The numbers I posted are Combat losses :sick and frostbitten are not included .
Thank you for the link.
I have objections against the German losses Glantz is giving (probably from Soviet sources ):I think he is counting the Germans who became POW after the capitulation ,but that is meaningless :the whole Japanese army became POW in september 1945 ,I don't think one should count them as casualties .
Some additional figures of German CL(rough numbers )
1941 830000 of which 220000 death and missing
1942 1100000 280000death and missing
1943 1500000 500000 death and missing
1944 2000000 1000000 death and missing
The POW are included in the missing,but there are no reliable figures for the numbers of POW
Cheers

if the germans even tried to take moscow it would be another stalingrad, russians would hold on to every door step and suckingf surrounding german units dry for resouces (tanks, men, supplies and aircraft) and im pretty sure stalin would leave before the germans got him

__________________
News today, a man has fallen into a chocolate vat in the arnotts factory

In other news arnotts have anounced that there will be 50% more tim in your tim tams.
(p.s. only aussies will get this joke)

I disagree: If they tried to take moscow they would first surround the city, cutting off supply. Taking it would be a piece of cake, after being surrounded the population would panic and the soldiers would surrender.

In stalingrad they never surrounded the city, because of the volga river. And the fact that stalingrad was 1800 km from the borders of the soviet union, a massive problem in terms of logistics and frontage. Moscow was "only" around 1000 km.

Note that all cities that were completely sorrunded eventually surrendered in ww2.

The Germans didn't have the capabilities to surround it and carry out a proper besieging at that point.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

Well, these numbers add up to 5,4 million casualties and 2 million death and missing. The real numbers were 7.5 million casualties and 2.7 million death and missing.

In fact the real numbers of KIA and MIA were (these numbers are quite definitive):

1941 300.000
1942 500.000
1943 700.000
1944 1.240.000

While for the soviets (rough numbers) they were:

1941 3.000.000
1942 3.000.000
1943 2.100.000
1944 1.600.000

(these numbers are very imprecise, particularly for 1941 and 1942)

The ratio was:

1941 1/10
1942 1/6
1943 1/3
1944 1/1.3

Germany had 85 million people, the soviets had 190 million, so a ratio of 1/2.5 would be favorable enough if germany and the soviets were doing a 1/1.

Once again I will ask that sources be cited. Otherwise, the numbers are meaningless.

__________________
"Faint heart never won fair maiden", so I say "Go for it!"

Lou

Yes. I mean't that if the germans had the capabilities, it would be much easier compared to Stalingrad, with was a very delicate operation (that had everything to fail).

Anyway, Typhon was a gamble based on the hypothesis that the soviets had run out of men by October 1941. Since they didn't, it failed.

The germans planned barbarossa expecting 250-300 soviet divisions, and the soviets mobilized, in total in 1941, 550 divisions. In fact, the soviet union lost over 220 divisions in 1941.

While the soviets expected 200 german divisions and got to face only 152 divisions.

Germany lost because they underestimated their enemy, while the soviets won because they didn't underestimate their enemy (at least not to the same extend).

For the german numbers on KIA and MIA:

"Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" by Rüdiger Overmans.

For the soviet numbers and the German total causalities (kia+mia+wounded) taken in 1941-1944. The source is When Titans Clashed by Glantz.

I was already thinking that your figures were coming from Overmans
Summary :Overmans is useless and unreliable ;see 'Comments on 'Deutsche Militarische Verluste ' by R.Overmans 'that is debunking his methods .
I have the German edition of Overmans n P 279 he is writing that in 1945 1.2 million German soldiers died ( but without giving any sources ) and than on the same page :due to the collapse of the communications,it was impossible to have a view of the losses . How can he then give a figure of 1.2 million deaths ? The strength of the Germans in the east was in 1945 below 2 million,how can they have 1.2 million death ,without the wounded and the missing ????
He is giving 25000deaths in june 1941 (for 9 days !):that is nonsens .
My figures are 8886 deaths and 2707 missing;they are from BA-MA (Federal archive-Military Archive )
The total death figure for 1941 in the east is :173015
Missing :35519
Limited Luftwaffe losses are not included ,nor the non combat losses(sick):these were 39OOOO,but only some 20000 to 30000 of these CL were deaths .

