|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 5:59:51 GMT
Yeah, "stupid" russian military that can fight only in case the enemy is already defeated by general Winter/Frost. Whatever historical era.. either Napoleon, Hitler or even medieval. Useless russian military hordes built and secured biggest country in the world with the help of wheather. I can't understand how people in Europe can still believe in that. That is not what I said. Not at all. The harsh weather and raspu*Auto Corrected*a makes it equally difficult for both sides. The Soviets totally outmaneuvered and crushed the German military machine over the course of the war. They paid a heavy price, though. German Forces were often better equipped, especially early in the war, and the casualty rates in the corresponding battles reflect that. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Oct 6, 2017 6:08:47 GMT
And again 3.5 million deaths out of 10,725,345 total casualties were Pows, they also could not create any wave in German camps...
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 6:16:19 GMT
I’m sorry, but when you lose three or four times the soldiers your enemy does in a victorious battle, “human wave” is the only way to describe what occurred. In his work Glantz gives all casualties on both sides in every operation, I'm sure that neither I nor You could find better source. So again: When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies) David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House bookfi.net/book/1054299 Glantz is an excellent historian. I’ve read When Titans Clashed. I’ve also read works on the Eastern Front by many other great military historians. The casualty numbers don’t lie. A victory with a loss ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 is unacceptable. By the way, I encourage you to read Marshal Georgy Zhukov’s paper’s. He issued several orders chastising and threatening subordinates for using what he called “people’s meat” tactics. As the Soviets gained experience and fielded better equipment, they increasingly abandoned such tactics. Much of it wasn’t intentional, by the way. Wars are not fought on paper. Tactics evolve and change as you fight. The Soviet Army did what it had to do to survive the German invasion, learned, adapted and created an unstoppable military machine that is unrivaled in history as it marched on Berlin. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Oct 6, 2017 6:17:41 GMT
soonerjbd i strongly recommend you to reasd serious academic literature, like these: When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies) David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House bookfi.net/book/1054299Battle for the Ukraine: The Korsun'-Shevchenkovskii Operation (Cass Series on the Soviet (Russian) Study of War, 15) David M. Glantz, Harold S. Orenstein bookfi.net/book/1124673The Battle for Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study (Cass Series on the Soviet Study of War, No. 10.) D. Glantz H. Orenstein (eds.) bookfi.net/book/1041295Belorussia 1944: The Soviet General Staff Study (Soviet (Russian) Study of War) Colonel Glantz bookfi.net/book/1163934 I have a degree in history, with specialization in World War II. I assure you I am well aware of the academic literature. The Soviets notoriously lost far more men even in victorious battles. They lost about three times the number the Germans did in Stalingrad, with over a million Russian soldiers killed. In the Battle of Kursk, the Germans had about 100,000 killed between the initial German attack and the Soviet counteroffensive. The Soviets lost more than 400,000. German casualties mounted towards the end of the war, but through 1943, the Soviets were losing about 3-4 men for every enemy they killed. There is simply no way around that. Btw what are the axis losses in Stalingrad. Soviets - around million, ok. Just curious what is the figure for Axis from your sources? |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Oct 6, 2017 6:22:30 GMT
In his work Glantz gives all casualties on both sides in every operation, I'm sure that neither I nor You could find better source. So again: When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies) David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House bookfi.net/book/1054299 Glantz is an excellent historian. I’ve read When Titans Clashed. I’ve also read works on the Eastern Front by many other great military historians. The casualty numbers don’t lie. A victory with a loss ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 is unacceptable. By the way, I encourage you to read Marshal Georgy Zhukov’s paper’s. He issued several orders chastising and threatening subordinates for using what he called “people’s meat” tactics. As the Soviets gained experience and fielded better equipment, they increasingly abandoned such tactics. Much of it wasn’t intentional, by the way. Wars are not fought on paper. Tactics evolve and change as you fight. The Soviet Army did what it had to do to survive the German invasion, learned, adapted and created an unstoppable military machine that is unrivaled in history as it marched on Berlin. Be sure there is no need to encourage me to read Zhukov’s paper’s  I've made my point, you've made your point. There is no reason to start all over again. I would let others decide who was more convincing  |
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 6:28:02 GMT
And again 3.5 million deaths out of 10,725,345 total casualties were Pows, they also could not create any wave in German camps... Why do you keep insisting Germans were the only ones who killed POWs? You realize that only about 5,000 of the 90,000-plus men in the Sixth Army who surrendered at the end of Stalingrad survived to the end of the war, right? The rest died in Soviet prison camps. German historians estimate about a million German POWs died in Soviet labor camps during and immediately after the war. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Oct 6, 2017 6:42:49 GMT
