>Steel >ore
Steel has ore?
If this is an attempted troll / bait, please, for your own sake, go and touch grass for a while before plugging back into the mongolian basketweaving matrix
If this is not a troll/ bait please, join a sport / chess club , do some drugs , pick up smoking, start doing steroids and hitting the gym, anything just get off /misc/ for a while. It is not me you will be helping it is your self
It's more related to Wehraboos trying to deny the most obvious things of having happened in the first place. In response we not got Dresden- and Stalingrad denialism
Except the Dresden one isn't a meme ofcourse. There isn't and never was a city named Dresden
People are saying that it's Bakhmut fricking meatgrinder and from the images coming it out I agree, but compared to Stalingrad, it's not even minutely close. This kind of makes me realize the sheer scale of WW2 battles and especially Stalingrad.
So that makes me ask, how the frick did so many people die there, are there any good photos or videos showing the sheer magnitude of what was going on there? Are there any good accounts of how bad it got? I just want to be able to comprehend it
Because the soviet strategy was always to zerg rush everything until there was no enemy left so russia lost a lot more soliders. The germans actually tried to fight with a strategy so they tended to lose less, even when they lost an entire army. You will notice that the soviets also lost twice as many tanks and planes than the germans at stalingrad too, so even at a disadvantage, surrounded, and cut off from supplies the germans were still more effective fighters than the soviets but even germany still could not overcome the weight of the soviet human wave in the end.
Following the soviet unions example, china used human wave tactics to great effect in Korea as well. "Just throw people at it until we win" has literally always been Russias battle plan, even in Ukraine.
Russians officers were pressured by Stalin into repeated disorganized attacks. Chuikov himself had a crisis of confidence.
If you're really interested I'd recommend watching TIK History's Battlestorm Stalingrad series in Youtube. The production quality is actually insane.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNSNgGzaledi9jQeOzCUtBP2pxYdCYiXX
I read somewhere that, when Germany captured Ukraine, they captured the Soviet fertilizer factories, thus robbing the Soviets of the ability to make explosives, while also increasing their own capacity. Even though Germany struggled with oil and fuel, they were able to simply out-explode the Soviets with artillery barrages.
Pic related. Despite attacking into heavily entrenched lines, outnumbered 1-to-3, the Germans STILL managed to inflict way more casualties than the Soviets.
I like how some nerd went out of their way to specify just how many romanian tanks were involved and how many soviet tanks were destroyed by romanians, but italy gets no such treatment.
What's even more crazy is that, scaled for population, it's not even all that bad. In general, wars have become much less deadly as technology and civilization has advanced.
That's 12,000 casualties a day, less then half those being immediate deaths (for at least the Soviets, Axis is harder to determine because prisoners were killed). There are 10 hour battles with 3 to maybe 10 times that many killed in a day, drawing from populations a tiny fraction of that size. Pic related, not one of the very highest, but most of a 40,000 man army butchered over several hours.
If you fought on the Eastern Front as a Russian, you still had better odds at surviving the war than not, by a solid margin. Same for all Germans who fought there. You have some wars, e.g., the First Crusade, where 65-80% of one force was dead by the end of the war.
The Thirty Years War killed 2.5 times more Germans than both World Wars combined. The Hugonaut Wars killed 4-8 times as many French as their atrocious losses in WWI.
By 2100, hopefully major wars so be a few thousand dead, with drone losses being how we measure scale.
To be fair, worse casualty rates aren't all from battles being more deadly in the past. Armies had to march on foot for hundreds of miles through inclement weather with no water treatment or medicine while living off forage. You'd take 20% losses just traveling.
You'd also manage to depopulate areas so drastically because everyone was a near subsistence farmer and a harvest disruption could cause 1:20 people to drop dead or more.
Still is wild that conflicts could drop a regions population by like 50-60+% in extreme cases.
The apex of that type of thing was in colonial wars, where you had consistent 1:10 casualty ratios, but then lost 15% of European forces every years from disease.
>The Thirty Years War killed 2.5 times more Germans than both World Wars combined. The Hugonaut Wars killed 4-8 times as many French as their atrocious losses in WWI.
How long did those last relative to the modern comparisons?
To nitpick: Old wars tended to spread their casualties out among all groups, since the big killers were generally starvation and disease that followed in the wake of the armies. Modern wars disproportionately kill young men. Also in the past mortality was just higher all around - There's a statistic that only 20% of soviet men born in 1923 saw the end of the war. A blog I read broke that number down, and it turns out roughly half of them died to infant mortality, disease and famine before the war even started.
I was going to say that seems moronic as a statistic. The civil war ended in 1923 and for easily a decade after the soviet union was in chaos as it tried to recover. Then the 10 years famine due to moronic soviet agricultural policies. Not just Ukraine but along the Volga, Caucuses and in Kazakhstan the famine devastated the population. Theres still no official consensus on the death figures and it can range from 1 to over 4 million.
>wow dood isn’t it liek crazy how wars have gotten much less deadly due to the advent of modern technology? We’re progressing so much as a heckin species dude!!
