Russian Armour in Autumn 1943...

[DesertMouse]

I recently played an armour v armour quick battle as Russian infantry (1 company) supporting armour (3 T-34-85s and 2 IS-2s).

Terrain settings were huge map, farmland, flat and no trees.

Germans had some infantry, a number of Stug III late models, and a Panther. I gave the computer a +2 bonus.

How in the world did the Russians make any progress during this time? I tried to slug it out with the German armour at long range - this did not work. I tried to close the gap with the T-34s (and they were very fast over open country). They got smashed. I could not create any angles to obtain flanking shots.

I really cannot see how the Russian armour could do anything tactically in this situtation, except perhaps to wait for an Il-2.

Your thoughts?

[Freder]

Well acually thats the type of situation the german armor rules. long range with no cover they just have to pick you off while you try to get through their superheavy front armor. Best bet (comeing from a russain noob and german vet.) is spread your foces out as much as you can so the slower german turret and stuggs have to pick their targets and take a long time to move on to new ones and move those T34/85's in fast try to use the IS-2's to distract the germans and hopefully one of your t34's will make it in close enuf. to get yourself a panther kill after the those stugg's should be short work if their still left

[Generaloberst Guderian]

It was slow going, although the Russians obviously did keep gaining ground. Keep in mind that CMBB is only a tactical simulation and doesn't take into account the larger dynamics of grand strategy and logistics. That being said, when you do get into a tactical engagment in which fluid reinforcements etc aren't available, the going is extremely tough. The front hull armor of a Panther is 82mm @ 55 degrees and the front of the turret is exceeding well armored 100mm+ (curved). At long ranges the Panther is literally invulnerable when faced with the T-34 M43 and even at 100m, a flank shot is not a garaunteed kill. The IS-2 on the other hand has better shot at all ranges, but in all of the tests I conducted, the Panther won consistenly at 1000m and at all closer ranges fared pretty well, with the deciding factor seeming to be which tank fires first.

My suggestion: "Hail" fire sometimes causes immobilizations. If you can hit the track and force the Panther crew to rely on the turret rather than the front plate for protection, you may have better luck. Don't forget that the Panther A is somewhat vulnerable to a side turret hit, as the design lends itself to redirecting errant rounds down into the turret ring rather than off the face of the armor.

[Panzer76]

How about you do a search? These questions and more has been asked a zillion times.

[DesertMouse]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

How about you do a search? These questions and more has been asked a zillion times.

I did. I couldn't find a topic that answered this question. Otherwise, I wouldn't have posted the topic.

How about you

1. Make a contribution to this topic; or

2. Post a link to a topic that answers this wholly legitimate question about russian tactics during this time.

Thank you for your penetrating contribution.

[ParaBellum]

On such a map smoke is your best friend. Get a spotter or two to lay down a smokescreen then rush your T-34s forward. Keep the IS-2s back to fix the enemy armour and use the T-34s to get into flanking positions.

Simple rule: Don't engage german armour at >1000m.

Depending on the map (flat, no trees) this can be next to impossible but it is your only chance.

What Guderian wrote is true: keep in mind that CM is a tactical simulation and doesn't reflect operational aspects of warfare. In autumn 1943 it is well possible for example that a force like yours would run into a german group of StuGs and Panthers only to get totally annihilated...while the rest of the Guards armour regiment breaks through the german lines a couple of miles to the north, where there were no StuGs and Panthers but only a weak infantry bataillon with 2 AT guns left.

[DesertMouse]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

On such a map smoke is your best friend. Get a spotter or two to lay down a smokescreen then rush your T-34s forward. Keep the IS-2s back to fix the enemy armour and use the T-34s to get into flanking positions.

Simple rule: Don't engage german armour at >1000m.

Depending on the map (flat, no trees) this can be next to impossible but it is your only chance.

