Produce the Panther or stick with more Panzer IV/Tigers?

This is another example of the double standards used to perpetuate the uber-panzer myth.
Earlier you claimed that 'over half' the Tigers broke down or ran out of fuel during the retreats were not combat losses. Now you claim EVERY SINGLE Russian tank lost during a year of retreat was a combat kill!
By the way the claim that Tigers had a 12:1 (or even a 6:1) kill ratio is nothing more than guesswork and wish fulfillment.

 

I didn't mean that. Those were total Soviet tank losses in the first half year of the war. German panzer losses were only a tenth of that.

It's what books on the Tiger tank say and it's supported by data.

 

The 20,000 losses are mainly LIGHT tanks (17,000) and lost during a retreat like 'half' the Tigers.
As you said ealier:
being virtually useless(in armored combat) light tanks (Panzer II/38t, etc.)

double standards?

Not 'data' but unconfirmed crew kill claims. The only books I know that use this method are Schneider's TIC I/II and then reproduced in Wilbeck ect and every Tiger tank site on the planet.
Crew claims are the most unreliable of methods and the Germans even used a 50% discount on their own claims.
Believe me it is all hype.

 

what's with your combative attitude fella? No reason for it.

German crew skill was very high during the victorious stages of Barbarossa. The breakthrough achievements of their panzer divisions netted such a giant flock, destroyed and abandoned. Soviet T-34/KV models, which outnumbered and outclassed Panzer III/IVs, were defeated in this fashion as well.

 

T-34s were quite rare in 1941 and composed a fraction of Russia's obsolescent tank fleet. The only frontier military district that had it was Kirponos's command and most of those were lost to mechanical breakdowns. Even in 1942, the Russian TO&E for Tank Corps contained one part lights and one part T-34/KV-1.

 

Actually, during the initial battle of Barbarossa the Russians lost most of their T-34s to bad logistics. It is on official German record that one KV-1 could and did hold up a division.

 

Not 'combative' but tired of hearing:

I think the best defensive tank of WW2 was the Tiger I with it's 11-12:1 combat kill ratio against enemy tanks (mostly Soviet). Half were abandoned during retreats and breakdown so the final tally is around 6:1.

where you use one excuse to explain away half the Tiger losses as non combat. Then use another excuse:

They only deployed a little more than 1500 Panzer III/Panzer IV short barrel with the rest being virtually useless(in armored combat) light tanks (Panzer II/38t, etc.)

to dilute German tank losses in 1941.
There are no such riders when you use the total of ALL Soviet losses from ALL causes.
The net effect is to decrease the German losses and inflate the Soviet ones.

Why is it important to emphasize German mechanical losses but ignore Soviet ones?
Why can we discount German light tanks but include Soviet ones?

 

:deadhorse:

:feedtrolls-sign:

 

Actually, I don't quite agree with this. Both the PzIII and IV were at the end of the line. in your first point you're almost turning a PzIII into a PzIV so to speak. And your changes to the pzIV would be quite hard to undertake. Remember that by the H model, the suspension was quite streched as it was and changing it wouldn't be so easy. They did try to improve the PzIV but no viable solution was encountered. I think a new tank design was needed. We have to consider that the PzIV model was a design from the 30s.



Cheers...

 

That "fella" (not in my dictionary, but what do I know, I'm an uneducated foreigner) tends to become combative when he uses rational arguments and others just refuse to listen.

 

I almost missed the good old zarcasms

 

You're quite off on this. To me, it seemed like he appeared out of nowhere and was yelling at me rather out of the blue with a slightly ad hominen agenda.

 

I emphasized Tiger kills because that was its intended role- to destroy enemy tanks on the defensive or to make a breakthrough attack against strong defenses. I stated in that old post that it was the best tank of WW2 for its intended role.

Tanks like the Mark III/IV/Panther have a much different role and I would "judge" them on a different set of criteria as they were deployed very differently. With the best German Crews (the 1941 generation) the III/IV's proved more successful than not in penetrating Soviet defenses and pushing aside whatever Soviet armor they encountered as they preceded to the rear.

And I was merely responding to this statement: " A good tank crew is ALWAYS worth more than a good tank. " Note that I didn't discount losses to abandonment, etc. I'm aware that the soviets lost many to logistical breakdown...so did the Germans in the last year of the war.

I'm also aware that KV and T-34s were deployed by the Soviets in the Platoon level and, more often than not (in the case of the T-34 particularly) defeated when they met the coordinated efforts of Mark III/IV's and other services though contact with German lights was a different story.

How am I "diluting" German tank losses when much of them were from lights like the II/38t? I had assumed that you'd realize from the first post on the issue that I was referring to total losses.

 

Here is something I am working on. It's still a bit rough and there may be errors. The main thrust is easy to divine.

The source of the claim that most Tigers were not lost in combat.

