"For every bunning Tiger there were 10 smashed up T-34s"

Like there is a pretty big discrepancy between helicopter losses and tail numbers written off during the Vietnam conflict.

These things happen. Tanks get rebuilt or reclassified as a new sub-type.

It's all pretty secondary to who holds the high ground at the end of the day.

Pawel, that’s exactly how it works. The Germans pioneered the recovery of disabled, damaged, and destroyed tanks off of the battlefield. Every army followed suit. 

Hello!

History is a funny thing... My grandpa was a slave laborer employed by the Germans as a farm boy in northern Germany. And one of his best friends (they met well after the war ended) was an anti-tank gunner in an SS unit on the eastern front. I've had the priviledge to talk to that gentleman about anti tank warfare on the eastern front and here's what he told me: He said where he was the historians often claimed the numbers didn't match, the Germans reported three destroyed soviet tanks where the Soviets only booked one lost. And he said this doesn't have to be an error or lie, according to him it often happened that the Germans destroyed a tank and the Soviets pulled it from the front line under the cover of darkness, welded the hole up, mopped up the mess inside and with a new crew the tank was online next day, only to be knocked out again. After a few rounds of this game when the Soviet tank was at last FUBAR, the Soviets booked one lost tank, and the Germans reported several destroyed. And I dont mean this is how the TRUTH looked like - it's just how the veteran remembered it.

Thanks for reading and have a nice day

Paweł

Well, the massed sacrificial wave attack can also be attributed to every army of WWI, the IJA and many of Monty’s WWII plans, and probably even General Grant of the Civil War. 

Ill bet that a similar battlefield revision loss analysis can be made of the Golan Heights in the 1973. Statistically speaking, nearly every Israeli tank on the Heights in the critical first 48 hours was hit. W amount of those were knocked out (mobility kill, weapons systems kill, or catastrophic kill), X amount were recovered, and Y amount were recovered/repaired, and Z amount were total loss. The long run number of total loss were far fewer than were hit and at least temporarily knocked out, yet still partially operational in one form or another, and put back into service within the same time frame as the recoverablem losses of II SS Panzer Korps at Prokhorovka.

I once had a project that included a US Marshal's office in the ground floor of a Federal Building. It included some very complicated glass window assemblies. All kinds of layers to strip the metal jacket, mushroom the core, absord the energy and not spall on the back. Still, only good for a 30 cal. assault rifle shot at point blank range.

Yes, I know the 35 mm armor I cited is the steel. And I was trying to imply what you more clearly stated.

I'd like to see those aerial photos. Sounds like they've been in the National Archive.

The Russian strategy no doubt informed General Giap's attitude that it's worth getting 1M of your guys killed as against mid-five figures on the other side, if that's what it takes to win.

One more reason to really hate Communism.

GMorrison

3600 fps. Effective range up to 1000 yards. 35 mm armor penetration.

An obsolete weapon by 1943 for penetrating a tanks armor, but still effective in weaker spots. SPG's, soft skins still vulnerable.

 

Right.... but that is 35mm of steel armor. Armored glass has different hardness. Armor piercing shot will usually penetrate much more armored glass than armored steel. Now on the other hand, a shaped charge HEAT warhead will not, because the glass is more resistant to the chemical energy molten jet formed by a shaped charge. That’s why modern AFVs have gone to composite armors to defeat both kinetic energy (solid shot) and chemical energy (shaped charge) projectiles.

3600 fps. Effective range up to 1000 yards. 35 mm armor penetration.

An obsolete weapon by 1943 for penetrating a tanks armor, but still effective in weaker spots. SPG's, soft skins still vulnerable.

More info is always good info if added to the general context. Shattered Sword cleaned up a lot of what Fuchida said. 

Bish

 

I did think this bit was funny

''Anatoly told his nephew that sometimes a skilled Soviet sniper could stop a Tiger by shooting the driver through the tank's vision slit.''

There's 6inches of glass in there, what were their snipers useing, .50Cal.

I'll deffinetly be taking some time to read the full article.

 

The anti tank riflemen were supposed to aim for vision ports and similar such spots. Those were the 14.7mm rifles, bigger than a .50 Cal. I don’t know of the penetration ballistics of those rifles against armored glass. 

My only beef with the article is the implication that they are basing the revised figures on aerial photos taken a day or two after the battle. The Germans were meticulous in their record keeping and those figures of losses- damaged, destroyed, recovered, etc. have been available for some time.  Not to mention that recovery operations of salvageable and repairable vehicle’s would have begun immediately after the fighting ended. Of course a day or two later only the non recoverable hulks will be left on the battlefield.  

Much like the hype around “Shattered Sword” when it was first published. There was noting super revisionist in its’ final revelations, just more details on certain aspects of the battle of Midway. 

I dont know...I was watching the trailer to a Russian movie call T-34 very bizarre flick.

Interesting. More detail is always good detail.

I'd always read that the loss ratio in armor there was something like 8-1 so 10-1 seems feasible.

I do think it's understandable that when a German historian states that the Russians should take down a memorial at a location where they suffered 3/4 million casualties; the reaction is predictable.

While articles like this clearly can't change the outcome of any particular event, i see nothing wrong with re-assesing these things and getting a more accurate picture if possable. And when new information comes to light its important to study it.

Of course, this doesn't suit the myths and lies the Russians have been peddaling for almost 80 years. I like the comment by Yuri Knutov who called the German article "a blatant falsification" of history. Well, the Russians know all about that.

I did think this bit was funny

''Anatoly told his nephew that sometimes a skilled Soviet sniper could stop a Tiger by shooting the driver through the tank's vision slit.''

There's 6inches of glass in there, what were their snipers useing, .50Cal.

I'll deffinetly be taking some time to read the full article.

No matter how much some folks dive deep into some of these battles, whatever conclusions they present as “new” do not change the basic historical outcome of these battles. I’ve read other articles and books that go off of German after action and unit strength reports that show the German losses at Prokhovkha were not as high as the Soviets claimed. But in the long run, the Soviets won the battle, and eventually, the war in Eastern Europe. And at a terrible cost in lives and material.