WWII Equipment - Vics, Aircraft and Kit

[C-Mag]

Because I'm a bit of a numbers nerd, I've spent the last few hours going through casualty numbers to determine a Kill to Casualty Ratio for the 5 Major combatants in WWII.

Results Kills inflicted to Casualties taken
German 2.5 to 1
Japan 1 to 9*
UK 4.5 to 1
USSR 1 to 3
US 5 to 1


* If China is factored in, it changes Japans ratio dramatically, because China was just that bad. China had the largest combined army of the war, with a peak strength of 14 Million Soldiers. However, China had 4-7 Million military killed. If factored in Japans ratio is 2 to 1

What I was not able to find. Western Front breakdown of US vs German, UK vs German, French vs German, etc. I gave the US and UK each a 3rd, and left a 3rd for the remainder of the Western allies.

The US has it's high ratio primarily due to the 1.5 Million Japanese Soldiers and Sailors it killed at an expense of approx. 165,000 US Killed in the Pacific. When looking at these numbers, the Soviets are the worst in efficiency. They simply fought a war of attrition against the Germans.

Is it time to reconsider how good the Soviet Generals and Leadership was? Perhaps, Carlin sure praised them a lot in the Ostfront. These numbers seem to disagree.

[ssu]

* If China is factored in, it changes Japans ratio dramatically, because China was just that bad. China had the largest combined army of the war, with a peak strength of 14 Million Soldiers. However, China had 4-7 Million military killed. If factored in Japans ratio is 2 to 1

The Chinese front for Japan was a major theatre, so that should be factored in.

Is it time to reconsider how good the Soviet Generals and Leadership was? Perhaps, Carlin sure praised them a lot in the Ostfront. These numbers seem to disagree.

What here historians and the military think (after our own two wars with Russia) is that the Red Army that attacked us in 1939-1940 and the one that made the final push in the summer 1944 before Operation Bagration are two totally different Armies in every way, not only in equipment. (Small factoid, the Russians used far more tanks in the Winter War than in the Summer '44 offensive.)

And the fact is that before in general casualties weren't such a big deal. It's not only the collective ideology. It's also that we have to remember that WW2 was simplyToday it seems that once a Western fighting force gets casualties, the operation turns into a MEDEVAC operation. For instance this was one thing that the Israeli's were blamed on in the last war in Lebanon against the Hezbollah. I think this has happened also quite unintentionally because in modern insurgencies (and in the Gulf War) Western armies simply don't take such overwhelming casualties in a straight fight.

[Hastur]

Is it time to reconsider how good the Soviet Generals and Leadership was? Perhaps, Carlin sure praised them a lot in the Ostfront. These numbers seem to disagree.

The Red Army won, so it was Working as Intended.

Ваше здоровье!

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

The Red Army won, so it was Working as Intended.

.
это правда!


No definitive numbers on Russian casualties in world War two will ever be agreed upon especially when civilians/partisans are taken into account. Though the Germans were meticulous in their record keeping regarding their own troops, after the first few weeks of Barbarossa they calculated that they had already destroy over 100% of the enemy air force and the numbers of AFV's, Artillery tubes, and the masses of men destroyed or captured were incalculable, yet they continued to meet resistance everywhere. Russian divisions seemed to evaporate before their onslaught, yet so many Russians hid in the trackless Pritpyat Swap, in the hills, in the forests, or simply vanished into tiny villages in the countryside only to rise up again to prey upon the German's rear. the Russians mustered brigades and divisions so quickly, they often had duplications or even triplications in unit ID's.
Argue all you want about the death toll, it doesn't matter how many pieces you have left on the table once you've been checkmated.

[heydaralon]

Because I'm a bit of a numbers nerd, I've spent the last few hours going through casualty numbers to determine a Kill to Casualty Ratio for the 5 Major combatants in WWII.

Results Kills inflicted to Casualties taken
German 2.5 to 1
Japan 1 to 9*
UK 4.5 to 1
USSR 1 to 3
US 5 to 1


* If China is factored in, it changes Japans ratio dramatically, because China was just that bad. China had the largest combined army of the war, with a peak strength of 14 Million Soldiers. However, China had 4-7 Million military killed. If factored in Japans ratio is 2 to 1

What I was not able to find. Western Front breakdown of US vs German, UK vs German, French vs German, etc. I gave the US and UK each a 3rd, and left a 3rd for the remainder of the Western allies.

The US has it's high ratio primarily due to the 1.5 Million Japanese Soldiers and Sailors it killed at an expense of approx. 165,000 US Killed in the Pacific. When looking at these numbers, the Soviets are the worst in efficiency. They simply fought a war of attrition against the Germans.

Is it time to reconsider how good the Soviet Generals and Leadership was? Perhaps, Carlin sure praised them a lot in the Ostfront. These numbers seem to disagree.

