Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Yes they are. I have said nothing about where the war ended, but your one for changing subject when you know you can't refute data.

Still clinging to the old dead Red Enron, I mean Russia heheh

Germans were winning the war of atrition 3.5 to 1.

The data is the data and can't be refuted, changing the subject is not an answer.

Stalins dead.

The truth can be speaken without getting shot now.

Its ok, hehehehe

Pelton

No matter how you calculate it whole German male population that was able to join German army of any branch ended up either being killed or prisoner of war in the end. War of attrition ended German defeat because there was no more German population to be killed or taken as prisoner.

While Soviet population didn’t data I provided in my earlier post Axis side was only able to cause 1/3 more casualties than Soviet side in the end (at eastern front).

ORIGINAL: Marquo

4/5 of all German losses were incurred on the Eastern Front; the west was a glorious side show.

Marquo

IIRC, the West was considered a rest area/reserve for the War in the East.

So many died that many if not most tombstones say simply "Died in the East."

ORIGINAL: Marquo

4/5 of all German losses were incurred on the Eastern Front; the west was a glorious side show. My father was a second lieutenant in the US 65th ID, and to this day, in his 90th decade, he is still thankful that the Soviets, not the Allies, fought the final Battle of Berlin.

Marquo

My grandfather lost a leg to Germans during St-Lo battle.

You guys are taking this like some person assault, heheheh

Chill out.

All side are more then thankfull for everyones help, that goes without saying.

I am making the more then clear point based on data that Russia was losing the war of atrition vs Germany.

Everyone knows that the Western allies could not have taken out Germany solo, but the same is also true of Russia.

Stalins myth of unending Russian manpower was and has always been a big fat lie.

Anyone that can +, - and / can see it in the numbers. It has nothing to do with personal options, German/Russian/American propaganda.

I am just stating a fact of WW 2 history.

You can disagree, but that would be based on option and not fact.

Germany could have defeated the Western allies or Russia one at a time.

Stalins dead poeple do not need to cling to Red myths for fear of getting shot.

Pelton

This can't be refuted its just the facts.

Fact #1 German population 85 million.
Fact #2 Russian population 170 million.
fact #3 ratio 2 to 1
Fact #4 German KIA 2.4 million 41 to 44
Fact #5 Russian KIA 9 to 11 million 41 to 44
Fact #6 ratio 3.5 to 1 atleast.
Fact #7 based on the first 6 facts that can't be refuted based on data and not old Stalin myth's. Germany was winning the war of arttiton vs Russia. The only thing that saved Russia was England and USA pulling over a million men from the eastern front.

1+1=2 this can't be refuted.

Pelton

Question.

Who killed more Russians?

A. Stalin

or

B. Germans

Sadly Russia still has not recovered from the both of them. The total population of Russia after 60 yrs in 2002 finaly equaled 1940 levels.

The Russian poeple gave more then most for sure.

Pelton

Pelton, you forget that the objectives of war are always political, the numbers do not matter if your enemy loses the will to fight. The Germans were more efficient in their warfare, but the Red Army was still marching on Berlin in '45.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sadly Russia still has not recovered from the both of them. The total population of Russia after 60 yrs in 2002 finaly equaled 1940 levels.

Pelton

Russian population 2002: 145 million
Russian population 1940: 110 million
Source: Wikipedia, "Demographics of Russia"

Russian population 2000:146 million
Russian population 1939: 109 million
Source: http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/ ... russia.htm

Pelton doesn't seem to read anything but his own posts.

ORIGINAL: Karri

Pelton doesn't seem to read anything but his own posts.

Or what this thread has to do with the game.

Pelton, once again you sort of border on interesting but really show a lack of knowledge about military operations in general or the East front in particular. Just to make it really simple for you, for the majority of the conflict, the germans were on the strategic DEFENSIVE. look at the ops maps of where major action was occuring. it is a steady march west from the end of 42 on. they were trading space for casualties and forcing the russians to attack more or less prepared positions constantly. but it doesn't take a napolean to realize that this is not a war-winning strategy right?

this is something you just don't get about the war, with your incessant panzer-pusher attitude. the war was, from the very first moment, about when the russians would take berlin. that is what the german player is playing for! its like you are playing football, and want a way to win in the first half just because you are ahead by some score.

Also you have to factor in the other "Soviet Republics" for population. The USSR was not just Russian, but the United Soviet Socialist Republic.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

yes true, to bad the German MG-43 which the russians copied and called the AK-47

lolwut?

I assume Pelton talks about the Sturmgewehr 44 AKA MP 43/44. AK-47 was not a copy but it used some design elements.

The AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of the M1 Garand/M1 carbine, the safety mechanism of the John Browning designed Remington Model 8 rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44. Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle. Kalashnikov himself observed: "A lot of [Soviet Army soldiers] ask me how one can become a constructor, and how new weaponry is designed. These are very difficult questions. Each designer seems to have his own paths, his own successes and failures. But one thing is clear: before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field. I myself have had many experiences confirming this to be so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

Yeah, the Russians copied everything from the Germans. Like how the T-34 was designed to take on the Panther.... Oh, wait.

