german to allied kill ratio?

[Antimatty]

sorry if this has been discussed before, i did a search and turned up nothing.

i was wondering what the kill ratio's were for Germany v. the kill ratio of the allied forces. as i understand it the germans were a much better trained force than the soviets were and had superior equipment , and still lost .

[wicked_hind]

the germans were a much better trained force than the soviets were and had superior equipment , and still lost .

The superior equipment part of your statement can be debated. Airplanes are only as good as those who fly and maintain them. Just keep looking into it. Go to the library, do some reading, and come up with your opinion. I personally prefer non-fiction literature than what you can find on the internet or The Military Channel. The facts are definitely out there.:)

[jklv]

PM lokos. Discard any info seen in games or weaponology.

[Toddy]

In the Axis forces German military losses ran at about 64% 5million+
In Allied forces Russian military losses ran at about 65% 10million+

They were both pretty screwed :)

[SonKev]

sorry if this has been discussed before, i did a search and turned up nothing.

i was wondering what the kill ratio's were for Germany v. the kill ratio of the allied forces. as i understand it the germans were a much better trained force than the soviets were and had superior equipment , and still lost .

I dont know much, but I know that the Germans didnt do well in the Russian cold

[oregongrunt]

sorry if this has been discussed before, i did a search and turned up nothing.

i was wondering what the kill ratio's were for Germany v. the kill ratio of the allied forces. as i understand it the germans were a much better trained force than the soviets were and had superior equipment , and still lost .

Well, several of their airbases were repeatedly and heavily bombed often in the later stages of the war, so of course they lost. I think individual skill is less of a factor than aircraft production is.

[KoTeMoRe]

I dont know much, but I know that the Germans didnt do well in the Russian cold

Not this again...

[Navor]

There were Numbers published in the Book "Endkampf um das Reich" and iirc the Casualty toll between German an Allied Ground Troops between .06.44 and 05.45 was 1.2-1:5 Allied Casualties per 1 German Casualty
Take for example the Looses during the Bulge.The US and UK lost 8607 KIA,21144 MIA and 47138 WIA.
Germans: 10749 KIA, 22388MIA and 35169 WIA

[Lokos]

was wondering what the kill ratio's were for Germany v. the kill ratio of the allied forces. as i understand it the germans were a much better trained force than the soviets were and had superior equipment , and still lost .

The 'kill ratios' were heavily skewed in Germany's favor. There are manifold reasons for this - and at the moment I don't have the time to go through them. If I were you, however, I'd approach the question of effectiveness on something other than the statistical nonsense of who suffered more losses. As you say, they still lost.

Lokos

[Mackie]

about 3.5 million Germans and about 9 - 11 million Russian died on the eastern front.

Don't forget that Stalin didn't cared about some dead soldiers. Stalin killed in the days before and after WWII about 30 million Russians to stabilize his power.

There are thousands of reports that 2 Russians used ONE rifle. If one of them got killed, the other one took the rifle.


That's the main reason of the high kill ratio on the eastern front - less equipped young Russians.

[supercontra]

Running out of resources and lack of logistics when fighting a multiple front war probably is a greater cause for the loss than pure kill ratio.

[KoTeMoRe]

about 3.5 million Germans and about 9 - 11 million Russian died on the eastern front.

Don't forget that Stalin didn't cared about some dead soldiers. Stalin killed in the days before and after WWII about 30 million Russians to stabilize his power.

There are thousands of reports that 2 Russians used ONE rifle. If one of them got killed, the other one took the rifle.


That's the main reason of the high kill ratio on the eastern front - less equipped young Russians.



Not this again...

I feel that repeating my self is as useful as a cup holder on a Mp 412, but yet...it's so chic.

[INCONEL]

Forgive me if I'm wrong...but aren't kill ratios for staff officers and politicians?....just a thought...

[Lokos]

about 3.5 million Germans and about 9 - 11 million Russian died on the eastern front.

You're including all Soviet POWs who died in German camps in that total.


There are thousands of reports that 2 Russians used ONE rifle. If one of them got killed, the other one took the rifle.

There are no 'thousands of reports' of any such thing. That's a baldfaced lie.

Lokos

[Indiana Jones]

Forgive me if I'm wrong...but aren't kill ratios for staff officers and politicians?....just a thought...
"Kill ratios" have a significantly higher impact on those who are actually killed.

[KoTeMoRe]

"Kill ratios" have a significantly higher impact on those who are actually killed.

Hu Hu that was a good one.p-)

[Indiana Jones]

sorry if this has been discussed before, i did a search and turned up nothing.

i was wondering what the kill ratio's were for Germany v. the kill ratio of the allied forces. as i understand it the germans were a much better trained force than the soviets were and had superior equipment , and still lost .
Ultimately losing or winning a conflict is obviously no yardstick of military competence of efficiency whatsoever. War is not a game of footy; the whole affair is fundamentally asymetric and multi-layered; factors that are only prima facie external such as the political, diplomatical and societal surroundings reciprocally influence battlefield performance, etc. pp.
For an introductory read into this subject, take a look at the writings of Dupuy and go from there. As for Eastern front casualties, consider Krivosheev for the Soviet and Müller-Hillebrand for the German side respectively. Discard on general principle all information given on German casualties in Soviet military literature and, to a somewhat lesser degree, vice versa.
In regard to such specific questions, avoid the more general, narrative histories the likes of Erickson, Glantz, Seaton and so forth, as their methodology is en detail severely deficient and their understanding of the source picture often limited.

As for casualty infliction ratios on the Eastern front thanks to the Russian archival policies and the breakdown of the German casualty reporting system in December 1944 we do not have exact data. In addition, the German and later, Russian allies obviously have to be factored into the equation. What we do know indicates all things considered that the Germans and their allies inflicted 3.5-4.5 casualties on the Soviets for every casualty they suffered.

[Lokos]

What we do know indicates all things considered that the Germans and their allies inflicted 3.5-4.5 casualties on the Soviets for every casualty they suffered.

Including German casualty data from December 1944 - May 1945? And the cumulative casualties of German allies? Sorry, no.


Ultimately losing or winning a conflict is obviously no yardstick of military competence of efficiency whatsoever.

A military institution can suffer as many losses as it can afford, as long as those losses do not degrade its overall strength. Since there are higher measures of military capacity (or competence, as you call it) than the production of belligerent bodies (especially given the specifics of the campaign on the Eastern Front) one is playing a disingenuous game by pointing out that the Germans suffered fewer casualties and therefore had the better and more efficient military institution.

It was not the winds of fortune that gave the Soviets an exploitable numerical advantage or an extremely efficient, heavily centralized administrative body apt at mobilizing that advantage and translating it into strong reserves and a powerful field army. Soviet doctrinal work was not conducted in a vacuum. War planners understood the parameters of the Soviet state and its various capacities, and shaped an institution that could best take advantage of Soviet strengths, whilst at the same time downplaying some of its more ****ounced weaknesses.

Pouring rifle battalions against fixed defenses was no answer to lowering casualties - regardless of artillery support. Nor was exploiting operations past their usefulness and suffering additional casualties as a result of declining combat readiness, logistical support and the increasing density of enemy defenses. The Soviets did so because they understood that, post-1943, every class of eighteen year olds outstripped the body count. They could introduce ill-trained, newly raised formations into an offensive set-up, thereby lowering the preparatory period, precisely because the results were worth the added expense. Their way of war was brutal, but produced appreciable results, as was deduced by STAVKA. Regardless of replacement levels for individual divisions, Soviet numerical strength was never in danger of falling (the number of formations increased at the cost of replacements for existing formations).

The Soviet General Staff understood their own doctrine and its application well enough to create accurate predictions of casualty levels for their own forces. One simplistic example is the maxim that first echelon rifle regiments would suffer 50% casualties in every penetration operation. This was borne out by field experience.

They understood their advantages, they formulated doctrines that would utilize them best, and they smashed the Wehrmacht to pieces. If the question at hand was 'Which army possessed the highest person-for-person capacities?' I would of course answer that the Wehrmacht was unsurpassed in this regard. But when we discuss military institutions on the whole, 'competence' and 'efficiency' take on an entirely different aspect.

Indiana's understanding of this historical period is excellent. But his understanding of some of the contextual underlying framework, especially in a military sense, is disagreeable to me.


In regard to such specific questions, avoid the more general, narrative histories the likes of Erickson, Glantz, Seaton

Seaton and Erickson disregard because they are outdated; Glantz you can use, as his numbers - at least for the Soviets - are reliable (largely based on Krivosheev).

Lokos

[GodlessAmerica!]

Not this again...

roflroflrofl

[GodlessAmerica!]

about 3.5 million Germans and about 9 - 11 million Russian died on the eastern front.

Don't forget that Stalin didn't cared about some dead soldiers. Stalin killed in the days before and after WWII about 30 million Russians to stabilize his power.

There are thousands of reports that 2 Russians used ONE rifle. If one of them got killed, the other one took the rifle.


That's the main reason of the high kill ratio on the eastern front - less equipped young Russians.

Read more books, watch less TV ;)

[hedgehog]

I remember reading an article in the Toronto Star back when they had the 50 year D Day anniversary and there was an analysis on the normandy campaign. Adjusting for the air superiority, the analysis showed that the Germans utilized their resources 25% better which included of course the number of soldiers killed/wounded.

