Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Ten wątek został zamknięty 
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
He cherry picked stats on a specific day where there weren't many Mine casualties, Mine casualties were overall 20% of Allied tank casualties. It's shown in the chart.
http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16635coll14/id/56035
Are you implying that instead the Panther casualties were all caused by Shermans ? That would be truly stupid.
I'm still waiting for you to answer me up there btw.
No, what I'm linking to is Axis tank losses. It's not a specific day but samples of tanks from the period of 6th June - 7th August and 8th August to 31st August.
As I wrote at the top:
Table I and II
Weapon and % Axis Tanks destroyed by.
Less than 1% of German tanks are destroyed by Mines.
"5. the sample obtained in 2nd phase is considered more or less represenative of German tank casualties during this period since the proportion of damaged tanks recovered by the Germans was small. The sample is considered to be approximately half of the total, and includes a full count of discovered Mk IIIs and IVs.
"cherry picked on a specific day"??? It's half of the total. It's considered by the Research Section to be representative of German tank casualties.
It is less than 1% destroyed by mines.
I was saying that very few German tanks were destroyed by artillery, and virtually none were destroyed by mines. Sure, Allied tanks different story. Misunderstanding.
Also worth noting that in this study where they say "AT Gun" they are including SP Guns. Both Towed and SP Guns are classified as 'AT Guns'.
Safe to assume more German tanks were destroyed by AT Guns than by Tanks, but are most of those destroyed by AT Guns destroyed by Towed AT Guns or Self-Propelled AT Guns? In the Anti-Tank section on the study shows SP AT Gun units making far more kills than Towed AT Guns.
You're linking a totally different study. You're not linking a more legible version.
You're not understanding what you're reading. Hence why you come out with insane statement such as "cherry picked on a specific day" lol.
But we could do some rough maths with these two studies to figure this tank on tank thing out. If you say this is representative of Allied tank losses in France then let's go with it and try paint a picture.
... so while skimming over this new study you've linked "Data on the repairability of tanks suggested the following percentages: mined tanks, 78% repairable."
(I can't even see where they say how many get hit by mines but they're mostly repairable)
(This is also talking about North Africa.)...
Okay so here we go...
54% Allied Tanks destroyed by gunfire.
4,000 Shermans lost in Overlord.
= 2,000 Destroyed by Gunfire.
25% destroyed by Gunfire destroyed by Tanks. (according to you, I cbf to find where that is in this study, it's written in most obstuse way with total lack of clear numbers)
= 500 destroyed by German Tanks.
German tanks lost in Normandy in combat is 1,845.
Most of that is abandoned or destroyed by crew. Going by Operational Research Section paper I linked can conclude ultimately around 400 German tanks destroyed by AT Projectiles.
Say that similarly 25% of German tanks lost to AT Projectiles is by Allied Tanks (this is unfair on German tanks as really Allies depended more on SP AT Guns and Towed AT Guns to destroy German Tanks)
= 100 German tanks destroyed by Allied Tanks.
There you have it.
100 German Tanks destroyed by Allied Tanks.
500 Allied Tanks destroyed by German tanks.
5 Allied Tanks for 1 German Tank in Tank on Tank Combat.
However around half of these German Tanks are Pz4. Pz4 have around half the survival in combat of a Panther, as we can see in study I posted. We're talking about Panther Vs Sherman.
Doesn't seem like 3.6.
You mean that 10 Shermans are lost for 1 Panther in tank on tank combat????
Because that's what I'm getting from some rough maths with these 2 studies.
That can't be right. Much of the 4,000 Allied Tank losses in Overlord must be Operational Losses.
Can't you just quote where you're getting this 3.6 thing from?
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=81359
Comes to same estimates of causes of Allied tank loses going by better data than study you linked.
"Cause of loss for German tanks is given for a select set in O.R.S. 2 Report No. 17, Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France, 6th June 44 – 31st August 1944. In that report, for the period of 6 June-7 August a sample of 53 tanks resulted in 48% lost to ‘AP shot.’ For 8-31 August 1944 that dropped to just 11% due to the high number of abandoned tanks in that period. From that we may presume that the June-July total loss to ‘AP shot’ may have been about 246, while for August-September it may have been about 147, for a total of about 393."
concludes same thing as me that going by the Operational Research Section No.2 papers around 400 German tanks ultimately lost by AT Projectiles.
