...is not completely true. D'Este tells us that 4th Armoured claimed 281 tanks destroyed. He isn't therefore offering evidence, merely reporting what we know from elsewhere, that the Division said it destroyed 281 German tanks. He is repeating what we have also read, not giving us anything new.
Well, Ironduke I see you are selective as usual.
What I have written above is COMPLETELY true.
No it isn't. D'Este writes:
"claiming the destruction of 281 German tanks".
Therefore, D'Este is merely reporting what 4th Armoured claimed, he is not providing evidence it is true.
I included the numbers from SEVEN sources as varifying 4th Armoured's claims.
These sources do not verify, they merely repeat. The only people who claimed 4th Armoured's tally was 4th Armoured. Your other sources have no other figure or opinion to use but 4th Armoured's. They therefore quote this, but they are not independently verifying it, but quoting it. If you can't see the difference, trust me when I say the rest of the forum can.
I wrote the above from D'Este merely to save me typing what had already been established.
No, you wrote it because he is a serious historian and it was good to have him (you believed) back up your claims. I find it strange you are using a source you said was factually incorrect and which you discredited recently, but never mind....[:'(]
D'Este, as both an historian and military officer, does not refute this claim. 4th Armoured's published official unit history states it destroyed this many armoured vehicles.
That's because he is writing about Patton. He isn't going to investigate every non-Patton related event like this, he wants to finish the book before he turns 100.
In 60 years NO military historian has refuted this claim. Show me a SINGLE source that proves 4th Armoured's claim to be incorrect.
How can you say this merely studying the odd book and a series of websites that quote from it. You do not know what historians have said. As I've said, historians add the words "claimed" in there because they know that WWII readers will realise "claimed" is often higher than "actual" kills.
As for the fighting. The formations I can identify as being involved were 21st Panzer Division, 11th Panzer Division, 111th Panzer Brigade, 112th Panzer Brigade, 113th Panzer Brigade.
Another cursory examination by yourself with which you are seeking to disprove something that NO military historian has done.
Cursory? [8|] I think we can see an example of sursory coming up if you would like to compare what's above with what's below.
Firstly, lets refresh our memory on the terms of the argument using your own words.
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.
and
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.
you're clearly talking about the battle of Arracourt.
Von Rom
You seem to have overlooked these formations that were present:
Have I....?
133rd Panzer Brigade
You're going to have to give me more info on this one. The Germans don't seem to have had a unit called the 133rd Panzer Brigade. For your imnfo, the Army Panzer Brigades number 100 through 113th. There was a 150th, but it was a specialist unit in the ardennes. So, please tell us more about 133rd?????????
106th Panzer Brigade
Ah yes, this unit had about 45 tanks on strength at it's peak, and lost 30 of these in a fight against 90th US Infantry division on 7th September. If it had ten tanks left to use in the battles of 18th-30th, I'd be surprised. In addition, it seems to have supported the 559th (more later on this formation) which attacked the 35th US infantry disicion on 24th. I don't think we can use this formnation, therefore, do you?
3d Panzergrenadier Division, just arrived from Italy in Sept, 1944
Never involved in the fighting around Arracourt during the battle in question.
15th Panzergrenadier Division
You've had more luck here. This had a nominal tank complement of 35 or so Stugs. However, it had been fighting 3rd Army for around 3 weeks before this battle, and Von Mellenthin described it as "weakened in bloody fighting". He doesn't even give a number of tanks for it, as he does with the other formations, which suggests there weren't too many at all.
We do know that around 25 of it's armoured vehicles were claimed destroyed by 4th Armoured on
14th before the Battle of Arracourt. Thus for the battle itself, it may have had fewer than ten tanks.
553d Volksgrenadier Division
This is a neat trick. The 553 VGD wasn't formed until 9 Oct! It did have an earlier unit it was formed from (553 Grenadier division) but it had no tanks and never fought in the battle of Arracourt anyway.
559th Volksgrenadier Division of the German First Army
As above, another division formed on 9th October. It's predescessor did fight north of Arracourt launching attacks between 24th and 30th Septemer, but unfortunately for you, it had no tanks authorised and the attack seems to have hit the positions of the 35th US Infantry Division judging from Mellenthin's maps.
462d Division
Oh dear, this one wasn't formed until 19th October 1944, well after the battle in question, no predescessor. It also had no tanks [:(].
17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division
Largely destroyed in Normandy, it had only ten tanks left in late July and another month of fighting still to go before our battle. It also never fought in the Arracourt battle anyway, and the units used in reform it in August (49th and 51st SS Panzergrenadier Brigades) had no tanks to contribute. Not looking like this had too much to do with our battle.
