tank
Specialist
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2012
- Messages
- 310
[Quote Originally Posted by Rutledge View Post
Ok, sure thing Big ‘un. But you see, hoss, 26 million dead means Russia lost more killed than every other country - combined. Thus, based on that metric, Russia actually lost the war.[
Let us compare the losses of Germany with the losses of England and the USA on the Second Front.
We will try to estimate the losses of England and the USA on the Second Front, relying on the data of B. C. Urlanis. [8]
During the war years, England lost 1,246 thousand people, the United States - 1,070 thousand people. The total total losses of England and the USA are
1,246 + 1,070 = 2,316 thousand people
Given that before the opening of the Second Front, England lost 667 thousand people. and that in the war with Japan, British casualties amounted to "11.4% of the total number of dead soldiers and officers", and US casualties - 25%, we get that England and the United States lost 500 thousand people, respectively. and 800 thousand people. and that the total losses of England and the USA on the Second Front are:
500 + 800 = 1,300 thousand people
Thus, the losses of England and the United States on the Second Front account for approximately 60% of their total combined losses in World War II.
As mentioned above, the losses of the USSR amount to 11.273 million people, that is, at first glance, they are not comparable with the losses of 1.3 million people suffered by England and the United States on the Second Front. On this basis, it is concluded that the Allied command skillfully fought and cherished people, while the Soviet High Command allegedly bombarded the enemy trenches with the corpses of their soldiers. But comparing the data on total losses does not give an objective picture. Based on the data on daily losses shown in Table 1, it can be obtained that from June 7, 1944 to May 8, 1945, that is, during the existence of the Second Front, the losses of the Red Army amounted to 1.8 million people, which only slightly exceeds the losses of the Allies. As you know, the length of the Second Front was 640 km, [9] while the Soviet-German one was from 2,000 to 3,000 km, an average of 2,500 km, i.e. 4 times the length of the Second Front. Therefore, in the sector of the front, the length equal to the length of the Second Front, the Red Army lost about 450 thousand people, which is about 3 times less than the losses of the Allies. These values are summarized in table 3.
Table 3. Losses of the USSR, England and the USA
during the existence of the Second Front 06.06.44 - 05.05.45
the USSR England and the USA
Period duration (days) - All Soviet-German. front (million people) - on the front 640 km long (million people) - Daily loss (people) : Second front (million people) - Daily loss (people)
338 - 1.8 - 0.45- 1,300: 1.3 - 3 800
Consider the ratio of losses of the Allied and German armies. The literature gives the total losses of the German army, but data on the losses of Germany on the Second Front are not given, probably knowingly. "Against inexperienced, albeit war-torn Americans and war-weary British tired of the war, the Germans could set up an army, according to Max Hastings," having gained a historical reputation as undaunted and reached its zenith under Hitler. " Hastings claims: “Everywhere during the Second World War, whenever and wherever the British and American troops met with the German forces on equal terms, the Germans won.” <...> Most of all, Hastings and other historians were struck by the ratio of losses, which developed in a proportion of two to one and even higher in favor of the Germans. "[10]
Unfortunately, we do not have the data used by Hastings, but if there is no direct data on the losses of Germany on the Second Front, we will try to estimate them indirectly. The Great Patriotic War lasted 1418 days, the Second Front existed 338 days, which is 1/4 of the duration of the Great Patriotic War. Considering that the intensity of the battles waged by the German army in the West and in the East was the same, and that the losses per kilometer of the front are equal, we get that the losses of Germany on the Eastern Front should not be divided by 4, but, taking into account the difference in the length of the front line, approximately at 16. From these assumptions the results follow, which are summarized in table 4.
Table 4. Losses of Germany on the Second Front 06.06.44-08.05.45
Soviet-German Front Second front
Length 2,500 km 640 km
Losses (million people) Daily losses (people) Losses (million people) Daily losses (people)
8.65 - 6 100 0.54 - 1,500
On the Second Front, Germany lost 540 thousand people. Thus, we find that on the Second Front the loss ratio is 24 Anglo-American soldiers to 10 German soldiers, and not vice versa, which very well coincides with the Hastings estimate.
A similar ratio was observed in the Ardennes operation, which was carried out by the German command from December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945. According to the German general Melentin, [11] during this operation the allied army lost 77 thousand soldiers, and the German “almost 25,000, a quarter of which were killed," [12] that is, we get a ratio of 31 to 10, comparable to obtained by the above estimate.
B.Ts. Urlanis cites the German document [13], from which it follows that, excluding the Soviet-German and Second Front, Germany lost 530 thousand people. Thus, the data on the losses of the Soviet Union, England and the USA and Germany can be tabulated.
Table 5. Losses of the USSR, Germany, England and the USA
(million people)
the USSR: Soviet-German front - 11.273
Germany: Soviet-German front - 8.65
England and the USA: Second front - 1.3
Germany: Second front - 0.54
Germany: other fronts losses - 0.53
Germany total losses - 9.72
These data give us the opportunity to determine both the ratio of losses of the warring parties and the proportion of losses suffered by Germany on the Soviet-German and Second Fronts.
Table 6. The ratio of losses on the Soviet-German and Second Fronts
Germany-USSR
For the entire war of 1941-1945.: 8.65 / 11.273 - 10/14
Germany-USSR
In the period 1941-1942: 2.0 / 6.40 - 10/32
Germany-USSR
In the period 1943-1945: 6.65 / 4.87 - 14/10
[I]Germany-England and the USA
Second Front 06.06.44-08.05.45: 0.54 / 1.3 [/I]- 10/24
Thus, it can be argued that the power of the German army was decisively undermined by the Red Army on the Soviet-German front.
With overwhelming superiority in people and technology, the Anglo-American command showed indecision and inefficiency, comparable to the confusion and unpreparedness of the Soviet command in the initial period of the war in 1941-1942.
This statement is supported by the data in the following table.
Table 7. The share of losses in Germany in battles:
on Soviet-German. front: 8.65 / 9.72 = 90%
on all fronts except Soviet-German: 1.07 / 9.72 = 10%
on the Second Front: 0.54 / 9.72 = 5.5%
Based on the evidence given and the relations obtained above, it can be argued that at the final stage of the war the Soviet command fought more skillfully than the German one and was much more effective than the Anglo-American one, because “the art of warfare requires courage and intelligence, and not only superiority in equipment and number of troops. “[18]
Ok, sure thing Big ‘un. But you see, hoss, 26 million dead means Russia lost more killed than every other country - combined. Thus, based on that metric, Russia actually lost the war.[
Let us compare the losses of Germany with the losses of England and the USA on the Second Front.
We will try to estimate the losses of England and the USA on the Second Front, relying on the data of B. C. Urlanis. [8]
During the war years, England lost 1,246 thousand people, the United States - 1,070 thousand people. The total total losses of England and the USA are
1,246 + 1,070 = 2,316 thousand people
Given that before the opening of the Second Front, England lost 667 thousand people. and that in the war with Japan, British casualties amounted to "11.4% of the total number of dead soldiers and officers", and US casualties - 25%, we get that England and the United States lost 500 thousand people, respectively. and 800 thousand people. and that the total losses of England and the USA on the Second Front are:
500 + 800 = 1,300 thousand people
Thus, the losses of England and the United States on the Second Front account for approximately 60% of their total combined losses in World War II.
As mentioned above, the losses of the USSR amount to 11.273 million people, that is, at first glance, they are not comparable with the losses of 1.3 million people suffered by England and the United States on the Second Front. On this basis, it is concluded that the Allied command skillfully fought and cherished people, while the Soviet High Command allegedly bombarded the enemy trenches with the corpses of their soldiers. But comparing the data on total losses does not give an objective picture. Based on the data on daily losses shown in Table 1, it can be obtained that from June 7, 1944 to May 8, 1945, that is, during the existence of the Second Front, the losses of the Red Army amounted to 1.8 million people, which only slightly exceeds the losses of the Allies. As you know, the length of the Second Front was 640 km, [9] while the Soviet-German one was from 2,000 to 3,000 km, an average of 2,500 km, i.e. 4 times the length of the Second Front. Therefore, in the sector of the front, the length equal to the length of the Second Front, the Red Army lost about 450 thousand people, which is about 3 times less than the losses of the Allies. These values are summarized in table 3.
