Kill rate of German SP guns

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jarmo:

Better to have a Sherman than a blown up Panther? I don't think there were too many left over Panthers in running condition...

Besides, the americans would say the Sherman's the best tank around. And they did win, so why doubt it..

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Jarmo ]<hr></blockquote>

I would say that the Sherman had is good points, and in its later marks (Firefly and E8) were a match for the Panther, since their were 2 Fireflies in Europe for each Panther and 5 76 armed HVSS Shermans for each Panther on the ground.

Tank for tank we know that many German tanks were the best in the world, but away from the fight the allied Cromwell, T-34, and Sherman were much beter soldiering tanks, and impressive at making exploiting attacks.

This lead to my point: a hidden advantage of the German Stugs was that they were very reliable and needed far less work to maintain than the more complex German Tiger and Panther series. Without a turret mechanism, they were far less complicated.

[Captain Wacky]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stoffel:

a running man at 50 meters with a pistol??

not sure if I would believe that

thats hard to achieve with todays pistols,and with these old 6 shooters this seems impossible to me.

they would have been at 5 meters I think <hr></blockquote>

Patton was a crack shot and competed in the Olympics, 1908 I think. He was screwed when the judges thought he missed a shot on the target, but even the man who won the gold swore that Patton hit the same hole twice. And did you ever see how long the barrels on those old pistols were? I don't think that a shot at 50m by an expert shot is out of the question. I've seen a man hit a small balloon with a pistol at 200m.

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Captain Wacky ]</p>

[Stoffel]

from what I heard and read is that these old revolvers were not so good for marksmanship.

but off course I can be wrong

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stoffel:

from what I heard and read is that these old revolvers were not so good for marksmanship.

but off course I can be wrong<hr></blockquote>

Patton fired a .22 in the Olympics.

As for a 50 meter shot, I am not sure about that. I can hit a moving target at 35 meters with a Glock, but the current distance record is held by a revolver. I have fired a model 19 like he used to carry during the 1930s and it was not really set up for long range fire.

[Captain Wacky]

Meh, maybe I was wrong about the distance. Unfortunately the book I got it from is in my house some 400 miles away. The point was that Patton was not entirely a "blowhard," but had actally been shot at and killed people, both in the Mexican campaign with Pershing and in WWI

[Slapdragon]

Oh no, Patton was not a blow hard, he was an outstanding shot, an excellent rider, a tireless worker, and a strong fighter.

[Herr Kruger]

Fear the Marder!

[Captain Wacky]

Are you being sarcastic?

[Splinty]

They don't give the Distinguished Service Cross (2nd highest U.S. decoration)to "blowhards".

[Herr Kruger]

Fear the Nashorn as well!

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Herr Kruger:

Fear the Nashorn as well!<hr></blockquote>

On the Ostfront you damn well better.

[Stuka]

Fear the Hamster!

[Tero]

Looking at the figures at

http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/hobbies/loss.txt

the writing should appear on the wall.

There is one anomaly in the data I would like to point out: the North Africa data brings the SP kill average down considerably. Yet there were all sorts of SP guns present in Afrika Korps.

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Berlichtingen]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Keef:

On reading this, I found it very hard to believe that panzer crews in the elite SS panzer divisions and regular Army panzer divisions could not achieve better kill rates than for SP crews.

I mean, how can Hetzer compare with a Panther in fighting ability?<hr></blockquote>

Ok, first off, he wasn't talking about Hetzers... he was talking about StuGs.

The main reasons are:

1) Even in late 44, the StuGs were manned almost entirely by volunteers.

2) The crews were better trained in gunnery. StuGs are part of the Artillery arm... not the Panzer arm

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

[QB]Looking at the figures at

http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/hobbies/loss.txt

the writing should appear on the wall.

