Question regarding permanent tiger I losses...

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Suppose his case is typical and the claims are all real. Then 17,000 Pz IV longs and StuGs can be expected to kill 85,000 enemy AFVs. .

Kill? What happened to knocked out/destroyed? You are all over the place as usual.

The fact is I raised the point of multiKOs earlier. That is, your basic numbers need to account for KOing and repairing of both sides vehicles. So you are behind the ball.

[Mr. Tittles]

Luckily there is some data from the Soviet side...

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/losses/losses3.html

1st Tank Corps. Encircling the Konigsberg 18/1-2/2.1945

Start 175 (120)

Losses 340 (210)

Battle 270 (165)

Tech 50 (37)

Other 20 (8)

This unit, in a little over two weeks losses 165 MBT/SP to battle. It started with 120? Over 10 tanks a day? plus it lost other afv it seems?

Look at the website and see some of these reports.

[Mr. Tittles]

1st Guard

Kursk-Belgorod operation. Defensive period 5/7-20/7.1943

631 (511)

954 (783)

854 (716)

100 (68)

In 15 days this unit loses 716 MBT/SP to battle? thats 47.7 a day. If it kept this rate up (or other units stepped in and took these rates), it would be 18250 a year.

[ May 06, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[JasonC]

We have plenty of loss data by unit and operation and by year or overall time period similar to that. But that does not tell us who did it, so it doesn't tell us ratios between sides.

As for multiples or TWOs, one can use either one as long as one compares like with like, and remembers the result answers a different question, depending on which you use. But what you can't do is compare German TWOs with Russian knocked-into-repairs.

In the case of your 10 month data from one battalion, your German figure is TWOs. It is not knocked-into-repair (some resolved to TWOs and some not). The 5 to 1 figure, besides comparing claims of the other side with actuals on one's own, is also comparing TWOs with KOs.

TWOs are uniformly lower than KOs. Therefore, using TWOs for only the German side inflates the ratio - obviously. Claims also inflate, because we know they are generally high by a factor of 1.5 to 2 times.

Next as to your "suppose 40 battalions" back o' enveloper, the Russians lost around 20k tanks per year. But it wasn't just PD panzer battalions doing it. There are also all the StuG formations, Nashorns and Marders, etc.

Also, not all battalions are likely to score the same - Tigers aren't Pz IVs. Then all the PAK, FLAK, infantry, mines, etc. The right answer for all AFVs is probably going to be somewhere between 10k and 15k, leaving something for the other causes but with AFVs the leading cause.

Anything that predicts around 10k from all AFVs is going to be the right order of magnitude, that much the cross check supports. I don't know that is leaves enough room for all the other AFV categories, though. Might be within a factor of 2 or so.

There is not, incidentally, much evidence that Russian side KOs are going to be larger than TWOs by huge factors. Not 3-5 times e.g. Recovery isn't that good, and breakdown losses unrelated to battle damage partially balance them. 1.5 times quite possibly. But you aren't going to find room to jack KOs above TWOs by a factor of 5.

If the German recovery story is better, it is going to shrink the battlefield KO ratio, not increase it. (Assume the item of CM interest is the battlefield KO ratio, not large scale attrition. The original question was about TWOs in particular, but let's allow it to shift for the sake of argument).

That is, imagine a StuG had to be knocked out twice on average before it stayed dead. And imagine a T-34 was only KOed 1.5 times on average before it stayed dead. And suppose the TWO ratio is 2.5 times. Then the battlefield KO ratio is only 1.875 times.

A numerical example - 100 StuGs TWO, 250 T-34s TWO. To get 100 StuG TWOs took 200 battlefield KOs. To get 250 T-34 TWOs took 375 battlefield KOs to get. TWO ratio - 2.5 to 1. Battlefield KO ratio - 1.875 to 1.

The KO ratio will only increase beyond the TWO ratio, if the StuGs are more likely to become TWOs when hit, than the T-34s are.

