Russian casualties WW2

>Looking at pick related it seems they were able to flood Europe with this huge invasion army. How???
The picture does not tell the whole story as the units portrayed are not comparable in manpower.

The Soviets did have the advantage over the allies but not as pronounced as the graphic would have you believe.

It was about 2:1 in the field

Also one interesting thing that is worth pointing out is that the Soviet combat strength did not actually grow past mid-1943 – it was the German strength that kept rapidly diminishing.

600,000 killed and around 1,500,000 injured

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant almost 2 million casualties as in injured or killed. Anything that makes it so they can't continue fighting

Hm I see, well thank you all for clarifying I thought their populations would be almost the same. Germany being the powerhouse of Europe then. And the looks of pic related makes it seem like the allies can be steamrolled. I guess it is misleading but either way the Soviet army was unmistakably huge at the end of the war

you seem to be conflating military and civilian casualties
a bunch of old men or kids getting shot aren't as big a blow as soldiers during a war
inb4 edgy, it's awful but it's true

no wait you aren't even doing that
the numbers don't add up
where are you getting them from?
two million casualties is the total for the entire battle, as in both sides combined

If memory serves, Soviet military units were numerically smaller than Allied units of the same name.

>
>This.
>Also, the Soviets were confident that they would not be attacked by Japan and transferred a huge amount of men from Siberia to the Eastern Front.

The force on the japanese frontier actually grew quite significantly from 1941-1945

>Plus the Russians allowed/forced almost one million women to serve, so their pool of manpower was much greater than Germany.
Wouldn't more women decrease manpower?you'd think a higher concentration of man can produce more man juice than an unisexpower pool.

You are of course aware that World war 2 only lasted 6 years?

Correct, however in 1941 large amounts of men were mobilized from the East and sent West, then the East was built back up largely in 1944 and especially 1945 for the coming offensive into Japan. The counterattack from Moscow in '41 was largely made possible by the arrival of several Siberian divisions who were fresh, competent and well equipped troops.

The Soviet strength in the east doubled in 1941 despite the troop transfers.

>I guess it is misleading
That has to do with Soviet and American Doctrines differing. An American Army is the largest unit they bother with. There's no army groups, and every army has a broad, important goal that it's supposed to carry out on it's own, like "invade Bavaria." Even if the Americans had equal number of soldiers, they'd probably have the same number of armies.

Also, a huge reason for the Soviet's seemingly limitless numbers has to do with their ability to transfer shit around the front better then the Germans, without the Germans noticing due to shitty intelligence. As was noted in the thread, the Soviets never had more than a 2 to 1 advantage in numbers. But in significant engagements, they routinely had 4 or 5 times the numbers. The German officers attributed this to mythic Slavic hordes, and not the Soviets getting there the fastest with the mostest.

>As was noted in the thread, the Soviets never had more than a 2 to 1 advantage in numbers.
To be absolutely pedantic in the final period of the war they most certainly did - but not because they were breeding like Zergs and throwing more and more men forward, but because the German manpower dwindled so fast. Soviet frontline strength peaked halfway through 43.

It was the Asiatic Russians that did the bulk of the fighting and dying, at least when it mattered, while the Slavic Russians hid in the rear and posed for pictures.

That's also why the Red Army developed its reputation as alcoholic, rape-happy barbarians. Most couldnt even speak Russian, or read in any language, but were guided solely by their primitive instincts. Nomadic Mongrols turning their lust for blood and Teuton women loose onto Europe just as thier steppe ancestors had done before them.

It's the same tainted Mongrol mudblood that lets them run headlong into machine gun fire that let's them rape fifty German nuns to death in one night. The Red Army was literally half human cave men armed with modern weaponry.

chink detected

>An American Army is the largest unit they bother with. There's no army groups, and every army has a broad, important goal that it's supposed to carry out on it's own, like "invade Bavaria." Even if the Americans had equal number of soldiers, they'd probably have the same number of armies.
This is dumb and wrong.

They were freshly raised troops, not preexisting soldiers by and large.
I am unsure if the East was used as a regrouping area for armies, I find that it would be unlikely, the Urals and Moscow would be much closer to the front and suitable for reorganizing shattered units.

A Soviet infantry division was 7-9000 strong in theory, 4-5000 strong in practice on many occasions, and 7-8000 strong average by 1945.

American divisions were 17-21,000 men strong. Unsure of the actual number in said divisions by 1945. A massive number of American soldiers were sent back stateside at wars end as there were no expected hostilities and available forces greatly surpassed occupational forces. Some were sent back Stateside to be decommissioned, others were sent to the Pacific, almost all of them being volunteers, at least for frontline soldiers.

Post war the Soviets brought division strength up to about 12,000 men for infantry divisions and 10,000 for armored divisions. Armored divisional strength in the Soviet army during WW2 was smaller in theory and practice by around 1000-2000 depending. Breathrough mechanized units were often the largest divisions in the Soviet army in WW2, 9,000 strong average with some fluctuation, assuming they were not understrength. Generally, especially post 42, mechanized divisions were the best equipped and most well supplied as they were the spearhead of the Soviet advance. Many a infantryman was conscripted into the mechanized divisions to maintain manpower for assaults. Sometimes they would be sent back to their original division once a replacement arrived, sometimes they were the replacement. Sometimes they got stuffed into tanks with no training.

Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Kazakhs, Central Asian Turks, Little Russians, Russians.
You fucking gook.

>what nationality lives in the Soviet Union

Russians, Ukranians, Byelorussians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Lithuanians, Moldovians, Latvians, Kighiz' Tajiks, Armenians, Turkmen and Estonians.

>literally all largely russian ethnically or by diaspora

>unsure

Not him, but there were 89 mobilized divisions by the end of WW2, but that's everywhere, including a whole bunch that never left America for lack of transport, and forces in the Pacific. I'm not sure how many were in Europe.

Plus, another reason for the divisional size difference is differences in organization. American divisions were a lot more self-contained than their soviet counterparts. A lot of the artillery assets were allocated at the divisional level. Most logistical functions were handled by the divisional level staff. They would have their own liasons to other units, medical facilities, etc.

The Soviets usually attached those sorts of things to the headquarters of the various Front (roughly an army group), or at most the Army level. So HQ staff was enormously more in the USSR than in the U.S., even if these guys were ultimately doing a lot of the same jobs.

>Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, Kyrgyz, Turkmen
Turkic

>Georgians
An isolated Caucasian ethnicity with a language isolate nad 3000 years of history
>Armenians
Same

>Tajiks
eastern Iranic, speaking literally the same language as Iranians

>Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians
Balts.

So yeah, you're a stupid dolt.

I interviewed six American veteran bombers from WWII three years ago and they unanimously called them Russians during the war and now. It's not inaccurate if it's the term that was commonly used.

>i dont know what diaspora is

>he fell for the Asiatic Hordes meme

Are you a Wehraboo or a Slavaboo? Either way you're a bit of a mong.

.t retard.