Craz--I was comparing the LW aces claims to the Panzer aces claims to point out something to you but--I guess no matter how I try to present it to you--you will still somehow not get the meaning of what I am trying to say.

No I am not trying to say that just because the scores of these Luftwaffe aces were verified that we automatically believe the claims of the Panzer crews.

Case in point--take Remy SChrijnenes story for e fine example: Remy Schrijnen, knocked out 17 T-34s and IS Tanks in a 3 day period of time while being severely wounded, manning his AT gun and doing the job of 8 men and as the guns were destroyed--he simply moved to another one and alone, continued his actions. All the while when this is happening--he also manned a discarded MG and killed at least 100 Russian Infqantry trying to kill him. Finally, about 3 days after this action started--the Germanic SS counterattacked with Paul-Albert Kausch leading this force. Paul stopped his vehicle and was the one who pulled Ramy away from his gun and carried him to his vehicle as Remy was too weak from loss of blood. For this--they became lifelong friends untill Pauls death over a year ago.

And don't get a wild hare just because I did not use a Panzer action as an example.

I am friends with Remy and I KNOW him very well. I know that the mention of 17 tanks knocked out by Remy was also a modest number reported.

Another thing you forget is that the German Army had a much stricter confirmation system than we did. In all probability--Remy knocked out more than he claimed. [img]graemlins/rk.gif[/img]

In other words: Your Engine left the station without its cars and Caboose. Another one: Two ships passingt in the fog without knowing each other is there nor seeing each other.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Is it possible you could show us how this feat was confirmed. Information on how you know he knocked out more tanks would also be of interest.Did he not damage some tanks as well?
It is clear that the German system for confirming kills was not rigorous or Wittmann would not have been credited with the 20+ kills at Villers when he never even saw half that number of Allied tanks.

Quote:

"In other words: Your Engine left the station without its cars and Caboose. Another one: Two ships passingt in the fog without knowing each other is there nor seeing each other."

This seems a bit harsh.

Crazy, the German Military had a much more harder system set in place for confirming "kills" than did the Allies.

For instance, their confirmation rules are very different from ours. For someone who claims a "kill" he needed no less that two seperate sources that saw him do it. Then, that claim had to be verified by the soldiers commanding officer.

Our system is different--but don't ask me to try to compare because I do not know much about our system.

_______________________________________

Mkenny:

Remys feat was confirmed by men who watched the battle who were also survivers from his unit as well as other members of his parent unit.

It's better if you read that book I mentioned because undoubtedly, I might leave out alot of great info trying to repeat something I read.

I'll try:

Remy Was the Nr 1 gunner on his gun and he was part of a 3 gun battery. They were in some action (I forget where) and they wqere being attacked by Russian Armor and Infantry.

In one particular action--many of the men in his battery were killed and wounded and they were all ordered to evacuate. All but Remy evacuated and Remy stayed at his post alone.

He stopped several Russian Armor and Infantry attacks trying to force a breakthrough on his position. He was surrounded on the 1st day of the attack and had been wounded. By the third day of being surrounded, he had been wounded at least 5 times, and had managed to knock out 17 Russian tans and in defending his postiion, he also killed at least 100 Russian Infantry.

I do not better know how to describe exactly what went on--you would have to read the book by Allen Brandt.

I know my word cannot be taken for this but there is no way in hell that I would not take Remys word for what he said happened being that also I was not there.

If one wishes that they are not to believe a story--i'm not going to waste time in trying to convince anyone who refuses to be convinced especially if this well-known action has been proven as fact.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

If the '2 source confirmation' is correct then we could never have any 'lone Tiger' kills could we (the famous ones where no one else was around)
The Remy story is very strange. One man alone for 3 days manned(without sleep) several AT guns and also beat off infantry attacks?
It may be well known to you but I have never heard it before. What award did he get for it and could you give me some idea of a date and location?

Sounds good, until you look at the claims made by Luftwaffe pilots in the Battle of Britain.
For example, Luftwaffe pilots were credited with shooting down 381 RAF aircraft in combat between the 10 July and 11 August 1940 during the Channel phase of the battle. The true total of British losses in this period was 114 fighters and 64 bombers, a total of 178, and a number of the bombers were lost to flak.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Red what is your source for the Luftwaffe claims please.......

