Russian vs German casualties

[Scipio]

It is a fact that the Russians have lost (IIRC) 4 times so many men in WWII then the Germans.

Now I wonder how (or if) this will be modeled in CM. The most of the casualties were of course caused by the Russian tactic that not showed much interest for their human casualties, and obvisously would no intelligent player act in that way. Will CM:BB just ignore the historic casualties for playability, or will there be any concept for this issue?

This may have been adressed before, but well, do we have something better to do while we waiting? (Except throwing **** on pure little Scipio for some of his opinions )

[Michael Dorosh]

Not so much his opinions as his hypocracy, but far be it from me to hijack his thread! (Lots of little smileys attached)

[Gaylord Focker]

I think unit experience will play a large role in CMBB. Alot of the Soviet frontline troops simply did not live long enough to become regular or vets because of the Soviet High Commands disregard for human life.

Hope this make some sense, it's just an assumption of mine.

[Stalin's Organ]

A lot of Russian casualties were also suffered before and AFTER combat, especially after.

The standard of care for POW's on both sides left much to be desired, but the Germans captured a lot more prisoners than the Russians, especially in the early stages of the war, so there were a lot more russian POW's exposed to death from starvation, mis-treatment, etc.

[Renaud]

For a meaningful number in terms of CM, methinks you would need to somehow get figures for KIA's/WIA's which occurred in the course of actual tactical engagements between armed forces. In other words, omit all the war dead resulting from non-tactical combat causes such as disease, execution, concentration-camps, POW-camp deaths, starvation, strategic air and artillery attack, civilian casualties, and of course POW figures. I'm sure someone somewhere has tried to calculate such a figure. Never seen one though. All the figures i've seen take into account total losses from all war-related causes, sometimes figuring civilian deaths in, sometimes not.

In CM-scale actions you would see a much greater parity in losses than what you get by simply comparing total east-front dead for the years 1940-45 and applying this ratio to CM. This is because at the level of CM you are facing supplied and armed combat troops roughly equal to your own, not accepting mass surrenders of starved troops or killing them through strategic artillery or air attack.

That all being said, the russians probably did suffer more kia/wia casualties in CM-scale encounters than the germans. That's just my gut-feeling based on certain problems within the Red Army such as initial lack of junior leadership and training which resulted to wasteful infantry tactics. I imagine this ratio varied throughout the war. But then maybe i'm just perpetuating the common myth of the german martial ubermensch.

For these reasons I don't think we can conclude that the overall casualty ratio for the eastern front between 1940-45 could or should be reflected in similiar ratios in CM engagements.

Ren

[Grisha]

Soviet casualties were the result of a number of things:</font>

1. German tactical excellence.</font>
2. Initial poor Soviet tactical leadership.</font>
3. Initial poor Soviet training.</font>
4. Initial poor Soviet command & control.</font>
5. Too few responsive indirect artillery.</font>
6. No mid-war tank equal to the Tiger or Panther.</font>

A lot of this is modelled into CMBB. Delay times alone will result in the Germans staying ahead of the Soviets' decision loop tactically. Add poor experience levels to early Soviet troops and it just gets worse. Soviet tanks early in the war will have to be in place before engaging the enemy effectively, or else surprise them enough to temporarily curb the German decision loop advantage. I can see early war scenarios turning into a Soviet massacre, if the Germans manage to hit them where they aren't expected. While this may apply to most troops for the early war Soviets it will be a catastrophe.

Also, the severe delays on Soviet orders will demand that the Soviet player 'cut corners', which in turn will cost more lives.

Bear in mind that the Soviets lost as many in the first 6 months of the war as they did in all of 1942. By mid-war the Soviet loss ratio had shrank from 6-7:1, to 4:1, a reduction by a factor of 1.5 times. By the last 5 months of the war the Soviet loss ratio was, I think, under 2:1.

[JasonC]

Russian losses in 1941 were up to 10 times as high as the Germans. It was not due to suicidal tactics, it was due to enourmous encirclements at Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev, and Bryansk. In 1942, Russians losses fell to more like 4 times those of the Germans. The reason for the lower losses than in 1941 was that after breakthroughs, units retreated instead of standing rigidly at the front until surrounded. They often did so against direct orders, which were less sensible than the actual behavior of the troops. That the loss rate was still so high reflected overall German initiative in the war to that point.

Thereafter, in the period in which the Russians had the initiative and were attacking, there losses ran about twice those of the Germans. Marginally higher earlier on, marginally lower later. So the idea that the cause of the overall loss rate was reckless attack tactics is contradicted by the actual timing of the losses. They lost more when on defense.

Also, do not forget that Axis minor Allies lost nearly 2 million men in Russia. The eastern armies of Rumania, Hungary, and the relatively small Italian contingent were essentially destroyed, mostly by early in 1943. The turning point in relative loss rates is thus a bit sooner than a German-only analysis would lead you to believe.

Overall, the Russians only had twice the manpower base of Germany alone. The idea that they lost 4 to 1 (or as some would have it, 10 to 1) indefinitely, and then made it up on volume, is therefore somewhat incoherent. They would have worned themselves out long before the Germans had that been the case, and relative odds would have moved continually in the Germans favor. Which they did not do.

Instead, the Russians dealt with the outsized loss rates of 1941 and 1942 by a mobilization rate as fast as the losses. Faster in 1942. While the Germans had still not fully mobilized their economy and manpower for attritional total war. In 1942, the Russians also managed to keep the absolute loss rate relatively low until their November counterattacks, compared to 1941. That let the remaining force ratio tend toward the replacement rate ratio, though with a "drag" from their outsized losses. The defensive phase was dealt with by mobilization speed, in other words.

But that would not itself have ever won the war for the Russians. With only twice the manpower depth, they could not go one trading 4 men for 1 and expect to win eventually. They had to drive the loss ratio below the ratio of the available manpower reserves. This took them some time, but they did achieve it. That is why the large battles of 1943 and 1944 resulted in a remaining forces ratio moving in the Russian's favor, instead of against them.

With 2 to 1 depth, any loss rate below 2 to 1, if the losses are high enough absolutely, soon reduces the "1" side to near zero. The remaining forces ratio climbs. The absolute losses of the Russians did not need to be lower to bring that about, but they did need to be better than the ratio of available manpower. Which was only 2 to 1, not 4 to 1 or 10 to 1.

[Olaf]

The Soviets also suffered more KIA/WIA/MIA than the Germans for the following: 1. Stalins rule was murderous from the start(around 1925) and his military/party leadership was in absolute fear of failing when the Germans invaded in 1941. In contrast, most of the German military leadership, and almost all of the rank and file were not aware of how ruthless Hitler and the Nazis would be until the Axis started losing the war. 2. The USSR had a much larger population than Germany and could afford to lose many more military/civilian personnel than Germany could. 3. The average Russian lived a much harder life than the average German and death might have been a little more easier to accept.

[crossfire]

Originally posted by Olaf:

2. The USSR had a much larger population than Germany and could afford to lose many more military/civilian personnel than Germany could.

What was the german population anyway?

Also we need to add Finn population, Romanians, Hungarians and large "other"

I wonder if Soviet volunteers in German army are counted as German or Soviet losses?

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Olaf:

3. The average Russian lived a much harder life than the average German and death might have been a little more easier to accept.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've EVER read on this board!

[Michael Emrys]

Total Soviet dead in the war ~20-25 million.

Total German dead ~13.5 million.

Michael

[killmore]

Magical 10:1 soviet losses are making frequent reapperance here.

In terms of CMBO losses of 2:1 conscript with light tanks vs veterans with medium tanks seem quite reasonable. This was a situation at the begining of the war.

I don't want BTS to penalize Soviet squads just because they were Soviet.

We don't have to reproduce these losses in the game because our tactics will not be the same. There is not way I am attacking in human wave over 2 kilometer wide front.

If at all I would concentrate my attacks on very small area to achieve break through.

Lots of Soviet units surendered without much fighting too in 1941 these are still counted as casualties.

I "believe" that Soviet vs Axis losses were about 5:2 in total. Notice that is AXIS not just GERMAN. (Common mistake!)

That is fairly good considering how unprepared Soviet Union was and that conscripts were fighting veterans...

[killmore]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

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

3. The average Russian lived a much harder life than the average German and death might have been a little more easier to accept.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've EVER read on this board!</font>

[killmore]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Total Soviet dead in the war ~20-25 million.

Total German dead ~13.5 million.

Michael

I am sure someone will ask whether the numbers include civilians? And why are these only German numbers? What about Hungarians trapped in Budapest?

The german accounts list total of 18 million Soviet civilians killed by Germans. (If memory serves me right - yes I can find the source but I am too lazy)

[ July 18, 2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: killmore ]

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by crossfire:

What was the german population anyway?

German population in the 40's was estimated at 90 million people. the USSR's was twice that at around 180 million. Not that big a difference really.

Originally posted by Olaf:

3. The average Russian lived a much harder life than the average German and death might have been a little more easier to accept.

If you want to look for a psychological explanation, my favorite is the "asiatic connection". Russians did have several centuries of Mongol influence and many asiatic characteristics remain to this very day. One of them is a rather nonchallant regard towards life.

