128mm vs 88mm

[Curco]

which one does more damage in real life?

[Atlas is]

Maschinengewehr a écrit :

Zeva Atlas having a good time. a écrit :

This isn't true.
Deep Battle and Blitzkrieg are both very smiliar doctrines.
The Reason the soviets where so effective as due to the axis lacking severly in Industry. Without tanks there is no Blitzkrieg.
The Soviets showed the problems of a deep battle Strategy and that it requieres a huge amount of manpower and soldiers. And even they got close to theit limits.
The Blitzkrieg doctrine is still the basic of most modern war doctrines. Logistics aren't a problem as they were before getting men to die is.

They have similarities but they differ in key areas.

Blitzkrieg is useless in defense. It's purely an offensive strategy, and quite a rigid one. So that point is redundant.

Offensive operations require large numbers. Attackers must outnumber defenders by a good margin. That's military strategy 101. Even Sun Tzu knew that thousands of years ago. Suvorov knew that. Napoleon knew that. Soviet casualties on the offensive were far lower than those sustained during defensive operations. That's a good testament to the effectiveness of Deep Battle.

Blitzkrieg was only a German adaptation of the original British combined arms strategy in late WWI. Nothing more nothing less. It's far too rigid and has some major flaws. And logistic punctuation was a major problem for the Germans. Even when the war was going in their favour.

Deep Battles just switches your superioty in armoured vehicles to a superiority in Infantry and men.
So first of all there's only a few countries that could ever use it.
Second Tanks are machines and therefore don't retreat. As much as I hate this wh40k imperial guard commisar thinking for the soviets they had a hell of a time motivating their troops.
All the other Armies never had to resort of the pragmatic mehtods the soviets used during their campaign.
They lost so many people that after WW2 the red army was literally in shambles.

[Maschinengewehr]

Zeva Atlas having a good time. a écrit :

Maschinengewehr a écrit :

They have similarities but they differ in key areas.

Blitzkrieg is useless in defense. It's purely an offensive strategy, and quite a rigid one. So that point is redundant.

Offensive operations require large numbers. Attackers must outnumber defenders by a good margin. That's military strategy 101. Even Sun Tzu knew that thousands of years ago. Suvorov knew that. Napoleon knew that. Soviet casualties on the offensive were far lower than those sustained during defensive operations. That's a good testament to the effectiveness of Deep Battle.

Blitzkrieg was only a German adaptation of the original British combined arms strategy in late WWI. Nothing more nothing less. It's far too rigid and has some major flaws. And logistic punctuation was a major problem for the Germans. Even when the war was going in their favour.

Deep Battles just switches your superioty in armoured vehicles to a superiority in Infantry and men.
So first of all there's only a few countries that could ever use it.
Second Tanks are machines and therefore don't retreat. As much as I hate this wh40k imperial guard commisar thinking for the soviets they had a hell of a time motivating their troops.
All the other Armies never had to resort of the pragmatic mehtods the soviets used during their campaign.
They lost so many people that after WW2 the red army was literally in shambles.

No there's far more to it than that:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a258092.pdf

Also note that AirLand Battle is the modern strategy from the 1980's to the present day, not "blitzkrieg" variants. There's even the more modern "Full-spectrum dominance", which is absolutely nothing like blitzkrieg in any measure.

To simplify it, it relied more on artillery and armour than anything else.

Red Army in shambles? Erm no. They were hands down the most powerful and experienced army in the world after the war. Morale had never been higher. And because of Stalin's ideology, is why there was serious concern that the Red Army would just keep pushing into Western Europe and how atomic bombs would have to be used to stop them.

[saymyname]

Maschinengewehr a écrit :

https://youtu.be/stlZEKoJg10

[Ulater]

author a écrit :

Is all you losers have left is ad hom and goalpost shifting?

I'm not surprised. You're done.

Playing a victim after he started calling people wehraboos and accusing people of shifting the goalpost after he literally made up his own, because mongoloidism matters.

author a écrit :

Also lol at "human wave tactics". More 'boo drivel...

No dumbarse it was called "Deep Battle" and was FAR more devastating than blitzkrieg. So much so that your precious Germany eventually had to resort to forcefully conscripting old men and children like my 9 year old grandfather.

"Human wave" haha. Go watch Enemy at the Gates you mong.

- Such a pinacle of effectiveness soviets suffered the majority of their KIA, MIA and WIA in 1943-1945 and were running out of manpower.
- Such an effective strategy they had to doctrinally create atleast 40 km wide breaches in german defenses, otherwise they would lose entire armies repeatedly.
- Such an effective strategy they had to use 300 barrels of artillery per kilometer of frontage where germans used 20, Multiple degrees of numerical superiority where germans had the parity or numerical inferiority, and they still were able to advance 8 km per day where germans were advancing 80
- Such an effective strategy, that the guy in his political quest to math himself to a made up 1.3:1 ratio in losses to apogolize for the utter ineffectiveness of soviet army in WW III happened to create a PoW genocide that is 6% short of what germans did to soviet PoWs, instead of 40% that happened in reality, and that is just the most outrageous bs in his work of unsourced mathematics. Just to apologize for the fact that Deep battle is ♥♥♥♥.

[Jenki]

SAY_MY_NAME a écrit :

Ulater a écrit :

Stalingrad now happened in 1941 you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ mongoloid clown?




Here you go.

https://i.imgur.com/MDIshWY.png?1

Its actually 12,2:1 according to the price of Victory, just counting irrecoverable losses.


831,050 german losses is from Normandy 1944, Niklas Zetterling 2000, with full footnote references on page 91, KIA, MIA, POW, sick and unfit for service.


Same criteria for the number of 6,127,447 the authors of the Price of Victory found out reviewing the same TsAMO RF files in 2008 that Krivosheev was for his original book in 1993 and found 1,653,627 difference to him.

Why even try logic and sources once more LUL.

#TNTcan'texplode
#dat80degreefromverticalpanzer4slope

#tigertanksleadingspearheadfrompolandtomoscow

[Jenki]

Ulater a écrit :

author a écrit :

Oh so you're now shifting the goalposts from the entire war from 1941-1945 to a very specific period that supports your bias?

Gotcha.

Soviet to German COMBATANT casualties IN THE ENTIRE WAR was around 2:1. NOT you're amazingly idiotic claim of 17:1. Thats the funniest drivel I've heard from a 'boo in quite a while..

And we are talking about Barbarossa.

Dont know who ever talked about 1941-1945 you galactically retarded mongoloid.

author a écrit :

Totals are 2.5:1 Soviet/German according to this unreferenced chart. Nowhere near your ridiculous claim of 12:1 nor 17:1. It goes to show just how hard the Soviet counter-offensives nailed your precious Wehrmacht in the following years. Nor did they even outnumber them 4:1 a lot of the time on the field.

Refference is right there, not my problem you are retarded.

author a écrit :

*sigh*

Dors it look look we're ♥♥♥♥ing talking about Normandy?

You just got called out on your BS mate. The Western Front was a sideshow by comparison, with about 20% of German forces deployed there at any given time.

Talk about shifting the goalposts. 831k German casualties. Wow..

Neither am I, you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ moron.

author a écrit :

Its 8-9 million Soviet combatant casualties (NOT your ludicrous claim of 17 million) and 4.3 million German combatant casualties according to German government records (which is disputed to be innaccurate by historians and estimated at 5.3 million by some). As you can see, thats nowhere near 12:1, 17:1 or even 4:1.

Thats not mine ridiculous claim, that is the available manpower of RKKA on 22nd June 1941 according to appendix tables in When Titans Clashed by Glantz.

5.3 million is estimated to be the losses of whole Wehrmacht, from 1939 to 1945.


And while it will do little anyway, here is the comparison from the Price of Victory between Krivosheevs "8-9 million" and files at the main russian military archive, that he was supposed to base his book at.

https://i.imgur.com/j7IOvBk.png?1

author a écrit :

"Nobody really cares about"

Ironic, considering that you're deliberately honing in on 1941 because it supports your bias, when it was clearly the total casualties of the entire war being addressed in the first place. Obviously because it puts a MASSIVE dent in your beliefs of Wehrmacht superiority and belief that it was only strength of numbers that got the Soviets through. Fact says otherwise. Red Army offensive strategy was far more effective than the Wehrmact's little blitzkrieg child's play.

Military strategy would dictate that a 2:1 advantage in offense isn't enough. But the Soviets did it through superior strategy.

Now, your retardation is what is being adressed here by this point.

And no, Soviets being massively propped up by Lend-lease and large scale diversionary efforts by allies on both land and in air was what defeated Wehrmacht, not some fancy-termed human wave tactics.

Wrong lend lease helped soviet union get back on its feet but it didnt win war or battles.Soviet union woud win the war just with more dead but victory would come still.Also succes of Barbarossa was due to bigger numbers for the germany,concetraction of forces while soviet forces where scatterd and new inexpirinced generals on west while best ones where still on east.

[Ulater]

author a écrit :

#tigertanksleadingspearheadfrompolandtomoscow

https://i.imgur.com/JhA3VMp.jpg

They were in Poland.

author a écrit :

Also note that AirLand Battle is the modern strategy from the 1980's to the present day, not "blitzkrieg" variants. There's even the more modern "Full-spectrum dominance", which is absolutely nothing like blitzkrieg in any measure.

Air-Land battle that copy-pasted entire passages from a manual used by Wehrmacht in 1934?

That one you mean?

[Jenki]

Ulater a écrit :

author a écrit :

#tigertanksleadingspearheadfrompolandtomoscow

https://i.imgur.com/JhA3VMp.jpg

They were in Poland.

author a écrit :

Also note that AirLand Battle is the modern strategy from the 1980's to the present day, not "blitzkrieg" variants. There's even the more modern "Full-spectrum dominance", which is absolutely nothing like blitzkrieg in any measure.

Air-Land battle that copy-pasted entire passages from a manual used by Wehrmacht in 1934?

That one you mean?

Did they lead spearhead to moscow i think not,in poland germany where in defensive warfare also they developed good strategys but still failed

[zenparadox]

Zeva Atlas having a good time. a écrit :

In real life th jagdtigers gun was the definition of overkill :D
I think besides reload speed it was better in every aspect possible but it wasn't necessary at all.
I think I heard that it was so powerful that it sometimes shot through a tank without dealing any real damage.

You don't punch a hole in an enclosed space without doing real damage. Modern DU rounds work on the same principle, in one side and out the other. The shockwave kills or renders totally ineffective anything biological inside the enclosed space. Modern DU rounds have the extra advantage of showering the interior in liquified burninng uranium, which causes explosion of the targets ammunition stores.
But yeah, you don't want to be in a tank that gets a hole punched right through it even if the warhead doesn't explode. Being a very sensitive bag of squishy mush....
..

[BloodRave375]

Zeva Atlas having a good time. a écrit :

Maschinengewehr a écrit :

Also lol at "human wave tactics". More 'boo drivel...

No dumbarse it was called "Deep Battle" and was FAR more devastating than blitzkrieg. So much so that your precious Germany eventually had to resort to forcefully conscripting old men and children like my 9 year old grandfather.

"Human wave" haha. Go watch Enemy at the Gates you mong.

So Effective that it was close to killing to soviet Union at some points.
Deep Battle Stragies are a great Doctrine in theory but it's completly devastating in real life. Most people forget that even the soviets had manpower problems.
Also Blitzkrieg Strategy was superior that's why a lot of modern armored tactics are variants of it:

Deep battle was based on the tactics of Subutai during his attacks into Russia and eastern europe during the middle ages. In August 1945, the Soviet Red Army used deep battle tactics to smash the Japanese in Manchuria to devastating effect.

Deep battle based on the Manchurian campaign was studied by NATO during the Cold War as deep battle was the doctrine of the USSR and Warsaw Pact

[Major Ducks]

Depends on what type of ammo, bigger shells have more explosive inside than smallers ones and usually have less penetration.
There are several types of ammo, like composite rigid shells that are designed for max penetration in order to disable the engine, gun, drive train etc, something like a firefly had.

Balanced shells that dont have as much penetration but contain more explosive powder that is used to penetrate the tank and ignite ammo racks, fuel tanks or kill the crew inside, something for medium tanks like panzer f2.

And explosive shells that have terrible penetration values but pack alot explosive that is effective on breaking the tank threads, kill infantry inside buildings or outside, like the KV2.

[Maschinengewehr]

Ulater a écrit :

author a écrit :

Is all you losers have left is ad hom and goalpost shifting?

I'm not surprised. You're done.

Playing a victim after he started calling people wehraboos and accusing people of shifting the goalpost after he literally made up his own, because mongoloidism matters.

To go back to the exact point you started shifting the goalposts:

Ulater a écrit :

author a écrit :

And on the 3rd point you quoted, to hammer it in more:
1941
3,767,000 troops
1943
3,933,000 troops
1945
1,960,000 troops
For Germany on the Eastern Front alone.

1941
2,680,000 troops
1943
6,724,000 troops
1945
6,410,000 troops
for the Soviets.

Germany had alot of allies and client states to draw it's military from. Surpringly enough, it was pretty much the same numbers in the west:
alies peaked at 7,500,000 men to the Germans 3,500,000

Thats all completely wrong.

Just hone in on 1941 and conveniently dismiss the FACT that Soviet/German casualties by the end of the war were swinging back to even, even after the enormous losses the Soviets experienced early on. Its nowhere near 4:1, 12:1 nor your ridiculous claim of 17:1. The absurd claim that the Soviets always outnumbered the Germans on the field and is the only reason they won is one of the oldest 'boo tropes around, and one you clearly believe in.

Maschinengewehr a écrit :

Also lol at "human wave tactics". More 'boo drivel...

No dumbarse it was called "Deep Battle" and was FAR more devastating than blitzkrieg. So much so that your precious Germany eventually had to resort to forcefully conscripting old men and children like my 9 year old grandfather.

"Human wave" haha. Go watch Enemy at the Gates you mong.

author a écrit :

- Such a pinacle of effectiveness soviets suffered the majority of their KIA, MIA and WIA in 1943-1945 and were running out of manpower.

Wrong. Did you even read the chart you even provided? Not to mention your fail math. If during Op Barbarossa the casualty ratio was 12:1 Soviet/German, and by the end of the war it was approx 2:1 Soviet/German, then how the literal fk did Soviet casualties exponentially increase?

D.E.R.P.

author a écrit :

-Such an effective strategy they had to doctrinally create atleast 40 km wide breaches in german defenses, otherwise they would lose entire armies repeatedly.

Unsourced, uncited and complete and utter BS. The whole idea behind Deep Battle is to punch a massive bridgehead, push the enemy lines outwards and crush the pockets on the flanks whilst reserves flood the gap. It was highly effective and crushed ENTIRE German army groups. Not vice versa you moron.

author a écrit :

- Such an effective strategy they had to use 300 barrels of artillery per kilometer of frontage where germans used 20, Multiple degrees of numerical superiority where germans had the parity or numerical inferiority, and they still were able to advance 8 km per day where germans were advancing 80

"Muh superiah German strayegy!"

That sounds like typical Wehraboism lol. Also uncited and unsourced yet again. Deep Battle put more emphasis on artillery BECAUSE IT WAS DIFFERENT. It remained a mainstay of Soviet doctrine for decades because it was very effective.

Again, numerical advantage is needed and normal in offensive operations. Your precious little Blitzkrieg was no different in that regard. And 80km in 1941 (no surprise that you are yet again honing in on it) to 8km against a much better prepared enemy the Soviets faced in their counter-offensives. But "muh superior Wehrmacht" I guess. What's next, "clean" Wehrmacht drivel?

author a écrit :

-Such an effective strategy, that the guy in his political quest to math himself to a made up 1.3:1 ratio in losses to apogolize for the utter ineffectiveness of soviet army in WW III happened to create a PoW genocide that is 6% short of what germans did to soviet PoWs, instead of 40% that happened in reality, and that is just the most outrageous bs in his work of unsourced mathematics. Just to apologize for the fact that Deep battle is ♥♥♥♥.

Again, uncited, unsourced and...irelevant? I haven't shown or said anything claiming "1.3:1". More like 2:1, which is roughly what It was when comparing combatant casualties across the entire war .

"Utter ineffectiveness of soviet army in WW III happened to create a PoW genocide that is 6% short of what germans did to soviet PoWs"

Wehrabingo! Thats some serious whataboutism right there. Let me tick It off:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0D1nxfz48miY9Hgy6JGpkYk7G38vnave0zh4_zd48QVhzYRCrNP8P655nkw

If the Soviets were "utterly ineffective", then what does that make the Wehrmacht? Mongoloids? XD

"Deep Battle is ♥♥♥♥". Quite the informed and intellectual analysis professor. But you are claiming that it's a copypasta of Blitzkrieg lol. How does that work?

