German vs Soviet casualties

And lets not forget this one too .

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/25427-did-nazi-germany-have-greatest-armed-forces-history.html

 

let's not forget that the Germans also fought on multiple fronts throughout the war.
Overall the allied population was about 5:1 and economy 3:1. Sill this resulted in twice less military casualties for the axis by the end of the war.
The soviets were simply poorly prepared, in my opinion. they had all the advantages, not the Germans, except training and discipline.

 

Well, the Germans fought on multiple fronts mostly because they decided to do so... They declared war to the URSS while still at war with the UK, and then decided to send a force to Africa on their own volition.

 

agreed. LOL. Big mistake

 

Wait a second. Does that statistic reflect resources and population in German occupied zones and allied states? Germany had France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Balkan allies. That and they had Ukraine and Belorussia.

As I have stated elsewhere, more than half of Russia's military losses was incurred at 1941. It lost five men during Operation Barbarossa. The Red Army recovered and adapted.

 

I think you are right Jeff. Total was estimated at 3,000 killed ,wounded and missing. And that was for the V Corps.

 

The Russian casualties still outweighed German casualties in many many battles, even Russians had noted on how high the casualties were. The attrition rate for the Russians was simply higher, why are we arguing about this.

The Russians were still gaining ground an in the whole scheme of things thats what mattered. Hitler also made many blunders by not letting his forces retreat, especially in the Courland peninsula, that definately helped the Russians.

 

The point is that Russian casaulties are being attributed to a lack of skill. This is true to an extend on the level of tactics but not so of operations. The willingness to accept casaulty does not imply a lack of skill anymore than the willingness to expend ammunition.

 

I double checked and you are correct it is total casulties and not just KIA, but it appears to be the same for the number of German casualties I gave as well.

Thanks for the correction.

 

They were not as skilled as the Germans. At that stage of the war the Germans had already experienced combat where only a handful of Russians did in Finland. Most of the Russian soldiers were conscripts thrown into the heat of battle with very limited training. The Germans were a much more skilled force who made many tactical errors on top of the fact they had overall limited potential due to a lack of equipment,industry, and many other examples of limited resources.

 

I am refering to operational skills. Those German soliders at the senior command of the Wehrmacht did not demonstrate a superior facility or knowledge with the handling of Armies and Army Groups than their counterparts in STAVKA. Certainly not so when they were beaten at Stalingrad or Kursk. As for being an army of conscripts, that was true for any World War II military organization of significance.

*Edit*
Training in the German army steadily deteriorated through the war. The qaulity of manpower, the content of and time available for military training in the German military was by 1944 equal or inferior.

 

Ok. I was discussing the skill of the individual soldier while you meant the senior leadership. My bad.

 

Well, it'd be pretty ludicrous of me to say that the Red Army at 1941-43 was better in tactical skill. Its command structure was inflexible, quality of junior leadership low, and quality of equipment was lamentable. Those deficiencies were gradually ironed out, but the lack of training in many of the Red Army's units were evident. One historian characterized the Red Army as having an army within an army; the Guards units that formed the core of the Red Army had much better training and equipment than the regular units, "from whom nothing more than holding terrain and absorbing causalties were expected and were almost indisguinshable than armed rabble."

 

The reason that people "rant" on about the Germans "slaughtering" of the Russians is because that is what happened. Why were the Germans invading the Soviet Union (Lets use the proper term, Russia was only one part of it)? Hitler wanted to smash the Communist state and take the land for the Third Reich's usage. He certainly wasnt going to "liberate" the oppressed Soviet Peoples. Interestingly enough the biggest worry for the Politburo in June 1941 was "would the Soviet soldier fight"? They were worried that the Soldiers might not support the regime. Anyways back to my point: The Germans invaded and the territories overrun were not treated well. Corrupt German Gauleiters, SS einsatzgruppen etc ensured that whatever goodwill existed (and they were welcomed as liberators in the Ukraine) evaporated within a year. Tell me Kruska, just what happened to the Soviet Soldiers who surrendered to the Wehrmacht troops in the opening battles in 1941? Treated well were they?

The Germans wanted to annihalate the Soviet State and enslave its peoples. Hitler and Himmler are both on record as saying such. Stalin never stated that he wanted to annihilate the Third Reich, at least not until attacked. I admit that its difficult for Western students to fully get our heads around the ferocity and violence of the Eastern Front campaigns. Stalin's Soviet state was an awful institution and I am in no way defending it - but stop trying to push the blame on to the Soviets. The Third Reich was an evil regime - it suppressed peoples, murdered them wilfully, brought wholescale murder to a new level and even more distastefully tried to make its actions justifiable - so I'm sorry for you if you are annoyed at people talking about the German atrocities - but get used to it or as my American friends would say "Suck it Up"

 

even at Kursk in 1943 with all the preparations and with a larger army the soviets still took in a lot more casualties than the Germans. Check Wikipedia Battle of Kursk

 

So? According to the German plan the German forces should be on the Moscow outskirts two months later. They weren't. According to the Soviet plan the Soviet forces should be on Kiev outskirts two months later. Guess what: they were.

Confucius said: Ends justify the means.

 

so Za what do you expect from a grandiose two fisted boob ?

spread out on too many fronts, no long range 4 engine bombers to increase the bombing campaign, not bringing in enough fuel supplies and reserves, countless acts of stupidity in the high command at all levels............ it was doomed after 1942

back to the origins yes the Soviets suffered heavy losses to the end ripping into Ost Preussia which the Germans defended to the last an finally into the terrible Berlin fiasco. The Germans were in their backyard the Soviets were not ~ so ....... ?

 

There is alot better sources then Wiki .

 

The usual impression of a Soviet soldier is a man 30s-40s, 5 O'clock shadow, FishFur Hat, large winter robes and a dirt smeared face.

The German soldier impression is usually a very nice uniform, Polished Helmet, A chest of Medals, sparkling Jackboot and the iron Cross waving on a flag behind him.

yes the Soviets had suffered horrid casualties in the beginning of the conflict and was a Badly Kept force. But much like the U.S. they were a sleeping giant that would be a terror to awake. The Germans knew this but it was their intention to never give this Giant a chance to awake and have the Swasticka flying in Moscow in a small amount of years. The Soviet people as a whole were a fierce bunch and would rather fight to the death then give up their land. The German Armed force were tough-as-nails and were ready to go and get it done. But the Soviets were tough and they would wither away the Germans until they were in tatters and then would rip them to shreds. Taking Moscow or not, the Soviets would go all the way to Okhotsk but they would still go on until the end.

The Germans new Soviet Military; but they didnt know Soviet people.