How did Azerbaijan triumph over Armenia? Azerbaijan placed bets on sophisticated, pricey weapons, while Armenia relied on old Moscow -made arms

[BahamaBob]

Compared to other offensives allies did take heavy casualties relative to the number sent in. The overall death amount was around 4400 and the casualty amount is between 50-80k(military counts injuries as casualties not just deaths).

However the top brass then figured up to a 75% death count possible storming those beaches, so the planners knew the death toll could be sky high and determined a possible sky high death toll was worth it for the overall war effort.

Also one can look outside ww2 towards the korean war, where there is no solid number of chinese deaths, but estimates range from 180k-800k deaths in a short period of time, the korean war shown the chinese did not care about death counts and would use their own population as disposable human shields, that is another example where heavy losses might not deter an enemy.

Another example would be the Russians in WWII. They threw away millions of lives. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong took obscene numbers of casualties in the Vietnam War as well.

In all these cases it seems to me to be a matter of resources. If your most abundant resource is people, that is what you throw at the problem. With the weaponry the US possesses they would not have to resort to this.

 

[Rich2018]

Compared to other offensives allies did take heavy casualties relative to the number sent in. The overall death amount was around 4400 and the casualty amount is between 50-80k(military counts injuries as casualties not just deaths).

What military operations would you compare it to?

7,000 were killed in the Battle of Anzio
13,500 in the 2nd Battle of El Alamein

Also one can look outside ww2 towards the korean war, where there is no solid number of chinese deaths, but estimates range from 180k-800k deaths in a short period of time, the korean war shown the chinese did not care about death counts and would use their own population as disposable human shields, that is another example where heavy losses might not deter an enemy.

China is probably the only country that could absorb such losses today

And a modern military can inflict unimaginable losses on any military that tried to employ a human wave tactic.

 

[beerftw]

What military operations would you compare it to?

7,000 were killed in the Battle of Anzio
13,500 in the 2nd Battle of El Alamein




China is probably the only country that could absorb such losses today

And a modern military can inflict unimaginable losses on any military that tried to employ a human wave tactic.

The second one you listed lumped killed missing and injured together, not just killed so the second one you linked was complete garbage for the argument.

The first one lists a little higher than dday but keep in mind dday was 4400 based off available records rather than estimates, given record losses the death toll is likely higher, however the us military did suffer a fire that destroyed many records making complete analysis impossible on total death toll today. The va still has memos on what to do if your military records were destroyed during that fire.

More than just china has that, the soviet union was willing to use numbers as well, america during dday anticipated mass deaths up to 100k ish in just that offensive, the death toll came no where near that but it was predicted it could easily reach that.

In all those cases mass deaths deterred no one, it really came down to cost to benefit, meaning no country will send soldiers to their deaths for no reason, but if they deem the reason worthy enough they will deem deaths worthy enough, and in some campaigns worthy enough of even mass deaths.

 

[Rich2018]

The second one you listed lumped killed missing and injured together, not just killed so the second one you linked was complete garbage for the argument.

The first one lists a little higher than dday but keep in mind dday was 4400 based off available records rather than estimates, given record losses the death toll is likely higher, however the us military did suffer a fire that destroyed many records making complete analysis impossible on total death toll today. The va still has memos on what to do if your military records were destroyed during that fire.

The point being that D-Day actually had quite light casualties for such a large operation

And if Bradley had listened to either the British or US advisors from the PTO, US casualties on Omaha beach would have been much lighter

More than just china has that, the soviet union was willing to use numbers as well...

I think you'll find the Germans had the most disdain for losses on the Eastern Front, like the abandonment of the 6th Army in Stalingrad

In all those cases mass deaths deterred no one, it really came down to cost to benefit, meaning no country will send soldiers to their deaths for no reason, but if they deem the reason worthy enough they will deem deaths worthy enough, and in some campaigns worthy enough of even mass deaths.

You miss the point. In Korea, the human wave approach was like WWI attrition except even more callous on behalf of the PLA
They substituted casualties for tactics

And what was the "cost-benefit" of Hitler's "no retreat" order or his abandonment of the 6th Army and refusal to let them attempt a break-out?

 

[beerftw]

The point being that D-Day actually had quite light casualties for such a large operation

And if Bradley had listened to either the British or US advisors from the PTO, US casualties on Omaha beach would have been much lighter



I think you'll find the Germans had the most disdain for losses on the Eastern Front, like the abandonment of the 6th Army in Stalingrad




You miss the point. In Korea, the human wave approach was like WWI attrition except even more callous on behalf of the PLA
They substituted casualties for tactics

And what was the "cost-benefit" of Hitler's "no retreat" order or his abandonment of the 6th Army and refusal to let them attempt a break-out?

Compared to other us offensives the death toll was high for the brief time the conflict happened and injuries were sky high, so it was high casualty not low casualty.

The germans hated the eastern front, despite killing more soviet block members than germans got killed, the soviet bloc and mostly russia used what was called the deep battle strategy. The strategy used combined arms of infantry and armor as well as air support and attacked multiple directions in the battle.

The deep battle strategy would attack the front lines head on, the rear, the sides and all logistics supporting their re supply. The strategy worked wonders but required mass casualties as the strategy was to openly attack some front while being more stealthy on others during the same assault, in order to not only break up enemy defenses but also their formations and logistics, hitting them at every angle.

The soviets had no issue sending millions to their deaths for such operations, however post ww2 the soviet union ended the deep battle strategy, feeling it was a mass waste of human life in any other situation except extraordinary cases like ww2.

 

[Rich2018]

Compared to other us offensives the death toll was high for the brief time the conflict happened and injuries were sky high, so it was high casualty not low casualty.

Well it was a major operation so casualties were never going to be negligible

But compare it to the 1st day of the Somme, 1916

The germans hated the eastern front, despite killing more soviet block members than germans got killed, the soviet bloc and mostly russia used what was called the deep battle strategy...

The deep battle strategy would attack the front lines head on, the rear, the sides and all logistics supporting their re supply. The strategy worked wonders but required mass casualties...[/quote]

No, Deep Battle Ops did NOT require the Red Army to suffer high casualty levels. My understanding is that Red rmy forces would attack the weak points and reinforce success not failure

The soviets had no issue sending millions to their deaths for such operations, however post ww2 the soviet union ended the deep battle strategy, feeling it was a mass waste of human life in any other situation except extraordinary cases like ww2.

Neither had Hitler.

 

[beerftw]

Well it was a major operation so casualties were never going to be negligible

But compare it to the 1st day of the Somme, 1916



The deep battle strategy would attack the front lines head on, the rear, the sides and all logistics supporting their re supply. The strategy worked wonders but required mass casualties...

No, Deep Battle Ops did NOT require the Red Army to suffer high casualty levels. My understanding is that Red rmy forces would attack the weak points and reinforce success not failure



Neither had Hitler.
[/QUOTE]
Deep operation (Russian: Глубокая операция, glubokaya operatsiya), also known as Soviet Deep Battle, was a military theory developed by the Soviet Union for its armed forces during the 1920s and 1930s. It was a tenet that emphasized destroying, suppressing or disorganizing enemy forces not only at the line of contact, but throughout the depth of the battlefield.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation

As is seen the deep strategy attacked every depth of the enemy forces, not just the weak spots, and often head on. The strategy worked by being very agressive and destroying offense defense and logistics in a single battle. Such moves are very heavy on death tolls however, as directly attacking a front line is very costly but it also diverts the enemies defense away from their flanks as well as their own supply lines, therefore the deep battle strategy could only work by being aggressive and attacking in ways that would inflict heavy losses among their own in order to achieve battlefield victory.

 

[Rich2018]

...as is seen the deep strategy attacked every depth of the enemy forces, not just the weak spots, and often head on. The strategy worked by being very agressive and destroying offense defense and logistics in a single battle. Such moves are very heavy on death tolls however, as directly attacking a front line is very costly but it also diverts the enemies defense away from their flanks as well as their own supply lines, therefore the deep battle strategy could only work by being aggressive and attacking in ways that would inflict heavy losses among their own in order to achieve battlefield victory.