It was so "♥♥♥♥" that NATO had to rethink their strategy in the following decades...

[Maschinengewehr]

Ulater a écrit :

author a écrit :

#tigertanksleadingspearheadfrompolandtomoscow

https://i.imgur.com/JhA3VMp.jpg

They were in Poland.

author a écrit :

Also note that AirLand Battle is the modern strategy from the 1980's to the present day, not "blitzkrieg" variants. There's even the more modern "Full-spectrum dominance", which is absolutely nothing like blitzkrieg in any measure.

Air-Land battle that copy-pasted entire passages from a manual used by Wehrmacht in 1934?

That one you mean?

No, as AirLand was developed in the 1980's by the RAND Institute and is completely unrelated, you utter mongoloid.

Please show me where you read this drivel.

[Ulater]

author a écrit :

Just hone in on 1941 and conveniently dismiss the FACT that Soviet/German casualties by the end of the war were swinging back to even, even after the enormous losses the Soviets experienced early on. Its nowhere near 4:1, 12:1 nor your ridiculous claim of 17:1. The absurd claim that the Soviets always outnumbered the Germans on the field and is the only reason they won is one of the oldest 'boo tropes around, and one you clearly believe in.

Apparently shifting the goalpost is talking about the very same thing the other guy is talking about.

THats trully a peak of retardation.


Soviets always outnumbered the germans greatly. Thats a factual reality, not a belief.

author a écrit :

Wrong. Did you even read the chart you even provided? Not to mention your fail math. If during Op Barbarossa the casualty ratio was 12:1 Soviet/German, and by the end of the war it was approx 2:1 Soviet/German, then how the literal fk did Soviet casualties exponentially increase?

D.E.R.P.

https://i.imgur.com/MDIshWY.png?1

1941 - KIA and MIA - 1 313 000
1942 - KIA and MIA - 2 273 500

1941,1942 - KIA and MIA - 3 586 500

1943,1944,1945 - KIA and MIA - 5 186 500


Direct, combat related losses. You can see the deep battle working out well for the ordinary soviet soldier and red army at large, since they were facing far weaker enemy than in first two years.

I rest my case.

author a écrit :

Unsourced, uncited and complete and utter BS. The whole idea behind Deep Battle is to punch a massive bridgehead, push the enemy lines outwards and crush the pockets on the flanks whilst reserves flood the gap. It was highly effective and crushed ENTIRE German army groups. Not vice versa you moron.

The fact that you are just an un-aware mongoloid does not equal that something is uncited.

Tell that to the second shock army, at both Siniavino and Lyuban, 300 000 men in the second battle for Kharkov, The Starodub offensive, the first step to the road of Vyazma, and so on and so on.

Examples are too many to count.

And yes, Soviets kept adjusting the width of doctrinal bounds of breaches from 8 km to 40 km, And they still got hammered frontally, like in the first Kischinev offensive, or 8 (!!!!) different offensives against COurland pocket.

author a écrit :

"Muh superiah German strayegy!"

That sounds like typical Wehraboism lol. Also uncited and unsourced yet again. Deep Battle put more emphasis on artillery BECAUSE IT WAS DIFFERENT. It remained a mainstay of Soviet doctrine for decades because it was very effective.


Again, numerical advantage is needed and normal in offensive operations. Your precious little Blitzkrieg was no different in that regard. And 80km in 1941 (no surprise that you are yet again honing in on it) to 8km against a much better prepared enemy the Soviets faced in their counter-offensives. But "muh superior Wehrmacht" I guess. What's next, "clean" Wehrmacht drivel?

No, germans attacked with numerical inferiority.

And yes, germans were attacking a better prepared enemy in 1941 than soviets were in 1944, you are right.

https://i.imgur.com/XW3OdVj.png?1

https://i.imgur.com/1ZvmeNn.png?1


And MUH DEP BATTL

https://i.imgur.com/uRF6Rp1.png?1

https://i.imgur.com/1ybvbXe.png?1


Notice that even here soviets managed to turn everything on its head and a mechanised cavalry group is the slowest of the bunch. How? I just dont know.

author a écrit :

Again, uncited, unsourced and...irelevant? I haven't shown or said anything claiming "1.3:1". More like 2:1, which is roughly what It was when comparing combatant casualties across the entire war .

You were citing the unsourced bullshitter extraordinaire, the Krivosheyev.

Sorry I presumed you werent completely ignorant.

author a écrit :

"Utter ineffectiveness of soviet army in WW III happened to create a PoW genocide that is 6% short of what germans did to soviet PoWs"

Wehrabingo! Thats some serious whataboutism right there. Let me tick It off:

Mongoloid of your caliber should not take the word "Wehraboo" into his mouth. The level of irony is bordering on a time-space paradox.

"We have already demonstrated this with the example of the fatality rate of Soviet POWs in German camps; now we will do the same for German POWs in Soviet camps. Using only Krivosheev’s information for this calculation once again leads to, put delicately, unexpected results.

According to his claim, 3,576,300 servicemen from the German armed forces had been captured before 9 May 1945; after this date an additional 1,591,125 were brought in, 47 totalling around 5,167,400. If we subtract from this number the 600,000 who were released directly at the front lines, 220,000 Soviet citizens who served in the Wehrmacht or took part in the war on the side of Nazi Germany, 14,100 military criminals sent to special camps, and around 57,000 who died on the way of wounds, illness or frostbite, then we are left with the figure of 4,276,300 German servicemen who arrived at Soviet POW camps.

But how many of them eventually returned home? According to Krivosheev’s information, 2,352,671 Wehrmacht POWs were released and repatriated. It appears that the missing 1,923,600 did not survive captivity. Moreover, taking into account the 57,000 who died on the way from wounds, illness and frostbite, it turns out that of the 4,333,300 Wehrmacht and Waffen SS soldiers and officers imprisoned in the USSR, 1,980,600 (a little less than half – 45.7 per cent) died in the NKVD camps or on the way to them. Such a devastating fatality rate has no rational justification and, like it or not, recalls the single-minded policy of genocide to which Soviet POWs in Nazi camps were subjected.

In truth, the overall number of POWs who died in NKVD camps has been precisely known for a long time already: 518,520 of the 3,486,206 men who arrived there.

Taking into account the additional 57,000 who died on the way and never reached these camps, we see that the fatality rate in Soviet captivity was actually 16.2 per cent, that is, almost three times lower than the figure we arrived at when uncriticallly relying on the information from the statistical study."


Krivosheyev in his politically motivated quests to bs, created a fabrication that spawned a basis for comparison with the difference of only 11% in mortality between Soviet and German PoWs, instead of almost 40%, in reality.


So congrats, keep demanding sources while citing some of the biggest unsourced bs in historical literature in last 30 years.

[Jenki]

Ulater a écrit :

author a écrit :

Just hone in on 1941 and conveniently dismiss the FACT that Soviet/German casualties by the end of the war were swinging back to even, even after the enormous losses the Soviets experienced early on. Its nowhere near 4:1, 12:1 nor your ridiculous claim of 17:1. The absurd claim that the Soviets always outnumbered the Germans on the field and is the only reason they won is one of the oldest 'boo tropes around, and one you clearly believe in.

Apparently shifting the goalpost is talking about the very same thing the other guy is talking about.

THats trully a peak of retardation.


Soviets always outnumbered the germans greatly. Thats a factual reality, not a belief.

author a écrit :

Wrong. Did you even read the chart you even provided? Not to mention your fail math. If during Op Barbarossa the casualty ratio was 12:1 Soviet/German, and by the end of the war it was approx 2:1 Soviet/German, then how the literal fk did Soviet casualties exponentially increase?

D.E.R.P.

https://i.imgur.com/MDIshWY.png?1

1941 - KIA and MIA - 1 313 000
1942 - KIA and MIA - 2 273 500

1941,1942 - KIA and MIA - 3 586 500

1943,1944,1945 - KIA and MIA - 5 186 500


Direct, combat related losses. You can see the deep battle working out well for the ordinary soviet soldier and red army at large, since they were facing far weaker enemy than in first two years.

I rest my case.

author a écrit :

Unsourced, uncited and complete and utter BS. The whole idea behind Deep Battle is to punch a massive bridgehead, push the enemy lines outwards and crush the pockets on the flanks whilst reserves flood the gap. It was highly effective and crushed ENTIRE German army groups. Not vice versa you moron.

The fact that you are just an un-aware mongoloid does not equal that something is uncited.

