PDA

View Full Version : Panzers kills-losses ratio revisited.



mkenny
07-26-2007, 03:50 AM
Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; Thomas L Jentz

That is not a 'source'.

I want details of the 25:1 kill rate in Tunisia. A specific example where we can see multiple referenced kills by these Tigers. Is it seriously suggested that these 30 Tigers destroyed 750 Allied tanks?
You do know how many Allied tanks were lost in Tunisia don't you?
Here is a clue. US losses were just over 150 Shermans.

.

Panzerknacker
07-26-2007, 08:13 AM
I dont think is a website so detailed like that book.

If you going to start here with bad attitude forgot it man. :rolleyes:

The shermans were not the only allied Tanks present in the the Tunision front....you dont know that ???? ;)

As I said just forgot it, it dont really worth my time to discuss with you.

Drake
07-26-2007, 11:54 AM
Some get off on the whole German Army of WW ll was the baddest army in the world thing. When in fact there early victories were against antiquated and unprepaired countries and Armys.
Once everyone cought their breath, the world gave them an education.
Of course we knocked hell out of them with airpower,Artillery and armor just like they did those countries they attacked with virtually no means of defending themselves.If others are right then we whipped hell out of them despite the superior equipment some say they had. In reallity they lost because their equipment was ill fitted to the task it was designed for and their stratigy was the worst in modern history.
The western allies had massive amounts of armor at the end of the war and so did the soviets - The Germans didn't because we turned their armor into coffins for millions of German troops as they became the EX-Baddest army in the world.
Cavalry Gunner
Wally

Never seen such an unbiased and wellinformed synopsis to the unbelievably complex matter that is called WW2. :roll:


I see that real figures for destroyed Allied tanks seem not to dent this uber-panzer myth.
There is not any evidence whatsoever that supports a 25:1 kill rate. It is simply uncritical acceptance of German claims. You want to exclude all German tanks knocked out by artillery but I bet you don't want to exclude the Allied tanks hit by German artillery. Allied tanks suffered greatly from German minefields but I bet you don't want to exclude them from the Allied total either.
Sorry but there is simply no basis for any claim of 5:1 kill ratios against Shermans or any other Allied tank. Less than 2:1 is the best you can get.

Hmm, have you ever heard of Michael Wittmann in Villers Bocage? And German claims happened to be pretty precise in WW2. When it comes to tank warfare the most important part is the crew and the other crews in your company. It is nearly impossible to judge the combat effectiveness of a tank from mere kill statistics, especially in WW2. The Tiger was a superb weapon plattform for its time and much better armed and armored than the sherman, so if you would put them 1 on 1 over and over again the shermans would die over and over again until the tiger has no ammunition left. It had however some serious drawbacks, where the sherman excelled it by far, for example weight:power ratio and general reliability. These were partially designflaws and partially due to the overall bad supply situation.

Now another thing. I don't know the book Panzerknacker is referring to, but usually books that have actually been published have MUCH more credibility than any internet "source", especially if it happens to be a scientific study.

mkenny
07-26-2007, 12:02 PM
I dont think is a website so detailed like that book.

Then just give me the page in the book that confirms the 25:1 ratio..................




The shermans were not the only allied Tanks present in the the Tunision front....you dont know that ????

And the Tiger was not the only German tank in Tunisia.


As I said just forgot it, it dont really worth my time to discuss with you.

This is because there is not a shred of evidence for the silly claim of 25:1 kill ratios.

The same old story. Stories about huge kill ratios are quoted extensively but as soon as you ask for evidence it all falls apart.

mkenny
07-26-2007, 12:13 PM
Hmm, have you ever heard of Michael Wittmann in Villers Bocage?

Yes I have. Can you give me the number of tanks he destroyed.
The number of German tanks lost and the total of British tanks lost?
The numbers may suprise you.



And German claims happened to be pretty precise in WW2.

Great. Give me the evidence that shows the 'precise' nature of the confirmation procedure.



It is nearly impossible to judge the combat effectiveness of a tank from mere kill statistics, especially in WW2

So why keep going on about a (false) high kill ratios?


Now another thing. I don't know the book Panzerknacker is referring to, but usually books that have actually been published have MUCH more credibility than any internet "source", especially if it happens to be a scientific study.

Are your saying that my figures are suspect? ..... I see unsourced claims about Tiger kills. I post the actual Normandy figures for Allied losses (if you dispute them then show they are wrong) and it PROVES there was no such thing as an overall 5:1 Sherman ratio for the Tiger or any other German tank.

Nickdfresh
07-26-2007, 01:00 PM
I see that real figures for destroyed Allied tanks seem not to dent this uber-panzer myth.
There is not any evidence whatsoever that supports a 25:1 kill rate. It is simply uncritical acceptance of German claims. You want to exclude all German tanks knocked out by artillery but I bet you don't want to exclude the Allied tanks hit by German artillery. Allied tanks suffered greatly from German minefields but I bet you don't want to exclude them from the Allied total either.
Sorry but there is simply no basis for any claim of 5:1 kill ratios against Shermans or any other Allied tank. Less than 2:1 is the best you can get.


Allied tanks were also exposed as they were on the offensive (mostly). These were the findings of the US Army after the War while investigating the difficulties that the Sherman had in facing the panzers of the Wehrmacht...

I'd like to know what the kill ratio of Allied to German tanks was, say, during the Battle of the Bulge?

Nickdfresh
07-26-2007, 01:17 PM
...Really ? France and UK had 3400 tanks against 2335 german panzer in May 1940. No to mention the most of the French armor was superior,

And spread thinly throughout the front, or cutoff as they were too far forward in Belgium. And without radios, any coherent strategy, or organization for modern armoured warfare. And most, although capable and good machines, suffered from at least one Achilles Heal of a flaw (such as the French commander had too many duties in most types, often having to fire the gun while leading his crew).

French tanks crews were simply not trained to fight tank vs. tank duels, and I believe there was only one bonafide French armoured division...


the german army had 155,678 casualties invading France, no walk in the park. The superior Armor was defeted by better german tactics and a fantastic liason with the Luftwaffe.

All true -but-

But the German tanks faced almost no air opposition and the French war planning was abysmal, with the exception of a last ditch Weygand (essentially "defense in depth") plan that may well have saved the day if the French Army hadn't almost completely been spent, with most of its heavy weapons and reserves gone, by the time of its inception and crippled by an inexcusable shortage of anti-tank guns as they had been throughout the battle...


And that is also a reason of the Big german defeats of 1944, the Luftwaffe was very weak compared with the early years.

And so was everything else.:)

Although production rose, the whole system was falling apart...

mkenny
07-26-2007, 01:24 PM
There is no such thing as a 'kill ratio'. This is an invention of those who believe that German tanks are unbeatable.
What we do have is an overall toal of tanks lost. The problem is that all the combatants used different start dates and so a side by side comparison is not possible. German records are also quite patchy and there are gaps.

But try these threads

http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11051&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=844711&sid=f4f363678cdd3309a8a2a919f27378c5

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=81359&highlight=pziv

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=965826&highlight=#965826

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=123000&highlight=

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=73840


http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=124380&highlight=

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=79201&highlight=pziv

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=730986&highlight=#730986

http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18753&highlight=

That should keep you busy for a while.........I never said it would be easy!

Drake
07-26-2007, 03:59 PM
Yes I have. Can you give me the number of tanks he destroyed.
The number of German tanks lost and the total of British tanks lost?
The numbers may suprise you.


At 0900 Wittmann's Tiger attacked. A few minutes later, in the direction of Caen, he destroyed three tanks; a Sherman Firefly and a Cromwell tank on the right and another tank on the left, proceeding to Villers without pause and attacking the lightly armoured vehicles of The Rifle Brigade. During this engagement, he destroyed nine half-track vehicles, four Carden Loyd Carriers, two other carriers, and two 6-pounder anti-tank guns, then destroyed three Stuart light tanks and one half-track vehicle. Entering Villers-Bocage alone, he destroyed three of the four Cromwells in position at the top of the Lemonnier farm.

He followed Clémenceau Street where his tank destroyed two Sherman command tanks of the 5th Royal Horse Artillery before knocking out another scout car and half-track. As Wittmann arrived at the Jeanne d'Arc square, he ended up opposite the Sherman Firefly of Sergeant Lockwood of "B" Squadron. The Firefly, whose 17-pounder was the only Allied main tank gun capable of defeating the frontal armour of a Tiger in most circumstances, fired four shells at Wittman. One hit the hull of the Tiger, which returned fire and knocked down a section of wall on the Sherman. Wittmann then made a half-turn, his tank lightly damaged, and returned down Clémenceau Street. A surviving Cromwell tank, commanded by Captain Dyas, opened fire with its 75mm gun hitting Wittmann's Tiger twice without effect. Returning fire, Wittmann's tank put the Cromwell out of action with one shot.

As Wittmann proceeded on the road leaving Villers-Bocage, his left track was hit by a 6-pdr shell, forcing him to stop on the street in front of the Huet-Godefroy store. Wittman engaged targets in range. Thinking that the Tiger might be salvaged and repaired later, Wittmann and crew abandoned the tank without destroying it, leaving the area on foot but without weapons.

I admit, this is from a Wikipedia article (shame on me), but I am definatly to lazy to translate and type information from books.




Are your saying that my figures are suspect? ..... I see unsourced claims about Tiger kills. I post the actual Normandy figures for Allied losses (if you dispute them then show they are wrong) and it PROVES there was no such thing as an overall 5:1 Sherman ratio for the Tiger or any other German tank.
I don't know your sources, nor do I know Panzerknackers, I merely said
Books > Internetsources.
The kill ratios or whatever are really not my concern, cause these statistics prove nothing. The circumstances in battle vary so much, that they simply cannot be compiled to a statistic that has any value besides stating in the end how many were killed on each side. But if you asked me, in what machine I'd like to sit in a pure tank engagement of hmm 2 tiger vs. 8 sherman let's say in kursk, I'd know my answer. And I would even grant you a funeral with full military honor if you'd choose the shermans.

What precisely is the point of the discussion anyways?
The tanks developed by a large margin on all sides during the war, so did antitank weapons. No tank was or is invincible, but to state, that a tank of nearly 60 ton was not much more powerful than a tank of half that weight is just stupid. They were not even in the same class, the Tiger was originally intended as heavy assault tank against fortified positions, while the sherman was supposed to be infantery support.

Nickdfresh
07-26-2007, 07:02 PM
I think I already posted this but here is a lot of info about the Wittman exploits.

http://www.panzerace.net/english/pz_vil.asp




Nick , I agree with almost your entire post, you might ad to the picture the problem of the fuel, for example the Tiger supporting the advance of the infamous "kampfgruppe Peiper" have no fuel trucks following it, they must capture his own supply on route...ridiculous.

True. But the SS and Wehrmacht also never took Bastonge, despite surrounding it and using armoured assets to pound away and attempt several unsuccessful assaults.

Some of this was due to American tanks and tank killers laying in ambush, some was due to the rare uses by the Western Allies of 90mm anti-aircraft guns in a ground anti-tank role like the much vaunted German 88mm, and some was due to the US infantry simply killing off German assault troops leaving the panzers with no support...

Drake
07-26-2007, 07:11 PM
... some was due to the rare uses by the Western Allies of 90mm anti-aircraft guns in a ground anti-tank role like the much vaunted German 88mm ...

I always wondered, why the allies didn't do that much more often. The british had known the devastating effect of the 88 against tanks since 1940 and especially since Rommel used it even more in africa.

mkenny
07-27-2007, 04:22 AM
These were not all casualities on the Allied side in Villers Bocage that day. I don't know if or to what extent the combat report is true, neither do you, but to the best of my knowledge it actually was wittmann and his crew, who made those kills as they indeed entered the town alone.

