Wait, Americans lost so little?! How the frick did they look at millions of dead Soviets? Did the people not question why so many people died on one side?
Also, the Brits and Americans were happy for the Soviets to do all the dying so they didn't have to. The Allies could've pushed sooner, harder and faster but could not sell a massive death rate to their people. Stalin didn't care
>Stalin didn't care
He was begging for a western front as early as 1942. When Churchill and FDR told Stalin that they wouldn't be ready for D-Day in 1943, Stalin supposedly threw a fit.
It's why Italy ultimately happened, Churchill was able to butter Stalin into thinking that Italy would do the job. Even though most of the Western allies knew Germany would be able to contain it y.
The US always spins up its MIC with a lend lease to allies before entering a major war.
By the time they enter they have learned from everyone elses mistakes and have logistics running at full bore to ensure they dont have to deal with that transition point where they run out of intial stockpiles and have to wait for industry to catch up.
Helps prevent the sudden shock of losing all your best troops muntions and equipent in the opener and having play catch up for the rest of the war.
If you ever see the US do a lend lease you can gurentee there is some major war coming down the pipe in 2-3 years.
Leaning towards china with recent retoric.
Alot of the DOD statement seem to expect Q1 2025 when production lines will be full operational capacity.
Every lend lease cycles ends with some sort of event to enter a war Lustania or pearl harbor.
The MIC can not be switched off suddenly without causing alot of damage to the defense industry displacing and firing everyone and has to be slowly wound down.
If china or russia isnt avialible it will probably be some sort of war or cartels to dump loads of muntions into.
I supposed global weapon demand would also serve the purpose as a muntions dump
Yeah. But you have to recall it is because out East they killed prisoners by the millions through starvation/slave labor or massacres. This also made surrenders far less likely as the war went on, even in hopeless situations.
So the USSR would have these giant routs early on and lose hundreds of thousands, and then they'd all be killed by the end of the war. Same for Germany later.
The US absolutely stomped Germany overall with crushing casualty rates, mostly owing to big encirclements. Germans would surrender rather than fight to the death because the US fed their prisoners and didn't turn them into slaves.
Soviet mistreatment was so bad that, before Berlin fell even, France, the US, and UK each individually held more prisoners than the Soviets.
The flip side of so many fatalities occuring out East is that, based on Overman's comprehensive review, the split in casualties was around 33/66% or so. People underestimate the astounding number killed after they surrendered.
>6.2:1 loss rate despite being on the defensive against an enemy forced to make an amphibious landing with supply lines across an ocean. >The Wermacht was the greatest force ever.
I suppose the myth lives on because the French and Russians collapsed so hard early, not really expecting the war, and because the US needed an excuse for allying the Soviets for their population.
Also, I recall that the US Army liked to play up the Nazis strength as a way to try to justify more spending when the Air Force and nukes were getting all the attention, i.e. "what will happen if we're not the best, our land forces are in shambles."
The reality though is that, after mobilizing, the Western allies absolutely BTFO the Germs. Fully mechanized forces have a way of encircling horse reliant ones in maneuver warfare.
To be fair, the Germans got their act together for the Allied campaign to the Siegfried line. More armor, veteran units, 1.5 million thrown in. And there they only had a bit over 2:1 loss rate. Then it was all downhill though.
Fighting a war on two fronts whe the enemy could land anywhere and out numbers you locally is incredibly difficult with effectively reserve conscripts.
The Germans held one advantage was that in Normandy even though they were third string reserve units they were third string reserve units that had at least seen combat.
The US had a mix of small groups of veterans, their Airborne elite, and a shit ton of American Recruits who were about as competent as Mobilks.
There were often times during Normandy where the Airborne had to act as shock troops because the regular army troops were too green and cowardly to lead the charge.
Did you forget about the first seven weeks stuck in the bocage? Or the fact that the British tied up most of the German forces in the failed Operation Goodwood?
You also don't take into account that the US brought in the third army and some good generals who actually could make the men move.
>a shit ton of American Recruits who were about as competent as Mobilks.
lol, the US Army was definitely not an all-professional elite force obviously, but this is cope. the units sent into actual combat were nearly all well-trained, well-disciplined, and well-equipped. not even close to the subhuman rabble Russia is feeding into the Ukraine meatgrinder.
