Igorn wrote:Let’s avoid emotions and would stick to facts.
No emotion on my side, except laughter at your inability to comprehend simply declaritive statements.
1. Were the Pz-35 (t) and Pz-38 (t) booty Czech tanks used in German service on the eastern front?
2. Does German Army during Citadel (e.g. 20.P.D) used Pz-38 (t) booty Czech tanks?
3. Were these Pz-38 (t) booty Czech tanks recorded ?
4. Does the (t) stands for Czech origin of this vehicle?
5. Why one counts (r), (e), (f) but ignores (t)?
Such as this. But I'll try one more time, and keep it as simple as possible for you.
1) Pz-35 (t) and Pz-38 (t) were used extensively by the German Army as tanks, through 1943. In the Lage recorded 12 January 1944, the following still were listed (total of operational plus those in repair):
HG-A, 17 A:
Rum.-Geb.-K. - 11
Rum. Kav.-K. - 30
HG-Sued, 4 PzA:
8. Pz.-Div. - 1
Eisb.Pz.-Zug 31 - 2
HG-Mitte, 2 A:
110 Inf.-Div. - 1
Korueck 559 - 2
3 PzA:
20. Pz.-Div. 5
G-Nord, 16 A:
Eisb.Pz.-Zug 51 - 2
Ob.West, LVIII Pz.-K.:
155 Res.Pz.-Div. - 1
Grand Total 55
2) With regards to Zitadelle, they are also clearly shown. The Lage for 10 July reports the 9 with 20. Pz.-Div., 3 with 8.Pz.-Div., 1 with 72 Inf.-Div.; there were no others with HG-Mitte and none with HG-Sued, although the Romainians had 45 with HG-A.
3) Yes, but they were not booty tanks.
4) Yes.
5) Because that is the way they were designated by the Germans. It would make as much sense to refer to tanks produced by Nibelungenwerke in Austria as (o) Beutepanzer.
(snip) Beutepanzer were reported in the Beutepanzerlage prepared by OKH. Unfortunately most of those reports are missing or were not microfilmed. In the sole extant copy I have found the listing for Beutepanzer included:
Somua 35 (f) and Befehl
Hotchkiss 38 (and 39, but the Germans rarely distinguuished the two)
Renault 17/18, B1, B2, Flamm, R35
Mark 1 and II (British)
T26, T34, T60, T70, KV I, KV II
MG (?), Funk-Sp.Wg.
The last is interesting in that the Germans usually recorded Lage by vehicle class, Panzer, Pz.-Spah., SPW, StuG, Stuh, PzJg, and so on. Unfortunately most of the individual Lage for types weren't microfilmed or are no longer extant, so it is impossible to give complete counts by type. However, later (fall 1944) O.-Qu. Lage of weapons by front do include the various Beute types, so presumably they were counted.
The selective German count of tanks and SP guns does not change the bold historical fact that not all booty tanks were counted in the number provided by Hahn. The point that Germans forgot to include some tanks in the count of Deutsche Panzers does not change the historical fact that these “forgotten” tanks were applied by the German army.
So include the 13 that were missed. Otherwise, the 26 T-34 are counted. AFA the other types on the Ostfront, as of 31 May there were a grand total of:
HG-A - 4 Renault B2 and 12 Flamm
2 A - ung.-Sich.-Div. 2 S35 (f) and 15 H38(f)
2 Pz (scattered amongst many formations) - 11 T34, 3 T70, 1 KV I, 5 MG, 6 Pz.-Spah.
Mitte (ditto) - 1 T26, 8 T34, 1 KV I, 1 KV II, 12 Pz.-Spah.
I see you like hostile emotional assumptions and misinterpretations? I didn’t mean you when I was saying about an ignorance of some vehicles in German service by some western authors like Hahn, Zetterling etc. and excluding them from the German strength on the eastern front.
No hostility on my part, simple amusement. And laughter at the pot calling the kettle black.
Yes, let’s be candid. Russian T-60 and T-70 were designed as light tanks. They were mostly used for reconnaissance, as convoy vehicles, in signal units and as artillery tractors for ZIS-2 antitank and ZIS-3 field guns. They were also used as commanders' tanks.
Nonsense, they were later used mostly for those purposes. At Kursk they were still being used as battle tanks, although it was their swan song. Otherwise, please explain how 100's of vehicles used for "reconnaissance, as convoy vehicles, in signal units and as artillery tractors" were destroyed in the battle?
(snip)Therefore I don’t buy your argument that Zetterling and some others should be excused for not including these tanks since much of the original German documentation leaves them out.
Then I suppose I shouldn't excuse you either for failing to know how many there were?
BTW, explaining why something
is is not "excusing" it, it's what's known as an explanation. And it is not an "argument" either.
