Overmans is a bungler : he claims that in 1941 302000 soldiers died at the Eastern Front,to prove this he add simply the number of missing to the number of dead ,while missing are not dead .the army lost in 1941 173000 killed and 35000 missing,even if one add to these the number of those who died of wounds and of sickness ,one will never have the figure of 302000
For june 1941 (9 days) the losses were 41086 of which 8362 dead and 2657 missing,while Overmans said that 25000 (not 25001 !) soldiers were killed in june .
I could give dozens of other exemples .
He changes missing in dead, he mix facts with guesses (1230.045 dead for the Endkämpfe,while NO ONE ever will know the correct figure) he add guesses for the number of soldiers who died in Soviet custody, and finally he claims a total of 5.3 million dead .
At the end of 1944, the WM had lost some 2 million dead,thus the figure of 5.3 million is made up .
How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
An other one : on P 279 Overmans is saying that on 31 december 1944 2.743.000 soldiers had died on the Ostfront,and on P 282,he said that it was 1.59 million .
Why should we believe him ?
Why should we believe him ?
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
An other one : on P 277,Overmans claims 180310 dead on the Ostfront in january 1943,while the Heeresartz 10-day casualty reports and the WM monthly casualty reports (army only) are giving for this month on the Ostfront figures of 17364/17470 KIA.and 206106 and 206115 MIA (mostly at Stalingrad) and while the Abwicklungsstab Stalingrad is giving a number of 158630 men encircled on 15 october 1943,of whom 11036 were dead on 3 february and of whom more than 91000 were taken Prisonner .
Thus : the number of 180310 dead in january 1943 is impossible,even if one includes the number of the MIA at Stalingrad (some 50000).
Thus how can one have any trust in Overmans ?
Thus : the number of 180310 dead in january 1943 is impossible,even if one includes the number of the MIA at Stalingrad (some 50000).
Thus how can one have any trust in Overmans ?
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Hi
As we know, the Waffen SS is not part of the Wehrmacht. Also, would RAD, Police, Organisation Todt and other auxiliary forces be included in these figures for the Eastern Front ?
Lastly, we are of course ignoring losses of Allies on the Eastern Front because they are not German, and in France there were no forces allied to Germany in operation. These losses however are a part of the true loss rate of the Eastern Front.
Dennis
Are you assuming this, or is there a note somewhere explaining that this is what was done in the Wehrmacht reports?ljadw wrote:The losses of the WSS are included in those of the Army .
As we know, the Waffen SS is not part of the Wehrmacht. Also, would RAD, Police, Organisation Todt and other auxiliary forces be included in these figures for the Eastern Front ?
Lastly, we are of course ignoring losses of Allies on the Eastern Front because they are not German, and in France there were no forces allied to Germany in operation. These losses however are a part of the true loss rate of the Eastern Front.
Dennis
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Hi
(Logically, soldiers who are identified through say the Red Cross as POWs are no longer missing in action. )
What about soldiers who are separated from parent units for longer than a 10 day Wehrmacht report period, are they still MIA when they re-join their unit ?
Dennis
Do you have a reference to these Wehrmacht reports including POWs in their MIA figures?Michael Kenny wrote: POWs are MIAs
(Logically, soldiers who are identified through say the Red Cross as POWs are no longer missing in action. )
What about soldiers who are separated from parent units for longer than a 10 day Wehrmacht report period, are they still MIA when they re-join their unit ?
Dennis
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Hi
Your original claim about Eastern Front and French campaign losses is therefore incorrect.
The German victory in 1940 was complete, because they got what they wanted. The armistice with the French does not invalidate this victory.
Dennis
My point is also simple. Using your definitions and assumptions, the official reports show that the Eastern front casualties are about 37% higher that the daily rate of the French campaign (up to end 1944) and if we use the official figures for 1945 (which you posted) we have the higher figure of 47%. Some apparently view the 1945 figures as being too low.Michael Kenny wrote: My point is simple. Claims the 1940 campaign was not as casualty intensive as the EF are wrong. The Russian losses are greater because the fighting was longer. The Germans (in 1940)were prepared to make concessions to avoid further losses. Thus the 1940 Campaign was not a total victory for Germany.
Your original claim about Eastern Front and French campaign losses is therefore incorrect.
The German victory in 1940 was complete, because they got what they wanted. The armistice with the French does not invalidate this victory.
Dennis
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
The Heeresartz 10-day casualty reports are not mentionning separate WSS losses :these are included in the Army losses.dshaday wrote:Hi
Are you assuming this, or is there a note somewhere explaining that this is what was done in the Wehrmacht reports?ljadw wrote:The losses of the WSS are included in those of the Army .
As we know, the Waffen SS is not part of the Wehrmacht. Also, would RAD, Police, Organisation Todt and other auxiliary forces be included in these figures for the Eastern Front ?
Lastly, we are of course ignoring losses of Allies on the Eastern Front because they are not German, and in France there were no forces allied to Germany in operation. These losses however are a part of the true loss rate of the Eastern Front.
Dennis
De Facto,the operational WSS units were a part of the Army .
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
1)On the Ostfront there were no POW figures,not on the German side, not on the Soviet side :no one knew how much of his soldiers were POW.On 31 december 1941,there were (following the official German figures) 35519 Germans missing in the East (only Army).dshaday wrote:Hi
Do you have a reference to these Wehrmacht reports including POWs in their MIA figures?Michael Kenny wrote: POWs are MIAs
(Logically, soldiers who are identified through say the Red Cross as POWs are no longer missing in action. )
What about soldiers who are separated from parent units for longer than a 10 day Wehrmacht report period, are they still MIA when they re-join their unit ?
Dennis
2)On the other fronts, only a small part of the missing were identified as POWs by the Red Cross .Most MIA remained MIA till after the war .
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
2 exemples (from WW2 stats) :
On 31 january 1944,the official German reports mentionned 623612 MIA and ONLY 103266 POWs (the latter WITHOUT the East) : it is obvious that the number of POWs in the fight against the Wet was much to low,and most of the MIA occurred in the East,where the Red Cross had no access,and there were NO POW figures for the East .
On 31 january 1945,the number of MIA was going up to 1904704 and the number of POWs (without the East) to 322807 .ONLY; Which was to low,much to low .
Conclusion :
1) Outside the east,there were only partial POW figures
2)For the East,there were NO POW figures
3)The POW s are included in the MIA and during the war there were MORE,much MORE MIA than POW .
On 31 january 1944,the official German reports mentionned 623612 MIA and ONLY 103266 POWs (the latter WITHOUT the East) : it is obvious that the number of POWs in the fight against the Wet was much to low,and most of the MIA occurred in the East,where the Red Cross had no access,and there were NO POW figures for the East .
On 31 january 1945,the number of MIA was going up to 1904704 and the number of POWs (without the East) to 322807 .ONLY; Which was to low,much to low .
Conclusion :
1) Outside the east,there were only partial POW figures
2)For the East,there were NO POW figures
3)The POW s are included in the MIA and during the war there were MORE,much MORE MIA than POW .
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
The obvious answer is : obviously no .dshaday wrote:Hi
What about soldiers who are separated from parent units for longer than a 10 day Wehrmacht report period, are they still MIA when they re-join their unit ?
Dennis
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
This is not correct, The Waffen SS Divisios, were always parts of Wehrmacht Korps, Wehrmachts Armies or Wehrmachts Heeresgruppen. The Waffen SS never reached Heeresgruppen level, only Army level and that was very very late in the war. They were always included to the Wehrmacht levels and command structure. Consequently their losses were always reported to a Wehrmacht command structure, even as a SS Army, they have had to report therr losses to the Heeresgruppe as part of the Wehrmacht command strcture and commanding level.dshaday wrote:Hi
Are you assuming this, or is there a note somewhere explaining that this is what was done in the Wehrmacht reports?ljadw wrote:The losses of the WSS are included in those of the Army .
As we know, the Waffen SS is not part of the Wehrmacht. Also, would RAD, Police, Organisation Todt and other auxiliary forces be included in these figures for the Eastern Front ?
Lastly, we are of course ignoring losses of Allies on the Eastern Front because they are not German, and in France there were no forces allied to Germany in operation. These losses however are a part of the true loss rate of the Eastern Front.
Dennis
Their losses were always part of the Wehrmacht losses at reports. The same counts for auxiliary forces, Kriegsmarine groundforces and Luftwaffen Felddivisionen if they were included to the Wehrmacht command structure and levels.
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
The Germans lasted three years once Barbarossa failed because:
1. The German Army had tactical advantages from the successes of their previous campaigns. This ensured their veteran armed forces fought the largely green forces of the Soviet Union (I acknowledge the Soviet Union fought against Finland and Japan but this did not include more then 20% of their armed forces;
2. The Germans gained an operational advantage from the success of Operation Barbarossa (granted not total success); and
2. The Soviet Union had to re-develop their tactics, train their personal, and develop their officer corps in order to create an army capable of defeating the Germans.
The real question, in my mind, is not, how did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed, but rather why did they only last three years? During World War 1, the Germans fought with Turkey and the Austro-Hungarian Empire against France, Great Britain, Russia,Italy, and eventually the US. The war lasted from August 1914, to November 1918, over four years. In World War 2, Germany, knocked out France but when faced with only the CW and Russia, failed to destroy Russia, and was indeed destroyed less then four years after the commencement of hostilities against Russia.
