Fallenkezef

Respected Foes

146 posts in this topic

Quote

I think you need to re-read your battle account before you make such statements... I can only assume English is not your first language. 

 

 

I can asume just flat-out refuse to understand.

 

Quote

Your battle account does not specify whether it was a Tiger 1 or a Tiger 2. 

 

 

Because Germans had Tiger H. Tiger E and Tiger B.

 

 

I presume you dont refer do your car by full name of the model, producer and perhaps a year of production in random discussions.

 

What makes it even easier is that it was  1./schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503, which was  consisting of 12 Tiger IIs and two Tiger Is at the time.

 

 

Quote

Your account clearly specifies that they reversed though a hegderow and rammed the Sherman that was sitting behind it. 

 

 

Sherman would be behind a hedge, if it would be directly behind a hedge, 2 meters behind a hedge, 5 meters behind the hedge, or 20 meters behind the hedge.

 

His account is refferenced neither inside a timeframe, or distance.

 

 

Quote

WW2 does not have every encounter photographed.

 

123tig2s0008.jpg 1234tiger2e.jpg 2.jpg 123abc0028.jpg 11123abc0029.jpg aa123abc0030.jpg 1223abc0001.jpg 1223abc0002.jpg 1223abc0003.jpg 1223abc0004.jpg 

 

 

 

Photographs account for 10 out of 12 Tiger IIs of sPz. Abt. 503.

 

 

And simillarly to the false case of Super-Pershing, the odds that out of two rammed Tiger IIs in a single battle only one would be photographed, are astronomical.

 

 

Not only is there no photographic evidence, there is no textual evidence, or any evidence at all that Gordon rammed, let alone fought any other Tiger II.

 

 

Edited by Ulatersk
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ulatersk said:

 

 

I dont know what do you think was the reason there is a sherman variant specifically created to deal with hedges and that the easiest way through them was with explosives.

 

 

 

 

ROFL, clearing hedgerows with explosives? You konw how truly stupid that is right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fallenkezef said:

 

Wehraboos turned up

Yeah, damn it arguing with facts makes you a wehraboo....then better a wehraboo as a salty dreamer with wishfull thinking. 

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

ROFL, clearing hedgerows with explosives? You konw how truly stupid that is right?

 

So stupid that it was widely used as a tactic every time a tank wasnt available, or even with them.

 

 

Hedgerow Explosives   Observers Report, NORMANDY: "The engineers played their part in the tank-infantry team. The sketches show graphically how the closely coordinated tank-infantry-engineer team worked in one of our divisions.

 

 

"The tank would place covering fire on the far hedge from a position behind the hedge to be breached. Under this fire the infantry would move into the field ahead to cover the engineer operations. The engineers would place explosive charges to breach the hedge during the infantry advance.

"When the tank fire had to stop to avoid endangering our own infantry, the tank would momentarily withdraw, and the charges would be detonated. The team would then move forward to the next hedgerow to repeat the performance. It was found that two charges of 50 pounds each placed as shown were adequate to breach any type of hedgerow."

[Hedgerow Explosives 1]
[Hedgerow Explosives 2]
[Hedgerow Explosives 3]

 

 

ROFL indeed.

 

 

Back to the thread.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ulatersk
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ulatersk said:

 

 

Hedgerow Explosives   Observers Report, NORMANDY: "The engineers played their part in the tank-infantry team. The sketches show graphically how the closely coordinated tank-infantry-engineer team worked in one of our divisions.

 

 

"The tank would place covering fire on the far hedge from a position behind the hedge to be breached. Under this fire the infantry would move into the field ahead to cover the engineer operations. The engineers would place explosive charges to breach the hedge during the infantry advance.

"When the tank fire had to stop to avoid endangering our own infantry, the tank would momentarily withdraw, and the charges would be detonated. The team would then move forward to the next hedgerow to repeat the performance. It was found that two charges of 50 pounds each placed as shown were adequate to breach any type of hedgerow."

[Hedgerow Explosives 1]
[Hedgerow Explosives 2]
[Hedgerow Explosives 3]

 

 

ROFL indeed.

 

 

Back to the thread.

 

 

 

 

So you are specualting... based on one report, and saying Gordon's claim is false... Oh and you need a lot more pics of destroyed King Tigers.  There were what 500 or so made and there were 12 in Normandy!  GL and HF.  Germany Lost... Little boys, Old men and brain washed slaves were fighting near the end of the war.  Hitler put a bullet through his brain and Russia took over Eastern Europe and made it a better place.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get how the attempt to synergize two reports that mirror each other is suddenly propaganda, especially because no attempt to glorify anything was made. In fact, the inexperience of later german troops even in their most precious equipment shines through.