If they really wanted to collect information about the exact number of these vehicles used in Citadel they could had found data in the original German overall armor status of the divisions as of 2 and 11 July 1943.
Uh, they did? But they missed the 9 Pz-38 (t). I don't know the how or why, so why don't you ask them? BTW, the "overall armor status" reports were Dekade reports and were as of the 10th, 20th, and 30th or 31st of the month, not "2 and 11 July".
I can tell you what it has to do. German Marder II, Marder III, StuG/StuH, Hornissen and Ferdinande as well as Russian SU-76, SU-122 and SU-152 SP guns participated in Citadel and were used in tank destroyer and self-propelled gun capacity. We are not arguing here combat effectiveness role and tactical peculiarities of Russian and German vehicles.
No, we are arguing what was and what was not included by Zetterling and why. You were the one that decided to draw an invalid comparison.
BTW, Hornissen
did not participate in Zitadelle in any function. They were not in the zone of the German attack and due to various teething problems were not considered operational. IIRC their first use was in opposing the Soviet counteroffensive,
which is outside the timeframe of Zetterling's study.
Re. apple to apple:
For German side only Ferdinande and StuG/StuH (not all that could be seen on the example of 9 StuH of 106. Infanterie Division) were counted by Mr. Zetterling. Marder II, Marder III and Hornissen were not counted by him for the German side.
To be frank, Zetterling may be correct and we wrong, or rather the KOSAVE study may be wrong, it will take a bit of digging to figure out which. Because you must first understand that the KDB tracked attachments withthe units they were attached to. So it is quite possible that through a mix-up the StuH with Kempf were counted twice on one day, I'll have to check on that. You see, Zetterlings count by unit
is correct AFAICT.
Marders were counted for the Panzer divisions by Zetterling, they were not counted for the infantry divisions, that was an effort that took some weeks to decypher, and I'm not sure to this day how correct we got it. And Hornissen were not counted, because they were not there, you've been told that repeatedly, do you honestly think anyone will believe you anymore simply because you repeat something over and over again?
(snip) Here what Velimir Vuksic in his book is saying about Marder II: “The 75mm Pak 40/2 antitank gun could penetrate the armor of Soviet medium tanks although its superstructure offered minimum protection. For that reason, the Marders should not have been used in the role of tanks. However, due to the high number of tank losses, the Marders were used as replacements.”
Source: Velimir Vuksic , SS Armor on the Eastern Front 1943-1945
Marder were never used as substitutes for Panzers, although at this time the reformed "Stalingrad" Panzer divisions (which did not participate in Zitadelle) did have a third battalion in the Panzer regiment equipped with StuG. That may be the source of his confusion.
Re. Hornissen/Nashorns:
From February of 1943 to March of 1945, only 474 Nashorns and 20 Hornisses were produced. Both models were issued to the schwere Panzerjager Abteilungens and
had their debut during the Kursk Offensive with 560 sPzJagAbt and 655th sPzJagAbt and with 525 sPzJagAbt in Italy. Even with their light armor protection and high silhoutte but powerful armament, they proved to be successful tank destroyers.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz2.htm
Sorry, but that is incorrect. I'll dig out the original unit reports if you like. Their actual "debut" was in the Soviet counteroffensive.
Remark concerning German documentation. It is interesting to see that when Rudolf Lehman in his Leibstandarte III provides German armor strength of the LAH, for example, as of 02.07.1943 he includes Pz II’s, Command Panzers, Motorized Pak Z, Self-propelled Pak, Sturmgeschuetze in the number of German available operational Panzers.
Your failure to comprehend simple concepts is remarkable. "Liebstandarte" is a
Panzer division, not an
Infanterie division. Both Lehman
and Zetterling identify them.
What part of "he didn't, except for the Panzer divisions" did you fail to understand?
What I want to say here that Marder II, Marder III as well as Grille were applied by Germans in Citadel and were recorded in German documentation. It depends on the willingness and aim of a particular researcher whether to dig for this information or excuse oneself by saying that it is not easy to understand and interpret German documentation.
Since you have obviously never seen any of the original documentation I doubt that you know what is and is not available in them. When you leave your cozy library and books behind and start digging into the actual records we can discuss your "willingness and aim" to dig for information.
Again, I am not disputing with you on the numbers of Marders you provided in your study I am disputing here Mr. Zetterling approach.
But in any case Zetterling did not give exact counts of the antitank guns, towed or self-propelled, since the documentation he was using did not give them.
Wow, you've almost got it! Z reported the figures in the documents he was able to access, if you understand that how can you "dispute" his "approach"? You on the other hand are able to access a "document" (the KOSAVE study) that he did not have access to. So you now think you know the correct numbers without knowing what went into getting them. I suggest you criticize after you learn what it takes to do such work instead of simply sitting in your chair grabbing books off the shelf.
