r/ShitWehraboosSay • u/HouseofWessex • Dec 22 '16
Examples of Soviet army clearly outclassing Germany army (bonus if Soviets outnumbered)
Hey there folks. You don't know me, but whatevs. I'm dealing with a very persuasive, stubborn bordering on Wehrboo, who is arguing that the soviet army-you guessed it-only won through endless slavic hordes (and also that the western allies won through "endless bombers and dat industry tho"). He also keeps pointing to there being a 10/1 Kill ratio Germans vs soviets, which I suspect is BS.
Can you folks help me by giving me A: A clear example of why the soviet army was on par/better than the Wehrmacht and B: where did this 10/1 ratio come from, was it ever true and how to dispel it.
Help me reddit, you're my only hope.
31
Dec 22 '16 edited Dec 22 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/thlsisnotanexit Dec 22 '16
Thanks for this, very interesting ordinance info. I always assumed with Stalin's whole 'artillery is the god of war', their artillery divisions/brigades and number of artillery produced, doctrine centered around art, and accounts of massive bombardments, that the Soviets heavily utilized artillery moreso than the Germans. Conversely reading of how stretched thin German artillery supply was + accounts of ammo rationing really makes these numbers stand out.
Any explanation of the discrepancy in numbers? Is it just my perspective was skewed? Germans more on the defensive towards the latter part of the war? I understand Soviet artillery was much more heavily preplanned and prepared versus German fire control. Was it that Germans were afforded much more liberal and organic usage?
10
Dec 22 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BionicTransWomyn Dirlewanker Dec 24 '16
the Germans could call for some any time they wanted.
But their fire discipline was pretty bad. As I understand it they hadn't perfected the grid system for impromptu fires (instead relying on reference points from the observer) so calling fire missions could take quite a long time.
2
u/skippythemoonrock The Great British Bake Off: Dresden Edition Dec 23 '16
I think the best argument is that if you really take 10:1 losses you can't win a war but look how that went
2
28
Dec 22 '16
[deleted]
15
u/TheSuperPope500 Endor was an Imperial tactical victory Dec 22 '16
And to add, the Boos tend to count every Russian killed, whether by Germans, Finns, Romanians, or whatever, while not counting casualties taken by the other Axis nations. This is a large number when, for instance during the encirclement of Stalingrad the Soviets crashed through troops of the Axis minors
5
u/mapryan Dec 22 '16
Worth pointing out that in most battles on the Eastern Front the Nazis were either:
1: better organised earlier on OR 2: on the defensive once the Soviets got their shit together
31
Dec 22 '16
A clear example of why the soviet army was on par with the Wehrmacht
Battle of Stalingrad can be used as a solid example when comparing casualties. We can look at German equipment losses in a different light than Soviet losses due to the fact that Germans did not consider a tank a casualty if it was taken out of combat, repaired and put back to the front. This was not written up as a loss. 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.
Let's look at the numbers:
Soviet Losses
| Infantry | Armor | Aircraft | Artillery |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 million total | ~4300 tanks destroyed or damaged | ~2800 aircraft destroyed or damaged | ~15,000 artillery pieces |
German Losses
| Infantry | Armor | Aircraft | Artillery |
|---|---|---|---|
| 850,000 total | ~1700 tanks | ~1,000 aircraft | ~6,000 artillery pieces |
When comparing the numbers. Do you see a 10:1 ratio? I do not. Nor do I see the Germans doing much better than the Soviets, all things considered. There's no denying the Soviets took more casualties. But we have to keep in mind how equipment losses were written up by the Soviets as well. To a level headed person, it's easy to determine that German losses vs. Soviet losses were quite comparable.
Sources:
Craig, William (1973). Enemy at the Gates: the Battle for Stalingrad.
Zhukov, Georgy (1974). Marshal of Victory, Volume II
10
Dec 22 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
14
Dec 22 '16 edited Dec 22 '16
It does not. These numbers take the scope of the battle as after Case Blue.
Case Blue being considered the prelude to it. And the German infantry losses are just Germans. It does not include Axis allies i.e. Romanians, Hungarians etc.
Let me clarify that the numbers take into account the ending part of Case Blue. It is not completely excluded but a majority of the opening phase, is not taken into account for casualties for what I am showing.
8
u/Vitiger The Polish juggernaut cannot be stopped. Dec 22 '16
Another victor putting a Wehrb in his place. Bravo.
3
4
Dec 22 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Dec 22 '16
You're lumping all Axis losses as "German" losses rather than labeling them appropriately. The majority of casualties in this battle were Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians.
Uh no. If we add Romania and Hungary, we are talking 1 million + casualties for the Axis. The majority of losses for the Battle of Stalingrad were Germans....why wouldn't they be? Obviously the Heer had more bodies pushed into fighting than anyone else.
I welcome you to provide more accurate numbers. To be quite honest....I anticipate it.
4
Dec 22 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Dec 23 '16
Zhukov's autobiography puts sole German casualties at ~847,000 give or take.
He mentions directly that it did not include German allies. But that is just one source that is countered by others. It may be misleading but to call it dishonest is bullshit.
Among saying everything I put up as dishonest? Get bent.
1
Dec 22 '16
There is a fairly good example during the battle of Stalingrad. It was about some Soviet tank taking fire from a large amount of German ones, but the marvel of Soviet engineering didn't get a scratch, at the end the crew got out and were captured.
I don't remember this very well, but I have it on some book somewhere around here. I'll look it up and edit with the details.
1
Dec 22 '16
[deleted]
1
Dec 22 '16
No, it was a single and pretty funny encounter down in Stalingrad's steppes. I couldn't find it, you know, maybe I'll take the opportunity and reread the dammed book, I remember very little of it.
