The Soviet ability to resist was actually a combination of frontline strength and replenishment level. Not one or the other.ljadw wrote:The initial strength of the Red Army was irrelevant ,initial =on 22 june or on 10 july,...the ability of the Soviet regime to send on an average monthly 1 million men to the front in 1941
Why do you believe there is no correlation between the strength of the invading force and Soviet losses at the opening of the campaign?ljadw wrote: 3)About your 2 questions :as there is no correlation between the strength of the invading force and the Soviet losses,it is irrelevant what the strength of the invading force was : the SU lost more than 5 million men men in 1941.If the Germans attacked with 182 divisions,it is impossible to say what the Soviet losses would be : 5 million ? more ? less ?If the Germans attacked with 122 divisions,the answer is the same .
While you are certainly correct that there are some scenarios in which a higher invading force would yield fewer Soviet casualties, and some where a smaller invading force would yield higher Soviet casualties, I'm not sure why you would disagree that were you to run a simulation multiple times with a variable invading force size, the trend would be pretty clear that on average Soviet losses would increase as the invading force would grow from 1M -> 2M -> 3M -> 4M -> 5M -> ...
A decision on high strategy as you suggest would not occur in isolation, but would be influenced by German actions.ljadw wrote: Red Army was going west (from the Russian hinterland to the border),if in the ATL,the Red Army was going east(=retreating to Moscow),it would have saved most of its manpower,and Barbarossa would have failed already in june,and this:whatever may be the strength of the Ostheer
Here you seem to categorically state that their is no chance - not one in a billion? - that a strengthend AGS would be able to induce a more hasty retreat on the part of the Soviets. Care to elaborate why you believe that?ljadw wrote:this is not correct : more axis troops will not go faster than less axis trops,it is even possible that 182 divisins will advance slower than 152 divisions .hms2011 wrote: Loss ratios depended on a lot of factors. One of which was the ability to gain operational freedom and entrap significant protions of the opposing armies. The loss ratio tended to move in favour of the attacker when this happend, compared to cases where the defense were able to retreat in decent order. As happend in Ukraine. But which might not have happened with some more axis troops.
And while it is certainly true that more troops might induce more traffic congestion, it's not very likely if they use different road nets as an invasion from Romania would do.
And not enough Germans and axis allies.ljadw wrote:The Germans failed in the summer ,not because there were not enough Germans,but because there were to much Soviets