Question about tanks, 1943!

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Counter
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 16:48
Location: Europe

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Counter » 07 Mar 2019 21:58

Even if you are down to almost zero tanks, the war is not over.
Maybe the war is not over, but you have become the Poland army in 1939 :D
The Soviet doctrine can be summarized by sacrificing more men and they could afford it.
A dramatic strategy but the tough and effective reality. Nonetheless that sacrifice could not be infinite (that could be discussed elsewhere).
Armed forces are defeated by either annihilation, capture or occupation of the military and administrative complex. This is hard for people to understand.
Armed forces depend on States, and States depend on political and social issues. But in the particular case of the German-Russian war it did become a case of fight for mutual annihilation. Both did their best in order to fix industrial production, tactical efficiency and human mobilization... But that was only possible according to the actual resources. Necessity does not generate resources for itself...
Counter wrote:Previous to the battles there were 2600 german operational and 10200 russian operational... And the germans losed (the loss of Kharkov, particularly, was strategically critical).

It germans only left 800, the russians required, at least five-fold that amount to keep the superiority: 4000 operational
Sorry: 10200/2600 is X4, not X5. So it seems feasible that even suffering 6000 total tank losses in July and August the Russians could keep the same superiority. But I (we) don´t know yet how many were the replacements.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Max Payload » 08 Mar 2019 01:05

Counter wrote:
07 Mar 2019 16:44
Excuse me for the confuse calculation. I am sure that anyone here has the right data... And maybe knowing how to use the "Lanchaster law" in this case...
The Lanchester Equations are based on the concept of kill rate - the rate at which a typical member of a combatant group (Red) with his associated weaponry can on average render members of an opposing force (Blue) combat ineffective. However, the resultant equations from which attrition rates are calculated are not relevant to relative AFV loss rates on the EF because the AFVs in Red Force, whatever their initial number, are not solely or even predominantly the cause of the attrition rate of AFVs in Blue Force (and vice versa).
Stiltzkin wrote:
07 Mar 2019 17:00
These are basic differential equations for 6-7th graders, surely you will know how to use them?
What is being described is a system of homogenous coupled first-order differential equations where at any instant the rate of change of one variable depends on the size of a second variable, while the rate of change of the second variable simultaneously depends on the size of the first variable. The resulting solutions are far from simple and way beyond the capacity of the 6-7 graders in the school that I attended (though maybe we were just atypically thick), but the outcomes of various scenarios can be plotted using propriatory software.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2353
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Richard Anderson » 08 Mar 2019 01:54

Max Payload wrote:
08 Mar 2019 01:05
The Lanchester Equations are based on the concept of kill rate - the rate at which a typical member of a combatant group (Red) with his associated weaponry can on average render members of an opposing force (Blue) combat ineffective. However, the resultant equations from which attrition rates are calculated are not relevant to relative AFV loss rates on the EF because the AFVs in Red Force, whatever their initial number, are not solely or even predominantly the cause of the attrition rate of AFVs in Blue Force (and vice versa).
And they were also predicated on Lanchester's imagining how to model aerial combat in 1916. And they have also never been shown to be valid to real-world combat...in the air, on the ground, or on the sea. :D
"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

Counter
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 16:48
Location: Europe

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Counter » 08 Mar 2019 10:29

According to Art chart in page 1 this thread (Jentz) there were 2600 AFV (2200 operational) at the start of the big battles of July and August. At the end of the year, 2000, only around 1000 operational

Now I realize that Frieser´s Book has another Diagram at page 156: 3400 AFV at the start and over 3500 at the end of the year. Source would be Zetterling and Frankson -"Kursk, 1943" page 146- Too a large difference for me... :(

Frieser´s book, also at page 199, a chart of written-off AFV at the end of August 1943: 1331 AFV german losses and... 9294 soviet ones. Ratio 1/8

No comment

Thank you again and I quit in this thread... :(

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5297
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Art » 08 Mar 2019 13:02

Counter wrote:
08 Mar 2019 10:29
According to Art chart in page 1 this thread (Jentz) there were 2600 AFV
2600 tanks. Not counting assault guns and self-propelled guns which were also quite numerous.
Frieser´s book, also at page 199, a chart of written-off AFV at the end of August 1943: 1331 AFV german losses and... 9294 soviet ones.
I suppose here is another thing with incomplete reporting or omission of certain types of vehicles. Aggregate German losses of AVFs on all fronts in July-August 1943 were above 1700 (from Müller-Hillebrand). Of them one hundred something were lost in Sicily, which leaves about 1600 to the Eastern Front. I doubt that Frieser's number for Soviet losses is fully reliable, it must be more like an estimate.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5297
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Art » 08 Mar 2019 13:13

Max Payload wrote:
06 Mar 2019 11:12
According to Krivosheev, tanks and SPGs 01/01/43 numbered 20,400 of which 8,100 were ‘in the theatre of operations’.
Received in 1943, 27,300: losses in 1943 23,500.
Tanks and SPGs 01/01/44 numbered 24,400 of which 5,800 were ‘in the theatre of operations’.
By the end of ‘43 the number of trained Soviet tank crews rather than vehicle availability was a major constraint on operations.
Why it wasn't a constraint six months earlier then?
Commander of Soviet armored force general Fedorenko reported the following situation as of 1 December 1943. Aggregate authorized strength of units on the front and in reserve: 15 382 tanks and 1751 self-propelled guns. Actually available on 1.12.43:
Tanks - 6127 operational and 3975 in need of repair
SP guns - 1150 operational and 523 in need of repair
So a shortfall of 9225 tanks and 601 SP guns. That doesn't include units in the Far East and southern borders, replacements and training units, schools, vehicles undergoing repair at factories etc. There as obviously a deficit of vehicles, as Fedorenko further proposed to leave less than 50% of units on the front and withdraw the rest for reorganization since they couldn't be supplied with tanks.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 487
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by critical mass » 08 Mar 2019 13:59

Art wrote:
08 Mar 2019 13:02
Counter wrote:
08 Mar 2019 10:29
According to Art chart in page 1 this thread (Jentz) there were 2600 AFV
2600 tanks. Not counting assault guns and self-propelled guns which were also quite numerous.
Frieser´s book, also at page 199, a chart of written-off AFV at the end of August 1943: 1331 AFV german losses and... 9294 soviet ones.
I suppose here is another thing with incomplete reporting or omission of certain types of vehicles. Aggregate German losses of AVFs on all fronts in July-August 1943 were above 1700 (from Müller-Hillebrand). Of them one hundred something were lost in Sicily, which leaves about 1600 to the Eastern Front. I doubt that Frieser number for Soviet losses is fully reliable, it must be more an estimate or something.
The number of AFV on the German side at July 1st by Frieser is given with 2365. This number does not include PzII and Pz38t, omits a large number of Beute T34 and light SPG. Töppel makes a point to argue that the total number at the start of operation may be as high as 3147 AFV, of which 2637 were servicable and 510 either in repair or still on transit.
Zaev reported the number of AFV engaged in operations at Kursks from 5th of July to 20th at 4389. This number does not include 259 SPG as shown by Koltunov. However, a comparison between Zamulin and Koltunov demonstrates that the former number of SPG is too low. Zamulin lists, f.e. 12 Su152 in the 7th Guards Army, which are absent in Koltunov. And the numbers increased by Transits from july1st to 4th. At July 4th, approx. 5000 soviet AFV were concentrated in the area.

notice that Hillebrand gives losses for all theatres. This also includes write offs by obsolence and reworked AFV, f.e. The pz38t which becomes a Marder is first deleted and then added under new production figures. It’s not clear to me whether or not Friesers loss figures does include all Pz2 and 38t, nor Marder or Beute T34 losses, though.

Michate
Member
Posts: 1427
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 10:50
Location: Germany

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Michate » 08 Mar 2019 16:27

I suppose here is another thing with incomplete reporting or omission of certain types of vehicles. Aggregate German losses of AVFs on all fronts in July-August 1943 were above 1700 (from Müller-Hillebrand). Of them one hundred something were lost in Sicily, which leaves about 1600 to the Eastern Front. I doubt that Frieser number for Soviet losses is fully reliable, it must be more an estimate or something.
Probably so. The source for this loss figure of 1331 is a memo by the Pz.-Off. at the Gen.St.d.H.
The loss figures for the different types of vehicles published in Hahn's book also point to 1600-1700 AFVs lost in July-August 1943.
Anyway, such an upward correction does not change the basic picture.
I doubt that Frieser's number for Soviet losses is fully reliable, it must be more line an estimate.
Frieser credits two Russians researchers (by name) working at Tsamo for providing him this figure.
The figure also seems quite likely, when compared to what is known about Soviet AFV losses in the various operations of this period.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Max Payload » 08 Mar 2019 21:10

Art wrote:
08 Mar 2019 13:13
Commander of Soviet armored force general Fedorenko reported the following situation as of 1 December 1943. ...
There was almost always a ‘deficit of vehicles’ in the sense of units being below authorised strength.
I’m not sure how, ‘in the theatre of operations’ (Krivosheev) and ‘units on the front and in reserve’ (Fedorenko) correlate but the former quotes 5,800 for 1/1/44 and the latter 11,775 for 1/12/43. That’s an unbridgeable discrepancy, but 7,277 operational tanks and SPGs as reported by Federenko doesn’t seem like much of a shortage.
Art wrote:
08 Mar 2019 13:13
Federenko further proposed to leave less than 50% of units on the front and withdraw the rest for reorganization since they couldn't be supplied with tanks.
According the Krivosheev’ figures, in 1943 the Soviet tank/SPG park grew by 4,000 but the number in theatre fell by 2,300. That suggests 6,300 newly produced/delivered tanks/SPGs being held in the rear at the end of 1943 (at a time of major offensive operations west of the Dnepr). These figures suggest that the withdrawn units could have been supplied with tanks, and that Federenko must have had some other reason for the withdrawals.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5297
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Art » 08 Mar 2019 21:31

Michate wrote:
08 Mar 2019 16:27
Probably so. The source for this loss figure of 1331 is a memo by the Pz.-Off. at the Gen.St.d.H.
Zetterling and Frankson write about 1331 "tanks and assault guns" lost in July-August 43 on the Eastern Front. There were also about 150 Marders lost and probably Nashorns/Ferdinands were not included either. Given certain usual lags and incompleteness of reporting that can be reconciled more or less with 1600 losses estimated above.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5297
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Art » 08 Mar 2019 21:51

Max Payload wrote:
08 Mar 2019 21:10
There was almost always a ‘deficit of vehicles’ in the sense of units being below authorised strength.
In July this deficit was much smaller as units taking part in the battle of Kurks were almost at full authorized strength. I see here an obvious effect of losses suffered in those five months. And decrease in the availability of operational vehicles was the most apparent and dramatic.
I’m not sure how, ‘in the theatre of operations’ (Krivosheev) and ‘units on the front and in reserve’ (Fedorenko) correlate but the former quotes 5,800 for 1/1/44 and the latter 11,775 for 1/12/43.
Well, 5800 obviously stands for operational vehicles. That's a good accord with 5200-5400 operational tanks and SP guns from alternative sources.
According the Krivosheev’ figures, in 1943 the Soviet tank/SPG park grew by 4,000 but the number in theatre fell by 2,300. That suggests 6,300 newly produced/delivered tanks/SPGs being held in the rear at the end of 1943 (at a time of major offensive operations west of the Dnepr). These figures suggest that the withdrawn units could have been supplied with tanks, and that Federenko must have had some other reason for the withdrawals.
A more recent Russian publication gives 21 000 operational tanks and SP guns on 1.7.43 and 12 000 on 1.01.44. Totals in all Soviet units and all theaters. That implies that there was a deficit of operational tanks indeed and the tank strength dropped as a result of losses.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Max Payload » 09 Mar 2019 00:49

