What german tank destroyed the most allied tanks ?

[Hamilcar1967]

Does anyone know what german panzer , tank destroyer or stug destroyed the most allied tanks. I would guess the panzerIV based on length of service or the panther based on the being the best german tank made in realtively large numbers.

[Sergei]

This would be impossible to determine. The biggest Allied tank losses happened early in the war, such as the thousands of T-26's lost during Operation Barbarossa. But how many of them were destroyed by tanks? Impossible to know, your guess is as good as anyone's.

The question is also framed pretty artificially. Is PzKpfw IV Ausf. C really the same tank as Ausf. J? If so, what makes StuG IV or Jagdpanzer IV different?

[Destraex1]

I think he is just trying to determine which German tank was the best bang for the buck in terms of how many tanks built and how effective it was in killing many enemy tanks.

Its a bit like asking which tank was the workhorse of the german army.

I would have to say the MkIV perhaps?

But then late war some of the bigger cats had an absolute ball stopping russian offensives cold.

[Vark]

But then late war some of the bigger cats had an absolute ball stopping russian offensives cold.

Er, I take it

'had a ball' = fighting for their lives

'stopped cold' = temporarily disrupted

Russian offensives= one prong of a larger strategic operation.

In which case, yes, you are right.

[DaveyJJ]

And also you don't want to work on numbers, you want to work on a ratio of numbers produced versus kills for that type. A proportional % of effectiveness. As Sergei said, good luck.

[Sakai007]

I am kind of curious to know which infantry anti-tank weapon killed the largest amount of tanks from Normandy forward. This would discount many AT rifles, but would include fan favorites like the Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, and Bazooka. And of course things like hand held AT grenades and AT rifle grenades.

[zukkov]

well i can tell you the greatest single individual tank killer. hans rudel killed over 500 soviet tanks. unfortunately he wasn't a tanker. he flew the tank buster version of the stuka. i remember playing a board game that actually had a counter just for him. lol..

[Uedel]

My gues goes for the STUG III as they where much more frequent then "real" Tanks

[Sergei]

I'd like to hear which WW2 SMG killed the most enemies. Note: only kills count, pls don't include the wounded.

[YankeeDog]

I am kind of curious to know which infantry anti-tank weapon killed the largest amount of tanks from Normandy forward.

I don't have specific figures (and I'm not sure precise figures for this exist anywhere); but I would be comfortable putting down a good sum of money that, from June 1944 on, Panzerfausts were responsible for far more AFV KOs than any other infantry AT weapon. I base this conjecture on three facts: (a) Panzerfausts were pretty effective, and had a high chance of KOing almost any Allied AFV on a hit; ( There were far more Allied tanks than German tanks, so German infantry had more targets, and much more opportunity/need to use IAT weapons; and © The Germans made a hell of a lot of Panzerfausts; by mid-1944, most infantry platoons had several.

As to the OP's query as to which German AFV destroyed the most Allied AFVs over the course of the entire war, I don't think these kinds of stats are available. What you can find are AFV losses by projectile type. For example, Zaloga's Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 tells me that in June-Sept 1944 on the First Belorussian Front, the biggest killer of Russian tanks was 75mm AP, at 39% of all Russian Tank losses. But as far as I know, how many of these 75mm kills were PaKs, PzIVs, Panthers, etc., is unknown.

I don't have them handy, but similar stats are available for the ETO.

For the war as a whole, though, based on length of service and sheer number of chassis, PzIV is a pretty good guess for German AFV that KOed the most Allied tanks.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

hans rudel killed over 500 soviet tanks.

Ahem. He claimed to have killed over 500 Soviet tanks. Not quite the same thing even though the Nazi propaganda machinery was deliriously happy to repeat his claims broadly and loudly.

Michael

[Sakai007]

I had a feeling that the Panzerfaust would be at the top. They were prolific to say the least. I can't help but shudder when I think of the Normandy invasion taking place against a German Army that didn't have the Eastern Front to contend with. While there were more German divisions then Allied in the ETO (on paper) the Eastern Front was voracious in the appetite for men and machines. Had this not existed, the battle in western Europe would have been a slaughter of both sides, to say the least. I often wonder about such impossible things, like a similar situation with the Luftwaffe and the allied bombing offensive. Had Germany been able to bear all of her strength on the Allied Bomber offensive, would it have been as effective as it was? Would losses have been so severe that night bombing would be the only alternative? Heh, I am going to write a book one of these days

[JasonC]

First to amplify Michael's remarks, in every single case in which air to ground kill claims against armored vehicles has been subjected to the detailed OR test of contemporary enemy loss reporting, pilot kill claims have been found to be high by at least a factor of 10 and more normally by a factor of 50. Rudel's claims may be taken as a reasonable indicator of the number of enemy tanks he *saw* over his flying career, but not remotely as an indicator, even a loose one, of the number of tanks he destroyed. If the true answer to the latter question was "10" he'd show average realism and honesty among attack aircraft pilots.

As to the original question, I have (in the past, not for this post) attempted an overall accounting of armor losses to the allies in the war and an apportionment of them over the major German weapon systems fielded against them. The data I had for this do not support more than informed speculation, but the overall scale of the figures should be about right. The process involves subjective judgment on my own part about the relative effectiveness of various German weapon systems, in order to extend data about one system to the rest of the accounting. Without further caveats, here are my estimates -

Later war upgunned but not uparmored AFVs, e.g. StuG and Panzer IV - between 1.5 and 2 enemy AFVs destroyed each over entire combat life.

Panthers - between 2 and 4 enemy AFVs over their entire combat life.

Tiger Is - somewhere between 4 and 14 enemy AFVs over their entire combat life. 14 is an upper bound, the true figure is more likely in the range 4 to 7. (Note that the range is wider here mainly because less numerous weapon systems have an amplified uncertainty; any "wiggle room" in the overall accounting might be due to a larger error about a less numerous system or a smaller error for a more numerous one, etc).

Heavy PAK - well less than 1 AFV each over their entire service life. My best guess is around 0.25 each, but it might be as high as 0.5. But definitely less than 1 for 1.

These figures are much much lower than most tactical gamers would be led to expect. But the reasoning that leads to figures on those scales is dauntingly tight.

The first law of OR is that the average weapon system never takes out a single enemy system of similar power or capability over its entire service life. The winner in the whole war is left with some major weapon systems and the loser with none, sets the maximum overall loss. Then that maximum loss is "sourced" to all weapon systems fielded, plus causes of loss having nothing to do with enemy weapon systems (mechanical failure, disease in the case of manpower, etc). Each weapon can't kill its own number or less than nothing would be left at the end of the war, which is not the case.

Only an above average weapon system can KO its own power, let alone more. In those terms, all of the major German AFVs were above average weapon systems and the figures above reflect that. The amount that any weapon system fielded in major numbers can be above that unity average, however, is quite limited.

FWIW...

[JasonC]

As for the question of infantry AT effectiveness, until late war systems like the panzerfaust became available, infantry AT weapons were only a trivial cause of AFV loss. In the final period of the war they came to account for up to 25% of AFV losses, over relatively short periods and in battles in which German armor was scarce. But the total losses attributable to German AT weapons have to be quite modest, and the average effectiveness of the AT weapons themselves extremely low.

How can we tell? Well, the Germans gave medals to infantrymen for taking out a tank. Any tank, any method, it was enough of an accomplishment. While some infantry AT kills undoubtedly occurred in circumstances that prevented any award (everybody else involved getting killed, no witnesses, etc), there was also undoubtedly some overclaiming and some cases of multiple awards for the same kill. The overall number KOed is probably within a factor of 1.5 of the awards, therefore. They gave out 14000 tank killer medals over the whole war. Total allied AFV losses were around 125000 maximum.

The Germans fielded 8.2 million Panzerfausts, plus 289,000 Panzerschrecks and 2.2 million rounds for them. Kills rates with them would be measured in basis points, not percent. The reason is obvious - extremely limited range plus extremely hazardous to use means very rarely able to get any kind of shot off, at all...

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for those, Jason.

I'm curious: what standard are you using for "Tank Loss" in your estimates? Are you talking about any damage sufficient to render a chassis hors de combat for the short term, or some more stringent standard, like total write offs?

Thanks,

YD

[Otrex]

I've forgotten my source, but I recall reading that the StuG III/IV was the largest killer of Allied tanks during the war.

It makes sense, considering it had a long life, was made in large numbers, and was upgunned throughout its time on the front lines.

Whether or not it's the most EFFECTIVE killer is another discussion, of course.

[Otrex]

Here's a little snippet from Wikipedia.. not my original source though.

Overall, Sturmgeschütz series assault guns proved very successful and served on all fronts as assault guns and tank destroyers. Although Tigers and Panthers have earned a greater notoriety, assault guns collectively destroyed more tanks. Because of their low silhouette, StuG IIIs were easy to camouflage and a difficult target. Sturmgeschütz crews were considered to be the elite of the artillery units. Sturmgeschütz units held a very impressive record of tank kills—some 20,000 enemy tanks by the spring of 1944.[2] As of April 10, 1945, there were 1,053 StuG IIIs and 277 StuH 42s in service. Approximately 9,500 StuG IIIs of various types were produced until March 1945 by Alkett and a small number by MIAG

[zukkov]

JC... buzzkiller! heh, i have no doubt what you say is correct, but i had heard from more than one source that rudel was the ultimate tank buster. so it's a lie? that if the 50 to 1 ratio of claimed to actual is at work here, he had a mere 10 kills? at this point i should ask where i can find more (truthful) information about this, but i'm not a statistics man, so i'm not going to. thanks for setting me straight.

[JasonC]

Yankee Dog - I do not use TWOs because they are extremely non uniform and subjective and vary across powers and tank types. They also systematically misreport both the timing and cause of loss.

To me, a tank is lost when it *leaves running status* and *never returns to running status*. Whatever the last cause was that put it out of running status, is the cause of its loss.

When an accountant decides to acknowledge the event that has already happened long since and gives up on the dream of recovery, doesn't matter. That the tank is not out firing at the enemy and never will be again, is what matters.

This is a much better standard but one it is only possible to apply correctly, retroactively.

Otherwise you get sequences like, the tank is shot to rags by enemy heavy AT weapons, laboriously hauled back a depot, listed as "long term repair" for a month and a half, then the front moves 250 miles after some breakthrough, and the evacuating maintenance men blow it in place rather than haul it off for spare parts - and the loss cause is then recorded as "destroyed by crew" - lol. No sir. The heavy AT hits that knocked it out of running status, killed it. They only didn't kill it if it makes it back into running status and actually fights again, in its service life.

The evaporation rate of running status AFVs is much more revealing than any other figure, in these matters...

Otrex - same kind of error. Own side claims are always wrong and always in the same direction - high. Ground AT claims aren't as inflated as air to ground claims, but they are always high and by meaningful amounts. During the war, German staff officers routinely gave all own side ground to ground armor kill claims a 50% haircut when trying to estimate remaining enemy armor strength. Doesn't mean that was the average figure, we don't know the average figure, but it is the right ballpark.

And with anything like that haircut, StuGs killed less than 2 enemy AFVs apiece. They may have only killed 1 apiece, average. There are 8600 StuGs on III chassis, 1100 more on IV chassis, and 1200 more StuHs in the same organizational force, plus another 800 early models with short 75 guns. That is 9600 heavy AT types and 11600 total AFVs. They claim 20k, but claims are not kills, they are probably only half-kills. Putting the kills per StuG somewhere between 1 and 2 with closer to 1 much more likely. Not in an afternoon, their entire service lives until lost, which all eventually were.

[MikeyD]

Heavy PAK - well less than 1 AFV each over their entire service life. My best guess is around 0.25 each

I recall a British paper stating that in their desert operations their 4 pounder AT guns were getting an average of just six shots off before being destroyed in combat.

[Steiner14]

Ahem. He claimed to have killed over 500 Soviet tanks. Not quite the same thing even though the Nazi propaganda machinery was deliriously happy to repeat his claims broadly and loudly.

