Panzers kills-losses ratio revisited.

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#61

I think that the 25:1 is not the “any claim” for the Germans my friend.
Probably some of simular cases really were but there is no any doubts it were not the usial resault.
You should know the Absolute Wearpon Superiority was the essential part of Nazy propoganda. All those Witmans, Rudels, Kovaks and ets were not only excellent soldiers but and the Nazy Propogandic Symbols.
I could understand you delight of the German wearponry. The Nazy never slaughtered the argentinian people, never sinked the argentinian ships .And Nazy never send up the V-1/2 rocket to the Buanos-Aeros.
Therefore they could seem for you not so bad guys, right?:wink:
And may be you think that the Germans records of the kill rate is more "exact and correct’ than the allies?
But if to believe the Gernans “correct” datas they’ve won the Battle for the Britain in 1940-41, they won the Kursk battle in the 1943, and they won the most of battles in the WW2.:slight_smile:
But …damn … they losed the war. How could it be?
If the each germnans tank killed 5-25 allies tanks - why they was not able to stop the allies in the 1943-45?

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.

Sorry PZ but the T2 was a legitime and logical development of T1. The Lacks of t1 was also in the T2.
T1 was also not the best in the some situations that demands the maneuverability

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.

Well yes probably the mediun kill rate in the TANK-TANK battles was the 2-3:1 but i have to say that both the Allies and Soviet found the effective way to neitralize the Tigers.
Soviets had a SU-100/122/152 “Tankkillers” , Allies had the Mustangs P-51 .
So GErmans were not lucky with Tigers.
Moreover the enourmouce resources that were spended for the building of the 1300 Tigers could be spended for better way - for the building of the additional 5000 -6000 of Pz4 with 75 mm gun - very effective and relatively cheap German tanks.

P.S.
The love of the Hitler for the UBER-WEARPON made with Germnas the evil joke - the billion of marks and resources were spended for the wind.
What military sence was from the super rocket V-2,Super tank Tiger, super fighter Me-262?
The much better way to buld instead of theis uber-wearpon the thousands simple Pz4 and Bf-109 and send it to the front.
The war is winning by the PEOPLES but not by the VECHICLES.

Cheers.

#62

Oh no… revisiting Rudel too here ? :rolleyes:

Well is obvoius to me that the action of several invididuals as remarcable they were could not save the Third Reich of the final defeat and the overwhelming numerical superiority of the allies.

.And Nazy never send up the V-1/2 rocket to the Buanos-Aeros.
Therefore they could seem for you not so bad guys, right

You mean Buenos Aires, well I am interested in the weapons system, no in the motivations and politics.

Sorry PZ but the T2 was a legitime and logical development of T1. The Lacks of t1 was also in the T2.
T1 was also not the best in the some situations that demands the maneuverability

The only thing in common of the two design were the engine and some transmition components, beside that the KT is a completely new design.

The much better way to buld instead of theis uber-wearpon the thousands simple Pz4 and Bf-109 and send it to the front.

I guess that was old equation, the quantity vs quality, but the quantity have quality by itself.

#63

Well mate the Third Reich itself goes to the absolute shortage of everething by the total war strategy.
As far as i know there were no the absolute numerical superiority of allies in the Eastern front in 1941-42 and in the Africa untill 1943.
If you look for the first succesfull compatnies of Riech - the germans had even superiority in quality.
The situation of 1944-45 was the resault of the Nazy politic and strategical mistakes ( and behaviour of german troops in the occupied territories).

You mean Buenos Aires, well I am interested in the weapons system, no in the motivations and politics.

Yes sorry, Buenos Aires:)- the sunshine paradise.

The only thing in common of the two design were the engine and some transmition components, beside that the KT is a completely new design.

T2 had a same the gun - and it was logical continie of german concept of heavy tank. So the technical lacks and mistakes was the resault of this concept.
The Tiger was first but not the best heavy tank of WW2.
Soviet Is-3 and american Pershing M-26 were much more perspective tanks. Unfortinatelly they come to the troops in Europe too late in last month of War.( Nevertheless few of newest Is-3 fought for the Berlin).
Those tanks having roughly the equeal firepower and armour - were much more speedy and maneuverabile.
So even if the war would continie untill the 1946 the Germans would not have the absolute superiority;)

I guess that was old equation, the quantity vs quality, but the quantity have quality by itself.

It’s not that i mean.
Endeed the GErmans had a excellent piston fighters of Bf and FW - they were the superiour. Also they had a good tank Pz4 that was able to hit any soviet/allies tank, but it was real for the mass production.
However the experiments with uber-wearpon distracted a lot of resources and time.
If the Germans leave the idea of super jet fighter and concentrated for the mass production of its best pistons fighter - probably they could meet the allies strategic armades not so badly;)

Cheers.

#64

Hello Mkenny,

I have a question. You say “83 Shermans hit but not penetrated”.
Does not it contradict the info on the first line of the page? There where it says: “Total hits recorded” equals 65 and “Number of penetrations” equals to 62.

Or they looked at different tank sets?
I can not put these two peices of info together.

#65

T2 had a same the gun - and it was logical continie of german concept of heavy tank. So the technical lacks and mistakes was the resault of this concept.

The same gun ?? :shock:, the Tiger 1 had a Krupp Kwk 36 with 56 calibres lenght.

The Tiger II had a Rheinmetall Borsig KWK 43 of 71 calibres lenght, not only the barrels were different but the ammo casing was also not the same.

In the end is the same old history I saw repeated over and over again, one mistaked german claim is manipulated in a way to invalidates the others. Also the politics is mixed.

Well… radio Moscow said after the Battle of Kursk that the russian defenses destroyed 250 “Tigers”…actually there was only 140 tigers in that sector and about 10 % of those were destroyed.

Following your line of thinking… that means the Kozhedub did not shot down 62 aircraft or Kolovanov didnt destroyed 20 tanks?

Dont think so.

#66

I think (i.e I do not know for sure) that the penetrated tanks are dealt with in detail and then as an afterthought they refer to the total of tanks surveyed. Among the other tanks they found either 83 Shermans that had been hit but not penetrated or an unknown number of Shermans that had 83 hits that did not penetrate.
Like you I wondered about the 124 total minus the penetrated total of 40, minus the 4 mined minus the 1 ‘unidentified’ making 79 left not 83. Maybe there is something about the 4 mined tanks that is not made clear.

#67

Yes that is what it means. EVERYONE overclaimed and if I were to post here the Allied claims for destroyed Tigers in Normandy you would have a heart attack. No one ever does that because they understand crews make mistakes in the heat of battle. There seems to be one exception. German claims. They are always repeated as if they are a proven fact. They are no such thing.
Why do you think this double standard exists?
By consulting German loss figures we can show that Allied kill claims are inflated so why the big fuss when I use Allied loss figures to show German claims are inflated?

#68

hi,

The more i look at it the more it seems to me that these paper doe not prove your point.

The part III clearly shows that out of 65 hits 62 penetrated the armour (75mm - 50 out of 53; 88mm - 12 out of 12).

Later it shows that you need app. 1,2 hits per tank to knock it out, i.e. less than 1,5 hits per tank.

The line about the “Further study” of 124 tanks (the last section) seem t odeal with larger or different set of tanks and, what is more important, IMHO, deals with all kind of hits from all calibers. That is the only way, IMHO, these info can be put together.

Like you I wondered about the 124 total minus the penetrated total of 40, minus the 4 mined minus the 1 ‘unidentified’ making 79 left not 83. Maybe there is something about the 4 mined tanks that is not made clear.

Sorry I did not get this…

#69

Well you right 88mm X 56 kalibers is not the same that 88mm X 71 kaliber.
My mistake:)

In the end is the same old history I saw repeated over and over again, one mistaked german claim is manipulated in a way to invalidates the others. Also the politics is mixed.

It’s not a politic.
This is the simple human feeling.
FOr some people in here you noticed about “more correct” germans records could be simply insulting.
I doubt you could understand the brits- your relatives have never seen the total war for survival - as the WW2 was in the Europe.
This was a fierce war where the everething , literally everething were used for the Vistory - even the kill ratio statistic.
True the allies ( soviets and US/UK) also use it for own propoganda. Terefore we need attentively watch for all the such “victories”.
In this way i like the approach of mst Mkenny. He absolutly right in here to doubt and check the matter with the simple statistic comparition;)
Good work mkenny;)

Well… radio Moscow said after the Battle of Kursk that the russian defenses destroyed 250 “Tigers”…actually there was only 140 tigers in that sector and about 10 % of those were destroyed.

You absolutly right PZ here.
EXACTLY of this reason wee need critically look for the all Nazy “military archiviments” and kill ration (that take the place from the “sources” like the propogandic journal Wolhenay).

Following your line of thinking… that means the Kozhedub did not shot down 62 aircraft or Kolovanov didnt destroyed 20 tanks?

True my line of thinking - the critical apprehention of the issue.
But i have a much less doubt about Kolovanov who desoed 20 tank for ALL THE WAR and Wittman’s claims of 20+ british tanks for ONE BATTLE.
And if you have a some of any material that could refuse the scope of the best soviet pilot of the WW2 Kozhedub OR the best US pilot Richard Ira “Dick” Bong with his 40 victories FOR ALL THE WAR you could discuse it.
However the some of historians have the serious objections agains the Erich Hurtmann with his mythical 352 wictories over the war.
The relatively humble scopes of allies pilots with comparition the germans just force us to be the more careful for the Nazy Military achivements.
Nazy was REALLY STRONG emeny - even in the propogandic lie.

Cheers.

#70

And my point is?
As it is a survey of tank casualties it would have to deal with tanks knocked out. Hit but not penetrated are not casualties.

Sorry I did not get this…

It is not clear(to us) how many tanks are in the initial survey.

#71

Using general statistics to represent your argument may look realistic, but there are far too many factors you mistake or misrepresent.

No one has ever claimed that every German tank produced killed 5 Allied tanks, though you tried to skewer general stats on numbers of tanks produced vs numbers of tanks destroyed.

Dont forget that the allies lost lots of tanks to mines, infantry, tank traps, etc. As did the Germans. The Heer and SS forces took considerable losses from anti tank guns, and planes, and worse yet, mechanical failures in a retreating sector where the vehicle had to be abandoned and destroyed by the crew… more so than they did to other tanks.

If the uber tank myth is just a myth, how many shermans would it take to take out a panther or tiger? Why did the western allied commanders request that tank destroyers be used to confront enemy tanks if possible?

If the western tanks were so evenly matched with German tanks, why was there a massive buildup of tank destroyers after '43… considering most tank destroyers are typically more defensive in nature than a pure tank. Especially considering there were what… 44 or 45,000 shermans produced?

M10 - 6700 produced '42-'43
M18 - 2500 produced '43-'44
M36 - 2300 produced '44-'45

I’m not saying the Sherman was a bad tank, it did it’s job, and when it broke behind enemy lines it wreaked absolute havoc on communications, supplies and support units, and inevitably played a major role in bringing about the end of the German military’s ability to function, it provided the western allies with a stable backbone with which to carryout a wide area of offensive operations, and reliably did its job.

If the “uber panzer myth” is such a myth, how many standard M4 sherman tanks would you feel confident enough to take up against a lone tiger? 1-1? 2-1? 3-1? 4-1? etc. etc…

#72

I am not out to prove anything - other than calims of 5:1 ratios for Shermans is not borne out by the total of losses.

No one has ever claimed that every German tank produced killed 5 Allied tanks,

‘They’ calim it took 5 Shermans to take out a Panther. I never heard it said this was every single engagement but an average. I do not think there were that many Shermans in Normandy to reach this ‘average’

Dont forget that the allies lost lots of tanks to mines, infantry, tank traps, etc. As did the Germans.

I did mention this several times and I seriously doubt the Germans reached a total of 20% upwards for mine casualties.

.

If the uber tank myth is just a myth, how many shermans would it take to take out a panther or tiger?

How many? I don’t know and neither do you. This does not seem stop you claiming the Uber tank myth isn’t a ‘myth’.
Tell you what, give me the German total losses for Goodwood and I will compare it to the British number of total losses ( not the oft quoted figures for every tank damaged in some way) and we will see what the ratio is.

Why did the western allied commanders request that tank destroyers be used to confront enemy tanks if possible?

Can I have a guess? Hmmm…how about they had bigger guns?

If the western tanks were so evenly matched with German tanks, why was there a massive buildup of tank destroyers after '43.

Faulty doctrine? Proved by the quick abandonment of the tank destroyer concept when the war ended.

If the “uber panzer myth” is such a myth, how many standard M4 sherman tanks would you feel confident enough to take up against a lone tiger? 1-1? 2-1? 3-1? 4-1? etc. etc…

I was unware there was a policy of employing ‘lone’ Tigers in such a manner.
So obliging of the Germans to push their tanks forward in this absurd manner.
A pity too that nearly 1000 of the German tanks were PzIV’s and not the 130 odd Tigers that everyone seems to fixate upon.

#73

I’ve always been puzzled about this “shells
bouncing off the armor of the Tiger or Panther”
thing.

Wouldn’t, say even the basic 75 mm gun of the
earlier Shermans, which could penetrate some
76 mm 30-degree sloped armour at 500 yards,
have been able to BORE at least halfway (and
cause quite a bit of damage) into the German
tanks’ frontal armor, rather than simply
“bouncing off” ?

Frankly, I don’t think the German tanks were
really that much more heavily armored than the
Allied tanks, with some 5 inches hull on the
Panther, despite being angled, and the Tiger’s
frontal hull of only 4 inches wasn’t even sloped,
so I am quite skeptical about their famed
“invincibility”.

The Sherman, while having 2 1/2 inches of
frontal hull armor, had a quite good slope of
about 45 degrees, and its turret wasn’t that bad
either, with 3 inches, and a 3 1/2 inch mantlet.

#74

This is a really great thread. Not only have I learned some things, I have been impressed by the adult attitudes of all involved in it.