I don't think shading these internal ratios will make much difference. There are always countervailing accounting issues. They introduce additional uncertainty, typically on the order of 50% to a single factor of 2. They are not going to systematically run in one direction, and pile up to 8 times the overall average outcome.

Deviations from that overall average outcome from such internal ratios need to be demonstrated. Not hand waved. Claims about the other guy's kills are not even evidence in this, unless subject to "haircuts".

What I'd love to hear from someone is what real evidence they think exists, anywhere, that e.g. a typical Tiger killed 33 AFVs before being lost itself - or even 15. Because I have checked scores of intermediary variable predictions that would result from such assumptions, over a couple of years now, and I've yet to encounter a single one that fit.

E.g. what portion of the German shooters at Kursk were 88mm weapons and what portion of surveyed Russian losses IDed 88mm holes, or how many Allied tanks should have been lost to Tigers alone in Normandy. Where is the cross check evidence, confirmed by any intermediary variable or overall loss accounting, using each side's own data rather than claims about the enemy?

So far all I've seen is some hand waving about maybe it in this ratio or that, and direct appeal to German kill claims that the Germans themselves knew were systematically high. None of it in the least impressive or challenging to my own standing thesis - that Tigers got around 4-5, and vanilla AFVs more like 1-2.

What else is there? And why does anybody believe any of it?

[JasonC]

One formation at a time active did not lose 18k. The Russians lost around 20-25k per year, over the whole war, from their entire force not one formation. Their losses were lowest in 1942 because the fleet was small - it started the year at only 7k - but still in the 15k range. Some years might have hit 25k. But it is small factor changes around the 20k per year figure. A very active period like Kursk through the end of 1943 had 18k losses in it - all units, not one, but less than a full year.

[752ndTank]

The ratio of enemy tanks destroyed per Tiger tank lost has been analyzed in an excellent book called "Sledgehammers," written by Christopher Wilbeck and released just a couple of weeks ago. This book is a very well done analysis of the strengths and flaws of Tiger tank battalions. In it, Wilbeck analyzes Tiger kills and losses for each Heavy tank battalion. He calculates kill ratios based on Tigers actually lost in combat, and also for total Tigers lost (including those Tigers lost to road accidents, fires, self-destruction, etc.).

Kill ratios for Tigers lost in combat range from a low of 5.71:1 (sPzAbt 510) to a high of 50.00:1 (sPzAbt 103/503). The ratio based on all Tigers lost ranges from 1.28:1 (sPzAbt 508) to 13.00 (sPzAbt 502). There is considerable variation by battalion due to a lot of factors such as terrain, enemy, mission, experience, etc. However, this should at least establish a broad range of what's reasonable. BTW, the 50.000 ratio for the sPzAbt 103/503 is a real outlier. The next highest unit comes in at 19.10:1.

The overall grand total ratio across all battalions is 12.16:1 based on Tigers lost in action, and 5.44:1 for all Tigers lost.

Wilbeck also provides some other interesting statistics. He indicates that of all Tigers issued to the heavy tank battalions, 45% were lost in combat, 41% were destroyed by their crews, and 14% of the losses are unknown or due to other causes.

This book is an exceptional piece of work, and provides a whole new perspective on the subject. It includes some very detailed information, plus some new photos and accounts of many engagements fought in the various fronts and campaigns. I wrote half of the book's epilogue, but do not profit from the sale of the book. The prologue was written by Tiger Ace Otto Carius.

Hope this helps.

Bob Holt

http://www.752ndtank.com

[JonS]

Thanks 752nd. Where is the book available from?

Originally posted by 752ndTank:

The overall grand total ratio across all battalions is 12.16:1 based on Tigers lost in action, and 5.44:1 for all Tigers lost.[/qb]

lol - how long before Tit and Jase both jump on this and say something to the effect of

See! Told ya!

Regards

Jon

[ May 07, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JasonC]

It does help, but there is one basic question or problem involved. What is the source of the data he uses, not for Tigers lost, but for things they killed? Is it German kill claims? Because if so, they still need a 50% haircut.

If it isn't, where exactly does he come up with reports of Allied loss figures exactly corresponding to the units each battalion faced? I don't believe that can be done. In which case, I am lead to expect the source of the enemy kills is German claims of enemies killed. Which is known to be systematically high, by up to 2 to 1.

Looking it up, I see he award 8600 kills to Tigers, and includes the Kings along with the Is. I also see he just accepts the German categories of "lost in combat" and "blown up by crew" as an exclusive disjunction, and this basically accounts for the difference between his two reported ratios.

The problem with that, of course, is that the crews blew them up for some reason, not the heck of it. And a leading reason is being broken down and not able to get away from an advancing enemy. And while that can happen for purely mechanical reasons or supply reasons, it can also be an aftereffect of battle damage.

A recovered but as yet unrepaired tank that then has the front move on it, will be blown up by the crew or abandoned, certainly. But it just as much a combat kill as an immediate TWO, in every militarily relevant respect. Just not in the accounting entries.

The more basic problem remains accepting German claims for the numerator. We just know those numbers are systematically wrong. Maybe 1.5 times too high, maybe 2.0 times too high, but always too high. Even the German staff during the war knew as much.

[ May 07, 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I would say that JasonC is waving his calculator in the air as much as anyone else.

In the earlier mixed Bn data, note that the data shows the Bn composition basically stays the same over time (a mixed force of stugs/panzerIVLong) but the data does show that the kill ratio decreases as the Soviets field better equipment.

I think my concern here is that someones 'logic' is as follows:

1. I can divide the production number of Panzer X into possible number of kills and therefore, whenever Panzer X is simulated in a game, it should be expected to perform similarly.

What data shows is that Panzer IV longs and StuG longs COULD have a higher kill ratio depending on time frame/front/defending/attacking/etc/etc. The StuG, at one time, being one of the most heavily armored and armed system in the German ranks.

So the birds-eye mathematics are too diluted and need to be taken with a grain of intelligence.

My own opinion about over-reported claims, as I have said before, is that many non-brew ups (which are probables at best) are reported as 'kills'. In CM terms, they are abandoned vehicles or vehicles with gun damage/track damage. They are tactical victorys. So even before Jason'sLong posts, I brought up this point. They are a burden on the repair crews and they deny the enemy TankWorkDays. That is, those rare days when armor is employed, the tank has called in sick!

In many cases, lighter afv such as halftracks, armored cars, even trucks may be mistaken as 'kills' if the distance is great and there is smoke/confusion going on. The Soviet data shows a good idea of lighter afv to MBT by the way.

Future CM games should award possesion for abandoned vehicles. They are just too valuable.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by JasonC:

One formation at a time active did not lose 18k. The Russians lost around 20-25k per year, over the whole war, from their entire force not one formation. Their losses were lowest in 1942 because the fleet was small - it started the year at only 7k - but still in the 15k range. Some years might have hit 25k. But it is small factor changes around the 20k per year figure. A very active period like Kursk through the end of 1943 had 18k losses in it - all units, not one, but less than a full year.

I never said that one unit LOST 18K. I was showing that the loss rate was high and could not be reasonably maintained.

So after Kursk in 43 is about a half year? 18000 afv (i will stipulate MBT/SP) in 183 days? 98 tanks a day? Thats close to 3000 a month? This during a period when LATW was in its infancy?

Leys say that the German AFV force (basically Panzers and SturmArty and PanzerJaeger) only gets half of these. 1500 a month. That means the infantry PAK/LATW plus the FLAK and Arty and Mines/etc. gets half also (I think thats generous).

So thats 9000 for the German AFVs. According to JasonCLong, we should be able to divide by the exchange ratio. Lets say it 1.5 according to him.

That means the Germans TWO is 6000 afv for second half of 43. Is this reasonable? Its known what the German available/on-hand is at July (for Panzer units but SurmArty Stugs and PJ Marders needs to be known) for the months after till the end of the year. Its also known what the production rates for German AFV is during these months.

[ May 07, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Jim Boggs]

Well, here you are Mr T. I caught your posts in the MBT the other night and in them I could see the problem you are having, so I am here to help you "see the light" as it were.

Jason C has been very polite in alluding to your problem, but, based on your Peng postings, I feel the more direct approach is now necessary.

As has been pointed out your "issues" revolve around perspective. You have developed a habit of viewing the world from a "bottom to top" point of reference. By continuing to place your visionary recepticles so close to your bottom, your head has subsequently become lodged in a very dark and lonely place.

The time has now come for you to "get your head out of your dark and lonely place", rise up to full height, take a deep breath of clean smelling fresh air and take another look at the numbers.

This obsession you have with #2 detracts from your otherwise brilliant dissertations.

PS-If you desire further assistance, feel free to return to the Peng Thread and we can continue your rehabilitation there.

All the best!

Your friend

Jim Boggs

[Mr. Tittles]

I will never return to that Peng thing till that Pig o' the Poconos sends me a frikkin turn already.

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I will never return to that Peng thing till that Pig o' the Poconos sends me a frikkin turn already.

I am truly saddened to hear that. I had hoped to take you to Squire with the mission of tormenting Seanachai.

But, much like your love life, I guess you're just not up to it.

[Mr. Tittles]

Being Seanachai is surely torture enough.

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Being Seanachai is surely torture enough.

Truly, there is great potential...

Very well, return to your Grogdom, I will be watching, should you reconsider.

Carry on, gentlemen.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

1:33 seems unlikely but not impossible. Finnish stugs had a killratio higher than 1:10, while they were fighting against beasts like IS-2 & ISU-152.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

1:33 seems unlikely but not impossible. Finnish stugs had a killratio higher than 1:10, while they were fighting against beasts like IS-2 & ISU-152.

German StuGs made some big claims also. In the second half of 1943, when facing T34/76 and defending, they would be formidible. Thats another reason that I am trying to get JasonC to come down from the birds eye view. He has to commit to some theatre and harder numbers. He cant stay at the factory with his calculator.

[Panzerjaeger]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

How many Tiger Is saw action in Normandy? AFAIK, there were 2 battalions, plus a small detachement that was organic to the Panzer Lehr. Thats what, 100 odd tanks. Assuming 60% were in the written off category that you mentioned, that means during the 2 month campaign in Normandy the allies lost 2,000 tanks to Tigers alone.

Still seem possible?

Edit: turns out there were 3 Tiger battalions (101 & 102 SS, 503) plus the Pz Lehr detachement in Normandy, bringing the total to around 150 tanks. [/QB]

No one said that the Tigers destroyed that many Allied tanks in Normandy. It just states that for every destroyed Tiger, there were 33 destroyed Allied tanks destroyed by Tigers. I can easily imagine the excess tanks destroyed in late 1942 - late 1943, when Tiger tanks were absolute kings of the battlefield. Particularly in the North Africa, Russian Front and Sicily.

-Panzerjaeger-

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Panzerjaeger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kingfish:

How many Tiger Is saw action in Normandy? AFAIK, there were 2 battalions, plus a small detachement that was organic to the Panzer Lehr. Thats what, 100 odd tanks. Assuming 60% were in the written off category that you mentioned, that means during the 2 month campaign in Normandy the allies lost 2,000 tanks to Tigers alone.

Still seem possible?

Edit: turns out there were 3 Tiger battalions (101 & 102 SS, 503) plus the Pz Lehr detachement in Normandy, bringing the total to around 150 tanks.