There is one anomaly in the data I would like to point out: the North Africa data brings the SP kill average down considerably. Yet there were all sorts of SP guns present in Afrika Korps.[QB]<hr></blockquote>

No Hetzers, no Jagdpanthers, no Panzer IV/70, presumably few if any of the Stug 75L48, and/or the 75L43 variety in North Africa. 0 maybe a bit of an underestimate, but I am not that surprised by it. The killer SP guns all date from a later date.

Dan, while Lucas is talking only about Stugs in the chapter, I would believe the claims figure he quotes to include all German SP AT artillery. I have seen a lot of British accounts where the finer point of whether it was a Panzer IV/70 or a Stug IV that knocked out the Sherman was not seen as important enough to warrant mention - SP gun is the term used for anything without a turret.

[BsChoy]

I thought a tank hunter was classified as a tank itself, not an SP?? When I think of and SP I think of StuG 42's and Hummels just like I think of the American Priest or British Sexton with it's 88mm gun. To me anything with a gun over 75 mm's or so is an SP....is this incorrect or did it depend on the person who named only??

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by BsChoy:

I thought a tank hunter was classified as a tank itself, not an SP?? When I think of and SP I think of StuG 42's and Hummels just like I think of the American Priest or British Sexton with it's 88mm gun. To me anything with a gun over 75 mm's or so is an SP....is this incorrect or did it depend on the person who named only??<hr></blockquote>

In the Commonwealth, anything not expressly a tank or Panzer was called SP gun - this would include all non-turreted German AFVs with guns. For their own vehicles, they referred to M10s as SP AT gun, AFAIK. In the British Army, specialised AT was a branch of the Royal Artillery, that may have something to do with it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

No Hetzers, no Jagdpanthers, no Panzer IV/70, presumably few if any of the Stug 75L48, and/or the 75L43 variety in North Africa.

IIRC Marders were present, especially the 76.2® armed ones. Also Jpz-I's were there.

0 maybe a bit of an underestimate, but I am not that surprised by it.

Me neither actually. But the average is distorted if the number of SP's present is not taken into account.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by BsChoy:

I thought a tank hunter was classified as a tank itself, not an SP?? When I think of and SP I think of StuG 42's and Hummels just like I think of the American Priest or British Sexton with it's 88mm gun. To me anything with a gun over 75 mm's or so is an SP....is this incorrect or did it depend on the person who named only??<hr></blockquote>

The "tank destroyer" and "tank hunter" terms are mostly Combat Mission culture. The Germans used something along the line (Panzerjaeger and Panzerzerstoerer) but not consistently.

As CMBO players we know that something with a roof and thick armour is more like a tank than like a .50cal vulnerable open-top vehicle, but many ww2 people would only see the outside and not make a big deal about thickness and roof.

Also, a real tank with a turret is a much more potent attack and exploit weapon, so for the operational staff the tank hunters are more like thin SP guns again. It's not their problem that these things are harder to kill, as long as they don't move to valuable targets.

[JasonC]

On Marders in North Africa, DAK received 117 of them by mid 1942, all the model using captured Russian 76L54 guns. Which were extremely effective for mid-war AT guns, and vastly better than the 50L60 on the best turreted tanks in theater at the time. They could kill Matildas and Valentines at range, while the only other weapons that could do so were immobile 88s (any range), and Pz III Js with 50L60 and APCR ammo, at point blank range only.

As for the "more effective" claim, it seems to me marginal. The figure of 30K kills by StuG and PzJgr AFVs for the whole war only comes to about 2 each, or a bit less. Perhaps higher for the ~10% with better guns. And those are claims rather than losses confirmed by the other side. There were ~16000 SP guns with 75L48 (2500 Marders or various makes, 9500 StuG III and IV, 1500 JdgPz, 2500 Hetzers by the end), and about 1350 with better guns (Nashorn, Elephant, Jadgpanther, etc).

Overall Allied AFV losses probably amounted to 100K, plus or minus 15%. Some were by infantry AT (probably around 15K, judging by the medals the Germans gave for it), AT mines, and artillery. The rest probably divided about evenly between towed PAK, SP guns, and turreted tanks, with minor differences among those big three categories. The PAK were as numerous as the other two combined for the war as a whole, and twice as numerous down to the begining of 1944. But they were undoubtedly less effective per item, because their survivability was distinctly lower.

