Wich was the worst nation in the war?

[Soren]

A post war study by the US military assessed the each German soldier in 1941 as being the equivalent of 2.31 Soviet soldiers. By the winter of 1942-3, this advantage had fallen to 1.61:1, with Guard units being rated at 1.34:1. German Pz troops maintained a much better advantage in open warfare.

It was much higher than that, even in late 44. German soldiers note right up until the invasion of Germany itself that they sooner ran out of ammunition shooting down hordes of Soviet troops attacking them than they were having trouble facing well trained soldiers.

And again the numbers speak for themselves:

German casualties on the Eastern front (Not counting civilians):
~2.5 million soldiers.

Soviet casualties on the Eastern front (Not counting civilians):
~13 million soldiers, and it is suspected another 2 million have yet to be found or accounted for (A pit with thausands of Soviet corpses was recently found, all of them Soviet soldiers, and none of them accounted for in loss files)

The war in the east was brutal!

PS: Will address the rest of your post tommorrow.

[Njaco]

I have the first snow falling on Stalingrad on 22 Oct. 1942.

also,

Because of the supply problems and the winter cold, (my bold)Heeresgruppe A's advance in the Caucasus stopped on 2 Nov. 1942 5 miles short of Ordshonikidse, the southern most point ever reached by the Germans during the war on the Eastern front.

My sources:
The Battle For Stalingrad by Marshal Vasili Ivanovich Chuikov
The Battle For Stalingrad:199 days by Edwin P. Hoyt
Stalingrad by Heinz Schroter
Hitler Moves East by Paul Carell

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The lack of winter clothing certainly was an issue, however even if the Germans had the required clothing and equipment it would not have changed the following:

1. Russia was a lot bigger than just to the gates of Moscow. The Russians simply would have picked up and pulled east.

2. The Germans would have outrun there supply lines.

3. The Russians had more manpower and were more willing to expend that manpower than the Germans.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Soren

Some people seem unable to understand that with the caucasus oil fields captured the German war machine would suddenly have all the fuel & oil it needed, And on top of this with Stalingrad captured allot of the logistical problems would've been solved.

Sure the Russians could move their industry back into Siberia, but without the caucasus oil fields and against a now well fueled German army the Soviets were doomed to lose, and Stalin knew this.

Yeah, but remember, resources is not only fuel. The main problem for the Germans was not just fuel, it was the casualties. Germany was and is a relatively small country. the 2.5 million lost in the east weighted much more for the German fighting power than the 13 million or so for the Ruskies. And the Ruskies had many more men to spare, while the Germans could only throw old men and Hitlerjugend in the battle at the end of the war.

[renrich]

In my opinion the most inept military in WW2 would have to be a tie between France and Italy. As far as overall military prowess is concerned, the US forces with the caveat that the industrial capacity backing up the soldiers and sailors was a big part of the equation, were the most effective.

[parsifal]

Soren

I am wondering if your figures for 2.5 million include captured and wounded (and not returned to service). Thereis lot of debate about the figures you are quoting (if that is the source that this figure is derived from). They appear to be based on the reports prepared by OKW for presentation to hitler during the war (the Lage Ost Reports). There is now strong evidence that these reports were innaccurate, the more cynical explanation being that the people responsible were too afraid of him to tell the truth. Guderians chief intelligence officer (Gehlen) was ordered shot when one of his Ostfront situation reports (on which many postwar estimates of Soviet strength were based) were submitted to Hitler for consideration (it now appears likley that Gehlens Intelligence efforts, in the so called "Red Book" reports were shy of actual Soviet strengths by as much as 20%)

More accurate assessment of German Casualties and manpower availability can be made from the manpower returns from the Ersatz Command, which until July 1944 were under the command of General Fromm. This report was not presented to Hitler, so was a little less susceptible to political interference than the Lage Ost reports. It certainly explains better the real manpower shortages that Germany was experiencing in the latter part of the war. With just 2.5 million casualties, and a population of over 50 millions, there is no need for the Germans to recruit old men and boys into their 9.5 million strong armed forces. To put it in a crude form, the statistics and known facts just dont reconcile to each other

There are some researchers who have placed the actual german casualty lists (of all types , including prisoners, wounded and not returned, MIAs and KIAs) as high as 10 million. I personally dont buy that figure at all. Just basing it on the Ersatz manpower returns, it appears to me that the total casualty bill for Germany is in the region of 5.5 to 6.1 million. A demographic analysis indicates that with this number of casualties, the manpower shortages at the end of the war can be explained.

Whether the US study was correct or not, is not really the point, the point is that throughout 1943 and 1944, the Soviets were able to successfully defeat the germans in the field. The Soviets reached a peak strength of 13.2 million men (including the 1 million plus in the Far east) , whilst the total German armed forces strength was 9.5 million (all forces, all fronts, source Ellis) with a peak eastfront strength of about 6.5 million. This means that in terms of manpower (there are other ways of measuring the advantage, but this is one way), the German advantage was something less than 12.2/6.5, or about 1.87 for the war average. However, with that combat ratio, the Russians won convincingly, so the actual point of equilibrium, ie the point that neither side would win, is less than that number, say 1.3-1.5:1. Because the Panzer troops maintained a marked qualitative advantage right till the end, the comparison of Infantry to Infantry is much closer still. Its anybody's guess what that number might be, but it will certainly be approaching 1.2:1 IMO

[Njaco]

Parsifal, what Ellis are you referring?

