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

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

The total tanks in service:

23/7/44 = 1206.

5/8/44 = 1166.

The figures I have used are from the list which gives the reported operational (serviceable) vehicles. The "on hand" figure I have lists the entire number of M4's in the entire ETO as having been 2093 between June 20th and July 20th ( 121 losses reported ) and 2557 between July 20th and August 20th (557 losses reported).

Thus we see no dip in the individual unit start and end figures.

Yes. But I have used the numbers as they appear in weekly strenght reports. You can not use month long periods to calculate the fluctuation in operational strenght to determine how many tanks were disabled (taken off the operational status for whatever reason for shorter than a period of 1 month) during the period. Only the written off figure is reliable.

The 'missing' mediums can be explained by the gaps in the record and the replaced 75mm M4's.

The thing is your numbers do not indicate how many new vehicles were delivered to the units as the number only gives the total number of vehicles in the roster irrespective of their operational status.

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.

I trust the figure for written off figure is totally accurate. The total number of KO'd vehicles is not deliberately hidden. The historians have looked at these records. There just has not been any call for to look at the figures this way. The Germans lost, right ? What does it matter how many tanks were rendered disabled during the fighting, the number of written off vehicles is known. Comparison to the German claims of how many tanks the KO'd clearly shows they overclaimed. And they did lose, right ?

Since were are debating kill claims then the total number of knocked out and not just the number of written off vehicles must be determined. Due to the nature of the combat the Germans could not possibly (and propably would not deliberately) verify each KO'd vehicle to see if it conformed with the criteria set for awarding for kills.

If the total number of KO'd vehicles is not accurate then there really in no base for calculating how much the Germans overclaimed. This because all is based on figure which is too low.

[michael kenny]

I will try again.

You have a figure for Aug 5th of 764 Mediums in service.

The figure I get by adding up all the units listed under 1st Army on August 5th is 1166.

The list for the tank status of 1st Army for 12/8/44 states 2084 mediums.

Reserves are given as 753 on 6/6/44.

177 on 12/8/44

116 on 14/8/44

Clearly then there is some confusion as to what exactly the status of 1st Army on this date.

Originally posted by Tero:

The figures I have used are from the list which gives the reported operational (serviceable) vehicles. The "on hand" figure I have lists the entire number of M4's in the entire ETO as having been 2093 between June 20th and July 20th ( 121 losses reported ) and 2557 between July 20th and August 20th (557 losses reported).

Yes and you only partialy quote the figures.

The Units all list the tanks in repair and they do not have as many listed as you claim were damaged.

Originally posted by Tero:The thing is your numbers do not indicate how many new vehicles were delivered to the units as the number only gives the total number of vehicles in the roster irrespective of their operational status.

Wrong. The Unit tables give all those tanks in repair. I used the in service figures not the total strength figures.

Reserves:

17/5/44 530

12/8/44 177

14/8/44 116

Ordnance reports on 16/8/44 719 M4 as total losses.

Originally posted by Tero:I trust the figure for written off figure is totally accurate. The total number of KO'd vehicles is not deliberately hidden. The historians have looked at these records. There just has not been any call for to look at the figures this way.

They have been looked at in detail and we are both using the work of Rich Anderson. However I have a more complete list of sub Units and there is simply no 'mising M4's. You want it to be so because you believe the German propoganda

Originally posted by Tero: Since were are debating kill claims then the total number of knocked out and not just the number of written off vehicles must be determined.

The flaw is you have no evidence that the dip in 1st Army numbers (in SOME records) is anything to do with tanks being disabled.

Originally posted by Tero:If the total number of KO'd vehicles is not accurate then there really in no base for calculating how much the Germans overclaimed.

Where is the evidence that

a) the claimed missing tanks were knocked out?

The numbers for the 'in repair tanks' is wrong.

As these tanks were (in your own words) only damaged then they would appear in the repair figures- they do not.

