Most decisive battle in WW2? - Page 14




View Poll Results :Most decisive battle in WW2?
Battle of Stalingrad 34 33.33%
Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel) 15 14.71%
Battle of Moscow 10 9.80%
Battle of Leningrad 0 0%
Battle of El Alamein 3 2.94%
Operation Overlord (Battle of Normandy) 17 16.67%
Battle of Midway 11 10.78%
Other 12 11.76%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
November 16th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
How could Kunikov wipe the floor with Ollie when the numbers back Ollie up? The generally accepted, most accurate figures for Soviet casualties in WW2 were compiled and published by a former Soviet general, Grigoriy Krivosheev. I attach a link to a table which I invite you to read. The numbers can only be described as staggering.

http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80soj.htm

Even when the Germans were being pushed back, and perhaps partly because of it, Soviet losses remained very high, nearly 7 million casualties of all types for 1944 alone. The Red Army lost nearly 14000 tanks in 1944 alone, although there is some debate as to what constitutes a 'loss'.

What is clear to me is that, had the Germans initiated a strategic elastic defence posture (defence in depth if you like), the Soviets, who continually used brute force up until the fall of Berlin, may have ran out of manpower as they were beginning to in 1945. Assuming we believe the generals, Hitler's stubborn insistence on refusing to give up ground unless absolutely necessary literally saved the Soviet Union from a catastrophe.

Despite what some might otherwise believe, the Soviets got lucky in WW2. They were lucky that Hitler made the 'Lotzen Decision' and diverted the German schwerpunkt away from Moscow and towards Kiev in July 1941, when Guderian and Hoth's panzers were less than 200 miles from Moscow. They were lucky that the Germans were delayed by 4 weeks as a result of the Kiev operation as there was mass panic in Moscow (on October 18th in particular) where the Germans could have rolled in and taken the city without a fight. They were lucky that Hitler lost his nerve, reigned in his most adventurous and able commanders and proceeded to resort back to WW1 tactics for major operations. They were lucky that Lend Lease kept their railroad system operational, which allowed the Red Army to conduct large scale operations.

They were lucky but they also paid a terrible price. I am quoting this from memory but I believe that for every 1 British or American soldier who died in WW2, 20 German soldiers died and 85 Russian soldiers died. The Soviets were in a hurry to finish WW2 because they knew it was killing them. They were lucky that they just had enough men to see the job done.
November 16th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
So, another post with nothing to back it up factually. By the way, Soviet Red Army losses were around 8 million. 8 million divided by 85 comes out to 94,117. Thanks for dumbing everyone down with your knowledge, or rather lack thereof.
November 16th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
Internet sites are not a valid source. You've made a fallacy in only providing the numbers for what the US sent via Lend Lease while ignoring all that England sent, you also ignored everything that the Soviet Union made during the War, which would put your numbers into a context. Sorry, I don't waste more time than that on ignorant fools. As for Overy, I'm reading "Why the Allies Won" right now, an author who claims Model headed the 9th Panzer Army at Kursk, that two Panzer Divisions at Kursk had around 1,000 tanks, or that the T-34 had a crew of two, is not one to be trusted with any detailed information.
Why can't internet sites be a valid source, if they are properly footnoted/and or referenced?

I agree with you regarding Overy though. He is a little unreliable when it comes to correct information regarding the Eastern Front and German data in particular.

Would you not agree though that the US/UK Lend Lease kept the Soviet railroad system operational?
--
November 16th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
So, another post with nothing to back it up factually. By the way, Soviet Red Army losses were around 8 million. 8 million divided by 85 comes out to 94,117. Thanks for dumbing everyone down with your knowledge, or rather lack thereof.
Haha you are welcome my rather angry and pompous friend. Disputing Krivosheev are we?
November 16th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Why can't internet sites be a valid source, if they are properly footnoted/and or referenced?

I agree with you regarding Overy though. He is a little unreliable when it comes to correct information regarding the Eastern Front and German data in particular.

Would you not agree though that the US/UK Lend Lease kept the Soviet railroad system operational?
The only internet site I would trust would be one which has the archives as its source. Wikipedia is not that site. Lend Lease was not felt in significant amounts until 1943 by which time all three turning points had already occurred on the Eastern Front. It helped, it was not critical or decisive.
November 16th, 2007  
Kunikov
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Haha you are welcome my rather angry and pompous friend. Disputing Krivosheev are we?
You never quoted Krivosheev, rather your unsubstantiated, and highly ignorant, ratios speak for themselves.
November 16th, 2007  
Del Boy
 
[quote=Doppleganger;377640] "compiled and published by a former Soviet general, Grigoriy Krivosheev. I attach a link to a table which I invite you to read. The numbers can only be described as staggering."



Impressive figures, Doppleganger, but your conclusions have to questioned, because you conclude that EVERYresult was brought about by Russian LUCK. It then follows that on every score, the Germans were UNLUCKY.

That has to say something, has to tell us something, about aims, ambitions and strategies. Bad moves are not unlucky moves, chess doesn't work that way. Remember that usually, in all things, we make our own luck.

Just a point that occurred to me on following this thread.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
”Haha you are welcome my rather angry and pompous friend. Disputing Krivosheev are we?”



And why on earth do you and Ollie adopt such insulting personal attacks when they are unsolicited. Can you not frame your disagreements with Kunikov in a more respectful manner? Do his opinions not count?



November 16th, 2007  
Easy-8
 
 
I would say Stalingrad. It seriously depleted Axis manpower strength in the east and resulted in a huge loss in equipment as well. The Germans really could have used a extra 300,000 men at Kursk. The losses at Stalingrad really screwed up everything for the Germans.
November 16th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunikov
You never quoted Krivosheev, rather your unsubstantiated, and highly ignorant, ratios speak for themselves.
The table I linked to was taken directly from Krivosheev...
November 16th, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
Impressive figures, Doppleganger, but your conclusions have to questioned, because you conclude that EVERYresult was brought about by Russian LUCK. It then follows that on every score, the Germans were UNLUCKY.
I never said that EVERY result was brought on by luck. The Germans got lucky sometimes too. The Russians got breaks due to German shortcomings in grand strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
And why on earth do you and Ollie adopt such insulting personal attacks when they are unsolicited. Can you not frame your disagreements with Kunikov in a more respectful manner? Do his opinions not count?
I called him 'angry' and 'pompous'. Big deal. Right from the start Kunikov has been posting in an abrasive and sometimes rude manner. Why then should I give him any respect when he gives others none?