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

Tiger Kills and Losses

Postby mkenny » Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:46 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:From wiki:

On 8 August 1944, a single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharführer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column, destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans, followed by one more later in the day using his last two rounds of ammunition

I am sorry to inform you that Fey did not knock out these Shermans.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&t=147849

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:56 am

Historians so far go with Fey claims, even western ones.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby mkenny » Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:37 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Historians so far go with Fey claims, even western ones.


I think you will find that not a single historian, German, British or even Martian has any evidence other than the word of Fey.
You can believe whatever you like but the whole story is complete fictiion.

If you read his book he has a full page list of his Normandy 'kills' that totals over 70 However he says it was 88 on the page opposite. His Unit as a whole (45 Tigers) claimed 240 killls for Normandy and thus this one man would have accounted for a full third of the Unit total. He was not even the 'ace' in SS 102. That was Paul Egger who only claims around 15 kills for Normandy.
Read that again. The Unit he served in do not accept his claims and do not list him as their highest scoring ace. That should tell you something.


Wittmann was awarded about 25 kills so you can see how absurd Fey's 88 kill claim is.
Maybe you should read up on Fey's claim he was awarded a KC.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:24 pm

If Fey, or Wittman, or any other German tank ace did or did not destroy 25 but 13 tanks in a single operation or combat day is debatable. The fact is that the German aces in Tiger tanks used to have a great destruction ratio in their favor, at least 5 to 1. The allies themselves recognized that and operated in a way to overcome that: modifying their original tanks, pinzer moves against single targets and so on.

What´s undeniable is that ratio and what it means in ways of tactical proficiency from the German tank commanders and technical superiority from their stronger and powerfull (nevertheles complex) units.

Also we must consider that by 1944, at least, the German had lost their air supremacy which was in allied hands. Meaning this that the Tigers still got an incredible rate in such a disadvantage. Having the Luftwaffe had the superiority it´s certain that the rate will have increased.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby mkenny » Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:02 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:The fact is that the German aces in Tiger tanks used to have a great destruction ratio in their favor, at least 5 to 1.


Did they? How many Allied tanks do you think the 140 Tigers in Normandy destroy?

Karl Heidenreich wrote: The allies themselves recognized that and operated in a way to overcome that: modifying their original tanks, pinzer moves against single targets and so on.


They did not. There is no evidence that they changed the simple tactic of giving a Unit of tanks an objective and let them get on with it. Where are these examples of single Tigers being 'flanked'

Karl Heidenreich wrote:What´s undeniable is that ratio and what it means in ways of tactical proficiency from the German tank commanders and technical superiority from their stronger and powerfull (nevertheles complex) units


The ratio of 5:1 is an invention. There is no evidence for it being a general rule. Whilst individual tanks of all types could be in the right place at the right time to inflict multiple losses on the enemy it is not the case that the average Tiger knocked out 5 tanks. Myth.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Meaning this that the Tigers still got an incredible rate in such a disadvantage.


There was no 5:1 ratio. There are no facts to back it. It is not a fact it is a belief.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:41 pm

The ratio of 5:1 is an invention. There is no evidence for it being a general rule. Whilst individual tanks of all types could be in the right place at the right time to inflict multiple losses on the enemy it is not the case that the average Tiger knocked out 5 tanks. Myth.


There is plenty evidence that shows the kill ratio, even with the lack of air support from the Luftwaffe. If you want to abide some kind of "allied propaganda" it´s your call. Will no bother with these nonsense.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby alecsandros » Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:37 pm

mkenny wrote:
Karl Heidenreich wrote: The allies themselves recognized that and operated in a way to overcome that: modifying their original tanks, pinzer moves against single targets and so on.


They did not. There is no evidence that they changed the simple tactic of giving a Unit of tanks an objective and let them get on with it. Where are these examples of single Tigers being 'flanked'



Yes they did. The British introduced the Firefly, the Americans various tank destroyers. IIRC, there is a page in "A bridge to far" in which the author says that each Allied tank crew that managed to knock out a Tiger would get a medal. That says a lot...

As for the 5:1 kill ratio. Of course not every single Tiger would destroy at least 5 enemy tanks, that's absurd. Some of them never even got the chance to fight, they were blown off on the roads. What IS important however is that the tanks that DID make it to the battlefield, and there, in tank-to-tank battles, made such good accounts of themselves that the figure of 5:1 slowly crept into the Allied soldiers psyche. After all, you've said it yourself that the Allies lost some 4000 tanks in France, versus 2000 tanks, stugs and s-p artilery for the Germans. That means 1200 real tanks at the most. Also, think about the damage inflicted by Typhoons and Tempests on the ground - some claims are that over 60% of knocked-out German armor was due to air attacks. But let's go crazy and say only 30% of the losses came from the air - that's 400 tanks.

So, now, according to your own account, we:
- German tank losses - total France - 1200, out of which 800 destroyed on the ground.
- Allied tank losses - total France - 4000.

What's the ratio?

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

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby mkenny » Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:19 pm

alecsandros wrote:Yes they did. The British introduced the Firefly, the Americans various tank destroyers. IIRC, there is a page in "A bridge to far" in which the author says that each Allied tank crew that managed to knock out a Tiger would get a medal. That says a lot...


You should not believe everything you read. Perhaps you can find me these medal awards because there were over 100 Tigers knocked out in the summer of 1944. I have read extensively and have NEVER seen such an award.

alecsandros wrote: After all, you've said it yourself that the Allies lost some 4000 tanks in France, versus 2000 tanks, stugs and s-p artilery for the Germans. That means 1200 real tanks at the most.


140 Tigers
700 Panther
900 Pz IV's
1740

Stugs and Jgd Pz's were issued to panzer Divisions and you can not exclude them from the figures.


alecsandros wrote:Also, think about the damage inflicted by Typhoons and Tempests on the ground - some claims are that over 60% of knocked-out German armor was due to air attacks. But let's go crazy and say only 30% of the losses came from the air - that's 400 tanks.


This is way in excess of any reliable estimate from any source 10% is usual the rate.


alecsandros wrote:So, now, according to your own account, we:
- German tank losses - total France - 1200, out of which 800 destroyed on the ground.
- Allied tank losses - total France - 4000.


As I explained earlier this is the usual skewed calculation done with the express aim of INFLATING allied losses while UNDERCOUNTING German losses.

alecsandros wrote:What's the ratio?


Overall for Normandy the losses were just under 2:1 in the German favour. Forget all the dreams about thousands of Allied tanks being knocked out by a handful uber-panzers.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby alecsandros » Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:18 pm

mkenny wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Also, think about the damage inflicted by Typhoons and Tempests on the ground - some claims are that over 60% of knocked-out German armor was due to air attacks. But let's go crazy and say only 30% of the losses came from the air - that's 400 tanks.


This is way in excess of any reliable estimate from any source 10% is usual the rate.



My man, just 2 examples: Panzer Lehr lost over 100 tanks during 2 American air strikes, the strongest of which occured on July 25th. Das Reich's losses during the Falaise offensive and the battle for Caen were at least as bad, also due to air attacks. We already have your 10%, and that only coming from 2 divisions!

I say again, at least 30% of German armor was knocked out by air attacks. The figure was probably much higher, so I think the normal thing to do would be to reconsider your pro-allied point of view and historical revisionism, before it becomes histerical.

Just joking,
Have a nice night,

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

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby mkenny » Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:50 pm

alecsandros wrote:My man, just 2 examples: Panzer Lehr lost over 100 tanks during 2 American air strikes, the strongest of which occured on July 25th. Das Reich's losses during the Falaise offensive and the battle for Caen were at least as bad, also due to air attacks. We already have your 10%, and that only coming from 2 divisions!


That is absolutely absurd! Lehr only had 200 tanks at most and such a loss would have been catastrophic There is no such loss for a Division anywhere in France in 1944. I think you are confusing Ritgen's (the commander of the Division's repair company) claim that 90 WHEELED vehicles were lost to air attacks.These stories about tanks being wiped out by aircraft are an invention of those who refuse to believe the panzers could be knocked out. The fact is they were knocked out and thus a reason other than a puny Sherman knocking them out has to be found-step forward the Typhoons.


Karl Heidenreich wrote:I say again, at least 30% of German armor was knocked out by air attacks. The figure was probably much higher,


You seriously need to get about on a dedicated Military Forum. This 30% claim is just fantasy.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:so I think the normal thing to do would be to reconsider your pro-allied point of view and historical revisionism, before it becomes histerical.


I am not pro or anti anything. I just happen to know the actual loss figures for both sides. The 5:1 ratio is bogus.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:31 am

The figures are no bogus but you play very well the arrogant part...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby mkenny » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:36 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:The figures are no bogus ...


