Take the Battle of Kursk for example, the German offensive and Soviet counter offensive lasted 50 days altogether.
In that period the losses for both sides are:
Germany
>252,182 casualties of all types
>1,083 tanks destroyed
Russia
>1,040,847 casualties of all types
>7,864 tanks destroyed
Altogether we have:
>1,293,029 KIA/WIA/MIA
>8,947 tanks destroyed
The casualties work out at an incredible 25,860 PER DAY, even if we say for every man killed there are 3 wounded and 2 missing that gives us a figure of 4,310 killed for every combat day along with 179 tanks destroyed per day.
My question is, what would the majority of losses be caused by on a daily basis?
And if this is what happened in 1943 with the technology back then how does it affect current military doctrine, no country could sustain those losses surely? Is it a case of hiding behind nukes to avoid large conventional battles like Kursk?
>>28545000
Why were the Russian casualties so much higher when they were defending?
>>28545009
>soviet counter-offensive
We could use those men in europe right now.
>>28545009
Russian had basically only one battlefield tactic and that was mass charge towards the enemy positions. Tactical withdraw, halting in a good position, flanking through cover all were seen traitorous by the political officers whose only requirement to become an officer was unwavering loyalty and obedience to Stalin. They didn't know shit about military maneuvers, tactics or strategy so they executed everyone who didn't charge forwards like an total idiot just incase.
>>28545000
>if this is what happened in 1943 with the technology back then how does it affect current military doctrine
Virtually the entirety of WWII and its astronomical losses were dictated by the doctrine of the day.
Generally speaking the weapons have changed relatively little, for the average infantry man. Body armor and increased magazine capacity, as well as more "reliable" weaponry have increased serviveability and individual 'firepower' but it remains to be observed that the effectiveness of infantry in urban total war has made any substantial gains in effectiveness as a whole since the WWII conflict. In so much that men with boots on the ground, when engaged in block to block combat, have a higher or sustainable rate of inflicting casualty, to the ones they sustain.
Thus it could be realized that what DRASTICALLY reduces causalities in infantry urban combat is excellent supply and EXCELLENT COMMUNICATION.
It cannot be stated enough the impact instant, reliable and constant communication has in reducing casualties, organizing movement, and increasing the success of offensives. IT could be observed that a lack in communication and leadership, coupled with a "mass attack" strategy lead to outrageous increase in KIA. Unorganized, leaderless conscripted, ill trained men were killed in unfathomable numbers, essentially directed in theater operations.
>>28545278
>still believing those memes
I thought better of you /k/.
The whole "not one step back or you get shot by a commissar" only lasted for a few months and the deep battle doctrine allowed to reds to steamroll through countless German divisions during the late war period.
>>28545278
>I derive my WW2 comprehension from Enemy At The Gates
>>28545356
>>28545362
Don't even try. You can't fix decades of propaganda.
>>28545000
>how does it affect current military doctrine, no country could sustain those losses surely
Well we've done a lot to keep casualties low in a hypothetical war.
Precision guided munitions (both on the ground and in the air) allow forces to stay at a standoff distance from their targets, and advancements in body armor, infantry tactics, and medicine mean that casualties from individual engagements would probably be lower, and be more wounded than killed.
That's not to say that a future war would be in any way sustainable. The Soviets ran an excercise back in the 80's for example called "Seven Days to the River Rhine." Highlights include:
>2 million dead right off the bat from a NATO pre-emptive nuclear strike targeting the Vistula river
>NATO rush across border to fuck up PACT forces isolated by the Vistula strikes
>tactical nuclear strikes on major command centers in the West
>PACT forces counter with a rush the other direction complemented by gratuitous use of tactical nukes
>reach Rhine within a week
>reach Pyrenees in a month
>20 million casualties by the end of the month
>>28545412
Mass communication and WWII was so profoundly effective it's mind boggling. I have no earthly idea how radio, TV and mass circulated literature was so advanced, effective and disseminated that it will FOREVER be etched into the collective conscience
You would have thought that worldwide radio and TV broadcasts would have taken years if not decads, perhaps JUST NOW reaching the sophistication and ingenuity to 'brainwash' or indoctrinate entire cultures, but instead, it was almost simultaneous with those two entities creations, that their power to utterly control the thoughts of the masses was realized.
I have no idea, to this day, how they did it.
>>28545450
>le Germany is the only country that matters in a Warsaw Pact invasion meme
>>28545009
Combination of god awful tactics (not the "zerg rush" meme, but legitimately terrible infantry tactics) coupled with a counteroffensive on the Orel Salient.
The bulk of the casualties came when the Soviets launched their counteroffensive. This was probably due to
>Defensive battles being easier to fight
>The Orel Salient consisting men from Army Group Center who had already spent over a year defending a similar salient at Rzhev
That's not to say the Soviets did all that great defending either. German losses for Citadel were a third of Soviet losses. Hell, the VVS managed to throw away about a third of an Air Army in a single failed strike on the first day of the battle.
>>28545478
its akin to the Wright brothers first powered flight on a Tuesday, and subsequently sucessfully landing man on the moon with the Apollo Rocket the following Thursday.
But WWII was a weird time, The Atom was split and weaponized without the aid of computers, (essentially). Though both sprang from the efforts.
>>28545000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
Complete destruction and obliteration of my sides
>>28545000
I believe artillery accounted for the majority of losses during the war.
Dunno if it counts, but the Chinese Nationalists blew the dikes on the Yellow River in order to stop the Japanese advance during WW2.
Killed like 800,000 people in a few days though they were mostly civilians.
>>28545340
>It cannot be stated enough the impact instant, reliable and constant communication has in reducing casualties, organizing movement, and increasing the success of offensives. IT could be observed that a lack in communication and leadership, coupled with a "mass attack" strategy lead to outrageous increase in KIA. Unorganized, leaderless conscripted, ill trained men were killed in unfathomable numbers, essentially directed in theater operations.
The first battle of Grozny is a great illustration of your points.
I think the only part missing in your post is how crucial reliable intelligence is. It ties in with communication somewhat, but more so pre battle and during battle intelligence.
Again illustrated very well in the battle of Grozny.
>>28545278
Bullshit
>>28545278
>Russian had basically only one battlefield tactic and that was mass charge towards the enemy positions
This personal literally knows nothing.
>What is deep-battle
>What is Konstantin's Bagration combined counter offensive
>What is the partisan internal offensive
>>28545000
>Germany
>252,182 casualties of all types
>1,083 tanks destroyed
>Russia
>1,040,847 casualties of all types
>7,864 tanks destroyed
The majority of German losses were from the first days when they were on the offensive. Obviously the casuality rate was in favor of the Soviets, but the operation itself went much farther than that. After the Germans stopped the offensive and started falling back, the Soviets launched a counter-offensive that went much farther into enemy territory and as you note lasted 50 days. So for 50 days of combat and the large number of cities/towns liberated, the Soviets actually did quite well (especially compared to the Germans during the Stalingrad/Moscow offensives).
US managed a couple of hundred thousand kills in 2 blinks of an eye. Step up, bitches.
Time to break out the old bingo board
Typical responses:
>K/D ratios do not mean shit outside of vidya games. Same with kill streaks - 300+ kills seems pretty good, until you break it down over 5 years of war against various enemies, some of whom performed poorly and should be discounted.
>1943 Red Army was a different force than 1941 Red Army. Stalin handed the reigns over to competent generals for pragmatic rather than political reasons. Hitler held on to them and only put hardcore loyalists in charge.
>German tanks are a meme and vidya/History Channel is responsible for perpetrating this. They were advanced, but so were the Allies who had more to fear from ATGM than facing a meme jungle cat with an 88.
>Hitler after Kursk ordered everyone to literally bunker down on the largest continuous front line in history. He was the one who was practicing human waves trying to patch holes in the line, not Stalin.
>Right after promising that he would never subject Germany to another WW1 trench warfare nightmare
>Went out of their way to make the locals hostile so no chance of building anti-Bolshevik allies besides Finns (Whom everyone forgets turned on the Nazis at the end)
>"Hurr but they gud bois fightan for their fatherland and sheeet! Muh honorable men!" - literally had units devoted to massacring entire villages with no military purpose besides the vague term "partisan activity"
>MUH ALLIED WAR CRIMES! - Sure the Allies bombed Dresden and locked up Japs, but they didn't build a political institution devoted to an ideology where such actions were deemed righteous
>Soviets were playing to win. Germany was playing to buy a truce with the Allies after burning all their bridges
Did I hit most of the big points?
>>28546010
>>German tanks are a meme and vidya/History Channel is responsible for perpetrating this. They were advanced
That's only true for the late war period.
In terms of stars and technology, during the Barbarossa period the KV and T34 shat all over whatever Germany had and the BT7 was on par with the PZ1 and PZ2.
I'd say Rzhev salient was more of a bloodbath than Kursk. In fact, probably the bloodiest battle in human history, and all its worth was essentially strategic distraction to draw away opponent's divisons from Stalingrad.
>>28545450
>>2 million dead right off the bat from a NATO pre-emptive nuclear strike targeting the Vistula river
m8 the soviets were gonna use at least 60 nukes on the first day of war
so probably more like 30 million in the first month
>>28546064
I was just on /his/ on a thread (depressingly) similiar to this. For all the percieved strength of the German panzer, the Allies had much more to fear from ATGMs and landmines than any German tank. The Allies simply had many times more tanks than the Germans could ever feild at a single time and the supposedly "horrific" losses they encountered are far more proportional to the number of tanks they had available. 100 burnt shermans seems terrible, until you realize the Allies had thousands of shermans in adjacent units and even more in rear line depots. Take into account the ATGMs and landmines doing the brunt of the killing and you realize the "Panzer force multiplier" meme is retarded. Especially the part where they circlejerk over a handful of panzer aces as evidence that the entire Panzerwaffe was a killing machine. They were fucking average with average equipment, period.
>>28546187
Well I mean like the instant the war started.
7 Days to the River Rhine assumed that NATO would start off with a pre-emptive nuclear strike along the Vistula River to cut off logistics. They'd follow this up by rushing across the border, trying to take as much PACT territory as they could while forces West of the Vistula were still isolated. Of course the Soviets were planning on responding with gratuitous use of nukes themselves. Britain, France, and America were spared because the scenario was for a "limited" war, but just about every major city and military base in Germany, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands was set to get a nuke. Plus, Soviet "SEAD" practices entailed the use of several high-altitude airbursts for EMP effects over West Germany, so that's several more nukes that would have been thrown around.
>>28546277
>ATGMs
>world war 2
>>28545000
>My question is, what would the majority of losses be caused by on a daily basis?
artillery was most dangerous to the individual infatryman in ww2 and was responsible for a lot of deaths and casualties
machinegun fire would probably come next in terms of the number of casualties it created
small arms fire and tank dont really comapre to these, air strikes killed mostly when striking units moving but not in battle
>>28546277
Don't forget that the Western Allies were pretty much constantly on the offensive.
>>28546277
>ATGM
How much money does your jewish handler pay you exactly?
>>28546287
>Soviet "SEAD" practices entailed the use of several high-altitude airbursts for EMP effects over West Germany,
now that i think about it, all stationary radar is completely fucked in a nuclear war
>>28546305
Soviet SEAD plans were hilariously heavy handed and pretty much impossible to scale down for a conventional conflict
>Start off with a line of high-altitude airbursts to EMP a path to a strategic airbase
>Flood path with jammers mounted on strategic bombers and Mi-6s
>Use more strategic bombers to lay clouds of chaff along edges of the corridor
>MiG-25s fly in, throwing standoff ARMs derived from cruise missiles
>tactical bombers follow, killing now blinded air defenses
>Su-24s reach air base, drop nukes
Pretty much they wanted to carve a path about 100 miles wide through air defenses halfway across Germany.
>>28546010
>"Hurr but they gud bois fightan for their fatherland and sheeet! Muh honorable men!" - literally had units devoted to massacring entire villages with no military purpose besides the vague term "partisan activity"
Literally the Russians and Germans
>MUH ALLIED WAR CRIMES! - Sure the Allies bombed Dresden and locked up Japs, but they didn't build a political institution devoted to an ideology where such actions were deemed righteous
Literally the Russians and Germans
On the Eastern Front, both sides were "bad guys", both acted like inhumane subhuman savages. None of them were heroes, both regimes were hellbent on oppresion
>inb4 war is humane
>>28546010
>Went out of their way to make the locals hostile so no chance of building anti-Bolshevik allies besides Finns (Whom everyone forgets turned on the Nazis at the end)
What is
>Romania
>Hungary
>Croatia
>Slovakia
Sure they all flipped sides as well, but Germany hardly went into Barbarossa alone.
>>28546357
>amerifat wehraboo apologists
Post disregarded.
>>28546371
>calling me a wehraboo
I equally hate both, vatnik. Shouldn't you be justifying war crimes?
>>28546294
>>28546302
Calm your autism
Wehraboos shouldn't be mad that I just called their Panzershreck an anti tank guided munition. They should be turning it into a new meme for the crap they want to believe about the unstobbable KRUPPSTAHL.
I meant Anti Tank munition, for fucks sake - encompassing everything from a PaK to panzerfaust.
Allied tankers had more to fear from a 13 year old with a Panzerfaust than they did from a Panther or Tiger showing up on the front. Allied intelligence and air recon could spot the panzers hours before the Allied tank column moved out and would take care of the threat using good old fashioned HE. Allies did still take losses, but the question should not be "would you rather be in a Sherman or Tiger" but rather, "Would you rather be an American or a German".
Its fitting that the only threat to tanks that has not been completely solved by technology and armor is still the threat of some cheeky fucker with a shoulder launched weapon or a fuckhueg IED.
>>28546357
>On the Eastern Front, both sides were "bad guys", both acted like inhumane subhuman savages. None of them were heroes, both regimes were hellbent on oppresion
That's what you get for invading someone's homeland, acting like barbarians and treating evwryone as subhumans.
The Soviets weren't savage enough in their treatment of Germans.
>>28545000
I'm pretty sure those soldiers are sleeping, one in the center right is holding a cigar.
>>28545009
different types of counting casualties
>>28546366
If all your friends turn on you rather than fight to defend their homeland from the enemy they 3 years earlier deemed existensial, then maybe they weren't as committed to your cause as you think. Going into battle with uncommitted allies is worse than going it alone, for sure.
>>28546415
That's a shame. If they were dead I could loot myself some new sides.
>>28546415
I think it's Waffen SS sleeping in a field in Belgium in 1940, I've seen the pic before I'm sure.
>>28546411
>That's what you get for invading someone's homeland, acting like barbarians and treating evwryone as subhumans.
The Soviets know alot about invading someones homeland
>The Soviets weren't savage enough in their treatment of Germans.
I wouldnt say that, the NKVD were more savage and inhumane than the Gestapo
>>28546411
The soviets were being savage before Germany attacked them.
>>28545000
>you will never see a number like that of dead subhuman slavs ever again
>>28546671
cry harder naziboo
>>28546690
watch out subhuman! this guy will blow your mongol head in two
>ITT
>slavs and wehraboos are going at it again
>>28546718
>Muh interchangable Finn/Germans slav remover meme!
The Finns shot at the Germans as they were leaving in 1944 :^)
So much for "Muh bestest friends"
Just because the Finns fought the Soviets too does not justify the German cause. The Finns were fighting for existence; the Germans had a pretty sweet Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with the Soviets that benefitted them greatly. The Germans were the ones who decided wholly to go on the offensive; Finland didn't need to fight the war of continuation.
My point is the Germans were the bigger niggers, and you are a double nigger for thinking the Finn's noble defence of their homeland is in any way comparable to Hitlers retarded crusade into the Russian steppe. If Finland didn't do the right thing and quit in '44, Finland would be a slavic puppet state. We like our independence. Stay mad Krautboo.
>>28546804
>27000000 dead slavshits LMAO
keep crying Ivan :^)))
>>28546907
>how to spot american 15 year olds on /k/
>>28546921
>how to spot booty bothered slavaboo
>>28546907
>
>>28546933
Lots of butthurt people in this thread.
>>28546946
![6d399019722594b8a9bdcaa0591199af[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HPFQsXf.jpg "6d399019722594b8a9bdcaa0591199af[1].jpg")
>>28546970
>endless shitposting session confirmed?
>>28546960
Yeah, time to abandon thread.
>>28546989
>>28545478
> You would have thought that worldwide radio and TV broadcasts would have taken years if not decads, perhaps JUST NOW reaching the sophistication and ingenuity to 'brainwash' or indoctrinate entire cultures, but instead, it was almost simultaneous with those two entities creations, that their power to utterly control the thoughts of the masses was realized.
> it was almost simultaneous with those two entities creations, that their power to utterly control the thoughts of the masses was realized.
Yeah. That is weird.
It's almost like your entire 'television is the devious leash around humanity's neck with which the illuminati control our thoughts' shit is complete and total bollocks, and instead while technology changes humans are more or less just humans who act in human ways.
Like say.... the average person knowing justifiably little about the battle tactics of another country in a way that took place before their parents (and sometimes parents parents) were born - and thus making assumptions to fill the gaps.
>>28545278
Zhukov actually banned frontal assaults. I wish he would ban you from all boards as well.
>>28545644
>https://vimeo.com/128373915
This is a bit long, but very related.
>>28547081
>Zhukov actually banned facing the enemy like a man
Lol, what a pussy
What's more striking than the casualty numbers are the number of tanks destroyed on the Russian side. Are those accurate? How the hell did they lose that many?
>>28547190
Counter-offensive.
>>28547081
Based Zhukov, only russ with the balls to execute the head of the KGB
>>28547190
The Russians define 'destroyed' differently
Germans and Americans would mark a tank destroyed if it was unrecoverable. Anything salvaged and repaired was simply 'damaged'
The Ruskies used the term for anything knocked out in combat, so if 12 tanks get ambushed and all are disabled, but later all but 3 are recovered, they still have all 12 listed as destroyed
That said, most of their losses during the war occurred in the first few months of German advance, so anything knocked out would have been captured. So those numbers would be accurate, but when Russia is advancing, the number of truly lost tanks is fewer
