A couple of statistics

[David I]

This column represents 20% of the population.

This column represents 75% of the population.

And this column represents 45% of the population.

Telling figures indeed.

DavidI

[Dave H]

Originally posted by David I:

This column represents 20% of the population.

This column represents 75% of the population.

And this column represents 45% of the population.

Telling figures indeed.

DavidI

Well, that pretty well says it all right there.

[SpitfireXI]

I think that in Beevors book on Berlin mentions that the Soviet army by that time was a effective as the German army ever was. Can't recall the exact quote and figures though.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

An old "Strategy and Tactics" mag compared the rates of advance of hte Germans towards Paris in WW1, WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Sinia in 1967 - the WW1 Germans were the fasest IIRC.

I think the WW I figure concerned their advance across Russia and Ukraine. But this was after the Russian collapse and was accomplished by loading soldiers on trains and chugging across the country against little or no opposition.

Michael </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by SpitfireXI:

I think that in Beevors book on Berlin mentions that the Soviet army by that time was a effective as the German army ever was. Can't recall the exact quote and figures though.

That might be based on Dupuy's figures. I dimly recall that towards the end the Red Army and the Wehrmacht inflicted similar numbers of casualties on each other.

Kip Anderson would be the person to ask. He pointed out to me that once you substract the 1941 loss figures for the Soviets, the whole efficiency question takes on a very different perspective, because that was when the bulk of Soviet casualties was inflicted. For the rest of the war (until March 1945) it was much more even.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Dave H:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by General Colt:

In WWII:

Allies moblized 40.4 million troops

Germany moblized 12.5 million troops

Allies casualties 23 million (mostly Russian)

Germans had 10.1 million casualties.

Each German caused a average of 1.42 wounds

one in four Allied soldiers caused a wound.

Crew of Enola Gay - 10 men

Casualties in Hiroshima - The British Official History of World War II in its final volume of the War Against Japan states that the casualties at Hiroshima were: 78,150 killed and 51,048 injured.

According to your statistic, these 10 airmen caused no wounds. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by JonS:

And ... oh yeah, General Colt is an ID10T. And quite possibly a neo-nazi, or at the very least a black-uniform fetishist.

That's quite a harsh accusation. What are you basing it on?

[Stan Hope Park]

.

[ March 06, 2005, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: 1327 ]

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by David I:

This column represents 20% of the population.

This column represents 75% of the population.

And this column represents 45% of the population.

Telling figures indeed.

DavidI

State your source!

I concur that after 1941, the Russians became much better fighters - on par with the Germans. The same can be said about the Americans. They performed poorly at Kasserine. But by choking off the Germans supplies, they were able to win in North Africa. Later in the war, they were much better fighters. Again, on par with the Germans dispite having inferior tanks.

[flamingknives]

CSO_Talorgan:

It is odd that the author refers to the two English-speaking armies as if they were

comparible:

“... German per capita effectiveness was highest, followed by Americans and

British with about a 20% handicap relative to Germans ... ”

One of these armies did not suffer a significant defeat; while the other struggled

to win a single sizeable victory .

Let's ignore the early battles in Tunisia, shall we? On top of that, we'd better ignore the early battles in South East Asia. Actually - to make it simple - let's just pretend that the war didn't start until 1944

Are you going to argue that other factors were at play here: numbers, equipment,

generalship?

Since you mention it, let's have a look at some of the Generals involved. The two samples chosen here are to compare an "egalitarian nation's" general and the evil British one.

The US has Patton; a self-aggrandising ego-maniac who views his men as automaton for his advancement.

The British have Montgomery; a self-aggrandising ego-maniac who insists that his officers be as fit as his men and waits until he is sure to win - and risk fewer men - before commiting to an attack.

Which is more egalitarian?

This is actually less of a spoff than you might think. In the “Beyond Overlord”

period they had known of the Tiger for 18 months, and yet they were still sending

men out to do battle with Tigers in tracked coffins. What does that say of High

Command’s regard for the ordinary soldier? To me it suggests arrogance and

contempt. These are not values held by an army tuned in to egalitarianism.

And by this time, the British, with a limited industrial capacity, were already arming tanks with the superb 17pr., while the US, with it's vast and untouched industrial base made do with the less effective 76mm gun.

By the time the war ended, the British had an armoured division equipped with the better armed, armoured, mobile and lower silhouette Comet and were introducing the superlative Centurion. The much larger US had an equivalent number of Pershings, of which 20 saw action.