-AR-
www.greatpatrioticwar.com
1. The German Army had tactical advantages from the successes of their previous campaigns. This ensured their veteran armed forces fought the largely green forces of the Soviet Union (I acknowledge the Soviet Union fought against Finland and Japan but this did not include more then 20% of their armed forces;
2. The Germans gained an operational advantage from the success of Operation Barbarossa (granted not total success); and
2. The Soviet Union had to re-develop their tactics, train their personal, and develop their officer corps in order to create an army capable of defeating the Germans.
The real question, in my mind, is not, how did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed, but rather why did they only last three years? During World War 1, the Germans fought with Turkey and the Austro-Hungarian Empire against France, Great Britain, Russia,Italy, and eventually the US. The war lasted from August 1914, to November 1918, over four years. In World War 2, Germany, knocked out France but when faced with only the CW and Russia, failed to destroy Russia, and was indeed destroyed less then four years after the commencement of hostilities against Russia.
-AR-
www.greatpatrioticwar.com
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
Dear ljadw, this is the background of Professor Overmans:
Overmans joined the Bundeswehr in 1972, and studied economics at the Bundeswehr University Munich from 1974 to 1977. He completed his Ph.D. in 1982–1986 at the Bundeswehr University Hamburg. From 1987 to 2004 he was a research associate at the Military History Research Office (MGFA), first in Freiburg and later in Potsdam. In 1996 he received his doctorate in history with the seminal work German Military Losses in World War II at the University of Freiburg.[3] This study was first published in 1999 in Munich by Oldenbourg Verlag.[4] From 1996 to 2001, Overmans lectured at the History Department of the University of Freiburg. Until his retirement in 2004, he had reached the military rank of lieutenant colonel. Since then he has worked as a freelance historian.[3] He participated in a commission which issued an opinion to the number of victims in the Dresden bombing in February 1945.
Are you more qualified than him about the matter? Did you publish any doctoral research about the matter that you would like to share with us? If yes, please, enlighten us. If not, than I'll stick to my opinion that professor 's Overmans research is by far the best possible estimate about German losses in WW2, fully backed by the German doctoral establishment and by the Bundeswehr. His studies and those of Colonel Fritz Stoeckli about the soviet operational losses and German capability to inflict losses on the soviets have been instrumental, inside NATO community, to evaluate the capability of NATO in resisting a conventional attack by Warsaw-pact style enemy forces (see also late Professor John Ericksson).
Overmans joined the Bundeswehr in 1972, and studied economics at the Bundeswehr University Munich from 1974 to 1977. He completed his Ph.D. in 1982–1986 at the Bundeswehr University Hamburg. From 1987 to 2004 he was a research associate at the Military History Research Office (MGFA), first in Freiburg and later in Potsdam. In 1996 he received his doctorate in history with the seminal work German Military Losses in World War II at the University of Freiburg.[3] This study was first published in 1999 in Munich by Oldenbourg Verlag.[4] From 1996 to 2001, Overmans lectured at the History Department of the University of Freiburg. Until his retirement in 2004, he had reached the military rank of lieutenant colonel. Since then he has worked as a freelance historian.[3] He participated in a commission which issued an opinion to the number of victims in the Dresden bombing in February 1945.
Are you more qualified than him about the matter? Did you publish any doctoral research about the matter that you would like to share with us? If yes, please, enlighten us. If not, than I'll stick to my opinion that professor 's Overmans research is by far the best possible estimate about German losses in WW2, fully backed by the German doctoral establishment and by the Bundeswehr. His studies and those of Colonel Fritz Stoeckli about the soviet operational losses and German capability to inflict losses on the soviets have been instrumental, inside NATO community, to evaluate the capability of NATO in resisting a conventional attack by Warsaw-pact style enemy forces (see also late Professor John Ericksson).
Re: How did the Germans last over three years once barbarossa failed?
I'm pretty sure this is not correct. Polizei didn't report strength or casualties to the Wehrmacht, same for Schuma, RAD, NSKK, OT, Legion Speer and other even less regular auxiliary forces (Selbschutze, militias etc). It seems also that about 50.000 hiwis died in the Stalingrad pocket from late November 1942 until February 1943, mostly due to hunger when their rations were cut to zero but there was no report about their losses. Mr Overmans estimated that 225.000 non-German combatants lost their lives while fighting for the Reich, but I don't know which categories are included in this figure (kawis only or the full spectrum of kawis, hiwis, schumas, militias, foreign legions etc?)Don71 wrote:
This is not correct, The Waffen SS Divisios, were always parts of Wehrmacht Korps, Wehrmachts Armies or Wehrmachts Heeresgruppen.
Their losses were always part of the Wehrmacht losses at reports. The same counts for auxiliary forces, Kriegsmarine groundforces and Luftwaffen Felddivisionen if they were included to the Wehrmacht command structure and levels.