Comments on: The not so Duel at Dessau

By: korui

korui — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:57:47 +0000

I replied to a comment of yours before, but now I see a more elaborated reply, good comment.

Let me add that unlike today, Tigers and Tiger II needed heavy maintenance to be operative, this is widely documented. Their operational range was somewhat 110-190km. These two facts together mean that if a lone tank were split up from their unit, odds are that its crew will abandon it eventually, or they would join another unit and then they would inform their chain of command about their situation to receive supplies and support. If the second option were to happen there would be some recordings about it. In the first one, the chances of appearing so far to fight a Super Pershing are really low.

To sum ti up, taking this into account together with all the stated facts said till now, I would say that probabilities for the tale to be true are really low.

By: korui

korui — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:13:27 +0000

The idea of a lonely Tiger II is highly unlikely. Taken into account the fact that those tanks were the rarest in the army, required heavy maintenance, and their range was something about 170km by road, 120km cross country, to find one fighting +100km away the nearest possible unit is unrealistic. At least with any document left. Cause the chain of command should have known of the tank to give it supplies.

What this article is about, it’s that going by facts and common sense, anyone have to admit that the odds are against this fairytale. God, even the author of the tale never stated that it was a Tiger II to begin with. Blindly thinking otherwise making up unlikely situations isn’t the best way to approach and discuss historical events.

I think that it was a Pz IV or a Panther, and things just escalated.

By: Common Myths About WWII | For The Record

Common Myths About WWII | For The Record — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 22:38:49 +0000

[...] hits. (Credit: Jeeps_Guns_Tanks) Myth: A SuperPershing knocked out a King Tiger at Dassau. Fact: Only if it had a teleporter of some kind. Myth: Shermans were not meant to engage enemy tanks, and were supposed to run away whenever they [...]

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:22:55 +0000

If there were 2 sources that claim there were ZERO tanks there then there was no tank destroyed there period, I doubt that is the case. Just because the US didn’t report any German tanks present doesn’t mean there were none there. This is a given as military intel leaves a lot to be desired. In fact I would go as far as to say that is not even close to a valid source. As for German documents stating where the units were located does not account for all the individual tanks. Hell in today’s military with the coms and GPS it is hard at best to account for each individual member, vehicle of a unit. All that can be done is speculate, as it is possible that this story originally was fabricated entirely, or exaggerated and it was not a Tiger destroyed there. Bottom line is that there is no proof either way. It is impossible to account for every kill, every member of every unit or their actions unless there is evidence as in the markings on the tank. I am sure a Tiger or a Tiger II since they had a sense of security would have exposed their underside to a shot as a PZ IV crew would have never done so. Not a trained crew anyways, but at that point in the war they were not the best trained.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:02:41 +0000

Why would one give this an applause for a article that argues this, yet proves nothing. As for a no reports of Tiger tanks being in the area, it is entirely possible that 1 tank would not have been seen. Could have possibly been mistaken for something else. Not everything has made it’s way onto the web.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:45:43 +0000

So in your tracking of every unit can you track every tank? Are you telling us in the fog of war that a Tiger wasn’t cut off from it’s unit and didn’t join another unit till it could rejoin it’s original unit. There are countless stories of such things happening through out history of warfare. You claim to prove this a myth without any real proof. It is possible that this tank in question could have been thought to be destroyed, MIA. Without any markings or being there you can never state with honesty you are 100% accurate in this article. To do so makes it fiction.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:36:56 +0000

First of all, after commanding Marines in this computer day and age: I can state for fact that people, vehicles and yes tanks get misplaced, assumed dead and simply lost. Sometimes in larger scale. As a result we end up with friendly fire incidents and other horrors of war. Now on such a large scale as the European front it is entirely possible that a Tiger, or even a Tiger II was not where it was supposed to be. Especially near the end of the war as communications and such were constantly disrupted. There was also wide spread fuel shortages. While you say it is impossible, it really is not and is possible they did in fact run into a Tiger or Tiger II. This could have been a tank that was lost, out of communication with anyone and simply lost. It happens today even. Not on the scale of WW II but it has created a few friendly fire incidents during both gulf wars. Units were not where they were supposed to be and believe me when I say the United States military takes every precaution to ensure this doesn’t happen. You cannot eliminate errors in reporting and misunderstandings that take place in the fog of war.

So with that being said I am going to say the bottom line is that this was possible and this could have been a tank that was MIA or at least thought to be so. It could also be a tank that ran low on fuel, lost coms or a number of reasons for it to be out of position. Then again this article could be correct that it was something other than a tiger or tiger II. Unless you can put a id on the tank based on markings no one will ever really know, except the crews of the 2 tanks in question. It is also possible that the whole encounter was a fabrication.

While I am not saying you are wrong, I am not saying you are correct either.

By: Tiger_23

Tiger_23 — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:40:32 +0000

Well written Priory of Sion.

Congrats!

By: Zinegata

Zinegata — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:37:53 +0000

The point of the article is to show that dangerous myths can emerge if people simply take all “historical” documents at face value. Real historian look at multiple sources and fact-check.

Internet historian wannabes just read one book, think it’s a fact, and then complain when somebody points out their “fact” was actually debunked a long, long time ago.

Really, the “Duel at Dessau” was an invention of the 3AD website. BOTH of its source materials do not actually corraborate the story that the Super Pershing fought a King Tiger; and the more credible of the two source materials says that there were ZERO German tanks at Dessau making a battle with any Tiger impossible.

By: Sl8

Sl8 — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:46:57 +0000

After reading through ~80 commentaries, I still haven’t figured out what that dude wanted.

“American sources are trash, go and research some more ! ” … research where, if American sources are all that we have because no German documents were made or have survived until now ?

Don’t we have any Soviet archive documents ? Any trials made with the M4, any tests like they did with captured German tanks ?
I loved the article about Americans and British tests of T-34s and KV-1s.