From Steve Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook" pg. 181:

Production
Year - Soviet - German

1941 - 6,274 - 3,256
1942 - 24,639 - 4,276
1943 - 19,959 - 5,966
1944 - 16,975 - 9,161
1945 - 4,384 - 1,098

Losses
Year - Soviet - German - Exchange Ratio

1941 - 20,500 - 2,758 - 7:1
1942 - 15,000 - 2,648 - 6:1
1943 - 22,400 - 6,362 - 4:1
1944 - 16,900 - 6,434 - 1.4:1
1945 - 8,700 - 7,382 - 1.2:1

Tanks in Inventory (1/Jan of each year)
Year - Soviet - German

1941 - 22,600 - 5,261
1942 - 7,700 - 4,896
1943 - 20,600 - 5,648
1944 - 21,100 - 5,266
1945 - 25,400 - 6,248

The tables contain the following annotations by the author:

Tank strength is as of January each year, except for 1941 which is as of 23 June 1941. German strength is entire strength, not only the Eastern Front. In July 1944 the Germans had over 1,500 tanks in Normandy and several hundred in other theatres such as Italy and the Balkans. Likewise, the Soviets kept about 3,000 tanks in the Far East through much of the war.

German tank losses here include all fronts; the tank exchange ratio deletes estimated German losses to Anglo-American forces and so reflects only the Soviet-German loss ratio.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad Sallows:
"Exchange ratio" can mean different things to different people; I suspect most will immediately interpret it as a measure of combat effectiveness (rightly or wrongly). But do the numbers include breakdowns lost due to subsequent capture?

---

Brad,

Date: BOY + Production - Losses = EOY

6/23/41: 22,600 + 6,274 - 20,500 = 8,374
1/1/42: 8,374 + 24,639 - 15,000 = 18,013
1/1/43: 18,013 + 19,959 - 22,400 = 15,572
1/1/44: 15,572 + 16,975 - 16,900 = 15,647
1/1/45: 15,647 + 4,384 - 8,700 = 11,331

Perhaps the difference is lend-lease tanks? If so lend-lease gets credit for nearly 40% of total SU tank strength at the beginning of 1945 (25,400 vs 15,600).

quote:

---

Originally posted by corvinus:
..If so lend-lease gets credit for nearly 40% of total SU tank strength at the beginning of 1945 (25,400 vs 15,600).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex H:
Only if you assume not a single lend-lease tank was ever destroyed.

---

I don't need to make that assumption. Plug 9,700 lend-lease tanks into the calculation, assume that some, or even all of these are destroyed in place of Soviet produced tanks, and you can match Zaloga's Jan. 1. 1945 inventory number.

For my work (the Kursk book) I get German tank loss figures from two major sources. First, the Germans are very careful to report every tank that was desotryed (sometimes I have them by serial number and a sketch map where they were destroyed). As the Germans were absolutely obsessed with dragging every piece of junk off the battlefield (unlike the Soviets), this is a very low figure (less then 10% of losses).

The other useful way to count losses is to look at the change in the number ready for action (by each type) for each day. This will give you a figure for the total number destroyed, damaged or broken down, that remained that way until 1800 the following day, less any tanks of that particular type that were repaired. For example, if on the 4th, the 11th Panzer Division has 42 Pz III long, and it reports 36 the following day, then I record 6 tanks damaged for the 5th. As I usually have a report by day of when they wrote off tanks as destroyed, I can also determine the number destroyed that day (more realistically, the number they declared destroyed....tank could have been actually destroyed several days earlier, which is often the case). If the division repaired 4 Pz III longs that day, I would not be aware of that. So the real figures may be 10 tanks damaged with 4 repaired, and I would record only 6 damaged. Also, this does not distinguish between combat and mechanical failures.

Sometimes we get some other details (like reports on losses) but these are rarer.

For the Soviets, we often get daily tank loss reports, often spereated by destroyed ("burned") and damaged. These loss reports are often not complete, so again we rely on the differences in the daily ready for action reports by type. Any additional losses tagged from comparing daily tank strength reports are usually recorded as damaged. In some case we get more detail (including number of mechanical breakdowns). We sometimes get aggregate loss reports (covering several days), although these are sometimes only of total losses. Often as you do not now the basis which they used to create that report, it is less useful than it appears.

By doing the counts on a daily basis, we are getting close to reality here. We are undercounting losses becuase we may not catch all the tanks that have been returned to action that day, and we are adding in nechanical breakdown (over 24 hours) into the loss figures. Still, I suspect this gives loss figures that are pretty close to reality.

If one tried to compare weekly, or monthly reports, one would end up with much lower loss figures, due to the noticable number of tanks being repaired during that time. A number of German armored divisions at Kursk had their ready-for-action tank strength drop below 50% during the first week of battle, and recovered back up to 70 or 80% by the end of the second week of the battle. This is less of a problems with the Soviets, as they do not return tanks back into action as quick.

