Biggest tank battles

Yes, but that's counting without my extreme annoyance at having to point out over and over that Bastonge was only a minor objective for this offensive as a whole... I am sorry for my aggravated tone.

 

I should've been more precise. Brussels was the immediate objective, right? :smok: :smok:

 

For 5th Panzer Army, which diverted some of its strength (one VG division and an armoured regiment) to capture the road network of Bastogne, the final objective was Brussels.

 

And the final objective was Antwerp, right?

 

Only for the spearhead of the offensive, 6th Panzer Army, and more specifically 1st SS Panzer Corps which was part of this army. However, none of the German commanders ever believed this to be a reasonable option; informally it was the objective of 1st SS Panzer Corps to capture one bridge over the Meuse, and reassess the situation from there (if Charles Whiting is to be believed!).

6th Panzer Army (Dietrich)

1st SS Panzer Corps (Priess)
- 1st SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler"
- 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend"
- 3rd Fallschirmjäger Division
- 277th Volksgrenadier Division
- 12th Volksgrenadier Division

2nd SS Panzer Corps (still commanded by Bittrich, keeper of Arnhem)
- 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich"
- 9th SS Panzer Division "Hohenstaufen"

67th Corps (Hitzfeld)
- 326th Volksgrenadier Division
- 246th Volksgrenadier Division

This order of battle clearly shows which Army Corps was to form the spearhead of the entire offensive. 2nd SS Panzer Corps was kept in reserve for the initial attack; 67th Corps merely served as infantry support, keeping American units east of Monschau busy while they were being outflanked (it was hoped).

 

Halfway through the battle, the 6th army was transferred to the eastern front. would it have made much of a difference if it hadn't?

 

6th Army was moved East after the Russians started their winter offensive, that is, after January 12th. By that time the Germans were retreating; what matters when retreating is that no units get encircled and destroyed, and no units historically were. Therefore the German retreat from the Bulge was as good as it would ever get, and therefore, 6th Army's prolonged presence would probably not have made a difference.

 

Operation Goodwood

 

Only 3 armoured divisions and some 300 tanks took part in this battle, right? As such it does not compare to the likes of Kursk or the Ardennes.

 

Ok, then the battle for Caen

 

Only 300? The 3 Allied Armoured Divisions had some 800 tanks between them. The two flanking Corps had 250+. German numbers were around 400.
That is 1450!

 

Excuse me!

Losses were just under 300. I was confusing that with the number actually used.

 

Thats a lot of scap metal after those naval guns opened up too. Tanks vs. 16 and 18 inch naval guns, where close does count; some heavy tanks were tipped over without sustaining any real damage due to the shock waves of the exploding shells.

 

Anyone has some knowledge on the yom kippur war of 73 ,there was some
pretty stiff tank battle on the sinai and golan front , with the israelis having a fews days of cold sweat before reestablishing their supremacy as for what constitute a campaign , an offensive ,or a battle ,
if you are in your capital city , it's a campaign ,
if you are in an headquarter, it's an offensive ,
if some stranger is shooting at you , it's a battle

 

Welcome to the forum, Jeaguer. This section is really about tank battles during World War II, though I'm aware that this hasn't been made explicit in this topic. While some battles during the post-war period definitely qualify as tank battles, I'd appreciate it if you discussed them in the Modern Tanks or the Non-WW2 History sections. Thank you!

The distinction between campaigns, offensives and battles does indeed seem quite arbitrary in most cases...

 

the difference between battle, offensive and campaign is very slight indeed. I'm not exactly sure, but according to Russian sources, probably the least reliable of all, German losses in regards to tanks were, from 5 - 8 July, 1843. This number likely includes self-propelled guns and vehicles as well, so that brings down the number of actual tanks destroyed, does it not?
At El Alamein, the Axis had 490 tanks, 480 guns, and 744 anti-tank guns. And most of these were destroyed. So, the two battles were relatively equal in terms of losses, IF AND ONLY IF the Russian sources actually stated the correct numbers. But in ferocity and the like, Citadel was decidedly superior. And the fact that both were decisive battles certainly puts them up high in the ranks of important tank battles.

 

WW2

errrrr! 1843? that would be the battle of Meeanee on Feb.17th, where we beat tha Afghans, but I can't recall which tanks we were using.

 

:lol:

I think he means the Germans lost 1843 tanks between July 5th and 8th 1943. This number appears to be higher than the amount the Germans actually deployed (which was closer to 1500 IIRC).

 

I know, i was confused when i read it like that too.

 

1843

No, No, Mr King Tiger, not you, me! Getting old! it's my old war wound playing up, fell off the NAAFI table! Don't always read things thoroughly,
I apolagise for trying to be clever! But we did defeat the Afghans in 1843!
About the only time though, we seem to be struggling now!