The Bouncing .50 cal - can it kill a tank?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by RockinHarry:

Somewhat unrealistic is the sorts of road columns offered for various nations vehicles. Space between the single vehicles is way to small (10-20m) and should be much larger under air attack possibilities, unless at night.

Seems reasonable to me.

when I was in the army 25 yrs ago road convoys in full military configuration that was about what I recall the interval being - very small.

And convoy speed was 25 mph in trucks on good paved roads.

[JonS]

100m interval is the standard.

100yds in 2Ds was the standard the Brits worked to in the desert.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Read any German account by a tank unit and you will notice that they never ever mention damaged tanks as lost yet when writing about Allied Units they include every single possible tank casualty as a confirmed kill:

Actually only tanks that were with certainly rendered irrepairable were supposed to be categorized as destroyed; normally this required it to burst in flames.

How well this was followed under all circumstances? There must have been times when it mattered more to spare AP shells for unbroken enemy tanks than to expend them in an abandoned one, or where the tankers couldn't just walk up to the target and state "yep, it ain't never gonna move again" or "it looks like it's still operable, let's go back and take a few more shots at it." And all sorts of other things causing uncertainty.

Reports on enemy tank losses are part of military intelligence, and military intelligence is never 100% accurate. In offensive or static operations they would be pretty good, while in defensive operations the defender doesn't necessarily have any clue as to what's happening.

[bitchen frizzy]

...and Germany spent most of the war on defense...

[Guest Mike]

US logistics troops in convoy during a live fire exercise in December 1997

Canadian convoy Kabul

And this from the US Dept of Transportaion Federal Highway Administration military convoy procedures - looks like we are both right!

Convoy Formations

The convoy must be organized to meet the deployment mission requirements and provide organizational control. The convoy commander decides how the convoy will be formed for movement, taking into consideration such factors as the planned route, distance to the destination, types of vehicles/equipment, and travel conditions (weather, time of day, etc.). The three basic types of formations are close column, open column, and infiltration. They are as follows:

Close column. This formation provides the greatest degree of convoy control. It is characterized by vehicle intervals of 25 to 50 meters and speeds under 25 mph. Close column is normally used during limited visibility or on poorly marked or congested roads.

Open column. This is the preferred formation during movement. It is characterized by vehicle intervals of 300 feet or more and speeds in excess of 25 mph. The open column formation is normally used on well-marked open roads with good visibility.

Infiltration. This formation has no defined structure. Vehicle intervals and speeds vary. This type of formation is normally not used during movement. Infiltration should be used only as a last resort in extremely congested areas, when the convoy becomes unexpectedly dispersed or when the mission dictates.

[ March 08, 2007, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Hmmm...this is private correspondence between you and Zaloga, or can you provide a link or reference to the above? This is a pretty bold implication to randomly throw about as you have done without some sort of reference.

It was one of 3 examples, 2 of which I presume you accept?

One would hope that the S4 reports for the battalion in question & divisional G4 reports for the day of, as well as the next day or two would be employed to verify. Further crossing checking of what were complete losses and those that may have been knocked out but were recoverable and repairable.

I was of course refering to the oft quoted example of Barkmann destroying several Shermans. A damaged tank is not a destroyed one. I am not too well referenced on US losses so did defer to Zaloga's assertion. However I can categorically state that both the Wittmann and Fey claims are grossly inflated.

It is striking that the high German kill rates claimed for Russia are not repeated in the West. </font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

There should be no debate about this because the Germans themselves knew the claims (in Russia) were inflated. They applied an official reduction because they noticed the mistake.

Yes. But if you care to examine the links provided by me and URC on the Red Army tank losses during Winter War you will find that the Red Army score keeping for its own tanks show that actual write offs are 1/10th of what they themselves tallied as combat losses. (EDIT: total losses actually, for combat losses it is 1/6th.)

They can say they lost only some 300 tanks during Winter War but for some reason they steer clear of the number of combat losses which is close to 1900.

The kill v damaged debate is not really valid.

When talking about kill claims and awards its is very valid.

Read any German account by a tank unit and you will notice that they never ever mention damaged tanks as lost yet when writing about Allied Units they include every single possible tank casualty as a confirmed kill:

Indeed. What about the Allied units and their kill claims vis-a-vis handling of damaged enemy vehicles ?

'Super Panzer leader Hans held up an entire English Division and destroyed 40 tanks. His battered Tiger was towed back to have its turret replaced, tracks mended and engine repaired. His driver and loader were killed but we lost no tanks today.'

In contrast "Super tank company commander Tom made a valiant effort to break through the enemy defences today. His forces shot up loads of enemy troops and vehicles, including 5 formidable Tiger tanks. The attack failed but the enemy casualties were high. Own losses were 4 tanks. The force was drawn from the frontline for repair and replenishment so it could be deployed again in full strenght in a few days."

For far too long we have had to read about double digit kill claims for the Panzers when in fact they did not do as well as they like to think. You can read about the 5 shermans for one Panther tale but when you find the matching figures they do not support the uber-panzer myth.

There are dozens on Panzer Unit histories around but not one of them take into account the 50% reduction in kill claims when advancing their claims. They never even mention it.

Have you ever seen Western Allies keep score on their own vehicles the way the Red Army did. How is it possible the Red Army tallied 1900 combat losses while their write offs were only 300 ? Makes me at least think the Red Army reporting was more honest than the Western Allied.

I'm sure there are records of Allied recovery and repair effort around but for some reason they are not taken into account when tallying combat losses.

IMO a combat loss counts as a kill even when the vehicle is not a write off.

[ March 09, 2007, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I wasn't particularly interested in the majority of your post.

And I 'aint really interested in any of your posts.........

I asked if you had a reference to this supposed bit by Zaloga that you were going on about. It would appear you don't.

Well I do I just didn't give you it.

I'll take the rest of your post in that light.

Take my comments like they were taken over at Tankers a few years back. Remember me being slapped down told about the scientific method used by the Germans to calculate the enemy losses.......then someone noticed that this 'scientific' method always ended up as EXACTLY half the original total.............!

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

What about the Allied units and their kill claims vis-a-vis handling of damaged enemy vehicles ?

Give me an example.

In contrast "Super tank company commander Tom made a valiant effort to break through the enemy defences today. His forces shot up loads of enemy troops and vehicles, including 5 formidable Tiger tanks. The attack failed but the enemy casualties were high. Own losses were 4 tanks. The force was drawn from the frontline for repair and replenishment so it could be deployed again in full strenght in a few days."

You lost me there but I presume you are refering to Allied claims being inflated. I have news for you. This is well known and allowed for. The only Unit histories that completely ignore this fact seem to be German.

Have you ever seen Western Allies keep score on their own vehicles the way the Red Army did. How is it possible the Red Army tallied 1900 combat losses while their write offs were only 300 ? Makes me at least think the Red Army reporting was more honest than the Western Allied.

All I can say is you clearly have no understanding of the Allied loss figures. You hint at deception but have nothing at all to support the claim.

I'm sure there are records of Allied recovery and repair effort around but for some reason they are not taken into account when tallying combat losses.

Yes they wanted to hide the fact that it took 5 Shermans to destroy every Panther!!!!

Absolute b***locks. You are sure? Why? Oh yes because the super-Tigers each knocked out 10 Shermans.

The actual tank losses for both sides in Normandy were in less than 2:1 in the Germans favour

a combat loss counts as a kill even when the vehicle is not a write off.

Which German Unit account includes any of its damaged tanks as a loss?

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Give me an example.

British kill claims on DAK tanks. Made during the fighting, mind you. Not the figures given after DAK folded.

You lost me there but I presume you are refering to Allied claims being inflated. I have news for you. This is well known and allowed for. The only Unit histories that completely ignore this fact seem to be German.

