards Tank Brigade: by 11.00 Reichenberg is captured, then Ihlow is taken after a brief combat. Advancing with 49 GTBr the brigade reached a western edge of a grove west of Ihlow. 2 Tank Battalion with replacement tank joined the brigade at Ihlow at 13.30. Then the brigade advanced to Grunow. A strong defense position with many tanks and mortars was met on the eastern edge of a grove north-east of Grunow. Brigade’s loses at Grunow – 17 tanks destroyed and 2 damaged, 12 men killed and 73 wounded. One German “Tiger” tank is claimed (the only mention of Tigers I can find)

49 Guards Tank Brigade – Ihlow is taken in the morning, then an advance to Prädikow. A 7-hour long battle for Prädikow, heavy losses due to lacking infantry support. Prädikow is fully taken at 17.00 The brigade reached Prötzel meeting a fortified position and anti-tank obstacles there. An attempt to outflank Prötzel failed due to obstacles in a forest. By 22.00 the brigade is on a edge of a forest 2 km south-east of Prötzel. In the night – reconnaissance and search for bypass routes. Losses during the day – 16 men killed and 36 wounded, 4 tanks destroyed and 6 damaged.

66 Guards Tank Brigade – 35 tanks operational on evening of 18 April. During the night and morning of 19 April the brigade is fighting for Reichenberg in cooperation with 49 GTBr, 34 Guards Motor Brigade and 79 Guards Heavy Tank Regiment. After Reichenberg is captured the brigade pursues to the south-West meeting mines and fire from German rearguards. Especially intense resistance at Grunow which was an important road hub. Grunow is taken on the evening of 19 April. 30 tank operational. "

Notice this is an indirect proof. As is with most historical records is none of this 100% facts. It is impossible to pin each loss to its source, but the reduction of causes based on unit location and equipment, the most probable explanation is provided.

 

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

As I've said, you don't seem to have laid out a coherent thesis at all here, so the following is simply my first impression. But from where I stand the most likely account is that Nazi tiger 2s were operating more or less in the area (a few got knocked out in the process, it seems), did a day's work for a heavy tank unit on the defensive, and then came home to have their exploits bundled up for propaganda purposes while the position itself got overrun.

503 wasn't overrun, it retreated into Berlin.

This isn't my thesis, it is all the work of critical mass. He is the real deal, not some amateur like me.

[delete013]

8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Some genuine fucking advice, mate. The Americans lied all the time. The Soviets lied all the time. This does not mean that the reality is "actually our side is the liar culture and their side was the truth culture". Everyone fucking lied. Every society in the 20th Century (and many other centuries, but especially that one and this one), had a penchant for lies.

Just because the Americans lied about My Lai does not mean the Nazis didn't lie about kill counts. Or Auschwitz, and be careful how close one takes you to the other.

The key to becoming a good historian, speaking as someone who frankly is a pretty decent one, is to recognize lies. And you're not looking at truth, with this Korner dude.

I never said everyone else lied. There is a good reason why I do not accept the available versions of Arracourt. The thesis you posted has a major flaw, it lacks cross checking and is based almost entirely on claims. It has nothing to do with actual US performance there. Maybe it was one of the best in war, who knows. No serious historian or military analyst takes German or any other claims at face value. You guys start the discussion with the conviction of German official sources being Nazi propaganda and proceed with proving it as if it was countering holocaust denial. Not a very sporty behaviour and certainly not in the spirit of military ethos.

[David Moyes]

 

[Lord_James]

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

(AT guns and Panzerfausts are mentioned and the inspection of wrecks shows mostly kinetic projectiles. Soviets claim one Tiger B).

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

AT guns... are mentioned and the inspection of wrecks shows mostly kinetic projectiles. 

There appears to be an additional variable that you are willfully ignoring... 

 

 

Also, you say to “doubt the claims”, yet you take the CLAIM that the soviets knocked out a Tiger B, at face value. Cherry-picking? 

[Toxn]

5 hours ago, delete013 said:

Not exactly. 18.-20. April Soviets gradually push Germans over Strausberg, which is where the last natural obstacle before Berlin is. In the process they suffer the biggest losses in the battle for Berlin but don't know what exactly is causing this (AT guns and Panzerfausts are mentioned and the inspection of wrecks shows mostly kinetic projectiles. Soviets claim one Tiger B).

 

Notice this is an indirect proof. As is with most historical records is none of this 100% facts. It is impossible to pin each loss to its source, but the reduction of causes based on unit location and equipment, the most probable explanation is provided.

 

503 wasn't overrun, it retreated into Berlin.

This isn't my thesis, it is all the work of critical mass. He is the real deal, not some amateur like me.

How is any of this incompatible with my supposition? Surely the Occam's razor approach would dictate that, if there were plenty of other Nazi forces in the area and the Soviets were not aware of taking losses from tanks, that the losses were mostly not from Nazi tanks?

 

How do you square pinning all these losses on this one unit? Did the rest of the army just sit back for the day, while the Soviet tankers inexplicably started blaming panzerfausts for 88mm shell hits? And how does the Soviet diary not notice that their concentration point got sniped, and that the scouting party that they sent in later in the day apparently all had T-34s?

[delete013]

58 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

There appears to be an additional variable that you are willfully ignoring... 

Which one?

 

58 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

Also, you say to “doubt the claims”, yet you take the CLAIM that the soviets knocked out a Tiger B, at face value. Cherry-picking? 

I didn't! 503 admits to the loss. This is just another indicator that tigers were there.

 

1 minute ago, Toxn said:

How is any of this incompatible with my supposition? Surely the Occam's razor approach would dictate that, if there were plenty of other Nazi forces in the area and the Soviets were not aware of taking losses from tanks, that the losses were mostly not from Nazi tanks?

There weren't any other AT guns in the area beside 9 tigers and 5 stugs! 

 

1 minute ago, Toxn said:

How do you square pinning all these losses on this one unit? Did the rest of the army just sit back for the day, while the Soviet tankers inexplicably started blaming panzerfausts for 88mm shell hits? And how does the Soviet diary not notice that their concentration point got sniped, and that the scouting party that they sent in later in the day apparently all had T-34s?

They didn't inflict all the losses of Hgr. Weichsel, but lions share. With Stugs, they were the only AT cannon-equipped unit in the area. There was nobody else to do that job there.

 

Soviets had several failed attacks, not just recce attempt. tankarchives is wrong here and critical mass provides overview based on combat reports.

 

Because of tremendous concentration of forces were Sovietstl delayed only for a few days. One doesn't need three days to get from Grünow to Berlin. Soviets had 120 IS-2 before Strausberg! Plus T-34 and assault guns.

 

Come on lads, I'm repeating myself.

[Lord_James]

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

Come on lads, I'm repeating myself.

So are we, mate... 
 

But, for my own sanity, what point are you trying to prove? From my perspective: everyone but you is arguing that korner’s kills are exaggerated. 

[Sturgeon]

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

Come on lads, I'm repeating myself.

 

Yes you seem very focused on collecting as much of Korner's ball-sweat as possible.

[TokyoMorose]

On 4/23/2021 at 9:00 AM, delete013 said:

Which one?

 

I didn't! 503 admits to the loss. This is just another indicator that tigers were there.

 

There weren't any other AT guns in the area beside 9 tigers and 5 stugs! 

 

They didn't inflict all the losses of Hgr. Weichsel, but lions share. With Stugs, they were the only AT cannon-equipped unit in the area. There was nobody else to do that job there.

 

Soviets had several failed attacks, not just recce attempt. tankarchives is wrong here and critical mass provides overview based on combat reports.

 

Because of tremendous concentration of forces were Sovietstl delayed only for a few days. One doesn't need three days to get from Grünow to Berlin. Soviets had 120 IS-2 before Strausberg! Plus T-34 and assault guns.

 

Come on lads, I'm repeating myself.

 

See, I get the feeling that just like Critical Mass - you only read bits and pieces.

 

If you read the whole comment chain, there were other units that likely had AT guns attached - in particular the Norge PanzerGren regiment. Which does have organic AT in their TO&E, and probably had supplementary AT attached (largely because as the German army slowly disintegrated, attaching stragglers from wiped out units to surviving ones was extremely common.)

 

Also I highly doubt that with over 600 panzerfaust in the area, that they did little damage. Soviets spend time whining about panzerfausts, and we know from German records that about 1,300-,1400 men armed with at least 600 panzerfausts were in the area. The whole crux of the argument rests on the soviets saying "projectile impact" - but who is to say the local Soviet commander didn't count Panzerfausts as projectiles? They certainly are projectiles.

[delete013]

16 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

See, I get the feeling that just like Critical Mass - you only read bits and pieces.

 

If you read the whole comment chain, there were other units that likely had AT guns attached - in particular the Norge PanzerGren regiment. Which does have organic AT in their TO&E, and probably had supplementary AT attached (largely because as the German army slowly disintegrated, attaching stragglers from wiped out units to surviving ones was extremely common.)

 

Also I highly doubt that with over 600 panzerfaust in the area, that they did little damage. Soviets spend time whining about panzerfausts, and we know from German records that about 1,300-,1400 men armed with at least 600 panzerfausts were in the area. The whole crux of the argument rests on the soviets saying "projectile impact" - but who is to say the local Soviet commander didn't count Panzerfausts as projectiles? They certainly are projectiles.

Sure, they did also damage, just not likely so much. The "projectile" category alone would be dubious but not if there is a separate category of hand held AT weapons!

Quote

Tank losses to Faust in 2nd GTA and 5th SA during the whole Berlin operation were few. The 11th Heavy GTBr, f.e. did not report any losses to Faustpatr. Losses listed under "Anti tank gun" or "artillery" includes tank guns and is better charakterised as "losses to projectile hits", therefore it is entirely justified to consider TIGER beeing responsible for tank kills in such instances.

 

Quote

It´s possible that the latter [Norge] had a few 37mm or 50mm ATG.

Not the most convincing AT asset. It is clear that tigers and perhaps those stugs had by far the best chances of destroying armour. From Strausberg, tigers had a nice view of the area. The type of tanks was made for such dueling.

I read again. It seems pretty bulletproof analysis. Not 100%, for sure, but as high as the best ww2 records can give.