Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Easy-8 This is basic. Everyone who knows anything about the Eastern Front knows that the Soviets took much bigger losses than the Germans, however the USSR had the resources and manpower to make up for these massive losses and the Germans did not. The rate the Soviets replaced stuff is remarkable. They took HUGE losses in the early days of Barbarossa and it is to their credit they found a way to recover from all that. It is like Stalin said "I have more men than you do bullets". |
Basic yes but it's amazing just how many people fail to grasp this simple fact. Many educated people still believe that Soviet victory was due to a combination of mounting German losses, greater Soviet AFV/Plane production and the emergence of a 'new' Red Army that had learned from its mistakes and was now dealing a 'Blitzkreig' of its own. Whilst these points are relevant to some degree the fact is that the Red Army actually won because they had more men. They were also able to get those men where they were needed, thanks partly due to Lend-Lease, which kept the Soviet railroad system operational. Glancing at the figures provided by Soviet Colonel-General G.F Krivosheev in his book "
Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century" tells its own story. These figures (and they don't even include the figures for the disaster that was Operation Mars) are frightening.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Easy-8 what ifs are always interesting because they have so much of the 'unknown' around them. |
Agreed. They can be very interesting as long as they stay within realistic boundaries. I still think that one can look at all the evidence available for Kursk and make a reasonable assumption that it was unlikely to suceed simply because it was a flawed plan to being with.