Friday 22 January 2021

Accounting 101

 "Secret
Copy
18th Army Command
Operational Department
#5159/43
December 8th, 1943

Reports on the number of destroyed tanks

1. Precise reports on destroyed or knocked out tanks are of great importance for evaluating the combat strength of Russian tank units and estimation of success during defense. Not every hit on a tank destroys it. Reports need to differentiate:

  1. Destroyed tanks
  2. Knocked out tanks
  3. Tanks destroyed by the Luftwaffe
Tanks are counted as destroyed when they are disabled at our defensive lines or behind them.
Tanks are counted as destroyed if it's on fire, exploding, fell apart, or if the turret was knocked off. Tanks that can still drive away or move after being hit do not count.
2. Take note of the following:
  1. Prisoners report that the Russians burn smoke bombs to create the illusion of a burning tank (each tank carries 5-6 bombs that burn for 2 minutes).
  2. As a rule, a tank that burned up burns for several hours and its ammunition detonates completely. A brief fire is either a trick or was put out. Such a tank was not destroyed and in most cases is not immobilized, as such do not report on these tanks.
3. Knocked out tanks at or behind our lines of defense must be destroyed to stop the enemy from towing them away if they break through.

Tanks knocked out in front of our lines of defense need to be destroyed if possible. If this is not possible, keep them under artillery and heavy weapons fire for as long as ammunition supplies allow in order to prevent the enemy from capturing them."




7 comments:

  1. Tanks are counted as destroyed if it's on fire, exploding, fell apart, or if the turret was knocked off.

    If the Germans had only applied this same definition to their own losses! (their criteria was "if we can pick up the pieces off the battlefield and send them back to the factory to be completely rebuilt, it's not really a 'loss').

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's examples of them going further than that, such as those captured tanks at the railway station from a while back.

      "Even if we can't reclaim it, it's still somewhat intact and thus not a loss!"

      Delete
    2. Are you talking about the Tigers captured from Uman?

      http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/07/cheating-at-statistics-part-3.html

      The most typical error done is to compare total Soviet losses, which includes not only those due to battle damage but also those from mishap or mechanical breakdown (no matter how quickly these are repaired and sent back into action) to just the already-underestimated German irrevocably dead pile.

      Such as this howler:

      https://www.historyhit.com/app/uploads/2020/07/tank-losses-kursk-e1530785939836-1.jpg

      (Mind you, given the number of German tanks actually operational after Kursk rather strongly suggests that even counting irreparable losses, 'only 760' probably too-low an assessment . Despite repairs and replacements coming in, German tank strength on the Eastern Front fell to about one-third of its July 1943 peak).

      By similar comparisons of only Confederate dead with Union total casualties, I can "prove" that Gettysburg was a Confederate victory which Lee just 'threw away' by retreating! (Which is in essence what the Wehrmacht aficionados say about Kursk).

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I was laughing about the tanks at Uman - where several of the vehicles captured weren't listed as losses.

      Because apparently, if its mostly intact but in enemy hands, the ownership of the vehicle doesn't count. ;)

      Delete
  2. 'By similar comparisons of only Confederate dead with Union total casualties, I can "prove" that Gettysburg was a Confederate victory which Lee just 'threw away' by retreating! (Which is in essence what the Wehrmacht aficionados say about Kursk).'
    Superbly explained and I'm in total agreement with you. It happens in all wars and to every unit or service involved. Good examples

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's actually remarkable that a country known for it's extreme administration didn't knew how many tanks it actually lost and still posessed. That must mean that the commanders and the troops knew they where lying on a grand scale, those who had to check knew as well, and high command rather remained blind i gues.
    Did the Germans always lie during ww2 about battle kill counts or did they only started that when they started losing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They probably didn't have all that much need to while things were still going well - plus it's a bit harder to get away with creative accounting if your superiors can actually have the count checked, thanks to your side having possession of the field.

      But from what I understand it basically boiled down to political meddling on one hand (Hitler being Hitler telling ugly truths wasn't a great idea if you wanted to keep your command) and, I strongly suspect, outright solipsistic denialism within the officer caste on the other.

      Remember that these were the guys who, on the whole, subscribed to the idea that they TOTALLY could have won the Great War if not for [scapegoat conspiracy theory of preference] and THIS time around they'd totes do better and Make Germany Great Again... even if it meant bowing knee to some jumped-up Austrian corporal.

      The mentality underpinning all that bullshit arguably went all the way back to the blinkered fixation the Prussian military class developed with national greatness through glorious battlefield victory somewhere around Frederic the Great's reign if not earlier.

      Delete