Soviets v. German

>>2180762
Germans and Soviets had different criteria for what counted as a "loss"

Germany typically only counted Total Losses, where tanks/vehicles were beyond repair.

Soviets had a much wider criteria for counting a loss, including damages that were eventually repaired or disabled tanks/vehicles.

I don't know that much about the Soviet order of battle, but Stalin's military purges after the clusterfuck in finland along with the serious economical issues they had been going with for years lead to a number of problems and clusterfucks, along with general unpreparedness for the Nazi assault. They lacked good command (or any command in some areas where the nazi lines went past/encircled troops), logistics, and lots of other things during the initial german advance.
As the german advance slowed down from their own logistical problems and the sheer size of the area they were trying to invade, they were able to regroup, rearm, put the chain of command into a more working position, call for reinforcements from siberia, and take advantage of having actual winter equipment to halt the nazi advance.
After the initial plunge to Moscow stopped and aid from the other allies, largely the USA helping with shortages in mechanical parts, clothing, fuel, guns, ammunition etc they managed to put themselves into a better situation to do the long push towards berlin.

Two words:

Georgy,Zhukov

this >>2180795
Also to begin with the Soviets were being surprise blitz'd then afterwards they were on the offensive which is always more difficult.

Near the end of the war the Soviet Union's most experienced and well equipped troops were concentrated in the northern push to Berlin and here le k/d stat was about the same.

>>2180836
>then afterwards they were on the offensive which is always more difficult.


That's not actually true. In most offensives in WW2, the defenders suffered more losses than the aattackers. Not in the initial pushes (Where the reverse would hold) but most offensives succeeded in gaining ground, and you usually get this cascading failure of the defensive positions as the attackers advance, leading to more and more loss.

Tanks were pretty much the sole exception to this, the attacker almost always lost more tanks, but for everything else, the defender usually lost more of it, whatever 'it' was.

>>2180793
This. Even armor that was repaired on the field and put back into the fight were marked down.

>>2180842
Usually, the attackers suffered more killed and wounded, but the defender suffered more captured.
Not always the case, however, but in general the attacking side would usually suffer more men killed and wounded than the defender unless the defenders were Japanese in which case they'd kill themselves a ton and tip the balance solidly in favor of the attacker. Because bushido is fucking dumb like that.

>>2180893
>Usually, the attackers suffered more killed and wounded, but the defender suffered more captured.


No, usually the defenders suffered more killed and wounded. Look up battles like Crusader, Gazala, Smolensk (1941), Jassny-Kishniev, Husky, and Cobra; successful offensives usually leave more defending dead and wounded than attacking dead and wounded.

>>2180957
Plenty of battles had the attacker suffering more casualties, though, like Operation Market Garden, Operation Overlord, Kursk (1 German Offensive and two Soviet Offensives), Normandy for the Germans in general.

Yes, successful attacks usually lead to breakthroughs and encirclement and mass casualties upon defenders, but not always and not all attacks are successful.

>>2180957
>>2180957
meh

first off there's a difference between a successful offensive and then a successful offensive that leaves more defending dead

I too can list successful operations with more attacking dead

Smolensk (1943), entire German invasion of Denmark, Battle of Bir Hakeim, Budapest Offensive, Battle of Monte Cassino, Battle of Cortona, Battle of Caen...

After all, successful attacks tended to happen when the attacking force was superior to the defending force - either with numbers, logistics, or air power

don't get me started on battles where the attackers failed

>>2180762
Doesn't matter when you're still winning.

Tactical finesse is for those who need to compensate for a lack of troops/resources.