T-34 Lifespan

[Mr. Tittles]

Sigh,

Ignoring Italy and Sicily the change over to the West began during the spring summer of 1943/44

Who's Sigh?

And what exactly is a spring/summer of 1943/1944?

Spring/Summer 1943 makes sense. Winter/Spring 1943/1944 make sense. What are you talking about?

[Mr. Tittles]

I would appreciate if anyone would assist Mr. bastables.

Is he really saying that the Soviets didn't win a battle of attrition in 1943 because the Germans sent troops elsewhere? The Germans decided they would give up 100's of miles of hard fought gains because they had to send panzers elsewhere? 6 months to a year before an invasion happened?

Is this the point I aint gettin?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I would appreciate if anyone would assist Mr. bastables.

Is he really saying that the Soviets didn't win a battle of attrition in 1943 because the Germans sent troops elsewhere? The Germans decided they would give up 100's of miles of hard fought gains because they had to send panzers elsewhere? 6 months to a year before an invasion happened?

Is this the point I aint gettin?

They (Soviets) did not win the armour attrition battle of 1943 full stop. Again the scales did not tip until 1944 and the Normandy landings, (but Med did suck away a not inconsequential number of panzers better used in the east).

31 Dec 1943 Panzer/StuGs in the West had climbed to 827

Sicily 10 July 1943: Panzer/StuG 230

Italy 20 August 1943: Panzer/StuG 740

Now add those figs to the

28 Feb 1943 1,686 Panzers in the east

31 Dec 1943 2,053 Panzers in the east

(All from1996 Jentz) Again no fig for StuGs, slf etc due to the fact that I don't have those figs.

Remebering the highest number was the figs for pre Kursk build up 10 July 1943: 2609 Panzers

Without the Med and fears and succesful landings in France the Russians could never have won the war of armour attrition in 1944. They were not even close in 1943.

[ December 27, 2003, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Thats OK Bastables, keep ignoring 100s of miles of territory gained. We understand.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Thats OK Bastables, keep ignoring 100s of miles of territory gained. We understand.

Yet you seem to have no understanding of what attrition warfare is all about.

Nice bit of backsliding though, you did not even manage to defend your actual argument at all.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Kazatin operation.

23/12.1943-1/2-1944

start strength 749 (666)

total losses 1317 (1181)

battle losses 1056 (937)

technical (mechanical) losses 170 (154)

other 91 (90)

(t34)

This is also from 1st Guards. Its a 6 week period from the end of 43 to early 44.

What was T34 production numbers? 1000 per month?

Actually, most of 1943 was a showdown. The Germans big show was Kursk but the armored battles raged in intensity for most of the year. The Germans were being bled and the Soviets were willing to practice attrition as long as both sides bled. They prosecuted this strategy with T34/76 mostly. They knew that changing over a model design during this time would give the Germans a break. The Germans, with the new Panther, old Panzer IV and limited Tigers, were changing horses at the wrong time.

I stand by what I say still.

[Mr. Tittles]

I must take a stand and dismiss this tired old-hat style of posting that bastables exhibits.

He so often tries to steer the argument by putting assertions into other peoples posts.

His 'you don't get the point' dribble usually initiates his wandering off-the-point himself.

My point was the Soviets initiated a war of attrition using a model of tank without change. He will then 'attack' this with silly comments about lend-lease (pee-uuu!), etc.

The Soviets pushed back the Germans with this in 1943. His Normandy comments (thats mid-44?) can not be taken seriously. He then stammers on about the soviets not-winning using this policy etc...

Its tiresome. He wavers, ballyhoos, tweeters, cockafoos, twizzles, gosh-doodles and attrites through stupidity.

The fact is, he can not be wrong because he has no point. 'Cept on top of his head maybe.

[Bastables]

Well of course you do, after making a vague and unsupported argument, spinning around like a manic court jester (playing to a non-existent crowd) when challenged, all you could do was end up stating your own righteous belief of your own pronouncements.

That’s fine. Perfectly understandable and not the last time I’ve seen such conduct on the internet I am sure.

[Mr. Tittles]

Yes explain attrition and strawman arguments and the role of lend lease why don't you?

Your whole argument about Normandy (mid-44?) made you look silly.

[ December 27, 2003, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Bastabulls: You don't get the point! Again, the point!, you don't get it! You must get the point!!! AGAIN!!! You DON'T get the point!

Can't you see, clearly like me?, you must get the POINT!!!

The POINT! The POINT! The POINT!!

The one I am sure you mean, 'cause I can not be wrong...The one I am sure you are missing? The POINT!!!!!

Don't you get it MAN??? The point? What you must have said and I think you mean??

What's wrong with you? Can't you think like me? The POINT!!!!! You miss the point!!! I will show you what you know.. THE POINTTTT!!!!!!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Yes explain attrition and strawman arguments and the role of lend lease why don't you?

Your whole argument about Normandy (mid-44?) made you look silly.

Take a look at the figs

And again please look at the fact that the German "Fleet" of Panzers and StuGs increased from the intial numbers of start of 1943 when compared with the end Total numbers in Dec 1943. This increase gives lie to your assertion that the Soviets were winning the war of armour attrition in 1943.

Your silly posturing and inane attempts to play to the crowd do not change the figs.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Bastabulls: You don't get the point! Again, the point!, you don't get it! You must get the point!!! AGAIN!!! You DON'T get the point!

Can't you see, clearly like me?, you must get the POINT!!!

The POINT! The POINT! The POINT!!

The one I am sure you mean, 'cause I can not be wrong...The one I am sure you are missing? The POINT!!!!!

Don't you get it MAN??? The point? What you must have said and I think you mean??

What's wrong with you? Can't you think like me? The POINT!!!!! You miss the point!!! I will show you what you know.. THE POINTTTT!!!!!!

I hope you're not going to cry mate, after all you only have to get the point....

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

If the losses/production are about equal, and I am pushing the enemy back and his fleet is decreasing (and no one is bombing my factories), aint I winning a little?

Also the Jentz Figs show that the German tank fleet increased during 1943.

[RaggedyMan]

Not to interrupt the, er, reasoned debate here ..... but I do have a question about the stats for losses re: tank combat on the eastern front. Earlier in the thread, there were mentions of 200% losses...I'm curious, assuming that if I lose, say, 5 tanks to various factors, but maybe I can take all of the parts and repair 2 of them back to operational status, and then let us say I lose those 2 tanks next week or whatever...would that count towards the % of losses?

I know that Easy Company 501(?) PIR (the Band of Brothers outfit) took something like a 150% casualty rate...obviously because newbies kept getting zapped, but I suspect also because a lot of people got hit two or even three times.

If that is counted, then my guess would be that the Russians mantained their relative strength not simply through production, but also through highly-motivated field repair. My rough (and veeery uneducated) understanding is that the Germans could not maintain consistent and high-volume production, which makes me think maybe their repairs suffered from lack of parts or what-have-you.

Either way, there were some interesting links and references given amongst the posts. Tanks for the discussion.

[Mr. Tittles]

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

If the losses/production are about equal, and I am pushing the enemy back and his fleet is decreasing (and no one is bombing my factories), aint I winning a little?

Also the Jentz Figs show that the German tank fleet increased during 1943. </font>

[drbassie]

Quick answer. Russia could produce way more tanks than the Germans. The T34 was easy to produce, German tanks were more complicated. I think that Russia produced something like 10 times more tanks than the Germans. So even though Russia lost alot more tanks, they always had more than the Germans.

You don't even have to factor US armor (even though they produced more armor than Germany by themself.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by drbassie:

Quick answer. Russia could produce way more tanks than the Germans. The T34 was easy to produce, German tanks were more complicated. I think that Russia produced something like 10 times more tanks than the Germans. So even though Russia lost alot more tanks, they always had more than the Germans.

You don't even have to factor US armor (even though they produced more armor than Germany by themself.

Not 10X but the numbers are available online and even in this thread.

The German MBTs for 43 continued to use Panzer III (they were still around in 50L60 and 75L24 form), Panzer IV long and short, Panthers and Tiger Is. They all had different ammunition. They all had a multitude of different parts. Its much easier to keep 'runner' numbers up if parts/ammo is shared.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by RaggedyMan:

Not to interrupt the, er, reasoned debate here ..... but I do have a question about the stats for losses re: tank combat on the eastern front. Earlier in the thread, there were mentions of 200% losses...I'm curious, assuming that if I lose, say, 5 tanks to various factors, but maybe I can take all of the parts and repair 2 of them back to operational status, and then let us say I lose those 2 tanks next week or whatever...would that count towards the % of losses?

