double the numbers, have overlooked the two versions of tigers in september
You fall at the first hurdle. Thats the problem when you work with ‘statistics’ rather than actual events
Just use sSS PzAbt 101 as an example:
13/6/44 In Villers Bocage. At least 2 Tigers by tank fire
15/6/44 1 Tiger (Wendt) knocked out by Shermans
26/6/44 Near Rauray I Tiger KO’d by Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry Shermans
28/6/44 I tiger knocked out by Shermans in Rauray itself.
18/7/44 1 Tiger knocked out by 5th RTR.
20/7/44 1 Tiger knocked out by 3rd CLY
08/8/44 6 Tigers (out of 7) to tank fire.
14/8/44 1 Tiger lost to a Sherman
30/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.
29/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.
30/8/44 1 Tiger to Shermans.
And that is using Schneider who never writes a Tiger off unless it is absolutely unavoidable. You could go through the other Tigers written off by the Unit and find that several also were for unrepairable tank hits.
I make that 17 from just 1 Abteilung
SS 102 and Heer 503 lost more than 11 Tigers to tank fire
so 143 killed tigers during the time(June to September)
Again no coconut
171 went to Normandy and I assure you far far fewer than 28 made it back over The Seine. The German records are not 100% correct.
I still believe you completely misunderstood the kill ratio thing. It doesn’t mean that every german tiger tank ever fielded killed 10 or more tanks in a row, gungho style. It means, that for every tiger killed by shermans, X Shermans were killed by tigers. What you can derive from this statistc is that you should have a significant numerical advantage, when you are attacking a group of tigers with a group of shermans in an otherwise “fair” encounter.
I know what it means. If someone says the Tiger had a kill ratio of 5:1 upwards then every Tiger must dispose of at least 5 tanks bfefore it is lost itself. They do not qualify it by saying a few Tigers had a 5:1 ratio. That is an entirely different statement.
If it is to be claimed a sabotaged Tiger is not a combat loss then would it not be right to delete that Tigers kills from the German kill total?
If The Germans field 150 Tigers and 150 are lost from their inventory then it does not matter to me if some fleeing SS Trooper blows his tank up rather than turn and fight. If he did turn and face his pursuers then there was only one outcome-he was going to be knocked out. The Tiger is a loss.
I am amazed at the mental gymnastics practised by those who believe in the uber-panzer myth. When confronted by the truth they start to bring in all sorts of caveats to try and reduce the German loss totals, anything rather than admit the horrible truth.
It is nevertheless remarkable, that total german tank losses were only half or even less the number than those of the allied.
1800.? To this must be added the 600 Stug/JagdPz lost in the same period. Hardly 2:1.
I know the Allies had SP TD’s but not on the scale the Germans did.
US TD losses were 86 up to September but as British TD’s were part of The Royal Artillery I do not have the figures
This is what I am saying the entire time, such raw data as total losses is completely useless to prove or falsify anything. Your actual loss data presented here would be much more suited for the task.
No, you still didn’t understand it correctly. It means that for all Tigers lost
to other tanks all tigers together need to kill 5 times as many opposing tanks.
(<=This is the significant part, it’s lost to the other tank, not just lost, that means again mixing different figures as I now pointed out X times. You always mix figures without inherent relation, no matter what the number actually is, as I already said, I don’t care what the actual ratio was)
This is what a kill ratio between two individual types of vehicles means. They have to face each other, more or less. What happens before or afterwards doesn’t matter for this figure. If the Sherman runs on a mine he doesn’t count for the tiger and if the tiger is abandoned, he doesnt count for the sherman.
I’ll give you an example to help you understand the slight difference between the two figures we are talking about here.
Let’s say a modern tank, for example a m1a2 or leopard2A6 would face shermans like in normandy. The shermans have no hope to ever kill the modern tank, that would mean, there would be a zero on one side, meaning that a modern tank could kill potentially unlimited amounts of shermans without ever being in trouble. So you could put any figure like 1:100000000 as kill ratio in there. That doesn’t mean the modern tanks would actually have to kill 100000000 shermans, just as important for the figure is, how many modern tanks are being killed by shermans and this is why I said you got the concept wrong.
Here it comes again, no you can’t, just as you can’t delete the X kills from a group of shermans (meaning the sherman killed X tanks), who happily drive out of town just to run in a minefield. Again, if you are trying to compare figures you need to watch closely if and how they can be compared.
It is a certainty that it would be killed, what you cannot know, is if and how many he would’ve taken with him, so you cannot put this in an analysis.
Again, it is obvious, that you have no experience in analyzing data. You’re tossing around numbers that fit in your view (which could even be correct, that doesn’t matter here) without taking the slightest interest if they can actually be compared the way you do it, which up until now, they can’t.
I referred to your comment on overall losses in the entire western campaign somewhere earlier.
I ‘mix’ the (boring) statistics as to real losses with my experience as to what was actualy going on at the time. It was when I started comparing the number of Allied tanks lost to the silly claims of 5:1 upwards (5:1 is usualy the starting point) that I realised something was not quite right. Tales abound of invulnerable Panthers and Tigers roaming at will. Killing everything in sight then retiring to touch up the paintwork damaged by puny Sherman guns. You don’t have to look too far to see this myth is a common perception. This forum has a number of posts that simply take such tales at face value.
Are tou telling me that you knew there was a 50% reduction applied to all kill claims in Russia? I bet the first time anyone knew of this is when I brought it up. There are still people out there who think it is not true- or that the figures have already had a reduction applied (believe me they haven’t)
It is all propoganda and part of the myth of German invincibility.
No, you still didn’t understand it correctly… It means that for all Tigers lost
to other tanks all tigers together need to kill 5 times as many opposing tanks.
(<=This is the significant part, it’s lost to the other tank, not just lost, that means again mixing different figures as I now pointed out X times. You always mix figures without inherent relation, no matter what the number actually is, as I already said, I don’t care what the actual ratio was)
This is what a kill ratio between two individual types of vehicles means. They have to face each other, more or less. What happens before or afterwards doesn’t matter for this figure. If the Sherman runs on a mine he doesn’t count for the tiger and if the tiger is abandoned, he doesnt count for the sherman.
As I explained earlier there is no possible way you are going to get information that details the loss of every single tank. In a battlefield crammed full of tanks/SP’s/AT guns/mines it is impossible to know that several of these weapons fire at the same individual or that the hits were the decisive one. There is no way on earth you will ever get the data to make such a detailed analysis-BUT THIS HAS NEVER STOPPED THE UBER-PANZER ZEALOTS PROMOTING THE 5:1 MYTH. Strangely I never once saw you intervene and point out the above. Why is that? Perhaps it is because you are inclined to believe it? Your early intervention in this thread led you to make the claim about German verification procedures and a sly dig that the quote from Jentz was superior to my data which you implied was not as authorative. Now you are reduced to nibbling at the edges and asking for data that no one can ever provide.
The best you are going to get is the total of all losses up to September. That is fixed and immutable. The only valid conclusions are reached by using that data and they clearly show that OVERALL the exchange rate FOR TANK LOSSES was less than 2:1.
When faced with this total the true believers then start to pick over the loss of German tanks to try and claim that not all of them were knocked out. Yes they were total losses but not kills. Whatever. The stories about 5 Shermans being lost for every Panther are bollo**s.
You may not like how I arrived at my conclusions.
You may think I am wrong.
Thinking I am wrong is not the same as me being wrong.
Here it comes again, no you can’t, just as you can’t delete the X kills from a group of shermans, who happily drive out of town just to run in a minefield. Again, if you are trying to compare figures you need to watch closely if and how they can be compared.
Strange as it may seem I know all about minefields. It always bothered me that the millions of mines planted by the Germans never seemed to figure in their kill claims. I know the mine losses in Normandy were significant but they were never discounted when the calculations were done. Every Sherman was killed by a Panther anyway. I do know the problem
It is a certainty that it would be killed, what you cannot know, is if and how many he would’ve taken with him, so you cannot put this in an analysis.
Again, it is obvious, that you have no experience in analyzing data.
Maybe not a bad thing. That allowed me to show the data derived from a statistical analysis of Tiger losses was horses**t. I have no time for this modern concept of war by numbers and the body count.
Is it not funny that using the proper methods for statistical analysis you got a result so out of kilter with reality. Seems like the method you want me to use is not all that better than my way of doing it!
You’re tossing around numbers that fit in your view (which could even be correct, that doesn’t matter here) without taking the slightest interest if they can actually be compared the way you do it, which up until now, they can’t.
If you get the right answer then it don’t really matter if you use the wrong calculations! I get the distinct impression I am as welcome as a f**t in a spacesuit with my conclusions.