I'll have the Luftwaffe records from the BA/MA RL listings soon and will list everyone if you wish. Sure we have to take all in consideration. What if a Bf 109E is alone against two Spits and shoots both down or vice versa. No staffel mate or wingman to witness the deed. Auto camera's did not necessarily confirm a victory for any side.......

Mkenny--you also forget that there would have been someone around these actions that was intependant of the Panzer crews--even if not mentioned in books.

You would have had members of the Infantry, or Pioneers, or Medial, or Signals or even POWs--men who surrendered after the actions that is.

Will finish this thought later.

Now is later.

Red--what you say might be true but--you also forget that there is certain things like 1/5th kills, 1/3rd kills etc. This means for a 1/5th kill, that he was 1 in 5 who participated in that kill etc.

I can't dispute anything said on the claims from the BoB because I do not know alot on that great aireal battle. I do know that what Remy went through is true and correct.

What I also do know about Remy is the fact that he was and still is a VERY brave man. I have seen photos from three of his photo albums of actions and things he did on the Eastern Front.

One series of photos that he took was when he was behind the Russian lines and he was hidden behind some tall grass at the edge of a small rise in land and he took a series of photos while a colum of T-34s passed his position. He was close enough to the passing T-34s that he could have reached out and touched them as they passed--with no troubles at all.

I do wish that if this is not believed--then I suggest the non-believers to pay for a plane ticket landing in Frankfurt airport--and going to Hagen--some few Hrs drive away heading in the direction of Bonn etc. Once in Hagen--go to Paschestrasse and have a visit with Remy. If you do not understand German, then have someone with you who does as he speaks almost no English.

Ask Remy for yourself.

Later.

[ 04. October 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

No the figure I have is for whole aircraft, but as another example.
On the 5th October 1940 the Luftwaffe ace Helmut Wick was credited with 5 victories, but post war research has shown that he only shot down 2 RAF aircraft on this day, though he may have damaged 2 more.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Quote:
"What I also do know about Remy is the fact that he was and still is a VERY brave man"

That probably is true but I did not dispute that I simply asked for the date and location. Not precisely, a rough time period will do.

Quote:

"I do wish that if this is not believed--then I suggest the non-believers to pay for a plane ticket landing in Frankfurt airport--and going to Hagen--some few Hrs drive away heading in the direction of Bonn etc. Once in Hagen--go to Paschestrasse and have a visit with Remy. If you do not understand German, then have someone with you who does as he speaks almost no English"

The above is simply an evasion. Why should we go to Remy when you appear to have all the details? You brought it up and you should follow the path you started.

Quote:

" I do know that what Remy went through is true and correct"

Then show us what convinced you.

I feel your tone is getting confrontational and please remember I am asking for some corroboration of, by any standards, a very unusal event. This act should have been highly rewarded and I simply asked how it was recognised.
You have yet to post a single checkable fact in any of your accounts.

I posted this before, but I think it may be worth reposting

Re: Overclaiming.

In his book "The Most Dangerous Enemy, a History of the Battle of Britain" ( a very good book )Stephen Bungay makes the following observations

"Claims are usually used to show who got what. This may be of interest to the participants, but it is knowing the total losses inflicted on the enemy in the air, whoever caused them that matters, Because of its importance, both sides insisted on rigorous citeria for confirming claims, which had to to be independently witnessed by another pilot or verified through the location of the crash-site. Despite this , it is an endemic feature of all air-fighting that claims are too high , by a factor of at LEAST two. There are good reasons for this.
The first is simple mistakes usually made by inexperienced pilots. If he was firing at an enemy machine and it dived steeply away, a new pilot might think he had a kill. In fact, engines usually emit smoke when an aircraft bunts, They can also get into spins, fall out of control and then recover low down out of sight.
The second is that verification is very difficult and also dangerous. To be accurate, the observing pilot, who is usually fighting for his life, rather than playing umpire, would have to follow the victim from the first bullet strikes on it, to its crashing into the ground. All he would usually be able to see would be several plane firing at each other, catch a glimpse of one spinning down a few seconds later, and then perhaps an explosion on the ground some time after that. All three impressions might be connected. On the other hand the spinning plane may have recovered in cloud and gone home and the crash be of an entirely different machine actually shot down in a different dog-fight. When moving at 200-300mph in three dimensions large distances are covered very quickly. Pilots who tried to follow down aircraft they had hit usually turned into victims themselves. Experienced pilots forgot about confirming claims and kept their precious height for better purposes.
Multiple claims were also a major reason for over claims, the same machine would be seen and attacked by different pilots at different altitudes and in different stages of disintegration and be identified as different machines."

