![]() The categories and groups are listed to allow those who disagree with the classifications to create their own analysis. For example, tanks lost due to a unit surrendering does not fit into neither a combat nor a non-combat category. For an analysis about the losses of the Tiger tanks, losses that did not happen in the field are not immediately relevant. If the Tiger was considered irrecoverable this may be because the area was under Allied control, or it may be because the weight of the Tiger made recovery impractical. For example, if a Tiger was hit by artillery or ran over a mine and was immobilized, this was clearly combat damage. Determining whether a loss should be listed a combat or non-combat loss can sometimes be difficult. Grouping information naturally results in a loss of detail and nuance. To remove as much noise as possible, while still retaining some level of detail, three tiers of grouping were used. For the purpose of this analysis, it is not important whether a loss was due to, for example, a British or an American M10 tank destroyer. Because the amount of detail in the reported cause of loss varies a lot, doing a direct analysis would introduce a lot of noise. This analysis is based on the losses assembled and tabulated by Ron Klages in his book Trail of the Tigers. This analysis seeks to create a better foundation for determining the truth of such claims. These claims are usually not backed up by actual numbers. It is often claimed that more Tiger tanks were lost to various non-combat reasons than were lost in combat. ![]() One of the most common assertions about the Tiger I and Tiger II was that it was notoriously unreliable. By Christian Ankerstjerne - Last modified Contents
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |