Sheldrake wrote:The concept of a "loss ratio" implies WW2 as a series of tank v tank duels. However, in WW2 tanks weren't just shot at by tanks or used against tanks. It did take more hits to KO a Panther than a Sherman, because the Panther was bigger and more heavily armoured, which is one reason why there were not as many of them.
Yep. For example, of 883 First US Army tank losses investigated from June 1944 to May 1945, it was assessed that 440 had been knocked out by "AT Guns" and 78 by "Artillery". The first actually implies weapons smaller than 75mm and the later those 75mm and larger, but neither distinguishes between tanks, tank destroyers, AT guns, or indirect artillery fire. BTW, of the 883, only 337 "burned" while 515 were "repairable".
British figures, which imply distinctions between tanks, assault guns, and AT guns, similarly bandied about but various Internet denizens, are highly anecdotal and problematical, while we have virtually zero data on German cause of loss.
As I said a few days ago, "Any such "ratios" are highly speculative at best and completely bogus at worst." I may add though despite such speculative bogusness, certain Internet denizens continue to spin out tall tales from them.
Cheers!
