Semi OT: continuation of casulties discussion

[Walloc]

Wanted to take the discussion out of the WitW thread to avoid clutting it with non related info.

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Now, I am not trying to over-state the impact of the Western Front (or understate the primacy of the Eastern Front as the primary front in the war by any means), but I do think the pendulum sometimes swings a bit too far the other way, with no real realization of just how brutal the fighting was in June, July, and August of '44 in the West.

Here are some numbers that I got from my books.

German deaths in 1944 on the Eastern front
June 142,079
July 169,881
and August 277,465
for a total of 589,425 Germans deaths.
Source: Overmans

From D-Day to Sept 1st on the Western front the Germans around 70,000 deaths.

Well first of all it was a discussion about western front vs Bagration/destruction of AGC(from now on DAGC). Those figurs u cite are from the entire eastern front.
Not to say that a large proportion didnt come from AGC, but far from all.

That said looking at deaths a failrly misleading picture of actual casulties and more gives sense of the nature of the figthing that toke place comparily speaking. Looking at total casulties gives an entire different look. Now if we look past the whole human issue, i know i'd rather be captured than killed, and only look at decline in combat strength i paint the following picture.

Using only Rudiger Overmans figurs to avoid any source issue tho u can ofc always debate his figurs.



German POW Held in Captivity (Per R. Overmans)[12]

Average during Quarter

Held Western Allies, Held by Soviets & their Allies, Total Living POW

4th Quarter 1943

200,000 155,000 355,000

4th Quarter 1944

720,000 563,000 1,283,000


1st Quarter 1945

920,000 1,103,000 2,023,000

2nd Quarter 1945

5,440,000 2,130,000 7,570,000


3rd Quarter 1945

6,672,000 2,163,000 8,835,000


So difference between Q4 1943 and Q4 1944 is for allied 720,000-200,000 = 520,000. Russian side 563,000-155,000=408.000
Now those PoW for both sides account for more than france campaign and Bagration.

Discussion of the allied PoW. Q4 1943 is ofc after Tunis, so where are the possible places for taking those PoWs
Well, there is italy in that periode, but well the Italy fighting not to disminish the fighting in any way didnt bag a whole lot of PoWs in that periode. Then the only other real place teh majority of those PoWs could have been taken is on the western front. Now with averages of Q4 some, but well since Battle of the Bulge/Wacht am Rhein, didnt start until very end of Q4 1944, 16 dec 1944, PoWs from that would be very limited in that statistic.
That leaves 4 places for the majority of the 520.000 to have been taken apart from Italy. The Lorrain campaign, Market Garden and limited fighting after that and ofc Normandy/Dragoon plus race across france/retreat from Southern france. Again ofc some of the 520.000 PoW would have been taken in MG and after plus the Lorrian campign, but i think its safe to say that the far majority of those 520.000 is taken in Normandy and Race across/retreat from Southern France. Now i have limited my self to using only Overmans figurs, and he doesnt detail any PoW from Normandy/France Campaigns, but there are PoW figues out there from other authors.


Discussion about russian PoWs in the Q4 1943 to Q4 1944 eastern front. 408.000 in all. Im not saying that quite a number of these naturally comes fom DAGC, but that is far from the only fighting and pockting that takes place on the eastern front in that peridode. While fighting in AGC area's apart from DAGC is very limited, same isnt so for AGN and in particular AGS area. The spring/winter campaigns did take a number of PoWs. Comming to mind are Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket, Uman–Botosani Offensive, Zhitomir–Berdichev Offensive, Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive, First Jassy–Kishinev Offensive, 2nd Jassy–Kishinev Offensive. Debrecen Offensive Operation is contribuators to the PoW figurs on the eastern front in the periode.

Again this is only PoWs.
Of the 589k KIA(actually missing is included in Overmans figurs) originally stated for the eastern front. In the same time frame the Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive and Battle of Tannenberg Line take places. Plus general fighting.
Again i have limted my self to Overman, but there are figurs out there with casulty rates in that periode other than DAGC.

Looking at those i'd say we not far from Berkuts numbers tho precisly what they should be is up for some debate.


Now if u start to add PoWs to casulty list. Limit our selfs to Bagration(not the entire eastern front) vs France campaign casulty wise it looks very different than 589k vs 70k. Very very different, and we havent even begun to look at WIAs figurs comparility speaking.



Kind regards, ur friendly myth buster

Rasmus

[Walloc]

Hi HHI,

This is ur original claim:

ORIGINAL: HHI

Deception was also very important on the East Front. The Red Army referred to it as "Maskirovka." For Operation Bagration (the destruction of Army Group Center), they utilized numerous maskirovka techniques to convince the Germans that the offensive was going to be in the Ukraine, with the result that almost all Panzer forces were in the south. To provide a sense of scale, Bagration resulted in German losses equal to all forces opposing the Allies in France. I have no idea how this concept could be represented in either game.

