German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Nov 2016 04:47

Cult Icon wrote:
rays wrote:

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/f ... &mode=view


~3 K write offs in 1941
~3 K write offs in 1942
~8K write offs in 1943
~11K write offs in 1944

Just a fortnight ago on another forum I gave you a link to the entire document.

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/sing ... 449/rec/39

Far better than a single page extract.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Richard Anderson » 01 Nov 2016 17:13

Cult Icon wrote:Your calculation doesn't really have much to do with my statement of the ratio of losses being higher outside of the 'big three' events.

What the panzer units largely did outside of these big events were small counterattacks and hit and run actions.
Seriously? Your "big three events":

"Normandy" - the campaign as such may be said to have extended from 6 June to 25 August 1944. US "armor" losses were 1,185 for the period to 20 August. For the British, the losses to the end of August were 1,189.

"Lorraine" - I'm not sure why you think the Lorraine Campaign of Third Army, which ran from 1 September to 17 December 1944 is a "big three event" for armor, but the Roer River Campaigns of US First and Ninth armies and British 21st Army Group are not? Nevertheless, Third Army losses for the period were 342. Tank Destroyer GMC losses for the period 21 August to 20 December for all US forces in Europe (12th and 6th AG, including First, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Army) were 317. Calling it one-quarter for the Lorraine Campaign makes a total of 421.

"Ardennes" - the campaign as such may be said to have extended from 16 December 1944 to 16 January 1945. US "armor" losses in First Army for the period 13 December 1944 to 19 January 1945 were 520. Third Army losses for the period 17 December 1944 to 19 January 1945 were 258. British losses were negligible. GMC losses (as above) for the period 20 December 1944 to 20 January 1945 were 122. Call it half for the "Ardennes" for a total of 839.

Thus, the "big three events" accounted for perhaps 2,449 of the 10,500. About one-quarter rather than one-half. Yes, those periods, well at least Normandy and the Ardennes, were more intense than the 336-day average, but then that is to be expected, since they account for only about 343 of the 3,914 army "combat days", so less than a tenth.

Meanwhile, when exactly did the "panzer units" during those "big events" execute other than "small counterattacks and hit and run actions"? In Normandy we have the abortive initial I. SS Panzerkorps attacks in early June, the less than week-long Mortain counterattack, and the even briefer La Desert counterattack. In Lorraine we have the Arracourt battles, which lasted slightly more than a week. In the Ardennes, the "big events" lasted, arguably, from 16 December to 25 December.

So what are you referring to?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Cult Icon » 01 Nov 2016 19:04

You mean: 2,300 + 400 + 800 = ~3,500+

Napier gives 2,700 + for Normandy

Bergstrom: Thus, it can be calculated that the Americans lost up to 2,000 armored vehicles during the Ardennes Battle—about 1,200 tanks (up to 900 Sherman and more than 300 light tanks), 150 tank destroyers, 450 armored cars and 150 self-propelled guns."

I selected these three due to the above-average concentrations of german armor in these areas. Lorraine was meant to be a major panzer counterattack like those periodically executed on the Eastern Front.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Richard Anderson » 01 Nov 2016 20:03

Cult Icon wrote:You mean: 2,300 + 400 + 800 = ~3,500+
Sorry, yes, 3,634. Still not half.
Napier gives 2,700 + for Normandy
Who dat and what are his sources? My US figures are from the monthly accounting by the AFV&W Section, ETOUSA. The British figures are from the RAC monthly accounting.
Bergstrom: Thus, it can be calculated that the Americans lost up to 2,000 armored vehicles during the Ardennes Battle—about 1,200 tanks (up to 900 Sherman and more than 300 light tanks), 150 tank destroyers, 450 armored cars and 150 self-propelled guns."
Sorry, but with apologies to Christer, he somehow made a hash of those figures, even though I helped him with the data. The actually figures for First and Third Army are as I gave them. For First Army it is 299 Medium M4 75mm, 113 Medium M4 76mm, and 108 Light M5 = 520. I did neglect the 20 Medium M4 105mm though. For Third Army it was 72 M4 75mm, 158 M4 76mm, 38 Light M5, and 3 M4 105mm = 271.
I selected these three due to the above-average concentrations of german armor in these areas. Lorraine was meant to be a major panzer counterattack like those periodically executed on the Eastern Front.
Say what? How are they "above-average"? What is "average"? Just how was "Lorraine...meant to be a major panzer counterattack" and what were all those "periodically executed on the Eastern Front"?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Nov 2016 20:32

Napier is this
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Armored-Campai ... 1612003249

and he did a lot of digging in the records of the units repairing the tanks among others. He got some very useful information and has shown pretty conclusively (I believe) that a good number of the GOODWOOD losses for 11 AD on 18/7/44 were carried forward and counted again on the 19th.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Cult Icon » 01 Nov 2016 20:59

Richard Anderson wrote:
Say what? How are they "above-average"? What is "average"? Just how was "Lorraine...meant to be a major panzer counterattack" and what were all those "periodically executed on the Eastern Front"?
The typical situation in 1944 where a few (usually greatly understrength) panzer divisions were holding the front or in reserve.

