Russian Military losses

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 02 Sep 2004 09:56

The Order of the Day referred to the fighting between 24 January-12 February 1943. Unfortunately I do not know the number of Axis casualties. The soldiers of the 9th Cavalry Division earned 134 Iron Crosses 2nd class in that period.

As for the unified Romanian corps formations, these were generally dominant in 1941, 1942 and 1944. In 1941, in Crimea, von Manstein also generally disregarded the Romanian corps command, which generated a small "memo war" between the Romanian and German commands in the region. The conflict was ended by the intervention of marshal Antonescu. This is why von Manstein mentions in his memoirs the fact that the Romanians were more willingly than other allies to submit to the German command decisions. In late 1942 and 1943, in the Kuban, the Germans generally applied "corseting" for Romanian formations. For instance, in June 1943, the Romanian 19th Infantry Division was broken into smaller pieces and assigned to several German units: to the 97th Division went the 1st Battalion/96th Infantry Regiment; to the 101st Division went the 2nd Battalion/95th Infantry Regiment, 94th Infantry Regiment, 19th Light Infantry Battalion, 2nd and 3rd Battalions/37th Artillery Regiment; to the 79th Infantry Division went the 2nd Battalion/96th Infantry Regiment, 19th Recon Group, 19th Pioneer Battalion, 994th Independent Infantry Battalion, 1st and 2nd Battalions/42nd Artillery Regiment.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 02 Sep 2004 09:58

Thank you very much Victor, that is most interesting information.

Do you know of any good sources in English, German, or French, on the matter?

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
Location: Russia

Post by Karman » 02 Sep 2004 11:59

Michate wrote:Karman,

these numbers most probably included many non-military personnel, just as with the Soviet POWs.

Best regards,
Michael
I am afraid that you are confusing non-combatant corps reported to military command with totally civilian people. All the corps including auxilary subordinated to military command were called army here. I read that hiwi personnel in infantry German corps made 10% of the general staff and made up to 50% in logistics auxilary units. No official records of their temporary and irrevocable losses were done. But according to some accounts those losses were very high (up to 40%). In RKKA no such division was performed and all the supporting servicemen were counted as RKKA military losses.

Vice versa. Soviets insist that Germans got many civilians of the conscript age recorded them as POW and sent to Germany to work in 1941. As a proof some German orders were presented (I read them in Russian translation). Besides they say that Germans recorded as POW all civilians who joint retreating RKKA corpses moving East.

In his figures of the number of German army in 1938 Krivosheev refers to Miller-Gindebrandt.

Russians recorded as temporary losses all the losses of those corps that were located in the East and never were never used in action.

Regards.

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

Post by Qvist » 02 Sep 2004 13:01

I am afraid that you are confusing non-combatant corps reported to military command with totally civilian people. All the corps including auxilary subordinated to military command were called army here. I read that hiwi personnel in infantry German corps made 10% of the general staff and made up to 50% in logistics auxilary units. No official records of their temporary and irrevocable losses were done. But according to some accounts those losses were very high (up to 40%). In RKKA no such division was performed and all the supporting servicemen were counted as RKKA military losses.

Vice versa. Soviets insist that Germans got many civilians of the conscript age recorded them as POW and sent to Germany to work in 1941. As a proof some German orders were presented (I read them in Russian translation). Besides they say that Germans recorded as POW all civilians who joint retreating RKKA corpses moving East.

In his figures of the number of German army in 1938 Krivosheev refers to Miller-Gindebrandt.

Russians recorded as temporary losses all the losses of those corps that were located in the East and never were never used in action.
Yes! This is a fairly universal phenomenon, in the sense that POW counts invariably include a wider range of persons than what is included in MIA figures from the other side. Same thing, f.e., with the figures from Tunisia in 1943. Which is why one should not use Soviet POW figures to determine German MIA casualties, or German POW figures to determine Soviet MIA casualties.

The HiWi problem is however a different matter, and a rather tricky one.

cheers

Michate
Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 10:50
Location: Germany

Post by Michate » 02 Sep 2004 13:58

Karman,

thanks for the reply.