So then how did Wittmann deal with the 6 Cromwells at Pt. 213. These tanks were at least half a mile from his start position and completely out of sight of his Tiger. Why is he credited with tanks he did not even see?
By the way the Cromwells at Pt 213 were set alight by the crews. As every Tiger destroyed by the crew is never allowed to be claimed as a kill why does it not work in reverse?


You still seem to be hung up on the X:Y thing, however.

Wrong way round again. I only post when I hear the silly claims about 5:1 kill ratios, later rising to an absurd 25:1 ratio. Why do you not say those who post this fiction are 'hung up on the X:Y thing'



And what do you want to prove with the pictures?
It actually looks like the tank was abandoned, there are some dents in the hull and frontal armor, but I can't see a penetration.

Yes it was abandoned. The crew ran head on into a couple of Shermans. The Shermans fired and caused a small fire in the Tiger. The crew fled leaving the Tiger intact. The Sherman crews drove it back and it ended up as a range target in the UK. It is Tiger '114' from sSS PzAbt 101.

Nickdfresh
07-27-2007, 04:56 AM
...The crew fled leaving the Tiger intact. The Sherman crews drove it back and it ended up as a range target in the UK. It is Tiger '114' from sSS PzAbt 101.


Pity.:(

Nickdfresh
07-27-2007, 05:06 AM
I always wondered, why the allies didn't do that much more often. The british had known the devastating effect of the 88 against tanks since 1940 and especially since Rommel used it even more in africa.

I started a thread (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4161) on this very subject. The speculation of James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi, in their book "Dirty Little Secrets of WWII" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dirty-Little-Secrets-World-War/dp/0688122353/ref=sr_1_3/203-3649352-2248729?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185530305&sr=1-3) is that the Allies were obsessed with 'classes' of weapons such as light, medium, and heavy: tanks, machine guns, artillery, etc. This was indicative of a very inflexible thinking typical of the respective pre-war armies --which contrasts sharply with the German experience which was one of desperation in trying to rebuild the Wehrmacht, defending a surrounded country with a 100,000 man army, and having to conduct research in accordance with loopholes afforded by the Versailles Treaty, which as you know severally restricted the German military, almost ironically allowing them to forge a new kind of warfare based on the theories of others'...

Nickdfresh
07-27-2007, 06:15 AM
BTW, it is interesting to note that the US Army finally figured out that the M-3 90mm would make a great tank cannon (the L-50 90mm).

Drake
07-27-2007, 06:26 AM
So then how did Wittmann deal with the 6 Cromwells at Pt. 213. These tanks were at least half a mile from his start position and completely out of sight of his Tiger. Why is he credited with tanks he did not even see?
By the way the Cromwells at Pt 213 were set alight by the crews. As every Tiger destroyed by the crew is never allowed to be claimed as a kill why does it not work in reverse?


What 6 Cromwells? I never mentioned them. They might have been attacked from others later in the engagement. I never said other germans didn't fight that day. Btw, I would allow a tank crew (axis or allied, doesn't matter) to claim a victory, if an opponent leaves and destroys his equipment in their surroundings, because they obviously made something right, as the other one thought a fight is futile. That would count the Tiger 114 as a kill for the shermans.




Wrong way round again. I only post when I hear the silly claims about 5:1 kill ratios, later rising to an absurd 25:1 ratio. Why do you not say those who post this fiction are 'hung up on the X:Y thing'



They are hung up as well, as you must've realized I said such statistics prove nothing. Nevertheless would the tiger have achieved such 1:25 or probably much more in continuous 1:1 western style encounters, which never happen in a war.
The only serious approach you can do when comparing tanks is to know their technical abilities, like armor thickness and armor penetration capabilities, hit probability etc. for the main armament and estimate / calculate how they would work in most combat scenarios.
And if you would do that with sherman vs. tiger I think it is very well possible, that your end result would be something like: we will need a 5:1 superiority of shermans to achieve a tactical victory, where we hopefully kill some, against a group of tigers.



Yes it was abandoned. The crew ran head on into a couple of Shermans. The Shermans fired and caused a small fire in the Tiger. The crew fled leaving the Tiger intact. The Sherman crews drove it back and it ended up as a range target in the UK. It is Tiger '114' from sSS PzAbt 101.

See, the Crew is the most important part for a tank. A more brave or more stupid crew, whatever fits, might have stayed in the tiger and the shermans might have had some trouble. Nevertheless a single tank is an absolute no go, for everyone who knows a little about tank warfare. Today a platoon is the smallest tactical unit in which tanks are being used, afaik.

Drake
07-27-2007, 06:39 AM
Is the book actually worth its money? I wondered, cause the reviews seem to differ pretty much :)

Nickdfresh
07-27-2007, 08:40 AM
Is the book actually worth its money? I wondered, cause the reviews seem to differ pretty much :)

I wouldn't bother. I read it, then gave it to my Brüder. As stated, most of the stuff is rehashed and already known by most WWII buffs, though there are some interesting facts presented.

Actually, their first book, "Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You're Not Supposed to Know" is quite interesting, if very dated (late Cold War era stuff)...

You can look through a bit of it here. (http://books.google.com/books?id=CdKp9D3PN00C&dq=dirty+little+secrets+military&pg=PP1&ots=z1y_rpFAzq&sig=hIsAZze-IRZSpf1PLpwofYOtIMs&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Ddirty%2Blittle%2Bsecrets%2Bmilitary%2 6sourceid%3Dnavclient-ff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rlz%3D1B2GGGL_enUS204US205&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1#PPA466,M1)

Panzerknacker
07-27-2007, 09:16 AM
Penetration tables for the Kwk 36.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4418/penetrationjt3.jpg



Against the russian armor 1944-45.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/8301/peneox4.jpg



http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/8279/33333li1.jpg


claimed victories and operational losses, Eastern Front, 1943.

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/3894/tigerlc2.jpg


Source: "Tiger 1 heavy tank 1942-45" H.L. Doyle, T. Jentz. Osprey New Vanguard.

mkenny
07-27-2007, 11:25 AM
What 6 Cromwells? I never mentioned them. They might have been attacked from others later in the engagement.

You said

These were not all casualities on the Allied side in Villers Bocage that day. I don't know if or to what extent the combat report is true, neither do you, but to the best of my knowledge it actually was wittmann and his crew, who made those kills as they indeed entered the town alone

The total of kills claimed for Wittmann and used as the total in his award citation is the total of EVERY BRITISH TANK knocked out. He alone is said to have destroyed them. I simply ask how can you destroy tanks you never saw.
The absolute maximum number of tanks that Wittmann MIGHT have hit is 10. There was another Tiger (possibly two) firing down the road Wittmann used so it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty who destroyed what and when. Remember the award citation was a propoganda weapon and it was inflated beyond all credibility




claimed victories and operational losses, Eastern Front, 1943.


A start at least. Note the word 'claim'. Now after you apply the routine 50% reduction you might just start to getting a bit nearer the truth.

Drake
07-27-2007, 11:50 AM
Actually bought the book and started reading.
Stumbled upon something that really made my day:

Strategic Ressources

Mindful of the possibility of desperate shortages in materials critical to the war effort, in 1940 the British government moved to corner the market on what it considered its most precious strategic ressource, establishing a worldwide monopoly on tea. At the height of the war, Great Britain maintained stockpiles of about 150 million tons of the stuff, enough to brew up about 6 trillion cups. So critical was tea to the British war effort that only ammunition had a higher priority than tea for delivery to troops in action.

Drake
07-27-2007, 12:06 PM
The total of kills claimed for Wittmann and used as the total in his award citation is the total of EVERY BRITISH TANK knocked out. He alone is said to have destroyed them. I simply ask how can you destroy tanks you never saw.
The absolute maximum number of tanks that Wittmann MIGHT have hit is 10. There was another Tiger (possibly two) firing down the road Wittmann used so it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty who destroyed what and when. Remember the award citation was a propoganda weapon and it was inflated beyond all credibility

My comment refered to the vehicles mentioned in the report only. It is of course nonsense to claim victory for tanks you didn't even see or that didn't see you.

Panzerknacker
07-27-2007, 05:36 PM
A start at least. Note the word 'claim'. Now after you apply the routine 50% reduction you might just start to getting a bit nearer the truth


Acccording to who ? you ?, and I guess that in every german combat report we must apply the "mckenny mathematical formula to reduce claims ", give me a break man.

I repeated the word "claim" because is the one used by the authors, but my opinion is that the german figures are close to the truth and that truth are bigger than 50 %.


http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/395/dibujosv3.jpg

mkenny
07-27-2007, 05:48 PM
Acccording to who ? you ?, and guess that in every combat report we must apply the "mckenny mathematical formula to reduce claims ", give me a break man.

Thats right. What would I know. I even think the 25:1 ratio is wrong and the 30 Tigers lost in Africa did not knock out 750 Allied tanks.
The 50% reduction was applied across the board. That means if you want to say that SS superAbteilung had 75% of its kills confirmed then it follows that not so good SS Abteilung 000 only confirmed 25% of its kills.
Perhaps if you were told Zetterling says the same I might get my credibility back?


but my opinion is that the german figures are close to the truth and that truth are bigger than 50 %.

Opinion? well what can I say.
You have no idea what the total Allied losses are BUT you are sure they were big enough to allow a 5:1 kill ratio.

I know the German and Allied losses in The West but you are of the opinion they are not true.

ok.

Panzerknacker
07-27-2007, 06:15 PM
The african figures seems high that is true and I dont think those Tigers killed 750 tanks.

But my opinion was quoting the selected extract of the book, and that extract are talking about the Eastern front wich is other thing, considering the technical superiority enjoyed by the Tiger the entire year 1943 the 11.1 kill- losses ratio seems plausible.

And note this:

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1328/edeuv7.jpg

Aplying the M.M.F.F.R.G.C.C ( Mckenny mathematical formula for reducing german combat claims) wich in this case will be the 50% of 10...is still 5.1 kill-losses ratio...the figure that you hate so much ¡¡¡¡ :cool:

It works.

Drake
07-27-2007, 07:22 PM
I know the German and Allied losses in The West but you are of the opinion they are not true.

I think you are both talking at cross purposes.
And I have to point out again, that total Axis vs. Allied losses are an absolute and completely useless figure when it comes to assessing the tiger tank.

mkenny
07-27-2007, 07:54 PM
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1328/edeuv7.jpg

Hmmm..........the 503 claims come out at a staggering 28:1. Fasntasy land again.

I wonder why the cut off date of 10/1/44 was chosen for 506? Oh wait, it seems they lost 16 Tigers in the following week.
All the figures are direct lifts from Schneider by the way. Completely unsourced


Aplying the M.M.F.F.R.G.C.C ( Mckenny mathematical formula for reducing german combat claims) wich in this case will be the 50% of 10...is still 5.1 kill-losses ratio...the figure that you hate so much

I just watch all this bull about invincible Tigers. When I see the silly claims of 5:1 for Shermans I just show the figures that prove it is wrong. The reaction I get from the Tiger groupies is always interesting.

Anyone care to give me a couple of examples from Normandy where these super weapons wrecked havoc?

Drake
07-28-2007, 07:06 AM
[IMG]
Anyone care to give me a couple of examples from Normandy where these super weapons wrecked havoc?

