Darrin: here is a thought, if a German soldier was MIA at East Front in 1942, and he never turn out and claim thier retirment pension after the war, so there were two possibility about their whereabouts:
1. he was killed in 1942
2. he came back after the war and either went missing then or decided not claim his retirment pension.
Which one is more possible ? I would vote for the No 1. At least Mr Overmans provided us a complete month-by-month list of German causality list at the East Front, and I could not find out any reason to doubt his statiscs data.
Red Army
Moderator: John W. Howard
mars wrote:Darrin: here is a thought, if a German soldier was MIA at East Front in 1942, and he never turn out and claim thier retirment pension after the war, so there were two possibility about their whereabouts:
1. he was killed in 1942
2. he came back after the war and either went missing then or decided not claim his retirment pension.
Which one is more possible ? I would vote for the No 1. At least Mr Overmans provided us a complete month-by-month list of German causality list at the East Front, and I could not find out any reason to doubt his statiscs data.
I´m not going to repeat everything in Zetterlings critique of overmans presented below. Especially note what he says about overmans month by month list of cas by theatre.
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/overmans.pdf
It is not the numbers of mia in 42 that were the concern but the numbers latter in the war that overmans seems to have inflated somehow. Just becase someone does not live to claim thier pension does not prove they died in 45 or in the 55 years since. Or that they just didn´t want to be found out for who they are and are in fact still alive.
You will notice the gers went through the missing persons exercise near the end of the war when many soilders were being relased from allied camps. The 1 mil missing but not found that the ger govt produced is likly to be more accurte in terms of total numbers of whermacht deaths during the war and until relased from camps. Combined with 3 mil known to have died from some cause even if the reason is not known and only the body, dog tag or statments are available. Also the numbers of graves of known ger soilders is too low to accomadate the higher overmans numbers.
The number of total german cas from all casues on the east front up to the end of Dec 44 was about 6 mil during this same period the sov suffered from 26.5 mil tot cas from all causes. OVER 4 TIMES MORE total cas advantage for the ger using the offical ger army doc detailing each ger individual. But using krviosheevs only tot numbers no individual known top up add of front losses. Almost definatly incorrect in 41 and many other minor problems besides but the 'offical' soviet numbers. Its nice to compare offical ger numbers with quasi offical sov numbers at least to try to get as close to apples and apples as possible.
Anyone who still insists that the rus somehow competed on a level playing field with the ger in terms of cas suffered and produced should does not have a leg to stand on.
I still insists that the rus somehow competed on a level playing field with the ger in terms of cas suffered and since last time I check I still have a leg to stand on. 
Darrin, I don't want to argure with you again with this subject, it is just based on "what you believe" and "what you want to believe", just wonder why do you not also post Mr overman's reply to Mr Zetterlings's criticize ?
Darrin, I don't want to argure with you again with this subject, it is just based on "what you believe" and "what you want to believe", just wonder why do you not also post Mr overman's reply to Mr Zetterlings's criticize ?
mars wrote:I still insists that the rus somehow competed on a level playing field with the ger in terms of cas suffered and since last time I check I still have a leg to stand on.
Darrin, I don't want to argure with you again with this subject, it is just based on "what you believe" and "what you want to believe", just wonder why do you not also post Mr overman's reply to Mr Zetterlings's criticize ?
Becasue I have never seen one except a private email sent to one memebr of another forum that was supposedly from Overmans. It was translated by this memeber and well you can go dig it up and post it yourself if you like. You will notice at no point in his response does he try to say his stats were perfect a telling sign I would say.
I´ll stick to what I believe and what I want to believe over fantasy every day of the week. I am at least willing to admit that kriovsheev although not perfect seems the most accepted sov losses. You seem to be parading Overmans one book wonder as god even though it has not stood the test of time and critism that even kirovsheev stood. It seems you are unable to face any reality that differs your own preconsived version.
1. DenniV:
http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80sov.htm
2. Mars:
3. Yves:
4. Mars:
cheers
Actually, the Soviets had 29,6 million casualties through the war with Germany, according to Krivosheev. Refer this link:As I recall from Krivosheev, of the 21.7 million total casualties, roughly 11.5 million were fatalities (5 million fatalities for Wehrmacht) and 10 million WIAs.
http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80sov.htm
We don't really know, because nobody has any reliable German figures for 1945, and Krivosheev's figures for 1941 are not widely regarded as too solid either. I suppose one way of looking at it could be to disregard both 1941 and 1945, and compare 42-44. Going on memory, this would I think put the Germans at about 4.5 million, and the Soviets, according to Krivosheev, at 22.1 million.Anyway, with the figure now being commonly thrown around (75%+ of German casualties were on the EF), it seems the Germans were inflicted around 2.5 times more casualties on the Soviet Union than they suffered themselves.
2. Mars:
These are not actually comparable figures. The first is Krivosheev, who is counting soldiers who have been documented as dead. The second (as far as the Germans are concerned) is Overmans, who is counting any German man of military age whose whereabouts is not known to the German state after 1945. Krivosheev's deaths figures are under pressure, and it would not be very surprising if they turned out to be as much as 50% too low, which, if we accept Overmans German figures, would fit much better with the numerical relation between the two sides' casualties. Overmans figures, incidentally, are more than twice as large as what can be read out of wartime German documentation, and in practice representes the highest possible figure. The bottom line is - there is little reason to think we have deaths figures of any final authority for the two sides. I therefore prefer to rely on casualties for purposes of comparison.So Fatality at battlefied may be 6.5 million Soviet and nearly 4.5 million Axis force.
They are also by nature estimates, and could easile be quite inaccurate.The unrecorded losses which include KIA, MIA and POW were already included into the irrecoverable losses
This is not quite accurate. There were parts of the German reporting system that did concern themselves with death from wounds, and there does exist contemporary casualty overviews which contains this category. However, during the war itself it seems that the Germans had significant trouble achieving a full overview of the full numbers.By the German causality list did not include these died of wound after were sent to the rear hospital and these died of diease .
3. Yves:
As I recall, Krivosheev puts the number very close to 200 million, I think it was 198,6.Would someone have reliable figures about the Russian population? around 1939. I've come accross figures anywhere between 150 million and 250 million. That makes a huge difference.
Can someone help?
4. Mars:
Not even a toe I'm afraid. Unless you can discredit Krivosheev's 29,6 million casualties figure, or somehow bring the German casualty figure anywhere in the same region as that.I still insists that the rus somehow competed on a level playing field with the ger in terms of cas suffered and since last time I check I still have a leg to stand on.
cheers
Dear Quist, first of all, according to Gen Krivosheev in his book " "soviet Casualties and combat losses in the twentieth century", Soviet suffered about 21 million causalties between 1942-1944 (1942: 4308094 1943: 7080801 and 1944 6503204) not 22.1 million, but this number included both combat and non-combat losses and this number does not indicate there were 21 million Red Army soldier was either killed, missing, captured, wounded or sick between 1942-1944, because a Soviet soldier could be wounded one time in 1942, be sick one time in the first half of 1943, and wounded again in the secon half of 1943 then got killed in 1944, here we count 4 time in the Casualities list for a same person, so that this "21 million " means there were 21 million person/time case of casualites between 1942-1944
then if you really want to compare the losses betweeen German and Soviet (no just want you feel good
, you should always use the same method for both side, you surely do not want to compare apple with orange.
Now let us forget the German loss in both 1041 and 1945, there were nearly 2.5 million German died at East Front for all causes (1942: 506815 1943: 700653 and 1944:1232946), let us add about 0.6 million POW, we got about 3.1 million Permantley loss here alone, so you want to tell me you really want me to believe German only suffered "4 million" causaulity which I assume included kia, mia, wia,pow and sick between 1942 and 1944 ?
Let us assume in the normal case, for every dead Germans, there would be 3 Germans wounded or sick, so I would guess there were about 7.5 million wounds and illness cases at German sides between 1942-1944 (Here I have to BEG you to notice the difference between 7.5 million wounded men and 7.5 million wounded cases), so that the overall German casuality between 1942-1944 would be around 11 million
then if you really want to compare the losses betweeen German and Soviet (no just want you feel good
, you should always use the same method for both side, you surely do not want to compare apple with orange.Now let us forget the German loss in both 1041 and 1945, there were nearly 2.5 million German died at East Front for all causes (1942: 506815 1943: 700653 and 1944:1232946), let us add about 0.6 million POW, we got about 3.1 million Permantley loss here alone, so you want to tell me you really want me to believe German only suffered "4 million" causaulity which I assume included kia, mia, wia,pow and sick between 1942 and 1944 ?
Let us assume in the normal case, for every dead Germans, there would be 3 Germans wounded or sick, so I would guess there were about 7.5 million wounds and illness cases at German sides between 1942-1944 (Here I have to BEG you to notice the difference between 7.5 million wounded men and 7.5 million wounded cases), so that the overall German casuality between 1942-1944 would be around 11 million
mars wrote:Dear Quist, first of all, according to Gen Krivosheev in his book " "soviet Casualties and combat losses in the twentieth century", Soviet suffered about 21 million causalties between 1942-1944 (1942: 4308094 1943: 7080801 and 1944 6503204) not 22.1 million, but this number included both combat and non-combat losses and this number does not indicate there were 21 million Red Army soldier was either killed, missing, captured, wounded or sick between 1942-1944, because a Soviet soldier could be wounded one time in 1942, be sick one time in the first half of 1943, and wounded again in the secon half of 1943 then got killed in 1944, here we count 4 time in the Casualities list for a same person, so that this "21 million " means there were 21 million person/time case of casualites between 1942-1944
then if you really want to compare the losses betweeen German and Soviet (no just want you feel good
Now let us forget the German loss in both 1041 and 1945, there were nearly 2.5 million German died at East Front for all causes (1942: 506815 1943: 700653 and 1944:1232946), let us add about 0.6 million POW, we got about 3.1 million Permantley loss here alone, so you want to tell me you really want me to believe German only suffered "4 million" causaulity which I assume included kia, mia, wia,pow and sick between 1942 and 1944 ?
Let us assume in the normal case, for every dead Germans, there would be 3 Germans wounded or sick, so I would guess there were about 7.5 million wounds and illness cases at German sides between 1942-1944 (Here I have to BEG you to notice the difference between 7.5 million wounded men and 7.5 million wounded cases), so that the overall German casuality between 1942-1944 would be around 11 million
Still refusing to belive the truth. Using overman total death and multiyplying by three will get you no where even just for 42-44. The ger army archives show around 5 mil cas from all causes not your 11 mil fantasy overman deaths and 3 times numbers. The russian total is still about 22 mil your kirosheevs numbers for 42 are half of what he says in reality have you actually bothered to read his book. The rus suffered OVER 4 TIMES as many as ger. If you are only intersested in flogging a dead horse then I won´t help you. If you are interested in discussing certain aspects of krivosheev, overmans and the ger army I might participate. Note the ger army reporting is considered accurate by german army experts up to the end of 44. Zetterling in the critque I hoped you had read gives a great example from the east front from mid 43 to mid 44 that shows it was accurate to 1%! The ger reporting was also 1 soiler becoming a cas each time.
Darin, please do not be so excited ? it is not whether I "still" refuse to belive truth or not, it is just about I belive something you don't and you believe something I do not, before I end this some kind of turned "hot" discussing, may I ask you have you read Mr Overman's book by yourself ? I admit I did not, since this book has not been translated to English yet, and sigh, I could not read German......
By the way, about the Red Army causality between 1942-1944, you are right, I made a calculate error and it was about 22 million, look at least sometimes I would admit I am wrong , and at the same time I am very glad that you at least agree with me tha Mr Qivst' 4 million German causality between 1942-1944 is somehow LOW
By the way, about the Red Army causality between 1942-1944, you are right, I made a calculate error and it was about 22 million, look at least sometimes I would admit I am wrong
, and at the same time I am very glad that you at least agree with me tha Mr Qivst' 4 million German causality between 1942-1944 is somehow LOW mars wrote:Darin, please do not be so excited ? it is not whether I "still" refuse to belive truth or not, it is just about I belive something you don't and you believe something I do not, before I end this some kind of turned "hot" discussing, may I ask you have you read Mr Overman's book by yourself ? I admit I did not, since this book has not been translated to English yet, and sigh, I could not read German......
By the way, about the Red Army causality between 1942-1944, you are right, I made a calculate error and it was about 22 million, look at least sometimes I would admit I am wrong
Qivst said 4.5 mil which is correct if you don´t include cas due to non combat factors. This factor amounted 5-10% of all cas in 43. So a 10% higher figure of 5 mil which I used seems a conservative approximation. I generally agree with most things Qivst says. I also have not read overmans book as well for the same reason as you. But I am not the one running around treating it like the bible without ever having read it.
The rus actually had a lower number of noncombat cas becasue they usually required these people to stay with thier units. Even if you include all cat without a knowledge of how they were supposed to be and actually were applied it is not nessscarrially the same.
Plus the sovs system at least in krivosheev is an addition of reported losses from fronts with no names or referernce to individual soilders cards. The ger system is much more individual based with names reported acuratly but slower then numbers. The names can be cross referenced from individual soliders cards. Overmans took a sample of these individual cards. The three system are inherently dissimilar.
Overmans used the card list which includes whermact auxilliary forces such as the train system. People who would not appear on the ger cas figures I quoted. Again Krivosheev´s figures also don´t include NKVD forces even though at least as late as stalingrad they fought on the front line. All are not complete list of individual let alone citizens who fought and serviced the army. Each one is different from the next in this way as well.
