The British late war tank casualty survey wo 205/1165 a data dump

[Christianmunich]

You thought the doctors/researchers were there when the tanks were knocked out?? Obviously part of the information came from crewmen in the tanks. How else would we know that A.4 kept firing after being penetrated? This goes without saying.....

Getting interviewed by the researchers produces more reliable infos then writing a unit history after the war together with your friends as shown by the survey.

Your ability to present stuff that was never in doubt is impressive.

No it does not. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between the actual document and your interpretation of what it says.

I compiled the actual document. And summarizing the numbers is "not" interpreting them. My interpretation of the data is mostly at the bottom. Saying X amount of tans were ko'ed by 1 hit is no interpretation it is merely the summary of the British survey.

In this case you disputed the claim about Shermans being knocked out by a single hit, this is not my interpretation, it is the British survey that shows your beliefs to be false. The British survey studied more than 100 Shermans and reported a single case where a Sherman kept firing after penetration. So yes, it was unusual, I don't say that, the survey does. As I said about 4000 Shermans were lost by the British there are likely a couple dozen cases like the one you have cherry picked, even if you find them all they are sill a tiny percentage. And this is not my opinion this are the findings of the survey. I didn't write the data. It also shows why such events were so rare, in most cases a single hit was enough for the crew to bale the tank, so it is no surprise that continued fire was very rare. Nothing of this is my "interpretation" it is basic math. I want to repeat my prior points, that I personally believe, the data is explained by the equipment and not the crews. Like 10k Shermans were destroyed how many anecdotal entries in books/war diaries can you find from the German side describing how they hit a Sherman and it kept firing at them? A great number of such accounts would have to exist in you are correct.

[Christianmunich]

Thanks for your offer but there really isn't much to "troubleshoot" the data is pretty basic, the only thing missing from the spreadsheets are the notes to all the hits, I have also compiled the written statements about the hits but the rest is in the pictures.

I wasn't explicit, let me be so: keeping the spreadsheet for yourself is a sure way to create distrust, even from the most open-minded people.

The fact you don't share it is an issue, and a severe one. Yes, it took you time to compile, but that's no rationale - it also takes time to write long posts on this forum, yet you still do it.

On the other hand, sharing your file should generate a lot of positive comments, not only about your attitude but also about the quality of the work. There is also some probability that comments strengthen your case, e.g., by fixing small errors or pointing alternative analysis.

I see your point. But like I said besides the comments on the hit entries the document is what you see there. But I can certainly share it. The comments are just copy pasts of the descriptions of the hits. Like I said this was my first quick draft and I have no double checked all the stuff, so uploading it might imply some kind of "authority". I don't want people to run with the data as it were gospel it was more intended as jump of point for research. I will go over it again and then share the data.

It also includes personal comments about "interesting" tanks which I have to remove et cetera.

Here to give you an idea:

wo10.jpg

On the other hand, sharing your file should generate a lot of positive comments

No sir, it wouldn't.

[Mori]

On the other hand, sharing your file should generate a lot of positive comments

No sir, it wouldn't.

You shout before evil.

I still don't see any meaningful reason to propose conclusions but shy away from sharing the spreadsheet. The screenshots are nothing compared to the file, and you certainly know it (otherwise, you would have shared the file ).

[Christianmunich]

Can we take it that you will now look again at your 'research' and remove all the information that was ' written by members of that unit'.
After all if anything ' written by members of that unit' is not good enough when posted by me then obviously it is not good enough when posted by you.

At least this information could be added to the database. If it's randomly distributed, it won't change the conclusion.

Taking a specific example of a tank that without verification is characterized by being unusual, is the dictionary definition of not "randomly distributed". It is the opposite.

Screening war diaries for entries into this database would be a freshmen level mistake in scientific procedure. War diaries, and unit history by nature report more unusual events and thus are totally unsuitable to establish a random sample of tank casualties. The British survey here did the only thing that allowed a proper sample, they simply tried to examine most of the tanks.

Proper sampling is of paramount importance. That makes the Wo 205/1165 so valuable, it gives a proper look into Sherman combat, without spin without opinions of historians, just raw data.

I still don't see any meaningful reason to propose conclusions but shy away from sharing the spreadsheet. The screenshots are nothing compared to the file, and you certainly know it (otherwise, you would have shared the file ).

I hold myself to a high standard and the stuff I "publish" is iron clad in most cases and presents data in a way I consider satisfactory. As I said in my very first sentence, my work on this survey wasn't finish and at the moment is at hold. The only reason I dump the data is because I hope it doesn't go to waste on my hard drive. The spreadsheets are full of comments, the tables sources not marked, it is no finish product and I therefore only screened the data I consider being correct to a high degree. This spreadsheet was not intended to publish because I do not want people to say "Hey look here Christianmunich made a mistake, the first we ever found". I also said I will publish it after removing comments and doing some labeling, but your posts kinda turn me off from this idea. If you would have just kindly asked instead of implying I am trying to hiding data that is openly available on the ww2talk I would have done it. In fact I was already starting to add comments to columons and other sheets so people know where the data came from but looks like Perlen vor die Säue.

[Christianmunich]

The site sadly doesn't allow more than 5 attachments even in the OP, so here are the mentioned entries in the Oro T 117 about the Sherman and German vehicles. German vehicles were collected with a sampling bias of collecting left behind vehicles. How this affected the sample I don''t know. The US sample sadly doesn't differentiate between vehicle types, at least not in their summary form in the Oro T 117, maybe the original document has more in depth explanations, I have not seen the data and merely transcribed the data snippets in the aforementioned document.

Here Annex 7 Appendix E

Sherman tank:

Orot117-1.jpg

How penetrations or ricochets were classed is not obvious from the given data. As we see the penetration rate is far higher than in the British sample which makes it likely the some "non-pens" were discarded as "not fair hits". The numbers are still far lower than the Soviet sample of T-34s which makes me conclude the Red Army had a more rigid qualification for "non pens" than both the UK and US with the UK classifying any projectile that touched the tank or even crewmen as "scoop" if it didn't penetrate fully. The soviet sample would like come the closest to what I would describe as "withstood" hits but everybody can decide for themselves.

Some more words about the methodology which I was unable to fully deduce. The collected vehicles are separated by rockets and guns.If the table then only shows AP hits or also rocket hits is not specified. All the numbers given would vary greatly if HC, for example, was excluded from the later tables, it also does not clearly show how many vehicles were hit in total by the tabled impacts.

Here for Panzer III and IV:

Orot117-2.jpg

Here for Panzer V&VI

Orot117-3.jpg

This sample does not differentiate between Panthers and Tiger IIs which is a shame, but maybe the original documents do. The US did not face Tiger Is in a quantity that would make it likely this sample included one. Likely only Panthers and Tiger IIs, since I am unaware of the time frame when this was collected we can't know what tanks those actually were. Obviously, the majority likely was Panzer V but who knows how the sample was collected.

For good measure the Soviet T-34 penetration samples:

Zaloga1.jpg

You can see how the Red Army likely excluded glancing blows from their evaluation, which makes sense if you try to find out the protective properties of your armour. The high number of penetrations late war rules out any inclusion of running gear hits as non-penetration, as the British sample does. It is difficult to align those samples due to the varying methodology. But it is interesting nonetheless. The sample nicely illustrates how powerful the T-34 was in the early years of combat was eventually fully negated by 75mm guns which in big reason brought forward because of the T-34.

I would have loved to include the data in the OP but the restriction of attachments prevents that sadly

[Michael Kenny]

Getting interviewed by the researchers produces more reliable infos then writing a unit history after the war together with your friends as shown by the survey.

Obviously you have not checked the date of the 'post-war History. The usual 'make claim' and check facts later!

In this case you disputed the claim about Shermans being knocked out by a single hit, this is not my interpretation, it is the British survey that shows your beliefs to be false.

How much greater is the single hit figure in the 1945 survey to the single-hit figure in the 1944 survey of 45 Shermans?
It must be a significant gap for you to make such a big deal about it.

Like 10k Shermans were destroyed

Seeing as you like that sentence so much every time you use it I will reply with this other fact:
Like 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated.

[Michael Kenny]

At least this information could be added to the database. If it's randomly distributed, it won't change the conclusion.

It was a dig to highlight the double-standard.
Information from men in the unit that confirms his theory=OK.
Information from men in the unit that contradicts his theory= Not OK.

I very much doubt he even noticed this caution in the originals.

[Christianmunich]

Like 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated.

False, this number is not supported by evidence. You reference a sample of Panthers left behind by the Germans so the British were able to collect and evaluate them. This does not mean 75% of all hits on Panthers penetrated. You need to employ scientific principles or you will be left with false conclusion based on incorrect methods.

Other people also explained this to you before, I believe. You need to properly summarize data you reference. So while my claim is indeed a fact, yours is not. More than 10k Shermans were "written-off" in WW2, this is a verifiable fact. 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated is not a fact and not verified.

Flipping 5 coins on head and saying " A coin will always flip on head" is not a fact it is the reference to a sample that either reflects reality or not. As so often it is about sampling, the n and the how it was collected. The British survey was the most professional collected sample of Sherman casualties, no other sample exists that was better conducted. You should be happy about that. The Germans never conducted such a good sample so we will likely never know how Panzer IVs et cetera fared in such situations.

Back to the 10k destroyed Shermans, if you believe the British survey is wrong, you should easily be able to find German reports on Shermans remaining in combat after hits, you obviously need to find alot of them but there also should be alot. Allied soldiers frequently remarked on such events on the German side and only a fraction of such German tanks were produced. You could obviously also assume the British survey to be a good approximation of reality.

[Michael Kenny]

Like 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated.

this number is not supported by evidence.

It is.
The same people who did the survey that found the '90%'(?) penetration rates for the Sherman also found 75% penetration rate for the Panther. Rock-solid fact.

[Michael Kenny]

If you would have just kindly asked instead of implying I am trying to hiding data that is openly available on the ww2talk.....

He is hiding it. He does not want to share it because then we can see where he manipulates and distorts.

[Richard Anderson]

The British survey was the most professional collected sample of Sherman casualties, no other sample exists that was better conducted.

Yet more bafflegab.

Er, in point of fact, no. The survey was conducted by two Royal Army Medical Corps physicians. It is a single report from a single sample.

The No. 2 ORS reports were compiled by a team of officers from the Royal Artillery, REME, and other disciplines, oh, also including Wright and Harkness.

The FUSA and TUSA reports were compiled by Ordnance officers and comprised a larger sample.

The 4th AD reports were compiled by Ordnance officers and comprised as large a sample.

ORO T-117 was a compilation of all those reports and more, by a multi-disciplinary team.

All those, and others exist and were as "well conducted".

[Christianmunich]

The British survey was the most professional collected sample of Sherman casualties, no other sample exists that was better conducted.

Yet more bafflegab.

Er, in point of fact, no. The survey was conducted by two Royal Army Medical Corps physicians. It is a single report from a single sample.

The No. 2 ORS reports were compiled by a team of officers from the Royal Artillery, REME, and other disciplines, oh, also including Wright and Harkness.

The FUSA and TUSA reports were compiled by Ordnance officers and comprised a larger sample.

The 4th AD reports were compiled by Ordnance officers and comprised as large a sample.

ORO T-117 was a compilation of all those reports and more, by a multi-disciplinary team.

All those, and others exist and were as "well conducted".

The British survey is the single best-conducted survey period. nobody said it was the only one. If the studies were as well conducted you might want to show us the photographs with all the tanks et cetera. It also gives the best data. Go ahead Mr Anderson share the other surveys that "rival" this one in data. We will wait.

Let me formulate my request differently: Prove it Mr Anderson.

[Christianmunich]

Like 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated.

this number is not supported by evidence.

It is.
The same people who did the survey that found the '90%'(?) penetration rates for the Sherman also found 75% penetration rate for the Panther. Rock-solid fact.

It isn't tho. They didn't find that 75% of hits on a Panther penetrated, they found that X Panthers abandoned in Normandy had 75% of the hits penetrate. This does not equal the statement that 75% of hits penetrated. This is a basic sampling principle. I am not sure how I can explain this in a simple way. Panthers hit without penetration could drive away not ending up in this sample. Critical Mass and others already explained this to you.

Your claim 75% of hits on a Panther penetrated stands without any evidence. misunderstanding a sample and the meaning is not evidence.

This was a sample that only reflects a specific set of circumstances and was also biased due to sampling limitation. As always you are free to stick with your mistakes but assuming you are sincere here I just try to help you see where your conclusions missed.

For a sample to be representative of a specific set of parameters it has to be sufficiently big and also reflect the set of parameters. A Panther in 1943 withstood more hits than a Panther in 1945 in all likelihood, so taken a sample from 1944 does not reflect the Panther as a whole. For the Sherman, on the other hand, this works quite well because the guns common in 1945 were the same guns that were common when the majority of Shermans operated. So the British survey likely is a very good approximation of reality for most Shermans due to a big sample size and also reflecting common parameters. The biggest change might be the increasing amount of HC weapons.

This goes only to show how even if you got a proper sample you might get different results depending on the parameters, ignoring that the British Normandy sample was not a proper sample due to bias limitations. I hope this clears things up for you.

So, no Kenny you have no basis to claim 75% of hits on a Panther penetrated, you have no such evidence and in all likelihood, the claim is also false. I, on the other hand, have sufficient proof to make the claim ~+10k Shermans were "destroyed" in WW2.

If you get 2 blackjacks in a row at home please don't go the casino betting your life savings.

[Michael Kenny]

The Germans never conducted such a good sample so we will likely never know how Panzer IVs et cetera fared in such situations.

Let me help you with a rough sample of casualty-per-destroyed-tank numbers


5th RTR Cromwells

June 20 KIA 25 WIA 4 MIA 13 Tanks

July 11 KIA 54 WIA 2 MIA 8 Tanks

Aug 10 KIA 29 WIA 8 MIA 8 Tanks


To Aug 31: 41 KIA 108 WIA 14 MIA 29 Tanks



12thSS, SS Pz Reg 12 Pz IV's

June 6-10 31 KIA 36 WIA 8 MIA 18 Tanks



June 17 2 KIA 13 WIA 5 MIA 2 Tanks


June 26-27th: 15 KIA, 30 WIA, 3MIA 11 Pz IV

June 48 KIA 79 WIA 16 MIA 31 Tanks

[Michael Kenny]

It isn't tho.

They are not my numbers or my conclusion. The survey clearly shows that 75% of all the hits on the Panthers penetrated.