Allied Tank Strength in Normandy

michael kenny · Post by **michael kenny** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:18 pm

Firstly can anyone tell me the date of this document:

http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/E ... ualties.jp

I am well aware of the myriad of reports giving totals of tank losses from various dates in 1944. It is a pity they all dont start and finish on the same dates!
The Canadian study of Sherman casualties (RGd 24:Report No 12) also has interesting aside about 3% of German 75 mm hits failing to penetrate but the 88 mm had a 100% penetration rate. It also states that a further 124 tanks were inspected that had 83 hits that failed to penetrate.
73% of AP hits brewed up on penetration

For Western Europe 1944 ORO-T-117 the sample gives a total of 50.9% of US tanks lost to gunfire (1051 from 2065) and 59.2% of British losses to gunfire (621 from 1048). Canada lost 54.8% to gunfire (161 from 294).

Roman Johann Jarymowycz has a book 'Tank Tactics from Normandy to Lorrainne' (Reinner Pub. 2001, ISBN 1-55587-950-0) that has masses of information on the subject and it seems that much of the information we are seeking was published in the early 50's.
'Analysis of Firepower in Normandy Operations of 1944' by Bourne and Shackleton and Coox and Naisawalds 'Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in World War II' seem to be the best references to get.

Darrin · Post by **Darrin** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:48 pm

Rich wrote:
From 6 June to 1 July (26 days), First Army wrote off 187 M4-75mm and 44 M5.
From 2 to 29 July (28 days), First Army wrote off 208 M4-75mm, 12 M4-76mm, 4 M4-105mm, and 67 M5.
From 30 July to 2 September (35 days), First Army wrote off 237 M4-75mm, 38 M4-76mm, 6 M4-105mm, and 69 M5.
From 3 to 28 September (26 days), First Army wrote off 123 M4-75mm, 33 M4-76mm, 10 M4-105mm, and 34 M5.
From 1 August to 2 September (33 days), Third Army wrote off 221 M4-75mm and 94 M5.
From 3 to 30 September (28 days), Third Army wrote off 48 M4-75mm, 61 M4-76mm, 2 M4-105mm, and 37 M5.
From 9 September to 5 October (27 days), Ninth Army wrote off 2 M4-75mm.

Thus roughly:
‘June’ 231
‘July’ 291
‘August’ 665
‘September’ 350
Total = 1,537

You fail to include US TDs in your total losses which makes the allied total and loss ratios even higher.

Darrin · Post by **Darrin** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:59 pm

Rich wrote:
Thus, using these very rough methods, we can assume that the upper limit of the ratio of Allied to German tank losses to ‘AP shot’ may have been as high as 2,176-to-393, or about 5.54-to-1. Probably closer would be an ‘AP shot’ ratio of roughly 1,746-to-393, or about 4.44-to-1. The tank-versus-tank ratios are possibly similar although it could be argued to be as low as 673-to-393, or 1.71-to-1, aboutthe same as the overall loss ratio. Nevermind that this comparison is probably irrelevent.

Overall then we may postulate a total of about 3,105 Allied to 1,845 German tanks written off, or about a 1.68-to-1 ratio of losses, again, a number that has nothing to do with the relative effectiveness of the Allied versus the German tanks. However, it is probably very relevant in terms of the overall Allied-versus-German combat effectiveness.

Of course the real upshot is that these comparisons are probably not very illuminating, nor very surprising, given that the Germans were fighting mostly on the tactical defensive, with tanks that were in general more effective than Allied types.

On the other hand the allies had a few adv going thier way as well not to mention at least 4 times as many op tanks. More arty, more air forces to attack the rear supply areas. It seems event the fouder of the institute rich works for disbelives that the allies were better by normandy.

michael kenny · Post by **michael kenny** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:01 pm

Darrin says:

"You fail to include US TDs in your total losses which makes the allied total and loss ratios even higher"

Rich does not include German SP guns in his totals either. I suppose that would slant the ratios back the other way.

nigelfe · Post by **nigelfe** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:11 am

The report 'Operational Research in NW Europe', which is the set of reports by No 2 ORS, includes

Chap 10

Report No 12 Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties 6 June to 10 July 1944, it may be the one credited to Canadians above, if so it is of course a wrong attribution. The intro states that the data was collected by REME, who started recording addtional info at the behest of Staff Duties branch HQ 2nd Army. However, its only a sample, although the sample was verified by AFV(Tec) and REME agaisnt full data.

Report No 17 Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6 June to 31 August 1944. Data collected by 2 ORS and 20 WTSFF. However, it only includes those tanks which 'fell into our hands'. Totals are 110 until 7 Aug, and 223 8-31 Aug. The total includes 36 Mk VI of which 20 were destroyed by crew, 6 abandoned, 1 unk cause and 8 by AP shot. The destroyed by crew and abandoned catogies totalled 74 for Mk V and 68 Mk IV.

The total number of AP penetrations were as follows:

17-pdr APCBC 21, 3" M10 17, 75mm 5, 6-pdr DS 9, 6-pdr APCBC 9. These low numbers are because destroyed en tanks were often used for target practice so they only counted those where they could interview the crew that destroyed them. A relevant and interesting figure is that for 75mm the number of failures exceeded the number of penetrations, all the others were the other way around. There's a lot of data including where the hits were, average number of hits to cause 'brew up', etc.

Chap 11

Report No 18 Tank Casualties during the exploitation phase after crossing the Seine. There weren't many due to en action but a lot of mechanical failures that are analysed by formation, number of days in pursuit and miles travelled. Also spares demanded, Shermans had really crappy bogies.

Chap 13

Report No 27 is also interesting, it concerns anti tank in the Ardennes and examines US TD Bns, towed and SP with the purpose of analysing the ability of anti tank to repel armour attacks. It was done because Normandy had not provided valid information, the Ardennes didn't either but they kept going because it was interesting!

Rich · Post by **Rich** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:28 am

Darrin wrote:
You fail to include US TDs in your total losses which makes the allied total and loss ratios even higher.

Instead of wasting bandwidth you could have simply stated that Darrin.

But why exactly is it relevant since all of the German losses I quoted were for tanks only? I thought you were trying to do a 'tank-versus-tank' comparison?

Rich · Post by **Rich** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:38 am

Darrin wrote:On the other hand the allies had a few adv going thier way as well not to mention at least 4 times as many op tanks. More arty, more air forces to attack the rear supply areas. It seems event the fouder of the institute rich works for disbelives that the allies were better by normandy.

Darrin, do you always find it neccessary to restate what I've already said? Exactly where have I said that the Allies did not have the thaose advantages?

BTW, exactly when did you start channeling Trevor (I assume by "fouder" you are referring to my late boss)? And are you using a Ouiji board to get your information? Or at least please provide me the quote from one of his published works that states that the "allies were [not] better by normandy"? Better than what? And what does "by Normandy" refer to and to whom? How does any of those divisions (except the 1st ID and the 82nd Airborne and possibly the 2nd AD and 9th ID) get better than something when it's their first experience in combat?

You may have difficulties here though, since he never did any substantial work studying ground operations in Normandy. And given his temperment, it is unlikely that he would offer so firm an opinion based upon no data whatsoever.

Darrin · Post by **Darrin** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:30 am

Rich wrote:
German losses were:

June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224
July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288
August – 49 Pz-IV(l), 41 Pz-V, 15 Pz-VI (L56) = 105
September – 12 Pz-IV(k), 581 Pz-IV, 540 Pz-V, 72 Pz-VI (L56), 23 Pz-VI (L70) = 1,228
Total = 1,845

Well according to ger doc quoted in zetterlings book the ger reported destruction from 6 june till the 27th of july. Of 224 PzIV, 131 panthers, 23 tiger tanks, 60 ass guns, 45 spATGs and 3 command tanks. Thats a total of 378 tanks and 107 tank type vehicles. A total of of 485 tank type vehicles.

According to other documents from the 6 jun till 31 jul it was 406 tanks PzIV- PzVI and 75 ass guns des. A grand total of 481 tank type vehicles.

Both of these above are in very close agreement with each other.

Your total ger des for jun and july are 512 and that just counts the tanks des during that month. If we compare your tank only numbers aginst the other two tank only numbers your numbers are much higher and may be inaccurte.

Its also intesting to point out that you provided numbers for me once in aug that the ger reported nearly 500 tanks des not the mere 105 you quote here. Although I can't remeber if it was just tanks or included ass guns, TDs etc... It seeems highly unlikly that the ger non tank des in aug represented 80% of the total. Even betteween your own data quotes thier is much descpancies.

Rich · Post by **Rich** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:28 pm

Darrin wrote:Well according to ger doc quoted in zetterlings book the ger reported destruction from 6 june till the 27th of july. Of 224 PzIV, 131 panthers, 23 tiger tanks, 60 ass guns, 45 spATGs and 3 command tanks. Thats a total of 378 tanks and 107 tank type vehicles. A total of of 485 tank type vehicles.

According to other documents from the 6 jun till 31 jul it was 406 tanks PzIV- PzVI and 74 ass guns des. A grand total of 483

uh, 480?

tank type vehicles.

Both of these above are in very close agreement with each other.

Your total ger des for jun and july are 512 and that just counts the tanks des during that month. If we compare your tank only numbers aginst the other two tank only numbers your numbers are much higher and may be inaccurte.

Let's see, 378 and 406, 60 and 74, and 480 and 485 are in "close agreement", but 480, 485 and 512 are not? And 512 is "much higher" than 480 and 485? Define "much higher" please. And why are figures for two different time periods assumed to be in "close agreement" while those of a third - and longer - time period are "inaccurte"?

Darrin, the first two reports you quote are those from Panzergruppe West to Ob.West. Those were issued within a few days of the end period of the report and were compiled by totaling the various unit reports and can only be considered as provisional totals. The totals I quoted are from the monthly returns of the Quartermeister General des OKH. They are available for June-November of 1944 and were completed some time after the calender month they reported for all theaters of war. A few incorporate minor changes and additions that may be tracked from one month to the next, showing that changes were included. Thus they must be counted as definitive. BTW, you do realize that they are not 'my' numbers, they are those given in documents of OKH? So if you have complaints about 'discrepancies' go to them.

Also BTW, do I have to repeat yet again that the totals are for tanks only and do not include "tank type vehicles"?

Its also intesting to point out that you provided numbers for me once in aug that the ger reported nearly 500 tanks des not the mere 105 you quote here. Although I can't remeber if it was just tanks or included ass guns, TDs etc... It seeems highly unlikly that the ger non tank des in aug represented 80% of the total. Even betteween your own data quotes thier is much descpancies.

You can't remember? But you are sure I quoted 500 tanks? Which is it? And if you can't actually 'quote' me or 'remeber' what I actually said, then how do you know there is a discrepancy?

Darrin · Post by **Darrin** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:32 pm

Rich wrote:
Darrin wrote:
You fail to include US TDs in your total losses which makes the allied total and loss ratios even higher.
Instead of wasting bandwidth you could have simply stated that Darrin.

But why exactly is it relevant since all of the German losses I quoted were for tanks only? I thought you were trying to do a 'tank-versus-tank' comparison?

Actually I don't know what you were talking about but I was talking about all tank type vehicles. Even the excluded US TDs for some mysterious reason. They had large numbers best guns in the US army and a few HVAP shells making thier involvement in tank losses extremly important.

Its also strage you try to leave out certain parts of the various armies involved but your own institue uses an operations formula that includes all vehicles. These vehicles were a sig number for the US and ger forces and must be accounted for.

Maybe you have evidence the US (and ger) tank des never des a single tank. Perhaps you should share this with us before you go any futher.

And this is my last post to you on this thread. I just thought since you did not state the number of US TDs operational or destroyed your staments were at least misleading.

Darrin · Post by **Darrin** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 8:14 pm

Rich wrote:[
British losses are given as:

June – 146
July – 231
August – 834
September - ?
Total = 1,211 (est. 1,568)

Unfortunately I have been unable to determine the British September totals, but given the overall similarity with the American figures it is probably not unreasonable to suppose that they were about 350 as well (if the proportionality with June-August were maintained, then it would be 357.

One final piont the british losses you quoted are for all tank type vechlies not just tanks but TDs as well. You are adding different definitions of brit and us losses togeather and then comparing them with different def of ger losses. A big no no but I'm sure you will come up with some excuse.

The CW losses in sep even if some gave them to you are probly understated as well. The CW loss reports for oct 44 were to high to be belivable. Acccording to your add all these months togeather strategy we would then add in losse from 6th of june to 1st of nov for all three sides.