Of course, a mud stained and hungry Soviet conscript sitting out a massive artillery barrage in a hastily constructed foxhole might disagree with me.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by killmore:

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

Total Soviet dead in the war ~20-25 million.

Total German dead ~13.5 million.

Michael

I am sure someone will ask whether the numbers include civilians?</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

German population in the 40's was estimated at 90 million people. the USSR's was twice that at around 180 million. Not that big a difference really.

I just started a book on Hitler's Eastern allies that quotes 60 million, but this was in the 30s, and I don't think included Czechoslovakia and Austria - would this account for the discrepancy?

[Olaf]

My comment, "The average Russian lived a much harder life than the average German and death might have been a little more easier to accept" was meant to point out the vast disparities in the standards of living between Russian and German civilians prior to WWII- before they went into the military. As far as when the fighting started, I would say their lives were comparable as far as hardships suffered, blood spilled, family members lost etc.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I just started a book on Hitler's Eastern allies that quotes 60 million, but this was in the 30s, and I don't think included Czechoslovakia and Austria - would this account for the discrepancy?

Yep.

Michael

[Scipio]

I have only a German source from late 60s.

(in Million, m = military, c = civilians)

Soviet casualties : 13.6 m, 7.7 c

Germany : 3.25 m, 3.81 c

Austria : 0.38 m, 0.145 c

Rumania : 0.52 m, 0.465 c

Hungary : 0.75 total

Czechoslovakia : 0.4 total

The German population was (AFAIK) ~80 million before the war (inclusive Volksdeutsche?)

[Tero]

From a purely gaming POV:

It is already possible to disregard casualties in CMBO. Why should it be any different in CMBB ?

[JasonC]

Until you folks start making distinctions between military deaths, PWs, irrecoverable manpower losses, wounded, non-battle casualties, civilian deaths, all nationalities, all times periods - everyone is just talking out of his hat. The word "casualties" does not mean "deaths", incidentally.

German known KIA in the military for the whole war were 2.2 million. But there were another 2.9 million missing. There were another 5.2 million wounded. That makes 10.3 million all told, of which around 5/6 took place on the Russian front. There were also non-battle casualties, from frostbite, disease, etc, most recoverable but some not. (Meanwhile the Axis minors in Russia took 1.7 million casualties). The German population at the outbreak of the war was 81 million, of whom around 25 million were men between 15 and 65. Roughly 2/3rds of them 45 or younger. 17.9 million served in the German armed forces at one time or another. As for German civilian deaths, the usual figure is around 3 million, mostly divided between effects of the bombing and losses in eastern Germany in 1945.

Meanwhile the Russians had about 8 million deaths in the military, many of them PWs. Estimates there go as low as 6 million and as high as 12 million. Their wounded were about as many again, with some estimates ranging up to twice the number of military deaths. Russian civilian deaths were on the order of 13 million, of which about 3 million occurred in Soviet controlled Russia, mostly due to starvation and disease (e.g. the seige of Leningrad alone killed more Russian civilians than the US lost in the whole war on all fronts, military and civilian). The bulk of the Russian civilian deaths occurred in German occupied areas.

As for the rest of the side issues, old stale propaganda, fatalism, mythical mongol hordes, etc - please do not feed the freaking trolls.

[Enoch]

From Appendixes of Glantz and House "When Titans Clash".

"Total Armed Forces losses (Soviet)"

Total = 29.6 Million

"Wehrmacht Casualties"

-Total Armed Forces losses to war's end:

13.4 million

German allies losses (Hungary, Italy, Rumania, Finland):

Total = 1.73 million

So you get 29.6 million versus 15 million. I believe these numbers exclude civilians.

[Munter]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I have only a German source from late 60s.

(in Million, m = military, c = civilians)

Soviet casualties : 13.6 m, 7.7 c

Germany : 3.25 m, 3.81 c

Austria : 0.38 m, 0.145 c

Rumania : 0.52 m, 0.465 c

Hungary : 0.75 total

Czechoslovakia : 0.4 total

Finnish casualties:

1939-40: 23 000

1941-45: 65 000

Civilian casulties < 2000

M

[Guest Mike]

I believe that 25 million persons passed through the Sov armed forces in WW2, so a figure of 29.somethign casualties seems a little unreasonable.

I have read soemwhere that they suffered 50% casualties in hte military, and 20-25 million overall, so the 13.6 m and 7.7m © quoted above at least has the advatage of being believable.

And yes I know there have been military units that have suffered over 100% casualties (eg the NZ contingent at Gallipoli), but I've never heard of a whole nation's military to have done so over an entire war!!