You are aware however, that even though defenders have a certain advantage, the circumstances in Normandy after establishing the beachhead were highly unfavorable for the german tanks (due to absolute air superiority of the Allied Air Forces).

mkenny
07-28-2007, 08:27 AM
The root of the problem is the endless tales of lone German tanks wiping out ranks of Allied tanks. The stories are everywhere and here we find stories about 5:1 kill rates as the norm.
Now this simply did not happen. At the risk of boring people to death I repeat in Normandy the loss rate overall was less than 2:1 in the German favour.
Whilst we can find isolated cases of individual tankers (from both sides) being able to dispose of several enemy tanks in one action this would be a rare event.
There are 2 cases of Tiger actions where the claims for destroyed Allied tanks are inflated. The first is Wittmann at Villers Bocage where it is impossible for Wittmann to have hit even half of the tanks credited to him.
Then we have Will Fey's claim of 15 Shermans in August. Frankly it would seem that the only person who saw this great feat was Fey himself and it is worth commenting that he claims a total of 80 kills for the whole Normandy campaign.
For those who like a bit of research perhaps someone could find me ANY mention of Barkmann's action in US accounts? I have not been able to find a single US source that even mentions it in passing.

Drake
07-28-2007, 08:56 AM
Now this simply did not happen. At the risk of boring people to death I repeat in Normandy the loss rate overall was less than 2:1 in the German favour.


2:1 of all types vs. all types or 2:1 of all tigers vs. all shermans?

mkenny
07-28-2007, 12:42 PM
2:1 of all types vs. all types or 2:1 of all tigers vs. all shermans?

I don't want to sound a know-all but would it be safe to assume you do not know the totals of the other types of Allied tanks?

UK losses 1944-45 NW Europe

Type............ 1944.............. 1945......... total
Stuart M3....... 210,............... 47............. ..248
Stuart VI......... 80................. 105..............185
M24 .......................................2 .............. ..2
Sherman........1739................973 ............ 2712
Cromwell..........435...............174 .............. 609
Challenger......... 15..................24................39
Comet.....................................26...... ....... ..26





There were 1800 German tanks in Normandy.
170 were Tigers.
There is no way to escape the total of all tanks lost showing a <2:1 exchange rate.

The argument then always shifts........
Examples:

1) 'perhaps only the Tigers had huge scores? '

Forget that this would mean no other German weapon system would them have any kills, the myth must be protected.


2) 'Most Tigers were destroyed by the crews, they dont count as kills'

If you believe all the self serving Unit accounts it would seem that no Tiger was ever destroyed by enemy action. I fail to see how it is more honourable to be running away and then set fire to your own perfectly good tank instead of fighting it out.

3) 'Tigers knocked out, recovered but that were not repaired do not count as kills.'

Yes I see the logic. Your tank is pounded to a pile of scrap. You drag it to some repair depot. The tank is not able to be fixed, you write it off and thus, by the stroke of a pen it is not a combat kill!

Heard it all before. The truth is that Tigers had no discernable effect in NW Europe. The Allies simply rolled over them. The TII made its debut in July in Normandy and it was not even noticed!

I understand that there now will be a lot of complicated calculations forwarded to 'prove' no Tiger ever got knocked out but it matters little to me. You cant escape the figures that PROVE the 5:1 Sherman ratio is a fabrication.

Nickdfresh
07-28-2007, 01:14 PM
There simply were too few Tigers in Normandy to really impact the battle anyways...

Wasn't less that 100 Tigers?

P.S.: Ha! I just read you post 170 were in Normandy...

But I think I've heard that only about 80 were there initially during the opening phase of the battle as the less exciting Panzer MkIVs and Jagdpanzers probably formed the bulk of German armor..

Drake
07-28-2007, 01:20 PM
There were 1800 German tanks in Normandy.
170 were Tigers.


Is this the number of german tanks that were deployed there or the number destroyed?



Forget that this would mean no other German weapon system would them have any kills, the myth must be protected.


Ahem, 2479 tank losses (Uk only, as your table indicates, I assume the US had their own fair share) in 1944, so let's assume the tiger had the much disputed 5:1 kill ratio, this would mean, that if all 170 tigers were destroyed, they would have accounted for 850 killed UK tanks, this still leaves 1629 tanks destroyed by all other means, including the other german tanks.



I understand that there now will be a lot of complicated calculations forwarded to 'prove' no Tiger ever got knocked out but it matters little to me. You cant escape the figures that PROVE the 5:1 Sherman ratio is a fabrication.

Oh please, no one ever said, that a Tiger cannot be killed or anything like it, especially not me. This is really poor argumentation, if it is at all.
I even partially supported what I assumed was your initial point by saying, that such numbers matter little to nothing when you want to assess a fighting vehicle, as they can never cover the enormously varying circumstances that finally resulted in number in the kill statistic, such as false claims, abandoned vehicles, kills by mines, bad weather, lucky shots, good/bad commanders, attack, defense, whatever.

But besides that and to put it frankly, as far as I have read your posts up until now, you should never consider pursuing a career, that has anything to do with statistical analysis of data.

mkenny
07-28-2007, 01:52 PM
Is this the number of german tanks that were deployed there or the number destroyed?

The totals are much the same thing. Few got out.




Ahem, 2479 tank losses (Uk only, as your table indicates, I assume the US had their own fair share) in 1944, so let's assume the tiger had the much disputed 5:1 kill ratio, this would mean, that if all 170 tigers were destroyed, they would have accounted for 850 killed UK tanks,
[/quote]

Wishful thinking. This is the total loss for the UK for ALL of 1944 and all of 1945. The US Sherman loss for 1944-45 was 4300
You would have to factor in the German losses for September to December1944 as well as the other Tigers(130 at least) that came into play in 1944 alone. Considering that Stugs and JgdPzs were issued to Panzer Divisions in place of tanks and the role these vehicles played then you would have to add them into the totals. There is no way you can get 5;1.


this still leaves 1629 tanks destroyed by all other means, including the other german tanks.

That would give the 1600 Panthers (700) and PzIV's(900), 550 Stug's, 150 Jgd Pz. countless A/T guns, millions of mines, untold hand held infantry weapons ect 'only' 1600 tank kills between them. Actualy if you use the Normandy figures for the UK (instead of ALL of 1944 figures) it is 600 left for all the others.
Makes you wonder why the Germans bothered with such poor performing weapons





But besides that and to put it frankly, as far as I have read your posts up until now, you should never consider pursuing a career, that has anything to do with statistical analysis of data.

Yes I am a poor performer.
I know the actual loss figures.
I know the type of tank and the numbers lost.
I know the German quaterly returns and their loss figures.
I know that the 5:1 Sherman figure can not be supported by the numbers.
Statistics? Who cares. I am so ignorant that I can work out the actual losses whilst the real experts argue about the Panthers fantastic 5:1 kill ratio and the Tigers 10:1
And If I may be so bold I would suggest you consider posting on topics other than tank losses in 1944-45. You do not seem to have ANY figures at all-only opinions.

Drake
07-28-2007, 03:17 PM
The totals are much the same thing. Few got out.


Well then give me the german tank losses in the western ToO til the end of 1945 as well as those of the US and do not constantly mix up numbers that have no inherent relation to prove your point. And I only added up those of the UK of 1944 btw. But even the comparison of those numbers would be pretty much useless.
Do you actually understand, that kill ratio (here for example tiger:sherman) means, that for each tiger killed by a sherman in an actual combat of those, 5 shermans would or have been killed by the tiger. And this doesn't have to happen in a single engagement.
How on earth do you want to prove or falsify this with anything but a summarization of combat reports cross referenced with casuality reports (to prevent falsified claims) of specific encounters (and plenty of those).
The total number of lost vehicles is an utterly useless figure for such an analysis, especially if you are talking about a specific type of vehicle, such as the tiger in this thread.

For that matter, your comment


Panther,Tiger II or PzIV. It does not matter what make of tank. There is a known total of Allied tank losses divided up between them.

pretty much disqualifies you for any serious conversation on the topic.
Oh and btw. no one here said anything about an overall 5:1 kill ratio of german tanks vs. allied tanks in the west, except you, did you actually realize that? The topic of this thread is the tiger, both versions together made up less than 4 percent of the german armored forces during the war.




Wishful thinking.



Actually it's 4th grade mathematics



Yes I am a poor performer.
I know the actual loss figures.
I know the type of tank and the numbers lost.
I know the German quaterly returns and their loss figures.
I know that the 5:1 Sherman figure can not be supported by the numbers.
Statistics? Who cares. I am so ignorant that I can work out the actual losses whilst the real experts argue about the Panthers fantastic 5:1 kill ratio and the Tigers 10:1
And If I may be so bold I would suggest you consider posting on topics other than tank losses in 1944-45. You do not seem to have ANY figures at all-only opinions.

The really funny part is, that you might know some numbers but are completely inept in actually understanding them.

To give you an example of how your calculations and the derived conclusion would work out in a topic of more actual relevance:

It is impossible that car XY only uses 5 liters of fuel for 100 kilometers; I know the figures. All cars in america or the world, whereever, use on average 9.6 liters for 100 kilometers, so it is an absolute rediculous statement, that that car only uses 5 liters.

mkenny
07-28-2007, 04:30 PM
Well then give me the german tank losses in the western ToO til the end of 1945 as well as those of the US and do not constantly mix up numbers that have no inherent relation to prove your point.
I am tired of doing your research for you. The figures are out there. I managed to find them. I am sure you can do the same.
I warn you though. The methods used to compile them differ. You will not get the same start date or a simple comparison of the raw figures. You will have to do a lot of compilation and sifting to get a rough comparison-even then you will get those who complain you did not make it simple enough for them - Happy hunting.

And I only added up those of the UK of 1944 btw.
The numbers for the UK are to the end of 1944 but he German totals are 3 months short of this and as all the Tigers were facing the UK forces there is no need to factor in US losses.

But even the comparison of those numbers would be pretty much useless.
Do you actually understand, that kill ratio (here for example tiger:sherman) means, that for each tiger killed by a sherman in an actual combat of those, 5 shermans would or have been killed by the tiger. And this doesn't have to happen in a single engagement.

Yes I am unable to understand the subject.

I know nothing about:

The 45 Tiger 1's in sSS PzAbt 101 that saw action from June 13th 1944.

sSS PzAbt 102 and their 45 Tiger I's that began attacking on 9/7/44 are a mystery to me.

I never heard about sPzAbt.503 who had 33 Tiger 1's and 12 Tiger II's that entered the arena just before the first day of Goodwood on 18/7/44.

The 14 replacement TII's issued to sPzAbt. 503 and the 14 issued to sSS PzAbt 101 also passed me by

(fkl 316) attached to Lehr and it's 3 Tiger I's and 5 TII's? are a mere rumour.

The oddly marked Tiger found abandoned in Marle....I wonder what unknown Unit it belonged to?

The old dustbin coupla Tiger seen knocked out in the Archives of Lyon, where did it come from?

A knocked out Tiger II with the large number '6' on it's turret that seems to have no parent unit..............

I wish I knew something about Tiger Units in Normandy!

I will make it simple for those promoting the 5:1 myth.
Give me an example from Normandy where the super Tigers got a 5:1 kill rate.

The total number of lost vehicles is an utterly useless figure for such an analysis, especially if you are talking about a specific type of vehicle, such as the tiger in this thread.
All the posts I have seen earlier claiming a 5:1 kiil ratio and you never thought to mention this then?

pretty much disqualifies you for any serious conversation on the topic

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

Oh and btw. no one here said anything about an overall 5:1 kill ratio of german tanks vs. allied tanks in the west, except you, did you actually realize that? The topic of this thread is the tiger, both versions together made up less than 4 percent of the german armored forces during the war.
Would that be 4&#37; of the overall war total or 4% of the 1943 total onwards?
Have you any figures showing any totals at all?
What is the 1944 % or total?

It is impossible that car XY only uses 5 liters of fuel for 100 kilometers; I know the figures. All cars in america or the world, whereever, use on average 9.6 liters for 100 kilometers, so it is an absolute rediculous statement, that that car only uses 5 liters.