Table 3. Losses of the USSR, England and the USA
during the existence of the Second Front 06.06.44 - 05.05.45
the USSR England and the USA
Period duration (days) - All Soviet-German. front (million people) - on the front 640 km long (million people) - Daily loss (people) : Second front (million people) - Daily loss (people)
338 - 1.8 - 0.45- 1,300: 1.3 - 3 800
Consider the ratio of losses of the Allied and German armies. The literature gives the total losses of the German army, but data on the losses of Germany on the Second Front are not given, probably knowingly. "Against inexperienced, albeit war-torn Americans and war-weary British tired of the war, the Germans could set up an army, according to Max Hastings," having gained a historical reputation as undaunted and reached its zenith under Hitler. " Hastings claims: “Everywhere during the Second World War, whenever and wherever the British and American troops met with the German forces on equal terms, the Germans won.” <...> Most of all, Hastings and other historians were struck by the ratio of losses, which developed in a proportion of two to one and even higher in favor of the Germans. "[10]
Unfortunately, we do not have the data used by Hastings, but if there is no direct data on the losses of Germany on the Second Front, we will try to estimate them indirectly. The Great Patriotic War lasted 1418 days, the Second Front existed 338 days, which is 1/4 of the duration of the Great Patriotic War. Considering that the intensity of the battles waged by the German army in the West and in the East was the same, and that the losses per kilometer of the front are equal, we get that the losses of Germany on the Eastern Front should not be divided by 4, but, taking into account the difference in the length of the front line, approximately at 16. From these assumptions the results follow, which are summarized in table 4.
Table 4. Losses of Germany on the Second Front 06.06.44-08.05.45
Soviet-German Front Second front
Length 2,500 km 640 km
Losses (million people) Daily losses (people) Losses (million people) Daily losses (people)
8.65 - 6 100 0.54 - 1,500
On the Second Front, Germany lost 540 thousand people. Thus, we find that on the Second Front the loss ratio is 24 Anglo-American soldiers to 10 German soldiers, and not vice versa, which very well coincides with the Hastings estimate.
A similar ratio was observed in the Ardennes operation, which was carried out by the German command from December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945. According to the German general Melentin, [11] during this operation the allied army lost 77 thousand soldiers, and the German “almost 25,000, a quarter of which were killed," [12] that is, we get a ratio of 31 to 10, comparable to obtained by the above estimate.
B.Ts. Urlanis cites the German document [13], from which it follows that, excluding the Soviet-German and Second Front, Germany lost 530 thousand people. Thus, the data on the losses of the Soviet Union, England and the USA and Germany can be tabulated.
Table 5. Losses of the USSR, Germany, England and the USA
(million people)
the USSR: Soviet-German front - 11.273
Germany: Soviet-German front - 8.65
England and the USA: Second front - 1.3
Germany: Second front - 0.54
Germany: other fronts losses - 0.53
Germany total losses - 9.72
These data give us the opportunity to determine both the ratio of losses of the warring parties and the proportion of losses suffered by Germany on the Soviet-German and Second Fronts.
Table 6. The ratio of losses on the Soviet-German and Second Fronts
Germany-USSR
For the entire war of 1941-1945.: 8.65 / 11.273 - 10/14
Germany-USSR
In the period 1941-1942: 2.0 / 6.40 - 10/32
Germany-USSR
In the period 1943-1945: 6.65 / 4.87 - 14/10
[I]Germany-England and the USA
Second Front 06.06.44-08.05.45: 0.54 / 1.3 [/I]- 10/24
Thus, it can be argued that the power of the German army was decisively undermined by the Red Army on the Soviet-German front.
With overwhelming superiority in people and technology, the Anglo-American command showed indecision and inefficiency, comparable to the confusion and unpreparedness of the Soviet command in the initial period of the war in 1941-1942.
This statement is supported by the data in the following table.
Table 7. The share of losses in Germany in battles:
on Soviet-German. front: 8.65 / 9.72 = 90%
on all fronts except Soviet-German: 1.07 / 9.72 = 10%
on the Second Front: 0.54 / 9.72 = 5.5%
Based on the evidence given and the relations obtained above, it can be argued that at the final stage of the war the Soviet command fought more skillfully than the German one and was much more effective than the Anglo-American one, because “the art of warfare requires courage and intelligence, and not only superiority in equipment and number of troops. “[18]
Last edited:
