Tank losses in ww2

[Darrin]

Darrin

The number of tanks des by an avg ger tank in 43 on the EF was over 3. That shoud not be hard to guess due to its des ratio adv.

Do you mean that each German tank on average destroyed 3 soviet tanks, or just that Soviet tank losses were three times greater than German?

cheers

In 43 ger lost 8000 tanks des on all fronts. Russia reported 23500 tanks des during 43 as well. The number of rus tanks des by an avg ger tank before itself was des would be at least 3.

[Darrin]

and there were 1:20 scores in the battlefield.
in the battle of kursk , from 120 operational tiger , only 18 were lost.
tiger units destroyed atleaast 20 enemy tanks , 15 anti-tank guns and 4 artillery for every one of theyr own lthat was lost.
source :german weapons of world war 2 , edited by chrish bishop and adam warner , page 16.

This seems a bit unreliable. The number of tigers des during the ger atts in the north and south was 10 not 18. Zetterlings BofK.

The ger may have overclaimed reality by half which would make 20 claimed des equal to 10 real des compared to each ger tiger des. Then from 100-180 rus tanks were des by aprox 120 op tigers during the ger off. Out of 1,600+ tanks des and 2600 ger tanks present to start this all seems extremly resonable.

[Qvist]

In 43 ger lost 8000 tanks des on all fronts. Russia reported 23500 tanks des during 43 as well. The number of rus tanks des by an avg ger tank before itself was des would be at least 3.

How is that, considering that a very large part of both German and Soviet tanks lost were not destroyed by other tanks?

cheers

[Michael Kenny]

Quote:

"The number of tigers des during the ger atts in the north and south was 10 not 18."

Well it all depends what your dates/Units are. Please break this figure of 10 down so we can see where you are going wrong.

[Darrin]

In 43 ger lost 8000 tanks des on all fronts. Russia reported 23500 tanks des during 43 as well. The number of rus tanks des by an avg ger tank before itself was des would be at least 3.

How is that, considering that a very large part of both German and Soviet tanks lost were not destroyed by other tanks?

cheers

Perhaps 1 third of all ger and rus tanks were des by tanks. Then on avg each ger tank des due to all causes would des 1 rus tank. The rus would also be reduced to 1 rus tank des to all causes would kill 1 ninth of a ger tank!!!!!!!!!! Despite outnumbering the ger tanks by 3+ times.

If thier was a diff in the ratio or percentage of tanks it would not be far from what I used and would be similar bettween the two armies for all of 43 on the EF. The actual difference in quality bettween the two armies mould remain simialar.

Less rus tanks killed per ger tanks killed as in my origional post. Less ger tanks killed per rus tanks as well. Its the relative adv that remains the same dictating the quality difference.

[Michael Kenny]

Quote:

"Perhaps 1 third of all ger and rus tanks were des by tanks"


And then 'perhaps' it was one quarter?
Or one half?

You seem to have no hard evidence and are relying on your anti-Russain bias to fill the gaps.

[cyberdaemon]

well , either way germans didnt lost the kursk because of enemy tanks strenght , but cus huge ammounts of forces were moved from eastern front to the west.probobly italy.

[Qvist]

well , either way germans didnt lost the kursk because of enemy tanks strenght , but cus huge ammounts of forces were moved from eastern front to the west.probobly italy.

Well, you are wrong and entirely misinformed. Firstly, the invasion of Sicily was merely one among several factors which caused the decision to break of the offensive at Kursk. Secondly, which "huge amounts" of units were moved to the West? Much greater German forces were in fact shifted to other sectors of the Eastern front, to deal with several critical situations that had arisen simultaneous to the Kursk operation. Needless to day, these played quite a part in the decision to break off Zitadelle too.

cheers

[Qvist]

Quote:

"Perhaps 1 third of all ger and rus tanks were des by tanks"


And then 'perhaps' it was one quarter?
Or one half?

Not to mention the possibility that it may have been, say, 40% of Soviet tanks and 60% of German. The simple and obvious point, Darrin, is that you can't just assume that a similar proportion of each side's tank losses were caused by enemy tanks. And thus, tank losses are NOT a direct measurement of the effectiveness of the two sides armoured forces against each other. Not that this is something that neccessarily puts Soviet performance in a better light, it could just as easily impact in the opposite direction.

cheers

[Lars EP]

well , either way germans didnt lost the kursk because of enemy tanks strenght , but cus huge ammounts of forces were moved from eastern front to the west.probobly italy.