No one said that the Tigers destroyed that many Allied tanks in Normandy. It just states that for every destroyed Tiger, there were 33 destroyed Allied tanks destroyed by Tigers.[/QB]</font>

[Mr. Tittles]

German vs. Soviet AFV losses - 1941-45.

Period: Ratio: Period: Ratio:

06/41-02/42 1:5.0 12/43-06/44 1:1.4

03/42-05/42 1:6.6 07/44 1:4.0

06/42-10/42 1:7.9 08/44 1:2.0

11/42-03/43 1:1.3 09/44 1:1.0

04/43-08/43 1:5.7 10/43-11/44 1:1.3

09/43-11/43 1:2.5 - -

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/prod.htm

The ratios above can show some trends in afv battles. Note that its just a ratio and it is not saying that afvs were even fighting afvs.

Except for the drop around 11/42-03/43 (Stalingrad writeoffs?) The general trend was a 'trade' that was over 5:1. Even as late as Kursk, the Germans were giving better than they took. The general trend after is that the Russians narrowed this trade but it takes a jump in july 44 (intro of LATW in numbers? Russians pushing relentlessly? Panthers seen in larger numbers before T34/85 is fielded?).

The Kursk numbers are good 5.7:1 and the rest of 43 is even 2.5:1. This and my previous post (that JasonC probably wont address) shows that you must be very front/time/vehicle specific when analyzing this topic.

[K_Tiger]

Originally posted by JasonC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It is too easy to parallel the weakness of your own argument. If you think you have a better one, get your hands dirty with some numbers and do some analysis yourself.

For what?? I doesnt have the time and plus, i dont need to turn into a Historian to participate in such a discussion. I would not certainly have interfered, with my limited English

abilities, if I would not consider your idea so principle wrong.

What you are really trying to say is that the average German AFV was destroyed or lost without killing anything, right? Well, in an average all the zeros go in the denominator. I know, how about if I only count Allied AFVs that killed AFVs on the other side? Or, shall I only consider the number of tanks KOed by the highest scoring single vehicles on the side? Where do I stop dropping out the mass of vehicles on the low kill side, just because?

From where you got the average?? But of course, you come close. I didnt say, this should only concerns the germans...the allies lost also Tanks who never fought or saw an ennemy tank, so put it out of your calculation.

In the Nature of Tank-Doktrien, even if the germs hade worser Tanks, no Tigers, no Panthers...the overall stats would be also on their side. The german Tanks where mostly ordered to engage ennemy Tanks...more often than on the other side.

Better to drop those Vehikels as to put all produced in..thats totaly nonsens. This doesnt tell us nothing about the effectivnes of something...

Not that it really interessts me..if a Tiger hase a ratio from 1.1 or 50.1. did you consider sometimes, that it wasnt always fair in Battle?. Maybe it happend that Tiger formations met a battalion of light tanks...do we give those Tigers only a half Kill because of their gaimeynes?

Its like the Thread about effectivnes of Infantrie... it only works when bouth sides have the same conditions, like in a Football Match.

Fact is: The fewer the Vehikels that saw combat, the higher the effectivnes from each participating Tank that fought the ennemy Tanks.

Again....your idea makes sense, if a Tiger made only one Kill and then was shot by an ennemy Tank...than it fits...but otherwise...not. A los of a Tank without participation of an hostile Tank doesnt tell me his abilities for further victories.

Also, why should it count as a "positive" result, if one finds the KOs per Tiger are 14 and per StuG are 8, and not count as a "positive" result if one finds the KOs per Tiger are 4-5 and per StuG are 1.5-2? What is magical about the extra power of 3-5?

Nothing. But if you doesnt understand my above explanation, than i dont know. If you really whant the Tank vs. Tank comparison you need the number of Tanks who fought each other...a Tiger who battled only infantry doesnt leads you to the right results.

There is in fact no sound reason to expect that German losses to things like air or fuel or breakdowns not induced by prior battle damage, will outweigh Russian losses to things like 20 million AT mines, 7 million effective infantry AT weapons, and 50,000 heavy PAK or FLAK. The latter might easily be larger, and is certainly going to be the same order of magnitude. So there is no sound reason to expect the AFV to AFV exchange ratio, to be higher than the overall loss ratio rather than lower.

There is also no reason to put those named Tanks in a Tank vs. Tank debate. Sounds like the Allies didnt field At-Systems? Wasnt the biggest Tank battles, At wise, in favor of the Allies? At Kursk, the Germans throw her own Mines in front of their Tanks, to made it a bit more excitingly? Please, remain essentially and measuring not with different ratings.

Heavy Paks?? 24.000 from your numbers are 75mm. 11.000 should be 88`Flaks but the most of those were used in the home defense. 1.000 88`s became used on Submarines. Not to mention the Costal defenses, usage on Trains, in Fortifications...scattered on the hole Kontinent. Your Production figures sounded powerfully, but the reality looks a bit different. Those over 30.000 IL2`s doesnt dropped Flowers, particularly on retreating convoys, gun emplacements..ect., dont forget those thounds of tactical Bombers the western Allieds fielded also not forgetting the outstanding aerial recconisation helped alot to disable those dug in guns.

And the overall loss ratio of late war AFVs vs. the Russians, is 2 to 2.5 times. Maybe if the German losses to extraneous causes are appreciable higher than the Russian, the AFV exchange ratio is 3 or 4 rather than 2 or 2.5. But it isn't going to be 10, and nobody has presented the slightest reason to believe it isn't just 2

Why dont you write it earlier? Now we have it...or is this again a produktion versus produktion statistik??

(Such a reason would have to numerically estimate both categories and prove the ratio of AFV to AFV losses was lower on the German side than on the Russian - and by a large factor, to matter at all for the conclusion. Nobody has presented any such analysis. Only hand waving and one entry accounting, seeing only one side of the ledger).

Seems you doesnt re-read your own postings, the only one who clasps on one side, are you.

Is it German kill claims? Because if so, they still need a 50% haircut.

Did i found the first who knows more about the deep nature of the Germans....?

</font>

[Mr. Tittles]

I doubt Jason will return but I would like to contin ue the point I made earlier regarding 6000 German AFV being destroyed from the begin of July43 to the end of 43.

The German Panzer strength is well known (PanzerIV, Tiger, Stug mostly with dwindling Panzer III) and the fleet size and operational tank numbers do NOT catastrophically drop during this time. The non-panzer unit StuGs/PJ fleet size would also have to be known but its possibly 1000? It would also have to fall off the cliff to support this 6000 and it is well known that at this time the stug was a VERY effective tank killer (soviets declining combat with them). PJ were never produced or fielded in large numbers by the way.

In any case, even if ALL the tanks/AG/SP produced during this time were sent to the eastern front AND lost; the numbers can not support losing 6000 afv.

The trade ratios above also do not show losing afvs at this rate. So Jasons birds-eye thesis does not stand up to close examination.

As far as 33:1 or even 50:1 kill ratios, I dont believe it. If any weapon system could maintain such effectiveness, a nation would be a fool not to put more resources into fielding more of them.

Tiger tank crewmen were very competitive and even bet on who would reach certain numbers first. They also belittled each others victorys if they were against turkeys like a SU122 (on the t34 chassis).

[ May 08, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Sergei]

Was the original Kurowski claim debated at all? I'd like to know if he refered to any kind of source for his figure.

[Mr. Tittles]

That book is written with too much detail in general. I think the author takes poetic license in all aspects. Its like a comic book without drawings.

[JasonC]

"Did I found the first who knows more about the deep nature of the Germans....?"

No, you found the latest who knows the deep nature of an own side kill claim. The practice of giving such claims a 50% haircut was used by *German staff officers* during the bleeding war. A claim isn't a kill. On average, 2 claims are a kill. Nothing to do with "the deep nature of Germans", who are the ones who noticed the fact.