Richard Anderson wrote:
No, it doesn't "settle" this or make Bergstrom seem to be correct. Nor did I say anything of the sort.
No you didn't but the numbers you presented settle it.
Richard Anderson wrote: The problem is that is a change in operational strength; it is NOT A REPORT OF LOSSES, it is only an indication of inferred losses. It also cannot reflect any losses by CCB, since the division had no contact with them until later...as you have been repeatedly told, but have repeatedly ignored.
It is when people infer the losses of German units. It just goes to show that the data you work with is prone to error, doesn't it? The number of operational Sherman drops by the dozens but only some write-offs make their way into your compiled data.
I assume ( sorry for again assuming ) you compiled the figures of 132 Sherman write-offs in December. According to the lists in thunderbolt, which seem to be the same you used, most 3rd Army ADs suffered major casualties in December:
Richard Anderson wrote: Um, no, it is more interesting you are unaware that the 9th AD was assigned to First Army, not Third Army.
Yes i was under the assumption that the 9th AD was part of the 3rd Armys VIII corps. Was it temporarily assigned? Would those loss numbers then be compiled into the 1st Army data?
Drop: December to January according to thunderbold if no other source given
4th AD: 59
6th AD: 35 ( supplement by new 76s)
9th AD: 80 ( according to Bergstromg 16th-2nd)
10th AD: 36 ( according to Anderson )
The armored divsions of the 3rd Army seems to have sustained far higher casualties as the armored divisions of the 1st Army or the first army got far more replacement tanks.
2nd AD: 47
3rd AD: 35
7th AD: 1 ( obvious replacements of 76s)
Obviously, the approach is unacademic and is only intended to show problems with established number and not get the correct figures.
The accepted figure of losses for the 1st Army is ~400 Shermans. This is about 3 times what Richard Anderson got for the 3rd Army write-offs. Only some possible explanations for this: either the first Army received far more replacements in December or the independent TBs of the 1st Army suffered far higher casualties than the TBs of the 3rd Army. Several TBs of the 1st Army got hit hard but that doesn't seem to be enough to explain how the Army with far lower drops ( ~ 2/3 less ) in operational Shermans had 3 times the write-offs.
Richard Anderson wrote:Given Bergstrom, and you, have no idea how many replacement tanks the 9th AD - or anyone else for that matter - received, then I find it remarkable that "cleared some things up" for you. I suspect that what it actually did was allow you to pick and chose the information supporting your assumptions while ignoring the inconvenient bits that don't.
Enough replacement tanks were set out to deplete the depots as you stated before. Even without replacement tanks it seems clear. But I said that before. The reasoning isn't relying on replacement tanks. The operational numbers for the 10th AD just don't support such low loss numbers for December.
Richard Anderson wrote:
Frankly though, I just don't GAS anymore. You must be right, THOUSANDS of Shermans were written off but unreported; so obviously there was a huge conspiracy to cover it up.
I didn't want to imply that. Somebody dismissed Bergstrom's remarks as baseless and I think that's unfair to him. We also don't have him defending his figures only me as layman giving possible explanations for his view. What does GAS mean?