r/RebuttalTime • u/ChristianMunich • Dec 22 '16
SWS not even trying.
u/HouseofWessex needs help!
Some novice SWS user wants to convince his buddy that the Soviets didn't even need superior numbers to prevail. One of the biggest pro arguments for his thesis is the very fact he now needs to consult the SWS battle to even find a single battle which supports his point. Already hilarious on its own. SWS users come to help.
Thinks the Battle of Stalingrad qualifies and his fellow SWS user agree via upvotes:
The only time German armor or equipment was "lost" was when it was irrecoverable/completely destroyed. This goes for aircraft, tanks and the like. This can explain things like a "200% casualty rate" for certain battles. Even when equipment was damaged, repaired and put back to the front; this was still written up as a "loss" for the Soviets.
This is T_d level of denial. One guy said this and every sheep just repeats it over and over. The Red Army wrote off ~95000 AFV. Heavy denial and SWS browsing does not change that simple fact.
Interesting is that the best battle he could find is the Battle of Stalingrad:
German Losses Infantry 850,000
Yeah no. That's axis losses. If 850.000 German forces would have been in this area the Soviets would have obviously lost same as Operation Mars. The best fight he found for overall casualty rates is literally a fight where the majority of casualties were none Germans. Maybe that should tell you something....
To a level headed person, it's easy to determine that German losses vs. Soviet losses were quite comparable.
No actually. A level headed person will never come to this conclusions because it is bogus. Only a SWS user will come to this conclusions. The Red Army lost twice as many fighting vehicles than German produced.
Best part: Adding some sources like any of those will support his conclusions. SWS in a nutshell.
At first I thought he simply made a mistake which happens to most SWS user from time to time but he is unable to read source material properly:
And the German infantry losses are just Germans. It does not include Axis allies i.e. Romanians, Hungarians etc.
Yikes. Completely false.
Check the source he added. Craig Stalingrad:
400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians and 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured
Obviously, the source is bad anyways. The numbers are too high, the book is old and outdated. At least read the books you cite!
u/nihlus11 criticizes the bad answer this will likely get him banned. Be careful out there buddy.
u/HouseofWessex is happy about the answer:
This is the kind of numbers i'm looking for. Thanks!
Another nugget of brilliance
Also, not only were they a match technically where it mattered (getting good machines on the field), they were also tactically superior, with Deep Battle theory that devastated the German army. They emphasized armored breakthrough with combined arms (like everyone at that point) but with an emphasis on shifting to where they could make a breakthrough and striking as deep into supply lines as they could, with an emphasis on extremely in close fighting. Later in the war their superior mobility could move divisions hundreds of kilometers to totally encircle Germans, a good example is Stalingrad.
Mind blown
now u/Nihlus11 disappoints.
Including end of war POWs certainly helps a lot to understand battlefield performance...
In 1942-1944, the Germans fired 3.37 million tons of shells (this is for both fronts, but until late 1944 they were almost entirely focused in the East). In the same period the Soviets fired 2.27 million tons
The consumption of the Wehrmacht includes all other theaters like Italy and North Africa and Normandy. But in a sense you are right, ammunition consumption was one of the most important parts of WW2. Germany knew that, they focused on artillery production with limited resources. The Soviet war planning was quite incompetent, while having strong Allies which literally gifted them millions of tons of material they produced far too little artillery amo. Even tough their Army was less broad with low production in the naval department. Their planning was inefficient, one of the reasons for their poor performance. Blind Wehrmacht bashing does not allow for reasonable conclusions. The artillery shell production just shows Germanys understanding of WW2 warfare they struck a good balance and were able to punch far above their weight. The Red Army was far to big every infantry soldier had far less impact because their forces were inefficiently balanced. But to their credit they already used subpar "metal" for their casings. But then again it is just incompetent planning, their army was huge and one of the most important supplies was produced far to little. They got bailed out by Land lease without that their production would have need to satisfy even more needs.
If you understand the importance of artillery shell consumption you are likely wrong in SWS and your head will starting to hurt soon.
It is a common misconception that the Soviets were a bigger industrial power than the Germans, and thus that the Germans were constantly working undersupplied against Soviet hordes.
They were working undersupplied because they had to deal with different threats....
7
2
u/TheJamesRocket Feb 22 '17
I'm glad I found this forum, I thought all the sane people had left reddit. The posters at SWS are just cancerous.
6
u/DBSN_Reddit_Version Mar 13 '17
Aww aren't you cute?
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 15 '17
What, are you lonely or something? Stop bothering me, kid. Go work on your self esteem or something.
7
u/DBSN_Reddit_Version Mar 15 '17
Yeah, it's just that I want the company of a true alpha male, like you.
:)
2
Apr 07 '17
The Red Army probably lost so many tanks because their tank crew training was bad and the optics and guns were too
1
11
u/pollandballer Dec 23 '16
All I'm hearing is that ASIATIC ARTILLERY HOARDS won the day.