Communist tactics in Korean War

[Chrom]

What I am saying is, that when 2/3 of the German forces are committed to fighting in Russia, the remaining 1/3 doesn't sit around on holiday. That 1/3 is actually fighting active battles elsewhere. It it simply not available for the Russian front.

I hope it clears my thoughts up a little.

NO! NO! WRONG! The remaining 1/3 PRECISELY was "sitting around on holiday". What fighting have done German ground forces in France 1941-1943? What fighting have done USSR forces in Far East 1941-1944? ZERO! These impressive numbers of divisions in either case was just training camps (and possible deterrent) - nothing more. Would Germany brought these "1/3" forces to East front, they would be massacred in half year (judging from loss ratio on the East front) , they ammo&fuel supply would last 1 month at most, so Germany would be left without any Western "1/3" army. Now, you want convince us what something what will be killed in half year have 1/3 strength of something what take 4 years to kill? Again, resource flow matters the most and reflect true efforts.

P.S. USSR had almost 0.5 to 1 million army deployed against Japan all the time. Should we credit Japan to do 10-15% of Germany war efforts to defeat USSR? Should we credit Iran & Turkey with another 7-10% of Germany war efforts to defeat USSR? Nonsence. Moreover, a large part of russian army stationed deep and not-so-deep inside the USSR in training&resupply camps - should we credit native soviet citizens for open "internal front" and helping Germany Wermacht on very large scale? See how twisted become such logic?

 

[Grand Danois]

NO! NO! WRONG! The remaining 1/3 PRECISELY was "sitting around on holiday". What fighting have done German ground forces in France 1941-1943? What fighting have done USSR forces in Far East 1941-1944? ZERO! These impressive numbers of divisions in either case was just training camps (and possible deterrent) - nothing more. Would Germany brought these "1/3" forces to East front, they would be massacred in half year (judging from loss ratio on the East front) so Germany would be left without any Western "1/3" army. Now, you want convince us what something what will be killed in half year have 1/3 strength of something what take 4 years to kill?

The Russians may have "been on holiday" in Siberia. Meanwhile the enlisted personnel of Germany that was not part of the Eastern front was fighting in North Africa, Italy, France, insurgencies in Yugoslavia, Poland etc. They were also fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, the European Air war. The two latter examples of forces that could not be brought to bear on Russia anyway.

I'm say a two thirds of the capability went to the East. Two thirds of the fighting Germany was capable of. You are confusing manpower at the front with total enlisted personnel.

I'm not talking about training camps and reconstituting units. I'm talking operational warfighting units. Actual warfighting units available.

 

[Chrom]

The Russians may have "been on holiday" in Siberia. Meanwhile the enlisted personnel of Germany that was not part of the Eastern front was fighting in North Africa, Italy, France, insurgencies in Yugoslavia, Poland etc. They were also fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, the European Air war. The two latter examples of forces that could not be brought to bear on Russia anyway.

I'm say a two thirds of the capability went to the East. Two thirds of the fighting Germany was capable of. You are confusing manpower at the front with total enlisted personnel.

I'm not talking about training camps and reconstituting units. I'm talking operational warfighting units. Actual warfighting units available.

Any "fighting" unit what dont take losses and dont spend too much resources is de-facto training unit.
Lets see the losses. They somehow reflect true efforts. IF you think what they dont, you can try to find statistic for the other valuable resources - i.e. cannon shells fired, fuel burnt, trucks & tanks destroyed, aircrafts shot down, etc. Good luck finding that and proving your point.

P.S. Also, how many german soldiers was deployed in "North Africa, Italy, France, insurgencies in Yugoslavia, Poland"??? Now, add to the fact what workers in Italy, France, Yugoslavia, Poland produced sh$tload ammount of tanks, trucks, aircrafts, generally any technic, clothes, foods, ores, oils, etc... And all that in exchange for a relatively small number deployed german soldiers what would have struggle to produce 1/10 of all these goods in native Germany...

 

[Grand Danois]

Any "fighting" unit what dont take losses and dont spend too much resources is de-facto training unit.
Lets see the losses. They somehow reflect true efforts. IF you think what they dont, you can try to find statistic for the other valuable resources - i.e. cannon shells fired, fuel burnt, trucks & tanks destroyed, aircrafts shot down, etc. Good luck finding that and proving your point.

Not playing that way. I don't have to prove your strawman.

Remember. I am talking actual fighting. And the military manpower it consumed.

 

[Chrom]

Not playing that way. I don't have to prove your strawman.

Remember. I am talking actual fighting. And the military manpower it consumed.

Then please prove in with the losses numbers. As obviosly a division what is "fighting" a whole year and lost 100 soldiers execute quite funny art of war compared to division what REALLY fighting whole year a lost 20000 soldiers during that time. And again, would you please show YOUR numbers of german troops deployed in Africa? How much was it compared to East front? 1%??

 

[Grand Danois]

Then please prove in with the losses numbers. As obviosly a division what is "fighting" a whole year and lost 100 soldiers execute quite funny art of war compared to division what REALLY fighting whole year a lost 20000 soldiers during that time. And again, would you please show YOUR numbers of german troops deployed in Africa? How much was it compared to East front? 1%??

Prove your argument?

That's because you think the German forces were only made up of army personnel. 70+% of army personnel may have been assigned to the Eastern Front. But that is not the case of Luftwaffe or the navy.

This air campaign absorbed more then 500,000 active personnel in the end.

Strategic bombing during World War II

The Luftwaffe had 2,500,000 serving during the war.

Meanwhile this was going on:

Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945)

The Kriegsmarine had 1,200,000 serving during the war.

But the Germans also had to use significant ground forces:

North African campaign

Allied invasion of Italy

Battle of Normandy

Operation Dragoon

etc...

And deal with a nasty number of sideshows:

Yugoslavia

So losses is not a metric of where manpower and resources are allocated. The high tech air and naval wars are also manpower intensive but have relatively fewer losses.

 

[Chrom]

Prove your argument?

That's because you think the German forces were only made up of army personnel. 70+% of army personnel may have been assigned to the Eastern Front. But that is not the case of Luftwaffe or the navy.

This air campaign absorbed more then 500,000 active personnel in the end.

Strategic bombing during World War II

The Luftwaffe had 2,500,000 serving during the war.

Meanwhile this was going on:

Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945)

The Kriegsmarine had 1,200,000 serving during the war.

But the Germans also had to use significant ground forces:

North African campaign

Allied invasion of Italy

Battle of Normandy

Operation Dragoon

etc...

And deal with a nasty number of sideshows:

Yugoslavia

So losses is not a metric of where manpower and resources are allocated. The high tech air and naval wars are also manpower intensive but have relatively fewer losses.

KK. So, you said, air company absorbed 500kk IN THE END. Thats might be true. BUT! It was the END. Not the whole 1941-1945 time. Moreover, even in that case you like to forget what IN THE END Germany Air Defence was working against russian fighters/bombers just much as against allied bombers - after all, russians was ALREADY in Germany by that time. There was a limited time when majority of fighters was commited to West Front against allied bombers - that was 1944 year. So much of it. I have nothing against naval war, but please bring the numbers of spend resources here to prove your point. Also remember, what germany fleet also operated against soviet fleet or supporting Germany war effort against USSR - allbeit MAY BE to the less extent than against GB & USA. Yes, said Luftwaffe had 2.5 mils served during the war (btw, someone here tryed to tell us what in the whole German army served only 10 millions, LOL) - but again, only in 1944 majority of the fighters was commited against GB&Britain. The majority of Luftwaffe was still deployed on the East front EVEN in this 1944 year.
Again, please, tell us how many GERMAN soldiers was deployed in Africa, how many of them was lost there.

 

[Grand Danois]

KK. So, you said, air company absorbed 500kk IN THE END. Thats might be true. BUT! It was the END. Not the whole 1941-1945 time. Moreover, even in that case you like to forget what IN THE END Germany Air Defence was wroking against russian fighters/bombers just much as against allied bombers - after all, russians was ALREADY in Germany by that time. There was a limited time when majority of fighters was commited to West Front against allied bombers - that was 1944 year. So much of it. I have nothing against naval war, but please bring the numbers of spend resources here to prove your point. Also remember, what germany fleet also operated against soviet fleet or supporting Germany war effort against USSR - allbeit MAY BE to the less extent than against GB & USA. Yes, said Luftwaffe had 2.5 mils served during the war (btw, someone here tryed to tell us what in the whole German army served only 10 millions, LOL) - but again, only in 1944 majority of the fighteers was commited against GB&Britain. The majority of Luftwaffe was still deployed in the East front EVEN in this 1944 year.
Again, please, tell us how many GERMAN soldiers was deployed in Africa, how many of them was lost there.

I that's the way to reason, then why not include 1939-40?

The Kriegsmarine was overwhelmingly in the West, though Armeegruppe Nord recieved some assistance.

You are correct the number varies, but Luftwaffe ground personnel fought for several years before reaching those numbers. So they invested in this instead of expanding the army. Again it is invested man-years. A soldier killed in 1940 is not going to fight another 4 years like a soldier in a FLAK unit would.

I don't have the books here and the net sucks for looking such things up. I'd estimate Luftwaffe sqns - not ground based defenses - to be 50/50 - E/W.

I think the German Army had something like 15,000,000 serving during the war.

I'm not trying to belittle the Russian sacrifice. But the metric is wrong.