About Glantz :you can not use him for German losses ,he is only using Russian sources and these are TOTALLY unreliable concerning German losses

Guarporense, how can you say that moscow would surrender, that is total bullcrap im sorry but leningrad never fell and that city was seiged for 4 years i believe, plus leningrad was probably shorter supply route than moscow, think man think think think. please could other people back me up in that if moscow was surrounded the army and civillians wouldnt panic and surrneder.

__________________
News today, a man has fallen into a chocolate vat in the arnotts factory

In other news arnotts have anounced that there will be 50% more tim in your tim tams.
(p.s. only aussies will get this joke)

We will never know,because it never happened . And I doubt that the Germans would be able to capture Moscow .And if they did,was there any realistic possibility that the Soviet Union would collapse or give up ?

Simplifying quite a bit eh?

The distance from Berlin to Moscow is 1000 miles, thats 1800 km. And when is 1000km only 1000km?

Lets not forget the fact that unlike Western Europe, Russia had virtually no paved roads in 41' and Germany relied heavily on horses, which complicated things quite a bit once the rain came and later snow.

Seems you are unfamiliar with siege of Leningrad. The city was surrounded for 900 days (longest siege in modern history) and no surrender.

Have you looked into my link. These numbers contradict Glantz's.

Not sure I would agree with you here LJad. Every respected historian has more than one source.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I don't want reopen a discussion about Glantz;on AHF some members had almost a heart-attack due to my criticism of Glantz let say that Glantz is focused on the Russian side and his informations on German strength and casualties ...are leaving to be desired ,because they are essentially drawn from Rjussian sources who are biased .
If you want to read some criticism on Glantz by specialists:The Dupuy Institute :Glantz on Barbarossa .Iam to cicil to cite them here;I have to pay attention on the health of some members

Are there any historians who dont have critics? Are Russian sources any more biased than the German ones?

Anyone who you would recommend over Glantz's German figures?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Well,one should use Russian sources for Russian losses and German Sources for German losses

One can not use German sources for the losses of the BEF for example
Russian sources are biased if one is using them for German sources .
Some god German sources are as Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg,Muller-Hillebrandt ,BA-MA .,Va Banque by Scxhustereit which is giving detailed German losses for the east in 1941 .
The trouble with Glantz (pay attention to your health )is that he is using the Russian sources for the German losses. Some proofs :
In Strom .Clem he is using 'permanent losses' ,a Russian term.For the German losses he is speaking of deaths,missing and disabled ,for the Russian ones of death,missing and captured .Thus German disabled are losses,Russian disabled not .
On P 14 :German losses for 1945 :1.34 million death,missing and disabled . No wounded ? This figure is absurd :there is nothing reliable for 1945 .The German strength for 1945 in the east was below 2 million,how could they had lost 1.34 million death,missing and disabled ? And one should add at least 2 million wounded .
On P 95 :By war's end out of the 13.5 million men Hitler's Wehrmacht fielded in the war,10.8 million had perished or fallen captuted in the East:even more absurd (if it is possible ):German losses in the East were at the end of 1944 2million death and missing and 3.4 million wounded . How could they have lost 1O.8 million ? Off course you can always include the Germans becoming POW after the German capitulation (but you will not get 10.8 million ),but this is nonsens:is any body including the millions of Japanese POW at september 1945 as casualties ?
It is only an invention by the Russians to make them looking the big winners of WW II.
On P 1O4 :the limit :By 1 october 1943 2565000 men of the Wehrmacht's 4090000 manforce struggled in the east . The Wehrmacht only counting 4090OOO men ???It even not the army,but probably the Feldheer .A respected historian who does not know the meaning of Wehrmacht . We,members of this forum,are only amateurs,but I am sure that we know the difference betwween Wehrmacht,Feldheer,Erzatsheer .
There are only two possibilities for such a blunder
1)neglect:this is very serious :how can we trust Glantz isf he is making such a beginner mistake :any first year student at university should not qualify .
2)gratuitous translation from Russian sources that are ignorant of German terminology .
About the unriability of Russian sources concerning German losses:the Russian claimed that in the 50 days of the battles around Kursk,Orel and Kharkov the Germans lost 37OO aircraft,while the strength of the Luftwaffe in the east on june 1941 was 2100 aircraft !
See also P14 and 95 of Strom. Clem
I can only conclude that one should be very careful with Glantz'figures about German strength and casualties .Cheers

