Andreas

Not sure what you mean, but it is close to three times its OOB strength. That probably includes the numbers lost in surrender in Tunisia and 1945. http://www.alanhamby.com/unithist.html#501 All the best Andreas

The whole idea of only counting direct tank losses is pointless because all it does show is that the Tiger was a better tank (when all sorts of things like logistics, mobility etc. are ignored) once it got to the battlefield than the Allied tanks. It had better armour, and a better gun. Ergo, once it got there it had a higher kill ratio. Well, knock me over with a feather. I look forward to the astonishment the world will react with when I prove mathematically on the basis of a wide-spread sample that babies are smaller than adults. It is an exercise that clearly needs doing, just as your exercise about that tank engagement kill ratios is one that desperately needs doing. Sorry, your point does not get more interesting the more you repeat it. That you don't agree with my point does not make it 'illogical', by the way. I can assure you that it is perfectly logical that if you want to look at the performance of heavy tank battalions, analysing their combat record is the right way to go. Damage inflicted is one aspect of this, and within that, tank kills are a sub-aspect. This you put into relation to the assets you lost while doing the killing, for whatever reason. I also have no idea why you insist that in the original thread tank-on-tank engagements were the matter of dispute. It appears to me you need to re-read it, since you have obviously no idea of what the thread was about. The below is the issue of contention, so please stop making stuff up about the locked thread. It is not interesting, funny, or sensible to do so: 12,000 T34s destroyed, BTW, is over 20% above actual Tiger claims for all types of tanks on all fronts according to Alan Hamby. So, you were saying? All the best Andreas

Que? All the best Andreas

It took five Shermans to take out a Panther - not All the best Andreas

That may not be the subject you are interested in, but it is the one I am interested in, and it is the one I discuss. I do not think that using individual tanks as units of analysis is profitable. YMMV and you are welcome to discuss whatever you like, up to and including how many Tigers can dance on the pin of a needle. Just don't expect me to humour you by discussing with you what I see as silly statistics in the context of this discussion. To me the ratio you are trying to calculate is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with reality. End of story, as far as I am concerned. As for which part of Jason's post is relevant: It is this one. All the best Andreas

it's extemely essential for any discussion about how Tigers did in battles with enemy tanks. and that's what the discussion was about (earlier, not this thread). </font>

Why on earth would anyone want to count Tigers killed directly by enemy tanks? That has to rank high up with the most pointless stats that I can think of. All the best Andreas

Wilbeck calculates loss ratios only counting Tigers lost in combat as 12.2:1. The 5.4:1 is including all Tigers. And that is again based on German claims. So unless you want to exclude Tigers killed by mines and other weapons, I think you'll have a hard time making it to 20:1. All the best Andreas

I don't think it is available online at the moment. All the best Andreas

Actually, I would expect Oddball to have nicked one. All the best Andreas

Great guide! All the best Andreas

Quite correct, in fact it was decided by section and at a maximum probably platoon level actions. All the best Andreas

If we substract 850 from the Tiger claims list for kills in Tunisia, Italy, and the west, we are left with 9,000. Assuming no kills before 1943, that would mean that Tigers killed (taking claims at face value) 19% of all AFV losses (ca. 48,000) incurred by the Red Army from 1/1/43 to 9/5/45. I think that is highly unlikely, considering that the remaining 80% have to be split between thousands of vanilla Panzer III, IV, Panther, Stugs, Hetzer, Panzer IV/70, Jagdpanther, Marders, Hornisse, Elefant (whose claims at Kursk account for another 1+% alone), 50mm AT, 75mm AT, 88mm AA and AT, Panzerschreck, Panzerfaust, Mines, artillery, infantry close assault, Ju 87 and Hs 129 ground assault planes (Rudel's claims are good for another 1+% of all Soviet tank losses post 1/1/1943) and technical breakdowns. Just to give an example, 9. Flakdivision claimed 128 tanks in the battle of the Crimea 1944 alone, over the time of less than one month. Zaloga has an interesting statistic about causes of combat losses for selected time periods and operations in 'The Red Army Handbook', and it is clear from that that the 88 was a major killer. But it does not follow that these 88s were all mounted on Tigers, since a large number were around in towed variations or mounted on Elefant/Ferdinand, Hornisse/Nashorn (over 500 vehicles) and Jagdpanther. All the best Andreas [ October 04, 2006, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

It is based on claims, with no comparison even where this would have been possible (but probably outside the reasonable amount of research for an MSc). Which means the whole thing is not particularly helpful, unless you are a US tanker trying to prove the efficacy of your arm. Let's have a guess which branch Wilbeck belongs to. All the best Andreas

Nah, those are terrible. Oh wait, the picture got distorted by the drool on my screen. The second one would do the job very nicely, so get on with it. I'll dedicate the scenario to you in exchange. All the best Andreas

Quite so. I saw those, but they are CMAK, and camo. I need Panzergrau, and CMBB. Sorry for expressing myself unclearly - I should have said that I saw HTs, but those were not the HTs I am looking for. All the best Andreas

They were not favoured in terms of weapons until the second half of the war. The first field formations had to procure their weapons outside the Wehrmacht channels, so they did e.g. not have the MG34, but instead had Czech MGs. The first Panthers, Tigers, and Kingtigers went to Heer formations. The same for the first L43 equipped Stugs and Panzer IV. OTOH SS armoured divisions had individual Tiger companies in 1943, something which Heer divisions did not have. SS-HJ did have an organic rocket battalion, again unheard of for the Heer. I think the decline of Hitler's trust in the Heer is directly related to the growing favourisation of the Waffen-SS. As I said, it is not a straightforward story. All the best Andreas

No HTs there, that's the one I checked. I look on CMMODS tonight. Thanks a lot for the tip! All the best Andreas

Correct, but by 1943 this was much less the case. All the best Andreas

The Reichswehr did not have a Luftwaffe and it was a professional army. The Wehrmacht as a full armed force based on conscription, and incorporating Army, Navy, and Air Force, was a creation of Hitler. What he did went far beyond renaming. Michael is right. All the best Andreas

Hi there Couldn't find any HTs hosted there - CMMODS is working? All the best Andreas

Such wit has never been beheld on this forum. All the best Andreas

I actually think I still use stock graphics for them. THE HORROR, THE HORROR!!! Thanks a lot for the advice David, I'll go and check them out. Andrew helped me a lot with the Sealion mods, those are some nice ones. I completely forgot that he made those from CMBB mods. All the best Andreas

Off with his head! All the best Andreas

Another good one is the study on the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/gebhardt/gebhardt.asp All the best Andreas