![]() Something is either wrong or missing from Zaloga's Soviet tank numbers. The transcription is verbatim, my personal opinion is that the numbers given are for all causes, and 'exchange ratio' is a typo, but part of the reason to post this here is to see how it tallies up to Rich & Chris L's works. But do the numbers include breakdowns lost due to subsequent capture? ![]() "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). 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.ĭoes the "exchange ratio" also exclude, or need to exclude, non-combat losses? "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). Likewise, the Soviets kept about 3,000 tanks in the Far East through much of the war. In July 1944 the Germans had over 1,500 tanks in Normandy and several hundred in other theatres such as Italy and the Balkans. German strength is entire strength, not only the Eastern Front. Tank strength is as of January each year, except for 1941 which is as of 23 June 1941. The tables contain the following annotations by the author: Profile | register | preferences | faq | searchĭo these numbers, from Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook", reflect your (Rich & Chris) findings?įrom Steve Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook" pg. Soviet tank numbers - The Dupuy Institute Forum
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |