Nobody claimed a 10:1 kill ratio over the entire war!
More subterfuge and nonsense from people who clearly fail at basic arithmetic.
It was claimed that the ratio was 10:1 in Germany's favor for Kursk - one of the Soviet Union's largest victories of the war. That in fact implies that the kill rate was even worse for the Soviet defeats and draws, which again is impossible because the Soviet Union only had twice as many men as the Germans. This is plainly embarassingly wrong math that any grade schooler can point out.
Moreover, how the hell can you go from a 10:1 kill rate for one major battle, and yet the overall kill rate was at most 2:1 and most likely closer to 1.5x1 or 1x1??? That means the Germans actually suffered utterly
catastrophic losses for the rest of the year, because that's the only way the average can be brought down to 1.5x1. Math, unlike people, cannot lie.
Again, people in this thread are simply lying to themselves if they posit a kill rate higher than 2:1 in Germany's favor. The Soviets never had enough men or tanks to lose that many.
As for the manpower. Count in the 800.000 women in the Red Army (while IIRC no women fought in the Wehrmacht).
And yet as usual you forget that the Axis Minors lost 1,000,000 troops in the East; and these were real fighting troops instead of the Red Army women who mostly fought in second-line units save for the couple of sniper and tank battalions.
But nah, sure, let's pretend that 800,000 women - which is by the way just 1% of the female population of the Soviet Union - was totally a much weightier addition to the Soviet war machine than the 1.2 million men that Romania provided in 1944
alone.
The 2:1 ratio was again just the upper limit. It is the
maximum. If you want me to do a best guess the reality is closer to 1.5 x 1 or even just 1x1; because unlike most people lying to themselves I actually do bother to count the Axis Minors.
About 1/3 of the Wehrmacht was stationed in other theatres (Western Europe, NA, Norway, Balkans, Reichsdefence).
Nope, Glantz is clear: 80% of the Wermacht went to the East Front. 1/3 is the apologist figure cherry-picked from particular periods when the Germans transferred a lot of troops West (e.g. Bulge). At 80% that still puts your ratio at 190 million to 64 million + the Axis minors, which again
at worst is 2:1.
Even the usual excuse of "they had to defend against the bombers and invest in civil defense" - which are losses borne mainly by the civilian population - pales nothing in comparison to the 10 million plus Soviet civilians outright massacred by the Wermacht as they burned much of the Soviet agriculture to the ground.
Again, this is just people lying to themselves because they can't be bothered to look at simple census data. There simply were never enough Soviet citizens to support anything higher than a 2x1 kill rate, and at that rate the Germans
would have won the war. The fact that they didn't goes to show that the numbers all of you cherish and defend are in fact bogus; as evidenced by how the German war dead in the East was found to be short by
at least a million men in the 1980s and yet none of the Call-of-Duty kill streak chasers ever bothered to look it up.
Add to that the different approach to conscription pre-1944.
What a load of nonesense. The Soviets didn't have access to slave labour from France, Belgium, Holland, and Scandanavia to make up for labor shortages (which is what, another 50 million people?), never had to resort to Hitler Youth battalions, never had to resort to recruiting POW battalions for labor and second-line combat duties, and never had to employ deranged SS "volunteers" from occupied countries who somehow became anti-communist crusaders in the jilted post-war retelling.
And yet you're telling me the Soviets proportionately conscripted more men? Seriously, look at the make up of the units fighting in Berlin. It's the Nazi army that's relying on underaged youths and old men - to the point that something like half of their units were Volkstrum! That's an army that's conscripting
outside of the military age group.
Meanwhile the Soviets, which you accuse of conscripting to a much deeper degree, were still using men who were by and large of actual military age, and never had to create a special class of Division that was sheperding brainwashed youths and Great War retirees.
Heck, have you even read anything Walter Dunn ever wrote? His study of the Soviet economy shows they were actually
demobilizing men as early as 1943 to return them to civilian production roles and rebuild all the damage done to the occupied areas - while the German army at the same time was taking factory workers from German factories; who would be replaced by slave labor. I've seen retarded counter-claims that this is only proof that the Soviets had so much manpower to spare; but in reality the 190M-80M population ratio
still applies hence the only factual conclusion that can be drawn is that the Germans in fact lost more men they can afford and were running out.
In short, stop making up utterly ridiculous nonesense when the reality is that Germany was in fact
running out of men as early as 1943, despite having half as many citizens as the Soviet Union. What you said about the conscription practices is plainly untrue and clearly made out of whole cloth; because again you can't stop lying to yourself that your basis for admiring the Wermacht is built atop a pile of lies and fanfiction; just as how you ignored the Overman study and Jentz' Panztruppen sources earlier.
The facts are as clear as the census data - the kill rate can never be higher than 2:1. If it was, then Germany would have won. That they didn't shows the problem (which again, was proven already since the 80s) is that German losses were severaly undercounted - at LEAST a million war dead in the East were never even accounted for in a prelimenary review of the war losses!
