Communist tactics in Korean War

[simonov]

This is very bother me, why the US and allied which equipped in good equipment cannot hold the PVA (Chinese) and NK attack in ground war?
What tactic that Communist deploy so they can face the bomb every day by Allied in Korea?

[f2000]

that because they have high morale n high dicipline.
their soldier willingly die for their country.from wat i heard they will
be shot if someone break the rule.
they didnt move except at the night to avoiding us ac attack on them.
they will attack in suprise and fast.

[simonov]

Well high discipline is don't enough, you must have a good tactics.
In Secrets War said the US pilot get instructed to shoot and bomb everything move in earth. So u can imagine that

[Pathfinder-X]

Perhaps the most well known tactic of the Chinese during the Korean conflict was the infiltration assault, sometimes confused with the human wave tactic. Both tactics share some similiarities, but are vastly different in terms of execution.

The PVA troops would dug in during the day to protect themselves from UN air attacks and sneak pass enemy ground units using the cover of darkness at night. They would encircle a small portion of enemy forces and attack with full force at dawn. This creates the illusion for the opposing side that they are being swarmed from every direction and thus lose the will to fight. Although causing large number of casualties for the attackers, this manoevure was quite effective at the time. The Vietnamese National Liberation Front(Vietcong) later adapted this tactic against the Americans.

Hope that helped :)

[zoolander]

my grandpa fought in this war..... On the other side though lol.

During this time, the Chinese were pretty much brain watched. They did whatever their supieriors told them too and they were not afraid of death.

Lets not forget the inpressive air war, China downed and crashed many American planes down. Pretty impressive considering China did have a air force before the war.

[simonov]

Well, in the case of that, They must be do many and so many suicide attack like what Sovyet tropps do in Eastern Front and Japanese do in Pacific Theatre. So the casualties must be high. But after the war casualties on the Communist side almost same with Allied 1 million casualties KIA,WIA and MIA.

Even PRC admitted they only had 400,000 casualties... and the others is NK. Its similar with Allied where the SK casualties almost reach 600,000, and the other is US and its Allied

[Rich]

""""Lets not forget the inpressive air war, China downed and crashed many American planes down. Pretty impressive considering China did have a air force before the war"""

Actually UN forces shot the snot out of the communist air forces despite the fact we had inferior airplanes much of the time. The ratio was in the 10 to 1 area.

[simonov]

Actually UN forces shot the snot out of the communist air forces despite the fact we had inferior airplanes much of the time. The ratio was in the 10 to 1 area.

According the ACIG the real which close is 4:1 until 5:1. You have to remember that Russian pilot involve the war too. And they top Scorer Yevgeni Pepeleyev, 23 kills achieve more than allied pilots.
Some people in Russian believe that US covered her victim in the name of wreckage

[Rich]

There are two versions of air to air kills. The Russians counted their air casualties accuratly but nobody knows how many NK planes were downed. But I would agree over-all its in the 5 to 1 to 10 to 1 range,"tho probably closer to 5 to 1".

Either way we basicaly dominated the air. The Russian pilots were dangerous adversarys but the NK and Chinese pilots sucked. Even flying the fabulous Mig-15 they got slaughtered. I love that airplane BTW.

[chinawhite]

Human waves were a myth


Battle of Huai-Hai. 500,000 american trained KMT soldiers vs 400,000-500,000 communist soldiers. The communist soldiers used the same tactics they would later use in korea to completely destroy the american soldiers and not suffering high KIA.

Chinas tactics were never human waves. they were lanuched at night and was all about infiltration and psychological effects of being surrounded. Blowing bugles to spread fear and sometimes soft music would be used to play with your head. If you look at the battles china actually fought it was againest the south koreans instead of the americans which would noramally retreat and call in air strikes. If you would read up on communist tactics or read the civil war battles between 1947-1949 you would have a clear idea of what tactics were actually used and how effective they were.

When the chinese entered they only had 270,000 men, the 13th and 9th group armies and three articllery divisions. While most if not all western sources put the figure of over 300,000 and sometimes even 500,000. Over-estimation?

----------------------------------------------------------------

And about air to air loses the americans after the war only stated 379 kills not 800+

But least we forget the Mig-15s went after the bombers while the F-86 went after the Mig-15 thus the heavy armnement

[Rich]

Human waves were/are the western version of the fact that the Chinese fought a very smart, tightly disciplined, and ruthless, ground war. Also hidden from Americans was the sheer stupidity and arrogance of its military commanders. Including MacArthur! Who had requested a number of nuclear weapons without even knowing we didn't have that many, indeed by then the Soviets had more then we did. The Brits warned us the Chinese were coming but we were to arrogant to listen.

The Korean war is the ultimate example of what happens when you allow your military power to evaporate. At the beginning of the war the US army was a paper tiger. And it wasnt much better at the end of it. The ROK army was almost totally worthless. If it wasnt for air power, artillery, and our navy, we would have been wiped out by the Chinese. Its also suspected the Chinese had limited aims in Korea, or, suffered from timidity by its commanders.

[endeend]

The "Human Wave" tactic is a complete myth, yes, COMPLETE. The closest and most accurate synonym should be large-scale organized/tactical offensive. If you read any books written about the Korean War or analyzed Chinese communist military tactics and history you would realize that nothing in the form of "waves" of chinese charging in unorganized fashion like brain-washed monkeys ever occurred.

A few obvious and logical evidence to disprove this myth are as follows:

if "human wave" tactics as perceived by stereotype were in fact used. The casualty rate would be millions and millions. In WW2 Stalingrad, it is recorded that the Soviet Union did in fact use "human wave" tactics, therefore the casualty rate for that single battle area alone numbered in the millions. Western and Chinese sources place Chinese casualty rates in Korea at 700,000 maximum and 300-500,000 minimum, and this is for an entire war.

the communist leaders and commanders defeated the Japanese, the KMT, and US to some extent with only minimal equipment and manpower in many cases. The "human wave" tactic was never a very feasible strategy. Read Mao's guerilla tactics writings and you'll clearly see the doctrines elaborating on how to conduct warfare in disadvantaged postions, "human wave" tactics are nowhere in any of those books.

so in conclusion: organized large-scale attacks that often resulted in huge casualties (according to western standards), yes. Brainless waves of chinese charging with sticks and stones. No.

[simonov]

I think the human wave is west propaganda. Lets think, if they do it, it must be the casualties very high. The US estimated that Communist side lost between 1-1.5 million. But in other side, the allied casualties is high too its 1 million (SK,US, British and other allied, with SK casualties around 70-80%). So in this case show that the Korean soldier is very suffer becoz they lost very much both NK and SK.
The PRC admitted their lost is 300,000, so the other is NK. So in Allied side the SK casualties is high, around 500-600,000 (KIA,WIA and MIA)

So lets say
Aliied casualties is 900-1 million VS Communist is 1-1.5 million. Its mean 1:1.2

Comparing with eastern Front Casualties in WW II

German and its Allied is around 2-2.5 million (German alone is 1.6) VS Russia is 12 million. Means 1: 4.5. Bcoz Russian doing the Human wave face the effective MG-34/42 MG. U can see it in Enemy in The Gates

[KGB]

"Human wave" sounds more like a for of predjudice than anything, however:

I read a book which said that General Giap was pressured by his Chineese advisers to adopt a "human wave approach" early in the battle of Dien Bien Phu. It resulted in huge losses and General Giap thus abandoned that approach.The book was from the US military history press; when (if) I get it back i'll post the details.

The Japanese were also reported to utilize this approach in the port arthur campaigns. This mind set was actually in vouge in Europe up to the outbreak of ww1 so perhaps this mindset came from Europe
When infantrymen are made to charge to their death, when does it get classified as a human wave? WW1 and Eastern front in WW2 saw a lot of this going on, because the commanders hadn't any better options at that time. Same thing at Omaha beach in ww2; the supporting tanks got sunk so the US troops had to assault the bunkers unsupported. Would that be considered "human wave"? or does the term 'Human wave" only apply when non western soldiers are involved?:)

[Rich]

The USA had a little over 54,000 KIA in the Korean war. ROK about 228,000, the rest of the coalition had negligible losses. We don't know how many troops the Chinese and NK lost because they are both communist nations and exercise complete control over such things. Its estimated the Chinese had about 500,000 KIA in the Korean war. We did shoot them to pieces despite their successes.

And success they had. Their decision to use such tactics, often at night, was actually quite brilliant. Its wrong to think serious historians in America equate the term "human wave" with racist visions of mindless yellow hordes charging by the millions with sticks. We study history more seriously then that.

The Chinese were civilized when our Euro-ancestors were cooking each other at the stake and going for decades without a bath. There is plenty to admire about Eastern culture and their infantry tactics in Korea is one of them.

[tphuang]

Well, the official Chinese statistics is that there were around 100K KIA and also quite a huge number that froze to death and died through other incidents. They listed the total casualty at around 400K. Not really that unreasonable, since a normal casaulty to KIA ratio at that time is around 4:1. Also, it was mentionned in most Chinese history textbooks that China had a total of 2 million soldiers that it was rotating in Korea. It probably on average had just over 1 million soldier serving near the front line at any particular time. Some of the listed casaulty rates in American books for PVA was around 900K. That seemed a little too high considering there were only 2 million soldiers that actually participated. Anyhow, it's been said that misreporting casualty is a major offense in PLA, so the numbers provided by PLA is probably accurate.

As for tactics, I believe they often blew whistles and made loud noises in night times to create the illusion of a huge attack. Another thing that they often tried was the bunker warfare instead of trench warfare. Again, many of the tactics that PLA used were really developed against the Japanese.

As for the air battles, it was amazing that PLAAF even shot down any USAF fighter. The stories I heard was that PLAAF "pilots" mostly had no flying experiences before sent up in the sky vs USAF. Also, they basically followed no tactics of any sort. Basically, your typical recipe for disaster.

[simonov]

The USA had a little over 54,000 KIA in the Korean war. ROK about 228,000

Thats the KIA, the number I provided is all (KIA,WIA,MIA)

[old faithful]

the human wave attacks were not a myth. suggest you read an account of the battle of kapyong, chinese and nth korean troops attacked in such numbers and with such ferocity that australian and canadian troops didnt even have time to reload magazines for their rifles,smle,s simply loading one round at a time in the breach. enemy dead were found attacking with everything from rifles to pitchforks. the bravery of the communists is not at question, but the tactics were simple out number and over welhme.

