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

[Christianmunich]

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

This is not a rough sample of casualties it is amateur level research. You have taken a specific time frame that suits your case aka the "cherry" and think it reflects reality. This is not how it works.

this doesn't even include the fact that Allied forces had a higher shell consumption and were outnumbering German forces on average which would result in higher out of tank casualties.

I am sorry this unscientific. If you want to get casualties per ko'ed tank in an attempt to calculate "survivability" you have to control for outside effects. And most importantly you have to properly sample, which you did not.

I already without checking the data know it is wrong because I read Hubert Meyers book, this sample for example includes many German tankers dieing outside there tanks, the accounts are clearly there of tankers taking cover from machine gun fire et cetera. And my reply here is like 5 minutes after you comment, so I didn't look this up I just remember it vaguely. This reflects perfectly what I claimed in other threads, the casualties per ko are strongly depended on conditions outside the tank, is the area under fire? Is enemy infantry in the area? Are the opposing tanks outnumbered and ignore tank less crews?

Scientific methods or you don't get scientific results.

[Michael Kenny]

This is not a rough sample of casualties it is amateur level research. You have taken a specific time frame that suits your case aka the "cherry" and think it reflects reality. This is not how it works.

The dates chose themselves. The are the dates used by the Units and to keep the numbers in context I have to stick with them. None of your fancy chopping/changing/altering & spinning for me.
It gives a good idea of the losses-per-tank ratio.

I am surprised you did not introduce the long laundry-list of excuses used by the faithful when the Uber-panzer myth is challenged...oh wait, here it comes:

this doesn't even include the fact that..... higher shell consumption........ outnumbering.......... higher out of tank casualties.............
includes many German tankers dieing outside there tanks...........depended on conditions outside the tank......... is the area under fire.......Is enemy infantry in the area.........outnumbered.........

I wonder why you have not queried 5 RTR losses. Is there some reason why the excuses you so desperately want used for 12th SS do not apply to them also?

I believe the survey done on the Pz IV found a 100% penetration rate. Compared to that the 75% penetration rate for the Panther looks really good!

[Christianmunich]

This is not a rough sample of casualties it is amateur level research. You have taken a specific time frame that suits your case aka the "cherry" and think it reflects reality. This is not how it works.

The dates chose themselves. The are the dates used by the Units and to keep the numbers in context I have to stick with them. None of your fancy chopping/changing/altering & spinning for me.
It gives a good idea of the losses-per-tank ratio.

I am surprised you did not introduce the long laundry-list of excuses used by the faithful when the Uber-panzer myth is challenged...oh wait, here it comes:

this doesn't even include the fact that..... higher shell consumption........ outnumbering.......... higher out of tank casualties.............
includes many German tankers dieing outside there tanks...........depended on conditions outside the tank......... is the area under fire.......Is enemy infantry in the area.........outnumbered.........

I wonder why you have not queried 5 RTR losses. Is there some reason why the excuses you so desperately want used for 12th SS do not apply to them also?

I believe the survey done on the Pz IV found a 100% penetration rate. Compared to that the 75% penetration rate for the Panther looks really good!

The date didn't choose itself, you have chosen both units, the German unit and the British unit and you have chosen the date. You have also not differentiated the casualties by type. Did the soldiers even serve in a tank the day they became a casualty or did they sleep in a tent and got hit by an artillery shell.

The data sadly has no value at all. The reason why I didn't "query" the 5th RTR losses is that I knew your data is incorrect from the top of my head because I read Hubert Meyers book. The casualties you mentioned include out of tank casualties, to which degree this ratio changed depending on artillery consumption et cetera is unknown. There is nothing to learn from the numbers you presented.

To be more specific and to apply my expertise, the circumstances for 12th SS losses did likely not affect the 5th RTR to the same degree simply because the shell consumption was far lower on German side and the British had more vehicles on average in combat, a baled Allied crew had a higher chance to survive the combat area. The same likely goes for small arms, German forces were drastically outnumbered in most of the fights so more, bullets more shells flying through German ranks with also less targets to hit. That is why the 23rd Hussars had little casualties on the 2nd, they could bale the tank and not get hit by shrapnel or stray bullets because little German forces were in the area.

The British survey obviously differentiated between hits inside and outside the tank so their data allows more conclusions.

[Michael Kenny]

The date didn't choose itself, you have chosen both units, the German unit and the British unit and you have chosen the date.

I used them because both Units have fairly complete loss figures. You would have chopped and manipulated then in order to make the 12th SS 'look better'.
Which do you hate more? The fact 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated or the fact the Uber-Panzer crewman did not have a much different survival rate to the puny Allied tanks?

I knew your data is incorrect from the top of my head because I read Hubert Meyers book

Then post the 'correct' data and expose me.
I am at a loss to how using the numbers from the original record of II/SS Pz Rgt 12 is incorrect.

Isn't it time for another long laundry-list of excuses why the German casualties are to be treated differently from other nations casualties?


Oh here it is:

.........include out of tank casualties......... artillery consumption......... 12th SS losses did likely not .............. shell consumption.......... British had more vehicles .......... drastically outnumbered..........more, bullets more shells flying through German ranks........ inside and outside the tank [/quote[]

[Christianmunich]

The date didn't choose itself, you have chosen both units, the German unit and the British unit and you have chosen the date.

Because both Units have fairly complete loss figures. I used them . You would have manipulated then in order to make the 12th SS 'look better'.
Which do you hate more? The fact 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated or the fact the Uber-Panzer crewman did not have a much different survival rate to the puny Allied tanks?

You have chosen the units and time frame, if you have done this objectively is in doubt. Furthermore, you have not provided any break down to how the casualties happened and if they are even related to their tanks. There is nothing to gain from this data. Sorry.

I am also sorry to see you still don't understand the British Normandy sample in regards to enemy tanks surveyed.

Also to make sure readers don't misunderstand your claims. There is no data to suggest German and Allied tanks had different/same survival, no such data exists you merely claim it. The only thing provided was your data that doesn't even differentiate between casualties related to tank combat for which you have freely chosen a sample that suits your case without telling anybody how you collected the sample. Please don't make such claims without actual evidence. Some readers might take you at your word because they don't know that your claims are not based on evidence but merely your opinion.

[Michael Kenny]

You have chosen the units and time frame, if you have done this objectively is in doubt. Furthermore, you have not provided any break down to how the casualties happened and if they are even related to their tanks. There is nothing to gain from this data. Sorry.

Translation:
I have checked, The numbers are correct. I can not discredit them so I will simply refuse to believe them.

Some readers might take you at your word because they don't know that your claims are not based on evidence but merely your opinion.

They can check and see if the numbers I gave are wrong. Then they can post the 'correct' numbers here'. You said you had the correct numbers but strangely now have dropped that claim. The info can not be hard to find as you said it was 'on the top of your head' Have a quick look in the mirror to see it is still there or has fallen off.

[Christianmunich]

What do you mean by the numbers are correct? The point is they are meaningless because they are not compiled by what caused them. It is irrelevant if the numbers are accurate, they mean nothing because you simply added casualties and tank losses without differentiated between losses related to tank casualties and those which were unrelated. The data you presented does not support what you claimed even if it is correct. Your methods are incorrect, there is no need to check your numbers.

And yes I know your data to be incorrect because I know German casualties that happened outside the tank, no further evaluation of your data is necessary, it is compiled in a way that does not support the claims you made. You claimed German and Allied vehicles had comparable survivability, the methods and data you have shown does in no shape or form support such a claim.

[Michael Kenny]

What do you mean by the numbers are correct? The point is they are meaningless............

Much like the 'top-secret' database that you refuse to share with anyone.
Why are you hiding this?
Are you scared your distortions will be exposed?

[Michael Kenny]

Your methods are incorrect, there is no need to check your numbers.

. Now you run away from your earlier claims:

I already without checking the data know it is wrong because I read Hubert Meyers book.............

The data sadly has no value at all. The reason why I didn't "query" the 5th RTR losses is that I knew your data is incorrect from the top of my head because I read Hubert Meyers book..................

What happened to 'Hubert Meyers book' sitting on the top of your head?
Why do you not post the numbers from 'Hubert Meyer's book' and expose my 'fake' numbers?

[Tom from Cornwall]

Hi CM,

First of all, may I say thank you for posting the link to the fantastic work done by Diane on WW2Talk. What a fantastic resource she had provided.

I don't want to inspire another flame war on yet another thread but just wanted to offer a few words of caution on your interpretation of the data.

The survey wasn't a "British late war tank casualty survey" it was actually:

A survey of casualties amongst armoured Units in N.W. Europe
by Capt H.B. Wright RAMC and Capt R.D. Harkness RAMC
Date: 1946 Jan.

So it was conducted by medical personnel to identify casualties suffered by the crews of tanks due to enemy action.

In contrast you seem to be interpreting it to try and make an argument about the efficacy of the tank itself. These are clearly related, but the original research wasn't specifically conducted to support your analysis, hence many of the problems that we see.

Does that make sense?

Look at A72 for example, which you have included in your sample of "tanks abandoned by crew without being penetrated":

The survey reported that:

a) penetration through front glacis plate between Driver and Co-Driver, nearer the latter and just above the hull gun. Oval hole 200 x 75 mm.; b ) scoop on the top of the turret between the mantlet and the fan cowl; c) partial penetration of the right hand side of the top of the turret going into the Gunner's periscope; d) penetrate 75 mm. in diameter between the right hand side of the mantlet and the applique armour on the side of the turret; e) scoop right hand side of hull at the front of the rear applique armour.[/quote

And that:

a) crew got out after the first hit had damaged the top of the gear box, but does not appear to have gone back into the turret. No fire in the front compartment; b ) and c) flaking of the armour on the inside of the turret; d) hit the elevating gear and then the floor under the gun which was dented; e) no internal damage. Fire, which was not severe and did not involve all the ammunition, was confined to the turret. The order in which the shots hit is Not Known in detail, except that the first shot did not penetrate.

This appears to have been a tank penetrated frontally by a first hit by a 75 mm AP shot at point blank range but recorded by the Medical Survey as "not penetrated" as the shell did not enter the crew compartment. So the medical team were interested in the casualties as they were not, possibly, caused by the incoming first shell.

Your argument on the efficacy of the tanks armour, however, should be based on the fact that the first AP shell actually did penetrate the armour of the tank, caused damage to the gearbox etc and therefore, in this case the armour of the Sherman was overmatched by the 75 mm AP shot.

Of course, the fact that the strike was made at "point blank range" makes the fact that the 75 mm penetrated unsurprising.

It would be great if you shared your spreadsheet though, as I am sure we would help you with any "bug-fixing" you wanted to conduct before launching a draft version on the unsuspecting world.

Regards

Tom

[Christianmunich]

In contrast you seem to be interpreting it to try and make an argument about the efficacy of the tank itself. These are clearly related, but the original research wasn't specifically conducted to support your analysis, hence many of the problems that we see.

It certainly wasn't created to show the Sherman was bad but it provided us the data to make conclusions. The data is excellent for that.

I am not sure what your point is in regards to A.72

The first hit did not penetrate into the crew compartment and forces the bale out of the crew. In my spreadsheet, you see the tank marked as ko'ed without pen. Where is the problem?

Btw I will later, when I find some time, show how the sample provided by user kenny conflicts with other samples. This should be highly relevant to the topic of casualty surveys and how they were properly conducted. Stay tuned. This might conflict with BVB vs Tottenham but Dortmund likely is out rather early so I will find the time to show some more interesting data.

First of all, may I say thank you for posting the link to the fantastic work done by Diane on WW2Talk. What a fantastic resource she had provided.

Agreed, nice to see when people share their research. Compiling this stuff takes time and results in little reward so we should be glad when people do share it.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Hi CM,

I am not sure what your point is in regards to A.72

The first hit did not penetrate into the crew compartment and forces the bale out of the crew. In my spreadsheet, you see the tank marked as ko'ed without pen. Where is the problem?I am not sure what your point is in regards to A.72

My problem is that what your classification is wrong. The Medical Survey team weren't interested in hits that didn't "penetrate into the crew compartment" but to understand the efficacy of the tank itself, we must be interested in them. The tank wasn't "ko'ed without pen", the tank was "ko'ed with pen".

Agreed, nice to see when people share their research. Compiling this stuff takes time and results in little reward so we should be glad when people do share it.

And also good to see researchers who can take onboard constructive criticism of their work without losing all sense of proportion.

Regards

Tom

[Christianmunich]

My problem is that what your classification is wrong. The Medical Survey team weren't interested in hits that didn't "penetrate into the crew compartment" but to understand the efficacy of the tank itself, we must be interested in them. The tank wasn't "ko'ed without pen", the tank was "ko'ed with pen".

This is exactly what their data says tho. The tank was hit, not penned and abandoned. So the tank was ko'ed without pen. The data certainly has a definition of "non-pen" that I disagree with but my classification is 100% correct. Hit-->"no pen"-->Crew baled = Ko'ed tank without pen.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Hi,

This is exactly what their data says tho. The tank was hit, not penned and abandoned. So the tank was ko'ed without pen. The data certainly has a definition of "non-pen" that I disagree with but my classification is 100% correct. Hit-->"no pen"-->Crew baled = Ko'ed tank without pen.

No, I am afraid you are mistaken or are misconstruing what you are reading.

(a) crew got out after the first hit had damaged the top of the gear box, but does not appear to have gone back into the turret. No fire in the front compartment;

This is clearly a penetration, they are saying that it didn't "penetrate the crew compartment".

And even clearer example is A27 which states that:

Position of Hit: a) through front of gearbox. b ) 82 x 91 mm. diameter penetration through right side of 75 mm. mantlet. c) hit on 0.5” Browning mounting on roof of turret.

Course & Effect of Projectiles: Shot a) went first through a bogie which was being carried on the front of the hull, and then into the
gearbox. It did not harm the crew who started to bale out; b ) hit the tank after the Commander had got out, while the Gunner and Operator were still in the turret, the latter under the 75 mm. gun climbing across to the Commander’s hatch. It hurt no one and appeared to have done minor internal damage. Its course could not be traced; c) hit the Gunner in the head, killing him as he was getting out. It also threw off fragments which wounded the Commander who was standing beside the tank.

So clearly, hit (a) penetrated the gearbox but didn't enter the crew compartment. Hence they classed this as "didn't penetrate the crew compartment", you fail to make that distinction.

This is another clear example in which your interpretation would be fine if you added "crew compartment" to your definition of "did not pen".

And again A32 is another good example of where you are mistaken:

The survey states that:

Position of Hit: a) penetration into left final drive; b ) penetration through lower edge of extra armour welded in front of Driver; c) penetration through centre of front of hull just above gear box; d) penetration through lower edge of 75 mm. gun mantlet to left of gun;

e), f) and g) penetrations into left final drive

; h) hit on front of left sprocket.

Course & Effect of Projectiles:

Remarks:
Shot a) went into left final drive. This shot and/or e) knocked loose the plate separating the final drive and Driver’s compartment; b ) damaged exterior of forward left sponson ammunition bin, but did not explode any of the contained ammunition. Paths of individual shots were not traced, but an unexploded Kw. K. 40 APCBC. round was found on the floor of the turret. The engine of this tank was not burnt. Some 75 mm. rounds on the floor of the turret had burnt; but rounds in all three sponson ammunition bins had not burnt. Tank burned quietly for half an hour and then went out. Shot a) or e) was the first to hit, and injured the Driver and caused the crew to bale out. This shot did not penetrate into crew compartment, and the Driver must have been injured by secondary fragments.

Note multiple use of the word "penetration" and that, in this case, the first hits injured the driver albeit by "secondary fragments".

You might want to have another look at all these:

A27, A32, A35, A42, A72, A65, A79 and B73 - all of which I would suggest you might want to reclassify.

I hope that helps.

Edited to add: that's all from me tonight, I'm not disappearing though, just got more important things to do.

Regards

Tom

[Michael Kenny]

Hi CM,

First of all, may I say thank you for posting the link to the fantastic work done by Diane on WW2Talk. What a fantastic resource she had provided.

It was also posted by Sam Wren on Missing Lynx but that link is no longer live.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... 5#p1512763


Claims by Johny-come-lately that 'He' discovered it are laughable.
Perhaps I should warn him that a page is missing from the original................