Tiger Kills and Losses

[mkenny]

SS-Obersturmfiihrer Wittmann attacks the enemy-a Squadron of the 4th City of London
Yeomanry .................................
First, he
knocks out a Cromwell and a Firefly of A Squadron, which had already nearly reached
Point 213.

Passing within a
short distance of the enemy, he destroys the majority of the 1st Rifle Brigade: thirteen M-3
halftracks, three Stuart light tanks, two Sherman artillery observer tanks, the Daimler
Scout Car of the brigade's Intelligence Officer, the M-3 of the brigade surgeon, and more
than one dozen Bren and Lloyd carriers (some from the antitank-gun battery).
At the outskirts of the town, he knocks out three of the four Cromwells of the regimental
headquarters section of the City of London Yeomanry. Still alone, he enters VillersBocage,
pursued by the fourth Cromwell, which intends to hit the Tiger from the rear.
Inside the town, Wittmann's forward progress is stopped by tanks of B Squadron (including
one Sherman Firefly). He turns around and rushes back along his route of advance.
On his way back, he knocks out the Cromwell, whose two armor-piercing rounds fired at a
distance of only fifty meters fail to penetrate the Tiger. After several hundred meters, the
tank becomes immobilized from an antitank gun hit damaging the left front drive
sprocket. The crew bails out and leaves the tank

How many tanks is that in your own source?
Tell me why he was awarded 25 kills instead of 11?
And it was only 3 Staurt's not three so even 11 should be reduced to 10.
Thank you for giving me a German source that proves conclusively, using Wittmann's own account, that he did not knock out 25 tanks at Villers Bocage.
Note that the overclaim is over the 50% normaly allowed for.

I wonder how many of those 11 were hit by the two other Tigers (one of which was knocked out) suporting Wittmann as he went into Villers. Did they not hit anything at all?

[mkenny]

I presume you are looking for the source that gives a the 30% of tanks lost to aircraft figure you keep using. Any idea when you will find it?

[Byron Angel]

I presume you are looking for the source that gives a the 30% of tanks lost to aircraft figure you keep using. Any idea when you will find it?

.....Go to CARL and find the German operational history of the 1st SS Pz Korps at Normandy. The aerial attack upon the 503rd mentioned by Alecsandros is discussed therein. The unit struck was rendered combat incapable for about a day and a half as a result of heavy casualties to tank crews and disablement by various causes of a large proportion of its tanks. The figure of 4 tanks lost actually represents those written off as total losses as a consequence of the bombing attack. The dispute in loss figures, I suspect, may possibly be the result of mixing counts of disabled tanks and written off vehicles.

Reynolds also discusses the episode in slightly less detail in his book on 1st SS Pz Korps.


Byron

[mkenny]

.....Go to CARL and find the German operational history of the 1st SS Pz Korps at Normandy. The aerial attack upon the 503rd mentioned by Alecsandros is discussed therein. The unit struck was rendered combat incapable for about a day and a half as a result of heavy casualties to tank crews and disablement by various causes of a large proportion of its tanks. The figure of 4 tanks lost actually represents those written off as total losses as a consequence of the bombing attack. The dispute in loss figures, I suspect, may possibly be the result of mixing counts of disabled tanks and written off vehicles.

Reynolds also discusses the episode in slightly less detail in his book on 1st SS Pz Korps.

The bombing was well documented and after the German's were pushed back (and they were) the wrecks were photographed and filmed by UK Combat Cameramen. There are only 4 total wrecks






Obviously other tanks were damaged and knocked out but the true believers never want to admit German a loss. Unless it was a complete wreck it is not counted.
On the other hand every Allied tank hit, no matter how minor, is added to some Panzer commanders kill list!

[mkenny]

The main argument of Wilbeck and others is that a Tiger not totaly destroyed by an Allied tank in one-to one combat is not to be counted as a 'real' loss. By this method they can ignore a lot of losses and falsely claim a superiority or, the holy Grail, a high kill-ratio.
Using the very same method of excluding a tank destroyed by the crew then we can remove around 6 UK Cromwells from the Villers Bocage tally. All the Cromwells at point 212 were ordered to be destroyed by the crews and thus, in tigerworld, do not count as losses.

