Tiger Kills and Losses

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Your refusal to give a source is revealing
As I said I have done that already and will not do it just for you, again. The only revelation here is your arrogance.
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

Post by mkenny »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
As I said I have done that already and will not do it just for you, again.
Odd that you can't repost them so I can go over them. Any particular reason you do not want them examined?
If it helps I found your contribution on Normandy casualties from afew years back and guess what-you failed to give German numbers.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Oops! The forces and casualties for the Normandy Campaign were:


Strength

1,452,000 (by July 25) USA, British and Canadian
380,000 (by July 23) German

Casualties

United States: 29,000 dead, 106,000 wounded and missing;
United Kingdom: 11,000 dead, 54,000 wounded and missing;
Canada: 5,000 dead; 13,000 wounded and missing;
198,616 missing & captured
Seems that this is a long established method you use. Give Allied figures but no Geman totals. This is a bit like saying Manchester United are a poor football team because they let in 14 goals in a match-forgetting to mention they actualy won 18 goals to 14.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:The only revelation here is your arrogance.
I would say it is more of a revelation how you shy away from revealing sources. That is sources used to get data rather than the data itself. Any reason why we can't be told where you got your info?
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
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

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!

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

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
I don't find your reply that well written. You're mistaken both in the details and in the big picture (presumably because you're stuck in a forum discussion and it always looks bad to be wrong. However, sometimes it's the honorable thing to do)

------------

1) You have 2 different figures for the total tanks+stugs available for Panzer Lehr on the 1st of Aug (50 and 77, I've bolded it for you in the quote)
2) I know there are no "certain" figures regarding the total number of tanks lost to air attacks. However, if you substract the total of tanks lost to ground warfare (which is available), and presume a fair ratio of losses due to sabbotage and mechanical failure, you are inevitably left with a big tally of losses due to air attack.
However, this is a very general problem: tank lost to "ground warfare". That takes me to:
3) Tanks on both sides were lost to AT guns, rocket-launchers and artillery fire. It's not mandatory that tanks only be destroyed by other tanks. That's why we should be narrowing our discussion to real (or chiefly) tank battles, such as operation Totalise, summary of which Byron Angel had already annexed in the "don't be fooled about the Firefly" topic. You'll see that the total of tanks destroyed was 150:45.
4) And, even taking the absolute figure of 4000 allied tanks lost versus 2000 tanks lost by the Germans, and the grand total of 200.000 lost by the Allies and 250.000-400.000 by the Germans, this is a yrrhic victory, and nothing more. Compare this to the German casualties in the early stages of the war (including the battle for France) and you will find the sources of the "alleged" German superiority that you so hardly try to deny.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by Bgile »

I don't think very many tanks were lost to air attack. It is almost impossible to hit a tank with a rocket or a bomb directly, and that's often what it takes to destroy it. Mostly what air attacks did was destroy their logistic support. You can kill trucks with near misses and machinegun fire. If there is no fuel or ammunition, they are left sitting alongside the road abandoned. I'm not sure what stat that would show up in.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote: You have 2 different figures for the total tanks+stugs available for Panzer Lehr on the 1st of Aug (50 and 77, I've bolded it for you in the quote)
The 'extra' 27 is the number of vewhicles in 'long term repair. There were 50 vehicles in service/Short term repair and 27 in long term repair. No mistake just an illustration of how easy it is to misunderstand these totals.

alecsandros wrote: I know there are no "certain" figures regarding the total number of tanks lost to air attacks. However, if you substract the total of tanks lost to ground warfare (which is available),
I would like to see this total of 'tanks lost to ground warfare'. Despite many years of looking I have been unable to find such a figure. There is a total of all panzers lost to all causes but certainly not one that seperates out air losses from all other losses.
alecsandros wrote: presume a fair ratio of losses due to sabbotage and mechanical failure, you are inevitably left with a big tally of losses due to air attack.
Yes this is the 'find any excuse to lower German losses' defence. There is never any attempt to find the Allied tanks lost to mines ect. Every allied tank is presumed a victim of a German tank.



