Russia marks anniversary of its best tank

[imalko]

Oh, common now. What kind of logic is that? They were manufactured and destroyed, but because they were not officially registered with the Werhmacht then they can't be counted as lost! By that line of thinking the AFW exists only from the moment is registered and not from the moment when manufactured!?

 

[Soren]

Oh, common now. What kind of logic is that? They were manufactured and destroyed, but because they were not officially registered with the Werhmacht then they can't be counted as lost! By that line of thinking the AFW exists only from the moment is registered and not from the moment when manufactured!?

You're misinterpreting what I wrote. Ofcourse they can be counted as lost, but not as lost in combat. Fact of the matter is that ALL German tanks vehicles made during WW2 were lost, but far from all of them were lost in combat or even destroyed in the first place.

46,936 tanks SP's were lost by the Germans, ~38,506 in combat.

That leaves ~8,430 tanks SP's which had one of the following fates:
1. Surrendered by the Germans at the end of the war
2. Found intact at factories but not yet registered with the Wehrmacht
3. Destroyed in or around the factories by Allied bombing
4. Exported to other countries
5. Found abandoned around Germany Austria for no apparent reason

And of the ~38,506 lost in combat many were captured, abandoned, blown up by their own crews, esp. in late 1944 to 1945.

Fact is that of all the tanks SP's registered with the Wehrmacht exactly 33,146 were lost from 1939 to Feburary 1st 1945. From Feb 1st to May 45 the loss figures are incomplete and it is therefore estimated that another ~5,500 German tanks SP's were lost in that period.

German tank factory lined with Panthers destroyed by Allied bombers:

 

[Soren]

Of the German tanks left by the end of the war many were to be found in the still Axis held areas (Marked in blue):

 

[Juha]

Hello Soren
in your first photo there is 5, five, PzKw IIIs, as I wrote according to you there should have been hundreds and hundreds. And in the last photo all Panthers are incomplete so they were not amongst those 1.000+ completed in 1945. And when factories were bombed there were numerous, mostly incomplete tanks, and those incomplete, if not completed later were not counted as completed tanks. You clearly take your bombed etc in 1945 number from a hat, believe what you want but if you want to convince others, please produce some sources to back up your claims. We know what Germans had 1 Feb 45, we have fair idea what was produced after that. One must only try to establish what was left in Germans hand when Germany surrendered, others were lost one way or another. Anyway we don't know how many Soviet tanks were abandoned in 1941, or taking note on you thinking, how many were bombed on first days of Barbarossa in tank parks, if you think that those bombed away from battlefields were not combat losses etc.

From your message #112, Germany's losses in Jan 45 were 1575 tanks, StuGs, JgPz and SP-guns and the last 2½ months of the war were the worst for Germans, so if one count 2x1575 + 2,25x2x1575, result is 10.238. And that if we think that the last 2½ months were only twice as bad as the Jan.

 

[m kenny]

Tanks destroyed or captured in/at factories never entered the accounting system and thus do not appear on any loss list.

 

[Soren]

Hello Soren
in your first photo there is 5, five, PzKw IIIs, as I wrote according to you there should have been hundreds and hundreds. And in the last photo all Panthers are incomplete so they were not amongst those 1.000+ completed in 1945. And when factories were bombed there were numerous, mostly incomplete tanks, and those incomplete, if not completed later were not counted as completed tanks. You clearly take your bombed etc in 1945 number from a hat, believe what you want but if you want to convince others, please produce some sources to back up your claims. We know what Germans had 1 Feb 45, we have fair idea what was produced after that. One must only try to establish what was left in Germans hand when Germany surrendered, others were lost one way or another. Anyway we don't know how many Soviet tanks were abandoned in 1941, or taking note on you thinking, how many were bombed on first days of Barbarossa in tank parks, if you think that those bombed away from battlefields were not combat losses etc.

From your message #112, Germany's losses in Jan 45 were 1575 tanks, StuGs, JgPz and SP-guns and the last 2½ months of the war were the worst for Germans, so if one count 2x1575 + 2,25x2x1575, result is 10.238. And that if we think that the last 2½ months were only twice as bad as the Jan.

Well you go believe the Germans lost 10,000+ vehicles in less than 3 months then, but if you ask me that's just plain ridiculous.

There's no reason to believe that the months Feburary, March April each produced greater losses than January. Thus the figure of 6,936 losses endured from January to March 45 seems a lot more sensible.

I note how the debate now turns on diminishing the German loss figures by finding reasons why certain losses were not 'combat losses' and thus we get the magic 'kill ratios'.

No'one is diminishing German losses, only explaining the true cause of their loss. Or are you about to claim that not many German tanks were simply abandoned in late 1944 45?

I note that when earlier the British loss totals were mentioned no one pointed out it included a great number of old Cruiser tanks scrapped because they were obsolete.

How many exactly and when?

 

[parsifal]

It seems at least logical to me that in 1945, German tank losses would be heavy, their standards of crew training were reaching the very bottom of the barrel. Fuel and ammunition was virtually non-existent, massive encircelements occuring almost daily.

However, the same can be said about Russian tanks lost in 1941. Many of the tanks lost in the initial onslaught in 1941 were not even manned, or operational.

All this discussion does for me is confirm that the objective analysis simply cannot include those periods where one side was in its death throes....the results get badly skewed and give a false result to the overall effectiveness.

I doubt for example that the claimed 13000 losses for Soviet forces in 1945 were very representative. They certainly dont accord to write offs figures contained in a book that I have "The claws of the bear". This book state that in 1945, were only 3400. I suspect the remainder that bring the total up to 13000 are breakdowns and tanks under repair. At that time the Soviets were pushing their forces to occupy as much German territory as possible. It was quite typical for the Russians to not worry about repairing non-starters until an offensive had run out of steam, and typically about 75% of tanks listed as losses were in fact only temporary losses.

If you look at German losses before Taifun for example, the Panzer units were typically down to about 40% strengths. However many of these so-called losses were in fact returned to service for the following Spring, having been returned to the workshops to undergo repair. Nearly 75% of these tanks were in fact repaired and returned to service. the russians were no different, so I am almost certain that the losses quoted for the Russians in 1945 are not taking this into account.

I am also stuck on many of the loss figures being quoted here. My reference material says that total Soviet losses were 83400, whilst the Germans lost about 46000 vehicles. Brit losses were about 15000, but many of these were retirements....a lot of British tank production ended up in failures unfortunately....their combat losses were about 10000 by my best estimate.

I suspect strongly that vehicles included in the loss sheets were not in fact lost permanently, or lost in the accepted sense of combat.

But to try to get the discussion back on topic, it seems pretty clear to me that the Soviets, or the Allies, for that matter were not losing 6 or 8 tanks for every german tank lost, once the the two sides got down to serious fighting. Perhaps two to one, at best, maybe a little more, but not much

 

[Juha]

Soren
Quote:" There's no reason to believe that the months Feburary, March April each produced greater losses than January."

First, look a map, 3rd Reich was shrinking fast feb-may 45. Secondly, In Feb 45 for ex happened the 11.SSPzA's attack near Stargard which ended to loss of whole Pommern. Secondly, in a month from 15 March to 16 Apr AG Süd/South alone lost well over 1000 tanks and StuGs. That was time for disaster after disaster for WM.

Its fun how you 3rd Reich fans acted, I have never had any problem with British on losses of BEF in 1940, they have had no problems of admit that BEF lost vast majority of its heavy equipment in France. No claiming, " no no, they were not lost, they were just abandoned". Still like to see photos on hundreds of complete tanks abandoned inside German factories, surely the Allied soldiers would have taken plenty of photos on those or on those hundreds, no thousands, of tanks bombed "around their factories".

Juha

 

[Tzaw1]

And the German tank SP losses were not higher than the figures I posted, they are exactly as stated by Hahn:

[...]
1945: ~2,700 + ~2,800

Where did exactly Hahn this stated?

BTW German's human losses in last months (Jan-May '45) were significantly higher, than average in preceding years (23% of the whole).
Why it would not have so to be for losses in the equipment?

 

[Kurfürst]

I note how the debate now turns on diminishing the German loss figures by finding reasons why certain losses were not 'combat losses' and thus we get the magic 'kill ratios'.

Huh...? Did you even read what you wrote?

It appears to me that Soren is making a perfectly reasonable thing by sticking to the losses reported by a reputable source, and not inventing them up as you do, based on your very own assumptions.

In any case, how exactly newly produced tanks abandoned and captured on the factory yard give an idea of the combat effectiveness of an armored fighting vehicle...? If one wants to get some idea how this or that armored vehicle's (+tactics, training, doctrine, strategical decisions) combat potential against a comparable vehicle, he has too look on the combat results.

Of course when one isn't happy with the numbers meticulously researched by someone like Hahn, and wants to fantasize nice bigger numbers that are more acceptable for him, the sources are getting thrown out of the window, and all sorts of odd arguments start to appear....

