Be Germany

>It's evolved from Kursk to all of Barbarossa now
Can you stick to a fucking topic mate?

>Be Germany
>Go against all military logic to attack an entrenched defender who outnumbers you more than 2 to 1
>Lose
>Years later some wehraboo 14 year old idolizes your actions on a Taiwanese fly-fishing forum
I wonder was it all worth it

>responding to a topic change you brought up
>oi don't respond to me changing the topic, that's changing the topic!
yeah, okay loser.
Numbers are posted here:It was just under 1:1 and the Soviets lost their entire original army in the first year of fighting.

> They had twice the total population of Germany.
But that's false. Germany + allies had more population than USSR. Props for Russians for being able to utilize their manpower, as opposed to Germans.

How could the Soviet Union produce 8 times as many tanks as Nazi Germany, despite most populated and industrial land being under German occupation? The reason is that the socialist Planned Economy was superior to Germany's capitalist economy.

Or the fact that Germany had to divert production to the air force, navy, industrial investment, fortifications, air defenses, etc. against the western Allies while the Soviets could focus entirely on their army in the ground war against Germany on one front, aided by lend lease.

Except I'm not talking about Barbarossa?

>> They had twice the total population of Germany.
>But that's false. Germany + allies
>Germany + allies
There we go. But if you want to talk totals it's:
>Germany, just got rid of debt, no resources, decent manpower
>Italy, some resources, empire still, terrible tacticians
>Japan, no resources, empire still, logistics problems from oceanic needs and being embargoed
>collaboration states, like Norway et alia providing nothing much of consequence aside from some materials
>Romania, who provided military relief efforts in the USSR.
Meanwhile we'll include the USSR and it's allies:
>USSR, massive population twice the size of Germany, or as much as Germany and Russia combined. Massive reserves of raw resources, and vast tracts of land
>Same advantages for France
>Same advantages for Britain
>Same advantages for US
>Useless allies like Free france after their fall and Yugoslavian resistance,along with most minor states in Europe not to mention both Americas resource access
I mean, the war shouldn't have lasted more than a year with these numbers.
Bait. The Soviets had built a massive army before the war began. I know you're probably getting dubious numbers from wikipedia on production, but you could find more consistent and realistic numbers elsewhere. Should I even mention Icebreaker?

In a thread about Barbarossa's most important battle? To a poster talking about the campaign? lmao you have no idea what you're doing in life

Are you fucking retarded? It should've been pretty obvious I was talking about Kursk. Solve your autism and realise what I'm saying

>start a two-front war
>complain about the consequences of a two-front war
lol

>Solve your autism and realise what I'm saying
>It should've been pretty obvious I was talking about Kursk.
Which is why I said:
>In a thread about Barbarossa's most important battle?
You're really smart aren't you

Operation Barbarossa ended in December 1941 you fucking idiot, why do you think the 1942 Summer Offensive was called Fall Blau?

Holy shit you are one dense motherfucker. I made a post citing the numbers as they were in the battle of Kursk, you then attempt to 'correct' me by directing me to a post that explains the numbers involved in BARBAROSSA. Are you just pretending to be this stupid? Because I can't imagine anyone would actually have such difficulty

Yeah I guess if we're talking about the post plans specifically in contrast. I was talking about the war as a whole. I thought that's what you meant by this post here:I assumed you were being colloquial, instead of you know, autistic.

>Russians lose 5 times as many soldiers, 6 times as many wounded, 8 times as many tanks, and 3 times as many aircraft.
But then poster here
So I was responding to that,the strategic situation that evolved from the early campaign. Please keep up and stop fucking your own threads

>Germany
>no resources
In terms of things like rubber or oil maybe but Germany was the largest producer of steel in Europe (probably the most important resource for war production) and had massive reserves of bauxite. I wouldn't discount other countries either like Romania and Sweden who supplied essential oil and iron respectively. They also had a little more than a decent manpower advantage, having the second largest population in Europe.
As for the Allies, much of the USSR's resources, productive land, and population were taken during Barbarossa, and the US joined later in the war and had to convert to a war footing. Britain and France individually had half the population of Germany and similar resources, but if colonies are counted you have to take into account the massive logistical efforts it takes to transport resources and manpower with low social capital around a globe-spanning empire compared to a much smaller country.
The reality is that it took time for the Allies to reach the massive potential they had, but once they did it was catastrophic for Germany.

>Germany was the largest producer of steel in Europe
I'm pretty sure it was still Britain, until the whole Czechoslovakia thing anyway

Even worse the Russian knew about the attack beforehand and were reinforcing the gap faster than the Nazis built up forces.

See Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad

Are you 10? So fucking what that Germany and their allies had problems?
But here we go
During Barbarossa USSR immediately lost significant area, with easy over 50million people. If you add this to Germany's 87million, they already have advantage. Now add other annexed or occupied territories (like Poland, 35 million people) and Germany advantage get's higher and higher. You don't even have to include Germany allies.

It may have been lower before 1938 but almost certainly not by enough to make up for the 12 million ton gap. Even Weimar had a higher production than Britain.