In short, what rot.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

He pointed out to me that once you substract the 1941 loss figures for the Soviets, the whole efficiency question takes on a very different perspective, because that was when the bulk of Soviet casualties was inflicted. For the rest of the war (until March 1945) it was much more even.

This is what I find perplexing: it seems to be OK to subtract the number of Allied MIA/POW (that is what most of the Soviet losses were in 1941) to get the ratios "correct" but if the same is done to the German numbers it is all of a sudden a no-no attempt at distortion of figures to make the Germans look better.

And yes, the number of Finnish POW's in Soviet hands was less than 3000 between 1941 and 1944. And the ratio of Finnish POW to KIA is ~3000 POW to ~65 000 KIA. The number of Red Army POW's in Finnish hands was ~60 000 and the entimated number of Red Army KIA in the Finnish front is 300 000.

[flamingknives]

But that's not what Andreas is doing. Instead of comparing the Soviet numbers of the whole war against the Germans of the whole war, he's comparing the Soviets of '42-'45 to the Germans of '42-'45.

What this says is that the Soviet army of '41 was atrocious - it was really, really bad. It also shows that for the rest of the war, the Soviets were more on a par with the Germans than people believe, as they are deluded into lumping it all together.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Andreas:

He pointed out to me that once you substract the 1941 loss figures for the Soviets, the whole efficiency question takes on a very different perspective, because that was when the bulk of Soviet casualties was inflicted. For the rest of the war (until March 1945) it was much more even.

This is what I find perplexing: it seems to be OK to subtract the number of Allied MIA/POW (that is what most of the Soviet losses were in 1941) to get the ratios "correct" but if the same is done to the German numbers it is all of a sudden a no-no attempt at distortion of figures to make the Germans look better.

Err, please read what you quoted again. In both cases the desasters that really related to strategic factors are substracted in order to understand better what really went on when they met under 'fairer' conditions, and to get an idea of operational capabilities.

[DrD]

Again, we need to be clear on what we're comparing. There is no doubt that the German army was evenly matched throughout the war. HOWEVER, it must be remembered that the Allies were much better equipped, and that the Germans were outnumbered (even in the West in 1940) and that they had completely lost air superiority.

True, the Germans had the better tanks, but they were vastly outnumbered. IIRC the US figured it took 5 Shermans to take out 1 panzer V/VI, but they had about 10 of them for each big cat!

Thus, if we are comparing the individual prowess of the armies, man for man, the fact that the Germans were able to maintain at least parity in number of casualties, argues that man for man they were the superior army. That is what the above essay is trying to explain.

[ February 28, 2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: DrD ]

[Andreas]

Sorry, can you explain what you mean by 'man for man they were the superior army'?

[DrD]

The original topic of the post was the ratio of casaulties in each army. Then it was posted that the German army was about 20% more "efficient" and an essay was posted to explain why this might be the case. next it was argued that the Germans were not more efficient, that the casaulty ratios were pretty much 1:1.

Thus I am saying that if they were 1:1, then man for man the German army was better. This does not mean that a German soldier necessarily was better than an allied soldier, but that on the whole the German army performed better despite the relative lack of equipment etc.

Thus I'm just following the thread of the debate, and puttng in my by no means expert 2 cents.

[ February 28, 2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: DrD ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by DrD:

IIRC the US figured it took 5 Shermans to take out 1 panzer V/VI, but they had about 10 of them for each big cat!

FWIW, this did NOT mean that the US expected to lose 4 or 5 Shermans for each Tiger or Panther they destroyed. It means that if they came across a single enemy tank, an entire platoon was sent to deal with it. And if they come across a pn of German heavies, the better part of two companies should be sent. Then you can swamp them, out-maneuver them, flank them, and defeat them. And you may well not lose any Shermans.

[flamingknives]

But are the number of casulaties a reasonable comparison? Are the way the statistics collected 'fair'?

If the parity of numbers is based on the massive losses of the Soviet army in 1941, then any other comparison is skewed as a result.

On top of that, when there is more of one army in the field, AIUI, they tend to take a higher number of casualties, simply due to there being a target rich environment for the other side. In addition to that, a defending army will inevitably inflict more casualties than it receives, all else being equal and excepting when it is routed.

