Depends when and on the context; later in the war that certainly was the case as sources dried up and Soviet maskirovka methods improved, but earlier in the war (1942-mid 1943) they were actually pretty good.Given that the FHO tended to underestimate Soviet quantities by an average of 20%, when the estimates weren't jumping around rather wildly that is, I wouldn't really call them accurate...
I'd challenge that, because in most parts of the front Soviet divisions were like 6,000 at most and German divisions even at reduced strength were still in the area of 12,000. I'll look through my books when I get home to confirm.Eh, not by 1943. I mean, sure... on paper a full-strength Soviet 1943 rifle division was 9,354 to a German infantry divisions 16,369. In reality, the difference between most German and Soviet infantry divisions in mid-1943 was around one to two thousand men.
Depends when and on the context; later in the war that certainly was the case as sources dried up and Soviet maskirovka methods improved, but earlier in the war (1942-mid 1943) they were actually pretty good.
I'd challenge that, because in most parts of the front Soviet divisions were like 6,000 at most and German divisions even at reduced strength were still in the area of 12,000. I'll look through my books when I get home to confirm.
What's the cite on that?Actually, that's precisely the period I'm saying when I said that FHO consistently underestimated Soviet forces by around 20%: they estimated 5.1 million Soviet soldiers on the front in November 1942 when the actual figure was 6.1 and 5.8 million in June 1943 when the actual figure was 6.8 million. Their estimates for the amount of military-age manpower available to the Soviets on June 22nd 1941 jumped around from 46 million in June 1941 to 47 million in March 1942 to 40.3 million in June 1943.
Maybe 10% were at full TOE strength, but then we could compare that with the German ones that were at full strength in key sectors.Soviet rifle divisions averaged around 6,000, but there were plenty that could get up as high as the 9,000 ballpark in key sectors.
What's the cite on that?
Maybe 10% were at full TOE strength, but then we could compare that with the German ones that were at full strength in key sectors.
I'll double check some other historical articles I have about FHO. Dunn had some problems with his works from what I've seen.Walter Dunn’s books. The comparison crops up in both Hitler’s Nemesis and Stalin’s Keys to Victory. The cites are the relevant FHO documents.
I'm just talking infantry to infantry divisions.Given that they’d be facing German Panzer divisions, you wouldn’t really be comparing like-to-like in that case...
I'll double check some other historical articles I have about FHO. Dunn had some problems with his works from what I've seen.
"Lies, damn lies, statistics"Numbers are numbers and the numbers were drawn directly from FHO and Soviet documents. You might have problems with his interpretations, but you can’t say the same with his numbers.
"Lies, damn lies, statistics"
Plus a lot depends on how you present numbers.