I guess you never heard about the rules for registering kills as confirmed kills in the Wehrmacht (bestätigte Abschüsse)?

[JonS]

I guess you never heard about the rules for registering kills as confirmed kills in the Wehrmacht (bestätigte Abschüsse)?

*sigh*

Yes, we've heard of them. That the German high command still felt the need to apply the 50% haircut in order to make the numbers even vaguely useful is rather telling though, no? Also, as has been pointed out, EVERY time that claims have been compared to losses, the claims have been shown to be inaccurate. And not just a little bit inaccurate, but wildly inaccurate.

Exactly the same thing occurred with air-to-air claims, and probably for much the same reasons.

[JasonC]

Air to air claims are definitely inflated, but the best estimates from enemy losses put the typical overclaim rate at 2-3 to 1 - although the Russians specifically frequently went much higher than this, and overclaimed 6 to 10 to 1.

But air to ground anti armor claims are the worst offender by miles. Nothing else is even close.

Pilots believed that their guns were extremely effective in hitting ground targets, thinking they hit the target from half to two third of the time, and usually also that they had killed the target. Actual losses from gunfire to full tanks (as opposed to trucks or lightly armored APCs) are so miniscule in actual ground report OR as to barely exist. Pilot claims of 50 full AFVs destroyed frequently show 4 damaged, instead.

Pilots also believed that their high explosive air to ground munitions were fairly accurate, reporting hit rates from one in six to one in four. They believed that hits were kills. In the case of western allied pilots in particular, they believed their air to ground rockets were an extremely effective anti armor weapon, and they account for between two third and three quarters of air to ground armor kill claims, among units so equipped. This pattern of claims continued through the Korean war, with rockets thought by the pilots to be their most effective weapon and guns the second.

Actual on the ground OR examination of AFVs lost to air attack, however, showed that up to 90% of actual air to ground kills in Korea were caused by napalm. Pilots had only claimed 5-10% from that source.

OR established the main reason for napalm's unexpected high effectiveness was that the radius of miss that could be tolerated and still have a solid change of destroying the vehicle was up to 10 times as large for napalm as for simply high explosive munitions, when the target was a full AFV. And actual direct hits were much, much less common than such nearby misses, despite pilot claims.

Basically, all the evidence suggests that napalm was the first actually effective armor killing air to ground weapon. Rockets and bombs were fine against softer and especially larger targets - soft transport, rolling stock and trains, and the like - but simply didn't hit close enough to actually destroy full AFVs often enough to matter.

Recent analysis suggests that German light flak over Normandy shot down about 10 allied fighter bombers for every German AFV KOed on the ground by those fighter bombers. Sending fighter bombers after the extremely hard target of actual tanks was in fact a collosal waste of resources and helped the enemy more than it hindered him, in exchange terms. The right target for WW II era tac air was the softer logistic transport links supplying the whole force - trucks and rolling stock and the like.

These figures are even more daunting for the Russians on the eastern front. The Russians lost tens of thousands of IL-2s, for example, yet Russian air accounted for less than 10% of German armor losses in the east, and probably more like 3%. It was simply a waste to send large numbers of capable fighter bombers at such an unpromising target, when they could inflict much greater damage on softer ones over their operational lives.

The average AFV kills per sortie by US air force A-10s firing Maverick anti tank guided missiles at stationary targets in open desert in the first gulf war, was about one quarter of an enemy AFV per sortie, as shown by detailed OR studies after the war. That was with loads of up to 4 TV guided precision munitions fully capable of destroying anything they hit. US pilots still overclaimed by 2-4 to 1 in that war, using precision munitions, and practically without opposition. The notion that anybody achieved equal or higher average kill rates in WW II aircraft is preposterous, yet that is what the pilot claims themselves effectively say.

[zukkov]

all this is very disillusioning for us non-grogs. now i think i know why we really invented the atomic bomb. apparently we couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with anything else. :-p

[LongLeftFlank]

So I'm curious what percentage of AFV losses on both sides were owing ultimately to bogging or mechanical failures on the battlefield (vs. en route). I have a feeling that a significant number of AFV kills were actually immobilized sitting ducks.