Who was really winning the War of Attrition?

Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room

Message

Peltonx -> Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 12:05:30 PM)
German population in 1940 was 85 million and Russian population was 170 million. So as long as Germany was getting better then 2 to 1 odds in KIA then one would have to say they were winning. German losses KIA+MIA from 1941 to December 1st 1944 totalled 2.4 million on the eastern front. http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html The number of Russian KIA totals any wheres from 9 million to 11 million. So the ratio was atleast 3.5 to 1. Manstein (43) and the GHC were right in the fact that if they simply held there ground and counter attacked they could have won the war of attrition on the Eastern Front. But the Western allies had something to say about that. Combat ratio on Western front was 1 to 1 by most accounts. Stalins "unending manpower" was at its end by late 44. Pelton

KenchiSulla -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 12:56:03 PM)
Although the manpower situation was not excellent, Stalin still had a standing army of some 10.000.000 service(wo)men, women were deemed suitable for combat and he was producing enough weapons, tanks and aircraft to go the duration... Germany was pressing 13 year olds and old men into service on a regular basis from 1944 onward... The soviet army had matured... the germans were doomed..

Peltonx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 1:06:45 PM)
As we know the key was during 1943 not 1945. During 43 Germany had to shift manpower to the Med and Western Wall. We also know from data after the wall came down that Russian figures were greatly bloated by Stalin and his pets. Russia was a house of cards that is why it fell apart. Basicly a big Enron. More grain was prodused in 1910 then in 1970. Russian loses increased yearly from 41 to 44 so its a myth that the Russian army matured at all. Old Stalin lies die hard. If it was not for Western allies forseing Germany to pull over a million troops from the Eastern Front, Russia would not have moved the front at all from 43 to 45. Russia was pressing 13 year olds, old men women into service on a regular basis from 1944 onward ... One has to be objective about things, BOTH countries were running out of manpower. Russia because they were losing the war of atrition vs Germany and Germany because of the war on two fronts. The simple facts of both countries population 85 mil vs 170 mil 2 to 1 and the combat ratio 3.5+ to 1 confirms this fact. 1+1 = 2 even in Stalins Russia. Pelton

Jakerson -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 2:15:38 PM)
All I can say that over 30% of German male population that Served in any branch of German army died in the world war two. Germany number of served was 18,200,000 this is all air, navy, army. Number of killed and missed 5,533,000. Number of wounded 6,035,000. Percentage of killed 30.4. Mathematical chance of getting end up killed or wounded in German military during world war two was about 63%. That is about there result if 18.2 million Germans would have skip World War 2 and choose to play Russion roulette with revolver that has 4 / 6 bullets inserted in the gun. Serving in Soviet army was a safer option than German army not much but still chance of ending up getting killed or wounded was lower in Soviet army. More stats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

KenchiSulla -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 2:31:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton As we know the key was during 1943 not 1945. During 43 Germany had to shift manpower to the Med and Western Wall. We also know from data after the wall came down that Russian figures were greatly bloated by Stalin and his pets. Russia was a house of cards that is why it fell apart. Basicly a big Enron. More grain was prodused in 1910 then in 1970. Russian loses increased yearly from 41 to 44 so its a myth that the Russian army matured at all. Old Stalin lies die hard. If it was not for Western allies forseing Germany to pull over a million troops from the Eastern Front, Russia would not have moved the front at all from 43 to 45. Russia was pressing 13 year olds, old men women into service on a regular basis from 1944 onward ... One has to be objective about things, BOTH countries were running out of manpower. Russia because they were losing the war of atrition vs Germany and Germany because of the war on two fronts. The simple facts of both countries population 85 mil vs 170 mil 2 to 1 and the combat ratio 3.5+ to 1 confirms this fact. 1+1 = 2 even in Stalins Russia. Pelton Hitler thought the union was a house of cards ready to fall apart (he only needed to kick in the door, remember how that worked out?) As always Pelton, you fail to produce sources... and on top of that you inflate the german population by a good 10 million people... This is not an argument, it's pure fantasy...

Flaviusx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 2:40:20 PM)
Pelton, the Germans won the war of attrition all the way to Berlin. Sometimes killing more of the other guy than yourself just isn't enough to close the deal. Nathan Bedford Forrest notwithstanding.

Peltonx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 2:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jakerson All I can say that over 30% of German male population that Served in any branch of German army died in the world war two. Germany number of served was 18,200,000 this is all air, navy, army. Number of killed and missed 5,533,000. Number of wounded 6,035,000. Percentage of killed 30.4. Mathematical chance of getting end up killed or wounded in German military during world war two was about 63%. That is about there result if 18.2 million Germans would have skip World War 2 and choose to play Russion roulette with revolver that has 4 / 6 bullets inserted in the gun. Serving in Soviet army was a safer option than German army not much but still chance of ending up getting killed or wounded was lower in Soviet army. More stats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties If you read the yearly stats most of the dead Germans came after capture(45) and dead because of startvation in Russian death camps. I am talking only KIA as we all know WIA many returned to the front. WIA many times is the same soldier getting frost bite ect more then once. The captured died by the boat load because both sides had nice little death camps going stariving the men to death. No big secret here my friend. Look at stats from 1941 to Dec 44 only looking at KIA its 3.5 to 1 atleast. quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Pelton, the Germans won the war of attrition all the way to Berlin. You know thats simply a personal statemt based on nothing. Fact #1 German population 85 million. Fact #2 Russian population 170 million. fact #3 ratio 2 to 1 Fact #4 German KIA 2.4 million 41 to 44 Fact #5 Russian KIA 9 to 11 million 41 to 44 Fact #6 ratio 3.5 to 1 atleast. Fact #7 based on the first 6 facts that can't be refuted based on data and not old Stalin myth's. Germany was winning the war of arttiton vs Russia. The only thing that saved Russia was England and USA pulling over a million men from the eastern front. 1+1=2 this can't be refuted. Pelton

Flaviusx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 3:01:47 PM)
It's a fact. That's where the war ended. In Berlin, with Hitler dead and the Red Star flapping over the Reichstag. It's also the bottom line. You can spin counterfactuals and chop logic all you want, but facts are stubborn things.

HITMAN202 -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 3:18:00 PM)
These numbers chill he bone, and when true civilian casualities are added (which are never fully counted), WWII total around 60,000,000 maybe on the low side. Remember Soviet losses were not just to well aimed German bullets. After the 1940 Finland War debacle an officer purge of thousands occurred. (Wonder how Timoshenko survived this as the Soviet CEO.) The real fasinating thing is how German and Russian units emotionally survived during this carnage. Years on the frontline, seeing fellow soldiers killed, blood on your own hands...

Karri -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 3:47:08 PM)
I'd like to hear your theory on this war of attrition. How does it actually work? When and how do you win it?

Jakerson -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 3:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx It's a fact. That's where the war ended. In Berlin, with Hitler dead and the Red Star flapping over the Reichstag. It's also the bottom line. You can spin counterfactuals and chop logic all you want, but facts are stubborn things. Proportionally Germany was among those who lost largest partition of their population and troops during world war two. In military losses Germany is number one and in civilian losses also amongst the top. History tends to be hard for the losing side. Soviet could afford those higher losses during learning period Germany could not. After reading couple books about eastern front written by Generals of those times I could say that Germany had no chance at all after Soviet learned to use AT guns and tactical bombers like IL-2. It really turned around one well-placed soviet AT tank gun knocking out dozen German tanks turned to be normal occasion in later years. Whatever offensives German made had to be called off even before they were started.

Flaviusx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 4:09:40 PM)
Jakerson, I'm mostly doubting the utility of this entire exercise to reduce the war to a casualty ratio. It's the height of reductio ad absurdum. Things were a bit more complicated than that. Pelton is right to this extent: throughout the war, the Soviets had disproportionate casualty ratios compared to the Germans. As a matter of fact, this was also true in the west against the allies, although the disparity was not as high. (Dupuy did a ton of work on this.) But...so what? Germany lost. Big time. Casualty ratios aren't everything. Nor is attrition, even highly favorable attrition.

Strv103C -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 5:02:43 PM)
I think the americans won the war of attrition versus north vietnam with 20:1, and lost the war... I dont think its fair to compare all those 85 million in Germany to the soviet population, one have to deduct the percentage that fought the western allies which is 1/3 or 1/4? Then a portion of those 85 million includes czech, polish, french etc that lived whitin the greater german border, no?

Jakerson -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 5:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Jakerson, I'm mostly doubting the utility of this entire exercise to reduce the war to a casualty ratio. It's the height of reductio ad absurdum. Things were a bit more complicated than that. Pelton is right to this extent: throughout the war, the Soviets had disproportionate casualty ratios compared to the Germans. As a matter of fact, this was also true in the west against the allies, although the disparity was not as high. (Dupuy did a ton of work on this.) But...so what? Germany lost. Big time. Casualty ratios aren't everything. Nor is attrition, even highly favorable attrition. German didn�t fought Soviets alone they got help from Italians, Finns, Hungarians and Romanians to fair comparison you have to add all axis allied casualties to German eastern front casualties. Just fetching German eastern front casualties and comparing it to all Soviet casualties won�t tell the whole story as Finns alone killed and wounded half a million Soviets during world war two. Some areas in Soviet Union like Ukraine suffered more while other areas a lot less comparing German eastern front casualties to whole Soviet casualties is as fair as fetching only Ukrainian casualties and compering them to all German eastern front casualties and then drawing conclusion that German suffered 3 million men more casualties than Ukrainians. Also saying that Axis minors had no impact won�t tell whole story. It wasn�t as uneven as you and pelton make it sound. Germany + Axis allied lost 5.2 million killed and 5.4 million Soldiers as prisoners at eastern front. Soviet Union lost 10.6 million as killed and 5.2 million Soldiers as taken prisoners by Germany and Axis allied. So it is Germany + axis allied 10.6 million casualties against Soviet 15.8 million casualties. So in the end Soviet Union only lost about 1/3 more than Germany plus axis allied in the eastern front. Proportionally Soviet Union lost a smaller percentage of its population than Germany. Losing 1/3 more is not that much when you compare both countries population especially Soviet population. Soviet Union had still plenty of provinces left where recruit plenty of more troops but Germany had recruited everything and their horse allready.

Flaviusx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 6:02:16 PM)
Well, both sides were facing a brutal manpower crunch by 45. Soviet rifle divisions in Berlin were under 3k men; the Germans had their stomach battalions and volksturm and whatnot. The British were cannibalizing units at this point. And we Americans managed to misallocate our manpower and created an artificial shortage. All in all, I don't think you can conclude much from this. It's not a very useful line of inquiry.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 7:46:55 PM)
In a game where sub-machine gun teams and 120mm mortars outperform rifle squads and Tiger 1s, who the &#$&@# cares about the history of world war 2? This game is only loosely based on that conflict.

Peltonx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 7:57:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx It's a fact. That's where the war ended. In Berlin, with Hitler dead and the Red Star flapping over the Reichstag. It's also the bottom line. You can spin counterfactuals and chop logic all you want, but facts are stubborn things. Yes they are. I have said nothing about where the war ended, but your one for changing subject when you know you can't refute data. Still clinging to the old dead Red Enron, I mean Russia heheh Germans were winning the war of atrition 3.5 to 1. The data is the data and can't be refuted, changing the subject is not an answer. Stalins dead. The truth can be speaken without getting shot now. Its ok, hehehehe Pelton

Peltonx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 8:01:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 In a game where sub-machine gun teams and 120mm mortars outperform rifle squads and Tiger 1s, who the &#$&@# cares about the history of world war 2? This game is only loosely based on that conflict. yes true, to bad the German MG-43 which the russians copied and called the AK-47 is not 1/10 as good as submachine guns. Hopefully they fix that flying pig stuff at some point. Kinda a joke, but they are getting better. The SM things has been a running joke from before release. WTH is Gary G thinking letting that BS get to gold?

Aurelian -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 8:01:34 PM)
Who won this "war of attrition" is irrelevant. The Luftwaffe boasted dozens of pilots who scored more than 60 kills, (the highest scoring Allied pilot score 60.) The German navy sank more tonnage than they lost. They killed more of the Allied land forces than they lost. Yet they lost. Go figure.

mmarquo -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 8:28:18 PM)
4/5 of all German losses were incurred on the Eastern Front; the west was a glorious side show. My father was a second lieutenant in the US 65th ID, and to this day, in his 90th decade, he is still thankful that the Soviets, not the Allies, fought the final Battle of Berlin. Marquo

Jakerson -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 8:44:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton Yes they are. I have said nothing about where the war ended, but your one for changing subject when you know you can't refute data. Still clinging to the old dead Red Enron, I mean Russia heheh Germans were winning the war of atrition 3.5 to 1. The data is the data and can't be refuted, changing the subject is not an answer. Stalins dead. The truth can be speaken without getting shot now. Its ok, hehehehe Pelton No matter how you calculate it whole German male population that was able to join German army of any branch ended up either being killed or prisoner of war in the end. War of attrition ended German defeat because there was no more German population to be killed or taken as prisoner. While Soviet population didn�t data I provided in my earlier post Axis side was only able to cause 1/3 more casualties than Soviet side in the end (at eastern front).