[Rich]

Yes, we live in a Politically correct world where terms like "Human wave" are considered abhorrent. I use to work with a Korea veteran who survived such attacks. He told me the Chinese would charge in the dark of night, so dark you could see nothing. They would come in these massed waves that under flares would make them look like an army of ants coming at them. They "Yank soldiers" would shoot them like ten pins and still they would keep coming.

Then the Chinese would be on them and in the dark of night nobody knew who was who. The Chinese would often just run past them most of the time, since they couldn't see either. Come daybreak the Yanks would often find themselves way ahead of their "new" lines. He told me the key to their survival was to stay intact as a unit. Every soldier was under orders to shoot another soldier who caught bug-out. As long as they stayed together they had a chance to survive. Come daylight their tanks and artillery would find large pockets of Chinese and just decimate them. But a lot of Yank rifle companies just dissapeared from the map as well.

Still, the tactic took away most of their enemies superiority in firepower. The Russians used human waves too as the Nazis were marching into their country and they were busy moving much of their industrial assets east. Of course later the Soviet army was remade into a highly professional, mechanized, army. Nowadays I'd bet human waves at night would have limited effectivness against modern technology. Warplanes and Helicopters "prefer" to fly at night nowadays, soldiers can see at night, artillery is much more precise, and a current infantry company can pour out much more lead.

Or should we call them "massed infantry" tactics :p:

[tphuang]

what the Chinese side said to counter that is that the Americans would have no idea how many of them are coming by because there was so much confusion in the dead of the night. Again, China obviously did something that's different from what the Koreans did, because they stayed as an effective unit, whereas North Koreans were totally destroyed. If there were only 2 million PVA in the entire war, then that's not anymore than the North Koreans. If they used the same tactics as the North Koreans, they would've met the same fate.

[ever4244]

I am a chinese and I just wonder what can make a tactic communist. If you ever read ancient tactic book in china ,you may learn why the US in its prime can t beat a newly borned destitute country.For the the war is not limited to the firepower,lineup, logistics. they also rely on the moral , morale and stratagem,in the war history of china, battle is not win because the number or weapon but because the cunning plan , for instance: lure enemy into trap ,intimidate to extinguish their will of fight , illusion to confuse them . because chinese thought battle is more a spiritual one than a physical one .
and plus , the our division is more capable of single fight, so we dare to pierce into the enemy,make circular movement and surround them, and even with out vehicle , our troop can be very haste on the mountain area of korea.
Because the fire of US is very dread, we have to make surprise attack in the night , partly because US soldier will likely give up if ever being surround. but if our unit being surrounded they will keep on fighting. by the way I have to admit , that US did not put all its stronghth in korea, and from what i know ,our is casualty about 100-200k and our total number is more than 1m.

I have to admit at that time , our soldier fight with extreme morale and zeal ,but they are not the swarming orc you thought , each of them has their own will. but willing to die for the course -------even though today in china we debate hotly on whether is worthy to fight for DPRK for it turn out to be a tyranny to its people. but at time what they thought is fight for the communist international and helping korea people. The soldiers are all good youngmen ,even to their enemy , they ve never mistreat prison of war and never being rude to civilian. it s really a shame to see they dead for a worthless conflict between soviet camp and US camp.

[isthvan]

North Korean and Chinese accomplishments at the beginning of conflict have more to do whit sorry state US armed forces were at that time then whit anything else…

Thanks to nuclear threat doctrine US has completely neglect it’s conventional forces to the point at which they couldn’t be considered as credible fighting force(you can look at downsizing of army and marine corps during post WWII period, state of readiness for conventional forces etc.).

Later during the war things become better but if US forces were in state that they were at the end of WWII Korean war could have different outcome…

[Chrom]

I

German and its Allied is around 2-2.5 million (German alone is 1.6) VS Russia is 12 million. Means 1: 4.5. Bcoz Russian doing the Human wave face the effective MG-34/42 MG. U can see it in Enemy in The Gates
Sorry m8, BS.
Care to explain why Germany surrended if they suffered such FEW losses??? I mean, total population on Soviet side and on the German side was almost equal, and if we throw in other Axis states than we'll see what they had in fact much more population than USSR, and much, much more workers, peasants, factories, etc from captured states. So, why Germans lost if they'd lose so few mens? Moreover, from 1939 to 1945 Germany had reqruited 22 millions in they army - and thats not counting various "helps" , "nations" and "volks" divisions, and not counting Axis states. On May 1945 Germans had about 4 millions in they army - WHERE was all other mans? WHY Hitler had to send 14-years old boys from Hitlerjugend under russian tanks if Germany suffered only 1.6 millions casualities?
Btw, Soviet Army lost 11.5 millions + 0.5 millions what was already reqruited but didnt mannaged to arrive to they designated reqruit points. Of them 1.8 millions was returned alive from POV and 0.9 millions was again reqruited on the liberated territories - so the total ammound of deads in Soviet army was about 8 millions from all causes .

P.S. Human waves lost its effect after advention of MG. Simply as that.
Largely its a myth what have root in the fact what EVERY potent commander try to mass its forces in the break-in point to achive 5-to-1 or even 10-to-1 superiority. For other side this looks like human wave of mindless drones, and attackers indeed useally suffer more casualities than defenders during break-in phase. But such is universal art of war. If the attackers successed in breaking enemy lines, then its defenders who starts to suffer much heavy casualities, especeally in technic and wounded soldiers who couldnt be evacuated.

[Waylander]

Germany lost 3.5 million soldiers and 2.76 million civilians during WWII.

[Chrom]

Germany lost 3.5 million soldiers and 2.76 million civilians during WWII.

Yet again explain me why they surrended then. My sources said what German army alone lost 4.5 (Btw, even 3.5 millions implies only 1:2 ratio for losses, especeally if we count axis allies and USA&Co involvment - not bad after surpise attack) millions as dead, but that still dont explain why they had to send 14-year old boys against russian tanks. But i have a hint for you: 7.5 millions was captured as POW. Would they treated as "good" as russian POW in german captivity, i'll bet you could add another 3 millions to german army losses, and god knows how many millions to other axis allies loses. This particular ratio - i.e. 1:1 for dead vs captured, was held true for both USSR and Axis side throught the war. The difference thought was what most captured soldiers USSR lost in 1941 and 1942 in surprising attack, and most german POW's was captured in 1942 at Stalingrad and in 1945 after german lines starts to completely break down and german soldiers lost the will to fight.

[Waylander]

You forget all the wounded soldiers which are not longer able to fight.

The reasons are:
Too many dead.
Too many POWs.
Too many wounded.
Too many civilians dead, wounded, without houses...
Many units lost cohesion.
Few ammo.
Few material.
Few food.
Few oil, petrol,...
Few supplies.
Few working tanks, artillery, guns,...
Less training.
Lost spirit.
Lost will to fight.

[Chrom]

You forget all the wounded soldiers which are not longer able to fight.

The reasons are:
Too many dead.
Too many POWs.
Too many wounded.
Too many civilians dead, wounded, without houses...
Many units lost cohesion.
Few ammo.
Few material.
Few food.
Few oil, petrol,...
Few supplies.
Few working tanks, artillery, guns,...
Less training.
Lost spirit.
Lost will to fight.

This is all true and right. Only one problem - why german army have "too many deads and POW's, too few technic, etc" if it's lost only, as you say, 2.5 or 3.5 millions? Of at least 22 millions reqruited? If it have 4:1 ratio? With about same manpool as USSR ? I already answered you why. Becouse the USSR - Axis army losses was no there near 4:1 as new "nazi" like to say or even 2.5:1 as a part of more "conservative" so-called public historicans like to tell. USSR - Axis army losses ratio was in vicinity of 1.3:1 - and that definitly implies what while Germany army was overall slightly better (much better in the begining, worse in the second half of WW2...), still no way any these "human waves" and other mindless moves could be a common tactic of Soviet army. I'm quite sure sometimes it happened on both sides, but it was RARE, and definitly such tactic would lead to court martial for any commander used it.

[Waylander]

I only talk about the real losses of the german divisions and civilians.
And we suffered enough and did too much wrong to surrender.
It was a bad time!
Okay?
Just looks at it like the Iraqi Army.
Hundreds of thousand of Iraqui soldiers surrended.
The german forces surrended after being defeated at nearly every frontier at german territory.
The german Wehrmacht only surrended after nearly the most part of germany was under allied control including Berlin.

[Chrom]

I only talk about the real losses of the german divisions and civilians.
And we suffered enough and did too much wrong to surrender.
It was a bad time!
Okay?
Just looks at it like the Iraqi Army.
Hundreds of thousand of Iraqui soldiers surrended.
The german forces surrended after being defeated at nearly every frontier at german territory.
The german Wehrmacht only surrended after nearly the most part of germany was under allied control including Berlin.

Again, this is right and true. I just pointed out what no way you can imply 4:1 or even 2:1 losses ratio for Germany - USSR army losses. To make it clear, as "losses" we shouldnt count only "deads" , but also "POW's". However, 4.5 millions german army dead was counted WITH POW's what died in captivity, same as USSR 8 millions army losses. We can however imply 10:1 civilian losses ratio - and most civilians was dead from allied bombers anyway.

[Manfred]

Chrom- Where are you getting your numbers from? The Hungarian, Romanian Italian and Finnish forces never amounted to more than 20% of Axis troop strength ACTIVELY employed on the Russian front. In terms of preformance, they varied widely, but seemed to amount to less than 10% of the effective strength.

Now, the numbers I am familiar with are these- 3.5 million German KIA vs. 20 Million Russian, about 8 million of those civilain (plus any number thrown in to transfer vistims of Stalin's purge to Hitler's death squads).

The basic thrust of CHrom's argument is the POW count, but the magority of those are men taken or turned over to the Soviets at war's end. The country collapsed, the Soviets had their pick of who was counted as a POW, I don't buy your agument for a second. * ANd even if I did, how do you count the 900,000 Russian soldiers who switched sides during the war, and fought for the axis? How do they fit into a neat, mathematical formula?

{yeah, I know, hell just froze over... I'm defending Waylander}:cool:

[Waylander]

Birthday and X-mas at once.
:D ;)

[Chrom]

Chrom- Where are you getting your numbers from? The Hungarian, Romanian Italian and Finnish forces never amounted to more than 20% of Axis troop strength ACTIVELY employed on the Russian front. In terms of preformance, they varied widely, but seemed to amount to less than 10% of the effective strength.

Now, the numbers I am familiar with are these- 3.5 million German KIA vs. 20 Million Russian, about 8 million of those civilain (plus any number thrown in to transfer vistims of Stalin's purge to Hitler's death squads).

