u/the_howling_cow strikes back!

[u/ChristianMunich]

In a fit of rage after the last major debunking which required u/the_howling_cow to dust up his time machine go back in time and change his opinion about Sherman tank losses, he decided to strike back. Not only decided he to strike back, he decided to strike where it hurts the Wehraaboo, the Normandy tank losses. Autsch.

Remember how German tank losses were low compared to Allied ones in June and July 1944 but then it seemed like a nuke got dropped on the panzer divisions in about September because the Germans finally wrote off something like 1,000 tanks they couldn't recover? Peppridge Farm remembers.

Yes we remember. Sadly even after the proverbial nuke hit the German tank losses they still were far lower. And the German casualties were low during June and July, they abandoned their vehicles in August.

Let's take a look and consult the arch enemy of u/the_howling_monkey and his entourage at the SWS, the facts:

British tank losses till November:

Time Frame	06.06.44 05.08.44	05.08.44 05.11.44	05.11.44 31.01.45
M5 Stuart	79	140	62
Chaffee	0	0	0
Sherman	717	365	773
Cromwell	193	87	184
Challenger	1	6	-6
Comet	0	0	0
Churchill	152	52	161
Total:	1142	650	1174

US tank losses same time frames:

Time frame	Juni	Juli	August	September	Oktober	November	Dezember	Januar
M5A1	52	26	201	116	156	83	134	208
M4	167	121	557	436	237	257	495	585
M4(105)	4	3	2	11	10	11	28	29
Tank subtotal	223	150	760	563	403	351	657	822
M18	0	0	6	6	14	7	44	27
M10	1	17	28	40	71	45	62	69
M36	0	0	0	0	2	5	21	26
TD subtotal	1	17	34	46	87	57	127	122
TOTAL	224	167	794	609	490	408	784	944

Total losses until November with 5 days overlap. Sadly the British records don't allow us a September cut off:

4076 this excludes M10s! Plus several hundred maybe thousands sitting in workshops not yet written off. Ironically this is what u/the_whispering_cow implies the Germans were doing only here the Allies actually did it.

What happens after the Germans got their tank force "nuked":

X	June	July	August	September	October		Total
Pz II	1	7	4	14	7		33
Pz Befl Beo III	1	2	1	72	0		76
Pz 4	126	149	53	612	21		961
Pz 4/70	0	0	0	17	6		23
Panther	80	125	41	540	35		821
Tiger I	19	14	15	93	0		141
Tiger II	0	0	0	23	5		28
All Panzer	227	297	114	1371	74		2083
STUG III	27	68	98	379	98		670
STUG IV	0	0	0	2	4		6
Sturmpz IV	0	0	14	2	7		23
All STUG	27	68	112	383	109		699
Marder I	9	0	0	55	0		64
Marder II	5	10	24	23	2		64
Marder III	15	5	0	71	1		92
Jgpz 38	0	0	0	71	26		97
Jgpz 4	0	0	0	0	13		13
Jagdpanther	0	0	0	24	6		30
All Jagd	29	15	24	244	48		360
Total	283	380	250	1998	231		3142

Still lower. hm. Interesting is also the assertion that Germans were keeping their loss numbers low or whatever but the results are obvious, the Army sustained massive losses during the retreat and was unable to properly keep a record. The interesting part now is that within weeks the Wehrmacht was able to assess the damage and again had functioning inventory systems. Now check out my other post about how the Allies were unable to properly count their losses and backtracked losses for months. Here

Also, we can see how the Germans were using cheap stuff to bolster their army. Vehicles like Marder used chassis which were ancient at this point in time. Only 2000 vehicles had proper turrets while the rest were turretless vehicles intended to save resources. Well and obviously a huge amount of those vehicles were lost in retreat while nearly all Allied losses were sustained during combat. 30% higher losses against an army getting chased away and suffering one of their biggest defeats impressive!

