Have you actually ever even seen Zetterling's list of published books?
https://www.amazon.com/Niklas-Zetterling/e/B0028F28T6
For reference, he only has six books. Two are on ships - a Bismarck and a Tirpitz book. He has two operational history books - one on Moscow 1941 and another on the Korsun Pocket.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/765015.Niklas_Zetterling
Right, only 5 books, there are doubles for being in swedish and in english but still. Just for the lulz how many books has someone to write until he is good in your eyes, or isnt it more what suits your agenda since real facts arent your thing as it seems.
His two statistical analysis books - the ones which detail Panzer deliveries and losses - are on Kursk and Normandy. And if you've read the Kursk book you'd realize that he wasn't quite as comprehensive as the Normandy one (which was the real ground-breaking book).
As if you had read the Kursk book but more about that later.
That you're pretending that he has a "table" from May 1943 to August 1944 is pretty much fabricated. He hasn't formally published any such table in one of his books. It seems you are just pretending that his Kursk and Normandy books can be bridged together as one when in reality they are two very different books.
Ah yes the fabricated table, which is shown in Ulatersk posts screenshots who beat me to it, so you are outright lying and as always let it look like you have read both books. I dare to say you havent even touched them. There is no bridging if i quote the deployment numbers of Tiger I in Kursk but you can keep pretending.
Moreover, you're ignoring two important things:
Third Kharkov happened in February 1943 - which was again the first ever major deployment of the Tiger tank and this was with the SS Panzer Corps - which is before the period you say he supposedly studied.
Wrong the fist major deployment happened with the 501. Schwere Panzer Abteilung on 25 November 1942 with Kampfgruppe Lueder in Tunesia, the first major deployment in the east happened on the 1 January 1943 with the 503. Schwere Panzer Abteilung securing bridges over the Mantschy river. The 502. Schwere Panzer Abteilung was already in the east but got only reinforced piecemeal. Read it up in Wolfgang Schneiders Tigers in Combat volume I. According to the units war diaries.
Secondly you seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that his two statistical analysis books were published in 2000 and 2004. There is a reason why he hasn't published new books since then. And it has to do with how people realized that Zetterling's "loss figures" were in fact not terribly reliable because again quartermasters are not 100% accurate when there's a war going on.
Have you even a single proof for this assumption? I guess no as always fabricated since you can use the link above and look at the puplished dates, his newest book in english will arrive around april-may this year. The quartermaster argument is also a made up i guess so i will save my time to ask for a proof that his books who are regarded by historians as standart books or as Glantz writes in the foreword of the Kursk study:
"Withing the context of a sound chronological narrative of the battle, Zetterling and Frankson offer an imposing statistical analysis of the Battle of Kursk. By exploiting all available German archival sources, they offer a definite view of the strength , losses, and loss rates of German forces, particularly panzer, during the Battle of Kursk. They juxtapose this against a fair represnentation of like fugures on the Red Army side. In doing so, the authors put to rest many of the myths concerning the battle and offer a work that superbly complements the best of new literature now appearing about the battle. One can only hope that the Russians will respond to this volumes`s candor by releasing appropriate data on the Red Army; but until they do, this book will justifiably remain the last word on the subject."
And its still today because since then there is no new study in this size about the battle.
Indeed, there is in fact quite a bit of disdain toward's Zetterling's conclusions in the Kursk book among real tank historians, because based on his "war by spreadsheet" the Germans won Kursk and that the subsequent campaign in 1943 which threw the Germans out of the Ukraine should not have been possible - the Soviets shouldn't have had any tanks left to conduct the offensive to retake Ukraine based on Zetterling's numbers!
Gotcha! Again like like about the Normandy book you are lying. Why? Because nowhere in the study is any statement of the Germans winning at Kursk nor does the numbers/tables even suggest that.
For reference, here are some of the earliest criticisms on the Kursk book:
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000065.html
And anyone looking at the exchange can easily see that a big problem of Zetterling's approach is that it's "War by Spreadsheet". He tries to reduce war into loss figures and tries to math conclusions out of them.
And if you had read the thread or even understood what it is about you would know that the guy who tries to "proof" Zetterlings bias goes home soundly defeated...just like you.
The problem here is that war is not a spreadsheet. It's a series of events. Battles are not just about troops and losses. They require time to fight and sometime delaying a much larger force is all you need to win.
Which is also why _Sev's_ analysis completely ignores the time / delay aspect of the 9th CCR vs 2nd/116th Panzer engagements, but let's review that again a bit later.
It was never about the time or anything your statement was: show me a Regiment sized engagement after D-Day were the Germans win. I showed you some, now you are shifting goalposts, as to be expected, but as i said you can read Ardennes by Bergstrom who uses the data of both sides and you will find many many more engagements who end in a German victory.
You say you have tables from May 1943 and yet you're commenting about Tiger incorporation into the SS Panzer Corps which occurred in 1942 and were put into combat in February 1943. It's very clear at this point that you are not even internally consistent with your arguments. You claim Zetterling has a table from May 1943-August 1944 (even though he has no single book on the subject) and yet you claim the same figures show the Tigers being added to the SS Panzer Corps which happened in the period before that.
God, seems you fail in context...again. Good i dumb it down once more. Zetterlings table ( you know the one that according to you and book owner of Normandy 44 doesnt exist) in Normandy 44 shows the tank deliveries of Pz IV and Pz V and they show NO priority in deliveries of equipment for the SS, as i already put down above the Tiger companies in the three SS Divisions were also no priority, the Heer got Tigers sooner and more and it stayed like that the whole war. Period. No priority for Waffen SS. Period.