Give me the examples you claim prove the superiority of the panzers.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby alecsandros » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:36 am

mkenny wrote:
That is absolutely absurd! Lehr only had 200 tanks at most and such a loss would have been catastrophic There is no such loss for a Division anywhere in France in 1944. I think you are confusing Ritgen's (the commander of the Division's repair company) claim that 90 WHEELED vehicles were lost to air attacks.These stories about tanks being wiped out by aircraft are an invention of those who refuse to believe the panzers could be knocked out. The fact is they were knocked out and thus a reason other than a puny Sherman knocking them out has to be found-step forward the Typhoons.

Panzer Lehr had 230-260 tanks on the 6th of June, sources vary. On the 1st of Aug, it had 20-40 operational tanks. During the battle, it received some 20-30 tanks as replacements. The lost and damaged tanks for ground fighting were 50-150, depending on the source. That further lives a total of 140-210 an-accounted for. Do you think they were lost to the alien attackers?

I seem to find lots of material regarding Panzer Lehr both on the net and in several books (Eisenhower's and DeGaulle's memoirs, 2 books about the landings in Normandy, etc). As I've said earlier, sources vary, and that's why I also like to read more about the actual fighting, viewed by the actual German soldiers. As far as I've read, the jabo attacks were very harsh, and constituted the main reason for the destruction of this elite division. Same for Das Reich and 21st Armoured.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Tiger Kills and Losses2

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:48 am

Give me the examples you claim prove the superiority of the panzers.


I have done that several times in the last two or three years. The links and the quotes are in the forum and I have no longer patience to be engaged in an endless argument with an agitator troll that just want to generate an incendiary situation. The evidence is scattered in this and other threads and it´s very clear: in case of need please feel free to do the proper research.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: Military Historical Dates

Postby mkenny » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:41 am

alecsandros wrote:Panzer Lehr had 230-260 tanks on the 6th of June, sources vary.



99 Pz IV and 89 Panther on June 1st. A total of 188. You have to include the 40 Stug. to get the total of 228


alecsandros wrote:On the 1st of Aug, it had 20-40 operational tanks.


Now you switch to tanks alone despite earlier using figures for tanks AND Stug.
Figures on Aug 1st are 15 Panther, 12 Pz IV and 6 Stug. A further 17 vehicles were in short term repair. A grand total of 50.



alecsandros wrote:The lost and damaged tanks for ground fighting were 50-150, depending on the source. That further gives a total of 140-210 an-accounted for. Do you think they were lost to the alien attackers?


June 1st had ... 228 Tanks/Stug .......... June losses 52.
July 1st had... 177 tanks/Stug............July losses 100
Aug 1st had ... 77 tanks/Stug.
Aug 22 had ... 20 tanks.

The Cobra bombing of Lehr was on 24/25th July so you are claiming that the 100 tanks/Stug lost in July were ALL lost to bombing and not a single tank/Stug was lost to ground forces July 1st to August 1st?
That is absurd!
Helmut Ritgen, commander of Lehr's Pz IV battalion during the bombing states that no Pz IV's were hit( Die Gechichte Der Panzer-Lehr-Division Im Westen 1944-45, page 100) because they were in reserve and behind the bomb lines. This means ONLY Panthers and Stug. could have been bombed and Ritgen states very few of them were hit either. As the total of Panthers and Stug combined was 102 on July 1st then 100 from 102 Panthers and Stug were destroyed in a single day and only 2 on the other 3 weeks of intense combat in July. This leaves you with the problem that 35 Panthers and Stug were still in service on August 1st when there should be a maximum of 2 in service!.
However you look at it your claim of 100 tanks lost due to bombing just does not add up.

alecsandros wrote:I seem to find lots of material regarding Panzer Lehr both on the net and in several books (Eisenhower's and DeGaulle's memoirs, 2 books about the landings in Normandy, etc). As I've said earlier, sources vary,

With respect general history books written by Leaders are not really a source. A far better source would be Zetterling's book Normandy 1944 and he comprehensively refutes any claim that Lehr suffered substantial bombing losses in Normandy (pages 37-53)


alecsandros wrote: As far as I've read, the jabo attacks were very harsh, and constituted the main reason for the destruction of this elite division. Same for Das Reich and 21st Armoured.


Wrong. The studies found a max of 10% of tank losses were caused by air attack.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
I have done that several times in the last two or three years.............. in case of need please feel free to do the proper research.


All I have seen show that you do not have the information. I have researched extensively and have a mound of references that completely refute any claim of 'massive Allied casualties or 5:1 tank kill ratios. Your refusal to give a source is revealing


Return to “World War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest