What 'killed' the most tanks in World War 2?

This video discusses what killed the most tanks in World War 2. Was it anti-tank guns, mines, planes, hand-held anti-tank weapons, mechanical breakdowns, etc. Also a short look at the problems of the term "kill", e.g., mobility, firepower and catastrophic/complete kill.

Original Question by Christopher: “What destroyed the most tanks during WW2: infantry, planes, anti-tank guns, or other tanks (I'm not sure if tank destroyers needs its own category or not). "

»» SUPPORT MHV ««

»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««

»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««

» SOURCES «

Coox, Alvin D.; Naisawald, L. Van Loan: Technical Memorandum ORO-T-117 – Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in World War II, March 1951

Zetterling, Niklas; Frankson, Anders: KURSK 1943 – A Statistical Analysis

Senger und Etterlin, F.M. von: Die deutschen Panzer 1926-1945

Hahn, Fritz: Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945

Payne, Craig: Principles of Naval Weapon Systems.

[Jerrycourtney]

_This week on CSI: Stalingrad_

Yup. He starved to death.

[AceCombatFan]

What killed most tanks in World War 2?

*Lag*

[FrazzP]

I'd watch CSI Stalingrad, where the NKVD has to investigate stuff.

[enigma]

2:28 *zwöelve* when u cant decide on english or german

[thethirdman]

+Military History Visualized In his book _"Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of WWII", _ Steve Zaloga puts up some interesting data on this which also goes into the ranges at which tanks were most likely to be destroyed by gunfire. Inevitably people draw the wrong conclusions about this and start arguing over armour/range/penetration data. That has its place but the ranges at which these vehicles were destroyed were usually well within the theoretical radius of capability. One of his charts shows that only 0.5% of Soviet tanks were destroyed at ranges of 2, 000 metres, making that a statistically insignificant part of the total. Indeed, it seems that the best range for the 75 mm was 400-600 metres and the best for the 88 mm was 600-800 metres. Rumours of Tigers destroying tanks at three kilometres need to be taken very much with a grain of salt. Zaloga also points out that at 500 metres, it took an average of five shells to knock out an enemy tank. At longer ranges up to two kilometres, the average could exceed forty rounds. So the important conclusion is that the success of an attack depended not the power of the gun but the methods employed by tank and anti-tank crews. It implies a high level of artillery discipline and not just a big gun. Probably also worth pointing out that tank warfare was almost never like the Gunfight at the OK Corral. It was usually made as lop-sided as possible. Highly concentrated tank forces going in or carefully planned and constructed ambushes. They weren't playing by Queensberry Rules.

[cdjhyoung]

Somewhere on YouTube are the recorded memories of a tank recovery mechanic from after the D-Day landings. One of the less gory details he shared is that the Sherman tank frequently was recovered and rebuilt to be put back into combat action. By his estimates, 'destroyed' Sherman tanks may have been rebuilt and reused up to five times each. That bit of detail may influence how these numbers should be interpreted.

[oksAjax]

easy question.. answer is Hans Ulrich Rudel.

[BarcelPL]

...why is SovietWomble a tank-rabbit now?

[greggorytame]

5:09
*Strums guitar*
"Womble is a rabbit"

[nattygsbord]

The interesting thing is rather "what was the greatest threat to tanks in World war 2". Because if for example aircrafts would be the most lethal threat to a tank, then commanders would try to only move their tanks by night or rainfall to avoid contact with airplanes - and that in turn would make tank losses due to airpower very low, while enemy airpower could have a huge importance on the battlefield.

Its a bit the same problem as when we talk crime statistics. Young men are the largest group of victims to violance, while oldies and women suffer much less from it (according to statistics). Which is odd one might think, since young men would be stronger and more capable of defending themselves and should therefore not be easy victims.

So why are old and women underrepresented in statistics over victims of violent crime? Because they stay home if they are afraid to got out, and they do so to a larger extent than men.

So of course, if a tank sits under a cammo net and camp in a bush, then of course losses to airpower will be reduced. But even if the planes doesn't kill a single tank they might have large importance on the battlefield, since the enemy is scared and doesn't dare to move his tanks by daytime and therefore got a huge strategic handicap, because we can move troops during the day but he can't.

[Pfsif]

No bunnies were hurt during the making of this video.

[mucpougaming]

womble's aim and skill is just a massive meme at this point

[yiggdrasill]

merry Christmas MHV, thanks for the year of great vids, will be back next year

[reddmutt]

Wishing you, and your family a very Merry Christmas from East Texas.
I really enjoy your videos.

[Darkrunn]

"Gentlemen, it's been an honor to serve alongside you."
Adjusts sunglasses
"Tank you very much."



CSI STALINGRAD

[thomasbowes]

If the answer isn't piegons I will be upset

[nolo]

This is brilliant. People rarely understand how much the accuracy of an answer to a question depends on the formulation of the particular question. Your analysis of the elements necessary to creating an accurate question is fascinating, thank you.

[scottpoet]

Kurt Knispel one of the top German tank aces of WWII had 168 tank kills, while Hans-Ulrich Rudel the ace Stuka pilot is accredited with 519 tank kills. Of course both of these kill counts were Eastern Front tallies.

I think some of this resurgence of the idea of Aircraft being ineffective at killing tanks, is entirely reliant on what happened in the Western Front. The Eastern Front seems to have been a completely different situation.

[tomjoseph]

As a U.S. Army forward observer we were taught that indirect fire (artillery) was not intended nor really capable of effective tank destruction. Our goal was to make them button up and move.

[waufo]

You do an excellent job and I honor your commitment to detail and your objectivity! Danke!