Such a bugman PopSci take
>By 2100, hopefully major wars so be a few thousand dead, with drone losses being how we measure scale.
it is the opposite. The globe in general is in a clear degeneration trend as the more advanced societies fade and the turdies go through their pop expansion phases euros went through a century and half ago. Primite mentality breed primite wars. Expect a lot of absurd butchering as marauder warbands go full Nanking on capture civvie population just because they can. Specially as certain key resources like fresh, unpolluted drinking water are critical for survival.
>Ever been to the desert? You'd hate it. You're always sweating. You think you're melting like butter. The desert is shit. Except for the stars. They're so close. You know Hans?
>war lasts for several decades >wow look at all these people who died! (Mostly from disease lol) >see? war has always been deadly
I’m just shy of a year the Ukraine -Russia war (which is not a near peer war like WW1/2) has caused hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians, and hundreds of thousands of casualties. The “modern warfare is actually less deadly!” cope is unreal
there is literally no evidence of the latter ever happening
Explain the density of metal fragments at Mamyev Kurgan hill then.
that hill just has a lot of steel ore
cope more westoid
>Steel
>ore
Steel has ore?
If this is an attempted troll / bait, please, for your own sake, go and touch grass for a while before plugging back into the mongolian basketweaving matrix
If this is not a troll/ bait please, join a sport / chess club , do some drugs , pick up smoking, start doing steroids and hitting the gym, anything just get off /misc/ for a while. It is not me you will be helping it is your self
It was a recycling center during the Russian Empire. The Tsars were really into environmentalism.
lmao this is a wehraboo cope I’ve never heard before
>spotted the ukraine newbie
>wehraboo cope
moron
It’s a PrepHole meme moron.
a PrepHole meme riffing off that tiktok girl saying the roman empire never existed?
It's more related to Wehraboos trying to deny the most obvious things of having happened in the first place. In response we not got Dresden- and Stalingrad denialism
Except the Dresden one isn't a meme ofcourse. There isn't and never was a city named Dresden
Uh ive been to dresden
no you haven't
how am I supposed to take /misc/tards seriously when they say shit like this?
newbie
Nta but kys
That’s the fun part, you don’t
Result.. Russia victory
- Destruction of Bandera
- America colappses
Territory changes.. Russia grabs ukraine
>Result: Total Ukrainian Victory
>-Liberation of all sovereign ukrainian territory
>-Beginning of Russian Civil War
FTFY
C-Can we have a civil war too? Just for old time's sake?
People are saying that it's Bakhmut fricking meatgrinder and from the images coming it out I agree, but compared to Stalingrad, it's not even minutely close. This kind of makes me realize the sheer scale of WW2 battles and especially Stalingrad.
So that makes me ask, how the frick did so many people die there, are there any good photos or videos showing the sheer magnitude of what was going on there? Are there any good accounts of how bad it got? I just want to be able to comprehend it
Hiwi?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiwi_(volunteer)
Miss these guys so much.
encirclement and then encirclement of that encirclement
how the frick did the russians somehow still manage to suffer more casualties than the germans?
IDK but it was an occupied city being fought over. That might have had something to do with it.
Because the soviet strategy was always to zerg rush everything until there was no enemy left so russia lost a lot more soliders. The germans actually tried to fight with a strategy so they tended to lose less, even when they lost an entire army. You will notice that the soviets also lost twice as many tanks and planes than the germans at stalingrad too, so even at a disadvantage, surrounded, and cut off from supplies the germans were still more effective fighters than the soviets but even germany still could not overcome the weight of the soviet human wave in the end.
Following the soviet unions example, china used human wave tactics to great effect in Korea as well. "Just throw people at it until we win" has literally always been Russias battle plan, even in Ukraine.
Yeah, it's a shame Europe and America outnumber Russians 5 to 1
Russians officers were pressured by Stalin into repeated disorganized attacks. Chuikov himself had a crisis of confidence.
If you're really interested I'd recommend watching TIK History's Battlestorm Stalingrad series in Youtube. The production quality is actually insane.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNSNgGzaledi9jQeOzCUtBP2pxYdCYiXX
>Russians officers were pressured by Stalin into repeated disorganized attacks.
Now what does that remind me of
The Kotluban offensives basically. They were the equivalent of getting red combat bubbles in Hoi4
>inb4 Hoi4 isn't real life!11!!1
from the day of operation barbarossa to the end of the war the russians suffered 9000 casualties per DAY
9000 dead/wounded per day for 4 years
I read somewhere that, when Germany captured Ukraine, they captured the Soviet fertilizer factories, thus robbing the Soviets of the ability to make explosives, while also increasing their own capacity. Even though Germany struggled with oil and fuel, they were able to simply out-explode the Soviets with artillery barrages.
Pic related. Despite attacking into heavily entrenched lines, outnumbered 1-to-3, the Germans STILL managed to inflict way more casualties than the Soviets.
"send in the next wave" is not just a meme anon
I like how some nerd went out of their way to specify just how many romanian tanks were involved and how many soviet tanks were destroyed by romanians, but italy gets no such treatment.
What's even more crazy is that, scaled for population, it's not even all that bad. In general, wars have become much less deadly as technology and civilization has advanced.