The basic thrust of CHrom's argument is the POW count, but the magority of those are men taken or turned over to the Soviets at war's end. The country collapsed, the Soviets had their pick of who was counted as a POW, I don't buy your agument for a second. * ANd even if I did, how do you count the 900,000 Russian soldiers who switched sides during the war, and fought for the axis? How do they fit into a neat, mathematical formula?

{yeah, I know, hell just froze over... I'm defending Waylander}:cool:

About russian overall losses: last widely accepted figure was in the vicinity 26-27 million. But its a demographic losses - meaning the difference between projected population and present population minus newly born. I.e. its includes also higher mortality rate during the wartimes which is not directly related to german actions - for example, peoples what died in Sibiria from lack of medicine or food. The direct total losses which are directly related to german actions - such as civilian extermination on occupied territories or Leningrad blockade casualities plus army losses - is believed to be about 22 millions. Total USSR army losses are yet widely acknowledged at about 8.6 millions - this figure in from General Krivosheev group study and generally accepted as most accurated between all world historicans. His numbers are based on the open archives and was proved to be without major mistakes by many independed historicans working with same archives, including western ones. Of course, no sinlge historican can check all his numbers alone, but Krivosheev in his book have all losses divided by time, front, operation, etc. so most historicans check only the parts what they interest themselfes - for example, Kursk operation, Mars operation, Stalingrad defence, etc. So with USSR army its pretty clear picture thanks to excellent archives what remained intact. With german losses its much more blurry picture, partially becouse of f^$ed method what german commanders used to count they losses like counted losses only "in active fight units" of any given division (not counting "rear service losses"), or like not counting losses in various "help" units like technicans, national divisions, volkssturms, SS, luftwaffe, like not counting wounded what died a day after, etc. All these numbers could be still found, IF not more important problem - many archives was either burn stright away or got in varios hands - USSR, USA, Britain, etc. Thats a MAJOR problem, and also a reason why many western studies on german losses restrain itself by 31 December, 1944. For example, Muller-Hillebrand gives 3.5-4.5 figure, Wermacht itself during the war gave about 2 millions, other historicans 2-5.5 millions. A pretty good sum up of these versions was done by Overmans - here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1198&sid=6936dfa946adc56bc3f610059768cb9d is a brief summary.

Also , Overmans is pretty skeptical about Wehrmacht’s own numbers; Even during the war an internal Wehrmacht study found that the reported losses of the campaigns in Poland, France and Norway were only half of the actual losses! Consequently, Overmans dismiss the Wehrmacht numbers as not adequate enough. The reports of the Army Medical staff (OKH-Heeresarzt) isn’t included, because those are covering Army losses only.

So, we cant count it exactly, but i use one of the most lately accepted figures of total losses including german soldiers died in captivity. As a indirect proof i already pointed out on the numbers of reqruited vs left by May, 1945 soldiers - after all, 22-4 = 18 millions , and there is no way what less then 1/4 of them became dead. We can also see the same ratio with USSR army - 32 millions reqruited, 8 millions dead - and that was the winning army, which still maintained its fighting spirit & integrity.
Still, we should remeber also other Axis states - and 20% is NOT that few.
Again, i must point out that here is only DEAD counted. But to judge army strength & tactic we should count overall losses including POW's, as how many of them die later obviously have nothing to do with strategy, tactic and good fighting, and i wouldnt be so proud about higher "dead ratio" which includes dead POW's.
As for "who" counted as POW... yes, majority of german POW's was captured in April-May, allthought slightly less than million already was in soviet camps before January, 1945. But we can also say what majority of soviet POW's captured and losses inflicted was in the beginning of the war, after surprise attack, during the the initial disorder in Soviet army.
Btw, by Soviet High Command report, 1.9 million german soldiers was captured between January and May, 1945 - before capitulation. Some 1.3 was captured between surrended after capitulation.
After official german goverment data (they tryed to identify each fallen soldier name) which was publishied in 1985 - 3.1 millions soldiers was reported dead on the battlefield, 1.2 dead or missed in captivity - i.e overall 4.3 millions dead soldiers. This figure is the absolutely LOWER end of what we can expect relating true german army losses - but its probably not that far from true numbers.

P.S. Obviously, 900.000 russian/ukrainian/etc traitors are counted as dead soviet soldiers if they there KIA or executed by NKVD shortly after, or counted as alive and returned from captivity if they there imprisoned by NKVD or managed to hide. Either way, that only changes overall figure in favor of prising soviet commanders tactic, not contrary.

[gf0012-aust]

We can however imply 10:1 civilian losses ratio - and most civilians was dead from allied bombers anyway.


I'd be interested to see the data for that claim. Most post war data shows that allied bombing was ineffective as a vehicle of "total war".

I'd be extremely sceptical on any count that travelled into millions - as Dresden (or Coventry for that matter) attested to, and there were no other comparable examples of civilian deaths by tactical or strategic bombing.

[Chrom]

I'd be interested to see the data for that claim. Most post war data shows that allied bombing was ineffective as a vehicle of "total war".

I'd be extremely sceptical on any count that travelled into millions - as Dresden (or Coventry for that matter) attested to, and there were no other comparable examples of civilian deaths by tactical or strategic bombing.
There a lot of such examples - basicaly, most german cities was ruined by bombers and artillery. Dresden and Coventry quoted in all books only becouse of shock effect when a city full of civilians is leveled overnight - but also becouse of as seemenly _meaningless_ military move. Most other cities was bombed on daily basis - just not as intence each day. Few cities what left relatively intact was planned by allied High Command as future allied bases - for example Heidelberg, now a german major turistic town. Its _specificaly_ major turistic town becouse its one of few remained undestroyed german towns. Besides, bombing campany was ineffective in ruining the german industrial strength during 1943-1944, when mostly high-alt strategical bombing was conducted. Toward the end of war artillery and fronline bombers caused probably much greater civlilian losses, but also strategical bombers could routinely fly daily with increased payload and in much greater numbers. After you think about what whole Germany was a battle place in 1945, you will agree what about 2.5 millions civilian dead is not a such high and impossible number.

P.S. if you question me how much was dead from allied bombers only - then i dont have such date. My original sentence was more like what most civilian german losses was just a side effect of standard war operations.

[gf0012-aust]

After you think about what whole Germany was a battle place in 1945, you will agree what about 2.5 millions civilian dead is not a such high and impossible number.

I'd certainly agree with any number sub 2.5mill - I guess my main questioning was on the 10mill figure - that seemed excessively high and not reflective of post war data on the value and scale of allied bombing.

[Chrom]

I'd certainly agree with any number sub 2.5mill - I guess my main questioning was on the 10mill figure - that seemed excessively high and not reflective of post war data on the value and scale of allied bombing.

Huh? Where i said 10 millions? I talked about 1:10 ratio in civilian losses. I.e. If USSR lost close to 20 millions civilians under German occupation, Germany lost ~2 millions.

[gf0012-aust]

Huh? Where i said 10 millions? I talked about 1:10 ratio in civilian losses. I.e. If USSR lost close to 20 millions civilians under German occupation, Germany lost ~2 millions.

my apols, I misread your argument, :p:

[eckherl]

There a lot of such examples - basicaly, most german cities was ruined by bombers and artillery. Dresden and Coventry quoted in all books only becouse of shock effect when a city full of civilians is leveled overnight - but also becouse of as seemenly _meaningless_ military move. Most other cities was bombed on daily basis - just not as intence each day. Few cities what left relatively intact was planned by allied High Command as future allied bases - for example Heidelberg, now a german major turistic town. Its _specificaly_ major turistic town becouse its one of few remained undestroyed german towns. Besides, bombing campany was ineffective in ruining the german industrial strength during 1943-1944, when mostly high-alt strategical bombing was conducted. Toward the end of war artillery and fronline bombers caused probably much greater civlilian losses, but also strategical bombers could routinely fly daily with increased payload and in much greater numbers. After you think about what whole Germany was a battle place in 1945, you will agree what about 2.5 millions civilian dead is not a such high and impossible number.

P.S. if you question me how much was dead from allied bombers only - then i dont have such date. My original sentence was more like what most civilian german losses was just a side effect of standard war operations.
Some experts place the number of Russians killed at around 35 million and maybe even higher, that is counting military and civilians. German losses were around 4 million in military alone not counting civilians. Allied bombings on the Western front did have a major impact on the demise of the German soldiers and they did account for alot of civilian deaths in Germany. Russian air bombing did not have a major impact on the Eastern front. Russia paid dearly for every inch of soil that it won in that war. Even in 1945 when the Germans were in a route the Russians lost around 2.8 million killed and another half a million missing or captured. Russia has never been open to the amount of losses until 1991 when the Soviet Archives opened up to the Russian people and to the rest of the world. The Russian population motto after the great patriotic war was NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN NOR WILL IT EVER BE FORGOTTEN.

[Chrom]

Some experts place the number of Russians killed at around 35 million and maybe even higher, that is counting military and civilians. German losses were around 4 million in military alone not counting civilians. Allied bombings on the Western front did have a major impact on the demise of the German soldiers and they did account for alot of civilian deaths in Germany. Russian air bombing did not have a major impact on the Eastern front. Russia paid dearly for every inch of soil that it won in that war. Even in 1945 when the Germans were in a route the Russians lost around 2.8 million killed and another half a million missing or captured. Russia has never been open to the amount of losses until 1991 when the Soviet Archives opened up to the Russian people and to the rest of the world. The Russian population motto after the great patriotic war was NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN NOR WILL IT EVER BE FORGOTTEN.

Please, PLEASE show me your sourses about that 2.8 millions Red Army soldiers dead in 1945 alone? For any such "expert" i can find another "expert" what would place german losses to either 1 million or 10 million depending ofwhat i want to show. Ah, and then another "experts" what will place the soviet losses to anything from 7 millions to 70 millions. Thanks, but i will stick to credible and acknowledged historicans.

P.S. Initially, in 1945, Staling public speaked about 7 millions dead. In some sence, that was true. Its pretty close to true Soviet Army losses - it was impossible by that time to count civilian losses. Then by the end 50x, Khrushev publiced 20 millions total losses including civilians - and again, that was also close to true figure for deaths directly caused by german actions. Now, end figure is 26 millions demographic losses which also includes increased mortality rate. It absolutely cant be higher than that - as you cant suddently "create" millions peoples out of the air in post-war populaton counting just to cover war-time losses.

