Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Which tank was the most mass produced?

Discussion in 'Information Requests' started by Onthefield, Oct 2, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    224
    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.
     
  2. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    No--a simple request for info did not upset me--your attitude did.

    Regards--Carl.
     
  3. CrazyD

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    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? :rolleyes:

    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".
     
  4. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    21,941
    Likes Received:
    992
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    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....

    :confused:

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

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    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 way to put this issue! I don't really see any way to prove or disprove things one way or another!

    [ 06. October 2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]
     
  6. Mahross

    Mahross Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    London, UK
    Gents this all seems a case of where fact gets mixed up with fiction, for lack of a better term, or clouded with memory. As Crazy comments there is no true way of checking Remys claim as A) we weren't there and B) by the way it sounds no one could check the battlefield after the action therefore corobarate Remys story. This does not mean it isn't true. This is in a similar vein to who killed manfred von richtofen in WWI, there are 2 claims here, and the death of michael wittman, an episode where there are up to 5 claims for his destruction. It is a case of historical myth that is very hard to prove or disprove. none of the claim should be disregarded but should rather be considered with as much information as possible. As carl said ask Remy yourself. He obviously believe that he either destroyed or was envolved in the destruction of the said number of tanks. with the lack of documentery we must take a veteran at his word.

    M Kenny - your comparison with Normandy is unfair. I have extensively study this battle and the allies, unlike the germans, made lots of battlfield reports and had whole groups of operational scientists who researched the actions after the events. in this vein we actually know a vast amount about what happened in that campagn.

    There we go my 2 cents . . .

    [ 06. October 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Mahross ]
     
  7. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Remember what I said in the case of Remy ? the 11th SS Pz. Gren. had occupied the field. It was easy enough to gather first hand information of the smoking ruins left behind through a foot count.......
    I suppose with anything in WW 2 when it comes to claims from any side, the count can always be disproved in some sort or another. Hartmann did not always have his wingman at his side as he was also involved in the terrible air battles over Russia, so de we discount Erich's actual over all count of 352 ? possibly.

    ~E
     
  8. Mahross

    Mahross Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    London, UK
    Exactly Erich a lot of it comes down to hear say and conjecture. Unfortuanatly the problem that we as historians, be it professional or amature, is piecing together what pieces of information together that still exists.
     
  9. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    I guess we can then discount everything the "bad guys" in the War listd then ? Seems absolutely ridiculous as we can debate and get off topic all we want. This has been all asked before in Normandie, North Africa, western front in the Reich and the Ost front from as early as the 1960's / nothing new here. I guess it is going to be the indvidual whether to believe or not to believe. In the case of German records much was lost of the 1944 period in the way of documented texts that were housed in Berlin.

    bummer guys ! [​IMG]
     
  10. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    224
    Mahross:
    . ."M Kenny - your omparison with Normandy is unfair. I have extensively study this battle and the allies, unlike the germans, made lots of battlfield reports and had whole groups of operational scientists who researched the actions after the events. in this vein we actually know a vast amount about what happened in that campagn."

    You are of course refering to the studies done on wrecks to try and determine the cause of destruction. The majority of this was done in and around the Falaise Pocket. I know all about them and they are not definitive as they concentrate around one phase of the Campaign. Useful but far from conclusive.
    I would dispute that we know 'a vast amount' of what went on.
     
  11. Mahross

    Mahross Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    London, UK
    There are more. Try Terry Copps collection called 'Montgomery's scientists'. This is just a small selection of what exists. This contains reports from the 2OCS and relate to several aspects of the battle not just falaise.
     
  12. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    m kenny your last sentance may have said it all ! there are still too many unknowns but we do have more information to our disposal than we did in the early 1960's....
     
  13. CrazyD

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    Erich, Mahross, M.Kenny- all very well put. This was my idea in the original post... (well, other than questioning the production/kill counts idea!)... because of the very nature of what we study, I think in many cases these events/people will never be "complete" as far as the info goes.
    Like Erich said, too many unknowns.

    Erich- I certainly would not say that we can "discount" or ignore the info from EITHER side- "good guys" or "bad guys"! Take all the info in, examine, cross-reference, etc. etc.

    I'd have to say, personally, this is one of the aspects of studying WW2 that I most enjoy- with almost every aspect or subject, there is still plenty of research and detective work to be done!!

    BY the way... considering post-war production- wouldn't the T-34 be the the "most mass-produced tank of the war"?
    (Good lord, back on topic!!!)
     
  14. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Crazy--from one of my lines that you posted as a quote: ["In all probability--Remy knocked out more than he claimed."] With you posting this--its apparent you do not understand the meaning? I don't know how else to explain it. Also--if Remy's record is something you have a mission on to dispute--why don't you send a PM to Bill Smith and he can explain using better tact than I can?

    I don't know what point you were making when it comes to my quote posted above?

    Remys kills were confirmed by, 1) the number of KOed tanks on the field after Paul-Albert Kausch and the Germanic SS counterattacked and retook the area bearing in mind that no further Russian armor was KIA'd in this action. 2) Artillery observers 3) Survivors from his battery (there were three guns with crews of 8--remember? though many wounded and some killed--some DID observe his actions) 4) Konrad Schellong--Remy's CO--also observed the action taking place. 5) Waffen SS Infantry who were in the area.

    That is how Remy's "score" was recorded and confirmed.

    [ 06. October 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]
     
  15. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Crazy I think you maybe corect on that, the T-34 being king as to total numbers in production which I am sure would and could include post WW 2 nummerations due to the number of Tanks made and sold to mid east nations.......

    m kenny since you have the book Lion of the Flanders, if it is not too long of an exerpt can you cut and paste it here or would you rather not ? that maybe a problem with copyright though.......

    ~E
     
  16. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    224
    The entry for the 3 day battle is 77 pages long! However this is the award citation:

    " On 7/26/44 at 0900 hours the Russians attacked with three T-34s along
    the "Narva-Reval" highway. Schrynen knocked out two T-34s at a distance of
    400 meters. During the afternoon at 1500 hours the Russians attacked again
    with infantry forces, and was supported by artillery and heavy grenade launch-
    ers. Schrynen again knocked out two T-34s and a single "Stalin" tank. A fur-
    ther T-34 was damaged. It's crew disembarked. The damaged tank was prob-
    ably dragged away during the night. On 7/27/44 at 0400 hours the Geschutz
    Schreynen moved to a position 400 meters north of the Hill Kinderheim, left
    of the "Narva-Reval" highway. Schreynen recognized a position where eleven
    Soviet tanks were preparing to attack. Under the protection of two T-34s, six
    T-34s and one KW II approached the highway from the north. At a distance of
    700 meters, Scheynen knocked out a T-34. The two T-34s in position to attack
    the others shot at the anti-tank gun. Schreynen cleared a jam in the gun and 5
    minutes later he knocked out a KW II. Immediately thereafter the Geschutz
    was knocked out by a direct hit. Sch. was named in the Wehrmacht reports
    that followed the battle."

    The book also states Schrijnen says he did not knock out any KVII's. The book also says:

    " The battles west of Narva would continue for maybe a week and a half, al-
    though there were only local skirmishes after July 29th. By the end of the battles,
    the Germans registered 113 destroyed Soviet tanks. Despite this relative success,
    the casualties were very high, and besides the completely annihilated SS-
    Freiwilligen-Regiment 48, many officers and their men were killed. Among oth-
    ers, Obersturmbannfuhrer Arnold Stoffers, commander of Regiment 23 "Nordland,"
    Obersturmbannfuhrer Hans Collani, commander of Regiment 49, "De Ruyter,"
    Sturmbannfuhrer J. Sooden, commander of the I. Bataillon of Regiment 47 and
    Obersturmbannfuhrer Hermenegild Graf von Westphalen zu Furstenberg, com-
    mander of Regiment 24 "Danmark," were all killed. Also, the commander of the
    Division "Nordland," SS-Gruppenfuhrer und Generalleutnant derWaffen-SS Fritz
    von Scholz, died after receiving mortal wounds inflicted by an attacking T-34.
    That so many higher officers were killed in battle is a testament to the brutality of
    the struggle and the even worse fate of the average soldier.
    The Flemings themselves also suffered a devastating fate. Of the approximate
    four hundred men that comprised the battle group just a few days earlier, only
    some 37 survived without serious wounds. One thing was certain, the memory of
    those few days would remain with the survivors for the rest of their lives."
     
  17. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    what the heck is going on here ? I think there is a T-34/85 trying to get a round up my butt........
     
  18. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Mkenny, one thing I will admit to is that I am no expert on armor--Russian armor and it has been a few years since I last read Remys Schrijnens book. I'm also a bit dusty on exact details but, when it comes to Remy's carreer--I KNOW what i'm talking about.

    What you also have there is also a condensed version of what happened and all details are not in the book. How do I know? BECAUSE Remy told me so.

    Many things are left out to keep the story flowing and interesting. This book is not abridged--meaning it does not contain everything that happened.

    :cool:
     
  19. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    PS, I also have about 25 or so letters from Remy. Am I supposed to get them all translated word for word and post them here?

    Well.....I AINT. :cool:
     
  20. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    As to the tank figures, I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but the most produced tank was the Sherman. Almost 52.000 were produced. The T-34 is closely behind with some 48.000. Anything beyond that is an exageration. Besides, we all know that those figures individually are twice the numbers of all German armoured vehicles produced.

    And I agree with Crazy about the different strategies having to do more with masss productions than everything. Very simple, if the German industry could have produced more tanks, they would have made more! They used a quality, better-training strategy because they didn't have any other option.

    And I'd say that the figures of kills confirmations are a very difficult issue. Maybe many figures are incorrect but that doesn't mean the men were less good at their jobs, right?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page