Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

[Michael Kenny]

Some figures for sPz Abt 502 for June-July 1944 giving detailed lists of kill claims and ammo expenditure.
Taken from Otto Carius, 'Tiger In The Mud'.


June 24-30

The above is an extremely high number of rounds fired v kill claims.
.
.


. . .
July 4-27

[Yoozername]

The above is an extremely high number of rounds fired v kill claims.

To be correct, it says 'Material losses'. Unless you have some other data that says otherwise, this can easily be taken as the lost ammunition in the total write-offs, abandoned, or destroyed in trucks/dumps.

The other report uses the word 'Consumption'.

[Michael Kenny]

To be correct, it says 'Material losses'. Unless you have some other data that says otherwise, this can easily be taken as the lost ammunition in the total write-offs, abandoned, or destroyed in trucks/dumps.

No one would ever believe the Tiger expended 40 rounds per claimed kill-if we did not have the data that shows it did!

[Yoozername]

To be correct, it says 'Material losses'. Unless you have some other data that says otherwise, this can easily be taken as the lost ammunition in the total write-offs, abandoned, or destroyed in trucks/dumps.

No one would ever believe the Tiger expended 40 rounds per claimed kill-if we did not have the data that shows it did!

Glad you like your own specious logic. Reading is fundamental.

[peeved]

In addition to other causes of ammunition consumption besides rounds fired, according to "Der Munitionsverbrauch der deutschen Wehrmacht im Feldzug gegen Sowjetrußland 1941 bis 1945" by Major dG Gerhard Donat in "ASMZ : Sicherheit Schweiz : Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift, 2/1964, p.89" the troops were prone to cook the books in the hope of increasing their chances to get enough ammunition supply:
"Den Munitionsverbrauch bis auf den letzten Schuß festzustellen, ist bei der Größe der Kampfhandlungen im Osten 1941 bis 1945 nicht möglich. Die Truppe, die im harten Kampf mit dem Feind steht, hat nartürlich nicht die Möglichkeit, jeden einzelnen Schuß zu regis-trieren, der die Mündung verläßt. Auch Munitionsverluste werden unter "Verschuß" als Verbrauch gemeldet. Schließlich ist der begreifliche Drang der Truppe, immer über eine ausreichende Munitionsmenge zu verfügen, besonders bei sogenannter Mangelmunition, der Grund für manchmal etwa veränderte (frisierte) Munitionsverschußmeldungen gewesen. General Toppe, als wohl zuständigster Fachmann, bezeichnet die daraus sich eventuell ergebenden Fehlerquellen aus der Erfahrung mit "bis zu 10%". Die ordnungsgemäß gemeldeten Munitionsverluste, durch Kampfverlauf oder Feindeinwirkung hervorgerufen, sind dabei nicht inbegriffen."

Markus

[Michael Kenny]

So there could be a 10% error. OK make that 36 rounds (not 40) per claimed kill in the example from sPz Abt 502..

[Yoozername]

Another reality MK is not taking into consideration, firing at a target might just inconveniently have them move off before the registration of a hit even. Especially at long range. Likewise, not being toys or Tamiya models, a target getting hit might also decide to put it in reverse and jink about to frustrate a gunner.

AP was also fired at ATG and bunkers.

[critical mass]

So there could be a 10% error. OK make that 36 rounds (not 40) per claimed kill in the example from sPz Abt 502..

More. 10% refers only to reported vs actual consumption. However, the loss of ammunition due to abandoncy, enemy action or movement was explicitly not included in the 10% but was included in the reported ammunition consumption.

I suppose one could create a hypothesis test using officially reported consumption features between offensive (territory held) and defensive (territory given up). If that statement was true, there should be a correlation.

[Michael Kenny]

. However, the loss of ammunition due to abandoncy, enemy action or movement was explicitly not included in the 10% but was included in the reported ammunition consumption.

The 4-27th July report notes the loss of a motorcycle. If they are that detailed then I am sure the loss of an ammo truck would be mentioned.

[Yoozername]

So there could be a 10% error. OK make that 36 rounds (not 40) per claimed kill in the example from sPz Abt 502..

You, again, missed the point....

In addition to other causes of ammunition consumption besides rounds fired,

Your math is pants.

[Michael Kenny]

Your math is pants.

No.

Firing 1079 AP rounds and claiming 25 tanks (47 hits in total) is 'pants'.
1132 HE rounds were fired as well.

[Yoozername]

Actually, your argumentative logic is faulty.

You assume that those rounds were even fired. People point out that might not be the case. You ignore other plausible arguments. You have a very simplistic understanding of things.

IF all the AP rounds were fired, and you do the actual math of number of runners available per battle day, it works out to less than 10 AP rounds fired per Tiger per Battle Day!

Edit: I think it is worth actually reading the account in Tigers in the Mud that describes the battle. I don't think the OP has. The attack was to regain ground lost and that ground had bunkers/entrenchments and very little enemy armor. The Tigers were basically being used as armored support for infantry attacks.

[Michael Kenny]

IF all the AP rounds were fired, and you do the actual math of number of runners available per battle day, it works out to less than 10 AP rounds fired per Tiger per Battle Day!

Yes that sounds an awfully low number doesn't it. Perhaps you should check the average 75mm/17 pdr rounds expended per day per tank for 21st AG in Normandy and then compare it to your Tiger number.

[Aida1]

To be correct, it says 'Material losses'. Unless you have some other data that says otherwise, this can easily be taken as the lost ammunition in the total write-offs, abandoned, or destroyed in trucks/dumps.

No one would ever believe the Tiger expended 40 rounds per claimed kill-if we did not have the data that shows it did!

Even YOU cannot honestly believe that a Tiger was so extremely inaccurate. You cannot know how much AP was actually fired at tanks so your calculation is wrong. Given your prejudices against Tiger probably an attempt at gving a wrong impression about the performance of Tiger tanks.

[Aida1]

Actually, your argumentative logic is faulty.

You assume that those rounds were even fired. People point out that might not be the case. You ignore other plausible arguments. You have a very simplistic understanding of things.

IF all the AP rounds were fired, and you do the actual math of number of runners available per battle day, it works out to less than 10 AP rounds fired per Tiger per Battle Day!

Edit: I think it is worth actually reading the account in Tigers in the Mud that describes the battle. I don't think the OP has. The attack was to regain ground lost and that ground had bunkers/entrenchments and very little enemy armor. The Tigers were basically being used as armored support for infantry attacks.

Very true. He does not know on what type of targets the rounds were fired. There was certainly no question of big tank battles in these actions.