Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[m kenny]

It is claimed that 10+ hits were routinely shrugged off by Tiger tanks.
I did some digging and it is hard to find a Tiger from Normandy with any hits on the front

This is a sequence showing 3 Tigers of sPzAbt 503 waiting to cross the Seine in August. These Tigers had seen lots of action and thus 'should' be pock-marked with the claimed hits. However only the rear Tiger has a hit on it's front. One hit for 3 veteran tanks!

 

[m kenny]

7 Normandy Tigers. Curiously they do not seem to have any frontal hits

 

[m kenny]

There are a few photos showing frontal hits. The first is from SS 101 and has 5 hits-not far from the norm for a Tiger in Normandy.
The bottom 2 pics are again from SS 101 and the Tiger shows 3 hits.
I have yet to find anyTiger from Normandy with 10 hits on the front.

 

[vikingBerserker]

That should show you, or more realistically show the unbiased reader, that:

1.) Range
2.) Angle location of impact
3.) Weapon used
4.) Time of impact

have absolutely no bearing on a survey aimed solely at finding THE AVERAGE number of hits needed to knock out a tank/make it burn.

I have to disagree with a few of these.

3) Weapon Used
Just because a weapon hits a tank does not mean that weapon is capable of destroying it. By your method, if a Tiger was hit 9 times by a 20mm, and once by a 150mm, then it took an average of 10 hits to destroy it - which abviously is not the case.

4) Time of Impact
Counting the number of hits also assumes that the tank was not destroyed until the final shot when it actually could have been the very first shot.

 

[m kenny]

I have to disagree with a few of these.

3) Weapon Used
Just because a weapon hits a tank does not mean that weapon is capable of destroying it. By your method, if a Tiger was hit 9 times by a 20mm, and once by a 150mm, then it took an average of 10 hits to destroy it - which abviously is not the case.

Why stop at 20mm? Why not count .303 strikes as well?
The smallest A/T gun was a 6pdr And the shot count only counted 6pdr, 75mm, 3 inch and 17pdr. 20mm or 150mm (which would be H.E ) were not tabulatedand and thus do not skew the figures in any way.
I know of no tank destroyed by 150mm anyway but if you have information on such a hit (or how frequently such a strike occurred) please share it with us.

4) Time of Impact
Counting the number of hits also assumes that the tank was not destroyed until the final shot when it actually could have been the very first shot.

That line or reasoning would REDUCE the number of hits and make the German tanks MORE VULNERABLE. The method used by the OR people thus is the WORST POSSIBLE CASE SCENARIO for German tank vulnerability.
Did you really mean to say that a Tiger did not need 4+ hits to be knocked out??

 

[m kenny]

I looked at the destroyed/captured Tiger II's in the West to find evidence of the 10+ deflected Allied tank gun hits that were said to be 'normal'.
However these strikes are just as elusive as they appear to be on Tiger I's.
Anyone have pics of TII's in The West with multiple deflections they can share?

 

[m kenny]

Here are 2 pics that show deflections. The first appears to have two shallow groves on the glacis.
The second has 4 strikes on the glacis and what appears to be a penetration in the turret face plate.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Why stop at 20mm? Why not count .303 strikes as well?
The smallest A/T gun was a 6pdr And the shot count only counted 6pdr, 75mm, 3 inch and 17pdr. 20mm or 150mm (which would be H.E ) were not tabulatedand and thus do not skew the figures in any way.
I know of no tank destroyed by 150mm anyway but if you have information on such a hit (or how frequently such a strike occurred) please share it with us.

I was mearly throwing out 2 extreme calibres to illustrate my point (150mm were not only HE). I am curious however exactly how could they tell which calibre left marks/holes? A 37mm fired at point blank range (which was not included in the study) could potentially leave a mark simiular to a 75mm fired at 1,830m (which would have been included).

That line or reasoning would REDUCE the number of hits and make the German tanks MORE VULNERABLE. The method used by the OR people thus is the WORST POSSIBLE CASE SCENARIO for German tank vulnerability.
Did you really mean to say that a Tiger did not need 4+ hits to be knocked out??

It would not make the tank(s) any more or less vulnerable as reality is reality, however it could change the interpretation of the data which is exactly what you want. As a person who uses statistics on a daily basis for work, I can tell you it could scew the results whic is exactly what you don't want. I can also tell you studies made in an uncotrolled environment can lead to bad data. But you have my curiosity up, ss there a link to this study?