That's 12,000 casualties a day, less then half those being immediate deaths (for at least the Soviets, Axis is harder to determine because prisoners were killed). There are 10 hour battles with 3 to maybe 10 times that many killed in a day, drawing from populations a tiny fraction of that size. Pic related, not one of the very highest, but most of a 40,000 man army butchered over several hours.
If you fought on the Eastern Front as a Russian, you still had better odds at surviving the war than not, by a solid margin. Same for all Germans who fought there. You have some wars, e.g., the First Crusade, where 65-80% of one force was dead by the end of the war.
The Thirty Years War killed 2.5 times more Germans than both World Wars combined. The Hugonaut Wars killed 4-8 times as many French as their atrocious losses in WWI.
By 2100, hopefully major wars so be a few thousand dead, with drone losses being how we measure scale.
To be fair, worse casualty rates aren't all from battles being more deadly in the past. Armies had to march on foot for hundreds of miles through inclement weather with no water treatment or medicine while living off forage. You'd take 20% losses just traveling.
You'd also manage to depopulate areas so drastically because everyone was a near subsistence farmer and a harvest disruption could cause 1:20 people to drop dead or more.
Still is wild that conflicts could drop a regions population by like 50-60+% in extreme cases.
The apex of that type of thing was in colonial wars, where you had consistent 1:10 casualty ratios, but then lost 15% of European forces every years from disease.
>The Thirty Years War killed 2.5 times more Germans than both World Wars combined. The Hugonaut Wars killed 4-8 times as many French as their atrocious losses in WWI.
How long did those last relative to the modern comparisons?
Around 30 years
As the name imply.
>how long did the 30 years war last
>30 years war
Gee I dunno anon maybe 30 years
The Hundred Years War didn't last 100 years.
>uhhh acktually
I bet you’re fun at parties
>going to parties
NGMI
Partygoers become rental car center managers if they are extremely lucky, cirrhotic if not
To nitpick: Old wars tended to spread their casualties out among all groups, since the big killers were generally starvation and disease that followed in the wake of the armies. Modern wars disproportionately kill young men. Also in the past mortality was just higher all around - There's a statistic that only 20% of soviet men born in 1923 saw the end of the war. A blog I read broke that number down, and it turns out roughly half of them died to infant mortality, disease and famine before the war even started.
I was going to say that seems moronic as a statistic. The civil war ended in 1923 and for easily a decade after the soviet union was in chaos as it tried to recover. Then the 10 years famine due to moronic soviet agricultural policies. Not just Ukraine but along the Volga, Caucuses and in Kazakhstan the famine devastated the population. Theres still no official consensus on the death figures and it can range from 1 to over 4 million.
>wow dood isn’t it liek crazy how wars have gotten much less deadly due to the advent of modern technology? We’re progressing so much as a heckin species dude!!
Such a bugman PopSci take
>In general, wars have become much less deadly as technology and civilization has advanced.
I guess he talks about relative numbers.
>By 2100, hopefully major wars so be a few thousand dead, with drone losses being how we measure scale.
it is the opposite. The globe in general is in a clear degeneration trend as the more advanced societies fade and the turdies go through their pop expansion phases euros went through a century and half ago. Primite mentality breed primite wars. Expect a lot of absurd butchering as marauder warbands go full Nanking on capture civvie population just because they can. Specially as certain key resources like fresh, unpolluted drinking water are critical for survival.
Dumb moron, it absolutely could get more deadly. Just because the conflict has a small number of combatants doesn't mean it's any less deadly.
Go watch some TiK. He's got, what, a couple hundred hours of Stalingrad videos up by now?
15 000 dead per day on average.
Fricking hell.
>Ever been to the desert? You'd hate it. You're always sweating. You think you're melting like butter. The desert is shit. Except for the stars. They're so close. You know Hans?
Great movie
Hail Zelensky
Hail Bandera
Frick cucktin
Frick ziggers
Simple As.
>Hail Bandera
(PBUH)
>Hail Zelensky (jew)
>Hail Bandera (half pole half israelite)
the irony
i honestly don't get the bandera butthurt
>war lasts for several decades
>wow look at all these people who died! (Mostly from disease lol)
>see? war has always been deadly
I’m just shy of a year the Ukraine -Russia war (which is not a near peer war like WW1/2) has caused hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians, and hundreds of thousands of casualties. The “modern warfare is actually less deadly!” cope is unreal
>a quick 3 days operation
- 1 year later -
>Stalingrad was worse
Achievement unlocked.
Siege of Leningrad is the next milestone.
Hot take incoming:
Germans should've stopped at Dnieper and Crimmea and build defensive line there.
Then how the war will be won? Battle of attrition is not an option, furthermore the war with soviet is not only territorial but ideological as well
>Bakhmut
why does wiki not include all of the western countries supporting ukraine?
For the same reason why it doesn't include Belarus, Iran, North Korea, and other shitholes that support Russia
>western countries supporting ukraine
F-35 sorties when?
Who was the smartass that put a colorized Paschendale photo for Bakhmut?
when this war started, every other battle lasted as long as Grozny, now every other battle lasts as long as Stalingrad
Rostov will last as long as Candia, cap this post