RUSSIAN VS GERMAN? IS IT BEING MADE?

[Aacooper]

One interesting point (and I can't remember the source) is that when it comes to numbers of ones own civilians killed, Hitler only comes third -- USSR and Communist China are first and second. So, the Soviet suffering was due to Germans and their own government. It's a terrible shame, and also terrible that there are still governments killing their own people.

[Guest Germanboy]

Why Stalin did not attack in 1940? My £0.02 would be to look at past performance of his armies. Finland a desaster, Poland in the 1920s another one, Germany in 1914-17 another one. On top of that he had just given his junior officers rapid advancement opportunities by killing of his general corps. The events in 1941 show that he had a lot of sense not doing anything in 1940.

------------------

Andreas

[tss]

Törni wrote:

Even in 1941 as the Germans launched Barbarossa the Soviet forces were grouped for offence, not defense.

They were grouped for counter-attack. The Soviet strategic doctrine was that the first line of defence will stop the enemy attack and then the counter-attack forces will retaliate and crush the aggressor. Not too bright strategy. It was mostly handiwork of the power trio Voroshilov, Mehlis, and Kulik.

Their view was that on defence one Soviet division can hold three imperialistic divisions (because of the moral superiority of Soviet Union) and because no enemy can have a 3:1 superiority on the Red Army, no defence in depth was needed.

- Tommi

[Leclerc]

David M. Glantz is the best historian about Soviet Army. read "Stumbling Colossus" and you will know why Stalin - the contrary of an imbecile- didn't used Red Army for offensive operations. Purge, lack of skilled manpower for artillery, engeneering, motor repair, wawerings about use of armored forces( tank division suppressed in 1939, recreated in lare 1940), reequipment with modern material were sufficient reasons to avoid any conflict with German until the mid 40's.

The theory of preeemptive german offensive in 1941 is simply just crap, either formulated by Russian anti-stalinists or very right-wing western people who just reformulates Nazi propaganda during WW2 ( Germany as defensor of Western world against communism); When you look at the Soviet disposition of troops in the eve of Barbarossa, fact is troops were dispersed, not even really prepared for defense. Stalin wanted to avoid any forard deployement which could have been pretext for german to invade Russia.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore:

As someone pointer out the German to Soviet Soldiers losses were about 1:2.1

So in the fighting there were 2.1 Soviet soldiers killed for every german soldier. So don't tell me they were attacking with shovels all the time. Thats bull.

28 million includes civilian losses. And lots of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet, & German military irreversible losses (KIA/WIA/MIA)only* June 22 1941- 1945. German losses are Eastren Front totals only, German IR losses in ( )'s.

1941 - 5.5 million (301,000)

1942 - 7.153 milion (519,000)

1943 - 6.965 milion (668,000)

1944 - 6.547 milion (1,129,000)

1945 - 2.534 milion (550,00 as of May 1)

The correlation loss ratio favors the German by year as listed below:

1941 - 18.1:1

1942 - 13.7:1

1943 - 10.4:1

1944 - 5.8:1

1945 - 4. 6:1

Latest estimates put Soviet casualties for WW2 military & Civilianat *43.3 milion broken down as 26.4 milion military irreversible losses & 16.9 milion civilian.

*See: Sokolov B.V. "The Cost of War: Human Losses for the USSR and Germany, 1939 - 1945 pp.171 - 177 : Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Vol 9, No. 1 March 1996.

Regards, John Waters

[Andre76]

Hi! This is my first post, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. I've followed this thred and I just want to say two things:

1. Some have said that it was a kind of "poetic justice" when Hitler invaded Russia 'cos Stalin could have prevented it in '39. Well, if we want to go down that road it is Britain & France fault WWII started. When Hitler "took back" the DMZ after WWI, no action. And Franc to blame when Hitler took Sudetenland and the Czech.

France had an alliance with Czech (the Little Entete) and other east european countries, AND Stalin said that if France reacted Russia would join the fight! France chickend out.

2. Maybe the Russian soldiers where fanatical, but the officers were of poor quality after Stalin killed almost all of the officers before WWII. Also, on the inital attack, all over the border the russians surrenders en masse with little resistance. This because of a number of resons which I won't get into here. Of course the quality of both the soldiers and the officers got better into the war.

BTW: I see that many have reconised that the Soviet tank in '41 was superior. But that was also the case in France '40 with the French tanks. The thing that saved the day for the germans was superior tactics (and the lack of it from the enemy)

BTW2: CM rocks!

André

[Guest Big Time Software]

Leclerc is correct. Glantz is just amazing I have more of his stuff than I have time to read.