I am not disputing that the main idea behind the design of Wespe and Hummel was to provide all mobile formations with proper and indirect artillery support. However, according to respected
http://www.achtungpanzer.com they carried armour-piercing ammunition in case of an encounter to engage enemy vehicles.
Wespe did as a HEAT round, but AFAIK there wasn't a HEAT round for the 15ck sFH? I'll have to check. But by the same criteria we have to count the SPW as well, since their MG carried "armor-piercing" rounds? And we of curse need to count any vehicle that carries a weapon with an armor-piercing round....so ZgKw with 2cm and 3.7cm AA guns are tanks by your definition....ad infinitum.
In any case, the numbers were given and correctly, you can count them however you like, since you are the one creating specious comparisons.
When Zetterling refers to the aggregates from Soviet sources it should be note that the Soviet sources always included SU-76, SU-122 and SU-152 in the Soviet armor strength in Kursk Battle, as an example one can check the official History of the World War 2 in 12 volumes published in 70s. It must be also noted that the Soviet sources always counted such German vehicles as Marder, Grille, StuG, Wespe, Hummel, Nashorn, Ferdinande as SP guns or assault guns and counted them accordingly.
That would be fine if anyone other than you was making specious comparisons. And where exactly does Zetterling conceal matters by claiming that his Soviet figures are anything other than exactly what they say they are "tanks and assault guns"? Does he state "these figures do not include SU-76 because I'm trying to irritate Igorn?"
As you played the role of Mr. Zetterling advocate I just pointed out that this author forgot to count these 9 StuH, which questions the overall accuracy of his count of the German tanks and SP guns during Citadel.
I'm nobody's advocate except my own. Zetterling counted the StuH in Kempf correctly, by unit, as I said before, he may be correct and we may be wrong, it'll take a day or so to get to the bottom of it.
Rich wrote:Let’s remember that Grille saw combat service in the tank-destroyer battalions of the Panzer and infantry divisions (e.g. Panzer Divisions of the SS Panzer Korps during Citadel). According to some Russian and western sources (e.g. Lopukhovsky or Restayn) this vehicle had better efficiency as a tank destroyer versus Soviet SU-122, for example, because of higher fire rate per minute and some other characteristics.
No, that simply is not correct, and never was correct. Either you have no clue what a Grille is, or you are utilizing fishy sources again. The Grille was an infantry support gun and was utilized exclusively in the Panzergrenadier regiments of Panzer divisions. They were never assigned to any "tank-destroyer battalions" either in Panzer or infantry divisions. And the weapon it mounted was a low-velocity 15cm howitzer, taking pot shots at tanks with it was a good way of getting killed. It did have a higher rate of fire than an SU-122 though, for a very good reason, it was completely open-topped and had light 10mm shielding for the crew.
If you think that Grille SP guns, which were used in tank destroyer capacity during Citadel, were counted by Mr. Zetterling I can just repeat my question. On which page of his book Mr. Zetterling informs his readers that Germans had during Citadel on the south 38 Grille self-propelled guns?
Sorry, but that is classic strawman and classic Igorn technique, you simultaneously create out of whole cloth an argument that was not made, insert an incorrect statement (Grille were
not used as tank destroyers during Zitadelle or any other time), and put words in my mouth.
I have already answered this one above. The bottom line that German Pz-I, Pz-II, S-35 (f). 38 (t) used in Citadel were not counted by Mr. Zetterling and many other western historians while when referring to the Soviet armor strength they counted all the light vehicles in the Soviet service.
Nine Pz-38 (t) of 20. Pz.-Div. were missed. Panzer-I were not counted because nowhere in the original German sources did they appear as tanks, we found them mentioned in LSSAH (IIRC), but I'm not even sure they were still armed. The Panzer-II were reported by Zetterling, but the numbers were inconsistantly reported, he inserted the line in his tables but when he wasn't sure what the quantity was he placed a "?" rather than making up numbers.
BTW, since I am one of those "western historians" you have been trying to use yourself, please stop referring to S-35 (f)
that were not there. I have already told you what they were and Zetterling also correctly identified them.
(snip)
your argument is on shakey ground, the T-60 and T-70 were designed as tanks, so presumably for "tank combat purposes". And they were most definitely utilized as tanks at Kursk, they formed their own companies in the tank battalions and brigades. OTOH, it could be easily argued that since in your example of the Pz-38 (t) they were no longer being used as tanks and were no longer part of the tank regiment or battalions of the division they were assigned to, that perhaps they shouldn't be counted. The same logic could be applied to the Pz-I and Pz-II, since they were not actually utilized as tanks either. OTOH, we did count them as tanks and probably would have done the same if our study had included the north and 20. Panzer. 
![:[]](./images/smilies/icon_study.gif "Study"){kind=icon}
). And I'm sure Igorn will decide this is a new conspiracy of some sort. 