Russian vs German casualties

[Ozzy]

Does anybody have the numbers of persons still missed?

I know the current number for Germans is 1.4 millions still MIA (Source: Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge and Suchdienst des Deutschen Roten Kreuzes), but with the recently opened archieves in Eastern Europe hope raised to discover the fate of missed persons.

I mentioned this as I was impressed (in a negative way) about this huge amount after more than 50 years.

How about other nations?

[TSword]

Casualty figures (KIA, MIA, WIA):

(Cite QVIST on pub19.ezboard.com)

..All in all, it simply is not a tenable position, on the basis of Soviet and German records and

studies, to claim anything close to casualty parity on the Eastern Front. Soviet casualties were consistently significantly

higher than German. The following ratios are based on Krivosheevs numbers and on German casualty figures as found in primary records (combat losses only):

1941: 5.38:1

1942: 6.82:1

1943: 4.91:1

1944: 3.53:1

(Non Germ. formations acc. for about 10% add. axis losses).

JasonC however is true in emphasizing on the fact that those numbers do not necessarily reflect pure battle casualties (diseases, higher mortality because of worser medical treatment etc.), but they are showing cleary a tendency no doubt (especially 1944), which MUST be reflected in CMBB. Already 2:1 is enourmous when one thinks for a human vs. human game (The average battle must about reflect the hist. casualty figures) !!!!

Greets

Daniel

[Andreas]

Originally posted by TSword:

(The average battle must about reflect the hist. casualty figures) !!!!

Greets

Daniel

Err, and what were the historic casualty ratios for the 'average' CM level battle 1941-1945? I look forward to learning about them.

[nijis]

If you're desperate to simulate wasteful or otherwise substandard Soviet tactics, seems to me the best way would be to play Germans vs. the AI, although the AI might arguably coordinate its troops better than your average 1941 Soviet commander. Your average two-player CM battle would represent the engagements when both commanders knew what they were doing.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by nijis:

Your average two-player CM battle would represent the engagements when both commanders knew what they were doing.

Not if you are playing me, mate.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by TSword:

Already 2:1 is enourmous when one thinks for a human vs. human game (The average battle must about reflect the hist. casualty figures) !!!!

No way will this happen nor should it happen. See Andreas' question above. In addition, you must realize that the average CM game represents a fairly atypical engagement compared to real life in as much as it is a fight to the death (or close to it) between two evenly matched forces. Add in the fact that most of the players controlling the forces will probably not be following German and Soviet doctrine as it was practiced in the time period represented and you can see that this is not a reasonable expectation.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, I agree that this go to far into the number of deads/ wounded. But how about the equipment? I have no numbers here, how much casualties did both sides had in battle tanks, for example?

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

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

Already 2:1 is enourmous when one thinks for a human vs. human game (The average battle must about reflect the hist. casualty figures) !!!!

No way will this happen nor should it happen. See Andreas' question above. In addition, you must realize that the average CM game represents a fairly atypical engagement compared to real life in as much as it is a fight to the death (or close to it) between two evenly matched forces. Add in the fact that most of the players controlling the forces will probably not be following German and Soviet doctrine as it was practiced in the time period represented and you can see that this is not a reasonable expectation.</font>

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Well, I agree that this go to far into the number of deads/ wounded. But how about the equipment? I have no numbers here, how much casualties did both sides had in battle tanks, for example?

In Zaloga's Red Army Handbook, he cites some losses and ratios for tanks in the chapter on tanks. Unfortunately, while the data is very interesting Zaloga didn't bother to divulge his sources. Then again, since he has had access to Soviet archives Zaloga may have computed them himself from a number of German/Soviet primary source material.

[gunnergoz]

I don't at this moment have a source to quote, but I know many Russians and they invariably give me the figure for WW2 total losses (military & civilian) of 25 million Soviet citizens killed (a great many of whom were concentrated in the Ukraine and Byelorussia.)

This figure may reflect old propaganda, but I have no reason to disbelieve it either.

To this day, the former Soviet countries still encourage women to bear children, perhaps a holdover from the postwar need to re-populate.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Grisha:

[in Zaloga's Red Army Handbook, he cites some losses and ratios for tanks in the chapter on tanks.

Here they are:

1941 1:7

1942 1:6

1943 1:4

1944 1:4

1945 1:1,2

Total 1:4.4

I don't think he included assault guns in this, judging by the terminology (he just says 'tanks' and the production numbers in this table, which only make sense if assault guns are not included. Then again, the loss figures are so high, they could include assault guns... Very confusing.

He is making an educated guesstimate of German losses in other theatres, which are not included in the ratios.

[killmore]

Originally posted by TSword:

Already 2:1 is enourmous when one thinks for a human vs. human game (The average battle must about reflect the hist. casualty figures) !!!!

Greets

Daniel

Only if you simulate exactly the way both sides behaved.

I will not behave like average soviet commander. I refuse to attack with human waves over the large front. Therefore the casualty ratios will not be the same.

If you force me to behave the same way as Soviet commander then what is the point of playing? I want to have a choice how to play!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by killmore:

I refuse to attack with human waves over the large front. If you force me to behave the same way as Soviet commander then what is the point of playing?

So you can justify your forum handle.

[Nidan1]

Talking about the total conflict in the East from 41-45 and the enmormity of the losses in life (both civilian and military) is mind boggling. You have to remember the CMBB will provide engagements that represent isolated pieces of the entire conflict. I dont believe that you will see scenarios depicting the entire battle of Kursk for example. Trying to realisticly represent casualty ratios as they occurred in the actual conflict will not happen in this game. Unit experience, weapons, and the skill of the player will most likely determine total casualties at the end of a CMBB battle. The game would be no fun if one sided battles and ops were all that was provided.

[zahl]

More figures from When Titans Clashed:

"Red Army Personnel Losses" including killed, missing, captured, wounded, sick, etc.

1941 - 4,308,094

1942 - 7,080,801

1943 - 7,483,647

1944 - 6,503,204

1945 - 2,823,381

Wartime Totals - 28.2 million, of which 10.01 million killed or missing. Pay attention to that enormous 1945 figure - at that rate they would have taken close to 8.5 million yearly casualties had the war continued. Monthly averages almost rival their mindless losses from 1941. Total Soviet Union armed forces losses are then given as 29.6 million, including all branches, but does not include Poles or other Eastern Front Soviet allies. These figures should be as accurate as possible since they are derived from Soviet primary sources.

Glantz gives the following info to explain the horrendous offensive losses:

"Based on interviews conducted by the author with Soviet war veterans in July 1989, it is apparent that Soviet infantry casualties remained high throughout the war, in particular, in first echelon assault units. For example, when asked what the normal losses were in a first-echelon regiment on the main attack axis during the penetration phase of an operation, a former regimental commander of 97th Guards Rifle Division stated "pochti polovina" [almost half] of the regiment's strength. He went on to state that such was the case to the very end of the war."

Red Army Weaponry Losses as given in Grif sekretnosti snyat by Krivosheev and quoted by Glantz:

Tanks and SP Guns: 96,500 (13,700)

Guns and mortars: 218,000 (16,000)

Combat Aircraft: 88,300 (11,000)

1945 figures in parenthesis.

[killmore]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

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

I refuse to attack with human waves over the large front. If you force me to behave the same way as Soviet commander then what is the point of playing?

So you can justify your forum handle.</font>

[Xenophile]

Let's accept that the casualty ratios vastly favour the Axis, especially in the early part of the Eastern campaign. Let's also accept that this is a game, albeit a simulation of real events. So German MG teams mowing down Soviet wave attacks isn't going to be too much fun for anyone. Nor would 60 turns of off-map Soviet artillery against a German infantry company.

Combat Mission can already model some of the problems junior Soviet commanders faced - poor command control radius, few command units for large numbers of poorly trained troops, low ammunition levels. Yes, we can expect scenarios that pitch fairly evenly equipped forces against each other. But we should expect some that try to model the more common combats that occurred. Relative costs may be one way to adjust the balance - have very cheap units available to the Soviets early in the war - bad Green regular troops, worse conscripts almost straight from the farm, awful 'worker battalions'.

Even without this I believe that it's up to scenario designers to come up with balanced games that reflect knowledge of the history of this campaign. The key to early German success was the recognition by many of their commanders of two essential truths of that time - the tactical defensive was superior to the offensive - so they must force their opponents to attack; and that a breakthrough should be pushed near it's logistical limit before becoming an encirclement - when the defender than must attack to survive.

So at least early in the war in the east German success was due to operational command at a higher level than can be modelled in Combat Mission.

I envisage scenarios where thin screens of Panzergrenadiers attempt to hold against mass attacks of Soviet infantry; where Soviet tank units with no infantry support attempt to stop elements of Panzer Divisions exploiting breakthroughs. Later, I expect scenarios where German scratch forces (security squads, anti-aircraft units, cooks) attempt to delay Soviet armoured breakthroughs; where well-armed, veteran German units but with almost no ammunition or support must defend.

As realistic and challenging as I expect these scenarios to be, in the end, I do not think that they will be as much fun as those where the Axis and Soviet forces are more matched - Panzer Companies against Guards Tank units and the like.

[Wisbech_lad]

How to simulate an early war situation, to get the casualty figures ‘correct’:

Have a scenario of mopping up a Russian pocket:

Russian, 1 reduced strength conscript infantry bn. Make them start exhausted (lack of food & sleep) and short of ammo. Remove all leaders, so all are out of C&C. Remove all crew served weapons, as they are the first to be abandoned.

Make it a meeting engagement, on the basis that the Russians aren’t dug in, but trying to find a way out.

Give the Germans, well, whatever you like. Maybe a platoon of light tanks/armoured cars and a company of fresh veteran troops with mortars on call.

Start accepting surrenders as and when you feel like.

It may not be a balanced game, but you should get the required casualty ratios.

[Gen-x87H]

You could simulate the Soviet attack wave by allowing different settings of control.

Lets say you set it to realistic. You send an order to your units and it takes a ridiculously long time for them to get it. So you are forced to send human wave after human wave because giving them different orders literally takes minutes.

Of course with that option you need to reduce the cost of the infantry or it would be pointless to play at that lvl. So you would get a lot of troops that are hard to control. You give them general objectives and let them go to town. Of course you end up with some higher ratio of men compared to the Axis player, take huge causalties, but if you can play it right win out everyday, at least in an attack in 44-45

Could be an interesting option IMO.

Gen

[kipanderson]

Loss Ratio, CMBB.

Hi,

In what follows Soviet losses are “irrecoverable losses” which means KIA and MIA/POWs. German losses are similarly counted and do not include the losses of Axis Allies, Soviet losses do include those that became casualties fighting the Axis Allies. WIA are not included in either the Soviet or the German figures. The source for Soviet losses is Krivosheev, German losses are those reported during the war by German field commanders to the German high command through official sources. Collected by the German military themselves during the war. I came across the German casualty figures in one of the “original” versions of those famous post-war pamphlets put together by German officers under the direction of, and for the benefit of, the US military. These pamphlets have been widely published in recent years; however, the republished pamphlets never include the appendix from the original version giving a stunningly detailed list and classification of German’s combat losses, together with other material that is never included for some reason. They are broken down into all the different fronts in two time periods, pre-June 43 and June43 to the end of March 45. Hence this is the time period I use. No where else have I seen such a detailed brake down of German losses for the entire war in the East. I have just moved and do not have all my books unpacked, but some time I will give full details of the German source, you may find a similar original copy somewhere. When you count casualties in a similar way, the combat losses, Soviet to German were roughly 4:1 for the entire war up to the end of March 45. Roughly 6:1 for the first half of the war in the East, and a little less than 2:1 for the second half of the war. The reason for the lower figures I have is that nearly all sources on German losses tend to understate the number of German MIA/POWs. Strangely, the greatest controversy and the most difficult figures to find, are reliable German casualty figures. A number of authors seem to find them for a given battle, but not a quality source for the entire campaign.