 

[Chrom]

I that's the way to reason, then why not include 1939-40?

The Kriegsmarine was overwhelmingly in the West, though Armeegruppe Nord recieved some assistance.

You are correct the number varies, but Luftwaffe ground personnel fought for several years before reaching those numbers. So they invested in this instead of expanding the army. Again it is invested man-years. A soldier killed in 1940 is not going to fight another 4 years like a soldier in a FLAK unit would.

I don't have the books here and the net sucks for looking such things up. I'd estimate Luftwaffe sqns - not ground based defenses - to be 50/50 - E/W.

I think the German Army had something like 15,000,000 serving during the war.

All Luftwaffe personell fought during whole 1941-1945 on West Front? Or just small part? Or large part fought, but once in the blue moon?
Again, nothing wrong with 1939-1940 years. Allthought technicaly they dont contribute to USSR-Axis losses ratio (thread topic), but lets bring em here out of interest. So, Germany losses 1939-1941 in all affairs excluding USSR. Your turn. Bring numbers.

P.S. 21-22 millions - widely accepted figure. Useally it breaks out as 3.2 in Germany army service by 1939, 18-19 (depending on author) millions reqruited during 1939-1945. German ARMY alone MIGHT indeed have 15 millions served. Add Luftwaffe, SS, Kriegsmarine, etc.

I'm not trying to belittle the Russian sacrifice. But the metric is wrong.

Thats how its useally end... "I dont know true number, but your's are way off becouse i dont like them".

 

[Grand Danois]

Again, nothing wrong with 1939-1940 years. Allthought technicaly they dont contribute to USSR-Axis losses ratio (thread topic), but lets bring em here out of interest. So, Germany losses 1939-1941 in all affairs excluding USSR. Your turn. Bring numbers.

P.S. 21-22 millions - widely accepted figure. Useally it breaks out as 3.2 in Germany army service by 1939, 18-19 (depending of author) millions reqruited during 1939-1945.

Pre-Op barbarossa is out.

The number I quoted add up to around 19m for the entire war, so it is in the ballpark.

What numbers?

Btw, thread topic is: "Tactics in Korean War." That is why you cannot measure by going by war potential, but better to go by allocation per front. (Or really, a breakdown of individual campaigns.)

 

[Chrom]

Pre-Op barbarossa is out.

The number I quoted add up to around 19m for the entire war, so it is in the ballpark.

What numbers?

Btw, thread topic is: "Tactics in Korean War." That is why you cannot measure by going by war potential, but better to go by allocation per front. (Or really, a breakdown of individual campaigns.)

Topic Again, allocation per front doesnt show us true efforts. Or you must give credit to Japan to contribute 10-20% of German war effort to defeat USSR, and you must give USSR the credit to destroy Japan in 1939-1945 as very substancial part of Japan army was stationed against Soviet Far East army. If you choose the latter options, than we must add at least 1-million Japan army to the Axis figures against USSR throught 1941-1945, and same here with Iran&Turkey. In that case Axis - USSR force ratio will look even more convincing to Axis side Man, why you dont understand what a division what lost 20.000 soldiers require much more resources than division what lost only 200 soldiers? And what you need 100 times MORE resources & efforts to inflict 20.000 losses than 200 losses?

But back to the TRUE topic (Korea): As first we should settle the true losses for all sides involved. I believe what USA gave quite true overall numbers for own losses, at least if the speak about manpower losses and not aircrafts and other technic. USSR had almost zero participation in Korean ground war, and they pilots losses was also not impressive. So we will exclude that. As such, only SK, NK and China left. I have seen many numbers floation around, but none can be proven ;(
And to the tactic... lets take several operations of that war and preparate them step-by-step. We'll see then what tactic each side employed.

 

[Grand Danois]

Topic Again, allocation per front doesnt show us true efforts. Or you must give credit to Japan to contribute 10-20% of German war effort to defeat USSR, and you must give USSR the credit to destroy Japan in 1939-1945 as very substancial part of Japan army was stationed against Soviet Far East army. If you choose the latter options, than we must add at least 1-million Japan army to the Axis figures against USSR throught 1941-1945, and same here with Iran&Turkey. In that case Axis - USSR force ratio will look even more convincing to Axis side Man, why you dont understand what a division what lost 20.000 soldiers require much more resources than division what lost only 200 soldiers? And what you need 100 times MORE resources & efforts to inflict 20.000 losses than 200 losses?

You set up two options. I choose neither. USSR army vs Japan was a "holiday army" until it decided to attack. The Japanese did't constitute a real threat. I have differentiated between reconstituting and fighting units all the time. It is you who want to lump them together by talking about stationed units. I am talking about fighting units. And for the Wehrmacht as a whole.

