This relationship would not be so simple when viewed at the battalion level. This was due to the higher casualty rate in the tanks that caught fire (1.28 crew casualties per tank) and those that did not (0.78 casualties per tank).ĭupuy found the relationship between tank losses and casualties to be straightforward and obvious. Only 40% of the tanks in the sample burned, but casualties were distributed evenly between the tanks that burned and those that did not. Whether or not a destroyed tank caught fire made a big difference for the crew. ![]() Interestingly, although gunfire accounted for the most tank and crew casualties, infantry anti-tank rockets (such as the Panzerfaust) inflicted 13% of the tank losses, but caused 21% of the crew losses.Ĭasualties were evenly distributed among the crew positions. For each tank loss, an average of one crewman was killed or wounded. The data sampled included 797 medium (averaging 5 crewmen) and 101 light (averaging 4 crewmen) tanks. 1st Army between June 1944 and May 1945 (pp. ![]() In his 1990 book Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War, Trevor Dupuy took a look at the relationship between tank losses and crew casualties in the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |