Why were WWII Soviet casualties extremely high? (battle, armies, USA)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I stated. I get my information from a variety of different sources and not just Wikipedia. Believe it or not but most experts suggest NOT to get your info from Wikipedia. You have to gather info from a bunch of different sources and books and not rely on ONE website.
While wikipedia is certainly not a first rate scholarly resource, they at least provide the footnotes for the primary sources from where they derive their figures, quotations and facts. You keep stating that "your information" comes from a variety of sources, but you fail to post what those sources are or provide links to those sources. Everything I have ever seen in terms of German WW2 military casualties is similar to what MrMarbles is quoting.
Your 2.5 million number barely covers German losses at the major battles; Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, The Bulge and Normandy.
I've heard historians say that if Nazi Germany built their tanks in quanity instead of quality then they could of won the war. If they built Sherman or T-34 type tanks instead of Tiger tanks which took more materials to build and also took much longer to build. I'd like to get some feedback on this and Im interested in all your opinions.
FWIW, the most plentiful German tank was the Panzer IV and it was easily the match of the T34/76 and Sherman in terms of capabilities. The limitation came in terms of armored tactics and how the different nations approached them.
The Americans saw the tank as an infantry support weapon that opened a gap for infantry to exploit. The Sherman was built for this purpose and never designed to engage other tanks. The Americans relied upon "tank destroyers" for that role, but those sacrificed armor for speed and mobility. The Americans never deviated from their tactical use of armor.
The Soviets made the decision in 1939 following their war with Japan and the Winter War with Finland to make a major shift in their tank design and tactical use. They switched from slow heavy infantry support tanks supported by light, fast tank destroyers to a combined medium tank to replace all of them. That tank became the T34 and since it was effectively the only tank it was made in mass quantities. The Soviets also studied the German offensive in France and adjusted their armor tactics to employee their tanks as shock forces that would open and drive through a gap that would then be exploited by infantry. Essentially a hybrid of the American and German tactics. Their tanks were designed to fight both tanks and infantry.
The German tactics were very different. They relied on light tanks to open and exploit gaps (Panzer II and III) and medium tanks (Panzer IV) to provide infantry support. The problem was that the light tanks didn't have the armor or firepower to match heavier tanks in combat and the heavier Panzer IV's gun was ineffective against heavy tank armor.
The Germans never had an issue with these tactics until they started running into the multi-purpose T34's. The light Panzer III's were cut through easily and the Panzer IV's guns couldn't penetrate the armor. The solution as a stopgap was to upgrade the guns on the Panzer IV's, which made them the equal to the T34.
The issue though was that The Soviets were able to build T34's at a 7:1 ratio versus the German Panzer IV's. This led the Germans to want to build tanks that were capable of engaging multiple T34's as they knew they could never produce enough PZIV's to match the Soviets. So, you end up with the Tiger and Panther tanks. While these certainly took a lot of resources to build, even if the Germans could have produced 3 PZIV's for each Tiger and Panther built, it would have hardly made a difference in the overall balance of forces.
Essentially German armor design was built to match German armor tactics. When these tactics were no longer viable as the Eastern Front turned into a war of attrition, the Germans were left scrambling to counter the ever increasing numbers of Soviet tanks without the ability to match Soviet production.
Those numbers I stated were ONLY for the Eastern Front and not for other theaters of war. Around 700,000 German soldiers died on other fronts France, North Africa, Sicily etc. Two out of every three German soldiers killed in WW2 were killed on the Eastern Front.
In terms of how U.S. soldiers fared against the Germany Army they were pretty much equal. 200,000 U.S killed and 250,000 German soldiers killed. So the U.S. fared much better against the Whermacht then the Red Army did.
It seems your mistaken. I choose to get my info from a variety of different reliable sources other then Wikipedia. It was not a "Great Patriotic War" as Stalin wanted people to believe it was. The grim fact is that Stalin had maintained order by a rule of terror. In the six years preceding the war, roughly twenty million people had been aressted, and of those, a good one million were murdered, the blow falling on those with skills. During Stalins time, party officials were even more in fear of the security people then ordinary citizens were. Men had no choice but to fight and if they retreated then they were shot and their families were hunted down and thrown in camps. Theres nothing "Patriotic" about that. Although the war brought terrible suffering to untold millions, it also was a time when Stalin was forced to loosen his stranglehold on the citizenry, if for no other reason than he needed both hands to throttle the Red Army and its leaders. In terms how people felt, of their freedom to breathe, the war was actually a brief interlude when they didnt have to fear being killed by their own government. Again, nothing "Patriotic" about that.
I don't know what fairytales you are reading, but I am old enough so I could still talk to people who lived through those times, not only READ about them.
Of course life in Stalin's Russia was not easy by any means for a number of reasons. I am well-aware of the atmosphere of danger, suspicion, false accusations and imprisonments, I am well aware of the concept of the "enemy of people" where people were shot, arrested or exiled by the whole families ( in fact I am coming from such family of the "enemy of people,") but this does not change the fact that WWII was about intended extermination of Russians by Germans. Read the "GeneralPlan Ost." So Stalin or not, but when Russians realized it and stopped listening to the false rumors about "German liberators of Russia from Communism," the WWII became for them what's known in history as "Great Patriotic War."
Of course I've read about all these things too, long before Wikipedia came in place, but it summarizes rather nicely everything I knew before, from different sources, that's why I like to use it.
PS. By the way your figures about "20 million" arrested by Stalin is grossly exaggerated and outdated. These were speculations of few historians, but they've never been proven to be true; in fact the archives opened in the 90ies showed much smaller numbers - something more like 3 million by the end of the 30ies.
Another food for a thought - Stalin has been voted by Russians as the most popular leader in their history in the recent poll, some 60+ years after his death.
Those numbers I stated were ONLY for the Eastern Front and not for other theaters of war. Around 700,000 German soldiers died on other fronts France, North Africa, Sicily etc. Two out of every three German soldiers killed in WW2 were killed on the Eastern Front.
Most sources would state 4 million German combat deaths (KIA/MIA) on the Eastern Front. There were also 3.3 million German prisoners confirmed taken, of which 350k-1+ million died depending on the source. This does not count losses for any of the nations allied with Germany. That places total German losses on the Eastern Front at 4.3 - 5+ million.
These numbers are based on figures released by the Germans themselves after the war. Those same sources would also state that combat losses on the Eastern Front accounted for as much as 70%-80% of all losses, so a little more than your 2 out of 3 figure.
Again, I ask what is your source?
The sources I have found most often quote the following two books:
Deutsche militarische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg (German Military Losses in the Second World War) by Rudiger Overmans
and
The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia by Richard Overy
These are also the sources quoted on the wikipedia page, but I have found them referenced on no less than 12 different sites.
Many Russian soldiers were sent into battle without rifles and were told to pick up the one from a fallen comrade. They were also prohibited from retreating with threats of being immediately shot. Surrendering meant getting starved to death in a Nazi concentration camp. So they were between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes. What actually helped the Soviets immensely was the weather for which German soldiers were totally unprepared and Japan's noninvolvement in Siberia which allowed Stalin to shift Siberian Armies to Europe.
Hitler's meddling via moronic time-wasting decisions at crucial moments also helped the Russians gain an upper hand all during the war.
Many Russian soldiers were sent into battle without rifles and were told to pick up the one from a fallen comrade. They were also prohibited from retreating with threats of being immediately shot. Surrendering meant getting starved to death in a Nazi concentration camp. So they were between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes. What actually helped the Soviets immensely was the weather for which German soldiers were totally unprepared and Japan's noninvolvement in Siberia which allowed Stalin to shift Siberian Armies to Europe.
Hitler's meddling via moronic time-wasting decisions at crucial moments also helped the Russians gain an upper hand all during the war.
You made many good points. Stalin had a sizable army in the Far East, defending against the Japenese threat, perhaps as many as half a million men. Assured by his spies that Japan would not attack him, Stalin ordered these devisions west. As the Siberian troops were the only ones in the Red Army to have seen combat in recent years, they formed a powerful and by Soviet standards well trained force. Strengthened by these reinforcements, Stalin ordered a counterattack with these feared Siberian troops which then drove the battered Germans back, recovering hundreds of square kilometers of lost territory and saving Moscow. The Japanese and the Russians had engaged in sporadic but bloody battles in the Far East for several years. But givin the direction and complexity of the Japs thrust into the Pacific, there was no possibility that they would be able to take advantage of the greatly weakened Red Army forces in eastern Siberia. Stalin now had the the not inconsiderable luxury of one front war. But if not for those forces, there is a good chance the Russians could of lost the battle of Moscow.
My source "Deathride" Hitler vs. Stalin Eastern Front by Professor John Mosier among others.
Mosier, seriously? His hypotheses are interesting and they certainly open things up for some discussions, but I would have to say that he is in the minority when it comes to his conclusions and his "facts".
I'm going to venture that you also believe that the war was always Hitler's to lose and that the war was essentially won by the Western Allies while Stalin stumbled around leading millions of Soviets to slaughter through his own stupidity?
Well, if we are going to believe Mosier we would also have to believe his assertions that the Wehrmacht stalling at the gates of Moscow was a "planned hiatus" and that had only von Paulus not surrendered so soon, Manstein would have been able to liberate 6th Army at Stalingrad.
Sorry, but out of 1,000 historians, 999 would quote the figures MrMarbles and I quoted in the thread. One, would suggest the numbers you put forward.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