And again 3.5 million deaths out of 10,725,345 total casualties were Pows, they also could not create any wave in German camps... Why do you keep insisting Germans were the only ones who killed POWs? You realize that only about 5,000 of the 90,000-plus men in the Sixth Army who surrendered at the end of Stalingrad survived to the end of the war, right? The rest died in Soviet prison camps. German historians estimate about a million German POWs died in Soviet labor camps during and immediately after the war. 1. Taking into account conditions of those soldiers BEFORE they were PoVs there is no surprise at all  2. Death's ratio of German PoVs differs in German and Soviet sources. Some sources say only 13,9% of German POWs died in USSR. But death's ratio of Soviet PoVs is not disputed by anyone. 57.5% of the Soviet POWs in German hands died 3. I keep insisting because they could not create "waves" in camps. And figure of Soviet casualties on the battlefield is significantly (3 500 000 less) lower. If 57.5% of total German POWs died - what will be the final figure of German ( andrei is right - only German) casualties? |
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 6:48:42 GMT
Glantz is an excellent historian. I’ve read When Titans Clashed. I’ve also read works on the Eastern Front by many other great military historians. The casualty numbers don’t lie. A victory with a loss ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 is unacceptable. By the way, I encourage you to read Marshal Georgy Zhukov’s paper’s. He issued several orders chastising and threatening subordinates for using what he called “people’s meat” tactics. As the Soviets gained experience and fielded better equipment, they increasingly abandoned such tactics. Much of it wasn’t intentional, by the way. Wars are not fought on paper. Tactics evolve and change as you fight. The Soviet Army did what it had to do to survive the German invasion, learned, adapted and created an unstoppable military machine that is unrivaled in history as it marched on Berlin. Be sure there is no need to encourage me to read Zhukov’s paper’s I've made my point, you've made your point. There is no reason to start all over again. I would let others decide who was more convincing You never engaged with my point. That is what is frustrating to me. My point was never that the Soviet Army only won the war through human wave attacks, which seems to be how you took it. My point was that the Soviets lost a lot of infantry early in the war in battles that can only be described as human wave in type. Losing a million men in the defense of Moscow (according to your favorite author) to less than 400,000 Germans is staggering. A loss ratio in Kursk of 3:1 or 4:1 is staggering. “They lost a lot so manny soldiers but just replaced them immediately,” was my original comment. How else do you explain such massive loss ratios as their force ratio kept growing? |
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 7:00:27 GMT
1. Taking into account conditions of those soldiers BEFORE they were PoVs there is no surprise at all 2. Death's ratio of German PoVs differs in German and Soviet sources. Some sources say only 13,9% of German POWs died in USSR . But death's ratio of Soviet PoVs is not disputed by anyone. 57.5% of the Soviet POWs in German hands died 3. I keep insisting because they could not create "waves" in camps. And figure of Soviet casualties on the battlefield is significantly (3 500 000 less) lower. 1. Because Russian POWs were in great shape before they were taken prisoner? 2. How surprising that official Soviet sources might underplay the number of soldiers who died in their labor camps, where I’m sure the prisoners were kept in luxurious condistions and given only the best in provisions and medical care. Also shocking that the loser of the war would not be in a position to officially dispute such casualty numbers themselves. (Please note: I am not playing down Nazi atrocities. They murdered indiscriminately and were particularly brutal toward Soviet prisoners. My intent here is to point out that the Soviets intentionally played down their own atrocities, as winning powers tend to do following war.) 3. Soldiers who are part of human wave attacks can be captured as well as killed. That’s why casualty numbers generally reflect those killed, wounded, missing or captured. German casualty numbers also include those captured. I gave you casualty numbers from specific battles. Those numbers do not reflect soldiers who died in camps. The loss ratios at Battle of Moscow, Battle of Kursk and many others are in the range of anywhere from 2:1 to 4:1. You have never engaged with this point. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Oct 6, 2017 7:02:45 GMT
Be sure there is no need to encourage me to read Zhukov’s paper’s I've made my point, you've made your point. There is no reason to start all over again. I would let others decide who was more convincing You never engaged with my point. That is what is frustrating to me. My point was never that the Soviet Army only won the war through human wave attacks, which seems to be how you took it. My point was that the Soviets lost a lot of infantry early in the war in battles that can only be described as human wave in type. Losing a million men in the defense of Moscow (according to your favorite author) to less than 400,000 Germans is staggering. A loss ratio in Kursk of 3:1 or 4:1 is staggering. “They lost a lot so manny soldiers but just replaced them immediately,” was my original comment. How else do you explain such massive loss ratios as their force ratio kept growing? I see your point very clearly, but I question your data  You see for example Battle of Kursk as thing-in-itself (using Kant's expression). But it is not! It had its logical continuation (so called Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation and others to mention). The number of casualties will be about equal then. Battle of Kursk was only the first step and we should estimate casualties on a whole spectrum of actions on every front as a direct result of Kursk. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 7:20:33 GMT