Yeah right.
The quick way to end this is for you to give me the figures you would use to get a 5:1 ratio.
We have a finite total of Allied losses. Therefore any 5:1 ratio for the Tiger leaves the other tanks (including the Panther) with very little and thus a kill rate in the Allies favour. The way the true believers get round this is to start making exceptions to what is a German loss whilst allowing no such exemptions for the Allies.

mkenny
07-28-2007, 04:46 PM
And German claims happened to be pretty precise in WW2.

Is it possible for you to post the information used to make such a statement?
Exactly what method was used to make a claim a kill?
Surely you are not just giving us what you believe rather than what you know?
You obviously knew (didn't everybody?)about the 50% reduction applied to kills in Russia so how did this effect the kill award system?
Can you tell me how this reduction was applied to individual Units and point me to a source that shows Units reducing their claims by 50% when compiling their statistics.

Drake
07-28-2007, 05:38 PM
The numbers for the UK are to the end of 1944 but he German totals are 3 months short of this and as all the Tigers were facing the UK forces there is no need to factor in US losses.



Lol. You do realize however, that neither all of the german tanks fought the British, nor did the British account for all the losses on the german side. This statement of yours only proves again that you simply have NO CLUE how to analyze data in a scientifically credible way. And the numbers don't really matter here, even though they do not fit because they are not from the same period. I give you credit for the work you obviously put into the topic, but your entire argumentation string concerning this mathematical matter is completely flawed. Just focus on the history and leave the numbers to those who understand them.




Yes I am unable to understand the subject.

I know nothing about:

The 45 Tiger 1's in sSS PzAbt 101 that saw action from June 13th 1944.

sSS PzAbt 102 and their 45 Tiger I's that began attacking on 9/7/44 are a mystery to me.

I never heard about sPzAbt.503 who had 33 Tiger 1's and 12 Tiger II's that entered the arena just before the first day of Goodwood on 18/7/44.

The 14 replacement TII's issued to sPzAbt. 503 and the 14 issued to sSS PzAbt 101 also passed me by

(fkl 316) attached to Lehr and it's 3 Tiger I's and 5 TII's? are a mere rumour.

The oddly marked Tiger found abandoned in Marle....I wonder what unknown Unit it belonged to?

The old dustbin coupla Tiger seen knocked out in the Archives of Lyon, where did it come from?

A knocked out Tiger II with the large number '6' on it's turret that seems to have no parent unit..............

I wish I knew something about Tiger Units in Normandy!



I never said you would not be a welcomed guest in the conversation when it comes to the historic part, where you obviously have profound knowledge.



I will make it simple for those promoting the 5:1 myth.
Give me an example from Normandy where the super Tigers got a 5:1 kill rate.


No place for examples in a statistical analysis. And to make myself clear. A kill ratio is a statistical analysis.




All the posts I have seen earlier claiming a 5:1 kiil ratio and you never thought to mention this then?



Honestly I don't know which figure would be the result of a thorough investigation on the subject and it was never my concern. And I indeed mentioned it several times before.




Would that be 4% of the overall war total or 4% of the 1943 total onwards?
Have you any figures showing any totals at all?
What is the 1944 % or total?


The number was roughly the percentage of tigers build against all tanks build during the war. Your numbers indicate that in normandy, there were roughly 9.5%.




We have a finite total of Allied losses. Therefore any 5:1 ratio for the Tiger leaves the other tanks (including the Panther) with very little and thus a kill rate in the Allies favour. The way the true believers get round this is to start making exceptions to what is a German loss whilst allowing no such exemptions for the Allies.

Again, a flawed argumentation concerning the subject, no matter what numbers you put in (1:1, 5:1, 1000:1). It matters little, how many tanks were lost total, it matters how many tanks were actually killed by other tanks, here specifically how many tigers killed how many shermans and vice versa. You already pointed out, there are many ways to get rid of a tank (Mines, Artillery, Infantry, Lack of Fuel, Breakdown, Aircraft, Surrender etc.). You are making the bold assumption in this argumentation, that the "other" ways to "kill" a tank account for the same percentage of tanks killed on both sides and even more specific for all different types of vehicles, which is a generalization that is plain and simply rediculous, especially in the western ToO.

mkenny
07-28-2007, 06:49 PM
Lol. You do realize however, that neither all of the german tanks fought the British, nor did the British account for all the losses on the german side.

And here is me thinking I made it plain I was on about Normandy. No matter. The Tiger Abteilung fought 95% of the time against UK forces so a comparison of UK losses to Tiger losses is entirely valid.
Obviously you missed an earlier link where you can see the Normandy losses but just for you I will paste it here.

according to WO 291/1186 in the ETO it was:

Mines 22.1%
AT guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP Guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%

This may be compared to a sample of 506 US First Army tanks lost (destroyed and damaged) between 6 June and 30 November 1944.

Mines 18.2%
AT/Tank guns 46.2%
Artillery 7.3%
Mortars 1.8%
Bazooka 13.6%
Other 12.9%

Now as far as American tank losses in Normandy go we have the following data from various reports:

In terms of the cause of loss, in June of 32 tanks examined, 18 were to ‘AT guns’ (56.25%), 9 to PF/PS (28.13%), 1 to mines (3.13%), and 1 to ‘artillery’ (3.13%). Unfortunately we do not know if the AT guns were just that or if they were mounted on armored vehicles of some type. However, we do know that 6 of those 18 were lost on D-Day, so cannot have been lost to anything other than the emplaced guns of the beach defenses.

In July, of 73 examined, 41.1% were lost to AT guns, 32.88% to PF/PS, 16.44% to mines, 4.11% to mines and 4.11% to unknown causes.

In August, of 130 examined, 55.38% were lost to AT guns, 18.46 to unknown causes, 13.08% to mines, 6.15% to artillery, 5.38% to PF/PS, and 1.54% to mortars.

Overall, losses to ‘AT guns’ appear to have been somewhere around 50% in Normandy (the monthly average is 50.91%) and were not far off the ‘norm’ of 46.2%.

From 6 June to 1 July (26 days), First Army wrote off 187 M4-75mm and 44 M5.
From 2 to 29 July (28 days), First Army wrote off 208 M4-75mm, 12 M4-76mm, 4 M4-105mm, and 67 M5.
From 30 July to 2 September (35 days), First Army wrote off 237 M4-75mm, 38 M4-76mm, 6 M4-105mm, and 69 M5.
From 3 to 28 September (26 days), First Army wrote off 123 M4-75mm, 33 M4-76mm, 10 M4-105mm, and 34 M5.
From 1 August to 2 September (33 days), Third Army wrote off 221 M4-75mm and 94 M5.
From 3 to 30 September (28 days), Third Army wrote off 48 M4-75mm, 61 M4-76mm, 2 M4-105mm, and 37 M5.
From 9 September to 5 October (27 days), Ninth Army wrote off 2 M4-75mm.

Thus roughly:
‘June’ 231
‘July’ 291
‘August’ 665
‘September’ 350
Total = 1,537

From the above we could presume that roughly 780 were due to tank and AT guns. Using the WO figures, then perhaps 223 were to 'tank guns.'

For the British cause of loss in Normandy we have but a single document that appears relevant. That is O.R.S. 2 Report No. 12, Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th June 1944. That document reports that of 45 Sherman tanks examined a total of 40 or 89% were lost to ‘AP shot,’ 4 or 9% to mines and 1 or 2% to unidentified causes.

British losses are given as:

June – 146
July – 231
August – 834
September - ?
Total = 1,211 (est. 1,568)

Unfortunately I have been unable to determine the British September totals, but given the overall similarity with the American figures it is probably not unreasonable to suppose that they were about 350 as well (if the proportionality with June-August were maintained, then it would be 357. If we presume that the above cause of loss was consistent for June and July, then about 336 were probably lost to ‘AP shot,’ which is probably an underestimate. If we presume that percentage applied throughout, then a total of 1,396 were possibly lost to ‘AP shot,’ which is probably an exaggeration. Using the total ‘AP shot’ weapons from WO 292/1186 (61.6) we would probably derive a more accurate estimate of 966. On the other hand, if we accept the figures from WO 291/1186 by type of AP weapon, then we can estimate that only 227 were lost to ‘tank guns’ and if that figure is applied to the Allied total loss, then perhaps only 450 were lost to ‘tank guns.’

Thus, we may estimate that the upper limit of Allied tanks lost to ‘AP shot’ (tanks, AT guns and assault guns) was perhaps 2,176, while probably the lower limit lost to ‘tank guns’ was about 450.

German losses were:

June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224
July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288
August – 49 Pz-IV(l), 41 Pz-V, 15 Pz-VI (L56) = 105
September – 12 Pz-IV(k), 581 Pz-IV, 540 Pz-V, 72 Pz-VI (L56), 23 Pz-VI (L70) = 1,228
Total = 1,845

.

This statement of yours only proves again that you simply have NO CLUE how to analyze data in a scientifically credible way.

I am handicapped by not being able to find any evidence of these kill ratios in any Allied War Diary. Those of a scientific bent can work out the figures to 6 decimal places and give us .75 of a tank loss but I prefer reality over this type of vodoo.

Perhaps this would be more to your liking. It is from BRL Memorandum Report No.798, APG 1954

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/figures0001.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/figures0002.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/figures0003.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/figures0004.jpg

It may suprise you but I skipped that chapter!



I give you credit for the work you obviously put into the topic, but your entire argumentation string concerning this mathematical matter is completely flawed. Just focus on the history and leave the numbers to those who understand them.

I hadn't realised how little I knew.
Cut to the chase. I am telling you the 5:1 exchange rate for the Panther and (up to) 10:1 for the Tiger is bulls**t.
I cant be more specific than that.
My head is on the block for those who think they can prove otherwise.
I know they can't but hey give it a shot.


We can see how good you are at challeging other peoples statements so lets try again with one of your claims:



And German claims happened to be pretty precise in WW2.

Is it possible for you to post the information used to make such a statement?
Exactly what method was used to make a claim a kill?
Surely you are not just giving us what you believe rather than what you know?
You obviously knew (didn't everybody?)about the 50% reduction applied to kills in Russia so how did this effect the kill award system?
Can you tell me how this reduction was applied to individual Units and point me to a source that shows Units reducing their claims by 50% when compiling their statistics.

I await your reply with interest.

Drake
07-28-2007, 08:31 PM
And here is me thinking I made it plain I was on about Normandy. No matter. The Tiger Abteilung fought 95% of the time against UK forces so a comparison of UK losses to Tiger losses is entirely valid.


It is only if you don't use the "nothing left for the other tanks" argument with the totals. Still very unprecise however, but let's argument in this model.




British losses are given as:
(est. 1,568)

Using the total ‘AP shot’ weapons from WO 292/1186 (61.6) we would probably derive a more accurate estimate of 966.



I'll take that 800, close to the more than 50 % average for AT losses of all types vs. Germans.



German losses were:

June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224
July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288
August – 49 Pz-IV(l), 41 Pz-V, 15 Pz-VI (L56) = 105
September – 12 Pz-IV(k), 581 Pz-IV, 540 Pz-V, 72 Pz-VI (L56), 23 Pz-VI (L70) = 1,228
Total = 1,845



so 71 killed tigers during the time

as I don't know the statistics for the tiger, I'll have to make some assumptions based on your data. Feel free to comment on it.

Mines didn't apply so much for the tigers, as they were the defender. It is
nevertheless possible, that a tank might have hit one in a counterattack on a town or sth like it. I will cut the mine damage to 1/10 of your figure, roughly 2 percent. However the allies had absolute air superiority and while it was later figured out that the actual damage was less than expect a lot of tanks were damaged or even abandoned undamaged during the attacks.

so I'll take the roughly 20 % of the allied mine casualties for mines and air attacks.

~ 14

I assume these other causes are lack of fuel, breakdowns etc.
The tiger was much more prone to breakdowns and the germans had clearly a lack of supplies, so the number would increase from the average 6 from your 2 datasets to 15%

~ 11

and now the really interesting part. The Tiger was definatly hard to kill for the allied 75 mm gun and they didn't use the big AA guns, so I'll lower the figure for AT kills to let's say 30%.

~ 21

The rest would be artillery (most of it i guess), mortars, infantery w. bazooka etc.

so we have 21 dead tigers killed by all types of british AT capacity, including shermans. It is impossible to tell how many were killed by actual AT guns, SP AT guns or tanks without more detailed insight to data and we have less than 100% shermans in the british armored formations, but to simplify I'll stick with the totals. So let's say 1/3 of the kills are pure AT/SPAT gun kills and 2/3 are tank kills, that would leave us with 14 killed tigers by the tanks in the british arsenal.

Let's take 50:50 ratio for the germans between at/spat and tanks, as they were more often defending than attacking.
So we have 400 british tanks left which were killed by german tanks of all sorts.
You really think it is impossible, that of those 400 tanks, 140 were killed by 170 tigers in the ToO, which would result in the 10:1 kill ratio ??? Some of them never saw combat, some of them killed more, even in a row, but that doesn't matter.

I still believe you completely misunderstood the kill ratio thing. It doesn't mean that every german tiger tank ever fielded killed 10 or more tanks in a row, gungho style. It means, that for every tiger killed by shermans, X Shermans were killed by tigers. What you can derive from this statistc is that you should have a significant numerical advantage, when you are attacking a group of tigers with a group of shermans in an otherwise "fair" encounter.

It is nevertheless remarkable, that total german tank losses were only half or even less the number than those of the allied.





Is it possible for you to post the information used to make such a statement?
Exactly what method was used to make a claim a kill?
Surely you are not just giving us what you believe rather than what you know?
You obviously knew (didn't everybody?)about the 50% reduction applied to kills in Russia so how did this effect the kill award system?
Can you tell me how this reduction was applied to individual Units and point me to a source that shows Units reducing their claims by 50% when compiling their statistics.

I await your reply with interest.

I admit, that my experience on the german kill claim topic is more based in aviation, where they used both other pilots and camera footage to confirm claims. Take this as a quickshot and ignore it.

Drake
07-28-2007, 08:59 PM
double the numbers, have overlooked the two versions of tigers in september

mkenny
07-28-2007, 09:55 PM
that would leave us with 28 (revised figure) killed tigers by the tanks in the british arsenal.


You fall at the first hurdle. Thats the problem when you work with 'statistics' rather than actual events

Just use sSS PzAbt 101 as an example:

13/6/44 In Villers Bocage. At least 2 Tigers by tank fire
15/6/44 1 Tiger (Wendt) knocked out by Shermans
26/6/44 Near Rauray I Tiger KO'd by Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry Shermans
28/6/44 I tiger knocked out by Shermans in Rauray itself.
18/7/44 1 Tiger knocked out by 5th RTR.
20/7/44 1 Tiger knocked out by 3rd CLY
08/8/44 6 Tigers (out of 7) to tank fire.
14/8/44 1 Tiger lost to a Sherman
30/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.
29/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.
30/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.

And that is using Schneider who never writes a Tiger off unless it is absolutely unavoidable. You could go through the other Tigers written off by the Unit and find that several also were for unrepairable tank hits.
I make that 17 from just 1 Abteilung
SS 102 and Heer 503 lost more than 11 Tigers to tank fire


so 143 killed tigers during the time(June to September)

Again no coconut

171 went to Normandy and I assure you far far fewer than 28 made it back over The Seine. The German records are not 100% correct.


I still believe you completely misunderstood the kill ratio thing. It doesn't mean that every german tiger tank ever fielded killed 10 or more tanks in a row, gungho style. It means, that for every tiger killed by shermans, X Shermans were killed by tigers. What you can derive from this statistc is that you should have a significant numerical advantage, when you are attacking a group of tigers with a group of shermans in an otherwise "fair" encounter.

I know what it means. If someone says the Tiger had a kill ratio of 5:1 upwards then every Tiger must dispose of at least 5 tanks bfefore it is lost itself. They do not qualify it by saying a few Tigers had a 5:1 ratio. That is an entirely different statement.
If it is to be claimed a sabotaged Tiger is not a combat loss then would it not be right to delete that Tigers kills from the German kill total?
If The Germans field 150 Tigers and 150 are lost from their inventory then it does not matter to me if some fleeing SS Trooper blows his tank up rather than turn and fight. If he did turn and face his pursuers then there was only one outcome-he was going to be knocked out. The Tiger is a loss.
I am amazed at the mental gymnastics practised by those who believe in the uber-panzer myth. When confronted by the truth they start to bring in all sorts of caveats to try and reduce the German loss totals, anything rather than admit the horrible truth.




It is nevertheless remarkable, that total german tank losses were only half or even less the number than those of the allied.

1800.? To this must be added the 600 Stug/JagdPz lost in the same period. Hardly 2:1.
I know the Allies had SP TD's but not on the scale the Germans did.
US TD losses were 86 up to September but as British TD's were part of The Royal Artillery I do not have the figures

Drake
07-29-2007, 08:10 AM
You fall at the first hurdle. Thats the problem when you work with 'statistics' rather than actual events

Just use sSS PzAbt 101 as an example:

13/6/44 In Villers Bocage. At least 2 Tigers by tank fire
15/6/44 1 Tiger (Wendt) knocked out by Shermans
26/6/44 Near Rauray I Tiger KO'd by Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry Shermans
28/6/44 I tiger knocked out by Shermans in Rauray itself.
18/7/44 1 Tiger knocked out by 5th RTR.
20/7/44 1 Tiger knocked out by 3rd CLY
08/8/44 6 Tigers (out of 7) to tank fire.
14/8/44 1 Tiger lost to a Sherman
30/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.
29/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.
30/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.

And that is using Schneider who never writes a Tiger off unless it is absolutely unavoidable. You could go through the other Tigers written off by the Unit and find that several also were for unrepairable tank hits.
I make that 17 from just 1 Abteilung
SS 102 and Heer 503 lost more than 11 Tigers to tank fire



This is what I am saying the entire time, such raw data as total losses is completely useless to prove or falsify anything. Your actual loss data presented here would be much more suited for the task.



I know what it means. If someone says the Tiger had a kill ratio of 5:1 upwards then every Tiger must dispose of at least 5 tanks bfefore it is lost itself. They do not qualify it by saying a few Tigers had a 5:1 ratio. That is an entirely different statement.


No, you still didn't understand it correctly. It means that for all Tigers lost
to other tanks all tigers together need to kill 5 times as many opposing tanks.
(<=This is the significant part, it's lost to the other tank, not just lost, that means again mixing different figures as I now pointed out X times. You always mix figures without inherent relation, no matter what the number actually is, as I already said, I don't care what the actual ratio was)
This is what a kill ratio between two individual types of vehicles means. They have to face each other, more or less. What happens before or afterwards doesn't matter for this figure. If the Sherman runs on a mine he doesn't count for the tiger and if the tiger is abandoned, he doesnt count for the sherman.

I'll give you an example to help you understand the slight difference between the two figures we are talking about here.

Let's say a modern tank, for example a m1a2 or leopard2A6 would face shermans like in normandy. The shermans have no hope to ever kill the modern tank, that would mean, there would be a zero on one side, meaning that a modern tank could kill potentially unlimited amounts of shermans without ever being in trouble. So you could put any figure like 1:100000000 as kill ratio in there. That doesn't mean the modern tanks would actually have to kill 100000000 shermans, just as important for the figure is, how many modern tanks are being killed by shermans and this is why I said you got the concept wrong.



If it is to be claimed a sabotaged Tiger is not a combat loss then would it not be right to delete that Tigers kills from the German kill total?


Here it comes again, no you can't, just as you can't delete the X kills from a group of shermans (meaning the sherman killed X tanks), who happily drive out of town just to run in a minefield. Again, if you are trying to compare figures you need to watch closely if and how they can be compared.



If The Germans field 150 Tigers and 150 are lost from their inventory then it does not matter to me if some fleeing SS Trooper blows his tank up rather than turn and fight. If he did turn and face his pursuers then there was only one outcome-he was going to be knocked out.


It is a certainty that it would be killed, what you cannot know, is if and how many he would've taken with him, so you cannot put this in an analysis.
Again, it is obvious, that you have no experience in analyzing data. You're tossing around numbers that fit in your view (which could even be correct, that doesn't matter here) without taking the slightest interest if they can actually be compared the way you do it, which up until now, they can't.



1800.? To this must be added the 600 Stug/JagdPz lost in the same period. Hardly 2:1.
I know the Allies had SP TD's but not on the scale the Germans did.
US TD losses were 86 up to September but as British TD's were part of The Royal Artillery I do not have the figures

I referred to your comment on overall losses in the entire western campaign somewhere earlier.

mkenny
07-29-2007, 12:06 PM
This is what I am saying the entire time, such raw data as total losses is completely useless to prove or falsify anything. Your actual loss data presented here would be much more suited for the task.

I 'mix' the (boring) statistics as to real losses with my experience as to what was actualy going on at the time. It was when I started comparing the number of Allied tanks lost to the silly claims of 5:1 upwards (5:1 is usualy the starting point) that I realised something was not quite right. Tales abound of invulnerable Panthers and Tigers roaming at will. Killing everything in sight then retiring to touch up the paintwork damaged by puny Sherman guns. You don't have to look too far to see this myth is a common perception. This forum has a number of posts that simply take such tales at face value.
Are tou telling me that you knew there was a 50% reduction applied to all kill claims in Russia? I bet the first time anyone knew of this is when I brought it up. There are still people out there who think it is not true- or that the figures have already had a reduction applied (believe me they haven't)
It is all propoganda and part of the myth of German invincibility.




No, you still didn't understand it correctly................ It means that for all Tigers lost
to other tanks all tigers together need to kill 5 times as many opposing tanks.
(<=This is the significant part, it's lost to the other tank, not just lost, that means again mixing different figures as I now pointed out X times. You always mix figures without inherent relation, no matter what the number actually is, as I already said, I don't care what the actual ratio was)
This is what a kill ratio between two individual types of vehicles means. They have to face each other, more or less. What happens before or afterwards doesn't matter for this figure. If the Sherman runs on a mine he doesn't count for the tiger and if the tiger is abandoned, he doesnt count for the sherman.

As I explained earlier there is no possible way you are going to get information that details the loss of every single tank. In a battlefield crammed full of tanks/SP's/AT guns/mines it is impossible to know that several of these weapons fire at the same individual or that the hits were the decisive one. There is no way on earth you will ever get the data to make such a detailed analysis-BUT THIS HAS NEVER STOPPED THE UBER-PANZER ZEALOTS PROMOTING THE 5:1 MYTH. Strangely I never once saw you intervene and point out the above. Why is that? Perhaps it is because you are inclined to believe it? Your early intervention in this thread led you to make the claim about German verification procedures and a sly dig that the quote from Jentz was superior to my data which you implied was not as authorative. Now you are reduced to nibbling at the edges and asking for data that no one can ever provide.
The best you are going to get is the total of all losses up to September. That is fixed and immutable. The only valid conclusions are reached by using that data and they clearly show that OVERALL the exchange rate FOR TANK LOSSES was less than 2:1.
When faced with this total the true believers then start to pick over the loss of German tanks to try and claim that not all of them were knocked out. Yes they were total losses but not kills. Whatever. The stories about 5 Shermans being lost for every Panther are bollo**s.
You may not like how I arrived at my conclusions.
You may think I am wrong.
Thinking I am wrong is not the same as me being wrong.





