Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Tank losses, Battle of the Bulge


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 acker

acker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 12:22 AM

Does anyone know exact (or approximate) tanks losses per day for both the Allied and Axis forces in the Ardennes Offensive? I've been looking for this, and I've never been able to find a table on this.

#2 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 14,671 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 24 January 2008 - 12:36 AM

I can find totals, but no day by day numbers.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#3 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 02:56 AM

Another one of those do massive research for me please requests. Give me a week, maybe I can have something.
  • skunk works likes this

#4 skunk works

skunk works

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,156 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 03:58 AM

About 800 tanks for each side were lost? :( Divide that by however long you decide the battle lasted. :confused:

6,000 Allied (American/British/French/Canadian, etc.) tanks were lost in the ETO? The Germans had no more than half that many?

:explosion1::bullethole::explosion2::bullethole:
:ambulance:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

#5 Herr Oberst

Herr Oberst

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 04:49 AM

Compared to German Tanks, without American air cover, the Ronson lived up to its name in the Ardennes.;)
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

#6 PactOfSteel

PactOfSteel

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 08:09 AM

Panzer 3 & 4 were so superior compared to the piece of crap shermans.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
THE RISE OF HITLER

THE RISE OF THE REICH

#7 Vince Noir

Vince Noir

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 08:36 AM

Compare to German Tanks, without American air cover, the Ronson lived up to its name in the Ardennes.;)



No it didnt.

Wet stowage had alleviated most problems.
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

#8 Vince Noir

Vince Noir

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 08:39 AM

Panzer 3 & 4 were so superior compared to the piece of crap shermans.


On what facts do you base this?

Is this just cos they are German tanks that they are better?

Im guessing you know very little about the tanks concerned given that statement... But as I like a good laugh why dont you list the reasons that the Panzer III was better than a Sherman?

(Which also begs the question... IF the Panzer III was better why did the Germans stop using them...)
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

#9 Von Poop

Von Poop

    Waspish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • LocationPerfidious Albion

User's Awards

2   

Posted 24 January 2008 - 09:25 AM

Im guessing you know very little about the tanks concerned


I'm not guessing...
But I'm also looking forward to it ;).

And HO, what's this 'American air cover' ? I rather thought that was a true allied effort, or were all those Typhoons really just P47's...

Cheers,
Adam.
It's only the Internet...

#10 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 24 January 2008 - 11:29 AM

Panzer 3 & 4 were so superior compared to the piece of crap shermans.


I suppose you mean Pz´s V and VI?
Posted Image

#11 Vince Noir

Vince Noir

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 01:06 PM

I'm not guessing...
But I'm also looking forward to it ;).

And HO, what's this 'American air cover' ? I rather thought that was a true allied effort, or were all those Typhoons really just P47's...

Cheers,
Adam.



Would this be a good time to bring up the role of the British Army in the Bulge...?

Possibly not... ;)
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

#12 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 04:00 PM

Panzer 3 & 4 were so superior compared to the piece of crap shermans.


Really? POS, I suggest starting a thread on this an seeing what kind of responses you get.
  • bigfun likes this

#13 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 14,671 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 24 January 2008 - 04:40 PM

No, don't start another pot-stirring thread, we're broke out 'em as it is now.:D

Use the search button up above.:cool:

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png


#14 FramerT

FramerT

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts

Posted 24 January 2008 - 11:08 PM

Another one of those do massive research for me please requests. Give me a week, maybe I can have something.



Terry, you do that and I'll definately slip a "rep" your way. "Per day"?
I've seen Tiger and Panther losses per day, but that's about it.


<Panzer 3 & 4 were so superior compared to the piece of crap shermans. >
POS. Feel free to post this in the numerous Panzer vs Sherman threads. This is the Information Requests the last time I looked.

#15 Herr Oberst

Herr Oberst

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 03:40 AM

I'm not guessing...
But I'm also looking forward to it ;).

And HO, what's this 'American air cover' ? I rather thought that was a true allied effort, or were all those Typhoons really just P47's...

Cheers,
Adam.


Oh, am I at WW2Talk, I thought I was at WW2 Forums;)

Yeah, where the British won WWII all by themselves....right

Somebody send you a bill for bunker cleaning services?


No it didnt.

Wet stowage had alleviated most problems.


Sorry Newton, I was basically saying that they were inadequate when compared to the German Armor in the Bulge, even if the ammo stowage was solved at that time, the crews still didn't like them, still called them Ronson's, iron coffin, my pal Sully used to say, He wasn't happy till he got into the t26 in Czechoslovakia latter in the war. But if you were there, then I'd certainly like to here of your experiences.
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

#16 acker

acker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 05:47 AM

If you say that wet storage was inadequate, then you should have major, godlike complaints about Germans tanks. Especially the Jagdpanther and others.

#17 Von Poop

Von Poop

    Waspish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • LocationPerfidious Albion

User's Awards

2   

Posted 25 January 2008 - 08:30 AM

Oh, am I at WW2Talk, I thought I was at WW2 Forums;)

Yeah, where the British won WWII all by themselves....right

Somebody send you a bill for bunker cleaning services?

:confused:
So the best form of defence after making a sweeping inaccurate statement is truly pointless attack is it Peter? You really do get more and more random as time passes.
I reckon having put up with the arrogant Hollywood 'we won the war alone' attitude of the ill-informed on ww2 history there's nothing wrong with sometimes making an attempt to redress the balance and stress the fact it was an allied victory, particularly in an arena where there really was great cooperation between air forces, such as over and around the Ardennes. We could go into detail of the Czechs, Poles, Frenchmen, etc. also flying those planes but that just wouldn't fit your narrow parochial view as stated at all would it. On WW2F, just as on WW2T, some level of accuracy is considered desirable.

I now await your usual trend of making some random blurt relating to US politics, that's what normally seems to happen anyway. I'm sure the tank losses in the Ardennes were something to do with the voting balance in the house of representatives in your unique view of the war. :rolleyes:

Hohum...

Cheers,
Adam.
It's only the Internet...

#18 bodston

bodston

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 09:56 AM

I have only gleaned some fragmentory details on allied losses from the Wehrmacht High Command reports..

21/12/44 "In yesterday's fighting we captured 50 cannon and 43 tanks and armoured vehicles, and destroyed 36 tanks."
26/12/44 "By the last account, over 700 American tanks and armoured vehicles have been captured or destroyed since the start of our attack in the West on December 16"
31/12/44 "Their purpose was foiled in bitter fighting in which we destroyed 34 enemy tanks"

then nothing on numbers until
15/1/45 "Heavy defensive fighting... the enemy only won ground locally... We knocked out 25 tanks"
  • skunk works likes this

#19 Vince Noir

Vince Noir

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 10:09 AM

Oh, am I at WW2Talk, I thought I was at WW2 Forums;)

Yeah, where the British won WWII all by themselves....right

Somebody send you a bill for bunker cleaning services?




Sorry Newton, I was basically saying that they were inadequate when compared to the German Armor in the Bulge, even if the ammo stowage was solved at that time, the crews still didn't like them, still called them Ronson's, iron coffin, my pal Sully used to say, He wasn't happy till he got into the t26 in Czechoslovakia latter in the war. But if you were there, then I'd certainly like to here of your experiences.



Sadly I wasnt there. But I have interviewed a number of German and Allied tankers.

Both agree that the Sherman, despite its faults, was an excellent tank.

Your dismissal of wet stowage goes some way to show that you have little experience in this regard.

Consider the fact that the Panther burned just as easily and the Sherman starts to shows its faults are not so much of a hinderance.

Perhaps you could list the reasons for the MkIII and MKIV being superior as I previously asked you?

I doubt you will though.

As for the British Vs. USA arguement of who won the war... I dont involve myself in such pathetic childish ranting that quite frankly is an insult to the men who died serving their nations.

Grow up.
  • Owen likes this
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

#20 skunk works

skunk works

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,156 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 12:02 PM

I forgot to mention (as most already know) total tank losses and tank-to-tank losses are two very different, and (most probably) indeterminable numbers?
Some of those losses are recoverable/repairable, and some losses are (no-fault)(nobody will admit fault), sunken swimming tanks, sunk aboard ships, self destructed, arty, AT guns, mines, infantry (biggie), air power, out of fuel, breakdowns, internal fires, worn out, on and on.
So....making a "guess" (even in the smallest of engagements)(defenders have an advantage...many times...as they are not exposed) as to Superior quality of tank/crews/doctrine by division of total numbers by time period is....well....Folly? :confused:

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

#21 m kenny

m kenny

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 01:42 PM

Total US ETO Tank/TD/AC losses for 20 Dec 44 to 20 Jan 45 are:

614 M4's
208 M3/M5/M24
200 M8 A/C
122 TD's

German losses have never been accurately quantified but would be around 50-75% of the US losses.

I know the dates are not 'spot on' but such is the data we have to work with.

All the information was supplied by Richard Anderson of The Dupuy Institiute and is sourced on the original period documents.
  • skunk works and Slipdigit like this

#22 bigfun

bigfun

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,837 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 03:11 PM

i just wanted to post here that i think this mud-slinging, bad-mouthing eachother is getting old to me, i think we should try to be a little more tolreant of eachothers differing views.

that's all, maybe i'm just gettin' old!
  • skunk works, Von Poop and Slipdigit like this
Scott :flag_USA_ww2: :flag_netherlands:

#23 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,458 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 04:03 PM

Total US ETO Tank/TD/AC losses for 20 Dec 44 to 20 Jan 45 are:

614 M4's
208 M3/M5/M24
200 M8 A/C
122 TD's

German losses have never been accurately quantified but would be around 50-75% of the US losses.

I know the dates are not 'spot on' but such is the data we have to work with.

All the information was supplied by Richard Anderson of The Dupuy Institiute and is sourced on the original period documents.


Thank you I have been wanting to see the figures upon the opening of this thread... May I ask where you got this info? I am also looking for T.A. to come back and let us know what he came up with.
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#24 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,458 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 04:11 PM

Consider the fact that the Panther burned just as easily and the Sherman starts to shows its faults are not so much of a hinderance.


While I am far from an expert on this, I was under the impression that a gasoline engine ( Sherman ) was more susceptible to catching on fire in battle then the one using a diesel?.
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#25 Slipdigit

Slipdigit

    Good Ol' Boy

  • Administrators
  • 14,671 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 25 January 2008 - 04:15 PM

Yes, gasoline has a lower flash point than does diesel.

The Maybach HL 210 P45 engine, found in the Panther and Tigers was a gasoline engine as was the Maybach HL 120, that was in the PzKw IV.

Best Regards,  
JW :slipdigit:

SlidigitAxe.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users