Comparing one to another is not neccasarialy comparing apples to apples.
Darin please correct me if I am wrong, few months ago I read Mr Robert Sterling Rush's excellent "Hell in Hurtgen Froest", according to Mr Rush, German army used two differen channel for reporting losses, one from Unit IIa who processed, consolidated and sent to higher headquaters condition reports listing officer and enlisted casualites (Officers by name and enlisted men BY NUMBER) andLOSSES THROUGH SICKNESSAND TRANSFERED WERE NOT COUNTED. another is from medical channel, unit surgeons submitted nightly reports listing killed,wounded and missing through surgeons' channels, again they list only officers by name , GIVING ONLY NUMBERS FOR ENLISTED.
again, you have not answered my question, have you read Mr Overman's book yourself yet ?
again, you have not answered my question, have you read Mr Overman's book yourself yet ?
Firstly, please consult the link I provided above. It contains the relevant summary from Krivosheev, scanned directly from the book. Alternatively, consult table 67 in the book. Add up his yearly totals 42-44, and they amount to 22.1 million. Secondly, whether it's 21 or 22.1 million, this does not affect the basic point the Soviet casualties were much, much larger than German. Thirdly, yes, we are all aware of what a casualty is, and that a single person may become a casualty more than once. Exactly as with German casualties in fact.Dear Quist, first of all, according to Gen Krivosheev in his book " "soviet Casualties and combat losses in the twentieth century", Soviet suffered about 21 million causalties between 1942-1944 (1942: 4308094 1943: 7080801 and 1944 6503204) not 22.1 million, but this number included both combat and non-combat losses and this number does not indicate there were 21 million Red Army soldier was either killed, missing, captured, wounded or sick between 1942-1944, because a Soviet soldier could be wounded one time in 1942, be sick one time in the first half of 1943, and wounded again in the secon half of 1943 then got killed in 1944, here we count 4 time in the Casualities list for a same person, so that this "21 million " means there were 21 million person/time case of casualites between 1942-1944
Actually, it does not appear to include non-combat casualties. As said, it was from memory and not precise. The point was to illustrate the fact that the difference between German and Soviet casualties was so huge that it is completely beyond any reasonable doubt that the latter greatly exceeded the former. You can double it, triple it, and that would still be the case by a wide margin. If you want something more precise, it was 4,6 million (1,080,950 in 1942, 1,601,445 in 1943, 1,947,406 in 1944). If you want I can provide primary documentary references for that figure, so I have no need to "want to believe" anything. Then you can add as many non-combat casualties as you care to imagine, and as much of the roughly 175,000 KM and 520,000 Luftwaffe casualties incurred everywhere from the beginning of the war as you think is reasonable, and as many HiWis as you can find, and the basic point will still be the same. Where, on the other hand, does your figure of 2.5 million dead come from?then if you really want to compare the losses betweeen German and Soviet (no just want you feel good , you should always use the same method for both side, you surely do not want to compare apple with orange.
Now let us forget the German loss in both 1041 and 1945, there were nearly 2.5 million German died at East Front for all causes (1942: 506815 1943: 700653 and 1944:1232946), let us add about 0.6 million POW, we got about 3.1 million Permantley loss here alone, so you want to tell me you really want me to believe German only suffered "4 million" causaulity which I assume included kia, mia, wia,pow and sick between 1942 and 1944 ?
The thing, my dear Mars, is that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever by the way of source support for a German casualty figure that is even remotely close to that. This is simply you thinking of numbers and extrapolating recklessly. May I ask, for instance, how there is supposed to have been more than 6 million - about twice the total strength of the Ostheer at any given point - German soldiers funnelled to the EF without any record of them existing, so that the strength numbers from year to year would not conflict with the casualty figures?Let us assume in the normal case, for every dead Germans, there would be 3 Germans wounded or sick, so I would guess there were about 7.5 million wounds and illness cases at German sides between 1942-1944 (Here I have to BEG you to notice the difference between 7.5 million wounded men and 7.5 million wounded cases), so that the overall German casuality between 1942-1944 would be around 11 million
But the most major point of all is this. Even if I accept this fantasy figure, which AFAIK has zero source basis, it would still completely contradict your claim of an "even playing field" casualty-wise between the two sides. You are talking as if the view that German casualties were much lower than Soviet was some sort of extraordinary viewpoint, when the reality is that the sources bear this out without a shadow of doubt - even on the basis of your own figures.