In the Lorraine, a couple Pz Brigades were shifted in the region to counterattack the US 3rd Army.

When 1-3 Panzer Korps (usually 2) were grouped together for a counterstrike involving hundreds of armor.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Richard Anderson » 01 Nov 2016 21:34

Cult Icon wrote:The typical situation in 1944 where a few (usually greatly understrength) panzer divisions were holding the front or in reserve.
So your "above average" is the "typical" situation? Doesn't that make it the average?
In the Lorraine, a couple Pz Brigades were shifted in the region to counterattack the US 3rd Army.
So then, you were actually only referring to the period of the Arracourt battles rather than the campaign as a whole? That is just 18-29 September, which reduces the losses in your Lorraine example to 28 M4 75mm, 35 M4 76mm, 23 M5, and 0 M4 105mm in the period from 17 to 30 September. Out of about 1,320 of those types. Over a 14-day period. So 0.465% per day. Hardly a striking variation from the norm.
When 1-3 Panzer Korps (usually 2) were grouped together for a counterstrike involving hundreds of armor.
And those numerous instances were?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Richard Anderson » 01 Nov 2016 21:44

Michael Kenny wrote:Napier is this
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Armored-Campai ... 1612003249

and he did a lot of digging in the records of the units repairing the tanks among others. He got some very useful information and has shown pretty conclusively (I believe) that a good number of the GOODWOOD losses for 11 AD on 18/7/44 were carried forward and counted again on the 19th.
I'm afraid I was trying to elicit how the "Napier" referred to by the OP managed to inflate armor losses in Normandy by 400 odd? Did he decide to do double-counting himself?

I must say that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy for buying his book.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Cult Icon » 01 Nov 2016 21:50

no, average

The lorraine was a counterstrike that did not inflict high US armor losses.

eg.

July-August 1943 ( Mius bridgehead, against the Kharkov-Belogrod Offensive, etc.)

Sept-Oct 1943 (Against the soviet bridgeheads over the Dnepr, Southern Wing of AGS)

Nov-Dec 1943 (Kiev Defensive, Southern wing of AGS)

Jan-Feb 1944 (Zhitomir-Berdichev, Korsun pocket)

Rumania Spring 1944

Poland, summer-fall 1944

Hungary fall 1944-1945


Not so sure why you are so focused on this?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Nov 2016 23:16

Richard Anderson wrote: I'm afraid I was trying to elicit how the "Napier" referred to by the OP managed to inflate armor losses in Normandy by 400 odd? Did he decide to do double-counting himself?

I must say that doesn't give me a warm fuzzy for buying his book.
I believe he counts all casualties over 24 hours as a loss but he explains all this. He uses a lot of workshop documents and I will have to do a bit more digging when I have the time. He shows how the GOODWOOD double counting came about but I had already figured that out myself back in 2009.
Michael Kenny wrote:
Total lossesof 23 + 157 = 180. Logic tells us most of the previous days losses are still in the totals. Therefore a 54 tank increase. If the 'under 24 hour repair' totals are fixed then that would add a max of 11 to this 54
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... t=goodwood

Miles Krogfus
Member
Posts: 328
Joined: 08 May 2015 19:54
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Miles Krogfus » 02 Nov 2016 01:23

Keep calm. My original post was for DESTROYED German armor. I made the "mistake" of also giving DESTROYED Allied armor figures, so for both sides NOT the larger number of totally lost to their units including those sent far, far away to possibly be repaired (as the "Totalausfalle" figures of Mueller-Hillebrand include.) Regarding Allied losses, for example, WO.171/3890 of AFV Liaison Letter #5 of July 22, 1945 gives for the Churchill 6pdr/75 mm a "Net Loss" of 484, "Back to UK" of 174, and a "Gross Loss" of 309 (actually it should be 310). A Sherman Ic/Vc 17 pdr. net loss of 416, back to UK of 71 and a gross loss of 345. I added the gross loss figures of various tank types for the actually DESTROYED, not the net loss that includes the seriously damaged and so removed from their combat units.
Thus I gave people another chance to squabble. However, thanks Richard, for I will now take the time to go over German data and work out the % losses in armor types per day in combat, as you briefly mention above. Being Nordic, I know how to deal with figures.
Last edited by Miles Krogfus on 02 Nov 2016 21:01, edited 4 times in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Richard Anderson » 02 Nov 2016 03:12

Cult Icon wrote:no, average
Average what?
The lorraine was a counterstrike that did not inflict high US armor losses.
If it did not cause high US armor losses why did you include it as one of your "big three" where you posited high allied armor losses that without evidence you averred would demonstrate a higher ratio of losses?
eg.

July-August 1943 ( Mius bridgehead, against the Kharkov-Belogrod Offensive, etc.)

Sept-Oct 1943 (Against the soviet bridgeheads over the Dnepr, Southern Wing of AGS)

Nov-Dec 1943 (Kiev Defensive, Southern wing of AGS)

Jan-Feb 1944 (Zhitomir-Berdichev, Korsun pocket)

Rumania Spring 1944

Poland, summer-fall 1944

Hungary fall 1944-1945
Okay. So corps-level multi-week operations rather than the army-level Normandy and Ardennes campaigns. Somewhat more similar to the Arracourt battles.
Not so sure why you are so focused on this?
Perhaps because you seem terribly unfocused. You said,
Your calculation doesn't really have much to do with my statement of the ratio of losses being higher outside of the 'big three' events.

What the panzer units largely did outside of these big events were small counterattacks and hit and run actions.
In reply to my commentary on the daily averages. You claimed the "big three" accounted for half the allied losses in NWE. They did not, especially after you reduce "Lorraine" to the Arracourt battles, as you just did. Nor does your claim the "ratio of losses" were "higher outside" of your "big three" make any sense. They were actually slightly lower than the daily average...as would be expected, given it is an average. And you have yet to show what all those "small counterattacks and hit and run actions" were on the Western Front. More like constant Allied armor-supported attacks slowly grinding through the Germans as the Panzer units were with few exceptions (11. and 116. Panzer the principle ones withdrawn after September and not recommitted until mid-December in the last of the "big three".
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Richard Anderson » 02 Nov 2016 03:20

Miles Krogfus wrote:Keep calm.
I am.
My original post was for DESTROYED German armor. I made the "mistake" of also giving DESTROYED Allied armor figures, so for both sides NOT the larger number of totally lost to their units including those sent far, far away to possibly be repaired (as the "Totalausfalle" figures of Mueller-Hillebrand include.)
No, I'm afraid that at least for the Allies you did no such thing. I have no idea what the Allied armor figures you gave are for, since you never gave the source for them. They are certainly not for "destroyed", whether in all caps or not, since that was not a term normally used. I suppose you may be using some form of Coox and Van Loan Nasiwald's figures? Unfortunately, they defined a “tank casualty” as “any tank unavailable for a firefight or for movement in a battle area…whether soon repairable or not.” Not as one DESTROYED.
Thus I gave people another chance to squabble. However, thanks Richard, for I will now take the time to go over German data and work out the % losses in armor types per day in combat, as you briefly mention above. Being Nordic, I know how to deal with figures.
Excellent.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Nov 2016 11:01

Richard Anderson wrote:
I'm afraid I was trying to elicit how the "Napier" referred to by the OP managed to inflate armor losses in Normandy by 400 odd? Did he decide to do double-counting himself?
Napier is quite clear in his terminology the fault lies with those who don't understand what they are reading.
oct91410.jpg
It is the only book I know the lists Y, Z & Zw casualties separately.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

Post by Cult Icon » 02 Nov 2016 11:33

Richard Anderson wrote: If it did not cause high US armor losses why did you include it as one of your "big three" where you posited high allied armor losses that without evidence you averred would demonstrate a higher ratio of losses?

In reply to my commentary on the daily averages. You claimed the "big three" accounted for half the allied losses in NWE. They did not, especially after you reduce "Lorraine" to the Arracourt battles, as you just did. Nor does your claim the "ratio of losses" were "higher outside" of your "big three" make any sense. They were actually slightly lower than the daily average...as would be expected, given it is an average. And you have yet to show what all those "small counterattacks and hit and run actions" were on the Western Front. More like constant Allied armor-supported attacks slowly grinding through the Germans as the Panzer units were with few exceptions (11. and 116. Panzer the principle ones withdrawn after September and not recommitted until mid-December in the last of the "big three".
So you say that Bergstrom's view on Us losses is wrong, etc. If you use your figures than it is a lower ratio in the 'big 3'.

You are confused at my statement and your calculation doesn't make sense. I did not see it as a 'day to day' affair but compared the period without a high concentration of german armor with the one that did possess this concentration. The German armor strengths on the Western front was much lower outside of the months that these '3 events' occurred.

eg. weak 9.Pz, 116.Pz, 11.Pz, Pz-Lehr from time to time

I would say that the weak Pz units largely launched shallow counterattacks per doctrine against allied advances.

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”