Thomas Jentz, page 110 Tiger I &II Combat tactics.

" On 8 July 1944, 15 Tigers were reported as total writeoffs as a result of combat in Normandy. By 27 July, the number of total
write offs had increased by only 8, to 23 Tigers. The British analyzed Tigers captured in Normandy from 6 June to 7 August 1944
to determine how they became casualties. Of 8 Tigers examined 7 were by armor-piercing shot, 0 by hollow charge projectiles 6
by artillery high explosive shells, 0 by rocket projectiles from aircraft, 0 by cannon from aircraft, 0 destroyed by crew 0 abandoned
and 1 due to unknown causes"

Lets do it one step at a time:

On 8 July 1944, 15 Tigers were reported as total writeoffs as a result of combat in Normandy

There were only 45 in action by these dates. Thus we are talking about a 33% loss .

By 27 July, the number of total write offs had increased by only 8, to 23 Tigers

This is demonstrably incorrect. If 15 were lost up to July 8th then as sPzAbt 503 lost at least 10 (Schneider says 13) on the first day of
Goodwood (18.7.44) 15+10-13 = 25- 28 and this assumes no more were lost 18th July to 27th July.
Using the graphs that Jentz uses on pages 110/111 you will note that the total Tigers listed as lost in the 3 Tiger Abteilung between
the dates 8th-27th July is:
SS 101 = 5,
SS 102 = 6
Heer 503 = 16.
A total of 27.
Added to the 15 reported before these dates gives a total of 42 not 23!
So by the end of July we have 42 lost from 135. That is still a 31% loss.




Thomas Jentz, page 111 Tiger I &II Combat tactics

"British examination of 28 Tigers captured from 8 to 31 August
1944 revealed the cause of their loss as 1 by armor-piercing shot
0 by hollow charge projectiles, 0 by artillery high explosive shells'
0 by rocket projectiles from aircraft, 0 by cannon from aircraft 20
destroyed by crew, 6 abandoned, and 0 due to unknown causes"

Lets see:

"British examination of 28 Tigers captured from 8 to 31 August 1944

adding in the known Tiger losses for these dates and the arrival of another 28 TII's that were lost we arrive at a total of around 100 Tiger
casualties 8-31st August.


the cause of their loss as 1 by armor-piercing shot 0 by hollow charge projectiles, 0 by artillery high explosive shells'
0 by rocket projectiles from aircraft, 0 by cannon from aircraft 20 destroyed by crew, 6 abandoned, and 0 due to unknown causes"

Wittmann's group lost at least 5 Tigers to AP penetrations on 7/8/44. The Poles knocked out another (214). Schneider lists 8 more as combat losses in the same period for SS 101.
SS 102 have 14 Tigers listed as combat losses.
503 say they 'blew up' 43 Tigers but I can afford not to quibble over this claim for now.
That gives us 28 combat loss Tigers of which only 1 was surveyed!

This means a survey done which could have sampled 100+ Tigers found 28-around a third.
Of at least 28 destroyed Tigers only 1 was sampled!
The bulk of the surveying was done in the area where the Germans were in full flight. They had disengaged from combat and were fleeing East. Is it any wonder that the main cause of loss in these fleeing tanks would be mechanical or self destruction? The Tigers that were caught were engaged were knocked out.

 

LOL Za. I have know m kenny for quite awhile now here and on other forums and consider him one of the few people who are very knowledgeable about armor in WWII and especially about German armor. I would even go as far to say he is a "Expert" LOL. I would take his word and information over many others who post on them.

 

Oh no, it's the dreaded ratios again.

but da shermans and t34s only won coz there woz 2 many of them for da tigers to kill!!!!111!!!1


Listen, Wolfy, It would be an excellent idea if you browsed these forums fro a while and reconsider your opinions on teh subject.

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion and red herrings going around, as I've never claimed that and some of the other positions. It seems like an autopilot reaction at this point.

 

That is an isolated history of a specific Tiger outfit in Normandy. The Tigers were mainly deployed in the East. And the Tiger saw more much more success in the East, thanks to the specific conditions. They didn't perform as well in Normandy compared to other places.

I've seen the 12:1 (6:1) appearing rather often in books on the subject and tallied after the detailed history behind the individual Tiger battalions/companies. Whether they are all repeating the wrong information or not, I don't know. I'm not in a position to determine that.

I've also repeatedly heard from Officer's interviews about the fact that the Germans lost much more tanks to noncombative reasons in the final stage of the war.

 

If it were somebody else stating that I would agree, since it's you, then it must be something else

Oh, don't you worry, Wolfy, I'm sure that with some time and dedication Michael Kenny will be able to provide you with a run down of the rest. That is, if he feels his time is worth it, I don't think he will feel he is on trial.

 

You mean, addressing statements/arguments that I never made? hmmph.

is there a link?