[Kitsune]

It is by no means the case that the Germans generally had superior equipment. In many instances German quality and technological standards were higher than those of their opponents, especially Russia, but that was not always the case. Besides, there is also the question of quantity of material. Even if a truck of one side is simpler than of the other, it still helpes a lot if you have two or three times more of them. All in all the German armed forces had usually significantly less equipment at their disposal than their opponents, that goes for most part of the war, wether on the eastern or the western front.

As far as kill ratios are concerned, according to the very diligent investigations by Trevor N. Dupuy German units tended to inflict around one and a half times the numbers of casualites on their opponents of an comparable Allied unit. This goes for the west, against American or British units (which had an similiar effectiveness). In the east, against Soviet troops, the difference was higher, often around a ratio two to two and a half. Those numbers could be found until the end of 1944, the year 1945 offered the opportunity for the allies to improve statistics since German resistance was increasingly feeble and equipment superiority of the Allied troops, east and west, became almost ludicrously great (numbers like five times more troops, ten times more tanks, twenty times more artillery and such being not uncommon, air support being almost exclusively on the allied side of course). Ironically, while the outcome was not in question anymore in 1945, those last months were the most bloody for the Germans, soldiers and civilians alike.

Still, the notion can be sustained that overall the German military was the one with the greatest fighting efficiency in WWII (since that seems to go for WWI as well, it may not have been entirely coincidental, the most likely explanation is not so much a superiority in equipment but the Prussian military tradition which apparently had created an excellent German officer corps - as much as they can be criticized for tolerating or even siding with the NS regime). The remark "they still lost" is too true however.

[Rudolph]

Still, the notion can be sustained that overall the German military was the one with the greatest fighting efficiency in WWII (since that seems to go for WWI as well, it may not have been entirely coincidental, the most likely explanation is not so much a superiority in equipment but the Prussian military tradition which apparently had created an excellent German officer corps - as much as they can be criticized for tolerating or even siding with the NS regime). The remark "they still lost" is too true however.

I've only got respect for the Germanic peoples and their spirit. But lost they did...

[Toddy]

I've only got respect for the Germanic peoples and their spirit. But lost they did...

Do you feel the same respect for the Zulus??

[Kak]

I believe that on the Eastern Front battlefield, there were around 4 million German deaths and 6 million Soviet deaths, not 1:1, but not too bad.

Those are the battlefield deaths though. The Germans captured around 5 million Soviet soldiers, and due to their genocidal policies, killed most of them. Because of these added 3 and a half million Soviet prisoners that died in captivity, this brings the overall Soviet military dead from 6 million to around 10 million. While the Soviet military captured plenty of Germans, around 3 million, most of them lived, unlike the Soviet POWs, so the German military dead number stays the same.

In most of the battles the Germans had a superior kill to death ratio than the Soviets, Operation Bagration (the greatest German defeat of the war) being one of the more notable exceptions, in which the Soviets inflicted around 4 times the amount of losses on the Germans than they themself sustained.

[Mofreaka]

about 3.5 million Germans and about 9 - 11 million Russian died on the eastern front.

Don't forget that Stalin didn't cared about some dead soldiers. Stalin killed in the days before and after WWII about 30 million Russians to stabilize his power.

There are thousands of reports that 2 Russians used ONE rifle. If one of them got killed, the other one took the rifle.


That's the main reason of the high kill ratio on the eastern front - less equipped young Russians.

Someone's seen Enemy at the Gates a few to many times, aye comrade?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The 'kill ratios' were heavily skewed in Germany's favor. There are manifold reasons for this - and at the moment I don't have the time to go through them. If I were you, however, I'd approach the question of effectiveness on something other than the statistical nonsense of who suffered more losses. As you say, they still lost.

Lokos

Who had the most troops, who lost the most men is irrelevant to the outcome of WW2.

Take the campaign over the Owen Stanly Ranges in Papua. There was more troops carting supplies then troops actually fighting.

The troops fielded by both sides were small to. Generally no more then a few thousand yet the strategic importance was just as great for the war against Japan as Russian campaigns against the Germans where millions of men are involved.

Put basically you can have the largest and most fanatical army in the world. An army that has more killing power then any army seen. But what good does it do you if only a few thousand men can fight in a campaign?

Russia had vast open terrain where armies in the millions had the room to move. Hence the larger casualties. Try fitting a million men on a old native track that didn't make sense and was single file all the way.

EDIT

I'm agreeing with Lokos by the way.

[RussDill]

There are no 'thousands of reports' of any such thing. That's a baldfaced lie.

Lokos

Jude Law lied to me?

[sp2c]

no jude law was lied to

the sky captain does not lie

[angry cow]

This whole kill ratio thing came up during Vietnam. If I recall correctly, the study done by the Pentagon looked strictly at the performance of infantry regiments against other infantry regiments. By those strict standards, the German's had the highest kill ratio. The Pentagon attributed this to better utilization of combined arms doctrine, for example, better utilization of resources like tanks, artillery, and air support.

[Kitsune]

I believe that on the Eastern Front battlefield, there were around 4 million German deaths and 6 million Soviet deaths, not 1:1, but not too bad.

Those are the battlefield deaths though. The Germans captured around 5 million Soviet soldiers, and due to their genocidal policies, killed most of them. Because of these added 3 and a half million Soviet prisoners that died in captivity, this brings the overall Soviet military dead from 6 million to around 10 million. While the Soviet military captured plenty of Germans, around 3 million, most of them lived, unlike the Soviet POWs, so the German military dead number stays the same.

In most of the battles the Germans had a superior kill to death ratio than the Soviets, Operation Bagration (the greatest German defeat of the war) being one of the more notable exceptions, in which the Soviets inflicted around 4 times the amount of losses on the Germans than they themself sustained.
It may be even less bad than you think. Soviet losses were at least 8.66 million, compared to 4 million German dead on the Ostfront. The German number includes 1,2 million military dead which were killed in the months of 1945, a period in which, as said, the quantitative superiority of men and material the Allies enjoyed over the German troops was extremely ****ounced. If one, just for fun, compares Soviet to German military dead from summer 1940 to the end of the year 1944, it would be at least 6.5 million Soviet military dead to 2.8 million German dead. That would be a ratio of around 2.3 to 1 for that time period.

As far as the German genocidal politics concerning prisoners were concerned, its true that more than 50% of captured Soviet soldiers died. However, the Soviets were probably less nice to their German prisoners then you seem to believe. First, many of those millions of Germans they held prisoner were "captured" only after the German capitulation (more than 3 million of my memory serves right), secondly, around one million of the overall number of prisoners died - often in the years after the war. (The Soviets admitted only a few hundred of thousand of those deaths, however, there is also the fact that a surprisingly high number of German soldiers on the Eastern front were missing in action instead of KIA or captured, for example almost 60% of all German casualites in 1944 were soldiers who just vanished, while the corresponding number on the western front was only 19% in the same year. If one assumes that the higher margin was due to prisoners who were killed or died without leaving a paper trail or at least without Soviet authorities taking responsibilities for it, the overall number of dead German POWs rises to slightly more than one million).

As far as those German soldiers are concerned who were taken prisoner by the Soviets before the capitulation, their chance to die in Soviet captivity was actually very high. In fact, for those who were taken prisoner in the years 1941, 1942 and 1943 the rate of survival is less than 5% - almost all German captives taken by the Soviets in that time died. Stalin's Sovietunion could be a tiny bit genocidal as well at times.

[KoTeMoRe]

It may be even less bad than you think. Soviet losses were at least 8.66 million, compared to 4 million German dead on the Ostfront. The German number includes 1,2 million military dead which were killed in the months of 1945, a period in which, as said, the quantitative superiority of men and material the Allies enjoyed over the German troops was extremely ****ounced. If one, just for fun, compares Soviet to German military dead from summer 1940 to the end of the year 1944, it would be at least 6.5 million Soviet military dead to 2.8 million German dead. That would be a ratio of around 2.3 to 1 for that time period.

As far as the German genocidal politics concerning prisoners were concerned, its true that more than 50% of captured Soviet soldiers died. However, the Soviets were probably less nice to their German prisoners then you seem to believe. First, many of those millions of Germans they held prisoner were "captured" only after the German capitulation (more than 3 million of my memory serves right), secondly, around one million of the overall number of prisoners died - often in the years after the war. (The Soviets admitted only a few hundred of thousand of those deaths, however, there is also the fact that a surprisingly high number of German soldiers on the Eastern front were missing in action instead of KIA or captured, for example almost 60% of all German casualites in 1944 were soldiers who just vanished, while the corresponding number on the western front was only 19% in the same year. If one assumes that the higher margin was due to prisoners who were killed or died without leaving a paper trail or at least without Soviet authorities taking responsibilities for it, the overall number of dead German POWs rises to slightly more than one million).

As far as those German soldiers are concerned who were taken prisoner by the Soviets before the capitulation, their chance to die in Soviet captivity was actually very high. In fact, for those who were taken prisoner in the years 1941, 1942 and 1943 the rate of survival is less than 5% - almost all German captives taken by the Soviets in that time died. Stalin's Sovietunion could be a tiny bit genocidal as well at times.

German soldiers going MIA in the USSR, usually, had less chances to survive than those POW.

Revenge, was the fate, the missing germans met, when they crossed a partisan/Soviet held. Civilians were instrumental into the shootings/killings.

[Funkgab]

It is impossible to find a close estimite since both governments will try to publish numbers in thier own favor.

[Rudolph]

Do you feel the same respect for the Zulus??

Missed this one.... nothing to do with this thread even. Not gonna get into a race/culture argument right now. That said, Zulus are cool, it's the Xhosa tribe (ANC) that need to be taught a lesson.