The turreted tanks almost had the field to themselves in 1941, when easily 1/4 of the Russian AFV losses occurred (mostly older, pre-war light tanks with 45mm guns and limited armor). There were a few early StuG with 75L24, and a few 47mm Pz Jgr vehicles, but that was it. Towed guns also mattered for the early war "score", however. Field artillery and 88s were used to suppliment the relatively limited AT capabilities of German early-war tanks.

Overall, the Germans lost about half as many AFVs as the Allies did. The idea that they were outproduced 10 or 20 to 1, as someone on the thread suggested, is rather off - it was more like 4 or 5 to 1, and only about 2-2.5 to 1 before the second front in the west in the last year. The 2 per vehicle claim for vanilla 75mm SP guns like StuGs would just make them about average for German AFVs. They would likely be lower than Tigers and Panthers (together, only about 15% of the German AFV fleet).

Another factor that should be kept in mind in comparing their kill rates with turreted tanks is the tactical role they performed, and thus the usual conditions of their use. They were generally assigned to support infantry divisions in defensive operations, a company or a battalion at a time. They then encountered enemy tank attacks of battalion strength and upward. They thus had "target rich" engagements, generally on the defensive.

Whereas turreted tanks were often committed in company or battalion strength, and sometimes in corps level major armored attacks, supporting by battalions to corps of infantry, against enemy infantry formation defenses. With their PAK-fronts, mines, etc. The environment was often "target rich" the other way around, while the turreted tanks were firing at non-AFV targets.

This increased the longevity of the tanks, as the local odds were often in their favor. And if you look at the AFV strengths at any given point in time, you will see the SP guns aren't as common as the production figures alone would suggest. E.g. half of all AFVs produced after mid-war were turretless SP guns, but typically you find only 30-40% of the field strength in the turretless AFVs.

The obvious conclusion is that the SP guns were going into hotter, target rich, outnumbered defensive engagements. They died somewhat faster, but also had ample opportunities to get AFV kills. While the tanks were involved in offensive and defensive fighting against all arms, lasted a bit longer because the odds were less heavily against them in each tactical fight, but were more likely to kill infantry or AT guns, and to be killed by them, or lost to maintenance failures sometime in their longer "life span".

Certainly, if anyone thought only the turreted tanks mattered or scored all the AFV kills the Allies suffered, that would be quite wrong. The SP guns and the towed PAK did much of the tank killing, between them. And no tales of the uber-StuG crew are needed to account for these differences. The performance of average late-war AFVs like StuG-Fs and Gs was, unsurprisingly, about average for German AFVs (that is sort of what "average" winds up meaning).

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC:

On Marders in North Africa, DAK received 117 of them by mid 1942, all the model using captured Russian 76L54 guns. Which were extremely effective for mid-war AT guns, and vastly better than the 50L60 on the best turreted tanks in theater at the time. They could kill Matildas and Valentines at range, while the only other weapons that could do so were immobile 88s (any range), and Pz III Js with 50L60 and APCR ammo, at point blank range only.

<hr></blockquote>

A CMBO comparision would probably to have only Panthers and Panzer IV/70 against Jumbos or thick Churchills on a large map with open spaces. How thankful would you be for that crappy Nashorn?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Another factor that should be kept in mind in comparing their kill rates with turreted tanks is the tactical role they performed, and thus the usual conditions of their use. They were generally assigned to support infantry divisions in defensive operations, a company or a battalion at a time. They then encountered enemy tank attacks of battalion strength and upward. They thus had "target rich" engagements, generally on the defensive.

Whereas turreted tanks were often committed in company or battalion strength, and sometimes in corps level major armored attacks, supporting by battalions to corps of infantry, against enemy infantry formation defenses. With their PAK-fronts, mines, etc. The environment was often "target rich" the other way around, while the turreted tanks were firing at non-AFV targets.