This is the point I was trying to make without taking away the Soviets overall victory which was impressive.

[C-Mag]

The Red Army won, so it was Working as Intended.

.
это правда!


No definitive numbers on Russian casualties in world War two will ever be agreed upon especially when civilians/partisans are taken into account. ................. the Russians mustered brigades and divisions so quickly, they often had duplications or even triplications in unit ID's.
Argue all you want about the death toll, it doesn't matter how many pieces you have left on the table once you've been checkmated.

I very clearly addressed the recognition of the Soviets winning the Eastern Front. What I'm postulating is the Soviets were THE WORST Major Military man for man in WWII, if we add China, the Soviets are the second worst. The Soviets and the Chinese simply fought wars of attrition and put no value on their own Soldiers lives. If you have an argument against that, I'm all ears.

Primarily since Dan's Ostfront series, IMO, the Soviet military and military leadership specifically has gotten far too much credit in our little group. And, I was very conservative on Soviet numbers. For example. I made those calculations based on merely 10 Million Soviet military KIA. Mostly sources say that number is 40% to 60% too low. The Soviets may have lost 5 men for every German they killed.

We are 70+ years removed from the carnage of the war, simply dismissing all the deaths of those millions of cucumbers at the hands of a maniacal dictator and military leaders so shitty they put no value on the lives of their own men and women is wrong.

As above, if you want to call the Soviets the best Army in the world at the end of WWII, what is your basis for that ?

[C-Mag]

Because I'm a bit of a numbers nerd, I've spent the last few hours going through casualty numbers to determine a Kill to Casualty Ratio for the 5 Major combatants in WWII.

Results Kills inflicted to Casualties taken
China 1 to 7
German 2.5 to 1
Japan 2 to 1
UK 4.5 to 1
USSR 1 to 3
US 5 to 1

Is it time to reconsider how good the Soviet Generals and Leadership was? Perhaps, Carlin sure praised them a lot in the Ostfront. These numbers seem to disagree.

This is the point I was trying to make without taking away the Soviets overall victory which was impressive.

Per ssu's recommendation, the above numbers are edited to include the China-Burma Theatre.

Note: These numbers reflect how each nations total military fared. What it is not, is a rating of the average foot Soldier be it GI, Tommy, Kraut or Cucumber.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

The Japanese certainly didn't think the Soviets were the worst man for man army of World War Two. The Soviets took more Jap prisoners in a couple weeks then the USA in years of fighting. Also, the Soviets took on and took over, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, while fighting the Finns (whom they defeated twice) Italy, Slovakia, and hundreds of thousands of pro-Axis volunteers.
But--to answer your question; men, machines, and leaders made the Soviet army the greatest ever known to earth. (And I knew that looong before I'd ever heard of Dan Carlin.)

[Hastur]

What I'm postulating is the Soviets were THE WORST Major Military man for man in WWII, if we add China, the Soviets are the second worst. The Soviets and the Chinese simply fought wars of attrition and put no value on their own Soldiers lives. If you have an argument against that, I'm all ears.

No argument from me. It's just totally irrelevant. Soviet and China were collectivist/socialist societies. Individuals are totally irrelevant there. You are through the looking glass. They would gladly have taken twice as many casualties if they still won. It's not a metric that they cared about.

[C-Mag]

The Japanese certainly didn't think the Soviets were the worst man for man army of World War Two. The Soviets took more Jap prisoners in a couple weeks then the USA in years of fighting. Also, the Soviets took on and took over, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, while fighting the Finns (whom they defeated twice) Italy, Slovakia, and hundreds of thousands of pro-Axis volunteers.
But--to answer your question; men, machines, and leaders made the Soviet army the greatest ever known to earth. (And I knew that looong before I'd ever heard of Dan Carlin.)

I think we are looking at this from 2 different sides, I am looking at total military, you appear to be looking at ground army.

Let me start with this......... again, I know I'm annoying
This is true, if you handicap the US Forces.
1. First, you have to take away US Nuclear capability (granted it was limited)
2. You need to limit the evaluation of military forces to just the more traditional ground army
3. Don't consider Lend Lease program on a countries ability to sustain war

Handicap the US with the above, and yes, the Soviets are the best.

To address you points above.
Japan - The Soviets took 3 months after German Surrender and moved troops East to attack Japan. The Soviets only fought the Japanese for the last 3 weeks of the war. The Japanese were already beaten by the Americans before the Soviets entered the war.
The Japanese did not surrender in any large numbers against the Americans, they mostly fought to the death.

Men and Material - The biggest unified Army in the war, tons of men and material. If you simply put ground force against ground force, no Army would stand up against the Soviets. Because they are just going to keep throwing men and ordnance at you. However, there is a footnote here and it's huge. The Soviets are not able to assemble and supply this army without American Lend-Lease, not even close. Stalin even said that SPAM won the Eastern Front.