Barbarossa is well planned & executed, much like the sickle cut was.

Hitler claimed 34000 destroyed tanks in 1943:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVqxoA52kjI

The numbers of men showed the immense superiority of ressources in almost every aspect.

 

I meant losing over 5 million throughout the war, around 3 million in the first year, and still rebuilt stronger with numbers.

 

See second Battle of Kharkov in May 1942. The rough parity the SU enjoyed was lost allowing for a brief numerical superiority for the Axis. Complimented by a deliberate, and well executed withdrawal that frustrated German leaders in that they could never quite catch, pin and encircle any large Soviet forces.

2nd Kharkov was was a disaster for the SU, but they replaced all losses and then some in 6 months while fighting for Stalingrad where they lost over a million troops (475,000 kIA/MIA) to all causes, 4,300 tanks, 15,000 guns, all of which significantly exceeded German losses (of which only half were actually German, hardly a fair trade) in all categories for the same event, ​and then preceded to replace all those losses before the summer 43 offensive.

When exactly were Germany's losses replaced from Stalingrad?

 

superiority was relative, the main advantage the Soviets had was the ability to concentrate on a sector. The winter offense would have been much more effective if Stalin had listened to Zhukov and not attacked on a wide front

 

@steverodgers

Thanks Steve for putting the whole story in a single but clear sentence.

Soviet victory over the Nazi Germany by numbers is one of the alibis German generals invented to conceal that Soviet generals overplayed, over thought and over fought them. Western allies wanted to believe them and that’s it: a myth was born.

@Belasar

In the video below you can see quite elaborate explanation by a prominent American historian Jonathan House how and why Soviets »outnumbered« Germans

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zinPbUZUHDE[/media]

 

Well, Zhukov did know how to make losses even though considered the best tactician (?) of the Red Army. ( Defence of Leningrad Winter 1941,Moscow 1941 etc ).

Read the Glantz book. Zhukov was obsessed with AGC and wanted it all the time.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1199406.Zhukov_s_Greatest_Defeat

"One of the least known stories of World War II, Operation Mars was a military disaster on an epic scale. Designed to dislodge the German Army from its position west of Moscow, Mars cost the Soviets an estimated 335,000 dead, missing, and wounded men and over 1,600 tanks. But in Russian history books, it was a battle that never happened. It became instead another victim of Stalin's postwar censorship."

And in the end the Germans gave the Rzhev area away for free to shorten the lines, and get Fresh meat for the Kursk offensive. Probably the only time Hitler has accepted to retreat that long a distance.

Or all the summer and autumn 1942

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rzhev,_Summer_1942

He just gotta have that area....

 

Never heard about a soviet attack in summer 1942 in the west of Moscow. Thank you! Stalingrad was such an important battle that everything besides the tragedy and the way to it (Fall Blau)is completely forgotten.

Almost 15:1 loss of men seemed to be not unusual and acceptable in the soviet warfare.

 

You don't understand: Stalingrad wasn't a tragedy at all - 6th army just got pay-off for everything thay did on their bllody crusade towards east. Where the 6th army passed just mass attrocities have remained after them. They well deserved what they got at Stalingrad and later in captivity.

I don't know where you have got that 15:1 ratio. I just know that such a high number of casaulties under German hand aren't reasult of German knighthood. Victims were women, children elderly people, POW's, "partisans". There is noting to be proud of. Large numbers of murdered people at the east just indicate how barbaric was the inter-war German failed generation.

Das Krieg im Osten ist die größte Schande in die ganze Deutsche Geschichte.

 

The 15/1 ratio is out of the question : some 170000 German soldiers were encircled at Stalingrad,but it is absurd to say that the Soviets lost 170000 X 15 = 2.5 million men . It is more than possible that the Soviets lost during the encirclment less than 170000 men .

 

Oh dear...
The 15:1 ratio belongs to the linked second battle of Rhzev, it actually is 14:1. Losses of soldiers, not civilians. And i wrote "acceptable" simply because Zhukow wasn't fired.

Here is a source for a 15:1 ratio but not mentioned if it referred throughout the war, to Barbarossa or what.
Dana Lombardy (Historian) claimed a casualty rate of 15:1, interesting too is the statement of a german veteran (Dr.Wolfgang Seibt) who claimed 14,5 russian soldiers fighting at the western part of the soviet union.
min 25.50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWBl3FjHWxc


And the 6th army wasn't one of the Einsatzgruppen. I doubt that they had time to care much about the civilians. I don't say they were angels but not the criminals as they were portrayed here.

My Great Uncle was lost in Stalingrad, according to my Grandfather he was a very sensitive person and in his late 30ies, which absolutely didn't deserve his faith. He was a normal guy at the wrong place fighting a wrong war but he wasn't asked.

 

Dana Lombardy is also a game designer, and one can debunk his 15/1 ratio .

The same for the German veteran : there were NEVER 14.5 million Soviet soldiers fighting against the Ostheer . Never .

 

@OhneGewehr

Oh dear, obviously you have learned history from some strange sources. Without willing participation of the entire Wehrmacht, a mass murder on such a large scale wouldn't have been possible. However, I will refrain from going off-topic here. I just can give you advice to use search functionality of this forum and look for relevant sources. There are also many relevant literature sources that address the Wehrmacht's deep involvement in numerous attrocities. I advice you against taking too seriously Göring's speach of 30 Januarry 1943. The truth about "suffering" at Stalingrad is different. Wehrmacht really did nothing knightly at the east to deserve mercy.

Finally: do you know that the 6th army never stopped hunting Jews even in Stalingrad, during the most turbulent combat? They had their mission and have deserved what they got in the end.

 

Yes, I know about the legend of the "clean" Wehrmacht and i wrote that they were no angels. But i still consider the majority of the fighting parts as not involved or hardly involved in all the crimes committed in the East.
The usual soldier who wasn't asked deserves a fair judgement and treatment.

Stalingrad was a tragedy for the soldiers who died there for nothing, Göring tried to tell the german people a fairy tale that it will pay out later and it was an act of heroism, which was a lie.

And again, i'm referring to the battle of Rhzev, which is hardly known, the other statements are just opinions but at least interesting.

Between Stalin and Hitler i can't see a major difference when it comes to moral.

 

There was NO battle of Rhzev but several battles who lasted 15 months (january 1943-march 1943 ).

It is also wrong to say that the soldiers of 6th Army died for nothing: there is always a reason for the death of a soldier .

 

Indeed. There was a grim choice: (i) either sacrifice soldiers encircled in the cauldron or (ii) destruction of the entire Army group South. The key was Rostov on Don.

 

Write an e-mail to wikipedia (not my link):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rzhev,_Summer_1942

Do you really think that soldiers like my Granddads brother deserved what happened to them?

 

Wiki mentions several battles of Rhzev,not one battle .


The question is not if he deseved what happened to him, but that the sldiers of Stalingrad did not die for nothing:the encircled men of Stalingrad tied Soviet soldiers, as the encircled men of Singapore and Bataan tied Japanese units .

 

Your logic and facts, or lack thereof never fails to amuse me...
The Germans at Stalingrad tied down Soviet troops and kept said Soviet troops killing and capturing Germans.

The encircled men of Singapore held out for a week. The same amount of time caused by the destruction of the causeway...Which caused the British nothing but the explosives used.

The encircled men of Bataan tied down Japanese troops that were the Japanese garrison in the Philippines. The Japanese troops were not going anywhere...They were already "tied down" for garrison duty. Japanese units intended for battle elsewhere had already been pulled out.

 

Not correct : the defense of Stalingrad, Brest-Litowsk, Bastogne, Brest, Tobruk, Bataan, Singapore, Hongkong, etc costed the assaillant time,manpower and ressources;Stalingrad held out for 10 weeks (which debunks the claims that the LW failed to supply the men of Stalingrad ), Bataan held out during 13 weeks . It is obvious that it would have been better for the Soviets if Stalingrad capitulated on 1 december and not on 3 february,and that it would have been better for Japan if Bataan had capitulated on 10 january and not at the end of march .
Every Soviet soldier that was killed during the encirclment of Stalingrad was one less to be used to destroy the southern flank of the Ostheer .

 

1) This is a big exaggeration :a "failure "is not a disaster

2) This is not true : Hitler condoned a lot of retreats : the retreat of the Afrikakorps in december 1941, of the forces of Blaskowitz in august 1944, of those of Kesselring in Italy, of those in the Balkans in the autumn of 1944,of those in Finland after Finland gave up in the autumn of 1944 ,.....