Tiger Kills and Losses

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny »

What is being forgotten is that German tank kill claims were notoriously inflated. So much that they themselves routinely applied a 50% reduction to late war kill claims. What you see being quoted as 'kill -tables' is in fact the pre-reduction kill claims. Not the same thing as a 'kill'.
Here are examples where you can see massive overclaiming in action.

"2.Leutnant Friederich Anding-18 kills
Friederich received his KC for the destruction of 6 tanks and 5 armored vehicles (so says his Verleihungsvorschlag zum Ritterkreuz), as adjutant of the Pz.Jg.Abt. Großdeutschland (commander of the battalion was Maj. Walle) on 8 May 1945. This action took place in northern Germany (more specifically in Stadensen) on 14-15 April. The battalion was attacked by a large number of enemy tanks and armored vehicles. Major Walle (9 destroyed tanks), Leutnant Anding and Obergefreiter Stützle (7 destroyed tanks) received KCs for their actions"


Note in the above 22 tank kills were claimed and awards even given for the kills.
The action at Stadensen is fairly easy to research in British sources and it reveals that though Motor Vehicles losses were severe the actual number of tanks destroyed was 2 Churchills and 2 M10 Tank Destroyers!
The late war period is full of these absurd and easily disprovable German kill claims. The Nazi Propoganda machine was in it's death throes and was churning out all sorts of fantastic stories to keep up morale.

The above is the attack where it was claimed night vision Panthers destroyed a platoon of Comet tanks. The claim is completely bogus.

In April of 1945, Panthers equipped with IR equipment (solution B) joined Panzer Division Clausewitz and in mid April near Uelzen destroyed entire platoon of British Comet cruiser tanks.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/ir.htm

Uelzen is right next to Stadensen.

More claims made about IR Panthers:

Also on April 21st of 1945, same Panthers overran an American anti-tank position on the Weser-Elbe Canal

various other accounts recount in great detail how the Americans were sent fleeing in panic by the new Uber-Panther IR tank.
You can read the U.S account of the action here:

http://www.5ad.org/04_45.html

and the report for 21/4/45 states:
On 21 April, the Division attacked north from a line of departure DAHRE - SALZWEDEL with CCA on the left and CCR on the right. Just prior to the attack, CCA was counter-attacked by elements of Division "Clausewitz". Artillery fire was placed on the attacking forces and they broke and dispersed into the woods to the north.

CCA attacked against a determined enemy who had set up make shift defenses in the woods along the combat command's routes of advance. An increase in the use of anti-tank mines was observed, and fire from nebelwerfers and artillery pieces slowed the advance to some extent. At 2100, the 46th Amrd Inf Bn (married) was assembling for the night in the vicinity of GADDAU. The married "C" companies (46th Armd Inf Bn and 34th Tank Bn) went into position with the CCA CP near KLENZE and the 34th Tank Bn (married) assembled in the vicinity of BERGEN .

CCR was held up in its attack until 1500. The reason for this was that the resistance in front of CCA was such that the two combat commands could not parallel each other's advance, and thus a threat existed to the flank of either, if one was held up and the other moved too rapidly forward. After CCA had cracked the resistance in its sector, CCR attacked with the 47th Armd Inf Bn (married) advancing north on the SALZWEDEL - LUCHOW road and the 10th Tank Bn (married) attacking on the left to clear the pockets in the woods near BOMBECK. The 47th met a good deal of resistance along its route, and mines were found strewn on the road with a minefield near SAASSE. Road blocks defended by AT guns, nebelwerfers, mortars, and infantry, were encountered all along the route and at 2000, heavy fire from LUCHOW, and vicinity, prompted the force to abandon its further advance that night. The battalion went into a security position near SAASSE. In the meantime, the 10th Tank Bn was attacking in the BOMBECK area. The woods in this vicinity had been reported to be a strong-point of enemy armor and infantry. The positions had been sealed off on the north and east by CCA's attack in the early part of the day. The attack was made with one married tank-infantry company moving south from SEEBEN to the railroad and holding there while the balance of the 10th attacked north from the south edge of the woods.

A quantity of enemy personnel was trapped and captured and material loss for the enemy was large. Three (3) tanks were known to have escaped the trap and these moved northwest into the CCA sector. The 10th Tank Bn secured for the night near GR GERSTEDT.

CCB, with the 85th Cav Rcn Sq Mecz attached, continued its clearing at the KLOTZE FORST. Many burned out enemy vehicles were found along with others which apparently had been abandoned. The combat command also maintained its road blocks on the western boundary of the sector in the WITTINGEN - ZASENBECK RADENBECK area, and kept contact with the 29th Inf Div to the north. An advance Division CP was established at SALZWEDEL and Division operations were directed from there.

(NOTE: Div Arty accomplished its usual efficient mission in a supporting role, and the disorganization and dispersal of enemy units attested to the accuracy of the artillery fire.)

Enemy losses were reported as follows:

personnel, PW's six hundred fifty (650), killed, one hundred fifty nine (159),

material captured or destroyed,

fourteen (14) tanks,
four (4) armored cars,
nine (9) half-tracks,
two (2) SP guns (1-75mm, 1-105mm),
two (2) 88mm AT/AA.guns,
four (4) 105mm guns,
two (2) 20mm flak guns,
seventy-two (72) miscellaneous cycles,
one (1) fuel-lubricant dump containing one hundred fifty (150) 50 gal drums of fuel.


As you can see it was a crushing German defeat but you would never know it unless you bothered to research sources other than German.
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by minoru genda »

mkenny, but then how did the Soviets lose 2,000 tanks in two weeks?

* Note 2,000 is the figure given by the Soviets. Did they apply a 50% reduction too? :lol:
Tora! Tora! Tora!
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny »

minoru genda wrote:mkenny, but then how did the Soviets lose 2,000 tanks in two weeks?

* Note 2,000 is the figure given by the Soviets. Did they apply a 50% reduction too?
Perhaps you should re-read Krivosheev before claiming 2000 tanks were lost. Get back to me after you check.

1st GTA, 2nd GTA and 3rd GTA between them lost 645 tanks in Berlin (16/4/45 - 9/5/45)

Germany had 2500 tanks and 2100 Stug on The Eastern Front on 14/4/45. I wonder how many of those fell to Russian Guns, anyone like to guess?
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by minoru genda »

mkenny wrote:Perhaps you should re-read Krivosheev before claiming 2000 tanks were lost. Get back to me after you check.

1st GTA, 2nd GTA and 3rd GTA between them lost 645 tanks in Berlin (16/4/45 - 9/5/45)
Sorry I don't know who Krivosheev is. :(

I got that data the other day from the internet. Can't find the link right now.

81,116 KIA/MIA
280,251 WIA.
Total casualties: 361,367
1,997 tanks
2,108 artillery pieces/mortars
917 planes
Tora! Tora! Tora!
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny »

The info comes from the book 'Soviet Casualties And Combat Losses In The Twentieth Century' (G.F Krivosheev)
and the total is for tanks and SP guns for the 'Berlin Operation'.

1st Belorussian Front reported the loss of 916 tanks/SPG (14/4/45 - 3/5/45) and 1st Ukranian lost 593 tanks/259 SPG (16/4/45-2/5/45)
Byron Angel

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Byron Angel »

Does anyone own a copy of "Stalin's Keys to Victory", by Walter S Dunn Jr? I'd be interested to get a feel for the depth of his bibliography and sources.


Byron
Byron Angel

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Byron Angel »

mkenny wrote:Germany had 2500 tanks and 2100 Stug on The Eastern Front on 14/4/45.

..... Can't speak to the April 45 figures, but, according to Jentz, the returns for German tanks on the Eastern Front for January and March 45 were as follows:

Type--------15 Jan 45-----15 Mar 45

Mk IV--------------736-----------1239
Panther-----------707-------------762
Tigers-------------199------------208

Total ------------1642-----------2209


- of which approximately half were serviceable, with the balance under repair.


Byron
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny »

Byron Angel wrote:

..... Can't speak to the April 45 figures, but, according to Jentz, the returns for German tanks on the Eastern Front for January and March 45 were as follows:

Type--------15 Jan 45-----15 Mar 45

Mk IV--------------736-----------1239
Panther-----------707-------------762
Tigers-------------199------------208

Total ------------1642-----------2209


- of which approximately half were serviceable, with the balance under repair.
Jentz rarely includes command tanks and other specialised tanks in his totals. For 15/1/45 the full numbers were:

East:
Tanks
1175 'in service' (67% in service)
589 'in repair' (33% in repair))
486 'in transit'
total 2250

Stug:
1803 'in service' (82% in service)
394 'in repair' (18% in repair)
434 'in transit'
total 2631

As with any figures you can make them mean whatever you want.
A Uber-panzer fan will go with the Jentz claim that only 'half' ( c.800) were in service and say "gosh what a mighty fight these 800 panzers put up against the Russian hordes".
Others might ask what about the 1800 Stug?
Balanced individuals will note that 3000 Tank/Stug were in action or you could even say as there were 4800 one-shot-one-kill super AFV's on the books then 20,000 Soviet tanks must have been knocked out.
You pays yer money............
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by minoru genda »

mkenny wrote:The info comes from the book 'Soviet Casualties And Combat Losses In The Twentieth Century' (G.F Krivosheev)
and the total is for tanks and SP guns for the 'Berlin Operation'.