In what follows I discuss the loss ratio and the combat effectiveness ratio during the second half of the war. The loss ratio during the first six months of the war was roughly 10:1, at Stalingrad 4:1, at Kursk 3.5:1. Post Kursk the loss ratio rapidly decreased further.

All of what follows relates to the period end June 43 to end March 45. Importantly, this period includes the heavy Soviet losses at Kursk but, correctly, excludes the round up of Germans during the last two months of the war.

In June 43 the Red Army numbered 6.3 million, rising to 6.5 by the end of the war. 1943 was the first year of the war in which Soviet losses were less than the annual intake of recruits. Importantly the Red Army was no longer being bled to death. It was official policy to allow Soviet infantry divisions to reduce to an average of 4,500 men while more troops were channelled into the mobile and mechanised forces. The 450 odd Soviet infantry divisions became very heavily armed brigades, by western standards. By “very heavily armed” I mean that they had a generous supply of heavy weapons for the number of frontline riflemen in the divisions. The average “force ratio” over the period was 2.7:1, Soviets to Germans. Close to 2:1 in June 43 and then slowly increasing.

When it comes to Soviet relative combat effectiveness the simplest way to calculate it is to start by assuming the Germans were fighting an enemy whom, in terms of quality, were in every detail clones of the Germans themselves. After making the above assumption you then use the “actual, historical” figures for the number of Soviets and Germans, the actual historical force ratio. To cut a long story short, if you assume the Soviets were clones of the Germans in terms of their quality, but use the actual historical force ratio, you end up with an expected loss ratio of 1.4:1, Soviet to German. The actual, historical loss ratio for the above period was 1.6:1. In turn this tells us that Soviet combat effectiveness relative to German, during the second half of the war, was 1.15:1. The lower the figure the better. To put this in perspective, both Commonwealth and US combat effectiveness relative to German in WW2 was 1.2:1. During the second half of the war all four of the main players had very similar combat effectiveness; the above figures are just as close as they look. To put the above in even greater perspective, the figures you reach for the first half of the war on the Eastern Front are 6:1, Soviet to German. Remember, the lower the figure the better.

In summary, the Soviets were just as tactically unsound, during the first half of the war, as the Germans claimed. However, during the second half of the war the Soviets improved far more than post war German accounts claimed. During the second half of the war a 1,000 man Soviet combat team was often the equal of its German opposite number.

I will stop boring everyone, but give just one last example. Soviet losses per 100 front line troops, per combat day, fell to levels equal to those of US troops by the autumn of 43. This still represented horror enough, but not the mass slaughter some German accounts would indicate was still the norm in late 43 and in 44.

All the best,

Kip.

[bulletproofest]

Yeah, I heard in 1 of the battles between the Russians and the Germans, the Russians lost 50% of the total men lost by America in the whole war.

P.S. can someone post a reply here on how the aerial system of CMBB works ( like if your able to "call" a strike with a spotter or something, or if the system works like it did in CMBO ). :confused:

[kipanderson]

Hi,

as posted above,

"Yeah, I heard in 1 of the battles between the Russians and the Germans, the Russians lost 50% of the total men lost by America in the whole war."

Yup, quite correct. The US lost around 400,000 in WW2, the Soviet combat losses were closer to 11,000,000. Something to do with the Germans having four odd divisions in North Africa when they had 200 odd in the East.

Happily for the US, and Britain, the scale just did not compare.

All the best,

Kip.

PS.Just to give an idea of scale. Germany suffered 6% of its total combat casualties fighting in the early wars, Poland, France, Balkans, plus North Africa plus Italy. Germany suffered 18% of its total combat losses in the campaign in North West Europe from D-Day to end March 45. It suffered 76% of it total combat losses against the Soviet Union.

[ July 22, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]