Well I guess they didn't make it then. So the deaths for Germany would still be less than that of the Soviet's?
Operation Unthinkable
- Thread starter theolor
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Well I guess they didn't make it then. So the deaths for Germany would still be less than that of the Soviet's?
Considering, that some of the Soviet losses were Soviets who chose to fight for Germany, that some of the Soviet losses (and a lot more than for Germany) were not on the battlefield, that you are ignoring the fact, that it wasn't only German Army fighting on the Eastern front against the Red Army...
Dead in combat and of wounds in the East is almost even.
- 1
Sorry I meant to say Axis instead of Germany but ok. This still doesn't make any sense though. Based on the numbers that commissar said and how you said there could be 2 million or so Germans that were discharged because of wounds, wouldn't this make axis casualties slightly lower than the Soviet's?
Towards the end when everything was disintegrating I think it was more than wounded soldiers getting discharged who simply left.
That being said, this does bring up an excellent point. Tactically, the Soviets usually suffered casualties along the lines of between 5 and 10 to 1 when fighting German formations. The Soviets on the operational level after the first year were usually suffering losses more along the lines of 1-1 though. From Stalingrad on, the Germans were making very serious errors that played right into the hands of Deep Battle, making most of their forces irrelevant. From placing poorly equipped and motivated allies on their flanks at Stalingrad (and stripping their panzer reserves for the fight for the city and the attack into the Caucasus mountains), to attacking directly into the teeth of the best defenses the Soviet Army could put together at Kursk (leaving themselves open for a massive counterstroke), to massing most of their mobile fighting power in Rumania in June of 1944 (leaving Army group center open to destruction without many mobile reserves to counter Operation Bagration), to refusing to evacuate hundreds of thousands of men from the Courland pocket, to throwing in their last reserves into futile counterattacks around Budapest instead of reinforcing the Oder line to the East... on an operational level, with a few exceptions (ie Mansteins' counteroffensive around Kharkov in the Winter of 42-43) the Soviets were superior to their German counterparts... and that made up for the disproportionate number of casualties that they suffered at the tactical level.
If Hitler had done as Manstein had asked in 1943, and given him complete control of the Eastern Front then maybe he would have been able to fight Zhukov to a draw... then again maybe not. Instead he got relieved. And we have a reality of German tactical superiority that turned itself into a myth of German operational superiority (that in reality didn't live past 1941).
- 4
- 1
Anyway, back on topic of operation Unthinkable.
If the Allies hold out for 6 months on mainland, they have good chances of pushing the Red Army back. Air superiority, better mobility and such.
If the Allies hold out for 6 months on mainland, they have good chances of pushing the Red Army back. Air superiority, better mobility and such.
The Soviet's and her various allies and puppet states simply had so much expendable power, so much men mobilized in 1945/46, that even with 6 months and air superiority I don't think the allies could successfully stop the USSR from marching all the way onto Paris. I think the combined American and British naval superiority would've prevented the Soviet occupation of the British Isles, but I think all of mainland Europe would've turned Red if Operation Unthinkable commenced.
- 1
SU had even less of a fleet than Germany. The Isles were safe from invasion.
- 1
I'm not sure this is the place for an argument over military casualty counts, given the chaos of the last year of the war (at least) and the sketchy (meaning sparse, and in some cases mendacious) accounting everyone used. As the Axis armies disintegrated and the Soviets rolled forward a lot of people just 'went missing'. I don't think there are any accurate casualty counts, at least for Germany, France, Italy and the Soviet Union - certainly no casualty counts I would trust to be more than a general estimate of varying degrees of accuracy.
- 2
Germans counted losses differently than Soviets, for example, vehicle-wise, lots of Tigers and stuff would be counted as "in repair" despite being left behind in soviet territory after being destroyed.
Also, irreplaceable losses includes dead, permanently disabled, missing, and captured.
- 1
Oh, well then of course the axis and especially the Germans would have higher irreplaceable losses. They you know, lost.
Yes. However, some sources take German claims of their losses (dead), and Soviet claims (irreplaceable losses), and then compare them.
in the interest of this Discussion, how was the SOV air force in 1945. how exactly large was it? I came across this site but there doesn't seam to be hard date. I could check the Game War in the East! and see the scenarios for 1945 and take note of the numbers. would you guys trust the game as a source? if its the beginning of a scenario. I think we could trust the numbers.
EDIT: ups, spoke to soon, the lates scenario is for 22 June 1944, the start of Operation Bagration. for a quick look its seams the SOV could display about ready 10K aircraft! (do Note, the game distinguishes from Ready Or Unready (damage, etc).
EDIT: ups, spoke to soon, the lates scenario is for 22 June 1944, the start of Operation Bagration. for a quick look its seams the SOV could display about ready 10K aircraft! (do Note, the game distinguishes from Ready Or Unready (damage, etc).
Last edited:
I believe one thing has been overlooked in the respect of Britain's participation, I don't believe the country would have been capable of doing so as for one thing the country was bankrupt and needed a loan from the US and Canada (a very advantageous one) and its been argued the money was used to create the "cradle to the grave" welfare system, also Churchill who very much disliked Stalin and likely would have joined in given the slightest chance was voted out of office, even if he hadn't I doubt he could have rallied the people for the brutal slog against the SU. Plus the minor matter of dealing with India's desire for independence.
That's why I said "combined American and British naval superiority would've prevented Soviet occupation of the Britsh Isles".
Germany lost 5 million soliders in the entire conflict ( the amount of soldiers who died in the war, because you know germany has bureaucrcy to check if its citizen are still living or not ). I dont know why people assume that no german soldier survived outside war prison.
Germany has been caught lying about its losses during the war (like the number they officially lost missing in the East are less then the numbers of German prisoners Red Army captured).
True, the strategic mistakes were huge thanks to Hitler, but not limited to him.The "myth" of tactical superiority is well, you mean the strategic myth.
All those are strategic mistakes, not tactical ones.
I`d also add the stupid Ardennes offensive to the list and not reacting fast enough on D-Day.
Captured is one thing, missing is another.
On many occasions the Germans fabricated their kill claims, and also losses. Notoriously tigers destroyed by soviet tanks or abandoned would be said to be "in repair", even when said Tigers were backdrops for soviet photos.
Also 3 crashed German aircraft, according to the Germans, were barely 1 aircraft lost (they counted their losses by percentage.. After totaling up all damages of the aircraft, it was 85%).
A Jagdpanther gunner in Pomerania claimed he destroyed several soviet lend lease tanks, despite the fact that said tanks were left in reserve and not actually fighting. So much for accuracy.
- 2
- Status