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

Your acceptance is irrelevant.

The professionals would weigh the losses vs. the tactical or strategic gain.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

What would be the point of making frontline defense irrelevant if you even attack enemy strong points ?

Your acceptance is irrelevant.

Your spamming is childish.

 

[Rich2018]

As is seen the deep strategy attacked every depth of the enemy forces, not just the weak spots, and often head on. The strategy worked by being very agressive and destroying offense defense and logistics in a single battle. Such moves are very heavy on death tolls however, as directly attacking a front line is very costly but it also diverts the enemies defense away from their flanks as well as their own supply lines, therefore the deep battle strategy could only work by being aggressive and attacking in ways that would inflict heavy losses among their own in order to achieve battlefield victory.

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

What would be the point of making frontline defense irrelevant if you even attack enemy strong points ?

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

What would be the point of making frontline defense irrelevant if you even attack enemy strong points ?

Your question makes no sense.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

What would be the point of making frontline defense irrelevant if you even attack enemy strong points ?

On this definition "Deep Battle" doesn't work if the enemy has numerical superiority.

Spamming

 

[Rich2018]

As is seen the deep strategy attacked every depth of the enemy forces, not just the weak spots, and often head on. The strategy worked by being very agressive and destroying offense defense and logistics in a single battle. Such moves are very heavy on death tolls however, as directly attacking a front line is very costly but it also diverts the enemies defense away from their flanks as well as their own supply lines, therefore the deep battle strategy could only work by being aggressive and attacking in ways that would inflict heavy losses among their own in order to achieve battlefield victory.

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

What would be the point of making frontline defense irrelevant if you even attack enemy strong points ?

On this definition "Deep Battle" doesn't work if the enemy has numerical superiority.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

What would be the point of making frontline defense irrelevant if you even attack enemy strong points ?

On this definition "Deep Battle" doesn't work if the enemy has numerical superiority.

Can you reword your question to make sense?

 

[Rich2018]

" If you didn’t break through immediately, and you often didn’t, you were essentially launching a series of frontal assaults against fully alerted defenders—rarely a good idea against anyone, and never a good idea against the Germans. When deep battle failed (Operation Mars, 1942), it could fail spectacularly. Even when it worked, however, it was expensive. "

Going Deep: The Red Army in World War II

Tukhachevsky's deep battle doctrine served the Red Army well, but only because it was big and bad enough to handle epic casualties.

www.historynet.com

I take what I said back, while I doubted that any army would adopt a doctrine almost guaranteed to suffer huge casualties, it seems the Red Army did exactly that in their Great Patriotic War.
I've argued with people who were adamant that the Red Army's Deep Operations concept was superior to German doctrine, but if this and other critiques of the doctrine are right, it was just a series of frontal assaults in echelon.

 

[Fledermaus]

" If you didn’t break through immediately, and you often didn’t, you were essentially launching a series of frontal assaults against fully alerted defenders—rarely a good idea against anyone, and never a good idea against the Germans. When deep battle failed (Operation Mars, 1942), it could fail spectacularly. Even when it worked, however, it was expensive. "

Going Deep: The Red Army in World War II

Tukhachevsky's deep battle doctrine served the Red Army well, but only because it was big and bad enough to handle epic casualties.

www.historynet.com

I take what I said back, while I doubted that any army would adopt a doctrine almost guaranteed to suffer huge casualties, it seems the Red Army did exactly that in their Great Patriotic War.
I've argued with people who were adamant that the Red Army's Deep Operations concept was superior to German doctrine, but if this and other critiques of the doctrine are right, it was just a series of frontal assaults in echelon.

Every Army going against an entrenched defense had to weigh their losses vs. the value of the objective.

And deep army operations aren't merely "series of frontal assaults in echelon".

It was a series of assaults made by consecutive echelons.

And what you didn't quote:

"Once deep battle got going, however, the Germans never really were able to develop an answer to it, and the Red Army’s battle honors prove it."

 

[Rich2018]

" If you didn’t break through immediately, and you often didn’t, you were essentially launching a series of frontal assaults against fully alerted defenders—rarely a good idea against anyone, and never a good idea against the Germans. When deep battle failed (Operation Mars, 1942), it could fail spectacularly. Even when it worked, however, it was expensive. "

Going Deep: The Red Army in World War II
Tukhachevsky's deep battle doctrine served the Red Army well, but only because it was big and bad enough to handle epic casualties.

www.historynet.com

I take what I said back, while I doubted that any army would adopt a doctrine almost guaranteed to suffer huge casualties, it seems the Red Army did exactly that in their Great Patriotic War.
I've argued with people who were adamant that the Red Army's Deep Operations concept was superior to German doctrine, but if this and other critiques of the doctrine are right, it was just a series of frontal assaults in echelon.

 

[Fledermaus]

" If you didn’t break through immediately, and you often didn’t, you were essentially launching a series of frontal assaults against fully alerted defenders—rarely a good idea against anyone, and never a good idea against the Germans. When deep battle failed (Operation Mars, 1942), it could fail spectacularly. Even when it worked, however, it was expensive. "

Going Deep: The Red Army in World War II
Tukhachevsky's deep battle doctrine served the Red Army well, but only because it was big and bad enough to handle epic casualties.

www.historynet.com

I take what I said back, while I doubted that any army would adopt a doctrine almost guaranteed to suffer huge casualties, it seems the Red Army did exactly that in their Great Patriotic War.
I've argued with people who were adamant that the Red Army's Deep Operations concept was superior to German doctrine, but if this and other critiques of the doctrine are right, it was just a series of frontal assaults in echelon.

"Once deep battle got going, however, the Germans never really were able to develop an answer to it, and the Red Army’s battle honors prove it."

 

[Rich2018]

What if OKH had the resources that STAVKA had ?

 

[beerftw]

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

In terms of securing a victory if the prize was big enough anyone would accept high losses. For the red army it was suffer high losses to win or suffer high losses and become slaves of nazi germany, and given the russian patriotism them as well as other soviet bloc nations they were more than willing to die to defend against the nazi invasion no matter the cost.

 

[Fledermaus]

What if OKH had the resources that STAVKA had ?

What if wishes were horses.

They didn't.

"Once deep battle got going, however, the Germans never really were able to develop an answer to it, and the Red Army’s battle honors prove it."

 

[beerftw]

Sorry, while STAVKA might be willing to accept high losses, I can't accept that they willingly adopted a battle plan that guaranteed they'd suffer more losses that their enemy.

What would be the point of making frontline defense irrelevant if you even attack enemy strong points ?

On this definition "Deep Battle" doesn't work if the enemy has numerical superiority.

Frontline defense is just that frontline defense, any and all armies have multiple defense points. The deep battle strategy would attack every level of defense and their logistics, one of the main battles was head on. Though you might think it unthinkable, many militaries have often left their front lines wide open, assuming enemy forces would attack weak spots and re enforce their defense on those weak spots. The deep battle strategy would focus on front line but attack all positions, for many they deemed no one stupid enough to attack head on, which the russians did just that, it in the end destroyed nazi germany as despite the soviet union being the underdog for much of the war, the nazis had no way to counter such a strategy.

 

[Rich2018]

In terms of securing a victory if the prize was big enough anyone would accept high losses. For the red army it was suffer high losses to win or suffer high losses and become slaves of nazi germany, and given the russian patriotism them as well as other soviet bloc nations they were more than willing to die to defend against the nazi invasion no matter the cost.

Yes but after Kursk they had such an advantage in me and material. In Operation Bagration, the Red Army won a stunning victory, but still managed to lose more men than Germany.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes but after Kursk they had such an advantage in me and material. In Operation Bagration, the Red Army won a stunning victory, but still managed to lose more men than Germany.

Lost more men =/= Lost the Battle/War