The Chances of Survival

[CC Baxter]

Playing SC and determining the fates of nations and the lives of millions of people in a virtual sense got me thinking about a combatant's chances for surviving World War II.

In the game (as in other wargames) the player often sacrifices units (especially on the Eastern Front) in an attempt to buy time to prepare defensive lines behind the front or to gather sufficient reserves together to launch a counter-attack. This was so in real life and I suppose the point I am trying to make is: if fate decreed you found yourself in a unit that was judged to be expendable, either through choice or incompetence by higher level commanders, then the chances of survival were very low.

Would anyone on the board know which service of which nation statistically had the least chance to survive the war? I suppose the obvious answer is the Kamikaze squadrons but what about the less salient ones? I'm guessing the Eastern Front was probably the most 'deadly' theatre of the war so perhaps the Red Army soldier was the service with the smallest chance of seeing the end of the war? Or maybe the British Merchant fleet was the most dangerous? Perhaps until the air-gap in the Atlantic was closed.

Any thoughts anyone?

[nemo]

The German Uboats. I don't recall the exact percentage, but, by the end of the war, the veteran naval/air units were sinking 90%+ of the uboats. And there's no parachuting into friendly territory in this branch.

[CC Baxter]

The German Uboats. I don't recall the exact percentage, but, by the end of the war, the veteran naval/air units were sinking 90%+ of the uboats. And there's no parachuting into friendly territory in this branch.

That's both fascinating and ironic. The U-Boats were so deadly during the first half of the war when they almost succeeded in severing the Atlantic life-line Britain depended on but by the end they themselves were the hunted. As you say nemo (an apt name! the U-Boat crews had little chance of survival once their subs were fatally damaged and the crews of the merchant ships and escorts were unlikey to feel much pity for them so a rescue was out of the question.

[nemo]

For extra information, consult http://uboat.net/fates/losses/chart.htm and http://www.uboatwar.net/uboats.htm. Even though "77% of operational boats were lost in combat," technological advances (e.g., radar and hedgehog), improved tactics, Allied numbers, Allied experience, and Axis loss of experience made uboats a death trap in 1943-1945.

[CC Baxter]

Thanks for the links. They bear out your point about the end of the war being a deadly time for U-Boats. The worst month for losses was the April 1945, the penultimate month of the war in Europe.

However the Red Army suffered terrible losses from the moment Germany invaded Russia and right to the end. I forget the exact figure but I read somewhere that over 300,000 Red Army troops died in taking Berlin alone.

[nemo]

I realize this is only for one battle, but consult http://pu.nikki.la/achievements/berlin.html for quick statistics on the Battle for Berlin. The Russian army did lose (kia and wounded) a staggering 600,000 men, but it was "only" a 25% casualty rate. I can't interpret the German data (unless kia and wounded include civilians), but their rate was ostensibly much, much worse.

Your interesting question remains though: over the course of the entire war, which branch/service had the highest casualty rate?

[JerseyJohn]

Here are some, I've got no idea how they stack up to others but these were pretty bad.

Both Germany and the USSR had penal battlaions which were generally given the worst and most suicidal assignments. Additionally, the British Bomber crews flew missions without reassignment or any sort of rotation -- in other words, they went off till they failed to return! The Japanese merchant marine was virtually destroyed by American submarines and Italian seamen called their North African supply convoys "The Death Run." American, British and other merchant marine's also suffered a high loss rate in the Atlantic. Ironically, they were looked down upon by many Americans as leftovers and able-bodied men who didn't join the Navy.

[Night]

If I remember the U-Boats had the highest % of death's compared to their numbers. And I believe Germany lost the most men total in the war, if not then Russia.

[CC Baxter]

The Berlin statistic is incredible, even worse than I had previously thought.

I think its probably either being in a frontline Red Army combat unit of being in the merchant marine of either the UK, US or Japan which would get you killed the quickest.

Additionally, by the end of the war the Japanese carrier force was reduced to acting as decoys for the remaining surface combat ships as they had few or no planes to operate.

[nemo]

I lost a better link, but the table at http://ragz-international.com/world_war_ii_casualties.htm

shows total casualties by country. Total Russian casualties are incomparable.

[CC Baxter]

The figure for American wounded is very high. Perhaps this is due to superior US frontline medical facilities without which the total of Killed/Died of Wounds would have been much higher.