Originally posted by Tero:This because all is based on figure which is too low.

It is not too low.

You have not shown it to be too low.

How about these figures....

13 August 2084 medium tanks:

1st Army 823 on hand. 34 reserves and 53 in repair.

3rd Army 1261 on hand. 89 reserves.

Now compare this total for 1st/3rd Armies of 2084 mediums with the earlier report of 13 August that gives 1st Army 2084 mediums. There seems to be match!

Some figures are using 3rd Army totals as part of 1st Army strength..........and of course the onlty time there is this problem is when 3rd Army is unleashed. Hmmm......do you think there might be a connection?

Keep going though, you never know you might get the 5:1 ratio one day..........

[ March 11, 2007, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

You have a figure for Aug 5th of 764 Mediums in service.

The figure I get by adding up all the units listed under 1st Army on August 5th is 1166.

The list for the tank status of 1st Army for 12/8/44 states 2084 mediums.

Reserves are given as 753 on 6/6/44.

177 on 12/8/44

116 on 14/8/44

Clearly then there is some confusion as to what exactly the status of 1st Army on this date.

Agreed. The total number of "on hand" M4 75's and 76's for the entire ETO from July 20th until August 20th is 2557.

The lost count for that period is given as 557. The weekly lists for 1st and 3rd armies give the lost count for that period as having been 431. Given some overlap in the report dates (1st army report dates are July 16th - August 19th, 3rd army August 1st - August 18th) I think it is safe to say that roughly 50-75 vehicles are "unaccounted for" between these two loss figures (army level vs ETO level).

Yes and you only partialy quote the figures.

The Units all list the tanks in repair and they do not have as many listed as you claim were damaged.

That does not explain away why the 1st army reported 1102 operational tanks for the week July 16th-22nd and 748 for the week starting July 23rd. The reported losses for that week were 33. For the next week (July 23rd-29th) the losses were reported as having been 79 while they reported 656 tanks operational.

Operation Cobra Started July 24th with breakthrough the German taking place July 28th.

By Incredible Coincidence just during that week the number of the reported operational M4's in the spearheading Army dropped by 354 vehicles due to causes unknown beyond the figures already quoted. By Divine Providence the forces of the most richeous Allied Armies lost only 79 written off and an undisclosed number (50 ?) reported as being damaged. That would be the first instance I have read about where the attackers number of written off vehicles exceeds the number of damaged vehicles. And that is without taking into account mechanical failures and other causes.

Wrong. The Unit tables give all those tanks in repair. I used the in service figures not the total strength figures.

Reserves:

17/5/44 530

12/8/44 177

14/8/44 116

Ordnance reports on 16/8/44 719 M4 as total losses.

The US Army ETO level losses were reported as having been 845 by August 20th. The weekly reports add up to 714 losses for raughly the same period (a few days fluctuation in report dates) which corresponds with your figure. That means that there is a gap of 131 between the weekly army level loss figures and monthly ETO level loss figures.

The reserves dropped by 414 vehicles. That does not however indicate directly and accurately how many new vehicles were delivered to the units (or how many new formations were added to the roster). I'm assuming that there was a steady flow of replacement vehicles from the States to the base area in the UK even when Overlord was in progress. Otherwise the existing formations would have been understrength by a total of 305 vehicles because losses were not being replaced during the preceding operationally active period. The time before Cobra seems to have been fairly slow for the armoured formations since the number of operational vehicles peaked right before Cobra was launched. Which seems at least to me logical since the planners were reserving the armour for the planned breakthrough attack.

They have been looked at in detail and we are both using the work of Rich Anderson. However I have a more complete list of sub Units and there is simply no 'mising M4's. You want it to be so because you believe the German propoganda

No. I am not believing in the German propaganda. I'm believing in the Soviet score keeping which has listed all losses, combat losses, non-combat losses (ie mech break downs etc) and written off vehicles.