I know that Easy Company 501(?) PIR (the Band of Brothers outfit) took something like a 150% casualty rate...obviously because newbies kept getting zapped, but I suspect also because a lot of people got hit two or even three times.

If that is counted, then my guess would be that the Russians mantained their relative strength not simply through production, but also through highly-motivated field repair. My rough (and veeery uneducated) understanding is that the Germans could not maintain consistent and high-volume production, which makes me think maybe their repairs suffered from lack of parts or what-have-you.

Either way, there were some interesting links and references given amongst the posts. Tanks for the discussion.

I believe the data shows 'irecoverable' losses. That is, burnt out tanks from battle damage. There are also technical failures. These can be as mild as small engine fires that would be repaired (long term), to failure of major welds that are not worth fixing. These vehicles are then written off for spare parts.

All military casualties are either final (KIA or severly wounded that won't return for the duration of the conflict or burnt out tank, etc), or repairable (wounded that will recover, tanks that get new turrets, etc).

The best way to destroy a tank is to get it to burn out. Fuel fires being even better than ammunition fires. The heat will turn the vehicle into unusable scrap.

When attacking, you better take the field full of your damaged vehicles. That is, if you lose and pull back quickly, you lose big. The enemy will recover or burn the vehicles they can't move themselves.

The Soviets may have adapted this strategy to attack and not stop till the enemy engages its armor against the attack. Once the German armor was brought into play, the soviets could attack with the objective of either encircling the forces or capturing the enemys tank maintenance units. Once a tank-park of vehicles under repair is over run, the enemy has been crippled. Its source of repaired tanks and parts has been lost.

The soviets, like everyone else, repaired tanks. having commonality of parts for its major MBT/SPs (and employing other models in massed units) makes great sense. Since they were taking ground in the later half of 1943, they were recouping many recoverable tanks.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

You are really straining for some 'point' now. The German fleet built up to Kursk strength and then declined after the post Kursk battles in 1943 on the eastern front. The numbers you posted earlier reflect that.

Please post numbers of German/Soviet tank strength and we can compare.

You want so badly to twist anything to 'win' some silly point you think you have.

[/QB]

Again you've missed the point

The Germans started the year of 1943 with 1,686 Panzers in the east (StuGs?)

The German built up to 10 July 1943: 2609

At the end of the year 31 Dec 1943 2,053 Panzers in the east (Stags)

Now that’s a reduction of around 500 in fleet strength from its height a fleet contraction. But German tank production was actually higher than it’s total losses meaning that there was a net increase in fleet strength

For instance the Panzers and Stags in the West because of fears of a second Anglo-Commonwealth landing 31 Dec 1943 Panzer/StuGs 827. Then the extras deployed to the Med Sicily 10 July 1943: 230 Panzer/StuG and then Italy where more armoured reinforcement was sent Italy 20 August 1943: 740 Panzer/StuG

These figs besides being ignored by you again give lie to your statement that the German Armour fleet contracted.

Also you state that the Russian tank fleet was homogenous, yet there were three major home grown tanks not including the assault guns and the extra types given by lead lease such as Lee’s Sherman’s, Valentines, Matildas etc. This again should tell you that the Russian also suffered problems with logistical concerns with multiple types and ammunition.

For The Russian side I’d prefer to quote my much-missed friend John Waters and his G.F Krivosheyev 1993 Grief Sekretnosti Sniat(SP?) references

As to te T-34s survivability In 1942 12,520 T-34 were produced, 6,000 were destroyed in combat. In 1943 61% of all T-34s produced were were lost, in 1944 52% of all T-34s built & sent into combat were lost. An Soviet report on tank destruction casualties stated only 25 - 33% of the tank crewman survived their tanks destruction.

Soviet Tank/SU losses by year:

1941 - 20,500

1942- 15,100

1943 - 23,500

1944 - 23,700

1945 - 13,700

Total Soviet Tank/SU losses in the GPW = 96,500

Now before you decide to post explaining to us your theories on how tanks are lost, varying cause/classifications, etc, understand these are total losses. What they do show is the Germans would have had to work pretty hard to hit that '3-5 times as many tanks as they had' mark.

