Putting quarterly red army losses together, we get the overall picture:

from a post by Qvist on AHF:

German/Soviet Combat Losses by quarter

1941 3q: 551,189 / 2,744,765 ratio: 4.979
1941 4q: 279,861 / 1,563,329 ratio: 5.586
1942 1q: 28O,238 / 1,791,441 ratio: 6.395
1942 2q: 220,291 / 1,478,441 ratio: 6.711
1942 3q: 383,750 / 2,418,801 ratio: 6.303
1942 4q: 177,O5O / 1,391,831 ratio: 7.863
1943 1q: 498,795 / 2,077,543 ratio: 4.165
1943 2q: 110,139 / 596,868 ratio: 5.419
1943 3q: 533,025 / 2,747,957 ratio: 5.155
1943 4q: 381,725 / 2,061,251 ratio: 5.399
1944 1q: 423,715 / 2,035,823 ratio: 4.805
1944 2q: 352,831 / 1,208,573 ratio: 3.425
1944 3q: 879,127 / 1,972,397 ratio: 2.244
1944 4q: 297,782 / 1,286,411 ratio: 4.319

This shows the decline of the fighting power of the German army from 1942 to 1944. Note too the decline in quality of the red army between 1941 and 1942, as they had to mobilize hundreds of poorly trained divisions to stop the onslaught. Then, the quality of their troops increased, while German quality declined.

Note the turning point at Stalingrad, at 1943 1q.

The best quarter for the Red Army was the 3q of 1944. Sure, with Bagration, they ate the wehrmacht that quarter.

Originally Posted by Guaporense

Putting quarterly red army losses together, we get the overall picture:

from a post by Qvist on AHF:

German/Soviet Combat Losses by quarter

1941 3q: 551,189 / 2,744,765 ratio: 4.979
1941 4q: 279,861 / 1,563,329 ratio: 5.586
1942 1q: 28O,238 / 1,791,441 ratio: 6.395
1942 2q: 220,291 / 1,478,441 ratio: 6.711
1942 3q: 383,750 / 2,418,801 ratio: 6.303
1942 4q: 177,O5O / 1,391,831 ratio: 7.863
1943 1q: 498,795 / 2,077,543 ratio: 4.165
1943 2q: 110,139 / 596,868 ratio: 5.419
1943 3q: 533,025 / 2,747,957 ratio: 5.155
1943 4q: 381,725 / 2,061,251 ratio: 5.399
1944 1q: 423,715 / 2,035,823 ratio: 4.805
1944 2q: 352,831 / 1,208,573 ratio: 3.425
1944 3q: 879,127 / 1,972,397 ratio: 2.244
1944 4q: 297,782 / 1,286,411 ratio: 4.319

There is something wrong with these numbers. I put them together and get 25M of Soviet Losses (and that without 1945!).

Problem is, the number is incredibly high, if we remember, that number of personell served in Red Army in period 1941-1945 is 35M. If 25M of them is killed, how can there still be 10M of capable to fight men, if usually there are 3 injured soldiers per 1 killed one?

I think there is various methods of counting of losses employed. Only killed soldiers for German side, while killed and incapacitated soldiers for Russian side... 25M is credible value for killed and incapacitated, not for killed alone.

Originally Posted by Supostat

There is something wrong with these numbers. I put them together and get 25M of Soviet Losses (and that without 1945!).

Problem is, the number is incredibly high, if we remember, that number of personell served in Red Army in period 1941-1945 is 35M. If 25M of them is killed, how can there still be 10M of capable to fight men, if usually there are 3 injured soldiers per 1 killed one?

I think there is various methods of counting of losses employed. Only killed soldiers for German side, while killed and incapacitated soldiers for Russian side... 25M is credible value for killed and incapacitated, not for killed alone.

There is nothing wrong with these numbers :they are totals of death,wounded and missing and sick (?),for the sickness cases I am not sure .They are derived from the official Russian figures by Krivosheev .The figures for 1945 are not mentioned,because there are no reliable German figures for that year,thus no comparison possible .

Originally Posted by lljadw

There is nothing wrong with these numbers :they are totals of death,wounded and missing and sick (?),for the sickness cases I am not sure .

And the same for Germans? Is it clearly known that criteria for `injured` soldier for all sides are the same? Maybe soldier, injured and returned to duty within couple of days, did not qualify as casualty for one side, while the same case for other side did qualify as casualty?

Thus, this kind of `casualties stats` could be inacurate, also because double-, triple- of even multicounting is possible (there have been examples when WW2 soldiers were injured, healed, returned to battle, injured and healed again, returned to battle once more, injured again and finally killed).

For the German non combat losses (mostly sickness and accidents ):from june to april 1942:570OOO nly are included those who had to leave the backward area of the front and were transported to rear areas ,ex . Minsk,Smolensk or even to Germany.
For these NCL :93 % was unfit for a month ,5% was unfit for front service,1% unfit for any duty and 0.667% died .
For the Combat losses :22.9% were KIA,8.6% died of injuries within 3 months(DOW),56 % were ready for duty in 3 months ,10 % were unsuitable for front service (frontunfaehig) and 2.5% were discharged .
Normally,a soldier twice wounded was counted twice .
Source :AHF :German casualties in Barbarossa in 1941

i think they should have finished the Russians off when they had the chance instead of waiting and letting them build more tanks and planes they then could of recruited more Russian waffen ss and had more supplies and more slave labour then they would of been a force to reckon with

Was it not as simple as to ambitious spreading thin with to many fronts to fight on. If they had not attacked Russia would the bear have stepped up to bat or just protected its border having seen what they had achieved up till that time.

The one thing Hitler always said was that "He did not want to fight a war on two fronts" In the finish his army was scattered in fighting all over the place, just think what might have happened if he was only fighting on one front and could pour every bit of his resources into that conflict.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

The one thing Hitler always said was that "He did not want to fight a war on two fronts" In the finish his army was scattered in fighting all over the place, just think what might have happened if he was only fighting on one front and could pour every bit of his resources into that conflict.

yes good point LeEnfield but i think he hittler wanted to take all of europe and thats what you have to do

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

The one thing Hitler always said was that "He did not want to fight a war on two fronts" In the finish his army was scattered in fighting all over the place, just think what might have happened if he was only fighting on one front and could pour every bit of his resources into that conflict.

By July 6 1944, he had poured 80% of his resources into the Eastern Front would pulling the other 20% out of Western Europe made much difference? I doubt it.

It would have been sticker situation for the allies if it were the other way around but I still think they would have won at the very bloody end for the simple reason that even at full strength Germany could not have possibly stopped the invasion, simply too much territory to defend. The allies could have landed anywhere from Norway to Greece.