Tank losses, Battle of the Bulge

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.

 

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

 

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

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


:ambulance:

 

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

 

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

 

No it didnt.

Wet stowage had alleviated most problems.

 

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...)

 

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.

 

I suppose you mean Pz´s V and VI?

 

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

Possibly not...

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

Hohum...

Cheers,
Adam.

 

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"

 

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.

 

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?

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.