Jump to content


WW2 Tank Losses By Nation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
30 replies to this topic

Mr Crowley ll #1 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:05 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 23951 battles
  • 3,162
  • [CRPT]
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

USSR  80,000

UK       20,000

US       20,000

DE      40,000   (4,000 Western Front    34,000 Eastern Front)

 

Tanks get knocked out by other tanks but also mines, anti tank guns, shoulder fired weapons, artillery, and all things planes  (bombs, rockets, cannons) but the numbers are way too lopsided in favor of German armor to say their tanks were not superior to those of any other nation in WW2.

 

Look at the US vs DE alone and forget about the UK.  That's a staggering 5:1 ratio.   Sure Germany had anti tank guns but the US had air superiority so I call it a wash.

 

The numbers just don't add up to claim Allied armor performed better than Axis armor.

 

 

 


 

 


Nocturnal814 #2 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:12 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

Who ever said allied armor outperformed german armor? And keep in mind, these stats include early war, when the germans did not in fact have better armor. They just had better generals, crewmen, and secondary equipment (sucu as optics and radios)

ps. Where did you get these numbers?



something, something, something, dark side...

Alba gaisgeil #3 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:15 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 15271 battles
  • 2,388
  • [KRH]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 27 October 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

Who ever said allied armor outperformed german armor? And keep in mind, these stats include early war, when the germans did not in fact have better armor. They just had better generals, crewmen, and secondary equipment (such* as optics and radios)

ps. Where did you get these numbers?

 


 

 British army! Royal Tank Regiment!  Thanks to Violet Viper x for the Great sig

 

 

 


Alba gaisgeil #4 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:16 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 15271 battles
  • 2,388
  • [KRH]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013
Sorry! I had to

 

 British army! Royal Tank Regiment!  Thanks to Violet Viper x for the Great sig

 

 

 


rainsilent #5 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:19 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013
Something to keep in mind is the US decided not to field new tanks and just use the Sherman through the war. The Sherman was outclassed by the tanks it was facing by the end of the war however numbers and air power won the day basically.

http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Nocturnal814 #6 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:21 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostOpTaZe Ghosts, on 27 October 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Sorry! I had to

 

damn phone, can't see half of what I'm typing



something, something, something, dark side...

WidowMaker1711 #7 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:30 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11835 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostMr Crowley ll, on 27 October 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

USSR  80,000

UK       20,000

US       20,000

DE      40,000   (4,000 Western Front    34,000 Eastern Front)

 

Tanks get knocked out by other tanks but also mines, anti tank guns, shoulder fired weapons, artillery, and all things planes  (bombs, rockets, cannons) but the numbers are way too lopsided in favor of German armor to say their tanks were not superior to those of any other nation in WW2.

 

Look at the US vs DE alone and forget about the UK.  That's a staggering 5:1 ratio.   Sure Germany had anti tank guns but the US had air superiority so I call it a wash.

 

The numbers just don't add up to claim Allied armor performed better than Axis armor.

 

 

 

 

These figures also dont take into account the fact that the Germans used TDs correctly as mobile AT guns in prepared defensive positions whilst whoever they were facing threw themselves onto the guns. Only with hindsight can we say that the tactics were correct and that the armour whilst not always the best was backed up by Superior guns, optics and especially in early to mid war cases training.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Matthew J35U5 #8 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:39 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostMr Crowley ll, on 27 October 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

USSR  80,000

UK       20,000

US       20,000

DE      40,000   (4,000 Western Front    34,000 Eastern Front)

 

Tanks get knocked out by other tanks but also mines, anti tank guns, shoulder fired weapons, artillery, and all things planes  (bombs, rockets, cannons) but the numbers are way too lopsided in favor of German armor to say their tanks were not superior to those of any other nation in WW2.

 

Look at the US vs DE alone and forget about the UK.  That's a staggering 5:1 ratio.   Sure Germany had anti tank guns but the US had air superiority so I call it a wash.

 

The numbers just don't add up to claim Allied armor performed better than Axis armor.

>.>

I just wanted to post this image. If I go to a website such as wikipedia, I will see that the T-34-85 was claimed to have 22,000 units produced. And yet, according to Soviet documents, only ~16,500 of the guns used to arm the T-34-85 were produced. Consider why that would be the case, and extend the same logic to all other soviet AFV, and all AFV used by the allies. 