LDad,

Virtually all of the sources which I have ever came across have stated that German casualties (deaths only) were from 3-4 million on the Ost front and not 2 million. Who's to say that the Germans aren't trying to lower their military deaths in order to make themselves look better, just as you claim the Russians are raising theirs to do just that?

Publicly (Soviet Regime) numbers have been inflated, but Glantz's come from the Soviet war archive.... Surely the Russians weren't lying to themselves?

Russian "disabled" are losses too. If you notice on page 13 there are 2 columns for Russian losses. Notice in 41' out of 4.3 million casualties sustained by the Red Army, almost 3 million were "permanent" (Killed, missing or captured). The Germans only have 1 column. These casualties (just like Russia's Killed, missing, captured) were permanent. I fail to see a difference between the two other than the word "disabled". Am I missing something?

I am unfamiliar with these numbers. After all, Berlin itself was garrisoned with over 750,000 men who fought the Red Army. Perhaps your source can help clear this up?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Actually 1000 miles is just about equal to 1600 kilometers. One (statute) mile is 1.609 km.

My reply on the 1945 numbers disappeared Will give it later again
Some information on the casualties in 1944 (cl only ) from AHF German losses in 1944 P3
January 136000
February 153000
March 1O5000
April 11O000
May 150000
June 125000
July 400000
August 375000
september 120000
october 150000
november 70OOO
december 78000
I used rough figures to make it clear
The losses in Finland are not included
Some 50 %of the losses in 1944 were death and wounded
For 1943 :I have from an excerpt of Kursk :statistrical analysis by Zetterling and Frankson the following :CL :1442654 and from AHF 'Russians simply won by the powerof numbers' for 1943 :9O1417 wounded
For 1942 from the same AHF :814179 wounded for a total of 1.13 million
For 1941 Total losses 830OOO,wounded:621268
Thus we have till 1945 some 5.4 of which some 2 million death and missing .Cheers

about the german strength:
june 1941 :basic 2.4 and you can ad:security divisons :0.1 ;OKH reserves :0.6 (a lot of these reserves were dispersed across Europe,thus,you could choose to add only a part of them )
july 1942 :2.6
july 1943 :3.1
october 1943 :2.5
june 1944 :2.09
and then !
From Kunikov (on AHF :Force Development on the EF P1 ),he is also posting on RKKA (armchair general ),but I think his figures are including some supply and rear troops.
september 1944 :2.5
october 1944 :2.1
november 1944 :2.2
january 1945 :2.3
march 1945 :2.1
april 1945 :2
may 1945 :1.5
The sources of Kunikov are Ziemke and Fremde Heere Ost .
I think the figures for 1945 are inflatedbecause I doubt the Germans having the possibility to hold their armies on the same level in 1945 .
There are no reliable loss figures for 1945,thus also no reliable strength figures .
Cheers

.....

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

I thought that it was obvious and not insane :strength and losses are dependent:if the Germans had lost 3 million in 1945,their strenght must have been more than 3 million,otherwise they would have finished with zero;if they had lost 1 million,their strenght must have been more than 1 million .

Well, so his figures are not the best estimate that we have about the german deaths in the eastern front? What are the best estimates by your opinion?

Only speaking the obvious.

No, Leningrad wasn't completely surrounded, in the winter from the frozen lake there was some food supply. They never closed all entrances from the city, if they did Leningrad population would have declined to zero by 1944.

If you say so....




During the Ardennes offensive, the city of Bastogne was surrounded by the Germans. The Americans didnt surrender...

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler