Production figures for various tanks

[sightreader]

Hello out there!

My friend wants to set up battles based roughly on how likely one is to encounter them in roughly the right numbers. What are the rough production numbers for the most prevalent models of tanks and SP guns? How likely is it to see things like Sherman Jumbos, Fireflies, or StugIVs? My back injury prevents me from long sessions of research...

Note: I understand that this depends on the battle, like you'll be unusually likely to see Tigers at the Bulge, but nonetheless we could really use the info. Thanks!

[Redwolf]

The production figures are not generally useful to figure how common a vehicle was at a given time in the war.

The loss rate is said to be 80% a year, so by the end of 1944 you would see very few vehicles from 1939, although many might have been built. That also explains why you see almost as many Panthers as PZ IV (about 0.8 times as many) in the CMBO timeframe.

I have done a calculation for German vehicles that lists for each month starting from 1942 how many have been built and how many would have been available using the 80% loss rate. It is based on the afvstats.htm file from the achtungpanzer (or feldgrau?) website. Several times I was surprised how precise this primitive method is when actual counts of vehicle <x> in month <y> were posted.

If you want it email redwolf@cons.org or post here, it is quite big and I will post only when there's enough damand, otherwise I'll mail. If you have count figures of Axis vehicles for 1944 or 1945, please let me know for comparision.

[sightreader]

Ack! I forgot about losses, and didn't know the question was so involved.

I guess I'm just trying to get an idea of which variants were really mass produced and which ones were experimental things. How about this...

What are the most common tanks or SPs for each of the Germans, British, and Americans? Is it possible to know the rough ratios (about twice as many Shermans as Churchills, about as many Cromwells as Panthers, etc...)? A monthly answer is probably excessive... maybe, at most, mid 44, late 44, and early 45?

Thanks! I didn't mean to cause such a hassle.

[Redwolf]

I don't think that the actual number of vehicles in existence is

useful for realistic CMBO battles. Because different vehicles would

not be mixed freely in a all situations, rather specific situations

would most likely see vehicle vehicle types and if so, several of

these, even when they are rare overall. For example the Churchills are

quite rare compared to Shermans, but the Shermans are mostly

concentrated in very big bunches outside the infantry divisions. So if

you play the typical infantry engagements, you'd see some Churchills

in support almost as likely as some Shermans, contrary to the

production figures.

My suggestions:

- get whole platoons of similar tanks

- very few CS tanks (close suport, howitzer) mixed into tanks, but

always mixed into tanks (i.e. no Sherman 105 without other

Shermans). StuH counts as CS tank ans StuG as tank in this regard

- don't mix real tanks with SP artillery pieces (Priest, Wespe,

Sexton) and/or tank destroyers. Either or.

Typical AFV, German infantry force in CMBO timeframe:

- StuG, few StuH

- Hetzer (Marder is uncommon by then)

- Hummel if meant to model sIG33 on thin vehicle

- 251/9 representing 75mm support vehicles

Typical AFV, German tank forces in CMBO timeframe:

- Pz IV

- Panther is not that much less common, about 80% of Pz IV

- also lots of StuG in panzer forces, they are everywhere

- lots of assorted halftracks with the armoured infantry

A Panzer division on the defense, which was highly undesireable but

they were forced to do it in Normandy in front of the British sector,

would have Jagdpanzer IV parceled out to the infantry. In think there

were few IV/70 in the West, don't really know.

Heavy tanks would be used in big formations, often without much

support from other units or by "random" units that happend to be in

the area. That applies to the Jagdpanther as well, it is a

Flakpanzer are uncommon and were prevented from ground combat (too

valuable). Flammpanzer 38 very uncommon, mostly (only?) to be used in

Ardennes and lost there.

Typical AFV, German recon:

- Lots of halftracks, especially the 20mm one

- Few SdKfz 234 were built, but most of them were used in Normandy, so

they should go OK. The 20mm variant is by far the most common

- Often they fielded StuGs to form aggressive recon with good AT

capability. That was a reaction on the Allies habit to do much

Recon with AFVs, with large numbers of "serious" AFV like Stuarts or

Cromwells (in addition to ACs)

American:

- few AFVs unless actually in action

- but M10 or Hellcat would show up quickly after being attacked

- or large Sherman formation would join them on the attack

- generally, the Americans should use the upgraded versions of

vehicles (Jackson, Sherman 76, better Shermans) shortly after they

are available, because the Americans could field the improved

models much faster

- lots of Greyhounds and Stuarts in random forces, but few in

voluntary combat

The Americans should get M8 HMC only in combination with Greyhounds,

representing Cavalry. M8 HMC is a SP artillery piece, use it only in

rare cases where they have a reason not to fire indirect. Greyhounds

are common overall and not as comcentrated as Shermans, so putting

them into random scenarios doesn't seem wrong to me. M20 utility car

is very common as well (as the British carrier), but shouldn't be used

in deliberate attacks. Halftracks are not used as much in combat as in

Germans forces. The mortar halftracks are usually better represented

by a normal halftrack unloading an 81mm mortar team (with much ammo),

unless you play a movement game.

I don't know much about the British forces, but the Churchill is

infantry only (except that the Crododiles, which belong to tank

divisions and were given out to infantry attacks...) and not rare in

this role. Sherman is more common than Cromwell and Cromwell is often

used for recon instead of "real tanks works". Firefly is not

uncommon, using one per platoon of otherwise 75mm Shermans is usually

good. I don't know about their tank destroyers. The British used

lots of armoured recon with all the ACs you see in CMBO, plus Stuarts

and Cromwells. The British made heavy use of flamethrower tanks and

vehicles.

[MadDog0606]

If all you want are total production numbers then go here:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm

[sightreader]

Hey, that site is sweet! And thanks a zillion for the typical force mixes: that also helps a lot! Yes, the British seem to have some pretty exotic tanks, and I am most curious how many of those types were deployed...

[Andreas]

Regarding the Crocodile, a minor correction to Redwolf's post.

All Crocodiles were in 79th Armoured, which was a specialist armoured engineering division with somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 AFVs of all types. This division had liaison officers in all Commonwealth divisional staffs, which helped these staffs to plan the use of the 79th's assets in attacks. I believe it is highly unlikely that you would meet a Crocodile outside a planned attack. They were given out in half-troops (2 tanks) as the smallest unit based on need. They were a 21st Army Group level asset, not attached permanently to any tank or armoured formation except 79th Armoured. The same goes for AVREs, which are the other specialist engineering type tank in the game.

British SP AT guns (known to Americans as TDs) were in the divisional AT Rgt RA, one of which was attached to every division. There were also some attached on higher level. E.g. at Maltot (Operation Jupiter), SP AT guns from 59th AT Rgt RA (the divisional AT Rgt of 43rd Wessex) were used to back up the Churchills of 9th RTR in their attack. I am reasonably convinced that this was not a single incident, and would think that a mix of some Churchills and a lone SP AT gun is historically correct. As with US TDs, the Commonwealth also used their SP AT assets to directly support the infantry, if no other armour was around.

Cromwells were in the armoured Recce Rgt of all UK Armoured and the Polish Armoured divisions. The Canadians had Shermans in the South Alberta Regiment (Armoured Reconnaissance of 4th Canadian Armoured). Cromwells were also in the Armoured Brigade of 7th Armoured. The armoured reconnaissance regiments were often used as another armoured battalion, so they could be seen doing yeoman's work. In 4th Canadian Armoured, the SAR was used as direct infantry support for the infantry brigade. I don't know about the practice in other Commonwealth armoured divisions.

Churchills were in special Tank Brigades - these were the former heavy brigades from before the re-organisation of the Armoured division in 1943 I believe. They were independent units, and Army Group level assets AFAIK. It would probably be rare to find Churchills unsupported by infantry, but I know of one case where that happened, and would be interested in others. Churchills and Shermans/Cromwells rarely if ever shared the battlefield, I believe. Doctrine was to have the Churchill support the infantry in breaking into the German defense, and then have the faster and more mobile Armoured formations break through and 'crack about' in the German rear.

Comets were only introduced in the Armoured Brigade of 11th Armoured in March 1945. This was planned for December 1944 originally, and some parts of the unit had been withdrawn to refit when the Ardennes offensive started.

Challengers were rare vehicles (200 built) and the only proven use AFAIK is in the 11th Armoured's Reconnaissance Regiment (2nd Northants Yeo and later 15/18th KRH). They may have been used in other units, but I have not seen any evidence of that (haven't dug deeply either).

Typical platoons might be:

3 75mm Shermans + 1 Firefly (up to October)

2 75mm + 2 Firefly (later)

3 Cromwells + 1 Firefly (7th Armoured)

4 Cromwells

3 Churchills

4 Firefly (only in 4th Armoured Brigade)

2 Crocodiles

Close-support tanks (Churchill, Cromwell, Sherman?) were two to a squadron of 19 or 18 AFVs. I.e. they were rare vehicles. They were in the Squadron HQ, together with the ARV.

Squadron organisations:

Tanks

5 platoons w/3 Churchills ea

1 Squadron HQ w/ARV + 2 CS Churchill

Armoured

4 Platoons w/3 75mm Shermans + 1 Firefly

1 Squadron HQ w/ARV + 2 75mm/CS? Shermans

Alternative (4th Armoured Brigade)

3 Platoons w/4 75m Shermans

1 Platoon w/4 Firefly

1 Squadron HQ w/ARV + 2 75mm/CS? Shermans

This is all off the top of my head, and open to correction, and vicious edited remarks by JonS.

[sightreader]

That is SWEET information - I'm totally gobbling it up! Did the Germans also have typical tank mixes they employed, or was it more ad-hoc for them?

[sightreader]

Oh wait a bloody second... sorry... the other post had typical German formations (blushing furiously)

[sightreader]

Hey, thank you guys SO much for the formation information! We've played games with these formations, and both of us have been very satisfied!

