quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

They don't like to hit tanks as they know they will not hurt them. I would prefer them to hit most common element most often - which means combat squads or supports.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drkarl143

if you look at the historical data, most of the german tanks werent knocked out by aircraft, hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews... also try to damage a tiger or kingtiger with a 37mm gun :D Also planes like the stuka or the henschel were able to do attack very small targets very precisely and the excellent pilots (Rudel e.g. who destroyed hundrets of enemy tanks) used them very well. So overall I think its fine to inflict little tank losses by air attacks...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

I think it's a very large exaggeration to say that during five and a half years of war "hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews.", I wouldn't even like to make that statement about the last 6 months of the war without some solid proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

I think it's a very large exaggeration to say that during five and a half years of war "hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews.", I wouldn't even like to make that statement about the last 6 months of the war without some solid proof.

It all depends on whether you win or lose control of the battle field. Winners dont lose tanks to break downs or fuel shortages because they recover them and repair/refuel. Losers do. So an after the battle survey will show the winners losses are due to enemy action and the losers are to enemy action, breakdowns and fuel shortages.

And I have read a battlefield survey commissioned by the Western Allies of German armour losses in Western Europe from D-Day (I think) till they stopped at the Rhine...and the majority of losses were abandoned and not due to Allied Action.

And the AXIS lost control of the battlefield from late 1942. And the AXIS experience in Russia showed that the enemy were very quick to reuse abandoned vehicles, sometimes in under an hour, hence the need to blow them up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

quote:

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

I think it's a very large exaggeration to say that during five and a half years of war "hell most of the tank losses werent even caused by enemy action, but by fuel shortages and so the tanks had to be destroyed by their own crews.", I wouldn't even like to make that statement about the last 6 months of the war without some solid proof.

It all depends on whether you win or lose control of the battle field. Winners dont lose tanks to break downs or fuel shortages because they recover them and repair/refuel. Losers do. So an after the battle survey will show the winners losses are due to enemy action and the losers are to enemy action, breakdowns and fuel shortages.

And I have read a battlefield survey commissioned by the Western Allies of German armour losses in Western Europe from D-Day (I think) till they stopped at the Rhine...and the majority of losses were abandoned and not due to Allied Action.

And the AXIS lost control of the battlefield from late 1942. And the AXIS experience in Russia showed that the enemy were very quick to reuse abandoned vehicles, sometimes in under an hour, hence the need to blow them up.

This.

Controlling the battlefield after a tank action was vital regarding to losses. You could have a tank action where both sides had a similar loss of tanks (lets say, 100 tanks). However, you must take into account that most losses (around 80%, according to Robert Forzyk) werent total loss. Most of them could be repaired if enough spare parts could be gotten. So, sooner or later, 80 out of the 100 tanks lost would see action again. Basically, that meant that long term losses of the winner were just 20 tanks (in an ideal situation were there are enough spare parts) while the loser losses were still 100 tanks (the actual combat losses) and probably more. Depending on the defeat magnitude, retreating tanks could run out of supply before being able to refuel. On those cases, the tanks were abandoned most times (this was especially true during Barbarossas first weeks).

I cant say if most tanks losses were due to lack of fuel, but lack of fuel was an important reason for tank losses IN THE LOSER SIDE.