1st Belorussian Front reported the loss of 916 tanks/SPG (14/4/45 - 3/5/45) and 1st Ukranian lost 593 tanks/259 SPG (16/4/45-2/5/45)
OK, it includes SPG too. Two questions:

Of those 2,000 AFV's how many could have been possibly destroyed by German tanks?

What % of loss reduction can be assumed the Soviets put in their stats?
Tora! Tora! Tora!
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by minoru genda »

mkenny wrote: Jentz rarely includes command tanks and other specialised tanks in his totals. For 15/1/45 the full numbers were:

East:
Tanks
1175 'in service' (67% in service)
589 'in repair' (33% in repair))
486 'in transit'
total 2250

Stug:
1803 'in service' (82% in service)
394 'in repair' (18% in repair)
434 'in transit'
total 2631

As with any figures you can make them mean whatever you want.
A Uber-panzer fan will go with the Jentz claim that only 'half' ( c.800) were in service and say "gosh what a mighty fight these 800 panzers put up against the Russian hordes".
Others might ask what about the 1800 Stug?
Balanced individuals will note that 3000 Tank/Stug were in action or you could even say as there were 4800 one-shot-one-kill super AFV's on the books then 20,000 Soviet tanks must have been knocked out.
You pays yer money............
mkenny, but if you include the German Stugs then it is only fair to include also all the Soviet SPGs.

Considering how outnumbered the Germans were, I think they did very well. Don't you think? No Tiger could stop an enemy tank corps for 3 days, but still...
Tora! Tora! Tora!
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by lwd »

minoru genda wrote: ...Considering how outnumbered the Germans were, I think they did very well. Don't you think? No Tiger could stop an enemy tank corps for 3 days, but still...
I don't think any here have ever contended that the Germans didn't put up a pretty tough defence. The contention has always been the extreme claims.
Byron Angel

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Byron Angel »

mkenny wrote:
Byron Angel wrote:

..... Can't speak to the April 45 figures, but, according to Jentz, the returns for German tanks on the Eastern Front for January and March 45 were as follows:

Type--------15 Jan 45-----15 Mar 45

Mk IV--------------736-----------1239
Panther-----------707-------------762
Tigers-------------199------------208

Total ------------1642-----------2209


- of which approximately half were serviceable, with the balance under repair.
Jentz rarely includes command tanks and other specialised tanks in his totals. For 15/1/45 the full numbers were:

East:
Tanks
1175 'in service' (67% in service)
589 'in repair' (33% in repair))
486 'in transit'
total 2250

Stug:
1803 'in service' (82% in service)
394 'in repair' (18% in repair)
434 'in transit'
total 2631

As with any figures you can make them mean whatever you want.
A Uber-panzer fan will go with the Jentz claim that only 'half' ( c.800) were in service and say "gosh what a mighty fight these 800 panzers put up against the Russian hordes".
Others might ask what about the 1800 Stug?
Balanced individuals will note that 3000 Tank/Stug were in action or you could even say as there were 4800 one-shot-one-kill super AFV's on the books then 20,000 Soviet tanks must have been knocked out.
You pays yer money............

Stug figures were absent because Jentz's particular chart dealt only with armored formation; Stugs attached to infantry formations did not lie within the scope of "Panzer Truppen".

If you omit "in transit" tanks, which were not yet assigned to the frontline formations, your figure of 1764 versus Jentz's figure of 1642 are within 7 pct (122 difference). That difference can be accounted for by the "specialized" armored vehicles (command tanks, FO tanks, vehicle recovery tanks, etc) which,as you point out, Jentz perhaps does not count as combat fighting vehicles per se.

I went back to Jentz's graph representation of tank strengths and re-checked his "operational" versus "need repair" proportions. The "operational" and "needing repair" subsets must be considered close approximations rather than definitive numbers, due to the need for interpreting the bar graph expressions. Your serviceability ratio of 67% is correct for Jan 45; my serviceability estimate of approximately 50% is correct for Mar 45.

