>Soviets outnumber Germans 4 to 1 >still suffer casualties

You have a childish understanding of warfare and should be ashamed of yourself.

>>2913988
Note that the Soviets count their casualties different than the Germans. They include all men who spent time in a hospital due to sickness as casualties, while the Germans only count those wounded in action. Also, the Soviets count every tank that is immobilized for any amount of time as "knocked out", while the Germans only document losses if the entire tank is eviscerated. A Soviet tank blows out a track and is ready to go a day later? Listed as a loss. A German tank suffers several penetrations, is utterly crippled, and is in the garage for the next year? Not a loss. The Soviets would also count even lightly wounded men as casualties, while the Germans wouldn't.

It's more reliable to compare irrecoverable losses than just casualties. So, men killed, captured, or missing.

>>2913995
I want to see you defend this tankie.
There was literally no reason for the Soviets to suffer so many casualties since Germans were already exhausted by Operation Citadel and they had fresh reserves. It's just incompetence and lack of care from their generals. Why should they bother implementing something that even resembles something else than charging enemy positions in frontal assaults? They have more cannon fodder to throw than Germans have bullets

>>2913988
Germany and allies cas on eastern front: around 40000000
USSR and allies cas. on eastern front: around 8000000 few millions of them as POWs.
Also germany had more soldiers on eastern front than USSR in 1941-1942

File: 4th kharkov.jpg (54KB, 286x406px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 286x406px

another soviet victory

File: 78.png (23KB, 318x632px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 318x632px

>>2914027

File: 1476428034519.png (48KB, 491x330px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 491x330px

>wikipedia battle box
>le cannon fodder
>not knowing soviets and germans counted casualties differently
>>>/r/history
>>2914013
No you retard. The Soviets had chronic manpower shortages also, even with much less exemptions.

File: Girls.jpg (77KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x536px

>>2913988
>Wikipedia

>>2914027
If you actually look at the war as a whole, the irrecoverable losses of men were only like 13:10 Soviet:Axis.

>it's a "retarded wehraboo posts Wikipedia battle box and think it means anything" episode

>>2914256
>>2914037
>>2913995
Just accept it retards, soviets were shit at war but they won because his manpower.

>>2914909
They won because the basic tenant of industrial warfare is the nation that can most expediently and cheaply replace it's losses will win the war. That if the enemy kills 3 soliders for every 10 you kill, it doesn't mean shit if they can replace 9 of the ten and you can only replace 1. This is something Werhaboos and Southie revisionist fags can't understand. You can harp on about KDR all day but that doesn't mean shit if you still lose the war.

>>2913988
>I will cherrypick battles where the Soviets took disproportionate losses instead of the ones where they inflicted them like Jassny-Kishniev (the second one) or Belgrade.

File: german_logistics.png (88KB, 440x314px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 440x314px

>>2914909
>implying the germans were any better

>>2914037
>>2914006
>>2915147

typical vatniks and socialist apologists.

The KIA ratio was only ramped up when the soviets started slaughtering barely equipped surrounded German divisions during the last year of the war.
1941-42 was a slaughter of slavs.
Even in 1943 when the Russians had been pumped up by the American industry because their meme soviet planification was unbalanced and over specialized, they were being slaughtered by the millions to make the slightest gain.

The only thing that saved the Khazarian in chief from bleeding his entire country dry was the Americans bombing the German industry to dust and cutting their supplies streams from all the seven seas.
And the invasion of France.

>>2915201
>This is what americunts actually believe

>>2915281
disprove it, faggot.

>Industrial juggernaut
>Can't even build trucks
>Starving to death

>>2913988
Do you retards even into basic strategy and tactics? A general rule of thumb is that an attacker should outnumber the defender by a minimum of three to one, due to the heavy casualties almost inevitably incurred when going on the offensive against dug in enemy forces.

Unless the enemy is completely taken by surprise or terribly organized, the attacker almost always takes significantly heavier losses than the defender.

>>2915402
>A general rule of thumb
Thanks for repeating a meme you saw being spewed on reddit.

>>2915402
>Unless the enemy is completely taken by surprise or terribly organized, the attacker almost always takes significantly heavier losses than the defender.
That's actually not true at all in WW2. Most offensives succeeded, and while the initial assaults might take more casualties for the attacker, the collapse of defensive lines and the troops you either kill or capture as you penetrate to the softer regions more than makes up for it. Outside of the bloodier Soviet counterattacks in 43 and early 44, pretty much all successful offensives in WW2 inflict significantly more casualties on the defender than the attackers sustain.