So then apart from disputing everything I say what do you bring to the table. Is your input to be purely negative and without any substance.
Oh and I am still waiting for routine examples of the high kill rates for Tigers or Panthers.
Can anyone find a single reference to Barkmann’s feat in any US source? Surely they must have noticed this man amd his outstanding performance in knocking out all them there Shermans.
Whilst you are at it explain why Stug and JgdPz losses up to September have no bearing on Normandy?
I think it should be mentioned that the Americans suffered their most significant losses, fighting dug in German infantry using panzerfausts/shrecks and AT guns, in the hedgerows of the Beaucage.
I doubt Panzers had much impact on that…
You cannot “mix” statistics with some data, you derive a statistic from an actual dataset.
I assume you have run into some persons who actually made the same misconception what an actual kill ratio is and insisted, that every german tiger was an invincible superweapon, which it was clearly not. But it was nevertheless a far superior tank compared to the sherman when it came to firepower and protection, same with the panther. After all, they were 1.5 times and 2 times as heavy.
I assume, there is a great margin of error on all sides, and while I believe there was a lot of propaganda going on, some of the actual error might be from things like disabled and later repaired tanks, multikills (like several positions firing on the same target) and such things.
I am not nibbling edges, I am basically shredding the paper, as it is unsuited to prove your point, whether it is right or wrong. And books are more credible sources than talking in internet forums.
I never disputed that the one side lost roughly 2 times as many tanks as the other side. But what does this have to do with a kill ratio between individual models?
I feel like I am trying to explain the colors of a rainbow to a blind. I do not think you are right or wrong. I say you are trying to use a wooden stick to build a skyscraper and you keep telling me the height of the house.
According to your data from the previous posts, roughly 22% of tanks were lost due to mines. I included the number in my calculation and so did every historian who ever analyzed the data and published it later.
There is no such thing as my method. My calculation result is only so “far” off, because of the many assumptions, it nevertheless shows that a 10:1 or 5:1 kill ratio was easily possible. To calculate the actual ratio would only need some finetuning, meaning more detailed analysis, which I am sure has already been done somewhere in the US Army and by several historians. What the actual ratio is, I don’t know, but I bet it’s in some books.
What can I say to this. You keep saying, that you only need to buy 1000 lottery tickets to surely win a 1:1000 chance and I say it doesn’t work that way. This is not meant to be a negative input, quite the opposite.
But as you feel that way, I will no longer harass you.
mkenny had posted the percentages of several units some posts back.
http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/98-09.asp
I don’t know how thorough they investigated, but you might want to read
I was pointing out the 50% reduction was being applied. The reason it was being applied is that ‘Intelligence’ knew the numbers were too high. They knew the reason for the errors and made sure this was taken into account. Individual tank crews cared only about increasing their tally and always overclaimed
And books are more credible sources than talking in internet forums.
But what if the source on ‘internet forums’ is an established author an a senior member of the Dupuy Institiute?
This is where you can see his work in print
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Last-Gamble-December-1944-January/dp/006092196X
Richard Anderson provided me with the bulk of my statistics and he is the only person I know (and modestly I do know who is who in the area) doing any research at all with primary sources.
That aside I note that not a single peice of the data I provided has been challenged. The figures are at the leading edge of current research and you will not find better data anywhere in print.
It is a common misconception that only published authors have any standing and you should never defer to something just because it is in print.
The majority of todays authors have little real understanding of the subject they write about and the trick is knowing who is an expert and who is a hack.
You will find one of the real expert authors currently posting here
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=21545
I never disputed that the one side lost roughly 2 times as many tanks as the other side. But what does this have to do with a kill ratio between individual models?
Whatever you want it to mean. I mean it to say that the number of Allied tanks lost in Normandy was less than twice the number of German ones.
As Michael Caine would say ‘not a lot of people know that’
According to your data from the previous posts, roughly 22% of tanks were lost due to mines. I included the number in my calculation and so did every historian who ever analyzed the data and published it later.
And that author would be?
The only works I know are obscure University papers published in the late
40’s early 50’s.
You wouldn’t happen to have a copy of ‘Survey Of Allied Tank Losses In World War II’ (John Hopkins University 1951) by Alvin D Coox and L Van Loan Naisawald to hand would you? That and Bourne and Shackleton’s ‘Analysis Of Firepower In Normandy Operations Of 1944’ (Ottawa) are the Holy Grail for me.
There is no such thing as my method. My calculation result is only so “far” off, because of the many assumptions, it nevertheless shows that a 10:1 or 5:1 kill ratio was easily possible.
To calculate the actual ratio would only need some finetuning, meaning more detailed analysis, which I am sure has already been done somewhere in the US Army and by several historians. What the actual ratio is, I don’t know, but I bet it’s in some books.
Well I know it 'aint. There was a book by Christopher Wilbeck
http://www.amazon.com/Sledgehammers-Strengths-Flaws-Tiger-Battalions/dp/0971765022
but you can see it in an early version online here
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=304
Devoted to the Tiger tank it gathered together all the Unit claims and then presented then as fact. These conclusion are routinely used on forums to prove the 10:1 ratio.
There are no books on this subject that I know off and believe me I am looking very hard indeed.
But as you feel that way, I will no longer harass you.
I don’t feel harassed. I have the skin of a rhino and as you may have gathered I am no shrinking violet. I can look after myself.
Posting these conclusions you tend to get very violent reactions from those of a certain mindset. They brook no interference in the perpetuation of the myth of the uber-panzer. I have been called, ridiculed and insulted a good number of times on dozens of forums and have not buckled yet.
I just wanted to know if you had anything to add other than saying I am wrong.
I think you are a bit like me. If I see someone playing the expert I like to pitch in and try and take them down a peg or two. I don’t even have to know about the subject and just raise issues unconnected with challenging the original premise.
[QUOTE=Drake;106068
http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/98-09.asp
I don’t know how thorough they investigated, but you might want to read[/QUOTE]
This section:
When an investigation of Allied and German tank casualties in Normandy was carried out it confirmed the most pessimistic views about Allied armor. The statistics showed 60 per cent of Allied tank losses were due to a single round from a 75- or 88-mm gun. The stats also showed that 2/3 of all tanks brewed up when hit.
German armor-piercing shells almost always penetrated and disabled a tank. In fact, the armor on our tanks offered such little protection that the only way to survive was to avoid being targeted. The contrast with German tank casualties was especially striking. Only 38 per cent of hits from the Sherman 75-mm or six-pounder-anti-tank gun penetrated German armor. What’s more, German Panther and Tiger tanks often survived one or two hits. The sloping frontal armor of the Panther and the German self-propelled guns prevented penetration of 3/4 of all direct hits.
Is based on a limited sample done in June/July 1944
RGd 24:Report No.12:Canadian 2nd Army:Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties Between 6th June and 10th July
What I find remarkable is the 83 Shermans hit but not penetrated.
As you may notice I am quite familiar with the reports
Interesting. But it mostly deals with the Canadian experience, and I am unaware if they had significant hedgerows built up in their sectors, and I think they were not mentioned in the article. I was under the impression that the vast majority of the hedgerow fighting was done by the US Army…
Here are a couple of articles that address the difficulties the Americans faced and the tactics that had to be employed to counteract what the Germans had learned from the French in 1940; that the hedgerows were ready made field fortifications and that they required minimal resources to defend against overwhelming armored superiority…
http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/index.html
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=133
I think one can summarize that an individual Wehrmacht soldier with a panzerfaust was probably more lethal to Shermans than even an entrenched Panther, which could be bypassed. And anti-tank guns were far more expendable…
New topic created to talk exclusive about this interesting subject.
By the way nice table the last one MKenny.
BÃke received command of special unit made up of elements of sPzAbt.503, battalion of Panthers along with some Sturmartillerie and engineer unit.
This unit was then named Panzer-Regiment BÃke and took part in number of desperate actions on the Eastern Front.
One of those actions was five-day battle in January of 1944 at the “Balabonowka Pocket”, where Panzer-Regiment BÃke was credit with destruction of 267 Soviet tanks, while losing one [b]Tiger[/b] and four [b]Panthers[/b].
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen7.htm
267 tanks destroyed
5 losses
Give as result 53,4 kill ratio
50 % of “safety coeficient” applied = 26,7-1 kill-losses, quite good isnt ? 
Hey you sound like a very intelligent man. I have a Bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying…
Oh, is not that much, just a simple divission.
But you are the man Kenny, thanks for your 50% coeficient. Without that I was a lost soul.
For those interested in actual numbers rather than bloated overclaiming read this thread
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=120954&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=03c4ac986ceb90d977b31e1a6f36b7d5
and see what the attack by 1st SS PD, 6th PD, 16th PD, 17.PzD, PzKGr/25.PzD (with 16PzD) achieved. It was not a lone attack by s.Pz.Abt 503 and II./Pz.Rgt 23.
