Why the huge disparity between Soviet and German losses on the Eastern front?

[Naphtali]

During the war on the Eastern front, in terms of quality of weaponry there was not a huge disparity. In terms of quantity, after 1942 the Soviets had an advantage that grew as the war continued. Yet even excluding their defeats during the first few months of the German invasion, Soviet army's losses were several times those of the Germans. As specifically as you can, please identify and explain why.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

The Germans had a huge advantage in morale at the onset of their invasion. They felt they were fighting for a "cause". The German mindset at the time was one of invincibility after conquering France and Poland in quick succession. But the Russians on the other hand did not. 20 years of Communist rule had demoralized the populace. Some Russians even saw the Germans as their liberators at first, so they were unwilling to put up much resistance. Until the SS came on the scene behind the regular German army and proved otherwise.
Also, at that time the Germans did have superior weapons. Particularly the panzers which were superior to Soviet armor at the time in all regards. Defensive armor, armor piercing weaponry, and the vastly superior German optics all came together to overwhelm the Soviets defenses.
Also the fact that Stalin simply used the Germans as a means to eliminate undesirables of his own population. Older people that remembered the old days before communism were allowed to be eliminated by the Germans and by lack of food and resources which were held back for the future Soviet counter attack. Stalin himself was probably responsible for the deaths of more Russians than the Germans were. Soviet tactics at the time also included huge offensives by masses of infantry. Two men with but one rifle, and little ammunition. If they tried to escape, they were shot by commissars instead of the Germans. They were nothing more than cannon fodder to delay the Germans until Soviet industry, sheltered far from the front behind the Ural mountains, could produce better and more armor and weapons.
For first hand insight into the war on the eastern front, the book "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian is very informative.

 

[DAJE]

Different tactics. Soviet tactics followed on from pre-revolutionary Russian tactics: keep throwing serfs at the problem till it goes away. The Axis*, like the Western allies, valued their fighting men a lot more than the Soviets did, and were a lot more careful with them. It really is as simple as that.

The Axis side were generally better led in terms of both field officers and general officers, despite the major disadvantage of having Hitler as supreme commander. Soviet troops weren't as well trained or as well-led as the Axis, there was less of an investment in them, and simple numerical advantage counted for a lot.

Which is not to say that Soviet troops didn't do a magnificent job of fighting despite the lack of training and the sometimes terrible leadership. And it's always worth pointing out that 80% of (European) Axis casualties happened on the eastern front: the war in western Europe, terrible though it was, was a sideshow compared to the eastern front.

*Axis is a better term than "German" because there were plenty of non-German troops fighting the Soviets, including Italians, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, and large amounts of western European volunteers fighting under the Nazi flag. They weren't all Germans by any means, any more than the Soviet troops were all "Russians".

 

[dhermann1]

Don't forget, there were also plenty of French fighting with the Axis.

 

[MPicciotto]

It's a lot like the game "Risk". In the board game once a skilled player establishes his armies on the Asian continent they can produce enough troops to offset the losses incurred. Or to quote from A Princes Bride "Never talk death with a Sicilian and never start a land war in Asia." Sheer numbers, the Russian winter* and some horrifyingly bad decisions by Hitler against his Generals wishes lead to the loss of the German army.

Matt

*A lot of people laud the use of diesel engines in German armor, but diesel fuel turns to gel in cold weather when gasoline does not.

 

[Widebrim]

Don't forget, there were also plenty of French fighting with the Axis.

And quite a few Italian troops, too, at the insistence of Il Duce. Some of the Royal Cavalry was lauded by the Germans.

 

[DAJE]

Don't forget, there were also plenty of French fighting with the Axis.

France is in western Europe, hence "western European volunteers" in my comment. There were French, Dutch, Spanish, Norwegian, etc volunteers, including some very large national units, fighting under the swastika on the eastern front.

There were also plenty of eastern European volunteers, including people from places that had been under Soviet control like Ukraine and Belarus, many Crimean Cossacks, and quite a few actual Russians who were prepared to fight alongside the Axis against the Soviets. Stalin and his cronies were pretty unpopular in many places, for good reasons. Quite a lot of people did see Stalinist Communism as a bigger problem than Hitler/Nazism, and were prepared to ally themselves with the Nazis to "liberate" their homelands from the Soviets.

If you're thinking they were naive, you're right. But there wasn't much of a choice between the Nazis and the USSR in the 1940s, and choosing "right" wasn't all that much better than choosing "wrong".

 

[Guttersnipe]

In the histories I've read the disparity of losses between the Red Army and the Axis armed forces has been explained by several key factors.

Something like 1 million or roughly ten percernt of ALL Soviet military dead were killed in the first 6 months of the war; 3 million POW's were taken from in the same period (with over a million being captured just in June '41!). Virtually the entire Red Air Force was destroyed on the ground in the first 48 hours of the war. Which is all to say that the Soviets didn't fight a war of defense in 1941, they suffered prolonged period of rout.

The second major factor was the battles of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. These three points were deemed by both the Axis and the Soviets to be the keys to the the Northern, Central, and Southern fronts, respectively. As such, the Soviets held them at all costs, which is to say, for overall strategic reasons, they continued to pour troops into these battles long after in made tactical sense to do so. In all three cases Soviet casualties far exceeded one million killed, wounded, or captured.

Thirdly, after the Soviets finally broke the back of the Germans in 1943, they had to begin the long process of driving West, and as is typical in warfare, the cost in lives is heavier on the offensive than on the defensive.

 

[Smithy]

Arguably because of four main factors: leadership, tactics, weaponry and (initially) quality of troops.

 

[Italian-wiseguy]

And quite a few Italian troops, too, at the insistence of Il Duce. Some of the Royal Cavalry was lauded by the Germans.

Well, not quite few: the Italian Army in Russia was some 230.000 people. I met some veterans form the russian front, and by their experience it was by far the worst and more terrible of the fronts.
Poorly equipped for fighting and for the climate, often despised and denied support by Germans, and for italian p.o.w.s taken by the soviet army, italian communist leader Togliatti, living in Russia at that period, expressly recommended absolutely no compassion.
Go figure.

On the other hand, they often fraternized with russian and ukrainian common people they met.

PS
The italian cavalry made there her last charges with sabres; by the way, the mostly switched their sabres for cossak shaskas, which they consider to be better weapons.

Ironically enough, a large group of ex-soviet collaborationist (Turkoman division) fought agaisnt Allies and partisans right here, in the Appenines!

 

[Cobden]

I think it's also worth pointing out the the USSR had a lot more to lose then the German's and there allies had to gain; when you're enemy has both invaded your country and publically stated that the people of you're country are sub-human and deserve eradication, nothing is too costly

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

For some great picyures,....

,...mostly from the Soviet side,...go here: http://www.themysteryworld.com/2010/11/red-army-during-world-war-ii-109-pics.html

 

[HoundstoothLuke]

As everyone else said, the Soviets pretty much just threw hordes of infantry at the Axis and relied on sheer weight of numbers to succeed!

I also see in that photo collection that they've put in the 'retouched' pictures of the soldiers on the roof of the Reichstag, omitting the many wristwatches which had been acquired by the Soviets!

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

As everyone else said, the Soviets pretty much just threw hordes of infantry at the Axis and relied on sheer weight of numbers to succeed!

I also see in that photo collection that they've put in the 'retouched' pictures of the soldiers on the roof of the Reichstag, omitting the many wristwatches which had been acquired by the Soviets!

But those were merely souvenirs comrade.

 

[kowalski]

Hitler made a mistake, but did not withdraw troops from Leningrad, where winter is approaching, it had been his blitz krieg, grandfather frost has taken its toll. Stalin's army dozbroił troops from Siberia. And the fact is that the Russian army consisted of 70% of people trained, the KGB behind them. What they wanted to undo the bullet in the head, is another way to success Stalin

 

[Widebrim]

Well, not quite few: the Italian Army in Russia was some 230.000 people. I met some veterans form the russian front, and by their experience it was by far the worst and more terrible of the fronts.

E' certo, paisano. Of course that is true. In English, "quite a few" actually means "not a few." And it certainly was the front that everyone wanted to avoid.

 

[Widebrim]

Ironically enough, a large group of ex-soviet collaborationist (Turkoman division) fought agaisnt Allies and partisans right here, in the Appenines!

That I did not know! Those Turkmani certainly get around. (I even met some when I served in Iraq.)

 

[Italian-wiseguy]

Thanks for your correction Paisano!
English is not my first language so I welcome every suggestion (I had to study it at school, but also latin and classical greek, so some confusion is unavoidable ).
I'm pleased to hear that you have served your Country!
Ciao!

 

[Pompidou]

The most visually telling reason for massive Soviet losses is presented at the beginning of the Jude Law movie, "Enemy at the Gates". There weren't enough rifles for every infantryman, and the ones who lacked were told to charge anyway, pick up the gun of the next person to get killed, and keep on charging.

 

[kowalski]

good movie, I wonder just who in all this has killed more Russians,; Nazis or Stalin
I put on Stalin, saying Russians i think about the former republics