Hitler thought the SU had 35,000 tanks

If you listen to this secret recording of one of Hitler's conversations, probably the only one, in Feb 1942 or thereabouts you'll hear him say that he believes the SU has 35,000 tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8raDPASvq0

That figure seems obviously wrong to me since Wiki writes: "The Battle of Kursk was the largest tank battle ever fought — with each side employing nearly 3,000 tanks." Where did Hitler get this number? And what was the real number?

Also I speak German and I didn't find Hitler's German to be all that similar to the German used by Ganz in the film Der Untergang. If anyone else knows German and has seen the film I would appreciate your opinions. I also didn't find Hitler's accent to be very strongly Bavarian/Austrian but I could be wrong.

 

Hitler's surprise visit to greet Mannerheim on his 75th birthday on 4th June 1942 was uninvited and unwanted. The secret uncomplite recording is the only existing one known, where Hitler speakswith a normal voice in a normal conversation.

Hitler said, that the USSR had 35.000 tanks in 1941, not that she had so many then (in 1942). The figure 35.000 most likely is too high and only Hitler's exaggeration, but nevertheless the soviets had abt 23.000 in 1941, so the figure is not that far off.

 

The first time I heard this, it was interesting to hear Hitler talk in a normal conversational tone rather than his intense speeches. I found it unsettling how normal his voice is and how passive he seemed.

 

Yea, it's ironic how he talks of defeating the Soviet Union in pretty much the same tone of voice as World Series Athletes talk of playing their opponent over a 7 game series. You can tell by this time Hitler is mightily overwhelmed by his opponent. It would be real interesting to hear his conversations in August of 41 when he thought he was sure to win.

On another note, have you heard Stalin's July 3rd 1941 speech? I don't speak Russian but that sounds like a very bad speech. It's almost sounds like he's hungover.

 

I've heard recordings of him speaking, he his voice is high pitched and squeaky. Not as burly as what I expected by his looks.

 

Soviet tank strength (SP guns included) for operational forces,Stavka reserve and inoperational forces:

june 1941: 23000 (18000 serviceable)

december 1941: 5900

may 1942: 9300

november 1942: 13700

july 1943 : 21000

june 1944 : 17600

january 1945 : 20700

 

Do you have the German figures?

 

It would also be nice to know what your sources are.

 

From jentz I

22 june 1941 : Panzer of the Ostheer (SG not included)

PZ

1 :145

3: 215

4 :177

6: 245

7 :265

8 : 212

9 ; 143

10: 182

11: 143

12 : 220

13: 149

14: 147

16 : 146

17 : 202

18 : 218

19 : 228

20 : 229

PzAbt 100 : 82

: 101 : 73
: 102 : n.a.
: 40 : n.a.
: 211 : n.a.

 

Siurce for the Soviet figures :

radikal.ru/Fs48.radikal.ru/i 121/0907/94/c 98b4ce67a3b.jpg.

 

Also for the summer of 1942 ,SG not included (siurce:still Jentz)

PzD

1: 49
2: 82
3: 166
4: 48
5 : 103
8 : 68
9: 147
11 :155
12: 58
13 : 103
14: 102
16 : 61

17: 71

18 : 47

19: 57

20 : 87

22: 176

23: 138

24 : 181
3 Mot.ID :54
1 6 MotID 54
29 Mot ID: 58
60 Mot ID : 57

GD : 45
Wiking :53
Brigade 22 : 46
PzAbt 360 : N.A.

For 1943 and 1944, I have to look at Feldgrau and The Dupuy Institute

 

From TDI (German OOB for june 1944) by Richard Anderson

31 may

operational :1192 Pz and 1319 SG

in repair :287 Pz and 261 SG

assigned/en route :434 Pz/680 SG


15 september

operational : Pz : 1223 /SG : 1214

in repair : Pz :547 /SG : 497

en route/assigned : Pz :278 / 384

 

Warning, nitpicker at large !! continue reading at your own peril.

I think the German numbers for 1941 include the Pz I command vehicles that can hardly be called tanks (no turret and just 1 MG) for example 3rd panzer had:
52 Pz II
29 37mm Pz III
81 50mm Pz III
32 Pz IV
and 15 Bef. Pz I.

The command tanks performed a useful function but were not meant to be involved in direct fighting and, especially in the case of the Bef. Pz.I, that had no turret and just one Mg34, could have contributed very little.
IIRC there were 3 "100 series" flammpanzer battalions 100 and 101 equipped with Flammpazers II and 102 with converted captured Bi 1Bis.
100 started the campaign attached to 18 Pz division with
24 Pz II
42 Pz II Flammpanzers
5 Pz III
1 Bef. Pz. I
Which would give it 72 veicles (101 was practically identical but had one more gun armed Pz II).

Panzerabteilunf (F) 102 had two companies with 12 converted B1bis and 3 gun B1bis each.


The SG number would include such different vehicles as the Ferdinand/Elefant and the 47mm PzJ I though the bulk would be StuG and some Marder variant.

 

This is a can of worms

1)The Germans used the PzI/the PzBef and counted them as tanks,thus,why should we not do the same

2)The Soviets also used tanks with only machine guns and no gun,thus ...

From Orbat :Tanks in the Western Military District on 1 june 1941

KV1 and KV2

T 34 (2 types)

T 28

T 37 (2 types)

T 38 (2 types) : the T 38 had only a machine-gun

T 40 : the same

T 26 (4 types)

BT 2

BT 7

BT 8

 

Still in nitpicker mode..... The Germans are inconsistent here, my distinction is based in the Bef. not having a turret not on it not having a gun, and on it being a armoured tracked command post rather than a combat vehicle, IIRC the Bef Pz I was the only ful tracked AFV in the early Panzer divisions not to have a turret, but that doesn't make it a tank, especially when the same vehicle in another unit is NOT a tank.

Unless I'm mistaken all the soviet vehicles you listed had at least one turret, and some had even more than one, early T 26 had 2 (but just with MGs) the T28 had 3 and had WMD possessed any the T35 had 5 ! I not see Komsolets tractors in the Soviet list, though it's likely WMD had some, the Bef Pz I had similarities to it,.

Does anyone know what Panzer Abteilung 40 had in 140 ? I think it had lost the Neubaufahrzeug so was left with just some lights.

 

True enough, but the Germans did count their command tanks in the sum total of armor pieces available for any given unit. On the other hand, the Germans also categorized command tanks as a separate Panzer type in their tables. In any rate, very few of those were available per division and shouldn't have a significant distorting effect on armor strength comparisons.

 

Thanks for that, Bob.
Hearing Adolf speak conversationally always intrigues me.
Once asked a German mate if he had a non-standard accent because of his background, the local equivalent of Brummie maybe?
She said yes.

As for counting tanks.
Pfft... how long's a piece of string. I'd link to some threads trying to do it but don't want to wear out my keyboard.
If the figure was c.20K+ at any point, c.35K wouldn't be that surprising an estimate given the uncertainties over what the SU was doing in it's factories, also dependent on who he was talking to - presumably Mannerheim would be someone to big up the numbers to.

 

You should read Hitler’s Table Talk (ger.: Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier). Here is a short but interesting passage –about the Russian tanks too.

Night of 5th-6th January 1942
Special guest: Sepp Dietrich:

Theme: Stalin, successor to the Tsars—The Germans saved Europe in 1933—Reasons for our attack on Russia—The matériel of the Russians—Asian inferiority.
…
"What confirmed me in my decision to attack without delay was the information brought by a German mission lately returned from Russia, that a single Russian factory was producing by itself more tanks than all our factories together. I felt that this was the ultimate limit. Even so, if someone had told me that the Russians had ten thousand tanks, I'd have answered : "You're completely mad!"

The Russians never invent anything. All they have, they've got from others. Everything comes to them from abroad—the engineers, the machine-tools. Give them the most highly per- fected bombing-sights. They're capable of copying them, but not of inventing them. With them, working-technique is simplified to the uttermost. Their rudimentary labour-force compels them to split up the work into a series of gestures that are easy to perform and, of course, require no effort of thought."