Aurelian -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 10:19:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo 4/5 of all German losses were incurred on the Eastern Front; the west was a glorious side show. Marquo IIRC, the West was considered a rest area/reserve for the War in the East. So many died that many if not most tombstones say simply "Died in the East."

Peltonx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 10:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marquo 4/5 of all German losses were incurred on the Eastern Front; the west was a glorious side show. My father was a second lieutenant in the US 65th ID, and to this day, in his 90th decade, he is still thankful that the Soviets, not the Allies, fought the final Battle of Berlin. Marquo My grandfather lost a leg to Germans during St-Lo battle. You guys are taking this like some person assault, heheheh Chill out. All side are more then thankfull for everyones help, that goes without saying. I am making the more then clear point based on data that Russia was losing the war of atrition vs Germany. Everyone knows that the Western allies could not have taken out Germany solo, but the same is also true of Russia. Stalins myth of unending Russian manpower was and has always been a big fat lie. Anyone that can +, - and / can see it in the numbers. It has nothing to do with personal options, German/Russian/American propaganda. I am just stating a fact of WW 2 history. You can disagree, but that would be based on option and not fact. Germany could have defeated the Western allies or Russia one at a time. Stalins dead poeple do not need to cling to Red myths for fear of getting shot. Pelton This can't be refuted its just the facts. Fact #1 German population 85 million. Fact #2 Russian population 170 million. fact #3 ratio 2 to 1 Fact #4 German KIA 2.4 million 41 to 44 Fact #5 Russian KIA 9 to 11 million 41 to 44 Fact #6 ratio 3.5 to 1 atleast. Fact #7 based on the first 6 facts that can't be refuted based on data and not old Stalin myth's. Germany was winning the war of arttiton vs Russia. The only thing that saved Russia was England and USA pulling over a million men from the eastern front. 1+1=2 this can't be refuted. Pelton

Peltonx -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/11/2011 10:44:59 PM)
Question. Who killed more Russians? A. Stalin or B. Germans Sadly Russia still has not recovered from the both of them. The total population of Russia after 60 yrs in 2002 finaly equaled 1940 levels. The Russian poeple gave more then most for sure. Pelton

NotOneStepBack -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/12/2011 4:23:19 AM)
Pelton, you forget that the objectives of war are always political, the numbers do not matter if your enemy loses the will to fight. The Germans were more efficient in their warfare, but the Red Army was still marching on Berlin in '45.

alfonso -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/12/2011 8:29:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pelton Sadly Russia still has not recovered from the both of them. The total population of Russia after 60 yrs in 2002 finaly equaled 1940 levels. Pelton Russian population 2002: 145 million Russian population 1940: 110 million Source: Wikipedia, "Demographics of Russia" Russian population 2000:146 million Russian population 1939: 109 million Source: http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/russia.htm

Karri -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/12/2011 9:52:51 AM)
Pelton doesn't seem to read anything but his own posts.

Aurelian -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/12/2011 10:19:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karri Pelton doesn't seem to read anything but his own posts. Or what this thread has to do with the game.

darbycmcd -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/12/2011 6:37:30 PM)
Pelton, once again you sort of border on interesting but really show a lack of knowledge about military operations in general or the East front in particular. Just to make it really simple for you, for the majority of the conflict, the germans were on the strategic DEFENSIVE. look at the ops maps of where major action was occuring. it is a steady march west from the end of 42 on. they were trading space for casualties and forcing the russians to attack more or less prepared positions constantly. but it doesn't take a napolean to realize that this is not a war-winning strategy right? this is something you just don't get about the war, with your incessant panzer-pusher attitude. the war was, from the very first moment, about when the russians would take berlin. that is what the german player is playing for! its like you are playing football, and want a way to win in the first half just because you are ahead by some score.

Mike13z50 -> RE: Who was really winning the War of Attrition? (12/12/2011 7:42:20 PM)
Also you have to factor in the other "Soviet Republics" for population. The USSR was not just Russian, but the United Soviet Socialist Republic.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.234375