Jump to content

Are Shermans THAT bad?


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] "Losses were ...493 tanks (35%)." From your own post.

Read it again.

"To summarize, UK forces began with approximately 139,000 men, 1,369 tanks, and at least 732 artillery pieces. Losses were 4,120 men (2.97%) (844 KIA, 2,951 WIA, 325 MIA) and 493 tanks (35%). Only 361 of the tanks were knocked out - that is, they were either written off or were so damaged as to require long-term repair, 132 were damaged - that is, they required less than 24 hours for repair. At the end of the battle tank strength was 1,047."

You take the top figure and add to it to get the magic 500. I see 361 but I think you 'need' the higher figure to fit your theories.Perhaps you could give us the German figures INCLUDING the one only damaged and repaired in 24 hours?

The US outscored the Germans in Normandy in tanks lost, despite being on the attack and largely equipped with inferior Shermans with short 75. The Brits had higher armor odds longer, used their armor more in multiple breakout attempts, had superior Fireflies the US lacked - and were dramatically outscored by the Germans throughout the Normandy fighting, including in Goodwood.
Really?

Rich again:

"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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Cause of loss for German tanks is given for a select set in O.R.S. 2 Report No. 17, Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France, 6th June 44 – 31st August 1944. In that report, for the period of 6 June-7 August a sample of 53 tanks resulted in 48% lost to ‘AP shot.’ For 8-31 August 1944 that dropped to just 11% due to the high number of abandoned tanks in that period. From that we may presume that the June-July total loss to ‘AP shot’ may have been about 246, while for August-September it may have been about 147, for a total of about 393

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, using these very rough methods, we can assume that the upper limit of the ratio of Allied to German tank losses to ‘AP shot’ may have been as high as 2,176-to-393, or about 5.54-to-1. Probably closer would be an ‘AP shot’ ratio of roughly 1,746-to-393, or about 4.44-to-1. The tank-versus-tank ratios are possibly similar although it could be argued to be as low as 673-to-393, or 1.71-to-1, aboutthe same as the overall loss ratio. Nevermind that this comparison is probably irrelevent.

Overall then we may postulate a total of about 3,105 Allied to 1,845 German tanks written off, or about a 1.68-to-1 ratio of losses, again, a number that has nothing to do with the relative effectiveness of the Allied versus the German tanks. However, it is probably very relevant in terms of the overall Allied-versus-German combat effectiveness"

=================================================

so then if the US lost 1500 tanks up to September and the Germans lost 1800 then by your calculations only 300 German tanks fell to the British? Perhaps adjusting the figures to 'discount' all non tank v tank losses and exclude all German 'self-destruction' claims could help you arrive at a toal that would better fit your claim?

As for the ground taken, Cobra took all of France, Goodwood was stuffed within arty range of the start line. The guns didn't even have to displace. The comparison is absurd.
Of course it is. How could anyone doubt that the US took 'all of France'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] and the force gathered for Mortain - which reached the level facing Goodwood incidentally.

Did they? Perhaps you can give me the figures because I read it as ELEMENTS of 5 German Divisions rather than the complete formations.

In this link http://stonebooks.com/archives/001126.shtml

(used because it is available online) you can see that the total tank strenght for the Mortain offensive is given as less than 112.

As for the armor the US faced, the US faced about as much armor in Normandy as the Brits did, they just faced it at different times, more piecemeal
As you said earlier 'The comparison is absurd'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

September is Lorraine not Normandy, and most of August in the rest of France. Mortain runs until mid August at most.

Here are the identifiable armor faced on the US portion of the front -

17SS, early - 85 total, 5 survive at the end of Mortain period. 31 of those are Jagds sent late and mostly lost trying to stem the breakout, the rest were early and lost in the hedgerow attrition period.

Lehr, middle - 160 total, 17 runners by end of Mortain. First committed on Brit front and lost 50 there, while receiving 19 replacements. 160 tanks on strength, ignoring long term repair, when moved to US front. Most lost in the hedgerow fighting period or the breakout proper.

2SS, middle - 208 sent, 16 left running after Mortain. Has 103 still running on July 23 before Cobra, so roughly half lost in Cobra to Mortain period and half in the hedgerow fighting before.

1SS from 5 August - sent for Mortain after fighting on the Brit front most of the battle. Still had 130 runners on 5 August when switched. Only 29 left on 11 August.

