The amount of Soviet Spuads

War in Russia is a free update of the old classic, available in our Downloads section.
Post Reply
Optha
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Delmenhorst,Niedersachsen,Germany
Contact:

The amount of Soviet Spuads

Post by Optha »

Ive played the 41 campain from 6/22/41 till 9/21/41. The Soviet lose about 48.000 Spuads, most by surrenderd forces, some by shattering and a few in combat. When i checked the reservepool of the Soviets the AI have more than 28.000 Spuads there. A little surprised ive take a look on his forces, and even near all Division have more than 240 Spuads, only a couple are fresh bild with about 180-210.
Allover, i guess 50% of the losed and the Troops in the pool are 52.000 Spuads he gets in 13 weeks..
4.000 Spuads á 50 men means 200.000 men per week, 10,4 Mio per Year, an so on....

A cheat or a bug?


PS: I am looking for an PBEM-Opponent

------------------
RickyB
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Denver, CO USA

Post by RickyB »

Originally posted by Optha:
Ive played the 41 campain from 6/22/41 till 9/21/41. The Soviet lose about 48.000 Spuads, most by surrenderd forces, some by shattering and a few in combat. When i checked the reservepool of the Soviets the AI have more than 28.000 Spuads there. A little surprised ive take a look on his forces, and even near all Division have more than 240 Spuads, only a couple are fresh bild with about 180-210.
Allover, i guess 50% of the losed and the Troops in the pool are 52.000 Spuads he gets in 13 weeks..
4.000 Spuads á 50 men means 200.000 men per week, 10,4 Mio per Year, an so on....

A cheat or a bug?


PS: I am looking for an PBEM-Opponent
Actually, the numbers you show sound very realistic to me, although I doubt anyone including the Soviets knew how many men actually got called up, with so many being called up on the fly. The Soviets went through at least 25-30 million soldiers total during the war, so a rate of 10 million a year at first is probably right. The replacements drop off quite a bit in the game after the first year, so this rate does not continue, and the reserve pool does not go over 30,000 - any extra are lost forever.

The next release will have a lower replacement rate so the pool will not grow as large as fast.


------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi


Image

Optha
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Delmenhorst,Niedersachsen,Germany
Contact:

Post by Optha »

The Germans managed to capture about 1.9 Mio soldiers in 3 big encircles ( Army Group Center in the first weeks, later by capture Kiev and the by starting the offensive for taking Moskau). Allover the Russian have had problems to reinforce their divisions in late 41. The secound line of defence near Moskau were allmost Troops from far East. In mid 42 their spuads missing about 1/3 of the heavy weapons, they should have. Sure, it wasn´t a lack of man, but a lack of hand-held-weapons..
Yogi Yohan
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Yogi Yohan »

According to Alan Clarke's "Barbarossa", at the time of the battle of Moscow the Red Army suffered from a shortage not only of war materials of every kind, but also of manpower.

Since the Soviets later mobilisied such prodigious numbers of soldiers, it would be reasonable to assume that the men were there, but had not yet recieved proper training to make them useful as soldiers.
Rover1gp
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 10:00 am
Location: boise. id

Post by Rover1gp »

The number of squads are not surpising to me and they do sound right. on june 22 1941 the Red Army had 4,700,000 men under arms. The following December they had 2,300,000 men. Which was the lowest level for them. By the end of 1943 they had close to 5 million men under arms comprising 513 infantry divisons 290 armored and mechanised brigades and 41 cavalry divisons. In june 1941 they had 175 infantry divisons 78 tank and mech brigades and 30 cavalry divison.

The Germans netted 3.5 million prisoners or more, depending on which source you look at, in the first two years of the war. plus add to theses figures that the Red Army could well have loss 25 million men during the war...... So the huge amount of squads in the force pool seems right to me.
Mist
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Russia, Moscow

Post by Mist »

theese 25 millions are mostly common citizens(women,childs) which were either enslaved and brought to the Germany or killed by rampaging soldiers(it happens). BTW: soviet military manpower losses claimed by german sources include *all* men of conscriptional(is it a right word?) age because they were counted as partisans and killed(total war is a total war). As for me, I believe that total russian losses during the WWII were even higher, but military manpower losses were not higher than 10 millions(or may be even less) which is the terrible number anyway. Total ammount of squads conscripted by the soviet side should not excess the number of 10% of prewar population(200 millions?). So max number of squads is 400.000. So if soviet military force losses 50% of squads this will mean 10 millions of soldiers. all this means that amount of squads on the soviet side is somewhat two times higher than it was historicaly.
RickyB
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Denver, CO USA

Post by RickyB »

Originally posted by Mist:
theese 25 millions are mostly common citizens(women,childs) which were either enslaved and brought to the Germany or killed by rampaging soldiers(it happens). BTW: soviet military manpower losses claimed by german sources include *all* men of conscriptional(is it a right word?) age because they were counted as partisans and killed(total war is a total war). As for me, I believe that total russian losses during the WWII were even higher, but military manpower losses were not higher than 10 millions(or may be even less) which is the terrible number anyway. Total ammount of squads conscripted by the soviet side should not excess the number of 10% of prewar population(200 millions?). So max number of squads is 400.000. So if soviet military force losses 50% of squads this will mean 10 millions of soldiers. all this means that amount of squads on the soviet side is somewhat two times higher than it was historicaly.
Everything I have read and heard would indicate Soviet battle losses of more than 10 million men. I work with a Russion who insists they lost 20 million soldiers and 20 million civilians, which is higher than most estimates I have seen, but that is what they say. I doubt anybody has anything more than a ballpark guess on this.

Anyway, the numbers have been tweaked in the next release to a lower level, but even then the Soviet replacements are currently much lower after the 6+ months of 1941, dropping to around 500-1000 per week after that point, which is probably less than historical.


------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi


Image

StratMan
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: England

Post by StratMan »

I have read that entire villages and some Towns had no men whatsoever return after the war, this is a strong indication of the manpower losses that the Soviets endured.
I think 18 to 22 million non civilian losses would be very close to the truth. As it was a large percentage of the Russian army was under the age of eighteen and above the age of thirtyfive. Pretty much the same as the German army was by the end of the war.
Patton wanted to continue the war in 1945 against the Russians, I believe if this had of happenned the Russians would not have held out another year, two at the most if the Atomic bomb was not used,
StratMan
-----------------------------------------

Einstein rules relativity.
Well in theory at least.
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by StratMan:
Patton wanted to continue the war in 1945 against the Russians, I believe if this had of happenned the Russians would not have held out another year, two at the most if the Atomic bomb was not used.

Patton, no matter how brilliant, was also a little "crazy". What makes you think a smaller US army, with weak tanks, would have any more success against the Soviets than the larger Germany army, with Tigers and Panthers, had? US manpower wasn't unlimited, and a fight with the Soviets would be a massive war of attrition, just as its fight with the Wehrmacht was. The Soviets proved, at an incredible price, that they can win a war of attrition with anyone.
Martinov
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Western Australia

Post by Martinov »

In "War in the East" book, James Dunnigan estimates the following figures:

Soviet Manpower:
Available 35 million
That served 25 million
Casualties 13.7 million
(+7 million civilian casualties)

What is the maximum amount of squads the soviets can generate during the course of a game? How does this compare to, say, 375,000 squads (leaving a quarter(?) of the 25m figure above aside for airforce, navy etc)?
Mist
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Russia, Moscow

Post by Mist »

Well.. do not know about odds in case of accident between Russia and Western Allies, but I have something to say about millitary losses. I 've read the book 'Military art history'(or may be 'Warcraft history', I do not know th etranslation, but you've got the point). Author is Hans Delbruke(again do not know the right syntax). OK. He states that 10% of total population is almost highest manpower limit for any society(he takes examples from the WWI). So, the limit to soviet army manpower is 20 millions. The point is how to estimate losses which would be taken from these 10%. I believe that losses of 50(ok 60)% are already incredibly high and would lead to collapse of army. It can't be said about Soviet army in 1945. That's my point. Tell me where am I wrong.
RickyB
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Denver, CO USA

Post by RickyB »

