AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by LWD » 18 Apr 2008 17:14

Username wrote:.... Again, the M5 fielded the weakest AT asset. ...
And your pointis?
The primary task of US tanks especially light ones was not AT work. Indeed if you look at M4 losses you will see that very the vast majority were taken out by something other than opposing tanks. A light tank with a 37mm gun and some mg's can be very useful to infantry facing opposing infantry with little or no armored support. Also consider that a 75mm or heavier AT gun can readily penetrate just about any WWII tank at the ranges typical of engagements the US faced in Normandy. At that point the critical item is to have overwhelming numbers of infantry, armor, and artillery. A good HE round and lots of mgs and the ability to get them on target quicily are of more import than extra armor or AP performance.

Username
Banned
Posts: 166
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 20:24
Location: co

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Username » 19 Apr 2008 00:58

Again. my point is that there were too many light tanks. The ratio of Medium tanks to light tanks shows as much.

25:19:9
M4 Medium:M5/M8 Light Tanks:TD (M10+M18)




Panzertruppen II pg. 177
Strength of Panzer Units in the West June 10th
PzIII 39
PzIV 758
PV 655
Tiger 102
StuG 158

Note this is in Panzer Units. Other AFV such as StuG, Marder were in Sturmartillerie and Infantry Division

Tiger losses SS-Heavy-Panzer 101
total write offs up to July 22
20
Out of Action
19
Operational
6

This unit keeps 25 Tigers up till August 7th with 21 of 25 operational
Last edited by Username on 19 Apr 2008 01:17, edited 2 times in total.

Harry Yeide
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 12 Jun 2004 12:48
Location: Hyattsville, MD USA

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Harry Yeide » 19 Apr 2008 01:14

Username wrote:Not from the 12th Army Group, but interesting anyway. The 752 Tank Bn used M7 in the HQ coy.
Assault Gun Platoon exchanges M7 Priests for 105mm M4A3s
24 December 1944
From...

http://www.752ndtank.com/index.html

Also interesting is that M24 were issued (very late)and then taken away (Given to 1st armd div). This brings up a question as to how M24 were issued (and WHEN). Were they given to 'D Coy' in tank battalions of armored divisions first? Were the independant tank battalions D company next supplied (752nd somehow getting them 'too early'?). Were the cav units M5 unit the last to get them?
The 752d Tank Battalion was not alone. Seventeen M24s arrived at the 751st Tank Battalion in March 1945, but the battalion in April had to turn those over to the 1st Armored Division, getting in exchange worn out M5 and M5A1 tanks. The 757th Tank battalion similarly drew M24s only to have them taken away. These M24s did not go to the 81st Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, which used M5A1 tanks through the end of the war.

Regarding the assault guns mentioned above, I now believe that all separate tank battalions in Italy used the M7 from December 1943 until December 1944. I found one line in the 2d Armored Group AAR--it controlled the 753d, 755th, 756th, and 757th Tank battalions in support of the French Expeditionary Corps during the breakthrough of the Gustav Line in May 1944--that specifically says all battalions were equipped with M7s, and that they were grouped in six-gun batteries.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6473
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Apr 2008 02:22

Username wrote: Tiger losses SS-Heavy-Panzer 101
total write offs up to July 22
20
Out of Action
19
Operational
6

This unit keeps 25 Tigers up till August 7th with 21 of 25 operational
I can't see the point of the numbers for SS 101 but why the cut off on Aug 7th?

Have you the figures for say the 9th?

Username
Banned
Posts: 166
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 20:24
Location: co

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Username » 19 Apr 2008 15:23

Another Panzertruppen II 'snapshot' shows on pg. 185 shows the total write offs reported by the Panzer units (8 panzer divisions, 1 panzergrenadier division and 1 Tiger Bn 101)

StuG 25
PanzerIV 197
Panzer V 112
Tiger 15

This is for the time frame June 6-July 8
Last edited by Username on 19 Apr 2008 16:58, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by LWD » 19 Apr 2008 15:58

Username wrote:Again. my point is that there were too many light tanks. The ratio of Medium tanks to light tanks shows as much.

25:19:9
M4 Medium:M5/M8 Light Tanks:TD (M10+M18)
...
No it doesn't. In order to prove your point you need to look at what the allied tanks were doing and show how some other achievable and supportable ratio would have done better. It is irrelevant what the Germans had because they were performing a completly different mission.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6473
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Michael Kenny » 19 Apr 2008 16:17

Username wrote:Another Panzertruppen II 'snapsgot' shows on pg. 185 shows the total write offs reported..........
Why not try this thread for much more complete loss figures.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... light=pziv

Username
Banned
Posts: 166
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 20:24
Location: co

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Username » 19 Apr 2008 16:50

Thanks for the link.

But I am trying to establish data for the US Army June-July enemy formations faced.

Obviously, the 17th SS PGD fought the allies during this time...
After the D-Day allied invasion, the Götz von Berlichingen was ordered to Normandy to take part in the efforts to reduce the allied beachhead. On 11 June, the division first met the enemy in combat. The reconnaissance abteilung engaged in combat with the paratroopers of the US 101st Airborne Division near the town of Carentan.

The Americans secured the town and were advancing south by the morning of 13 June.

SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment 37, supported by the StuGs of the division's Panzer Abteilung and Oberst Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte's 6th Fallschirmjäger Regiment, attacked the advancing paratroopers. In what the Americans dubbed The Battle of Bloody Gulch, the Germans routed several paratroop companies before their attack was stopped by the arrival of Combat Command A of the US 2nd Armored Division.

For the rest of the month, the division was engaged in heavy fighting for the bocage country near Saint Lô and Coutances. During this period the Götz von Berlichingen suffered heavy losses, and by the beginning of July its strength was reduced to 8,500 men. The division was in the line of advance for Operation Cobra, and suffered heavy losses attempting to halt the allied offensive. It was then ordered to take part in the Mortain Offensive, codenamed Operation Luttich. After the failure of this offensive, the division was split into four Kampfgruppes, KG Braune, Gunter, Fick and Wahl. These small units managed to escape the encirclement in the Falaise Pocket, but suffered heavy losses and remained in almost constant combat with the advancing Americans until the end of the Month, when the division was transferred to Metz for a much needed rest and refit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_SS_Pa ... rlichingen

But if we examine the data in Panzertruppen II, we see that the 17thSS PGD lost 9 StuG as total write off. They also claimed 'knock-outs' of 7 enemy tanks by StuG, 5 by FlaK&PAK (mot) and 5 by light antitank weapons (panzerfaust, PSK, etc.)

Not the greatest armored exchange. I believe I have read accounts that some of those StuG were destroyed by bazookas.

As I posted earlier, the Panzer Lehr also fought against the US after losing large amounts of armor from June 6-July 8th (against the Commonwealth). They had lost 3 StuG, 41 PanzerIV and 36 Panther up to that point. They and 12SS PD had been the biggest losers in terms of total write offs up to that point (July 8th).

So my main investigation at this point is what armored units the US Army faced.

Username
Banned
Posts: 166
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 20:24
Location: co

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Username » 19 Apr 2008 17:06

From 6 June to 1 July (26 days), First Army wrote off 187 M4-75mm and 44 M5.
From 2 to 29 July (28 days), First Army wrote off 208 M4-75mm, 12 M4-76mm, 4 M4-105mm, and 67 M5.
From 30 July to 2 September (35 days), First Army wrote off 237 M4-75mm, 38 M4-76mm, 6 M4-105mm, and 69 M5.
From 3 to 28 September (26 days), First Army wrote off 123 M4-75mm, 33 M4-76mm, 10 M4-105mm, and 34 M5.

From 1 August to 2 September (33 days), Third Army wrote off 221 M4-75mm and 94 M5.
From 3 to 30 September (28 days), Third Army wrote off 48 M4-75mm, 61 M4-76mm, 2 M4-105mm, and 37 M5.

From 9 September to 5 October (27 days), Ninth Army wrote off 2 M4-75mm.

Thus roughly:
‘June’ 231
‘July’ 291
‘August’ 665
‘September’ 350
Total = 1,537
(From the thread above)

The August losses stick out of course. Obviously the US is fielding more tanks. But the Third Army loses no M4/76mm during that month?