116 Panzer - Still had 146 on 27 July, mostly in reserve until then. Committed to stop the breakout and at Mortain, left with 18 runners.

2nd Panzer - 188 sent, 29 lost on British front relatively early (lent the Panther battalion to an SS counterattack). At junction of the 2 allied forces most of July. Still 75 left before Mortain, which it helped with, only 22 left afterward.

3 StuG formations (12 FJ, 341, 902) - 110 StuG/Hs all told, spotty returns but apparently no more than 21 runners left post Mortain. Some lost in hedgerow period others in breakout period.

At least 2 IDs with StuG and Marder - 48 sent, 5 left after Mortain. The full total with IDs may be twice that, but records are poor and some engaged later and may have had survivors etc so I leave them out.

The count is at least 1046 faced, with no more than 111 still running after Mortain. Basically the Germans lost a little under 1000 AFVs on the US portion of the front.

As for the period Cobra to Mortain, the armor still running on strength of the units engaged on the US portion of the front at that time, is around 450 AFVs, in 1SS and 2SS, 2 and 116 PD. Not all engaged in Mortain proper - I said they were faced piecemeal. Those 4 formations report only 85 runners between them on 11 August, down from 450 when first switched to US front or immediately pre-Cobra, whichever is later.

The German armor stuffed the Brits in Normandy, and failed to contain the Americans in Normandy, despite comparable scale of commitments on each portion of the front. As already mentioned, there were terrain, marginal quality, stance, and timing of commitment reasons for that difference.

There was also a large and readily apparent difference in Allied performance. The US ADs, little committed in the attrition fighting pre-breakout (there was armor for that but larger independent battalions and TDs, occasionally a single combat command lent to stop a counterattack etc), succeeded everywhere, everytime they hit anything. The same cannot remotely be said of the British armour formations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The count is at least 1046 faced, with no more than 111 still running after Mortain. Basically the Germans lost a little under 1000 AFVs on the US portion of the front
Yes very interesting. Total speculation, rounding up and assumptions aside can you explain how you get the figure of 'around 1000' for German tank and AFV losses when I can only get your mumbo jumbo to 760 odd?

Further as you wish to ignore the August and September loss figures can you explain why, if the US 'always came out on top' did the US lose 522 tanks in June and July when the 'stuffed' British only lost 504?

Oh and as the Goodwood losses (you say) are over 500 did the 'stuffed 'Brits only lose 4 other tanks in all of June and July?

If the US always got a better exchange rate than the Germans why are German losses only 377?

Finaly to amuse us can you post the claims that Patton made for the destruction wrought by his Army 1944-45? I believe the totals were in excess of all German casualties in the West combined.

Any Idea why it was believed Patton would be flattened if he tried to 'close' the gap at Falaise? Surely his own commanders would not for a minute think he would have been well and truly 'stuffed' if he happened to get in the way of the retreating Germans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24th July 1944 the following Panzer Divisions were facing the British. Ranged from Villers Bocage to Caen were:

21st Pz.Division.

116th Pz.Division.

12th SS Pz.Division.

1st SS Pz.Division.

9th SS Pz.Division.

10th SS Pz.Division.

PZ.Lehr Pz.Division.(some Units)

2nd Pz.Division was in reserve in the British sector.

Also in the same sector 3 Tiger Abteilung.

sSS PzABT. 101.

sSS PzAbt 102.

sPz.Abt 503.

Facing the US sector were:

2nd SS Pz.Division.

Pz.Lehr (not the complete Division)

This was the situation at the start of COBRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further as you wish to ignore the August and September loss figures can you explain why, if the US 'always came out on top' did the US lose 522 tanks in June and July when the 'stuffed' British only lost 504?
So you compare what the British lost in a few days taking little to no ground to what the US lost in two months, when they totally broke the German lines and broke out into southern France?

Oh and as the Goodwood losses (you say) are over 500 did the 'stuffed 'Brits only lose 4 other tanks in all of June and July?
I doubt if the total was 4, but the British did withdraw their armor from the frontlines after Goodwood and then recommitted them for Bluecoat.

Finaly to amuse us can you post the claims that Patton made for the destruction wrought by his Army 1944-45? I believe the totals were in excess of all German casualties in the West combined.
And this is relevent how?

Any Idea why it was believed Patton would be flattened if he tried to 'close' the gap at Falaise? Surely his own commanders would not for a minute think he would have been well and truly 'stuffed' if he happened to get in the way of the retreating Germans?
The decision was made because when you have two friendly elements moving towards each other it is a military necessity to stop one element to avoid fratricide. With one element stopped the other knows exactly where their FLOT is, so they can plan direct, indirect, and CAS fires to avoid killing friendlies.

[ October 19, 2006, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you compare what the British lost in a few days taking little to no ground to what the US lost in two months, when they totally broke the German lines and broke out into southern France?
some confusion here.It was Jason who was boasting that the USA always got the better of tank v tank encounters. I just wondered how he explained the figures not confirming this.

The figures are like for like comparisons so your query is rather odd. If you 'break through' into an area that is empty of the enemy you are bound to score less than someone fighting through a heavilly defended area.

And this is relevent how?
It would confirm the superiority of the US Forces. A superiority so apparent to Jason. We should be reminded how Patton 'stuffed' Germany-all by himself

The decision was made because when you have two friendly elements moving towards each other it is a military necessity to stop one element to avoid fratricide. With one element stopped the other knows exactly where their FLOT is, so they can plan direct, indirect, and CAS fires to avoid killing friendlies.
Sorry, I assumed it was because Bradley was afraid the retreating Germans would simply trample over Patton and destroy his troops. I assumed that was what the 'hard shoulder' analogy meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing I say is based on any US side claims - that is a straw man. The source in the gerob Normandy site online, which uses German side strength reports unit by unit and day by day.

Lehr was not on the British sector - its armor left in early July - Caumont where 2 Pz was, was not the British sector (the unit opposite was the US 1st Infantry division) though it was at the join in the Allied lines - its armor was sent to Mortain, and I already explained the earlier losses it incurred loaning its Panthers to the British sector early; 116th Panzer was not engaged anywhere - it was in reserve as its Panther battalion finished its training - and was first committed to meet the breakout in the US sector and then for Mortain. And 1SS sends its armor to the US sector for Mortain in early August. There are also 3 StuG brigades and 17th SS committed in the US sector, the last reinforced by a fresh Jagdpanzer battalion at the time of the breakout (which was rapidly lost).

German losses in the US sector are not a mere 300 odd. But German TWO practices have no relation to reality at this stage of the war. What actually happens is the runner strength craters well before the breakout, panzer divisions are reduced to company strength in runners during it and Mortain, nobody in the German army knows what the heck is happening at and after Falaise, and nothing then emerges from the wreckage but a tiny trickle.

The moment of write off in these circumstances has no relation to the moment of loss. The actual loss occurs when the vehicle permanently leaves running status. If they ever come back, repair categories can be left out of losses, but when they do not, the cause and time that put them out of action is the cause and time of their KO.

And by 11 August, the Germans have sent 1000 AFVs to the American sector since the start of the campaign, and only about 100 of them are still running. The others never return to running, either. Overall the Germans lost 2000 AFVs in Normandy, not a few hundred. They sent 2200, and what makes it to the westwall after the fall of France is less than 300 vehicles, and that includes various minor reinforcements first sent west during the collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

Nothing I say is based on any US side claims - that is a straw man

A straw man introduced by you in this post and not related to anything posted previously. You are arguing with yourself

Lehr was not on the British sector - its armor left in early July -
I said part of it was

Caumont where 2 Pz was, was not the British sector (the unit opposite was the US 1st Infantry division) though it was at the join in the Allied lines - its armor was sent to Mortain, and I already explained the earlier losses it incurred loaning its Panthers to the British sector early;
Oh well on the join line and comitted to the US sector Two and a half Panzer Divisions instead of one and a half.

116th Panzer was not engaged anywhere - it was in reserve as its Panther battalion finished its training - and was first committed to meet the breakout in the US sector and then for Mortain.
It was in reserve south of Caen then sent to St Lo on July 28.

And 1SS sends its armor to the US sector for Mortain in early August.
But I am talking about July

There are also 3 StuG brigades and 17th SS committed in the US sector, the last reinforced by a fresh Jagdpanzer battalion at the time of the breakout (which was rapidly lost).
17th SS Pz.Grenadier Division.....Not a Pz.Division.

German losses in the US sector are not a mere 300 odd.
Who said they were?

But German TWO practices have no relation to reality at this stage of the war. What actually happens is the runner strength craters well before the breakout, panzer divisions are reduced to company strength in runners during it and Mortain, nobody in the German army knows what the heck is happening at and after Falaise, and nothing then emerges from the wreckage but a tiny trickle.

The moment of write off in these circumstances has no relation to the moment of loss. The actual loss occurs when the vehicle permanently leaves running status. If they ever come back, repair categories can be left out of losses, but when they do not, the cause and time that put them out of action is the cause and time of their KO.

And by 11 August, the Germans have sent 1000 AFVs to the American sector since the start of the campaign, and only about 100 of them are still running. The others never return to running, either.

900,and you know they all were victims of US action...... what happened to the other 1000?

Overall the Germans lost 2000 AFVs in Normandy, not a few hundred.
again who said they lost a few hundred?

They sent 2200, and what makes it to the westwall after the fall of France is less than 300 vehicles, and that includes various minor reinforcements first sent west during the collapse.
Ditto. You repeat the figures I posted at the top of this page.

Now perhaps you could back up your claim that the US knocked out more German tanks than it lost........oh, I think I get it. You are claiming every abandonned German tank as a US 'kill'! But the US loss figure is still higher than the the German loss total.

The US outscored the Germans in Normandy in tanks lost, despite being on the attack and largely equipped with inferior Shermans with short 75. The Brits had higher armor odds longer, used their armor more in multiple breakout attempts, had superior Fireflies the US lacked - and were dramatically outscored by the Germans throughout the Normandy fighting, including in Goodwood
Care to explain how the US losses are higher (just)than British losses?

PS

how do you know the exact position of every abandonned German tank?

Can you give me a figure for Panzers that made it over the Seine?

How many Tigers made it back?

Could you draw me a line for the Falaise pocket so I can see which wrecks were in the US sector?

[ October 19, 2006, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There are also 3 StuG brigades and 17th SS committed in the US sector, the last reinforced by a fresh Jagdpanzer battalion at the time of the breakout (which was rapidly lost).

17th SS Pz.Grenadier Division.....Not a Pz.Division.

</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to explain how the US losses are higher (just)than British losses?
This one is very easy to explain ... it because we (the British) are better tongue.gif

*stares the pot and runs off*

-----

seriously, am reading through this thread at the moment, really great stuff! Nice one guys smile.gif

May i ask, ive seen people use the word TWO ... and it does not seem fit in with the meaning of the number. Is this an acronym for something?

[ October 20, 2006, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the one who brought up Patton's claims, so you are the own who raised that straw man. You also gave German losses June to August inclusive as 617, which is poppycock (if typical Zetterling, of the same sort that pretends they lost about 14 tanks at Kursk - but he makes up for it by providing the actual returns which let's one correct his tendencies), as I have explained - virtually the entire armor fleet sent west was gone by 11 August. Since you are also claiming the Brits accounted for the majority, you thereby imply losses through the end of August on the US front are 300 or less, which is nonsense.

As for what happened to the other 1200, of course they were lost on the British front, most of it well before Goodwood. That is why Goodwood faced in your own report 325 tanks not 1500.

As for "abandoned", the most abused German accounting category in history, tanks are abandoned for a reason. When they weren't operational on July 25, we know that reason is not "ran out of gas recrossing France", it is "KOed in Normandy". When they were operational on 5 August and committed to Mortain and not operational on 11 August, it is "KOed in the Mortain attempt". And no it doesn't matter if the quartermaster didn't cross it off in his account books until September.

And I do not award abandoneds to one of the allies, another straw man, I simply regard every move of a tank permanently out of operational status as an acutal loss, note where the unit was when this happened and thereby which of the allies can be credited with it.

As for 17SS, it arrived in Normandy with 54 AFVs - 42 StuG and 12 Marder. And was sent 31 Jadgpanzers in the breakout period. That isn't 160 or 200 AFVs but it is 85 AFVs. The three StuG formation sent to the US part of the front are not a PD either, but they have 110 StuG/H between them, counting a few replacements etc. At least 2 and depending on how you account for times etc possibly 4 IDs with 24 AFVs each also fought on the US front. Non-PD armor in the US sector was therefore 220-270, and certainly needs to be included.

I no longer find your comments reasonable and I'm through with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hard for me to follow all the numbers, but I find JasonC's discussion of "runners" compelling, as is his discussion on the issue of timing for TWO calculation.

Quick statements about "There were x losses of one tank for y losses of another" tend to imply what is happening is like a CM battlefield, rather than the complexity of the repair/maintenance/supply situation. It would be too wonky, but it would be interesting to have a game which predominately focused on the behind battlefield stuff (Patton would have been stopped in the breakthrough BUT I FOUND him the gasoline. Lee did not get embroiled at Gettysburg BECAUSE I SENT his armies with enough shoes. Sparta fails to take Athens BECAUSE I HAD instituted good infection control and sanitation standards in the town--down such a game would sell)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finally finished reading this thread, really great stuff!

Will have to reread through the link to the axis military froum though ... oo manyt numbers for a Saturday afternoon tongue.gif

Dorosh: Nice one smile.gif Guess if i had started on page 1 the other day i would have clicked on, alas only had time to read portions of the thread here on the last page.

Panzerfaust made operating any kind of armour tricky at best
I read "By Tank into Normandy" by a British tanker - Stuart Hills, he rolled around Normandy and on through to Germany in a Sherman.

From his point of view, they sound absolutely terrifying! :eek:

It was vastly safer to be in a tank than not
The above named guy mentioned in his book, that i think it was a tanker in his troop basically refused to leave his tank.

He makes it sound as if this was common, that some found there tanks to be such a haven from the outside world that they refused to leave them even for short periods (i think the guy he spoke of did come out in the end).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

You also gave German losses June to August inclusive as 617, which is poppycock (if typical Zetterling, of the same sort that pretends they lost about 14 tanks at Kursk - but he makes up for it by providing the actual returns which let's one correct his tendencies), as I have explained - virtually the entire armor fleet sent west was gone by 11 August.

My dear chap I 'started' by using September loss figures but you disputed this and said June and July were the relevent months-that is why I used the 'low' early figures. Now of course you dismiss them!

The point is however you shuffle the pack one thing stands out. Nowhere does it support your absurd claim that the US always got the better of the Germans in tank losses. Low numbers/high numbers the Germans always come out best.

Since you are also claiming the Brits accounted for the majority, you thereby imply losses through the end of August on the US front are 300 or less, which is nonsense.

Nope. I posted some Goodwood figures. I never said anything about either Ally being superior to the other. In reply I got some garbage about US kill superiority and claims that Commonwealth Armoured Formations were 'stuffed'consistently and US Armour truimphed in every action.

I no longer find your comments reasonable and I'm through with you.
Whatever.................
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MikeyD:

. Of course if most airpower kills happen fifty miles behind the front lines from maurading Thunderbolts the vehicles wouldn't be showing up in the Brit survey, would they.

Such a statment or idea ignores the fact that the SHEF aka British and AMerican officers performing the survays preformed them after taking the ground from the Germans. Meaning they got to see those areas where "thunderbolts" murauded. Also those survays are after the highest claims for Allied airpower, ie mortian and the falsie gap battles. Such a statment also ignores how the allied airforces caused bugger all damage to armoured formations driving down roads to normandy. What allied airforces were good at was butchuring all the Luftwaffe Riech defence gruppe's redeploying down to france to support the German army and blasting the rail bridges networks therby constraining the supply of fuel and munitions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allied tanks in Normandy:

6 June:British=1045 US=433

7 June:British=1326 US=526

8 June:British=1669 US=526

9 June:British=1669 US=916

11 June:British=1669 US=952

12 June:British=1669 US=969

13 June:British=2004 US=1005

15 June:British=2256 US=1005

16 June:British=2256 US=1098

22 June:British=2323 US=1098

23 June:British=2323 US=1524

28 June:British=2414 US=1541

29 June:British=2414 US=1617

30 June:British=2666 US=1746

1 July:British=2666 US=1835

2 July:British=2666 US=1871

3 July:British=2906 US=1871

4 July:British=2906 US=1907

5 July:British=2906 US=1924

10 July:British=2906 US=1958

11 July:British=2906 US=2222

12 July:British=2906 US=2258

13 July:British=2906 US=2557

15 July:British=2906 US=2610

17 July:British=2906 US=2663

18 July:British=3146 US=2739

19 July:British=3386 US=2774

20 July:British=3386 US=2808

21 July:British=3386 US=2884

22 July:British=3386 US=3072

23 July:British=3386 US=3108

25 July:British=3386 US=3371

26 July:British=3729 US=3371

30 July:British=4072 US=3371

31 July:British=4072 US=3407

1 August:British=4072 US=3670

6 August:British=4192 US=3746

7 August:British=4192 US=3763

8 August:British=4192 US=3835

9 August:British=4192 US=3852

10 August:British=4432 US=3852

11 August:British=4432 US=4115

12 August:British=4541 US=4115

24 August:British=4541 US=4267

25 August:British=4541 US=4343

31 August:British=4541 US=4415

American units that came ashore by day:

------------------------------------------------------------------

17xIndependent Tank battalions [each with 53 Shermans, 6 Shermans with 105 gun and 17 light tanks for a total of 76 tanks]

6 June=70,741,743,745,746

7 June=747

16 June=759

29 June=712

30 June=744

11 July=709,735

13 July=737

18 July=748

6 August=702

24 August=701,736

25 August=774

21xTank Destroyer Battalions [each with 36 M10s or M18s]

6 June=899

11 June=702

13 June=803

23 June=813

30 June=634

1 July=703,893

2 July=629

4 July=635

11 July=654

12 July=644

13 July=704

15 July=818

17 July=705

22 July=603

23 July=630

31 July=628

8 August=773,814

31 August=602,631

16xCalavary reconn. Squadrons [each had 17 light tanks]

6 June=4

7 June=102

12 Junr=38

16 June=24

28 June=125

30 June=106

1 July=113

5 July=15

10 July=6,28

15 July=17

17 July=121

20 July=2,42

7 August=43

9 August=3

2xHeavy Armored Divisions [each with 232 Shermans and 158 light tanks for a total of 390 tanks]

9 June=2

23 June=3

5x Light Armored Divisions [each with 168 Shermans, 18 Shermans with 105 gun and 77 light tanks for a total of 263 tanks.

11 July=4[37TB with 76 tanks]

13 July=4[HQ, 8TB and 35TB with 187 tanks

19 July=6[HQ with 35 tanks]

21 July=6[69TB with 76 tanks]

22 July=6[15TB and 68TB with 152 tanks]

25 July=5 with 263 tanks

1 August=2 French Armored Division with 263 tanks [this unit was part of the American forces]

11 August=7 with 263 tanks

The breakdown of the 4415 American tanks that went ashore in Normandy is then:

2205 Shermans

192 Shermans with the 105mm gun

1262 light tanks

756 tank destroyers

As of 20 August 1944 ETOUSA had on hand:

2,423 M4 75mm and 76mm

163 M4 105mm

1,696 M5 37mm

763 M10 3" TD

179 M18 76mm TD

As of 20 August First Army had operational:

865 M4 75mm

218 M4 76mm

69 M4 105mm

691 M5 37mm

As of 19 August Third Army had operational:

782 M4 75mm

17 M4 76mm

90 M4 105mm

365 M5 37mm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

German tank/Stug/Jagd.Pz strength Normandy:

6 June=122

7 June=220

8 June=405

10 June=504

11 June=535

12 June=580

13 June=653

17 June=663

18 June=859

21 June=872

27 June=880

29 June=1124

1 July=1329

3 July=1374

6 July=1594

10 July=1647

19 July=1662

20 July=1707

21 July=1729

23 July=1746

24 July=1859

25 July=1869

26 July=1945

27 July=1959

31 July=2004

3 August=2035

4 August=2222

5 August=2232

10 August=2245

12 August=2248

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allied Losses in Normandy:

US to August 5:

463 M4 (75mm)

18 M4 (76mm),

4 M4 (105mm), and

144 M5,

Total = 629

US to August 20:

Shermans [75mm and 76mm] lost=748

Shermans [105mm] lost=5

light tanks lost=209

tank destroyers lost=52

Total=1014

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

=========================

British losses to June 23:

206 Sherman 75mm

22 Sherman 17-pdr

58 Cromwell

Total= 286

To August 5:

537 Sherman 75mm

79 Sherman 17-pdr

185 Cromwell

75 Stuart

83 Churchill 6-pdr and 75mm

8 Churchill 95mm

19 Churchill VII

32 AVRE

Total = 1615

British monthly losses:

June – 146

July – 231

August – 834

September - ?

