For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[Husar]

Well, it's not really 3-1. I mean it is on paper but not in practice. If we count only Hungary and Romania together that's 25 million more for the Germans. Before the real fighting even started SU lost Ukraine - that's 15-20 million less (possibly even more, IIRC a good portion of Russians lived in Ukraine). How much of the population was lost in the European Russia that was conquered before Soviets even knew what hit them?

I think in reality the difference in manpower was much smaller than 3:1, in winter 1941 I mean. At that time German pretty much had everything going for them. They practicaly reached Moscow, they cut off large population centers from the rest of SU and if I remember correctly, Germans also had higher production of coal, oil and steel than SU until 1943. It wasn't really David vs Goliath as it is often portrated to be.

Well, then how can it be that the german army ran out of men, killed far more russians and was still outnumbered 20:1 toward the end? Did all those germans just surrender by the millions?

[Sarmatian]

Well, then how can it be that the german army ran out of men, killed far more russians and was still outnumbered 20:1 toward the end? Did all those germans just surrender by the millions?

I was talking about situation in winter 1941. Later another front in Italy was formed which tied up some German troops. Some German troops were also lost in Africa. But to be more precise, I was asking more than saying. I'm not an expert on ww2, at least not to an extent some guys here are, like Cegorach or PanzerJaeger.

But it seems to me that in the beggining of the war, Soviets didn't have that that much going for them... Just thought it would be interesting to know just how much population was in the SU, in the part that wasn't occupied by Germany, when Soviets started their counteroffensive. I'm guessing really, since there is no way to know how much population lived in that part of SU that Germany conquered at the beggining. I'm guessing at that time probably no more than 2:1. As the war went on and Germans were losing more and more soldiers in the eastern front but also in other theaters and Soviets were liberating more and more territory it's not so difficult to come to 20:1 Soviet advantage near the end of the war...

[Oleander Ardens]

Personally I think that it is almost impossible to compare the performances of various armies given the vast inherent differences between them.

An example a statement from one of the first posts: Finnish conscripts were able to drive out German forces out of northern Finland even while they had to demobilize their army. So when even finnish conscripts were able to defeat the famous German army it must be the best of world, or?

And here come the problems in a whole basket. First what were the strategic intentions of both sides and the ressources on which they could draw? If you give a closer look on the specific situation on this front it is clear that a fighting retreat combined with delaying actions and scorched earth tactics was the strategic intention since there was the real possibility of the encirclement of the whole German arctic front. A possibility which almost became reality with a brilliant Soviet offensive, the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation which started roughly a month after the first skirmishes between German and Finnish troops.

So one can actually say that the German army was able to preserve much of its fighting strengh retreating from a unholdable position and thus achieving its strategic intent. Equally the Finnish army was able to achieve their own objective by forcing the Germans slowly out of Lapland and avoiding a Soviet invasion. Ironically only the Soviet army achieved not the stated aim of their operation: to wipe out the whole 20th Mountain army. That they would push it into Norway was given in october 1944.

So how do you want to assess now the strengh of "the German Army" which consisted mostly of mountain infantry with no tank support and little artillery and wanted to retreat and used just a fraction of their strengh against the Finns because a mighty soviet offensive aimed at destroying them was under way and the "Finnish Army" which were mostly new conscripts, often underaged with light weaponry who wanted to drive the Germans out to avoid a Soviet invasion?

Actually there are some interesting papers concerning both the specific Petsamo-Kirkenes operation and German winter warfare and ski manuals which cover the adaption of German tactics to the specific challenges of winter and the various landscapes. I would highly recommend a read. Especially the ski manual might interest you, as it builds on German experience in mountain warfare, finnish expertise of the Winter War and insights gained in the hard winter battles against the Soviet. Especially in the Tundra there was beside the static warfare near the coast a very fluid winter warfare on skis and snowshoes full of skirmishes and raids.