Now it is.

ORIGINAL: HHI

Colonel Glantz gives the losses to Army Group Center as 450,000, with another 100,000 lost, primarily as a result of Konev's operation south of the Pripyet marshes, a total of 550,000 men. Soviet losses were 243,500 kia and missing and 811,000 wounded. I submit this is approximately equal to all German forces in France.

Now Konev's operation usually called Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive isnt even in AGC area of responsibility. It has nothing per say to do with the destuction / losses at DAGC other than it happens at the same time and is a offensive designed also to draw attention away from Bagration. The Maskirovka u mention. So u alter the original premise. Bagration vs German forces in France.
Bagration resulted in German losses equal to all forces opposing the Allies in France.

Now its not that we cant do that. I did say in my original post that u used general terms, but non the less that ofc takes away the original premise and there for any counter arguements against it, but at the same time still questions the validity of the original premise/claim.
It would ofc be nice to know what exactly we debating, but by the nature of it. I cant take but ur writings as too what u mean.

Still all that said. U should try and make a count of the all german forces involved through out the France campaign. Remember to include reinforcements and replacements. Whether we using 450.000 or 550.000 and then compare the numbers. Comparing csaulty rates between the 2 makes for interresting readment too.

Just as Berkut says its in no way meant to take any way from fact that the russian front is the primary front and place of action as well as killing field. In terms of KIAs and WIAs undoubtbly the far majority of those occured at the eastern front.
If u look at overall casulty i would say there are some myths out there in regards to casulties that is caused in the post overlord periode. In particular comparing the german losses in DAGC to near comparible periode in France. Just looking at the PoW numbers on the allied front posted in above post, at the end of the war. A PoW is as much a casulty and loss to the german army in terms of combat ability as a killed one.


Kind regards, ur friendly myth buster

Rasmus

[Flaviusx]

This doesn't seem like a very productive discussion to me. It's kind of like arguing about two superheroes and trying to decide who is stronger.

Both Normandy and Bagration were terrible body blows for the Wehrmacht. The combined effect of them was disastrous. The rest is just details.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

This doesn't seem like a very productive discussion to me. It's kind of like arguing about two superheroes and trying to decide who is stronger.

Prolly to no ones surprise i disagree. I think ur premise is wrong. This isnt the first time i met, the notion that DAGC was the all end to the wehrmacht and that france was just a side show. That poped up here too. I see no reason to reinforce or not counter that notion for the sake of every one else reading and those learning.
Now it had been a discussion about what was worst. France or DAGC i would wholehardly agree. It would have been totally irrelevant, but i'd stipulate that it isnt at the core of the debate. Statements was made that is simply untrue and easily so proven.

Both Normandy and Bagration were terrible body blows for the Wehrmacht. The combined effect of them was disastrous. The rest is just details.

Totally agree.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[EisenHammer]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


Both Normandy and Bagration were terrible body blows for the Wehrmacht. The combined effect of them was disastrous. The rest is just details.

I agree with this also, I just wanted to throw some numbers in for the hell of it.

[IronDuke_slith]

Copied from original thread, didn't realise this discussion had been taken elsewhere...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut


quote:

ORIGINAL: EisenHammer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut
If we are talking about comparing the entire fronts, then should we not include all the Germans involved on the Western Front, not just those in France? Everyone manning a AA gun, pilots, those in Italy? U-boat crews? Kriegsmarine?

Yep... And as far as I know the 70,000 may include all of the above.

As far as I know, it may include none of the above. It may include deaths from natural causes, and people choking on bagels.

But more to the point, comparing deaths alone is misleading. Usually when someone is picking and choosing their stats to "compare" it is with some kind of intent to distort the reality. Why are you insisting at looking at only deaths? And why are you suddenly counting all of the Eastern Front, when the original issue was strictly Bagration?

The basic point is that German losses in the Normandy campaign were comparable to the losses from Bagration in total men, and in likely exceeded the losses in equipment. That doesn't mean the Eastern Front was not the (much) more critical front, of course, since there was more going on than just Bagration. Just like there was more going on in the West than just Normandy.

You're wrong in the first part, probably wrong in the second.

Human casualties in the west probably amounted to around 210, 000. In the east during Bagration, they were around 400, 000.

The Germans lost 4050 Tanks and assault guns between 1st June and 31st August 1944 on all fronts. The Germans sent 2336 of these vehicles to Normandy and didn't lose them all so it is unlikely the losses were greater than in the east.

The other issue is what was lost.

Most of the tail of the German units escaped the pincer at Falaise and made it home. Casualties were therefore confined to the Infantry and tank arms. In the east, units disappeared in their entireity. I suspect this means your equipment argument is also wrong since entire divisions disappearing would have meant the entire artillery, vehicle and suppporting arms park going with them. In France, this often got away.

Regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

I probably wouldn't overdo the Soviet deception thing, either.

It's a common theme in eastern front histories and the Russians were clearly skilled, but in the west, The allies deceived the Germans as to when and where a blindingly obvious invasion would take place, and managed to convince the Germans for several weeks thereafter that the greatest amphibious operation in history was actually a diversion...

Now that's deception...

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

This doesn't seem like a very productive discussion to me. It's kind of like arguing about two superheroes and trying to decide who is stronger.

Both Normandy and Bagration were terrible body blows for the Wehrmacht. The combined effect of them was disastrous. The rest is just details.

Well, the point of the argument is that there are those who appear to be arguing that you are wrong, and in fact Normandy was not a terrible blow, but rather was largely irrelevant compared to what was going on in the East. It is most certainly NOT an argument about "who's dad is bigger", it is an argument about what happened in WW2.

This is a common myth of WW2 among those who know just enough about WW2 to know that the opposite myth (DDay was the decisive battle of the war! The Americans saved the day!) is incorrect. This one is just as incorrect - that the Western Front really didn't matter, and was something of a sideshow. That is a very amateur view of history, and does not at all reflect the impact the Western Front had on the outcome of the war.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


I probably wouldn't overdo the Soviet deception thing, either.

It's a common theme in eastern front histories and the Russians were clearly skilled, but in the west, The allies deceived the Germans as to when and where a blindingly obvious invasion would take place, and managed to convince the Germans for several weeks thereafter that the greatest amphibious operation in history was actually a diversion...

Now that's deception...

I always thought that was pretty funny. If Normandy is the diversion, Hitler really should have despaired, since they were well and truly screwed if something even bigger was coming along...

[Zonso]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


I probably wouldn't overdo the Soviet deception thing, either.

It's a common theme in eastern front histories and the Russians were clearly skilled, but in the west, The allies deceived the Germans as to when and where a blindingly obvious invasion would take place, and managed to convince the Germans for several weeks thereafter that the greatest amphibious operation in history was actually a diversion...

Now that's deception...

I would have to agree, all sides were clearly skilled and used deception to their advantage. The Germans did so to the Western Allies and Russians early on to huge success as well. I think the underlying theme was initiative and not any inherent trait.

[Berkut]

Well, if you want to talk about intelligence in general, there still hasn't been enough said historically about the impact of Ultra on the outcome of the war. That was a simply masterful stroke, not just in the technical scope of breaking ULTRA, but managing the intelligence in such a manner that the Germans never really realized we were reading most of their commo for a good part of the war.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

This doesn't seem like a very productive discussion to me. It's kind of like arguing about two superheroes and trying to decide who is stronger.

Both Normandy and Bagration were terrible body blows for the Wehrmacht. The combined effect of them was disastrous. The rest is just details.

Well, the point of the argument is that there are those who appear to be arguing that you are wrong, and in fact Normandy was not a terrible blow, but rather was largely irrelevant compared to what was going on in the East. It is most certainly NOT an argument about "who's dad is bigger", it is an argument about what happened in WW2.

This is a common myth of WW2 among those who know just enough about WW2 to know that the opposite myth (DDay was the decisive battle of the war! The Americans saved the day!) is incorrect. This one is just as incorrect - that the Western Front really didn't matter, and was something of a sideshow. That is a very amateur view of history, and does not at all reflect the impact the Western Front had on the outcome of the war.

Fair enough.

Let's just say that Stalin at least thought getting a second front in France was a rather important thing and he spent years complaining to the Allies to get it going ASAP.

These two big offensives combined cost the Wehrmacht a round million men between them, it was a one-two punch that broke their back.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
The Germans lost 4050 Tanks and assault guns between 1st June and 31st August 1944 on all fronts. The Germans sent 2336 of these vehicles to Normandy and didn't lose them all so it is unlikely the losses were greater than in the east.

Hi IronDuke,

I think both me and Berkut clearly stated we refuted the original claim which had to do with Bagration vs France. No where have either of us stated that if u look at the entire west vs entire east front that u find that far greater losses on the entire eastern front. So i dont think the above numbers are particular telling. Comming up with numbers of tank/assult gun losses from Bagration would be helpfull.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Well, the point of the argument is that there are those who appear to be arguing that you are wrong, and in fact Normandy was not a terrible blow, but rather was largely irrelevant compared to what was going on in the East. It is most certainly NOT an argument about "who's dad is bigger", it is an argument about what happened in WW2.

This is a common myth of WW2 among those who know just enough about WW2 to know that the opposite myth (DDay was the decisive battle of the war! The Americans saved the day!) is incorrect. This one is just as incorrect - that the Western Front really didn't matter, and was something of a sideshow. That is a very amateur view of history, and does not at all reflect the impact the Western Front had on the outcome of the war.