File: ee9.png (143KB, 642x700px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 642x700px

ITT Tankies vs Stormfags fight over muh casualities, episode 498556

>>2915293
You have to prove it faggot. You are the one cherry picking Wikipedia summaries, then ignoring the reasons for those numbers to jump to sweeping conclusions.
The Soviets started their counter offensives before lend lease was a major thing btw. Also another fun fact, invading Axis forces outnumbered the Soviets in Barbossa for quite some time.

>>2915564
>You have to prove it faggot.
>I have to prove Americans supplied thousands of trucks to the soviets.

Do I really have to spoonfeed you everything? This is common knowledge that you should have studied in middle school, but who knows what they teach you in your socialist distopia.

>The Soviets started their counter offensives before lend lease was a major thing btw.
Yeah and it was terrible and would have been a disaster without the supplies they received.

>Also another fun fact, invading Axis forces outnumbered the Soviets in Barbossa for quite some time.
So? Russia's population outnumbered Germany. If those guys can't mobilize on time it's not anyone's fault but theirs.

File: 1484739225832.png (144KB, 292x963px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 292x963px

>le wikipedia boxes

Geez, I can do the same too

>>2915642
>romanians

>>2915583
Didnt know trucks can take out German heavy armor. Thanks for enlightening me mein Burgerfriend.

>>2915663
They supply the weapons and transport the troops that take out the German armor.
Or are you just being willfully retarded and pretending that logistics isn't the most important aspect of warfare?

>>2915666
>666
What a (((surprise)))

>>2915201
>The KIA ratio was only ramped up when the soviets started slaughtering barely equipped surrounded German divisions during the last year of the war.
As opposed to the first year of war where Hitler backstabed Stalin?

>>2915663
Logistics is what makes or break warfare. It's also the most complex part that reflects the degree of industrial maturity of a country.

If you can't get it right your industry is most likely a meme that over specializes in heavy processing because a complex, sophisticated chain is impossible to set up with central planification.

>>2915682
>Stalin didn't see it coming
He only delayed his own plans because of how bad the winter war had gone.

>>2915409
That's the exploitation and operational phase, in the tactical attack phase I'd expect that the attacker would still suffer much more casualties and require a lot more troops to break through.

File: prufykde.png (5KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 256x197px

>>2915693
>Stalin saw it coming
>He only delayed his own plans because of how bad the winter war had gone.

>>2915742
It's always a commie who ask for evidence:
last chapter of this book: The Winter War: The Soviet Attack on Finland, 1939-1940

>>2915752
The book is about the Winter war, though. The Finns had not researched Barbarossa.

>>2915762
The book tell how much soviet union was delayed by winter war and Stalin purges in last chapter.

>>2915742
What are you even trying to deny here? Do you honestly believe Stalin didn't expect Hitler to launch his invasion?

>>2915766
Hol'up, there buddy
>the book is not available online
>It's NOT about op. Barbarossa
>How come did the authors arrived to conclusion that the attack on Funland stopped Stalin from developing plan of defense against the German invasion?

>>2915768
>Do you honestly believe Stalin didn't expect Hitler to launch his invasion?
That's common knowledge. Heck, when some spy told him that Germans might attack he told him to go fuck his mother.

>>2914951
This pretty much, very rarely does a force defeat another that outnumbers it 10 to 1 in battle, let alone a war. You can give the greater force a hell of a black eye though and sometimes perception is reality i.e The Battle of Chosin Reservoir. The Marines held off a massive Chinese Army and mauled 3 of their divisions so bad they had to be disbanded, they were forced to retreat but today it's still remember as a heroic act on the Marines despite its strategic consequences.

I guess you could say the same of the 300 Spartans during the battle of Thermopylae, they technically lost the battle but centuries later their story is still being told. I'm sure there are other examples

>>2915775
>>the book is not available online
Please you use 4chan and can pirate something?

I'll suppose you know on or two things about second world war, winter war have taken soviet resources, manpower and teach wrong lessons to soviet union. They were expecting a complete infantry force and trench warfare. Most of the old Russian officers, the best soviet union had, were executed during the winter war, so Stalin could politically indicate new ones.

