Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:47 pm
—
Hi all,

probably most of WW2 history fans here knows about the capital of the German East Prussia - Kenigsberg.
In 1945 that was a fortress city with 2 rings of late XIX century forts and modern field fortification in between them.
It was defended by approximately 53.000 WH men with 3.200 guns, 2.200 mortars, 380 armored vehicles and around 70.000 of varous ad-hoc units.

On April 6, 1945 they were attacked by the units of 11th GvA, 43rd A and 50th A, which had 106.578men in a total with 24.473men in rifle companies. Average rifle division in those armies had 3.600men and average Guards rifle division had 4.200men.
The assault was over on April 9th, 1945 with a surrender of Kenigsberg.

The German losses for those 3 days were:
41.915men (buried copses in uniform).
91.853men POW.
104 AVF destroyed.
89 AVF captured.
82 armored vehicles destroyed.
119 armored vehicles captured.
1.193 guns destroyed.
2.023 guns captured.
568 mortars destroyed.
1.652 mortars captured.

The Soviet losses were (actually a little bit less as these are the losses for a period of April 1st - 10th but before April 6th the units didn't have much combat):
3.506men KIA.
215men MIA.
13.177men WIA.
1.166men ill.

That contradicts a little with Soviet "human waves" common knowledge does not it?

#2: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:49 pm
—
The stats contradict nothing. The definition of human wave is pretty broad, especially when described from a first person point of view. How many times have you read or heard, "They just kept coming!" It could just me overwhelming numerical superiority, or human waves!

#3: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:19 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

The stats contradict nothing. The definition of human wave is pretty broad, especially when described from a first person point of view. How many times have you read or heard, "They just kept coming!" It could just me overwhelming numerical superiority, or human waves!

"human waves" in my post is a broad termin describing that Soviets used huge numeral superiority to win according to the "common knowledge".
here you can see that by 1945 even having less men the RKKA could take strongpoints loosing much less than enemy. That was an experience learned with alot of blood.

#4: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: jakebullet70, Location: Washington State / Kherson Ukraine

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:12 pm
—
The German casualties quoted are from January to the surrender. Not in just the 3 days.

#5: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:18 pm
—

jakebullet70 wrote (View Post):

The German casualties quoted are from January to the surrender. Not in just the 3 days.

you are wrong.

#6: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:01 am
—
I find the stats hard to believe to. Usually you have sources Dima, where are they? Why no wounded for Germans? Why so little stats for Russians?

#7: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: dj,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:36 am
—
@Dima - yes Soviet Army was very efficient towards late war especially in '45 and did not have to rely on human wave attacks that were used in early war to end of Stalingrad. But I disagree with your stats. Krauts were dug-in and well prepared with their defensive positions. I highly doubt RA only suffered 3500 KIA. Interesting that Russia still maintains possession of this small territory surrounded by Baltic States.

And what ever happened to the Amber Room jewels that were allegedly taken to Koenigsberg? Now there is a recent rumour they were not destroyed in Koenigsberg after all , and that they ended up in Poland.

#8: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:37 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I find the stats hard to believe to. Usually you have sources Dima, where are they? Why no wounded for Germans? Why so little stats for Russians?

German casualites - Reference for enemy casualties on 06 to 10th of April.
Soviet casualties - Reference for losses of 3rd Belorussian Front on 01 to 10th of April.
On 14th of April there were approximately 4.500 German wounded in the RKKA hospitals. Guess not many wounded survived the assault in first days. Well you believe in millions of raped in Germany but can't believe in lack of many wounded?

11th GA - 1.560 KIA, 156 MIA (looks like they just reported 10% of KIA), 5.764 WIA, 363 ill.
43rd A - 1.236 KIA, 59 MIA, 5.224 WIA, 566 ill.
50th A - 710 KIA, 2.198 WIA, 237 ill.

#9: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:42 am
—

dj wrote (View Post):

@Dima - yes Soviet Army was very efficient towards late war especially in '45 and did not have to rely on human wave attacks that were used in early war to end of Stalingrad. But I disagree with your stats. Krauts were dug-in and well prepared with their defensive positions. I highly doubt RA only suffered 3500 KIA.

you can disagree on whatever you want.
my stats are WW2 docs.

Quote:

Interesting that Russia still maintains possession of this small territory surrounded by Baltic States.

I live here Smile

#10: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:45 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I find the stats hard to believe to. Usually you have sources Dima, where are they? Why no wounded for Germans? Why so little stats for Russians?

btw altogether there were approximately 5.500 corpses buried in RKKA uniform but they were collected all around Kenigsberg.
and Otto Lasch the the commander of the Kenigsberg defence reported 33,8K KIA on first intorregation right after surrender of the city.

#11: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:14 am
—
What WW2 docs? You reference the rapes? You usually present a pretty good argument. This is not. The casualty numbers you listed are so lopsided that supporting references would be useful.

#12: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:35 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

What WW2 docs?

The references of the RA units. 10 days casualty reports.
if you have other documents proving the numbers I use wrong, please provide.

Quote:

You reference the rapes? You usually present a pretty good argument. This is not. The casualty numbers you listed are so lopsided that supporting references would be useful.

I don't have the explanation of only 4.500 wounded so I think they didn't take much POWs in the first days of assault.

funny thing is that the Russian archives were mainly digitalized in last years so generally you can trace all the casualties.
https://www.obd-memorial.ru/html/index.html - not sure if it works in English but you can just search for Kenigsberg and find all the casualty reports (something like that https://www.obd-memorial.ru/html/info.htm?id=4253236).

In 1942 it was ok for the Germans to loose 20-30men killing hundreds of RA soldiers and taking hundreds as POW, In 1945 it was just opposite.

#13: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:07 am
—
The Wiki enumerates Soviet casualties as 60,000 and 3,700 for the final assault.

German casualties are reported at 50,000 casualties and 80,000 prisoners. Wiki notes Soviet sources say 42,000 casualties and 92,000 prisoners.

There are just a few references cited.

Battle of Königsberg

#14: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:44 am
—
From what I have been able to dig up through the internet, the 3500 number is for the final assault (April 6-9). To take these stats of 3500 Russian KIA and 42000 German KIA at face value and make a very simple conclusion from them is irresponsible. There is very little information on the net to corroborate the facts.

But you are saying the Russian casualty number is from 10 days. Which means during the final assault the Russians lost presumably less than 3500, while still holding to the fact the Germans lost 42,000 in 3-4 days. Not making complete sense Dima.

Did Otto Lasch say the 33,800 were lost in those three days? He was responsible for the cities defense and his units for quite awhile longer than four days, why would a general only count his men from those days? If he did, how could he get such accurate info in short notice while under assault to present so soon after surrender? That is very questionable. Maybe its in his book?

I am betting the German casualties you present are from a longer period of time.

Konigsberg is a city and fortress. Do we have any other examples of such lopsided victories on battlefields like this fortress?

#15: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:51 am
—
As someone else has alluded to, the Soviet army was a vastly different beast from the start of the Eastern war to 1945. Better leadership, better equipment and better trained soldiers. I'm not surprised that the figures would be the end result as the Germans cleverly tried by all means to evacuate as many other better Units from this region. Leaving under strength Divisions and the poorly armed to face the Offensive.

Once again be very careful of using Wiki...............it's as reliable as the current Iraqi Army - deserting in large numbers again.

#16: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Gunsche,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:12 pm
—
I want to see a mod of this battle or the battle for east prussia, it would contain a large number of different units.
It would sort of be a smaller version of the battle for Berlin.

Last edited by Gunsche on Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:51 pm; edited 2 times in total

#17: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:00 pm
—

Quote:

Once again be very careful of using Wiki...............it's as reliable as the current Iraqi Army - deserting in large numbers again.

I disagree.

Most Wiki articles will cite primary source references.

#18: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: jakebullet70, Location: Washington State / Kherson Ukraine

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:03 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

jakebullet70 wrote (View Post):

The German casualties quoted are from January to the surrender. Not in just the 3 days.

you are wrong.

Dima, could you please share your sources?

#19: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:52 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Quote:

Once again be very careful of using Wiki...............it's as reliable as the current Iraqi Army - deserting in large numbers again.

I disagree.

Most Wiki articles will cite primary source references.

........................ and added to or deleted details that change the result, meaning etc. It's not a full or precise study. Little better than a summary, often a unqualified personal one. Lke ours here if you like..........a discussion, certainly not a historical reference by any means. Harvard says it's not reliable for academic studies.

#20: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:06 am
—
Wikipedia is basically an encyclopedia, a secondary or tertiary source. So, in academia, how you use or cite wiki information may matter to your professor or institution.

In his 2007 Guide to Military History on the Internet, Simon Fowler rated Wikipedia as "the best general resource" for military history research, and stated that "the results are largely accurate and generally free of bias." When rating Wikipedia as the No. 1 military site he mentioned that "Wikipedia is often criticised for its inaccuracy and bias, but in my experience the military history articles are spot on."

Reliability of Wikipedia

Last edited by Stwa on Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:23 am; edited 2 times in total

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next :| |: Page 1 of 3