Art wrote:
08 Mar 2019 21:51
Well, 5800 obviously stands for operational vehicles. That's a good accord with 5200-5400 operational tanks and SP guns from alternative sources.
There is a confusing range of figures in the last few posts; 11,775 (total), 7,277 (operational), 5,800 (unspecified), 5,200-5,400 (operational). And also, below, 12,000 (operational).
Art wrote:
08 Mar 2019 21:51
A more recent Russian publication gives 21 000 operational tanks and SP guns on 1.7.43 and 12 000 on 1.01.44.
That’s a 9,000 vehicle decline in the final six months of 1943. Krivosheev quotes 23,500 vehicles lost in 1943 with 27,300 replacement vehicles being received. Assuming a constant replacement rate (13,650 in the second half of 1943) and assuming that more than three-quarters of the losses occurred in the second half of the year (18,000), that still implies that there were four to five thousand newly supplied tanks and SPGs held back from frontline service in the second half of 1943. If there was no shortage of fuel, ammunition or trained tank crews, why would Stavka choose to hold these weapons back when there was such a ‘deficit’ at the sharp end?

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Stiltzkin » 09 Mar 2019 05:39

What is being described is a system of homogenous coupled first-order differential equations where at any instant the rate of change of one variable depends on the size of a second variable, while the rate of change of the second variable simultaneously depends on the size of the first variable. The resulting solutions are far from simple and way beyond the capacity of the 6-7 graders in the school that I attended (though maybe we were just atypically thick), but the outcomes of various scenarios can be plotted using propriatory software.
This might be the case for various individuals. I have used these ages ago when I was still in high school. He just needs to use them, not derive them.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5297
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Art » 09 Mar 2019 10:40

Max Payload wrote:
09 Mar 2019 00:49
There is a confusing range of figures in the last few posts; 11,775 (total), 7,277 (operational), 5,800 (unspecified), 5,200-5,400 (operational). And also, below, 12,000 (operational).
Frankly I don't find them confusing. Naturally serviceability rate was not 100% and the number of operational tanks was much different from total holdings. That was entirely normal thing and German situation was the same as demonstrated above. Then numbers on different dates were, of course, different, and there is also a question of inclusion of strategic reserves which also accounts for some difference. For example on 1.1.44 according to "Boyevoy and chislenniy sostav.." there were 5388 operational tanks/SP guns on the front and 391 in Stavka's reserve. So total is be 5800. As for Krivosheev and his tables, honestly speaking I don't trust them very much, because they are too conflicting with alternative sources.
That’s a 9,000 vehicle decline in the final six months of 1943. Krivosheev quotes 23,500 vehicles lost in 1943 with 27,300 replacement vehicles being received. Assuming a constant replacement rate (13,650 in the second half of 1943) and assuming that more than three-quarters of the losses occurred in the second half of the year (18,000), that still implies that there were four to five thousand newly supplied tanks and SPGs held back from frontline service in the second half of 1943.
You must consider that we are talking about operational tanks, not about total holdings. In early July almost without any combat activity in two or three previous months Soviet operational rate on the front was probably above 95%, while several months later here were thousands of tanks in need of repair as a result of constant losses. The question where Soviet tanks were by the end of the year is a curios one. First, as already mentioned, there were many AFVs with battle damage or technical malfunctions. Fedorenko gives about about 4500 unserviceable vehicles on the front and in strategic reserve on 1 December 1943. A months later the number was hardly smaller. Then I would expect of a large backlog of tanks not assigned to combat units. Tanks, produced by factories but not yet shipped. Tanks arriving to ports, but not yet shipped. Tanks undergoing repair at factories. Batches of tanks in transit to the front or from the front. Totals can easily make thousands. Still there is a large difference between 12 000 operational AFVs and 24 000 available AFVs (Krivosheev). As I said I'm somewhat skeptical about Krivosheev's data, but can't give a definitive answer now.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: Question about tanks, 1943!

Post by Max Payload » 09 Mar 2019 10:50

Stiltzkin wrote:
09 Mar 2019 05:39
I have used these ages ago when I was still in high school.
Respect!

Stiltzkin wrote:
09 Mar 2019 05:39
He just needs to use them, not derive them.
He can’t use the exponential time equations until he has derived them from the differential equations that define the initial and attritional parameters. But then, if he is familiar with LaPlace transforms or if he can calculate the eigenvalues and eigenvectors from the relevant 2x2 matrix and hence derive the general solution for each of the variables at time t, he shouldn’t have too much difficulty.

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”