Outnumbered?

Why did the Russians nearly always slightly outnumber the Germans in the important battles on the eastern front.?

 

Russia is gigantic. Naturally it holds a gigantic number of people.

 

Well, the greater Germany had approx 90 million and the USSRR up to 200 million people so that´s why.

 

The Germans also had many other fronts to cover besides the east so their military was always spread thin.

 

If there was such a large number differance between SU and Germany then y did they manage to get within 50 miles from Moscow.How come the Su didnt stop the hun and cut them down before they got anywhere near Moscow.Im not on any side i just wonder y i suppose.Were the Red army told to retreat back to wear out the German fuel suppies and so that they advance and then hav to stop to wait for the supplys to catch up.During that time the German would be weak.

[ 10. April 2006, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Machine Gun Nest 1985. ]

 

<How come the Su didnt stop the hun and cut them down before they got anywhere near Moscow.>

"hun"?
There are tons of books about this out there....might want to read one.

 

I think the word Hun is from a horde that roamed europe in roman times.also the germans were called huns i think by russia.

 

hey I just posted this on another thread

soviet counterstrike in winter 41-42 in Army Group Center's area

Germans :

soldiers 1.700.000
arty 13.500
tanks 1.170

Russians :

1.100.000
7.652
774

so Red army did not outnumbered Germans everytime

anyway, absolute numbers don't mean superiority, if you are not able to bring your superior force at the right time and the right place, to achieve local superiority (this means your forces have sufficient mobility and logistics)

One of the most important blitzkrieg principle, is to achieve such a local superiority to break through, encircle and destroy the enemy, even if the enemy has superiority in numbers at the scale of the whole front

 

Surprise is a big advantage to any army in any battle. That's exactly what the Soviets got on 22 June 1941.

 

yeah thats true but thats just 1 battle it sure didnt keep like that.

 

The Huns were from the Steppes of Central Asia and roamed Europe from the 4th Century AD. If anything their origins were more Russian than German and in fact they pushed the Goth tribes westward.

The derogatory term 'Hun' was used by British propaganda in WW1 and was intended to portray the Germans as brutal savages. The term was not so common in WWII and was rarely used by the USA, never by the Soviets.

 

BTW,

Chocapic. I think I found the source you got the numbers from and if you check the sentences before and after the figures it says these were numbers given by USSR sources. If you trust all these then Germans had 2,000 Tigers in Kursk as well. Which was not quite the case.

 

I put in the other thread (int he what-if section but I forgot to copy this part of the info on this one) that these numbers came from Glanz's book.

From my part, the numbers come from notes taken from the book, I don't have any longer access to the book itself ATM, but IIRC, these numbers where not presented by the author as a gross propaganda fantasy (but correct me if I'm wrong on this point).

Now, about the numbers themselves : you can't believe Germans could field 1.170 tanks on a given date in december 1941, just at the end of operation Typhoon, not even speaking of the 13k field guns.

But I'm not speaking of an order of battle at a precise time and limited space, here.

I believe they give a correct picture of the ratio, given the inherent unacuracy of the subject (very large scale in both time and space), of the total forces (including reinfocments and redeployments) both sides were able to throw at one another's face in the whole central theater of operations, and during a whole 4 months timespan.

And these numbers tend to confirm that, during winterstorm operation, germans were not overwhelmed by vast numbers, it's more like the exhaustion of bodies and hardware, the moral and physical strain of fighting since june, the collapse of logistics, had them crumble facing inexperienced and often ill-leaded, but FRESH troops.

If Germans had suffered a very defavorable number ratio at this time, they probably would have spend new year's eve in Minsk

Of course, in no way I mean to prove any point, and I'd be glad to have other numbers and sources on this subjectt.

 

Thanx for your reply, chocapic!

I got the book and this is how it goes on p 87 on December counteroffensive

"the Red Army did not have an abundance of forces to launch a counter-offensive. Soviet historians have claimed that, as of 1 Decemeber, there were 1,100,000 Soviet troops facing 1,708,000 Germans in German Army Group Center, with similar disproportions in equipment, such as 7,652 Soviet guns to 13,500 German pieces and 774 Soviet tanks to 1,170 German tanks. These figures vastly overestimate effective German strength, but they correctly assess Red Army strength. Many Soviet units were mere skeletons. The 108th Tank Division, for exmaple, wasdown to 15 out of 217 authorized tanks,and many rifle divisions had less than 3,000 men.

Still, the Germans were overextended and poorly equipped for winter, while the Soviets were temporarily concentrated at a few critical points. For example , on the Western Front´s right wing attacking north of Moscow the Soviets were able to achieve a 2:1 superiority over the Germans in personnel and lesser superiorities in artillery and mortars. The Germans maintained armored superiority.Moreover, the German intelligence estimated that Stalin had no more reserves and that it would be an additional three months before the Red Army could raise new forces. The shock of the Soviet counterattacks was therefore all the greater.

 

Thanks Kai, looks like data fits, but I misinterpreted : Soviet numbers would be correct and German would be wrong.

But I consider Glanz is a reliable source, and if he says Soviets achieved a 2:1 superiority in personel in such a vast area as the [Soviet] Western Front right wing, it's very unlikely that Germans had an overall personal superiority in the whole Army Group Center area

Therefore, I was wrong taking these numbers for granted.

Does Glanz provide alternate count for German forces ?

 

I´ll check on the numbers in this book during the weekend, chocapic.

 

The Huns were from the Steppes of Central Asia and roamed Europe from the 4th Century AD. If anything their origins were more Russian than German and in fact they pushed the Goth tribes westward.

The derogatory term 'Hun' was used by British propaganda in WW1 and was intended to portray the Germans as brutal savages. The term was not so common in WWII and was rarely used by the USA, never by the Soviets. </font>[/QUOTE]ok ok i did get aliitle mixed but thanks for pointing that out to me.

 

Sorry about the delay.

Actually Glanz does not discuss other figures than what the USSR had for Dec 1941...

Anyway, dug some other sources for more info.

Charles Winchester ostfront

"Three quarters of the approx. 1,000 tanks assembled for operation Typhoon were lost by 4th December. Luftwaffe had lost 758 bombers and 568 fighters and 767 other aircraft was destroyed."

----------

Alexander Werth book on Barbarossa claims:

In December 1941 AGC area

Germans: Russians

men 1,1:1

artillery 1,8:1

tanks 1,4:1

On 1. January 1942

Germans:Russians

men 1:1

tanks 1:1,6

aeroplanes 1:1,4

AT weapons 1:3

I suppose that the STAVKA reserves are out of these figures because they mentioned as separate entities.

--------

For the whole front a Finnish Army historian
( in a 600 pages book on Red Army tanks )claims that on 1st Dec 1941 Germans had for the whole front 2028 tanks of which unarmed commander tanks 171.

For the Red Army at the same time for the whole front ca 8500 tanks. Zhukov´s Western front 573 tanks.

 

But don't forget Russia had many many many under equiped Conscripted Infantry basicly a rife and a couple mags pick up as you go. SO basicly they were putting up meat shields to stop the Germans.

 

Not very profound, is it?