It always strikes me odd when I read about German and Russian losses. Usually German reports are taken into account, which means, that German tanks which were damaged but repaired are not marked as loss, whilst the Russian tanks are all marked as loss, regardless their "repairibility". (I guess the Germans could not really call the Russians after the battle to set the record straight.) Russian records are not really reliable -or at least this is what is claimed. (The same thing comes up when the quality of the TigerII comes up... the Russian evaluations are usually brushed aside as "pure propaganda" - or don't come up at all - at least in many of the sources I read.
But it leads to one thing: the overestimation of Russian losses. So: is it possible that the statistics are not exactly correct and the "10000 to 1" kill ratios are a bit overestimated? How do we know how many of the damaged tanks were recovered if the "enemy" is pushing forward, and the Germans can't observe these vehicles behind the front?
It's only an opinion after doing some reading and thinking. It can be wrong and it can be changed. I'm no way an expert.
Opinions?

"10000 to 1?" Is anybody really claiming that kind of kill ratio? If so I'd like a little of what they are smoking. :-) Seriously I think there is always going to be those who will accept any inflated claims about German superiority, and discount any information to the contrary. At the same time the same people, or others, will believe any bad things about Soviet equipment or personnel, and ignore anything that makes them look good. I can't tell you why this is, but it seems to be the case.

As an example of German over-claiming

How many?

The image of Wittmann and his ilk striding across the battlefield divvying up the knocked-out Red Army tanks is one that always makes me laugh. Yes, the Red Army was profligate in its use of tanks, it could afford to be, but any attempt to assign a specific total of kills to any crew (let alone commander) is propaganda moonshine.

David

Well,

I think there are two or three factors playing into it:

1. Up until the mid or late 1990's the Russian archives were simply not available for western historians. Add to that the language barrier. So there will be a lot of catching up to do...

2. The kill-ratio numbers get distorted for a number of reasons:

The kill ratio is probably distorted by the massive Russian losses early in the war. Also, there is the fact that (either in the German reports or the numbers derived from them by historians/statisticians) the distinction between tank, self-propelled assault guns and tank destroyers is blurred or not made at all.
It gets even worse when different standards are used for either side...

3. I might get some flack for this one (it is not intended as a flame), but I would suggest bias from the Western POV. Simply put, the "west" is considered to be superior to anything else (capitalism, democracy etc. etc.). Thus, a lot of things that might disturb that image get distorted or ignored.
And thus we can not have the Russians look better then the Western allies, can we?

And as illustrations to the point, see what happens when one dares to suggest that the War in Europe was won on the Russian front (even though at all times they faced the bulk of the German forces, including the majority of the German elite divisions, while much of what the Western forces faced was on "rest and recovery" from the eastern front). Or today to suggest that Russian aircraft are aerodynamically superior to (almost) anything the West produces (see the Flanker series), or the US has not the best weaponry (or best forces) in the world.
Simply put, it is not in the interest of the commercial channels (Discovery/History channel) and mass-sales historians to spread around an opinion that will not sit well with their main markets...

So it's not just me? I though I was being paranoid.
By the way, tank aces: how on earth can you tell who knocked out a specific vehicle? You might have hit it, but so did many other guys, AT-guns, mines, etc... In dogfight it's fairly simple: if you hit it, and falls down, it's your kill...
Double standards: especially home, in different forums people tend to be really emotional about this thing. Their hatred against anything that Russian (60 years of occupation) kind of overrides everything, so many people end up glorifying the German side... (Not that you can't see this everywhere...)

History Channel and likes: it is kind of annoying. The British documentaries are much-much better. The new show, Dogfight, for example. It seems like only Americans ever shot down enemy airplanes... And in one (different) show a WWII veteran fumes about a "bad German" who attacked and shot down a damaged airplane, and in Dogfight a Korean veteran giggles about shooting down a clearly damaged MiG-15, killing the pilot... I've never seen mentioned that infamous BVR simulated dogfights between the Indian Airforce's Su-27s and the USAF F-15s (9:1 kill ratio).
And it's true: no one has ever admitted -save historians- that the European war was decided in the East. So this whole thing about the "kill ratios" of different tanks is really the same one-sided propaganda?

The greatest challenge presented by Soviet tanks was their massive production rates compared to the meagre production of German heavy designs — only 1,350 Tigers and fewer than 500 Tiger IIs were built. By comparison, alongside the 58,000 T-34s produced there were 4,600 KV-1s and over 3,500 IS-2s. In total over 66,000 medium and heavy Soviet tanks to 1,850 Tigers.

