"WW2 Tank Battle analysis." Topic

Interesting analysis of tanks battles and relative effectiveness of towed vs SP AT guns. The side that fired first having the advantage I don't think I have seen expressly modelled in any Wargames rules. A lot have simultaneous fire a few prioritise stationery over moving.

WO 291/975 Tank battle analysis
This report presents the results of an analysis of 83 tank vs. tank actions in NW Europe taken from unit
war diaries. The data means that it is not possible to separate results out by individual tank or gun
types. It is assumed that Allied (British) tanks have 25% 17-pr tanks, and that 25% of towed ATk guns
are 6-pr, the rest 17-pr. German ATk guns are assumed to be 50% 75mm and 50% 88mm.
The report's conclusions are:
1. SP guns are more effective that towed ATk guns by a factor of about 3 for the Allies, and about 2 for
the Germans.
2. The Panther and Tiger are more effective than Mk III and IV against Allied SP guns by a factor of
about 4.
3. "In tank versus tank engagements, for the chance of success to be equal for either side, Allied tanks
would have to outnumber the German tanks by some 30%".
4. For an equal chance of success against German anti-tank guns, Allied tanks need to outnumber them
by about 2 to 1.
5. The mean "success range" for the 17-pr was 2100 yards, as against 580 yards for the 75mm.
6. The average "success ranges" for tanks were 750 yards for the Allies, 1290 yards for the Germans.
7. Allied ATk guns were successful at 1090 yards (SP) and 870 yards (towed), whereas German figures
were 330 yards (SP) and 300 yards (towed).
8. Of 83 actions, 58 were won by the side that fired first. Where a side was both numerically superior
and fired first, it was invariably successful.
9. A successful tank attack typically resulted in about 15% losses; a failure, about 65%.
10. A successful ATk gun defence resulted in about 12.5% (SP) or 15% (towed) losses; a failure, over
50% (SP) or 80% (towed).

Fascinating. I imagine you can find a lot more analyses like this and I am sure they would be equally welcome.

Thanks.

War Diaries never have enough information to be able to use them this way successfully. The AT gun conclusion at no 7 is the best illustration of the problems

War Diaries never have enough information to be able to use them this way successfully. The AT gun conclusion at no 7 is the best illustration of the problems

Is there anything better though? Range data overestimates hit probabilities. Post battle analysis of knocked out tanks is not precise enough and impossible to tell between AT and tank gun kills or even what caused the kill sometimes. Also knocked out tanks does not equal success. A tank attack beaten off by AT guns is a victory, but might not have knocked out many tanks.
But I take your point about conclusion 7. Also conclusion 5 not sure about. Seems to contradict the "17pdr was a crap gun over 500yds" view that seems to be popular at the moment largely due to the Chieftain's videos.

I think some of the factors not considered above as representing tank battle results, is rate of fire, and the ability to achieve maneuver objectives.

The starting condition of this study largely has the Western Allies on the strategic offensive in NW Europe, with the Germans on the strategic defensive.

I'd like to see German tank attack results (when the Wehrmacht is on the offensive) isolated out, and then compare those results as a more equivalent basis for study. So then how effective were German tank-on-tank attacks when these results come from combat conditions when Panzers were charged to take back strategic [lost] ground?

As something related to consider, we can read about the Allied [AT] arm, and then one might come to the conclusion that the American and British TD units were often unused in their primary role [of countering Axis tank attacks], instead they were often pressed into use as infantry support, and for indirect artillery support (these latter roles not considered as their doctrinal reason for existence).

So German tank battle results from Mortain, Alsace-Lorraine (Arracourt), the Ardennes……..

These results would then consider when the German Panzers (and supposedly their Panzerjager arm also) were fighting on a more equivalent combat posture to what the Western Allies were charged with attaining [to achieve maneuver results- that of taking and holding ground] starting in N. Africa, through Tunisia, into Sicily, Italy, France, and throughout the rest of the countries of NW Europe, and finally Germany.

I'd love to play wargames typically having American or British AT weapons, tanks, and TDs on the defensive (and perhaps then expect to get in those 1st well-aimed shots) – and then with the numerical superiority these Allied AT forces being reflected in each scenario, but that's not the historical context of WWII.

So the listed results reflect largely tank battles in NW Europe that have the Allied armies advancing against ensconced Panzers, AT strongpoints, and lurking Panzerjagers, taken up on ground of their choosing, and likely to maximize their weapon effectiveness vs. the opposition?

I think it's been found, that the Sturmgeschutz series of assault guns were the high scoring German AFVs (or some such ranking in WWII)…..though these vehicles were never recommended by German doctrine to assume the role of offensive battle tanks, where their casement configuration would put them at a distinct disadvantage.

No, put a column of German tanks on a tight road headed into the teeth of an Allied Pak Front (sorry TD/tank defense), and then after the resulting attrition of vehicle breakdowns is shaken out first, show the results of that data…..

Good topic for reflecting upon – and to be enjoyed – much thanks for bringing it to the forum here.

Overall I'm with FlyXwire on this one. The stats are interesting but do not disclose the tactics and terrain that generated the results or crew expertise.

7. Allied ATk guns were successful at 1090 yards (SP) and 870 yards (towed), whereas German figures
were 330 yards (SP) and 300 yards (towed).

German AT guns on the defensive were concealed and normally opened fire for an ambush, having the initiative to shoot first. They sprung the ambush at short range to guarantee hits and penetrations often hitting the defender's flanks.

With a ROF of every 4-5 seconds, they could get off numerous shots before being detected, suppressed, or killed. Pak Fronts had a commander who could control the guns and coordinate targeting them via field phones. The Russians used the same tactics, which is why German tank commanders feared AT guns more than tanks.

Practice range firing normally involves firing at targets with the range known and not being fired at. In combat, you needed to estimate the range sometimes under fire and there was normally a 20% range estimation error which could easily generate a first-round miss. However, there were exceptions.

A rangefinder can give the range a 5% or less error. If you took 2-3 shots to knock out a new target and your next target was nearby, + or – 50-100m, the gun elevation is already ranged in on the new target and you can expect a first-round hit at up to 1.5 seconds time of flight against a medium tank size target but not a dug in AT gun.

StuGs normally fired from ambush positions and the crew were trained artillerymen who used rangefinders and had infantry support, minefields, and other AT guns involved in the battle that would channel the attackers into a Kill Zone. On the East Front, they claimed a 3:1 kill ratio.

When on the defensive, units would have time to make a range card measuring the range to easily identified landmarks or have range markers. It is somewhat like artillery TRPs. The ambushing units would wait until the attackers got to a known range and opened fire. This would simulate practice range performance because they know the range and are not under fire.

Is anyone aware of rules that include the above tactics other than mine?

Wolfhag

Mine do Wolfag, but I'm not sharing them now. ;)

Seriously though, I've got something I wanted to put by you – from a reading again in the book Panzerjager, by William B. Folkestad. This struck me as interesting, and sort of related back to that forum conversation we had on cannon muzzle blast and potential targeting affect on aiming correction too -

"Our squad leader explained that the gun had been too low and we needed to relocate it onto higher ground. He then turned and ordered me to go to the embankment and give fire coordinates. With an antitank gun you always need to have someone observing out front because with each round fired, the barrel blast sent dust and everything flying up. In such instances you are unable to see if you hit the target, or the ground in front, to the side or in the back of a tank. My job was to correct the fire and give new coordinates using arm and from hand signals. I ran over to the berm, clambered up to the edge and from there began directing fire towards the T-34s…….."

I've not read this before in any other source, and not seen photographic evidence of a manned, advance position in gun locations, or descriptions/diagrams of some such in manuals.

In your research, would this be a commonplace ATG deployment routine (it's does, and remains new to me)?

(with a section of guns firing, or platoon in ambush – up to a Panzersack, now all the targeting observation needs to be isolated to relate to each particular gun's firing….as seen by this 'man up front')

Keeping all the good stuff to yourselves eh FlyXwire and Wolfhag? :-)
There are obvious problems with the data, not least being it presents the data from one side and for a limited period. I know from my own research in the Bulge battles comparing German and US accounts of the same action they often differ considerably in what happened and kill claims don't match what the other side lost. Also problematical is what defines success. It is not unheard of for both side to claim victory after a battle depending on what theirobjectives were.
What use anyone makes of it I leave upto the individuals concerned.
@FlyXwire I would like to see that data too and if I find any will post it here.

Excellent FC – and it's a sharp discussion topic (and there's been a number of these on the forum lately – I'm not getting anything done today here at home).

I've been telling my wife, it's all Fred Cartwright's fault! :)))

Thank you. Glad to see this. I'm surprised the loss difference between failed SP and failed towed AT guns wasn't larger. Any way to know how big the sample was for this?

Any way to know how big the sample was for this?

It says at the start 83 actions, but doesn't break that down into tank vs tank or tank vs AT guns.

FlyXwire,
Rather than hijacking another thread like I am prone to do I resurrected one of yours: TMP link

Wolfhag

Thanks Wolfhag!

Something from that thread's discussion I thought might be good over here too –

From the Tigerfibel manual, one of the pages on gunnery range estimation, asserts – "You always have the time!".

So there's a Tiger crew having a discussion each about their own target range estimation, and….."the driver needs a little longer" it allows.

Can't imagine any Allied tank crew having the luxury for this, in there day-in-day-out jaunt to the front line.

"Take your time George, meanwhile Gordy, waiting for your range estimate to that Tiger over there?"

At Villers Bocage Wittmann fired point-blank at a Cromwell-and missed! I saw a Report some time back that tried to estimate how much a soldiers performance degraded once he came under fire. I did not keep the link unfortunately but I remember it said it was a significant factor (something like reduced to 20-30% of that expected) that I thought excessive.

mkenny,
This is what I found:
On reaching the Caumont junction at the west end of the main street Wittmann ordered the driver to slow down. Peering round the corner to the right he could make out the long barrel of a Sherman Firefly's 17-pounder gun. Simultaneously, Sergeant Lockwood, the Firefly commander, hearing the clatter of tank tracks and, expecting it to be one of his own regimental tanks returning from further forward, realised with horror that he was confronted by the vast outline of a Tiger tank. Frantically he ordered ‘Tank Action'. Wittmann fired first and the shop behind Lockwood's tank collapsed in a shower of rubble and dust. Lockwood returned fire, but his shot merely glanced off the angled plates of the Tiger's turret.

It appears to be a case of poor Situational Awareness and a hurried snap shot missing but Whitman did fire first. Because the gun sight is offset from the gun barrel at 25m or less the gunner can have the crosshairs on the target but the gun is not. Other factors could be that when the gunner stops traversing the power turret the turret can continue to slowly traverse for 1-2 seconds before it comes to a complete stop. There is about 1/10 of a second delay between hitting the button to shoot and the round leaving the barrel. Add to it the gunner being nervous and hurried it can result in a miss.

I can somewhat simulate that in my system. If it takes 8 seconds to ideally line up a gun to shoot, the player can shoot immediately but with a +800m accuracy penalty. He uses the 800m column hit# to determine a hit and not the 100m or less column. This could result in a 40-50% chance of a miss. Players can make the same Risk-Reward Tactical Decision as real crews do.

I think the 30% is excessive but I don't know how he arrived at those numbers.

Wolfhag

It was a Cromwell (pink square)on the bend into Villers Bocage. His first shot missed and went over the top of the tank. Because of the road/house/hedge layout Wittmann (red arrow) had to be very close.

Spearhead does a good job of modelling this simply with the order in which units fire. Definitely an elegant solution

30% efficiency is optimistic for riflemen. Or most ww2 conscripts anyhow.
Crew served weapons are more effective and protected crew more so. But 30% seems reasonable to me.

I could borrow at length about individual riflemen. For them OR is based on proven casualties, AAR and interviews. There are lots of such interviews from the nighties. Not so much tank on tank action in the Stan though.