Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Mobius » 22 Jan 2020 16:33

Yoozername wrote:
22 Jan 2020 16:06
At first blush it would appear that this was not the case.
At first blush, you made the incorrect assumptions that AP is just fired at armored targets, ammunition is not lost by other means, other people are wrong and you are right, etc.
An example:
From Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen, may 1944,
12 When s h o o t i n g a t P A K alternately fire HE and AP grenades. When there are ricochets, cut the range by at least 50 meters.
[...]

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Yoozername » 22 Jan 2020 18:25

An interesting report on StuG battalions use of StuG ammunitions....From 12/1 to 5/31.... Late 43 to almost June 1944

It covered 6 months and 315280 rounds. It is for 23 Brigades (Eastern Front). 51,595 (16.4%) were fired at 'Panzer' targets. A knee-jerk reaction might be that they were all Pngr 39. Actually, 70.5% of these were Pngr 39, 21.2% were HL, and 8.3% were HE! HE set on delay could pierce light armor and even the lower side armor on a T34. The point being that having 'macro data' needs attention to details.

Another knee-jerk reaction, since 'only' 16.4% of the 315,280 rounds were fired at 'Panzer' targets, and 'only' 91.7% were actually 'armor-piercing' types, then loadout of the 54 rounds carried of the StuGs should be 15 AP-type rounds (9 Pngr 39 and 4 HL). This is, considering the Eastern Front in 1944, ridiculous to me.

The report does not state the number of enemy AFV destroyed? As compared to the number of Pak, artillery, enemy dead estimate.... I suspect that this data is intentionally presented this way because it is written by....

Generalstab des Heeres
Höh.Offz.f.Pz.Art.
H.Qu.OKH 01.08.1944
Nr. 5998/44 geh.

and this is his issue...
An investigation carried out on the targets attacked by the Assault Artillery as well as the total ammunition fired confirms the position defended by the Artillery General that the Assault Artillery in most cases do not fire at battle tanks. In the case of battle tanks, the assault guns face them first. Because the Artillery of Assault operates in the center of the combat always must have battle tanks. Even so, most of its objectives are found by the Assault Artillery among the infantry. In recent months the combat of anti-tank weapons and grenade launchers has increased in number and hardness. Unless it is a much higher enemy battle car, Assault cannon combat against a combat car takes place at short and medium distances and is considered by experienced crews as easier than combat against groups of anti-tank guns and grenade launchers. Over long distances (more than 2000 meters) the Russian tanks and heavy assault guns are superior (in caliber and firepower).
...But, that is another 'political' discussion.....back to the point. Anyone really feel that the StuGs who had these engagements....

Targets attacked by the Assault Artillery
(23 Brigades in the Eastern Front between 1.12.1943 and 31.5.1944)
Tanks 6,574 = 11.9%
Other objectives
(infantry, grenade launcher, anti-tank guns, vehicles, etc.) 48,235 = 88.1%

.... And did not fire AP or HL (for that anorak matter) at targets other than 'panzer'? Anyone think any StuG commander would not load out with at least 50% of Pngr 39 and HL?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6359
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Jan 2020 21:36

Yoozername wrote:
22 Jan 2020 18:25
An interesting report on StuG battalions use of StuG ammunitions....From 12/1 to 5/31.... Late 43 to almost June 1944


Thanks for your help but I gave a link to all that information in an earlier post about this issue.

viewtopic.php?f=132&t=246504&p=2243786#p2243786
Screenshot_71.jpg
Screenshot_72.jpg
The Zimmermann book has the full citation as to source.

I believe you are saying the German source is unreliable and deliberately setting out to mislead?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 602
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by critical mass » 22 Jan 2020 22:15

The math doesn’t justify zalogas conclusion:

51595 AP were used against tanks, but:
....
51600 fired against tanks, of which 70.5% were AP, the Rest HE and HEAT.

Thus, it follows that the first statement is in error, if we agree that the second is true. Then, the correct feature needs to be in order of 36375 AP actually fired against tanks, and its unknown how many of those resulted in AFV loss-claims, except that the number is necessarily smaller than 1899.

Anyway, it’s a good Macro sample, demonstrating that proving ground data are a poor guide for tactical consumption ratios.
On a macro level, logistical questions such as those quickly become important. There is a well defined limit how few shots one may need to kill an AFV but the upper boundary is not well defined and subject of a large variance. It would be better to understand the full distribution before choosing either mean or modus.

For putting it in perspective, and out of genuine curiosity, do we have roughly similar long allied ammo samples to compare with?
Last edited by critical mass on 22 Jan 2020 22:33, edited 2 times in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Yoozername » 22 Jan 2020 22:29

Thanks for your help but I gave a link to all that information in an earlier post about this issue.
viewtopic.php?f=132&t=246504&p=2243786#p2243786

What's this have to do with the StuG information? You seem confused. BTW, no one participated in that McMuffin? Put some Tiger pics in it. Usually helps.
I believe you are saying the German source is unreliable and deliberately setting out to mislead?
I think it has, just like so much of your postings, an agenda of sorts. Beyond the scope of this thread.

Does the author of that report really think that a battlefield, even on the Eastern Front with it's masses of tanks, would be 50% tanks? 50% 'soft' targets???

Targets attacked by the Assault Artillery
(23 Brigades in the Eastern Front between 1.12.1943 and 31.5.1944)
Tanks 6,574 = 11.9%
Other objectives
(infantry, grenade launcher, anti-tank guns, vehicles, etc.) 48,235 = 88.1%
Last edited by Yoozername on 22 Jan 2020 22:52, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Yoozername » 22 Jan 2020 22:42

critical mass wrote:
22 Jan 2020 22:15
The math doesn’t justify zalogas conclusion:

51595 AP were used against tanks, but:
....
51600 fired against tanks, of which 70.5% were AP, the Rest HE and HEAT.

Thus, it follows that the first statement is in error, if we agree that the second is true. Then, the correct feature needs to be in order of 36375 AP actually fired against tanks, and its unknown how many of those resulted in AFV loss-claims, except that the number is necessarily smaller than 1899.

Anyway, it’s a good Macro sample, demonstrating that proving ground data are a poor guide for tactical consumption ratios.
On a macro level, logistical questions such as those quickly become important. There is a well defined limit how few shots one may need to kill an AFV but the upper boundary is not well defined and subject of a large variance. It would be better to understand the full distribution before choosing either mean or modus.

For putting it in perspective, and out of genuine curiosity, do we have roughly similar long allied ammo samples to compare with?
Zaloga is certainly quoting from the same German report, but the report does not mention kill claims, etc. I assume Zaloga is just not reading the report closely (there are graphs) and assumes all the rounds are 'AP'. He is also making the same OP assumptions.

Basically, AP and HL are both technically armor piercing ammunition.
Last edited by Yoozername on 22 Jan 2020 23:08, edited 2 times in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Yoozername » 22 Jan 2020 22:45

I guess some people see the glass half full.... Clearly the writer of this report below feels that StuGs, specifically the Assault Artillery, have made an antitank contribution. Does anyone question the Zaloga numbers for a 6 month period?

23.12.1944

H.Pz.

Notes

Relationship between crews Artillery Assault - destroyed battle tanks

Total number of Assault Artillery personnel (combatants) 22,865 men
Of them combat crews 6,052
Battle tanks enemy destroyed since 22.6.1941 20,709
Although the combat of enemy battle tanks is not the main function of the Assault Artillery, 3.4 combat tanks have been destroyed for each member of the combat crews
Image

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6359
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Jan 2020 22:50

critical mass wrote:
22 Jan 2020 22:15
The math doesn’t justify zalogas conclusion:
Addressed in the Youtube clip.



Yoozername wrote:
22 Jan 2020 22:45
Does anyone question the Zaloga numbers for a 6 month period?





Zaloga is not the source. It is the data (which is sourced) that is important.
Zimmermann (pg 305)also has info that Stug were being modified to carry up to 120 rounds of ammo. Weights of the various types of boxed ammo are also given.


.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 22 Jan 2020 22:56, edited 2 times in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Yoozername » 22 Jan 2020 22:53

Michael Kenny wrote:
22 Jan 2020 22:50
critical mass wrote:
22 Jan 2020 22:15
The math doesn’t justify zalogas conclusion:
Addressed in the Youtube clip.
'Zaloga' is a distraction. It is the data (which is sourced) that is important.
Zimmermann (pg 305)also has info that Stug were being modified to carry up to 120 rounds of ammo. Weights of the various types of boxed ammo are also given
What video?

I posted at this thread you provided. Still, what does that have to do with StuG video screen-grabs????

viewtopic.php?f=132&t=246504&p=2243786#p2243786
Zaloga is not the source. It is the data (which is sourced) that is important.
Sounds sourced. So, who is this important youtube source?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Yoozername » 22 Jan 2020 23:40

The following is a report of a StuG Battalion in the early part of 1943. I have regrouped the successes according to armored targets, secondary targets that would use some AP ammunition (both Pngr 39 and HL depending on range etc.), and soft targets that would typically require HE. Note the StuG at this time has neither a coaxial or periscopic MG, and the loaders external MG is not typically used in combat. Your opinions may vary, but a loadout of 50% AP types (Pngr 39 and HL/B) to Spgr seems about right to me. If anything, given that tanks might chase you down, I would err on the side of the former.

Excerpts from a report of Stu.Gesch.Abt.232
Dec.1942..... Unit originally intended to be sent to North Afrika and was even outfitted with tropical uniforms.
24 Dec.1942..... Alerted for transfer to the Eastern Front.
Late Dec.1942..... After arriving in the Kalmucken Steppes area of southern Russia the unit was offloaded at Sailz and immediately thrown into action as a part of the forces gathered to assist the breakout of 6. Armee’s encirclement at Stalingrad. The attempt failed due to the fact that 6. Armee had been forbidden to breakout.
19 Feb.1943..... Stu.Gesch.Abt.232 successfully attacked Molodejkoje.
Mar.1943..... Unit participated in the bitter defensive battles in the Mius-Donez area for most of the month.

Successes of the Battalion between 7.1. and on 12.3.1943...a little over 9 weeks.

165
154 tanks
11 armored reconnaissance vehicles

181
24 heavy anti-tank guns
109 light anti-tank guns
29 cannons
17 anti-aircraft
guns
2 bunkers

316
27 grenade launchers
130 machine guns
82 trucks
16 vehicles with trailers
61 anti-tank rifles


Battalion losses

a) Personal
Dead Wounded Sick
Officers 3 4 two
NCOs 6 16 4
Troop 14 2. 3 twenty

b) Materials
12 assault cannons
3 trucks
1 Volkswagen
8 motorcycles with sidecar
1 motorcycle without sidecar

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6359
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Michael Kenny » 22 Jan 2020 23:46

It might be more interesting if the ammo consumption figures were included.

The way they are in the Tiger reports:
sPz Abt 502 24-30 June 1944 ,,.jpg
sPz Abt 502 4-27 July 1944 (1) ,,.jpg
sPz Abt 502 4-27 July 1944 (2) ,,.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Yoozername » 23 Jan 2020 16:13

So, now youtube hearsay is your primary source materials? And you can't even link it?
It might be more interesting if the ammo consumption figures were included.
Yes, you keep avoiding the issue of the Germans using AP on other than 'Tanks'. Just as you do not take into account topography, fortifications, weather, LOS, etc. But you like youtube.

Edit: Oh, almost forgot...attacking and defending

July 4-27th shows 158 targets that could have been attacked by armor piercing ammunition per the SOP that Mobius posted. But the parameters of this battle are not the same as the other data, nor Normandy or other knee-jerk assumptions.
Last edited by Yoozername on 23 Jan 2020 16:40, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6359
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Jan 2020 16:37

Yoozername wrote:
23 Jan 2020 16:13
So, now youtube hearsay is your primary source materials?........... But you like youtube.
As do others.................
Yoozername wrote:
17 Jan 2020 19:58
This video show the effects of various weapons against pillboxes. The 105 mm Howitzer is deemed ineffective with its HE and HEAT. Clearly, weapons firing AP type ammunition is very effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_ucU3l1Dc

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Yoozername » 23 Jan 2020 16:41

Michael Kenny wrote:
23 Jan 2020 16:37
Yoozername wrote:
23 Jan 2020 16:13
So, now youtube hearsay is your primary source materials?........... But you like youtube.
As do others.................
Yoozername wrote:
17 Jan 2020 19:58
This video show the effects of various weapons against pillboxes. The 105 mm Howitzer is deemed ineffective with its HE and HEAT. Clearly, weapons firing AP type ammunition is very effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_ucU3l1Dc
Yes, I posted a link. And that is not some modern youtuber but a historical document showing actual weapons on actual targets. Specifically showing the superiority of armor piercing ammunition to HE or HEAT against bunkers.

So, post a link like the rules say you should. Or do the rules not apply to you?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6359
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Jan 2020 16:46

Yoozername wrote:
23 Jan 2020 16:41


So, post a link like the rules say you should. Or do the rules not apply to you?
Links are given in the relevant posts. Please go back and check.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”