There is one final ambush here, which is that both the Germans and Soviets sometimes report total tanks ready for action, and sometimes reports total tanks in the unit (ready for action, in repair, and in long term repair). Often they are not labeled as to what they are reporting. Therefore, it is always a good idea to pull reports from the days before and after, and reports from different levels of command. As the German also provide monthly and 10-day tank status reports, these can also be cross-checked. Usually then the "total tanks" reports will stand out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by corvinus:
I don't need to make that assumption. Plug 9,700 lend-lease tanks into the calculation, assume that some, or even all of these are destroyed in place of Soviet produced tanks, and you can match Zaloga's Jan. 1. 1945 inventory number.

---

quote:

---

However, I can't even recall how many lend-lease tanks were shipped to the SU and suspect that some other errors or omissions also contribute the the discrepancies in Zaloga's numbers.

---

Actually, I detected a couple of typos. Production for 1944 should be 17,025, and for 1945 8,900. There still is an unaccounted for discrepancy, although it is cut nearly by half - which could very well be LL tanks.

Chris,

What is the sources for Zaloga's loss numbers and what type of losses are they reporting (I assume destroyed and not repaired)? Also, are the loss figures for the Germans calculated the same way as for the Soviets. Furthermore, what is being counted as a "tank" (I'm not trying to be difficult here).

It appears that Zaloga is using common tank production numbers for the Germans. These are subject to various interpretation and vary according to the source used. They include the standard PzII, Pz38t, PzIII, PzIV, PzIV(70), PzV, and PzVI as well as all revovery, AA, command and observation vehicles built on those chassis. They also include production later used for conversion to other uses and prototypes. My numbers are:

1941 - same
1942 - 4,278
1943 - 6,009
1944 - same
1945 - 1,724

Total was 24,428. Soviet tank production for the same period number 75,925 (my numbers are a bit shaky). That includes 14,848 light types (Germany produced only about 1,519 in the same period), 52,571 T34, 200 T44, 4,374 KV, 3,932 IS. I am fairly confident that a large number of the T34-85 were produced essentially post-April 45, as were many of the IS-types. Overall I would estimate that the total of MBT types produced and deployed was just under 23,000 for Germany and about 55,000 or more for the Soviets.

It appears that he only counts part of 45, possibly only Jan-Feb. My figures are 1st Qtr and April. His loss figures are also similar to mine, but I only have accurate loss counts for Jan 45 (764), I think he assumes that the rest of the inventory was lost sometime in 45. BTW, his 1941 tanks in inventory figure is not 22 June, it is 1 June.

Add to this the various StG, StuH, StuPz, JgPz. They are:

Production
1941 - 540
1942 - 788
1943 - 3,406
1944 - 8,682
1945 - 2,057
Total - 15,473

The comparable Soviet types produced, the SU85/100/122/152 and the ISU122/152 totaled 9,652.
Losses:
1941 - 95
1942 - 457
1943 - 2,630
1944 - 5,655
Jan 45 - 669

Inventory
Jun 41 - 377
Jan 42 - 625
Jan 43 - 2,279
Jan 44 - 3,882
Jan 45 - 6,891

Also consider that the Germans produced 3,604 panzerjaeger types and 2,312 SP artillery pieces from 41 through 45. The only comparable Soviet types, the SU76, totaled 12,661.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:
Alex,
What is the sources for Zaloga's loss numbers and what type of losses are they reporting (I assume destroyed and not repaired)?

---

The sources quoted, picking from the bibliography, are:

- "Sovetski tankovye voyska 1941-1945" by Krupchenko, I. Ye.
- "Stroitelstvo i boyevoye primenente sovetskikh tankovikh voysk v gody VOV" by Losik, O.A.
- "50-letniyu pobedy u VOV 1941-1945; staticheskiy sbornik" by Somov, Z.A.

quote:

---

Also, are the loss figures for the Germans calculated the same way as for the Soviets.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, what is being counted as a "tank" (I'm not trying to be difficult here).

---

Tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers.

Rich,
Thanks for the concise info.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex H:
Tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers.

Rich,
Thanks for the concise info.

[This message has been edited by Alex H (edited 04-28-2001).]

---

Uhh, Alex I hate to be difficult, but... If you read my post you'll notice that Zaloga's figures appear to be for "tanks" only. He definitely doesn't include StuG, PzJg (Sfl.) and JgPz in his calculations for the Germans and I suspect his Soviet figures don't include their comparable vehicles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
Uhh, Alex I hate to be difficult, but... If you read my post you'll notice that Zaloga's figures appear to be for "tanks" only.

---

I meant to say the implication I got from Zaloga's table is that it was for both Soviet and German tank & other afv numbers.

quote:

---

He definitely doesn't include StuG, PzJg (Sfl.) and JgPz in his calculations for the Germans and I suspect his Soviet figures don't include their comparable vehicles.

---

The Soviet figures are broken down by category, and they do include SUs.
[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex H:
The Soviet figures are broken down by category, and they do include SUs.

---

Alex, do you mean that Zaloga's figures for production also include SU? If so, his numbers appear to be way to low.

Or did you mean the Soviet losses include SU?