Battle of Moscow is not really talked about, But yet Stalingrad is more talked about. Why?

I would say it was pretty much an inevitable point when the Germans would be turned back. It is sort of like if you throw a ball up in the air it is fastest at the point of release and then starts decelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s/s until it comes to a stop and falls. Stalingrad is the stop. Can you deny that the Germans did not win a single decisive battle after the loss at Stalingrad?

These numbers mean nothing. Casualty rates are going to depend on the tactics different generals employ. The Soviets took higher causalities (or at least higher percentage of total troops that were casualties) in almost every battle, simply because that is the way they fought, that was their doctrine. Losses may have been higher in 1943 than in the earlier months of the war, but in 1941/42 they were taking high casualties and loosing, in 1943-45 they were taking high casualties and winning.

 

What is a decisive battle ? Where there any decisive battles in the war between Germany and the SU ? I don't think so .If the loss of 250000 men at Stalingrad was decisive,what about the loss of 400000 men at Bagration ?No decisive ? Not important ?It took the SU amost to years after the start of the summer offensive(Orel ) to reach Berlin .
I think your point of view is that before Stalingrad the Germans were winning. I disagree:was there any moment before Stalingrad the Germans had a real chance to win the war ?From the beginning of the war,the Red Army was coming stronger .And after Citadel (not Stalingrad ) the Germans became weaker .

 

Sorry LJad, but this is incorrect. The largest casualties suffered by the Red Army in WW2 was in 1941. In 1943 the Red Army suffered 1 million casualties less then in 42'.

RED ARMY CASUALTIES
Total Killed, Missing, or Captured
1941- 2,993,803
1942- 2,993,536
1943- 1,977,127
1944- 1,412,335
1945- 631,633

As for the German casualties.....
September 1939-
1 September 1942 - 922,000 (Over 90 % in the East)

1 September 1942-
20 November 1943 -2,077,000 (Over 90 % in the East)

20 November 1943-
June 1944 1,500,000 est. (80 % in the East)

 

Stalingrad is considered a turning point because this was the largest loss of men which Germany had suffered to date. The men were also the very same ones who captured Paris (the best of the best). These men and equipment lost, would never be replaced and only after Stalingrad did it become apparent that Germany could lose the war...

Stalingrad also marked the end of any real help from Germany's allies as Italy, Hungry and Romania suffered devastating loses there too. The momentum from this point on (not before) had been changed in favor of the Red Army.

 

About the German casualties in the East:
1941 830000 Combat Losses (Death,wounded and missing)
1942115000
1943 1442000
1944 2000000
For 1941:27 weeks :an average of 30000 a week
For 1942:20000 weekly
For 1943:30000 weekly (luftwaffe losses are not included )
For 1944:40000 weekly
About the Russian Casualties :my figures are from Krivosheev :Total losses minus sick and frostbites
I thin k it is wrong not to count wounded ,otherwise you have as German casualties in the East for 1941 only 22OOOO men,and that's is giving a wrong picture .
Of the wounded:a lot were mutilated and discharged from the army,ex a soldier who lost 2 legs is for the army the same as a death,others recovered but were unfit for front service and others were at the date in qiestion ,ex 31 december 1941 still in hospital .
The ratio between German and Soviet losses was (rough figures )
1941 :1:5
1942 :1:6
1943 :1:4.5
1944:1:3
For 1945 there are no reliable figures for the German losses
Cheers

 

I see that I forgot to give information about the Soviet losses (becoming old )
Soviet Combat Losses (Death,wounded and missing )
1941 :41584O7 weekly :150823
1942 :6584764 weekly :126630
1943 :6877118 weekly :133252
1944 :5685785 weekly :109342
1945 :2638167 weekly :143156
For the incredulous :the quarter with the highest weekly losses was3th Quarter 1943 with 199280 ,more than 3th Quarter 1941 with 183117 .
I could give the Soviet losses for every quarter,but it is become late (22.33 ),you can see it on the typos and my hernia is hurting .
Cheers

 

Nope, not my point, and I really don't understand yours. However, the Germans were much more successful before Stalingrad, as most surprise attacks initially are, and especially against the 1941 Soviet army. Now for the third time I will ask you whether you can deny the Germans won no more major battles on any front after the loss? That represents a turning point. And yes at Kursk the Soviets had clearly turned the tables on the Germans and were from then forward a much more efficient fighting force.

 

Hi LJad,

I believe the numbers which you have posted are total Red Army casualties. My figures were only of those killed, missing or captured (no wounded, frostbitten etc.)

However, our figures are not too far apart. Here is a link from Glantz his total Soviet Military casualties are fairly close (Soviet page12, German page 13).

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf

 

I never denied that after Stalingrad the Germans did not win any major battle. But I am not convinced that this is due to the defeat of Stalingrad .The Germans started their summer offensive in june 1942 with as aim the capture of the oil weels;it failed in september,before the encirclment of Stalingrad .
My point is that the war in the east was essentially a war of attrition,due to the distances,the climate,the bad roads and the nature of the opposing armies(WW I like ):in such a war,there is no battle that can be decisive ;even after Stalingrad,the German army was not broken ,it inflicted the Soviets enormous losses .I have given the numbers (from Krivosheev ).
the attrition war began in september 1941,when the Germans failed to defeat the SU in a 10 weeks Blitzkrieg,and the longer it lasted,the less chance the Germans had to win .
I hope my point is now clear .
Cheers

 

my source for the Russian losses is Krivosheev ;you can find them at Axis History factbook :losses in the great patriotic war. You can also find them and download (if it is legal ? )at internet :
Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20 th century -the losses of the armed forces .
For the German losses :the source is : BA -MA ,III W 805 / 5 -7
An other source (for both armies ) is Axis History Forum view topic 90908 ,where Quist is giving German and Soviet CL for peiods of 6 months .
Cheers .

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 .