Monday 17 April 2017

Cheating at Statistics 19: Time Travelling Tigers

One of the first uses of the IS-85 tank was in the Korsun Pocket. The 13th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, equipped with brand new IS-85s, was sent to block Kampfgruppe Bake (an unusual formation equipped with both Tiger and Panther tanks) from breaking through to the pocket. Forczyk describes this engagement as not particularly favourable to the IS tanks.

"These heavy tanks were committed into action on 15 February and unwisely attacked Kampfgruppe Bake instead of sitting on the defense; the Panthers and Tigers knocked virtually all of them out. Following this incident, the GABTU resolved to upgrade the new IS-series heavy tanks to the 122 mm gun."

Oof, that's quite a mistake for a book published in 2015. The decree titled "On IS tanks" authorized the production of an IS tank armed with a 122 mm gun in September of 1943. By February 15th, these tanks were not only in production, but had already reached the front lines.

However, there's something else fishy in play here. This unit that was destroyed by Tigers and Panthers mysteriously pops up on the very next page to wreak havoc on Kampfgruppe Bake and Frank's attempts to break through to the encircled men. Let's take a look at what actually happened.

The 13th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment was formed only on February 13th, 1944, from the 13th Guards Heavy Tank Breakthrough Regiment. Like Forczyk says, it was armed with 21 brand new IS tanks. The regiment was attached to the 2nd Tank Army. However, there is a big problem here. There is no mention of a 13th regiment in the journal entry for February 15th. The entry for February 16th reveals why:


"31 SU-76 SPGs will arrive near Medvin (25 of them are meant for the 2nd TA). There will also be the 13th Heavy Tank Regiment there (IS-85) which will be subordinated to the 2nd TA. Put the 13th HTR near Dzhurzhantsy, with the goal of preventing the enemy from reaching Pochepyntsy. When using the 13th HTR, take measures to retain complete secrecy and do not, in any circumstance, leave a knocked out tank for the enemy. For this reason, cover the flanks of the regiment by any means and prepare evacuation and demolition equipment."

On February 15th the tanks simply had not yet arrived on the battlefield, making them quite difficult to destroy. However, maybe the Germans wrote the date down wrong, or these were IS tanks from another unit, or the IS tanks were attacked on the march, anything can happen in war. Let's take a closer look at the next few days.


"The 2nd Tank Army received the 13th Heavy Tank Regiment with IS tanks on February 17th, 1944, and the 8th Heavy Tank Regiment on February 19th.

During its time in the 2nd Tank Army, the 8th HTR did not participate in combat.

On 17-18th of February, 1944, the 13th HTR received the objective of destroying an enemy column that has broken through. Losses were dealt to the enemy: up to 650 soldiers and officers. The regiment did not suffer any losses in materiel or personnel.

19 tanks were in service, 2 tanks were in repairs for technical reasons. One tank had a welding seam on a gearbox connecting link rupture when the tank struck a mine. The the other one had its rotor break."

That's it. Not only did the Panthers and Tigers not knock out "virtually all" of the IS tanks that were sent to defeat them, they did not destroy any. 

27 comments:

  1. I wonder what source Forzcyk used...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reasonable question. It constitutes an interesting question for a secondary book to explain casting the wrong unit on the wrong location and the wrong date.
    I am delighted to see that the authors of this blog explicitely account for this possibility (even though the title still remains somewhat misleading).
    From which unit were the "perceived" heavy tanks?

    Soviet claims on the battle are inflated. They claimed that the germans lost 270 tanks inside the pocket. Contrary to these claims, there were only 59 tanks and assault guns inside the pocket (number by Frieser, Zetterling gives only 50 tanks and spg, I consider Frieser´s number more reliable due to his direct access to archival records), and presuming all were lost it still remains that the kill claims were inflated by about 450% despite battlefield possession soon thereafter.

    In addition to 270 german tanks destroyed inside the pocket, the soviets claimed that they also destroyed more than 600 german tanks in the battles outside of it. Frieser found information regarding 156 tank losses actually incurred, resulting in an overclaim in order of 385% (Zetterling gives 160 tank losses, and another 80 tanks as estimates on his part without any sources).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >From which unit were the "perceived" heavy tanks?

      That's answered in literally the first line of the article. I'm glad you read as far as "Korsun", after which you scrolled down to the comments and spat out a few paragraphs that have nothing to do with the contents of the article, though.

      Delete
    2. No, it´s not answered. You made a conjunction out of what Forczyk wrote without assessing any alternatives. Litterally jumping to conclusions.

      You presume You have succesfully ID´ed the soviet tank formation based upon Forczyk´s charackterization of the soviets as an IS-equipped unit but the possibility escapes You that the german Army in feb 1944 did not yet offered any intel on IS tanks and therefore hardly could have reported IS-tanks. It´s more likely that they reported "heavy tanks" instead, of which a hole lot of other units were thrown into the fighting.
      It´s even possible that the ID was completely incorrect, which happens during the heat of the battle frequently.

      Considering that german tank kill claims -unlike the soviet ones- quite reasonably match soviet tank losses at Korsun*, the possibility that some tank action took place shouldn´t be discarded that easily.

      *IIIrd Pz Corps which took the majority of the fighting claimed 600 soviet tanks destroyed, soviet sources cited by Frieser give 748 tanks irrecoverably lost. Taking into account other formations present, that´s still an overclaim, but more likely in the usual 20%-30% region rather than the soviet 400% to 500% overclaims commonly encountered. A

      Delete
    3. Right, so once again you fall back to "all historians are wrong, I am the only one who is right". If you have a candidate heavy tank unit, you're welcome to name it.

      Also I find it hilarious that every time I cite Forczyk, Schneider, Isayev, Pasholok, etc you fly into a frothing rage about not using primary sources, yet you are perfectly content to refer to secondary sources yourself.

      Delete
    4. Considering the Russians warning to not let any IS tanks fall into German hands they considered them secret. As such the Germans probably couldn't identify them at time as IS tanks if they had fought them. (A KV-85 looks a lot like an IS-1.) It probably left authors long after to identify any Russian heavy tanks in the general area and time as IS tanks.

      Delete
    5. Exactly what? Do you have another tank unit these claims can be applied to or are you just posting for the sake of posting?

      Delete
    6. "For this reason, cover the flanks of the regiment by any means ..."
      Who was doing this?

      Delete
    7. As far as I can tell, nobody. Just because an instruction is issued, doesn't mean that it was followed :P I've read many complaints about poor or no coverage of heavy tanks with medium tanks, resulting in unacceptably high losses of heavy tanks. IIRC I posted some already.

      Delete
    8. "This unit that was destroyed by Tigers and Panthers mysteriously pops up on the very next page to wreak havoc on Kampfgruppe Bake and Frank's attempts to break through to the encircled men."

      On the next page? What is the date? Does the Russian sources document any losses (German or Russian) for those dates? By the 8th or 13th regiments?

      "On 17-18th of February, 1944, the 13th HTR received the objective of destroying an enemy column that has broken through. Losses were dealt to the enemy: up to 650 soldiers and officers."

      A column of just infantry breaks through Russian defenses?

      Then when they are confronted no vehicles of any kind are apparently lost, just soldiers and officers.

      So the orders to cover the flanks of the 13th Regiment by any means might not of been followed? Makes you wonder doesn't it?

      There seems to be some gaps in both sides stories. They are incomplete.

      Delete
    9. >On the next page? What is the date? Does the Russian sources document any losses (German or Russian) for those dates? By the 8th or 13th regiments?

      February 16th. There are no losses from either regiment.

      >A column of just infantry breaks through Russian defenses?

      Yes? It's very common to abandon heavy equipment and go by foot when trying to break out of encirclements in more easily concealable small groups.

      >So the orders to cover the flanks of the 13th Regiment by any means might not of been followed? Makes you wonder doesn't it?

      Makes me wonder what?

      >There seems to be some gaps in both sides stories. They are incomplete.

      Germans claim tanks were destroyed. The tanks they claim to have destroyed were not, in fact, destroyed. That's the scope of the article. What gaps do you see here? Why are you bringing in the infantry seeping through from the pocket? They never claimed any tanks destroyed. If you try to account for the breadmaking platoon of the reserve bridgebuilders training brigade, then yes, there are going to be white spots since they had absolutely nothing to do with the fighting that (allegedly) happened.

      Delete
  3. So if no German tanks were accounted by the 13th GHTR, then it was only officers and soldiers that broke through the Russian lines.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Germans claim tanks were destroyed. The tanks they claim to have destroyed were not, in fact, destroyed."

    Incorrect. The germans claimed tank were detroyed. Forczyk claimed these tanks were IS and may or may not have attributed the losses to 13th Hvy Gds Tnk Rg. That a secondary author may have made a mistake doesn´t mean that the german claims are incorrect. As I have demonstrated above, german claims reaonably match soviet admitted losses for the period (the same is definetely not true for the soviets who made wildly exagerated claims). Instead of considering all available evidence, Peter doesn´t hesitate to jump to conclusions, again demonstrating his poor command of primary sources and a very selective perception in order to produce some little proaganda here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your claims were made for the whole season, this is a much more granular examination. If you can actually think of a unit to apply these claims to, do so, or quit crying.

      Delete
    2. crit you have demostrated nothing but you are so focused defending Nazies your mind is completelly blinded for anything else. You claim the author has "poor command of primary sources and a very selective perception in order to produce some little proaganda here."
      You post this after posting SOURCELESS Soviet information you use as the base to say "As I have demonstrated above..."
      Bravo!
      If you knew something about what is exposed here you could demonstrate it responding just to one question the author has made to you, "Do you have another tank unit these claims can be applied to or are you just posting for the sake of posting?" But you prefer to ignore it and continue attacking by any means.
      What you demonstrate is a very inmature behaviour which shows quite a lot about you.

      Delete
  5. Did You even noticed that a couple of lines later, Forczyk claims that the 13th GTR was not equipped with JS but with KV-85 instead when he describes it running into Kampfgruppe Frank on feb. 16th?

    Forczyk doesn´t footnote his sources (unlike Zetterling, Glantz, or Frieser) and thus, it cannot be verified what exactly he interpreted and which sources he commands. However, his description certainly leaves a lot to be explained.Chances are very high that he mixed and/or misidentified units.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So which of the many swarms of KV-85 and IS equipped units did Kampfgruppe Bake bravely demolish on their way to break into the pocket? Do you have any suggestions or are you accusing me of propaganda based on hypoteticals alone?

      Delete
  6. I do not need to offer an alternative description of the events. Rather than jumping blindly to conclusions, I am fine with reminding everyone that the information provided by either Forczyk or Peter is insufficient to presume succesful identification due to the involvement of various tank units from two fronts in a close area.

    That being said, I just pointed out where Your interpretative mistake was originating. You may decide, if You whish to do so, to follow that path further in the primary sources. As an advice, Bäke´s war diary survived and may be helpful identifying the location of various events. While it will be of little help in ID´ing the soviet units (generally, the war diary DOES NOT state which unit the PAK or tank engaged belonged to, questioning further the ID Forczyk attempted), the information of location can be important in cross evaluation from soviet primary sources.
    Something which will take a couple of days when access to all information is available.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, so as always, neither contemporary records nor modern historians are a match for the great critical mass. His intuition is fact and his word is law. He doesn't need to bog himself down with pesky "sources" or "evidence".

      Delete
    2. A map might help. I can only find Medvyn on any map. The other towns mentioned - not.

      Delete
    3. Peter, I would not call Forczyk treatise a historical work if it doesn´t footnote it´s sources. Frieser and Zetterling are different, though that doesn´t mean they contain no errors.
      Nor does Your attempt here makes for a convincing case. The sources You provided are single sided and bear no relationship with Bäke´accounts because You did not consult primary sources dealing with Kampfgruppe Bäke in the first place. That means You wrote about something You failed to understand, relying heavily on secondary authors opinion.

      Mobius, some maps:
      [url]http://www.57id.de/images/a/a4/Tscherkassy-russischerAngriff.png[/url]
      [url]http://www.57id.de/images/a/a5/10-13-Feb-1944.jpg[/url]
      [url]http://www.57id.de/images/f/fb/14-17-Feb-1944.jpg[/url]

      Delete
  7. Some additional information. Bäke´s Kampfgruppe claimed 130 tanks destroyed during the period feb 11th to feb 20th.
    The irrecoverable tank losses of the 1st Ukrainian Front according to Tsamo 236.273-311 were 193 tanks and 36 SPG. Of course, Bäke also fought units of the 2nd Ukrainian front in this period.
    However, the numbers do not suggest that the idea of overclaim in this period on the german side can be substantiated.

    On the other hand, soviet claims in this period and fighting area indeed are wildly exaggerated across the board (tanks, perssonal casualties, aircraft), and even failed to recognize that the encircled units successfully managed to break through several layers of soviet tank, infantery and artillery strongpoints back to german lines sans their equipment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha are you seriously saying that Bake should be credited with a significant percentage of the losses of two entire Fronts? That's even richer than saying that Forczyk is not a historian.

      Delete
    2. Also what is "Tsamo 236.273" supposed to be? There is no such opis. The opis of the 1st Ukrainian Front is a different one, so congrats on making up random numbers I guess.

      Delete
  8. Again You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge. Bäke´s Kampfgruppe was not one but THE single maost significant contributor to the whole tank claims from the german side. Understandably so, because it stood in the midst of the most intensive battles and was the largest committed tank formation on the german side.
    And as mentioned, the german claims do match soviet losses in general, You have provided no evidence to suggest anything else.

    The 1st UF alone lost 231 tanks and SPG Feb 11-20th. Konev´s 2nd UF lost as irrecvoverable losses another 324 tanks and SPG but in a longer period (jan 20th to feb 20th) covering also a larger area of contact. Considering that the most intensive battles in this tim frame indeed happen to be at at the Korsun-operation, it appears convincing that the total losses for the soviets were larger than 300 tanks & SPG in the period (compare Zetterling), agreeing fairly well with a claim of 130 tanks destroyed as forwarded by Bäke´s Kampfgruppe in this period. Yes, it´s a significant portion of tank losses from two soviet fronts. But then again, the soviets did lose a significant amount of tanks and inflicted german tank casualties at an -by western standarts- catastrophic exchange ratio.

    Tsamo 236.2673-311 is of course, Tsamo 236, opis 2673, delo 311, lists 12, 39, 64 and 85.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not talking about in general. I'm talking about one specific battle. Stop trying to shift the goalposts. You're the one that should be providing evidence here, but yet you make outrageous claims (like Forczyk not being a historian, that is just amazing).

      Also, conveniently enough, that exact list of pages is referenced by Krivosheev, so it's quite obvious that once again you're just going off his numbers even though you keep howling at me for using secondary instead of primary sources.

      Delete