Importance of eastern front

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Michate
Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 10:50
Location: Germany

Post by Michate » 06 May 2005 16:50

Not that this has much impact on the question discussed, but I think at least the first table in the first link is quite strange (maybe I just have difficulties to understand). It gives the number of vehicles at various dates and at the end adds them together to arrive at a "total" which is completely meaningless.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 06 May 2005 17:33

Michate wrote:
Not that this has much impact on the question discussed, but I think at least the first table in the first link is quite strange (maybe I just have difficulties to understand). It gives the number of vehicles at various dates and at the end adds them together to arrive at a "total" which is completely meaningless.
It shows that the total of domestic trucks was 77%, and lend lease trucks made up only 19% of the total.

Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 20:41
Location: Dublin

Post by Karri » 06 May 2005 18:29

VDV wrote:
Germany could have won the attrition warfare against Soviet Union
Karri: Operation Barbarossa called for a swift, decisive defeat of the Soviet Union - not a prolonged attrition war. Op. Barbarossa had failed to reach it's objectives already by December 1941.
Yes indeed, and that's when it turned into a war of attrition.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 06 May 2005 18:31

Karri wrote:
VDV wrote:
Germany could have won the attrition warfare against Soviet Union
Karri: Operation Barbarossa called for a swift, decisive defeat of the Soviet Union - not a prolonged attrition war. Op. Barbarossa had failed to reach it's objectives already by December 1941.
Yes indeed, and that's when it turned into a war of attrition.
Then apparently Germany could not have won a war of attrition.

User avatar
VDV
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 26 Oct 2004 08:40
Location: USA

Post by VDV » 06 May 2005 22:25

The biggest problem for Germany in a prolonged attrition war was sustaining manpower - not industrial capacity.

Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 20:41
Location: Dublin

Post by Karri » 07 May 2005 00:41

Kunikov wrote:
Karri wrote:
VDV wrote:
Germany could have won the attrition warfare against Soviet Union
Karri: Operation Barbarossa called for a swift, decisive defeat of the Soviet Union - not a prolonged attrition war. Op. Barbarossa had failed to reach it's objectives already by December 1941.
Yes indeed, and that's when it turned into a war of attrition.
Then apparently Germany could not have won a war of attrition.
And how exactly did you reach that conclusion? In Barbarossa Soviet Union was the loser. Sure, the Germans didn't capture all their main objectives, but they still wiped out millions of men and conquered vast areas. Failure of the operation doesn't mean they lose the war...
VDV wrote:The biggest problem for Germany in a prolonged attrition war was sustaining manpower - not industrial capacity.
Well, considering that USSR suffered 4-6 men killed for each german soldier killed, and that the population of USSR was 'only' 3 times bigger than Germanys, then Germany could win? If you count in Germany's allies it will add several million more soldiers.

You're wrong though, industrial capacity was what determined the winner.

User avatar
VDV
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 26 Oct 2004 08:40
Location: USA

Post by VDV » 07 May 2005 03:19

Failure of the operation doesn't mean they lose the war...
It didn't mean they would win it either.. the failure of Barbarossa, despite the tremendous losses suffered by the Red Army, meant that the war would take significantly longer than the German command had anticipated.
Well, considering that USSR suffered 4-6 men killed for each german soldier killed
Thats about as baseless a statistic as i've ever seen. Perhaps next time you could refrain from pulling statistics out of your head and actually try to substantiate your claims with some credible evidence?
If you count in Germany's allies it will add several million more soldiers.
Several million more? :? Those wouldn't be the same allies of whom entire armies were completely routed in a matter of days during Operation "Uranus"??
You're wrong though, industrial capacity was what determined the winner.
Well, Germany occupied almost all of Europe and thus had an industrial capacity that was potentially several times larger than Soviet industry. Still, Soviet industry was able to outproduce German industry in every aspect. The fact that Germany's economy only switched to total wartime output in 1943 proves that they were never planning a prolonged attrition war.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 07 May 2005 07:20

Karri wrote:
Kunikov wrote:
Karri wrote:
VDV wrote:
Germany could have won the attrition warfare against Soviet Union
Karri: Operation Barbarossa called for a swift, decisive defeat of the Soviet Union - not a prolonged attrition war. Op. Barbarossa had failed to reach it's objectives already by December 1941.
Yes indeed, and that's when it turned into a war of attrition.
Then apparently Germany could not have won a war of attrition.
And how exactly did you reach that conclusion? In Barbarossa Soviet Union was the loser. Sure, the Germans didn't capture all their main objectives, but they still wiped out millions of men and conquered vast areas. Failure of the operation doesn't mean they lose the war...
They in fact achieved none of their objectives, the millions of men lost was a set back, yet one that was overcome. And the failure of Operation Barbarossa, is what in fact spelled their defeat in the years to come.

Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 20:41
Location: Dublin

Post by Karri » 07 May 2005 10:41

VDV wrote:
It didn't mean they would win it either.. the failure of Barbarossa, despite the tremendous losses suffered by the Red Army, meant that the war would take significantly longer than the German command had anticipated.
Yes, and that again doesn't mean they automatically lose it.
Thats about as baseless a statistic as i've ever seen. Perhaps next time you could refrain from pulling statistics out of your head and actually try to substantiate your claims with some credible evidence?
Credible evidence? Are you talking about soviet propa...I mean studies? Such as finnish losing their entire army during Winter War etc. etc. or do you actually mean credible evidence that everyone but russian historians seem to accept? Because those do state that russians losses were much higer than german losses. In fact there are several threads in this forum alone those statistics.
Several million more? :? Those wouldn't be the same allies of whom entire armies were completely routed in a matter of days during Operation "Uranus"??
Yes, the same allies. Btw. was it the same army that routed these allies during operation Uranus, that was completely routed during operation Barbarossa?
Well, Germany occupied almost all of Europe and thus had an industrial capacity that was potentially several times larger than Soviet industry. Still, Soviet industry was able to outproduce German industry in every aspect. The fact that Germany's economy only switched to total wartime output in 1943 proves that they were never planning a prolonged attrition war.
And again, when they in 1943 tooled to total war they also had western allies in their back. Now imagine if there are no western allies...well actually you said it yourself: the german industrial potential was so much more that they could outproduce Soviet Union.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 07 May 2005 10:43

Hello all

Just one points:
Well, considering that USSR suffered 4-6 men killed for each german soldier killed


Thats about as baseless a statistic as i've ever seen. Perhaps next time you could refrain from pulling statistics out of your head and actually try to substantiate your claims with some credible evidence?
Actually, in terms of overall combat casualties (ie, killed, missing and wounded) in 1941, this is accurate. According to Krivosheev, Soviet combat losses (ie, with sick etc deducted) in 1941 amounted to 4,158,107, while the German combat losses are well established as being ~830,000 (831,050, according to DRZW 5/1). This gives a relation of 1:5.2. With the very major insecurities pertaining to the Soviet losses in this period, the Soviet figure here must be regarded as rather a minimum. For the same reason, it is essentially pointless to make any comparison based on killed, because it is impossible to make any clear distinction between killed and missing on the Soviet side. If one should compare just killed and missing, the relation would be far worse from the Soviet point of view, as roughly three quarters of the Soviet figure consists of this category, while the great majority of the German losses were wounded. My general preference is however for basing any general comparison on the totality of casualties.

cheers

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 07 May 2005 16:16

Karri wrote: Credible evidence? Are you talking about soviet propa...I mean studies? Such as finnish losing their entire army during Winter War etc. etc. or do you actually mean credible evidence that everyone but russian historians seem to accept? Because those do state that russians losses were much higer than german losses. In fact there are several threads in this forum alone those statistics.
Do you have evidence to support your exaggerations or not? It's a simple enough question.
Yes, the same allies. Btw. was it the same army that routed these allies during operation Uranus, that was completely routed during operation Barbarossa?
No, he means the one that couldn't take Odessa until it was evacuated.
And again, when they in 1943 tooled to total war they also had western allies in their back. Now imagine if there are no western allies...well actually you said it yourself: the german industrial potential was so much more that they could outproduce Soviet Union.
It wasn't numbers of planes and tanks that they only needed, the men they lost could not be replaced at a fast enough rate nor could they perform as they did in 1941, something you do not at all take into account.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 07 May 2005 16:18

Another small point
It wasn't numbers of planes and tanks that they only needed, the men they lost could not be replaced at a fast enough rate
Actually they could, by and large, for the first 24 months of the war in the East. But that didn't help much given that their opponent could not just replace their losses, but vastly expand their forces.

cheers

User avatar
Shc
Member
Posts: 841
Joined: 12 Sep 2004 01:35
Location: Montreal (Canada)

Post by Shc » 07 May 2005 16:25

Hmm.. Is it just me or does it seem that the thread is deteriorating?

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 07 May 2005 16:26

No, it's not just you. A friendlier tone in the discussion would be welcomed.

Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 20:41
Location: Dublin

Post by Karri » 07 May 2005 17:04

Kunikov wrote: Do you have evidence to support your exaggerations or not? It's a simple enough question.
A simple answer to simple question: yes.
No, he means the one that couldn't take Odessa until it was evacuated.
Well that's some poor performance from the red army.
It wasn't numbers of planes and tanks that they only needed, the men they lost could not be replaced at a fast enough rate nor could they perform as they did in 1941, something you do not at all take into account.
Actually, quick peak at the Axis History Factbook
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3633
Tells us that their strenght did indeed increase well until 1944. So I guess they could indeed replace their losses fast enough. Furthermore the same facbook tells us following:
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5956
If you look at it you can see that the soviet losses were higher in '42, '43 and '44 than they were in '41. Total of ~10,5 million irrecoverable losses between '41 and '44.

This page on the other data reveals the german losses on eastern front up to 1944.
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=2844

Now, if you divide the 10,5 million with the 2,7 million suffered by germans you end up with 3,89. This means that for every german soldier lost 3,89 soviet soldiers were lost.

Now the german population at the start of the war was about 70 million while Soviet population was around 200 million. 200 divided with 70 is 2,86. So tell me this, if soviets could in theory mobilize 2,86 soldier for every 1 german soldier mobilized but lose 3,89 soldiers for every german soldier killed, how can they win the attrition warfare?

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”