And here is me thinking I made it plain I was on about Normandy. No matter. The Tiger Abteilung fought 95% of the time against UK forces so a comparison of UK losses to Tiger losses is entirely valid.
Obviously you missed an earlier link where you can see the Normandy losses but just for you I will paste it here.
according to WO 291/1186 in the ETO it was:
Mines 22.1%
AT guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP Guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%
This may be compared to a sample of 506 US First Army tanks lost (destroyed and damaged) between 6 June and 30 November 1944.
Mines 18.2%
AT/Tank guns 46.2%
Artillery 7.3%
Mortars 1.8%
Bazooka 13.6%
Other 12.9%
Now as far as American tank losses in Normandy go we have the following data from various reports:
In terms of the cause of loss, in June of 32 tanks examined, 18 were to ‘AT guns’ (56.25%), 9 to PF/PS (28.13%), 1 to mines (3.13%), and 1 to ‘artillery’ (3.13%). Unfortunately we do not know if the AT guns were just that or if they were mounted on armored vehicles of some type. However, we do know that 6 of those 18 were lost on D-Day, so cannot have been lost to anything other than the emplaced guns of the beach defenses.
In July, of 73 examined, 41.1% were lost to AT guns, 32.88% to PF/PS, 16.44% to mines, 4.11% to mines and 4.11% to unknown causes.
In August, of 130 examined, 55.38% were lost to AT guns, 18.46 to unknown causes, 13.08% to mines, 6.15% to artillery, 5.38% to PF/PS, and 1.54% to mortars.
Overall, losses to ‘AT guns’ appear to have been somewhere around 50% in Normandy (the monthly average is 50.91%) and were not far off the ‘norm’ of 46.2%.
From 6 June to 1 July (26 days), First Army wrote off 187 M4-75mm and 44 M5.
From 2 to 29 July (28 days), First Army wrote off 208 M4-75mm, 12 M4-76mm, 4 M4-105mm, and 67 M5.
From 30 July to 2 September (35 days), First Army wrote off 237 M4-75mm, 38 M4-76mm, 6 M4-105mm, and 69 M5.
From 3 to 28 September (26 days), First Army wrote off 123 M4-75mm, 33 M4-76mm, 10 M4-105mm, and 34 M5.
From 1 August to 2 September (33 days), Third Army wrote off 221 M4-75mm and 94 M5.
From 3 to 30 September (28 days), Third Army wrote off 48 M4-75mm, 61 M4-76mm, 2 M4-105mm, and 37 M5.
From 9 September to 5 October (27 days), Ninth Army wrote off 2 M4-75mm.
Thus roughly:
‘June’ 231
‘July’ 291
‘August’ 665
‘September’ 350
Total = 1,537
From the above we could presume that roughly 780 were due to tank and AT guns. Using the WO figures, then perhaps 223 were to ‘tank guns.’
For the British cause of loss in Normandy we have but a single document that appears relevant. That is O.R.S. 2 Report No. 12, Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th June 1944. That document reports that of 45 Sherman tanks examined a total of 40 or 89% were lost to ‘AP shot,’ 4 or 9% to mines and 1 or 2% to unidentified causes.
British losses are given as:
June – 146
July – 231
August – 834
September - ?
Total = 1,211 (est. 1,568)
Unfortunately I have been unable to determine the British September totals, but given the overall similarity with the American figures it is probably not unreasonable to suppose that they were about 350 as well (if the proportionality with June-August were maintained, then it would be 357. If we presume that the above cause of loss was consistent for June and July, then about 336 were probably lost to ‘AP shot,’ which is probably an underestimate. If we presume that percentage applied throughout, then a total of 1,396 were possibly lost to ‘AP shot,’ which is probably an exaggeration. Using the total ‘AP shot’ weapons from WO 292/1186 (61.6) we would probably derive a more accurate estimate of 966. On the other hand, if we accept the figures from WO 291/1186 by type of AP weapon, then we can estimate that only 227 were lost to ‘tank guns’ and if that figure is applied to the Allied total loss, then perhaps only 450 were lost to ‘tank guns.’
Thus, we may estimate that the upper limit of Allied tanks lost to ‘AP shot’ (tanks, AT guns and assault guns) was perhaps 2,176, while probably the lower limit lost to ‘tank guns’ was about 450.
German losses were:
June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224
July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288
August – 49 Pz-IV(l), 41 Pz-V, 15 Pz-VI (L56) = 105
September – 12 Pz-IV(k), 581 Pz-IV, 540 Pz-V, 72 Pz-VI (L56), 23 Pz-VI (L70) = 1,228
Total = 1,845
.
This statement of yours only proves again that you simply have NO CLUE how to analyze data in a scientifically credible way.
I am handicapped by not being able to find any evidence of these kill ratios in any Allied War Diary. Those of a scientific bent can work out the figures to 6 decimal places and give us .75 of a tank loss but I prefer reality over this type of vodoo.
Perhaps this would be more to your liking. It is from BRL Memorandum Report No.798, APG 1954
It may suprise you but I skipped that chapter!
I give you credit for the work you obviously put into the topic, but your entire argumentation string concerning this mathematical matter is completely flawed. Just focus on the history and leave the numbers to those who understand them.
I hadn’t realised how little I knew.
Cut to the chase. I am telling you the 5:1 exchange rate for the Panther and (up to) 10:1 for the Tiger is bulls**t.
I cant be more specific than that.
My head is on the block for those who think they can prove otherwise.
I know they can’t but hey give it a shot.
We can see how good you are at challeging other peoples statements so lets try again with one of your claims:
Is it possible for you to post the information used to make such a statement?
Exactly what method was used to make a claim a kill?
Surely you are not just giving us what you believe rather than what you know?
You obviously knew (didn’t everybody?)about the 50% reduction applied to kills in Russia so how did this effect the kill award system?
Can you tell me how this reduction was applied to individual Units and point me to a source that shows Units reducing their claims by 50% when compiling their statistics.
I await your reply with interest.