Also, your numbers don't match-up for Germany, you have 40,000 overall and 34,000/4000 when listed separately. 

Edit—Wiki is such a reliable source that the article at one point lists 29,000 T-34-85's and at another lists 23,000. ggwp
 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


v Skoll v #9 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:49 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 9977 battles
  • 1,744
  • [GRU]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

You know, there is a forum for this type of discussion called "Historical Discussions".

 

Very random post by the way.



Matthew J35U5 #10 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:51 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSTURMHAUBITZE42, on 27 October 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

You know, there is a forum for this type of discussion called "Historical Discussions".

 

Very random post by the way.

Too much work.

 

 

 

 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


LOWxONxHealth #11 Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:52 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 23689 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013
Towards the end of the war the M4 Sherman was more than capable of taking on tigers with larger guns extra armor and high velocity rounds.Germans were superior at first but not for long.Plus they couldnt penetrate the Matilda II.
If you're not low on health you must be doing something wrong.Proud supporter of Reynolds Wrap.Covering the world in tinfoil one Kinect at a time.

ParaGrunt75 #12 Posted 27 October 2014 - 06:06 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 16496 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    02-23-2014

View PostSTURMHAUBITZE42, on 27 October 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

You know, there is a forum for this type of discussion called "Historical Discussions".

 

Very random post by the way.

 

BWHAHA!!   No kidding, right!

Kiwi the Fox #13 Posted 27 October 2014 - 06:16 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 18030 battles
  • 519
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

The US had other and in many cases better designs than the M4 during the war - anyone who plays WOT can actually use some of these vehicles.

 

In reality however, at the highest levels, the US war machine was faced with the need to ship every tank produced for service at the front by ship across the ocean(s) to reach the front. Therefore at these highest levels there was a need to trade off the provision of a more effective vehicle versus the ease of transport.  It is obvious that the conclusion reached was that remaining with the Sherman and providing it in various upgraded forms throughout the war was the best trade off than replacing the Sherman with a more effective design that may in fact have resulted in meaning that only one half to three quarters of these types could be transported in the space that all the Shermans could be shipped in.

 

There were also doctrinal squabbles in the US Army by the Tank Destoyer vs Tank Lobby over which vehicle was the primary system for engaging enemy armor - this resulted in an less than adequate gun in the majority of Shermans

almost to the end of the war in favor of tank destroyer designs like the M10 and Hellcat.

 

The  facts are that neither of these decisions helped the US tank crew in their M4 take the battle to the Germans.from Africa to Normandy and beyond.  It is hard to quantify how many tank crews perished using the M4 tank

rather than a more effective design or a tank with a larger more effective gun.  When confronted by a Panther or Tiger in their M4, the fact that rear depots had stocks of hundreds of replacement M4's because they were easier to transport to the war zone than the next generation more effective tank, or the fact that the crew should not be shooting it out with Tigers but leaving that duty to the M10 units, was of no consolation whatsoever when their asses hung in the balance

during the following 2 minutes.

 

This was unlike the Germans or Russians who did not really need to to factor this type of consideration into their strategic thinking when it came to AFV's.  As it happened, the T-34 was superior to the early German tanks which gave the Soviets the double advantage of a)  having better tanks one on one than their German counterparts) and b) being able to outproduce Germany in making AFVs in general

Later in the war, the German technolgical achievements which led to the Panthers and Tigers which for the most part outclassed their Soviet counterparts tank for tank, were also of no consolation to the German Tank Crew that

was faced with overwheming numbers of T34-85 or JS-II tanks as the battle for survival raged on the Eastern Front.

 

 


 

"My avatar is the division patch for the 4th Canadian Armored Division, NW Europe 1944-45"   - painted on  Left Front of Vehicle                                                               

 

                                                              


Turboclicker #14 Posted 27 October 2014 - 06:17 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013
This isn't as simple as you guys make it out to be.

Different countries have different ways of calling a tank "Lost".

Germans counted theirs lost only when completely destroyed and the Soviets counted theirs lost EVERY time they repaired it. So if a T34 gets disabled, it's counted as lost even if it's back up in a day.