What Guderian wrote is true: keep in mind that CM is a tactical simulation and doesn't reflect operational aspects of warfare. In autumn 1943 it is well possible for example that a force like yours would run into a german group of StuGs and Panthers only to get totally annihilated...while the rest of the Guards armour regiment breaks through the german lines a couple of miles to the north, where there were no StuGs and Panthers but only a weak infantry bataillon with 2 AT guns left.

Good point. However, is that type of use of smoke gamey or historical?

Also, in respect of the use of Panthers, how many of these things existed at any one time on the Eastern Front? More than the Tiger, sure, but how often would you come accross one, or more than one?

I tried playing a scenario with T34s Kv85s Su76is (nice low profile on these) and Su85s. Same result. Had the tank destroyers out wide on each side with the T34s and Kv85s up the middle. I had 2 Zis-3 as well but the Panther was hiding behind a tree line so no shots connected from these guns. The 82 mm mortars smoked the Panther but it had little effect. The PzKpwfIIIs did their job helping the Panther stop the charge, as did the Spa wagons mouting ATGs.

The infantry were left in a field with smoking tanks and were gunned down by the enemy.

I always thought that the Tiger was more fearsome than the Panther, but I feel that used properly, the Panther is harder to kill. Must have been that sloped armour.

In respect of the Panthers turret shot trap, I wonder if historically there was any susceptability for shots that ricocheted off of the upper hull to get caught in that shot trap? I think not, as the turret is set well back onto the tank. If the other design had have been chosen, with the turret forward as on the T34, perhaps yes. That leads to a question - did this happen on the T34? Ie, shots deflecting off the sloped armour directly onto the turret?

[Shmavis]

T-34/85s and IS-2s? I'm guessing you meant Autumn 1944. Speaking of the Panthers shot trap, the problem was that if a round struck the rounded mantlet on its lower half(below the gun)it could ricochet down into the top of the hull above the driver and radio operator. By the way, how exactly is this modelled in the game? If it happens to a Panther, will it register as a top penetration?

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by CousinPablo:

Good point. However, is that type of use of smoke gamey or historical?

The use of smoke to mask an attack is certainly historical. Although the soviets probably more often used smoke screens as part of their pre-planned artillery preparations.

Also, in respect of the use of Panthers, how many of these things existed at any one time on the Eastern Front? More than the Tiger, sure, but how often would you come accross one, or more than one?

Difficult question since you're talking about a timeframe of almost two years. For example, at the start of the battle of Kursk there were 184 Panthers ready for action. This number dropped to 40 after only two days. And to only 10 on July 10th, after 5 days of fighting. 10 Months later, on May 31st 1944 there were about 300 Panthers available on the eastern front. This number rose to more than 700 by mid-September to more or less stay on this level until the end of march 1945.

But those tanks of course weren't evenly distributed along the whole eastern front, but concentrated in the Panzer Divisions. So, if you encountered one Panther chances were that you'll soo see more of them.

In CMBB we generally see far too many tanks, mainly because it's fun playing with them. The overwhelming majority of german forces still consisted of infantry divisions with no Panthers or Tigers but merely a few StuGs, if they were lucky.

I tried playing a scenario with T34s Kv85s Su76is (nice low profile on these) and Su85s. Same result. Had the tank destroyers out wide on each side with the T34s and Kv85s up the middle. I had 2 Zis-3 as well but the Panther was hiding behind a tree line so no shots connected from these guns. The 82 mm mortars smoked the Panther but it had little effect. The PzKpwfIIIs did their job helping the Panther stop the charge, as did the Spa wagons mouting ATGs.

The infantry were left in a field with smoking tanks and were gunned down by the enemy.

Of course it all depends on the terrain. Sometimes there is just no way to assault an enemy position without getting slaughtered. If you have to cross 2km of open terrain against superior german tanks in good positions without heavy artillery and/or air support and numerical superiority than it's probably a good idea to cancel the attack. Don't forget that the typical quick battle scenarios are often far from realistic. Try the same map with a company of T-34s supported by a few assault guns and a battaillon of infantry against a platoon's worth of german tanks and an understregth infantry company. Ah, and make sure to use off-board artillery to deliver the smokescreen. 5 rounds from an on-board mortar won't do the job.

I always thought that the Tiger was more fearsome than the Panther, but I feel that used properly, the Panther is harder to kill. Must have been that sloped armour.

In fact the Panther is more deadly against armour at most distances due to its gun's higher muzzle velocity, and its sloped frontal armour provides at least as good a protection as the Tiger's thick armour. Against tungsten rounds the Panther's armour is actually better than a Tiger's since T ammo is less effective against heavily sloped armour. But its very weak side armour means one has to be very careful about flank shots. And the Tiger's 88mm gun is a lot more effective against soft targets.

In respect of the Panthers turret shot trap, I wonder if historically there was any susceptability for shots that ricocheted off of the upper hull to get caught in that shot trap? I think not, as the turret is set well back onto the tank. If the other design had have been chosen, with the turret forward as on the T34, perhaps yes. That leads to a question - did this happen on the T34? Ie, shots deflecting off the sloped armour directly onto the turret?

The early gun mantlet on the Panther was surely a design flaw, which is why it got fixed in the G version. But then it is hardly a surprise, seeing how the Panther was rushed into production.

[Generaloberst Guderian]

While I agree that the Tiger is a good tank, I've found the Panther to be much more lethal when used correctly. The 75mm L/70 is a very accurate and powerful gun, and I've seen it used to quite good effect against just about every type of Soviet armor, including the heavier stuff like JS-2s. Furthermore the front of the tank is extremely well armored, and I've had Panthers survive 122mm hits to the front turret from less than 100m. This means that if you can get a Panther placed in a good vantage point, you can hold out against a very sizable Soviet force for some time.

As for the shot trap, I was playing the HSG The Panthers Roll scenario, which was discussed here about a week ago, and lost 2 Panther A's due to that flaw. Just to avoid refuting everything I just said, let me preface by telling you that I destroyed 51 Soviet AFVs while losing only those two Panthers and a Jagdpanzer IV. What basically happens is a shell hits the manlet and gets deflected down into the superstructure. In both cases I witnessed the message "Side Turret Partial Penetration -- Knocked Out" was displayed, and visually it looked as if the tank had been stuck by an HE round. It can be annoying to deal with as the turret sides themselves are, in theory, fairly capable of withstanding most projectiles.

As far as smoke goes, its still not a perfect solution. If I was commanding the Panther and saw you laying out a smokescreen, I'd expect the flank attack and attempt to reverse into a better position.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by CousinPablo:

How in the world did the Russians make any progress during this time?

Keep in mind that in a QB you are limited to the number of points you can spend on each category. This is so each side gets a fair chance at winning the scenario, as well as to enjoy the game.

In real life the Russian commander wasn't limited by any articial point system, and went out of his way to make sure his opponent didn't have a chance in hell of winning.

In your QB you fielded 3x T34/85s + 2x IS-2s. In real life that same battle may have seen 12-15 T34/85s + 6-8 IS-2s.

[laze and blaze]

I know this is a bit off the subject, but...Speaking of shot traps. Has anyone looked closely at the M1? There is a huge shot trap on it! There is about 12 inches between the bottom of the lower turret armor and the upper hull. The upper hull seems like it would deflect an AP round strait into the turret ring too. I often wondered about that back in my tankin' days. Does anyone know if the M1 design team discussed this possiblility?

[Generaloberst Guderian]

I guess the idea with Abrams is that it can kill any target from beyond the enemy's engagement range. That and who knows what really happens when a 120mm depleted uranium round hits something. My instincts tell me that even with armor it'd be hard to shrug something like that off.

[flamingknives]

Another point on the M1 and the possibility of a shot trap is that modern AP round do not bounce. Be it a long-rod APFSDS or a HEAT jet, the chances of it being deflected from its flight path in anything like one piece are remote to nil.

