What will deploying endless swarms of troops do?

[Liely1710]

Slowing down the enemy, that will be the main purpose, just as the Soviet's did. Get a bunch of your main army encircled on a large front? Fill in the gaps with under equipped and under trained units. They won't do much and will die in droves but it will give you enough time to train and equip a large force that is capable of holding back your enemy. Now if you're a nation like China, the bulk of your forces have to be undertrained and under equipped, because if you bothered to train and equip every single division, you wouldn't have enough to properly defend the front!

Haha I can just see that with Russia.

have two seperate armies, one whose defensive line is deep in the heart of Russia, comprised of troops slowly training to max. waiting for the perfect moment to enact the battle plan to unleash them to war, another army solely comrpised of bullet fodder to delay for the main army.

 

[FOARP]

Here you are making a mistake.
9.5 million Germans refers to total number people in uniform at that time.
6.4 million Soviets refers to number of people in operational army, and does not count supply troops, rear AA troops, troops in training etc.

The 9.4 million figure is the figure for people in uniform (in the German armed forces), as is the 6.4 million figure (for the Red Army). The Red Army figure most definitely did include supply troops, rear-area troops, troops in training and so-forth so long as they were in the Red Army - it didn't include NKVD and so-forth.

Not to say that your wrong on calling out the myth of "Germans lose to endless hordes of Russian peasants", but as Opanashc noted, the 9.5 million figure is the total German military, including administrative personnel and a number of other auxiliary things that have little to do with combat while the 6.4 million figure is for the Soviet forces immediately facing the Germans. If you want to compare like-to-like, then the number of total Soviet armed forces personnel from mid-1943 onwards is ~12.5 million.

Do you have a source for that figure? Opashnc may have stated what he believes to be the case, but he didn't actually show us his sources. Googling on Google books around I see the statistic for 5.5 million at the front and another 400,000 in STAVKA reserve quoted here, which seems a long way from that statistic.

 

[Zaku]

The 9.4 million figure is the figure for people in uniform (in the German armed forces), as is the 6.4 million figure (for the Red Army). The Red Army figure most definitely did include supply troops, rear-area troops, troops in training and so-forth so long as they were in the Red Army - it didn't include NKVD and so-forth.

Forces on the eastern front in 1944:
Axis: 2,460,000 Germans, 60,000 (northern Norway); 300,000 Finns, 550,000 Rumanians and Hungarians
Total: 3,370,000

Soviet: 6,425,000

the 6.4 million figure is not the total strength of the soviet armed forces.
I don't know the exact numbers the soviets had in 1944, but for the whole war they had:

During the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army conscripted 29,574,900 men in addition to the 4,826,907 in service at the beginning of the war. Of this total of 34,401,807 it lost 6,329,600 killed in action (KIA), 555,400 deaths by disease and 4,559,000 missing in action (MIA) (most captured). Of these 11,444,000, however, 939,700 rejoined the ranks in the subsequently liberated Soviet territory, and a further 1,836,000 returned from German captivity.

 

[FOARP]

1 million Germans were kept under AA in Germany to protect against Allied Aircraft. The Soviets had a smaller army than the Germans before 1941. However throughout the war the Soviet army reached a total of 34,401,000 men, however millions of these were killed. This strength thwarted German advances such as the battle of Stalingrad were 1.2 million Soviets were killed, wounded, or captured compared to 750,000 Germans and allies (over 200,000 Germans were killed due to the extreme cold). Even though suffering over a million losses the Soviets replaced these with huge reserves.

I sincerely doubt that 34 million statistic and would like to see a source for it.

the 6.4 million figure is not the total strength of the soviet armed forces.

No, but it is exactly what I said it was: the strength of the Red Army. The Wiki statistic (which covers the total number of men who passed through the Soviet armed forces ranks, not the actual strength of the Soviet armed forces, much less the Red Army) raises more questions than it answers (not least of which being: what was the source used).

Reciting Axis strength on the Eastern front, which it turns out was only ~1/3rd of the total number of people Germany had in uniform, only highlights that the USSR did not win the war single-handedly, and did not win my simply zerging the Germans.

 

[Zaku]

Reciting Axis strength on the Eastern front, which it turns out was only ~1/3rd of the total number of people Germany had in uniform, only highlights that the USSR did not win the war single-handedly, and did not win my simply zerging the Germans.

I just pointed out that your figures were off.
For the Soviets you counted only the actual combat strength of the eastern front.
For the Germans you counted every man in uniform.

