German tanks

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: German tanks

Post by lwd »

Karl Heidenreich wrote: ... Still, the Germans had a much better, the best, army of WWII, acknowledge so by the same officers of the army that fought it.
If they were so superior how do you explain incidents like this? From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... the_center
On the first day, an entire German battalion of 500 men was held up for 10 hours at the small village of Lanzerath, through which passed a key route through the Losheim Gap. To preserve the quantity of armor available, the infantry of the 9th Fallschirmjaeger Regiment, 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Division, had been ordered to clear the village first. A single 18-man Intelligence and Reconnaissance Platoon from the 99th Infantry Division along with four Forward Air Controllers held up the battalion of about 500 German paratroopers until sunset, about 4:00 p.m, causing 92 casualties among the Germans.
or this?
The 99th Infantry Division as a whole, outnumbered five to one, inflicted casualties in the ratio of eighteen to one. The division lost about 20% of its effective strength, including 465 killed and 2,524 evacuated due to wounds, injuries, fatigue, or trench foot. German losses were much higher. In the northern sector opposite the 99th, this included more than 4,000 deaths and the destruction of sixty tanks and big guns
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

You don't know when to stay put? I have proof that your "When the Odds were Even" cheap propaganda is a hoax without proper research but you evade it. Do you think forum readers are that blind? That they will ignore that your so called "support" is cheaper than Mein Kamph?

You bring two small examples, OK. I have brought a series that confirm a tendency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_gazala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_El_Alamein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... erine_Pass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Villers-Bocage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Totalize

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cobra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Veritable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_S ... 80%931942)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Kharkov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Kharkov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_monte_cassino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Scherer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demyansk_pocket

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula-Oder_Offensive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Offensive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_berlin

There are others, of course, but I am sure lwd will come with his argumentative stuff because he don't know when to stop being kicked, so I wil not waste no body's else time. It will do him good to read the review on his "source" :lol: :lol: :lol:

After all... the US only fought some 11 nonths against 1 million Germans. The Germans fought 5.4 million western allies plus some 6 million russians at two fronts.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: German tanks

Post by dunmunro »

lwd wrote:
Karl Heidenreich wrote: ... Still, the Germans had a much better, the best, army of WWII, acknowledge so by the same officers of the army that fought it.
If they were so superior how do you explain incidents like this? From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... the_center
On the first day, an entire German battalion of 500 men was held up for 10 hours at the small village of Lanzerath, through which passed a key route through the Losheim Gap. To preserve the quantity of armor available, the infantry of the 9th Fallschirmjaeger Regiment, 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Division, had been ordered to clear the village first. A single 18-man Intelligence and Reconnaissance Platoon from the 99th Infantry Division along with four Forward Air Controllers held up the battalion of about 500 German paratroopers until sunset, about 4:00 p.m, causing 92 casualties among the Germans.
or this?
The 99th Infantry Division as a whole, outnumbered five to one, inflicted casualties in the ratio of eighteen to one. The division lost about 20% of its effective strength, including 465 killed and 2,524 evacuated due to wounds, injuries, fatigue, or trench foot. German losses were much higher. In the northern sector opposite the 99th, this included more than 4,000 deaths and the destruction of sixty tanks and big guns
These incidents illustrate the advantages that the defender always has over an attacker. Since the German Army was almost always on the defensive from 1943 onward, it typically showed a better exchange rate, but on those occasions when the German Army attacked this advantage disappeared.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

These incident illustrate the advantages that the defender always has over an attacker. Since the German Army was almost always on the defensive from 1943 onward, it typically showed a better exchange rate, but on those occasions when the German Army attacked this advantage disappeared.
Typicall allied propaganda. Who had tactical air supremacy? Who have un challenged logistic lines? Who have strategic and tactical numerical superiority? PLEASE READ before making flawed statements. Please see the list of operations and combats I post above and they are a mix of everything, offensives and defensive, be my guest. The same can be said of the British Army at Alamein... uh?

If that's so then why is it that in the Germans, in a 1:1 ratio against France didn't experience this situation? Or at Gazala? Uh?
:shock:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: German tanks

Post by dunmunro »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:

Typicall allied propaganda...Please see the list of operations and combats I post above and they are a mix of everything, offensives and defensive, be my guest...
Selections from the wikipedia articles listed above:

First Alamein:
Commonwealth (defenders)
13,250 casualties[1]
--------------------------------
Axis (attackers)
17,000 casualties[nb 1]

Market Garden
Allies (attackers)
15,326–17,200 casualties
88 tanks[nb 4]
144 transport aircraft[8]
---------------------------
Germans (defenders)
incomplete estimates:
6,315–13,300 casualties[9][10][11][12]
30 tanks and SP guns[13]
159 aircraft[13]

Totalize
Allies (attackers)
At least 1,256 casualties[nb 1]
146+ tanks[nb 2]
----------------------------------
Germans (defenders)
3,000 casualties[nb 3]
At least 45 tanks[3]

Overlord:
Allies (attackers)
226,386 casualties[nb 2]
[8]
4,101 planes[9]
~4,000 tanks[10]
----------------------------------
Germans( Defenders)
209,875[nb 3] – 450,000 casualties[nb 4]
2,127 planes[11]
~2,200 tanks and assault guns[nb 5

Prague:
Germans (defenders)
850,000 killed, wounded, or captured
-------------------
Soviets (attackers)
11,997 killed or missing,
40,501 wounded or sick[1]


One problem being that surrenders are counted as casualties.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Let's go by on this, it's funny and will be helpfull to all forum members and readers.

Engaging forces

Some that need to be addessed and were not included in the previous list:

Fall of France:
Allies (defending carefully prepared fortifications): 3,300,000 troops (144 divisions); 13,974 guns; 3,383 tanks; 2,395 aircraft
Germans (attacking): 3,350,000 men (141 divisions on an almost 1:1 ratio); 2,445 tanks; 7,378 guns; 5,638 aircraft

OUTCOME: German victory

Casualties:
Allies: 360,000 killed or wounded; 1,900,000 captured; 2,233 aircraft
Germans: 157,621 casualties and 1,345 aircraft destroyed, 488 aircraft damaged and 795 tanks destroyed

Battle of Gazala:
British (defending): 175,000 men; 843 tanks
Germans: 80,000 men (2.18:1 ratio in favor of defenders); 560 tanks

OUTCOME: German victory

Casualties:
British: 98,000 killed or wounded; 540 tanks captured or destroyed
Germans: 32,000 casualties; 114 tanks destroyed


Kasserine Pass:

Allies (defenders): 30,000 strong
Germans (attackers): 22,000 strong

OUTCOME: German victory
Casualties:
Allies: 10,000 (including 6,500 Americans); 183 tanks and 706 trucks
Germans: 2,000; 34 tanks


Now, those mentioned in the above list:


First Alamein:
British (defenders): 150,000 troops; 1,114 tanks; 1,000+ artillery pieces;1,500+ planes
Germans (attackers): 96,000 troops; 585 tanks; 500 aprox. planes

OUTCOME:
Tactical inconclusive.
Strategic British victory

Market Garden:
Allies (attackers) : 41,628 troops; 1 armoured division; 2 infantry divisons; 1 armoured brigade (according to Cornelius Ryan some 20,000 vehicles of XXX Corps)
Germans (defenders): unknown. But it is known that 10th SS Division only accounted for 3,000 men and that Bittrich's Corps do not had more than 7,000 men altogether. Student forces were about 20,000 men with 25 tanks and tank destroyers

OUTCOME:
Stated as "Allied Operational Failure", an euphemism for German victory

However casualties listed by dunmuro are acurate:

Allies: 15,326- 17,000 casualties with 88 tanks and 144 transport planes
Germans: 6,315-13,300 with 30 tanks and SP guns and 159 aircraft

Totalize:
Allies: 3 infantry divisions; 2 armoured divisions; 2 armoured brigades
Germans: 3 infantry divisions; 1 SS Pz division; 1 heavy tank batallion

In paper the SS Pz and the Heavy tank battalion sounds a lot, but in reality we are talking of 50 tanks. According to Michael Reynolds canadians lost 80 tanks and the Polish armoured division lost 66 tanks. Germans lost 45.

