Game News Company of Heroes 2 gets Metacritic bombed by upset Russians

[Darth Roxor]

But they didn't go back because they were too busy





Burning Bridges

What is this, did you fall asleep while posting?

you didnt get it, didnt you

(or is it a joke at Polands expense?)

I wish that was the case.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Yes, you are right about industry in Siberia and Land Lease, etc. And people mentioning The Russian Winter are right too. So, let's remove this out of equation. Take the very beginning of the war - summer and autumn of 1941. In this period, Soviets lost a lot of people dead and captured, but managed to kill hundreds of thousands of Axis. It's impossible to say exact kill/lost ratio, because every source gives different numbers, but no matter how you count, it gives several times better than how Poland or France did. One thing is certain - it was way more than German expected, and enough to make reaching Moscow before winter impossible.

I think this is more or less correct and the figures to back it up can be found in books. Until the Red Army consolidated in December 1941 the Germans had a kill ratio of 10:1, possibly more. The first months were a catastrophe for the Soviet Union. But if you look closer (and it seems Hitler did never look that close himself), the Soviet losses were so horrendous (several millions of men) that the Wehrmacht had losses which were also unbelievably high (compared to Poland and France). In 41/42 Germany could still replace their losses (they were however critically understrength at the crucial moment of the war, December '41), but they could not replace them with veterans. Let's face it, no matter what you heard about the awesomeness of the teutonic ubermensch, German raw recruits were not better than Soviet recruits. That's why in 1942 the East front flared up a little for Germany for a second time, and then collapsed. In 1941, it came as a surprise for Germans that most Russians did not surrender when a French, British, Belgian or Polish soldier would have done. They were subsequently often massacred but Germany lost many men in the process, too.

Talking about this all today still sounds totally crazy. I just cannot believe how anyone can be "proud" of the War in the East. Hitler wanted to eradicate a whole people, who resisted and ultimately prevailed, but with 20 or 30 million deaths, a lot of which were not necessary. It was nothing but a fucking bloodbath, which left generations traumatized for the rest of their lifes.

 

[Burning Bridges]

But they didn't go back because they were too busy





Burning Bridges

What is this, did you fall asleep while posting?

you didnt get it, didnt you

No I don't get it. But it has my name in it.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Ah wait I think I get it now

ha. ha.

 

[Hellraiser]

Afaik reliance of horses was the case with most of the Wehrmacht as well. They had some motorized divisions, the rest was using horses. But anyway, I was just saying that with help from France Poland could have had a chance, without it, it had none at all.

Yes, that's definitely true, indeed that's pretty much why the alliance with France was made so early in the brief history of the Second Polish Republic. I do believe that the French could have defeated Germany if they went on the offensive in 1939. Even their defeat in 1940 wasn't an absolute certainty, it was mostly due to Hitler's huge gamble paying off (he had more luck than brains when it comes to military matters, luckily he had good generals on his side) enabling the encirclement to succeed. The French and British dismissed the one gap along the border with the low countries in the Ardennes as an unrealistic attack path and it cost them everything.

 

[baturinsky]

I think this is more or less correct and the figures to back it up can be found in books. Until the Red Army consolidated in December 1941 the Germans had a kill ratio of 10:1, possibly more.

Only if you include POWs. Kill ratio lingered at 2-3 until early 1944, but there were millions of soviet POWS in 1941.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I think this is more or less correct and the figures to back it up can be found in books. Until the Red Army consolidated in December 1941 the Germans had a kill ratio of 10:1, possibly more.

Only if you include POWs. Kill ratio lingered at 2-3 until early 1944, but there were millions of soviet POWS in 1941.

I have no idea, except that Soviet losses were higher than the Germans until the end of the war.

Military deaths (excluding civilians) are according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Third_Reich

Germany: 4,300,000 to 5,500,000 (including Austrians, Ethnic Germans from other countries, etc)
USSR: 9,000,000 to 14,000,000

roughly 2:1 ok?

For the loss ratio to gradually improve to the more 2:3 realistic at the end of the war, it must have been much higher at the beginning.

Of course there are a lot of remaining factors, that Germans fought on more fronts, that much more Soviet POWS died in German captivity than the other way around (I believe the ratio was 10:1 or something like that), but 2:1 sounds reasonable. Considering that the Wehrmacht had many small advantages and was not prone to suicide orders.

Ah just before someone gets me wrong, if you pit a German soldier with a rifle against a Russian soldier with a rifle, the chances are about 50/50.

 

[made]

I am reminded of a story my grandfather, a veteran of the Russlandfeldzug, once told me that left a profound impression on me. While on a patrol near Demjansk, some time in the winter of 1941/42, he and his company captured a handful of Russian soldiers, among them a high-ranking officer. When interrogated, the officer defiantly claimed in broken German, "Deutschland Krieg nicht gewinnen." Outraged - defeat still unthinkable for them at the time - his captors demanded an explanation. "Deutschland Menschen sparen", the man said with a smile and shrugged. "Russland nicht sparen. Heute 100 tot, morgen 200 neue an die Front."

 

[Burning Bridges]

"Russland nicht sparen. Heute 100 tot, morgen 200 neue an die Front."

 

[baturinsky]

Ah just before someone gets me wrong, if you pit a German soldier with a rifle against a Russian soldier with a rifle, the chances are about 50/50.

Yes, but if you pit a trained experienced warrior with a rifle against a rookie... Russians lost most of skilled soldiers and officers in logistic fuckups of 1941, and I think it was a main reason of bigger losses in 1942 and 1943.

 

[evdk]

"Russland nicht sparen. Heute 100 tot, morgen 200 neue an die Front."

"Nas mnogo" has always worked for Russia.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Yes, you are right about industry in Siberia and Land Lease, etc. And people mentioning The Russian Winter are right too. So, let's remove this out of equation. Take the very beginning of the war - summer and autumn of 1941. In this period, Soviets lost a lot of people dead and captured, but managed to kill hundreds of thousands of Axis. It's impossible to say exact kill/lost ratio, because every source gives different numbers, but no matter how you count, it gives several times better than how Poland or France did. One thing is certain - it was way more than German expected, and enough to make reaching Moscow before winter impossible.

You can't scale blitzkrieg up infinitely. It depends on quick defeat of the enemy and not giving the enemy time to consolidate and doing stuff like massive encirclements and destroying supply lines which allows taking large units prisoner with relatively low losses because they don't even have ammo and artillery to fight back. Not to mention that the whole plan in France was based on deception.
With limited territory and limited amount of tanks, France and Poland were easy to disable with Blitzkrieg.
In Russia you destroy the amount of tanks that France and Poland had together in one month, cut supply lines, surround lots of troops, then you go deeper and encounter the same amount of tanks and fresh units that still have supply lines open. It doesn't matter if you take a position with a great plan and massive use of artillery and Stuka bombers because there are 10 positions like that behind it and behind these positions there's an armoured corps with 1000 tanks is gathering for counter-attack. When Blitzkrieg stops working, you suddenly get lots of casualties.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Ah just before someone gets me wrong, if you pit a German soldier with a rifle against a Russian soldier with a rifle, the chances are about 50/50.

Yes, but if you pit a trained experienced warrior with a rifle against a rookie... Russians lost most of skilled soldiers and officers in logistic fuckups of 1941, and I think it was a main reason of bigger losses in 1942 and 1943.

That's basically what I meant too. At the beginning the training and experience in the Wehrmacht was extremely high compared to the Red Army. After the Wehrmacht lost several 100,000s soldiers, it was still higher, but not enough. Even if the Russian losses were always greater, the Wehrmacht could not afford such losses as they had. And it's not like this fact eluded Stalin or his Generals, only Hitler seems to have been quite naive. He should have done the only sensible thing, negotiate with Stalin when it was still possible, but he only saw the gains on the map.

 

[Burning Bridges]

"Russland nicht sparen. Heute 100 tot, morgen 200 neue an die Front."

"Nas mnogo" has always worked for Russia.

I'm sure you also know the saying "Zu Tode gesiegt".

 

[Burning Bridges]

Yes, you are right about industry in Siberia and Land Lease, etc. And people mentioning The Russian Winter are right too. So, let's remove this out of equation. Take the very beginning of the war - summer and autumn of 1941. In this period, Soviets lost a lot of people dead and captured, but managed to kill hundreds of thousands of Axis. It's impossible to say exact kill/lost ratio, because every source gives different numbers, but no matter how you count, it gives several times better than how Poland or France did. One thing is certain - it was way more than German expected, and enough to make reaching Moscow before winter impossible.

You can't scale blitzkrieg up infinitely. It depends on quick defeat of the enemy and not giving the enemy time to consolidate and doing stuff like massive encirclements and destroying supply lines which allows taking large units prisoner with relatively low losses because they don't even have ammo and artillery to fight back. Not to mention that the whole plan in France was based on deception.
With limited territory and limited amount of tanks, France and Poland were easy to disable with Blitzkrieg.
In Russia you destroy the amount of tanks that France and Poland had together in one month, cut supply lines, surround lots of troops, then you go deeper and encounter the same amount of tanks and fresh units that still have supply lines open. It doesn't matter if you take a position with a great plan and massive use of artillery and Stuka bombers because there are 10 positions like that behind it and behind these positions there's an armoured corps with 1000 tanks is gathering for counter-attack. When Blitzkrieg stops working, you suddenly get lots of casualties.

This. Blitzkrieg is basically the equivalent of knocking out a strong opponent, before he can even hit you. It only works when the opponent has no time to stand up. That's why it did not work with Russia. When it stood up it was an equal exchange for a long time, then Russia got the upper hand because it was economically stronger and had more manpower. The support from USA/GB is another factor, but I'm not even sure it would have needed them.

 

[made]

He should have done the only sensible thing, negotiate with Stalin when it was still possible

When was that point in your opinion, and how long would the resulting peace have lasted?

http://www.savethemales.ca/001895.html

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

This. Blitzkrieg is basically the equivalent of knocking out a strong opponent, before he can even hit you. It only works when the opponent has no time to stand up. That's why it did not work with Russia. When it stood up it was an equal exchange for a long time, then Russia got the upper hand because it was economically stronger and had more manpower. The support from USA/GB is another factor, but I'm not even sure it would have needed them.

Thanks to western help, Russians could specialise in manufacturing weapons. Their logistic system was almost 100% dependent on western trucks and rail-road cars. They also received food and raw materials from the west.
It's quite possible that without Lend and Lease, Russia would either run out of tanks or would be unable to supply it's armies and would lose.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Good question. I believe Stalin was willing to negotiate well into 1942. But he must have known that the Wehrmacht lost the war after her comeback had ground to a halt at Stalingrad, very late '42.

The ideal point to negotiate would have been Nov. 1941 when Germany was at the gates of Moscow. Stalin was terrified, and I am sure he would have made huge concessions. But then of course it looked like Germany had already won, and only some clairvoyants in Germany realized the real seriousness of the situation. I also believe that Shukov already saw things much more optimistic, if only he was given a free hand in strategic matters. Which Stalin was wise enough to do.

Concerning how long the peace would have lasted, I think no one can know. But as long as Germany had the best army in the world, no one would have taken an invasion or attack against her lightly. Neither USSR nor GB was in a position to attack Germany before Stalingrad.

 

[Burning Bridges]

This. Blitzkrieg is basically the equivalent of knocking out a strong opponent, before he can even hit you. It only works when the opponent has no time to stand up. That's why it did not work with Russia. When it stood up it was an equal exchange for a long time, then Russia got the upper hand because it was economically stronger and had more manpower. The support from USA/GB is another factor, but I'm not even sure it would have needed them.

Thanks to western help, Russians could specialise in manufacturing weapons. Their logistic system was almost 100% dependent on western trucks and rail-road cars. They also received food and raw materials from the west.
It's quite possible that without Lend and Lease, Russia would either run out of tanks or would be unable to supply it's armies and would lose.