[Andreas]

But that is far too much of a blanket statement to have much value. The whole war as your unit of analysis will not tell you something about an army's performance that ranged from stellar (say Norway, Fall Gelb, early Barbarossa) over mediocre (say Italy, Normandy, Kursk) to the downright abysmal (say, Lorraine, Ardennes, Arctic 1941, Stalingrad). There is just too much variation, and too many influencing factors.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If the parity of numbers is based on the massive losses of the Soviet army in 1941, then any other comparison is skewed as a result.

By the same token, any comparison based on the massive German losses in the last 7 months of the war is skewed. Should these losses be left out from the calculation ?

On top of that, when there is more of one army in the field, AIUI, they tend to take a higher number of casualties, simply due to there being a target rich environment for the other side. In addition to that, a defending army will inevitably inflict more casualties than it receives, all else being equal and excepting when it is routed.

The point being ?

Nobody seriously expected the Finnish army to last long enough for a negotiated settlement to be reached (105 days) in 1939-40. Nobody expected France would fold as quickly as it did.

[DrD]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

But are the number of casulaties a reasonable comparison? Are the way the statistics collected 'fair'?

If the parity of numbers is based on the massive losses of the Soviet army in 1941, then any other comparison is skewed as a result.

On top of that, when there is more of one army in the field, AIUI, they tend to take a higher number of casualties, simply due to there being a target rich environment for the other side. In addition to that, a defending army will inevitably inflict more casualties than it receives, all else being equal and excepting when it is routed.

True, but the bulk of the German army was in the USSR, and for the almost 4 years of that war it was on the offensive as much as the defensive (give or take a few month.)

In the West, the Germans were on the offensive for about 3 months in 1940, 1 month in 1944-45 (the Ardennes and Alsace-Lorraine) and on the defensive about 10 months. In other theaters with the exception perhaps of Italy (a big exception, with its marvelous defensive terrain)it was also about even.

So I think it's fair to say the Germans were the attackers about as often as the defenders.

[DrD]

Originally posted by Andreas:

But that is far too much of a blanket statement to have much value. The whole war as your unit of analysis will not tell you something about an army's performance that ranged from stellar (say Norway, Fall Gelb, early Barbarossa) over mediocre (say Italy, Normandy, Kursk) to the downright abysmal (say, Lorraine, Ardennes, Arctic 1941, Stalingrad). There is just too much variation, and too many influencing factors.

Very true, but what are your thoughts on the overall level of performance of the German army? Do you contend that their reputation as being one of the finest armies ever is overblown? Is it a little overblown or very overblown?

I was reading Keegan's "6 Armies in Normandy" (again) and he presented a good quote from Montgomery: "there is no doubt that they (the Germans) are the most wonderful soldiers."

[Andreas]

Originally posted by DrD:

True, but the bulk of the German army was in the USSR, and for the almost 4 years of that war it was on the offensive as much as the defensive (give or take a few month.)

I don't think that is quite correct.

Major German offensive periods (no pun intended):

June 22 through Dec 6th 41 - 5.5 months

mid-May through mid-November 42 - 6 months

February 43; July 43 - 2 months

Total 13.5 months

Major Red Army offensive periods (ditto):

December to January 41 - 2 months

May 42 - 1 month

November to February 42/43 - 3 months

August to December 43 - 5 Months

january - February 44 - 2 Months

July to October 44 - 4 months

January to March 45 - 2 months

April 45 - 1 month

20 months total

Rough calculation, of course, also ignoring that the initial Barbarossa offensive was across the front, while later offensive periods on both sides were not.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by DrD:

Very true, but what are your thoughts on the overall level of performance of the German army? Do you contend that their reputation as being one of the finest armies ever is overblown? Is it a little overblown or very overblown?

Haven't come to a conclusion yet, I have only been thinking about it for a few years now.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If the parity of numbers is based on the massive losses of the Soviet army in 1941, then any other comparison is skewed as a result.

By the same token, any comparison based on the massive German losses in the last 7 months of the war is skewed. Should these losses be left out from the calculation ?

Depends what you're looking at. If you're comparing the Germans and the Western allies, including the Russian losses is a bit peculiar as the allies never had the opportunity to rampage unchecked into an unprepared, underequipped, untrained and huge army on the same scale as Barbarossa.

Looking at losses differential is only relevant when comparing the two forces in question.

The Stats at the beginning of the thread seemingly pits the entirity of the Allies against Germany. In reality, the Allies fought against the Italians, the Romanians, Hungarians, Vichy French (Briefly), the Finns and the Japanese.