Myth buster threads: comments

'railway carts'... :neutral:

 

i'm not sure but they are wagon gattung ssyms 80 ton rail carrier, :-?
does anybody knows the correct name?

 

they are called flat cars.

I can't much info but from what I have seen P IV's or lighter were carried on 4 axle versions and P V&VI plus Jagd series were carried on 6 axles.

Flat cars were heavily targeted by the various resistance groups as they had only one use to the german army. The transport of heavy vehicles. As such they were valuable and in short supply.

As the Tigers needed 6 axle heavy versions, these will have been rarer still.

I can't get any stats on the german flat cars but apparently the 4 and 6 axle versions where the exact same size.

Just to point out, the P VI was only 60 cm wider than a P IV

FNG

 

I've also read that the Sherman was recognized as the best hill-climbing tank of the war.

Tim

 

10 to 1.

The 10 to 1 figures (for Tigers) stems from the kill numbers of each Tiger unit divided by the numbers of Tigers lost in combat (not including self destruction etc).

It depends on whether or not we trust the circa figures given for each unit. Looking at the figures soberly, there seems to be a good correlation between the amount of action each unit saw and the number of tanks destroyed. For example Schwere Panzer Abteilung 508 is said to have ko'd circa 100 enemy tanks. On first look, this seems a very low kill ratio considering 508 used a total of 77 Tigers during it's history. Looking further though, this unit did not see extensive action from first to last and it spent it's combat life in Italy, which wasn't the ultimate tank v tank theatre. The figure of around only 100 enemy tanks ko'd for this unit seems about fair when we think of how it spend it's combat life and how little it saw very heavy tank v tank combat.

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 on the other hand was the most combat hardened and experienced Tiger battalion of them all, first seeing combat action in southern Russia in January 1943 and continuing almost in constant action right up until it's last action in Austria in May 1945. It's kill score was said to be around 1700 enemy tanks. It lost around 120 Tigers due to enemy action, out of the 252 Tigers it used in it's 2 1/2 year combat life.

I don't doubt that both of these final score figures for 508 and 503 are approximately on the money given the fact that 503 was almost constantly in heavy action for over 2 years solid and 508 was not. They seem about right to me, especially having studied the combat history of 503.

Adding up the total scores for each unit, around circa 10,000 enemy tanks were ko'd (or put out of action). Again, this depends on whether or not the figures are accurate and whether we believe them. Fewer than 1,000 Tigers were destroyed by enemy action. The rest were self sabotaged.

That's where you get the 10 to 1 figure. I've heard a few people mention this.

 

Tiger I width

I should watch myself. A quick check shows that the Tiger I was 3.15m (10" 4") wide when set up for transport, as opposed to the "combat" width of 3.73m (12' 3"). The Mk IV was 3.33m (10' 11") wide. Hull length of the Tiger I was 6.2m (20' 4") and the Mk IV was 5.9m (19' 4"). The Panther was 3.43 (11' 3") wide and had a 6.88m (22' 7") long hull. Tiger I weight was 56 tons, the Mk IV 25 tons and the Panther 43 tons.

 

the M10 with a 90MM gun was the M36A

I understood that immediately on the sticky thread..

 

Lyndon
Using German claims isn't really a valid measurement. On the Western front, the numbers were approximately infalted by 100 % in general, and for units as small as the schwere Panzer-Abteilung "Tiger", the numbers might be even more inflated.

canambridge
For comparison, the US tanks had the following widths:

Medium Tank, M3: 8 ft., 11 in. (2.7176 m.)
Medium Tank, M4: 8 ft., 7 in. (2.6162 m.)
Medium Tank, M4 (76 mm): 8 ft., 9.5 in. (2.6797 m.)
Heavy Tank, M26: 11 ft., 6.25 in. (reducible to 10 ft., 4 in.) (3.51155/3.1496 m.)
3 Inch Gun Motor Carriage, M10: 10 ft. (3.048 m.)
76 mm Gun Motor Carriage, M18: 9 ft., 2 in. (2.794 m.)
90 mm Gun Motor Carriage, M36: 10 ft. (3.048 m.)

 

What do you base that on Christian?