This increased the longevity of the tanks, as the local odds were often in their favor. And if you look at the AFV strengths at any given point in time, you will see the SP guns aren't as common as the production figures alone would suggest. E.g. half of all AFVs produced after mid-war were turretless SP guns, but typically you find only 30-40% of the field strength in the turretless AFVs.

The obvious conclusion is that the SP guns were going into hotter, target rich, outnumbered defensive engagements. They died somewhat faster, but also had ample opportunities to get AFV kills. While the tanks were involved in offensive and defensive fighting against all arms, lasted a bit longer because the odds were less heavily against them in each tactical fight, but were more likely to kill infantry or AT guns, and to be killed by them, or lost to maintenance failures sometime in their longer "life span".

<hr></blockquote>

Hm, that logic is not covered by my own impressions so far. I agree with your description of the roles, but I don't buy that the losses were less for turret tanks.

My impression so far is that the real tank die as fast or faster than the defensive AFVs, because:

- they often drove into prepared defenses, because the infantry for the initial breakthrough would not be available or too slow

- major screwups are common, breaking through and hitting something stronger

- breaking through and discovering that the infantry didn't keep up

- tanks disabled in such situations are less likely to be recovered than defensive vehicles

- running out of fuel or ammo is a major problem, not such much for the defensive vehicles

I don't say that the defensive vehicles had a danger-free life, but for tanks it was as bad, maybe worse. At least when counting knockouts and abadonations combined.

Can you give example numbers?

[JasonC]

Look at the production numbers for Panthers and Pz IVs, the turreted main battle tanks of the late war. Compare the StuGs, Jagds, and Hetzers. The latter are more numerous in total vehicles produced (though the two types are close until late). But look at the fleet strength returns at any given time, and you will typically find the SP guns only about 1/3rd of the total, roughly matched by each of the other two main types (Pz IV and Panther I mean). The tanks are overrepresented in fleet strength (typically 60-65%), compared to their representation in production (45-50%). Ergo, the tanks are living longer than the SP guns.

And this makes sense. Because the tanks are fielded in much larger groups than the SP guns. They fight in mobile divisions, which are more survivable overall, less likely to be overrun, better equipped with supplies and spares, etc. Whereas, 10 StuG as one company of a divisional AT battalion in a Heer infantry division, are seperated from support, committed in tiny numbers, etc.

They may benefit from defensive use (both can, but they may be more likely to - fine). But that is not as big a deal as being part of a Panzer division or corps, with hundreds of AFVs. Where the tanks appear on the front in more concentrated doses, it makes sense that each vehicle will have a longer lifespan, even if it gets fewer unique opportunities (per unit time) to kill enemy AFVs. And the production vs. fleet strength comparison bears that out.

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[PzKpfw 1]

Where did the SP kills of 30K come from? Ie, Sturmgeschutz alone in the East, were credited with 20,000 + Soviet AFVs. Anyone Have the seprate numbers for SP Panzerjager, towed guns etc?.

Regards, John Waters

[MikeyD]

There must have been some utility in the SP gun design. Even post-war the Germans were loath to give up on the Jpz concept. The 1960s Jpz Kanone mounted an equivalent to the M48 tank's 90mm gun in a light/low chassis. When 90mm solid shot proved ineffective against the T55/T62 the Jpz Kanone soldiered on firing just HEAT. When around 1970 the T64 showed up with its 125mm gun and composite armor bow the German army reconfigured the Jpz Kanone to fire TOW missiles!

As a weird side-note, when Belgium was drawinmg up specs for infantry support armor in the late 1960s they specifically requested a SP gun-type vehicle because they were afraid if the vehicles looked too much like tanks they'd go swanning off doing tank-like things and not stick to infantry support! They selected the JPK, a refined Jpz Kanone.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MikeyD:

There must have been some utility in the SP gun design.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, they are cheaper.

The kill rate by cost is better, however the better kill rate by vehicle we discuss here has few to do with different design, but all with different usage.