The work of Rich is excellent but his Excell-files have some quirks in it, like calculating loss percentages using cumulative number of on hand vehicles, cumulative loss percentages with the total absolute number of losses. From what I know about calculating statistics that is flawed since the total number of on hand M4's in ETO was never 23 208. By his calculation the loss percentage for M4's was 12,3 (calculated from 23 208 on hand vehicles vs 2 855 losses). The average monthly on hand figure is 2 901. With that figure and 2 855 total losses the loss percentage reaches 98,41. That would mean that practically the entire fleet of M4's was replaced once during the European campaign.

The flaw is you have no evidence that the dip in 1st Army numbers (in SOME records) is anything to do with tanks being disabled.

The evidence is circumstantial.

Extrapolating from the figures I have and the figures of the Red Army score keeping can not see how the Allied armies suffered only combat losses which were immediate write offs. When you determine how accurate the German kill claims were you really can not use only the number of written off vehicles. IMO the total number of combat losses is the number the kill claims should be compared to. This because the Allied kill claims could be verified since practically all German tanks in the west were combat losses so the total figures can be used. For the German kill claim accuracy that logic does not work because there is no data on the Allied combat losses which the Germans would have claimed, could have claimed and did claim as kills when in fact they were only disabled/KO'd but not subsequently written off.

Where is the evidence that

a) the claimed missing tanks were knocked out?

Beats me. You are the one with all the pertinent unit histories. The Red Army kept records on causes for losses, I would assume the Western Allies did the same when they classed battle damaged vehicles. Even you can not deny a knocked out tank can be repaired and returned to service at a later date.

The numbers for the 'in repair tanks' is wrong.

I actually am not claiming they are classed as being "in repair" status. They are not listed as operational nor are they listed as losses. They must be somewhere since the montly on hand vehicle count is fairly constant at ~2 000 - 2 500 vehicles until November 20th when the on hand number of M4's in ETO jumps from 2832 to 4076 vehicles. December 20th the number jumps further to some 4 561 on hand vehicles. The loss figures for November and December are 495 and 585 respectively.

As these tanks were (in your own words) only damaged then they would appear in the repair figures- they do not.

So, where did they go ? You show August 5th 1st Army had 1166 M4's. During that week the 1st Army reported it had 656 operational M4's. The next week they reported 580 M4's as operational. That is either 510 or 586 vehicles not reported as being operational by the 1st Army HQ. Yet the units list them in their roster.

13 August 2084 medium tanks:

1st Army 823 on hand. 34 reserves and 53 in repair.

3rd Army 1261 on hand. 89 reserves.

Does the on hand figure include the reserves and in repairs ?

If not, all that adds up to 2 260 tanks in total. That is 176 difference. The ETO on hand figure I have for that week is BTW 2 557.

Now compare this total for 1st/3rd Armies of 2084 mediums with the earlier report of 13 August that gives 1st Army 2084 mediums. There seems to be match!

Except when you add the figures up and the total is over that 2 084 that match is not there.

Some figures are using 3rd Army totals as part of 1st Army strength..........and of course the onlty time there is this problem is when 3rd Army is unleashed. Hmmm......do you think there might be a connection?

There might be a connection.

Keep going though, you never know you might get the 5:1 ratio one day..........

We'll see....

[undead reindeer cavalry]

to evaluate how inflated German kill claims were, we obviously need to compare German claims to Allied losses. i'm now going to do this by using the data i have easily at hand. i'm sure Michael Kenny and others can & will correct the numbers.

i have the required type of data for the period of June 6th - July 7th 1944.

during this period Germans claimed they killed 537 tanks.

US losses in June were 231 tanks. US losses in July were 291 tanks, out of which 127 were in period of 13-29th, thus leaving 164 tanks for the period of 1-12th resulting in average of 13.6 tanks per day and thus losses for 1-7th July were around 95 (13.6 tanks/day x 7 day ~ 95 tanks). thus the total US tank losses for June 6th - July 7th would be around 326 tanks.