Lucky for us, they didn't copy how the Germans lost two world wars.....

The Cold War is long over. Some don't want to move on.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Denniss

I assume Pelton talks about the Sturmgewehr 44 AKA MP 43/44. AK-47 was not a copy but it used some design elements.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of the M1 Garand/M1 carbine, the safety mechanism of the John Browning designed Remington Model 8 rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44. Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle. Kalashnikov himself observed: "A lot of [Soviet Army soldiers] ask me how one can become a constructor, and how new weaponry is designed. These are very difficult questions. Each designer seems to have his own paths, his own successes and failures. But one thing is clear: before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field. I myself have had many experiences confirming this to be so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

Yeah, the Russians copied everything from the Germans. Like how the T-34 was designed to take on the Panther.... Oh, wait.

Lucky for us, they didn't copy how the Germans lost two world wars.....

The Cold War is long over. Some don't want to move on.

Yep... the AK-47 only externally resembles the German "Sturmgewehr 44" - the internals are different (and are best of everything they could get their hand on)... [:D]

Is this copy & paste?

IMHO not because that's the way best designs are made (you don't "reinvent the wheel" - you put together in inventive fashion the product that was never before combined in such manner)!

BTW, let us not forget that Soviets were very very very good weapon designers - they had most excellent designs in almost every field of weaponry and / or weapon system in WWII! [;)]

Last but not least, the T-44 tank (although never actually used in combat but built in at least 1000 items by the end of WWII) was something that wasn't matched by any side in WWII - it was so advanced and so armored / lethal that it was used until our day (as T-54/T-55)!


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Fact #1 German population 85 million.
Fact #2 Russian population 170 million.
fact #3 ratio 2 to 1
Fact #4 German KIA 2.4 million 41 to 44
Fact #5 Russian KIA 9 to 11 million 41 to 44
Fact #6 ratio 3.5 to 1 atleast.
Fact #7 based on the first 6 facts that can't be refuted based on data and not old Stalin myth's. Germany was winning the war of arttiton vs Russia. The only thing that saved Russia was England and USA pulling over a million men from the eastern front.

Sorry to say but your facts are wrong I already answered you in other thread why they are wrong (with sources) but here is short summary:

Germany lost 4 million as KIA at eastern front.

Soviet lost 6.8 million as KIA.

Rest of Soviet losses are not calculated in killed in action becouse they were unarmed Soviet prisoners killed in German POW camps they did not die in combat. How they died while in captivity had nothing to do with combat or military skill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Fr ... Casualties

If you reduce effect of suprice actual combat was pretty even and casulties too there were numerous battles at eastern front were Germany lost more men than Soviets.

I have to wonder what the point of this thread is anyway?

The one who wins the war of attrition is the one who can afford to fight it.

And the Axis couldn't afford it.

Any more than Pyrrhus of Epirus could.

the main problem of germans were hitlers strategic mistakes.

just look at the numbers of the sowiet offensive actions in 44-45. the red army had most of the time only a 2:1 superiority in men. the wehrmacht could handle that BUT just look at this example:

mid 44 most of the mighty german panzerwaffe was in ukraine. why? because hitler expected the major sowiet attack there although his intel said something different. the heeresgruppe mitte was weak compared with the heeresgruppe nordukraine.

the sowiets attacked first against the weak HGM and then when model was transfering troops from HG N ukraine to the middle they attacked in ukraine. most of the best german divisions were on the way from one front to other one and missed both battles.

the numbers were n.p for the wehrmacht. we can be glad that hitler was such a idiot in his decisions.

Bigbaba, you realize that what happened in 44 was a result of a massive and highly successful maskirovka operation?

Everyone was taken in by it, not just Hitler, and including the much ballyhoed Richard Gehlen, who swallowed this deception hook, line and sinker. They thought the Soviets were going south first and made their dispositions accordingly, because the Soviets created the impression that was going to happen.

All this is just another way of saying: the Soviets did not rely on numbers alone. By 1944 they had mastered the ability of generating operational and strategic surprise and could create local superiority as needed.

thats all right. the sowiets were masters of concentration of forces ina tiny 5-6  km wide breakthrough point and also in hiding the troop concentration. i read that stalin was fanatic to know how many tanks, men and artillery were concentrated per front km.

one point i must correct a little bit. thats true that the "abteilung fremde heere ost" (gehlen), the OKW, OKH and hitler were thinking that the russians will attack in urkaine (thanks to the operation maskirovka) but the front commanders of the HGM reported from juni 10th until the beginning of the offensive that they expect a attack in their sector.

good for the sowiets and us that the german high command didnt pay any attention to their reports.

Yes, the local unit commanders in AGC knew something was up. But they couldn't bust through the preconceived notions of the high command, and their own AG commander Busch didn't really press the case very hard.