The one thing to note about the suposed preemtive 1940/1941 assault on Germany... there is significant documentation to show that the Soviets did indeed have a plan for such an operation. HOWEVER, most nations have plans that are never in fact used (Britain and Germany, for example, both had plans to invade Sweden if certain things happened). Stalin also allowed a certain amount of this to be believed within the Red Army. The reasons for this are a bit complicated, but the end result was to confuse the Germans. It worked. The Germans thought they destroyed the bulk of the Red Army, poised for an attack on the Fatherland, when in fact they simply whacked the 1st and 2nd Echelons of a defense plan that borders on brilliant. The fact that the Red Army nearly failed to execute the plan successfully does not, IMHO, reflect that negatively on the plan itself.

Anybody interested in this topic MUST read "Stumbling Colossus" and "The Initial Period of War on the Eastern Front" (both by Glantz). Another must read is "Opperation Barbarossa" by Brian Fugate. Somewhat dry reading, but facinating to say the least.

Steve

[killmore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Soviet, & German military irreversible losses (KIA/WIA/MIA)only* June 22 1941- 1945. German losses are Eastren Front totals only, German IR losses in ( )'s.

1941 - 5.5 million (301,000)

1942 - 7.153 milion (519,000)

1943 - 6.965 milion (668,000)

1944 - 6.547 milion (1,129,000)

1945 - 2.534 milion (550,00 as of May 1)

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if numbers are wrong because Soviet losses include civilian losses here. The numbers add up to 28.5 million on Soviet side which is TOTAL POPULATION LOSS on Soviet side. Not just military losses.

See some of the discussions before this one which describe the same numbers and also quote books. Since germans killed over 18 milion civilians that leaves about 10 mil military losses - that produces ration of about 2:1.

Lets assume that Soviets did loose 40 million. That would make it about 1/4 or 1/5 of population. That feels too high. And would mean that no men capable of fighting should have been left in 1945.

I wonder who is right...

Did 28.5 million Soviet dead quoted here repetedly was wrong? Did 10 million military dead was also wrong?

I can believe that including pre-war purges the total population loss was over 40 million.

[This message has been edited by killmore (edited 07-19-2000).]

[crossfire]

Even 2.5 to 1 does not sound bad when you think of conscripts fighting regulars or green troops fighting veterans.

Terrible commanders and "Stavka" policies made sure that all regulars were waisted quickly in 1941.

[Jeff Heidman]

One mistake people often make is that they compare Soviet to German losses. This overstates the Soviet lss part of the ratio howeve,r since it often does not include a few million losses suffered by Germanys allies, like Romania, and Italy.

BTS is correct. Glantz is pretty much the definitive work currently on the Eastern Front. I do not agree with all his conclusions, but anyway claiming to be knowledgeable about that theatre who has not read Glantz is defintiely missing out on some of the best work done since some of the Soviet archives ahve finally become available.

Jeff Heidman

[killmore]

So what were Rumanian, Hungarian, Italian, Spanish, ProGerman-Polish (and progerman-Soviet Vlasov army) losses?

If you add these losses can we get loss ratio to say 1.8:1?

[Leclerc]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Leclerc is correct. Glantz is just amazing I have more of his stuff than I have time to read.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it's a very nice person, always replying to messages sent and trying to help you. I would add to your list "When Titans clashed" which covers all the war on the East Front and is a very good summary of all his work and "In pursuit of the deep battle", a study of the Soviet invention and evolution of concept of operation which truly describe the huge improvement in Red Army during WW2.

Now the big question is: will CM2 include the T-35?

[This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-19-2000).]

[killmore]

One more thing - germans were constantly inflating their kill numbers and in a huge way. They really wanted to show that they are fighting an infinite horde. For example german claimed tank kills for Kharkov offensive in 1942 larger then the entire number of the Soviet tanks available at the time. (they claimed 50% more tanks killed then Soviets had in service at that time)

I would like to find the truth one day

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by killmore:

I wonder if numbers are wrong because Soviet losses include civilian losses here. The numbers add up to 28.5 million on Soviet side which is TOTAL POPULATION LOSS on Soviet side. Not just military losses.

See some of the discussions before this one which describe the same numbers and also quote books. Since germans killed over 18 milion civilians that leaves about 10 mil military losses - that produces ration of about 2:1.

Lets assume that Soviets did loose 40 million. That would make it about 1/4 or 1/5 of population. That feels too high. And would mean that no men capable of fighting should have been left in 1945.

I wonder who is right...

Did 28.5 million Soviet dead quoted here repetedly was wrong? Did 10 million military dead was also wrong?