Overlord:

Allies: 1,452,000 by July 23rd - 2,052,299 by August 21st; there are no data on armor. More than 10,000 planes
Germans: 380,000 by July 23rd - 1,000,000 according to Schulmann

OUTCOME:
Allied victory

Let's remember that at that same time the Germans were facing the more important Operation Bagration from the Soviets that dwarfs the western allied strategic diversion:

Soviets: 2,331,700 men (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENTS) + 79,000 Polish (poor bastards); 2,715 tanks; 1,335 assault tanks; 24,262 guns; 5,327 aircraft
Germans: 849,000 men (of which only 486,493 men were "frontline strenght"); 118 tanks; 377 assault guns; 2,589 guns: 602 aircraft

OUTCOME:
Soviet Victory

Casualties:
Soviets: 770,888 (including sick)
Germans: 749,102 overall including captured


Prague Offensive:
Soviets: 2,000,000 men
Germans: 90,000 men

OUTCOME:
Soviet and allies victory

But above the all previously mentioned list we have the greatest battles ever fought in WWII in the Main Theater of Operations, that is, the German-Soviet Front.

Second Battle of Kharkov:
Soviets (attacking): 765,300 men; 1,176 tanks; 300 SP guns; 926 planes
Germans defending): 350,000 men; 1,000 tanks; 700 planes

OUTCOME:
German victory

Casualties:
Soviets (allies of the US): 277,190 overall plus 1,250 tanks and SP guns; 542 planes
German: 20,000 overall; 49 planes (soviets lost 11 planes per every German one)


Third Battle of Kharkov:
Soviets (defending): 346,000 men
Germans (attacknig): 70,000 men (5:1 in favor of soviets defenders)

OUTCOME:
German victory

Casualties:
Soviets: 86,569
Germans: 11,500

And the greatest one:

KURSK:
Soviets: 1,910,361 men; 5,128 tanks; 25,013 guns; 2,792 aircraft
Germans: 780,900 men; 2,929 tanks; 9,966 guns; 2,110 aircraft

Ratios
Soldiers: 2.45:1 in favor of Soviets
Tanks: 1.75 in favor of the Soviets

OUTCOME:
Germany cancelled the Operation even after the Prokhorovka battle where the Germans kept the battlefied. Soviet Strategic Victory

Casualties:

Zitadelle Operation:
Soviets (defenders):177,847 men; 1,956 tanks; 1,961 planes; 3,929 guns
Germans (attackers): 54,182 men; 323 tanks; 159 planes; 500 guns

Overall Kursk:
Soviets (defending heavily prepared positions and then attacking): 863,303 men; 6,064 tanks and SP guns; 1,626 planes; 5,244 guns
Germans (attacking and then defending non prepared positions): 203,000 men; 720 tanks and SP guns; 681 planes; guns unknown

For the Prokhorovka combat, the greatest tank battle in History we have:
German forces: II PZ Corps (three Waffen SS divisions)
Soviet forces: 1st Tank Army; 69th Army; 5th Guards Tank Army; 5th Guard Mechanized Corps; 5th Guards Army

Casualties:
German: 522 men; 6 tanks destroyed; 89 tanks damaged
Soviets: 5,500 men; 334 tanks destroyed; 420 tanks damaged

I hope this suffice for an evaluation for the forum members and readers.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: German tanks

Post by dunmunro »

I don't have time right now to go over this in detail but for exampke, for the 3rd battle of Kharkhov:
Comparison of forces

Between 13 January and 3 April 1943, an estimated 500,000 Red Army soldiers took part in what was known as the Voronezh–Kharkov Offensive.[1] In all, an estimated 6,100,000 Soviet soldiers were committed to the area, with another 659,000 out of action with wounds. In comparison, the Germans could account for 2,200,000 personnel on the Eastern Front, with another 100,000 deployed in Norway.[citation needed] As a result, the Soviets deployed around twice as many personnel as the Wehrmacht in early February.[30] However, as a result of their over-extension and the casualties they had taken during their offensive, at the beginning of Manstein's counterattack the Germans could achieve a tactical superiority in numbers, including the number of tanks present—for example, Manstein's 350 tanks outnumbered Soviet armor almost seven to one at the point of contact.[28]
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Dunmuro:

Maybe you don't know this, but by when the specific action you are mentioning, the Third Kharkov, the soviets still had the post Stalingrad counter offensive ongoing and they had their units advancing against the germans in various points of the front. This is where Manstein made plain evident his genius (and which is why he is labeled as the greatest field commander of WWII for this particular action) and devised this plan that got the commies with their feet cold. It was a stroke of genius, of course. In the worst of cases it was a soviet operational failure to challenge Manstein until it was too late.
This was a very complex manouver and battle, something that has no parallel in the Western Front.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

In the previous list of operations I forgot two of them:

1. A big one: Operation Mars, November-December 1942

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mars

2. One relative to the Western Front Operarions. Villers Bocage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Villers_Bocage
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: German tanks

Post by Byron Angel »

Glantz, Nipe, van Creveld, and Dupuy are IMO worth consulting regarding the question of overall troop quality. The argument of Dupuy is founded on research which he claims to show a German man-for-man superiority factor of approximately 1.5 to 1 versus their US and British counterparts >irrespective< of tactical posture.

On thing to keep in mind about the American army that landed at Normandy - The majority of US troops committed to the ETO in 1944/45 had never seen prior combat. Their solid performance on the ground as essentially green troops testifies to the basic quality of the men, the thoroughness of their training, and, in the case of the infantry, the excellence of their weapons and equipment and fighting doctrine. This is meant to take absolutely nothing away from the US armored divisions which, at great sacrifice, performed prodigies of valor fighting in tanks specifically designed to the standards of a faulty operational doctrine.

B
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: German tanks

Post by Byron Angel »

For those interested in the development of US WW2 armor doctrine, go here -
http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/tank/tirefs/ ... un1988.pdf

The following books is also useful to illustrate the matter -
"Tank tactics: from Normandy to Lorraine" By Roman Johann Jarymowycz ( previewable @ books.google.com )


I think the historical record pretty much speaks for itself.


B
Last edited by Byron Angel on Sun May 22, 2011 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Byron:
Glantz, Nipe, van Creveld, and Dupuy are IMO worth consulting regarding the question of overall troop quality. The argument of Dupuy is founded on research which he claims to show a German man-for-man superiority factor of approximately 1.5 to 1 versus their US and British counterparts >irrespective< of tactical posture.

On thing to keep in mind about the American army that landed at Normandy - The majority of US troops committed to the ETO in 1944/45 had never seen prior combat. Their solid performance on the ground as essentially green troops testifies to the basic quality of the men, the thoroughness of their training, and, in the case of the infantry, the excellence of their weapons and equipment and fighting doctrine. This is meant to take absolutely nothing away from the US armored divisions which, at great sacrifice, performed prodigies of valor fighting in tanks specifically designed to the standards of a faulty operational doctrine.

B
I think your assesment is correct.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Byron,
For those interested in the development of US WW2 armor doctrine, go here -

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/tank/tirefs/ ... un1988.pdf

I think the historical record pretty much speaks for itself.


B
Thanks a lot for this link. I already downloaded as a pdf and will start reading it right away as those from Glantz and Willbeck's. This where you get the correct information and criteria.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: German tanks

Post by Byron Angel »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Byron,
For those interested in the development of US WW2 armor doctrine, go here -

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/tank/tirefs/ ... un1988.pdf

I think the historical record pretty much speaks for itself.


B
Thanks a lot for this link. I already downloaded as a pdf and will start reading it right away as those from Glantz and Willbeck's. This where you get the correct information and criteria.
- - -

Karl, you may also be interested in the following resource which I just edited into the email you cite above -

The following books is also useful to illustrate the matter -
"Tank tactics: from Normandy to Lorraine" By Roman Johann Jarymowycz ( previewable @ books.google.com )

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

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Byron,

"Tank tactics: from Normandy to Lorraine" By Roman Johann Jarymowycz ( previewable @ books.google.com )

Thanks also for that. Will follow it!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Post Reply