US armor casualties

Hi all,
Been a while...does anyone have any sort of numbers on US armor casualties in the European vs. Pacific theaters? I **think** that the casualties were much MUCH worse in Africa and Europe vs. the Pacific. Did the Japanese even have any really effective anti-tank weapons? Does this thread belong in the weapons forum? Weren't Japanese tanks pretty awful compared to most everyone else's tanks (even the US tanks)?
Thank you in advance.

 

You are probably correct many more armored casualties in Europe due in large part to more armor being present there. The Japanese did have some very good AT weapons but thier tanks for the most part weren't one of them.

 

There really wasn't any way to use tanks in the Pacific. Places like New Guinea, Tarawa, or Guadalcanal were either too jungly or made up of lumpy coral. They couldn't go anywhere because there were no usable trails, the available trails had no pavement, and most of the vechicles got stuck in the swap or easily grenaded when Japs snuck through the jungle. The flamethrower attachment was perfect for these battles. But statistics I don't know, sorry.

 

I've been watching the History Channel's WW2 in Color in Hi-Def the past couple of days. It is an amazing collection of footage of color camera work in WW2. Among the pieces they have had on, are lengthy segments on Peleliu and New Britain. Both rather important islands in the Pacific. Oh, they also had pieces from the dual landings in the Kwajelein atoll. In all of these, the shots show US tanks, mainly Shermans, some with the Torch, others with the usual assault gun. This got me wondering about the casualties among the armor troops in the two theaters. If I had to work a tank, you can be DAMN sure it would be in the Pacific thank you. No going up against Tigers, Panthers, Jagdpanthers, King Tigers, or even long-gunned Mk IVs for MY Momma's youngest boy-o.

 

You can use armor in the jungles, but you can only deploy them in very small numbers to support infantry.

There are a few islands where tanks were used in relatively big numbers and there were even a few tank battles. When terrain permits it, a couple of tanks was very useful for reducing fortifications, especially when Japanese static dug in tanks and bunkers were involved. The Japanese had a few fairly feeble antitank guns and some close range antitank weapon like the magnetic mine that was carried and hurled by hand but not much else.

Japanese tank technology was pretty much stuck in the early 30s, and most of their tanks would be vastly inferior to late 30s Russian, let alone German, tanks. In the Pacific M3/M5 tanks were king, good enough to knock out almost all Japanese armor, and the 37mm used a cannister round. PTO received a higher priority in cannister. A Sherman tank would be a nightmare for the Japanese.

 

In normandy it was 4.000 - 4.500 tanks and AFVs.

So, I would guess a total of 12.000-13.500 tanks and AFVs lost between june 1944 and april 1945 for the western allies in the western front. In italy and africa you could add a few thousands.

In contrast the soviets lost about 40.000 tanks between january 1944 and april 1945.

 

In 1944 in the East Gemany lost 4,900 tanks and 5,000 Stug/SP;/Jgd Pz ect. and the Soviet losses in Krivosheev are given as 23,000.

 

Regardless of the specific figures on each side; thousands of lost Tanks/SPGs is kind of staggering isn't it.
No matter how much one reads on the business, just trying to imagine that number of vehicles, whether intact, damaged, or destroyed, absolutely boggles the mind.

Some conflict...

~A

 

UK losses in 21st Army Group NW Europe:
Stuart M3 series 248
Stuart VI 185
M24 2
Sherman 2712
Cromwell 609
Challenger 39
Comet 26
Churchill 656
Total 4475

no figures for M10 losses.

French losses:
Western Europe, 1944-1945
- 549 light and medium tanks
- 95 tank destroyers
Total 644

US losses in the ETO from 6 June 1944 to 9 May 1945

M4 Medium Tank- 4,367
M4 Medium Tank (105mm) - 174
M3/M5/M24 Light Tank - 1,507
Total tanks = 6,048

M8 75mm HMC - 226
M7 105mm HMC - 240
M10 3-in GMC - 574
M18 76mm GMC - 221
M36 90mm GMC - 153
Total SP = 1,414

Combined total 12581

 

In 1944, they, the largest army ever assembled, lost about 23.700 plus 13.700 lost in 1945. For a total of 37.400, source: krivosheev.

The western allies lost 12.600.

Total losses agaisn't the wehrmacht: 50.000 tanks in 1 year and 4 months. (i.e.: the wehrmacht ate 3.150 tanks per month, about 5.000 in peak offensive activity).

 

me is good at guessing stats...

 

The largest army ever assembled.

 

And your point is.............thew Germans suck at winning wars?
I am sure it was a great comfort to those SS men cowering in the cellars of Berlin. They presumably kept their spirits up counting the wrecked Soviet tanks whilst the world collapsed around them. Then over 100 dividsions surrendered and ran like rats to avoid Soviet retrubution.

 

Why do you hate people that admire the most formidable fighting force of the 20th century?

 

Oh why be shy? Don't you mean the most formidable civilian murdering machine in history?

Why do you no longer reply in the thread where your German Normandy casualty figures were shown to be complete fiction?

 

What ever country you favored killed thousands of civilians at one time or another. Some of us love the German soldier because he looks really badass. Just look at him with that cool hat or helmet, camoflauged uniform, jack boots, toting an MG42 or a STG44! There's the war side, and there's the political side.

 

So, if they murdered civilians that means that they should not be admired by its purely military aspects?

"The German army had extremely high fighting power, it is true, but only at the cost of producing troops to whom an order, regardless of its nature, was an order and who could therefore be relied upon not only to fight hard but to commit any kind of atrocity as well. To produce fighting power without paying as high a price: that is the true challenge facing the armies of the West."van creveld

The link please.

 

Germany killed about 15 million civilians.

No there is one side-reality.

 

http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/36415-could-western-allies-win-without-urss-10.html#post440219

http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/36415-could-western-allies-win-without-urss-10.html#post440223