I'm just wondering if anyone has any numbers on the total tank losses, and hopefully by kind besides the ones I found on the net.

From Zaloga's Red Army Handbook

He gives a total of 83,500 total tank losses during the war.

And some surmise that he got this info from «Grif Sekretnosti Sniat», from Krivosheev.

The list he had was

1941 — 20, 500 tanks lost

1942 — 15,000 tanks and 100 Assault guns lost

1943 — 22,400 tanks and 11,000 Assault guns lost

1944 — 16,900 tanks and 6,800 Assault guns lost

1945 — 8,700 tanks and 5,000 Assault guns lost

So if you add these together thats 83,500 tanks and 13,000 Assault guns lost.

I don't have these two books, but I am looking to find and buy them somewhere at the moment to double check this from the post I found that stated these numbers and sources.

But in the meantime is there any book or net site that might break down thse numbers further so I could find the losses for each type? And if anyone here has either ot both these books, are these the right numbers as stated in the books, and is there any other interesting info about theses figures?

Cheers, thanks for any help here in advance!!

Tom

Hi Tom,
The tank losses you quote are as tabulated in the Red Army Handbook, but there is no separate list of assault gun losses. Zaloga an Ness also tabulate total AFV production by year and model (1941-45). This comes to 99,150 of which 22,323 are assault guns. Two figures are quoted for total tank production; 76,827 and 72,231. Soviet tank strength at the begining of the conflict is set at 22,600 and at the end 25,400. Based on this the 'tank' losses must be all AFVs.

Hoe this is of help.

Tom,
Forget the last comment in my previous post — I forgot about lend-lease!

Thanks, I thought about the LL as well, I'm very curious on how accurate the numbers really are, did the Germans destroy that many or are the numbers inflated, deflated or what you consider to be a reasonable number in your opinion Kieth?

Cheers

Tom

Col-Gen G F Krivosheev in his book ‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century’ gives a breakdown of Soviet AFV losses year by year and campaign by campaign. His figures are as tabulated in your first post (except the SPG losses in 1943 are 1,100 — not 11,000!). The breakdown for the war as a whole is:
5,200 heavy tanks, 44,900 medium tanks, 33,400 light tanks, 13,000 SPGs, and 37,600 armoured cars, tractors and other armoured vehicles.

Not all of these losses would have been as direct result of enemy action. In the early phase of the war thousands of tanks were abandoned on the battlefield as a result of mechanical breakdown or empty fuel tanks. No doubt later in the war thousands more would have suffered severe mechanical breakdown and have been cannibalised for spares in field workshops. I don’t know if any figures are available for such ‘non-combat’ losses, but I have no reason to doubt Krivosheev’s overall ‘loss’ figure. Interestingly less than two-thirds of overall losses of tanks and SPGs are ascribed by Krivosheev to losses incurred in specific strategic operations. That leaves some 33,300 tanks and SPGs lost in circumstances other than the 51 named strategic operations of the war.

Thanks again KiethB), I'll have to see if I can order that book and check it out. As to the breakdowns, maybe it was considered «combat» losses IF they were moving to or overrun in an attack (be it a big or small one not listed??), no idea until I read the book and see if there is any comments on that part. Or maybe someone here can shed some more light on it?

Cheers, yep, a typo on my part on the 11,000 Assault gun stat, sorry!!

Tom

I don't think you will find much more info in Krivosheev, the book is mainly about personnel losses. The above figures seem to have been picked up on the RKKA forum in the last few days but the subsequent discussion then centred on Wehrmacht tank losses. Perhaps you could pick this up there.

Yep, I've seen it spiral on that thread, I hav'nt felt a need to comment yet as the one I put up a while ago got almost no replies.

Cheers, but thats the way it goes sometimes I guess.

Tom