Sherman Tank Losses
Sherman Tank Losses
Have just read a two fscinating book's on tank warfare in Europe in '44/45.
One is "By Tank Into Normandy", by Stuart Hills. Hills was a young tank platoon Lt. with the Sherwood Rangers. He fought from D-Day through the Caen battles, the drive to Arnhem and on to Hanover at wars end. The other is by Ted Harman, "With The 11th Armoured". Harmon trained with the 11th Armoured as a tank driver. 11th Armoured entered the war during the battle of the Bulge and reached Linz in Austria by war's end. Harmon's descriptions of the liberataion of the extermination camps at Mauthausen are sickening. German troops encountered after that, especially SS, were more likely to be shot than captured.
In both books the rate of loss of Shermans is really staggering, especially so in Hills book. In fact Hills was the only surviving tank commander officer in his Regiment who survived.
In the forward to Harmon's book a Spencer Tucker of the Virginia Military Institute states that the US lost 6,000 tanks in Europe in WWII. The 3rd Armoured alone lost 648 M4's completely destroyed in combat, with a further 700 knocked out and repaired. Thats a loss rate of 580%.
Mind boggling.
One is "By Tank Into Normandy", by Stuart Hills. Hills was a young tank platoon Lt. with the Sherwood Rangers. He fought from D-Day through the Caen battles, the drive to Arnhem and on to Hanover at wars end. The other is by Ted Harman, "With The 11th Armoured". Harmon trained with the 11th Armoured as a tank driver. 11th Armoured entered the war during the battle of the Bulge and reached Linz in Austria by war's end. Harmon's descriptions of the liberataion of the extermination camps at Mauthausen are sickening. German troops encountered after that, especially SS, were more likely to be shot than captured.
In both books the rate of loss of Shermans is really staggering, especially so in Hills book. In fact Hills was the only surviving tank commander officer in his Regiment who survived.
In the forward to Harmon's book a Spencer Tucker of the Virginia Military Institute states that the US lost 6,000 tanks in Europe in WWII. The 3rd Armoured alone lost 648 M4's completely destroyed in combat, with a further 700 knocked out and repaired. Thats a loss rate of 580%.
Mind boggling.
Still safer, much safer, than being a rifleman.
For the US losses, does "Europe" include NWA, Sicily, and Italy?
Edit: I've just read Hills' book about a month ago. Oddly, I came away with the impression that their losses weren't that great, and that they also tended to be very compressed in time and place - so a sqn might be heavily hit on one day, then go for several months with only an occasional loss.
OTOH, he does regularly talk about the loss and shortage of officers, but I took that as being due more to other causes - small arms fire, mortars, artillery - than their tank being shot out from under them.
For the US losses, does "Europe" include NWA, Sicily, and Italy?
Edit: I've just read Hills' book about a month ago. Oddly, I came away with the impression that their losses weren't that great, and that they also tended to be very compressed in time and place - so a sqn might be heavily hit on one day, then go for several months with only an occasional loss.
OTOH, he does regularly talk about the loss and shortage of officers, but I took that as being due more to other causes - small arms fire, mortars, artillery - than their tank being shot out from under them.
Tucker, in Harmons book, only refer's to losses in Europe.
Yes, tank commander losses in Hills book were a combination of actual tank destroyed or damaged, sniper fire etc. Mind you, when your a tank commander, and you see other tank commanders being either killed or wounded at a great rate, I don't suppose it really matters as to cause. The risk factor is high whatever.
Hills certainly pulled no punches in his book. His descriptions of the carnage resulting from a tank 'brew-up' are vivid, quite revolting.
Yes, tank commander losses in Hills book were a combination of actual tank destroyed or damaged, sniper fire etc. Mind you, when your a tank commander, and you see other tank commanders being either killed or wounded at a great rate, I don't suppose it really matters as to cause. The risk factor is high whatever.
Hills certainly pulled no punches in his book. His descriptions of the carnage resulting from a tank 'brew-up' are vivid, quite revolting.
Yes, but what is the scope of his "Europe"? NWE only, NWE + Italy? NWE + Italy + Sicily? NWE + Italy + Sicily + NWA? A reasonable case could be made that any of those four would be "Europe", depending on which definition you use. Is the figure sourced at all?
As for the other, sure: dead is dead. But I think given the point you seemed to be making - which appeared to be around the number of tanks KO'd - distinguishing between causes of personel losses seemed pertinent.
Regards
Jon
As for the other, sure: dead is dead. But I think given the point you seemed to be making - which appeared to be around the number of tanks KO'd - distinguishing between causes of personel losses seemed pertinent.
Regards
Jon
Re: Sherman Tank Losses
That is incorrect. The total for ETOUSA (12th Army Group and 6th Army Group as of 20 November 1944) was 4,367 M4 75mm and 76mm written off, plus 174 M4 105mm. US Seventh Army losses from 15 August to 25 November 1944 were 101 M4 75mm and 76mm, plus 2 M4 105mm. So a total of 4,644.Pips wrote:In the forward to Harmon's book a Spencer Tucker of the Virginia Military Institute states that the US lost 6,000 tanks in Europe in WWII.
But if British losses (2,712) are included the total is well over 7,000. And that does not include the French.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: Sherman Tank Losses
You lost me Rich , if your dates only go to Nov1944, what about the remaining 6 months of the war.RichTO90 wrote:That is incorrect. The total for ETOUSA (12th Army Group and 6th Army Group as of 20 November 1944) was 4,367 M4 75mm and 76mm written off, plus 174 M4 105mm. US Seventh Army losses from 15 August to 25 November 1944 were 101 M4 75mm and 76mm, plus 2 M4 105mm. So a total of 4,644.Pips wrote:In the forward to Harmon's book a Spencer Tucker of the Virginia Military Institute states that the US lost 6,000 tanks in Europe in WWII.
But if British losses (2,712) are included the total is well over 7,000. And that does not include the French.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
IIRC, from the US Army's official history series, the highest casualty rates in the ETO were among riflemen, mortarmen, and recon. I think the specific reference is the history of the Chemical Warfare Service.ChristopherPerrien wrote:I seriously doubt that.JonS wrote:Still safer, much safer, than being a rifleman.
Penn44
.
Re: Sherman Tank Losses
You need to read more carefully then. The total losses for ETOUSA (which included the losses of 6th AG after 20 November 1944) plus the Seventh Army (US Seventh Army and French First Army comprised 6th AG) losses up to 25 November 1944 (i.e., the 'missing bits' from the previous phrase) equal "total" US losses, which answers the substance of the original question.ChristopherPerrien wrote:You lost me Rich , if your dates only go to Nov1944, what about the remaining 6 months of the war.
Versteht?
The percentage of Armor personnel deployed overseas who were casualties was 17.6 percent, second only to Infantry, with 26.4 percent of deployed strength being casualties. But of course the percentages are drawn from 757,712 Infantry deployed versus just 49,516 Armor....200,400 Infantry casualties versus 8,704 Armor casualties. Both in relative and in absolute terms it was much safer to be in Armor.ChristopherPerrien wrote:I seriously doubt that.JonS wrote:Still safer, much safer, than being a rifleman.
So JonS was quite correct and there is no reason to doubt him, seriously or otherwise.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Thanks for the above stuff. You got any figures on the KIA/DOW/WIA of these two casualty figures? 200,400 and 8,704But of course the percentages are drawn from 757,712 Infantry deployed versus just 49,516 Armor....200,400 Infantry casualties versus 8,704 Armor casualties. Both in relative and in absolute terms it was much safer to be in Armor.
What's with the business? I am dead serious. IIRC the percentage of KIA/DOW (not all casualties) was higher in the Armor, which is why I would like some breakdown figures for it. Somewhere of the order of 40-45% ,compared to 25-30%, IIRC. It's been many years since I have read anything about it though, but the gist of whatever I vaguely recall was,"There was greater chance of being killed in a tank than, "on the ground"". Dying is usually worse than getting wounded.So JonS was quite correct and there is no reason to doubt him, seriously or otherwise.