If you look at the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6, they appear to have an enourmous shot-trap, but a modern KE projectile will shatter into thousands of pieces if it hits something off-axis, and a HEAT jet is simply moving too fast to be deflected by any great amount.

The only reason to avoid such 'traps' on modern AFVs is where the roof is thin enough to let 30mm (autocannon) AP through or to reduce your radar signature. (acute internal corners reflect more radar waves than flat plate)

[Wartgamer]

I believe the Soviets concentrated efforts against infantry formations during the post-Kursk period of 1943.

German infantry at this time did not have very effective LATW. They basically relied upon ATG and whatever AFV or other armor defeating weapon that could help them (FLAK/Arty/dense minefields).

The German armored formations, having been thinned out at Kursk, was basically a counter reaction force trying to stabilize the onslaughts.

The Panther 'population' was very slow growing during this period and the major flaws in the weapon system were not worked out till 1944. The Panther had cold weather problems as well as major subsystem problems and lack of spares (and design flaws like the mantlet). I believe the number of Panthers and Tiger Is may have been equal on the eastern front till late spring 1944 (each around 300 vehicles each). The majority of AFV were probably Panzer IV long and StuG till the end of 1943 and early 44.

The Panther is also a very 'offensive' weapon. It must have its engine running to fire effectively (and so do StuGs). The Panzer IV had an auxillary generator and could fire effectively with its main engine turned off.

So basically, the Soviets probably just avoided combat with Tigers and Panthers since they were so rare. They had room to manuver and would attack other areas with overwhelming numbers.

[ May 01, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[jtcm]

(Off topic)

Laze and Blaze: I seem to remember reading that in 1991, a M1 was taken out by perfect hit on the turret ring. That would make sense in view of your remark re shot trap on the Abrams.

[Generaloberst Guderian]

Well not to get too off topic, but I read a couple of weeks ago that 68 M1s have been damaged so badly by infantry attacks that they have been sent back to the US for repairs. Apparently no provision was made for protecting the engine compartment against a succession of AT rockets.

In addition to actual tanks, don't forget that the Germans also had a variety of "interim" tank destroyers, such as the Marder I-III series as well as the Nashorn. If you've ever played with these in game, you know that they are imperfect solutions at best. They're good killers at range, but can't really hope to withstand any return fire. Thus, to use one well you really need to set it up so that you are only engaging a handful of targets at a time.

[JasonC]

First, your stated time makes no sense for the tank types listed.

In 1944 when the Russians have those tanks, the German armor is no great terror. Stugs die to 122s or 85s from the front at range - 1943 ammo undermodeling 85s are the only real exception. Find the Stugs with infantry scouts, shoot and scoot with 1-2 tanks from an angle they aren't facing that instant, dead Stug, no problem.

A Panther is a tougher nut certainly, but you don't try to take it out first while it has lots of help covering its flanks. First you whittle down said help, avoiding its LOS in the meantime.

Then, a 122mm at range will kill it with any turret hit. An 85mm will start getting partial pens on the front turret at 750m or so, and reliably hurt them at 500m. Any side hit, even with large side angle, likewise. The turret can't point two directions at once. In the real deal, no bottomless pits covered one side, either. To get protection from one side, they needed an LOS block, whose shadow created an approach route.

Next, flat no tree farmland is not the most common terrain realistically fought over. Typical steppe terrain is *rural* (not "farmland"), open, gentle slopes. Which includes tree patches (rural is a more heavily forested setting, always) and elevation changes. Dead ground for approaches, and hull down positions for dueling (isolating a Panther's weaker turret, reducing reply hit chance, cutting up vehicle to vehicle coordination, etc).

Flat farmland with light trees would occur sometimes, yes, but is not the dominant terrain. You can use houses for cover in that case, but gentle slopes are much easier than absolutely flat etc.

