Comparative tank losses, June/July 44 Normandy

[Michael Kenny]

I know Rich is listing 'replacement' Tigers but the total does not tally with actual combat usuage.

I discount the Tigers of SS 101 and (fkl) 316 as these 48 Tiger I's and 5 TII's were issued well before June.

SS 102 were issued 45 TI's in April/May 1944.
Heer 503 got its issue of 33 TI's and 12 TII's in June 1944.
I suppose that could match up with Rich's 48 in June and 42 in July.
However SS 101 and Heer 503 both recieved 14 TII's each in July . All 28 of these TII saw action in August.
The original August total of 14 'replacements' therefore is not quite correct.
It may be that I have misunderstood the meaning of Rich's post but I can not understand how the 'replacement' figures are calculated

[RichTO90]

I know Rich is listing 'replacement' Tigers but the total does not tally with actual combat usuage.

Actually what I was "listing" were the figures as they were reported by month, which as I remarked are obviously wrong for August. It is also intersting that the Qu reports do not list any losses of Jagdpanther, Tiger II or JagpanzerIV until September, even though of course some were used and lost in the Normandy fighting. Nonetheless I think the listing as it stands does illustrate the replacement problems the Germans had, which was the question I was attempting to address.

I discount the Tigers of SS 101 and (fkl) 316 as these 48 Tiger I's and 5 TII's were issued well before June.

SS 102 were issued 45 TI's in April/May 1944.
Heer 503 got its issue of 33 TI's and 12 TII's in June 1944.
I suppose that could match up with Rich's 48 in June and 42 in July.

They are not "my" 48, they belonged to the Qu and Heer I suppose. But yes, it does appear that prior to September "Tiger" may have included both PzVIe and PzVIb. Also, it is unclear in some cases what and when the figures for tanks "sent" and "received" covered and since they are taken from the Fuehrervortrag there is also the possbility that there are transcription and other errors contained in the listings.

However SS 101 and Heer 503 both recieved 14 TII's each in July . All 28 of these TII saw action in August.
The original August total of 14 'replacements' therefore is not quite correct.

Exactly. Either the 14 August Tiger were the 14 Tiger II received in July and just reported in August, or there is some other error in the original reports.

It may be that I have misunderstood the meaning of Rich's post but I can not understand how the 'replacement' figures are calculated

Sorry for being unclear Michael, but the figures were not "calculated" at all in the sense you mean, rather they are simply as is found in the original reports. In the same way I think if we delve deeper into the large "surplus" number of Panthers in June I think we would probably find that the majority of them were actually issed to units in May. Part of the problem is that the transcriptions I have of the Fuehrervortrag only begin in June 1944, as do the Qu reports, and the Panzerlage prepared by the IG Panzertruppen for January-May 1944 are also unavailable to me, so the events of the first half of 1944 are something of a mystery.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

Rich

[Qvist]

A bit of context, from the August Verlustwesen summary (BA-MA RW4-482-17):

All figures pertain to the whole Feldheer, unfortunately.

(Type......Lost July/August)
PzII..........61/2
Pz III........9/2
Pz IV........422/368
Panther....347/278
Tiger........191/91
StuG 75mm....914/368
Elefant......23/2
StuH 42.....80/44
Sturmpz IV....57/16
Bef.W.......46/21
SPW.........734/549

The commentary later in the report states that the August figures are based only on partial reports, that the remainder will be included in the September figure and that it is to be expected that the August losses are in reality higher than the July figures - in other words, line with Rich's comment earlier in the thread.

"Abgaben an das FH einschl. Neuaufstellungen i.d. Heimat":

Type......Aug/Sep (yes, Aug and Sep)

Pz IV............216/283
Panther.........332/372
Tiger.............20/6
StuG 75mm....278/522
StuH 42.........112/160
Sturmpz IV....40/34
Bef.W............15/35

I think I have the May/June report as well, will se about that later.


cheers

[RichTO90]

A bit of context, from the August Verlustwesen summary (BA-MA RW4-482-17):

All figures pertain to the whole Feldheer, unfortunately.

Hi Qvist! Have I not posted the figures from the monthly Front summaries before? If not I can. Also, if I did not send you my spreadsheet on them let me know and I will.

Rich

[Qvist]

Hi Rich

Thanks for that, I'll have to check my files at the office to make sure. By front-specific, do you mean for OB West specifically, or specified figures for all fronts?

cheers

[RichTO90]

Hi Rich

Thanks for that, I'll have to check my files at the office to make sure. By front-specific, do you mean for OB West specifically, or specified figures for all fronts?

cheers

Such as:

Panzer Losses By Theater and Type
1 Dec 43 -
31-May-44 PzII PzII Muni Pz-III L42 Pz-III L24 Pz-III L60 Pz-III Flm Pz-38t Pz-IV L24 Pz-IV L43 Pz-IV L48
East 18 22 9 14 98 21 10 20 53 715
West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southwest 1 0 3 10 0 5 0 6 17 52
Southeast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 22 12 24 98 26 10 26 70 767

Sorry, I know the coding doesn't work, and that isn't the complete table, but I hope you get the idea.

[Qvist]

Right! No, I don't think you've posted those - they would be very interesting to see. To say nothing of having on spreadsheet.

cheers

[RichTO90]

Right! No, I don't think you've posted those - they would be very interesting to see. To say nothing of having on spreadsheet.

cheers

Okay, I'll email them to you, since I don't have the time to retype them into a format radable here.

Rich

[EugE]

So far, so good. Remember that IIRC according to Michate a 50% haircut was applied to these claims, but it is not clear from Jentz whether this had already been done. My guess is no, since the data is still very detailed. Since most of the claims originate from defensive fighting, it is arguable that this is the upper boundary of kills, and the real number for these divisions is almost certainly lower. On the other hand, units not included in the table who had seen combat are sSS-Pz-Abt 101, 9.SS, 10.SS, and the infantry formations.
The really surprising thing follows however.
German total write-offs by division and type:
Division Total - Stug/PzIV/Panther/Tiger Kill ratio (Tanks claimed destroyed vs. total write-offs) Share
2.Pz 23 0/3/20/0 1:1 6.6%
21.Pz 54 0/54/0/0 1.9:1 15.5%
Lehr 80 3/41/36 (1.9:1) 22.9%
1.SS 1 0/0/1/0 n/a 0.0%
2.SS 31 0/28/3/0 n/a
9.SS 39 9/18/12/0 n/a
10.SS 13 4/6/3 n/a 11.1%
12.SS 84 0/47/37/0 1.71 24.1%
sSSPzAbt101 15 0/0/0/15 n/a 4.3%

Andreas

I understand now passed a lot of time but when I read your post I was surprised by some data.
Unfortunately the tank regiment of 10. SS-Pz.Div. F consisted of one battalion (10. SS-PzDiv has been equipped 39 PzKfwg IV and 38 StuG, considering being on repair. - 10. SS-Pz.Div. Frundsberg, Anlage zu Ia Tgb. Nr. 271/44, 1.6.44, BA-MA RH 10/319.) while another was on completion and training, he has received the first 4 Panthers in March of 44, 6 more are received in July and he was not ready for action(Pz. Personal-Einheiten im Bereich OB West, T311, R25, F7030050.), in August 5 from them are transferred to completion of losses at Nachschub West. How you may explain registered losses on a 10. SS-Pz.Div. F of 3 Panthers - I suppose most probably that these Panthers were used in Regiment Stab as Befehlspanzer?