On another note/topic, it may well be that Bomber crewman positions were a more fatal job, over either tankers or infantry. And US Submariners death %'s are probably the worst of all.
Also as far as tanks losses, Now that you have clarified your post on the date issue. It may be that Tucker could be including light tank losses too and a few other models, not M4's( Stuarts,M24's, M26's etc). He may even be including turreted TD's(M10's, M18's,M36's). Of course that goes off into the "Is it a Tank/SP debate?". But light tanks are tanks.
Chris
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Sorry, I tried to post this last night but couldn't for some reason.ChristopherPerrien wrote:Thanks for the above stuff. You got any figures on the KIA/DOW/WIA of these two casualty figures? 200,400 and 8,704
I made a fundamental error in making that post, I forgot to check what the table I used from the Attrition Handbook actually said.... Those figures are actually "typical 12 months of 40 month period from December 1941 to March 1945" and they also included Cavalry with Armor (since officers were not commissioned into Armor at that time, it being technically a 'force' and not a 'branch'). The actual Army totals, from the Adjutant Generals Final Report are:
Total Battle Casualties - 936,259
Total Deaths - 234,874
Total KIA - 198,856 (includes KIA while captured and MIA declared dead)
DOW - 26,762
Died of other causes - 9,256 (while captured or missing)
Captured, returned to military control - 111,426
WIA, not died - 589,959
Of those Armored Force losses were:
Total Battle Casualties - 6827
Total Deaths - 1,581
Total KIA - 1,407
DOW - 167
Other deaths - 7
Captured, returned to military control - 414
WIA, not died - 4,832
Of those Cavalry losses were:
Total Battle Casualties - 21,703
Total Deaths - 5,135
Total KIA - 3,963
DOW - 913
Other deaths - 259
Captured, returned to military control - 1,851
WIA, not died - 14,717
Of those Infantry losses were:
Total Battle Casualties - 661,059
Total Deaths - 142,962
Total KIA - 120,111
DOW - 19,799
Other causes - 3,052
Captured, not returned to military control - 52,299
WIA, not died - 465,798
I was afraid of that. I just don't have time right now do go round and round with you again. Even if it is fun.What's with the business? I am dead serious.
DOW as a percentage of KIA for Armor+Cavalry was 20.11 percent (but for Armor alone it was 11.87), for Infantry it was 16.48 percent, so wounding may have been slightly more severe on average. The ratio of KIA+DOW to WIA for Armor+Cavalry was 6,450:19,549 or 1:3.03 (for Armor alone it was 1:3.07). For Infantry it was 139,910:465,798 or 1:3.33.IIRC the percentage of KIA/DOW (not all casualties) was higher in the Armor, which is why I would like some breakdown figures for it. Somewhere of the order of 40-45% ,compared to 25-30%, IIRC.
Anyway you slice it, except for the KIA:DOW ratio, it was safer to be in a tank than to be an infantryman.
Actually, the best indications are that about one-half the armored vehicle crew losses may have been incurred while outside the tank.It's been many years since I have read anything about it though, but the gist of whatever I vaguely recall was,"There was greater chance of being killed in a tank than, "on the ground"". Dying is usually worse than getting wounded.
Actually, Army Air Corps of any kind were probably the worst in terms of death. for AAC officers 22,022 of their total 46,769 casualties were deaths. And of the deaths, 21,915 were in combat (KIA, DOW, MIA-declared dead). Another 15,384 were captured, returned to military control, so just 9,363 were WIA but did not die.On another note/topic, it may well be that Bomber crewman positions were a more fatal job, over either tankers or infantry. And US Submariners death %'s are probably the worst of all.
Since my post failed to make it I can't address this fully right now (data is at home), but you made a good call. The total 'tanks' written off were 6,276 IIRC. I'll post the breakdown later.Also as far as tanks losses, Now that you have clarified your post on the date issue. It may be that Tucker could be including light tank losses too and a few other models, not M4's( Stuarts,M24's, M26's etc). He may even be including turreted TD's(M10's, M18's,M36's). Of course that goes off into the "Is it a Tank/SP debate?". But light tanks are tanks.
Chris