Tiger tank Ammunition expenditure.

[Yoozername]

An interesting report on StuG battalions use of StuG ammunitions....From 12/1 to 5/31.... Late 43 to almost June 1944

Thanks for your help but I gave a link to all that information in an earlier post about this issue.

viewtopic.php?f=132&t=246504&p=2243786#p2243786

Screenshot_71.jpg

Screenshot_72.jpg

The Zimmermann book has the full citation as to source.

I believe you are saying the German source is unreliable and deliberately setting out to mislead?

The link is to some thread about Tiger tanks. Post a link that goes to a youtube video. You have jpg screenshots from it?

[Michael Kenny]

The link is to some thread about Tiger tanks. Post a link that goes to a youtube video. You have jpg screenshots from it?

As I said earlier The link is included.

[Yoozername]

You go back and check. The link is for Tigers...not StuGs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpe7qhW ... u.be&t=551

[Michael Kenny]

You go back and check. The link is for Tigers...not StuGs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpe7qhW ... u.be&t=551

Incorrect.Stug and Tiger is in that link. Please check the link.

[Yoozername]

Oh, he mixes it up huh? He is actually worse than you!

He is counting ALL ammunition and dividing it into "zhee killz"..... He even includes the 105mm? He doesn't break it out by type? .... Are you for real? So what other youtube channels you subscribe to? Crazy Russian Hacker? And you think Tamiya is the cause of Tiger Mania? Does anyone think that those StuH could fire 2710 HL rounds, in addition to whatever HE rounds they fired in that period?

He has the 16% data from the overall 'AP' ammunition, it would apply to this data set also. So that is 1247 'AP' use (actually a mix of Pzgr 39 plus HL and some HE). I will be fair and give the 105mm 10% HL. Or 271

Taking 1247+271/243= 6.25 rounds. I left out the immobilization even though the youtuber put it in.

So there, I fixed it for you and the tuber.

And since I do insist on some perspective....

kurskstug177.jpg (209.27 KiB) Viewed 724 times

[Michael Kenny]

Oh, he mixes it up huh?

At least we are getting somewhere. After claiming there was nothing about the Stug you now seem to have found it.

He is actually worse than you!

Make no difference because 'he'was only used to get the info from Zimmermann on-screen. Keep raging at your computer screen.

So there, I fixed it for you and the tuber.

retard.jpg

Is there any need for that?

[Yoozername]

LOL! Yep, troll away. You really are running out of anything meaningful.

I guess IF the 22 StuG DID fire 7792 AP rounds...THEN...we can divide by 0.16....and get 48,700 total rounds....all fired in 56 days? Hmmmm. Like 40 rounds a day, every day. But wait, I am sure they would have the typical fallouts and losses, so the actual runners would have to take up that slack, right?

Make no difference because 'he'was only used to get the info from Zimmermann on-screen. Keep raging at your computer screen.

Keep using youtubers as your primary sources! That's a scream!

[Michael Kenny]

Keep using youtubers as your primary sources!

Let us check that claim out.

An interesting report on StuG battalions use of StuG ammunitions....From 12/1 to 5/31.... Late 43 to almost June 1944

It covered 6 months and 315280 rounds. It is for 23 Brigades (Eastern Front). 51,595 (16.4%) were fired at 'Panzer' targets.........

Compare this to page 249 Zimmermann:

Targets attacked by the Assault Artillery
(23 Brigades in the Eastern Front between 1.12.1943 and 31.5.1944)
Tanks 6,574 = 11.9%
Other objectives
(infantry, grenade launcher, anti-tank guns, vehicles, etc.) 48,235 = 88.1%

Zimmermann says:

Hmmm..............the info is identical. I wonder why that could be? Lets check out the citations:

it is written by....

Generalstab des Heeres
Höh.Offz.f.Pz.Art.
H.Qu.OKH 01.08.1944.
Nr. 5998/44 geh.

And the info in Zimmermann is sourced as

Ah there we have it. We are both using the same source only mine is from a printed work and yours is from Google.
So why is it that my 'source' is inferior to 'your' source when it is the exact same source?

[Michael Kenny]

You really are running out of anything meaningful.

Says the poster who did this:

So there, I fixed it for you and the tuber.



retard.jpg

[Michael Kenny]

The data on the number of rounds expended per tank kill claim is further reinforced by information in the Jentz book of the Flak 88 in the AT role 'The Dreaded Threat' has very detailed numbers
Example 1:

[Michael Kenny]

More from The Dreaded Threat:

More

[Tom from Cornwall]

Michael,

Thanks for posting up the details from the combat report of 3/Flak Regt 33 for the Crusader period. As a correction to the unit's account, the battle on 25 November 1941 was not fought against "a British tank battalion" but against tanks of 1st Army Tank Brigade which were being repaired in the formation's workshops. This is the entry in 1 Army Tank Brigade Workshop's war diary (WO169/1267):

25 November 1941 Bir Ueshet Rafaa
Continued work on Tanks till 1400 hrs when Unit was attacked by enemy column. Own repaired Tanks gave battle. Evacuation of site ordered 14.50 hrs. All vehicles got away except Leyland Machinery Lorry (since recovered in working order) and O.C’s 15-cwt Morris. Unit split. Main body proceeded to 13th Corps Advance HQ at Bir Hariya [??] on Trigh Capuzzo. A.S.M. Pope stayed on site till 15.10 hrs picking up stragglers and finally made his way to 8th Army Battle H.Q. Remainder of Unit with elements from 1st A.T.B. O.F.P. and 32nd Army Tk Bde L.R.S. arrived at Bde Advanced HQ. During action until site was evacuated Sgt Magils [??] gave answering fire with Boyes Anti-Tank Rifle. It is known that our tanks destroyed two enemy Tanks and one troop carrying vehicle.

Regards

Tom

[Michael Kenny]

So 10 rounds per claimed kill and some of the 'kills' may have been immobile!

[peeved]

Six runners apparently: https://rommelsriposte.com/2011/09/19/t ... pair-shop/

Markus

[Tom from Cornwall]

Thanks,

I wonder how many of the British tanks were also claimed by the Panzer regiment involved. Double accounting again?

Regards

Tom