 

Look, nobody wants to demean the courage (or ruthlessness) of John Reginald Gorman in ramming an enemy twice his size and weight.

Just clarify that it was not his ram that was the biggest threat to the Tiger B crew in that moment, but the penetration by the Pak 40 which caused internal damage.

Granted, by the inexperience of the Tiger B commander, he may have bailed because of being rammed regardless of the Pak 40 penetration.

 

Anyways, in the spirit of the thread, I would like to mention Montgomery. Didnt fall for Rommel and got the Britz in North Africa straight to achieve victory.

Edited by Stahlvormund101
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you are specualting... based on one report,

 

khK7ry6.png?2

 

 

And just to avoid escalation and you writing that I speculate this based on 2, 3, 4, 5, x, y reports. Just dont.

 

Quote

and saying Gordon's claim is false

 

 

I say its false because:

 

1. That Tiger was in reverse.

2. Crew that was supposedly captured was around to report

 

Quote

There were what 500 or so made and there were 12 in Normandy!

 

 

There were 12 TIger II (P) in Normandy with SPz.Abt. 503. There were 5 others, but they dont fit the time frame.

 

Quote

Germany Lost... Little boys, Old men and brain washed slaves were fighting near the end of the war.

 

 

And were they unique in that capacity according to you?

 

Quote

itler put a bullet through his brain and Russia took over Eastern Europe and made it a better place.  

 

Quote

brain washed

 

 

Eastern europe went downhill since 1930s and except for few exceptions it is still going downhill today.

Edited by Ulatersk
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ulatersk said:

 

khK7ry6.png?2

 

 

And just to avoid escalation and you writing that I speculate this based on 2, 3, 4, 5, x, y reports. Just dont.

 

 

 

I say its false because:

 

1. That Tiger was in reverse.

2. Crew that was supposedly captured was around to report

 

 

 

There were 12 TIger II (P) in Normandy with SPz.Abt. 503. There were 5 others, but they dont fit the time frame.

 

 

 

And were they unique in that capacity according to you?

 

 

 

 

Eastern europe went downhill since 1930s and except for few exceptions it is still going downhill today.

I do not know if the Tiger was in Reverse.. I cannot see inside and what gear it is in.  I do see in the one pic that there are no tracks imprints that 60+ ton tank would leave behind in softer ground.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, *ChameleonLord said:

I do not know if the Tiger was in Reverse.. I cannot see inside and what gear it is in.  I do see in the one pic that there are no tracks imprints that 60+ ton tank would leave behind in softer ground.  

The report Ulatersk posted on page 2 mentions that the track had dropped behind the drive sprocket which is only possible if it had been moving in reverse recently.

This can be seen in the picture.

Edited by Stahlvormund101
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

The report Ulatersk posted on page 2 mentions that the track had dropped behind the drive sprocket which is only possible if it had been moving in reverse recently.

This can be seen in the picture.

Actually is says no such thing in the report.  Another player quoted it from some reference and is speculating how a Tiger's tracks react to collissions with Sherman tanks.  There is no proof.  There is no proof that Tiger 112 and that crew member was not in a Tiger 1.  So the chances of a Tiger 1 getting rammed and a Tiger 2 gets a little higher now.  Ulatersk is also speculating that the report of 112 was a typo and should have been 122.  He has no proof of that either.  So he is discounting a story with proof of no proof for the shear enjoyment of ruining a good story.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, *ChameleonLord said:

Actually is says no such thing in the report.  Another player quoted it from some reference and is speculating how a Tiger's tracks react to collissions with Sherman tanks.  There is no proof.  There is no proof that Tiger 112 and that crew member was not in a Tiger 1.  So the chances of a Tiger 1 getting rammed and a Tiger 2 gets a little higher now.  Ulatersk is also speculating that the report of 112 was a typo and should have been 122.  He has no proof of that either.  So he is discounting a story with proof of no proof for the shear enjoyment of ruining a good story.  

Quote

"reverse is also demonstrated by the drooping (another typo) of the track behind the drive sprocket. If the tank had been moving forward, it would have been tight."

(picture below, Sherman (was it a tank or another soldier? Was it P.Sherman 42 Wallaby Way Sydney? Gormans report is not clear) in the rear of the Tiger B whose track hangs down from the drive wheel)

Stories are dangerous. They lead to make-believe to fulfill the narrative.

