soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Louis C" wrote

> There is little reason to suspect that the figures were edited,
> because the returns of the 48th panzer corps (Heer, not SS) show a
> similar loss rate. So either the Waffen SS didn't edit its strength
> returns, or it edited both its own and the neighboring non-SS corps'.

That's not impossible. The Heer was not beyond a little archival forgery
itself. Bartov wrote a paper pointing out that two different sets of returns
existed in the archives for lots of Heer divisions - one he concluded the
original return and the other a more favourable edited version prepared
after the event for the unit history.

> Please note that editing strength returns to show lower losses will
> result in a smaller flow of replacements and looks like a particularly
> stupid thing to do. If the Waffen SS did it, then at some point it
> would find itself with an official strength of 80% of TO&E while only
> having a handful of actual tanks.

I think you have misunderstood me. I was referring to post-action (usually
six months at least afterward) revision of archived documents, not to
altering operational records while they were still in use. This had no
impact on current operations, merely on the perception of the past.

> But Rich clearly has more complete figures than the ones I have
> provided so you should ask him, not me.

The question was for both of you. I'd be interested to learn anything he has
to say.