You never engaged with my point. That is what is frustrating to me. My point was never that the Soviet Army only won the war through human wave attacks, which seems to be how you took it. My point was that the Soviets lost a lot of infantry early in the war in battles that can only be described as human wave in type. Losing a million men in the defense of Moscow (according to your favorite author) to less than 400,000 Germans is staggering. A loss ratio in Kursk of 3:1 or 4:1 is staggering. “They lost a lot so manny soldiers but just replaced them immediately,” was my original comment. How else do you explain such massive loss ratios as their force ratio kept growing? I see your point very clearly, but I question your data You see for example Battle of Kursk as thing-in-itself (using Kant's expression). But it is not! It had its continuation so called Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation and others to mention. The number of casualties will be about equal then. Battle of Kursk was only the first step and we should estimate casualties on a whole spectrum of actions on every front as a direct result of Kursk. Every historian considers battles in this manner. Your favorite author does this too. Glantz, in fact, agrees with me. He put the casualty ratio for Kursk at 3:1. Your are moving the goalposts in an attempt to save face. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Oct 6, 2017 7:31:24 GMT
1. Because Russian POWs were in great shape before they were taken prisoner? 2. How surprising that official Soviet sources might underplay the number of soldiers who died in their labor camps, where I’m sure the prisoners were kept in luxurious condistions and given only the best in provisions and medical care. Also shocking that the loser of the war would not be in a position to officially dispute such casualty numbers themselves. (Please note: I am not playing down Nazi atrocities. They murdered indiscriminately and were particularly brutal toward Soviet prisoners. My intent here is to point out that the Soviets intentionally played down their own atrocities, as winning powers tend to do following war.) 3. Soldiers who are part of human wave attacks can be captured as well as killed. That’s why casualty numbers generally reflect those killed, wounded, missing or captured. German casualty numbers also include those captured. I gave you casualty numbers from specific battles. Those numbers do not reflect soldiers who died in camps. The loss ratios at Battle of Moscow, Battle of Kursk and many others are in the range of anywhere from 2:1 to 4:1. You have never engaged with this point. Why? 1. Russian PoWs were simply exterminated www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007183 notwithstanding conditions. German PoWs were treated no worse than others prisoners. 2. So your education says to you that all that contradicts your point of view is "Propaganda" West German sources could be biased in equal measure. And even if we take their estimation (!!!) - casualties of PoWs are incomparable. 3. You always speak about waves as if it is such a common practice and fact of reality that every historian should make conclusions on this fact alone. But I say your thesis is wrong... Wrong thesis - wrong conclusions - simple as that. You may disagree of course, but that is how I see situation... So again, there is no need to sart all over again. If you think your arguments are strong enough, well... God bless you I have no desire to challenge this conviction... There is another point of view, though, and I hope that others will know it as well. If anyone will read books of Glantz, Ericksen and other great historians as a result of this dialog, I will happy... That's all... |
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 7:33:32 GMT
I have one more thing you have not answered. If the Soviets did not use human wave attacks, why would Zhukov himself have written multiple orders to his commanders telling them to stop using human wave attacks?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 7:36:17 GMT
1. Russian PoWs were simply exterminated www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007183 notwithstanding conditions. German PoWs were treated no worse than others prisoners. 2. So your education says to you that all that contradicts your point of view is "Propaganda" West German sources could be biased in equal measure. And even if we take their esteamation (!!!) casualties of PoWs are incomparable. 3. You always speak about waves as if it is a such common practice and fact of reality that every historian shuld make conclusions on this fact alone. But I say your thesis is wrong... Wrong thesis - wrong conclusions - simple as that. You may disagree of course, but that is how I see situation... So again, there is no need to sart all over again. If you think your arguments are strong enough, well... God bless you I have no desire to challenge this conviction... There is another point of view, though, and I hope that others will know it as well. If anyone will read books of Glantz, Ericksen and other great historians as a result of this dialog, I will happy... That's all... I’ve read Ericksen as well. Glantz and Erickson both agree with me. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Oct 6, 2017 7:41:23 GMT
I see your point very clearly, but I question your data You see for example Battle of Kursk as thing-in-itself (using Kant's expression). But it is not! It had its continuation so called Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation and others to mention. The number of casualties will be about equal then. Battle of Kursk was only the first step and we should estimate casualties on a whole spectrum of actions on every front as a direct result of Kursk. Every historian considers battles in this manner. Your favorite author does this too. Glantz, in fact, agrees with me. He put the casualty ratio for Kursk at 3:1. Your are moving the goalposts in an attempt to save face. I know that casualty ratio at Kursk was 3:1. I said that operations did not finish after Citadel was concealed and after Kursk there were counter-offensive operations on many fronts, so we should take all these operations into account as well. What about my face... In science they call it argumentum ad hominem... But I really think that it is not my face that should be saved. So before we start to say unpleasant things to each other, I think we'd better stop. As I said, all arguments were given, let others decide who was convincing (if someone was ). |
|
You see for example Battle of Kursk as thing-in-itself (using Kant's expression). But it is not! It had its logical continuation (so called Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation and others to mention). The number of casualties will be about equal then. Battle of Kursk was only the first step and we should estimate casualties on a whole spectrum of actions on every front as a direct result of Kursk.