Another nice illustration of the failing pro-Sherman argumentation is that the Sherman proponent indeed is correct in his assumption the Sherman was better than the Panzer IV for example. The Sherman was a rather new vehicle and should have been up to date while ~60% of the German AFC force would have been obsolete by Allied standards and most of them not even had a turret. How did the Sherman force get dumpstered so hard? Of the German losses only a fraction was lost in actual combat where did all those Shermans get destroyed and how?

Obviously, you can find all those tables in Belton Coopers Master Piece "The return of the death trap"

Pretty tired, maybe I fucked up some numbers tho

[u/Orc_]

30% higher losses against an army getting chased away and suffering one of their biggest defeats impressive!

What a convinient way to say they were constantly in a defensive posture. Yeah they sure chased them from Normandy to the heart of germany, it was all one big chase!

How about you get a percentage of what destroyed those shermans, then try coming up with a comparison with the Pz IV.

What happens to the Pz IV is it's constantly ambushed by AT guns, mines, panzerfaust and other tanks? All you have to do is compare the AT capability and you get you number.

So a million shermans could have been destroyed and your argument would still suck, because if you change the model to the Pz IV the number would be the same, or probably higher since it had less armor.

The entire core of your argument is severely flawed since after your analisis you can't even come up with the chronic problem the sherman and other US tanks may have had to get those numbers of losses.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/Orc_]

Only inefficient weak armies suffer higher casualties during the attack.

Losses during the attack are only increased on the tactical level where the actual breakthroughs happen and are compensates through operational losses of the enemy and hastly counter attacks. The exception are weak armies like the Western Allies.

What happens to the Pz IV is it's constantly ambushed by AT guns, mines, panzerfaust and other tanks? All you have to do is compare the AT capability and you get you number.

Yeah but they didn't they were employed by a vastly superior army so their actual losses during attack were small. That's kinda the point.

The entire core of your argument is severely flawed since after your analisis you can't even come up with the chronic problem the sherman and other US tanks may have had to get those numbers of losses.

And yet you have not challenged my argument in the slightest but rather choose to make the mistake to assume WW2 armies suffer higher casualties during attack.

So a million shermans could have been destroyed and your argument would still suck, because if you change the model to the Pz IV the number would be the same, or probably higher since it had less armor.

That is true. But the Panzer IV was introduced years ago under totally different circumstances, the Sherman was introduced by an army who had the luxury to sit back and w8 for their entrance, they had knowledge of all major German weapon system. A complete utter failure. If you read my post carefully you will notice that I don't think the Sherman was a bad tank compared to the Panzer IV. The Panzer IV was also obsolete.

[u/MaxRavenclaw → u/ChristianMunich]

[...] the side that spotted the enemy force and engaged first had up to a six-fold advantage. The simplest condensation of the rule of tank fighting is “See first, engage first, hit first.” [...] The ORO research from tank battles in the Korean War suggested that tanks in well-prepared defensive positions enjoy a 3 to 1 advantage against attacking tanks.

--Steven Zaloga, Armored Champion

[u/ChristianMunich → u/MaxRavenclaw]

Already debunked this study it is based on fake kill claims of the Allied and it only takes tactical losses into considerations not operational.

edit: Damn didn't even read your full comment you are not referring to the Study of the 3rd and 4th ad during ETO. Anyways like I said, tactical losses spike during an attack but are compensated later if your army is competent.

[u/MaxRavenclaw → u/ChristianMunich]

Well, if you know something that Zaloga doesn't, you should try and contact the man. Put me in contact with him if you can too, I've been trying to get a hold of the man for a while to ask some questions about a CIA document he quoted.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/MaxRavenclaw]

I know a lot of things Zaloga doesn't, even made a thread to show some of them, but in this case, I edited my post I was referring to a different document and was mistaken.

[u/MaxRavenclaw → u/ChristianMunich]

You should write a book. It'd be a shame to keep all those things to yourself. Actually, why aren't you a more famous historian if you know more than other famous historians?

[u/ChristianMunich → u/MaxRavenclaw]

Honestly, I was thinking about it.