How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

[stg 44]

I stick to my point : what Overmans was writing is nonsense .

The Heeresartz 10 day reports per theater of war give the following figures for 1944 on the Eastfront (Finland included)(available on WW2 stats)

KIA : 271000

WIA :1160000

MIA : 698000

Total : 2.129.000

One will note that the ratio between KIA and WIA is 1 to 4.

Overmans is writing the following on Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg P 279 Tab 60: Todesfälle an der Ostfront bis 31.12.1944

1.330.000

That means that the number of WIA (ratio 1/4) would be 5.3 million ,which is of course impossible:the Iststrength of the Ostheer was on 1/1/1944 2.526.000 and on 1/10/1944 1833000 (Germany and WWII Tome 8,P 1168).

If the Ostheer had lost in 1944 6.6 million men (MIA not included) and the strength of the Ostheer was decreasing by 700000 only ,this would mean that in 1944,the Germans had sent 6 million reinforcements to the East ,which is ridiculous ..

You're post is hard to follow, but you're forgetting the MIA, which included a lot of dead, not PoWs, or at least if they were PoWs they died upon surrender by massacre or in PoW camps later. Also a lot of time the reporting system broke down for periods and they accumulated losses in later reports all at once. I don't see how what you wrote proves anything, especially as its hard to make out what you're trying to say.

[stg 44]

Dear ML59 check the file ljdaw posted. Also next time try to keep your responses short. You could have said the same thing in 2-3 lines of text. Overman and his 'research' have been examined at ahf and other forums. In the end there will always be people who would have liked for the German losses to be several hundred billion. No problem there's a lot of weirdos in the world.

PS: i checked some of your other posts and my advise is to post less and read more. Also i would urge you to think of the difference between social 'sciences' and real sciences. If you can understand the difference...

Can you link to some of these take downs of Overmans? I'd like to read more

Overmans maintains that the loss reporting system up to late 1944 was not very accurate and undercounted German losses up to that point before totally breaking down in November 1944. After that there was a lot of killing and who knows how many deaths in PoW camps or just outright slaughters upon capture; I've heard enough ancedotes about the Soviets and Allies just killing Germans instead of taking them prisoner at the end of the war to think there was a lot of that going on.

[ljadw]

dear ljadw,

Losses were horrible all along those bloody months but no report took note of them, the regular OKW reporting system collapsed in November 1944.

As the reporting system collapsed in november 1944,HOW can Overmans write that during the Endkämpfe in 1945 532726 German soldiers died ? Not 532725.

Every one knows that the more precise casualty figures are,the less reliable they are .

[ljadw]

I stick to my point : what Overmans was writing is nonsense .

The Heeresartz 10 day reports per theater of war give the following figures for 1944 on the Eastfront (Finland included)(available on WW2 stats)

KIA : 271000

WIA :1160000

MIA : 698000

Total : 2.129.000

One will note that the ratio between KIA and WIA is 1 to 4.

Overmans is writing the following on Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg P 279 Tab 60: Todesfälle an der Ostfront bis 31.12.1944

1.330.000

That means that the number of WIA (ratio 1/4) would be 5.3 million ,which is of course impossible:the Iststrength of the Ostheer was on 1/1/1944 2.526.000 and on 1/10/1944 1833000 (Germany and WWII Tome 8,P 1168).

If the Ostheer had lost in 1944 6.6 million men (MIA not included) and the strength of the Ostheer was decreasing by 700000 only ,this would mean that in 1944,the Germans had sent 6 million reinforcements to the East ,which is ridiculous ..

You're post is hard to follow, but you're forgetting the MIA, which included a lot of dead, not PoWs, or at least if they were PoWs they died upon surrender by massacre or in PoW camps later. Also a lot of time the reporting system broke down for periods and they accumulated losses in later reports all at once. I don't see how what you wrote proves anything, especially as its hard to make out what you're trying to say.

It is VERY SIMPLE : 1230000 dead in the East in 1944 (following Overmans) mean more than 5 million wounded ,which is IMPOSSIBLE . Thus Overmans is wrong .

About the MIA : NO ONE knows how many of the 700000 MIA did die, and NO ONE kknow how many died in 1944.That SOME died later is irrelevant

[stg 44]

It is VERY SIMPLE : 1230000 dead in the East in 1944 (following Overmans) mean more than 5 million wounded ,which is IMPOSSIBLE . Thus Overmans is wrong .

About the MIA : NO ONE knows how many of the 700000 MIA did die, and NO ONE kknow how many died in 1944.That SOME died later is irrelevant

That doesn't follow at all, given that the deaths weren't all due to normal combat, instead they were pocket battles and massacres of captured/wounded, while the wounded cannot be evacuated like normal. So its an abnormally large number of dead relative to wounded because of the circumstances of combat on the 1944 Eastern Front. You're trying to apply a formula that doesn't fit the situation. Of the 700k MIA a majority died based on Soviet behavior toward prisoners and the more than 1 million unaccounted for MIA after WW2.

[ljadw]

It is not proved that a majority of German MIA died in Soviet custody, what more is : there is no way to determine how many German POW died in Soviet custody .The Maschke Commission estimated the number of dead POW on 1.094.000 on a total of 3.060.000,while Overmans (making an own-goal) said it was 363000.

Own-goal,because : the lower the number of dead POW,the lower the total of dead German soldiers .

The official German figures for the Army losses in the East on 31 december 1944 were :
906000 KIA

3520000 WIA

1110000 MIA

BUT : 906000 KIA AND 1110000 MIA DO NOT MAKE 2016000 DEAD .A MIA remains MIA till he is proved to be dead .

Other point : most of the casualties did not happen at the pocket battles but during the daily attrition fighting : the Bagration losses were less than 400000 on a total of 2129000.

We must stick to what we know : 2 million dead (from all causes and with a big margin) and 2 million missing (with a big margin) on 31 december 1944 :no one knows how many of these missing were already dead on 31 december 1944/died later .

About the dead and missing after 31 december 1944 we can only guess (what a serious historian will not do) and we remain in a state of uncertainty .

[paspartoo]

Dear ML59 check the file ljdaw posted. Also next time try to keep your responses short. You could have said the same thing in 2-3 lines of text. Overman and his 'research' have been examined at ahf and other forums. In the end there will always be people who would have liked for the German losses to be several hundred billion. No problem there's a lot of weirdos in the world.

PS: i checked some of your other posts and my advise is to post less and read more. Also i would urge you to think of the difference between social 'sciences' and real sciences. If you can understand the difference...

Can you link to some of these take downs of Overmans? I'd like to read more

Overmans maintains that the loss reporting system up to late 1944 was not very accurate and undercounted German losses up to that point before totally breaking down in November 1944. After that there was a lot of killing and who knows how many deaths in PoW camps or just outright slaughters upon capture; I've heard enough ancedotes about the Soviets and Allies just killing Germans instead of taking them prisoner at the end of the war to think there was a lot of that going on.

I have the pdf but not a link. A simple google search showed this. From a quick look it is the same document posted several times both at ahf and in other sites:
http://ww2stats.com/Overmans.pdf

[stg 44]

I have the pdf but not a link. A simple google search showed this. From a quick look it is the same document posted several times both at ahf and in other sites:
http://ww2stats.com/Overmans.pdf

Who is this person and why should we take them seriously?

[paspartoo]

I have the pdf but not a link. A simple google search showed this. From a quick look it is the same document posted several times both at ahf and in other sites:
http://ww2stats.com/Overmans.pdf

Who is this person and why should we take them seriously?

I think that this was Zetterling’s criticism. I’m sure that others can clarify that. As for why you should take it seriously that’s up to you. Maybe it’s best not to read it at all. I mean it's not like you can read it and use your brain to reach a conclusion.

[ML59]

[

Btw, its paspartoo which is Greek slang for a key that opens all doors. I assume it’s a French word…

Of course, well known word in Italy too, sorry for the automatic correction, didn't see it. Ah, btw, the fact that you believe that most social scientist are morons doesn't mean you are right and Overmans is wrong.

[paspartoo]

[

Btw, its paspartoo which is Greek slang for a key that opens all doors. I assume it’s a French word…

Of course, well known word in Italy too, sorry for the automatic correction, didn't see it. Ah, btw, the fact that you believe that most social scientist are morons doesn't mean you are right and Overmans is wrong.

That is true however his work has been criticized by people who have researched the German archives. I posted one such critique. Ljdaw has also posted inconsistencies from his own book.

People are free to form their own conclusions.

[ML59]

It is VERY SIMPLE : 1230000 dead in the East in 1944 (following Overmans) mean more than 5 million wounded ,which is IMPOSSIBLE . Thus Overmans is wrong .

Why do you assume that a 1:4 ratio of KIA:WIA is correct? Who told you?

[ljadw]

Because the official German army casualty figures for 1944 on the East were

KIA : 271000

WIA : 1.160000

MIA : 698000

Thus : A ratio of 1 KIA to 4 WIA

[ML59]

That is true however his work has been criticized by people who have researched the German archives. I posted one such critique. Ljdaw has also posted inconsistencies from his own book.

People are free to form their own conclusions.

About freedom of opinions I'm the first one who stated it. About Overmans critics, again this doesn't prove anything unless there a serious review of his work by other historians/researchers that can prove he's factually wrong. I'm not aware about anything like that, on the contrary his work, widely adversed, for example, in Germany by the refugees associations, has been accepted by the German historical community as being much more balanced that previous estimates about 1945 losses that were, more or less, thrown in the air. Do not forget also the Federal Burial Service: they have found and identified, so far, more than 2.700.000 bodies of German soldiers that died in the East and many, many more are known to be still buried there because, due to budget and practical reasons, only war cemeteries with more than 50 bodies have been researched and registered, so far. Every year, still now, several thousands of German soldiers bodies are found and transferred in larger cemeteries. But my post is getting too long.............

[stg 44]

I have the pdf but not a link. A simple google search showed this. From a quick look it is the same document posted several times both at ahf and in other sites:
http://ww2stats.com/Overmans.pdf

Who is this person and why should we take them seriously?

I think that this was Zetterling’s criticism. I’m sure that others can clarify that. As for why you should take it seriously that’s up to you. Maybe it’s best not to read it at all. I mean it's not like you can read it and use your brain to reach a conclusion.

I can read it, but it does help to know whether its just some internet guy's opinion or a professional one.

I'm curious why if there were so many academic issues with it the Bundeswehr/Germany would accept it as legitimate for their casualty estimates