quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
The 21-31 August report is missing.

21 August-10 September 242 KIA, 208 WIA, 0 MIA

So it is rather obvious that in this case the original reports were somewhat inaccurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxbat:
In 'When Titans clashed'* Glantz gives AGSU strength at the start of the offensive as "approximatly 500.000", according to the notes this is derived from Fremde Heere Ost strength returns of the 1st of july adjusted for units shifted between fronts (presumably this is Iststarke, although he doesn't specify).
He later quotes the same source (FHO, Stand 1.9.44) for the post-offensive strength return of AGSU as "a mere 200.000". I guess that would put losses between 250 and 300.000 (probably closer to the former as 'approximatly 500.000' seems a bit highish).

* I know, I know but it's the best source we've got at the moment, and for a change he doesn't just refer to Guderian's memoirs or soviet assesments

---

Uh, why would FHO be reporting the strength of the German Army?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
Uh, why would FHO be reporting the strength of the German Army?

---

Rich,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
Uh, why would FHO be reporting the strength of the German Army?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lawrence Sims:
I thought you all may find these "official" German recorded losses from around the Bagration time period useful.

Quoting from the Wehrmacht Verlustwesen (BA-MA RW 6/v. 559) provided by Niklas Zetterling in "The Journal of Slavic Military Studies" (JSMS) Volume 9 #4:

Army Group Centre sufferred 399,096 KIA / WIA / MIA between 20 June and 31 August 1944

Specifically:

2nd Army: 7,080 KIA - 32,833 WIA - 12,976 MIA
9th Army: 2,955 KIA - 13,957 WIA - 64,762 MIA
4th Army: 8,015 KIA - 29,838 WIA - 113,155 MIA
3rd Pz Army: 8,311 KIA - 33,508 WIA - 72,066 MIA

Where the total German losses for the entire Eastern front from 1 June - 31 August 1944 were:

71,685 KIA
325,381 WIA
503,564 MIA
_________________
900,630 Total losses

If you are just concerned with the losses from the L'vov - Sandomir operation, then losses for the month of July 1944 for the entire Eastern Front were:

30,420 KIA
131,732 WIA
238,284 MIA

The total loss figures are also referenced by Niklas Zetterling from the JSMS 9#4, as: NA, Microfilm T78, roll 414, frame 6383234.

These losses should be compared with the total available German forces on 1 June 1944:

South Ukraine Iststärke 477,676 Gefechtstärke 231,679
North Ukraine Iststärke 532,738 Gefechtstärke 263,489
Centre Iststärke 644,396 Gefechtstärke 316,200
North Iststärke 434,749 Gefechtstärke 211,968

Total Iststärke 2,089,599 Gefechtstärke 1,023,336

Reference: BA-MA RH 2/1341 quoted in JSMS Vol 11 #1 by Niklas Zetterling.

---

Except if you want to compare it with with the number of ger troops across the entire eastern front you should also include units under OKH command. Now while I don´t have a number that includes just those units I have numbers that include this plus non combat GHQ troops. Including these in the army groups would give an is-strake of;

AGSU 550,000
AGNU 597,000
AGC 849,000
AGN 561,000

BA-MA RH 2/1339 quoted in Normandy 44 by Zetterling.

For a total of 2.557 milllion. Again this is for the 1st of jun 44. Bettween this day and the 22 june the 9th and 10th SS panzer divs were transfered from lov to normandy. So the streagth seems to have decreased by the 22 jun.

Its also interesting to point out that when many people talk about AGC they say it was destroyed. But it wasn't it suffered almost 400,000 tot personnal lossses over 3 month of reports. But it also recived some reinforcments and replacments during this time. In fact if it hadn't have been that most of the losses as being surrounded and mia permanent lossses it would not have been so servere. But they were and the AGC may not have been destroyed but it was at least mauled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andreas:
Okay Darrin, I understand how that can happen. Should have posted the sources in the English bit. And apologies for losing my temper a bit last night.

Now the important point is that the figures [b]are compatible. Iassy-Kishinyew started on Aug 23rd. Most of the damage was done to the German AG SU within the first few days, i.E. in August. E.g. the history of 13.PD ('Die Magdeburger Division') states that the division had lost its coherence after two days fighting (that is at the end of day three, Aug. 26th).

An interesting analysis (for me at least is to look at the relation between the number of WIA and KIA/MIA. IMO it does bear out the great speed at which the Soviets moved. In August it is 152,000 WIA and 223,000 KIA/MIA. That is a ratio of 1:1.47. In September, when the front stabilised again, it is 1:0.4. In October it is 1:0.5. This to me indicates that Soviet advances in August were so quick that most of the wounded could not be evacuated and became MIA/KIA.

The operations against AG Centre (22 June - 16 July) and North Ukraine (13 July to 28 July) ended before August. If you can tell me of another operation of the magnitude of Iassy-Kishinyew that the Soviets undertook in August, which would explain the losses to the Germans, I would be interested to hear about it.[/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darrin:
Thanks for forgiving me. Another point of ger permanent losses was the wia who died.

---

Quite an important point in terms of losses. Also, later in the war I heard more amputations were carried out to avoid gangrene because of a lack of drugs to combat it (purely anecdotal, would be interested in confirmation or refutation), which if correct would also result in permanent losses.

A small point on the reliability of German records, again purely anecdotal. My grandfather was very severely wounded during the AGN retreat in Feb.44. So severely that while he was taken back to hospital, his unit registered him as KIA, and his family was notified of him having made the ultimate sacrifice for Adolf (or something). He is still carrying the bullet by the way, probably a good thing he does not fly

I wonder if the Wehrmacht record system ever cleared that mistake, and if so - when. Maybe a letter to the WASt is in order to find out

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxbat:
As Greg says numerical comparisons between the two armies (kraftgegenuberstande) to assess the balance of power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andreas:
Quite an important point in terms of losses. Also, later in the war I heard more amputations were carried out to avoid gangrene because of a lack of drugs to combat it (purely anecdotal, would be interested in confirmation or refutation), which if correct would also result in permanent losses.

---

I agree, and it is an important point that many have missed, especially for the Germans. For one thing, an implied DOW rate of 35% of the total WIA is very high, almost twice that of the Western Allies (where the definition of DOW was more stringent, implying that the German rate was even higher than the implied rate).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
I agree, and it is an important point that many have missed, especially for the Germans. For one thing, an implied DOW rate of 35% of the total WIA is very high, almost twice that of the Western Allies (where the definition of DOW was more stringent, implying that the German rate was even [b]higher than the implied rate).

One possible explanation is that it appears that German Army medical sanitation standards were not as high as those of the Western Allies. US Army Medical Corps studies of German hospital conditions in Italy at the end of the war are highly critical of the standard of sanitation and asepsis that was accepted. Now, whether or not this was associated with late-war shortages, or was a generally accepted practice is unclear. However, other comments I have seen by Western Allied medical personnel earlier in the war regarding German medical conditions would imply the latter - that the German standards were simply lower.[/B]

---

Sorry rich the 35% rate was to calculate extra permanent losses. Add 35% to kia in order to get the number of who died of wounds and thus became permanent losses. Another source of permanent losses was also non combat deaths which would add an extra 15% of the kia factor in all.

In truth towards the end any wounded became permenant cas. They either could not recover in time. Or would be captured by the other advancing armies.

http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/overmans.pdf