>>2915797
Ok, but where do we get to the point where the Winter war delayed Soviets from planning defense against the Axis?

>>2915792
>That's common knowledge.
common knowledge is that both country were gearing for war but like in WW1 Germany stroke first before the other was ready.

And less common knowledge even is that the Finns memed the soviet army so hard it delayed all their other plans until the army was properly reformed.

>>2915792
If Hitler wasnt a faggot he would have allied with Stalin against Jewry and died a victor instead of a pathetic loser and embarrassment

>>2915802
They have lost most of they competent officers, had to reorganize the army, this delayed them.

>>2915806
>And less common knowledge even is that the Finns memed the soviet army so hard it delayed all their other plans until the army was properly reformed.
What plans other than the conquest of Finland?

>>2915824
The delay is after the war,

>>2915828
So it delayed what plans?

Preparation against the invasion of axis? I fail to see how was that possible.

>>2915845
How much you know about military science in ww2?

>>2915775
They werent planning a defense against axis they were planning an attack. Operation thunder. But the barbarossa came first as a suprise and caught them off guard.

I love how it is only internet forums were they hammer down that the Nazis lost the eastern front due to manpower, or that it was still possible for them to win and that they would have won "had x" happened. And then there is every single WWII historian hammering down the point what a blunder of historic proportions the invasion of Soviet Union was.

>>2915891
proofs?

File: e8e.png (84KB, 600x587px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x587px

>>2915891

>>2915897
Sorry bud, I tried to spoon-feed you and yet you say "proofs", "explain better", "this is just wrong", I give up, I can explain to someone who don't want to learn.

>>2915902
You provided exactely 0 (zero) evidence for the thesis that the Union of Soviet Socialist republics planned to break the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, therefore this claims hold as much merit as the idea of communism.

>>2915925
If you want so hard to believe in this, that's your problem.

>>2915941
>more empty rhetoric

>>2915856

>How much you know about military science in ww2?

t. more chromosomes than iq points

File: 1485595266698.png (375KB, 493x653px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 493x653px

>>2913988
>>2914013
>>2914027
>>2914035
>>2914909
>>2915201
>>2915663
>>2915752
>>2915902

File: IMG_0230.jpg (583KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 2048x1536px

Germany was a badass, taking on 4 superpowers and nearly winning.

File: 1489798885439.png (127KB, 253x393px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 253x393px

>>2916437
>nearly winning

File: 1484718566462.png (237KB, 322x479px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 322x479px

>mfw the wehraboo in this thread isn't even being ironic
>mfw there is an actual human being who believes the things he's saying

>>2914909
>Shit at war
>Won
???

File: IMG_0512.jpg (147KB, 1367x903px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1367x903px

>>2916544
Took on multiple superpowers anon. Losing doesn't mean you are a poor warrior if you had numerous or powerful opposing combatants. Winning doesn't mean your foe was in any form weak, just look at death totals in percentages. If victory was based on attrition Germany would be the winner. In mocking Germany's strength you lessen the Allie's victory.

>>2916544
T-the TANKIES only won because they focused on their strengths instead of their weaknesses! Everyone knows that if you do that, your win doesn't count!

>>2916560
Germany wasn't fighting a land war with anyone else at the time of Barbarossa, except if you count the single division that was in North Africa. And Allied aid didn't start until long after Barbarossa was halted by the Red Army.

>>2916560
>Losing doesn't mean you are a poor warrior if you had numerous or powerful opposing combatants
>At it's height the Reich had more people under it's command than the USSR
>During the war over Britain Luftwaffe had more planes than the RAF

File: Allies must be destroyed.png (435KB, 555x802px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 555x802px

>>2916560
>Loosing doesn't mean you are a poor warrior
That is true but it does mean you are shit at war. Describing the red army as "shit at war" (See >>2914909) when they won is top tier autism m8.
The Germans may have been good at fighting but they are shit at war.
>Awful at picking allies (Weaboo's, pizza chefs, and gypsies?)
>Awful at picking opponents (USSR, UK, USA)
>Awful at long term strategy (Barbarossa, Case Blue)
>Awful at resource allocation (Muh king tigers and wonder weapons)
Soviets on the other hand by the end of the war had mastered all these things.
Yes 1V1 on rust with interventions only 30 SS would have won but in a war the Axis was outclassed by the Red army let alone the entire United Nations. Red army > Wehrmacht + SS at WAR which is all that matters. Stop looking at everything tactically as in history tactics are lesser than operations which are lesser than strategy which is second only to grand strategy which the Germans are shit at.
Let it die Naziboo, Germany lost to the better war machine.

>>2916586
>already beaten France and drove the English off the continent
>fighting a superpower with numerical superiority
>lying about Lend Lease not being in. effect when 360,778 tons of war materiel would be shipped to the USSR prior and during
>and another 2,453,097 tons the subsequent year
>The United States sold to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.[24] One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.[45]

Amazing how easy it is to win a war when a nearly unreachable superpower continously supplies you.
>At it's height the Reich had more people under it's command than the USSR
So the English and Americans never existed alongside? The Free French and various partisans were non-existent?
>During the war over Britain Luftwaffe had more planes than the RAF
That isn't true at all.

>>2916610
>That isn't true at all.
How come?

>The Free French and various partisans were non-existent?
West of Berlin partisans were irrelevant. Occupied nations contributed more to German war effort than they damaged it.

>>2913988
>Germany since it has formed as a unified state has literally never won a war.
Defend this.

File: a 7 nation army couldn't.jpg (33KB, 520x319px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 520x319px

>>2916808
I mean it was part of the boxer rebellion but I get what you're saying, never won a major war that matters.

>>2915164
Source?

>>2916808
They killed the fuck out of those cattle herders in Namibia, a victory for the ages

>>2915409
Isnt this part of the art of war?

File: roosevelt-stalin.jpg (57KB, 720x537px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x537px

>>2913988
and their western flunkies of course

>>2915201
Dude, calm down. You literally sound like a stereotypical Nazi troglodyte.

>>2916972
Germany and the Second World War, volume 4

>>2916560
>Took on multiple superpowers anon

Hitler couldn't even beat GB so.... yeah fuck off.

Greetings from germany

You don't understand how warfare works. You also don't understand that Germans and Soviets counted casualties differently. Those are casualties, not combat deaths you retarded fuck.
Soviet loses in WW2, in terms of combat deaths, were around 30-40% higher than Axis loses. That's nothing insane, given the first year of war and the fact Soviets were on offensive more.
Rest of Soviet deaths were POW's and civilians.

>>2917509
Also, Soviets DID NOT have massive manpower advantage.
For most of war Soviets actually had lower manpower potential. Ukraine and Belarus were lost, while Germans had allies who sent sizeable contigents to east.
The fact Germans failed to utilize their manpower and production potential speaks badly of them, you retarded Wehraboo.

>>2915583
I'm asking about the proofs for your claim that the USSR only ramped out their K/D ratio by killing old farts in the final invasion and otherwise got slaughtered in previous engagements.
And the counteroffensive was already underway when lend lease started ramping up greatly. Even then it was the trucks and some supplies that were the most important. They could still make it to Berlin, but more slowly and with much greater casualties.

The army numbers are important, because Germany was Blitzkrieging an unprepared, numerically smaller force.

>>2913988
>people on /his/ actually feel like they need to defend the red army and the soviet union in general
ishiggydiggy

>>2914951
Exaxtly. Same reason why america can't handle that it lost Vietnam and the Iraq and afghan occupations. Enemies just outlast you and you fail your political objectives.

>>2915845
Preparations to attack the axis.

You could take any random general from any period in history and in an hour they'd conclude the same realpolitik of the situation even if they didn't understand the weapons used. War was going to happen no matter what and your best bet was to invade the other guy on your terms.

Even Stalin could see it.

>>2913988
stupid wehraboo poster

>>2913988
>what the fuck is deep operation

File: Skjermbilde 2017-06-07 kl. 04.04.58.png (121KB, 316x722px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 316x722px

So this is the power of the USSR...woah

>>2919029
Something that couldn't happen without american trucks

File: magik_2.png (169KB, 283x282px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 283x282px

>>2915653
>It's a "we only lost because the Romanians we're shit and not our own incompetence" episode

File: eastern front.png (23KB, 551x486px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 551x486px

>>2914006


pic related is without sick

>>2917509
>>2917520

So this...is the power of revisionism

>>2919316
shouldn't Hayha be listed under Strength?

>>2914035
România, no!