Jump to content


WW2 Tank Losses By Nation


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

Kiwi the Fox #21 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:01 PM

    First lieutenant

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

View PostIcesev, on 27 October 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

The firefly not widely used.

Your statement is way too general

 

If you are comparing the number of fireflys to the number of regular 75mm gunned Shermans in British Units during the Normandy Campaign then your statement has some merit.  Firefly tanks usually made made up one out of every 4 tanks in a British squadron or troop of 4 tanks.  This ratio was able to be increased as the war progressed but never reached the level where the total 4 tank unit was firefly equipped.

 

If your statement of not being widely used is made in a similar vein to the statement that there were never enought Tigers (or Panthers for that matter) to make a difference to the outcome of the war - that there weren't enough firelfly Shermans to effect the outcome of the Sheman tank vs German Tank battles - then you are wrong IMHO

 

While the Sherman Firely provided what appeared to be the best solution to redressing the Sherman vs German balance (although the Americans dispute this in favor of their 76mm armed Shermans), the fact remains that in the majority of cases a Sherman crew who came face to face with a Tiger or Panther one on one was in some serious trouble.

 

 


 

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

 

                                                              


Lasidora #22 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:34 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 7313 battles
  • 4,869
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013
Germany always had a higher kd than due to the enemies they faced. Especially the fighter pilots. you know that thing where russia just breaks down the enemy by continuously throwing bodies at them? yeah... Thats why the ww2 german aces are the aces of aces. Plus america would take out their best aces (at least in the usaf) and give them a break to train new recruits. No idea if they did the same to the armored divisions or not. Im not going to talk about the tanks themselve but more so the skill of the operators which german usually had the more skilled tankers/pilots in the field right up until the very end of the war when alot were finally KIA. Example,  Michael Wittman and Heinrich Ehrler who downed 208 planes but was KIA april 4th 1945

Matthew J35U5 #23 Posted 29 October 2014 - 02:48 PM

    Major

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

View PostLasidora, on 29 October 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

Germany always had a higher kd than due to the enemies they faced. Especially the fighter pilots. you know that thing where russia just breaks down the enemy by continuously throwing bodies at them? yeah... Thats why the ww2 german aces are the aces of aces. Plus america would take out their best aces (at least in the usaf) and give them a break to train new recruits. No idea if they did the same to the armored divisions or not. Im not going to talk about the tanks themselve but more so the skill of the operators which german usually had the more skilled tankers/pilots in the field right up until the very end of the war when alot were finally KIA. Example,  Michael Wittman and Heinrich Ehrler who downed 208 planes but was KIA april 4th 1945

No. No I do not know that thing you are referring to. You know that thing where Germany gets Army Group Centre annihilated because Soviet maskirovka draws the majority of German forces away to defend somewhere the Soviets weren't planning on attacking? I liked that. 

It is true though that Luftwaffe aces kept flying missions until they got KIA, whereas allied aces were taken away from frontline service to train pilots. Which was kind of a sensible thing to do...


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


Starshoy #24 Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:39 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 13663 battles
  • 3,954
  • [KAMA]
  • Member since:
    08-28-2013

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.

Not at all. You have tanks, you use them, you lose them. The more you have, the more you lose. Only fraction of losses is due to tank vs tank engagement. USSR and Allies just had so much more tanks in operation than Germany, they were destined to lose more.



Unkindled Wolf #25 Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:48 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3083 battles
  • 576
  • [FNOFF]
  • Member since:
    04-24-2014
Please move to Historical    this will attract the kooks who dream of uber-weapons  

nzbear #26 Posted 29 October 2014 - 06:36 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 17051 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

been done before

 

Lots of facts and figures

 

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/forum/world%20war%20ii/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxMYVHVIJO2CP3&cdThread=Tx1EH957QA4CMIW


Edited by nzbear, 29 October 2014 - 06:45 PM.


Dish Jockey #27 Posted 30 October 2014 - 09:17 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16719 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    11-10-2013
Where are the statistics for the pacific ? 

MegaB0B0 #28 Posted 30 October 2014 - 12:16 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

There was a 1943 era Time magazine article on the War that was sourced electronically, where there are numbers throw around in it which claim some 20000 German tanks were destroyed.

 

So clearly the numbers are impossible to confirm as many tanks were restored and reused.


 

Take for example Germans, their front line engineer / quarter masters were legendary in keeping the unreliable Tiger / Panther running.

Many Russian Kills disappears and reborn the next day... so the Red army would think there are a lot more Tigers showing up when there would only be 18 or so in the regiment and most of the time 12 or so was actually operational.


 

Next up USSR machines, a large number of T-34 early models were 'destroyed' in operation Blue, but in fact many were partially damaged and pushed aside by Germans (many working ones put in German second line servers even). So when during late 1943 and early 1944, the Russians reclaim large part of the area, they transfer those hulls back to factory to be refurbished, hence a few thousand of those later war T-34-85 were reworked old T-34 early models.


 

The kill ratios were leaning towards Germans.. cause early German tank crew skills / support troop and weapon quality are indeed far better than Russians, therefore it is a no brainer that they get an upper hand. By the time of 1945, Both side troop quality are about equal, then Russian has more men... so they end up winning.


 

Good luck find the absolute truth in the mist of war.


 


 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

MegaB0B0 #29 Posted 30 October 2014 - 12:27 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 30 October 2014 - 01:48 AM, said:

No. No I do not know that thing you are referring to. You know that thing where Germany gets Army Group Centre annihilated because Soviet maskirovka draws the majority of German forces away to defend somewhere the Soviets weren't planning on attacking? I liked that. 

It is true though that Luftwaffe aces kept flying missions until they got KIA, whereas allied aces were taken away from frontline service to train pilots. Which was kind of a sensible thing to do...

 

oh well.. by the end of the War, Luftwaffe Aces were training Hitler Youth pilots right at the airfield where they fly those state of the art flying machines...

A JG group would have a handful of Ace that racks 30+ and Ace of Aces with 100+ kills leading noobs 4 times their number. Adolf Galland managed to put some stop to this mass and gathered the Aces to form the a all Ace Jet fighter group, operate from the last safe airports of the country's north which report to strike fear in Allied bombing runs just before the war ended.


 

There shouldn't be any external excuses in German army loosing ground in days of 1944. They don't have the men power any more to stabilise the front, Germans can concentrate some forces to gain local superiority, beat back an axis of advance but then they be instantly short of tanks and men in another front where Russians can quickly put reserves at where they can achieve breakthrough.


 

There was no hope! That was why there was an assassination attempt on Hitler.


 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

DStegCat #30 Posted 03 March 2015 - 10:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

  It's a more complex question than just numbers. 

  What's not taken into account is the manufacturing location, supply lines, engineering expectations, maintenance plans, and tactics used for the tanks in question.  These differences play a part.

   U.S.S.R. had the shortest supply lines and largest manpower in the early years to throw at a front very close.  As close as the German's came to Moscow the Russians were highly motivated to place numbers not necessarily quality to counter the Axis.  I remember a video where the Russians expected a life span of a T-34 as 3 days in combat.  Maintenance expectations were an overhaul after 500 hours use.  Losses were expected and tactically they used numbers.

   Engineers played an important part for the Germans.  They put many tanks disabled back into production.  They had fewer tanks and long supply lines creating a need for adaptable response.  The Germans fired on a tank until it burned and was fully torched trying to eliminate it from the battlefield in the future.

   Germans would reconstitute existing units (slowly dwindling) while Russians would uses a unit till gone then throw next man up.

  Each side counted losses a little differently and claims on kills did not always fully meet the numbers when looking at both sides.

 

On a different tact where does lend lease fall in these numbers?  Still confusing where these numbers were sourced.

 


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


Matthew J35U5 #31 Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:39 AM

    Major

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

View PostDStegCat, on 03 March 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

  It's a more complex question than just numbers. 

  What's not taken into account is the manufacturing location, supply lines, engineering expectations, maintenance plans, and tactics used for the tanks in question.  These differences play a part.

   U.S.S.R. had the shortest supply lines and largest manpower in the early years to throw at a front very close.  As close as the German's came to Moscow the Russians were highly motivated to place numbers not necessarily quality to counter the Axis.  I remember a video where the Russians expected a life span of a T-34 as 3 days in combat.  Maintenance expectations were an overhaul after 500 hours use.  Losses were expected and tactically they used numbers.

   Engineers played an important part for the Germans.  They put many tanks disabled back into production.  They had fewer tanks and long supply lines creating a need for adaptable response.  The Germans fired on a tank until it burned and was fully torched trying to eliminate it from the battlefield in the future.

   Germans would reconstitute existing units (slowly dwindling) while Russians would uses a unit till gone then throw next man up.

  Each side counted losses a little differently and claims on kills did not always fully meet the numbers when looking at both sides.

 

On a different tact where does lend lease fall in these numbers?  Still confusing where these numbers were sourced.

 

 

I don't know about the numbers the OP posted, but Krivosheev gives the total losses for the Soviet Union as ~96,000 tanks.

Though his methedology makes that a number somewhat removed from reality. 

Basically it was something like, Starting tanks+built tanks during year-tanks available at the end of the year=losses. The only problem is that isn't really going to answer the question that you are asking. 

You would see a trend where the number of tanks available at the end of the year is just a tiny number, because what's really happening is that at some point your campaign is winding down, so you send back your tanks to get overhauled at the factory, and when the factory reissues them, they are recorded as entirely new units. 

So, in reality not only did the Soviet Union not lose nearly as many tanks (irrecoverably) as 96,000, but it didn't actually build as many tanks as it is often claimed. 

I think the number I saw for #of tanks built by the Soviet Union is ~110,000 or something, in reality that should be something like, "110,000 tanks built and repaired". 

Edit: The difference between the Nazi's and the allies were that the allies recorded "total losses", whereas the Germans recorded "irrecoverable losses". 

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





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users