Total = 1,211 (est. 1,568)

=====================================

German losses to July 27:

224 PzIV

131 Panther

23 Tiger

60 StuG

Total = 438

To July 31:

406 Panzer (all types)

60 StuG

Total = 466.

German Monthly losses for June/July:

June

1 PzIV(k)

124 PzIV (l)

80 Panther

19 Tiger

27 StuG

Total = 251

July

1 PzIII (l) (Befehlspanzer)

139 PzIV (l)

125 Panther

14 Tiger

68 StuG

Total = 347

Thus a total of 598.

German monthly losses to September:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the above you can work out the loss rates and it is clear that no matter which set of figures you use Germany always had lower losses than the Allies. The figures are all official and compiled for differing dates and criteria. Thus they do not exactly match up. They never will be definitive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breakdown of loss by cause:

----------------------------------------

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%.

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.

Another British loss table:

I have reference to WO 291/1186, "The comparative performance of German

anti-tank weapons during WWII.", an OR report dated 24 May 1950.

The percentage of tank losses, by cause, for different theatres is given as

follows:

.............. (tanks)..Mines.....AT guns....Tanks....SP guns....Bazooka...Other

N Europe(1305)...22.1%.....22.7%......14.5%.....24.4%.....14.2%......2.1%

Italy.........(671)...30%........16%..........12%......26%........9%.........7%

Africa....(1734 )..19.5%.....40.3%......38.2%.....nil............nil............2%

Mean values.......22.3%.....29.4%.......25.3%....13.5%......6.1%.........3%

destroyed..........20.3%......29%.........24.4%....12.7%.......5.4%......... -

damaged............2%..........0.8%........0.9%.....0.8%..........0.7% ........ -

Caution is advised over the "damaged" figures because of variability in reporting.

It is stated that tanks and SP guns should be considered together, as war diaries

often show doubt over what exactly caused a tank loss.

Percentage personnel casualties, by type of tank:

Tank type.............Mines.......AT guns....Tanks........SP guns.......Bazooka

Sherman...............24.6%......41.4%........60.5%.......54.3%.........44.7%

Churchill...............14.7%.......45%..........46.7%........30%...........14.7%

Stuart...................34.6%......29.8%........51.7%..........*...............*

Crusader.................*............38.5%........41.7%...................................

Cromwell,

Valentine,

Matilda, Grant........17.4%......34.4%.......25.6%...........*...............•

Mean values...........21.8 %.....40 %.........46.4%.......48.4 %......38.6 %

Of which killed.......4.8%........18%..........21.8%.......20.4%........18%

Of which wnded.....17%.........22%.........24.6%........28%.........20.6%

An asterisk indicates a sample smaller than 30. These are included in the mean values.

I have no idea why Shermans should apparently find. tanks more

productive of crew casualties than AT guns or SPs, nor why it

should be apparently so (relatively) safe to be knocked-out by

an AT gun if riding in a Stuart. Overall, though, being in a

brewed-up Sherman appears to be not much more dangerous than

being in an average brewed-up tank.

All the best,

John D Salt.

All the above is culled from posts on other forums by Ron Klages, 'Rich' Anderson and John D Salt.

That should keep the calculators busy for a few hours!

[ October 28, 2006, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. The British landed ~four (4) Armd Bdes (at about 200 tanks each), the US landed five (5) tank bns (at about 76 tanks each), the US also landed a TD bn (36 'tanks'), and the British landed about five (5) A-Tk Regts (with 24 'tanks' each). That all comes to about 1300, so obviously I've missed a few units.

In addition they landed over ninety (90) infantry-type battalions on D-Day, plus gags of engineers, arty, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why, in any CM-type simululation of a D-day beach, (or even a movie which focuses on one beach section) it is hard to get a feeling for the overall enormous scope of the operation.

Here is a nightmare mission (dream about it), if one should choose to accept it: a bevy of computers running CM, where you have to move 90 battalions (oh...throw in the airborne/glider too), and the armored units, each over an 8 battle operation of 20 turns.

That would sate...even the most hard-core CMer, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...