Here it comes again, no you can't, just as you can't delete the X kills from a group of shermans, who happily drive out of town just to run in a minefield. Again, if you are trying to compare figures you need to watch closely if and how they can be compared.

Strange as it may seem I know all about minefields. It always bothered me that the millions of mines planted by the Germans never seemed to figure in their kill claims. I know the mine losses in Normandy were significant but they were never discounted when the calculations were done. Every Sherman was killed by a Panther anyway. I do know the problem




It is a certainty that it would be killed, what you cannot know, is if and how many he would've taken with him, so you cannot put this in an analysis.
Again, it is obvious, that you have no experience in analyzing data.

Maybe not a bad thing. That allowed me to show the data derived from a statistical analysis of Tiger losses was horses**t. I have no time for this modern concept of war by numbers and the body count.
Is it not funny that using the proper methods for statistical analysis you got a result so out of kilter with reality. Seems like the method you want me to use is not all that better than my way of doing it!



You're tossing around numbers that fit in your view (which could even be correct, that doesn't matter here) without taking the slightest interest if they can actually be compared the way you do it, which up until now, they can't.

If you get the right answer then it don't really matter if you use the wrong calculations! I get the distinct impression I am as welcome as a f**t in a spacesuit with my conclusions.
So then apart from disputing everything I say what do you bring to the table. Is your input to be purely negative and without any substance.

Oh and I am still waiting for routine examples of the high kill rates for Tigers or Panthers.

Can anyone find a single reference to Barkmann's feat in any US source? Surely they must have noticed this man amd his outstanding performance in knocking out all them there Shermans.



Whilst you are at it explain why Stug and JgdPz losses up to September have no bearing on Normandy?

Nickdfresh
07-29-2007, 12:44 PM
I think it should be mentioned that the Americans suffered their most significant losses, fighting dug in German infantry using panzerfausts/shrecks and AT guns, in the hedgerows of the Beaucage.

I doubt Panzers had much impact on that...

Drake
07-29-2007, 01:28 PM
I 'mix' the (boring) statistics as to real losses with my experience as to what was actualy going on at the time. It was when I started comparing the number of Allied tanks lost to the silly claims of 5:1 upwards (5:1 is usualy the starting point) that I realised something was not quite right. Tales abound of invulnerable Panthers and Tigers roaming at will. Killing everything in sight then retiring to touch up the paintwork damaged by puny Sherman guns. You don't have to look too far to see this myth is a common perception. This forum has a number of posts that simply take such tales at face value.


You cannot "mix" statistics with some data, you derive a statistic from an actual dataset.
I assume you have run into some persons who actually made the same misconception what an actual kill ratio is and insisted, that every german tiger was an invincible superweapon, which it was clearly not. But it was nevertheless a far superior tank compared to the sherman when it came to firepower and protection, same with the panther. After all, they were 1.5 times and 2 times as heavy.



Are tou telling me that you knew there was a 50% reduction applied to all kill claims in Russia? I bet the first time anyone knew of this is when I brought it up. There are still people out there who think it is not true- or that the figures have already had a reduction applied (believe me they haven't)
It is all propoganda and part of the myth of German invincibility.


I assume, there is a great margin of error on all sides, and while I believe there was a lot of propaganda going on, some of the actual error might be from things like disabled and later repaired tanks, multikills (like several positions firing on the same target) and such things.




As I explained earlier there is no possible way you are going to get information that details the loss of every single tank. In a battlefield crammed full of tanks/SP's/AT guns/mines it is impossible to know that several of these weapons fire at the same individual or that the hits were the decisive one. There is no way on earth you will ever get the data to make such a detailed analysis-BUT THIS HAS NEVER STOPPED THE UBER-PANZER ZEALOTS PROMOTING THE 5:1 MYTH. Strangely I never once saw you intervene and point out the above. Why is that? Perhaps it is because you are inclined to believe it? Your early intervention in this thread led you to make the claim about German verification procedures and a sly dig that the quote from Jentz was superior to my data which you implied was not as authorative. Now you are reduced to nibbling at the edges and asking for data that no one can ever provide.


I am not nibbling edges, I am basically shredding the paper, as it is unsuited to prove your point, whether it is right or wrong. And books are more credible sources than talking in internet forums.



The best you are going to get is the total of all losses up to September. That is fixed and immutable. The only valid conclusions are reached by using that data and they clearly show that OVERALL the exchange rate FOR TANK LOSSES was less than 2:1.


I never disputed that the one side lost roughly 2 times as many tanks as the other side. But what does this have to do with a kill ratio between individual models?




When faced with this total the true believers then start to pick over the loss of German tanks to try and claim that not all of them were knocked out. Yes they were total losses but not kills. Whatever. The stories about 5 Shermans being lost for every Panther are bollo**s.
You may not like how I arrived at my conclusions.
You may think I am wrong.
Thinking I am wrong is not the same as me being wrong.



I feel like I am trying to explain the colors of a rainbow to a blind. I do not think you are right or wrong. I say you are trying to use a wooden stick to build a skyscraper and you keep telling me the height of the house.



Strange as it may seem I know all about minefields. It always bothered me that the millions of mines planted by the Germans never seemed to figure in their kill claims. I know the mine losses in Normandy were significant but they were never discounted when the calculations were done. Every Sherman was killed by a Panther anyway. I do know the problem


According to your data from the previous posts, roughly 22% of tanks were lost due to mines. I included the number in my calculation and so did every historian who ever analyzed the data and published it later.



Maybe not a bad thing. That allowed me to show the data derived from a statistical analysis of Tiger losses was horses**t. I have no time for this modern concept of war by numbers and the body count.
Is it not funny that using the proper methods for statistical analysis you got a result so out of kilter with reality. Seems like the method you want me to use is not all that better than my way of doing it!


There is no such thing as my method. My calculation result is only so "far" off, because of the many assumptions, it nevertheless shows that a 10:1 or 5:1 kill ratio was easily possible. To calculate the actual ratio would only need some finetuning, meaning more detailed analysis, which I am sure has already been done somewhere in the US Army and by several historians. What the actual ratio is, I don't know, but I bet it's in some books.





I get the distinct impression I am as welcome as a f**t in a spacesuit with my conclusions.
So then apart from disputing everything I say what do you bring to the table. Is your input to be purely negative and without any substance.



What can I say to this. You keep saying, that you only need to buy 1000 lottery tickets to surely win a 1:1000 chance and I say it doesn't work that way. This is not meant to be a negative input, quite the opposite.

But as you feel that way, I will no longer harass you.

Drake
07-29-2007, 01:34 PM
I think it should be mentioned that the Americans suffered their most significant losses, fighting dug in German infantry using panzerfausts/shrecks and AT guns, in the hedgerows of the Beaucage.

I doubt Panzers had much impact on that...

mkenny had posted the percentages of several units some posts back.




http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/98-09.asp
I don't know how thorough they investigated, but you might want to read

mkenny
07-29-2007, 02:50 PM
I assume, there is a great margin of error on all sides, and while I believe there was a lot of propaganda going on, some of the actual error might be from things like disabled and later repaired tanks, multikills (like several positions firing on the same target) and such things.

I was pointing out the 50&#37; reduction was being applied. The reason it was being applied is that 'Intelligence' knew the numbers were too high. They knew the reason for the errors and made sure this was taken into account. Individual tank crews cared only about increasing their tally and always overclaimed




And books are more credible sources than talking in internet forums.

But what if the source on 'internet forums' is an established author an a senior member of the Dupuy Institiute?
This is where you can see his work in print
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Last-Gamble-December-1944-January/dp/006092196X
Richard Anderson provided me with the bulk of my statistics and he is the only person I know (and modestly I do know who is who in the area) doing any research at all with primary sources.
That aside I note that not a single peice of the data I provided has been challenged. The figures are at the leading edge of current research and you will not find better data anywhere in print.
It is a common misconception that only published authors have any standing and you should never defer to something just because it is in print.
The majority of todays authors have little real understanding of the subject they write about and the trick is knowing who is an expert and who is a hack.
You will find one of the real expert authors currently posting here
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=21545


I never disputed that the one side lost roughly 2 times as many tanks as the other side. But what does this have to do with a kill ratio between individual models?

Whatever you want it to mean. I mean it to say that the number of Allied tanks lost in Normandy was less than twice the number of German ones.
As Michael Caine would say 'not a lot of people know that'




According to your data from the previous posts, roughly 22% of tanks were lost due to mines. I included the number in my calculation and so did every historian who ever analyzed the data and published it later.

And that author would be?
The only works I know are obscure University papers published in the late
40's early 50's.
You wouldn't happen to have a copy of 'Survey Of Allied Tank Losses In World War II' (John Hopkins University 1951) by Alvin D Coox and L Van Loan Naisawald to hand would you? That and Bourne and Shackleton's 'Analysis Of Firepower In Normandy Operations Of 1944' (Ottawa) are the Holy Grail for me.







There is no such thing as my method. My calculation result is only so "far" off, because of the many assumptions, it nevertheless shows that a 10:1 or 5:1 kill ratio was easily possible.
To calculate the actual ratio would only need some finetuning, meaning more detailed analysis, which I am sure has already been done somewhere in the US Army and by several historians. What the actual ratio is, I don't know, but I bet it's in some books.

Well I know it 'aint. There was a book by Christopher Wilbeck
http://www.amazon.com/Sledgehammers-Strengths-Flaws-Tiger-Battalions/dp/0971765022

but you can see it in an early version online here
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=304

Devoted to the Tiger tank it gathered together all the Unit claims and then presented then as fact. These conclusion are routinely used on forums to prove the 10:1 ratio.
There are no books on this subject that I know off and believe me I am looking very hard indeed.







But as you feel that way, I will no longer harass you.

I don't feel harassed. I have the skin of a rhino and as you may have gathered I am no shrinking violet. I can look after myself.
Posting these conclusions you tend to get very violent reactions from those of a certain mindset. They brook no interference in the perpetuation of the myth of the uber-panzer. I have been called, ridiculed and insulted a good number of times on dozens of forums and have not buckled yet.
I just wanted to know if you had anything to add other than saying I am wrong.
I think you are a bit like me. If I see someone playing the expert I like to pitch in and try and take them down a peg or two. I don't even have to know about the subject and just raise issues unconnected with challenging the original premise.

mkenny
07-29-2007, 04:56 PM
http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/98-09.asp[/url]
I don't know how thorough they investigated, but you might want to read


This section:
================================================== ===

When an investigation of Allied and German tank casualties in Normandy was carried out it confirmed the most pessimistic views about Allied armor. The statistics showed 60 per cent of Allied tank losses were due to a single round from a 75- or 88-mm gun. The stats also showed that 2/3 of all tanks brewed up when hit.

German armor-piercing shells almost always penetrated and disabled a tank. In fact, the armor on our tanks offered such little protection that the only way to survive was to avoid being targeted. The contrast with German tank casualties was especially striking. Only 38 per cent of hits from the Sherman 75-mm or six-pounder-anti-tank gun penetrated German armor. What’s more, German Panther and Tiger tanks often survived one or two hits. The sloping frontal armor of the Panther and the German self-propelled guns prevented penetration of 3/4 of all direct hits.
==================================================

Is based on a limited sample done in June/July 1944

RGd 24:Report No.12:Canadian 2nd Army:Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties Between 6th June and 10th July

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/figuresxxxxx0008.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/figureszzzz2222z0007.jpg

What I find remarkable is the 83 Shermans hit but not penetrated.

As you may notice I am quite familiar with the reports

Nickdfresh
07-29-2007, 05:08 PM
mkenny had posted the percentages of several units some posts back.




http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/98-09.asp
I don't know how thorough they investigated, but you might want to read

Interesting. But it mostly deals with the Canadian experience, and I am unaware if they had significant hedgerows built up in their sectors, and I think they were not mentioned in the article. I was under the impression that the vast majority of the hedgerow fighting was done by the US Army...

Here are a couple of articles that address the difficulties the Americans faced and the tactics that had to be employed to counteract what the Germans had learned from the French in 1940; that the hedgerows were ready made field fortifications and that they required minimal resources to defend against overwhelming armored superiority...

http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/index.html

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=133

I think one can summarize that an individual Wehrmacht soldier with a panzerfaust was probably more lethal to Shermans than even an entrenched Panther, which could be bypassed. And anti-tank guns were far more expendable...

Panzerknacker
07-29-2007, 05:08 PM
New topic created to talk exclusive about this interesting subject.

By the way nice table the last one MKenny.:cool:

Panzerknacker
07-30-2007, 06:48 PM
B&#195;ke received command of special unit made up of elements of sPzAbt.503, battalion of Panthers along with some Sturmartillerie and engineer unit.

This unit was then named Panzer-Regiment B&#195;ke and took part in number of desperate actions on the Eastern Front.

One of those actions was five-day battle in January of 1944 at the "Balabonowka Pocket", where Panzer-Regiment B&#195;ke was credit with destruction of 267 Soviet tanks, while losing one Tiger (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm) and four Panthers (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm).


http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen7.htm


267 tanks destroyed
5 losses


Give as result 53,4 kill ratio

50 &#37; of "safety coeficient" applied = 26,7-1 kill-losses, quite good isnt ? :D

mkenny
07-30-2007, 07:15 PM
Give as result 53,4 kill ratio


Hey you sound like a very intelligent man. I have a Bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.................

Panzerknacker
07-30-2007, 07:35 PM
:D Oh, is not that much, just a simple divission.

But you are the man Kenny, thanks for your 50% coeficient. Without that I was a lost soul.

mkenny
07-30-2007, 08:01 PM
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen7.htm


267 tanks destroyed
5 losses


Give as result 53,4 kill ratio

50 % of "safety coeficient" applied = 26,7-1 kill-losses, quite good isnt ? :D


For those interested in actual numbers rather than bloated overclaiming read this thread
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=120954&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=03c4ac986ceb90d977b31e1a6f36b7d5

and see what the attack by 1st SS PD, 6th PD, 16th PD, 17.PzD, PzKGr/25.PzD (with 16PzD) achieved. It was not a lone attack by s.Pz.Abt 503 and II./Pz.Rgt 23.

Soviet losses are reported as 659 tanks for the ENTIRE front against ALL the armoured units and Infantry Divisions. These losses are for for a longer period than the action where the the Bake group participated.

Every time you look into these claims they simply melt away.

mkenny
07-30-2007, 08:05 PM
But you are the man Kenny, thanks for your 50&#37; coeficient. Without that I was a lost soul.


You still are. You seem to believe every German claim. Do you not have any common sense?

Panzerknacker
07-30-2007, 08:19 PM
Hmm...the old tactic :rolleyes: , you are making me respond to things I never claimed, for example I never claimed to believe every german figure.

Chevan
07-31-2007, 07:06 AM
Helloy folks.
Let me add a little.

Hmm, have you ever heard of Michael Wittmann in Villers Bocage? And German claims happened to be pretty precise in WW2. When it comes to tank warfare the most important part is the crew and the other crews in your company. It is nearly impossible to judge the combat effectiveness of a tank from mere kill statistics, especially in WW2.

And do you ever hear honest Drake about leutenent Oskin who in his T-34/84 hit 5 King Tigers near the polish vilage Oglenduv in auguat of 1944?
His speedy T-34 was able to hit 3 this tanks from the ambush and when Germans ( it seems it was 501 Battalion) retreated he overtaked other two and burned it.
So does it mean that the resault 5 King Tigers :1 T-34 was a tupical for the kill rate for the Red Army?;)
I doubt it.
By why you so sure about 5:1 Tiger:Sherman ?


The Tiger was a superb weapon plattform for its time and much better armed and armored than the sherman, so if you would put them 1 on 1 over and over again the shermans would die over and over again until the tiger has no ammunition left. It had however some serious drawbacks, where the sherman excelled it by far, for example weight:power ratio and general reliability.
The armour superiority was only the one side of Tiger.
The other hand was that this Monster was a very slow ( especially Tiger2) no more 12-15 km/hour in the dirt road.For the comparition the Sherman had ( 38 km/h) T-34 over 50 km/h.
The Tiger simply was not able effectively support the infantry during the offencive.
Besides, characteristic could be very critical during the retreat of the troops.
In fact in the sometimes crew simply run out of his tnak coz it was not able to move enough speedy for the retreat. The some cases in the Eastern front when the crew have to leave the tank with full ammunition and fuel -for instance you could read befor about capturing Tiger2 in Poland that nowaday demonstrated in Tank museum in Kubinka ( Russia).This tank was found without crew with full complect of ammo and fuel!!!.
It seems germans had no time to liqudate the tank and simply run way;)
True the Tiger was effective in the ambush coz the power armor and 88-mmgun.
However in the offensive it wasn't so effective - i 've read story of soviet tankers who fought on lend-lise Shermans. They hunted on slow-moved Tiger shoting to the tracks.
2 or 3 Sherman hunted the Tiger- First shot to the truck - after than if the shot was succesfull the Tiger lost one of his tracks and bagin to rotate. After it turned the side to the shermans - other bagan to shot to the side wher ethe armoure was thin.

Sure the Tiger was outstanding tank in WW2- the first seriouse hard thank in history.
Neverthelell it was far from the Hitler uber-wearpon dreams;)
[b]The production of Tiger was hard for the German industry: the total quanity of all modification of Tiger1/2 were no more 1350.
This "super wearpon" was out of abilities of German industry.
Nor "super" Tigers neither "brillian" Panther did not save the Wermacht from the relatively simple but effective T-34/Sherman - the most mass tanks of the WW2.


Cheers.

Chevan
07-31-2007, 08:07 AM
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen7.htm


267 tanks destroyed
5 losses


Give as result 53,4 kill ratio

50 % of "safety coeficient" applied = 26,7-1 kill-losses, quite good isnt ? :D

PZ , if to believe to any Nazy propogandic issue - they killed at least three times the all of the Soviet tanks;)
I think it rather stoopid to spread this shit about 50:1 kill ratio.
If during the Battle of Berlin the Red Army losed about 1500 tanks and Germans only 200 tanks - does it mean the SuperGermans tankers destroyed all of them?;)
I/m seriously doubt the Germans tankers hited more then 15-20% of this figure. The main reason of the soviet loses was the Panzerfaust soldiers.

Panzerknacker
07-31-2007, 08:24 AM
Well, that is the big issue, if you going to count any german claim as propaganda..,:rolleyes:, the discussion will not make any progress further.



The armour superiority was only the one side of Tiger.
The other hand was that this Monster was a very slow ( especially Tiger2) no more 12-15 km/hour in the dirt road.For the comparition the Sherman had ( 38 km/h) T-34 over 50 km/h.
The Tiger simply was not able effectively support the infantry during the offencive


True in most cases, ad this a very bad locomotive qualities of the Tiger II in the earlier vehicles, also it weiths 19 tond more than T1 but have the same side armor ( Oskin placed all the shots in the side)

That is why you need to separate clearly the combat achievemente of the TII and the TI.


And just for the record I dont believe the Tiger II achieved 5:1 kill losses ratio, probably was 2 to 1 with or 3 to1 with luck.

Chevan
07-31-2007, 12:31 PM
Well, that is the big issue, if you going to count any german claim as propaganda..,:rolleyes:, the discussion will not make any progress furtherх
I think that the 25:1 is not the "any claim" for the Germans my friend.
Probably some of simular cases really were but there is no any doubts it were not the usial resault.
You should know the Absolute Wearpon Superiority was the essential part of Nazy propoganda. All those Witmans, Rudels, Kovaks and ets were not only excellent soldiers but and the Nazy Propogandic Symbols.
I could understand you delight of the German wearponry. The Nazy never slaughtered the argentinian people, never sinked the argentinian ships .And Nazy never send up the V-1/2 rocket to the Buanos-Aeros.
Therefore they could seem for you not so bad guys, right?;)
And may be you think that the Germans records of the kill rate is more "exact and correct' than the allies?
But if to believe the Gernans "correct" datas they've won the Battle for the Britain in 1940-41, they won the Kursk battle in the 1943, and they won the most of battles in the WW2.:)
But ...damn ....... they losed the war. How could it be?
If the each germnans tank killed 5-25 allies tanks - why they was not able to stop the allies in the 1943-45?


True in most cases, ad this a very bad locomotive qualities of the Tiger II in the earlier vehicles, also it weiths 19 tond more than T1 but have the same side armor ( Oskin placed all the shots in the side)

That is why you need to separate clearly the combat achievemente of the TII and the TI.

Sorry PZ but the T2 was a legitime and logical development of T1. The Lacks of t1 was also in the T2.
T1 was also not the best in the some situations that demands the maneuverability


And just for the record I dont believe the Tiger II achieved 5:1 kill losses ratio, probably was 2 to 1 with or 3 to1 with luck.
Well yes probably the mediun kill rate in the TANK-TANK battles was the 2-3:1 but i have to say that both the Allies and Soviet found the effective way to neitralize the Tigers.
Soviets had a SU-100/122/152 "Tankkillers" , Allies had the Mustangs P-51 .
So GErmans were not lucky with Tigers.
Moreover the enourmouce resources that were spended for the building of the 1300 Tigers could be spended for better way - for the building of the additional 5000 -6000 of Pz4 with 75 mm gun - very effective and relatively cheap German tanks.

P.S.
The love of the Hitler for the UBER-WEARPON made with Germnas the evil joke - the billion of marks and resources were spended for the wind.
What military sence was from the super rocket V-2,Super tank Tiger, super fighter Me-262?
The much better way to buld instead of theis uber-wearpon the thousands simple Pz4 and Bf-109 and send it to the front.
The war is winning by the PEOPLES but not by the VECHICLES.

Cheers.

Panzerknacker
07-31-2007, 06:21 PM
Oh no.. revisiting Rudel too here ? :rolleyes:

Well is obvoius to me that the action of several invididuals as remarcable they were could not save the Third Reich of the final defeat and the overwhelming numerical superiority of the allies.



.And Nazy never send up the V-1/2 rocket to the Buanos-Aeros.
Therefore they could seem for you not so bad guys, right


You mean Buenos Aires, well I am interested in the weapons system, no in the motivations and politics.



Sorry PZ but the T2 was a legitime and logical development of T1. The Lacks of t1 was also in the T2.
T1 was also not the best in the some situations that demands the maneuverability



The only thing in common of the two design were the engine and some transmition components, beside that the KT is a completely new design.



The much better way to buld instead of theis uber-wearpon the thousands simple Pz4 and Bf-109 and send it to the front.



I guess that was old equation, the quantity vs quality, but the quantity have quality by itself.

Chevan
07-31-2007, 11:45 PM
Oh no.. revisiting Rudel too here ? :rolleyes:

Well is obvoius to me that the action of several invididuals as remarcable they were could not save the Third Reich of the final defeat and the overwhelming numerical superiority of the allies.
Well mate the Third Reich itself goes to the absolute shortage of everething by the total war strategy.
As far as i know there were no the absolute numerical superiority of allies in the Eastern front in 1941-42 and in the Africa untill 1943.
If you look for the first succesfull compatnies of Riech - the germans had even superiority in quality.
The situation of 1944-45 was the resault of the Nazy politic and strategical mistakes ( and behaviour of german troops in the occupied territories).


You mean Buenos Aires, well I am interested in the weapons system, no in the motivations and politics.

Yes sorry, Buenos Aires:)- the sunshine paradise.


The only thing in common of the two design were the engine and some transmition components, beside that the KT is a completely new design.

T2 had a same the gun - and it was logical continie of german concept of heavy tank. So the technical lacks and mistakes was the resault of this concept.
The Tiger was first but not the best heavy tank of WW2.
Soviet Is-3 and american Pershing M-26 were much more perspective tanks. Unfortinatelly they come to the troops in Europe too late in last month of War.( Nevertheless few of newest Is-3 fought for the Berlin).
Those tanks having roughly the equeal firepower and armour - were much more speedy and maneuverabile.
So even if the war would continie untill the 1946 the Germans would not have the absolute superiority;)


I guess that was old equation, the quantity vs quality, but the quantity have quality by itself.
It's not that i mean.
Endeed the GErmans had a excellent piston fighters of Bf and FW - they were the superiour. Also they had a good tank Pz4 that was able to hit any soviet/allies tank, but it was real for the mass production.
However the experiments with uber-wearpon distracted a lot of resources and time.
If the Germans leave the idea of super jet fighter and concentrated for the mass production of its best pistons fighter - probably they could meet the allies strategic armades not so badly;)


Cheers.

Egorka
08-01-2007, 03:40 AM
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/figureszzzz2222z0007.jpg

What I find remarkable is the 83 Shermans hit but not penetrated.


Hello Mkenny,

I have a question. You say "83 Shermans hit but not penetrated".
Does not it contradict the info on the first line of the page? There where it says: "Total hits recorded" equals 65 and "Number of penetrations" equals to 62.

Or they looked at different tank sets?
I can not put these two peices of info together.

Panzerknacker
08-01-2007, 08:21 AM
T2 had a same the gun - and it was logical continie of german concept of heavy tank. So the technical lacks and mistakes was the resault of this concept.

The same gun ?? :shock:, the Tiger 1 had a Krupp Kwk 36 with 56 calibres lenght.

The Tiger II had a Rheinmetall Borsig KWK 43 of 71 calibres lenght, not only the barrels were different but the ammo casing was also not the same.

In the end is the same old history I saw repeated over and over again, one mistaked german claim is manipulated in a way to invalidates the others. Also the politics is mixed.

Well... radio Moscow said after the Battle of Kursk that the russian defenses destroyed 250 "Tigers"...actually there was only 140 tigers in that sector and about 10 &#37; of those were destroyed.

Following your line of thinking.. that means the Kozhedub did not shot down 62 aircraft or Kolovanov didnt destroyed 20 tanks?

Dont think so.

mkenny
08-01-2007, 08:26 AM
I think (i.e I do not know for sure) that the penetrated tanks are dealt with in detail and then as an afterthought they refer to the total of tanks surveyed. Among the other tanks they found either 83 Shermans that had been hit but not penetrated or an unknown number of Shermans that had 83 hits that did not penetrate.
Like you I wondered about the 124 total minus the penetrated total of 40, minus the 4 mined minus the 1 'unidentified' making 79 left not 83. Maybe there is something about the 4 mined tanks that is not made clear.

mkenny
08-01-2007, 08:32 AM
Following your line of thinking.. that means the Kozhedub did not shot down 62 aircraft or Kolovanov didnt destroyed 20 tanks?


Yes that is what it means. EVERYONE overclaimed and if I were to post here the Allied claims for destroyed Tigers in Normandy you would have a heart attack. No one ever does that because they understand crews make mistakes in the heat of battle. There seems to be one exception. German claims. They are always repeated as if they are a proven fact. They are no such thing.
Why do you think this double standard exists?
By consulting German loss figures we can show that Allied kill claims are inflated so why the big fuss when I use Allied loss figures to show German claims are inflated?

Egorka
08-01-2007, 08:48 AM
I think (i.e I do not know for sure) that the penetrated tanks are dealt with in detail and then as an afterthought they refer to the total of tanks surveyed. Among the other tanks they found either 83 Shermans that had been hit but not penetrated or an unknown number of Shermans that had 83 hits that did not penetrate.
hi,

The more i look at it the more it seems to me that these paper doe not prove your point.

The part III clearly shows that out of 65 hits 62 penetrated the armour (75mm - 50 out of 53; 88mm - 12 out of 12).

Later it shows that you need app. 1,2 hits per tank to knock it out, i.e. less than 1,5 hits per tank.

The line about the "Further study" of 124 tanks (the last section) seem t odeal with larger or different set of tanks and, what is more important, IMHO, deals with all kind of hits from all calibers. That is the only way, IMHO, these info can be put together.



Like you I wondered about the 124 total minus the penetrated total of 40, minus the 4 mined minus the 1 'unidentified' making 79 left not 83. Maybe there is something about the 4 mined tanks that is not made clear.
Sorry I did not get this...

Chevan
08-01-2007, 02:31 PM
The same gun ?? :shock:, the Tiger 1 had a Krupp Kwk 36 with 56 calibres lenght.

The Tiger II had a Rheinmetall Borsig KWK 43 of 71 calibres lenght, not only the barrels were different but the ammo casing was also not the same.

Well you right 88mm X 56 kalibers is not the same that 88mm X 71 kaliber.
My mistake:)


In the end is the same old history I saw repeated over and over again, one mistaked german claim is manipulated in a way to invalidates the others. Also the politics is mixed.

It's not a politic.
This is the simple human feeling.
FOr some people in here you noticed about "more correct" germans records could be simply insulting.
I doubt you could understand the brits- your relatives have never seen the total war for survival - as the WW2 was in the Europe.
This was a fierce war where the everething , literally everething were used for the Vistory - even the kill ratio statistic.
True the allies ( soviets and US/UK) also use it for own propoganda. Terefore we need attentively watch for all the such "victories".
In this way i like the approach of mst Mkenny. He absolutly right in here to doubt and check the matter with the simple statistic comparition;)
Good work mkenny;)


Well... radio Moscow said after the Battle of Kursk that the russian defenses destroyed 250 "Tigers"...actually there was only 140 tigers in that sector and about 10 % of those were destroyed.

You absolutly right PZ here.
EXACTLY of this reason wee need critically look for the all Nazy "military archiviments" and kill ration (that take the place from the "sources" like the propogandic journal Wolhenay).


Following your line of thinking.. that means the Kozhedub did not shot down 62 aircraft or Kolovanov didnt destroyed 20 tanks?

True my line of thinking - the critical apprehention of the issue.
But i have a much less doubt about Kolovanov who desoed 20 tank for ALL THE WAR and Wittman's claims of 20+ british tanks for ONE BATTLE.
And if you have a some of any material that could refuse the scope of the best soviet pilot of the WW2 Kozhedub OR the best US pilot Richard Ira "****" Bong with his 40 victories FOR ALL THE WAR you could discuse it.
However the some of historians have the serious objections agains the Erich Hurtmann with his mythical 352 wictories over the war.
The relatively humble scopes of allies pilots with comparition the germans just force us to be the more careful for the Nazy Military achivements.
Nazy was REALLY STRONG emeny - even in the propogandic lie.


Cheers.

mkenny
08-01-2007, 03:07 PM
The more i look at it the more it seems to me that these paper doe not prove your point.

And my point is?
As it is a survey of tank casualties it would have to deal with tanks knocked out. Hit but not penetrated are not casualties.

Sorry I did not get this...

It is not clear(to us) how many tanks are in the initial survey.

Know Remorse
08-03-2007, 08:50 PM
Using general statistics to represent your argument may look realistic, but there are far too many factors you mistake or misrepresent.

No one has ever claimed that every German tank produced killed 5 Allied tanks, though you tried to skewer general stats on numbers of tanks produced vs numbers of tanks destroyed.

Dont forget that the allies lost lots of tanks to mines, infantry, tank traps, etc. As did the Germans. The Heer and SS forces took considerable losses from anti tank guns, and planes, and worse yet, mechanical failures in a retreating sector where the vehicle had to be abandoned and destroyed by the crew.... more so than they did to other tanks.

If the uber tank myth is just a myth, how many shermans would it take to take out a panther or tiger? Why did the western allied commanders request that tank destroyers be used to confront enemy tanks if possible?

If the western tanks were so evenly matched with German tanks, why was there a massive buildup of tank destroyers after '43.... considering most tank destroyers are typically more defensive in nature than a pure tank. Especially considering there were what... 44 or 45,000 shermans produced?

M10 - 6700 produced '42-'43
M18 - 2500 produced '43-'44
M36 - 2300 produced '44-'45

I'm not saying the Sherman was a bad tank, it did it's job, and when it broke behind enemy lines it wreaked absolute havoc on communications, supplies and support units, and inevitably played a major role in bringing about the end of the German military's ability to function, it provided the western allies with a stable backbone with which to carryout a wide area of offensive operations, and reliably did its job.

If the "uber panzer myth" is such a myth, how many standard M4 sherman tanks would you feel confident enough to take up against a lone tiger? 1-1? 2-1? 3-1? 4-1? etc. etc....

mkenny
08-03-2007, 09:40 PM
Using general statistics to represent your argument may look realistic, but there are far too many factors you mistake or misrepresent.

I am not out to prove anything - other than calims of 5:1 ratios for Shermans is not borne out by the total of losses.

No one has ever claimed that every German tank produced killed 5 Allied tanks,

'They' calim it took 5 Shermans to take out a Panther. I never heard it said this was every single engagement but an average. I do not think there were that many Shermans in Normandy to reach this 'average'


Dont forget that the allies lost lots of tanks to mines, infantry, tank traps, etc. As did the Germans.

I did mention this several times and I seriously doubt the Germans reached a total of 20% upwards for mine casualties.


.


If the uber tank myth is just a myth, how many shermans would it take to take out a panther or tiger?

How many? I don't know and neither do you. This does not seem stop you claiming the Uber tank myth isn't a 'myth'.
Tell you what, give me the German total losses for Goodwood and I will compare it to the British number of total losses ( not the oft quoted figures for every tank damaged in some way) and we will see what the ratio is.



Why did the western allied commanders request that tank destroyers be used to confront enemy tanks if possible?

Can I have a guess? Hmmm....how about they had bigger guns?


If the western tanks were so evenly matched with German tanks, why was there a massive buildup of tank destroyers after '43.


Faulty doctrine? Proved by the quick abandonment of the tank destroyer concept when the war ended.



If the "uber panzer myth" is such a myth, how many standard M4 sherman tanks would you feel confident enough to take up against a lone tiger? 1-1? 2-1? 3-1? 4-1? etc. etc....

I was unware there was a policy of employing 'lone' Tigers in such a manner.
So obliging of the Germans to push their tanks forward in this absurd manner.
A pity too that nearly 1000 of the German tanks were PzIV's and not the 130 odd Tigers that everyone seems to fixate upon.

Tham
08-11-2007, 03:10 PM
I've always been puzzled about this "shells
bouncing off the armor of the Tiger or Panther"
thing.

Wouldn't, say even the basic 75 mm gun of the
earlier Shermans, which could penetrate some
76 mm 30-degree sloped armour at 500 yards,
have been able to BORE at least halfway (and
cause quite a bit of damage) into the German
tanks' frontal armor, rather than simply
"bouncing off" ?

Frankly, I don't think the German tanks were
really that much more heavily armored than the
Allied tanks, with some 5 inches hull on the
Panther, despite being angled, and the Tiger's
frontal hull of only 4 inches wasn't even sloped,
so I am quite skeptical about their famed
"invincibility".

The Sherman, while having 2 1/2 inches of
frontal hull armor, had a quite good slope of
about 45 degrees, and its turret wasn't that bad
either, with 3 inches, and a 3 1/2 inch mantlet.

Firefly
10-09-2007, 07:35 AM
This is a really great thread. Not only have I learned some things, I have been impressed by the adult attitudes of all involved in it.