"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."
Yep I think this guy is on the money. So we can guess in tank on tank combat around 5 Allied Tanks lost for each German tank.
And then consider Panther more than twice as effective as Pz4 in combat and mostly Pz4s...
again
in tank on tank combat possibly 10 SHERMANS FOR 1 PANTHER?
ooof
ouch
ow
oh no
The reports you're trying to understand are dealing in overall total losses in specific engagements.
Steve Zalgoda has gone over to the dark side as an historian. He's no longer correcting past assumptions and is now part of the old problem.
A primary reason for German AFV losses duing WWII,a lack of spare parts.
A 1954 study done by the U.S. Army Dept. -
https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-7/cmhPub_104-7.pdf
A 2016 study focusing on the 12th SS Panther Abt-
https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1842&context=cmh
Btw Arracourt highlights the failure of :
Veteran German commanders of the Eastern Front adapting to the conditions of the Western Front.Ya can find more than a few accounts of "We did it this way in Russia" type tactics leading to unsupported Panther tank charges and the like against the Allies.
The poor decisions of creating the Panther brigades,how said brigades were organized,how they were used tactically the West.The manpower and equipment would have served Germany far better reinforcing veteran Pz units..
Oh Arracourt also highlights the abysmal state of training,both individual and unit, in the Heer.
Also highlights the maturity of Allied tactics,unit leaders and etc.
Very few Allied tanks were knocked out by Panzers. Very few Panthers were encountered in what we would consider plausible scenarios to compare Allied armor vs them.
Although mechanical failure was the primary cause of German tank losses the total statistics have been broken down further to just sample how well Allied tanks did in pure Tank vs Tank engagements.
The outcome was 3.1 Panthers for every Sherman.
1.1 Panzer IV for every Sherman.
Only a small percentage of US tanks were knocked out by direct gunfire from anything smaller than an 88 according to the ballistics lab research.
Again, BRL Memorandum Report No. 798 breaks down these statistics and lines them up with divisional AARs involving each specific vehicle and gun type.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9P3lKQUy6kcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=BRL+Report+No.+798&source=bl&ots=7xRO4XEc_O&sig=HxpChcJh4ozfpjwYO-6qlFOlH1M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja3NGmrJ_dAhVBTt8KHUCnDtQQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=BRL%20Report%20No.%20798&f=false
This study even goes as far to show the number of guns used in each engagement and how many rounds were fired, and who fired first, and who was the attacker and who was the defender in each study group.
As you can see the German armor was hopelessly outnumbered. In some of the few examples of Panthers vs Shermans the Panthers were overall outnumbered 41 to 17, and the allies fired first and fired 20 times as many rounds per minute.
In other engagements you can see that the number of guns are equal in said engagement and the m4's wiped the floor with the Panthers decisively. This was due to defensive initiative.
The key thing to take away from these studies is that they were shown to prove that initiative was the decisive factor in most engagements, with US tanks taking relatively few casualties while on the defense, and on the defense is when most m4 vs Mark V combat took place,, but on the offense with the initiative ie: firing first, they were still able to trade favorably.
Even if you don't agree with what Zaloga is saying, you can cut him out totally and go directly to the sources of divisional aars and the BRL Memorandum Report No. 798.
Tank Vs Tank combat that didn't involve a massive amount of other support was very rare. Example TD + m4 + air support + artillery support vs a few sitting duck Panzer IV's or V's. These engagements have been purposely removed from the study to break stats down to the much smaller samples of purely m4 vs Mk IV etc.
Likewise when the Germans did perform exceptionally well it was due to a high amount of AT support and SPG's working in tandem with the Panzers. Tank vs Tank though the Germans did not perform. Likely because of a lack of reconnaissance. As we all know light vehicles were easy targets for air strikes and artillery which would have greatly diminished any opportunity of initiative or fire first opportunities for them.
You don't just make wild baseless claims and then link to something.
Watch this.
Tibetan Book of the Dead explains how to terraform Mars for $9.99
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nYi3NpsOq8UC
read it all and then come back to me
This thing of just throwing out ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ without using any data to back up your arguments is a pain because it takes so much longer for other people to clean up all the stuff you come out with than it takes for you to just poop it out.
You think you can just make statements without showing the context of the data that those statements depend on. You're wrong.
Where is this in your linked source?
Where is this in your linked source?
Where is this in your linked source?
Where is this in your linked source? It doesn't seem the Pz4 is even listed in the main table but is once listed in the Attacking and Defending table in one engagement where 1 Sherman was lost and 0 Pz4. Is this what you're going by? Make an actual argument with data. Stop making a mess for other people to clean up.
Where is this in your linked source? You mean in the chart concerning engagements? NO IT DOESN'T. IT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT M4 CONCERNS BOTH 75MM AND 76MM. READ YOUR SOURCE.
"M4 The "Sherman" tank. Usually not known whether gun was 75mm or 76mm"
This study. This "Engagements Grouped According to Allied and Enemy Weapon Type". This isn't a study looking at how effective different weapon types are, you realise this?
This is to look at the effectiveness of vehicles in defensive and attacking and effectiveness of who fires the first shot.
...you're trying to use this study - which is nothing to do with analysing effectiveness of weapons - as part of how effective weapon types are?
You're going to use this and take it completely out of context to try and argue the effectiveness of weapon types?
Undergrad AF.
We have two accounts of "M4" (can't tell us what guns they have) outperforming Panthers. Not telling us where or when this is ... is this Arracourt?... not telling us any details about the engagement, and is this just your assumption? I didn't read that skimming through it.
And in one of the two fights the "M4s" overall outnumber the Panthers 2:1 and then it is split up into 5 different engagements so we have no diea how many Panthers vs M4s in the actual fight.
That's because it's not a study looking at the effectiveness of weapon types. It's a study looking at the big picture of attacker vs defender and who fires the first shot.
Where?
10 M4s VS 4 Panthers - 3 Dead M4, 1 dead Panthers.
11 M4s VS 5 Panthers - 1 Dead M4, 2 dead Panthers.
5 M4s VS 4 Panthers - 5 Dead M4, 0 dead Panthers.
17 M4s VS 24 Panthers - 5 Dead M4, 0 dead Panthers.
WIPING THE FLOOR WITH THOSE PANTHERS FAM! KEEP IT UP!
What are you on about? Are you reading this from another dimension or something? Point to the data when you make your claims.
F.
Just F.
Ultimately let's look at what we can get from this study concerning Allied VS Axis AFV performance
"In the eighty-six engagements in which the numbers of weapons and casualties are known, the Allies employed a total of 797 "weapons", lost 149. The enemy used 327 weapons, lost 158."
So we have to just guess how much the Allied weapons were outnumbering the Axis across these 86 engagements. Great.
In anycase, almost three times the number of Allied weapons. When one side is outnumbered that much they should be winning comfortably and taking far less losses unless their weapons aren't inferior.
As previously said your tank can be 2 or 3 times effective as enemy tanks but still be lost at 2 or 3 times the rate.
But ultimately the Allies are losing the same amount of despite hugely outnumbering Axis... What does that say??
Also that we know the Allies had so many effective weapons such as Tank Destroyers. We expect these to perform regradless, let alone when the enemy is at such disadvantages and numerically outnumbered.
This is a discussion claiming that Sherman destroyed 3.6 Panthers for each Sherman destroyed by Panthers.
You've framed this as:
The study is not differentiating from 76mm, READ YOUR STUDY
What 30 engagements? You mean the first 6 rows? Where the first two rows (is this Arracourt?) the Sherman (could be 76mms) drastically outperforms the Panther, and we know nothing about when or where this is and what happened? AND IN THE NEXT 3 ROWS...
26 Shermans fight 13 Panthers over 4 engagements
9 Shermans are lost
2 Panthers are lost.
So not only that we find that generally the M4 Shermans are usually being outperformed by the Panthers, as we would expect, but that the M4 Shermans are losing when they're significnalty outnumbering the Panthers.
If you came here to share that Shermans outperform Panthers when SHERMANS OUTNUMBER PANTHERS, then why frame it as:
"I'm so confused that a Panther is supposed to be better on paper, yet strangely I find when Shermans hugely outnumber Panthers the Shermans do better - look here, BUT IGNORE MOST FIGHTS WHERE THE PANTHERS STILL BEAT SHERMANS DESPITE SHERMANS OUTNUMBERING PANTHERS".?
https://s8.postimg.cc/ty1o34m1h/3456.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW68goC4_es
F
Let's discuss relevant estimates, this:
100 German Tanks destroyed by Allied Tanks.
500 Allied Tanks destroyed by German tanks.
5 Allied Tanks for 1 German Tank in Tank on Tank Combat.
We know that the Panther is far superior to the Pz4 in combat. This is estimating average from Pz4s doing much of the work.
https://i.imgur.com/LSHk7jH.png
You're also making wild assumption that all 75mm gunfire from the main pool is from a Panther or Panzer IV. The 75mm Pak 40 would have been fairly common and also self propelled variants lowering the possible tank vs tank encounters even further.
In tank vs tank combat the Panther's performance is horribly lacking. Yes you are right that the 76 is also included in these studies, but the 76mm US variant was not very common for the majority of the campaigns and was not that impressive compared to the QF-17lber mounted in the British Firefly. It's pretty safe to assume most of these engagements involved 75mm.
I'm not saying the Panther is a horrible tank, statistically it's a great tank, it just did not perform well in tank vs tank duels vs the M4 Sherman.
When you actually look at the data the whole thing is just piss poor analysis and you start to notice massive incoherencies in the data contradicting the hypothesis they're going with. It's almost as if Ambushes are successful (big suprise) and this study isn't able to actually know which were ambushes and which weren't. This whole thing has a vibe of people who are bad at their job. Study is just awful. It's incoherent. The data analysis is basic beyond belief. I've seen this posted in WW2 discussions before. Has no one actually critically looked at this?
You see that in places that the Defender fires first, against a numerically inferior, equal, or superior foe, and on occasions the defender sometimes still loses more or less weapons. You particularly see this in the cases where there are fewer numbers of engagements, and it should be the cases where there is just 1 or 2 engagements where you should see this advantage being clearly decisive, but when you look at the data you don't see such a strong pattern at all, and the peopel doing the study have totally failed to do any proper data analysis factoring for numbers. You notice the most determining thing when you can see an actual engagement instead of it being spread across many is often how much one side is outnumbered by.
This is the sort thing that fell out of the heavens for plebs who automatically think it is some respectable conclusive thing but have failed to critically analyse it at all.
This is what is most convincing that you can take away from it:
https://s8.postimg.cc/ty1o34m1h/3456.png
This is where we can see small single or double engagements and see the actual performance of vehicles against one another.
We have 2 cases, one of a single and another of a double engagement, where the Shermans outnumber the Panthers 2:1 and they take equal losses.
We have 1 case of a single engagement where 5 Shermans fight 4 Panthers and all 5 Shermans die and Zero Panthers die.
We have 1 case of a double engagement where 17 Shermans fight 24 Panthers and 5 Shermans die and Zero Panthers die.
Thanks for posting this. You posted your own nail in your coffin.
This looks at Defender Fired First and Attacker Fired First and ridiculously concludes on this totally out of context Totals without making a model for controlling for factors at all:
"Defenders firing lost 22 of 238 weapons while destroying 154 of 394 weapons"
half of that is from just 2 fights of Panthers defending against Shermans and TDs
104 Panthers defending fire first against 93 attacking Shermans (19 engagement) - 5 Panthers die 57 Shermans die.
61 Panthers defending fire first against 19 attacking TDs (11 engagements) - 1 Panther dies all 19 TDs die.
(with Panthers outnumbering TDs attacking at 3:1 lol yea, sure it's really about just who fires first. Makes perfect sense, such an intelligent analysis.)
That's half of what they're drawing the totals on is a fight between 104 Panthers and 93 Shermans. When you look at single encounters with balanced forces the pattern weakens.
The main factor is clearly the superiority of weapon systems or numerical superiority. WHO DID THIS STUDY? LOOK AT YOUR DATA LOL. This is what happens when people don't make proper data analysis models.
