Tiger tanks: Deployment and operations

[Art]

It must be admitted though that he does have a point. 129. 1943 and 1944 saw the Russians lose 23,500 and 23,700 tanks respectively, so for each year about 65 tanks lost per day on average. By contrast, they lost 13,700 tanks over a 129 day period in 1945, about 106 tanks lost per day on average. And 1945 was the year when most of Germany's panzer strength was spent and her divisions all severely weakened. I'm not saying it was Tiger tanks, but the numbers beg for an explanation.

a) there were more AFVs present compared with the previous year
b) the campaign was short but intensive without major pauses
As for German armored strength spent that is probably an overstatement. As late as 10 April 1945 there were more than 3300 German tanks and SP guns operational by incomplete count. Of them about 2/3 or 2200 on the Eastern Front:

Note also what a small part "Tigers" made of the total strength.
There were also naturally AT guns, fausts and other weapons.

[Art]

I dont think you got my point. I was responding to a comment about over the top kill claims from late war German sources .
In that context I mentioned that the high Russian tank attrition figures for the last few months are quoted from Krivosheev, who is using Russian sources which can't possibly have a pro German bias.
Hope I have been able to clarify it now?

Ok, I don't thing that this would tell anything about accuracy of particular "Tiger" claims.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

I dont think you got my point. I was responding to a comment about over the top kill claims from late war German sources .
In that context I mentioned that the high Russian tank attrition figures for the last few months are quoted from Krivosheev, who is using Russian sources which can't possibly have a pro German bias.
Hope I have been able to clarify it now?

Ok, I don't thing that this would tell anything about accuracy of particular "Tiger" claims.

Hi Art...

No, I agree that these aggregate figures do not necessarily tell anything about particular Tiger claims. But they do tell us about the scale of tank losses that the Russian army suffered in those days on the eastern front.

How did a rampaging victorious army, with overwhelming superiority, suffer such horrendous armour losses ? Army group Vistula had around 55 Tigers in April. This is after the attrition caused by the whirlwind Russian offensive in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, in the preceding 3 months.

The entire thesis of the Tiger's superiority lies on it's claimed ability to win against big odds... In terms of numbers. The other big anti tank leverage was provided by the 88s...of which AGW had 84 in April...after the first quarter's attrition.

It is possible that the Tigers and 88s between them took a heavy toll of Soviet armour.

Ciao
Sandeep

[CNE503]

Only PzGrDiv. "Das Reich" had 8th company equipped by Tiger, LAH & Tk Tiger had number 4 in the first time. Before Kursk battle all of them were reorganised and renumbered - LAH - 13th coy, DR - S, Tk - 9th coy.

Ok so, I did not know this. Thank you for sharing it. I don't think that it is correct to say 8th SS Panzer Regiment nevertheless, it should have been 8./SS-Panzer Regiment 2, then 13./SS-Panzer Regiment 2 (4./SS-Panzer Regimenter 1 and 3 then 9./SS-Panzer Regimenter 1 and 3 for LSSAH and "Totenkopf").

CNE503

[Michael Kenny]

No, I agree that these aggregate figures do not necessarily tell anything about particular Tiger claims. But they do tell us about the scale of tank losses that the Russian army suffered in those days on the eastern front.

How did a rampaging victorious army, with overwhelming superiority, suffer such horrendous armour losses ?

Your country is in overun. Your armies are everywhere on the run. Millions of your civilians are dead and all your major cities are in ruins. Your capital city is being taken apart brick by brick but hey-look at how many tanks the pathetic soviets lost to do this!
The mind boggles. This is just another attempt at diverting attention away from the total and complete destruction of the German State. An attempt to redefine victor on terms that favour German strengths-pathetic!

[Michael Kenny]

The other big anti tank leverage was provided by the 88s...of which AGW had 84 in April...

The number of AT guns in the whole of the German Army was (in 1945) dwarfed by the 1000s sited in Flak installations ringing major urban centres. Plus the main tank killer in 1945 was not (and never was in earlier years )the 8.8cm.

[Kurfürst]

The other big anti tank leverage was provided by the 88s...of which AGW had 84 in April...

The number of AT guns in the whole of the German Army was (in 1945) dwarfed by the 1000s sited in Flak installations ringing major urban centres. Plus the main tank killer in 1945 was not (and never was in earlier years )the 8.8cm.

Source please.

[steverodgers801]

55 tigers verses thousands of Soviet tanks is a waste. Tigers are only useful in standoff situations. They have lousy mileage, limited mobility and movement. The Soviets had also developed vehicles to tackle the German heavies.

[Michael Kenny]

The other big anti tank leverage was provided by the 88s...of which AGW had 84 in April...

The number of AT guns in the whole of the German Army was (in 1945) dwarfed by the 1000s sited in Flak installations ringing major urban centres. Plus the main tank killer in 1945 was not (and never was in earlier years )the 8.8cm.

Source please.

Though I was answering a claim about the 8.8cm I left out the term 8,8cm from my reply above.

Read instead:

The number of 8,8cm AT guns in the whole of the German Army was (in 1945) dwarfed by the 1000s of 8,8cm sited in Flak installations ringing major urban centres.

8.8cm Pak production 3500.
8.8cm Army Flak production 1200

Luftwaffe 8.8cm Flak production 13,000.
Above Luftwaffe number is a barrel not gun count.

300 Heavy Flak batt. were transferred East in Jan 1945 and 100 West for the Bulge Offensive

[pintere]

It must be admitted though that he does have a point. 129. 1943 and 1944 saw the Russians lose 23,500 and 23,700 tanks respectively, so for each year about 65 tanks lost per day on average. By contrast, they lost 13,700 tanks over a 129 day period in 1945, about 106 tanks lost per day on average. And 1945 was the year when most of Germany's panzer strength was spent and her divisions all severely weakened. I'm not saying it was Tiger tanks, but the numbers beg for an explanation.

a) there were more AFVs present compared with the previous year
b) the campaign was short but intensive without major pauses
As for German armored strength spent that is probably an overstatement. As late as 10 April 1945 there were more than 3300 German tanks and SP guns operational by incomplete count. Of them about 2/3 or 2200 on the Eastern Front:

Valid.

[Kurfürst]

Though I was answering a claim about the 8.8cm I left out the term 8,8cm from my reply above.

Read instead:

The number of 8,8cm AT guns in the whole of the German Army was (in 1945) dwarfed by the 1000s of 8,8cm sited in Flak installations ringing major urban centres.

8.8cm Pak production 3500.
8.8cm Army Flak production 1200

Luftwaffe 8.8cm Flak production 13,000.
Above Luftwaffe number is a barrel not gun count.

300 Heavy Flak batt. were transferred East in Jan 1945 and 100 West for the Bulge Offensive

That makes more sense - I found it hard to believe that 8,8 cm would outnumber the humble PaK 40, the standard AT piece, which was produced in huge numbers, cc. 23 303 given in records. To that there are the other pieces, i.e. the heavy 8,8cm PaK 43 types as 3501.

See: http://www.feldgrau.com/weaprod.html