Many of the above formations would have had armour, and all of them would have had assault guns (StuGs and Hetzers, Jagdpanzer IV/70(V), etc).
This merely shows that you don't know much about the makeup of these units.
IronDuke
Therefore, I'd put paper tank strength at about 225-250 vehicles.
This is simply incorrect.
As I have indicated above, you left out more than EIGHT fighting formations, and I am sure there were plenty more.
As shown, I am still correct. If we can add 20 tanks to the tally from the formations above (which were largely uninvolved in the fighting and tankless any way) then we are doing very well. Perhaps you could find these other formations for us to examine? I doubt they exist, or at least, if they do, they were certainly never involved at Arracourt against 4th Armoured.
Ospery's book of the Lorraine Campaign puts the number of German armoured vehicles at 616.
The Lorraine campaign??? [8|] Von Rom, you said:
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.
and
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.
Surely, you are not trying to prove 4th Armoured's figure by counting as taking part in the battle, every German tank within a hundred miles, that was within a hundred miles at some point in the campaign? [:-] I thought you were talking about German tanks attacking 4th Armoured around Arracourt between 18th-30th September as you indeed are judging from the quotes above.
IronDuke
My guess is the Germans committed into action around 180-200 vehicles
Von Rom
And that is exactly what it is - a guess. And it is an incorrect, unsubstantiated guess at that.
LOL [:D]. I am checking individual units for statistics using attested sources (Weigley, Nafziger, Mellenthin). You are counting units that didn't even take part, didn't have any tanks, and in one case, never existed! And I am unsubstantiated! LOL [:D]. I guess we will have to leave forum readers to decide who is unsubstantiated.
IronDuke
It is feasible that as many as 150 German tanks were destroyed during this period. I'd put the upper limit at around the 180 mark. It is well short of 4th Armoured's claims, but then this isn't unusual. Figures of claimed kills were notoriously unreliable. I don't see any reason to think 4th Armoured should be treated any differently.
Von Romon
This is incorrect.
You have not provided a SINGLE source for your hypothetical numbers.
Well, there were a lot of them. I tell you what, cite any specific figures, and I'll break down the number I've given, quoting the sources involved. If you don't, then we have to assume I'm right, because you haven't proven anything wrong.
Patton was an extremely demanding boss of Third Army. He had a penchant for efficiency, accuracy and detail
I seriously doubt the officers of 4th Armoured would have lied about the details. 4th Armoured was well trained and boasted a very exemplery history..
Patton ran the war from his jeep, moving between front line units, directing things as he saw them. He was a difficult officer to staff for as a result. He also didn't compile 4th Armoured's tally for the day (or are you suggesting he did?)
Most units who made inflated claims weren't lying. There are a number of reasons why claims are higher than usual. Don't you know this?
For the Lorraine Campaign armoured battles it won a Presidential Unit Citation.
For the fighting, I've already said it fought well. This proves nothing about the tanks destroyed claim.
Von Rom
In closing, all you have provided are unsubstantiated guesses.
Incorrect. I have based my guesses on the best available evidence. You are trying to use irrelevant stuff (non-existant units, tank free divisions etc) to prove your point. As I said, let the forum decide.
Von Rom
I suppose those guesses should be accepted above ALL OTHER SOURCES that support 4th Armoured's claims. [8|]
As I said, 4th Armoured make the claim, everyone else reports it. Do any of your sources test the claim? No, they simply repeat the figure 4th Armoured give. A figure we know from experience was often inflated. Your sources don't verify it, merely repeat it, I am surprised you cannot tell the difference. To verify it, someone else (not from 4th Armoured) would have had to have counted the kills. Which of your sources did this? Which of your sources were even there (in addition to 4th Armoured who made the initial claim).
Of course, there are a number of ways for you to prove me wrong.
1. Analyse the battles for us, listing the formations that attacked 4th Armoured, giving dates and places for their attacks, and tell us how many tanks they had. We can tot the numbers up and see if there are enough to match 4th Armoured's claim. That's all I've done.
2. Give us a list of these other formations you are "sure" were there, but can't name [8|]. We can find them and see if we can add their tank totals in.
3. Dispute my claims about the formations you listed. Give sources and we'll compare our sources.
4. Use the old favourite
Von Rom
I may answer this sometime down the road.
But for now, I simply don't feel like it.
Otherwise, you're just
saying I'm wrong, not
proving it, I'm afraid.
Regards,
IronDuke