P.S. From 1941-1945 32 Millions was reqruited to Soviet Army, NKVD, etc. Meaning, almost half total USSR mens including childrens was reqruited to army. Almost 12 millions was there by May, 1945 in Army service. Obviously thought, childrens was not reqruited, and 50+ years old also wasnt. So you cant place the soviet army losses higher than 10-12 millions no matter what just from pure demographical POV.

[Manfred]

Chrom- your trying to have things both ways at the same time, and still come out on top. It won't work with me.

You claim 1 to 1 lose ratio, not possible! Russia had about triple the population of Germany. Simple logic dictates that in order for your war to last 3 years and 11 months, the basic effectiveness of the German war machine was close (but not close enough) to triple that of the Soviet war machine.

The actual battlefield superiority was 2.58, don't feel bad, Chrom, they bested us (USA) by 2.35.

I have statiscics to back me up, but today is Haloween, and I have to go out and have some fun! In the meantime, I would like to explain my point of view on this whole question. Why is the preformance of German troops so legendary? There are three possible reasons for this;

1) Are Germans geneticly superior? (total bullshit!)
2) is German culture better at adapting men to the rigors of war? (not likely, proir to 1813 they were not any better than any other soldiers)
3) Have the Germans evolved a better school of thought, and therefore better leadership, then other military establishments? (hmmm...)

I would rather find out what the truth is than win some argument. If you think I am on the wrong track here, please let me know.

[Rich]

The actual battlefield superiority was 2.58, don't feel bad, Chrom, they bested us (USA) by 2.35.

They bested us 2.58 to 1 how? In what? Besides maybe tank warfare.

[eckherl]

Please, PLEASE show me your sourses about that 2.8 millions Red Army soldiers dead in 1945 alone? For any such "expert" i can find another "expert" what would place german losses to either 1 million or 10 million depending ofwhat i want to show. Ah, and then another "experts" what will place the soviet losses to anything from 7 millions to 70 millions. Thanks, but i will stick to credible and acknowledged historicans.

P.S. Initially, in 1945, Staling public speaked about 7 millions dead. In some sence, that was true. Its pretty close to true Soviet Army losses - it was impossible by that time to count civilian losses. Then by the end 50x, Khrushev publiced 20 millions total losses including civilians - and again, that was also close to true figure for deaths directly caused by german actions. Now, end figure is 26 millions demographic losses which also includes increased mortality rate. It absolutely cant be higher than that - as you cant suddently "create" millions peoples out of the air in post-war populaton counting just to cover war-time losses.

P.S. From 1941-1945 32 Millions was reqruited to Soviet Army, NKVD, etc. Meaning, almost half total USSR mens including childrens was reqruited to army. Almost 12 millions was there by May, 1945 in Army service. Obviously thought, childrens was not reqruited, and 50+ years old also wasnt. So you cant place the soviet army losses higher than 10-12 millions no matter what just from pure demographical POV.
Chrom - please read thru my reply, I only stated 4 million Germans in the military if you take a look at total German civilian casualties then that number climbs up around 9 million. at least 80 percent of all German attrition accured on the Eastern front. And it was a known fact the Russia had women and male children fighting as soldiers. Why do you think that Stalin placed pressure on the Americans and British to open up a second front, it was the high cost of human lives that the Russians were suffering, the Germans were bleeding them dry, would they still of won the war without American and British intervention, YES! it would of taken them another year or so but Russia would of prevailed. There are many credible sources that are out there, and Russia will back these numbers up. If you want my source of information then let me know and I will share it with you. It was a terrible war fought around the world and let`s all hope that we do not have to go thru another one. Here is something else to think about - if Stalin had not committed the great purges in his military officer ranks, would the war have been even shorter.

[Manfred]

Rich- here you go;

This is a survey of 78 battles fought between the Western allies and and the German Army-
...................... W. Allies ............German
Total Troops......1,783,237...........940,198
Total casualties .....47,743............48,585
average per day......1.25%.............1.82%
avg. effectiveness....1.45.................2.25

This is just the beggining. Factor in Allied superiority in Airpower, supplies and numbers of Tanks and artillery guns, and you wind up with an even more dismal picture (2.35-1 becomes a conservative figure). Those 78 battles are from Sept. 9 1943 to Dec. 7 1944, in Italy and France. I can list them all, if you want.

Now, for the Eastern Front, over roughly the same period, the whole of 1944.

....................................Russian....... .....German
Field strength.................6.1 million.........3.5 million (ending with 2.5)
battle losses...................5 million............1.1 million
kills per man.....................0.18................1.4
ratio,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1.0/7.78

since the Germans were on the defensive, I cut that ratio by 1/3

that leaves us with a true ratio of 1.0/2.56

[eckherl]

Rich- here you go;

This is a survey of 78 battles fought between the Western allies and and the German Army-
...................... W. Allies ............German
Total Troops......1,783,237...........940,198
Total casualties .....47,743............48,585
average per day......1.25%.............1.82%
avg. effectiveness....1.45.................2.25

This is just the beggining. Factor in Allied superiority in Airpower, supplies and numbers of Tanks and artillery guns, and you wind up with an even more dismal picture (2.35-1 becomes a conservative figure). Those 78 battles are from Sept. 9 1943 to Dec. 7 1944, in Italy and France. I can list them all, if you want.

Now, for the Eastern Front, over roughly the same period, the whole of 1944.

....................................Russian....... .....German
Field strength.................6.1 million.........3.5 million (ending with 2.5)
battle losses...................5 million............1.1 million
kills per man.....................0.18................1.4
ratio,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1.0/7.78

since the Germans were on the defensive, I cut that ratio by 1/3

that leaves us with a true ratio of 1.0/2.56

Good job - you have done your home work on this and I am in total agreement.

[Chrom]

Chrom- your trying to have things both ways at the same time, and still come out on top. It won't work with me.

Manfred, lets see how many false fact you got:


You claim 1 to 1 lose ratio, not possible!

I didnt claimed that. My claim is 1:1.3 for USSR - AXIS losses.
Russia had about triple the population of Germany.

Another very common myth. Technicaly speaking, by 1941 Russia had 1.8 times the population of 3d Reich (100 millions vs 180 millions) - NOT COUNTING OTHER AXIS STATES. But already by 1942 Russia had lost 80 millions population under occupation - so the actual ratio became more like 1:1 - NOT EVEN COUNTING OTHER AXIS STATES. Also, rememer what Germany occupied a whole Europe, and they didnt needed as much workers / farmers as USSR. And from that false myth you get false conclusion Simple logic dictates that in order for your war to last 3 years and 11 months, the basic effectiveness of the German war machine was close (but not close enough) to triple that of the Soviet war machine.
There is a simple fact Germany ALONE reqruited 22 millions soldiers against 32 millions on USSR side. PLUS we must add here several millions Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Bolgarians, Italians, etc.
The actual battlefield superiority was 2.58, don't feel bad, Chrom, they bested us (USA) by 2.35.
As such, dont feel too bad if you numbers a way off of reality.

I would rather find out what the truth is than win some argument. If you think I am on the wrong track here, please let me know.
Then find the truth, and show it with numbers.

[Chrom]

Rich- here you go;

This is a survey of 78 battles fought between the Western allies and and the German Army-
...................... W. Allies ............German
Total Troops......1,783,237...........940,198
Total casualties .....47,743............48,585
average per day......1.25%.............1.82%
avg. effectiveness....1.45.................2.25

This is just the beggining. Factor in Allied superiority in Airpower, supplies and numbers of Tanks and artillery guns, and you wind up with an even more dismal picture (2.35-1 becomes a conservative figure). Those 78 battles are from Sept. 9 1943 to Dec. 7 1944, in Italy and France. I can list them all, if you want.

Now, for the Eastern Front, over roughly the same period, the whole of 1944.

....................................Russian....... .....German
Field strength.................6.1 million.........3.5 million (ending with 2.5)
battle losses...................5 million............1.1 million
kills per man.....................0.18................1.4
ratio,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1.0/7.78

since the Germans were on the defensive, I cut that ratio by 1/3

that leaves us with a true ratio of 1.0/2.56
You know, you again twisting numbers. You compare apples with oranges. What 5.1 losses did suffer USSR? KIA ? MIA? WIA? Or KIA+MIA+WIA? Or what? What losses did suffer Germany in your numbers? KIA? MIA? WIA? Or KIA+MIA+WIA?

As there is no way USSR could suffer 5.1 millions KIA in 1944 alone. Its just unhistorical. So we must conclude it was KIA+MIA+WIA. Again, there is no way Germany army could suffer only 1.1 millions KIA+MIA+WIA in 1944 - so we must conclude this figure is pure KIA or KIA+MIA losses.
You must always take numbers and they meaning very, very carefully.

[eckherl]

You know, you again twisting numbers. You compare apples with oranges. What 5.1 losses did suffer USSR? KIA ? MIA? WIA? Or KIA+MIA+WIA? Or what? What losses did suffer Germany in your numbers? KIA? MIA? WIA? Or KIA+MIA+WIA?

As there is no way USSR could suffer 5.1 millions KIA in 1944 alone. Its just unhistorical. So we must conclude it was KIA+MIA+WIA. Again, there is no way Germany army could suffer only 1.1 millions KIA+MIA+WIA in 1944 - so we must conclude this figure is pure KIA or KIA+MIA losses.
You must always take numbers and they meaning very, very carefully.

Chrom - why are you so sensitive when it comes to Russia, Manfred is right when it comes to approximate amounts of attrition like it or not. You cannot prove him or anybody else wrong. In this day and age you cannot hide the truth on how that war was fought. Again I ask you to go back and research your facts, I have taught Soviet war tactics to U.S Army officers and senior non commissioned officers, do you think they would have me conduct training seminars if I was blowing smoke up somebodies rear end. You cannot base anything from Joseph Stalins mouth or anybody else serving as a leader over there until around the 1990`s. Come on - Russia won the fight and no body is taking anything way from her, for a country to take that kind of a beating and end up on top says alot about about it`s people and character.

[Chrom]

Chrom - why are you so sensitive when it comes to Russia, Manfred is right when it comes to approximate amounts of attrition like it or not. You cannot prove him or anybody else wrong. In this day and age you cannot hide the truth on how that war was fought. Again I ask you to go back and research your facts, I have taught Soviet war tactics to U.S Army officers and senior non commissioned officers, do you think they would have me conduct training seminars if I was blowing smoke up somebodies rear end. You cannot base anything from Joseph Stalins mouth or anybody else serving as a leader over there until around the 1990`s. Come on - Russia won the fight and no body is taking anything way from her, for a country to take that kind of a beating and end up on top says alot about about it`s people and character.

Again, let the propaganda myths go. The only means of thruth are numbers. As you rightly say, NOW you cant hide truth behind myths about "closed archives" , "so very secret ducuments" and "bloody communists censorship".
As to why i'm so sencitive... its my field of interest. And it hurts my feeling when peoples spread untrue about the history. No more, no less.

[Manfred]

Alright, I start with numbers I can call you on right away. The population of the USSR in 1940 was 180 million, fair enough, and that Of the USA was 135 million. Germany- 65 million. Thay nation could only have 100 million if you added Austria (small) Bohemia (very unhappy, ever heard of Lidice?) and occupied Poland. Oh yeah, and Alsace-Lorraine, none of these places would have contributed many soldiers worthy of the name that would fight for the Third Reich.

22 million Germans in uniform? Huh? I heard 11 million, maximum.

And yes, my figures for 1944 were TOTAL cassualties, Permanently removed from action for one reason or another- dead or as good as dead for military purposes. I left out non-combat cassualties; 2million for USSR and .7 million for Germany.

(enjoying the show, Waylander?)

[Manfred]

And thanks, Eckherl, good to know the proffesionals are backing me up.:rel :smooth

So, how do I get promoted? That 'private' tag is starting to get old...

[Chrom]

Alright, I start with numbers I can call you on right away. The population of the USSR in 1940 was 180 million, fair enough, and that Of the USA was 135 million. Germany- 65 million. Thay nation could only have 100 million if you added Austria (small) Bohemia (very unhappy, ever heard of Lidice?) and occupied Poland. Oh yeah, and Alsace-Lorraine, none of these places would have contributed many soldiers worthy of the name that would fight for the Third Reich.
?)

Thats where your myths started. Austria, Elsas-Lothringen, etc. nicely ammounts to 100 millions of NATIVE GERMANS. Dont tell me tales about how few reqruiters they got there - EVERY german citizen in these places MUST HAVE go to army. So, dont tell tales. And 22 millions of germans reqruited to army - thats an official german MOD figure. No more, no less. You cant deny that.

Numbers for you to note
Official Germany population:

Ferbruary 1938 - 66,031,000
March 1938 - 72,790,000 (Austrien)
October 1938 - 76,426,000 (Sudeth)
September 1939 - 79,922,000 (DANZIG)
October 1939 - 89,858,000 (West Poland, a native German territory)
July 1940 - 89,940,000 (East Belgium)

July 1940 - 89,940,000

Plus
Elsas - 1,219,000 (1936)
Lothringen - 696,000 (1936)
Luxemburg - 290,000 (1941)
Slovenien - 775,000 (1941)
Plus Belorussia - Belostock district
Plus natural growth from 1938, plus some native (and no-so-native) germans what hurried from all over captured Europa to recive German citezenship and get a fat pie from future prospects.

All in all, pretty close to 100 millions for native population of 3d reich. And dont ever tell us what somehow the native germans from Lothringen was worse than the ones from Berlin. Althought i can easely point out what many USSR peoples from Caucasus or Asiatic republic was indeed not-so-russian, and they had indeed very low reqruiment rate.

Again, this is only 3d Reich numbers. Now please add the population of Hungarian, Finnland, Romanian, Bulgarian, and partially Italian to the mix by itself.

P.S. Nearly EVERY german i know what is over 75 years old (and i know quite lot of them) - was in army. Every other german i know - had father/grandfather what was in army. If you have so much experience with Germany (may be you even live there) - ask your friends about they fathers. You'll see.
Dont this tell something to you?

[Chrom]

Alright, I start with numbers I can call you on right away. The population of the USSR in 1940 was 180 million, fair enough, and that Of the USA was 135 million. Germany- 65 million. Thay nation could only have 100 million if you added Austria (small) Bohemia (very unhappy, ever heard of Lidice?) and occupied Poland. Oh yeah, and Alsace-Lorraine, none of these places would have contributed many soldiers worthy of the name that would fight for the Third Reich.

22 million Germans in uniform? Huh? I heard 11 million, maximum.

And yes, my figures for 1944 were TOTAL cassualties, Permanently removed from action for one reason or another- dead or as good as dead for military purposes. I left out non-combat cassualties; 2million for USSR and .7 million for Germany.

(enjoying the show, Waylander?)

So, you wanna tell us what german army suffered 1.1 millions casualities including wounded in the whole 1944, the WORST year from the war beginning? Nonsense. Yes, it is. They lost so much KIA in that year alone. Now, you would tell us what Red Army suffered 5.1 UNRECOVERABLE losses in 1944 year alone? In they BEST year from the begin of the war? Nonsence again. You can count it yourself: 32 millions reqruited, 12 demobilized => 20 was out of service for whatever reason: KIA, MIA, WIA, POW. Thats for the whole war, the all 4 years. And let me tell you, first 2 years was a LOT worse than last 2 years.

Again, there is no doubt in USSR numbers. Now archives are open, and every historican can access them. So in the last 10 years there is generally concensus between world historicans about USSR army losses. With Germany army losses things are different - there are no full archives left, and the numbers are very hard to come by.

P.S. For every one who dont have Krivosheev Book translated to english at hand:
This link http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/w/w05.htm#_Toc536603348 is full Krivosheev book with all numbers, tables, etc. in Russian. You can read it with translate.ru (better) , or babelfish (worse)

[Grand Danois]

So, you wanna tell us what german army suffered 1.1 millions casualities including wounded in the whole 1944, the WORST year from the war beginning? Nonsense. Yes, it is. They lost so much KIA in that year alone. Now, you would tell us what Red Army suffered 5.1 UNRECOVERABLE losses in 1944 year alone? In they BEST year from the begin of the war? Nonsence again. You can count it yourself: 32 millions reqruited, 12 demobilized => 20 was out of service for whatever reason: KIA, MIA, WIA, POW. Thats for the whole war, the all 4 years. And let me tell you, first 2 years was a LOT worse than last 2 years.

Again, there is no doubt in USSR numbers. Now archives are open, and every historican can access them. So in the last 10 years there is generally concensus between world historicans about USSR army losses. With Germany army losses things are different - there are no full arhives left, and the numbers are very hard to come by.

I am a bit curious about these numbers. Are you talking Wehrmacht/Axis figures commited to the Eastern Front only, or do they include North Africa, the Western Front, Italy, Balkans etc. And do they include or exclude naval and Luftwaffe personnel?

[Chrom]

I am a bit curious about these numbers. Are you talking Wehrmacht/Axis figures commited to the Eastern Front only, or do they include North Africa, the Western Front, Italy, Balkans etc. And do they include or exclude naval and Luftwaffe personnel?
Germany numbers what i've quoted are total numbers including all fronts, all personell. Thats the part of problem - you often see only separate army losses, or separate army KIA losses without even MIA included. From such numbers take the root all kind of myths.

About 80% of all german *manpower* losses was on East Front. All other Axis allies losses (excluding Italy) was also East Front.

[Grand Danois]

Germany numbers what i've quoted are total numbers including all fronts, all personell. Thats the part of problem - you often see only separate army losses, or separate army KIA losses without even MIA included. From such numbers take the root all kind of myths.

About 80% of all german *manpower* losses was on East Front. All other Axis allies losses (excluding Italy) was also East Front.

80% of German losses sound about right to me. However, they did only commit, depending on time, ~ two thirds of their resources to the Eastern Front. So it may be that the figure wrt recruiting should be normalised.

The Air War over Europe was for instance hugely manpower consuming, but relatively low cost in loss of life and casualties.

[Chrom]

80% of German losses sound about right to me. However, they did only commit, depending on time, ~ two thirds of their resources to the Eastern Front. So it may be that the figure wrt recruiting should be normalised.

The Air War over Europe was for instance hugely manpower consuming, but relatively low cost in loss of life and casualties.
Doesnt matter how much of them commited to Eastern Front. Only losses play the role. Besides, best units was on the East front anyway - you cant just compare a deprived of best mens and technic division in France and constantly fighting division under Kursk. Its just natural what non-fighting western units got mostly new reqruits for initial learning and old technic (except airforce ofc). For example, from 1941 to 1945 almost 1/4 of Soviet army was positioned against Japan, Iran and other non-fighting possible enemies. But, as you understand, its doesnt mean anything as these soldiers hardly consumed anything but food.
The manpower commited to Air War from Germany side was not that big. Yes, from 1944 a major part of they fighters protected Germany from Air raids, but the number of pilots , ground personell commited and resources lost to such task was relatively low (compared to ground forces), as its naturally Luftwaffe was the least numerous part of german war mashine. May be by end of 1944 Germany had 1/3 of they forces split against USA&Britain (certainly not sooner), but that will require futher reading. I dont have such numbers on hand, and will be glad to be pointed to any credible source.

[Grand Danois]

Doesnt matter how much of them commited to Eastern Front. Only losses play the role. Besides, best units was on the East front anyway - its just natural what non-fighting western units got most new reqruits for initial learning and also best technic also mostly got to East front. For example, from 1941 to 1945 almost 1/4 of Soviet army was positioned against Japan, Iran and other non-fighting possible enemies. But, as you understand, its doesnt mean anything as these soldiers hardly consumed anything but food.
The manpower commited to Air War from Germany side was not that big. Yes, from 1944 a major part of they fighters protected Germany from Air raids, but the number of pilots and ground personell commited to such task was relatively low (compared to ground forces), as its naturally Luftwaffe was the least numerous part of german war mashine. May be by beginning of 1945 Germany had 1/3 of they forces split against USA&Britain (certainly not sooner), but that will require futher reading. I dont have such numbers on hand, and will be glad to be pointed to any credible source.

I does matter as you are comparing performance on warfighting potential, in this case manpower and losses as a metric. You need to ferret out what was actually committed by the Germans to fight the soviet Union.

I would suggest tables of manpower strength of the Axis and Soviet armies on the eastern front for the period of 1941-1945 in order to ferret out performance.

At the height of the Air War Germany had 500,000 soldiers engaged to defend Germany. Fighter sqns. Early warning, infrastructure, FLAK btn etc. This means many more served in these units. It is an example of tasking of the German forces outside of the Soviet Theatre that skews the numbers.

[Chrom]

I does matter as you are comparing performance on warfighting potential, in this case manpower and losses as a metric. You need to ferret out what was actually committed by the Germans to fight the soviet Union.

I would suggest tables of manpower strength of the Axis and Soviet armies on the eastern front for the period of 1941-1945 in order to ferret out performance.

At the height of the Air War Germany had 500,000 soldiers engaged to defend Germany. Fighter sqns. Early warning, infrastructure, FLAK btn etc. This means many more served in these units. It is an example of tasking of the German forces outside of the Soviet Theatre that skews the numbers.

Again, pure resources commited as such doesnt mean much. I already gave you example why. Whats matter is the resources spend.
Imagine a picture: Country A have 1 million army on they left border, and also 1 million army on they right border. Now, left border is constantly under attack for years and suffered heavy casualties. Already as much as 3 millions soldiers are killed there. Right border suffer only rare skirmish attacks, and suffered only several thousand casualies. According to your logic country A spend the equal resources on both borders. But anyone can see the failed logic here. The only true answer would be resource flow, and major part of it is soldiers killed, tanks burnt, and planes shot down.

Also, 0.5 millions for the whole Reich air defence? It might seems a lot, but pale in comparation to ground forces numbers. Also, dont forget what already by the end of 1944 Germany AD was also heavly fighting against russian bombers.

[Grand Danois]

Again, pure resources commited as such doesnt mean much. I already gave you example why. Whats matter is the resources spend.
Imagine a picture: Country A have 1 million army on they left border, and also 1 million army on they right border. Now, left border is constantly under attack for years and suffered heavy casualties. Already as much as 3 millions soldiers are killed there. Right border suffer only rare skirmish attacks, and suffered only several thousand casualies. According to your logic country A spend the equal resources on both borders. But anyone can see the failed logic here. The only true answer would be resource flow, and major part of it is soldiers killed, tanks burnt, and planes shot down.

I understand what you are trying to say. But the premise is wrong. I did not say it was equally spent.

A soldier and a tank that never appears on the Russian Front has never fought on the Russian Front.

A soldier, tank or a fighter tasked with fighting other battles cannot be tasked with fighting on the Russian Front.

You need to isolate the resources used on this theatre to gauge effectiveness of troops, equipment, tactics, strategy fighting in the theatre.

You are saying everything was available for the Germans to fight in Russia - no, this wrong. And I am not saying everything was available for the Russians to fight the Germans.

The only way to asses this is to look at what was committed by both sides. Comparing warfighting potential does not yield a meaningful conclusion.

Edit:

What I am saying is, that when 2/3 of the German forces are committed to fighting in Russia, the remaining 1/3 doesn't sit around on holiday. That 1/3 is actually fighting active battles elsewhere. It it simply not available for the Russian front.

I hope it clears my thoughts up a little. ;)

[Rich]

Rich- here you go;

This is a survey of 78 battles fought between the Western allies and and the German Army-
...................... W. Allies ............German
Total Troops......1,783,237...........940,198
Total casualties .....47,743............48,585
average per day......1.25%.............1.82%
avg. effectiveness....1.45.................2.25

This is just the beginning. Factor in Allied superiority in Air power, supplies and numbers of Tanks and artillery guns, and you wind up with an even more dismal picture (2.35-1 becomes a conservative figure). Those 78 battles are from Sept. 9 1943 to Dec. 7 1944, in Italy and France. I can list them all, if you want.

Now, for the Eastern Front, over roughly the same period, the whole of 1944.

....................................Russian....... .....German
Field strength.................6.1 million.........3.5 million (ending with 2.5)
battle losses...................5 million............1.1 million
kills per man.....................0.18................1.4
ratio,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1.0/7.78

since the Germans were on the defensive, I cut that ratio by 1/3

that leaves us with a true ratio of 1.0/2.56

Thanks for taking the time to post but thats not good enough. What battles?? There were many battle, even campaigns, where the Germans had higher numbers of troops in the immediate battle area. Dont forget Yanks faced Germans in Africa, Italy, and west Europe starting in 1942.

Regarding tanks I'd have to agree there was German superiority in both tank types, guns, and tactics. Indeed it was the Germans who invented modern tank warfare.

But establishing such a meaningless criteria as 2.25 to 1 in the fluid, and many, battles of WW-ll ? Impossible! Anyone can play with numbers to make this or them look like superior soldiers using superior tactics but, for one thing, nobody can even agree with the numbers of men in the German army during the war anyways. And you just cant count the Germans because there were many men from allied and conquered nations who suited up as well. The figure Ive seen most is 18.5 million Germans and allies wearing the uniform.

So unless you have some rock solid sources for your numbers game dont believe your numbers impress.

[Chrom]

What I am saying is, that when 2/3 of the German forces are committed to fighting in Russia, the remaining 1/3 doesn't sit around on holiday. That 1/3 is actually fighting active battles elsewhere. It it simply not available for the Russian front.

I hope it clears my thoughts up a little. ;)
NO! NO! WRONG! The remaining 1/3 PRECISELY was "sitting around on holiday". What fighting have done German ground forces in France 1941-1943? What fighting have done USSR forces in Far East 1941-1944? ZERO! These impressive numbers of divisions in either case was just training camps (and possible deterrent) - nothing more. Would Germany brought these "1/3" forces to East front, they would be massacred in half year (judging from loss ratio on the East front) , they ammo&fuel supply would last 1 month at most, so Germany would be left without any Western "1/3" army. Now, you want convince us what something what will be killed in half year have 1/3 strength of something what take 4 years to kill? Again, resource flow matters the most and reflect true efforts.

P.S. USSR had almost 0.5 to 1 million army deployed against Japan all the time. Should we credit Japan to do 10-15% of Germany war efforts to defeat USSR? Should we credit Iran & Turkey with another 7-10% of Germany war efforts to defeat USSR? Nonsence. Moreover, a large part of russian army stationed deep and not-so-deep inside the USSR in training&resupply camps - should we credit native soviet citizens for open "internal front" and helping Germany Wermacht on very large scale? See how twisted become such logic?

[Grand Danois]

NO! NO! WRONG! The remaining 1/3 PRECISELY was "sitting around on holiday". What fighting have done German ground forces in France 1941-1943? What fighting have done USSR forces in Far East 1941-1944? ZERO! These impressive numbers of divisions in either case was just training camps (and possible deterrent) - nothing more. Would Germany brought these "1/3" forces to East front, they would be massacred in half year (judging from loss ratio on the East front) so Germany would be left without any Western "1/3" army. Now, you want convince us what something what will be killed in half year have 1/3 strength of something what take 4 years to kill?

The Russians may have "been on holiday" in Siberia. Meanwhile the enlisted personnel of Germany that was not part of the Eastern front was fighting in North Africa, Italy, France, insurgencies in Yugoslavia, Poland etc. They were also fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, the European Air war. The two latter examples of forces that could not be brought to bear on Russia anyway.

I'm say a two thirds of the capability went to the East. Two thirds of the fighting Germany was capable of. You are confusing manpower at the front with total enlisted personnel.

I'm not talking about training camps and reconstituting units. I'm talking operational warfighting units. Actual warfighting units available.

[Chrom]

The Russians may have "been on holiday" in Siberia. Meanwhile the enlisted personnel of Germany that was not part of the Eastern front was fighting in North Africa, Italy, France, insurgencies in Yugoslavia, Poland etc. They were also fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, the European Air war. The two latter examples of forces that could not be brought to bear on Russia anyway.

I'm say a two thirds of the capability went to the East. Two thirds of the fighting Germany was capable of. You are confusing manpower at the front with total enlisted personnel.

I'm not talking about training camps and reconstituting units. I'm talking operational warfighting units. Actual warfighting units available.
Any "fighting" unit what dont take losses and dont spend too much resources is de-facto training unit.
Lets see the losses. They somehow reflect true efforts. IF you think what they dont, you can try to find statistic for the other valuable resources - i.e. cannon shells fired, fuel burnt, trucks & tanks destroyed, aircrafts shot down, etc. Good luck finding that and proving your point.

P.S. Also, how many german soldiers was deployed in "North Africa, Italy, France, insurgencies in Yugoslavia, Poland"??? Now, add to the fact what workers in Italy, France, Yugoslavia, Poland produced sh$tload ammount of tanks, trucks, aircrafts, generally any technic, clothes, foods, ores, oils, etc... And all that in exchange for a relatively small number deployed german soldiers what would have struggle to produce 1/10 of all these goods in native Germany...

[Grand Danois]

Any "fighting" unit what dont take losses and dont spend too much resources is de-facto training unit.
Lets see the losses. They somehow reflect true efforts. IF you think what they dont, you can try to find statistic for the other valuable resources - i.e. cannon shells fired, fuel burnt, trucks & tanks destroyed, aircrafts shot down, etc. Good luck finding that and proving your point.

Not playing that way. I don't have to prove your strawman.

Remember. I am talking actual fighting. And the military manpower it consumed.

[Chrom]

Not playing that way. I don't have to prove your strawman.

Remember. I am talking actual fighting. And the military manpower it consumed.

Then please prove in with the losses numbers. As obviosly a division what is "fighting" a whole year and lost 100 soldiers execute quite funny art of war compared to division what REALLY fighting whole year a lost 20000 soldiers during that time. And again, would you please show YOUR numbers of german troops deployed in Africa? How much was it compared to East front? 1%??

[Grand Danois]

Then please prove in with the losses numbers. As obviosly a division what is "fighting" a whole year and lost 100 soldiers execute quite funny art of war compared to division what REALLY fighting whole year a lost 20000 soldiers during that time. And again, would you please show YOUR numbers of german troops deployed in Africa? How much was it compared to East front? 1%??

Prove your argument?

That's because you think the German forces were only made up of army personnel. 70+% of army personnel may have been assigned to the Eastern Front. But that is not the case of Luftwaffe or the navy.

This air campaign absorbed more then 500,000 active personnel in the end.

Strategic bombing during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_bombing_on_Germany#The_British_attack)

The Luftwaffe had 2,500,000 serving during the war.

Meanwhile this was going on:

Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic)

The Kriegsmarine had 1,200,000 serving during the war.

But the Germans also had to use significant ground forces:

North African campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign#Conclusion)

Allied invasion of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy)

Battle of Normandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy)

Operation Dragoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon)

etc...

And deal with a nasty number of sideshows:

Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_War)

So losses is not a metric of where manpower and resources are allocated. The high tech air and naval wars are also manpower intensive but have relatively fewer losses.

[Chrom]

Prove your argument?

That's because you think the German forces were only made up of army personnel. 70+% of army personnel may have been assigned to the Eastern Front. But that is not the case of Luftwaffe or the navy.

This air campaign absorbed more then 500,000 active personnel in the end.

Strategic bombing during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_bombing_on_Germany#The_British_attack)

The Luftwaffe had 2,500,000 serving during the war.

Meanwhile this was going on:

Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic)

The Kriegsmarine had 1,200,000 serving during the war.

But the Germans also had to use significant ground forces:

North African campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign#Conclusion)

Allied invasion of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy)

Battle of Normandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy)

Operation Dragoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon)

etc...

And deal with a nasty number of sideshows:

Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_War)

So losses is not a metric of where manpower and resources are allocated. The high tech air and naval wars are also manpower intensive but have relatively fewer losses.

KK. So, you said, air company absorbed 500kk IN THE END. Thats might be true. BUT! It was the END. Not the whole 1941-1945 time. Moreover, even in that case you like to forget what IN THE END Germany Air Defence was working against russian fighters/bombers just much as against allied bombers - after all, russians was ALREADY in Germany by that time. There was a limited time when majority of fighters was commited to West Front against allied bombers - that was 1944 year. So much of it. I have nothing against naval war, but please bring the numbers of spend resources here to prove your point. Also remember, what germany fleet also operated against soviet fleet or supporting Germany war effort against USSR - allbeit MAY BE to the less extent than against GB & USA. Yes, said Luftwaffe had 2.5 mils served during the war (btw, someone here tryed to tell us what in the whole German army served only 10 millions, LOL) - but again, only in 1944 majority of the fighters was commited against GB&Britain. The majority of Luftwaffe was still deployed on the East front EVEN in this 1944 year.
Again, please, tell us how many GERMAN soldiers was deployed in Africa, how many of them was lost there.

[Grand Danois]

KK. So, you said, air company absorbed 500kk IN THE END. Thats might be true. BUT! It was the END. Not the whole 1941-1945 time. Moreover, even in that case you like to forget what IN THE END Germany Air Defence was wroking against russian fighters/bombers just much as against allied bombers - after all, russians was ALREADY in Germany by that time. There was a limited time when majority of fighters was commited to West Front against allied bombers - that was 1944 year. So much of it. I have nothing against naval war, but please bring the numbers of spend resources here to prove your point. Also remember, what germany fleet also operated against soviet fleet or supporting Germany war effort against USSR - allbeit MAY BE to the less extent than against GB & USA. Yes, said Luftwaffe had 2.5 mils served during the war (btw, someone here tryed to tell us what in the whole German army served only 10 millions, LOL) - but again, only in 1944 majority of the fighteers was commited against GB&Britain. The majority of Luftwaffe was still deployed in the East front EVEN in this 1944 year.
Again, please, tell us how many GERMAN soldiers was deployed in Africa, how many of them was lost there.

I that's the way to reason, then why not include 1939-40?

The Kriegsmarine was overwhelmingly in the West, though Armeegruppe Nord recieved some assistance.

You are correct the number varies, but Luftwaffe ground personnel fought for several years before reaching those numbers. So they invested in this instead of expanding the army. Again it is invested man-years. A soldier killed in 1940 is not going to fight another 4 years like a soldier in a FLAK unit would.

I don't have the books here and the net sucks for looking such things up. I'd estimate Luftwaffe sqns - not ground based defenses - to be 50/50 - E/W.

I think the German Army had something like 15,000,000 serving during the war.

I'm not trying to belittle the Russian sacrifice. But the metric is wrong.

[Chrom]

I that's the way to reason, then why not include 1939-40?

The Kriegsmarine was overwhelmingly in the West, though Armeegruppe Nord recieved some assistance.

You are correct the number varies, but Luftwaffe ground personnel fought for several years before reaching those numbers. So they invested in this instead of expanding the army. Again it is invested man-years. A soldier killed in 1940 is not going to fight another 4 years like a soldier in a FLAK unit would.

I don't have the books here and the net sucks for looking such things up. I'd estimate Luftwaffe sqns - not ground based defenses - to be 50/50 - E/W.

I think the German Army had something like 15,000,000 serving during the war.
All Luftwaffe personell fought during whole 1941-1945 on West Front? Or just small part? Or large part fought, but once in the blue moon?
Again, nothing wrong with 1939-1940 years. Allthought technicaly they dont contribute to USSR-Axis losses ratio (thread topic), but lets bring em here out of interest. So, Germany losses 1939-1941 in all affairs excluding USSR. Your turn. Bring numbers.

P.S. 21-22 millions - widely accepted figure. Useally it breaks out as 3.2 in Germany army service by 1939, 18-19 (depending on author) millions reqruited during 1939-1945. German ARMY alone MIGHT indeed have 15 millions served. Add Luftwaffe, SS, Kriegsmarine, etc.
I'm not trying to belittle the Russian sacrifice. But the metric is wrong.Thats how its useally end... "I dont know true number, but your's are way off becouse i dont like them".

[Grand Danois]

Again, nothing wrong with 1939-1940 years. Allthought technicaly they dont contribute to USSR-Axis losses ratio (thread topic), but lets bring em here out of interest. So, Germany losses 1939-1941 in all affairs excluding USSR. Your turn. Bring numbers.

P.S. 21-22 millions - widely accepted figure. Useally it breaks out as 3.2 in Germany army service by 1939, 18-19 (depending of author) millions reqruited during 1939-1945.

Pre-Op barbarossa is out. ;)

The number I quoted add up to around 19m for the entire war, so it is in the ballpark.

What numbers?

Btw, thread topic is: "Tactics in Korean War." That is why you cannot measure by going by war potential, but better to go by allocation per front. (Or really, a breakdown of individual campaigns.)

[Chrom]

Pre-Op barbarossa is out. ;)

The number I quoted add up to around 19m for the entire war, so it is in the ballpark.

What numbers?

Btw, thread topic is: "Tactics in Korean War." That is why you cannot measure by going by war potential, but better to go by allocation per front. (Or really, a breakdown of individual campaigns.)

Topic ;) Again, allocation per front doesnt show us true efforts. Or you must give credit to Japan to contribute 10-20% of German war effort to defeat USSR, and you must give USSR the credit to destroy Japan in 1939-1945 as very substancial part of Japan army was stationed against Soviet Far East army. If you choose the latter options, than we must add at least 1-million Japan army to the Axis figures against USSR throught 1941-1945, and same here with Iran&Turkey. In that case Axis - USSR force ratio will look even more convincing to Axis side ;) Man, why you dont understand what a division what lost 20.000 soldiers require much more resources than division what lost only 200 soldiers? And what you need 100 times MORE resources & efforts to inflict 20.000 losses than 200 losses?

But back to the TRUE topic (Korea): As first we should settle the true losses for all sides involved. I believe what USA gave quite true overall numbers for own losses, at least if the speak about manpower losses and not aircrafts and other technic. USSR had almost zero participation in Korean ground war, and they pilots losses was also not impressive. So we will exclude that. As such, only SK, NK and China left. I have seen many numbers floation around, but none can be proven ;(
And to the tactic... lets take several operations of that war and preparate them step-by-step. We'll see then what tactic each side employed.

[Grand Danois]

Topic ;) Again, allocation per front doesnt show us true efforts. Or you must give credit to Japan to contribute 10-20% of German war effort to defeat USSR, and you must give USSR the credit to destroy Japan in 1939-1945 as very substancial part of Japan army was stationed against Soviet Far East army. If you choose the latter options, than we must add at least 1-million Japan army to the Axis figures against USSR throught 1941-1945, and same here with Iran&Turkey. In that case Axis - USSR force ratio will look even more convincing to Axis side ;) Man, why you dont understand what a division what lost 20.000 soldiers require much more resources than division what lost only 200 soldiers? And what you need 100 times MORE resources & efforts to inflict 20.000 losses than 200 losses?

You set up two options. I choose neither. USSR army vs Japan was a "holiday army" until it decided to attack. The Japanese did't constitute a real threat. I have differentiated between reconstituting and fighting units all the time. It is you who want to lump them together by talking about stationed units. I am talking about fighting units. And for the Wehrmacht as a whole.

USSR army vs Japanese Manchurian - yes, but not on account of losses or because they acted like an army in being, as you want it.

Man, why you dont understand what a division what lost 20.000 soldiers require much more resources than division what lost only 200 soldiers? And what you need 100 times MORE resources & efforts to inflict 20.000 losses than 200 losses?

I do appreciate that. But you forget that Germany still allocated 2/3 of the effort to Russia. It doesn't change anything as it already accounted for. These losses are built into that number.

[Grand Danois]

No meaningful metric comes out of this type of macroscale optics. To many different things are lumped together and assumed to be homogenous. They are not. Individual battles has to be looked upon.

[eckherl]

And thanks, Eckherl, good to know the proffesionals are backing me up.:rel :smooth

So, how do I get promoted? That 'private' tag is starting to get old...

Hey - I only have made it to a PFC.:)

[Chrom]

You set up two options. I choose neither. USSR army vs Japan was a "holiday army" until it decided to attack. The Japanese did't constitute a real threat. I have differentiated between reconstituting and fighting units all the time. It is you who want to lump them together by talking about stationed units. I am talking about fighting units. And for the Wehrmacht as a whole.
Huh? How "The Japanese did't constitute a real threat" when they was exactly that? Now, consider 2 things: USSR deployed 1-million army against Japan, USSR losses was may be 20 soldiers a month there. Germany deployed (for arguments sake) 1 million army in France against allies, the losses there was maybe 1000 soldiers a month. Now, Germany deployed 4 millions army against USSR. The losses are 100.000 soldiers a month. Now, tell us the clear difference why USSR vs Japan army dont count as "fighting army", but Germany army in France do.

USSR army vs Japanese Manchurian - yes, but not on account of losses or because they acted like an army in being, as you want it. Thats even better. Now you discard even losses.
I do appreciate that. But you forget that Germany still allocated 2/3 of the effort to Russia. It doesn't change anything as it already accounted for. These losses are built into that number.
SHOW IT WITH THE NUMBERS OF LOSSES or at least other resources spend. Since i suspect what your "2/3" are made of just that - a army "strength" distribution. I proved what such distribution doesnt reflect true efforts in any way.

[Chrom]

No meaningful metric comes out of this type of macroscale optics. To many different things are lumped together and assumed to be homogenous. They are not. Individual battles has to be looked upon.
Ya, i would like to do that too. At least that would be more interesting discussion where we'll see something relating to tactic.