Bauxite and steel won't win wars. I'm referencing all the raw resources that need to be met without synthetic production, so aluminum, heavy metals(lead,tungsten,etc),oil, and yes rubber.
>I wouldn't discount other countries either like Romania and Sweden who supplied essential oil and iron respectively. They also had a little more than a decent manpower advantage, having the second largest population in Europe.
That's why I bothered to mention them in the same post you're responding to. Although Romania was the only major source of oil the Axis had,especially in Europe(Japan captured oil rich areas though).
>They also had a little more than a decent manpower advantage, having the second largest population in Europe.
If you don't count the entire empires of France and Britain abroad. Britain has no problem dropping ANZACs and France used to be subject of mocking German propaganda pointing out their use of African colonial troopers.
>As for the Allies, much of the USSR's resources, productive land, and population were taken during Barbarossa, and the US joined later in the war and had to convert to a war footing. Britain and France individually had half the population of Germany and similar resources, but if colonies are counted you have to take into account the massive logistical efforts it takes to transport resources and manpower with low social capital around a globe-spanning empire compared to a much smaller country.
Yes I'm including all the resources all the empires had. There's literally no reason not to. To not do it would be an oversight. And yes, the USSR got spanked like we've already established. The point is establishing what each country has and the efficiency of what they do with it-highlighted by Soviet's tremendous losses.
>The reality is that it took time for the Allies to reach the massive potential they had, but once they did it was catastrophic for Germany.
True for the US, not the USSR. The USSR started with significant advantage.

>During Barbarossa USSR immediately lost significant area, with easy over 50million people. If you add this to Germany's 87million, they already have advantage. Now add other annexed or occupied territories (like Poland, 35 million people) and Germany advantage get's higher and higher. You don't even have to include Germany allies.
Yes, and the point is figuring out who did the most with what they had. That was clearly Germany. You literally just repeated this post in a dumber less informative way:But Germany didn't start with western Soviet lands, so why would you include them? It's important for Kursk, but not for the campaign as a whole.

fake numbers

>But Germany didn't start with western Soviet lands, so why would you include them? It's important for Kursk, but not for the campaign as a whole.
Because they were in German hands and Russians couldn't use them (hence USSR didn't have twice the population of Germany). Germans started with numerical advantage, and only by the end of Barbarossa(december 1941) it changed.

>muh k/d

Ukraine alone had 50 million people.

So how did the USSR have that much and lose it so quickly? The conclusion is simple: They suck.

what a well thought out and utterly scientific argument

>Operation Citadel was a part of Operation Barbarossa

>"My enemies may have bishops and knights, but I have millions and millions of pawns."

Georgy "kill those subhuman russians" Zhukov

Daily reminder the g*rmans didnt even get a 2:1 k/d ratio in combat on tye eastern front, it only looks like they did because dishonorable subhuman nazis starved to death most of their soviet prisoners in contravention of the widley respected laws of war that the soviets followed

>halting your attack
>losing offensive momentum
>exposing your infantry to artillery
>and counterattack
>because of a few mines

Read:What a well thought out and utterly scientific argument. It's almost like you'd rather lash out at other posts instead of bringing anything genuine to the table.
At least don't be a hypocrite.

Veeky Forums is not an ancillary board to /pol/. Fuck off to your bull Storm Cuck.

FOR SKYRIM

>the widley respected laws of war that the soviets followed
now tell me about the mass gang-rapes

paying some Hunnic whore with food for sex isnt mass rapign her

pretty embarrassing considering germany fought 3 major superpowers for 4 years while the soviet union only fought 1 superpower in 4 years.

real world isnt HoI

Russian army sucked when they listened to stalin’s orders. When they ignored Stalin they were a modern professsional army probably more modern in regards to squad tactics than anyone else in the world, especially considering the widespread use of assault rifles and shock divisions

Richard Overy’s book puts soviet military losses at 11.5 million with around 8 million killed on the battlefield, so yes it was a 2 k/d ratio.

And no he’s not w wehraboo.

>counting all Soviet casualities
>not counting Hunnic POWs
pathetic

Follow your leader you butthurt naziboo loser.

I'd say the problem with USSR deaths is there's like 30 different authors giving different numbers so it becomes more of a "pick and choose", maybe if Russia wasn't so secretive with its fucking documents.

The vast majority cite 7-8 million, then you discard the 3-4 million PoWs. Not hard.

>I'd say the problem with USSR deaths is there's like 30 different authors giving different numbers so it becomes more of a "pick and choose", maybe if Russia wasn't so secretive with its fucking documents.
This is a great post

Yeah I personally believe it was somewhere 8.6 million (Krivosheev's number) since he was a colonel-general who had access to the archives in the first place, just wanted to clarify that the death toll has become more of a use for political agenda rather than objectivity in most discussions about USSR deaths.

K/d doesnt matter shit if your nation is about to get fucking deleted, or worse. This isn't call of duty you tide pod eating quack.

you said
>in a thread about Barbarossa's most important battle
How does this imply the war in general? It doesn't, I think you're an idiot who won't admit he doesn't know shit about the Eastern Front

pretty embarrassing considering germany fought a single unprepared opponent on the ground for 2 years and still got their shit kicked in