[Byron Angel]

Mkenny,

Your comment raises a fair question as to how tank losses should be fairly counted.

Is it reasonable to count each disabled tank, or should only write-offs be counted? Is a tank really knocked out if it has been disabled, but recovered and repaired overnight and returned to service the following day? We know that the Germans would, when opportunity availed, often continue to fire at a disabled enemy tank until it burned in order to prevent it being returned to service. I have no doubt that the Allies may well have done the very same thing.

What degree of tactical credit should be given in recognition of skill in battlefield tank recovery and repair?

I'm not arguing for one side or another here - just posing a question - although I personally believe that combat efficiency ought to be judged from the point of view of vehicle write-offs.


Byron

[mkenny]

There is a double standard in the counting of tank losses. Generaly only German complete write-offs are counted as casualties but in the case of Allied tanks every tank hit and damaged is counted. This is why you keep getting stupid statements like '400 British tanks lost' during Goodwood and only 75-100 German. In reality the total losses were 75-100 German and just under 200 British.
This type of jiggery-pokery can be seen in this thread. I am being quoted extracts from an author who spends most of his time excluding certain types of Tiger tank losses from the calculations so as to get the magic 5:1 kill ratios much loved by Tiger groupies.
At the end of the day you have to wonder why so much effort is expended trying to prove German tanks wiped out ranks and ranks of Sherman with relative ease. In a war where the bulk of the fighting and dying was done by bog standard Infantry Divisions tanks played but a minor role. They were not decisive or stand alone war winners. A super dooper battleship turret on wheels could have won the war by itself.

[Byron Angel]

There is a double standard in the counting of tank losses. Generaly only German complete write-offs are counted as casualties but in the case of Allied tanks every tank hit and damaged is counted. This is why you keep getting stupid statements like '400 British tanks lost' during Goodwood and only 75-100 German. In reality the total losses were 75-100 German and just under 200 British.
This type of jiggery-pokery can be seen in this thread. I am being quoted extracts from an author who spends most of his time excluding certain types of Tiger tank losses from the calculations so as to get the magic 5:1 kill ratios much loved by Tiger groupies.
At the end of the day you have to wonder why so much effort is expended trying to prove German tanks wiped out ranks and ranks of Sherman with relative ease. In a war where the bulk of the fighting and dying was done by bog standard Infantry Divisions tanks played but a minor role. They were not decisive or stand alone war winners. A super dooper battleship turret on wheels could have won the war by itself.

..... A dissection of Goodwood indicates total British tank losses ranging from a low of 250 to a maximum of some 500, depending upon which source is accepted; assume one-half as written off. Estimates of German tanks losses range from 75 to 100, again again depending upon which source is accepted. However, any attempt to derive a valid tank-versus-tank "exchange rate" from this data is meaningless, since almost certainly the majority of British tank losses were inflicted by AT gunfire in the depth of the German defensive positions after the the accompanying British infantry had been left behind or stripped away. The only conclusion that can be confidently drawn is that overall the British side of the battle was very badly managed from the tactical point of view.

[mkenny]

A dissection of Goodwood indicates total British tank losses ranging from a low of 250 to a maximum of some 500, depending upon which source is accepted; assume one-half as written off. Estimates of German tanks losses range from 75 to 100,

This is again a comparison of the total of all British casualties to all causes v German total losses. You need to know the German damaged total to make a valid comparison and there are no complete German figures. It will never be settled.
One example is a Stug Unit that had 2 stug as total losses -but 15 others knocked out!

[Byron Angel]

A dissection of Goodwood indicates total British tank losses ranging from a low of 250 to a maximum of some 500, depending upon which source is accepted; assume one-half as written off. Estimates of German tanks losses range from 75 to 100,

This is again a comparison of the total of all British casualties to all causes v German total losses. You need to know the German damaged total to make a valid comparison and there are no complete German figures. It will never be settled.
One example is a Stug Unit that had 2 stug as total losses -but 15 others knocked out!

..... I understand that, which is why I inserted the comment: "assume one-half as written off". Perhaps my language could have been slightly clearer.