I don't think the claims of only circa 100 ko's for Schwere Panzer Abteilung 508 are exaggerated...and that unit served on the Western Front. That's a quite low claim to make. Seems about right to me. Nothing outrageous.

I also don't think Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 exaggerated their kill claims by 100% either. Feldwebel Knispel alone had a 162 score, and these had to be verified before accepted. That was almost 10% of the entire battalion score.

It stands to reason that in good open tank country on the Eastern Front and also taking into consideration that Tiger units were used as fire brigades and always in the thick of action (and far superior to any Soviet tank for much of the war), then Tiger units could rack up some phenomenal scores. In defensive positions in open tank country and against mainly T34/76s at long range the Tiger I was head and shoulders above enemy armour.....and we all know about the attrition rate of Soviet tanks. I don't see that 503 with a score of around 1700 is too exaggerated in a 2 and a half year period, considering the combat that unit saw. 503 didn't seem to exaggerate kill claims in Normandy. The kill claims for Normandy seem pretty much on the level and not overblown.

 

It is based on the research of Michael Kenny, who has spend a lot of time comparing US casualty reports with German claims.

To say that the German claims are correct is just as naive as saying the Russian claims are accurate. If Tiger claims were to have been accurate, it would mean that the rest of the German tanks, and destroyers and anti-tank gunners destroyed hardly destroyed any tanks at all.

Besides, how can you say that the claims aren't exaggerated if you don't compare it against anything?

 

????

Do you think 508's claim of only around 100 enemy tanks ko'd during the entire combat life of that unit is exaggerated by 100%? Do you regard that is an outlandish figure? What about Knispel? Do you think his kill score was exaggerated by 100% and in reality he only scored half that? Do you think Carius and Wittman exaggerated their claims by 100%?

"To say that the German claims are correct is just as naive as saying the Russian claims are accurate"

I didn't say that they were correct. I just said I don't believe that all and every Tiger unit/personnel exaggerated kill claims by 100%. That's a sweeping statement and generalisation. There might well have been some exaggerations, but to suggest that they all exaggereted claims by 100% is a bit much and it's hardly comparable to the Soviet claims considering that the Soviets often claimed many times the number of German tanks that were actually involved (Prokhorovka for example). The Soviets often exaggerated 10 times the mumber, not merely twice. LOL.

"If Tiger claims were to have been accurate, it would mean that the rest of the German tanks, and destroyers and anti-tank gunners destroyed hardly destroyed any tanks at all."

Not at all. 10,000 enemy tanks ko'd? That's a drop in the bucket (and that would include the number of enemy tank that were merely put out of action, repaired and sent back into combat. How many would that amount to? 50%??? I don't know). 10,000 is only 10% of the 100,000 plus Soviet tanks built during the entire war, and that's not including western armour figures. 10,000 tanks in my view is not an overwhelming figure to have ko'd (or put out of action temporarily) in 2 and a half years, considering the superiority of these tanks and the fact they were used in sectors of the heaviest fighting. In the period from Dec 1943 to April 1944 the Soviets lost around 7,500 tanks and SPGs during the bitter winter battles of the western Ukraine. A high attrition rate and Tiger units racked up high scores in this campaign There were 60,000 T34s alone built during WW2, the vast majority of which were destroyed before the war finished.

Even if we take your 100% exaggeration claim for every Tiger unit on board the figure would still be impressive. Let's say the Tigers ko'd 5,000 to 6,000 enemy tanks instead of 10,000. Let's say a round figure of 800 Tigers were destroyed due to enemy combat (if that). That's still 6.2/7.5 to 1 ratio.

Whatever way we look at it, the Tiger had a phenomenal kill to loss rate against enemy armour.

"Besides, how can you say that the claims aren't exaggerated if you don't compare it against anything?"

Who said they aren't compared to anything? The combat histories and war diary's of 508 and 503 are well documented and available in detail. Comparing these unit's kill claims to the amount of combat and heavy action they were involved in (or not involved in) is a comparison of some sort. If claims were exaggerated 100% then wouldn't 508 have a much higher kill score claim? I think 508's 100 kill score is quite a low figure.