An oft-quoted statistic for weapons systems is the kill ratio. Against the Soviet and western Allied production numbers, I don't think that even a 10:1 kill ratio would have been sufficient for the Tigers. Some Tiger units did however exceeded the 10:1 kill ratio, including 13. Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland (16.67:1), schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (12.82:1) and schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 (13.08:1). These numbers must though, be set against the opportunity cost of building the expensive Tiger. Every Tiger built, for one example, cost as much as four Sturmgeschütz III assault guns to build. One measure of cost-effectiveness, therefore, would be whether the Tiger's kill ratio was four times as high as the Sturmgeschutz III.

Maybe it would have been a good idea mounting a gun camera on the tanks and anti tank guns too.... :-)

You see, this is what I am doubtful of. You take the German reports? Did the Germans verify that the tanks hit were indeed irreparable? Called the Russian High Command to ask them? Because how I think it goes now is that we take the German "net" losses (tanks that were not repaired), and the Russian "total" losses (losses we don't know about).
This way it's easy to be a superman.
By the way, the IS-2's superiority was not in its numbers. It was a highly superior tank to the Tiger, and an equal match to the Tiger II (and we haven't even talked about the Russian evaluations of the captured Tiger IIs).

I agree up to a point here. If you consider the guns dual purpose capability, and over all mobility it was a better than both Tigers on paper. Now, climb inside, fiddle with that seperate ammunition inside a cramped hull and turret, your main tank opponent is probably highly nimble Panthers and your no better off than that Tiger crew.

As far as evaluations, we really need one from a source with no vested interest one way or another. German evaluations of the IS were likely no more complementary than Soviet evaluations of the Tiger II.

As most tanks destroyed by the Germans were T-34's, and the Soviets would rebuild just about any wreck, we may never know the true figures. I have been reading the new book on the T-34 (T-34 Mythical Weapon). If you want to read some very uncomplimentary writing on the T-34 in regard to quality, and on the German high command, then give it a read.

[quote]


Unfortunately that book is the perfect example of negative bias against everything that's Russian. (Which is kind of understandable if you take a look at the nationality of the author... Many of my fellow countrymen and model builders express similar contempt.)

Although my call sign is m4sherman, and I made most of the M4 line for TWS, I am a T-34 enthusiest first. I like the very simple bare design of the 1943 versions, and the variety that field and factory rebuilds give me as a modeler. I think I bought most of the old Tamiya T-34's that came out to Arizona, and wish DML would get off their tushes and make a mickey mouse version.

War time T-34's were crudely built by often underage (to our standards) and poorly trained workers. This was not new information to me. As such, these tanks fit within the Soviet war time mentatity, make it fast, make as many as possible. I do not agree 100% with all the points made by the authurs of the book. However, my studies long ago led me to the conclusion that the T-34 was no wonder weapon.

I have to say I do respect your work -I love the TWS products. And, of course, you know more about the subject than me. I never though the T-34 was a wonder-weapon, though I really like the tank. But the book does not give it justice. (I think on Missing-lynx you'll find the same conclusion in the review.) Nevertheless I think that one of the best tank designs of all times are the T-34.
(Talk about crude craftsmanship... some of the tanks I saw in Kecel hadcasting errors centimeters (!) deep... It's like the AK-47: nothing fancy, but works even if you bury it into the ground for 10 years.)

(Shermans drive me nuts. I just can't tell the difference between the 1000+ variants. It's a good thing, that DML finally started to issue Sherman kits, and some Russian, but they'd do better if they worked more on these subjects -and postwar Soviet- than never-built German AVFs... Sorry, rant off.)

I have to agree about the kits of the prototype, or more often drawing room German kits. I suppose they must sell. Now, a new smart kit 1942(3) T-34 76 gun tank with a hard edge turret.............that sweet and ugly SU-122, the SU-85. I figure that 10 minutes after I put the effort into a new -122 the kit will be announced.

I forgot to mention the another often forgotten piece of the puzzle here. Most times after 1943 the Soviets were able to recover their wrecked tanks because they were gaining ground. If on Monday they attacked, failed, and lost 10 tanks in German territory these tanks could be seen by the Germans as knocked out. If they attacked again on Friday, succeeded, recovered the wrecks and rebuilt them these might have shown up on a report as lost, then been resurrected again.

I might believe 10 to 1 . I too don't believe fully in the Wittman legend. Germany needed heros the same as the Allies did. I'm sure he shot down a lot of tanks but I'm also sure some budding PR man saw the value in hyping the score.As far as the T-34, isn't it sort of analogus to the Sherman? Not the best but lots of them and available right now.

The Germans some times called the Sherman the T34 of the west. I am not a Whittman expert (experts are like know it alls: My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!) but I was at a talk years ago and the narrator said that the German tally sheet included anything armored and anti-tank guns. Apparently Whittman was noted for his ability to spot dug in anti-tank weapons. In the British the story, that his tank was destroyed by a Firefly, he was targetting it at the time, and almost knocked it out. The Firefly had to back out of sight to avoid his return fire. Not bad for a tank under fire and caught in the flank by a surprise attack.

The point is that some soldiers have a feel for a battle field, and an uncanny sense in combat. Whittman was one of those type of soldiers. Was his score real? We will never know.

I've only read a few things about Whittman (usually in books about armor, WWII) These agreed that due to the high losses in his company he became the highest ranking officer -and he made a really bad tactical decision to rush an attack against that Canadian armor column. It was already dug in, in hastily prepared defensive position. As they attacked, one Firefly was able to knock out 3 Tigers - Whittman's included- in less than five minutes. One book ("Sledgehammers...") used it to illustrate how "invincible" tanks can be lost as a result of bad decisions.

As for the T-34 -it wasn't just a Russian Sherman. It had a very potent 76mm AT gun (the Sherman's weapon was not designed against armor), for one thing (and it didn't catch fire so easily, either). Until the Tiger appeared, the T-34 was superior to any German tanks. (I don't think you can say that about the Sherman.) Most of the early Russian victories were not achieved by overwhelming force. Only after Kursk had the Russians significant superiority in numbers.

It was not my intent to defend Whittmans actions when he was killed. He, and his superiors made a combat decision that lacked proper knowledge of enemy movements. My point was that he was able to shoot back, and very accurately, at his opponent.

I have studied several comparisons of WWII weapons over the years, and all have put the Soviet tank mounted 76mm as a comparative equal to the US 75mm. Both were designed to be a dual purpose weapon, both had acceptable anti-tank capabilities in the 1942 to 1943 time frame, and a good high explosive round. I have heard of one Soviet tank unit that was greatly demoralized when they had to turn in their Shermans for those "xxxx" T34 85's.

The T34 with the big hex turret has been my favorite tank from the second I first got the old Tamiya kit home, crappy tracks and all. However, I believe that from the moment there were significant numbers of PzIV F2 and G models available, along with the StuG III F series, the tank had lost its overall superiority. The steppes were covered with blown up and burned out T34's in WWII.

Stepping into this one a bit late. I am going ever so slightly off topic here. In the mid 70's I was a commissioned tank officer in the US Army comannding 5 M60a1 (RISE) tanks...that's sort of halfway btwn an a1 and a3. We wre given access to the T-62 tank s that had been brought in from the recent Yom Kippur War. They were pure unadultereated C-R-A-P compared to what we had. I also had opportunities to get inside an AMX30, Leopard I and a Chieftain. All of those were far-far superior as well. I think both the Tiger and T-34's were mythacized a bit too much. All kills are over exaggerated. Heck did you know the entire Japanese fleet was destroyed at Midway as was ours. IThe only thing I know about these tanks is, I sure would have hated to go up against a Tiger.....PERIOD !!!

Yeah, I think you've made a bit of a jump here. You can't make decisions on a completely different model... It'd be like me saying that American cars suck, because my '87 Taurus is a piece of junk compared to my neighbor's 2008 Acura. (And the T-62 wasn't really a good tank, either. And you make the same mistake as everyone usually makes, too: do not compare the downgraded, export armor to the state-of-the-art Western tanks. Compare them to the elite Russian versions. Like the T-80 or T-90 -or, if we're in the '70s, the T-64.)
The fact is, that the Russians only lost their edge in armor since the Leopard2 and M1A2. They need to rethink their philosophy to catch up. (And this whole data-integration thing.)
Interesting sidenote, but I read someone arguing against the F-22. He was some Air force expert, and in his opinion -which makes sense for an outsider, like me- the Russian's IR technology makes radar-contact unnecessary, and even the low IR emission of a Raptor makes it vulnerable to the new generation of heat-seeking missiles. Also worth mentioning that infamous training exercise between USAF F-15s and the Indian Airforce's Su-27s a few years ago. BWR engagements 9:1 for the Indians. Just because something's Russian, doesn't mean it's crap.
If going against a Tiger, by the way, a Firefly, or better yet, an IS-2 is more than enough


So back to the original question: is it possible to make an unbiased estimate of tank losses?

The high kill rates claimed by the Germans is the result of accepting crew claims as gospel. We get books claiming say SS 101 destroyed 300 enemy tanks when it really means SS 101 claimed 300 tanks.
In 1943 all German kill claims in the East were as a matter of routine, reduced by 33% when collated for intelligence estimates. In 1944 the reduction rose to 50%. I have yet to see anyone take this into account when making up the scores of the aces or the Units they served in.
The Germans themselves recognised the problem - its just that those writing today chose to ignore it and print the claims as kills.