I don't disagree re the apples and oranges nature of respective tank (or AFV) loss figures. Unfortunately, German official reports appear to have counted write-offs only for summary statistical purposes. Glantz and Nipes have delved into the nature and experience of German tank losses more deeply in their Eastern Front studies, having accessed repair records at divisional level. But even that sort of analysis really doesn't lend much to our particular topic at hand - exchange rates in tank-versus-tank gladiatorial-style combat - a question which IMO cannot really be intelligently answered.

[VeenenbergR]

I have read many if not most books about the battles in Normandy and Russia, but losses of two parties must be measured using the same methods.
Furthermore losses > 3:1 are not really trustworthy, since the defence normally looses most tanks during artillery bombardments (and the Allies had an tremendous firepower), air bombardments (same), moving or transporting tanks and the many write offs by moving through terrain.

The Tigers lost in WWII: most (66%) because of Allied air and artillery fire (West); most of being encircled or out of supply (East) and finally most of the rugged terrain (South) and yes then finally 33% was lost of enemy fire or simply abandoned while "under attack".

The Tigers which were actually destroyed (and became o totall loss) was < 10% of all losses.
Only 66% of all 2000 Tigers produced reached the battlefield and of these again perhaps 66% got the chance to go into action. The lucky 800-900 Tigers which went into action were damaged and repaired multiple times themselves and they were responsible of stopping or destroying at least 10.000 enemy tanks alone (not counting the praised targets like anti-tank guns, guns aso), trucks.

Best results were obtained by the Tigers committed in Russia, especially those fighting in the South of Russia when they could be supplied and taken care off when damaged. So Kursk was a big (huge) sucess for the Tigers and so were the withdrawl battles for the Ukraine.

Later in the war this picture changed and Tiger losses were mounting, the kills became less. The anti tank war became more and more a matter of the German infantry men, armed with the deadly obiquitous and effective Panzerfausts.

Panzergruppe Peiper lost few tanks to enemy anti-tank or tank fire, but almost all tanks because of enemy artillery fire or abandoned while out of supply. The same is true for the 3 heavy Tiger batalions which retreated from Lake Balaton towards the Austrian Border: 90% of these tanks (all Königs Tigers) were all left alone along the road because lack of fuel.

Königstiger losses were heavy. kills however few, except for the 503rd heavy batalion fighting in Hungary and the 502nd (424th) Heavy Batalion figting for East Prussia (Samland).

Of the 45 Königstigers send to Normandy or the Seine few scored successes and almost all were knocked out! What they achieved? Almost nothing of real value.

Along the Weichsel the 501st Batalion (the first committed with the Königstiger) ran into an ambush in their first mission. They quickly lost 10 of them, even some which were captured by the Russians! Later in january 1945 the reinforced rest of the batalion was lost within a few days, only a couple of Tigers managed to drive West towards the Oder River.

Remarkably the success of the Tigers changed in the very last weeks of the war during the battle of Berlin: in the rubbled city or in the open fields outside the city itself only a handfull of Königstigers managed to kill or stop litterary "hundreds" of heavy enemy tanks. Before the Reichstag one single Kingtiger stopped a whole Russian tankcorps for 3 days, then it went West to be abandoned near Potsdam. The Soviets lost 2000 tanks inside Berlin and at least 1000 tanks outside the city.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Veenenberg:

Thanks for your excelent account. For some days I have been reading in order to access if, in reality, there was on oversight in this Tiger issue but it seems, from all the sources, that your statements are correct.

Best regards,

[Bgile]

Interesting photo:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/11808

"It seems this tank was killed by an American 76 mm armed M10 from the 813 TD Bn on 28 August 1944 in front of Sailly near Mantes on the Seine just west of Paris."

[Karl Heidenreich]

According to the posts, which are not very clear, it seems that this kill was such a feat that all Third Army talked about it. Very interesting.

[tommy303]

Yes very interesting. I believe the Germans had begun using homogeneous armour for the very thick frontal plates on the Tigers due to the declining quality of armour being produced by the major manufacturers (who found obtaining the required components for high quality plate to be problematical). The penetrating hit shows the plate has been slightly displaced near its outer edge as the projectile went through it, indicating it is not face hardened, and the gouges on the glacis plate of the hull are typical of impacts against homogeneous plates.