Originally posted by Mist:
Well.. do not know about odds in case of accident between Russia and Western Allies, but I have something to say about millitary losses. I 've read the book 'Military art history'(or may be 'Warcraft history', I do not know th etranslation, but you've got the point). Author is Hans Delbruke(again do not know the right syntax). OK. He states that 10% of total population is almost highest manpower limit for any society(he takes examples from the WWI). So, the limit to soviet army manpower is 20 millions. The point is how to estimate losses which would be taken from these 10%. I believe that losses of 50(ok 60)% are already incredibly high and would lead to collapse of army. It can't be said about Soviet army in 1945. That's my point. Tell me where am I wrong.
I don't know that anyone knows the pre-war Soviet population, but I believe your 200 million is a good ballpark number, but probably on the low side. I have also seen the 10% number before, but it is just a rule of thumb. Applied to the Germans they would have been limited to around 8 million soldiers, but they had that many total soldiers fairly late in the war, after their battle casualties. Thus, I know of nothing to say the Soviets only had a pool of 20 million soldiers - I have seen numbers more like 30 million throughout the war. Soviet record keeping was so bad thought that any number is really a guess, but I would ignore the 10% number as being a real limit.


------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi


Image

Rover1gp
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 10:00 am
Location: boise. id

Post by Rover1gp »

ED,
I would agree with you about Patton and the russians. I would take some time for america to come up with the man power first. Since the american army only operated with 90 divison thur out the war.(which explains why they had to keep throwing in cooks and bands and HQ staffs in times of crisis to fill there man power needs) They would have had to increase their divsions somewhat to fight the russains. Though, I do think Patton was a little strange. I think he was right about the need to deal with the russains. As regards to freeing occuped countries. I mean we had just fought a war with germany over their designs for world occupation. Only to give in to another and his desgins for world conquest. Where I do part company with you though, is that I get a sence that the russains were at it's limits in manpower. Having already fought a A horrible war, it would be just a little to much to ask of the russain soldier. Fighting for ones country (right or wrong) is one thing. But fighting to keep enslaved people enslaved, Is not a very lofty goal. Even desipte the fact that the russain soldier lived under a regime that stomped on lofty goals. The russain soldier had nothing to gain from keeping countries enslaved even if they were enslaved themseleves. Their morale would begin to slip despite the proganda they recieved. The only people that would have benified from enslaved people would be the generals, party members and the like. But not the russain soldier, who would more than glady fight for their own country, but not have their heart set on fighting another war over enslaved people. Just my opinon nothing more.

RickyB,
I think your are right, the russains were proably above the ten percent limits. I think, although I could wrong, the 10% rule applies to an age group of a population. Plus the effects on economic loss, in the work force on using higher limits. Certainly old men and young boys were not included in that 10%. Israel in gaining their country used men, women, boys whatever it took in their time of need. Japan, had we invaded them instead, would have mobilised there entire population for it's defense. Would all those japaness have fought? Who knows for sure.

[This message has been edited by Rover1gp (edited February 15, 2001).]
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by Mist:
Hans Delbruke(again do not know the right syntax). OK. He states that 10% of total population is almost highest manpower limit for any society(he takes examples from the WWI)

Did Hans count women? I'll bet he didn't, and yes, the Soviets did have women in their ranks, don't know how many, but much more than "a couple". I don't buy the 10% limit, not for the USSR in WWII anyway. I'll wager real money that Isreal relies on much more than 10% of its population for national defense, should they be attacked. A desperate country on the verge of *dissappearing* can come up with more than 10%. Also, we just had a debate in the Art..Wargaming forum about how much aid the Soviets got from the West. Not tanks and planes but shoes and food. The numbers are huge, meaning the Soviets could shift a substantial amount of manpower, ok, ok, "personpower", for the politically correct Image, to the front instead of in their war economy. The Soviet's military organization was such that they had the highest percentage of soldiers on the front versus personnel behind the lines supporting those soldiers than any other combatant in the war.

