• Well when compare opposing stats between two warring countries there are of course going to be discrepancies between the official records. So 10% isn’t that bad… at least not compared to ancient history. :)


  • oh


  • @TG:

    Well when compare opposing stats between two warring countries there are of course going to be discrepancies between the official records. So 10% isn’t that bad… at least not compared to ancient history. :)

    I read that German losses in World War 2 were 5.2 million while the soviets suffered the most 13.1 million out of the 52 million (including civilians) casualties in World War 2.


  • Hmmm… in some cases I’ve read the Germans numbers lower and the Soviet numbers higher…


  • @TG:

    Well when compare opposing stats between two warring countries there are of course going to be discrepancies between the official records. So 10% isn’t that bad… at least not compared to ancient history. :)

    demonstrating an increasing need for accuracy for reporting losses/kills, etc. in order for greater intel.


  • That was Admiral Yamamoto’s nightmare when it came to calculating the number of American ships in the Pacific. The Japanese airforce and many of the younger naval officers often imbellished Japanese victories. For example, they reported that an American carrier I believe she was named the Lexington had been sunk when in fact they had hit a battleship. They also reported things such as “1 American battleship torpedoes which surely must have sunk.” As the war progressed,i t was found out that not only did the American ship not sink, but that she wasreally a destroyer and not a battleship.


  • Yeah, people often made their targets seems a bit larger than they really were in life. :-?


  • I read that German losses in World War 2 were 5.2 million while the soviets suffered the most 13.1 million out of the 52 million (including civilians) casualties in World War 2.

    Weren’t the Russian casualties at like 30 million?


  • casualties at like 30 million

    Actually, from what I’ve read, that number is more like 35 million. However, there is a big difference between Casualties and combat deaths.
    EmuGod might of been refering to combat deaths when he said “suffered.”


  • How do you get quotes to work?
    I cant ever get mine to work


  • @TG:

    casualties at like 30 million

    Actually, from what I’ve read, that number is more like 35 million. However, there is a big difference between Casualties and combat deaths.
    EmuGod might of been refering to combat deaths when he said “suffered.”

    I’m referring to the total number of both civilians and troops killed in the entire war. I’ve seen this statistic several times. 30 million for the Soviets alone is impossible, especially considering that the Germans brought 2 or maybe 3 million troops to fight against the Soviets when they launched Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets would have had to drop like flies in order for that to be right.


  • @Drumstix:

    How do you get quotes to work?
    I cant ever get mine to work

    Ya, I have problems with mutiple quotes in one posts.

    So, You quote the post you want and It doesn’t work.


  • half the time mine doesnt work ether


  • Russia’s total enlistment in 1945 was 12 million, the americans had 16 million in total and the germans had raised 9 million in total by 1945.


  • i’m not saying the germans had 9 million men in 1945, over the course of the war they had raised 9 million men, the total army numbers for russia and usa were 12 and 16 million respectively


  • But the Americans only lost about 250,000 troops while the Soviets lost around 12 million.


  • only 250 000 ?


  • opps that was me


  • Yes, the British also lost around 250,000 but they lost more than the Americans.


  • If America had entered Europe earlier the war would’ve gone better for the allies.

Suggested Topics

  • 39
  • 1
  • 1
  • 13
  • 9
  • 30
  • 11
  • 40
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

43

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts