Help support TMP


"German Heavy (Schwere) Panzer Unit Loss Ratios in WWII" Topic


13 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Showcase Article

Commando Kelly

Do you recognize this set?


532 hits since 1 Aug 2020
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Aug 2020 10:06 p.m. PST

Of possible interest?

link


Amicalement
Armand

mkenny02 Aug 2020 12:07 a.m. PST

It is a staple of the endless 'List Of German Panzer Aces' porn and is copied from Wilbeck's 2004 book 'Sledgehammers'. All the unverified data (crew claims)used to compile this table is from Schneider's TIC I & II published in the 1990s. Very much yesterdays news and the sort of slack-jawed 'gosh that is amazing' fiction that used to appeal to a certain type of audience. Times and research methods have changed and it no longer has any credibility. Wilbeck added a note saying (more or less) that the sSS Pz Abt 503 claims were impossible to take seriously It is a pity he did not apply the same type of critical thinking to the rest of the totals.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP02 Aug 2020 3:49 p.m. PST

Glup!….


Amicalement
Armand

Blutarski03 Aug 2020 1:52 p.m. PST

"Times and research methods have changed and it no longer has any credibility."


Kindly expand upon this and share with us the latest analysis, mkenny.

B

mkenny03 Aug 2020 3:06 p.m. PST

Kindly expand upon this and share with us the latest analysis

For example see the claim in Zetterling's 'Normandy'page 191 that 'no more than 4 Tigers may have been lost during GOODWOOD'. Multiply that total by 3 and you will start to see the scale of the problem in the year 2000.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP04 Aug 2020 7:14 a.m. PST

Perhaps they are talking about those "lost" to enemy action vs. those abandoned and destroyed by their own crews.

My understanding is that in the Tiger units losses from crews doing that when they broke down or ran out of fuel far surpassed those that were lost to enemy fire, mines, etc..

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP04 Aug 2020 12:18 p.m. PST

You are right my friend….

Amicalement
Armand

mkenny04 Aug 2020 2:21 p.m. PST

Perhaps they are talking about those "lost" to enemy action vs. those abandoned and destroyed by their own crews

Bogus artificial class of loss. Invented to make the German tank losses lower than Allied losses. Find me an Allied or Russian loss table that separates their losses into this laughable 'non combat loss'


My understanding is that in the Tiger units losses from crews doing that when they broke down or ran out of fuel far surpassed those that were lost to enemy fire, mines, etc

Your understanding is skewed by deliberately misleading table like the one at the start of the thread. The only time German tanks ran completely out of fuel in Normandy was when the Allies destroyed their supply lines. Once they broke and ran they started throwing all their equipment away-- guns, mortars, lorries , horses, motor cycles etc.
Perhaps we should have tables where we can see more Allied trucks were knocked out than German trucks and thus German trucks were far superior to Allied trucks? Who would even try to make such a case for trucks but somehow it is a valid way of working out tank losses?

Blutarski04 Aug 2020 4:25 p.m. PST

"Bogus artificial class of loss. Invented to make the German tank losses lower than Allied losses. Find me an Allied or Russian loss table that separates their losses into this laughable 'non combat loss'."


1 – It all depends upon what people want to examine.

2 – Coox and Naisawald do in fact cite statistics on Allied non-combat tank casualties.

B

mkenny04 Aug 2020 5:11 p.m. PST

Indeed it does. For example if you want to lower German losses and inflate Allied losses the standard way is to exclude as many German total losses as possible and then compare the artificially lowered German loss total to the number of every Allied tank damaged in any way and for any reason. It helps that most of the German paperwork was lost or destroyed by the terrified panic-stricken soldiers in their headlong flight from Normandy and thus their real losses can be fudged.
In the 3 most well-known ace claims for Normandy (Wittmann, Barkmann & Will Fey) it is now possible to prove those kill totals to be completely bogus. That is what I mean by times change.

Blutarski04 Aug 2020 5:55 p.m. PST

Once again – it depends upon what people wish to examine. That's why casualties are broken down by cause.

B

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP04 Aug 2020 9:35 p.m. PST

Actually, a lot of German logistical transport was by horse-drawn wagon, unlike for the Western allies.

mkenny05 Aug 2020 5:23 a.m. PST

Once again it depends upon what people wish to examine. That's why casualties are broken down by cause.

Once again-No they are not. They are broken down into two very important classes, those fit for combat and those not fit. Check any Allied or German 'last light' total and you will see your error. What has happened is the besotted uber-panzer fans take the German casualty totals and then they break them down into 'cause of loss' It is an entirely invented classification with no other aim but the reduce the number of knocked-out panzers and validate the bogus 5-1 kill ratios. You will find Workshop breakdowns of the cause of tank damage but this is done days-to weeks after the event and has no impact on the tank Unit numbers. Note that not one Uber-panzer fans ever breaks Allied casualties down by cause and they always include every Allied tank casualty as a total loss when making the absurd Panzer Ace kill total tables.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.