 

[m kenny]

I was mearly throwing out 2 extreme calibres to illustrate my point (150mm were not only HE). I am curious however exactly how could they tell which calibre left marks/holes? A 37mm fired at point blank range (which was not included in the study) could potentially leave a mark simiular to a 75mm fired at 1,830m (which would have been included).

Fist one would have to establish how common a 37mm/150mm A/T gun was in the Allied Arsenal. But you may be right and all the Tigers and Panthers were destroyed at point-blank range by M5/Stuart light tanks.
Note that I did not include the part that broke the hits down by type. I know this is an area where error can occurr (as did the compilers who noted just such a caution) so I simply used the hole-count .
Thus all the doubts about that subject have no standing because I did not say that 37mm/57mm/75mm/77mm or 150mm made specific holes.

It would not make the tank(s) any more or less vulnerable as reality is reality, however it could change the interpretation of the data which is exactly what you want.

Which is what I said. I merely pointed out that any error in this area makes it possible that each German tank was knocked out by fewer hits -or even one hit. Thus the actual survey that found 4+ hits were needed per Tiger is the maximum possible result. Although it could not be more than 4 hits it could be a little as one hit. It eastablishes a ceiling but not a floor.
.

As a person who uses statistics on a daily basis for work, I can tell you it could scew the results whic is exactly what you don't want. I can also tell you studies made in an uncotrolled environment can lead to bad data. But you have my curiosity up, ss there a link to this study?

The oft quoted 'fact' that a Sherman caught fire easily is the product of one of these surveys
RGd 24 Report No.12. Canadian 2nd Army. Anaylsis Of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties 6th June-10th July 1944 found that 82% (i.e. 37 of 45) Shermans caught fire after penetration.

This investigation found 45 destroyed Shermans from 6th June to 10th July 1944.

40 were AP penetrated.
25 were hit once.
11 were hit twice.
2 were hit 3 times.
1 was hit 4 times
1 one hit 8 times.

37 caught fire after loss.

I have posted the contents of this report may times on a number of Forums and it generates little heat.
Not one person has made a claim it used faulty methodology
However whenever I post the same type of report that has data as to the flammability or mortality rate for German tanks I always get at least one reply that casts doubts as to the authority, methodology or conclusion. I wonder why?

 

[Soren]

Viking,

M_kenny doesn't seem to understand that a statistic which doesn't take into account the range of the engagement, angle of impact, location of impact and type of attacking weapon is completely useless. He also seems unable to understand that accurately establishing these factors is only possible in a simple firing range test where all the parameters are known, which completely unlike his statistic is actually useful for the fighting men as all they wanna know is what to aim for.

The ONLY thing a survey of hits penetrations on enemy friendly material can be used for is to assess in how many of the incidents the attacks were from the front, sides or rear. And unless there's just one penetration then there's most often no way of fidning out which "hit" knocked out or lit up the tank.

So all in all the statistic is useless, and so for very obvious reasons.

 

[parsifal]

I dont see such a survey as being useless....the engagement ranges (and all the other factors you mention) are a variable that contributes to the outcomes, and hence the average number of hits needed to knock out the tank. Thats what OR does, it is a "results driven" statistical analysis.

If indeed, the average number of hits needed to knock out a German tank was about ten, as you say, then one would expect to see a lot of German wrecked tanks with "about ten hits" on them. If we cant find that, then the original paramnreter has to be interrogated. If it was "about ten" needed to knock out a Tiger, why cant we find the evidence of that????

One explanation that might partially answer the issue is that many German tanks were not casualties from anti-tank fire.....perhaps they were knocked out because they ran out of fuel, perhaps some simply broke down, and there was not time to fix them....perhaps the tank was cornered and ran out of ammunition.....there are other variables at play that might skew the dataset....however, to try and say that the variable within the actual combat loss dataset is to fail to understand how OR works.

As an example (hypothetical....I am just trying to explain how the OR results might work)....say there are two units in the field that are exactly identical, except that one tends to engage Tigers at 1000 metres, and the the other at 200. The first takes, on average 10 hits to kill the Tiger, but loses 5 tanks in doing this, and for every enemy tank engaged, 5 escape ....The second unit only takes 2 hits to kill the Tigers, on average, but its loss rate is say 7 tanks to kill the tiger, however in this case for every 5 tanks engaged, 2 are destroyed.

Breaking this down it should be clear that engaging at 200m is better than engaging at 1000 even though the shorter range incurs a higher casualty rate for the friendly units. For a 40% increase in ones own casualties, one achieves a 100% increase in lethality of your attacks. For the allies, if these hypothetical figures were correct, the engagement advisory to be sent out to the field formations should be to close to 200 metres to engage the tigers.

So while the material presented by MK does tend to corroborate that the numbers of hits needed to knock out a Tiger was not ten (and this already and automatically takes into account the variable of range etc) I dont see how it can be of benefit to the frontline forces unless the circumstances of each engagement are known.

 

[m kenny]

Viking,
So all in all the statistic is useless, and so for very obvious reasons.

...........that they prove the Tiger and Panther took less hits than most would have us believe?

. There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting!

The devil is in the detail.

Page 34/35, Panzer Truppen 2 by T Jentz.

227 hits from A/T RIFLE
14 x 5.7cm/4.5cm hits
11 x 7.62 hits

total 252

Coupla hit and vision blocks lost. Turret hatch jammed shut. Smoke dischargers wrecked and smoke entered the Tiger and for a short time the crew 'couldn't function'. Mantlet hit and gun brackets snapped. Gun stuck at full recoil. Radio wrecked. Engine caught fire. Several wheels and suspension arms wrecked. Idler worked lose from its mounting bracket. Several weld joints failed. Right track and suspension heavily damaged. Fuel tanks ruptured and leaking.

It could not keep fighting because it lacked a main gun.
In effect it was knocked out. The wheels kept turning and thats about it!

Can you find me a pic of a Tiger or Panther (caution: do not post a photo of a Panther being used in a shot trial) that has evidence of '10 hits' on its front?
Surely if this was 'common' it would be easily seen in period photos?

 

[m kenny]

M_kenny doesn't seem to understand that a statistic which doesn't take into account the range of the engagement, angle of impact, location of impact and type of attacking weapon is completely useless.

If there is any confusion it is deliberate and done to cover up the fact that these tanks did not routinely shrug of 10+ frontal strikes as claimed (I use frontal hits because by and large side strikes penetrated)

What is being measured is THE NUMBER OF TIMES A KNOCKED OUT TANK WAS HIT
It does not matter about range or angle of impact.
It was not done to work out the lethality of any gun
It was not done to find the best range at which to engage the enemy
It is a simple count of wrecks and any holes/gouges in them
They counted the holes. They counted the gouges and the counted the dents.

I am not a great fan of the interminable 'ballistic properties threads'. I leave the endless arguments about the theoretical pentration ability/angle from vertical or horizontal/face hardened /shatter gap properties ect. of super-duper ammo X from wonder-gun Y to others.

The ONLY thing a survey of hits penetrations on enemy friendly material can be used for is to assess in how many of the incidents the attacks were from the front, sides or rear.

It is also a killer if you believe a Panther or Tiger tank routinely shrugged off 10 Allied A/T l hits and the wrecks only have evidence of 5 hits per tank.

And unless there's just one penetration then there's most often no way of fidning out which "hit" knocked out or lit up the tank.

True but do you realise this is admitting each Tiger could have been knocked out by ONE hit?
Let me re-word it and tell me if you think this is more accurate?

The average number of hits per Tiger was 5. Thus though we can say that 5 was the Average number of hits it is possible that most of the hits could be post-mortem and that:

the actual number needed to knock out a Tiger is in the range 1-5 hits.

Any problems with that?

So while the material presented by MK does tend to corroborate that the numbers of hits needed to knock out a Tiger was not ten (and this already and automatically takes into account the variable of range etc) I dont see how it can be of benefit to the frontline forces unless the circumstances of each engagement are known.

It is not being claimed it was of use for any tactical purpose. A large amount of data was collected in 1944/45. It took months to tabulate and study. Any benefits were a long time in the future.
Too much is being read into the info so why not take it as it is, a simple list of the number of holes/gouges/strikes on X number of knocked out tanks.
The one thing that cannot be disputed is that the everage number of hits per destroyed Panther/Tiger tank was less than 5.

 

[m kenny]

The Sherman Study is available here:

http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back i...lties Between 6th June and 10th July 1944.pdf

You can see that there are several sections and the 'hits per knocked out tank' is but one part of a larger study.

Though I mentioned this report earlier I again notice not one person has bothered to comment on it or rubbish it. The Report on German losses however is STILL being slated after 50 posts!

 

[Juha]

m kenny
Thanks a lot for the link!

Nice to notice that Canadians drew the same conclusion than I from the results, ie uparmouring wasn't a viable option so upgunning was the answer.

Juha

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Here is just my question to all parties.

Is it or is it not true, that overall Panthers and Tigers were better designed than the average allied tank? Did they or did they not for the most part have better armor and better armament? Just a question...

 

[Soren]

I dont see such a survey as being useless....the engagement ranges (and all the other factors you mention) are a variable that contributes to the outcomes, and hence the average number of hits needed to knock out the tank. Thats what OR does, it is a "results driven" statistical analysis.

If indeed, the average number of hits needed to knock out a German tank was about ten, as you say, then one would expect to see a lot of German wrecked tanks with "about ten hits" on them. If we cant find that, then the original paramnreter has to be interrogated. If it was "about ten" needed to knock out a Tiger, why cant we find the evidence of that????

One explanation that might partially answer the issue is that many German tanks were not casualties from anti-tank fire.....perhaps they were knocked out because they ran out of fuel, perhaps some simply broke down, and there was not time to fix them....perhaps the tank was cornered and ran out of ammunition.....there are other variables at play that might skew the dataset....however, to try and say that the variable within the actual combat loss dataset is to fail to understand how OR works.

As an example (hypothetical....I am just trying to explain how the OR results might work)....say there are two units in the field that are exactly identical, except that one tends to engage Tigers at 1000 metres, and the the other at 200. The first takes, on average 10 hits to kill the Tiger, but loses 5 tanks in doing this, and for every enemy tank engaged, 5 escape ....The second unit only takes 2 hits to kill the Tigers, on average, but its loss rate is say 7 tanks to kill the tiger, however in this case for every 5 tanks engaged, 2 are destroyed.

Breaking this down it should be clear that engaging at 200m is better than engaging at 1000 even though the shorter range incurs a higher casualty rate for the friendly units. For a 40% increase in ones own casualties, one achieves a 100% increase in lethality of your attacks. For the allies, if these hypothetical figures were correct, the engagement advisory to be sent out to the field formations should be to close to 200 metres to engage the tigers.

So while the material presented by MK does tend to corroborate that the numbers of hits needed to knock out a Tiger was not ten (and this already and automatically takes into account the variable of range etc) I dont see how it can be of benefit to the frontline forces unless the circumstances of each engagement are known.

Parsifal,

Lets just be clear that I never claimed that it on average took 10 hits to knock out any tank, that is just another one of m_kenny's fabrications.

 

[m kenny]

Lets just be clear that I never claimed that it on average took 10 hits to knock out any tank, that is just another one of m_kenny's fabrications.

What was said:

1)

Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired. Such instances could never be recorded in a statistic like that as there was no'one left to record it. Only the German could record that he'd used a single shot to knock out the Sherman, while the poor guys in the sherman were likely all dead and didn't live to tell how they expended maybe 10 shots or more in vain on the German tank.

2)

If you honestly believe that it one average took 4.2 hits to KO a Tiger then I say you lack even a basic sense of logic, esp. seeing that Tigers often were hit many times during battle to no effect. There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting!

Perhaps you could give a figure you believe to be more realistic?

Is it or is it not true, that overall Panthers and Tigers were better designed than the average allied tank? Did they or did they not for the most part have better armor and better armament? Just a question...

I never like to comment on this type of question. It is an opinion thing with too many variables to be able to reach a definitive conclusion. One mans opinion is worth no more than anyone elses.

 

[Soren]

Again you confuse hits with penetrations m_kenny.

Adler,

The Panther is considered the best tank developed during the war by many experts, and the Tiger Ausf.E was definitely ahead of its time when it first appeared and was first matched in 1944 by heavy Soviet designs, by which time the Germans had even better tanks in service. So to answer your question yes the Germans were definitely leading in tank design technology, and the Panther Tiger E were usually a lot better armed armored than Allied tanks. Now people can go ahead and call me biased for saying this but it is actually the general consensus between experts.

With that having been said the Germans used a lot more money on their tanks as they were a lot more advanced than anyone elses, and the question is then was it worth it in the end ? Some people suggest that the Germans would've been better off building more PzIV's, but in reality the problem plaguing the Germans the most wasn't the lack of tanks, but more the lack of fuel and spare parts. The German industry simply wasn't big enough to provide both all the weapons needed and then the spare parts they'd be needing once things wore out.

Anyway I know that you already know all of this so I'm not gonna bore you with it anymore

 

[vikingBerserker]

I have posted the contents of this report may times on a number of Forums and it generates little heat.
Not one person has made a claim it used faulty methodology
However whenever I post the same type of report that has data as to the flammability or mortality rate for German tanks I always get at least one reply that casts doubts as to the authority, methodology or conclusion. I wonder why?

I would make any claim until I ahd all the facts. I can only state that of a few items I know, something do not make sense to me. Is there a website that has all of the dat and studies or is this something I can get fro, you?