[JerseyJohn]

Right, that's why the American KIA totals are comparatively low. Anyone who spent time convalescing in a VA Hospital right up to the late 1980s would have seen a lot of permanent WW II patients in neighboring wards. Most were physically paralyzed, a fair percentage of the ones I saw or was exposed to were deranged. My three week stay came thirty years after VJ Day.

[nemo]

I don't know the comparative quality of medics or field hospitals, but you have a very plausible point. In addition, what about the following?

U.S. ground forces probably enjoyed a relative advantage over others in that it COULD evacuate its wounded. Over the course of all their battles, I imagine Russia and Germany didn't have as much time/resources (e.g., being overrun or lacked lorries).

Also, the U.S. entered the war late. The length of time in the war certainly increased your change of moving from the wounded column to the KIA column.

[CC Baxter]

U.S. ground forces probably enjoyed a relative advantage over others in that it COULD evacuate its wounded. Over the course of all their battles, I imagine Russia and Germany didn't have as much time/resources (e.g., being overrun or lacked lorries).

I agree. AFAIK the American ground forces were completely mechanised in sharp contrast to the Wehrmacht which was largely reliant on horse-drawn transport. In the German Army an infantry division was just that. The Red Army was also dependent on horsepower, at least in the early stages of the war.

I think also the relatively low American KIA figure is also connected to the "nature" of the theatres in which they fought. Unlike Germany and Russia they were not fighting for their very survival as a sovereign state. The Eastern Front was characterised by countless atrocities perpetrated by both sides and in the apocalyptic maelstrom of the Eastern Front the evacuation of wounded was probably a luxury neither side could afford or had much interest in.

Thanks for your input Nemo.

[Liam]

Americans are leary of losses. Aside from the Civil War their most costly<with 600k killed?> overall US death roll is relatively low. Considering her late entry, and the fact that much of support was with equipment and finances though the death rate is hard to truly be a indication of involvement.

Germany was in a bad situation due to the leadership not wanting to surrender. The harsh treatment of Red troops<so that most German POWs on the Eastern Front didn't make it home>

By far I would say that Russia lost the most. Although Germany a close second. Hardly a big deal considering she is responsible for much of her own pain.

Had the War carried on say 2 to 3 years<without the loss of the 6th Army at Stalingrad and with total German dedication in the MidEast. With a major front say from N.Africa-Spain-France with many more US combatants maybe faced death including India and Australia-S.Africa being a pipeline to prevent Axis forces meeting up as their plans were

I believe it's true that the Branch of the U-boat Kriegsmarine lost the most men percentage wise

[Kuniworth]

Russian storm-groups at Stalingrad had no fun either. I believe those to have had the most deadly occupation.

[xwormwood]

Ironically, the Soviets' use of tanks in the street fighting (Battle of Berlin) was not dissimilar to the tactics used so disastrously by the Germans in Stalingrad. Soviet T-34s were highly vulnerable to the Panzerfaust, the German bazooka, fired by soldiers hiding in destroyed buildings. It meant further unnecessary losses for the Red Army. The soviets admitted that they lost appr. 700 tanks in Berlin alone through panzerfaust-fire.

The Battle for Berlin had cost the Soviets over 70,000 dead. Many of them had died because of the haste in which the campaign was conducted (friendly fire etc.).

Appr. 500.000 people died in the Battle for Berlin (including civilians).

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

Appr. 500.000 people died in the Battle for Berlin (including civilians).

Are the Oder-battles casualty-figures included there or purely the city fighting? Soviets lost more than 1 million after crossing the Vistula in january 1945 to the fall of Berlin. And that should be included in the casualty-figures for the city because the whole campaign was really the battle of Berlin.

[xwormwood]

Only Berlin, Oder-battles excluded.

[CC Baxter]

This is fascinating stuff, lads.

Just to recap then the general consensus seems to be that the most lethal service during the whole of the war was the German U-Boats with the Red Army coming in second. The sheer scale of the conflict on the Eastern front makes it hard to achieve an overall definitive statistic as to the casualty rates.

[JerseyJohn]

Konstantin had solid figures with sources and broke that down very thoroughly a few months back in a Thread on the Eastern Front. I'll try and find it later on.