US Navy and sea control means that USA can fight when and where they want to, meaning they strike where they're strongest and the enemy's weakest. The only exception to this is the American Civil War, which was almost exclusively a land war
This is the other reason the Russians suffered heavily in the deaths department. Soviet field hospitals were under equipped and underprepared for the influx of casualties. Infections weren’t nearly as treatable then as they are now and the Russians didn’t have the anti-biotics the US did
Yes, and very likely by the end of this year too. Putin is prepared to lose up to 500k men in order to hold all of the Donbass and the land bridge to Crimea.
They're losing an average of 750 to 1000 men per day, but this will likely fall back down once their offensive operation ceases. Take that rate and extrapolate it for the next 365 days and you can make a guess that another 250k Russians will die, for a total of 375k men in two years of war.
The rate of casualties could increase rather than decrease though. This war only seems to be heating up. Perhaps they'll strike half a million dead total before the next anniversary of the war.
>once their offensive operation ceases
It's a weird thing because because I personally struggle to grasp on what their casualties really depend, looks like they just keep loosing increasingly more people per day as time goes on.
The biggest tank and infantry battles took place on the eastern front, though. They always had hundreds of thousands of dudes on each side. Americans only have the biggest naval and aerial battles.
dying isn't fighting, Russians fricking suck at fighting and were getting steamrolled until the US bailed them out with unlimited supplies
Massive encirclements early on combined with the Germans treating prisoners like absolute trash. The Soviets took most of their casualties in the first year of combat with the Russians as they traded bodies and land for time, at horrific rates. In late 1942 they’d stabilized things enough that the casualty rates leveled out then decreased, though they did feed men into meatgrinders to try and hold territory still (Ryzev Salient). Then they’re on the offensive for most of the rest of the conflict so they’re going to be taking more losses against well prepared defenders. 1941 was such a catastrophe for the Russians though it really skews the numbers.
see above, things "stabilized" because the US gave them everything they needed. Much easier to fight people with horse drawn logistics when you have American trucks
>America fights Japan solo >America and UK fight Italy, Germany in Africa, and Germany in the west >by fall of Berlin both America and UK have more German prisoners than Soviets >the Soviets fight the other half of Germany and no one else >Soviets did 99% of the fighting
Lol, lmao even.
Massive encirclements early on combined with the Germans treating prisoners like absolute trash. The Soviets took most of their casualties in the first year of combat with the Russians as they traded bodies and land for time, at horrific rates. In late 1942 they’d stabilized things enough that the casualty rates leveled out then decreased, though they did feed men into meatgrinders to try and hold territory still (Ryzev Salient). Then they’re on the offensive for most of the rest of the conflict so they’re going to be taking more losses against well prepared defenders. 1941 was such a catastrophe for the Russians though it really skews the numbers.
This is the official number claimed by soviet "researchers". According to data declassified in the post-soviet years, the actual number of soviet citizens (both soldiers and civilians) died in World War II is 41,979,000.
That only counts the technical U.S. casualties. The CSA was nearly double that. An estimated 620,000 people died during the U.S. Civil War, meaning more people died during the Civil War than died in every other war the U.S. has fought, combined. Nearly as many CSA combatants died in the Civil War as died in the rest of American wars, combined (~406k vs ~440k).
When you think about how absolutely fricking wrecked the South was, it makes sense why they seem to have a genetic curse on seething about it to this day.
People do care, but it is kinda like when an adult fights a child, any good punches from the child are far more noteworthy than th punches from the adult that were to be expected. Insert stalin quote about how many deaths is a tragedy vs statistic.
I wish we were sending F-35s with 'advisors' tomorrow to help minimize those losses, but the honest reality is that the deal the Ukraine made with the West is that you'll do the dying if we do the paying and that's just the way life is at the moment. People also care far more about Russian causalities then Ukrainian ones because there is no question of your morale breaking and everything falling apart, whereas the writing is on the wall for Russia that they've lost already and it's fascinating in a grim sort of way to see them continuously throw bodies into the grinder instead of just accepting this fact.
The USSR loves to boast about how they "Achieved Glorious Victory against the Nazis in WWII"
This infographic shows it wasn't Russia....it was Belarus, Poland and Ukraine that did most of the bleeding for the "Glory of The Motherland"
Moskals need to shut the frick up about the "sacrifice" they made in WWII
They had just come off the back of a ruinously expensive seven year global conflict and were actively trying to preserve the population and infrastructure of the colonies so that it could be used to pay off the debts that the Americans owned them for it
The British got spooked after Bunker Hill, they entered the war thinking they were going to slap down a bunch of stupid rebels and they got their elite redcoats bloodied hard.
After that they never had enough soldiers to cover every square inch of territory and they were constantly hoping that eventually the Revolutionaries would just give up and stop.
August 2023.
Doubt, it will only be civil war level by then.
Russia will frick ya mudda
Wait, Americans lost so little?! How the frick did they look at millions of dead Soviets? Did the people not question why so many people died on one side?
> Russians
> People
Also, the Brits and Americans were happy for the Soviets to do all the dying so they didn't have to. The Allies could've pushed sooner, harder and faster but could not sell a massive death rate to their people. Stalin didn't care
>Stalin didn't care
He was begging for a western front as early as 1942. When Churchill and FDR told Stalin that they wouldn't be ready for D-Day in 1943, Stalin supposedly threw a fit.
He didn't care how many people died I meant.
> Muh death of a million is just a statistic
>Stalin supposedly threw a fit
Imagine being the poor bastards that had to be in the room with him.
I wonder how many got gulag'd afterwards?
It's why Italy ultimately happened, Churchill was able to butter Stalin into thinking that Italy would do the job. Even though most of the Western allies knew Germany would be able to contain it y.
USA is good at picking their battles, Russia is not.
The US always spins up its MIC with a lend lease to allies before entering a major war.
By the time they enter they have learned from everyone elses mistakes and have logistics running at full bore to ensure they dont have to deal with that transition point where they run out of intial stockpiles and have to wait for industry to catch up.
Helps prevent the sudden shock of losing all your best troops muntions and equipent in the opener and having play catch up for the rest of the war.
If you ever see the US do a lend lease you can gurentee there is some major war coming down the pipe in 2-3 years.
US is supplying Ukraine with arms right now, you suggesting they're going to be involved if the war goes on that long?
Leaning towards china with recent retoric.
Alot of the DOD statement seem to expect Q1 2025 when production lines will be full operational capacity.
Every lend lease cycles ends with some sort of event to enter a war Lustania or pearl harbor.
The MIC can not be switched off suddenly without causing alot of damage to the defense industry displacing and firing everyone and has to be slowly wound down.
If china or russia isnt avialible it will probably be some sort of war or cartels to dump loads of muntions into.
I supposed global weapon demand would also serve the purpose as a muntions dump
Yeah. But you have to recall it is because out East they killed prisoners by the millions through starvation/slave labor or massacres. This also made surrenders far less likely as the war went on, even in hopeless situations.
So the USSR would have these giant routs early on and lose hundreds of thousands, and then they'd all be killed by the end of the war. Same for Germany later.
The US absolutely stomped Germany overall with crushing casualty rates, mostly owing to big encirclements. Germans would surrender rather than fight to the death because the US fed their prisoners and didn't turn them into slaves.
Soviet mistreatment was so bad that, before Berlin fell even, France, the US, and UK each individually held more prisoners than the Soviets.
The flip side of so many fatalities occuring out East is that, based on Overman's comprehensive review, the split in casualties was around 33/66% or so. People underestimate the astounding number killed after they surrendered.
So they looked at them as barbarous.
>6.2:1 loss rate despite being on the defensive against an enemy forced to make an amphibious landing with supply lines across an ocean.
>The Wermacht was the greatest force ever.
I suppose the myth lives on because the French and Russians collapsed so hard early, not really expecting the war, and because the US needed an excuse for allying the Soviets for their population.
Also, I recall that the US Army liked to play up the Nazis strength as a way to try to justify more spending when the Air Force and nukes were getting all the attention, i.e. "what will happen if we're not the best, our land forces are in shambles."
The reality though is that, after mobilizing, the Western allies absolutely BTFO the Germs. Fully mechanized forces have a way of encircling horse reliant ones in maneuver warfare.
To be fair, the Germans got their act together for the Allied campaign to the Siegfried line. More armor, veteran units, 1.5 million thrown in. And there they only had a bit over 2:1 loss rate. Then it was all downhill though.
Fighting a war on two fronts whe the enemy could land anywhere and out numbers you locally is incredibly difficult with effectively reserve conscripts.
Most of the occupation force in France were third-string units consisting of old men or crippled troops from the East
The Germans held one advantage was that in Normandy even though they were third string reserve units they were third string reserve units that had at least seen combat.
The US had a mix of small groups of veterans, their Airborne elite, and a shit ton of American Recruits who were about as competent as Mobilks.
There were often times during Normandy where the Airborne had to act as shock troops because the regular army troops were too green and cowardly to lead the charge.
> as competent as mobiks
75% of France and 95% of Belgium was liberated in 3 weeks with 15,239 US KIA. Explain how mobiks and VDV achieve this?
Artillery, tanks, air recon, radio, semi-auto rifles with BARs as a standard of armament as opposed to bolt actions with MP40s.
Did you forget about the first seven weeks stuck in the bocage? Or the fact that the British tied up most of the German forces in the failed Operation Goodwood?
You also don't take into account that the US brought in the third army and some good generals who actually could make the men move.
French resistance did all the job
>a shit ton of American Recruits who were about as competent as Mobilks.
lol, the US Army was definitely not an all-professional elite force obviously, but this is cope. the units sent into actual combat were nearly all well-trained, well-disciplined, and well-equipped. not even close to the subhuman rabble Russia is feeding into the Ukraine meatgrinder.
Most of Werhmacht losses on screenshot is POWs, Americans actually have more lethal losses according to it.
US Navy and sea control means that USA can fight when and where they want to, meaning they strike where they're strongest and the enemy's weakest. The only exception to this is the American Civil War, which was almost exclusively a land war
An emphasis on combat casualty care
This is the other reason the Russians suffered heavily in the deaths department. Soviet field hospitals were under equipped and underprepared for the influx of casualties. Infections weren’t nearly as treatable then as they are now and the Russians didn’t have the anti-biotics the US did
What you see in those casualty figures is the difference between an army that can fight and one that cannot
we used our air force while soviet russia used vodka
Stalin lied and said the Soviet Union only suffered 7 millions death (civilians included) and no one could prove him wrong
i refuse to believe that russia suffered anything short of 250k deaths already tbh
God damn I love being American. One shot at life and born in the best place at the time
I cry myself to sleep every night, cursed with the knowledge I'll never be American.
Anyone can become an American anon, even a Serb like you. That's the great thing about this place
the british can't though
John Oliver became one even though he gay as frick
You literally are a bongoloid + Hispanic and Black person you stupid mutt homosexual
I'm pro-American, but when I see pictures of burgercore suburbs without sidewalks I'm happy in my little Euro c**t.
its literally amazing, like winning the lottery at birth.
yeah theres some moronic Black folk and b***hy white women, but overall usa is amazing
Yes, and very likely by the end of this year too. Putin is prepared to lose up to 500k men in order to hold all of the Donbass and the land bridge to Crimea.
It will be a good start
They're losing an average of 750 to 1000 men per day, but this will likely fall back down once their offensive operation ceases. Take that rate and extrapolate it for the next 365 days and you can make a guess that another 250k Russians will die, for a total of 375k men in two years of war.
The rate of casualties could increase rather than decrease though. This war only seems to be heating up. Perhaps they'll strike half a million dead total before the next anniversary of the war.
>once their offensive operation ceases
It's a weird thing because because I personally struggle to grasp on what their casualties really depend, looks like they just keep loosing increasingly more people per day as time goes on.
I could bet a couple hundred dollaridoos that yes, they will. There closes to half of that and the war shows no sign of stopping.
It already did. Those are casualties not deaths.
It says wartime deaths you stupid donkey. But its impressive that they are halfway there in a year of not fighting a two front war across the planet
Well it's wrong. Go look at the actual statistics.
Damn the US has a pretty good track record
It's called not being a fricking moron and letting "royalty" send in the next wave of disposable peasants.
>Will russia reach USA ww2 loses?
The question should be, will Russia reach Soviet WWII losses?
Not possible unless nuclear war I believe. Soviet WW2 death is way too high a bar to achieve
>way too high a bar to achieve
you underestimate monke and banan fever
I don't think even have the body abled man to have Soviet level losses.
>USA WW2 Death's 291,557
>Soviet WW2 Death's 8,668,400
what the frick is wrong with russian's?
They did 99% of the fighting to be fair
No. They did most of the dying. That's what Russians are best at.
The biggest tank and infantry battles took place on the eastern front, though. They always had hundreds of thousands of dudes on each side. Americans only have the biggest naval and aerial battles.
dying isn't fighting, Russians fricking suck at fighting and were getting steamrolled until the US bailed them out with unlimited supplies
see above, things "stabilized" because the US gave them everything they needed. Much easier to fight people with horse drawn logistics when you have American trucks
>America fights Japan solo
>America and UK fight Italy, Germany in Africa, and Germany in the west
>by fall of Berlin both America and UK have more German prisoners than Soviets
>the Soviets fight the other half of Germany and no one else
>Soviets did 99% of the fighting
Lol, lmao even.