alecsandros wrote: And, even taking the absolute figure of 4000 allied tanks lost versus 2000 tanks lost by the Germans, and the grand total of 200.000 lost by the Allies and 250.000-400.000 by the Germans, this is a yrrhic victory, and nothing more.
So total defeat and Berlin occupied is not a real victory?
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
alecsandros wrote: I know there are no "certain" figures regarding the total number of tanks lost to air attacks. However, if you substract the total of tanks lost to ground warfare (which is available),
I would like to see this total of 'tanks lost to ground warfare'. Despite many years of looking I have been unable to find such a figure. There is a total of all panzers lost to all causes but certainly not one that seperates out air losses from all other losses.
The best source I have so far regards only Tigers - it's a book called "Tigers in combat", vol1 and 2, http://www.amazon.com/Tigers-Combat-Vol ... 0811731715
alecsandros wrote: That's why we should be narrowing our discussion to real (or chiefly) tank battles, such as operation Totalise, summary of which Byron Angel had already annexed in the "don't be fooled about the Firefly" topic. You'll see that the total of tanks destroyed was 150:45.
mkenny wrote:
Can you break those losses down for me so I can check them out. Please give the source for the numbers.
http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20iss ... neuver.pdf

Also, I have a book called "Sherman Firefly versus Tiger. Normandy. 1944", that is mostly concerned with operation Totalise.
alecsandros wrote: And, even taking the absolute figure of 4000 allied tanks lost versus 2000 tanks lost by the Germans, and the grand total of 200.000 lost by the Allies and 250.000-400.000 by the Germans, this is a yrrhic victory, and nothing more.
mkenny wrote:
So total defeat and Berlin occupied is not a real victory?
No, no. Of course it was a victory, and a very important one. What I'm saying (and not only me) is that it should have been much less costly, taking into account the Allied forces, both on the Western and Eastern front.

Cheers
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by Bgile »

alecsandros wrote:What I'm saying (and not only me) is that it should have been much less costly, taking into account the Allied forces, both on the Western and Eastern front.
I'm not following this. Why should it have been much less costly, given the combatants and their equipment? I mean, you can always look at mistakes in hindsight, but did you have something in particular in mind?
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote: The best source I have so far regards only Tigers - it's a book called "Tigers in combat", vol1 and 2,
I have the books and all they give are brief lists that try and give the reason a Tiger was lost. They are wrong on a number of facts and thus are no good as a reference.
alecsandros wrote:

Also, I have a book called "Sherman Firefly versus Tiger. Normandy. 1944", that is mostly concerned with operation Totalise.
Yes but what you fail to mention it is chiefly about the demise of 5 Tigers to Shermans without a single Sherman being lost.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote: I have the books and all they give are brief lists that try and give the reason a Tiger was lost. They are wrong on a number of facts and thus are no good as a reference.
[/mkenny]
The book is very well documented - I don't know any other so well put together. (Maybe "Sledgehammerss - Strengths and flaws of Tigers", but I don't have this one). If you have other sources, that's ok, as long as they are credible and base their research chiefly on primary documents. What books do you have in mind?
alecsandros wrote:

Also, I have a book called "Sherman Firefly versus Tiger. Normandy. 1944", that is mostly concerned with operation Totalise.
Yes but what you fail to mention it is chiefly about the demise of 5 Tigers to Shermans without a single Sherman being lost.
In fact it says that Wittman's tigers opened at 1800m, destroying several Shermans without retaliation. Wittman's tanks were destroyed after that. And the tally of losses is confirmed by the link I gave in the previous reply (150:45). There's no question about various encounters in which Allied tankers destroyed a number of Panzers while not losing a single tank. However, this was the exception, and not the rule - in fact if you read carefully in "Sherman versus Tiger", you'll find that some British tankers refused to engage one single tiger in the summer of 1944. It also documents the "4 Shermans against 1 Tiger" story, adding to that that "only one Sherman was expected to return".