Tell that to the second shock army, at both Siniavino and Lyuban, 300 000 men in the second battle for Kharkov, The Starodub offensive, the first step to the road of Vyazma, and so on and so on.

Examples are too many to count.

And yes, Soviets kept adjusting the width of doctrinal bounds of breaches from 8 km to 40 km, And they still got hammered frontally, like in the first Kischinev offensive, or 8 (!!!!) different offensives against COurland pocket.

author a écrit :

"Muh superiah German strayegy!"

That sounds like typical Wehraboism lol. Also uncited and unsourced yet again. Deep Battle put more emphasis on artillery BECAUSE IT WAS DIFFERENT. It remained a mainstay of Soviet doctrine for decades because it was very effective.


Again, numerical advantage is needed and normal in offensive operations. Your precious little Blitzkrieg was no different in that regard. And 80km in 1941 (no surprise that you are yet again honing in on it) to 8km against a much better prepared enemy the Soviets faced in their counter-offensives. But "muh superior Wehrmacht" I guess. What's next, "clean" Wehrmacht drivel?

No, germans attacked with numerical inferiority.

And yes, germans were attacking a better prepared enemy in 1941 than soviets were in 1944, you are right.

https://i.imgur.com/XW3OdVj.png?1

https://i.imgur.com/1ZvmeNn.png?1


And MUH DEP BATTL

https://i.imgur.com/uRF6Rp1.png?1

https://i.imgur.com/1ybvbXe.png?1


Notice that even here soviets managed to turn everything on its head and a mechanised cavalry group is the slowest of the bunch. How? I just dont know.

author a écrit :

Again, uncited, unsourced and...irelevant? I haven't shown or said anything claiming "1.3:1". More like 2:1, which is roughly what It was when comparing combatant casualties across the entire war .

You were citing the unsourced bullshitter extraordinaire, the Krivosheyev.

Sorry I presumed you werent completely ignorant.

author a écrit :

"Utter ineffectiveness of soviet army in WW III happened to create a PoW genocide that is 6% short of what germans did to soviet PoWs"

Wehrabingo! Thats some serious whataboutism right there. Let me tick It off:

Mongoloid of your caliber should not take the word "Wehraboo" into his mouth. The level of irony bordering on a time-space paradox.

"We have already demonstrated this with the example of the fatality rate of Soviet POWs in German camps; now we will do the same for German POWs in Soviet camps. Using only Krivosheev’s information for this calculation once again leads to, put delicately, unexpected results.

According to his claim, 3,576,300 servicemen from the German armed forces had been captured before 9 May 1945; after this date an additional 1,591,125 were brought in, 47 totalling around 5,167,400. If we subtract from this number the 600,000 who were released directly at the front lines, 220,000 Soviet citizens who served in the Wehrmacht or took part in the war on the side of Nazi Germany, 14,100 military criminals sent to special camps, and around 57,000 who died on the way of wounds, illness or frostbite, then we are left with the figure of 4,276,300 German servicemen who arrived at Soviet POW camps.

But how many of them eventually returned home? According to Krivosheev’s information, 2,352,671 Wehrmacht POWs were released and repatriated. It appears that the missing 1,923,600 did not survive captivity. Moreover, taking into account the 57,000 who died on the way from wounds, illness and frostbite, it turns out that of the 4,333,300 Wehrmacht and Waffen SS soldiers and officers imprisoned in the USSR, 1,980,600 (a little less than half – 45.7 per cent) died in the NKVD camps or on the way to them. Such a devastating fatality rate has no rational justification and, like it or not, recalls the single-minded policy of genocide to which Soviet POWs in Nazi camps were subjected.

In truth, the overall number of POWs who died in NKVD camps has been precisely known for a long time already: 518,520 of the 3,486,206 men who arrived there.

Taking into account the additional 57,000 who died on the way and never reached these camps, we see that the fatality rate in Soviet captivity was actually 16.2 per cent, that is, almost three times lower than the figure we arrived at when uncriticallly relying on the information from the statistical study."


Krivosheyev in his politically motivated quests to bs, created a fabrication that spawned a basis for comparison with the difference of only 11% in mortality between Soviet and German PoWs, instead of almost 40%, in reality.


So congrats, keep demanding sources while citing some of the biggest unsourced bs in historical literature in last 30 years.

NO in the begining germans had more troops than russia