- - - - - - - - - -

As of 15 Jan 45-----total available-----operational-----needing repair

Mk IV-----------------736-----------------520 (71%)-------216 (29%)
Panther--------------707-----------------429 (61%)-------278 (39%)
Tigers----------------199-----------------149 (75%)--------50 (25%)

Total tanks---------1642----------------1098 (67%)------544 (33%)

- - - - - - - - - -

As of 15 Mar 45----total available-----operational-----needing repair

Mk IV----------------1239-----------------670 (54%)-------569 (46%)
Panther---------------762-----------------381 (50%)-------381 (50%)
Tigers----------------208-----------------104 (50%)-------104 (50%)

Total tanks---------2209----------------1155 (52%)-----1054 (48%)

- - - - - - - - - -

I discovered another unit-by-unit tabulated statement in Jentz for "Strength of Panzer Units on the Eastern Front on 15 March 1945". Summary totals for the overall front are as follows:

Type----------total available-----operational-----needing repair

Mk IV----------603------------------345 (57%)------258 (43%)
Panther-------776------------------387 (50%)------389 (50%)
Tigers---------212------------------125 (59%)-------87 (41%)
Flakpanzer-----97--------------------50 (51%)-------47 (48%)
PzIV/70-------357-------------------189 (53%)------168 (47%)
StuG----------545-------------------314 (58%)------231 (42%)

Total---------2590-----------------1410 (54%)-----1180 (46%)

- - - - - - - - - -

For Heeresgruppe Weichsel, which was principally tasked with the defense of Berlin, the figures were as follows:

Total available-----operational-----needing repair

575------------------357 (62%)-------218 (38%)

Heeresgruppe Weichsel enjoyed a slightly better serviceability condition than the Eastern Front average as of 15 Mar 45.
Byron Angel

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by Byron Angel »

minoru genda wrote: Two questions:

Of those 2,000 AFV's how many could have been possibly destroyed by German tanks?

What % of loss reduction can be assumed the Soviets put in their stats?

..... According to my notes (I can track down the citation if desired), Soviet AFV losses in the Berlin campaign broke down approximately as follows:

59 pct - by "artillery" (a translation which I interpret as really meaning direct fire tank and anti-tank weapons)
24 pct - by "panzerfaust" (noted as a substantially higher share of losses than front experience overall)
17 pct - by "other means" (which I take as mines, aerial attack, accident, demolition, etc)


Byron
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by minoru genda »

lwd wrote:
minoru genda wrote: ...Considering how outnumbered the Germans were, I think they did very well. Don't you think? No Tiger could stop an enemy tank corps for 3 days, but still...
I don't think any here have ever contended that the Germans didn't put up a pretty tough defence. The contention has always been the extreme claims.
I think only a very few ace tankers got high kill ratios. Some aces might have obtained ratios of over 10:1 and higher, but most of the tankers, not only German but in all armies, only obtained say 2-3 kills, and some didn't even get 1 kill before being destroyed themselves.

If we look at the overall picture, Germany produced about 50,000 AFVs (Tigers, Panthers, Pz.I, II, III, IV, SPG, Stugs, etc). They lost the war so we can say they lost all of them. The Allies lost about 100,000 AFVs during the war, most of them Soviet. So the ratio is about 2:1. But even here we must be carefull because not all of these loses were caused in tank vs. tank battles. Many of those 150,000 AFVs were lost to aircraft, mines, AT guns, etc. I think the losses in tank vs. tank battles favors the Germans perhaps 3:1?, but I don't have detailed info about it.

About Tiger Kill ratio. If 2,000 Tigers were built and the Germans lost them all, the question is, How may enemy AFVs did they destroy?
Tora! Tora! Tora!
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by lwd »

minoru genda wrote: ...If we look at the overall picture, Germany produced about 50,000 AFVs (Tigers, Panthers, Pz.I, II, III, IV, SPG, Stugs, etc). They lost the war so we can say they lost all of them. The Allies lost about 100,000 AFVs during the war, most of them Soviet. So the ratio is about 2:1. But even here we must be carefull because not all of these loses were caused in tank vs. tank battles. Many of those 150,000 AFVs were lost to aircraft, mines, AT guns, etc. I think the losses in tank vs. tank battles favors the Germans perhaps 3:1?, but I don't have detailed info about it.
Also consider that a lot of the allied losses were light and/or obsolete Soviet designs. Furthrmore in the West from what I've read the majority of allied tank losses did not come from German tanks. Mines, AT guns, and infantry acounted for the majority. Given that for the most part the Germans were on the defnesive did they really have all that impressive a kill ratio in the west?
About Tiger Kill ratio. If 2,000 Tigers were built and the Germans lost them all, the question is, How may enemy AFVs did they destroy?
Even if we do have such a ratio what does it mean?
Post Reply