[Grand Danois]

Huh? How "The Japanese did't constitute a real threat" when they was exactly that? Not, consider 2 things: USSR deployed 1-million army against Japan, USSR losses was may be 20 soldiers a month there. Germany deployed (for arguments sake) 1 million army in France against allies, the losses there maybe 1000 soldiers a month. Now, Germany deployed 4 millions army against USSR. The losses are 100.000 soldiers a month. Now, tell us the clear difference why USSR vs Japan army dont count as "fighting army", but Germany army in France do.

Thats even better. Now you discard even losses.

SHOW IT WITH THE NUMBERS OF LOSSES or at least other resources spend.

Manchuria. The Japanese had neither the capability nor the intent to attack Russia. And they didn't. The Japanese knew that, the Russians knew that.

Germany actually fought France.

Re numbers. This is a qualitative argument. You can't lump campaigns and battles with different opponents with different technology in different settings - geographically and temporally - together. That is what I am saying.
We will never get to the bottom of the numbers anyway.

[Grand Danois]

Ya, i would like to do that too. At least that would be more interesting discussion where we'll see something relating to tactic.

Sorry. Didn't see that, repeated myself.

[Chrom]

Manchuria. The Japanese had neither the capability nor the intent to attack Russia. And they didn't. The Japanese knew that, the Russians knew that.

Germany actually fought France.

Re numbers. This is a qualitative argument. You can't lump campaigns and battles with different opponents with different technology in different settings - geographically and temporally - together. That is what I am saying.
We will never get to the bottom of the numbers anyway.

Thats what i tryed to tell you - but you dont understand. You cant jump 1/3 German forces in Western Europe what are hardly fire a bullet once a day with 2/3 German forces in East Front what are constantly got massacred. They are simply not comparable.
"Different opponents with different technology in different settings - geographically and temporally - together" !

[Grand Danois]

Thats what i tryed to tell you - but you dont understand. You cant jump 1/3 German forces in Western Europe what are hardly fire a bullet once a day with 2/3 German forces in East Front what are constantly got massacred. They are simply not comparable.
"Different opponents with different technology in different settings - geographically and temporally - together" !

Wrong again. We are not in agreement neither qualitatively nor quantitatively.

Units in active combat. Repeat units in active combat.

You are playing semantics.

[Grand Danois]

Regarding the 500,000 I was talking about. I was wrong. It was more.

Gunzinger, A. p.3 The air front played a decisive role in the defeat of Germany. Allied air attacks forced Germany to dedicate vast amounts of manpower and resources to continental air defense, reducing the Germans’ ability to fully support land operations. By 1944 over 800,000 Germans were committed to air defense, including the crews of about 54,000 antiaircraft guns; furthermore, a million Germans were engaged in repairing damage caused by air strikes. In fact, Germany dedicated more forces to air defense than it deployed to counter the Allied campaign in Italy. The air war also caused a significant shift in Germany’s resource priorities. In 1944 more than half of Germany’s industrial base was working to satisfy the Luftwaffe’s needs. Albert Speer, architect of the German war economy, estimated that 30 percent of artillery, 20 percent of heavy ammunition, and over 50 percent of electronics production were dedicated to air defense, depriving frontline ground forces of critical antitank munitions and communications equipment. Production of antitank guns was halved in favor of building more antiaircraft guns.

History of the Luftwaffe during World War II - Defense of the Reich 1940-45 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Luftwaffe_during_World_War_II#Defen se_of_the_Reich_1940-45)

[Grand Danois]

This is actually a interesting read regarding tactics of Soviet Armies inferred from the Manchurian Campaign:


The Soviet Army Offensive: Manchuria, 1945 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm)
CSC 1986
SUBJECT AREA History

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE SOVIET ARMY OFFENSIVE: MANCHURIA, 1945
1. Purpose: To create interest among students of modern
warfare to study a relatively unknown Soviet campaign in
Manchuria, 1945.
2. Thesis: The Soviet offensive in Manchuria during August
1945 provides an excellent model of current Soviet Army
tactics for students of modern warfare.

[...]

I am noting that the Japanese got spanked severely by Zhukov in 1939, so the Japanese knew they where in trouble.

With a sizeable force already in Mongolia, the Soviet
Union assigned command of the Soviet forces to General
Georgi K. Zhukov on 2 June 1939. [15-156] While the
escalating border clashes continued, General Zhukov began a
stealthful force build-up along the Khalkin-Gol River. In
the 1904 Sino-Soviet War, Russia learned a bitter lesson
over its inability to maintain superior forces at the end of
a 4000 mile long logistics trail. [15-154] With the Trans-
Siberian railroad incomplete, Russia was unable to reinforce
and resupply Czarist troops by land or sea. [15-154] Zhukov
was determined to launch a crushing offensive against the
Japanese, but not before achieving a sizeable force ratio in
his distinct favor. Facing 30,000 Japanese soldiers.
Zhukov built his forces up to 35 infantry battalions and
over 57,000 men under rigorous security and deception
measures. [4-9]. He achieved a force ratio of 4:1 in tanks
and 2:1 in aircraft. [15-156] Although the front was
located 400 miles from the nearest railroad, he ensured
everything was trucked in during darkness. By late June, the
Soviets established air superiority in air battles involving
200 to 300 aircraft. [15-157] When he attacked the Japanese
on 20 August 1939, he achieved complete tactical surprise
and by 3l August, had driven back the Japanese with classic
double envelopment tactics using armor and heavy
concentrations of artillery. When the cease-fire took
effect on l6 September 1939, the Japanese had suffered a
phenomenal 75% casualties with over 17,000 men killed or
wounded. (13-15] The Soviets reported 9,284 killed or
wounded at the battle's end.

The Japanese realize their inferiority to the extent that they even sign a neutrality pact:

The devastating effectiveness of Russian armor at
Nomonhan swayed Japanese sentiment to build up their tank
forces to ten divisions. However, at the start of the
Pacific War, they had yet to activate a single tank
division. As evidenced by the vicious defense of the
Japanese Army in the Pacific Islands during World War II,
the border clashes only reinforced the value of the
indomitable Samurai fighting spirit--fight to the death.
War-fighting concerns in other theaters of the world and
these rapidly escalating combat actions between the Soviets
and the Japanese in Manchuria lead to the signing of the
Neutrality Pact of 1941.

Even though the USSR had 40 divisions already in theatre they had to reinforce them in order to beat the 24 IJA divisions in Manchuria.

In April 1945, the Soviets abrogated the Neutrality
Pact and commenced a massive redeployment effort which
doubled the Soviet forces in the Far East to 80 divisions.
During the months of May-July 1945, more than 40 infantry,
tank and mechanized divisions plus artillery and combat
support units were transferred from the European theater to
the Far East.


Evaluation of the threat the Kwantung Army posed.

The threat which kept 40 Soviet divisions, including
two tank divisions, from the European front was the
Kwangtung Army. In existence since 1919, the Kwangtung Army
was more than 1 million men strong in early 1941. [10-25]
Manchuria represented the breadbasket and military warehouse
for the Japanese armed forces. However, as the Allied
effort in the Pacific war intensified, the Japanese Imperial
General Headquarters began to withdraw elite divisions from
the Kwantury Army to counter the Allied threat elsewhere.
By early 1943, the Japanese had approximately 600,000 troops
protecting Manchuria against an estimated 750,000 Soviet
troops deployed on its borders. [18-11] Approaching the end
of 1944, this former vanguard of Japanese military prowess
found its strength reduced half again from its number in
December 1942. [18-118] The Japanese Army was short in more
than manpower. They were severely deficient in aircraft,
engineer support, communications and armor. What few tanks
the Japanese did possess were armed with 57mm guns and were
grossly overmatched by the Soviet T-34's.

But the presence of 40 divisions are more about long term goals.

Despite the relative security of the Neutrality Pact
with Japan and the war raging on her European doorstep, the
Soviet Union held forty divisions on it's Manchurian border
to counter the offensive threat posed by the Kwangtung Army.
[10-25] Stalin was determined to eventually enter the war
against Japan to achieve several strategic objectives in the
Far East. He wished to reestablish Russian influence, rail
and base rights in Manchuria, consolidate the Soviets'
position in Mongolia and ensure Soviet presence and
influence in the Northern Pacific. By the eviction of the
Japanese, Stalin would pre-empt any western presence in the
North Asian contineent and seize the entire Sakhalin
peninsula and Kurile Islands from Japan [8-174].

Etc.

Due to the extreme reduction in strength and armaments,
the Kwangtung Army adopted a new operations plan in May
1945. It called for a delaying action along the border,
withdrawal to subsequent prepared defensive lines and
finally to a stronghold area in southeastern Manchuria for a
final defensive action approximately 650 kilometers from the
northern and western borders. [10-34]
The Kwangtung Army believed that the terrain, long
distances involved and determined Japanese resistance would
weaken the attacking Soviet forces by the time they reached
the final defensive positions and their advance would be
stopped and possibly subjected to a decisive counterattack.
In this plan only one-third of the Japanese Army would be
positioned on the border and the remainder deployed in
depth. [10-34]
In order to prevent the Russians from discovering their
alarming weakness in Manchuria, the Kwangtung Army mobilized
reservists and new recruits to form new divisions and
brigades to maintain the appearance of a formidable fighting
force. In early July 1945, the Kwangtung Army was expanded
from 11 infantry divisions to more than 24 divisions.
Unfortunately for the Kwangtung Army, more than one-fourth
of its entire combat force was mobilized only ten days prior
to the Soviet offensive (8 of 24 divisions and 7 of 9
brigades). [4-63] One of two very weak tank brigades was
not formed until July 1945, and both brigades were far
removed in south central Manchuria. [9-63]

Basically a Sitzkrieg until 1945 when Stalin decides to void the Neutrality Pact and attack


No fighting until after the European War is over.


Maskirovka!


Cheers!

[eckherl]

This is actually a interesting read regarding tactics of Soviet Armies inferred from the Manchurian Campaign:



I am noting that the Japanese got spanked severely by Zhukov in 1939, so the Japanese knew they where in trouble.



The Japanese realize their inferiority to the extent that they even sign a neutrality pact:



Even though the USSR had 40 divisions already in theatre they had to reinforce them in order to beat the 24 IJA divisions in Manchuria.



Evaluation of the threat the Kwantung Army posed.



But the presence of 40 divisions are more about long term goals.



Etc.



Basically a Sitzkrieg until 1945 when Stalin decides to void the Neutrality Pact and attack


No fighting until after the European War is over.


Maskirovka!


Cheers!


Yep - Stalin and Truman really had their poker faces on with this last act of WW2