5 months to make any comparison hoping that all these reports were accurte. Even these overall long term comparisons happen well outside the normandy area from which I was discusing things earlier. Its also a bit suspect about the applying info about ger, US and CW tank losses taken from reports in jun-aug and using these numbers in sep and oct.

michael kenny · Post by **michael kenny** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:31 am

Quote:

"And this is my last post to you on this thread. I just thought since you did not state the number of US TDs operational or destroyed your staments were at least misleading"

Rich thinks there must be a God!

Then:

"One final piont..................."

So it was 'last post but one' then?

I enjoy Darrin's posts but only for the amusement they provide!

Rich · Post by **Rich** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:53 am

Darrin wrote:Actually I don't know what you were talking about

Obviously.

but I was talking about all tank type vehicles.

You were? When did you define that as your frame of reference? And did you also write my reply where I stated clearly that they were tanks? No, I believe you replied to it, questioning my figures and ignoring the frame of reference I had given.

Even the excluded US TDs for some mysterious reason. They had large numbers best guns in the US army and a few HVAP shells making thier involvement in tank losses extremly important.

Why is it mysterious? And how large were the numbers compared to those of the German Sturmgescheutz and Panzerjaeger? And how do you isolate the SP pieces on both sides from the towed pieces? All of which goes to the initial problem with the entire idea of 'comparing' tank loss figures to derive measures of relative effectiveness.

BTW, the first 'HVAP shells' did not arrive until the first week of August and were only issued for tests at that time. It appears that the first combat use was sometime in late September and the initial quantaties were probably less than 1,000 rounds, so it is unlikely that they had any appreciable effect -let alone an 'extremly important one - on losses for June-September.

Its also strage you try to leave out certain parts of the various armies involved but your own institue uses an operations formula that includes all vehicles. These vehicles were a sig number for the US and ger forces and must be accounted for.

I do not 'try to leave out certain parts' of anything darrin, rather I try to define the terms I am using, and then try to stick to those terms. Do you want to 'compare' the US versus German 'tank like' vehicles? If so, I can do it, but the comparison becomes even more awkward than it already is because:

US TD strength and losses are recorded from 6 to 20 June, and then from the 22st to the 20th of suceeding months. Thus it is impossible to compare them to German reports that are for a calender month (note that the US tank figures do not strictly follow the calender month either, another source of discrepancy).

British reports are for 'tanks' only, they do not include SP antitank guns.

Maybe you have evidence the US (and ger) tank des never des a single tank. Perhaps you should share this with us before you go any futher.

No, but I never said such a silly thing. You are now trying to cloud a very simple issue with irrelavancies out of simple wilfulness. More important in any case is your explanation of what figures should be used to determine relative effectiveness of systems when we simply don't have the data to support such a comparison?

And this is my last post to you on this thread. I just thought since you did not state the number of US TDs operational or destroyed your staments were at least misleading.

My statements always include caveats, based upon what the evidence can support. You on the other hand make statements that you can't remember numbers or statements, but are willing to 'quote' them as evidence supporting your argument?

BTW, is this really your last post or your penultimate post on this thread? Or are you simply being misleading?

Rich · Post by **Rich** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:01 am

Darrin wrote:One final piont the british losses you quoted are for all tank type vechlies not just tanks but TDs as well. <snipped to eliminate poorly thought out and ultimately meaningless drivel>

No they are not. They are for "tank" losses. The figures are from WO 165/136 'Half Yearly Reports on the Progress of the Royal Armoured Corps.' The RAC operated "tanks" not SP antitank guns. The RA and RHA operated antitank guns, both towed and SP, in Antitank Regiments, which in British reports appear under artillery. Note also that In Normandyon page 75, note 33, Zetterling clearly appreciates this distinction, defining the 'losses' reported as being "tank losses (write-offs)."

Why do you have so many problems understanding these distinctions and the language that defines them?

Michate · Post by **Michate** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:13 am

Rich,

I admire your patience.

Although I have to confess some forum posters have a remarkable though unvoluntary talent as comedians.

The good of this as well as previous "discussions" is the many interesting data snippets are spread out during the course

.

BTW, when will the Normandy book be ready? Although, I guess, doing a forum search should result in half the script

.