Soviet losses are reported as 659 tanks for the ENTIRE front against ALL the armoured units and Infantry Divisions. These losses are for for a longer period than the action where the the Bake group participated.
Every time you look into these claims they simply melt away.
You still are. You seem to believe every German claim. Do you not have any common sense?
Hmm…the old tactic :rolleyes: , you are making me respond to things I never claimed, for example I never claimed to believe every german figure.
Helloy folks.
Let me add a little.
And do you ever hear honest Drake about leutenent Oskin who in his T-34/84 hit 5 King Tigers near the polish vilage Oglenduv in auguat of 1944?
His speedy T-34 was able to hit 3 this tanks from the ambush and when Germans ( it seems it was 501 Battalion) retreated he overtaked other two and burned it.
So does it mean that the resault 5 King Tigers :1 T-34 was a tupical for the kill rate for the Red Army?
I doubt it.
By why you so sure about 5:1 Tiger:Sherman ?
The Tiger was a superb weapon plattform for its time and much better armed and armored than the sherman, so if you would put them 1 on 1 over and over again the shermans would die over and over again until the tiger has no ammunition left. It had however some serious drawbacks, where the sherman excelled it by far, for example weight:power ratio and general reliability.
The armour superiority was only the one side of Tiger.
The other hand was that this Monster was a very slow ( especially Tiger2) no more 12-15 km/hour in the dirt road.For the comparition the Sherman had ( 38 km/h) T-34 over 50 km/h.
The Tiger simply was not able effectively support the infantry during the offencive.
Besides, characteristic could be very critical during the retreat of the troops.
In fact in the sometimes crew simply run out of his tnak coz it was not able to move enough speedy for the retreat. [b]The some cases in the Eastern front when the crew have to leave the tank with full ammunition and fuel -for instance you could read befor about capturing Tiger2 in Poland that nowaday demonstrated in Tank museum in Kubinka ( Russia).This tank was found without crew with full complect of ammo and fuel!!!.
It seems germans had no time to liqudate the tank and simply run way;)
True the Tiger was effective in the ambush coz the power armor and 88-mmgun.
However in the offensive it wasn’t so effective - i 've read story of soviet tankers who fought on lend-lise Shermans. They hunted on slow-moved Tiger shoting to the tracks.
2 or 3 Sherman hunted the Tiger- First shot to the truck - after than if the shot was succesfull the Tiger lost one of his tracks and bagin to rotate. After it turned the side to the shermans - other bagan to shot to the side wher ethe armoure was thin.
Sure the Tiger was outstanding tank in WW2- the first seriouse hard thank in history.
Neverthelell it was far from the Hitler uber-wearpon dreams;)
The production of Tiger was hard for the German industry: the total quanity of all modification of Tiger1/2 were no more 1350.
This “super wearpon” was out of abilities of German industry.
Nor “super” Tigers neither “brillian” Panther did not save the Wermacht from the relatively simple but effective T-34/Sherman - the most mass tanks of the WW2.
Cheers.
PZ , if to believe to any Nazy propogandic issue - they killed at least three times the all of the Soviet tanks;)
I think it rather stoopid to spread this shit about 50:1 kill ratio.
If during the Battle of Berlin the Red Army losed about 1500 tanks and Germans only 200 tanks - does it mean the SuperGermans tankers destroyed all of them?
I/m seriously doubt the Germans tankers hited more then 15-20% of this figure. The main reason of the soviet loses was the Panzerfaust soldiers.
Well, that is the big issue, if you going to count any german claim as propaganda…,:rolleyes:, the discussion will not make any progress further.
The armour superiority was only the one side of Tiger.
The other hand was that this Monster was a very slow ( especially Tiger2) no more 12-15 km/hour in the dirt road.For the comparition the Sherman had ( 38 km/h) T-34 over 50 km/h.
The Tiger simply was not able effectively support the infantry during the offencive
True in most cases, ad this a very bad locomotive qualities of the Tiger II in the earlier vehicles, also it weiths 19 tond more than T1 but have the same side armor ( Oskin placed all the shots in the side)
That is why you need to separate clearly the combat achievemente of the TII and the TI.
And just for the record I dont believe the Tiger II achieved 5:1 kill losses ratio, probably was 2 to 1 with or 3 to1 with luck.