German Tank Losses In Normandy

[rexford]

The Saumur Tank Museum Intranet site has published research data on German tank losses in Normandy, based on Allied analysis of tanks they found in field and data from Operation Goodwood.

For first month of Overlord,

48% by AP

7% by HEAT

9% by HE

1% by mines

10% by aircraft

The most amazing statistic is the percentage of panzers that were knocked out, by tank type. This statistic was computed by comparing tank losses to available tanks.

The PzKpfw IV, Panther, Tiger and StuG III all lost the same percentage of available vehicles during the first month. While CM threads often talk about the vulnerability of PzKpfw IV, due to light frontal armor, tank survival chances in a PzKpfw IV were equal to a Panther or Tiger.

Further research indicated that the Tiger tank was more efficient than Panther in terms of kills per tank compared to losses.

[Redwolf]

In general, that does not surprise me.

I think that the equal loss chance is due to different usage of these tanks. The better tanks get the more dangerous missions. If done right, each tank's operational risk should be equivalent to its knockout risk, so that the loss rate equals out at lowest level.

What I wonder about is how the Germans could do that in Normandy. It was my impression that units there had to do whatever task was nearest, not selected for them.

Maybe the explanation is rather to be sought in small unit tactics, that all units react to the loss of a tank in the same way.

Is there a number how many Tiger 1 were in Normandy?

[rexford]

I don't have the figures in front of me right now, but about 40-50 Tigers during the first month of fighting, with 14 lost in field.

Good data, just can't find it now.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:

48% by AP

7% by HEAT

9% by HE

1% by mines

10% by aircraft

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totalling 75%? What about the rest? :confused:

[Vanir Ausf B]

I know I read somewhere recently that the Germans would often give the green crews the better tanks (Panthers) while the vets got the Mk IVs. They thought quality of equipment would make up for lack of expirience/training.

[Mattias]

A further perspective:

(Jentz / Panzertruppen)

The British analysed 110 panzers captured between the 6th of june and the 7th of August 44’:

53 KO’d by AP shot

8 by HEAT

9 by HE

1 by mines

7 by aircraft rocket

3 by aircraft cannon

7 demolished

4 abandoned

18 by unknown cause

Between the 8th of August and the 31st of August 223 panzers where analysed:

24 Ko’d by AP shot

1 by HEAT

4 by HE

7 by aircraft rocket

1 by aircraft cannon

108 demolished

63 abandoned

13 by unknown causes

Not in Normandy but…

Between the 17th of December and the 16th of January 57 panzers in the northern part of the Ardennes salient where analysed:

18 KO’d by AP shot

3 by HE

1 by a bomb

3 by “possible” aircraft attack

13 demolished

11 abandoned

8 from unknown causes

M.

[Simon Fox]

Cripes!

Going by those figures Mattias I'm gonna have to get one of those demolisher thingies the next time I play allies

[Mattias]

Yes they are great, aren't they Simon!

And the best thing is that they come for free!

All you have to do is to bomb the enemies entire infra structure to smithereens, surround him with highly mechanised forces and leave no patch of sky without a fighter bomber, and voila it will start happening

M.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias:

Between the 8th of August and the 31st of August 223 panzers where analysed:

24 Ko?d by AP shot

1 by HEAT

4 by HE

7 by aircraft rocket

1 by aircraft cannon

108 demolished

63 abandoned

13 by unknown causes

Not in Normandy but?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These August numbers are probably not too useful to work with, since they are the result of the Falaise pocket where the Germans had to flee while not having enough fuel (but lots of TNT to blow up their tanks .

I am surprised that Aircraft did not account for more tank knockouts.

[Mattias]

Martin,

It depends on what you are looking for naturally. In the case of the over all reason for tank losses it says a lot, that can go long way in dispelling various myths.

As for the relative effectiveness of various tank killing weapons you are seeing something of a myth right there. In fact the -direct- impact of airpower against AFV's was relatively limited (in this sample at the very least).

M

[M Hofbauer]

rexford,

"The PzKpfw IV, Panther, Tiger and StuG III all lost the same percentage of available vehicles during the first month."

My sources indicate 33 losses out of 102 Tigers, 207 Panthers out of 663, but 95 out of 248 StuGs. What surprises me is the number of 274 KIA'ed Pz IVs out of a total of somewhere over 300 (no hard data here), which would reinforce my believe that the Pz IV is a "do not expose to sunlight" paper tank.

But it could be that my numbers are off, besides, most importantly, they are for the months June AND July 44 combined.

What are your exact figures for those loss ratios? I'ld be interested to know...

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Mattias]

Panzertruppen / Jentz again:

Tanks lost in as “total write-offs” in the Pz. And PzG. Units, between the 6th and 8th of July:

StuG: 25

Pz.Kpfw. IV: 197

Pz.Kpfw. V : 112

Pz.Kpfw. VI: 15

M

[Jeff Duquette]

For weekly German Tank Strength break downs in Normandy nothing beats Nikklas Zetterlings recent work: "Normandy 1944". Apparently based upon years of archival research and digging in unit reports\histories by Zetterling.

[coe]

so who lost more tanks at Normandy, allies or Germans?

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias:

A further perspective:

(Jentz / Panzertruppen)

The British analysed 110 panzers captured between the 6th of june and the 7th of August 44’:

7 demolished

4 abandoned

Between the 8th of August and the 31st of August:

108 demolished

63 abandoned

[etc.]

M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mattias,

Does your source indicate what "demolished" and "abandoned" mean? It's not quite clear to me. Is a demolished tank one blown totally to bits by undeterminable weapons? One deliberately destroyed by Germans as a consequence of retreat?

Is an abandoned tank a damaged tank (e.g., say tread damage) that's been left behind? An undamaged tank that's maybe out of fuel--or deemed too dangerous to its crew to travel in due to air attack? Unless we know what these terms mean, it's pretty hard to understand the data, so thanks for clarification.

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Mattias]

Combined,

I'll clarify:

Demolished = destroyed by crew

Abandoned = left undamaged by crew

In the latter case the reason would mostly be lack of fuel or some kind of mechanical breakdown.

In the former case the reason was probably the same but the crew had more time or showed a bit more, eh, diligence by destroying their charge before they left.

M.

[Vitalis]

Man, I really feel bad for the bad rep that the Pz IV gets. It was the backbone of the Panzer tank regiments, carried the burden for years (not enough Tigers to go around and the Panther had some early teething problems). The Panther was the only tank in German service to begin knocking the mighty Pz IV from its seat.

It just gets over shadowed by its Big Cat brothers. The L/48 75mm was equal to what the Soviets and the Americans had, its armor was equal or better than the Sherman and equal to the T-34.

It just wasn't better than those two tanks and didn't get the fame.....

But it was the hard-core grunt that got the job done.

Anyway, enough sobbing over my favorite tank. I must be the ONLY German armor fan that likes the Pz IV-H better than the Panther and Tiger series. Oh, and don't even get me started on the King Tiger, I hate those damn things

Sorry bout the rant

Vitalis

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias:

A further perspective:

(snip)

Not in Normandy but…

Between the 17th of December and the 16th of January 57 panzers in the northern part of the Ardennes salient where analysed:

18 KO’d by AP shot

3 by HE

1 by a bomb

3 by “possible” aircraft attack

13 demolished

11 abandoned

8 from unknown causes

M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm....considering that about 600 German tanks/AG's total were lost in the Ardennes campaign (per D Parker), a survey that looked at only 57 vehicles seems a bit limited (recognizing, as you noted, that only one battle sector was surveyed).

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias:

Combined,

I'll clarify:

Demolished = destroyed by crew

Abandoned = left undamaged by crew

M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that should have been clear to me--I think my problem was that I couldn't quite believe it, esp. for Aug 8-Aug 31, since those demolished and abandoned numbers are huge, and far greater than tanks actually destroyed. Shows the powers of logistical starvation and encirclement--much better to starve a tank and let it's own CREW kill it.

Thanks for the clarification!

Does anyone have any idea what the Allies did with all those undamaged abandoned tanks. I know the Germans used captured Shermans to deceive Americans into not firing during the battle of the Bulge, until the Germans got close. If I found an intact Panther or Tiger, I'd sure be tempted to use it somehow....

[Mattias]

Yes, the immense pressure put on the German defenders led to them having to abandon great amounts of materiel on all fronts.

As for the captured equipment, well…

I have seen at least one Panther used by an American unit. But unless you have an organisation that is capable of technically supporting the captured vehicles they will never be more than a big and dangerous souvenir.

Either you have to control the manufacturing facilities or have a very larger number of captured vehicles to play with. Even if you manage that you will have a vehicle that is not designed for your tactical and operational thinking, as well as being a constant hassle when it comes to computability with your supply system.

One only has to look at the German example too see the problems.

That, I suspect, is the reason why the Allied in the west left the German AFV’s for scrap, shot them up, or sent them home for tests, and then shot them up.

M.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vitalis:

But it was the hard-core grunt that got the job done.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, it was the hard-core grunt that didn't get the job done.

[Michael Dorosh]

Mines?

Does it specify German or Allied? I wasn't aware the Allies laid significant numbers of minefields in Normandy, but am open to correction. Then again, it would not be inconceivable to expect German tanks to run over their own fields in certain circumstances either.

Unless this refers to anti-tank mines in other forms, ie Gammon bombs, etc?

[rexford]

Posted data indicates 145 PzKpfw IVH lost out of 414 during first month. 90% seems kinda high, don't you think?

[grunto2]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vitalis:

I must be the ONLY German armor fan that likes the Pz IV-H better than the Panther and Tiger series.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't feel too alone. =grin=

you know there are at least a couple of us who currently think the StuG is the 'bees knees.'

andy

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rex Said: Posted data indicates 145 PzKpfw IVH lost out of 414 during first month. 90% seems kinda high, don't you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

90% seems excessively high for the first month of fighting. However, the stats (like any other stats) are a function of interpretation. Are we talking total write-offs, or vehicles available after short or long-term repair?

Still 90% seems very excessive no matter how you slice and dice the numbers. Example: 12th SS heavily engaged from the get go was still hovering around 40% to 50% as of 4th August. 12th received only a handful of replacement tanks during the campaign. MkIV Strength of the 12th’s Panzer Regiment as of Jun 1 was 91 operational, and 7 in short-term repair (I think Zetterling defines short term as a week or less of maintenance required). Mk V strength at the start of the campaign -- Jun 10 strength -- was 66. 12th SS HJ division losses (total write-offs) according to Zitterlings research are as follows:

Jun 6 – Jun 26…26 MkIV’s and 15 MkV’s

Jun 27 – July 5…18 MkIV’s and 6 MkV’s

July 6 – 9 July…..7MkIV’s and 11 MkV’s

Panzer strength for the division as of 31 July was:

39 MkIV’s operational and 12 MkIV’s in short term repair

22 Panthers operational and 11 Panthers in short term repair

Zetterling indicates that the division received 13 Panther Replacements and 6 MkIV’s replacements during the campaign. It is really not until Falaise in August that the German Panzer losses started pushing 90% +.

Juggle the percentages about a tad and the above example is fairly indicative of most German Panzer Division strength trends during the first two months of the Normandy Campaign.

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]