The Luftwaffe claims procedure was strict but it was by no means as highly accurate as you make out

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

"The Most Dangerous Enemy, a History of the Battle of Britain" by Stephen Bungay
[img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

thanks Red for the book details and author I'll have to look into that.

by the way by late 44 the Luftwaffe didn't really give a rat's arse as to scores as it was the willingness to survive

My opinion from the documents I have received over 40 years the Luftwaffe claims are more accurate than most Allied especially late war. This I know does not answer you questions concerning BoB

~E

MKenny

I do not wish to step on your toes or Carl's but maybe Carl will get to this early next week. There was a book written about Remy, his life and war-time career along with period docs, pics. From what I can remember is that after the destruction of many T-34's, at least 7-8 he was severly wounded and found by members of the 11th W-SS Pz. Grenadier Divison and upon recovery from his injuries was awarded the Ritterkreuz [img]graemlins/rk.gif[/img]

Am sure Carl, Paul Errass and Bill Smith and others can fill us in on more personal details....

two cents for the pot

all for tonight gents......

~E

'The Last knight Of Flanders' is the book you mention. I have it and just had a quick scan. This was no 'lone defence' by a single individual but by a mixed group of some 400 men with supporting arms. On page 196 it mentions "nearly a dozen knocked out or damaged tanks" around Remy's gun.
This is far from how this incident was first described to me.

Before I start my reply proper--I will say this.

I have several great friends who are British and I care for the British people greatly. I think they are some of the most fantastic of all the peoples in the world. I definately care enough for my friends that I have to write this statement before I answer a tired question--because I want to make it sure that they definately know that none of these words are against them in any way, shape or form.

Mkenny--there is no evasion to your question and I wrote that because you are only wanting to cause argument and I will NOT take part in a senseless argument when 1) you obviously do not know squat about that particular subject you are trying to argue about. 2) No matter what I say does not make a differance--you should listen to Remys words. 3) Why are you so afraid to go visit the man who performed the deed in question? Are you afraid to tell him what you think? Are you afraid of being proven wrong?

This is the end of my conversation with you as all you are out to do is to try to belittle Remys accomplishments and i'm not going to stand by and let that happen.

Good day.

[ 05. October 2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

I am sorry if a simple request for more information upset you. Perhaps you should be a little less sensitive when someone simply asks you for confirmation of your INITIAL description of the event. The first version you gave bore no relation to the reality:

"Case in point--take Remy SChrijnenes story for e fine example: Remy Schrijnen, knocked out 17 T-34s and IS Tanks in a 3 day period of time while being severely wounded, manning his AT gun and doing the job of 8 men and as the guns were destroyed--he simply moved to another one and alone, continued his actions. All the while when this is happening--he also manned a discarded MG and killed at least 100 Russian Infqantry trying to kill him."

The book says 2 of the 3 guns were destroyed early in the engagement and despite you saying he was alone this was not the case except for the end of the action. Nowhere in the tale do I find any confirmation of 17 tanks destroyed(this 'confirmation' you will recall is the reason you brought it up)
Frankly your statement I should "ask Remy about it" and that I am 'scared' to ask him is the most idiotic juvenile part of your post, Grow up and don't presume your word is enough for me and you should never be questioned on any of your knee jerk replies.

