"Tank Casualties" Topic

Interesting data….

PDF link

Amicalement
Armand

Good article.

Thanks that is very interesting.

To me it justifies our assumption based on secondary sources that 0ne third of the 2/3 of his hits are likely on the turret. Any good tank will seek to obscure their hull is at all possible.

It also seems to dispel much of the Sherman Tommy Cooker myth. The Mk Iv seems equally vulnerable. The starage of ammunition not in the correct position is interesting. I have read this was an issue with some STUg's where there was unsafe storage of ammunition.

It is fascinating. What is the origin of this chapter and is there further content available like this?

A great find. This is one of your 70% genius contributions.

It is from the book Montgomery's Scientists which was published 20 years ago. The Sherman survey is the most quoted Sherman study ever and it is the basis (from 45 wrecks) of the '90% of Shermans burn when hit' trope. Everyone ignores the Tiger burn rate, the low survival rate of the Pz IV and the '75% of all hits on the Panther penetrate' data and only seem to want to use the Sherman numbers.

Here a link to the whole book

link

@mkenny; Thanks for that link!!! MH

What an amazing resource that is. Many thanks indeed

On the subject of brewed up tanks, I recently read a memoir of a tanker who fought in the Western Desert right from the beginning of the campaign in 1940.

He said it was standard practice on all sides to keep firing at an enemy tank until it brewed up. It was the only way you could tell at a distance that the vehicle had definitely been knocked out. This meant that crews were very keen on bailing out the moment the tank was hit!

Happy you enjoyed it boys! (smile)

Took my attention the 48% of german tank casualties for…abandonment of their own crews

Amicalement
Armand

Biggest single danger to german tanks. Their own crews:^)

Fwiw I think the stats for rocket kills have been criticised.

yes thanks for the link downloaded it.

Took my attention the 48% of german tank casualties for…abandonment of their own crews…………………….

Biggest single danger to german tanks. Their own crews………..

There is a reason why the data is broken down by date.

For the static period in Normandy very few German tanks were destroyed/left/abandoned by the crews. When the Germans stood and fought their tanks were simply destroyed by the Allies.
When the Germans broke and ran then they fled at top speed for the Rhine. During this panic-stricken rout it was very difficult for the Allies to catch the speeding panzers and knock them out. Because the German Army was completely destroyed then they lost the ability to repair and refuel their escape vehicles. As these 'tanks' were many dozens of miles in advance of the nearest pursuing Allied Forces they could not be knocked out in the normal way. Just as many BEF tanks were thrown away in 1940 but we do not have a publishing industry dedicated to claiming the BEF tanks were super-tanks that could not be knocked out in combat.
It is a given that an army that is broken and in full flight will throw away its equipment. Separate the panic-stricken rout from the static phase and do not make the mistake of conflating the losses from one phase as indicative of the losses when the Germans were not in headlong retreat.
Check 12th SS tank losses for June 7-July 7. In just over 4 weeks half of its panzers were destroyed and the vast majority by getting ventilated by AP rounds. Lehr went from 183 to 68. 21st PD from 110 to 67 panzers. Thy did not starting running until August so no crew abandonmen in play
here.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Panzer Lehr Division – about 4 tanks lost per day.
21st Panzer Division – An average of 1.5 tanks lost per day.

How many replacement tanks were received by the Germans in Normandy?

Do we have any tank loss figures for the other contestants?

Just curious.

B

21st Panzer Division – An average of 1.5 tanks lost per day.

Curios people should check 21 Pz Div losses on June 6th.
Here is your starter for 10 and its 2 of their tanks attempting to outflank Bieville via Le Londel.

Wider area

It also seems to dispel much of the Sherman Tommy Cooker myth. The Mk Iv seems equally vulnerable. The starage of ammunition not in the correct position is interesting.

It is interesting to me that the British analysts seem eager to explore possible explanations for why some tanks "brew up" more often than others, giving some indications of ammo storage but also seeking other explanations.

And yet it does not seem to enter their consideration that the British fired primarily solid shot AP projectiles, while the Germans fired almost exclusively AP HE projectiles. They attribute the differing rates of brew up exclusively to the tanks hit and take no interest in the projectiles they were hit with.

Yet they do seem quite keen to highlight where they think bias may find its way in to their numbers.

Odd bit of blinders, that.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Mark 1,
You make a valid point. IIRC if you hollow out an AP shell for a small HE charge you decrease the mass of the shell and penetration by about 10%. Were the British aware of this and used AP to get more penetration as a trade-off?

From some of my reading it's hard to access loss numbers and rates becauase of false reporting by front line units and different definitions for what a "loss" or "written off" was.

When the Germans were retreating and maintenance depots were overrun maybe as much as 1/3 of the total strength tanks strength could have been lost but may not have counted as a combat loss.

Wolfhag

From some of my reading it's hard to access loss numbers and rates becauase of false reporting by front line units and different definitions for what a "loss" or "written off" was.

In NWE any Allied tank not under the control of the Unit (left on the battlefield etc) or needing more than 24 hours for repair was stricken from the record. It passed to the repair Units who then, at some later date, decided if it was worth repairing. When the workshop scrapped a tank is when it became a total loss and not when the Unit handed it over. The mistake made by those who want to validate German kill claims is to either take a War Diary entry that Unit X 'lost' 10 tanks on a certain date or take the daily count of tanks that shows 10 tanks were stricken as confirmation that 10 tanks were knocked out and were total losses. The German system was to keep recovered wrecks in their daily count even if the tank was unrepairable either because the damage was too severe or because of a shortage of spares. This means that a German units list of tanks 'on strength' will include a number that are or will be total losses. Thus Allied loss numbers will be inflated (repaired tanks are counted as Unit total losses) and German loss numbers undercounted as tanks not repaired still appear (as damaged vehicles) in their count. Because German tank counts included 'waiting for repair' tanks then another mistake made (often deliberately) is to compare a German units total count of 'fit' tanks + 'in repair' tanks against an Allied Units list of only their 'fit' tanks.