Tiger Bn kill/loss ratios

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Sooo....I think...after all that.....that the answer to my question is...er....aww hell I dunno - but it makes interesting rading none-the-less!!

Germans estimated that actual kills were 20-50% lower than the number of reported kills.

that Soviet loss number is for total write-offs. the number including temporary losses would naturally be higher.

[Andreas]

The German claims number did get a 50% haircut throughout most of the war, and that made it quite closely to actual Soviet write-offs, AFAIK.

This means that the claims consisted of three elements:

1) Actual total destruction of the enemy vehicle

2) Damage to the enemy vehicle to a degree that it was seen as totally destroyed.

3) Fantasy destructions (double countings of destroyed tanks, tanks hit but only lightly damaged or not at all, made-up numbers)

I have given an example for this effect elsewhere for the invasion front:

"German claims to 8 July 537 - Allied write-offs in June 377, in July 522". This would indicate probably a 10%-20% overclaim compared to TWO numbers, which may well not be an overclaim at all considering item 2) in the list above. OTOH, I do not know how Soviet and Western Allied standards for what constituted a TWO compare, so comparisons across these two are not possibly for me.

Regardless of this, it should be clear to anyone that it is not possible that German Tigers killed 12,000 T34 when the total kill claim for all Tigers on all fronts runs to 9,850 (which includes items 1-3 from the list).

It is quite possible that German tanks damaged more tanks than they claimed as killed. It is virtually certain that they killed less than they claimed as killed. In effectiveness terms, one can analyse these things as follows:

1) Tactical effectiveness - removal of enemy assets from the battlefield. Contribution to success of own side on the day.

2) Operational effectiveness - removal of enemy assets from the battle. Contribution to operational success of own side during the battle.

3) Strategic effectiveness - removal of enemy assets permanently. Contribution to strategic success of own side during the war.

It is clear that Tiger battalions would primarily contribute to 1), and to a lower degree to 2), even though this would possibly be a higher degree than other battalion size formations. This is indicated by their direct attachment to operational formations, i.e. Corps level. It would be hard to expect them to contribute to 3) beyond the no doubt high number of kills that they racked up, of all types of assets.

In this discussion, the actual exchange ratio tank for tank is of relatively limited relevance. What maybe more important is the ability of the tank to stand up to most types of fire, not just that delivered by enemy tanks, and of its consequent ability to handle disproportionate odds, if thrown in as a fire brigade. Their tank kills, whatever the ratio was, were a result of this ability, and as such they are an interesting diversion in the discussion.

All the best

Andreas

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

OTOH, I do not know how Soviet and Western Allied standards for what constituted a TWO compare, so comparisons across these two are not possibly for me.

this is a very limited case, but during Winter War Soviet tank losses on the Isthmus were over 3000, but TWOs around 350. also about half of the lost tanks (the over 3000 figure) were repaired already during Winter War.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

All those poor Tigers abandoned by their crews must be so lonely. And what awful parents to leave their lovely poor perfectly servicable Tiger just lying there, without a single additional T-34 to chew on. And all those Tigers blown up for birthday celebrations and as the world's largest car bombs, such a shame. I mean, if only they had pointed the gun at enemy tanks they'd have killed 75 of them apiece. Instead the dastardly crews just blew them up for no reason. Arrant sabotage, I tell you. Because nobody ever abandoned a Tiger because an enemy tank shot it to pieces, or blew one up because it was getting a little too warm to hang around and fighting back wasn't a realistic option, no sir. And none of them were ever abandoned in the workshops when the front moved, after going into those workshops because of a dozen AP hits. No, see, they just sometimes needed and oil change, and then the front blew 200 miles in the wrong direction like the weather, and the poor Tiger was left by the service teams because they were late for the train. But after all, only about one Tiger in ten was lost TWO anyway. Everyone knows the other nine in ten are still out there, merrily winning the war by blowing up T-34s and Shermans by the bushel.

There was a good AAR in The General magazine describing the real life story of Action at Kommerscheidt, one of the ASL scenarios, and it told of a Panther crew being engaged by a Sherman. The Sherman, had HE "up the spout" and fired two rounds which obviously didn't penetrate. The German crew nonetheless panicked and baled out. (The Sherman's AP was stored in the sponsons and none were available in the turret ready rack, they were obviously expecting to be doing infantry support rather than tank hunting). They later recrewed, but the point is of course that German tank crews were not always fearless due to the technical superiority of their mounts.

I thought I recalled reading about another trick, the use of smoke shells to convince German tank crews their engine was on fire also causing a bail out?

[JonS]

Kiwi Sherman tankers in Italy used that a few times to KO Tigers. I'm not sure if the German crews thought their tanks were on fire, or if they were simply suffocating from all the smoke in the cabin.

[John Kettler]

Michael Dorosh,

If you go back to the CMBO WP thread, someone there cited a case where a Sherman caused a King Tiger crew to bail out after a WP round set crew equipment stowed outside on fire and the resultant smoke was sucked in by the ventilators, leading those inside to think they had their tank ablaze.

Regards,

John Kettler

[michael kenny]

I have never seen any TII with equipment stowed externaly. Common practice for Allied tankers but rare for the Germans. Myth I would think?

[John Kettler]

Michael Dorosh and michael kenny,

Got the basic story right but the details wrong. See particularly the Jeff Duquette post in this thread, for that is the one I was thinking of. Aren't the Archives great?

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=022573#000006

Regards,

John Kettler