Simple enough this time?
That's where the Tigers were deployed in 1942, where they were defeated by Russian 45mm guns. But this seems to not be dwelled on by people who want to present German armor as more capable than it actually was.
Cool story bro, it has to do with your "opinion" that SS had a priority in equipment? Right.
I never said panzerfaust were fired by Panzer crewmen. I said that 30% of Allied tank losses were caused by panzerfaust - which were obviously carried by German infantry. That you assumed I meant they were fired by Panzer crewmen demonstrates how your "analysis" is colored by the very wrong idea that it was the German Panzer forces which did all of the anti-tank work; and that the Panzerjaeger arm (one battalion in each infantry Division) didn't do anything.
Ah yes the 30% meme, also assumingly made up since:
GUNFIRE: Allied Tank Casualties Sampling: ETO 1944"
June July August September October November December
CON 71% 50% 68% 38% 33% 2% 25%
OK 85% 70% 64% 40% 68% 10% 12%
USA 50% 28% 60% 64% 48% 47% 53%
huuuui a lot of losses by gunfire....hmmm lays in line with the conclusions of Buckley, Zetterling, Szamveber and Bergstrom. This includes ofc. also ATGs but as we saw in buckleys book the german tanks outnumbered the ATGs 3:1 and the kill claims represent that too.
But wait there is more, you will like it:
HOLLOW CHARGE: AIlied Tank Casualties Sampling: ETO 1944"
June July August September October November December
CDN 1% 4% 9% 12% 10% 1% 25%
UK 3% 4% 12% 5% 6% 1% 11%
USA 3% 22% 9% 8% 13% 9% 13%
WOW hollow charged weapons like the Panzerfaust or the Panzerschreck made up 13% on the US troops losses, seems you have to subtract 17% from your 30%.
The source is: ORO T 117 So what is this document you may ask well its a sampling study of 10388 allied tank casualties in all theaters, in case you have again context problems you see in the headline this is for the European Theater.
Seems your list of nazi/fraud authors is rising.
Again, read the actual battle record instead of cherry-picking the portions of the battle you like. I have already demonstrated that your "example" has blatant inaccuracies about the forces involved.
You tried to pretend that there was only one Panzer Division involved, when there were two (2nd and 116th).
You are still trying to pretend that the US force was more than CCR 9th Armored Division - when in reality Task Force Harper and Booth were just elements of the CCR.
Indeed, that you keep mixing up the Task Forces with the CCRs tells me you don't even understand how US Armored Divisions operate. US Armored Divisions don't suddenly generate new tanks out of thin air. They are instead easily reorganized into Task-focused units - which is why each Task Force had a mix of tanks and infantry - but all of them nonetheless were drawn from the same pool of just two battalions.
Still dont getting that a Combt Command consists out of more than two Batallions? God get a grip and read some books, like really.
Again you can pick on this battles i quoted because they follow up each other as you will since as you dont even get components of a CC right doesnt change the fact that there are tons of tank engagements who are won by the Germans and the data from both sides SHOW as already written down that the germans outperformed the US troops in tank engagements.
And again - It was not an even battle. It was two US battalions against a Panzer Division which was then reinforced by a second Panzer Division. The US were outnumbered by as much as 9-1.
Proof? Or made up number like the 30% above? Why am i asking, especialy since the germans outnumbered the US forces with a factor 2,5:1 on the first day of the offensive, afterwards steadily getting lower. Source: Zetterling Normandy 44 Chapter 8 German Combat Efficiency
That is why their mission - which you completely ignore - is to delay the Panzer forces. A mission that they succeeded at because the 101st was able to deploy in Bastogne before the Panzers got there. And thanks to this delay the entire German offensive was doomed.
Since the 2.Pz. Div. was not moving towards Bastonge but the Pz Lehr and the 26. VG Div this is an 100% wrong statement, as a nice tidbit: the Germans moved with 80 km in several days in the Ardennes over icy, snowcovered roads while conducting battles faster as the US troops in Operation Cobra in the summer with air supremacy who only had came on 60 km. Source: same as above, same chapter
War is not an excel spreadsheet. Running up your score by picking specific battles and ignoring their context isn't how wars are fought are won. It's just stat-padding.
The horse isnt already dead yet? Well we didnt talk about winning wars but tank engagements, still trying to shift goalpost i see, desperation rises hm?
Also, it would be good if you stopped repeating terms that I have said and completely butchering their meaning. "Context" means showing the broader picture to show where the individual battles fit in the larger campaign. I actually read the battle report. I am very familiar with the overall Ardennes Campaign. That's why I can summarize the whole series of engagements into just a few sentences and explain its real impact on the war.
You are not even in the slightest familiar with anything you write here as i just proofed especially not with: Mechanized Warfare, TO&Es, doctrins, tactics, Studies, the Ardennes campaign, the Normandy campaign. All i see here is slandering historians and fabricating outright lies as seen above.
By contrast you use the word "context" to basically say "It does not support my historically inaccurate views of German tank superiority". What you're doing is not providing context. You're engaging in "alternative facts", which is no surprise when your favorite author on the subject is basically a Neo-Nazi writer whose "analysis" consists of wrongly copying statistics from real historians like Buckley to perpetuate the myth of Panzertruppen supermen.
Too sad that just Buckley supports the theory that most of the losses came from tanks, which supports also Jentz and his data, Szamvebers data, Zetterlings data and Bergstroms data who all use data from both sides. Intriguing isnt it.
The fabricated neo nazi slandering just reinforces my point above.
I think we can close the case. Bye and have a good time with your applause clowns.