 

[FOARP]

I just pointed out that your figures were off.
For the Soviets you counted only the actual combat strength of the eastern front.
For the Germans you counted every man in uniform.

My figures were correct.

Now, if you want to say that they're misleading, that's fair enough to a certain extent, but you're still left with the basic fact that the Germans could have concentrated many more men on the Eastern Front, and that the war was not won merely by weight of Soviet numbers alone. Particularly given that January 1944 was actually when the German armed forces reached peak strength.

 

[Zaku]

My figures were correct.

Now, if you want to say that they're misleading, that's fair enough to a certain extent,

That's hair splitting, you know exactly what I meant. Besides they were not correct even if we are pedantic, because you claimed that the whole red army had 6,4 million, which is not true. That figure is only for the eastern front.

and that the war was not won merely by weight of Soviet numbers alone.

Numbers made a huge difference in the war. This became clear during operation Barbarossa, when the Russians sacrificed 4 million men to hold of the Axis invaders long enough. They lost around a million just to defend Moscow. Was it won by the numbers alone? Maybe not, but if the USSR didn't have such a huge manpower pool they would have been doomed.

Particularly given that January 1944 was actually when the German armed forces reached peak strength.

How does it matter? Most of those 9+ million men were NOT combat troops, their value on the frontline was basically zero.

 

[FOARP]

How does it matter? Most of those 9+ million men were NOT combat troops, their value on the frontline was basically zero.

I think you're missing the significance of this being their maximum strength: the German strength was not worn down in terms of numbers from 1941 onwards. It certainly declined in terms of quality (as did Soviet strength) but the Germans did not suffer a HOI1/2/3-style manpower collapse.

Many of the German men in uniform deployed outside the Eastern Front were in infantry or panzer divisions, and even those who were could have been if they hadn't been manning AA guns or cooling their heels in the (then moribund) Luftwaffe. The reason they weren't deployed to the Eastern Front is because they were needed due to the threat of Allied attacks, either amphibious, or guerrilla, or from the air. They were not worn down by Soviet numbers.

That's hair splitting, you know exactly what I meant. Besides they were not correct even if we are pedantic, because you claimed that the whole red army had 6,4 million, which is not true. That figure is only for the eastern front.

It was the strength quoted for the Red Army in early 1944, and includes STAVKA reserves as well as front-line and line-of-communications troops. It does not include NKVD and so-forth. It also matches this source which states that the Soviet forces maintained a strength of roughly seven million throughout the war. It also agrees with this figure given as more than six million men in 550 divisions. And this figure given of around 6 million throughout the war.

I haven't seen anyone suggest a better figure yet - the suggestion that the Soviet armed forces had a strength of 34 million men above is obviously not credible. Figures quoted from Wiki are all very fine, but what was the Wiki source?

It could be true that by August 1945 the Soviet Army did achieve a much higher strength, but if during most of the war its strength remained roughly 6.5 million then this much higher strength that the Soviet Army reached in its final months does not explain its victory.

 

[Wimpola]

I haven't seen anyone suggest a better figure yet - the suggestion that the Soviet armed forces had a strength of 34 million men above is obviously not credible. Figures quoted from Wiki are all very fine, but what was the Wiki source?

It could be true that by August 1945 the Soviet Army did achieve a much higher strength, but if during most of the war its strength remained roughly 6.5 million then this much higher strength that the Soviet Army reached in its final months does not explain its victory.

What I meant to say was the Soviets had 34,000,000 men however 10,000,000 of those were killed in action. Also not a Wikipedia page but from a book I read a while back and I will try to find that book tonight and get the numbers and book quoted here. Not all 34,000,000 were in action at one time due to casualties and lost grounds. If the Soviets only had 6.4 million men (at the start of Barborossa yes they did have that many) and never conscripted more they would have lost before 1943. Also 1/3 of the remaining Soviets would be killed at Stalingrad alone which is highly unethical. Also I presume you got your facts from Wikipedia here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) ?

 

[Zaku]

I think you're missing the significance of this being their maximum strength: the German strength was not worn down in terms of numbers from 1941 onwards. It certainly declined in terms of quality (as did Soviet strength) but the Germans did not suffer a HOI1/2/3-style manpower collapse.