From what you state, the procedures as to counting POWs seemed to be not much different in the various armies.

I think I am not confusing civilian personnel supporting the armies with "pure" civivilians.

Of course the Germans did include civilians into the POW figures and from what I have read the Soviet army seems to have done the same - include German (or Hungarian for that matter) male refugees, civilians and so on into the POW figures.

You are correct Hiwis were not included into the German casualty statistics, their number was in most instances around 10%-20% in the German units.

But it is in my opinion discussable how many of them were actually casualties, and the accounts of the high losses were probably restricted to some periods. But in this aspect more information is clearly needed.

The 17.893 million German soldiers number is in fact from Müller-Hillebrand, "Das Heer", but IIRC it included already the men drafted into the military in summer 1939 and in the army on 1. September 1939. Additionally it includes civilian personnel supporting the army.

How many Soviet soldiers became casualties in the far East during the war?

Best regards,
Michael

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

Post by Victor » 02 Sep 2004 15:41

Andreas wrote:Thank you very much Victor, that is most interesting information.

Do you know of any good sources in English, German, or French, on the matter?
No, not really. Maybe Third Axis, Fourth Ally has something in it on the corseting.

Online, try:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/operatii/index. ... article=10

It covers the battles in the Kuban bridgehead and might give you an idea on how the Romanian troops there were employed.

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
Location: Russia

Post by Karman » 02 Sep 2004 16:21

Michate wrote: How many Soviet soldiers became casualties in the far East during the war?
If you mean the operation against the Kuantun army the Russians got 12.031 irrevicable losses and 24.425 temporary losses.

Krivosheev counted 4,5 million something of Of temporary losses sicknesses registered by hospitals but not reported by military units. So he means that those were the losses of thos units that did not fight with Germans.

Regards

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

Post by Qvist » 02 Sep 2004 16:58

Krivosheev counted 4,5 million something of Of temporary losses sicknesses registered by hospitals but not reported by military units. So he means that those were the losses of thos units that did not fight with Germans.
Just for the sake of clarity - these 4.5 m are not included in his overall figure of 29.6 m.


cheers

Michate
Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 10:50
Location: Germany

Post by Michate » 03 Sep 2004 07:57

Karman,

thanks for the info.

The Germans also had large numbers of illness.

Initially the losses for illness were higher than bloody losses.

E.g. during the period 1.September 1941 to 31. August 1942 there were 1.514 million cases of illness or frsotbite reported that had to be cured in medical facilities in the rear (unfortunately it is not said whether this applies to all German forces or just those in the East, a further 1.2 million or so were minor illnesses cured at medical facilities at the units themselves at the Eastern front.

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
Location: Russia

Post by Karman » 03 Sep 2004 10:44

Qvist wrote:
Krivosheev counted 4,5 million something of Of temporary losses sicknesses registered by hospitals but not reported by military units. So he means that those were the losses of thos units that did not fight with Germans.
Just for the sake of clarity - these 4.5 m are not included in his overall figure of 29.6 m.


cheers .
I think that you are mistaking. he took the maximum figure of the temporary lossess according to the hospitals' records. And those included the sicknesses of the rear units. THe reports of military units did not include but those figures are smaller.
Regards

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

Post by Qvist » 03 Sep 2004 13:06

Hi Karman

No, I am not mistaken in this. See page 87 - there are 15.3 million casses of wounded + frostbite and some 7.6 million sick (of whom about 3 million were in the fronts and armies).

However, the overall casualties, in table 67 on p.94, gives a total figure of 18.3 million wounded and sick - in other words, the wounded/frostbite etc, plus the 3 million sick of the fighting fronts. If the 4.6 million sick elsewhere were included, the figure would have been 25.9 million.

Not that there is neccessarily any problem with this except for purposes of comparison with German non-combat casualties, but it is just something to aware of.

cheers

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 03 Sep 2004 13:24

Michate wrote:Karman,

thanks for the info.