cheers
Well, I have read Overmans, or at least parts of it (not exactly the kind of book you bring to the beach )
Mars:
Mars: You are right for the early part of the war. However, as I recall in 1943, the IIa channel was abolished, leaving the Heeresarzt (which had proven to be the more reliable of the two) as the only numerical reporting channel. It is correct that through these channels, units were only required to report figures, except for officers. However, both units and hospitals additionally had to report names and full details for everyone to the WAsT.
cheers
)Mars:
Darrin:Darin please correct me if I am wrong, few months ago I read Mr Robert Sterling Rush's excellent "Hell in Hurtgen Froest", according to Mr Rush, German army used two differen channel for reporting losses, one from Unit IIa who processed, consolidated and sent to higher headquaters condition reports listing officer and enlisted casualites (Officers by name and enlisted men BY NUMBER) andLOSSES THROUGH SICKNESSAND TRANSFERED WERE NOT COUNTED. another is from medical channel, unit surgeons submitted nightly reports listing killed,wounded and missing through surgeons' channels, again they list only officers by name , GIVING ONLY NUMBERS FOR ENLISTED.
Well,yes, but mostly no :). It is true that there was a name-based organisation - the WAsT, in addition to the two main reporting channels mentioned by mars, but it was the two latter that formed the main basis for German casualty overviews. So in practice, wartime overviews are generally not produced on the basis of named casualties, but on numerical reporting. Thus, the systems of the two sides for rolling reporting of casualties were in theory essentially similar. The German name-based system existed more for the purposes of registering and keeping track of personnel, notifying realtives in cases of death, recording exactly where a given soldier was buried etc., but also of course to provide statistics that could adjust or verify the numerical reporting. For the early years of the war it appears true to say that it was accurate but slow. However, it does not appear to have been accurate either for the second part of the war. It was a near-perfect system in theory, but it was so demanding that they simply couldn't cope with it. It did not improve matters that the system was instigated at the outbreak of war, without units having had time to adjust to it's considerable demands. So the existence of this system is not, I think, something that can be said to enhance the reliability of German numerical reporting much.The ger system is much more individual based with names reported acuratly but slower then numbers. The names can be cross referenced from individual soliders cards
Mars: You are right for the early part of the war. However, as I recall in 1943, the IIa channel was abolished, leaving the Heeresarzt (which had proven to be the more reliable of the two) as the only numerical reporting channel. It is correct that through these channels, units were only required to report figures, except for officers. However, both units and hospitals additionally had to report names and full details for everyone to the WAsT.
cheers
"The thing, my dear Mars, is that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever by the way of source support for a German casualty figure that is even remotely close to that. This is simply you thinking of numbers and extrapolating recklessly. May I ask, for instance, how there is supposed to have been more than 6 million - about twice the total strength of the Ostheer at any given point - German soldiers funnelled to the EF without any record of them existing, so that the strength numbers from year to year would not conflict with the casualty figures? "
Do I have to BEG you again to you to NOTICE the difference between 7.5 million wounded men and 7.5 million wounded cases ? We all know that Soviet had maybe 29 million causulities, both combat and non-combat, but that did not means Soviet had 29 million men on the Field at any time of the war.
About Mr Overmans's books, only those who read his whold book such as Mr Zetterlings has the right to evaluate it, certainly I am not qualified
Do I have to BEG you again to you to NOTICE the difference between 7.5 million wounded men and 7.5 million wounded cases ? We all know that Soviet had maybe 29 million causulities, both combat and non-combat, but that did not means Soviet had 29 million men on the Field at any time of the war.
About Mr Overmans's books, only those who read his whold book such as Mr Zetterlings has the right to evaluate it, certainly I am not qualified
mars wrote:Darin please correct me if I am wrong, few months ago I read Mr Robert Sterling Rush's excellent "Hell in Hurtgen Froest", according to Mr Rush, German army used two differen channel for reporting losses, one from Unit IIa who processed, consolidated and sent to higher headquaters condition reports listing officer and enlisted casualites (Officers by name and enlisted men BY NUMBER) andLOSSES THROUGH SICKNESSAND TRANSFERED WERE NOT COUNTED. another is from medical channel, unit surgeons submitted nightly reports listing killed,wounded and missing through surgeons' channels, again they list only officers by name , GIVING ONLY NUMBERS FOR ENLISTED.
again, you have not answered my question, have you read Mr Overman's book yourself yet ?
Can´t read krivosheev can´t read my post directly above yours. Look near the end of the first paragraph is that enough of a hint for you? The ger did keep track of sickness and accidents they called it NON combat losses. Although I don´t know eaxctly which channel they reported but they did keep track of casulatuies in this category. Qvist has already answered your other questions better then I could.