UK losses in June were 146 tanks and in July 231 tanks. i don't have more accurate data for July, so i'm just going to divide it by 30 and then multiply by 7, which gives 54 tanks. so UK losses for the period of June 6th - July 7th according to these figures would be around 200 tanks.

combined UK & US losses for the period of June 6th - July 7th would thus be around 526 tanks.

Germans claim that during the period of June 6th - July 7th they killed 537 tanks.

thus according to these rough figures German kill claims during this period were inflated by 11 tanks or in other words by 2%.

this is of course very rough and inaccurate in many ways, but i think we need to get some kind of basic figures we can all agree before we proceed further.

[ March 14, 2007, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

combined UK & US losses for the period of June 6th - July 7th would thus be around 526 tanks.

Germans claim that during the period of June 6th - July 7th they killed 537 tanks.

thus according to these rough figures German kill claims during this period were inflated by 11 tanks or in other words by 2%.

Taking into account the 50% shave the initial kill estimate for the period would be anything up to 805 vehicles.

Given the inescapable fact not all combat losses were write offs the 805 figure is not overly optimistic or unrealistic. Going by Red Army Winter War figures there could have been 3 combat losses for every write off so the total number of combat losses could be around 1472. (The actual Red Army figures give 1 in 5 combat losses were write offs.)

this is of course very rough and inaccurate in many ways, but i think we need to get some kind of basic figures we can all agree before we proceed further.

Agreed. So far the claim for overclaiming has been about selected claims made by individuals like Rudel and Wittman.

[ March 15, 2007, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Tero:

Taking into account the 50% shave the initial kill estimate for the period would be anything up to 805 vehicles.

537 is the original number. it's from the divisions and separate units themselves. it's the high command that applies the 50% cut - not the field units.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

during this period Germans claimed they killed 537 tanks.

To clarify, those are losses to all causes.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

US losses in June were 231 tanks. US losses in July were 291 tanks, out of which 127 were in period of 13-29th, thus leaving 164 tanks for the period of 1-12th resulting in average of 13.6 tanks per day and thus losses for 1-7th July were around 95 (13.6 tanks/day x 7 day ~ 95 tanks). thus the total US tank losses for June 6th - July 7th would be around 326 tanks.

UK losses in June were 146 tanks and in July 231 tanks. i don't have more accurate data for July, so i'm just going to divide it by 30 and then multiply by 7, which gives 54 tanks. so UK losses for the period of June 6th - July 7th according to these figures would be around 200 tanks.

combined UK & US losses for the period of June 6th - July 7th would thus be around 526 tanks.

Germans claim that during the period of June 6th - July 7th they killed 537 tanks.

I don't think you can do this and expect to arrive at a sensible result. Tank losses will presumably increase/decrease according to the rythm of operations to some extent. For example, at the moment you take the extraordinarily high losses of Goodwood and the probably higher than average losses of the first phase of St. Lô and apply them as an average loss across the first seven days of July, when e.g. the attack on St. Lô only started on the 7th. That will most likely overstate the average losses you calculated for both the UK and the US.

So, on the basis of your simple averaging, I would not agree that the German kill claims are inflated by 2%. The underlying math is far too dodgy. I would be perfectly happy to agree that the overclaiming for this period is less than I expected, and have in fact done so:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=81359

But that's where it stops. To argue that it is only 2% based on average numbers is not acceptable to me.

I agree that a basic figure everybody can agree on would be helpful, but yours is not it, as far as the overclaiming margin goes.

All the best

Andreas

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

To clarify, those are losses to all causes.

indeed. i think we have some means to try to match kills and losses by weapon type, but i didn't want to make this too complicated right from the start. i'd rather have some agreeable general numbers before we work the details.

That will most likely overstate the average losses you calculated for both the UK and the US.

i am aware that the first seven days of July are very problematic and that the way i had to count Allied tank losses for that period is inaccurate. i was hoping that others could provide accurate, most likely considerably lower numbers for that seven day period.

even if we would assume that Allies didn't lose a single tank during the first seven days of July, and include only their losses in June (377 tanks) the German kill claim (537) is still only 30% higher than Allied losses.

So, on the basis of your simple averaging, I would not agree that the German kill claims are inflated by 2%. The underlying math is far too dodgy.

indeed, but the data is lacking. it would be great if we could find a period that can be compared more accurately.

I would be perfectly happy to agree that the overclaiming for this period is less than I expected,

it's a lot less than what i expected as well.

we need similar stats for other periods to find out if this was an exceptional period or not.

and have in fact done so:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=81359

interesting thread.

But that's where it stops. To argue that it is only 2% based on average numbers is not acceptable to me.

I agree that a basic figure everybody can agree on would be helpful, but yours is not it, as far as the overclaiming margin goes.

could you agree that during the given period the total overclaim percentage would not be above 30%?

[michael kenny]

Perhaps someone could give me the 'kill claim' for German minefields?

I presume that being in defence their minefields would be extensive. They never seem to get any credit and the numbers would have to be deducted from that claimed by the 'sexy' branches of the Army.......

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Perhaps someone could give me the 'kill claim' for German minefields?

I presume that being in defence their minefields would be extensive. They never seem to get any credit and the numbers would have to be deducted from that claimed by the 'sexy' branches of the Army.......

That is very true. The Finnish army calculated that it takes IIRC 200 (could have been anything up to 1000, I'll have to check that) mines to kill a tank. So, if you lay down 1000 mines the calculated enemy losses to mines is 5 tanks.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Perhaps someone could give me the 'kill claim' for German minefields?

I presume that being in defence their minefields would be extensive. They never seem to get any credit and the numbers would have to be deducted from that claimed by the 'sexy' branches of the Army.......

i wonder how many tanks would be really destroyed by minefields. i think it would be more typical for a tank to be damaged by mines and then be killed by some other weapon system.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i wonder how many tanks would be really destroyed by minefields. i think it would be more typical for a tank to be damaged by mines and then be killed by some other weapon system.

but the claim is a damaged tank is a 'kill'..........

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

UK losses in June were 146 tanks

This number seems low, IMO. I would think that the losses incurred from Perch and Epsom combined would account for those 146, if not more. On top of that you have the losses at Le Mesnil Paltry, around Buron and of course the landings.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i wonder how many tanks would be really destroyed by minefields. i think it would be more typical for a tank to be damaged by mines and then be killed by some other weapon system.

but the claim is a damaged tank is a 'kill'..........

A damaged tank is a kill if the operator of the weapons system makes the claim based on subjective criteria (like crew seen bailing out). The criteria is different for different weapons systems. Airborn systems are trickier but in most cases it seems the operator knew the capabilitis of the weapon used and made a subjective judgement based on subjective observation and corraborating observation made by other aircrews.

If the kill is later recovered and repaired or written off by the enemy is irrelevant. What is relevant historically is the enemy score keeping on battle damage classes and repair stats coupled with the written off count. Kill CLAIMS should be compared to the combined number of battle damaged (combat ineffective) vehicles and write offs.

Mine related losses are not kills in the sense debated here. Mainly because there is in most cases no way to verify how many tanks mines have taken out.

I don't have any data about how the other armies classified mine related enemy vehicle losses. The Finnish army treated mines like defensive obstacles. Since the mine detonation generally takes a tank off line for a substantial period of time (and in most cases causes personel casualties) it can be called a kill. The figure they came up about how many mines it took to make a (mobility) kill of a tank was purely an estimate for use when calculating projected enemy losses.

[ March 19, 2007, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

Mine related losses are not kills in the sense debated here. Mainly because there is in most cases no way to verify how many tanks mines have taken out.