No. I am referring to Allied loss figures being deflated by discounting vehicles being repaired due to combat damage. The Red Army tallied (at least during Winter War) all instances of vehicles being unable be in the duty roster with specific causes given for the absence to boot. AFAIK the Allied airforce records on serviceable planes for specific time periods are accessible.

All I can say is you clearly have no understanding of the Allied loss figures.

M4 losses in ETO is reported to have been 3155 vehicles (both 75 and 76mm variants).

1st Army strenght reports for three selected weeks show:

75 mm models

Date and days, operational, losses

16-22 Jul 1944,7, 1102, 33

23-29 Jul 1944,7, 748, 79

30Jul-5Aug 1944,7, 656, 68

figures for 76mm models during the same period

168, 0

95, 12

108, 6

Strenght fell by 60 in three weeks but only 18 were reported lost.

During those two first weeks of the period the 1st army reported 124 M4's lost. Yet a total of 427 fell off operational status from July 22nd and July 23rd. From July 29th to July 30th the strenght report show a further drop of 79 vehicles with 74 being reported lost. So, the 1st army lost 198 Shermans but misplaced 414 further vehicles in three weeks. Had this kind of unreported vanishing, ie. gross negligence happened in the Red Army the men responsible would have been shot.

You hint at deception but have nothing at all to support the claim.

I would not call it deception. I call it cooking the books if you lose 618 vehicles off the duty roster but claim you lost only 198.

Unless of course the vanished vehicles went to the the 3rd and the 9th armies right in the middle of the hardest fighting in Normandy.

Yes they wanted to hide the fact that it took 5 Shermans to destroy every Panther!!!!

Absolute b***locks. You are sure? Why? Oh yes because the super-Tigers each knocked out 10 Shermans.

198 reported lost, 414 vanished from the roster.

The actual tank losses for both sides in Normandy were in less than 2:1 in the Germans favour

When talking about write offs. Yes.

Which German Unit account includes any of its damaged tanks as a loss?

That is beside the point. The point is kill claims made on vehicles not being written off. Which you insist is inflating.

[ March 09, 2007, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

1st Army strenght reports for three selected weeks show:

75 mm models

Date and days, operational, losses

16-22 Jul 1944,7, 1102, 33

23-29 Jul 1944,7, 748, 79

30Jul-5Aug 1944,7, 656, 68

figures for 76mm models during the same period

168, 0

95, 12

108, 6

Strenght fell by 60 in three weeks but only 18 were reported lost.

During those two first weeks of the period the 1st army reported 124 M4's lost. Yet a total of 427 fell off operational status from July 22nd and July 23rd. From July 29th to July 30th the strenght report show a further drop of 79 vehicles with 74 being reported lost. So, the 1st army lost 198 Shermans but misplaced 414 further vehicles in three weeks. Had this kind of unreported vanishing, ie. gross negligence happened in the Red Army the men responsible would have been shot.

Try this.

from July 21st 160 M4 75mm traded in for 160 M4 76mm.

also try and factor in some M4's in repair. 2nd AD/3rd AD 50+ in repair on August 2nd.

That should do for starters. If I have time later I might go through the individual tank units and give you the weekly losses for every single unit.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Try this.

from July 21st 160 M4 75mm traded in for 160 M4 76mm.

also try and factor in some M4's in repair. 2nd AD/3rd AD 50+ in repair on August 2nd.

OK.

That does not bring the total tally anywhere near the reduction of M4 75's from 1102 to 748. Which I count as 354 reduction -33 admitted losses = 321 unaccounted for in the first week alone.

The increase of number of 76's from 0 to 168 does not make the total tally of the 75's grow any less. Where did the replaced vehicles go ? If anything the number of unaccounted for M4 75's increases by 168 from 321 to 489 with the 76's being thrown in to the strengt figures. The figures grow even worse when the next week shows the reduction of M4 75's by 92 and the M4 76's by 73 vehicles = total of 165 with only 91 admitted losses.

If I have time later I might go through the individual tank units and give you the weekly losses for every single unit.

Please do. That would be very interesting.

[michael kenny]

The overall number of all M4's in ETO do not drop at all right through the period you give. I can only assume some of the Tank Battalions were transfered out of 1st Army for some of the time because they dissapear of the lists for a week or two. They show zero tanks during the dip period but come back on line in August.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

The overall number of all M4's in ETO do not drop at all right through the period you give.

Yes. And that means what ? The replenishment system works and the attrition rate of the M4's is being outpaced by the repair, stockpiled vehicles in the replament pool and production.

The overall number is not being debated (or even contested) here. It is the fluctuation in the number of vehicles racked in the operational status (ie. loss rates during operations) which is being examined to see if the inflated German kill claims could have really included vehicles other than the US Army (in this case) chalked up as written off.

I can only assume some of the Tank Battalions were transfered out of 1st Army for some of the time because they dissapear of the lists for a week or two.

You'll have to do better than that.

The three week period I chose was the time when the Allied forces broke out from Normandy beach heads. AFAIK it was the 1st Army which bore the brunt of the fighting. From June 6th to July 15th (three weeks) the 1st Army reported heavier losses but the overall number of M4's kept rising steadily. It peaked during the week July 16th-22nd. The next week the number of operational M4's fell sharply and kept falling for three weeks (from 1102 to 580 operational M4's). During that time the 1st Army reported fewer losses than during the previous 3 weeks (283 for three weeks vs 256 for four weeks).

They show zero tanks during the dip period but come back on line in August.

It is important to notice that the higher number of reported losses coindides with the initial battles to secure the beach heads while the smaller number coincides with the start of the fluid phase of the fighting. Yet during that fluid phase the number of operational M4's is halved. Either the fabled mechanical reláibility of the M4 is bull**** or they kept chalking them off the operational status for other reasons (like being combat losses). Transferring mechanized units off 1st Army roster to the 3rd Army roster is one possibility but how would they have been able to keep the pressure on the retreating German units if they lost the sharpest edge while they were in pursuit because of the administrative reorganization ?

Mind you: the 1st Army seems to have gotten an influx of M4's during the week August 13th-19th from the previous weeks 580 to 808 while the 3rd Army shows an influx during the week August 12th -18th from the previous weeks 301 to 794.

The way I read this: if your proposition was correct it would mean that the units were chalked up in both 1st and 3rd Army rosters during that week. Or the units in both armies got replenished and/or both armies got an influx of brand spanking new formations. Given the fact both armies maintained a relatively steady number of operational M4's after that week I would think your assumption has no foundation.

[michael kenny]

4th AD is included in 1st Army totals for 22/7/44 but was part of 3rd Army in August. That coupled with the switching of 160 old M4's accounts for the bulk(320) of your 'lost' figure.

Add in the tanks in repair and I think we have the solution.

We would also need to know which tank battalions moved from 1st to 3rd.

Unless of course you say the Battalions that show zero tanks during late July were completetly wiped out.......

744 M4's are shown as total losses up to 16/8/44 and some 600 are reported as damaged, repaired and sent back in to action.

[ March 09, 2007, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[michael kenny]

Reduction in 1st Army tank numbers.

22/7/44......1336 M4.....712 M5. (92 written off)

29/7/44.......891 M4.....541 M5. (38 written off)

so we have 532 M4's and 312 M5's that were knocked out and hidden by the US?

This would be a total of 624 M4's and 350 M5's knocked out in 7 days.

I think not. total loss of M4's by 1st Army up to the end of July was 411 and here we are told a further 600 need adding

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

Mind you: the 1st Army seems to have gotten an influx of M4's during the week August 13th-19th from the previous weeks 580 to 808 while the 3rd Army shows an influx during the week August 12th -18th from the previous weeks 301 to 794.

Which also is when 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th AD's (and 2nd French AD) start moving around. 5 Armoured Divisions, do you think there might be a connection?

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

US logistics troops in convoy during a live fire exercise in December 1997

Canadian convoy Kabul

And this from the US Dept of Transportaion Federal Highway Administration military convoy procedures - looks like we are both right!

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

The convoy must be organized to meet the deployment mission requirements and provide organizational control. The convoy commander decides how the convoy will be formed for movement, taking into consideration such factors as the planned route, distance to the destination, types of vehicles/equipment, and travel conditions (weather, time of day, etc.). The three basic types of formations are close column, open column, and infiltration. They are as follows:

Close column. This formation provides the greatest degree of convoy control. It is characterized by vehicle intervals of 25 to 50 meters and speeds under 25 mph. Close column is normally used during limited visibility or on poorly marked or congested roads.

Open column. This is the preferred formation during movement. It is characterized by vehicle intervals of 300 feet or more and speeds in excess of 25 mph. The open column formation is normally used on well-marked open roads with good visibility.

Infiltration. This formation has no defined structure. Vehicle intervals and speeds vary. This type of formation is normally not used during movement. Infiltration should be used only as a last resort in extremely congested areas, when the convoy becomes unexpectedly dispersed or when the mission dictates.

</font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Which also is when 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th AD's (and 2nd French AD) start moving around. 5 Armoured Divisions, do you think there might be a connection?

That does not explain away the drop of operational vehicles from 1102 to 580 in previous three weeks. That was when the heaviest fighting is going on.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

4th AD is included in 1st Army totals for 22/7/44 but was part of 3rd Army in August. That coupled with the switching of 160 old M4's accounts for the bulk(320) of your 'lost' figure.

Add in the tanks in repair and I think we have the solution.

Not really.

It still does not add up. Where did the old, replaced vehicles go ? Even all of the vanished vehicles went to the being repair pool there has to be a reason for them to break down. God forbid any of them were combat losses. Just when there was heavy fighting going on.

We would also need to know which tank battalions moved from 1st to 3rd.

Unless of course you say the Battalions that show zero tanks during late July were completetly wiped out.......

What was the reason they showed zero tanks ? They all had mechanical breakdowns just when the fighting started ?

744 M4's are shown as total losses up to 16/8/44 and some 600 are reported as damaged, repaired and sent back in to action.

Making the number of M4's the Germans KO'd as high as 1344. Allowing 66% repaired due to non-combat related mechanical breakdowns the number is 944.

The sources I have show either 748 or 845 M4 75's and 76's as lost up till August 20th.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Reduction in 1st Army tank numbers.

22/7/44......1336 M4.....712 M5. (92 written off)

29/7/44.......891 M4.....541 M5. (38 written off)

so we have 532 M4's and 312 M5's that were knocked out and hidden by the US?

This would be a total of 624 M4's and 350 M5's knocked out in 7 days.

How did you tabulate the figures ? Are you sure you are calculating the right collumns ?

The written off are in the reduced number. That would make the number of lost M4's 445 with 92 of them written off and for the M5's 198 of which 38 were written off.

I think not. total loss of M4's by 1st Army up to the end of July was 411 and here we are told a further 600 need adding

You do not see the writing on the wall ? If you stick with the written off figure the German kill claims are grossly inflated. If you allow even a number of the "600 need adding" as having been knocked out by the enemy but not really ready to be written off then the German kill claim is not so very grossly inflated.

I have been led to believe the US repair organization would rather replace a sufficiently badly damaged vehicle with a new one than spend the effort repairing it. They would harvest the vehicle for spare parts but it would not be written off. The Germans did not write off battle damaged tanks, why would the Americans have do that ?

[michael kenny]

I see. We include every single Allied tank hit as a a kill. However only those German tanks listed as a total loss counts as a kill.

That way we can keep up the fiction of 5 Shermans for every Panther.

I think not. No matter which way you cut it the total of tanks lost in Normandy show that the exchange rate was less than 2:1 in the German favour.