It certainly helped them a great deal. I have also seen these figures (lorries, etc) and I believe they were important contributions. But Stalin could have afforded to retreat even further than Moscow. How far is a good question, but perhaps someone with a better knowledge of Russian geography can help.

It was also an advantage the Stalin could wage "total war" much earlier than Germany.

 

[Hellraiser]

When it stood up it was an equal exchange for a long time, then Russia got the upper hand because it was economically stronger and had more manpower. The support from USA/GB is another factor, but I'm not even sure it would have needed them.

Lend-Lease essentially enabled soviet factories to focus pretty much exclusively on producing munitions, guns, cannons, tanks and planes since they got pretty much of all of their new trains, trucks etc. from kwa.

In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food.

Between June 1941 and May 1945 3,000 Hurricanes were delivered to the USSR along with 4,000 other aircraft, 5,000 tanks, 5,000 anti-tank guns and 15 million boots in total 4 million tonnes of war materials including food and medical supplies were delivered.

It was a huge factor considering the soviets had to fight Germany pretty much alone until 1944 from 1941. Of course some of the military hardware the soviets through Lend-Lease was deemed outdated and obsolete and hence given away, but not all of.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It certainly helped them a great deal. But Stalin could have afforded to retreat even further than Moscow. How far is a good question, but perhaps someone with a better knowledge of Russian geography can help.

He could. He'd still have severe problems with supply, though.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Interesting thread. to all who participate. Perhaps we should enable more historic discussion in this forum, it seems no retard ever enters it.

 

[Hamster]

Military deaths (excluding civilians) are according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Third_Reich

Germany: 4,300,000 to 5,500,000 (including Austrians, Ethnic Germans from other countries, etc)
USSR: 9,000,000 to 14,000,000

roughly 2:1 ok?

Sorry, but nope. You cannot just gloss over the issue of POWS.

Just look at the casualties tables on wiki page for eastern front - massacres of pows play a huge part in swaying kill ratio into german favour, they killed millions.

I made this table for combat losses (no pows included) a few years ago during similiar discussion on codex, unfortunately i don't remember the source, but you can see that total numbers are generally consistent with mainstream estimates provided on eastern front wiki page:

USSR vs Axis

1941:
802,191 vs 307,553 = 2,61 : 1

1942:
1,742,955 vs 537,922 = 3,24 : 1

1943:
1,944,653 vs 792,764 = 2,45 : 1

1944:
1,596,328 vs 1,507,623 = 1,05 : 1

1945:
732,108 vs 1,230,045 = 1 : 1,68

Total: 6818235 vs 4375907 = 1,56 : 1

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

I am reminded of a story my grandfather, a veteran of the Russlandfeldzug, once told me that left a profound impression on me. While on a patrol near Demjansk, some time in the winter of 1941/42, he and his company captured a handful of Russian soldiers, among them a high-ranking officer. When interrogated, the officer defiantly claimed in broken German, "Deutschland Krieg nicht gewinnen." Outraged - defeat still unthinkable for them at the time - his captors demanded an explanation. "Deutschland Menschen sparen", the man said with a smile and shrugged. "Russland nicht sparen. Heute 100 tot, morgen 200 neue an die Front."

Well, it made an impression on me.

 

[Burning Bridges]

It certainly helped them a great deal. But Stalin could have afforded to retreat even further than Moscow. How far is a good question, but perhaps someone with a better knowledge of Russian geography can help.

He could. He'd still have severe problems with supply, though.

I would really like to hear someone who knows Russian geography. But if you think that Wrangrel and Denikin could jeep the Bolshies busy with only Siberia and the Donets area, I think Hitler was still far from controlling most of Russia.

It was a huge factor considering the soviets had to fight Germany pretty much alone until 1944 from 1941. Of course some of the military hardware the soviets through Lend-Lease was deemed outdated and obsolete and hence given away, but not all of.

7,000 tanks sounds awfully much, but how many did Russia produce herself? Am I crazy when I guess it could be like 50,000 or more? Also if Airacobras, P-40 etc would have been of major importance, would they have given them to Ersatz formations, like women squadrons?