Read T.Pratchett for an example of the power stories and humans being a "pan narrans".

Sure, it is a beautiful story for the Allied and especially British side of war, one that is perfect to craft a national hero from that will help raise morale for the war effort. See where I want to go here?

The power and convenience of this story was too attractive to question.

I dont want to refute that Gorman did ram the Tiger B but that he was the main reason the crew bailed.

Pls dont fall into the same narrative trap as the Wehraboos claiming "technical superiority" from some oddball accounts that survived history because they were repeated over and over.

Allies are capable of propaganda too.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

Stories are dangerous. They lead to make-believe to fulfill the narrative.

Read T.Pratchett for an example of the power stories and humans being a "pan narrans".

Sure, it is a beautiful story for the Allied and especially British side of war, one that is perfect to craft a national hero from that will help raise morale for the war effort. See where I want to go here?

The power and convenience of this story was too attractive to question.

I dont want to refute that Gorman did ram the Tiger B but that he was the main reason the crew bailed.

Pls dont fall into the same narrative trap as the Wehraboos claiming "technical superiority" from some oddball accounts that survived history because they were repeated over and over.

Allies are capable of propaganda too.

Oh yes.. Allies are certainly capable of propaganda too.  So you have raised doubt on the story but not proven it is false by any means.  There are people who believe that the holocaust never happened and that it was all made up in some great conspiracy and all the photos fabricated.  That is certainly helpful to clean some of the tarnish off the German propaganda throughout the war and absolve many people of Crimes committed.   Katynn Woods... who to believe?  The Germans who said the Russians did it or the Russians who said the Germans did it?  Either way it happened and would have happened by either side because either side was more than willing to do such things.   You have successfully ruined this thread and the story.  Good on you! You achieved your goals! 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, *ChameleonLord said:

Oh yes.. Allies are certainly capable of propaganda too.  So you have raised doubt on the story but not proven it is false by any means.  There are people who believe that the holocaust never happened and that it was all made up in some great conspiracy and all the photos fabricated.  That is certainly helpful to clean some of the tarnish off the German propaganda throughout the war and absolve many people of Crimes committed.   Katynn Woods... who to believe?  The Germans who said the Russians did it or the Russians who said the Germans did it?  Either way it happened and would have happened by either side because either side was more than willing to do such things.   You have successfully ruined this thread and the story.  Good on you! You achieved your goals! 

You are mixing things up horribly. I wanted to let go of the matter now, but you forced me to reply.

 

Holocaust happened. Period. It was planned, organized and intended. No doubt about it. The "doubt" against holocaust is nothing more than straight out denial.

 

Katynn Woods: Less clear, but there is very strong indication that it was committed by the Russians and should be attributed to the Germans. British Goverment who hosted the Polish exile government was quick to try to straighten the alliance between British, Polish and the Russians for the war effort when Katyn campe up. I even got a documention about it at home and read some more here in the forums so my personal conclusion about the matter is that the Russians were responsible for that and tried to cover it up. But it is fair to raise some doubt about that, I give that to you.

 

The goal was not to ruin any story but to provide more insight of what really happened.

The "story" would have been still pretty good even with the Pak 40 having the main responsbility for the bail out.

A Sherman ramming a Tiger B? That's hilarious! Together with the penetration that may have been the key factor why the crew bailed because the commander lost his nerves.

 

Don't let simple mistakes ruin the story for you. You can be better than that.

 

Anyways, I think it is time to drop the matter. Both sides have been represented thoroughly and everyone can make their opinion about it in silence now.

Sound fair?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Actually is says no such thing in the report.  Another player quoted it from some reference and is speculating how a Tiger's tracks react to collissions with Sherman tanks.

 

Thats the opinion of the book author.

 

And it is about how tracks behave when reversing, not when colliding with a Sherman.

 

Quote

 There is no proof that Tiger 112 and that crew member was not in a Tiger 1.

Quote

Ulatersk is also speculating that the report of 112 was a typo and should have been 122.  He has no proof of that either

 

1. You are betting on the fact that a coy overhwhelmingly  consisting of Tiger IIs would have one of two Tiger Is that were in it attacking that day

2. It cant be another tank because the 112 got abandoned in Orville in 20.08 1944. and thus is completely off by a month.

3. It was a Tiger B, because only one Tiger B was lost to friendly AT gun fire on 18, which ver much questions the other "hits" from Firefly, since no Tiger is lost for another 13 days. 101 was knocked out on the way to that battle and 1xx is the one that has fallen to the crater.

4. It cant be a Tiger I, because 5 were hit by bombs and disabled, 2 were hit by their own Flak at Cagny. which would be all active Tiger Is on that day.

 

GC0pdNN.png?1

Edited by Ulatersk
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ulatersk said:

 

Thats the opinion of the book author.

 

And it is about how tracks behave when reversing, not when colliding with a Sherman.

 

 

1. You are betting on the fact that a coy overhwhelmingly  consisting of Tiger IIs would have one of two Tiger Is that were in it attacking that day

2. It cant be another tank because the 112 got abandoned in Orville in 20.08 1944. and thus is completely off by a month.

3. It was a Tiger B, because only one Tiger B was lost to friendly AT gun fire on 18, which ver much questions the other "hits" from Firefly, since no Tiger is lost for another 13 days.

4. It cant be a Tiger I, because 5 were hit by bombs and disabled, 2 were hit by their own Flak at Cagny. which would be all active Tiger Is on that day.

 

GC0pdNN.png

Cool.. 3 Tiger 2 were lost on that day.  From your chart is does not specify what happened to the Blown up one or the knocked out one.  Also it is amazing how many tanks were credited to the air that were not killed by them and vice versa.  It is ok.. you shed doubt on the story.  You have ruined the thread.  I am sure you feel better because of it.  Now go get a cookie and celebrate! I do not believe your chart either because it is very easy to doctor that 122 was destroyed by friendly fire.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, *ChameleonLord said:

Cool.. 3 Tiger 2 were lost on that day.  From your chart is does not specify what happened to the Blown up one or the knocked out one.  Also it is amazing how many tanks were credited to the air that were not killed by them and vice versa.  It is ok.. you shed doubt on the story.  You have ruined the thread.  I am sure you feel better because of it.  Now go get a cookie and celebrate! I do not believe your chart either because it is very easy to doctor that 122 was destroyed by friendly fire.  

it's not that hard. Knocked out means penetrated tank, disabled. Blown up, the crew escaped the tank and succeded to ignite the explosive to destroy the tank to prevent it falling in enemy hands. Those are multiple documents based on german reports and authors that claim the same things. So at least there is to be some fundament to all those sources saying the same thing

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Cool.. 3 Tiger 2 were lost on that day.  From your chart is does not specify what happened to the Blown up one or the knocked out one

 

101 was knocked out on the road to Demouville and 1xx is the crater one. 122 Is the Tiger that met with Gordon.

 

123abc0028.jpgaa123abc0030.jpg

 

Quote

I do not believe your chart either because it is very easy to doctor that 122 was destroyed by friendly fire.  

 

They would have no reason to doctor anything.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

Well the thread was nice and productive for one page at least

Until the accusation of Wehrabooism for stating the other side of the medal? Yes.

Why is it ok to show that german paratroopers could have been murderers and comit warcrimes but not ok to point out flaws in the personal account of an Irish war hero WITH SOURCES mind you!

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

 

 

Anyways, in the spirit of the thread, I would like to mention Montgomery. Didnt fall for Rommel and got the Britz in North Africa straight to achieve victory.

 

Monty and the Fox are fascinating, polar opposites in strategy but also so similar

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

Until the accusation of Wehrabooism for stating the other side of the medal? Yes.

Why is it ok to show that german paratroopers could have been murderers and comit warcrimes but not ok to point out flaws in the personal account of an Irish war hero WITH SOURCES mind you!

 

 

It's less to do with what is said but how. Take you for instance Stahlvormund, calm, accurate responses while adding to the thread with your comment regarding Monty. I do not, nor have I ever, considered you to be a Wehraboo

 

The likes of Ulatersk thrive on being as arrogant and rude as possible and he has not made any attempt to contribute to the thread other than his efforts on the minutae of how a tiger died. However I suspect he is incapable of respect so would be unable to contribute to such a thread.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fallenkezef said:

 

Monty and the Fox are fascinating, polar opposites in strategy but also so similar

Well if we are talking about Generals.. Manstein was tactically brilliant and probably one of the major reasons the war lastest longer.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, *ChameleonLord said:

Well if we are talking about Generals.. Manstein was tactically brilliant and probably one of the major reasons the war lastest longer.  

 

I've always had a soft spot for Guderian, picked up a translated copy of Achtung Panzer! a decade ago, his vision was fascinating.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.