And that coming from a book written by British authors!
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

Bgile wrote:
alecsandros wrote:What I'm saying (and not only me) is that it should have been much less costly, taking into account the Allied forces, both on the Western and Eastern front.
I'm not following this. Why should it have been much less costly, given the combatants and their equipment? I mean, you can always look at mistakes in hindsight, but did you have something in particular in mind?
Because they had at least 10:1 superiority in everything.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by Bgile »

alecsandros wrote:
Bgile wrote:
alecsandros wrote:What I'm saying (and not only me) is that it should have been much less costly, taking into account the Allied forces, both on the Western and Eastern front.
I'm not following this. Why should it have been much less costly, given the combatants and their equipment? I mean, you can always look at mistakes in hindsight, but did you have something in particular in mind?
Because they had at least 10:1 superiority in everything.
I see. Your expertise in the subject astounds me.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Tiger Kills and Losses3

Post by alecsandros »

Bgile wrote:
Because they had at least 10:1 superiority in everything.
I see. Your expertise in the subject astounds me.[/quote]

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

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote: The book is very well documented - I don't know any other so well put together. (Maybe "Sledgehammerss - Strengths and flaws of Tigers", but I don't have this one).
No need to get Sledgehammers because it is based 95% on the information in TIC I and II. However you can get it online:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc ... tTRDoc.pdf

alecsandros wrote:If you have other sources, that's ok, as long as they are credible and base their research chiefly on primary documents. What books do you have in mind?
There are no books on the tank losses in 1944-45. You have to look for the original documentation and then you find that it contradicts itself!
The German losses June-September 1944

June.................125 Pz IV.....80 Panther.........19 Tiger........ 27 Stug.
July.................. 149 Pz IV..... 125 Panther.........14 Tiger........68 Stug
August.............. 49 Pz IV..... 41 Panther......... 15 Tiger........ 98 Stug
September......... 593 Pz IV.....540 Panther.........95 Tiger........ 354 Stug

Total 1848 tanks and 547 Stug = 2392
The German situation in late July/August was chaotic and thus record keeping was not a top priority. Thus most of the September total is the late accounting for July/August losses. Also no Jagdpanzers or command tanks are included as well a a good number of odds and ends. The 2392 figure is a bare minimum.
alecsandros wrote:
In fact it says that Wittman's tigers opened at 1800m, destroying several Shermans without retaliation. Wittman's tanks were destroyed after that. And the tally of losses is confirmed by the link I gave in the previous reply (150:45). There's no question about various encounters in which Allied tankers destroyed a number of Panzers while not losing a single tank.
Hart is not very good on the detail and the artwork shows the wrong type of Tiger. It is a basic introduction to the subject. Agte's book on Wittmann is a much better reference and it makes no mention of any Sherman losses. Nor could there be any because Wittmann was taken by suprise. He did not know the Shermans were there so he could not fire at them.
There is a first hand account of the action in Agte's book by Hans Hoflinger and he makes no mention of any return fire by the Tigers and he was hit just after he saw Wittmann knocked out.
alecsandros wrote: However, this was the exception, and not the rule -
3rd Company SS 12th Panzer Regiment at Norrey-en-Bessin on 9 June 1944
9/6/55
Image


Lingevres14/6/44
Image
http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/ver ... esus2.html




alecsandros wrote: in fact if you read carefully in "Sherman versus Tiger", you'll find that some British tankers refused to engage one single tiger in the summer of 1944. It also documents the "4 Shermans against 1 Tiger" story, adding to that that "only one Sherman was expected to return".
An excellent example of Hart's ability to confuse and meld together myth and reality. Sendind out 4 Shermans to attack one Tiger is complete invention. It never happened because, despite what many believe SINGLE COMBAT WAS NOT A STANDARD ALLIED TACTIC!
If German Armour was encoutered then a Unit of tanks was sent out. Either a Troop, Squadron or Regiment. There was no tarrif where Shermans were parceled out art a rate of 2 for a Stug, 3 for a Pz IV, 4 for a Panther or 5 for a Tiger. It is bunkum!
The British tankers refused to engage one single tiger in the summer of 1944. is a garbled re-telling of a New Zealand observer in Normandy. Brigadier Hargest left notes taken before his death in August. The original handwritten notes can be found in the NZ National Archives under WA II, 1, DA491.5/3, Brig Hargest notes from Normandy. A copy is also held in the UK National Archives at Kew under PRO CAB 106/1060
The Tiger story is dated as June