If you look at the damage caused to the Tigers at Kursk then it is indeed fortunate that these 'kills' are not counted.

Again the figures are slanted to the German advantage!

Originally posted by Tero:

Mine related losses are not kills in the sense debated here. Mainly because there is in most cases no way to verify how many tanks mines have taken out

So how do you deduct say the British Goodwood mine losses from the total? If the Germans claim 60 and the Allied loss is 45 shot and 15 mine by your method we could say the German shot claim is correct.

I really can see nothing here other than the usual method of counting every Allied damaged tank as a kill and counting these against German total write offs.

[John Kettler]

I don't own the volumes myself, but I did get to look at the Fedorowicz Tiger combat histories and the sPzJg Abt. 653 books some years ago. I distinctly recall seeing plenty of entries in which

these AFVs hit mines, were listed as having hit mines, and if unable to be evacuated, not uncommon given their enormous weight and lack of suitable heavy towing vehicles, were frequently listed as "destroyed by crew." Someone richer than moi can check his/her own copies to confirm my statement.

Regards,

John Kettler

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

but the claim is a damaged tank is a 'kill'..........

i think the claim is that misidentification of a temporary kill for a permanent kill is one factor that explains overclaiming. it certainly makes sense, considering that the difference between a temporary and a permanent kill didn't necessarily have anything to do with the level of damage inflicted on the tank, but rather was based on enemy's capabilities to recover & repair the damaged/destroyed tank.

i do not know if German divisional reports of killed enemy tanks included tanks destroyed by mines. i would think that in most cases enemy tanks caught in minefields would be destroyed by overwatching AT elements or infantry close attack teams.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

UK losses in June were 146 tanks

This number seems low, IMO. I would think that the losses incurred from Perch and Epsom combined would account for those 146, if not more. On top of that you have the losses at Le Mesnil Paltry, around Buron and of course the landings. </font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

If you look at the damage caused to the Tigers at Kursk then it is indeed fortunate that these 'kills' are not counted.

Again the figures are slanted to the German advantage!

And that is the biggest reason to use only written off vehicles: so the Evil Nazi Germans do not appear to have been competent but were in fact over-claiming savages ?

Besides, driving through minefields planted specifically according to the attack plan did not happen that often. The Kursk battle being the norm for the effectiveness of mines against tanks is not really realistic. Be that as it may, how much did the Red Army overclaim and how does it correspond with the known German losses to mines ?

So how do you deduct say the British Goodwood mine losses from the total? If the Germans claim 60 and the Allied loss is 45 shot and 15 mine by your method we could say the German shot claim is correct.

If the German claim is called estimate then their estimation is close to what really happened.

And if we apply the 50% cut the original German claim would be 120 which would add up as 2 KO'd for each written off vehicle. Which is not that unrealistic given the nature of the fighting.

I really can see nothing here other than the usual method of counting every Allied damaged tank as a kill and counting these against German total write offs.

But the thing is we are not counting them against German total write offs, my dear fellow. We are counting them against the German kill claims.

It is really sad if the indoctrination about the Evil Nazi Germans vs Valiant Western Allies is so throrough it penetrates all aspects of the history writing, including how battle statistics should be determined, validated, formulated, calculated and read.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

It is really sad if the indoctrination about the Evil Nazi Germans vs Valiant Western Allies is so throrough it penetrates all aspects of the history writing, including how battle statistics should be determined, validated, formulated, calculated and read.

It would be if it was true but all I ever read is 5:1 kill ratios for the uber-panzers. Give me a reference that tabulates all German disabled tanks as well as their total losses. At the same time find me a reference that gives just the Allied total losses for say Goodwood. It would be interesting to see this:

'indoctrination about the Evil Nazi Germans vs Valiant Western Allies (that is)is so throrough it penetrates all aspects of the history writing, including how battle statistics should be determined'

in print. I for one have only seen the 'indoctrination' about multiple kills for the German side but I am always ready to learn.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

It would be if it was true but all I ever read is 5:1 kill ratios for the uber-panzers.

That is rather the dilemma. The Germans wrote the Western version of the war in the Eastern Front. The Western Front (and the over all war) version was written by the Western Allies. That lead to the scitsoid set up where the Western Allies ruled, the Germans sucked but not as bad as the Communistic horders which overcame the Germans through sheer weight of numbers (as told by the Germans).

While their estimation on Red Army vehicle losses may have been rather accurate (scientifically) it was politically expedient to bolster the suppremacy of the Western civilization by allowing the pravado of the aces and the valiance and combat valour of the German troops to seep through, naturally after the Nazi zeal was sanitized out of the stories.

Give me a reference that tabulates all German disabled tanks as well as their total losses.

Sorry, I have only the Red Army figures for the Isthmus section during Winter War to offer. Which is rather curious. With all the freedom of information in the West it is damned hard to get similar data from Western sources. So far I have never seen any definitive numbers for Western Allied armoured losses.

At the same time find me a reference that gives just the Allied total losses for say Goodwood. It would be interesting to see this:

'indoctrination about the Evil Nazi Germans vs Valiant Western Allies (that is)is so throrough it penetrates all aspects of the history writing, including how battle statistics should be determined'

in print.

Your own remark was what sparked that remark. You gripe about the Germans getting the advantage. You also keep referring to the German estimations as claims. That infers preconceived bias that precludes the possibility the numbers the Germans gave were near the actual mark. Instead they were always inflated and did not correspond with the real figures at any level.

I for one have only seen the 'indoctrination' about multiple kills for the German side but I am always ready to learn.

Does it really hurt so bad even to consider the possibility the Germans might actually have disabled more vehicles than the Western Allies admitted to after the war (in other words the Germand inflicted comparable damages to the Western Allied armies as they did to the Red Army) ?

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Tero:

Does it really hurt so bad even to consider the possibility the Germans might actually have disabled more vehicles than the Western Allies admitted to after the war (in other words the Germand inflicted comparable damages to the Western Allied armies as they did to the Red Army) ?

It does not hurt at all. If there are those who KNOW the Germans were better (at everything) than the Allies then I am happy for them. The Western figures show only a slight advantage but still we get the bollocks about the 5:1 Panther and 10:1 Tiger advantage (I wonder if the PzIV had say a 2.764891 :1 kill ratio)Counting every Allied damaged tank against German total losses is not a valid comparison.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Counting every Allied damaged tank against German total losses is not a valid comparison.

Again, we are (at leats I am) not counting them against German total losses.

The comparison is Allied tank losses vs German kill claims. The German losses are a totally separate issue.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Tero:

So far I have never seen any definitive numbers for Western Allied armoured losses.

this document has some statistics which may be relevant.

it seems some 60% of Western allied tank casualties were repairable.

if i am not mistaken the document indicates that Western Allied tank units did not know their full tank losses (write-offs) as the evaluation between a repairable and unrepairable tank was done at army level. when a unit turned in a damaged tank they just got another tank as a replacement from army tank pool.

[Tero]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

this document

Cheers. Definitely a keeper.

has some statistics which may be relevant.

On surface it seems there is lots of data which is highly relevant. Especially the depiction recovery SOP and procedures is very relevant.

it seems some 60% of Western allied tank casualties were repairable.

The Red Army Winter War data shows 80% of the combat losses being repairable. Which seems reasonable given the more effective weapons the Germans had in their use.

if i am not mistaken the document indicates that Western Allied tank units did not know their full tank losses (write-offs) as the evaluation between a repairable and unrepairable tank was done at army level. when a unit turned in a damaged tank they just got another tank as a replacement from army tank pool.

This would account for the fact the veterans stories and the official statistics speak a very different story about the loss rates of the Western Allied armoured units.