Massive encirclements early on combined with the Germans treating prisoners like absolute trash. The Soviets took most of their casualties in the first year of combat with the Russians as they traded bodies and land for time, at horrific rates. In late 1942 they’d stabilized things enough that the casualty rates leveled out then decreased, though they did feed men into meatgrinders to try and hold territory still (Ryzev Salient). Then they’re on the offensive for most of the rest of the conflict so they’re going to be taking more losses against well prepared defenders. 1941 was such a catastrophe for the Russians though it really skews the numbers.
WW2 Death's 8,668,400
This is the official number claimed by soviet "researchers". According to data declassified in the post-soviet years, the actual number of soviet citizens (both soldiers and civilians) died in World War II is 41,979,000.
It always blows my mind when I read that the Vietnam war lasted 20 years
>Civil war
>214 938
>4 years like WW2
>Fought only on American soil
>only against one enemy
Dang, shit was brutal during the American civil war
it was American vs American so of course civil war death tolls are always going to be inflated.
It was a fairly modern conflict tho and the tactics and commanders of the time hadn't caught up to the technology yet
And that's not counting disease and starvation deaths, which were way higher in the Civil War than any modern war the US fought
That only counts the technical U.S. casualties. The CSA was nearly double that. An estimated 620,000 people died during the U.S. Civil War, meaning more people died during the Civil War than died in every other war the U.S. has fought, combined. Nearly as many CSA combatants died in the Civil War as died in the rest of American wars, combined (~406k vs ~440k).
When you think about how absolutely fricking wrecked the South was, it makes sense why they seem to have a genetic curse on seething about it to this day.
>nobody cares about our losses
As a Ukrainian soldier, it feels kind of weird
>As a Ukrainian soldier
please stop LARPING it's kinda sad to see
Oh sorry for making you sad
Are those ski boots?
The entire drinkable tapwater world is sending equipment to reduce those losses
People do care, but it is kinda like when an adult fights a child, any good punches from the child are far more noteworthy than th punches from the adult that were to be expected. Insert stalin quote about how many deaths is a tragedy vs statistic.
I wish we were sending F-35s with 'advisors' tomorrow to help minimize those losses, but the honest reality is that the deal the Ukraine made with the West is that you'll do the dying if we do the paying and that's just the way life is at the moment. People also care far more about Russian causalities then Ukrainian ones because there is no question of your morale breaking and everything falling apart, whereas the writing is on the wall for Russia that they've lost already and it's fascinating in a grim sort of way to see them continuously throw bodies into the grinder instead of just accepting this fact.
It's harder to estimate Ukrainian losses since Russians don't release nearly as much footage. I've seen figures between 1:1 and 1:3 Russian losses.
because vatniks would just try to use it as demoralization spam most likely idk
>Will russia reach USA ww2 loses?
I'm hoping for Russia to reach USSR WWII losses.
The USSR loves to boast about how they "Achieved Glorious Victory against the Nazis in WWII"
This infographic shows it wasn't Russia....it was Belarus, Poland and Ukraine that did most of the bleeding for the "Glory of The Motherland"
Moskals need to shut the frick up about the "sacrifice" they made in WWII
>breaking numbers down by percentages to make it look like Belarus lost more than the entire USSR
I've seen better "infographics" on stormfront
lmao whoever made that should go work for nvidia marketing
Brainlet take it implies they lost 25% of their population, percentage wise they lost more.
here, use this instead
>Greece: 11%
Really? I'd never have thought that.
Casualties were pretty high on both sides during the invasion.
Despite being gigantic Grecoboos the German occupation authorities were fricking brutal.
>8.23
Man the Germans really didn't do that bad despite all that happened.
Japan got off so easy comparatively
the absolute state of China
depends on how long this goes
right now about 1000 russian invaders get killed per day
this would be another 100.000 in 100 days
How did only 8000 Americans die in the revolutionary war?
Did the British even try?
They had just come off the back of a ruinously expensive seven year global conflict and were actively trying to preserve the population and infrastructure of the colonies so that it could be used to pay off the debts that the Americans owned them for it
>just come off the back
The Siege of Gibraltar and naval conflict was ongoing with France Spain and the Dutch during the revolt.
The British got spooked after Bunker Hill, they entered the war thinking they were going to slap down a bunch of stupid rebels and they got their elite redcoats bloodied hard.
After that they never had enough soldiers to cover every square inch of territory and they were constantly hoping that eventually the Revolutionaries would just give up and stop.
not that easy to fight and win a war/insurrection on the other side of the ocean in any era, let alone before steam power and radio were invented