Regards, John Waters

I will leave the basic arithmetic to you that will end up showing that it was the Russian tank fleet that had a net contraction. Compare with the net gain in the German tank fleet. Both of these show how monstrously false your claims of the German tank fleet contracting and the Soviets winning the armour attrition battle are.

Note to Tits for future reference never make unsupported arguments.

Good to see you’ve stoped your defence mechanism of verbal “capering.”

[Mr. Tittles]

Tsk, Tsk, Bastables.. lets look at Panzertruppen pg. 110 chart also pg. 43 (you forgot Jan and Feb my boy)

Available (Operational) Panzers on the eastern front 43

Jan 2803 (1475)

Feb 2422 (981)

Feb 28 1686 (902)

Jun 30 2584 (2287)

Jul 20 2471 (1471)

Aug 31 2022 (821)

Sep 30 1953 (605)

Oct 31 2198 (962)

Nov 30 2287 (817)

Dec 31 2053 (1043)

These are operational numbers. Bastables has been tossing around Availability numbers.

Available means every piece of shot-up, run-down and broken AND working panzer. Operational means 'runners' or those that fight. The relationship between the two, shows whats going on.

In Jan the Germans were about 53% Operational. They built up to 88% Operational for Kursk (impressive). The rest of the year, the part where the Soviets siezed the initiative, reduced Operational panzers down as low as 30% at the end of Sep 43 (thats right, the germans had 600 some panzers fighting on the eastern front).

So, since its so important to Bastables, the Germans did actually end the year with LESS operational AND available panzers than they started with!! 750 less available (uh, 26%) and 432 less operational (29%).

And the whole years panzer production did not go to the eastern front.

[ December 27, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[stikkypixie]

Ahh the number game!!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

And the whole years panzer production did not go to the eastern front.

Yes my point exactly, the German Tank fleet increased or got a net gain as a whole. Not forgetting that they received much more capable tanks.

Russian Figs are not operational figs I was comparing like with like aka the total numbers of Panzers and Soviet Tanks/SUs.

Also the Germans generally operated at a 50% runners when in combat, German repair, recovery and generally less explosive tanks tended to in sure higher numbers of their tanks surviving to fight another day.

Your right for some reason I did not notice the earlier table on pg 43 that goes from July 1942 to March 1943 only using the table from Feb. 143 till dec 1943, but this does not change the fact that again the German tank fleet had a net increase by the end of 1943, the Russian tank fleet contracted, with this how can the Russian be winning the battle of tank attrition tits. It has become that simple.

Even with just the Eastern front the eastern panzer fleet net contracted by less than a third whereas the Russian tank fleet contracted by 62%, who’s winning the attrition battle in 1943 tits?

[ December 27, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Bastables mis-thinking is based on the low numbers of Panzers following Jan Feb Mar 43 losses. These are 2152 WRITE-OFFS! Thats more than the number of Panzer IIIL60 made in 1942.

Heres detailed information regarding replacements, available, operational and total losses:

Jul 42 186-2060-1337-198

Aug 42 366-2644-1669-232

Sep 42 192-2705-1702-298

Oct 42 180-2731-1789-200

Nov 42 245-2677-1907-169

Dec 42 196-2758-1723-159

So for these months we see an influx of new tanks and fleet strength reaching a steady level and losses varying between 159 to 298.

But Jan 43 shows 392 replacements but 456 total writeoffs! Feb 43 shows 394 replacements and 1105 total write offs! mar shows 275 replacements and 591 total writeoffs!

This is where Bastables is getting his start point. A beaten up panzer force is where he wants to start the year! Funny!!

[Mr. Tittles]

No. Its simple. The Panzer fleet over the entire year shrank. You made such a big deal about it and now are showing you cant grasp the fact your wrong.

Again (I love saying Again!)

'So, since its so important to Bastables, the Germans did actually end the year with LESS operational AND available panzers than they started with!! 750 less available (uh, 26%) and 432 less operational (29%).'

You also do not want to grasp that the Germans were being pushed back 100s of miles!

[ December 27, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]