micheal kenny

Look at the thread title and make a guess.

I think you are the one full of 'pot'. I gave you the only GOODWOOD verified account of a TII being engaged and destroyed and in your attempted deflection you seem to believe that the initial description of it as a Panther somehow invalidates or excuses its destruction. There were 12 of them in that area and for certain 2 were destroyed. It is not known for certain how many Tigers were destroyed that day so it is not possible to be definitive but for sure no opposing Unit made any mention of their participation. These TII are conspicuous by their absence. Whilst claims for the Tiger I are common the TII went unremarked even by the Germans. Sorry if this does not fit your preferred narrative but sP zAbt 503 had very little impact in Normandy. Look at TIC 1 and note how the Unit make only 3 kill-claims for the month after GOODWOOD .

Incorrect. I simply asked if anyone had a technical reference for the claimed 5,000 km figure in relation to the Tiger engine life. Note that no such reference was supplied.

Incorrect. I have a thorough understanding of all the War Diary information of the period. I know there are no tales of the TII doing anything worthy of record. Perhaps the only time they MIGHT have had a meaningful role was in OPERATION STACK on July 11. For 18/7/44 The TII performed as badly as the TI in sPz Abt 503. After the bombing von Rosen lead an attack into the flank of the advancing 11th Armoured Division and then immediately turned tail and left the battlefield when 2 of his Tigers (6?) are hit and started burning. A second group of 503 tanks were milling about east of Cagny and other than (possibly) knocking out 2 Sherman's stayed only long enough to lose a TII (when it was rammed by John Gorman) before they too left the battlefield. July 18th was a very bad day for sPz Abt 503. After this they left the remaining TII scattered around the roads leading out of Normandy. Its the above that is absurd. It makes no sense.

The first examples of the TII to fall into Allied hands happened on 18-7-44 during GOODWOOD. One 'Panther kill' is mentioned in a War Diary is almost certainly a TII. The TII rammed at Cagny was claimed to be a Panther in the very first account written up on the day but obviously this was corrected in the following days. This mis-identification is simply because it looked like a Panther. Nothing changes the lack of any reference to a TII having ANY effect in Normandy.

Not my area but I do not know of any incident of note concerning the TII. The Berlin tales of individual TII knocking out 50+ Soviet tanks are not credible.

But did it 'do well? The first 12 TII went into action in Normandy on July 16 and went completely unnoticed in terms of effect. During GOODWOOD the TII were mistaken for Panthers and do not seem to have made any contribution to the battle. The GOODWOOD survivors were all left by the road-side as they Allies advanced to Paris. A further 28 were in action against US troops after Paris and do not seem to have any better luck in terms of battlefield success. As far as I can tell the claims for 'success' seem to rest on the German attack at Puffendorf in Nov 1944 where the TII seems to have entirely built its NWE reputation because it is the one single action (as in one -and-only time) the tank could claim a tactical success. The US advance was slowed by a couple of days and it featured large in the booklet of tankers complaints that is used in the 'US V German Equipment' where it takes up the bulk of the accounts of meeting Tiger tanks in The ETO. There is none of the TI type of inflated claims made for the TII.

'Must have'? Why do you believe that what the evidence clearly shows that Newsome has never given any other reference that the Tigerfibel entry. You are the one (both here and on AHF) who started threads asking for confirmation of Newsome's claims and you failed to find a single confirming fact. I am absolutely 100% certain that Newsome's 5,000 km claim is solely based on a paragraph in the Tigerfibel. I am convinced Newsomes claim: from the evidence I have gathered they got a reliable tank and not just because I keep saying its reliable ..I'll just give one datum to make that clear. So the evidence I've gathered this tank had an overhaul schedule of 5,000 km or 3,000 miles.''... is untrue and that he has no 'evidence' of any kind to confirm it. Despite his claims it really is nothing more than him 'saying it'. Just because you and a few other are absolutely convinced Newsome is 'must be' correct it does not follow that he is correct or that 'you' are the majority. I pointed out to you elsewhere that a number of people in this area have serious doubts about Newsome and have tried to get him to confirm his claims. I believe you even tried it and failed. If I am given a source and it has references then I always check them out. When I checked Carius I straight away saw (by checking against the Tigerfibel ) that Carius was using the 2 pages from The Tigerfibel and was in fact Newsome circular referencing. You on the other hand made no effort to check it out other than to confirm it was an actual Carius quote. If anyone thinks I am factually incorrect then it should be very simple for them to show it. All they have to do is produce the technical data showing the 5,000 km claim.

DP

Newsome claims his 'research' shows him that the Tiger had a 5,000 km overhaul schedule. '' from the evidence I have gathered they got a reliable tank and not just because I keep saying its reliable ..I'll just give one datum to make that clear. So the evidence I've gathered this tank had an overhaul schedule of 5,000 km or 3,000 miles.''... However Newsome has never sourced his claim. Despite being asked to do this on many internet forums he has never once revealed his source. He goes on to claim: ''and in my research there is not a single Western Allied tank or Soviet tank which is reaching that'.......... The M4A2 overhauled around 2,000 miles and the Tiger is designed, from what I can tell, to be overhauled at slightly more than 3,000 miles The Sherman generally is accepted in literature as reliable has 2,000 miles between overhauls and you've got the Tiger is getting 3,000 miles between overhauls.'' direct to the claim : It is noticeable that all those trying to defend or validate this claim have not been able to produce a single reference for it.

You clearly 'want to believe'. Carius did not use the Tiger Fibel to refresh his memory he used it to burnish his memory. A memory that is obviously suspect as the totally bogus claim of 28 kills on July 22nd clearly demonstrates.

He did not 'recall' anything as it did not happen. He made it up. Its fiction. He invented an attack where a group of Tigers knocked out 28 IS-2 tanks. There is no comparable incident in this time period (he was seriously wounded a few days later) that could be said to be a possible mis-dating of this action. The claim for 28 IS-2 kills late in the day of June 22 1944 by Carius (and/or his group of Tigers) is total fiction.

Your argument is that Carius would not claim a 5000km figure if it was not true. You then want to ignore evidence from his own Commanders AAR that Carius most certainly did invent a detailed claim he (and/or his Unit) destroyed 28 IS-2 late on July 22 1944 that is flat-out 'not true'. This is the claim used in TIC 1 that was compiled from the account by Carius: first 6 T-34 were knocked out. Then Carius and another Tiger got 17 IS-2 and 5 T-34. Later the same day Carius and 5 other Tigers knocked out 28 more tanks. A total of 56 tanks claimed This is the period tally tally by the commander : Successes: 23 tanks knocked out (17 T43s, 6 Josef Stalins) 6 heavy antitank guns destroyed A number of trucks destroyed Friendly losses: 2 “Tigers” rendered inoperable by antitank gun and tank cannon hits Personnel losses: None A total of 23 tanks claimed. At best Carius has a very bad memory and did not even bother to read his own Unit paperwork before writing his account of the action on July 22 1944.

So why did he write that he 'knocked out' 28 IS-2 tanks late on July 22 1944 when, if he did but bother to 'look them up' he would have found that his memory was faulty? Your faith in Carius is touching but his own book proves that he most certainly did use information (from his memory) that was at odds with reality. It has long been known that Carius is suspect and I am surprised so many still cling to the 'if Carius said it then it must be true' fantasy. This from AHF back in 2010 shows how far Carius strayed from reality. 1) Schwaner's report gives a more realistic idea of action on 22.07.1944 than Carius' memoirs. 2) The mysterious heavy tank brigade never existed. In fact the company commanded by Carius was in action against the 41st Tank brigade (T-34 and M3 medium tanks) and the 48th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, both from the 5th Tank Corps. The first lost some 10 T-34 destroyed at Malinovo/Malinava on 22.07, the latter - 5 IS-2. 3) Some brigade commander (major, HSU) killed by Carius is a pure fantasy. The most high-ranking Soviet tank officer killed at Malinovo on this day was captain Orlovskiy, CO of the 1st battalion, 41st Tank Brigade. 4) Ambush east of Malinovo, in which Carius allegedly destroyed 28 Soviet tanks seems to a fantasy as well. At least no Soviet tank unit ever noticed that it was ambushed in that area.

So the short answer is there are no references confirming the 5,000 km claim, none at all.