Battle of Moscow is not really talked about, But yet Stalingrad is more talked about. Why?

About Glantz :you can not use him for German losses ,he is only using Russian sources and these are TOTALLY unreliable concerning German losses

 

Guarporense, how can you say that moscow would surrender, that is total bullcrap im sorry but leningrad never fell and that city was seiged for 4 years i believe, plus leningrad was probably shorter supply route than moscow, think man think think think. please could other people back me up in that if moscow was surrounded the army and civillians wouldnt panic and surrneder.

 

We will never know,because it never happened . And I doubt that the Germans would be able to capture Moscow .And if they did,was there any realistic possibility that the Soviet Union would collapse or give up ?

 

Simplifying quite a bit eh?

The distance from Berlin to Moscow is 1000 miles, thats 1800 km. And when is 1000km only 1000km?

Lets not forget the fact that unlike Western Europe, Russia had virtually no paved roads in 41' and Germany relied heavily on horses, which complicated things quite a bit once the rain came and later snow.

Seems you are unfamiliar with siege of Leningrad. The city was surrounded for 900 days (longest siege in modern history) and no surrender.

Have you looked into my link. These numbers contradict Glantz's.

Not sure I would agree with you here LJad. Every respected historian has more than one source.

 

I don't want reopen a discussion about Glantz;on AHF some members had almost a heart-attack due to my criticism of Glantz let say that Glantz is focused on the Russian side and his informations on German strength and casualties ...are leaving to be desired ,because they are essentially drawn from Rjussian sources who are biased .
If you want to read some criticism on Glantz by specialists:The Dupuy Institute :Glantz on Barbarossa .Iam to cicil to cite them here;I have to pay attention on the health of some members

 

Are there any historians who dont have critics? Are Russian sources any more biased than the German ones?

Anyone who you would recommend over Glantz's German figures?

 

Well,one should use Russian sources for Russian losses and German Sources for German losses

One can not use German sources for the losses of the BEF for example
Russian sources are biased if one is using them for German sources .
Some god German sources are as Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg,Muller-Hillebrandt ,BA-MA .,Va Banque by Scxhustereit which is giving detailed German losses for the east in 1941 .
The trouble with Glantz (pay attention to your health )is that he is using the Russian sources for the German losses. Some proofs :
In Strom .Clem he is using 'permanent losses' ,a Russian term.For the German losses he is speaking of deaths,missing and disabled ,for the Russian ones of death,missing and captured .Thus German disabled are losses,Russian disabled not .
On P 14 :German losses for 1945 :1.34 million death,missing and disabled . No wounded ? This figure is absurd :there is nothing reliable for 1945 .The German strength for 1945 in the east was below 2 million,how could they had lost 1.34 million death,missing and disabled ? And one should add at least 2 million wounded .
On P 95 :By war's end out of the 13.5 million men Hitler's Wehrmacht fielded in the war,10.8 million had perished or fallen captuted in the East:even more absurd (if it is possible ):German losses in the East were at the end of 1944 2million death and missing and 3.4 million wounded . How could they have lost 1O.8 million ? Off course you can always include the Germans becoming POW after the German capitulation (but you will not get 10.8 million ),but this is nonsens:is any body including the millions of Japanese POW at september 1945 as casualties ?
It is only an invention by the Russians to make them looking the big winners of WW II.
On P 1O4 :the limit :By 1 october 1943 2565000 men of the Wehrmacht's 4090000 manforce struggled in the east . The Wehrmacht only counting 4090OOO men ???It even not the army,but probably the Feldheer .A respected historian who does not know the meaning of Wehrmacht . We,members of this forum,are only amateurs,but I am sure that we know the difference betwween Wehrmacht,Feldheer,Erzatsheer .
There are only two possibilities for such a blunder
1)neglect:this is very serious :how can we trust Glantz isf he is making such a beginner mistake :any first year student at university should not qualify .
2)gratuitous translation from Russian sources that are ignorant of German terminology .
About the unriability of Russian sources concerning German losses:the Russian claimed that in the 50 days of the battles around Kursk,Orel and Kharkov the Germans lost 37OO aircraft,while the strength of the Luftwaffe in the east on june 1941 was 2100 aircraft !
See also P14 and 95 of Strom. Clem
I can only conclude that one should be very careful with Glantz'figures about German strength and casualties .Cheers

 

LDad,

Virtually all of the sources which I have ever came across have stated that German casualties (deaths only) were from 3-4 million on the Ost front and not 2 million. Who's to say that the Germans aren't trying to lower their military deaths in order to make themselves look better, just as you claim the Russians are raising theirs to do just that?

Publicly (Soviet Regime) numbers have been inflated, but Glantz's come from the Soviet war archive.... Surely the Russians weren't lying to themselves?

Russian "disabled" are losses too. If you notice on page 13 there are 2 columns for Russian losses. Notice in 41' out of 4.3 million casualties sustained by the Red Army, almost 3 million were "permanent" (Killed, missing or captured). The Germans only have 1 column. These casualties (just like Russia's Killed, missing, captured) were permanent. I fail to see a difference between the two other than the word "disabled". Am I missing something?

I am unfamiliar with these numbers. After all, Berlin itself was garrisoned with over 750,000 men who fought the Red Army. Perhaps your source can help clear this up?

 

Actually 1000 miles is just about equal to 1600 kilometers. One (statute) mile is 1.609 km.

 

My reply on the 1945 numbers disappeared Will give it later again
Some information on the casualties in 1944 (cl only ) from AHF German losses in 1944 P3
January 136000
February 153000
March 1O5000
April 11O000
May 150000
June 125000
July 400000
August 375000
september 120000
october 150000
november 70OOO
december 78000
I used rough figures to make it clear
The losses in Finland are not included
Some 50 %of the losses in 1944 were death and wounded
For 1943 :I have from an excerpt of Kursk :statistrical analysis by Zetterling and Frankson the following :CL :1442654 and from AHF 'Russians simply won by the powerof numbers' for 1943 :9O1417 wounded
For 1942 from the same AHF :814179 wounded for a total of 1.13 million
For 1941 Total losses 830OOO,wounded:621268
Thus we have till 1945 some 5.4 of which some 2 million death and missing .Cheers

 

about the german strength:
june 1941 :basic 2.4 and you can ad:security divisons :0.1 ;OKH reserves :0.6 (a lot of these reserves were dispersed across Europe,thus,you could choose to add only a part of them )
july 1942 :2.6
july 1943 :3.1
october 1943 :2.5
june 1944 :2.09
and then !
From Kunikov (on AHF :Force Development on the EF P1 ),he is also posting on RKKA (armchair general ),but I think his figures are including some supply and rear troops.
september 1944 :2.5
october 1944 :2.1
november 1944 :2.2
january 1945 :2.3
march 1945 :2.1
april 1945 :2
may 1945 :1.5
The sources of Kunikov are Ziemke and Fremde Heere Ost .
I think the figures for 1945 are inflatedbecause I doubt the Germans having the possibility to hold their armies on the same level in 1945 .
There are no reliable loss figures for 1945,thus also no reliable strength figures .
Cheers

 

.....

 

I thought that it was obvious and not insane :strength and losses are dependent:if the Germans had lost 3 million in 1945,their strenght must have been more than 3 million,otherwise they would have finished with zero;if they had lost 1 million,their strenght must have been more than 1 million .

 

Well, so his figures are not the best estimate that we have about the german deaths in the eastern front? What are the best estimates by your opinion?

 

Only speaking the obvious.

No, Leningrad wasn't completely surrounded, in the winter from the frozen lake there was some food supply. They never closed all entrances from the city, if they did Leningrad population would have declined to zero by 1944.

 

If you say so.... :lol:

During the Ardennes offensive, the city of Bastogne was surrounded by the Germans. The Americans didnt surrender...

 

1- For how many days? 10?

2- Yes, by 1945, with 5 million anglo-american troops behind their backs, nobody in Bastogne was expecting to be rescued.

3- Do you think that situation with moscow surrounded in 1941 would be the same as Bastogne in 1945? Bastogne was only a military position.

 

So now there are exceptions?

 

1- The civilians did started to panic in october 1941, with german troops dozens of miles away. morale was very low at those days.

2- Why the capture of moscow wouldn't be like Misk, Smolensk and Kiev? Name one russian city that was surrounded and wasn't conquered, leningrad wasn't surrounded.

 

By the time German troops reached Moscow many units were suffering 40% casualties. Surrounding Moscow would leave Von Bocks flanks exposed and even longer supply lines. How would his already depleted and exhausted army deal with such problems?