*LoL* And maybe you have a reliable source for that claim as well? Something to support that first the Germans spend close to six months preparing operation Zitadelle, and then, just as they instigate the offensive, they decide to remove such a signicant part of their forces that they are insured a defeat, even against the soviet "untermenchen"?

Very probable...

Regards --- Lars

[cyberdaemon]

well , i had my memory as source at the moment.
btw : if germans prepeared 6 mounths for THIS , then
it mean the whole situation on the front was suppose to
stay stable :/ dont relly know about that battle.
maybe u can fresh my memory

[Lars EP]

well , i had my memory as source at the moment.
btw : if germans prepeared 6 mounths for THIS , then
it mean the whole situation on the front was suppose to
stay stable :/ dont relly know about that battle.
maybe u can fresh my memory

I probably could, but why don't you read a book before posting nonsense like the above?

Anyway, after Stalingrad the whole German front theatened to collapse. It took an almost superhuman effort by Manstein to stabilize the front. He retook Kharkov, third time that city changed owner during the war, and after that both parties stabilized their fronts, refitted and started thinking: What now?

The German high-command decided to strike a blow at the bulge at Kursk, in an attempt to cut off the Soviet forces in the bulge, and destroy them. After the destruction of the bulge, the plan was to strike throught the whole in the Soviet line, turn north and strike at Moscow.

The planning started in early spring, and it was a long and complicated process. The attack was postponed several times, amongst other reasons because the Germans wanted MORE troops, and wanted the new Mark V and Mark VI tanks deployed. As we know, it all ended with a disastrous defeat for the Germans. This defeat was not so much in numbers, but in the utter failure to achieve their objectives. The Soviet resistance did not crumble, but stiffened, and in the end the lack of German reserves forced the German High Command to call off the offensive.

There are many good books covering the subject.

Regards --- Lars

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Pre-war production stats of Soviet BT tanks:

1932 - 396 BT-2
1933 - 224 BT-2 + 781 BT-5
1934 - 1103 BT-5 + 2 BT-7
1935 - 500 BT-7
1936 - 1049 BT-7
1937 - 777 BT-7
1938 - 1102 BT-7
1939 - 1341 BT-7
Total = 7.275

Losses:

Spanish Civil War - 30+ BT-5 destroyed; up to ca. 15 damaged (in total 45 - 50 participated)
Lake Chasan - 6+ BT-5 and 2+ BT-7 destroyed, ??? damaged
Khalkhin Gol - 22+ BT-7 destroyed and 102+ BT-7 damaged
Polish Campaign - 31+ BT destroyed and 126+ BT damaged (all types, but mostly BT-7)
Winter War - 956+ BT damaged or destroyed
1941 - vast majority of the remaining ones (most of them abandoned due to lack of fuel or breakdowns)

Pre-war poduction stats of Soviet T-26 tanks:

1931 - 100
1932 - 950
1933 - 1404
1934 - 1443
1935 - 1315
1936 - 1313
1937 - 550
1938 - 1061
1939 - 1396
Total: 9.532

Losses:

Spanish Civil War - ??? (in total 300 - 362 participated)
War in China - ??? (in total 82 - 88 participated)
Lake Chasan - 9+ T-26 destroyed and 76+ T-26 damaged **
Polish Campaign - 26+ T-26 destroyed and 304+ T-26 damaged
Winter War - 930+ T-26 damaged or destroyed
1941 - vast majority of the remaning ones (most of them abandoned due to lack of fuel or breakdowns)

** Of them 39 were repaired and 37 had to be sent to factories for rebuilding / canibalization.

Damaged figures probably include both combat and non-combat damages.

[AJFFM]

Here is a question, did the allies (including the USSR) do a tank inventory right after WWII? Because if they did one might actually estimate with a good degree of accuracy how many tanks were lost in the war since production/lend-lease figures are available.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Here is a question, did the allies (including the USSR) one might actually estimate with a good degree of accuracy how many tanks were lost in the war since production/lend-lease figures are available.

You would have to also find the numbers discarded for severe breakdowns or obsolecence.