The Germans also had large numbers of illness.

Initially the losses for illness were higher than bloody losses.

E.g. during the period 1.September 1941 to 31. August 1942 there were 1.514 million cases of illness or frsotbite reported that had to be cured in medical facilities in the rear (unfortunately it is not said whether this applies to all German forces or just those in the East, a further 1.2 million or so were minor illnesses cured at medical facilities at the units themselves at the Eastern front.


In kirosheevs book the rus armed forces on the front during the whole war suffered from 3 mil sick and 0.1 mil frostbite cases out of 30 mil total cas of all types. Or out an avg str on the front of 5.8 mil for the whole war. Or out of 34 mil total soilders used during the war.

We have 3.1 mil sick and forsbite cases that came from the front and surrvived. Plus 0.5 mil non combat loses acc, diease etc that died. This gives a tot non combat losses on the front of 3.6 mil of which 0.5 mil died. This means of all non combat losses the rus suffered on the front 19% died.

The ger a total dead 132,000 were due to non combat losses up till 20th feb 44. That is all types of non combat losses not just frostbite. I don't know how many were treatable the source does not say but if we take the rus example above. It would mean 0.7 mil tot non combat cas dead or treatable.

That would be 0.7 mil over 2 and a half years. If we assume the cas happened with an equal dis that would mean 0.3 mil during a year time span. The number of non combat cas the rus exp behind the front was 1.5 times the numbers on the front. That would mean 0.7 mil non combat cas during a 1 year span in total on and behind the front.

Yet your source suggests thier were 1.2 mil cases treated at the EF alone and a futher 1.5 treated in the interior. That would mean in one year the non combat cases totaled 2.7 mil. From my reasoning above should be just 0.7 mil so your source overstates total non combat cas by 4 fold.

Your source proably includes combat cas in its total. During 41 and 42 the ger suffered 0.8 mil in the 6 months in 41 and 1.1 mil during the 12 month of 42 on the EF alone. If these cas were dis equally duing this time then we are talkiing about 1.3 mil during a 1 year span.

Now even if we add the avg combat cas during this time span and the avg non combat cas everwhere we still get just 2.0 mil. This is still short of your overly high figures of 2.7 mil non combat cas.

It seems something is wrong with your numbers.

mars
Member
Posts: 1165
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 19:50
Location: Shanghai

Post by mars » 03 Sep 2004 17:11

in a four year periods and for 34 million soldiers, only 3 million sick cases, interesting, could you tell us the page number in whcih kirosheevs made this claim ?

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

Post by Qvist » 06 Sep 2004 09:42

Yes, I can - it is on page 87.

I'll try to explain again, though I do not have the book with me now. According to Krivosheev on that page, there were slightly above 3 million cases of sick with the fighting fronts, and a further 4 million + cases elsewhere (in the rear, units in transit and so on), for a total of 7.6 million.
There are also 15.3 million wounded and frostbites, according to the same page.

So, what is the total figure of wounded + sick? It is 22.9 (not 25.9 million as I wrote after some overhasty mathematics in the previous post :oops: ) if you include all the sick casualties, and 18.3 million if just the sick in the fighting fronts are included. And the figure given by Krivosheev in table 67 is - 18.3 million. So, obviously, this figure contains just the 3 million sick with the fighting fronts. See?

For purposes of comparison with German non-combat casualties:

The basis for Krivosheevs figure is hospitalisation records, so they obviously do not include cases of sick who were not hospitalised. The distinction between sick with the fighting fronts and elsewhere is as far as I can understand in itself problematic comparison-wise, though the absence of this distinction may be problemtic too. As long as overall figures are being compared, it seems to me simpler and better to factor out the non-combat casualties, as most German figures do not include them anyway, and we know the exact part of the Soviet figure that is made up by them.

cheers

mars
Member
Posts: 1165
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 19:50
Location: Shanghai

Post by mars » 07 Sep 2004 00:15

Quist, thanks ! That makes much more sense.

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”