 

Maybe you would like to actually read what I wrote.

I write that the claims in general were inflated by about 100 %, and that the claims of the schwere Panzer-Abteilung "Tiger" might be inflated even more. The reverse might be true as well, but to say that schwere Panzer-Abteilung "Tiger" claims are accurate, when the rest of the German claims were not, would be a very daring claim.

Furthermore, I never mentioned any specific names. That being said, the personal scores of the aces were no doubt inflated as well. For example, Wittmann is still attributed the traditional claims from Villers Boccage, even though we know today that the events there were far from the traditional story.

Again, read what I actually wrote; in general.

I again refer to a previous statement of mine:

Notice US casualty reports, i.e. numbers which has nothing to do with the Eastern front or the Russian tank production.

Besides that, there is a big difference between vehicles manufactured and vehicles destroyed. Furthermore, if the 'vast majority' of T-34s were destroyed before the end of the war, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide me with the actual (or just approximate) number?

Using the German war diaries isn't a valid cross-reference for unit losses of the Allies. The only valid information to compare against would be the casualty reports of the Allied forces, just like the only accurate casualty reports on German tanks are the German casualty reports.

 

Hi All,

many thanks for your additional comments & corrections!

The posts are simply what I culled from the Forum's collective knowledge, so I am happy to update or add stuff. I locked them just so that we could keep them as one, definative post, rather than a long straggling topic.

Regarding the Tiger I needing special rail carriages & carefully planned routes for transport - that is nothing new. So did the Sherman, on British railways. It was too tall, and needed a completely new wagon designed for it.

I have read that the Churchill was the best hill-climber of WW2
I have no idea which was better - maybe we could ask Bovvie to resolve the issue with a practical test?

The Tiger's kill ratio - I deliberately kept that one rather vague. Because we will simply never know. Had the Soviets kept meticulous records of losses & the cause of losses, we might be better placed, but even then
we will never really know exactly. For example, if on one day only one American tank is hit by an enemy anti-tank shell, and a German Tiger I commander and a German AT gun commander both claim 1 American tank killed...

Yes, we can get a bit clearer... But as a comparison, heated debate is still ongoing about the kills made by the air forces in the Korean War - and we have access to the (pretty well-documented) records on both sides.

I do remember that this line of debate has generated much unpleasantness in the past, on this Forum and elsewhere, so I am going to appeal for calm... Thanks.

 

Whooooo, slow down. No need to have a 'tone' here. Please.

Yes and the word 'general' means "Including or affecting or applicable to all or most parts or things".

I know. You made a sweeping 'generalisation'. That's not good enough really, and that's what I was getting at. Sorry if I caused any offence. If you were to give specifics then that would be more helpful to me.

But the bulk of Tiger kill claims were not from the western front. The Tiger units had minimal involvement in the west so that would not be a true reflection. It was poor Tiger country as well. Most Tiger kill claims and most Tiger combat action was on the eastern front and we well know the rate of attrition Soviet tanks went through. It's no myth that Soviet AFVs were ko'd in huge vast numbers. Like I said, even accounting for a decent proportion of Soviet armour ko'd by Tigers being recovered and repaired (and no I have no real idea of the ratio this would be) I don't think the figure of 10%, maybe 5% if many tanks were merely disabled and put back into action, of just Soviet WW2 tank strength alone ko'd is an outrageous claim. I disagreed with your suggestion that "If Tiger claims were to have been accurate, it would mean that the rest of the German tanks, and destroyers and anti-tank gunners destroyed hardly destroyed any tanks at all."

A lot more than 10,000 Soviet and Allied tanks were ko'd during WW2. A hell of a lot more, so I didn't understand your point there. Like I said, 7,500 Soviet AFVs were ko'd in 4 to 5 months in early 1944 alone.

Do you think there were more than 20,000 T34s in combat action by May 1945 lining up against the Reich? How many T34s left by May 1945 do you think there were? 5,000? 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? 30,000?

We already know there were(relatively) few T34/76s left in service by May 1945. Especially model 1940s, 1941s, 1942s and 1943s. T34/76 production amounted to some 35,000 and relatively few were left by May 1945. The vast majority of T34s left by May 1945 were T34/85s manufactured mid to late 1944 and early 1945. There is no doubt about this.