The problem with your claim that US losses were falsified is that this happens at the same time 3rd Army is unleashed,. The total number of medium tanks for ETO stays the same but the Army group totals fluctuate. There is no mention of 'in repair' tanks in the figures and you completely ignore this or say that the damaged ones are kills anyway.

The old M4's went back into the replacement pool. US Sherman tanks were in short supply at the time so I very much doubt damaged tanks would be written off rather than repaired.

Sorry but if you want to continue the fiction of the high kill rates for Germany you would have to show show the total of German damaged and repaired and thus allow 300+ Tiger kills for 120 Tigers!

How about we use the German figures the same way you use the US figures?

sPzAbt 503:

17/7/44 39 tanks operational.

18/7/44 9 tanks operational.

Thus in one day 30 Tigers are kills.

SS 102:

9/7/44 25 Tanks operational.

11/7/44 14 tanks operational.

11 tank kills in 2 days.

SS 101:

16/6/44 15 tanks operational

30 Tank kills in 3 days of combat.

In fact a quick check shows me that SS 101 had 67 Tigers 'killed' up to mid July. It also ceased to exist on 4th July and was showing only one tank on 17th July.

I also thought the Tiger Abteilung had 45 Tigers?

I cant find one that ever had more than 40 in service. Doe's this mean the Germans falsified their returns?

I could do this for all the German Units but the reasoning is absurd. So is yours.

[ March 10, 2007, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

You do not see the writing on the wall ? If you stick with the written off figure the German kill claims are grossly inflated.

I know they are. That is what I said at the start.

The German figures (as proven in Russia) were inflated.

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by Shrike:

RockinHarry, I do believe IL-2/FB/Pacific Fighters uses a relaxed flight model for the AI. Unless it has been changed recently (I haven't been following it lately), that has always been the case.

/interjection

My problem is that I don´t have an aaditional rudder pedal controller for my computer, so keeping an aim at the ground targets is very difficult on the final attack run at low altitude! Need to adjust with rolling sidewards which does not work well. So far I wasn´t able to destroy any T-34, since i can´t aim correctly at the rear of the tanks. Side and frontal shots do not harm. Did "kill" some SU-76 and T-70 though. Did not try with Stalin tanks yet.

So far it seems that more or less realistic damage models are applied and killing med to heavy armor needs a whole lot of skill! Continue testing....

Next to come would be IL-3M hunting Pz-IV, Panthers and Tigers.

Just for those interested (and/or flying Il-2 Sturmovik sim):

Flying a JU87-G, approching with 60-70% throttle, flaps in battle position and approaching from about 300-200m altitude. Convergence is set at about 400m.

As long as i can´t get the aim and fine movements of the AC under better control, I won´t probably try with a 100m convergence setting that soon.

My impression so far; tank hunters must have been very skilled and experienced pilots to achieve any number of kills. ...and I just tried on static, non moving tanks nicely lined up on a road. Perfect for target practicing.

Sidenote: The russian tanks in the game shoot back at the attacking aircraft...with their guns! Think I read somewhere the russkies really did do that in WW2. :eek:

[michael kenny]

I have checked the figures for the following Units listed as being in 1st Army on 23/7/44.

Medium tank units only.

2nd AD.

3rd AD.

4th AD.

70th.

709th.

712th.

735th.

737th.

741st.

743rd.

745th.

746th.

747th.

749th.

The total tanks in service:

23/7/44 = 1206.

5/8/44 = 1166.

2nd/3rd/4th AD did not file any figures for the period 24 July to 1st August, maybe they had better things to do.

709,712 have zero totals 23/7-5/8/44.

735,737,746,747 and 749 have zero totals for a number of days between 23/7-5/8/44.

Thus we see no dip in the individual unit start and end figures. The 'missing' mediums can be explained by the gaps in the record and the replaced 75mm M4's.

It is clear that some units counted as being in 1st Army had been moved out. 4th AD can not be in 1st and 3rd Army at the same time so there is some ambiguity there. We would need detailed OOB's so we could sort this out but the suggestion that knocked out tanks were deliberately hidden is without foundation.