In addition, weapons to take out German armor do not end with your own armor. Mindless mashing of like on like is the poorest form of combined arms. On defense there are AT mines and infantry ambush in heavy cover areas, air is always possible.

But the other stand by is simply guns firing from unlocated positions. A tank broadcasts where it is to every infantry unit, and as a result rarely gets a flank shot - especially if it can't hide behind a hill first. A gun can wait, and fire only when the target is presenting a side or half-side. When you have 4 or more hidden guns on a large map, it is difficult for the enemy to avoid presenting a side to one of them sometime.

If you do need to engage a tank with tanks, you don't fight fair. Bring an echelon larger force to the firefight or don't take it up. That means single enemies are tackled by platoons and platoons are tackled by companies from multiple angles (each location in platoon strength).

The actual difficult period for the Russians in gun and armor terms was different. It was in the summer and fall of 1943, when Tigers and Panthers were out and begining to get numerous, and the Russians were still mostly in T-34/76s. This is actually the time when the Russians won the war. There are numerous reasons, some of which you won't ever see in CM.

76mms penetrated StuGs from the front and Tigers from the side. They penetrated Panthers from the side at long range, or medium range even with significant side angle. The Russians closed with T-34s, hail fired, and fired from multiple angles on defense with ATG nests.

The Russians also had some heavier hitters that are either undermodeled or unrepresented in CM. For instance, the SU-85 was out in the fall, in greater numbers than the Tigers and Panthers it was meant to help counter. But in CM, its ammo is so poor in 1943 that it won't penetrate a Stug from the front at 600m - which doesn't have anything to do with historical reality.

The Russians also attached a battalion of 12 85mm AA guns to each tank corps, even before the SU-85s came out. On defense, they occasionally fired direct with 122mm guns (not howitzers) and 152mm gun-howitzers. Those are the same weapons you see in ISUs in 1944. The guns existed from the begining of the war; the new element was an armored SU mount for them, not their existence. Because they were more commonly used indirect, they aren't represented in CM on map, only as FOs firing HE indirect.

The Russians fielded far more 57mm ATGs than the Germans fielded ubertanks. Because ubertanks were reasonably common by late 1943 compared to German AFVs of all types, though, they are given low rariety in CM. While Russian 57mms, since they were less common that the ubiquitous hordes of 76mm and 45mm ATGs, are rated as high rariety.

Operationally, the Germans were able to field meaningful quantities of high powered armor in 2-3 areas of the front. The operational strength of the ubertanks in the fall of 1943 was a number with 3 digits. Pz IVs and Stugs would get that into 4 digits, but barely into it, with the first number a 1 or a 2. The Russians had over 20,000 tanks at that time. This did not mean tactical odds of 10 to 1, it meant match ups similar to yours in a limited number of locations, and tanks against infantry and gun defenses in lots of other places.

A third to half the German uber fleet was not operational at any given moment. From battle damage, from operational redeployments. Tanks "under repair" become losses if the front moves 200 miles in the wrong direction. Overall operational figures, moreover, understate the difficulty of keeping tanks in fighting condition while actually fighting. Because those figures are always padded with the new arrivals, the units kept off the line recently, the units in quiet sectors that have had a chance to breath and make repairs.

Following unit by unit reports, one sees the number of heavies operational fall by half within days of entering combat. Then they stabilize for a bit, not reflecting stasis but "churn" (the same number of tanks getting damaged every day, as are coming out of the workshops). And slowly decay after that, as cumulative damage can't be repaired after a while.

In the fall of 1943, most PDs on the east front had 30 to 50 operational AFVs. Half of them models not appreciably superior to T-34s. 1-3 such PDs were still expected to stop (1) or to counterattack (2-3) entire tank corps, even fresh ones. They were able to in part because tanks were by no means the only major AT force in the German arsenal. For every AFV they fielded, they had another AT system just as potent in gun terms, as a dismounted gun.

[Wartgamer]

German Panthers on the eastern front starts with the 200+12 used during Kursk/Summer. The initial problems with them is well known. They enter combat and quickly break down/hit mines/get-side-holed/abandoned/self-destroyed/etc. These were all Panther D(early). Supposedly survivors may have been turned into HQ tanks or retrievers.

Further German use of Panther in 1943 seems to be entirely on the eastern front. Panthers produced are not sent to the front but sent to training battalions so that crews are familiarized with the new tank. They are then sent as a unit to the front.

Following German 'unit' deliveries are in Aug43: (71 Panther to I/SSPRGT2), Sep43 (96 Panther to II/PRGT23), Nov43 (1 PD 76 Panther), Nov43 (1SSPD 96 Panther), Dec43 (1/PRGT31 76 Panther).

How many Panthers were sent as replacements would be interesting. The Germans claimed about 1600 Panthers produced during this period (till end of 43). None were sent to Italy in 43 and I doubt that they were sent to France. So they are either at the eastern front, in training battalions or held in some strategic reserve? Germans report 493 Panthers lost during 1943. These must have been on the eastern front and they must have sent replacements then.

These post Kursk Panthers are probably all later Panther D's with slight improvements. Perhaps Panther A.

An example of how poor these early Panthers faired comes from the PRGT23 that starts with 96 Panthers at the end of Aug43. In a little less than 3 weeks, it has 28 total write offs (demo-charged due to inability to fix or recover), 14 'runners' and 54 non-runners awaiting repairs. Its combat power is no more than a company. It never gets above this level and finally (apparently), has its non-runner 'fleet' over run and 'writes-off' 45 hulks at the end of Oct43. It apparently recieves not one replacement panther since its TWO plus runner/non-runner equals 96 (starting number) at the end of Dec43.

German tankers were still using Panzer III at this time as well as the Panzer IV long (and some used StuG). Given the very short 'front-appearances' of the Panther, its 'rarity' is much greater than its actual numbers.

[ May 02, 2005, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Wartgamer]

The SU 85 was first used in Sept 43 and about 750 or so were produced in 1943. The SU 152 (152mm) was produced in about the same numbers during this period. Not sure why Jason does not mention the SU 152mm during 1943. The SU 152 had a very capable AT round and also better armor than a SU 85. It had much slower rate of fire though.

[ May 02, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[MikeyD]

If you read German reports from this time they always seem to be sending one or two lone Tigers forward to plug a hole in their rapidly disintegrating front. The German's worst fear was encirclement. As Powell said 15 years ago "Cut 'em off and kill 'em".

If you're playing Soviets directly facing Panthers on a standard CM size map, you can imagine the 'big picture' off-map is other Soviet units are flowing around either side of the Panthers while you keep 'em busy. To quote Patton this time, "Hold him by the nose and kick him in the arse".

If you're designing a scenario you can represent this encircling situation by Russian reinforcements unexpectedly appearing in the Germans' rear area.

[JasonC]

TN = tanks in full units ("new")

TR = tanks as replacements

AN = assault guns in full units

AR = assault guns as replacements

T = total new AFVs sent east

Jul: TN 58, TR 122, AN 62, AR 73, T 315

Aug: TN 164, TR 123, AN 93, AR 111, T 491

Sep: TN 45, TR 93, AN 154, AR 129, T 421

Oct: TN 71, TR 230, AN 104, AR 73, T 478

Nov: TN 154, TR 262, AN 180, AR 138, T 734

Dec: TN 34, TR 367, AN 62, AR 149, T 612

Tanks as replacements increase noticably in the final quarter. The number of operational long 75 or better AFVs reaches pre-Kursk levels again in mid October and increases modestly thereafter.

As for Panthers and Tigers in particular, here are end of month figures -

Jul P-134, T-175

Aug P-225, T-181

Sep P-266, T-214

Oct P-316, T-227

Nov P-419, T-278

Dec P-349, T-232

For comparison, from the end of July to the end of December, the combined number of Pz IV longs and StuG longs ranged from 1550 to 2263. The older, 1942 armed stuff went from 786 to 228. The heavy portion of the fleet was going from 1/10 to 1/5 basically, and makes that move in the 3rd quarter, while the obsolete portion went from nearly 1/3 to less than 1/10, and makes most of that move in the last (largely StuGs taking their place, mix-wise).

The StuGs move up noticably in the last quarter of the year. The mix at the end of September is 500 obsolete guns, 600 long IVs, 900 StuGs, and 500 heavies. That's right, a 50L60 or 75L24 is as common as a Panther or Tiger, in the fall fighting. But those are the 1 standard deviation tails - the center of the distribution throughout consists of long IVs and StuGs. Not surprising, since those are the main production vehicles of the two most common chassis.

Source - Zetterling and Frankson, Kursk 1943, various appendices.

[Wartgamer]

An interesting stat is that the German only had around 300 Panthers in May 44 on the eastern front.

Very few were in Italy and around 500-600 were being built up in France.

So the Germans were either losing them at very fast rates (Germans report 1100 or so lost up till this time) or they are just taking too long to train units on. 3100 were built and ready to issue up till this time.

[JasonC]

The replacement army probably had scads of them. They had to train every unit to use them. Many of the units that fought in Normandy still had their Panther battalions training in Germany at the time of the invasion. SS-DR had its issued at the time of Kursk, but they were still in Germany training on them, through all of July and most of August. And they were the first in line after the experimental regiment with GD for Kursk offensive. In fact, 2/3rds of the mobile divisions that took part in Kursk had a panzer battalion missing from their panzer regiments - often because it was training for a new type. It takes time to field a new tank.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by JasonC:

TN = tanks in full units ("new")

TR = tanks as replacements

AN = assault guns in full units

AR = assault guns as replacements

T = total new AFVs sent east

Jul: TN 58, TR 122, AN 62, AR 73, T 315

Aug: TN 164, TR 123, AN 93, AR 111, T 491

Sep: TN 45, TR 93, AN 154, AR 129, T 421

Oct: TN 71, TR 230, AN 104, AR 73, T 478

Nov: TN 154, TR 262, AN 180, AR 138, T 734

Dec: TN 34, TR 367, AN 62, AR 149, T 612

Tanks as replacements increase noticably in the final quarter. The number of operational long 75 or better AFVs reaches pre-Kursk levels again in mid October and increases modestly thereafter.

As for Panthers and Tigers in particular, here are end of month figures -

Jul P-134, T-175

Aug P-225, T-181

Sep P-266, T-214

Oct P-316, T-227

Nov P-419, T-278

Dec P-349, T-232

Source - Zetterling and Frankson, Kursk 1943, various appendices.

Many of the 'TN' are probably the Panther tank units I mentioned above. But the 'TR' are all types of tanks. Tiger (some), Panther, Panzer IV (many Panzer IV).

Are those operational Tiger and Panther tank numbers?

The replacement army probably had scads of them. They had to train every unit to use them. Many of the units that fought in Normandy still had their Panther battalions training in Germany at the time of the invasion. SS-DR had its issued at the time of Kursk, but they were still in Germany training on them, through all of July and most of August. And they were the first in line after the experimental regiment with GD for Kursk offensive. In fact, 2/3rds of the mobile divisions that took part in Kursk had a panzer battalion missing from their panzer regiments - often because it was training for a new type. It takes time to field a new tank.

That would have been insane (not saying it didnt happen). The Germans were getting ground down in 1943-early44. They would have been much better off just issuing Panther tanks to units that needed them. That is, units already trained on them that had so few runners. Trains should have pulled up with new tanks and evacuated long term repair tanks much further back.

In 1944, there are instances of this happening with panther battalions getting issued many replacement panthers at a shot.

[ May 02, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]