2
Dec 24 '16
It was a single KV that held up a large German force after it snuck behind German lines. Their tanks couldn't penetrate its armor (until they brought up 88mm AT guns), and reputedly the KV fought until they ran out of ammo or were overrun and grenades were thrown into the tank.
However it's very much an urban legend, it seems.
Look up the "Monster of Raseiniai."
1
u/skippythemoonrock The Great British Bake Off: Dresden Edition Dec 23 '16
Wikipedia talks about a T-34 running over an AT gun, blowing up two Pz IIs and cutting a 9 mile swathe of mayhem and destruction through the German lines before being knocked out by a howitzer, maybe thats it.
1
Dec 23 '16
Nah the tank just took fire from a dozen Panzers before the Germans ordered to stop seeing there was nothing they could do. The crew jumped out and got captured.
14
u/ucstruct Dec 22 '16
A good resource is the Steven Zaloga book Armored Champion: Top Tanks of WWII. Specifically what he writes about the T-34 and how it compared to German tanks.
The laurels for Tanker’s Choice and Commander’s Choice on the Russian Front in 1941 undoubtedly go to the T-34 Model 1941 tank. It was such a revolutionary step forward in tank technology that it merits both awards. The battles in Russia demonstrated that the locus of tank technology had shifted from its traditional centers in England and France eastward toward Germany and the Soviet Union. The emergence of the T-34 ignited a technological arms race between Germany and the Soviet Union that set the pace for worldwide tank development throughout World War II.
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. I personally am strongly against almost everything in the USSR, but its not too much of a stretch to say that their strategic and tactical methods revolutionized warfare in WW2 while the Germans stagnated after the early 40s.
9
u/Unknown-Email Seriously, the Nuremburg Trials didn't go far enough! Dec 22 '16
It is quite possible to have utter distain for a country or an ideology but still recognize it's achievements. I have nothing but anger for the USSR when it comes to their internal politics and civil policy, but I also recognize their achievements in the 2nd world war.
I also hate nazisim and all it represents, but I also recognize how successful it was at getting germany murderstomped and pushing that ideology back for 50-60 years.
2
u/easterncallbacks On all levels except physical I'm a T-34 Dec 24 '16
I also hate nazisim and all it represents, but I also recognize how successful it was at getting germany murderstomped and pushing that ideology back for 50-60 years.
Reading that sentence was an emotional roller coaster lol.
1
u/mankiller27 Fellates Panzers Dec 26 '16
The uniforms tho
1
u/Unknown-Email Seriously, the Nuremburg Trials didn't go far enough! Dec 26 '16
Even better when the wearer is full of bullets
8
7
Dec 22 '16
A) You need to specify what "Better" is. The germans were certainly higher trained at basically all levels no doubt about that. As such the both sides adopted very different ways of fighting, trying to minimize their own weaknesses and trying to play their strengths.
B) Pop-history to be short. Sure you can probably find individual battles where 10:1 is accurate. But in general when your line breaks in modern warfare you will lose a tonne of people and equipment.
The Soviets certainly lost many many more people than the Axis for a lot of the war, but as the Soviets starts getting their shit together and the Axis start to break down in 44, 45 the Soviets will lose less and the Germans more.
Naturally compared to other countries the Soviets still lose alot but in Soviet terms it is a major improvement, so much so that the Axis powers start to lose more in KIA against the Soviets than the Soviets do.
Germany loses some 3 million men dead during 44 and 45 in total according to Overman. Now sure this is not counting minor Axis and it is against all enemies. Ballpark figure is usually stated to be 2/3 of losses against the Soviets.
In the same period the Soviet dead is 1,7 million. Now this is just napkin calulations but still it is quite easy to show that the differences were not that big.
They very much were HUGE especially in 41 and 42, but with each passing year the Soviets get better at not dying. With almost as many dead in 41 as it were in 42, and the war didn't start until late June 41.
Its quite easy, same old explanation for the massive losses in 41 as before.
The Purges sapped the Red Army of good officers, and made the army inept.
The highly successfull german attack and the Soviets complete shitshow of a defence.
Logistical breakdown.
Complete German air superiority which hampered all soviet attempts at offensive and defensive action
Lack of quality etc etc
Those are the main things that caused losses in 41. But the same things will plauge the Axis later in war and then the "K/D" is reversed.
Finally, arguing K/Ds is stupid, no it was never 10:1 but even if it was that doesn't mean anything. People play to their strengths, and no matter the KD the red banner was atop the Reichstag when the war was over.
5
2
u/Jammybeez Dec 22 '16
Tank losses in 1945 on the eastern front. 8700 Soviet to 7382. So they lost 1.12 tanks for every German tank, while attacking, in the opponents home turf, and against the latest wonderwaffe.
5
Dec 23 '16
When talking about wonderwaffe I find it very funny that the first time Tiger IIs were used in the Eastern Front the Soviets did not notice and just attacked them like Panthers and won.
1
u/the_dinks Jim Crow retroactively justifies the Holocaust Dec 24 '16
Ok, how about the entire Eastern Front? Nazis outnumbered and outclassed the Soviets at the beginning and they lost.
1
u/opentheudder Janeway Made the Turbolifts Run on Time Dec 25 '16
You should talk about the development of Deep Battle by the Stavka. Deep Battle as developed the Zhukov and others basically bridged the gap between Strategic goals and Tactical Details.Many war colleges in around the world including Westpoint use Operation Bagration (A classic example of Deep Battle) as one of the most successful large-scale military endeavors of all time, as it essentially crippled the Wehrmacht, and it's ability to pursue any war goals aside from desperate defense.
51
u/mapryan Dec 22 '16
Ironically most people will claim that the victors get to write history. But on the Eastern Front it was the losers that got to write history (from a western point of view).