Eastern Front casualties

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
Location: United Kingdom

#16

Post by Gwynn Compton » 19 Aug 2003, 22:57

I suspect the best estimate of German dead is to compile a large range of sources and try to find a commonly accepted figure, and understand the reasoning on why they got to it.

The Soviet figure varies greatly, and I suspect oleg would provide us with a very different figure for Soviet deaths, and I suspect their is a good reasoning for this.

Commanders on offensive operations, I have noticed, have a tendancy to overestimate the size of enemy formations, thus the figures that the Germans gave for Soviet's killed & captured will be vastly different to reality. However, Soviet commanders, no doubt under propaganda pressure, may have under reported losses, much like what happened during the Stalingrad campaign of both sides. By under reporting losses, the Quartermaster could stockpile additional supplies. The same theory also applies when the Soviets started driving the Germans back.

Gwynn

JariL
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 15 Mar 2002, 09:45
Location: Finland

#17

Post by JariL » 20 Aug 2003, 10:17

<However, Soviet commanders, no doubt under propaganda pressure, <may have under reported losses, much like what happened during the <Stalingrad campaign of both sides. By under reporting losses, the <Quartermaster could stockpile additional supplies. The same theory also <applies when the Soviets started driving the Germans back.

Hi,

The above explains why Soviet loss reports of some individual operations might be biased. It also sometimes explains why unit war diaries when compared to similar documents from the other side do not come even close in describing the events. However, losses had to be reported at some point because if they were not, there would be no reserves forthcoming. I don't think that the commanders in the Red Army could delay reporting their losses by more than a couple of days or a week at maximum in lower levels. A company commander who's unit strength has gone done to 1 platoon gets very diffrent tasks than one with an intact company. If you did not report your losses, I don't think that when you were given an impossible task given your depleted troops you got away by telling that you only have one half dead platoon left.

At least in the Finnish front Soviet units had a lag from 3 days to a week in reporting all of their losses. This way some extra food and alcohol could be received.

Best regards,

Jari


Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
Location: United Kingdom

#18

Post by Gwynn Compton » 20 Aug 2003, 13:30

I fully agree with your assessment. Now the question is, if these problems of numbers theoritically get worked out, even if a few days after losses have taken place, have the Soviet authorities themselves understated their losses to try and hide the scale of the 1941 disaster, and the subsequent loses they were dealt?

Gwynn

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#19

Post by Qvist » 21 Aug 2003, 09:11

OK. But in all Russians textbooks you can find the figures 6 million as German losses (deadmissing) on the eastern front and furthermore 13,6 million as total German losses (including civilians). Where is truth?
At least not in Soviet textbooks, apparently . :D

Though it is not neccessarily altogether clear just whatis included in those figures. Would "missing" be MIA (ie, all soldiers taken prisoner at some point) or soldiers whose destiny remained unaccounted for after the war? In either case, it appears too high, if the latter understanding is correct it is monumentally exaggerated. And what does "losses" include? Does iticlude wounded? By any definition though it appears too high too.

cheers

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#20

Post by Qvist » 21 Aug 2003, 10:05

I suspect the best estimate of German dead is to compile a large range of sources and try to find a commonly accepted figure, and understand the reasoning on why they got to it.
A theoretically sound approach, but not workable I think, because there is no commonly accepted figure and really no sources that could provide one, short of a full case-by-case compilation from the various surviving registries, which would be a gargantuan task. It was recognised even during the war that the German reporting system was not managing to provide an adequate picture of deaths and in any case the records are incomplete for the final part of the war, so there are no really adequate direct sources to draw on. Rüdiger Overmans' study is widely acknoledged as the most thorough one, but his method is one that basically produces the highest conceivable figure (as he assumes that every male of military age not accounted for by the time a minimum of German administrative capacity was restored by the early fifties was a war related fatality. Thus, his figure is not readily comparable by those of other states.
The Soviet figure varies greatly, and I suspect oleg would provide us with a very different figure for Soviet deaths, and I suspect their is a good reasoning for this.
Well, Oleg has so far been sticking to Krivosheev, which is indeed widely regarded as the best figure currently in existence, though his work is not without possible shortcomings.
Commanders on offensive operations, I have noticed, have a tendancy to overestimate the size of enemy formations, thus the figures that the Germans gave for Soviet's killed & captured will be vastly different to reality. However, Soviet commanders, no doubt under propaganda pressure, may have under reported losses, much like what happened during the Stalingrad campaign of both sides. By under reporting losses, the Quartermaster could stockpile additional supplies. The same theory also applies when the Soviets started driving the Germans back.
Estimates of enemy losses are more or less by nature not viable sources for determining casualties, and were of course frequently very inaccurate.
The above explains why Soviet loss reports of some individual operations might be biased. It also sometimes explains why unit war diaries when compared to similar documents from the other side do not come even close in describing the events. However, losses had to be reported at some point because if they were not, there would be no reserves forthcoming. I don't think that the commanders in the Red Army could delay reporting their losses by more than a couple of days or a week at maximum in lower levels. A company commander who's unit strength has gone done to 1 platoon gets very diffrent tasks than one with an intact company. If you did not report your losses, I don't think that when you were given an impossible task given your depleted troops you got away by telling that you only have one half dead platoon left.

At least in the Finnish front Soviet units had a lag from 3 days to a week in reporting all of their losses. This way some extra food and alcohol could be received.
Spot on Jari. This underlines the importance of finding more than one documentary source for losses, and preferably ones compiled some time after the period in question, taking into account revised reports and so on.
Now the question is, if these problems of numbers theoritically get worked out, even if a few days after losses have taken place, have the Soviet authorities themselves understated their losses to try and hide the scale of the 1941 disaster, and the subsequent loses they were dealt?
The only way to really answer the question of correlation between figures in Soviet secondary sources (both classified and public) is of course to compare them with theoriginal documentation. Unfortunately, this has not been generally available. An interesting exception is the TDIs Kursk database. It should be interesting to see Chris Lawrence's forthcoming Kursk book in this respect, as it is based on such documentation (unlike f.e. Glantz', which is based on secondary studies). The problem with 1941 would rather, I think, that much documentation was lost and that the reporting system must in many cases have broken down locally and temporarily, due to the speedy and disastrous nature of the operations.


cheers

AriX
Member
Posts: 186
Joined: 29 Jun 2015, 09:07
Location: Ukraine

Re: Eastern Front casualties

#21

Post by AriX » 06 Nov 2015, 13:21

Soviet military loses were in 4-5 times bigger than German, even if number of dead POWs is exluded. When I will have more time, I will explain it more.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”