WWII Data Book by Ellis lists 7,856,600 total killed wounded for the war for Germany, all fronts all forces. Strength was at 17,900,000 for Germany. Are we reading same book?

pg 253 Table 51

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Njaco

I have the first snow falling on Stalingrad on 22 Oct. 1942.

also,

Because of the supply problems and the winter cold, (my bold)Heeresgruppe A's advance in the Caucasus stopped on 2 Nov. 1942 5 miles short of Ordshonikidse, the southern most point ever reached by the Germans during the war on the Eastern front.

My sources:
The Battle For Stalingrad by Marshal Vasili Ivanovich Chuikov
The Battle For Stalingrad:199 days by Edwin P. Hoyt
Stalingrad by Heinz Schroter
Hitler Moves East by Paul Carell

Thanks Njaco, although it really depends how cold it was, snow can fall when the temp is -2 to +2 deg celcius. If it was bitterly cold in the second half of November {- 15 to -25 cel} perhaps it did play a big role. I am referring only to the armies guarding the flanks of Stalingrad, that broke & were swept aside in the Soviet offensive. a large # of troops on the north flank were Rumanian, were they not all properly equipped?

[parsifal]

same guy, different book I think. My book is "The world war II Databook - Essential facts and figures for All combatants", John Ellis, Aurum Press. it follws on and expands on the statistical analysis he did in "Brute Force". In my reply to Soren I had not consulted the casualty list section of Ellis, perhaps i should have, so thanks

[stasoid]

Originally Posted by Soren

And again the numbers speak for themselves:

German casualties on the Eastern front (Not counting civilians):
~2.5 million soldiers.

Soviet casualties on the Eastern front (Not counting civilians):
~13 million soldiers, and it is suspected another 2 million have yet to be found or accounted for (A pit with thausands of Soviet corpses was recently found, all of them Soviet soldiers, and none of them accounted for in loss files)

When you post something like this, please provide a link so we could see where it comes from, otherwhise it's your own BS.

Commonly known figures on the Eastern Front:

Soviet KIA: 6,600,000
Axis KIA: 4,428,000

Ratio: 1:1.5

Soviet POW: 5,200,000 Died in captivity: 3,600,000
Axis POW: 5,450,000 Died in captivity: 824,000

Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[parsifal]

Hi stasoid

I am pretty sure that Soren is quoting figures taken from OKH situation reports to Hitler, which are now hotly debated and very questionable. They are hard to refute because they were the "official" reports to Hitler, and many have used them over the years. However there are other official records that tend to support a much higher casualty rate, and these ar the ones now generally accepted. I am pretty sure that Soren is not going to be one of those people, but we will just have to wait and see what he says

[Njaco]

Its the same book, Pars. I thought he may have done a different book. But it shows how stats can flucuate. In the same book, total Axis killed during Eastern front campaign -including Italian, Rumanian, Hungarian and other foreign nations in service - comes to 3,049,520 while total Russian killed is around 11,000,000.

FB, I just gave that as a starting point about the snow. Just as a gauge of when it at least got cold enough. But you're correct, doesn't mean absolute freezing.

[stasoid]

parsifal, I know. Especially after Stalingrad, Hitler didnt want to hear anything about casualties on Eastern Front.
I posted a link on Black Cross-Red Star book somewhere in another thread showing how Luftwaffe was trying to hide heavy losses by simply not registring aircrafts shot down by the Soviets.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Njaco

FB, I just gave that as a starting point about the snow. Just as a gauge of when it at least got cold enough. But you're correct, doesn't mean absolute freezing.

Agreed.

Soren has stated that because the 6th Army did not have cold weather gear, it was incapacitated by cold, and resulted in the huge loss of life.

On this point I am in complete agreement

The point I am making is that the flanks of the army were already over-extended, as the OKW fell into Stalin's trap and pulled more German units into the stalingrad 'meatgrinder".

The key question I have is did the lack of winter clothes contribute to the collapse of the Axis front line {the Rumanian sector} north of Stalingrad? I think that even proper winter clothes would not have prevented the encirclement.

[stasoid]

Germany had a mighty army, experienced, well organized, disciplined. Brave soldiers, best weapon, talanted commanders. Could they win? Even if they got a hold of all oil on Earth and all winter clothing ...?

Russians were fighting on their own soil. Who were those soldiers of the Red Army? They all had different motivations:

Communists - would fight to death because of zero tolerance between two ideologies.
Non-communists but people who truly believed in communist's ideals - would fight until the end.
Patriots, or Russian nationalists - would fight for their land no matter what.
Jews - would fight fearing extermination.
People who lost relatives or friends, simply driven by revenge. (by mid 1942 millions of soviet civilians had already been killed)
People recruited and forced to go to war otherwise facing harsh punishment (basically had no choice but fight)
Ex-convicts who were given a choice to redeem with blood or continue serving their sentences. Those would fight even with bare hands cause had nothing to lose. Experienced ex-combatants, POWs who managed to escape from german captivity were among them.