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.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑05 Mar 2019 17:10Let 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 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.