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by LWD » 19 Apr 2008 17:27

Username wrote:...But if we examine the data in Panzertruppen II, we see that the 17thSS PGD lost 9 StuG as total write off. They also claimed 'knock-outs' of 7 enemy tanks by StuG, 5 by FlaK&PAK (mot) and 5 by light antitank weapons (panzerfaust, PSK, etc.)

Not the greatest armored exchange. I believe I have read accounts that some of those StuG were destroyed by bazookas.
....
Problem here is you are using loss date for the GErmans and claims data for allied losses. Even so It's not that bad of exchange given that there were AT guns and infantry in the battle.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by RichTO90 » 19 Apr 2008 17:53

Michael Kenny wrote:I can't see the point of the numbers for SS 101 but why the cut off on Aug 7th?

Have you the figures for say the 9th?
Something tells me you aren't going to get a response Michael? :roll:

Of course it now begs the question if the Americans were facing crap opposition why did they need übertanks to face crap? Or in other words if the sole raison d'etre for the US tanks was to punch holes in Panthers and Tigers (no 37mm or 75mm allowed), but there were no Panthers or Tigers about to punch holes in, then why did they need any tanks at all? I think we have the Son of Colvin here? :roll:

The logical absurdities built into the trainwrecks of thought being advocated in this thread are mind boggling. I wish there was an emoticon for :helpless giggling: :roll:

Username
Banned
Posts: 166
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 20:24
Location: co

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Username » 19 Apr 2008 18:15

Someone posted claimed Tiger Tank kills earlier. One: were the US Armies even faced by Tiger Tanks, Two: How far off are those estimated claims?

While Rich has raised the gain on his sarcasm to smilie ratio, he should think that the US strategy was that it was to fight in the hedgerows, they fully expected that the Germans would have pulled back. So the argument that the US had brought the right knife to a gun fight is just another case of revisionistic historianism.
Last edited by Username on 19 Apr 2008 18:19, edited 2 times in total.

Username
Banned
Posts: 166
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 20:24
Location: co

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Username » 19 Apr 2008 18:17

Andreas wrote:Let's see...

Et voilà.

All the best

Andreas
Which Tiger Battalions did the US First Army face during this time? June 6-Aug 6?????

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by LWD » 19 Apr 2008 18:42

Username wrote:... he should think that the US strategy was that it was to fight in the hedgerows, they fully expected that the Germans would have pulled back. So the argument that the US had brought the right knife to a gun fight is just another case of revisionistic historianism.
Where did anyone say it was the US "strategy" to fight in the hedgerows? Can you document the US thinking the Germans would pull back? From what I've read the true nature of the hedgerows was a bit of shock but why would anyone abandon such strong defencive postions for clearly weaker ones?

Username
Banned
Posts: 166
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 20:24
Location: co

Re: AFV Loss Rates in US 12th. Army Group

Post by Username » 19 Apr 2008 19:04

I will cite a source for that. Later.

But...
Seventh Army had expected an attack on the Vire sector and received the first news without undue surprise. Its information on the penetrations achieved was reasonably accurate and Army noted that these penetrations had been sealed off for the time being with weak local reserves. The situation was described as "critical." Nevertheless, more concern was felt over the situation west of the Taute River, where the main forces of the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division were being hard pressed by the attack of U. S. VII Corps and had to call on reserves from the 2d SS Armored Division. For 8 July, Seventh Army's intention was to hold the enemy penetration in the area St-Jean-de-Daye, using the 30th Mobile Brigade (on its way from St-Lo to the Lessay sector) and a last battalion from the reserve of the 2d Parachute Corps.

Concluding that the XIX Corps attack was just the prelude for even heavier American efforts along the Vire, the Germans felt that these forces would not be strong enough to withstand the U. S. attack for any length of time. Therefore, Seventh Army proposed to pull out the units of the 2d SS Armored Division from the la Haye-du-Puits sector, even though this would mean weakening that whole wing. Army Group decided finally to meet Seventh Army's requests for reinforcement. The 5th Parachute Division was to move up from Brittany, to the Lessay sector; more important, the Panzer Lehr Division was to assemble between Periers and St-Lô to bolster the front from the Vire westward.
http://www.history.army.mil
Last edited by Username on 20 Apr 2008 16:39, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “USA 1919-1945”