Total Soviet tank strength by the end of the war in May 1945 (all armour types) was around 14,000.

And I'll say again, let's take your 100% exaggeration on board and cut Tiger ko's down to 6,000. That's still a 7 to 1 kill to loss ratio in favour of the Tigers and the point in this thread is to mythbust about the overexaggeration of the Tiger's kill to loss ratio. I don't see that this 'myth' has really been busted.

 

Lyndon, don't disable the BBCode when you're quoting. It makes it a lot harder to read ( I have edited and enabled the BBCode on your last message ).

 

Thaks. I wondered why the quotes were not coming up properly. I must've ticked that box by mistake unknowingly.

 

Lyndon: if the kill ratio is in fact 7:1 instead of 10:1, I would consider that a quite important correction, namely by 30%. Myth busted.

Christian: I agree with Lyndon that you can't disprove his point about casualties inflicted by Tigers on the Eastern front by citing evidence collected from the Western Front, because these two areas of operations are simply incomparable. However, since the Russians did not bother to keep detail records about losses inflicted and suffered, I also agree with you on the point that Lyndon cannot fully support his own claim. After all we can never compare German claims with Russian combat reports to any credible extent. Therefore I don't think there's any real solution to your discussion.

 

On the Eastern from wasn;t the ratio (total) of tanks destroyed around 13:1? On the Western from it was much smaller.


"Many of the existing railroad bridges of European Russia were in fact temporary structures. Most of the bridges were built during the First World War to satisfy the military needs of the Czars' Army in 1914-1917. Some of these temporary bridges were in fact manufactured of sheet steel and simply riveted together. By German and western European standards, these temporary bridges were of no value for the heavier trains (carrying heavier tanks and so on) of the late 1930's and early 1940's."
http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html

Type SSmys and Sa 705 six-axle heavy load wagon
Okey I found out what tjhey were aprently called teh SSmys and the Sa 705 (the six axle heavu load wagons for the tanks)

I hope some1 will try to find the dimentions on them because I hav found nothing.

 

You're right Roel. I don't think it can be proven either way and I did in fact write in my first post "Adding up the total scores for each unit, around circa 10,000 enemy tanks were ko'd (or put out of action). Again, this depends on whether or not the figures are accurate and whether we believe them", so it's not as if I claimed they were absolute fact and wouldn't hear anything against them. I also then said that I don't believe Schwere Panzer Abteilungs 503 and 508 exaggerated their claims by 100%. I see no reason to, nor any evidence for it. Perhaps there might have been exaggerations. Perhaps not. I was disputing the 100% figure.

 

Kills.

What is also worth pointing out is that even though the claims for Tiger 'kills' are circa 10,000, in actual reality (as I mentioned before)there is a big difference between totally destroyed tanks and tanks that could be repaired and sent back into action. This 10,000 'claimed' score would probably include a substantial number of tanks that were merely disabled. I have no idea what the percentage would be.

Hitting an enemy tank while in a defensive position at 1000 to 1500 metres away (or more, as often happened on the eastern front) and seeing it put out of action with no possibility to inspect the final damage before withdrawing, it would be claimed as a ko I'm sure. Thus out of the 10,000 claimed Tiger 'kills', perhaps 25% to 50% (a flying guess ballpark shout here) might in actual fact not have been out and out 'kills' and total writeoffs. Even if the 10,000 claim is true about kos (and there seems to be some disagreement here), then perhaps out of those 10,000 'kill' claims, only 5,000 to 7,500 were actually destroyed. Again, that doesn't seem like too much of an exaggerated figure to me.

Conversely of course, if we relegate many Tiger 'kill' claims as non total write offs, then the same could well be said vice versa. How many Tigers lost/ko'd due to enemy action suffered only minor damage that could well have been repaired had not Germany been almost constantly in retreat for long periods from 1943 to 1945? Of course, more often than not, Germany did not have the luxury the Allies and Soviets had during the last two years of being able to retrieve their disabled Tigers and repair them.

With this in mind, I still think the 10 to 1 'kill' ratio is possible.