USSR army vs Japanese Manchurian - yes, but not on account of losses or because they acted like an army in being, as you want it.

Man, why you dont understand what a division what lost 20.000 soldiers require much more resources than division what lost only 200 soldiers? And what you need 100 times MORE resources & efforts to inflict 20.000 losses than 200 losses?

I do appreciate that. But you forget that Germany still allocated 2/3 of the effort to Russia. It doesn't change anything as it already accounted for. These losses are built into that number.

 

[Grand Danois]

No meaningful metric comes out of this type of macroscale optics. To many different things are lumped together and assumed to be homogenous. They are not. Individual battles has to be looked upon.

 

[eckherl]

And thanks, Eckherl, good to know the proffesionals are backing me up.:rel :smooth

So, how do I get promoted? That 'private' tag is starting to get old...

Hey - I only have made it to a PFC.

 

[Chrom]

You set up two options. I choose neither. USSR army vs Japan was a "holiday army" until it decided to attack. The Japanese did't constitute a real threat. I have differentiated between reconstituting and fighting units all the time. It is you who want to lump them together by talking about stationed units. I am talking about fighting units. And for the Wehrmacht as a whole.

Huh? How "The Japanese did't constitute a real threat" when they was exactly that? Now, consider 2 things: USSR deployed 1-million army against Japan, USSR losses was may be 20 soldiers a month there. Germany deployed (for arguments sake) 1 million army in France against allies, the losses there was maybe 1000 soldiers a month. Now, Germany deployed 4 millions army against USSR. The losses are 100.000 soldiers a month. Now, tell us the clear difference why USSR vs Japan army dont count as "fighting army", but Germany army in France do.

USSR army vs Japanese Manchurian - yes, but not on account of losses or because they acted like an army in being, as you want it.

Thats even better. Now you discard even losses.

I do appreciate that. But you forget that Germany still allocated 2/3 of the effort to Russia. It doesn't change anything as it already accounted for. These losses are built into that number.

SHOW IT WITH THE NUMBERS OF LOSSES or at least other resources spend. Since i suspect what your "2/3" are made of just that - a army "strength" distribution. I proved what such distribution doesnt reflect true efforts in any way.

 

[Chrom]

No meaningful metric comes out of this type of macroscale optics. To many different things are lumped together and assumed to be homogenous. They are not. Individual battles has to be looked upon.

Ya, i would like to do that too. At least that would be more interesting discussion where we'll see something relating to tactic.

 

[Grand Danois]

Huh? How "The Japanese did't constitute a real threat" when they was exactly that? Not, consider 2 things: USSR deployed 1-million army against Japan, USSR losses was may be 20 soldiers a month there. Germany deployed (for arguments sake) 1 million army in France against allies, the losses there maybe 1000 soldiers a month. Now, Germany deployed 4 millions army against USSR. The losses are 100.000 soldiers a month. Now, tell us the clear difference why USSR vs Japan army dont count as "fighting army", but Germany army in France do.

Thats even better. Now you discard even losses.

SHOW IT WITH THE NUMBERS OF LOSSES or at least other resources spend.

Manchuria. The Japanese had neither the capability nor the intent to attack Russia. And they didn't. The Japanese knew that, the Russians knew that.

Germany actually fought France.

Re numbers. This is a qualitative argument. You can't lump campaigns and battles with different opponents with different technology in different settings - geographically and temporally - together. That is what I am saying.
We will never get to the bottom of the numbers anyway.

 

[Grand Danois]

Ya, i would like to do that too. At least that would be more interesting discussion where we'll see something relating to tactic.

Sorry. Didn't see that, repeated myself.

 

[Chrom]

Manchuria. The Japanese had neither the capability nor the intent to attack Russia. And they didn't. The Japanese knew that, the Russians knew that.

Germany actually fought France.

Re numbers. This is a qualitative argument. You can't lump campaigns and battles with different opponents with different technology in different settings - geographically and temporally - together. That is what I am saying.
We will never get to the bottom of the numbers anyway.

Thats what i tryed to tell you - but you dont understand. You cant jump 1/3 German forces in Western Europe what are hardly fire a bullet once a day with 2/3 German forces in East Front what are constantly got massacred. They are simply not comparable.
"Different opponents with different technology in different settings - geographically and temporally - together" !

 

[Grand Danois]

Thats what i tryed to tell you - but you dont understand. You cant jump 1/3 German forces in Western Europe what are hardly fire a bullet once a day with 2/3 German forces in East Front what are constantly got massacred. They are simply not comparable.
"Different opponents with different technology in different settings - geographically and temporally - together" !

Wrong again. We are not in agreement neither qualitatively nor quantitatively.

Units in active combat. Repeat units in active combat.

You are playing semantics.