King Tiger losses in the west

[JasonC]

Very nice, MakJager. I especially liked "2 KT suffer gear box damage during a propaganda demo.... they are left behind" - LOL. My hats off, sir.

[PzKpfw 1]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I’m curious if anyone can verify the survival of either one or two Tiger II’s from 503’s original allotment in Normandy.

<hr></blockquote>

From what i can find all of s.Pz.Abt.503's Tiger II's except for 2* of the 14 issued to 3/503 were lost by the end of August 1944.

*See: Jentz, Thomas L Germany's Tiger Tanks pp. 111

Regards, John Waters

[PzKpfw 1]

Concerning Tiger losses in the West, the below data is from British examination of Tiger's found on the battlefeild for cause of loss from various periods of the war unfourtently their is no distinction made between Tiger E & Tiger II until the December, January report:

June 6 - August 7 1944 , 8 Tiger's examined, cause of loss: 7 by AP rounds, 1 to uknown causes.

August 8 - August 31 1944, 28 Tigers examined, cause of loss: 20 destroyed by crew, 6 abandoned, 1 by AP round.

December 16 1944 - January 16 1945, 5 Tiger II examined, cause of loss: 1, by AP round, 1, by bomb, 2, demolished, 1 abandoned.

See: Jentz Thomas L Germany's Tiger Tank pp.110, 111, 112.

Regards, John Waters

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>John Said: From what i can find all of s.Pz.Abt.503's Tiger II's except for 2* of the 14 issued to 3/503 were lost by the end of August 1944.

*See: Jentz, Thomas L Germany's Tiger Tanks pp. 111<hr></blockquote>

Thanks John…completely forgot about looking at Jentz

I guess I was interested in the fate of the original 12 Tiger II’s issued to 1st Kompanie of the 503rd Schwere PanzerAbteilung. It seems reasonable to assume that none of these machines survived Normandy\Falaise. The few that may have squeezed through the Falaise noose were no doubt abandoned on the wrong side of the Seine. It is possible that the 2 Tiger II’s turned over to 101 SS Schwere PanzerAbteilung on 25/8/44 were remnants of 3rd Kompanie 503. However the unit history for the 3rd Kompanie seemingly accounts for all 14 Tiger II’s issued to 3rd Komp (W. Schneider’s Tigers in Combat I)….12 either destroyed\damaged by air attacks and subsequently destroyed by their crews, or broke down and were destroyed by their crews. 2 suffered mechanical breakdowns during some sort of propaganda demonstration in Mailly-le-Camp and were apparently entrained and shipped back to Germany 24/8/44.

Tigers in Combat II indicates the following:

1st Kompanie, 101st SS Schwere PanzerAbteilung

25/08/1944: Airstrikes in the area of ST. SOUPLETTES; several dead and wounded. 2 Tiger II tanks (Porscheturm) of 503rd Schwere PanzerAbteilung are incorporated into the Unit.

oh well...hair on a gnats ass sort of information I suppose.

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

i was not aware that all the king tigers were "taken out" where did you read this?it simply is not true, most of the ones that were counted as "knocked out" were simply abandonded by their crew due to running out of fuel and ammo and not being able to be resupplied, the western allies simply had no reliable way of knocking out these tanks without an attack from aircraft<hr></blockquote>

Well, you're ignoring this:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I say this because I can identify the following SS KT loss occasions in the Bulge - (1) a platoon of 4 KOed by 4 US 76mm towed ATGs on a slope overlooking a town near the tail of Peiper's column, firing from ambush; (2) 2 KTs KOed leading an attack on a US held village, knocked out by 90mm AA guns, at the head of Peiper's column; (3) at least 1 KT M-killed by infantry with zooks and then set alight after dosing it in gasoline, not with Peiper's column, but in the SS Panzer sector in front of the Elsenborn position.<hr></blockquote>

It also seems that you believe that the fact that many KTs were abandoned, destroyed by their crews, or destroyed by aircraft, is an example of these vehicles' superiority. This does not follow; the fact that the crew chose to destroy their vehicle simply does not mean it could not be destroyed by other means. As Jason's point above demonstrates, KTs could be and were killed by conventional US weapons (i.e., 76mm AT guns).

[Måkjager]

Jeff...spot on with the 12 KT in the 1./sPzAbt 503 in Normandy... i was eyes wide shut last night....missed the diagram and issue table for that Komp. You are correct with the 12 KT , i did not notice that the other 2 "KTs" were infact Tiger Is in the 3rd Plt / 1./sPzAbt 503.

If we accept that as the case then the new number for KTs that were in Normandy/NFrance from June-August is 45.

Pz K Flk. 316 - 5

1./sPzAbt 503 -12

3./sPzAbt 503 -14

1./sSSPzAbt 101 -14

Total -45

Which then means about 198 KTs on the W.front -44/45

The KTs according to Tigers in Combat for the 1./sPzAbt 503 were numbered and organised as follows.

HQ KTs - 100, 101

Ist Plt - KTs - 111, 112 , 113, 114

2nd Plt - KTs - 121, 122, 123 ,124

3rd Plt - KTs - 131 , 132 .- Tiger Is as - 133, 134.

The 1st company suffered the following losses.

18.07.44 - KT 100 Falls into a bomb crater- later(18.08.44) blown up by crew.

18.07.44 - KTs 101 , 111 ko ( 111 blown up by crew on 18.08.44)

18.07.44 - KT 122 Rammed by Sherman - Blown up by crew(18.08.44)

18.08.44 - KT 113 Blown up by crew.

20.08.44 - KT 112 Blown up by crew.

20.08.44 - KT 124 Blown up by crew.

So of the 12 used by the 1st Company , 7 KTs can be accounted for.

As of 28.08.44 records show that the same company has no vehicles.

So we have "5" outstanding KTs that are missing?????

Taking 3./sPzAbt 503 and trying to follow their vehicle numbers we know that 2 KTs remained behind at Mailly Le Camp , off the remaining 12 KTs vehicle 311 was lost due to air attack and later captured, KT 334 breaks down and is later blown up

So that leaves 10 KTs , which are later attacked by Jabos which damaged most of themwith the aid of AT and Artillery fire.

Subsequently 8 KTs are blown up over the coming days due to lack of spares / fuel / damage and inability to recover. KT 300 blown up - Oinville.

The last 2 remaining KTs under the command of Lt. Rambow make their way to Beauvais where the other tank suffers a broken track and is blown up.

Lt .Rambows 3rd Plt KT make it as far as Amiens where it too is blown up.

There is one case of a Tiger from sPzAbt 503 making it across the Seine and that was a Tiger I numbered "222" which crossed at Elbeuf on the 25th August with elements of 2. /& 3./ aSSPzAbt 101.

It was later abandoned at Saussay la Champagne.

On the 26th August American forces report an attack by " 15" Tigers - these are a combination of KTs from 1./sSSPzAbt 101 and 3./sPzAbt 503. According to "Combat History of sPzAbt 503" it assumes about 7 KTs each for both companies.If that were the case then where did the (2) extra 503s KTs come from...as by 20.08.44 (see above) its reported that the 3rd company has lost 7 out of 12 KTs....leaving a force of 5 KTs on strenght. Possible source from the 5 missing from the reports of 1./sPzAbt 503.

This "may" also be the time span where sSSPzAbt 101 "obtains" the 2 ex 503 KTs??????

My head is wrecked trying to hunt down these bloody KTs.........Jason C .....Grrrrrrrrrr

Regards

Måkjager

[Jeff Duquette]

Måkjager:

Great set of posts on your part.

Can I assume from your commentary that you would recommend getting a copy of J.J. Fedorowicz’s publication on the Combat History of the 503rd Schwere PanzerAbteilung? 80 bucks is steep.

Just an added bit on Tigers with the Lehr Division. Looking through Jentz he indicates Lehr strength returns include 3 Tiger I’s on Jul 1, 44 (presumably the same info John posted earlier). Jentz goes on to indicate the “the fate of the 3 Tiger I’s and 5 Tiger II’s of the 316th FKL remain a mystery”. The fate of these 5 Tiger II’s mystery is solved (see Durruti’s and John’s posts on pg 1). The fate of the 3 Tiger I’s seems to be in the air.

One additional question: Sounds like you own JJF’s work on “Funklenkpanzer”; How did employment of Tiger’s assigned to FKL units differ from the employment of Tiger’s in a normal Schwere PanzerAbteilung?

[PzKpfw 1]

Some interesting reading on on *3/503:

"A short time later 3./503 was ordered to Mailly de Camp, where under the command of Hptm. Scherf, it was re-equipped with the new Tiger II(.

Unfourtunately, a considerable portion of the necessary equiptment was missing; this had to be brought from Germany by special train. On 11 August Lt. von Rosen was able to load five Tiger IIs on the first train. Paris was the designated point of disembarkation. The situation on the Westren Front had worsened considerably.

On 12 August the train was attacked by Thunderbolts between Sezanne and Esterney. The fighter-bombers made sevral passes, fireing rockets and strafeing, One of the Tiger IIs caught fire and the munitions car with the 8.8 cm ammunition likewise went up in flames; nevertheless the journey continued, although Ofw. Bormann and Uffz. Wehrheim had been fatally wounded. Several other soldiers were injured.

The burning Tiger, which had rolled from the train and tipped over,(the remaining petrol had run out and burned a fourtunate occurance which saved the lives of the crew)was laboriously put back on its tracks a few days later by the feild workshop. Despite all efforts by Lt, von Rosen to obtain tractors and the necessary fuel, Tiger 311 could not be saved. The American advance had meanwhile reached the area and the tank's crew, which had been left on it's own, had been taken prisoner.

Near Reims von Rosen discovered two of the battalion's disabled Tigers which he managed to get aboard the train, thus saveing them from capture by the Allies.

When Lt. von Rosen again reached the battalion it was located near Beauvais. It had meanwhile been through several heavy battles east of the Orne and had fought its way out of several encirclements.

Most of the units Tigers were lost during the subsequent crossing of the Seine because there were no ferries available which could carry the tanks. As a result, only the newly delivered Tigers of 3./503 saw action north of the Seine.

Finally, ony Lt. Rambow's tank was left. Following several actions near Amiens this tank too had to be blown up. The retreat by the now tankless crews led to Maastricht-Mersen. There the order reached them to move back to Paderborn, Camp Senne for reorganization."

*See: Kleine Egon, Kuhn Volkmar: Tiger The History of a Legendary Weapon 1942 -1945 p.148

Regards, John Waters

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

It also seems that you believe that the fact that many KTs were abandoned, destroyed by their crews, or destroyed by aircraft, is an example of these vehicles' superiority. This does not follow; the fact that the crew chose to destroy their vehicle simply does not mean it could not be destroyed by other means. As Jason's point above demonstrates, KTs could be and were killed by conventional US weapons (i.e., 76mm AT guns).<hr></blockquote> knokced out in the ardenees forest you said right? well tanks are not at their best fighting in forests, they can't just run over every tree in their path lik many people think. and if you do not think the tiger2's were superior to american armor, well just ask a veteren sherman tanker. your reading the propaganda that the american mg's were better then the mg 42's and we had the best tanks in the wolrd, wich was totaly false at the time, and the veterens agreed that the shermans were not as good as the tigers. the panzerIV's were a much better tank then the sherman. but i find alot of people just just biased and can't deal with the fact that germany had better armor, the russians did too, but that must be false as well, the shermans main strenghts were this. numbers,numbers, reliability, and adaptability. the british, americans, italians and japanese were judst not very impressive at creating good armor at the time. the briths and americans tried copying the tiger but they still lacked. just as the panther is very similar in design to the t-34

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

knokced out in the ardenees forest you said right? well tanks are not at their best fighting in forests, they can't just run over every tree in their path lik many people think. and if you do not think the tiger2's were superior to american armor, well just ask a veteren sherman tanker. your reading the propaganda that the american mg's were better then the mg 42's and we had the best tanks in the wolrd, wich was totaly false at the time, and the veterens agreed that the shermans were not as good as the tigers. the panzerIV's were a much better tank then the sherman. but i find alot of people just just biased and can't deal with the fact that germany had better armor, the russians did too, but that must be false as well, the shermans main strenghts were this. numbers,numbers, reliability, and adaptability. the british, americans, italians and japanese were judst not very impressive at creating good armor at the time. the briths and americans tried copying the tiger but they still lacked. just as the panther is very similar in design to the t-34<hr></blockquote>

You're 14 right? You need to reread the posts that I and other people have made so that you can respond to those points. Sometimes it helps to say the words out loud. Making up arguments that you believe people made, and then attacking those made up arguments is called a "straw man" argument. It is not really an argument, it is a form of masturbation. Like masturbation, it's best not done in public.

Turning to specific points:

(1) Please show me where I ever claimed that Shermans were superior to Tiger IIs. (Hint: I have never claimed that). I have refuted specific points that you have made as part of your uber-German argument; specifically that (a) the US lost 5 Sherms taking out each German heavy tank and ( the US could not destroy a KT except with airpower.

(2) Ardennes. Yes, I understand that tanks are not at their best in the woods. However, woods do not magically reduce the armor on a KT, and despite the absence of this magical armor reduction, 76mm AT guns were somehow able to destroy KTs with flank shots. You do know that this same gun was mounted on the 76mm Sherms, and a very similar gun was mounted on the M-10.

(3) Propaganda and my reading habits. I would never claim that US mgs were better than the MG 42; they weren't. I have certainly never made that claim in this thread or even on this BBS. (See "strawman"). WRT my reading habits and propaganda, you are making stuff up again. How is the fact that 76mm AT guns knocked out KTs propaganda? Do you believe that it's not true? Present some evidence to support the claim, then.

(4) Please provide some evidence to support your claim that the British or Americans tried to copy the Tiger.

(5) I will note that you failed to rebut my earlier post about the 5-1 ratio. Do you concede that you were wrong.

(6) Much of this thread has focused on how many KTs were destroyed by means other than airpower and abandonment. I would be interested in stats (from Sakai or anyone) concerning how many Shermans were lost to KTs.

(7) Sherms and PzIVs. The contention that the PzIV was better than the Sherman is not implausible on its face, at least wrt the Sherm 75. The Pz IV did have a better gun for AT purposes. On the other hand, the Pz IV did not has much effective front armor as the Sherman, was not nearly as reliable as the Sherman, and had a marginally worse anti-infantry gun than the Sherm. I call it a wash, but it's reasonable to disagree on this one.

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

You're 14 right? You need to reread the posts that I and other people have made so that you can respond to those points. Sometimes it helps to say the words out loud. Making up arguments that you believe people made, and then attacking those made up arguments is called a "straw man" argument. It is not really an argument, it is a form of masturbation. Like masturbation, it's best not done in public.

<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the new sig .

[Ogadai]

The British and the US, copy the Tiger? No, Chef, I don't think so. I am aware that the British did restart the production lines for both the Tiger and the Panther, building several examples from components found in the factories and surrounding sub-contractors just after the war had ended.

Indeed, if you ever get the chance to see the movie, "Their's is the Glory" - which was made by the British, in 1946 about the airdrop on Arnhem and was filmed in and around the town, utilising many of the real participants of that battle (basically 6 Airborne Div recreated it for the movie, as an exercise), you'll see some of those vehicles in use, during a night-attack.

[Jeff Duquette]

John:

Great info. Thanks for posting it.

Makjager:

Still hoping you can give a brief dissertation on FKL Tiger tactical doctrine. Thanks.

[JasonC]

"FKL Tiger tactical doctrine"

I'm no expert on the subject, but my understanding is the Tigers were wanted above all for their armor.

The FKL units used dozens of remote controlled demo vehicles to clear minefields, blow up roadblocks, blow gaps in wire, and destroy bunkers. They started out using StuGs as the control vehicles for this. The control vehicle needed LOS to the target and the ground along the way to it, to navigate around obstacles. The need to see every bit of the ground between controller and target meant the range to target generally had to be low - under 1 km, and often half that.

As a result, they were generally exposed to some kind of enemy fire, especially when tackling bunkers. StuGs were OK when that fire was machineguns, ATRs, or perhaps 45mm ATGs at the longer ranges. But once it meant heavier AT weapons, they were a bit thin for the job. So there was an attempt to re-equip the FKL units with Tigers.

It didn't take many, less than a company's worth for each unit. Typically 3 control vehicles with a platoon, using up to 15 of the demolition vehicles (in practice, fewer, because some were always less than ready). The control Tiger would crawl within LOS of the target, and then pilot the demolition vehicle (until then behind it) up to point blank, and set it off by remote control.

Perhaps you are after more detailed info that this, or higher level operational stuff. For what it is worth.

[Måkjager]

Jeff.....In regards to spending money on weighty( and expensive ) books on WWII German Armour & Units....its a major weakness on my behalf...and i am not sure if i am the best person to ask Suffice to say.. i am happy with my purchase of the Combat History ofsPzAbt 503.

There are plenty of photos/ charts / maps but also to quote the book

"Our book is intended primarily for reading , rather than looking. It is not written forthe individual companies but rather for the entire battalion.We took pains to present factual reports instead of emotional presentations. Personality cults were advoided. However it lies in the nature of things that some individuals received extensive mention , others less and the majority none at all."

Kurt Knispal is one who gets scant mention though i am still happy with the purchase ...so much so that i have just ordered the Combat History of the 508th sPzAbt , the Funklenkpanzer book and Normandy 1944 , German Military Organization , combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness.

Normandy 1944-

Niklas Zetterling). Hard cover, small format (6x9), English text, 450+ pages, numerous organizational diagrams, charts, tables and graphs. At last, a single-source reference book which accurately presents the German field forces employed in Normandy in 1944 and their losses. Chapters include: German Combat Organization (overview); Number of Soldiers Employed; Effects of Allied Air Power; German Armor in Normandy; German Losses in Normandy; Combat Efficiency; and, Unit Movements. In addition, there is a capsule history of every major formation employed in Normandy: infantry and Panzer divisions and separate formations; artillery and Werfer units; corps and field-army formations and miscellaneous elements which could bring combat power to bear. Dr. Zetterling provides a sobering analysis of the subject matter and debunks a number of popular myths concerning the campaign (the effectiveness of Allied air power; the preferential treatment of Waffen-SS formations in comparison to their army counterparts; etc.). He supports his text with exhaustive footnoting and provides an organizational chart for most of the formations covered in the book. ISBN: 0-921991-56-8.

This last book i feel "MAY" shine a light on the 3 Tiger Is associated with the Pz Lehr Div.

Regarding your query on how the Tiger Flk vs Tiger formations were employed i have not got much info except from what i can glean for the Combat History of sPzJg Abt 653.

A combat report was submitted by a Major Reinel CO / PzAbt ( Fkl) 301 for/on 23/07/43 regarding the employment of radio controlled panzer units.

At that time the Abt consisted of 3 independent Kompanies- the 312th , 313th and 314th.

The 314th was assigned to the I/Abt-656th PzJgRegt using Ferdinands.

The 313th was assigned to the II/Abt-656th PzJgRegt also using Ferdinands.

The 312th was assigned to the 505th sPz Abt using Tiger Is.

Out of all the units the most successful in acheiving their objectives was the 321th with the Tigers of the 505th sPzAbt. This was due to the offensive capability and mobility of the Tigers ( vs mobility of the Ferdinand) which allowed the gains made by the destruction of enemy units and material by the remote mine layers to be consolidated by the closely following Tigers and control tanks. Indeed the slower Ferdinands caused th loss of control vehicles belonging to te other 2 companies as they came under offensive enemy fire while waiting for the Ferdinands to move up.

I am no expert Jeff on this subject but i would "presume" that a combination of Tiger and remote would be more capable & effective in certain situations...ie attack on strong static lines of defense for the purpose of break through operations compared to using just "plain" Tiger tanks.

I also think it would be fair say that the Tiger if used as a radio control vehicle for the mine carrier would also be more effective overall in the offensive arena than a Stug as with its turret it could engage targets through 360 degrees.

As for deployment ....the 312th Komp was deployed forward of the sPzAbt 505 Tigers in a reconnaissance screen as per tactical requirements of that time and they succeeded in ko 2 T-34 , 3 heavy bunkers , an AT bunker , a Inf gun , AT crew( ATR ?? ) and 2 units of infantry in trench systems.

Hope this is of some help Sorry if its a bit short....but i am pressed for time and i got a "Rat" gnawing at me ankels looking for a mod.

Regards

Måkjager

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Måkjager ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

Måkjager:

I share your weaknesses for spending money on weighty (and expensive) books on WWII German Armour & Units. Unfortunately my weakness also extends to weighty and expensive books on WWII US, Soviet, and Commonwealth Armour & combat histories ;(

Regarding Niklas Zetterling’s book “Normandy 1944”, I have a copy and can highly recommend it as well as his statistical study on Kursk (co-authored by Anders Frankson). Both are gems with a wealth of archival research information all condensed for those of us that can’t hop into our cars and head on down to the Bundesarchiv. Unfortunately I disagree with some of Zetterlings conclusions regarding various aspects of the Normandy Campaign, however the data presented makes this book quite valuable.

Regarding Zetterling's "Normandy 1944" providing any additional insight on the Lehr’s Tiger I’s, it does not. This was one of the first references I checked. I did inquire to Zetterling directly regarding Lehr’s Tiger I’s and got the following response:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>There are at least two documents that indicated that the 316. Pz.Kp. was with the Pz.Lehr up to the end of June. One of these is the strength report to the Inspector-General of Panzer Troops, 1 July 1944, which shows that the division had 38 JagdPz IV and StuG III. Since the division had 31 JagdPz IV and 10 StuG III of the 316. Pz.Kp. on 1 June, and no indication new shipments have been found for June, it seems most likely that the 316. Kp. brought its StuG III to Normandy. I have found no strength report showing Tigers with the Pz.Lehr after 1 June. On the other hand, I have found no source explicitly stating that they did not go to Normandy, except Ritgen.

Possibly it was regarded as impractical, for maintenance purposes, to have only three vehicles of this type with the division in Normandy. But if so, why did not that idea occur when the unit was formed (possibly it could have been assumed that it should have more than three Tiger I). On the other hand, the Pz.Lehr was intended to be part of I. SS-Pz.Korps, which had the 101. s.SS-Pz.Abt., with maintenance capabilities.

In any case, I have nothing indicating what happened to the three Tigers. Possibly they were sent to Mailliy-le-Camp to be used by other units forming.

One alternative would be to check the records of 302. Pz.Abt. (Fkl), but I have not done that.<hr></blockquote>

========

Regarding FKL units, I guess I thought you had JJF’s massive book on the subject (a mere 100.00 dollars ) I have seen this beast at a local bookstore but was never particularly interested in leafing through the thing. It is quite huge…on par with JJF’s combat history of schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 653. Perhaps I will swing by the bookstore today and leaf through the FKL study to see if there is any info on 316th FKL.

[PzKpfw 1]

Jeff thought you would find this *report from Hptm. Kramer of FKL 301 concerning 301's employment during the Ardennes offensive interesting. FKL 301 was the only unit with Tiger E's that participated in the Ardennes fighting, it was initialy attached to LXXXI Armeekorps but was later attached to 9th Pz. Div.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>During the entire employment of the battalion since November 16th, due to both tactical and technichal reasons, it was not possible to utilize this unit as a panzer funklenk battalion.

The battalion was employed exactly as a normal panzer battalion as part of an panzer division to attack enemy tanks or employed in tank pack of 5 Tigers for mobile defense and counter attacks.

The operations in which the BIVs were employed, in all cases, resulted in complete failure or at best a partial success. Due to the small number of Lenk-panzer(Tigers with control sets)only a few BIVs could be employed.

These were for the most part, destroyed by heavy enemy fire before reaching their objective. The employment of this expensive equiptment is by no means justified by the end result.<hr></blockquote>

*See: Parker Danny S. Battle of the Bulge p.239

Regards, John Waters

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

"*See: Parker Danny S. Battle of the Bulge p.239"

oophs...forgot to check Parker as well thnx John.

[Måkjager]

I found an additional nugget of information regarding the sole surviving Kingtiger from the

1./sSSPzAbt 101 which made it back to Germany from France.

According to Patricks Agte book " Micheal Wittman and the Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte' that Kingtiger was commanded by a Oberscharführer Arno Salamon. This KT was used as a training by vehicle members of the 1./Komp and others the during January/Febuary 1945 at Schloß Holte.

I think Micheal Dorosh was asking about the loss/survival rate in Tiger/Tiger II komp/Abts.

In the "Combat History of sPzAbt 503' the author giives the following information.

By wars end , conducting a head count for the tank companies with a authorized strenght of 88 men found that the following losses were suffered.

1./sPzAbt 503 - 81 killed / missing 92% Loss.

2./sPzAbt 503 - 69 killed / missing 78% Loss

3./sPzAbt 503 - 56 killed / missing 64% Loss.

Combined with losses for the whole Battalion, HQ , Maintenance , Supply etc and not counting Hiwis they arrive at a estimate of 58% loss rate vs 31% for the Heer in general.

He also states that in his research he found that most of the losses of Tiger Pz crews occurred OUTSIDE the vehicle by artillery or small arms fire.

For their operation in Normandy/France on a whole 26 men were killed and 31 were posted as missing.

For the sSSPzAbt 101 they lost the following in France.

Killed

7 Officers , 24 NCOs , 63 men .

Wounded

7 Officers , 25 NCOs , 80 men.

Missing

3 Officers , 10 NCOs , 49 men.

Hope this is of some help

Regards

Måkjager

ps Jeff Duquette...did you get that email i sent you a few days ago ????

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Måkjager ]</p>