I can believe that including pre-war purges the total population loss was over 40 million.</quote>

Well let me attempt to reply to several posts. First one of the main draw backs in this is lack of data on Losses until roughly 93 - 96, the first real breakthrough on Soviet wartime losses was the Krivosheev Group's "Grif Sekronisti Sniat" 'The

Classification of Secrecy is Removed', this data realy became know in the West after Glantz & House used it in their "When Titan's Clashed". Then further study was done by Sokolov, who disagrees with the Krivosheev, groups numbers as being to low ec, as well as finding errors in their fourmulas etc.

Soviet Loss research in WW2 is by no means complete ppl can quote 28.8 or 26.4 till the cows come home, the truth is no one knows how many Russian ppl died in the GPW. PPl like the Krivosheev Group, and Sokolov have layed the foundations for further study though & someday as more archival material is available more imformed numbers may be found.

The Soviet loss data comes from archival material in Russia for the Soviets, their is no inclusion of civilian losses in the data concerning the military Irreversible losses (KIA/WIA/MIA).

Civilian IR data comes from the data on civilian only through various statistical anlysis etc. Sokolov basicly took the work done by the Krivosheev Group, in "Grif Sekronisti Sniat",& expanded on it finding errors etc.

German IR data is from Mueller Hilerbrand with corrections by Sokolov. As for the satalite nations losses they were not the focus of the study, they are touched on in POW figures from what I have seen but thats about it. As for 40 million hurting the population, it did, from a 1941 population of 209.3 million, people.

Anyway if your interested, check out the source. its very interesting reading.

Regards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-19-2000).]

[killmore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper:

One interesting point is that when it comes to numbers of ones own civilians killed, Hitler only comes third -- USSR and Communist China are first and second. So, the Soviet suffering was due to Germans and their own government. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are 2 different issues here. Soviet union killed millions of civilians but not during WWII.

I just hope you are not saying that germans killed Soviet civilians in occupied teritories due to Soviet deliberate action of goverment.

The reason why so much civilian population was killed in China and SU during the war was that Agressors (Japan/Germany) was systematically annihilating civilians.

USA and SU did not do the same to GE/JPN

In % of civilian population lost Poland would probably take 1st place it lost 1/6 of its total population (6 million)

[Leclerc]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore:

There are 2 different issues here. Soviet union killed millions of civilians but not during WWII.

I just hope you are not saying that germans killed Soviet civilians in occupied teritories due to Soviet deliberate action of goverment.

The reason why so much civilian population was killed in China and SU during the war was that Agressors (Japan/Germany) was systematically annihilating civilians.

USA and SU did not do the same to GE/JPN

In % of civilian population lost Poland would probably take 1st place it lost 1/6 of its total population (6 million)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I almost totally agree with you except Soviet goverment deliberatly raised the once huge civil losses caused by the criminal Nazi policy in order to claim Soviet moral superiority over US during cold war and to mask part of civil losses in the 30'. It must be remembered that USSR suspended publication of census from 1937 to afterwar for that reason.

[Chris Jenkins]

Glad to see you guys are going to use Glantz as a reference. GLANTZ RULES!

------------------

"Rinky dinky stinky thinky"

[tss]

killmore wrote:

In % of civilian population lost Poland would probably take 1st place it lost 1/6 of its total population (6 million)

It is possible that Byelorussia lost proportionally more of its population.

-Tommi

[PzKpfw 1]

The Soviet human waves attacks were generaly from 1941 - 1942, cases could be cited where the Soviets used wave attacks but that also is an example of the changeing Soviet doctrine which evolved as lessons were learned ,ie, later in 1943 the Soviets used

massed forces on an small frontage to achieve breakthru by an overwhelming force of Inf,with tank & artillery support.

Though many German memoirs speak of endless 'hordes' it doesn't hold up under scrutiny either. The truth of the matter is that the Germans could not replace their losses, their tactilcal victories during the failed Soviet Kharkov , & Mars operations are great examples of the problems the Germans had defending frontage & replaceing losses, as they incurred losses they could not replace, as well as showing evolving Soviet doctirnes albeit failures.

Another example dispelling the 'horde' myths

is the fact that Soviet Rifle Divisions from 1943 on were never at their authorised strengths despite the available manpower to replace their losses they allowed the Rifle Div's to be bled white before rest & refitting & then they even changed the TOE downsizing Rifle Divisions Ie, The TOE of a Rifle Div in 1945 was still the early war shtat of 9,354 effectives, but in March 1945 3 new RD TOE's were implemented :

1). 3,600 men

2). 4000 men

3). 4500 men

The reduction in RD size was not due to any inability to replace losses but shows the shift in priorities that began in 1943, as ther replacement system prioritised on rebuiling Mechanized formations 1st then,new Mech Divs & Artillery units etc; then & only then, did Rifle Divs recieve replacements.

What they did do was give their Rifle Div's & Brigades overwhelming support services, Ie, an Soviet Rifle Company of around 100 men in 1944 attacking on Bn frontage, would be suported by 2 or 3 AFV's , 2 Divisional artillery guns.

In 1945 the same Company attacking within the Battalions frontage of 300 - 700ms would be attacking the Germans on a frontage of 100ms with 100 men, & direct fire suport of 3 - 4 tanks, and 3 - 4 artillery pieces, that was unprecidented support for an 100 man company. & illustrates the Soviet shift to material over manpower usage as it evolved, during the war.

Regards, John Waters

[Henri]

Although we can quote numbers till the cows come home, I am afraid that the casualty number situation only helps to cloud the issue, when it is used to support the position of German superiority versus insurmountable Soviet odds.

The fact is that after the initial disasters of 1941, the decisive battles that followed were almost evenly matched in terms of numbers of soldiers involved. The battle of Stalingrad, taking into account all the units that participated in the fight for the encirclement, involved about a million soldiers on both sides. They were about evenly matched, but the Soviets won due to superior tactics, better intelligence and exploitation of German mistakes ; the Germans lost because of faulty intelligence (they never spotted the major Soviet movements of armored formations until they were on them ), protecting their flanks with their weakest units (mostly Rumanians and Italians) , Hitler intervention in preventing a timely withdrawal from Stalingrad, and faulty strategy (overextending their lines to the Caucasus and focusing on two distant objectives that were too far apart) .

The cold war made it convenient to swallow whole the defeated German generals' self-justified myuths to the effect that they were defeated only through Hitler's interventions and by Soviet "hordes".

Henri

[Flipper]

Yup russia defeated germany in ww2..america just wrecked it with all thier bomber's

[rienzi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I will re-iterate what someone has already mentioned: biggest is not always most important. The Eastern Front was decisive in WW2, but not because the Soviets managed to get 20+million people killed. I am not sure why exactly people think getting trully astonishing numbers of your sides people killed is an indicator of the importance of the fight.

Jeff Heidman

well for sure,this 20 million nbr includes non-combantants and non-Russian Soviets as well,but it is an indicator of the scale of that part of the war.I also indicates the Soviets wasted many of their troops in early part of the war.By summer 43,the Soviet battle tactics were changing,commanders were making better use of their troops and equipment and the casuality ratio was dropping.I for one,dont buy what captured German generals were saying about Soviet tactics,they,in some cases, made it sound like the soviets just used numbers to achieve their victory.Many German commanders didnt want to admit they were beaten by superior tactics,as well.Oh,they like to blame Hitler too.Read the author Glantz for a more balanced view of this war.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 07-14-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[demoss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto:

in my opinion the russians had the best, 'slug it out' armor at the end of the war. the js2 series was a great design. the su152 was the best vehicle of its type - assault gun - in the war. with 152mm HE it didn't matter too very much what kind of armor the target had.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The JS2 was certainly a good design, but it had some major problems. The ammo load was pretty small compared to most tanks (probably because of the godawful size of the 122mm shells), and if I recall it was not only on the slow side but didn't have a very good refueling radius. The resupply problem was huge. I'm a big fan of the T-34/85 myself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

my favorite period is probably the summer of 1941. i like trying to kill the t34s and kvs using better tactics with my 'door knocker' 37mm at guns and pzIIIEs with medium 50mm guns. there would be stugs with short 75s and early panzer 4s with short 75s and panzer IIs.

and russian BT5s. i wish the russians would have mass-produced something like that during the war. swarms of BT7s with 76mm guns can turn a situation dicey when encountered by germans.

i wonder if the IIIJ will be in CM2. does anyone know if that ('50L') was strictly a western desert tank?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd really like to see KV-2s - I have some very fond memories of an ASL scenario called "Blocking Action at Lipki" which provides just what you describe as ideal. Meeting engagement with BT-5s, a T-34, and a KV-2 plus some motorized infantry against Pz IIIs and IVs (short barrel) and some mechanized infantry with one of the taper-bore light AT guns. Tons o' fun in a fairly small package. Nothing quite like pointing that big 152mm gun at a poor little Pz III - or trying to figure out how to deal with it from the other end (aim for the tracks, boys!).

I'm not absolutely sure the Pz IIIJ was used in Russia, but I'd be amazed if it wasn't - the Russian tanks were what drove the upgunning to the longer barrel 50 in the first place.

I am curious as to how the radioless tanks will be handled. Perhaps it's enough to make them subject to roughly the same command rules as the infantry....

------------------

-Doug