We look at the accounts of 1, 2, or 3 engagements the pattern isn't much:
3 Tds defending fire first against 4 Panthers (1 engagement) - 1 Panther dies 0 TDs die (that just sounds like it wasn't a proper Ambush or failed)
wait wait wait wait.... those numbers about Panthers and Shermans sound very familiar...........
HOL UP HOL UP
Also because of the engine design they would start on fire really easily. US tankers called them "Ronson" cause they lit on the first strike.
I'm not suprised, makes sense after talking about what a crappy analysis the whole thing is.
Table IV Tank Losses of Force First and Second
Defender Fired First
Attacking Weapon: M4
Defending Weapon: Panther
Number of First Fire Weapons (Defender):..... 104........ 104 Panthers.
Number of Second Fire Weapons (Attacker):..... 93......... 93 Shermans.
Number of First Fire Losses (Panther losses): ..... 5 ........ 5 Panthers.
Number of Second Fire Losses (Sherman losses) ...... 57 ....... 57 Shermans
THAT'S THIS!!! But written the wrong way around!!!:
Table III Losses of Attacking and Defending Forces:
Allied Weapons: M4
Enemy Weapons: Panther
Number of Allied Weapons (Sherman): ....... 104....... 104 Shermans.
Number of Enemy Weapons (Panther) ....... 93 ....... 93 Panthers
Number Allied Casualties (Sherman Losses)..... 5 ...... 5 Shermans.
Number Enemy Casualties (Panther Losses): ..... 57...... 57 Panthers.
https://s8.postimg.cc/xbjk0myg5/bodged_study_01.png
No way.
No wonder the whole study is ridiculous.... they can't even write the data correctly????
People have been sharing this ♥♥♥♥ for years..... and the whole thing is a typo???? It's not Shermans winning, of course it's the Panthers winning! The names are the wrong way around lol.
It makes perfect sense with how it demonstrates superiority of the Panther by showing straight engagements
https://s8.postimg.cc/ty1o34m1h/3456.png
He's read the 'Fired First' thing wrong and copying it to Table III he's got Panthers and Shermans the wrong way around lol.
It's clearly the Panthers who destroyed 57 Shermans and only lost 5 Panthers.
Table IV is correct one, if this any of this data can actually be trusted to be typed out correctly. How do we know this guy lacking coffee didn't write most of these boxes with wrong numbers vs wrong numbers. Wrong types of vehicles against wrong types of vehicles?
But Panthers kill Shermans. Just as we see demonstrated in the data on individual engagements.
The typo is in Table III.
EDIT: lol these are the standards for historians! No wonder other fields sneer down their noses at history.
I'm not suprised, makes sense after talking about what a crappy analysis the whole thing is.
Table IV Tank Losses of Force First and Second
Defender Fired First
Attacking Weapon: M4
Defending Weapon: Panther
Number of First Fire Weapons (Defender):..... 104........ 104 Panthers.
Number of Second Fire Weapons (Attacker):..... 93......... 93 Shermans.
Number of First Fire Losses (Panther losses): ..... 5 ........ 5 Panthers.
Number of Second Fire Losses (Sherman losses) ...... 57 ....... 57 Shermans
THAT'S THIS!!! But written the wrong way around!!!:
Table III Losses of Attacking and Defending Forces:
Allied Weapons: M4
Enemy Weapons: Panther
Number of Allied Weapons (Sherman): ....... 104....... 104 Shermans.
Number of Enemy Weapons (Panther) ....... 93 ....... 93 Panthers
Number Allied Casualties (Sherman Losses)..... 5 ...... 5 Shermans.
Number Enemy Casualties (Panther Losses): ..... 57...... 57 Panthers.
https://s8.postimg.cc/xbjk0myg5/bodged_study_01.png
No way.
No wonder the whole study is ridiculous.... they can't even write the data correctly????
People have been sharing this ♥♥♥♥ for years..... and the whole thing is a typo???? It's not Shermans winning, of course it's the Panthers winning! The names are the wrong way around lol.
It makes perfect sense with how it demonstrates superiority of the Panther by showing straight engagements
https://s8.postimg.cc/ty1o34m1h/3456.png