At the risk of being greedy, I wanted to ask some questions about Bastogne. I know that German formations were probably atypical for this battle due to the preponderance of special tanks like Tigers. What were some standard tank mixes found in Bastogne, or was it pretty much a hodgepodge? I know RedWolf hinted that when Tigers did show up, they showed up en masse. Did the Americans pretty much deploy massed Shermans, Fireflies, or something different? Thanks!

[PzKpfw 1]

Soviet Tank & SU Production numbers June 22 1941 -10 May 1945:

T-40:

1941 - 14

1942 - 181

Total T-40 production = 195.

T-50:

1941 - 48

1942 - 15

Total T-50 production = 63.

T-60:

1941 - 1,548

1942 - 4,474

Total T-60 production = 6,022.

T-70:

1942 - 4,883

1943 - 3,343

Total T-70 production = 8,226.

T-80:

1943 - 120

Total T-80 production = 120.

T-34-76:

1941 - 1,886

1942 - 12,553

1943 - 15,712

1944 - 3,723

Total T-34-76 production = 33,874.

T-34-85:

1943 - 100

1944 - 11,000

1945 - 8,330

Total T-34-85 production = 19,430.

Total combined T-34 production = 53,304.

T-44:

1945 - 200

Total T-44 production = 200.

KV-1:

1941 - 812

1942 - 1,753

Total KV-1 production = 2,565.

KV-1S:

1942 - 780

1943 - 452

Total KV-1S production = 1,232.

KV-85:

1943 - 130

Total KV-85 Production = 130.

IS-2:

1943 - 102

1944 - 2,252

1945 - 1.500

Total IS-2 production = 3,854.

SU-76:

1942 - 26

1943 - 1,928

1944 - 7,127

1945 - 3,562

Total SU-76 production = 12,643.

SU-122:

1942 - 25

1943 - 635

Total SU-122 production = 660.

SU-85:

1943 - 750

1944 - 1,900

Total SU-85 production = 2,650.

SU-100:

1944 - 500

1945 - 800

Total SU-100 production = 1,300.

SU-152:

1943 - 670

Total SU-152 production = 670.

ISU-122:

1944 - 1,600

1945 - 800

Total SU-122 production = 2,400

ISU-152:

1943 - 35

1944 - 900

1945 - 400

Total ISU-152 production = 1,335.

Regards, John Waters

[Pzman]

As for British/Canadian/Polish Recc (Rcon units) they used (in the SAR of the Canadian 4 Armoured Brigade) They used 6 Stuart IVs and about the same number Humbar Scout cars.For normal units they used, till December 1944, three Sherman Vs (M4A4) and one Firefly, after November they used Two M4A4s and two Fireflys. As for other units CM doesn't allow Canadian or Polish forces to use cromwells or Challengers etc. Anther thing to be brought up from what I have read (at least Canadian forces) used both types of Stuarts even though this is not modeled in CM. (In November 1944 that is)

[Foobar]

wow.... 54,000 T-34's.... CMBB is gonna suck for us axis whores....

[Pzman]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

wow.... 54,000 T-34's.... CMBB is gonna suck for us axis whores.... <hr></blockquote>

Foobar they made that many T-34s because there not as good as people want you to believe. A Pz IV(Long barreled verson) can take one out at under 700m. The Germans used better tactics and beat them many a times.

[sightreader]

Wow! Thanks for those production numbers: Soviet production was truly awesome. No wonder the Germans didn't stand a chance... heck, I wonder if even the US could have held up against that.

[Michael Dorosh]

As to the Canadian question, ask yourself how often infantry battalions even operated with armour support. Much of the terrain in areas like the Breskens Pocket, or the Beveland peninsula, was so waterlogged you couldn't get tanks in. The same was true of the Rhineland during Veritable, only there mud was the problem.

A look at a British or Canadian regimental history will show that armour support wasn't entirely normal for many operations. This should be included in any calculations of what constituted the "normal" numbers and types of armour used in support.

[Andreas]

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

As for other units CM doesn't allow Canadian or Polish forces to use cromwells or Challengers etc. <hr></blockquote>

Don't know which version you have, but in 1.2 the Polish can have the Cromwell. You are right regarding the Canadians and the Cromwell, and regarding the Challenger for either. Both of these limitations are historically correct, since the Canadians did not have the Cromwell, and neither did have the Challenger, to my knowledge.

Regarding Stuarts, one thing to be kept in mind is that it was no longer regarded as a battle tank in 1944, at least by the Commonwealth. While it certainly could take out a Panther from the side, I highly doubt that many Stuart commanders gave it a real try. The job of the Recce troop was to find out where the guys in grey were, and then live to come back and tell somebody about it. Preferably someone with real tanks, so that they could deal with it. Aggressive use of Commonwealth Stuarts is not quite realistic, IMO. Although of course Sgt. Halkyard of the SAR Recce troop did use his Stuart to take on a railway gun and won

Humber SCs were used for OP duty, and as liaison vehicles. Again, aggressive use of these vehicles in a CMBO game is not quite realistic, IMO.

I can't wait for someone to come along and quote some MC citation at me to prove that I am wrong