If the numbers from the "War in the East" book that Martinov posted are right, then the USSR may have had as much as 20 million still available to fight in '45.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 15, 2001).]
Mist
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Russia, Moscow

Post by Mist »

grrrr.... Image
Originally posted by Rover1gp:
I think he was right about the need to deal with the russains. As regards to freeing occuped countries. I mean we had just fought a war with germany over their designs for world occupation. Only to give in to another and his desgins for world conquest.
Rover1gp,
do you realy think that US had something more to fight for? Do not equalize country and person thinking. Country lives on very different lows. You know, politics,econimics, public relations etc etc. Do realy think that US did not reached its goals during WWII? They had all their possible opponents weakened(some of them fataly). Is there reason to spend more money for war? I think historical current of events were the most right from US view and thats why US had became the most powerful in the world now. Do not say these pathetic words about world freedom Image This is PR which is used to fool common citizens.. and it smells Image There is only economic interest which rules the world for long time. ok that is IMHO of course.
P.S. I've read a quote of saying of one US senator(have his name in a book) which said in the begining of WWII:"...and let them kill each other as long as possible.." Vvvery practical point of view. Isn't it?
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by Rover1gp:
ED,
Where I do part company with you though, is that I get a sence that the russains were at it's limits in manpower.

See my other post about manpower, and Martinov's post of numbers from the "War in the East" book. I don't believe the USSR was on the verge of collapse as some seem to be suggesting. They had plenty left to fight with.

As to whether the Soviet soldier would fight America if America attacked it, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. If Stalin ordered the attack against the West, then I could see massive defections from the Soviet Army coming west along with others seeking freedom and/or the chance to liberate their country from communism. But how would they have reacted if America was the aggressor? How much did the typical Soviet soldier in '45 know about the West, and the differences between the West and Communism? Their entire education and what they knew about the world outside their borders was controlled by the Communists, remember. After 40 years, many of them knew they weren't getting the truth, but in '45?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Mist
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Russia, Moscow

Post by Mist »

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Did Hans count women? I'll bet he didn't, and yes, the Soviets did have women in their ranks, don't know how many, but much more than "a couple". I don't buy the 10% limit, not for the USSR in WWII anyway. A desperate country on the verge of *dissappearing* can come up with more than 10%.
Well.. he did not count women of course. But I hardly can believe that women were used as a soldiers in significant numbers. They were mostly medicin personel and AA guns crew.
And about desperate situation. If you trace the course of military actions during company of 41th you will see that situation was realy *CRITICAL* only in first two months of war. AFter that period it was stable for USRR and disperate for Germany. It was just a matter of time. (of course I count that lend lease help, dont matter how significant it was, and second front threat for Germany).
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Originally posted by Mist:
Well.. he did not count women of course. But I hardly can believe that women were used as a soldiers in significant numbers. They were mostly medicin personel and AA guns crew.
Nope, I saw in a documentary that there were women used as tank drivers in the Soviet Army. They were there at the battle of Kursk. The woman interviewed spoke about the problems the "women" had. Note the plural. I've also seen a picture of Soviet troops standing on what I think was a bunker they had taken. One of the soldiers holding up a rifle was a woman.

Now thats my kind of woman! Image


And about desperate situation. If you trace the course of military actions during company of 41th you will see that situation was realy *CRITICAL* only in first two months of war. AFter that period it was stable for USRR and disperate for Germany.

We were not speaking about the war with Germany. My participation in this thread started with the mention of Patton wanting to fight the Soviets in '45. So we're talking about the '45 Soviet Army attacked by the US. A new onslaught from the west, assuming its was successful, which I doubt, and never mind how incredibly unlikely it would have been anyway (Patton notwithstanding), might have lead to a new critical situation where the Soviets *would* go deeper into their manpower well.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 15, 2001).]
Ed Cogburn
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Contact:

Post by Ed Cogburn »

Mist, goto to the link below and scroll down to the section on "The Women of the Russian Army".

http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors-2.htm

Paraphrase: 70% of the 800,000 women in the Russian Army served on the front lines.

Be careful not to spill your coffee in your lap while reading this. Image



[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 15, 2001).]
Vaxman2
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Vaxman2 »

Didn't Patton want to re-equip the Germans to help fight the Russians? Maybe he knew the U.S. didn't have enough manpower to face the Russians alone..
Post Reply

Return to “War In Russia: The Matrix Edition”