17-6-44 Notes - Tanks contd.
On the evening of 12th June, the 8th Armoured Bde in laager on
Hill 10s above Saint Pierre, was approached and attacked by
one German Tiger which settled in a hollow almost in the S.P.
gun line and fired for an hour or nearly so and then drove off
unmolested. Not one tank went out to engage it. At least one
of our Shermans was destroyed. It was about 2200 to 2300 hrs
and not yet dark.

On D,+ 6 (12 June) I came across a whole squadron of tanks in
a field supported by S.P. guns. They told me that there was a
Tiger Tank in Verriere about 1000 yds to the left front and in
reply to my query as to why they did not attack they said it
was very powerful.


The problem here is that on this date (12th June) the nearest Tigers were SS 101 and they were no where near this location. No Tigers had been engaged in Normandy, none had seen action and no Allied troops had seen one. There was no Tiger!

His notes on tanks:

TANKS.
The enemy is using several types of tanks against us. Mark IV,
Mk IV specials - Panthers (Mk V) and (reported) Tigers Mk VI.
36 of 42
The Mk IV special are similar except that the latter mounts a
75 mm gun and has steel side curtains to protect the tanks
from Piats and other shells. The curtains break the impact.
The tracks are 39 mm in width. Mk V Panther is a heavier tank
steeply sloped to the front and has a 75 gun. It is very
formidable. The tracks are 67 mm wide.
The Tiger mounts an 88 gun, has about 40 mm armour in front
and tracks 75 mm wide. It is really a heavy gun platform. I
cannot claim to have had a close up view of a Tiger since
D-day.
Our tanks are the Sherman mounting a 75 gun - a fast handy
tank, but too high, the Centaur of which I know little. The
Churchill which mounts a 75 gun and is of different design
from the Sherman. It is lower and heavier and has a large
number of small bogies instead of a few large ones.
The Cromwell is designed like a Churchill only with large
bogies.
The Sherman is more than a match for Mk IV but not for the
Panther.
None of our tanks are as good as the Tiger.
Yesterday I saw 5 Churchills that had been hit by 75 mm solid
shells from Mks and anti-tank guns. They had been badly beaten
up and one I noticed had been holed from end to end. The solid
shot had fallen out and was scarcely damaged. Of the five some
had been shot from all sides - tracks were broken, turrets
smashed - the driver's compartment entered. They had not
burned. Nearly every Sherman and every German tank I've seen
destroyed have burned.


More?
8.7.44
I saw a Tiger tank today that had been holed by one of our
tanks or anti-tank guns of 75 calibre AP.
Ten shots had been fired. One had half penetrated, five had
dinted the armour plate, and four had penetrated
clear through
9 centimetres of armour plate - the heaviest I have seen.
The shots had wrecked the engine completely.
The Comd 8th Armoured Bde Brig B. Cracroft tells me that he
has lost 94 tanks. Of these 51 are a complete write off.
On the other hand his Bde has destroyed a large number of
enemy tanks.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
There are no books on the tank losses in 1944-45. You have to look for the original documentation and then you find that it contradicts itself!
The German losses June-September 1944

June.................125 Pz IV.....80 Panther.........19 Tiger........ 27 Stug.
July.................. 149 Pz IV..... 125 Panther.........14 Tiger........68 Stug
August.............. 49 Pz IV..... 41 Panther......... 15 Tiger........ 98 Stug
September......... 593 Pz IV.....540 Panther.........95 Tiger........ 354 Stug

I find it quite surprising myself - especialy that the losses for September account for 2/3 of the total?! And yes, they are estimates.. Approximations..
mkenny wrote: Hart is not very good on the detail and the artwork shows the wrong type of Tiger. It is a basic introduction to the subject. Agte's book on Wittmann is a much better reference and it makes no mention of any Sherman losses. Nor could there be any because Wittmann was taken by suprise. He did not know the Shermans were there so he could not fire at them.
There is a first hand account of the action in Agte's book by Hans Hoflinger and he makes no mention of any return fire by the Tigers and he was hit just after he saw Wittmann knocked out.
Actually, the link to operation totalise, has 2 interesting sources at *39: "Here was an opportunity which might be made the
turning point in the bridgehead battle....In
mean time... Out of the woods lumbered a Tiger tank
which drove on to the road and proceeded right down
the line [of 22nd Armd Bde]...'brewing up' one vehicle
after a n o t h e r . . . t h e road was an inferno with 25
armoured vehicles blazing - all the victims of this lone
Tiger." Chester Wilmot, Struggle for Europe (London:
Collins, 1952), p.309; also Eric Lefevre, Panzers in
Normandy (London: Battle of Britain Prints Ltd.,
1990), pp.169 176".

For every tank battle you name in which the number of German tanks lost to ground fire was bigger than that of the Allied, I'm going to name 3.

For now, I'll name Viller's Bocage, Totalise, Charnwood, Le Mesnil-Patry, St Vith. And I didn't look to the bulk of the Battle of the Bulge.. nor to the battle for Italy or North Africa.. And you know all to well where this is going, but you're to stubborn to admit it :D
mkenny wrote:
alecsandros wrote: in fact if you read carefully in "Sherman versus Tiger", you'll find that some British tankers refused to engage one single tiger in the summer of 1944. It also documents the "4 Shermans against 1 Tiger" story, adding to that that "only one Sherman was expected to return".
An excellent example of Hart's ability to confuse and meld together myth and reality. Sendind out 4 Shermans to attack one Tiger is complete invention. It never happened because, despite what many believe SINGLE COMBAT WAS NOT A STANDARD ALLIED TACTIC!
Well, as you said, German sources are questionable. Why wouldn't the ones about the real location of schwere tank batallions be as wrong?

Anyway, thanks for the maps, book and reference to the new zeelander's story.

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

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote:

I find it quite surprising myself - especialy that the losses for September account for 2/3 of the total?! And yes, they are estimates.. Approximations..
No they are the exact totals the German listed as losses. Septembers losses contain most of the tanks actualy lost in August but not recorded until September. Not many people realise just how many German tanks/Stug. were lost in Normandy. The figures show it was nothing like the massacre of Allied tanks we are led to believe.
alecsandros wrote: Actually, the link to operation totalise, has 2 interesting sources at *39: "Here was an opportunity which might be made the
turning point in the bridgehead battle....In
mean time... Out of the woods lumbered a Tiger tank
which drove on to the road and proceeded right down
the line [of 22nd Armd Bde]...'brewing up' one vehicle
after a n o t h e r . . . t h e road was an inferno with 25
armoured vehicles blazing - all the victims of this lone
Tiger." Chester Wilmot, Struggle for Europe (London:
Collins, 1952), p.309; also Eric Lefevre, Panzers in
Normandy (London: Battle of Britain Prints Ltd.,
1990), pp.169 176".
Wilmot of Lefevre make no difference to the reality. Wittmann could have only knocked out 11 tanks at Villers.


alecsandros wrote:For every tank battle you name in which the number of German tanks lost to ground fire was bigger than that of the Allied, I'm going to name 3.
That may be so but every time you claim a 5:1 kill ratio for Tigers I am going to ask you for the specific details and I will check British records. So far you have not provided any information that confirms it was the norm.


alecsandros wrote: And you know all to well where this is going, but you're to stubborn to admit it
I know where it is going and I know the outcome. You will be unable to validate the claims that Shermans were death traps and most German tanks were knocked out by aircraft.
alecsandros wrote:Well, as you said, German sources are questionable. Why wouldn't the ones about the real location of schwere tank batallions be as wrong?
I did not and the movements of sSS Pz Abt 101 are very well known. There were no lone Tigers wandering around on June 12th. The story is fiction.
Post Reply