ChromKrivosheev was unable to account for the Soviet missing, unfortunately. I know of one former Soviet soldier (but perhapd from later in the war – I don’t know) who
Huh? Then he is listed as missed – most likely. So, he is included in the dead list by Krivosheev – all missed soldiers what are not found alive after the war obviosly are listed as “total loss or dead” in the end figure. Of course, some ppls what are listed as “missed” or “dead” and not found alive after the war was actually emigrated and/or changed the names. But that can only make soviet losses actually seems higher, not lower. And anyway, these cases are few, and cant change overall figure much.
ChromWrong. I am shure that most of the Russians were aware, that something was wrong with that official datas they red in the ‘Pravda’, but had no real idea, how severe the economical situation was already!
You again confusing public relations with datas for restricted “internal” use. Big difference here. And btw, 100% fullfilling plans doesnt mean absence of problems. Obviosly, many problems are PLANNED problems. You cant produce personal aircraft and personal Ferrary for every man for example, so you just dont plan that, you cant build 20-room house for everybody, so its planned what most families will live in 2-3 rooms in next 10 years instead, etc. Thats said, soviet system had many drawbacks, and there is no need to fantasy unexistant ones.
ChromNow it becomes strange!
If someone kew the state-secrets of Russia, it was the ‘general-secretary’ or the man with the atomic-suitcase.
Of 27 Mio. dead, 15 Mio. were civilians and 12 Mio. were soldiers.
From the last number alone, it were more than 3 Mio. dead from more than 5 Mio. captured soldiers alone.
From those survivors over 100000 disappered without trace in Russia, “Wlassow army”.
Krivosheev: During WW2 34,476,700 ppls was accepted to RA. Of them 29,574,900 – after 22.06.1941, 4,826,900 – before.
From these 11,444,100 was killed, missed, died from wounds (combined army, VVS, VMF, MVD, KGB). Plus 500,000 mobilized during first days of war and either killed or missed on they way to deployment punkts, etc before they was officialy accepted to SA service.
Of these 1,836,000 was returned from captivity, plus 939,700 again mobilized on liberated territores. This will exlude 2,775,700 from above total loss figure.
Thats mean, overall demographic loses of SA is 8 ,668,400 plus 500,000 missed or killed during first days of war.
German Army: i have quite extencive datas as well, but will show only end figures: 4,463,000 died, about 7,387,000 was captured. Of later about 2,389,560 (btw, total axis prisoners in soviet camps-4,126,964) was counted in Soviets camps, 450,600 of them died, of later 93,900 on they way to camps, most of them directly after Stalingrads battle.
In Krivosheev books there are loses listed for every front every month, for every major battle operation. Most of these datas was independently verified by other russian and western historicans. No major mistakes was found. Work is still not done, but end figure shouldnt differ in any direction more than 100-200 thousand from present one.
Why 26 millions you ask me? Simple. For example, in Belorussian Republic 1/4 civilians was murdered. Almost 2 millions died in Leningrad from hunger., several millions was burned/industrially processed at germans concentration camps, etc.
P.S. Most Vlasov’s soldiers was ex-RA captured soldiers, and they was counted in the end figures either as killed/missed if they was killed by SA or executed by NKVD or counted as alive if they was liberated or imprisoned by NKVD.
ChromIn general I agree with you, when it comes to the start of the ‘Winter War’ in November and the Isthmus-front alone.
Much superior forces at hand, the Russian did not use all of it, because they underestimated the Finnish will of resistance. That mistake was corrected later with more
‘blood’ and forces comitted to battle.
I fear ‘GarryB’ will not share your view about usefullness of Russian tanks.
The problem is, that the German estimates of Russian losses are very close to the Gorbachev number.
During and after the battle of Berlin in 1945 f.e., twice the number of Russian soldiers killed were found on the battlefields and buried. Till today the number of real losses from the Russian side were not corrected.
Non is proud of so much dead brave Russian soldiers! But looking back, most of us will be stunned, when learning, in what reckless manner such soldiers were sent into battle!
To reveal the true losses will rise many unpleasent questions about the behavior of many War-heroes and claims in books about that battles.
Here the circle closes again. What can we think about people, who do claim, that victory matters alone.
All sensible archives are open, and everyone can work with them. Gorbachev couldnt know military loses. There was simply no exact data. The problem, is what noone have known exact military losses numbers before. Allthought its quite easy to get rought estimation of pure “military loses” during each separate military operation, its very hard to get overall figure. For example, its hard to find if missed or captured soldier was killed, liberated and joined military, or died in concentration camp. Its hard to count wounded soldiers – many of them was wounded 3 and more times during WW2. Starting from later 80x a large group of historican – so-called Krovisheev group – working with WW2 archive to count loses. His group is now accepted between world historican as the only reliable source of information about overall soviet loses. And his figures dont show any “addiditonal” military loses. His figure is about 8.6 millions dead soviet soldiers. So far the difference between 20 and 26 millions can be accounted only to civilian deaths. Btw, allthought obviosly its impossible to repeat Krivosheev’s work as a whole, every one can check his figures for any particular military operation. And that was already done regarding many operations by numeroues russian and western historicans.
“During and after the battle of Berlin in 1945 f.e., twice the number of Russian soldiers killed were found on the battlefields and buried” – I think you just repeat some noncense here. 1st, there was no need to cover loses. At that time they was secret anyway. 2nd, its just impossible. Allthought theoreticaly you can falsificate loses figure at front and stavka level, its impossible to change every report from every battalion comander. Moreover, you would also need to falsificate EVERY report after battle for several years – for example, you have covered what division A suffered addidional 2000 man died then you must also falsificate every food request, every demobilization report, every payment reques, every awarding request, etc. Crazy. You must finally understand the difference between public relations and internal archives.
Chromhttp://www.winterwar.com/Numbers.htm
Your link for the Isthmus-front showed 30 Inf. Rgmts with the 7th army alone and ~14 Inf. Rgmts with the Finnish forces there, or 15 Div. against 6 Div.!
I am shure, that the Russians did not attack all Finnish strongholds at the same time. –
Isthmus-front – Yes, USSR had 14 (a bit later – 16) divisions. Of them USSR had only 9 infantry divisions with 84 battalions. Finns had 6 infantry divisions + 4 Corps, total 80 battalions. Sure, USSR had 4 (later – 6) tanks divisions, but tanks was very hard to use in that terrain, and they had only bullet-prof armour. Allthought its true what finns had only few true AT guns, every so-called AT rifle (useally 12.7 mm or 14mm) or larger caliber MG (ex. 0.50 Browning) could successfully burn these tanks. Addidtionaly, tanks couldnt do anything against fortifications with they tiny guns. Thereas even 1 AT gun in bunker was enouth to burn even 100 tanks. Aviation – yes, USSR had much better aviation – about 800 planes total, with about 30% being bombers. But then again, aviation in that case couldnt do much good as fighters was almost useless, and bombers had 1st low payload, 2nd – couldnt even fly once a week due to weather, and 3nd couldnt do much good due to terrain and fortifications. Mainly, there was attacks on finnish supply depots and railroads stations. We know, how effectivly was these attacks. And remeber, finns was sitting in long-term fortifications, and soviet troops was sitting in open fields. And thats sometimes by -40C’.
Now about Gorbachev: 1st, Stalins count only direct deaths (killed in army, killed in occupied territry, deaths from hunger, etc) , not all demograpthic loses due to lower birth ratio and higher natural death ratio. Second, it was impossbile in Stalins time to precisely count all deaths. Third, its impossibile even now. And last, 20 millions was a PUBLIC FIGURE. Not internal arhive figure.
ChromDo not distract from the events. The Isthmus-front, was not the single one.
Of cause the mass of of the Finnish forces defended there.
From the start the overall ratio at the Isthmus-front was ~1,5 in favour of the Russians and much more in Russian favour, when it comes to the ‘Schwerpunkte’, all this was 7th Army only. The Fire-ratio was manyfold, not counting in the airforce units. The bigger units of the Baltic-Fleet were available for fire-support, despite icing. In Winter-time that “swampy-grounds” become frozen and for that reason that timing was choosen to allow the movement of the overhelming armoured forces.
Take your time and read your own link about that carefully, before blaming Wikipedia for shortcomings.
I hope you are aware, that the Russian divisions and regiments from that year were not the reduced ones in personal and equipment, like the later ones in the Great War.
Several of the Russian datas about WWII are still not available, because they are conflicting with the official Russian history of that time!
I do not. I already gave initial numbers for whole front – 170 vs 185 battalions.
For WW2, allthought SOME documents are still not available, MOST of them are open. And these what open more than enouth to reliable compute all soviet loses. For example, almost all _internal_ reports about loses are open – at division level, at army level, at front level, at high command (stavka) level. They are all agree with each other. And you cant falsificate hundreds of thousands documents at division level (more importantly, why you would want to? At that time it was top-secret, now nobody will bother…). You cant falsificate MILLIONS archive documents relating to army food supplies for example. The few documents what are still closed are useally political ones – for example, full archive of Yalta conference.
As i said, look that site. There are listed all regiments from both soviet and finnish side.
ChromSo when you stick to your own logic, non can trust what Russia says about that ‘Winter War’.
When your military datas are correct relating to that, you have no problem to give your sources as I did in one example. See the link again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War%5D
Wikipedia is your SOURCE??? Dont make me laught. Either way, in that article in WiKi nothing is said about soldiers numbers depended from the time, only general statements like “200.000 soldiers during the war” or “130.000” total.
I have several books for that matter. You can always find them in good library. If you want a weblink (and obviosly YOU want non-russian one) – this http://www.winterwar.com/Maps.htm
is pretty good one. At least, they listing all fighting regiments and dont repeat some stupid numbers like i’ve seen in some places – like 500.000 soviet died or even 1000.000 soviets died.
In my logic, of course you shouldn’t trust Stalin’s PUBLIC words about Winter War. But NOW we have exact numbers from open archives. WE DONT HAVE open archives about Vietnam war, about Serbia war, about Iraq war – from either side. We have ONLY public relations, which in any case should be considered as nothing but propaganda. Hell, USA even OFFICIALLY greated special department for public disinformation during Iraq war.
ChromI understand that explanation, when the data given by you are correct and not from Russian (country A) sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War%5D
But it was you, who questioned that infos and gave an example.
“..something is very wrong with country A and i should not believe anything what they high command or intelligence service says.” from the full quote below.
My datas is very correct relating to military fact. I dont want to speak about politic as its useally leads to useless flaming.
My answer was about your “its doesnt matter how country A wins…”. I disagree. It DOES matter. And it does matter A LOT. In Serbia (and Iraq) case we can see what USA was either very mistaken about own (and foreign) army strength or delebirately lied to public. Choose it either way, logic will lead to conclusion – “dont believe what USA officials says about own and foreign army strength and army abilities”.
ChromWrong, when ~200 Mio people forced their will onto 4 Mio. When the Russian side had no shortage in replacements, the Finns had not. It was a Winter-war, when there were no terrain restrictions to the overhelming Russian tank-forces, artillery, and air-assets.
I do not know, how did you came to a force-ratio of 1:1,3?!
!
Khe, khe. You know, it not something like every one of these 200 millions took an rifle and gone killing finns. In the first half of winter war only army forces of Leningrad Military district was commited.
Facts:
In Karellian:
From finnish side was 80 computed infantry battalions. From soviet site was 84 computed infantry battalions. . If we compare man powers, then we will get very some picture: Finns had 130.000 soldiers, USSR had 169.000 soldiers there. about 1:1.3. Of course, USSR had much better artillery and more tanks, but finns was placed in long-term fortified bunkers. Guess who wins? Now add to the fact what not even all above soviet division was started to fight from beginning, some of them joined later…
If we take the whole front, we will see very some picture:
170 finnish battalions vs 185 soviet battalions. Hardly a big overhelming advantage you like to think.
Once soviet high command realised what there are not enouth forces to break down finnish defence lines, they have sent more troops to fullfill 1:3 standard. Once that number was reached, another offencive was launched, this time successfull one. Finnish defence lines was breaked, and finns asked for peace.
Now about why it was also very hard to choose good point to attack: Karelian is NOT Europe with its dence road network. It’s also NOT a dry desert. Karealian have forrest-swamp terrain, with very few roads. So its virtually impossible to choose where to attack. Red Army was FORCED to attack where the finnish defence fortifications was at they best.
Of course, Red Army made many mistakes during that war. But on the other hand, its perfomance cannot be considered THAT bad, rather it could be marked as mediocre. Add to the fact what first offencive was launched at winter – and we get the whole picture. I pretty much doubt what any other army of this time (1939) could have done any better with such forces, in such terrain and with such weather. On the other hand, MAY BE more proffessional german high command could foresee such difficulties and send more troops from beginning. Still, judging from WW2 experience, we see what even german generals made mistake related to USSR army and country perfomance – so it is very likely what they could have made some mistake about finns as USSR did in similar conditions.
ChromBut what does that change about the result from that war.
When ‘Hitler’ ordered the attack on the SU in 1941, he had the performances of the RED ARMY against Finnland in mind!
May be. But truth said, what was so bad about RA perfomance against Finnland? Sure, soviet generals have underestermated finnish willing to fight, but from purery military point of view RA perfomance was just as expected from average european army – nothing exeptional. In the first – unsuccessfull – part of the war RA tryed to break good established finnish defence lines with only 1.3 times more troop than finns had – clearly not enouth ratio for offencive. Sure, RA had much better artillery and aviation, but in the end its infantry what will assault. Addiditionaly, pre-WW2 aviation and medium calibry artillery are quite ineffective against solid beton bunkers and forest-swamp terrain.
To make things short – RA in that war have shown defecienses, what resulted in bad massacre during 1941. Hitler probably judged RA perfomace quite close to reality – he understimated not soviet ARMY, but soviet peoples willingness to fight, USSR industrial and organisation ability.
ChromNo offense, but holy sh!t this is dumb.
Last time I checked it was NATO that ran Kosovo and not Serbia. How you win is irrelevant. As Machiavelli once said “the ends justify the means.”
Of course, its not. For intelligent peoples the way any operation going give facts to extrapolate. The phrase “the ends justify the means” is one of these good sounding, but not always true sentences.
An example: country A with 2.000.000 soldiers and 2000 bombers have maked a plan how to defeat country B which posses only 20.000 soldiers and 20 aircrafts. Country A figured what 50.000 soldiers ,100 bombers and 10 days would be enouth for the war. Now, it turned out what at the END country A was unsuccessfull with initial plan and forced to use 250.000 soldiers, 500 bombers and 100 days to defeat country B.
What conclusion should draw intelligent man from that fact? May be what it doesnt matter how country A won?
Or, may be better, what country A have crap army? Or, may be, what counry A have crap command staff? Or crap intelligence service? What conclusion? For me counclusion would be what something is very wrong with country A and i should not believe anything what they high command or intelligence service says.
Chrombut how much space is left for C3I ?
A 150 km bubble dosent sound much! And dosent the airframe of the helo create a barrier ?
Does the Ka-31 have a datalink with the carrier?
Yes, it have datalink. This is the whole reason for the helo – datalink. So it doesnt matter at all how much space is left for C3I – ALL dataprocessing is done on the carrier.
ChromAbout 40 helicopters total untill 2015 – most likely it was badly understood quote from Ivanov. In another interview he said something about more than 200 Mi-28 till 2015. Most likely he was refering to 40 helicopters specificaly for THAT army unit or military district.
ChromWell, many confusion arises from the fact what many peoples take someone book, memories or simply yellow paper news as official “russian claims”. Official *public* russian MOD’s claims are very hard to find – as fact, i havent seen any regarding Vietnam, Egypet, Israel, etc. I have seen numerous claims in books from varios russian generals or combat instructors – but they was nothing but they PERSONAL thoughts.
You must be very carefull even regarding very official claims:
First rule here: dont believe what anyone says about enemy loses during the war. 1st, they dont know for sure, 2th – its heavly influenced by propaganda.
Next rule – dont believe what they say ALL about own loses. Not gonna happen during the war. Only after archives opening we can judge it with some degree of reliabilty.
ChromOf course, altitude and target speed play major role in effective missile distance. But without knowing exact “advertising” condition we cant do any conclusion how effective missile in other, more(or less) difficult condtions.
There is a very unique example here: 10.04.2001. Russian airliner flying to Israel was shot down by Ukrainian S-200 SAM by accident. Missile had flyed about 275 km to relative fast (900 km/h) ,side moving target – not exactly easest condition for SAM. Yet advertised range for S-200 SAM is 250-300 km. We can see here, what said missile would easy shot down any bomber sized target at 400km under ideal conditions – i.e. head-on high-alt moving target.
Sign In