Many of the German men in uniform deployed outside the Eastern Front were in infantry or panzer divisions, and even those who were could have been if they hadn't been manning AA guns or cooling their heels in the (then moribund) Luftwaffe. The reason they weren't deployed to the Eastern Front is because they were needed due to the threat of Allied attacks, either amphibious, or guerrilla, or from the air. They were not worn down by Soviet numbers.

That's not the point. OPs question which you disputed asked if the human wave tactic the Russians used will be possible to do in HOI4 with poorly trained units. Just like it happened IRL in 41-42, where the Red Army DID throw most of their men to the front without proper training(or equipment). They became better late in the war, but during the first years they did exactly what op suggested: they threw masses of poorly trained units to hold the line.

I haven't seen anyone suggest a better figure yet - the suggestion that the Soviet armed forces had a strength of 34 million men above is obviously not credible. Figures quoted from Wiki are all very fine, but what was the Wiki source?

They did not have 34 million men at a time, they conscripted 34 million men during the war. (29 million to be precise, plus the 5 million they had in 41.) Most of those men were NOT on frontile duty. Note: the Red Army lost more then 11 million men, a catasthropic amount which also proves the OP that the Russians sent their men to the slaughterhouse in several cases. As I said they became better in 1943 and onwards, but during the ealry years their lack of care for their soldiers life was evident.


Here is the wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army

It was the strength quoted for the Red Army in early 1944, and includes STAVKA reserves as well as front-line and line-of-communications troops. It does not include NKVD and so-forth. It also matches this source which states that the Soviet forces maintained a strength of roughly seven million throughout the war. It also agrees with this figure given as more than six million men in 550 divisions. And this figure given of around 6 million throughout the war.

I'm not debating that, I know that their army was around 6 million on the front. I debate your misleading comparison vs the german forces.

 

[Premu]

Didn't the SU with their "endless" manpower supply have huge problems to replace their losses at the end of the war? No country can take losses of million of mostly young men lightly, not even a large country. The SU had a population of 190 Mio people in 1939. While that's quite a lot, it's not an "endless" supply.

 

[Zaku]

Didn't the SU with their "endless" manpower supply have huge problems to replace their losses at the end of the war?

Yes, after losing more soldiers then the rest of the european nations combined. Besides "endless" is an only an attribute, you shouldn't read it literally.

 

[FOARP]

Also I presume you got your facts from Wikipedia here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) ?

Like I said, they come from Antony Beevor's history of WW2.

I'm not debating that, I know that their army was around 6 million on the front.

Read the sources: that's six million TOTAL in the Red Army, including STAVKA reserves. It's possible that by 1945 the figure was much higher, but in 1944 that was the total figure.

They did not have 34 million men at a time, they conscripted 34 million men during the war. (29 million to be precise, plus the 5 million they had in 41.) Most of those men were NOT on frontile duty. Note: the Red Army lost more then 11 million men, a catasthropic amount which also proves the OP that the Russians sent their men to the slaughterhouse in several cases. As I said they became better in 1943 and onwards, but during the ealry years their lack of care for their soldiers life was evident.


Here is the wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army

The source that Wiki uses is not clear - see the on-page comments.

Even taken at face value, however, these statistics do not support a strength of much greater than 6.4 million in early 1944. Instead they support a higher figure for August 1945.

That's not the point. OPs question which you disputed asked if the human wave tactic the Russians used will be possible to do in HOI4 with poorly trained units. Just like it happened IRL in 41-42, where the Red Army DID throw most of their men to the front without proper training(or equipment).

Forgive me if I also got the impression that he implied that these tactics were how the USSR succeeded.

 

[amalric de g.]

Didn't the SU with their "endless" manpower supply have huge problems to replace their losses at the end of the war? No country can take losses of million of mostly young men lightly, not even a large country. The SU had a population of 190 Mio people in 1939. While that's quite a lot, it's not an "endless" supply.

Yes the SU had in 1944 problems with their manpower reserves.
The Su had 130 - 160 million people, depending on the source. Simple math 160:2 (males) = 80:2 (old and children) = 40 so roughly the SU had 40 - 50 million men for drafting, used men 34 million. They used women in the army, i don´t no how many, thats a unknown factor.

Maybe someone has numbers?

You can´t really talk about endless Red Army hordes, the SU burned nearly their manpower pool, thats a simple fact.

Thats the same for germany with all ethnic germans 76 million. 76:2 = 38:2 = 19 - 29 used in total 18 million.
Germany used 1 Million women in the army, but only for non combat roles, except AA duty.

 

[Zaku]

Forgive me if I also got the impression that he implied that these tactics were how the USSR succeeded.

Well it kinda did help them to survive the early years. USSR did throw many under trained units to the frontline. They were basically only bodies thrown at the invaders to give the more elite troops time to counter attack. So in that sense OP is perfectly right about what he said.

Just look at some of the major battles they won early in the war.
Battle of Moscow:USSR lost around 1 million.
Battle of Stalingrad: lost around 1.1 million.
Both those battles were great victories for the USSR, yet they lost more then their enemies, even at Stalingrad where they basically wiped out a Hungarian, a Romanian and a large German army.
My point is, that the Soviets won because they could stomach much higher casualties during the early war then the germans could. That was not the only reason of course, because there was countless other factors to the war, but it was a very major part of it. The war was won/lost in 1941-42.

Even taken at face value, however, these statistics do not support a strength of much greater than 6.4 million in early 1944. Instead they support a higher figure for August 1945.

You are arguing about stuff that does not matter in this discussion. Nobody said they had more then 6.4 million on the front. They didn't need more then 6 million, because they still had 2x numerical superiority over the germans on the eastern front. BUT they had plenty of reserves to increase that number further if it became necessary. (Even if those reserves were 2nd class conscripts like older men.)

BTW. I looked at your sources but It was really hard to get any information from there. Parts of the books were missing, and most of it was about a different topic.

 

[FOARP]

Both those battles were great victories for the USSR, yet they lost more then their enemies, even at Stalingrad where they basically wiped out a Hungarian, a Romanian and a large German army.
My point is, that the Soviets won because they could stomach much higher casualties during the early war then the germans could. That was not the only reason of course, because there was countless other factors to the war, but it was a very major part of it.

I can certainly agree with this.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The 9.4 million figure is the figure for people in uniform (in the German armed forces), as is the 6.4 million figure (for the Red Army). The Red Army figure most definitely did include supply troops, rear-area troops, troops in training and so-forth so long as they were in the Red Army - it didn't include NKVD and so-forth.

This is clearly incorrect. In terms of overall armed forces strength, from July 1943 onwards when the Army had ~11.5 million men in units' rosters and ~730,000 in hospitals. The Soviet Navy had nearly 500 thousand men for a total of 12.5 million. Add in 500,000 NKVD and another 200,000 railway repair crews, and the total is 13.5 million.

Do you have a source for that figure? Opashnc may have stated what he believes to be the case, but he didn't actually show us his sources. Googling on Google books around I see the statistic for 5.5 million at the front and another 400,000 in STAVKA reserve quoted here, which seems a long way from that statistic.

David M Glantz in his seminal work When Titans Clashed gives Soviet and German frontline strength. From 1943-1945 the number hold steady within the 6.5 million range, only fluctuating by several hundred thousand.

You are ultimately correct though that the Soviets won not just by outnumbering the Germans, but also by outmaneuvering, outgeneralling, and finally outfighting them.

In any case, any decent Soviet player will keep in mind the historical mistakes made by the Soviet High Command and try to properly manage their army so as to conduct strategic withdrawals with an eye towards avoiding the mass encirclement suffered historically which exhausted Soviet manpower while still building up their army and properly kitting it out. This would permit them to string the enemy out, stall them further west then historically (thereby preserving more of ones own industrial resources as well as military ones), and set the conditions for the Red Army to go over to the offensive, evict the enemy from Soviet territory, and invade his homeland.

 

[Mannstien]

In any case, any decent Soviet player will keep in mind the historical mistakes made by the Soviet High Command and try to properly manage their army so as to conduct strategic withdrawals with an eye towards avoiding the mass encirclement suffered historically which exhausted Soviet manpower while still building up their army and properly kitting it out. This would permit them to string the enemy out, stall them further west then historically (thereby preserving more of ones own industrial resources as well as military ones), and set the conditions for the Red Army to go over to the offensive, evict the enemy from Soviet territory, and invade his homeland.

I'm going to keep all of my forces on the front line and make them fight to the death!!! NOT ONE STEP BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wimpola]

I'm going to keep all of my forces on the front line and make them fight to the death!!! NOT ONE STEP BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's let all our troops die, then we will win.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I'm going to keep all of my forces on the front line and make them fight to the death!!! NOT ONE STEP BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's let all our troops die, then we will win.

Yes, I know those are post-war T-54/55s which would likely rock against most WW2 German tanks. Just mentally replace them with T-26s or something.