 

[Kurfürst]

As the Pak36 was phased out the APCR ammunition was handed over for the AA guns a/c armaments. Plus there was still being made APCR even in 1944, the last stocks of tungsten being prioritized for small caliber ammunition production.

I am afraid its impossible, the small PaK and the Flak guns fired different ammunition.

However, there was indeed a Hartkern APCR ammo developed for the 3.7cm Flak guns, fired at 1170 m/sec and penetrating massive amounts of armor under ideal condtions (up to 145 mm springs to my mind but I can't seem to find the penetration sheet) used by amongst other Rudel's Ju 87G tank-hunters (which mounted 3.7cm Flak guns for anti tank roles) with great success.

I am not sure if it was available for land based ordinary FlaK guns (what for?) though. Probably not. And then, probably not needed at all. Medium Flak could deal with the typical Soviet tanks or armored cars... they were not meant to deal with enemy armor on a regular basis.

 

[m kenny]

Huh...? Did you even read what you wrote?

All the time. Usualy it is the only sensible input!

 

[Soren]

I am afraid its impossible, the small PaK and the Flak guns fired different ammunition.

Oh I know, I meant the shots themselves. Tungsten was in such a limited supply that once the Pak36 was phased out the ammunition stores were used the production of new ammunition.

 

[Soren]

All the time. Usualy it is the only sensible input!

You're so full of yourself it hurts.

Btw, still waiting for the figures on how many British tanks were retired and how many made the loss list for that reason. Sounds very odd in my ears.

 

[Soren]

Parsifal,

Soviet losses are total losses, and they don't include vehicles which broke down. The Soviets were on the advance, and any vehicles that broke down (which cant have been too many seeing how reliable the T-34 was) were simply scooped up and repaired in no time. The Germans on the other hand usually lost the tanks which broke down on them, they simply didn't have time to repair them, and often they didn't even have the parts, so they simply abandoned the tanks and blew them up. Over 50% of all TigerII's lost were so in this fashion. And on top of this many were abandoned and blown up for the simple reason that they had run dry on fuel.

And yes, in 1941 many of the 20,500 tanks (17,500 of them light tanks) lost by the Soviets were simply abandoned, there's no getting around that and AFAIK no'one was ever trying to get around that. But from 1942 onwards it was quite simply a slaughter, the Soviets throwing tanks men at the Germans in enormous numbers. It continued like this until May 1945.

And then there's the western front, and again the Allies were on the advance and as such hardly ever had to abandon their tanks. Spare parts fuel never being an issue for them.

The Germans were the most hard pressed, it was a single country up against 3 superpowers and their allies, and Germany's own Allies didn't prove much help, the Italians being put to shame in Africa and the Germans having to come to the rescue. And on the eastern front the Soviets deliberately attacked the lines not held by the Germans knowing full well they'd meet less resistance from Germany's allies.

 

[parsifal]

Soviet losses are total losses, and they don't include vehicles which broke down. The Soviets were on the advance, and any vehicles that broke down (which cant have been too many seeing how reliable the T-34 was) were simply scooped up and repaired in no time.

Thats not how the Soviets undertook any of their previous offensives. They would always push their formations until the logistics systems broke down, which included running the tank park down to almost zero. Then they would stop, wait for the Infantry to relieve them, and repair the broken down vehicles that were strwewn behind their lines. typically the return rate for these broken down vehicles was about 75%, so for an attacker of the 100% loss rate sustained initially only 255 were permanently written off.

That means, that in order to lose the 13400 being quoted in your figures as total write offs, the Soviets would have needed to have suffered around 65000 temporary casualties in that offensive. That is just impossible. Its why I think your figures for 6000 losses to the germans might be plausible, but only if we ignore those that broke down and were captured and the like....it means I am almost certain that your figures are only listing the write offs in the wm, whilst inclding all losses temporary and permanent for the Russians. The russians simply did not have 65000 AFVs to break down in '45.

The Germans on the other hand usually lost the tanks which broke down on them, they simply didn't have time to repair them, and often they didn't even have the parts, so they simply abandoned the tanks and blew them up. Over 50% of all TigerII's lost were so in this fashion. And on top of this many were abandoned and blown up for the simple reason that they had run dry on fuel.

I agree that losing ground in a tank battle makes recovery of broken down vehicles more difficult, but not impossible. During Kursk, many of the vehicles broken down were recovered by the germans, which shows that whilst there was a viable defence, it was possible to recover broken down AFVs.

And yes, in 1941 many of the 20,500 tanks (17,500 of them light tanks) lost by the Soviets were simply abandoned, there's no getting around that and AFAIK no'one was ever trying to get around that. But from 1942 onwards it was quite simply a slaughter, the Soviets throwing tanks men at the Germans in enormous numbers. It continued like this until May 1945.

The numbers you are quoting are just the tanks on strength with the Red army. I dont know how many but there were many vehicles not accepted into the Red Army also captured and destroyed

And then there's the western front, and again the Allies were on the advance and as such hardly ever had to abandon their tanks. Spare parts fuel never being an issue for them.

The Germans were the most hard pressed, it was a single country up against 3 superpowers and their allies, and Germany's own Allies didn't prove much help, the Italians being put to shame in Africa and the Germans having to come to the rescue. And on the eastern front the Soviets deliberately attacked the lines not held by the Germans knowing full well they'd meet less resistance from Germany's allies.

I am certainly bot denigrating the German effort. They were the best army in the world, with qualitatively the best tanks in the world. No argument there. Whats at issue is the creative accounting that is going on here, by both sides of the argument....I doubt we will ever be able to achieve consensus on this issue....people will have to assess the statistics and make up their own minds on this topic.

A few small points about the remarks you make about germany's allies. In the case of the colapse of the Rumanians, it was actually the Germans interlaced into the defences that panicked and ran first. The Rumanians were promised effective 75mm AT guns, and a certain number of them. They received French 75s, and about half the number they had purchased. This sort of chicanery was the norm in Germany's dealings with her allies, She has only herself to blame for their lacklustre perfoirmance.

 

[alejandro_]

That leaves ~8,430 tanks SP's which had one of the following fates:

5. Found abandoned around Germany Austria for no apparent reason

To me, abandoned/left in factory does count as a loss. For all sides, especially if we are going to compare to Krivosheev, who even includes scrapped vehicles. German losses in January 1945:

Year 1945 - only January
Tanks: 707
StuG/Jagdpanzer: 727
Armoured cars: 41
SPW: 796
SP-guns: 141
BIV charge carriers: 6

Note that SPW vehicles do increase the total German losses by a lot.

There's no reason to believe that the months Feburary, March April each produced greater losses than January. Thus the figure of 6,936 losses endured from January to March 45 seems a lot more sensible.

Why not? after German offensive in Balaton area, the Soviets counted 968 tanks and SPG knocked out or abandoned. ~2,700 + ~2,800 for 1945 just seem too low. More offensives and big battles took place in Prussia, Poland and Central Germany.

Panzer units strength according to Jentz, the complete guide..., 1943-45, pag 247-248:

Strength of Panzer Units on the Eastern front on 15 March 1945:

StuG: 545
PzIVlg: 603
PzIV/70: 357
Flakpz: 97
PzV: 776
PzVI: 212
Total: 2590

Strength of Panzer Units on the Western front on 15 March 1945:

StuG: 126
PzIVlg: 59
PzIV/70: 77
Flakpz: 41
PzV: 152
PzVI: 28
Total: 483

Strength of Panzer Units in Italy on 15 March 1945:

StuG: 67
PzIVlg: 131
PzIV/70: 0
Flakpz: 21
PzV: 26
PzVI: 36
Total: 281

Total strength of Panzer units only: 3354.

And going back to topic, I don´t really understand all the criticism to T-34. By 1944 it was past its best but it was superior to German workhorse (Pz-IV), which had thin tracks, 50mm protection in the turret, and 30mm on the sides. By late 1944 they even eliminated electric motor to turn the turret. These are of course theoretical specs, the usual catalogue of sabotage and poor finish should be added for vehicles built late in the war.

If Soviets kept producing T-34 by late 1944/45 it was because it was not worth changing to T-44 considering the threats, it does not say a lot about the German tanks. Optics were better in T-34-85 than in Sherman according to Yugo officers, their units managed to get 95% availability by the way.

Finally, T-34 role changed during the war, in 1944 it was used in exploitation, where armor or fire power was not that critical. IS-2/ISU-122/152 and SU-100 provided support. Some T-34 units advanced 500kms in 3 days.

By the way, can anyone give the complete reference to Hahn? I might try to get it to have a look.

 

[Vincenzo]

What is Pz IV/70? maybe the jagdpanzer IV with 75/70?

 

[m kenny]

You're so full of yourself it hurts.

Kettle, Pot, Black.............get a sense of humour!

 

[alejandro_]

What is Pz IV/70? maybe the jagdpanzer IV with 75/70?

Yes.

Can anyone give me Hahn´s reference?