You guys do know that the Germans claimed more kills on the Russians at a point than the Russians had units?

Another thing to mention is it depends on who is saying the tank is lost.

Mr Crowley ll #15 Posted 27 October 2014 - 06:17 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 23951 battles
  • 3,162
  • [CRPT]
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 27 October 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

>.>

I just wanted to post this image. If I go to a website such as wikipedia, I will see that the T-34-85 was claimed to have 22,000 units produced. And yet, according to Soviet documents, only ~16,500 of the guns used to arm the T-34-85 were produced. Consider why that would be the case, and extend the same logic to all other soviet AFV, and all AFV used by the allies. 

Also, your numbers don't match-up for Germany, you have 40,000 overall and 34,000/4000 when listed separately. 

Edit—Wiki is such a reliable source that the article at one point lists 29,000 T-34-85's and at another lists 23,000. ggwp
 

 

Sure the loss numbers show 20% margins of error but even with that kind of error the 40,000 US & UK tank losses to 4,000 on the Western front still presents a very disturbing picture.  Apply the same to the eastern front and albeit better the picture is still quite disturbing.

 

Of course we have to factor in offense vs. defense tactics, who was better supplied, who had air superiority, who had better ground anti tank weapons like the 88mm deployable guns.   At the end of the day I don't think those factors are enough to reverse the tank loss ratios in favor of the US, UK, or USSR in terms of armor superiority.


 

 


Nocturnal814 #16 Posted 27 October 2014 - 06:23 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostLOWxONxHealth, on 27 October 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

Towards the end of the war the M4 Sherman was more than capable of taking on tigers with larger guns extra armor and high velocity rounds.Germans were superior at first but not for long.Plus they couldnt penetrate the Matilda II.

 

there was no point during the war that any sherman was the equal to either the tiger or the panther in anything aside from reliability 

something, something, something, dark side...

WidowMaker1711 #17 Posted 27 October 2014 - 06:32 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11835 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostNocturnal814, on 27 October 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

 

there was no point during the war that any sherman was the equal to either the tiger or the panther in anything aside from reliability 

 

All depends. In terms of just making holes in what you hit both the Panther and Firefly are on almost level ground. Both guns had a tendency to punch through and through whereas the 88 L56 punched through and mauled everything it saw.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Turboclicker #18 Posted 27 October 2014 - 06:34 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013
The firefly not widely used.

Matthew J35U5 #19 Posted 27 October 2014 - 06:38 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 27 October 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

 

there was no point during the war that any sherman was the equal to either the tiger or the panther in anything aside from reliability 

The Sherman was never the equal of the Panther in terms of reliability. :trollface:

View PostMr Crowley ll, on 27 October 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

 

Sure the loss numbers show 20% margins of error but even with that kind of error the 40,000 US & UK tank losses to 4,000 on the Western front still presents a very disturbing picture.  Apply the same to the eastern front and albeit better the picture is still quite disturbing.

 

Of course we have to factor in offense vs. defense tactics, who was better supplied, who had air superiority, who had better ground anti tank weapons like the 88mm deployable guns.   At the end of the day I don't think those factors are enough to reverse the tank loss ratios in favor of the US, UK, or USSR in terms of armor superiority.

That was not the appropriate answer. 

View PostIcesev, on 27 October 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

This isn't as simple as you guys make it out to be.

Different countries have different ways of calling a tank "Lost".

Germans counted theirs lost only when completely destroyed and the Soviets counted theirs lost EVERY time they repaired it. So if a T34 gets disabled, it's counted as lost even if it's back up in a day.

You guys do know that the Germans claimed more kills on the Russians at a point than the Russians had units?

Another thing to mention is it depends on who is saying the tank is lost.

This is. Only 16500 guns were made for the T-34-85 because the T-34-85 was not actually produced as much as the records show, anytime a T-34-85 went through a factory it was a "new" T-34-85. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


WidowMaker1711 #20 Posted 27 October 2014 - 07:22 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11835 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostIcesev, on 27 October 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

The firefly not widely used.

 

True but there were about 2000 of them. Enough to make colanders out of tanks but not kill them. Although I do remember seeing a book years ago in a Library with 2 very memorable pictures 1 of a German Sherman Firefly. And the other a Pzkfw IV with a through and through in the engine


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users