Far from me:
" obviously do not know squat about that particular subject you are trying to argue about."
It is plain your blanket defence of German tank kill claims is based on nothing but an act of faith. I gave you a documented and proven example of the most famous 'ace' in the West being credited with more kills than he could possibly have hit as well as showing another example where it seems the tally for Fey can not be true for the Unit he mentions.

I realise I am the new boy here but do not pressume I do not know what I am talking about. I have spoken to Allied veterans and I know how the memory of an event does not always tally with the facts. I listen but I do not take everything I hear as gospel. I have been, and still am, engaged in primary research in one area of the Normandy Campaign and I have never reacted in such an aggressive manner when asked to back anything I write. You may think you are above question but I beg to differ.
Finaly I am not British so what is the point of this pre-amble?:

"I have several great friends who are British and I care for the British people greatly. I think they are some of the most fantastic of all the peoples in the world. I definately care enough for my friends that I have to write this statement before I answer a tired question--because I want to make it sure that they definately know that none of these words are against them in any way, shape or form"

Myself I have no problem questioning an 'American' claim if I want clarification without the need to apologise to the whole nation in advance.
As is obvious from the above I am well able to reply in kind to any post I recieve and reputation will never deter me.

No--a simple request for info did not upset me--your attitude did.

Regards--Carl.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Why yes, that whole "Your train left the station" line was rather harsh, especially considering that Carl proved the exact point I was making.
Exactly. So you obviously agree that many of these kill claims cannot be verified- wether the claims be too high or too low!!

So the germans had a more rigorious count system- but they tended to estimate low?!?!

Either it is reliable, or not.

So how are his kills confirmed?

And interesting how the book suggested completely DISAGREES with the account Carl was given.
.
.
.
Especially considering how you (failed to) address my point, .. is not only harsh, but plain ignorant.
Thanks.

As with the source Redcoat posts, and considering that even the sources for the Remy story disagree completely... I maintain my scepticism when it comes to "kill counts".

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

Well, anyway, in this case I think as the Germans retook the battle area where Remy fought I think they could count the destroyed tanks and killed men, or did you mean this CrazyD?

On the account of destroyed Russian tanks there are several calculations many of which end in Russian total tank number 110,000-120,000 in WW2 of which some 80,000-90,000 were hit of which 25-30% were repairable. Anyway, this leaves quite a number of destroyed tanks not been put in the tank / AT gunner ace´s lists.Right?? Quite a dilemma....



[ 06. October 2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

__________________

Good stuff, Kai!
Now, let's say, as you suggest- Remy and some comrades were able to examine the battlefield after the engagement took place. Then, the kill count would be easier. BUT- you still have some problems. Which tanks did Remy alone knock out with his anti-tank gun, versus how many tanks did his shells have only a part in knocking out?
What's more, what about the tanks that were hit, still functional, but were abandoned by the russians?
Did those count as kills, considering that the russians (because of their vast manufacturing ability) had a great tendency to abandon tanks that could maybe be repaired?

So basically, you wind up with a "kill count" that is the best approximation of the actual results of the battle.

And- this, like you note, is an instance where the battlefield could be examined after the fact. This type of situation was not always the case at all- many time the battlefield was taken by the russians- so our "kill counts" rely entirely on the sight and interpretation of a couple gun or tank commanders.

Hardly infallible! Even if there is no intent at all to "inflate" any scores- again, as I have mentioned (to no avail in some cases)- are we really going to expect a tank commander- in the heat of a battle, with combat and chaos all around them- to exactly and properly note down each and every one of his kills, and examine the results???

I think not.

But, again as I have mentioned, personally I believe that many, if not most, of these "kill counts" are rather close to accurate. But not necessarily any better than that- rather close to accurate.

I woudl guess that this further points to the russian tendency to simply abandon damaged tanks. Especially in the first year of the war, thousands of tanks were abandoned due to no spare part or no faciltiies to fix them.
Even later in the war, the russians had nothing near the repair and recovery service available to the Germans.

Which even further muddies the whole "kill count" issue. If a tank is damaged- but not knocked out - what do we do if it is abandoned [I}after the battle[/i]??
Is this a kill for the gunner that hit it?

I maintain my scepticism on the numbers in these cases!

And by the way- "quite a dilemma" is a very good