Prisoners of war as losses and trophies on the Russian front of the First World War.

At all times, trophies (including captured enemy soldiers and officers) were a very significant indicator of the effectiveness of an army, and in the case of a coalition war, the weight of the contribution of the army of a coalition member to the overall victory of the bloc. It seems to us extremely interesting to follow how things were with this question on the Russian front of world war.

The heroism of Russian warriors during the years of World War had its own characteristics. First, at the beginning of the war there was no ideological motivation associated with the large-scale invasion of the enemy into the territory of Russia (as in 1812 or 1941). Secondly, the war was not yet total, fierce, as in 1941 - 1945. There was no confrontation of systems, nor the deliberate destruction of prisoners of war. The Russian soldier, surrendering to captivity, understood that he was getting rid of war and would very likely survive to its end.

What made Russian soldiers die when they could surrender, preferring the interests of their army and their homeland to their own? What made the fighters in one of the fights refuse to surrender and burn alive in the house they defended, set on fire by the Germans? And what attracted the soldiers of the 20 Army Corps in the August forests to make a breakthrough in the virtually hopeless situation of the enemy's multiple superiority in firing and quantitative terms? The only answer is love for the Fatherland and loyalty to the oath and military duty.

But often the situation was such that large masses of Russian soldiers and officers were captured by the enemy - as was the case in East Prussia in August – September 1914 and in January – February 1915 for the armies of the North-Western Front and for almost all armies during the Great Retreat in May - August 1915. Many were captured in a hopeless situation or being wounded. During the battles in the "cauldrons", during the withdrawal and rearguard battles, the timely evacuation of the wounded to the rear was almost impossible - and the masses of the wounded, both on the battlefields and in field hospitals, became prisoners of war.

The Russian army suffered the greatest losses of captives in the dire situation of the Great Retreat.

Archival data [RGVIA. F. 2003. Op. 2. D. 426. L. 99, 100] reproduce the following number of missing persons in a given period of time. The South-Western Front lost officers: 544 (May), 448 (June), 101 (July), 150 (August); lower ranks: 65943 (May), 110697 (June), 17350 (July), 24224 (August). The North-Western Front lost officers: 170 (May), 167 (June), 624 (July), 383 (August); lower ranks: 36692 (May), 45670 (June), 134048 (July), 80507 (August). Total - up to 515000 people. The figures are similar to E. Falkengine (up to 750000 captured in the 3 month of summer) [Falkengine E. background. High Command 1914 — 1916 in its most important decisions. M., 1923. C. 122], Reichsarchive (850000 captives for 3,5 of the month) [Reichsarchiv. Der Weltkrieg 1914 - 1918. Bd 8. Berlin, 1932. S. 454] and N. N. Golovina (976000 captives in the period 1 of May - 1 of November) [Golovin N. N. Russia in the First World War. M., 2006. C. 182].

What are the total losses of prisoners of the Russian army in 1914 - 1917? The rate of the Supreme Commander for June 1917 gave the number of 2044000 people [Commission on the examination of the sanitary effects of the war 1914-1918. M.-Pg., 1923. C. 159]. The materials of the official bodies and the calculations of specialists determined their number in 2550000 [Frunze M. World war in the results and figures. S. 75], 2889000 (in the latter case, counting with exchanged, dead and fleeing from captivity) [Sysin A. N. Refugees and prisoners of war during the imperialist war // News of the People's Commissariat of Health. 1925. No. 1. C. 9] man.

N. N. Golovin, having carefully analyzed the issue, points to the number of 2417000 people [Golovin N. N. Decree. Op. S. 173]. This figure is recognized and domestic. historical science [Stepanov A. I. The price of war: casualties and losses / World wars of the XX century. Prince 1. The first world war. M .: Nauka, 2002. P. 629] Of this amount, 1400000 were in Germany, 1000000 in Austria-Hungary, and up to 20000 in Turkey and Bulgaria.

Russian prisoners. German photo album 1915

The conditions of life and activity of Russian prisoners of war were the most severe compared to prisoners of other allied armies (primarily in the sense of food) —this prisoner killed up to 40 thousands of servicemen. More than 25% of prisoners found use in agriculture. On average, prisoners of war worked on 12 hours per day. Up to 6% of prisoners of war were involved in front-line work (“under fire”, which was prohibited by international treaties). Prisoners of war were subjected to physical and moral torture, attempts were made of their ideological treatment. Of every 10000 ex-prisoners of war who returned from Germany, more than 6700 were sick [S. Vasilyeva. The prisoners of war in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia during the First World War. M., 1999. C. 36].

Russian prisoners on agricultural work

The torment of Russian prisoners

Penalties applied in forced labor in Austria:

Shackling of the left leg and right arm

Hanging to the post

How many prisoners did the Russian army take?
By mid-September, 1914 was only captured by the South-Western Front before the 3000 officers and lower ranks of the German military personnel (and also the 425 servicemen) [RGVIA. F.2003. Op. 2. D. 543. L. 2.]. By December 1 of the same year, the number of German soldiers and officers was counted as a Russian captive [X-NUMX]. F. 13500. Op. 2003. D. 2. L. 426]. At the same time, the Reichsarchiv at the end of October reports 10 Germans in Russian captivity (15000 was added in November and December) [Reichsarchiv. Der Weltkrieg 2000 - 1914. Bd 1918. Berlin, 6. S. 1929].

According to Russian archival data, by December 1914, more than 162000 Austrian servicemen were captured [RGVIA. F. 2003. Op. 2. D. 426. L. 10]. The Reichsarchive already at the end of October determines their number in 200000 people (60000 was added in November and December) [Reichsarchiv. Der Weltkrieg 1914 - 1918. Bd 6. S. 367].

The situation with prisoners in the first half of World War was as follows [RGVIA. F. 2003. Op. 2. D. 426. L. 25]. By February, the 1915 of the North-Western Front captured 439 officers and 48400 privates, and the South-Western Front 4026 officers and 357602 privates. Including 181 German officer and 18309 soldiers of the German army (the rest of the Austrians).

During the Carpathian operation in January-April 1915, the Germans and Austrians suffered a total loss in 800000 people [Österreich-Ungarns Letzter Krieg 1914-1918. Bd. Ii. Wien, 1931. S. 270]. Of these, 150000 prisoners (including only during the February 20 period - March 19 to 59000) [Ivan F. FK The Great War. M., 1915. CH 2. C. 205-206].

From the garrison of Przemysl, who surrendered to 9 in March 1915, the following number of healthy prisoners of war were sent to Russia: 9 generals, more than 2300 officers, almost 114000 noncommissioned officers and privates. In medical institutions, 6800 remained before the wounded and sick [In Przemysl / / Niva. 1915. No. 17. C. 4].

In mid-February, 1915 sent more than 18000 Turkish prisoners of war (including 4 Pasha, 337 officers, and 17765 lower ranks) [Npovyamskie losses on our southern and southwestern fronts // Niva. 1915. No. 10. S. 4 ].

As a result, by December 1915 in Russia there were the following number of prisoners of war: German - 1193 officer and 67361 soldiers; Austrian - 16558 officers and 852356 soldiers. Together with the prisoners who remained in the front line (excluding Turks), the number of prisoners rose to 1200000 people [Lemke MK 250 days in the Tsar Stake. PB., 1920. C. 328].

The Germans lost to 5000, 1500 before, and to 4000 1000 prisoners during positional battles: surgery Strypa December 14 1915 of - January 6 1916, at lake naroch offensive 5-17 1916 of March, operations at the Baranovichi May 30 - 16 July 1916 g. and Mitava operation 23 - 29 December 1916 g., respectively.

During the Offensive of the South-Western Front 1916, the Austrian troops lost prisoners to 417000 people (almost 9000 officers and 408000 soldiers) [The strategic outline of the 1914 war — 1918. CH 5. M., 1920. C. 108]. The Germans were also seriously injured - for example, the South German army A. von Linsingen lost only in May fights of this year over 82000 people (51% of the initial composition).

The Turkish army in the Erzurum operation lost more than 20000 people by prisoners, in the Erzindzhan operation - 17000 people by prisoners, etc.

The largest streams of prisoners of war on the Austro-German front moved inland through Kiev and Minsk. In particular, during the first 17 months of the war, prisoners proceeded through Minsk: 3373 officer and 222465 non-commissioned officers soldiers [Prisoners // Kuban Cossack Gazette. 1915. No. 51-52. C. 31].

Captive soldiers and officers

Austrian

Russian fighters and Austrian prisoners - in a minute of rest

Germanic

Turkish

counting prisoners

A total of 1917 soldiers and officers of the German bloc were captured at the end of 2100000 (Germans were more 200000, more Austrians were 1800000, Turks and Bulgarians were 100000) [Kamensky L. S., Novoselsky S. A. Losses in past wars. M., 1947; Vasilyeva S. N. Prisoners of war of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia during the First World War. M., 1999]. At the same time, the French captured 160000, the Italians 110000, the British 90000 prisoners [Budberg A.P. The Armed Forces of the Russian Empire performed all-union tasks and duties during the 1914-1917 war. Paris, 1939. C. 30].

An important fact is that the prisoners captured by the Russians were taken during the heavy fighting of the 1914-1916 campaigns, while the majority of the prisoners captured by the Anglo-French-American allies of Russia were taken later - in the 1918 year, during the collapse of the armies of the countries of the German bloc (for example, German soldiers, the so-called “scabs”, began to surrender en masse in August 1918 of the year - during the post-army demoralization of the army).

What conclusions allow to make the above figures?
First, the Russian army captured almost as many prisoners as it lost by itself. Secondly, the Russian army captured most of the prisoners of the German bloc. Thirdly, on the 1917 year of only one Germans, the Russian army captured almost as many as the British and French combined. To compare the Austrians captured by the Italian and Russian armies does not make sense.

Even if we touch upon the question of the loss of only the German army for the entire war, it should be remembered that 1000000 of German soldiers was captured in total [World War in Figures. M.-L., 1934. C. 22]: 450000 to 1914-1917 (200000 in Russian and 250000 in English-French captivity) and 550000 in 1918 - mainly in August - November. That is, the Russian army even at the end of the war (in which it had not fought the last year) captured one-fifth of all German prisoners - all of its prisoners were captured not by surrender, but in battle.

Many Russian prisoners of war did not accept their position. It was possible to escape soldiers and officers from 100000 captivity (that is, 4% of prisoners): more than 60000 fled from the German camps, and about 40000 people from the Austrian camps. Those who are lucky. A large percentage of prisoners escaped, but were caught. So, only from the German camps fled, but 418 officers and 199530 lower ranks were caught [A. Budberg. Decree. cit. C. 32]. Given the strict regime of the content of prisoners and the difficulty of movement in a hostile foreign language country, this says a lot. Thus, the chief of the Austrian counterintelligence, M. Ronge, wrote that Russian prisoners of war who had escaped from the camps had become a real disaster. And “although not all of them, as General L. G. Kornilov,” managed to get to their homeland, they kept the Austrian law enforcement agencies in constant fear of sabotage attacks [Ronge M. Intelligence and counterintelligence. SPb., 2004. C. 222].

Such a significant percentage of escapes convincingly refutes the existing opinion about the lack of patriotism and love of their homeland in the Russian masses during this period.

Prisoners fled to the nearest territory of the Allied Powers.
So, according to the recollection of a Russian military agent in France, Colonel Count A. A. Ignatiev, in the summer of 1915, a big man jumped in a French trench in Alsace at night in a tunic, shouting the word: “Rus!” And the whole of France began talking about the feat of a Russian prisoner of war, a simple village the guy who broke the wire barriers to break out to the allies. Soldiers were honored, photographed, he was presented to the St. George Medal. A few days later, the flight of Russian prisoners into French territory “became common” [A. Ignatiev. 50 years in the ranks. Petrozavodsk, 1964. C. 157]. Newspapers and magazines of the war years brought a number of facts of a heroic escape from captivity and photos of heroes. The escape was a real feat, and during the flight, Russian soldiers often showed miracles of ingenuity.

Russian fighters who fled from captivity and escape means

Russian prisoners who fled from Wesel. Picture taken at the Russian consulate in Holland. Standing from left to right: senior non-commissioned officer Levchenko Andrei, shooter Vasily Shishkin, junior non-commissioned officer Lagan Aleksey, junior non-commissioned officer Andryushchenko Luka, junior noncommissioned officer Friziuk Uljan, corporal Maxim Kolesnikov, shooter Vasiliy Starik.

They are. Sit: Russian consul in Holland Peterson, Vice-Consul Fersen and Second Vice-Consul Baumgarten.

Russian soldiers who escaped from German captivity, attend the parade in the French House of Invalides.

The interrogation of a Russian soldier who escaped from captivity in the French headquarters.

As a result, it should be noted that the situation with prisoners is a clear proof of the fact that, in general, the Russian army inflicted losses on the German bloc that are comparable to their own. In 1915-1916 technically, it lagged somewhat behind the German one, but the army of all the other countries participating in the war also lagged behind the latter. Other opponents of the Russian army clearly surpassed. She stood up to the German bloc with dignity, making a more than significant contribution to the defeat of the Kaiser coalition.

Comments

[Dart2027]

In general, the Russian soldier was a Russian soldier.

[Nicholas C.]

Thank you for the article. They showed some authors, dressing here for some reason as historians with degrees, how to work and write.

My paternal grandfather fought in World War I on the Austrian front. Captured. "I have come." As I understand it, I ran and independently got straight home (there was already a mess in Russia then). Grandfather died before I was born.

[your1970]

it’s not torture at that time - exactly the same punishments were applied to own soldiers (see Hasek and his “Svejka” - everything is described in detail)
In the Russian army, it was used to put a saber on the clock (with the Cossacks), in the infantry - on the clock (motionless) and flogged ..
It was just a tough time.

[Uncle Murzik]

alternative story again ! I learned a lot of new things, for example, about the victory in the battle for the Moonsund archipelago

[Dart2027]

Quote: Uncle Murzik

I learned a lot of new things, for example, about the victory in the battle for the Moonsund archipelago

You are what?

[antivirus]

many times in the comments wrote the same: could not defeat RI. The allies were stronger than RI, and at the stage of sharing the "trophies", we WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING.
Maybe they would write off debts. Part + took the most profitable concessions for others

[Cartalon]

All that RI was supposed to receive, for all of Eastern Europe would be under control, and France would be absolutely exhausted in fear of a deal between Russia and Germany, since with the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the contradictions with Germany would come to naught.

[antivirus]

and the negotiations of Fr. and Brit-i (without Russia) at the end of 16 and during the 17 years confirms this?
Having the Army and Navy is only part of the state mechanism, you also need transport and (including local, and this: the Allies have cars, we have carts) logistics,
legal system and third rank issues. How to control Poland (see mine on "London Poles and Parisian and American ...")?
The Allies would not allow (and Br and Fr) RI access to common borders with them. We get pieces in the Center of Europe and the Bl East, and what are they?
For 15-17 they bought with giblets RI.
The Versailles peace with the participation of the Republic of Ingushetia is "The verdict, on the submission of the Republic of Ingushetia to the interests of the West (our allies.)

[Cartalon]

All talk about the subordination of RI to stupidity Russia did not depend on Britain anyway and France depended on RI more than RI on France

[antivirus]

and my other questions? no answer? Poland?

[murriou]

Quote: Cartalon

France depended on RI more than RI on France

* Having sighed heavily about the usual problems of the most ardent "Russian patriots" with the Russian literary language *

But it’s nothing that almost all “Russian” aircraft flew French engines, which had to be changed at least once a year, the vast majority of “Russian” aircraft were of French design, and in case of serious disagreements with the French, the Russian Empire quickly lost all "aviation?

Nothing so that the most massive "Russian" armored cars Austin-Putilovets real-Russian had only their Putilov armor? And the rest was the same as with the "Russian" aviation?

Is it nothing that during the WWII, the Russian army received from the allies supplies more than half of the machine guns, almost all hand guns, about 40% of rifles, a significant part of artillery, about 30% of ammunition, etc.?

Is it nothing that Russia also received the bulk of other high-tech products from developed countries, and without their support it was little capable of?

[antivirus]

in the technique of a small bolt -main. Are all our steam locomotives built? they would be enough.?
How to keep the Versailles territories without logistics?

[murriou]

Tsarist Russia didn’t even have bearings, and the efficiency of Russian-made steam engines was much lower than that of counterparts in developed countries, because the "advanced" Russian industry could not provide enough small gaps between the pistons and cylinders, hence the large losses.
In general, wherever you stick, but the picture is everywhere about the same.

[Gopnik]

Motors were made in Russian factories, albeit of a foreign design. However, there were domestic engines (but few).
Aircraft, albeit of foreign design, were made at Russian plants.
Nothing that the same British before figs received from the same French, Americans and even Japanese?

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Motors were made in Russian factories, albeit of a foreign design.

In developed countries, they made on average 1 aircraft from 2-3 (Germany, Italy) to 3-5 (France) aircraft engines, because during the life of the aircraft it was required to change several engines for wear, and France also supplied its allies , especially backward, especially Russia.

Russia from developed countries in terms of the number of "manufactured" (including screwdriver assembly and the creation of Russian wood and canvas, but from imported units) aircraft from developed countries lagged 10-14 times, in the number of "produced" (with roughly the same reservations) aircraft engines 30-40 times, i.e. 1 motor for 2-3 aircraft.
So consider if anyone farther than class 1 CPN has advanced

By the way, most of the “Russian” aircraft of French design, produced by the “Russian” factory “Dux”, weighed about 10% more than French originals, with a corresponding deterioration in performance characteristics.
"Russian" aircraft engines were also not too original, and from the original originals differed not for the better.

And so, yes, "type produced"

[Gopnik]

Yes, England and Germany released approximately the same number of aircraft and engines, that's enough to lie.

[murriou]

Waiting for your numbers to prove me wrong.

And do not forget to indicate the source at the same time - or do you, like many other anti-Soviet advisers and crystal bakers, personally know God’s ear whispering digits in the ear rather than all archive data?

[Gopnik]

do not clown, look stupid. World war in numbers. And the first figures with the source I wait, for that matter.

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Nothing that the same British before figs received from the same French, Americans and even Japanese?

Nothing that they exchanged high-tech products on equal terms, and only Russia could not answer with anything like that?

For example, England supplied the entire Entente with Lewis machine guns, howitzers and Vickers naval guns, and after 1916 - tanks. Pom-pom anti-aircraft guns were exported quite well.

France supplied most of the allies with airplanes and aircraft engines (although England started its production even in 1915, even started exporting by the end of the war, Russia supplied planes and engines since 1915, and Austin armored cars itself from the beginning of the war).
Since 1917, France also supplied the allies with Renault FT-17 tanks.

Italy supplied ready-made kits for assembling Fiat-15ter and other models to Russia, as well as finished cars, motors, and other units for them.
Japan supplied Russia with rifles, ammunition, and 105mm heavy guns (partially reassigned to 107mm).

Russia supplied the Allies with cannon fodder, grain, and a number of sea mines. Oh yes, more fabrics like India and China!
What else was exported from Russian industrial products during the WWII?

[Gopnik]

And what was exported from the USSR to the Second World War, for example? Russia has the largest army, which alone held a whole front, and industry, no one argues, is weaker than that of England, France and the United States, it is logical that Russia bought more than supplied.
And someone, by the way, is shamelessly trending about "more than half of the machine guns" and

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Russia has the largest army, which alone held a whole front

Sure sure. Only this largest army was at the same time the most ineffective in comparison with its size, and this front was originally conceived as an auxiliary for pulling back German forces, primarily German forces, from the main, western front of the WWII.

During the Great Retreat of the Russian army, in the summer of 1915, the largest German forces for the entire WWI were concentrated against the RIA: up to 65 divisions, largely diluted by the landweer (militia), and in the West at the same time the Germans held from 90 to 101 divisions better composition.

The rest of the time, the number of German troops in the east amounted to one third to half of their forces in the west.

And so, yes, otherwise everything is true
= * =

[Gopnik]

Why, the most effective, in comparison with the French and the British before the Revolution.
Yes, in August and September 1915 in the East, the Germans had 65 divisions, plus 37-42 Austrian, against 90 German in the West. Those. indeed, the main forces of the Triple Alliance were directed against Russia alone, more than against France and England combined.
But there were more German divisions - in 1917.
And a third of the Germans from their forces in the West - this has never happened. more precisely in August 1914 and in 1918. Basically, yes - in the East a third of all German forces. Plus the Austrians and all sorts of Turks even.
And the rest, too, yes, everything is right with me. The USSR did not supply anything to the allies, and in 1MB we didn’t have “more than half” of the allies' looms. Even omitting the fact that you probably do not know, but it’s excusable that the United States until April 1917 were not allies and did not fight at all.

[murriou]

= * =

Quote: Gopnik

And what was exported from the USSR to the Second World War, for example?

1. BEFORE the WWII, for example, in 1937, industrial goods accounted for more than 2/3 of USSR exports, more precisely 68,3% in 1937.
Can you compare it with RI before WWI?

Hint: there the share of agricultural products was about 70%, specifically 70,6% in 1913.

2. At about the same time, the USSR supplied a significant number of aircraft, armored cars, tanks to Spain, Mongolia, China, and a small amount to Turkey. Soviet cars were also delivered there.
Again, compare with RI before PMV.

3. During the Second World War, the USSR provided on its own with more than 99% of its small arms, more than 97% of artillery, more than 87% of tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, about 88% of aviation, while Soviet-made aviation was provided entirely by Soviet aircraft engines.

For comparison, in the WWII, about 40% of “Russian” rifles were from foreign supplies, and more sophisticated products generally came mainly from abroad: the vast majority of armored vehicles and aircraft, a significant part of artillery, and cars. For aviation and aircraft engines in more detail already.
= * =

[Gopnik]

You do not jump from the topic. We are talking about the Second World War, and not about what happened before her. What did the USSR supply there?
And how, by the way, did the USSR provide locomotives, explosives, armored personnel carriers, and ZSUs on its own? And then I forgot the numbers, do not tell me?

[murriou]

= * =

Quote: Gopnik

And someone, by the way, is shamelessly trending about "more than half of the machine guns"

Yes?!

We consider: until 1910, the production of machine guns in Russia amounted to 1 thousand copies, for the PMV it was practically not operational.

Since 1910 Until the end of the existence of the Republic of Ingushetia, its own production of machine guns "Maxim" is understandable whose design amounted to 26 thousand copies, the production of light machine guns - several. dozens (!) of copies in total, in pilot batches of Fedorov assault rifles and copies of the Dutch Madsen.

Deliveries from developed Entente countries to Russia amounted to 14 thousand light machine guns, mainly Lewis designs, and 28 thousand easel machine guns designed by Maxim and Vickers.

We know how to count, or, like many Khlebobuchnikov, beyond the 1st grade of the central vocational school education is no longer considered necessary?

At the same time, the need of the Russian army in machine guns was fulfilled by 12%.
For comparison, Germany over the years of WWI produced 280 thousand machine guns, other developed countries - the amount of a comparable order.

[Gopnik]

Yes you are raving! see the same Barsukov. Russia for 1914-17 (and not since 1910) produced under 28 thousand. easel machine guns. at the same time received 1000 Vickers and 23000 Colts. can you count yourself? Moreover, the main Western supplies as early as 1917.
Germany produced 230 thousand for the war. machine guns. Once again, not until VOSR, like Russia, but until November 1918 inclusive. And from them easel 67 thousand. Until February 1917, Germany produced a comparable number of machine gunners, more, of course, than RI, but not at times.

[Dart2027]

Quote: antivirus

The Versailles peace with the participation of the Republic of Ingushetia is "The verdict, on the submission of the Republic of Ingushetia to the interests of the West (our allies.)

And so they supported the conspirators, who launched the process of the collapse of RI?

[murriou]

Quote: Cartalon

All that she was supposed to RI would get

Sure sure. Who is getting rich in thought in the saying of our brothers?

[Bug_n_o]

buhagagaga ... if yes, if mushrooms were growing in your mouth ... speak bluntly ... we crap before sharing the pie and all these revolutionaries took our victory away, plunging my Empire into chaos, darkness and fratricide for decades! for the Brest peace all red db shot without exception!

[Olgovich]

Quote: antivirus

many times in the comments he wrote the same: she could not defeat RI.

What does it mean "could not"? She won - read Art. 116 Versailles Agreements - had the right to receive ALL reparations and indemnities from the losers, the entire territory of Russia was freed from the invaders, what is it if not a victory?

No not a single document, where Russia would be indicated as a loser in the WWII. The Brest Treaty was canceled by everyone in six months, and it was insignificantbecause it was concluded by no one recognized and no one elected the so-called "government". Apart from him, none of the Russian forces recognized him.

Quote: antivirus

The allies were stronger than the Republic of Ingushetia and at the stage of dividing the "trophies", we WOULD NOT BE BROKEN OUT OF ANYTHING ..

Weak Serbia, Romania, Greece got everything in full, although, according to your logic, they shouldn't.

The military debts of France and England were paid by the United States only partially and in the main part were written off without any conditions ..

[UrraletZ]

By the time the Brest Peace Treaty was concluded, the army practically did not exist. In September, the Russian Empire was abolished by the interim government in September 1917. BEFORE the Bolsheviks. Therefore, do not talk nonsense ...

[Olgovich]

Quote: UrraletZ

By the time the Brest Peace Treaty was concluded, the army practically did not exist. ..

It existed, otherwise the condition for its demobilization would not have been set in the Brest Peace. And even would not exist at all, so what?

Quote: UrraletZ

In September, the Russian Empire was abolished by the interim government in September 1917.

So I can "abolish" the Urals or. for example, the United States and even a decree to issue appropriate. That's just authority, no, like the VP did not have any authority to abolish RI. He had one authority, agreed upon by both Emperors, 1 m. Congress of the so-called advice and so-called by the Petrograd Soviet: to organize elections in the Constitutional Council, where the fate of the Empire was to be decided according to the decision of Mikhail II.

Quote: UrraletZ

Therefore, do not talk nonsense ...

Learn the story, but ndon't talk nonsense.

[UrraletZ]

It is good to crunch a French bun and expose your foolishness. None of the successful military operations took place under the interim government. Many officers were reduced in the spring of the 17th as "disloyal to the new system." These officers then became part of the Red Guard. About demobilization ... the Bolsheviks cleaned up the remnants of the army to LIKE SOMETHING TO SAVE SOMETHING and gather strength in their fists ... no victory in the war shone for us because of the country's economic backwardness. I read a liberal nonsense and now you are trying to bring your whiteguard one-sided lies to the masses. Do not lie!

[Bug_n_o]

bugagagaga 3 times ... as you say, the backward Empire of the damned German didn’t let Baranovich go any further ... and your sophisticated communist camarilla allowed the Nazi cooks to draw water from the Volga ... to step right into the heart of my Motherland !!! so forget yourself and don’t show your dumbness!

[couch but smart general]

let's talk about scooping from the Volga is not gundi, with your nicholas they would have scooped up water in the area of ​​Nizhny Novgorod by the spring of 42 years .. if not by the fall of 41

[Bug_n_o]

Quote: Couchy but smart general

let's talk about scooping from the Volga is not gundi, with your nicholas they would have scooped up water in the area of ​​Nizhny Novgorod by the spring of 42 years .. if not by the fall of 41

here it is the level of intelligence of a cheer patriot or simply a pseudo patriot of a hat-taker in all its glory .. if, yes if only, we are them .. yes they are ... dropping the socks .... the bogagagag .... but the facts are stubborn things ... and as we see, if it weren’t for the Yankees (Kahn, Lend-Lease) and Tommy (Lend-Lease), the barbel would lick the adik’s hands and pray for mercy .. but he wouldn’t give a damn about the people of Russia!

[couch but smart general]

everything is clear with you - you lick Uncle Sam from birth ... went on

[Bug_n_o]

Quote: Couchy but smart general

everything is clear with you, you’re licking uncle Sam from birth ... went to ......

and here you are wrong! Who told you that I am a fan of the Yankees and smelly British? and believe me, I don’t have any affection for them .. on the contrary ... I hate them fiercely .... why did you decide that? from the fact that I just really outlined the facts to you? so this is not a reason to make me a lover of the Western world .... yes, I believe that their economic development model is much better than our Russian one, that they have more intelligent leaders, that they have less thieves, that their life system is better ... but it realities ... but I’m Russian and I love my Motherland .... you just have to be honest even to yourself and try to fix something ... and yes it’s advisable not to be a stupid jingoistic patriot and idiot but really look at things and tell the truth and not sprinkle with ideological slogans and hide our heads in the ass and scream we, we, m .... yes you first if you do that!

[zoolu300]

The Great Romanovskaya RI didn’t let the German go further than Baranovich that after 2,5 years, in the absence of concentration of the main enemy forces on its front and occupation of a small territory, it fell into anarchy and collapse. At the same time, the “insignificant” USSR, fighting 4 years with the entire European Union No. 2 and allowing the occupation of its territories right up to the Volga, ended the war in Berlin, while “taking over” half of Europe. Attention to the question: "So who is backward in this situation?"

[Olgovich]

Quote: UrraletZ

It is good to crunch a French bun and expose your foolishness. None of the successful military operations took place under the interim government. Many officers were reduced in the spring of the 17th as "disloyal to the new system." These officers then became part of the Red Guard. About demobilization ... the Bolsheviks cleaned up the remnants of the army to LIKE SOMETHING TO SAVE SOMETHING and gather strength in their fists ... no victory in the war shone for us because of the country's economic backwardness. I read a liberal nonsense and now you are trying to bring your whiteguard one-sided lies to the masses. Do not lie!

Due to your ignorance, you could not deny ANYTHING.

Don't talk nonsense

[murriou]

Can you dispute this? We are waiting for a list of successful operations of the Russian army and navy in WWI, especially during the existence of the Provisional Government

And at the same time, give a list of Russian victories in the REV, if it’s not difficult for you?

[Gopnik]

Of course, the army practically did not exist, because the Bolsheviks intensively demobilized it before that, but they did not bother to create a new one

[antivirus]

and the Social Revolutionaries? contributed to the increase and improvement? Blame the Bolsheviks? dr-only for Russia and against all the bad?

[Gopnik]

The Socialist-Revolutionaries are not a fountain either, but they are less to blame, since there were "defencists". And in the collapse of the army from November 1917 to February 1918 entirely the Bolsheviks

[antivirus]

What does it mean "could not"? She won - read Art. 116 Versailles Agreements - had the right to receive ALL reparations and indemnities from the losers, the entire territory of Russia was freed from the invaders what is this, if not a victory? -POLAND HOW?
The military debts of France and England were paid by the USA only partially and in the main part were written off without any conditions .. I am a SKEPTIC. IF ANTANTE DID NOT DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRIBUTED REPARATIONS, WHOM WOULD BE PUSHED UP?
Weak Serbia, Romania, Greece got everything in full, although, according to your logic, they shouldn't.
DESTINY OF MOLDOVA? EAST AVT-HUNGARIAN (WOLF AND CARPATHIANS) TO WHOM?
STRAINS (AND THE INFLUENCE IN BULGARIA AND ROMANIA - THE CORRIDOR IN TSAR-GRAD TO THEM) HOW?
ARMENIA?
SEV IRAQ WHERE THE RUSSIAN ARMY S MET
SHAVES ARM?
hl-Palestine (the cause of the Crimean war), all this required other balancing of the Versailles and precisely "to the detriment of growing imp !!
about the dogs, I don’t know, but it’s a little confusing for me to grow imp on an equal footing with Britain, they wrote off, without “share it and so you have a lot of zemlyatse”

[Olgovich]

Quote: antivirus

POLAND HOW?

The conference was held in 1919 year. Ulyanov recognized the independence of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia back in 1918 Was the Entente more concerned with Russia than Bolshevik Russia? The Bolsheviks, of course, were much more convenient for them than the supporters of the "One and Indivisible."

Quote: antivirus

DESTINY OF MOLDOVA? EAST AVT-HUNGARIAN (WOLF AND CARPATHIANS) TO WHOM?

The fate of Moldova has nothing to do with Versailles, it was recognized as Romanian only after the Red Army's campaign on the Vistula in late 1920, before that, no, and this is a completely different story.
Volyn and the Carpathians proposed the RSFSR, but the Bolsheviks did not agree and went further, in the end, neither Volyn nor the Carpathians

Quote: antivirus

STRAINS (AND THE INFLUENCE IN BULGARIA AND ROMANIA - THE CORRIDOR IN TSAR-GRAD TO THEM) HOW?

What how"? Bulgaria was punished, Romania was generously (very much) presented. What does the straits have to do with it?

Quote: antivirus

hl-Palestine (the cause of the Crimean war), all this required other balancing of Versailles and for sure "at the expense of growing imp!!

So who caused the damage, didn’t the party that recognized itself as a loser, which SAMA refuses everything in the world?

Versailles, having liberated the Russian lands from the invaders, having annulled the Brest Peace and recognizing the right of Russia to reparations, gave her a chance and opportunity to recover as she could and wanted. But to the Bolsheviks. those who seized power, it was more important to destroy their own, Russian "enemies."

[antivirus]

you can agree with everything. But was Churchill's "unthinkable" operation prepared in 45 g?
here --- !!!! this !!!! "unthinkable" is your Versailles world "
Partners would have turned everything inside out. Only the presence of greater forces at the end of WWII than at its beginning. retained the "Yalta" spheres of influence and principles.
And Versailles too. Without a budget (debts to the West), a fleet, cavalry, and hl - auto armored forces (then the Zap allies already had) - we would have succeeded. and maybe without a “would.” Strength was less at the end of the WWII.
Who would give Poland RI? Personally, I believe that I would have to go for even greater autonomy, "given the interest of all the enlightened powers in the world in Central Europe"
Trump will not give up his (amersky) influence on the world !!!
And those that would not get into any hole where there is something to profit from and put pressure on RI? “if there is a reason, then I pull for it” (two meanings) -
In Versailles, no one would write such casuistry. and veins from Nikki would be pulled out in a smoking-room.

[Olgovich]

Quote: antivirus

would Poland give RI? I personally think that I would have to go for more wider autonomy, "taking into account the interest of all enlightened powers in the world in Central Europe"

I agree, this is obvious. And not autonomy, but would be independent Poland in any situation. But - heavily trimmed in the territories (from Russia) and obligated be in alliance with Russia + other preferences as compensation

Quote: antivirus

In Versailles, no one would write such casuistry. and veins from Nikki would be pulled out in a smoking-room.

You may recall that even under the terms of the Brest Treaty, England and the United States at Versailles were “FOR” Russia's participation in the negotiations, France strongly opposed (and insisted). If it weren’t, the Baltic would definitely remain part of Russia (there wasn’t any anti-Russian separatism during the war, it was brought up by the German invaders))

[antivirus]

Poland would leave RI (within the borders of the Kingdom of Poland or the Duchy of Warsaw, I don’t know the difference in sq km and towns and villages), but what did they cut off Germ Imp from the loser?
RI-great Asian Empire !!! Someone wrote that Lodz gave 75m% of RI coal. how quickly did they build their mines? Donbass

[Weyland]

Quote: antivirus

The allies were stronger than the Republic of Ingushetia and at the stage of dividing the “trophies”, we WOULD NOT BE BACK.

Serbia at the end of the WWII was in full w ... How much was it broken off during the division, recall? Actually, Yugoslavia also fell apart because at one time a piece wider than the mouth was grabbed ...

[antivirus]

on those parts of AvstrVengr no one except Serbs did not give a damn. They gave to theirs that they were not good
And the Straits-independently dig in the British archives. I, in this matter, have a word of faith in Soviet historians

[murriou]

And I do not believe them in word, but because their theses are quite convincingly confirmed by documents and real facts of history.

[Olgovich]

Quote: antivirus

and those parts of AvstrVengr no one except the Serbs did not scream. They gave to theirs that they were not good

Because of these "unnecessary" lands, the world stood on the doorstep World War II in 1907, 1909,, 1911,1912, because of them the WWII began in 1914.

[Gopnik]

And what was Russia supposed to get? The USA, for example, received a lot of "trophies"?

[murriou]

The USA received as a result of WWI:
1. Fantastic profits and gigantic development of its defense industry.
2. Even more significant benefits of financiers from lending to European countries.
3. All the Americans interested in European military technology.
4. Complete non-interference by European powers in US affairs on both American continents.
5. After the WWII, England and France proposed that the United States take part in the division of the possessions of the former Ottoman Empire.
What is characteristic: at the same time, the promises made during the war to the Arabs for their military participation, about the possibility of creating their national state, were instantly forgotten.
And there is no reason to think that Atanta would not have taken any formalized promises towards Russia in a more serious way with ANY possible outcome of the war.
However, the oil prospects of the Middle East were then unknown, and the Americans did not want to foolishly climb into the Middle East boiler, and they were right in their own way.

0. The center of influence in world politics and economics has clearly moved from England to the United States.
Does anyone think this is small? Authoritative experts believe, on the contrary, that the United States and Japan, the least participants in the WWI, won the most in it.

[Gopnik]

Well, Russia would have received reparations, friendly Poland and the Balkans controlled. You see, they would have squeezed the Turkish Straits.

[antivirus]

on all counts --HA_HA_HA
Poland - friendship is now yelling? The Balkans - Bulgaria - fought against us,
Romania - sphere of France
Straits - read Milyukov and Trotsky (unveiled the secret agreement. Allies after the October Revolution)
How to squeeze ..? steam locomotives engines for aircraft, shells,
DEBT ON HOW MUCH ANNUAL BUDGETS?
AND THIS IS WHAT I KNOW (OR they write here and you can dig not only the official docs - "VERSAL WORLD", but + thoughts on paper
Indicator (I didn’t read it myself) --- Churchill, a friend of all Russia-USSR (personal friendship with Stalin? As long as you need cannon fodder)

[Gopnik]

You somehow confusedly express yourself, and this, caps lok, is stuck with you.
Would Poland Dovbor-Musinsky, not Pilsudski. And how to formalize its statehood would be decided in Petrograd, in any case, there would not be such a shame as the Soviets in 1920, which is already good.
Serbia is our closest ally, and Minister of War Radko Dmitriev in Bulgaria. For example. Again, better than it was in real life.
The straits would wring out at Ataturk. Well, or would agree kindly, that's how they decided.
And most importantly, they would not lose the Baltic states, Finland (at least the Vyborg province), Bessarabia, Ararat. Which is already good.

[antivirus]

I put you +
everything will be, at the next redistribution. of your world.
I am an informed optimist = pessimist.
MYTH - to seize the straits - they wouldn’t give it all !!! (I am a supporter of the Soviet-Jewish (Trotsky) point sp) the Crimean war was due to the same non-admission to the straits and Palestine.
WHAT COULD CHANGE IN THE BRAIN AT CHURCH IN 1918? FROM 1856G OR 1878G

MY BRAIN JAMS FROM MENTAL ACTIVITY - NOT CAPS BOW

[murriou]

I repeat the proverbial proverb about wealth thought

England was categorically against the strengthening of Russian positions in Europe and the Balkans.

France, too, was not particularly burning with passion to defend Russian interests.

Russia didn’t have enough of its own resources, and Russia received the bulk of high-tech weapons and a significant part of the ammunition in WWI, here comes a surprise, from the Entente itself.

And how would you describe the described "happiness" to Russia? By the pike command, by the bakery desire?

[Gopnik]

Yes, I’ll take a look, Petrosyan just, I’m just joking, I’m putting emoticons myself. you must try too:
What would not give reparations, right?
Or would Pilsudski end up in Poland instead of Dovbor Musinsky? Or would they still lose, like with scoops, the Baltic states and Vyborg? According to the highest Soviet-Syomkin desire?

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

What would not give reparations, right?

Well, reparations would have thrown into poverty. Moreover, even the winners covered the costs of the war of reparation only to a small extent.

Maybe even part of the interest from the Russian state debt would be forgiven, mainly from the Russian debts of Germany

[Gopnik]

Yes, you, my friend, dey-no, Petrosyan is simple. Taking off my hat

[murriou]

This is what. Among the most talented crystal bakers, Russia won

[antivirus]

Twice won.
Yes so. that the second routes of the Trans-Siberian Railway were already built by other "terrible and bloodthirsty" rulers

[Gopnik]

Who is this?

[Barcid]

Thanks. Very convincing. Facts are a stubborn thing.

[parusnik]

Firstly, at the beginning of the war there was no ideological motivation

... The ideological component at the very beginning of the war was ... until the end of 1915. We help the Serb brothers against the German ... My grandfather, according to the recollections of my grandmother, lived and worked Austrian prisoners of war ... four people were surprised by melons and watermelons. .and one sort of pears .. In 1918 they left, they gave them seeds, seedlings and they left .. Grandma, before her death, remembered them, worried whether they got home ..

[murriou]

Quote: parusnik

Helping the Serb brothers against the German

And which is typical - the Serb brothers openly set up as a fuse for starting a war, instead of extinguishing the conflict by diplomatic measures.
By the way, the Germans fought very little against the Serbs, mainly Austria-Hungary did this.

At the beginning of the WWII, the Russian armies rushed to not help the Serbs, but in a completely different direction - to capture eastern Prussia.

And Russia didn’t give a damn about helping the "little brothers" during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, when the weak little Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece themselves almost fulfilled the "centuries-old dream of the Russian people" about the Straits and Constantinople, convincingly defeating the Turks on land and at sea, and Then they were quarreled by Austrian diplomats with the connivance and even approval of the Russians.

It was as a result of such Russian behavior that Bulgaria ended up in the WWII on the German side, and Greece collaborated with the Entente, but NOT with Russia.

[V.ic]

The theme of escape from captivity is reflected in the novel by Alexei Tolstoy "Walking through the agony", namely, the escape of Telegin. Is it from there that the plot of the car escape in the movie "The Fate of Man" is borrowed?

[Bug_n_o]

and by the way .. how many prisoners were there for the 41-45th ???? how much ah? who wanted to die for the damned collective farms and starving life .. it is clear that no ordinary people!

[rkkasa xnumx]

Quote: Bug_N_O

and by the way .. how many prisoners were there for the 41-45th ???? how much ah? who wanted to die for the damned collective farms and starving life .. it is clear that no ordinary people!

PMV:Russia - dead 1,6 million; about 5 million wounded; 2,5 million prisoners - in order to capture 1 Russian soldier, the enemy needed to kill 0,64 and injure 2.

WWII: the USSR - 8,6 million killed; 22 million wounded; 4,5 million prisoners - in order to capture one Soviet soldier, the enemy needed to kill 1,9 and injure almost 5 soldiers.

I.e - "for the damned collective farms and starving life" (C) - people fought much more stubbornly than the reign of kingdom.


PS By the way, for comparison:

Germany - 2 million dead; 4 million wounded; 1 million prisoners - for one prisoner 2 killed and 4 wounded
Great Britain - 0,7 million dead; 1,6 million wounded; 0,17 million prisoners - to capture 1 English you need 4 to kill and injure almost 10
Austria-Hungary - 1,5 mln dead; 2,6 mln wounded; 2,2 mln prisoners - to capture 1 Austrian, 0,7 should be killed and 1,2 wounded

[Dart2027]

Quote: rkkasa 81

PMV: Russia - 1,6 million dead; about 5 million wounded; prisoners of 2,5 million

According to the CSB, the losses of the Russian army were estimated at 7036087 people, of which:
- 626 killed;
- 17 dead from wounds;
- 2 754 202 wounded;
- 3 638 271 missing and captured.
A lot of research was later released, but all of them were based solely on assumptions.
In general, a comparison with the Second World War is not entirely correct, because in WWII the Germans did not set the task of the Russian genocide, unlike Hitler, and many of the dead were already captured.

[Uncle Murzik]

Russian historian A. Kersnovsky in his work “History of the Russian Army” writes:

“Unprecedented stress entailed unprecedented losses. The size of these losses can never be determined exactly. The Russian high command was completely not interested in the already used human meat.

The Central Sanitary Administration was not interested in this either: in hospitals there were no statistics of those who died from wounds, which cannot but stun the researcher.

Losses were calculated during and after the war by individuals using incomplete and unsystematized data. They were random in nature and led to completely different, often fantastic conclusions (suffice it to say that the number, for example, of prisoners was determined in the range from 1,3 million to 4,5 million people).

The bet was not at all interested in the issue of losses incurred.

People who for three consecutive years glorified millions of Russian officers and soldiers for slaughter, invented the “double bypass of the Masurian Lakes”, “the offensive in the heart of Germany”, gave the frenzied armies frenzied directives “Not a Step Back!”, Erected pyramids of skulls on Bzur, Naroch, Kovel, these people have not once in three years taken an interest in finding out what, at least approximately, Russia and the Russian army cost their strategic work.

When in July 1917, General Jean Janin, the French representative at Stavka, requested information about the losses suffered by Russia, Stavka was taken by surprise. After three months of fussy searches, Stavka presented the first figures to the French. Only 700 thousand people were listed as killed, but 2,9 million were captured. Giving these explanations without any reservations or explanations, our military bureaucrats did not bother to realize that the calculation of the killed was carried out at all satisfactorily only on the troops of the Northern Front. The headquarters was completely unaware of the fact that this kind of "information" would only dishonor the Russian army in the eyes of foreigners.

According to the Military Department, submitted shortly before the February Revolution to the Council of Ministers, our "final losses" - those killed, died from wounds and illnesses, people with disabilities, missing and captured - were determined from the beginning of the war to December 1916 to 5,5 million people.

According to information officially reported to the Russian Red Cross by the enemy, by the winter of 1916/17, there were 2,2 million prisoners of war in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. This figure is quite reliable (the enemy had no reason to downplay it).

Subtracting this number from the total, we get 3,3 million Russian losses only before the February revolution.

[Uncle Murzik]

We will continue! There were 200 thousand people in unauthorized absence (in other words, so many military deserted). 600 thousand people were commissioned from the army due to injuries received in battle, 300 thousand people were commissioned due to illness.

Adding these losses, we get 1,2 million crippled, dead from wounds and deserters.

The remaining 2,1 million were considered dead (we repeat once again - this is before the February Revolution).

There are also ambiguities with the generally accepted figure of 2,4 million Russian prisoners during the WWII.

In 1919, “Centrifugal”, an organization involved in the return of prisoners to Russia, took into account the following number of captured Russian military personnel according to its personal lists and registration cards:

In Germany - 2 million 335 thousand 441

In Austria-Hungary - 1 million 503 thousand 412.

In Turkey - 19 thousand 795.

In Bulgaria - 2 thousand 452.

Total - 3 million 911 thousand 100 people.

Add here and 200 thousand dead in captivity and get the figure of more than 4,1 million people. It is hard to imagine that another 1,7 million were surrendered in the year since the February Revolution and before the conclusion of the Brest Peace. Most likely, the initial figure of 2,4 million for the winter of 1917 was underestimated. Another important point. The number of Russian soldiers captured in the First World War - 4,1 million - in relative terms is much larger than the surrendered of Soviet soldiers in the Second World War. 14,5 million people were mobilized in WWII, i.e. prisoners made up 28,2% of the army. 34 million people were mobilized in WWII, 5,6 million people, or 16,2% of the army, were captured. And this is taking into account the fact that WWII lasted almost half a year for the USSR more than for WWII.

That is, not only the number of tsarist generals who surrendered, well describes the spirit (or rather, its absence) of the Russian army in WWI, but also the total number of prisoners! Losses and condition of the Russian army during the First ...
scisne.net ›a-890

[murriou]

The bakeries prefer not to “notice” any sources of information other than official Russian reports and official Russian statistics, which during the period of the REV and WWI abound with enchanting lies, because the real state of affairs was too sad to be openly recognized.

This lies immediately comes to light in the analysis, even official data, on the balance of personnel and on the ratio of losses between the categories.

In the RPE, unaccounted for the killed, who usually turned out to be approximately comparable with the counted, were written off as "missing."
For the whole war, the Japanese turned out to be slightly more than a hundred, the Russians - tens of thousands, in each battle usually 2-3% of the original personnel.
Attention, the question is: where could thousands and tens of thousands of Russian soldiers go on Chinese soil, in a theater that is remote and isolated from Russia, except in this very land?

They tried not to take prisoners from the Russian side into account at all (but the Japanese took them well into account, and the return of Russian prisoners to Russia after the war was also normally taken into account). And more than 74 thousand of them were recruited for the entire REV, and taking into account those who died after surrendering, there were initially more than 80 thousand prisoners, and if we balance the personnel in battles, we find 5-6 thousand prisoners, even in no battle retroactively not taken into account.

Those who died from wounds after the battle were recorded as those who died due to illness, or were not considered at all.
If you do not believe that Russian military medicine was an order of magnitude better than Japanese (and why not ?!), you have to admit: there were many more unaccounted deaths from wounds on the Russian side than there were counted.

At the same time, such a cross-sectional analysis, like all other checks, can withstand the Japanese data in the REE and the German data in the WWI.

As for the WWII, the situation there is much worse than in the WWII.
If in the RNV the data was not very skillfully rigged, in the PMV the data were often completely absent, or were written from a flashlight, without any connection with reality - which is essentially the same.

The balance of personnel reveals that the Russian army was called up by the beginning of 1915. a little more than 10 million people, by the end of the same year more than 15 million people, while on the Russian-German front (i.e., the Western and South-Western fronts included in it), the understaffe was about 0,5 million. people from the order of 3 million total staffing.

On the Caucasian front at that time there were only 6-7 divisions and up to 0,2 million people. staffing, on non-combatant borders there were no more troops. than it was before the war, i.e. less than 0,5 million people - in total, we know the fate of those at the front by the end of 1915 a little more than 3 million

Attention, the question: where did the remaining 12 million go , if, according to the oath assurances of the bakers, the Russian army had miserable losses, less than other warring powers ?!

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

from the order of 3 million total staffing.

I remember I already wrote to you that during the WWII more than a hundred divisions were formed over and above the pre-war schedule, and that a significant part of the drafted was engaged in logistical support, rather than fighting.

[murriou]

You wrote a lot of things, but for the most part it was sheer nonsense. So now too.

Quote: Dart2027

during WWI, more than a hundred divisions were formed, in excess of the pre-war schedule

And who is talking about the pre-war schedule of the number of divisions?
The number of divisions on each front of the WWII is precisely known on a monthly basis, and whenever these divisions were formed, they were taken into account in this calculation.

Quote: Dart2027

a significant part of those called up was engaged in logistical support, and did not fight.

You are still at odds with arithmetic, and I still sympathize with you

And now - again: on all fronts, in 1915, Russia had up to 128 + 8 = 136 divisions in December, the rest of the year was less, at the height of the Great Retreat 106 + 6 = 112.

In terms of staffing and with the addition of hull structures, i.e. at the maximum maximum, 136 divisions are 3,3 million people.
At the same time, at the front there is a RIGID understaffing, about half a million, and several are supposedly grazing in the rear. millions, MUCH more than at the front!


If you believe in the small losses caused by the bakers, then more than 11 million were grazed in the rear, and THIS is THREE with a tail more than the number of Russians who fought on all fronts.

And here again, in their lies, the bakers are in the position of Abram Solomonych in the bath, trying to combine the cross with circumcision.

Explanation 1. For normal people.
The bulk of these missing millions are irretrievable losses by the dead, prisoners, and deserters.
And the scale of these losses should be one and a half times more than recognized by Krivosheev, who too trusted the Russian official data.

Which means monstrously low efficiency and complete failure of the Russian army in the WWII, among other things.

Explanation 2. Crystal bakery.
The bulk of these missing millions are the rear, who are hiding from hostilities, formally being part of the Russian army.
Which means monstrously low efficiency and complete failure of the Russian army in the WWII, among other things.

Here is such a “rich” choice for Solomon Abramych in the bathhouse, the then fermented patriots, and the current crystal bakers

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

And now - again: on all fronts, in 1915, Russia had up to 128 + 8 = 136 divisions in December, the rest of the year was less, at the height of the Great Retreat 106 + 6 = 112.
In terms of staffing and with the addition of hull structures, i.e. at the maximum maximum, 136 divisions are 3,3 million people.
At the same time, at the front there is a RIGID understaffing, about half a million, and several are supposedly grazing in the rear. millions, MUCH more than at the front!

And where did you get the idea that there were only 136 divisions? There were more than 200 of them, for example, in 1917 the number of divisions was 288. So the difference was not so glaring, although there was enough mess.
In addition, this does not change the fact that the terrible figures of the losses of radiation sources in the WWI are greatly exaggerated.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

And where did you get the idea that there were only 136 divisions?

From the data of Zayonchkovsky, which he also did not take from the ceiling.

Those divisions that supposedly exist, but are in the rear, when the Russian army is severely understaffed and retreats to the point of maintaining combat effectiveness - this is not an army, this is its simulation, and all of the above about rear men hiding from military operations is fully relevant to it.

Quote: Dart2027

the difference was not so glaring

Well, try to overcome your complete inability to arithmetic and calculate this very difference.
Let’s see what you can do, how you can cram 12 million soldiers into a mouse hole and pretend that they are not at all

Quote: Dart2027

the terrible figures of the losses of radiation sources in the WWI are greatly exaggerated.

I understand that you would like to declare these losses generally zero.
For the baker, everything else is strictly prohibited.

But the figures of Krivosheev, also not taken from scratch, are completely horrific, and show that in WWI Russia, being not at all the main participant in the database, suffered losses comparable to Germany, which fought on 2 fronts, and more than all other, more successful, participants in WWI .

A simple analysis of the personnel balance shows that the loss figures for Krivosheev are not even enough to answer the question of where the Russian people who went to the front went to.

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

Those divisions that allegedly exist, but are in the rear, when the Russian army is severely understaffed and retreats to the point of maintaining combat effectiveness

That is, you acknowledge that not all mobilized took part in the hostilities? Already good. But still, where do 136 divisions come from? According to a period of 2 months? He can also find 288, and in the same table. Not tired of lying?

Quote: murriou

But the figures of Krivosheev, also not taken from scratch, are completely horrific, and show that in WWI Russia, being not at all the main participant in the database, suffered losses comparable to Germany, which fought on 2 fronts, and more than all other, more successful, participants in WWI .

To begin with, RI also fought on two fronts. At one time, the Turks, beaten by the Republic of Ingushetia, piled well on the same British.
We continue with the fact that the only data based on archives is the data of the CSO (626), and all the rest are obtained due to various assumptions.
And finally, remember that RI had to save its allies, which they themselves admitted. By the way, in the USSR they wrote a lot about this.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

in 1917 the number of divisions was 288

Now tell us, WHERE, WHERE all these divisions were.

At the front with the Germans, for example, the maximum number of Russian divisions for the entire WWI was 219 - in May 1917, before an attempted offensive that failed with great losses
Moreover, these were already truncated divisions of 12 battalion composition, i.e. equivalent to 164 divisions of the sample 1914-1915 year.

At that time, there were 14 divisions on the Caucasian front, no matter what composition - this is still a miserable one. A total of 233 divisions, or 175-177 divisions of the 1914 model.

Do you think that at that time Russia had over fifty completely extra divisions? Where were they, what were they doing, and why?

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

Now tell us, WHERE, WHERE all these divisions were.

To begin with, I refer to the author of which you yourself brought.
We continue with the fact that even 219 is not 136 about which you wrote before.
We conclude that even during the Second World War not all troops were concentrated against the Germans, some were either on other parts of the border, or in the rear, not front-line, namely the rear.

[co-creator]

Quote: rkkasa 81

WWII: USSR - 8,6 million killed;

Killed at least 11,5, but a more real figure of 13 million.

[Bug_n_o]

Quotation: blooded man

Killed at least 11,5, but a more real figure of 13 million.

no one knows the real numbers ... I'm even afraid to think about the losses of our native sodates and officers ... the red rot was just hopelessly dumb and straightforward in choosing tactics and strategy during the Second World War!

[murriou]

yes, yes, yes, all archives, all documents and all historians are lying, and only the crystal-makers of God personally whisper the TRUTH in their ear

[co-creator]

Quote: murriou

yes yes yes all archives all documents and

11,5 is the figure of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. There is a site at the Ministry of Defense where, by name, all the dead Red Army soldiers, there are 18 million names. If we subtract the dead in hospitals from illness, etc. will be approximately 13 million

[antivirus]

without Vlasovites and prisoners of war, and Baltic legions, and policemen (left the k \ camp)? without missing b \ news? or with .. and another 20 exceptions

[co-creator]

Exactly .

[murriou]

There are lists of "memorial" in which some people are mentioned several times, there are even more
There is a particularly authoritative opinion of the Authority of Isaich Sovrunishkin, there are two times more

And the figure of 8,6 million military losses was announced by Stalin at the Yalta Conference, and he had no reason to underestimate this figure, because in proportion to the losses, the sizes of reparations for the winning countries were determined.

[antivirus]

but also overestimate-to lie. almost steal allied reparations

[co-creator]

Quote: murriou

There are lists of "memorial" in which some people are mentioned several times, there are even more

Here they have 18 million, while removing all the "extra" about 13 it turns out

Quote: murriou

And the figure of 8,6 million military losses was announced by Stalin at the Yalta Conference

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation considers 11,5, moreover, by name. I think their data is more accurate than that of Stalin in Yalta when the Second World War was not over yet.

[Olgovich]

Quote: rkkasa 81

WWII: USSR - hin order to capture one Soviet soldier, the enemy needed to kill 1,9 . That is - “for the damned collective farms and starving for life” (C) - people fought much more stubbornly than the missionary kingdom.

Interesting fresh look!
But the British for the damned imperialism and hated capitalists fought yet much more hardbecause for them, as you subtly noted

Quote: rkkasa 81

to capture 1 English you need 4 to kill

[andj61]

Quote: Olgovich

Quote: rkkasa 81

WWII: USSR - hin order to capture one Soviet soldier, the enemy needed to kill 1,9 . That is - “for the damned collective farms and starving for life” (C) - people fought much more stubbornly than the missionary kingdom.

Interesting fresh look!
But the British for the damned imperialism and hated capitalists fought yet much more hardbecause for them, as you subtly noted

Quote: rkkasa 81

to capture 1 English you need 4 to kill

What, however, was attractive capitalism for the English, damned .. ...

Your look is still fresh! But nothing that they are on the island?
The British did not meddle on the continent for three quarters of the war, and the dead were only sent by air raids and were among the pilots. And only pilots shot down over the continent were captured. Sailors from the sunken down ships of Doenitz and Goering English ships in general most often did not even have a chance to be captured. And after the landing in Normandy, the enemy was no longer the same, and, except for the landing itself and the Ardennes, there were no stubborn battles. You would compare the prisoners with the dead from the British not for the whole war, but only for 1940 in France - the result would be completely different, although even then the Germans allowed the British to evacuate without destroying and capturing them.

[rkkasa xnumx]

Quote: andj61

The British did not meddle on the continent for three quarters of the war, and the dead were only sent by air raids and were among the pilots. And only pilots shot down over the continent were captured. Sailors from the sunken down ships of Doenitz and Goering English ships in general most often did not even have a chance to be captured. And after the landing in Normandy, the enemy was no longer the same, and, except for the landing itself and the Ardennes, there were no stubborn battles.

Everything is correct, but when I cited the data on the English, I had in mind the PMV, and compared the British soldiers not with the Soviet, but with the soldiers of the Russian army.

And yes, to compare Britain, which most of the WWII did not conduct serious battles on land, and the USSR, is fundamentally wrong.

[Olgovich]

Quote: rkkasa 81

And yes, to compare Britain, which most of the WWII did not conduct serious battles on land, and the USSR, is fundamentally wrong.

Interesting logic: it means that comparing Russian WWII and WWII soldiers is normal, but comparing the English WWII and the same Russian WWII soldiers is already at the root not correctly.

[rkkasa xnumx]

Quote: Olgovich

Interesting logic: it means that comparing Russian WWII and WWII soldiers is normal, but comparing the English WWII and the same Russian WWII soldiers is fundamentally wrong.

You seem to be really slow-witted.
I wrote :

Quote: rkkasa 81

to compare Britain, which most of WWII did not conduct serious battles on land, and the USSR, is fundamentally wrong

commenting on andj61. To your kament, I answered below.
Reread the branch again, maybe it will.

PS By the way, in WWII, Britain: killed - 286; the wounded - 000; there were 280 prisoners. To capture one Briton, it was necessary to kill about 000 and injure 192. Compare with the Soviet - kill 000; and injure almost 1,5 soldiers.

[Olgovich]

Quote: rkkasa 81

Reread the branch again, maybe it will.

Reread the branch again, it may come (finally) - laying it out as a justification for your insolvent The arguments are these numbers, you just hit QUESTION.

[Uncle Murzik]

rkkasa 81 voluminous analysis of deutsche losses was made long ago by Igor Garibyan www.poteryww2. narod. ru
In his opinion, the losses of the Deutsch were taken into account extremely ugly, there was no notorious ordnung - the order became a victim of propaganda. The losses of the Germans were underestimated until the age of 43, and after 43 they were simply falsified. Huge work on the falsification of losses was carried out by the Americans, who got after the war the Wehrmacht army archive. According to Garibyan’s calculation, only 13 million died on the battlefield, not counting the losses of their allies. And not only allies, military citizens were citizens of the former Poland, Czech Republic, Austria. Only the Poles, who died behind the Dritten Reich, only on the western front were up to 200 thousand people. Let me remind you that the Polish Army 80% consisted of Poles captured by Soviet troops in battles with the Germans. In total, together with the allies, more than 15 million people died for the happiness of the Third Reich - against 8,6 million Soviet soldiers who fell on the battlefield.

[Bug_n_o]

Quote: andj61

The British did not meddle on the continent for three quarters of the war, and the dead were only sent by air raids and were among the pilots. And only pilots shot down over the continent were captured. Sailors from the sunken down ships of Doenitz and Goering English ships in general most often did not even have a chance to be captured. And after the landing in Normandy, the enemy was no longer the same, and, except for the landing itself and the Ardennes, there were no stubborn battles. You would compare the prisoners with the dead from the British not for the whole war, but only for 1940 in France - the result would be completely different, although even then the Germans allowed the British to evacuate without destroying and capturing them.

but nothing that Tommy from the 39th to the summer of the 41st in the LONE fought with the Nazi hydra? and ours at that time warmly greeted Nazisim and fraternized as Hitler .. Molotov so generally tapped the greetings to the Wehrmacht and personally congratulated Hitler in telegrams when he took the next capital of Europe ... and we fed them as it is notable ...

[antivirus]

there are simple wordings "at the front in contact with the enemy." How many of them did Britain have?
Your comm-you are a political circus- reassure yourself nerves ("unload")

[murriou]

Quote: Bug_N_O

but nothing that Tommy from the 39th to the summer of the 41st in the LONE fought with the Nazi hydra?

Now remember HOW they fought with that hydra

[Olgovich]

Quote: andj61

But nothing that they are on the island?

Nothing, of course, for they fought in WWII on the CONTINENT

[rkkasa xnumx]

Quote: Olgovich

the British fought much more stubbornly for damned imperialism and the hated capitalists

... than our soldiers for the believer and the Russian bourgeois. Apparently, the Russian bourgeois were worse than the British.

[Bug_n_o]

Quote: Olgovich

But the British fought for damned imperialism and hated capitalists even more stubbornly, because they, as you subtly noted
Quote: rkkasa 81
to capture 1 English you need 4 to kill

just bravo! washed the blind pseudo-patreotic ..

[antivirus]

I AGREE!!!
WWW BETTER (A terrible LOTS OF LIVES IN ONE WORD TO KEEP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) CHECKED THAN PMV

[UrraletZ]

To non-White Guards, it is not proof. No wonder their ideological predecessors so vehemently served Hitler.
Briefly and clearly: we’ll surrender our countries mediocrely, but to fight against the Bolsheviks is a holy cause.

[murriou]

According to Krivosheev, who approached the issue much more thoroughly, from the Russian side there were 3,3 million prisoners and 1,87 million deserters in the PMV. The absolute record of WWI in both respects.

But even according to the figures cited here by the author, known for his crisp bakery, with all its exaggerations, Russia's record in the number of prisoners does not go anywhere.

There were much more deaths according to Krivosheev, but the ratio with the prisoners was about the same.

[Gopnik]

Krivosheev nonsense, who simply quail Golovin, and not a book, but a publication in the VIZH. But at the same time, Golovin also fantasized with numbers. Although, unlike the latter, he had all the 1MB archives at hand - I don’t want to study. Krivosheev and the Finns lost 40 thousand during the Winter War. killed

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Krivosheev and the Finns lost 40 thousand during the Winter War. killed

At the same time, not counting the loss of militias and the shutskor, yes. What do you dislike?

[Gopnik]

The fact that the Finns have known losses by name. Not more than 25 in the Winter War

[murriou]

The Russians in the RNV also had "names of the famous" loss lists, but only "missing persons", i.e. unaccounted for the killed, there were almost as many as the counted.

And the Finns have a similar picture: there are lists, and there are huge losses besides lists. About the militia and the shyutskor, as well as foreign volunteers, you could not read, or could not understand what was read?

[Gopnik]

Do not make yourself stupider than you are.
Among the Finns, the dead lists include those who were not found missing and who died in captivity - 25, more precisely, a little more than 000 people. how would you not like to pull an owl on the globe. Losses of foreign volunteers are minimal. Literally dozens of people.

[murriou]

Once again: the Finnish lists relate to members of the regular army. BUT ONLY.
And militiamen and Shyutskorovites fought with them about the same as officially registered soldiers in the army.
And they are not considered military losses.

[Gopnik]

Comrade, I am very sorry, I am also for ours, but you are persecuting.
• 16 died in battle, the remains were evacuated
• 3433 died in battle, the remains are not evacuated
• 3671 died in hospitals from injuries
• 715 died for non-combat reasons (including from illness)
• 28 died in captivity
• 1727 went missing and declared dead
• The cause of death of 363 troops is unknown.
A total of 26 Finnish troops were killed.
Less than a thousand were killed. Even if everyone is peaceful, they are Shutskorites, you and Krivosheev will not pull the owl onto the globe. Don’t be angry.

[Nagaibak]

Bug_N_O "and by the way .. how many prisoners were there for the 41-45th ???? how many? Who wanted to die for damned collective farms and starving their lives .. it’s clear that no ordinary people!"
And yes, by the way ... how can we do without the Polish Litvinians)))) in the discussion of these topics. Partisans in Belarus for any reason they just fought against the Germans ... out of pure altruism.)))

[Bug_n_o]

what does the lazvin and other heresy have to do with it ... I said that the majority in the 41st surrendered with joy, because no one wanted to die and fight for the red rot, which killed its own no worse than the damned Nazis!

[Nagaibak]

Bug_N_O ". I said that the majority in the 41st surrendered with joy, because no one wanted to die and fight for red rot."
They fought in environments without hope of success. But they continued to fight. Someone happily surrendered, and someone not. You generalize and smear all with one paint. Under the Belarusian flags, Poles with Litvinians often write in this tone. So I took you for them.

[antivirus]

In "MOOZUND. PART2" I wrote about the damned collective farms. indigenous Russia, from which the militia was collected for the Battle of Kulikovo.
all the rest later and without OBSTACLE IN THE IMPERIAL CONSCIOUSNESS (EVEN KALUGA AND TULA FOR False Dmitry, WHO SUPPORTED ZARUTSKY AND THE WOOLTER?)
BY 1991, RESULT: 610 YEARS (the battle of Kulikovo.) DIFFERENT FROM 270 YEARS (AFTER TROUBLESHOOT)

[Bug_n_o]

I don’t understand why here all the unwashed red cannibals associate with Russia .. it was a temporary infection that died well .. our country is the Empire ... the Russian Empire that was sick with the red infection bacilli .. but we were cured .. and God willing the Empire will be reborn !

[antivirus]

not temporary. At the beginning of the 80's, to my question: “why in Ivanovo, are such poor houses? (In a working village) an old district with 2-window bathhouses, flush with the floor.
- So weavers lived., Exploitation.
The "homeland of the first council" was overpopulated by peasants and this is in a swamp. Prospects in life, but what. The center is prom The district is always imperial (see my "militia for the KULIKOVSKAYA BATTLE") - for the Bolsheviks. And Denikin (with the Cossacks) was not allowed, only approached Tula - immediately "we do not need such again"

[zoolu300]

With people like you not.

[Olgovich]

in captivity killed up to 40 thousand troops

Article plus. Meanwhile, about 200 thousand Russian prisoners of war were killed in captivity and the attitude towards the Russians was worse than towards the French and British. In addition, they were used in hard work and in areas of military operations to equip positions. They refused. For many Russian prisoners of war who found themselves at work on the front line against the Russian troops, the order of the German and Austrian commanders to work was tantamount to an order to die. So, five hundred people from the Terezienstadt camp, refusing to work on the front line, under the threat of execution “according to the Orthodox custom”, dressed in clean linen and lined up to receive death. And they were killed: for the construction of defensive fortifications against the offensive of the allies of the year, Russian prisoners of war were transferred under the pretext of being sent to work in private farms. The whole thousand prisoners of war and non-commissioned officers refused to work. The measures taken by the Austrian guard at first were common in such cases - starving and hanging from poles in groups of ten to twenty people. Since these measures did not give the desired result, the party leader threatened to shoot him. They built prisoners, they began to prepare for death, "making a prayer, being baptized and laying down the bow of the earth."
. The non-commissioned officer of the Life Guards of the Izmailovsky Regiment, Fyodor Lunin, and five other soldiers were put in front of the ranks and asked them the question: will they work? Following the refusal, Lunin was blindfolded, "he crossed himself, bowed deeply, and, stretching out his arms at the seams, began to wait for death." His and three soldiers - Philip Kulikov, privates of the 193rd Sviyazhsky regiment, Ivan Kataev, privates of the 47th regiment, and Ivan Ivanov Timofeev, privates of the 324th Klyazminsky regiment, shot
The situation of the interned civilian Russians (including women and children) was terrible, for example, Russian chess players participating in the tournament in Manheim were brutally beaten and all were held captive until the end of the war (except Alekhine, who had a terrible scar after beating for life).

. At that very time of war, when Russian prisoners of war and civilians in Germany suffered, fled, died, other Russian subjects were the same German authorities SAMI- with the greatest frugality and comfortably transported through their territory towards Russia.

Moreover, a certain Ulyanov during the war of the former in in Austria found during a search pistol and ..... calmly let go .... YOUR man ....

[Bug_n_o]

Quote: Olgovich

At that very time of war, when Russian prisoners of war and civilians in Germany suffered, fled, died, other Russian subjects were the same German authorities SAMI- with the greatest frugality and comfortably transported through their territory towards Russia.
Moreover, a certain Ulyanov during the war of the former in Austria found a gun during a search and ..... calmly released .... OWN man ....

here .. and I’m talking about ... think about this nonsense .. during the war, calmly in a carriage delivered across the front line .. what is this? how to understand this ... the classic special operation to decompose the enemy’s country was carried out brilliantly ... the grantosos and the assailant did their job perfectly ... but you can understand him too, by the way .. he was very motivated ... he took revenge on his brother ... In short, this was the usual enemy of the state .. namely, the Russian Empire!

[murriou]

Quote: Olgovich

a certain Ulyanov during the war of the former in Austria found a gun during a search

So what? During WWII, it was quite common for ordinary respectable citizens to carry personal weapons, especially noblemen. The sale of weapons was conducted openly and legally, without any questions about the identity of the buyer, there would be only money.

[alatanas]

In total, at the end of 1917, 2100000 soldiers and officers of the German bloc were captured (up to 200000 Germans, more than 1800000 Austrians, up to 100000 Turks and Bulgarians)

In these 100 "Turks and Bulgarians", almost all Turks, and then from the Caucasian front.

[antivirus]

ON THE CAPTURE "POW-VICTORY-Escape-Strait"
WHO WOULD GET THE CASH FROM VICTORY AND SIGNATURE IN VERSAILLES? IN ROS IMP? ONE OF THE COURT'S CIRCUITS WOULD BOUND OTHERS? THIS IS THE REASON FOR FEBRUARY REVOLUTION AND OCTOBER REV-I.
all the top quarreled. and did not trust each other.
see necessary memoirs were led by princes and bankers (who wanted to get something for contributing to the victory - at 4 times more expensive than on government bureaus, shells)
each clan "dripped" on the brains in London and Paris to the right people.
they sent "from outside" (past the official authorities) "their" revolutionaries.

[Gopnik]

Not only from the Caucasus

[zoolu300]

Not almost everything, the Bulgarians also have. There is unverified information that during the WWII battles on the Romanian front, they were immediately killed in most cases for treason, and not taken prisoner.

[captain]

Thanks to the author for the article. People must know their history, the history of our country did not begin in 1917. Our people fought for their homeland courageously, regardless of the political system, on ideology and the presence of commissars and priests. Thanks again.

[UrraletZ]

And who tells you that the story began in 1917? Come on, your sidekick will exaggerate?

[UrraletZ]

Quote: UrraletZ

And who tells you that the story began in 1917? Have you read it again?

[murriou]

0. The article is very loose, besides the text is broken by a clearly excessive number of illustrations and photographs designed to put pressure on the emotions of readers, but do not add any useful information.

1. In the place of the author, I would not be so trusting with the texts and pictures from Russian newspapers of the WWI period about "Austrian civilians" quoted here.
You can write, let alone draw, anything at all, and we know how many lies in the then newspapers. For example, according to Russian newspapers, in the Brusilovsky breakthrough, the Germans lost 2 million killed - i.e. twice as many as there were at all, and an order of magnitude more than their real losses.

2. Photographs are a little better, but even here gullibility should not go so far as idiocy.
As we understand it, you can choose not the most typical, but the most desirable moment for the frame, besides retouching was invented not only by Photoshop, but also by photographs - the technique already existing in painting was applied to photographs.

3. Poor nutrition of prisoners - yes, not good. But in Germany, during the WWII, the food situation was even dire for its citizens themselves, why would the prisoners be better?

4. No matter how you say it, no matter how you describe the exploits and heroism, the Russian army in the WWI kept an absolute record in the number of prisoners and deserters.

5. Record and number of missing persons. As we recall, during the RJE the number of “missing people” was just as huge (2-3% of the original personnel in those battles where there is data separately for this category of losses), and was essentially a euphemism for unaccounted for those killed: in Chinese In the land of Russian soldiers, thousands and tens of thousands, they could completely disappear into that very land.

In the case of the WWII, the missing people had more options for fate, and so it’s not worthwhile to judge unambiguously. But hardly the trick used by the tsarist statistics in 1904-1905 was forgotten or discarded by it for 10 years.

[Rotmistr]

For a long time my friend was not heard.
The article is not loose, but clear - based on facts and figures (however, in some articles there is nothing at all, is it?)).
It is necessary to dispute anything with numbers in the hands of Mr. Murrow. And so this is your one continuous empty argument.
However, in the place of the author, I would be flattered by the attention you give him. And they say that cats are not attached to a person, but to a house

[murriou]

Quote: Rotmistr

For a long time my friend was not heard.

Yes, my friend
You have since found confirmation of your * statement * about 1500 years of Russian statehood? And it painfully persistently you fell silent and ran away from all those from this issue

And the answers to many of my other, previously unrequited, questions to you - how, are you ready to finally give out?

[Rotmistr]

What are another 1500 years of statehood?
If I talked with you, it is exclusively for PMV.
Therefore, do not invent all kinds of nonsense out of business.
Look for answers - you are a “researcher," in which I wish you unconditional good luck.

[murriou]

Yeah, I found it. it * stated * another rotmister:
https://topwar.ru/106506-marginal-patrioty-byvshe
go-sssr-ne-pora-li-vserez-obedinyatsya.html # comme
nt-id-6518575

Quote: captain

The Russian state was not created a hundred years ago, but at least 1500 years ago

and he stubbornly hides from my answers to my other questions.
Sorry, the mistake came out, sj.

As for the answers - well, I am responsible for my words, but let their authors answer for other words, right?

[Rotmistr]

We are all responsible for our words and deeds - both in this world and in that

[antivirus]

if I summarize or just stop, in losses, the bickering
How is the gene sec of the Central Committee of the CPSU: what do we write in the protocol?
Now they want to digitize their pets, but is it possible to accurately count death in a local conflict (in 5-10 areas). example Ukraine- or the Caucasus or Karabakh2016-17

[Rotmistr]

And about the statements of Uncle Murzik (Murrow) about an alternative story.
There is no greater alternative historian than himself, therefore the subject knows so well.
At this stage, he noted two elements of his mythology.
First.
The Germans are good. They are great and terrible warriors, though in both world wars they were beaten, but that’s nothing. And they are also very kind. They simply fed the prisoners poorly - the truth was tens of thousands of Russians and hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners of war, but that’s nothing. After all, the Germans did not scoff at them - they simply fed poorly, and for some reason they themselves were dying.
Second. Ivan the Terrible is a saint. He is a great humanist and with tears in his eyes he performed his exploits. Nicholas II was nicknamed bloody for less, and Ivan the Terrible was forced to hang and drown people, what can you do, because there was such a time. Moreover, he is the first king. Yes, and there was nothing. Chronicles, esteemed historians Karamzin, Klyuchevsky, Kostomarov lie, and Murziki, Murzilki and even nobody else tell the truth.
After such an alternative story, so that the respected Murrow (uncle Murzik) does not even stutter

[murriou]

Dadaga rotmistr, I knowingly confuse you with another rotmistr, which is in Cyrillic and with a small letter.
You have not only the same “self-calling”, a lot in common in the “discussion style”.

Here, for example, you famously ascribe to me no one knows where you got nonsense from, which you then rush to expose.
Is it like your national crystal bakery sport - a fight of Nanai boys with a shadow?

Please find, first in MY comments, the statements that you attribute to me and then refute.
Not in your fantasies on their subject, and not in your problems with understanding the Russian text, is it possible?
The format is simple, about how I referred to the nonsense of your "almost-namesake": direct quote, link. Waiting for

[Rotmistr]

First of all, I meant your Germanophilism.
Well, they themselves wrote that the Germans just simply poorly fed the captured Russian soldiers. And they wrote about their mighty army, which constantly defeated the Russians.
And secondly, an article by Ivan the Terrible.
Oh well.
And the last - since you attach the labels to the Christ baker, you can be called. For example, Germanophilus cracker))
Good luck in combat and political training

[murriou]

Those. you couldn’t confirm your fantasies about my views by direct quotes from MY statements. Well, who would be surprised.
I will not use dubious terms in terms of censorship, but do you yourself understand who you are after that?

[Rotmistr]

Yes, well Gopnik uncle shook you.
And after all, the holy truth - in my memory, I have already been repeatedly noticed in cheating and distorting facts. One sleight of hand.
So really - increase your educational level and do not meow

[murriou]

Quote: Rotmistr

In my memory, I have repeatedly seen in cheating and distorting the facts.

You * wondrous * memory, and equally * wondrous * habit to shirk from confirming your * statements *.

If someone "convicts" me of a discrepancy between my statements with HIS vague recollections, HIS vague ideas and HIS favorite childhood myths - then this still means nothing to the rest of humanity

[Uncle Murzik]

Rotmistr well you give a pancake! such an opus is not about anything! It seems that the losses of Germany and its allies in both world wars, including and broken down by major fronts - Western and Eastern. But the losses do not always reflect the true picture of the intensity of the fighting, the tension of the nation in one direction or another, and most importantly, the dangers and “values” of the opponents. For example, a significant portion of the prisoners captured by the Western Allies in April-May 1945 represented our legitimate prey.
Therefore, I decided to figure out - and what forces was Germany (and its allies) forced to exert in the West and East during these wars?

Introduced the unit - division-month (such as man-day). To take into account the Allied divisions, I applied a lowering coefficient (it is clear that their combat effectiveness was lower than that of the German ones) - 0,75 for the 1st MV and 0,5 for the 2nd (the increased role of equipment and maneuver operations made the gap larger), except for the Finnish army - it was considered equal to German. It did not take into account individual brigades, the confrontation during the Strange War of 1939-40, operations in Poland and Yugoslavia (the Germans did not clash with the troops of the Western allies there), the Italian and Serbian Fronts of the 1st MV (except for the forces opposing the Anglo-French) and troops opposing the Romanians on the Eastern Front; cavalry divisions are not counted. In the 2nd MV, it took into account various infantry (including motorized, mountain, etc.) and tank divisions. The calculations were carried out according to Zayonchkovsky (1st MV) and Müller, ours, Gillebrandt (2nd MV). Naturally rounded, but the general ratio and order of numbers are correct.

World War I:

Eastern Front (with the Caucasus, August 1914-December 1917, inclusive):

2200 German division-months, 1500 (3/4) Austro-Hungarian, Turkish and Bulgarian division-months (including 350 - Caucasian Front), TOTAL - 3700 division-months against Russia

Western Front (with Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, Thessaloniki, Palestine, Italian Front - opposing only the Anglo-French!):

6300 German division months (including 4400 - until January 1918) and 450 other division months (with a 3/4 coefficient, incl. 300 - until January 1918), TOTAL - 6750 division months against the Entente and Americans (including 4700 - until January 1918)

TOTAL Germany and its allies set up 10450 division months (8400 - until January 1918), incl. about 2/3 - against the West (55% against the West until January 1918). Separately in Germany - a total of 8500 German division months (6600 until January 1918), including almost 75% against the West (2/3 against the West until January 1918)

Thus, the West took over the bulk of the troops of the Central Powers, especially the German ones - the most efficient and won, Russia was opposed by a smaller part of the enemy forces, but it lost the war. What’s the conclusion? But it is very simple - the supposedly rapidly developing and advanced Russian empire was not able to compete against Germany on equal terms, while Russia, in the form of the USSR, passed the test, won

[Rotmistr]

The West was able to “win” only because there was a Russian front for 3,5 years.
He pulled over a mass of troops, affected many German operations in France, thanks to the lull in the West, Russia's "allies" were rearmament.
The events of the 1940 campaign in France and Belgium, when the Germans applied the modified Schlieffen plan, testify to what would have happened in the West without the Russian front.
However, dear Uncle Murzik, Russia's contribution to the victory in WWII does not detract from the USSR’s feat in WWII and the decisive contribution of our state to WWII.
Conversely

[Uncle Murzik]

Dear Rotmistr, I agree with you! Of course, the staunchness and heroism of the Russian soldier contributed to the victory of the Entente, and not the least! Do not tell the Germans skilled wars and our soldiers could confront the Germans technically inferior, the whole question rests on the backwardness of tsarist Russia, the mediocrity of the general for not a big exception, illiteracy of the population!

[Gopnik]

Those. You write (even if we accept the fairness of calculations). Until January 1918, Russia (possibly with Romania) diverted 3700 division months, while the “West” 4700 division months. Moreover, the “West” is England (with Canada, ANZAC, etc.), France, Belgium, Italy, Serbia, and the USA (they appeared at the front in the autumn of 1917). Well, plus every little thing, such as the Portuguese expeditionary force and, in fact, the Russian expeditionary force. Very worthy.
It was just that in the 1MB the Bolsheviks collaborated with Germany and took a defeatist position, and in the 2MB (after 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX) exactly the opposite. Everything is simple.

[Uncle Murzik]

Gopnik again Lenin German shpien!

[Gopnik]

yeah, estimate something like this

[murriou]

Gopnik, translated into Russian - as usual, you can’t confirm your statements with anything, but you demand this from me. Who would be surprised
Nate, I submit for wretchedness:
1. Russia in the world war of 1914-1918 (in numbers)
http://istmat.info/files/uploads/33047/rossiya_v_
mirovoy_voyne_1914-1918.pdf
2. Shigalin Grigory Ivanovich
War economy in the first world war
http://militera.lib.ru/research/shigalin_gi/index
.html

There are many other sources, but at first you will take these skills, okay?

[Rotmistr]

And you, dear Germanophilism, work with archival materials - this will be especially useful. Authors are not sources, but literature. Understand this at last, okay?
Read about the hierarchy of sources and what is a source in general.
And your article about Ivan the Terrible is an alternative story in its purest form. But you won’t wash the black goat to white, right?
Raise your educational level respected Internet researcher
Good luck

[murriou]

Quote: Rotmistr

And your article about Ivan the Terrible

OU! I have an ARTICLE about Ivan the Terrible here! And why = I = still did not know anything about this ?!

Or maybe you better go to the orderlies for the necessary treatment, and only then to the forum?

[Rotmistr]

Clever cat. Active what - well done.
Keep it up!

[Gopnik]

Thanks for the links, I have these books. Why did you give them to me? Show what Google works for you? Congratulations!
Those. thus acknowledge my innocence? By your link: “In the field of aircraft and engine building, England overtook Germany somewhat. During the war, 47 aircraft were manufactured in England, 873 in Germany, 47 aircraft engines in England, and 300 in Germany.” Commendable.

[Uncle Murzik]

Gopnik and how much advanced tsarist Russia released?

[murriou]

On the same link, since you recognize her for respect, we look:

In Russia, during the war, 3490 aircraft were built, 1408 engines for them.
In France, 52146 aircraft and 92386 engines.

The difference in aircraft is 14,94 times, in engines 65,6 times - even much BIGGER than I wrote, I just called the difference in engines by 30-40 times, as Russia had with Germany or England.
I admit my mistake, I repent

Along the way, we note that the often found figure of 4,7 thousand aircraft made in the Republic of Ingushetia includes unfinished or altogether non-flying specimens. Here, apparently, there are no such stretches, although naming Russia the homeland of aviation and other undeserved praise is also there.

Further, the Russian-built Russian-built aircraft has 0,403 engines, or 1 engine for 2,479 aircraft, i.e. the deep dependence of "Russian" aviation on foreign deliveries of engines is also fully confirmed.
For comparison, in France the ratio is rather the opposite.

And here my words are confirmed by you with an approved link

Quote: Gopnik

Why did you give them to me?

Have you already forgotten that you yourself asked for links to sources? Do you still have memory problems ?! I feel more and more warmly

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Why, the most effective, compared with the French and British

Do you swear by mom, or will there be any more convincing evidence?

Quote: Gopnik

Yes, in August and September 1915 in the East, the Germans had 65 divisions, plus 37-42 Austrians versus 90 German in the West.

For now, ALMOST tell the truth, for a change.
They just tried to falsely lie, "not noticing" that the number of German troops in the west of 90 divisions was a DECREASE in their number in August-September 1915, and there were 100 divisions in April, and 93 divisions from May to July, and 101- 102 divisions in October-November, and the rest of the time, the priority of the western front for Germany remained unchanged.

While in the east the number of German divisions rose briefly, and ONLY during this rise, ONLY in June 1915, for the first time (!) In total (!) It reached the number of Russian divisions having a much larger number of staff: 16 battalions versus 12 battalions, 21+ thousand against 16+ thousand

ALL OTHER TIMES, the number of Russian divisions on the Russian-German front was noticeably higher than the number of German divisions IN THE AMOUNT, and the number of troops from the Russian side exceeded the number of Germans even more. In September 1915, there were 112 divisions from the Russian side on the eastern front of the PMV, 65 + 37 = 102 from the German side, and the Germans continued the offensive!

Is the difference in combat efficiency between the German and Austrian divisions still classified? I sympathize.
= * = to be continued = * =

[fenist82]

Thanks to the author for a wonderful article, more of these. And the photos are selected excellent.
The Germans always spread rot, but that didn’t help them in the end - now they themselves are the prey of those who were considered "subhuman"
And rightly so!

[Gopnik]

Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer? At least read the article you are commenting on. The Russians took captured Germans a little less than the British and French combined.
Why are you, comrade, you want to show me, crunching sovetskim cracker? Once again, omitting these words of yours: in the East, the Germans held a third of their divisions, sometimes more, sometimes a little less.
And the staff in June 1915 of the Russian division in 16 thousand. it is strong. Comrade, ay, in April switched to 3 battalion states in the regiments, i.e. 12 battalions in the division. Teach your materiel so you don’t write nonsense At the same time, they could only dream of the regular strength of the division. Empathize with yourself better, expert

[Uncle Murzik]

The results were not long in coming: as soon as the Russian army lost its significant superiority in numbers, the Gorlitsky breakthrough followed and 6 months of non-stop retreat, called the Great. The fortifications of Novogeorgievsk, Kovno, Brest-Litovsk, Grodno and others did not help the Russians for many years. In addition, the army was covered by shell and rifle hunger, which clearly did not contribute to successful resistance. As a result of the Great Retreat, Poland, Galicia, and Lithuania were completely cleared. Only from May 1 to November 1, the Russian army lost 976 prisoners, i.e. an average of 000 thousand per month. In the most stressful months - from May to September - losses by prisoners alone reached 160 thousand a month, and the total losses of those killed and wounded amounted to 200.

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

the main forces of the Triple Alliance were directed against Russia alone, more than against France and England combined.

And here you are already lying.

Because, due to illiteracy or dishonesty, you "forget" about the rest of the theater of war, on which from June to September 1915. there were about 40-45 divisions of the Triple Alliance.

Syria - 3 Turkish divisions, Iraq - from 2 to 4 Turkish divisions, Gallipoli from 17 to 23 Turkish divisions, Italian theater - 1 German and 12-19 Austro-Hungarian divisions, Balkan theater - from 2 to 12 divisions.

Even if we discard the Italian and Balkan theater of operations, where there were no British and French (although considerable forces of the Triple Alliance were all the same!), We still get: there were 88-106 German and Austrian divisions on the Russian-German front and 12 Turkish divisions on the Caucasus , totaling up to 100-118, a maximum in June 1915, and against the Anglo-French all this time there were the same forces or MORE.

Specifically in June, the most convenient ratio for you is 106 + 12 = 118 against Russia,
93 + 3 + 2 + 17 = 115 against the Anglo-French, really a little less, BUT! Recall another 12 + 1 = 13 divisions against Italians and 2 against Serbs, a total of 130, i.e. against Russia, still LESS than half of the forces of the common enemy, and your thesis about "BASIC forces against Russia" is still false.

The rest of the time, you don’t even have such comfort. In August 1915 against Russia 65 + 42 + 12 = 117 divisions, against the rest of the Entente 90 + 3 + 3 + 23 + 20 = 139 divisions, incl. against the British and French 119 divisions
Autumn 1915 still more contrary to your lies.

At the same time, the beloved crunch-bakery myth about the supposedly simultaneous main attack on Russia for all countries of the opponents is a lie.

Germany, yes, intensified the onslaught on Russia in the summer of 1915, but still continued to hold the main, largest and best forces in the west.

Just at that time, Turkey sent its main forces to repel the Anglo-French offensive in the Dardanelles, and there it held forces one and a half to two times more than against Russia, and also fought with the British and French in Syria and Messopotamia ..

For Austria-Hungary, the entire WWI Russian front was the main, BUT! Just in the spring and summer of 1915. the Austrians DECREASED their forces on the Russian front, transferring a significant part of them to crushing Serbia, and then to create the Italian front.

So "congratulations, citizen, you are a lie" (C)

[murriou]

Gopnik, then deal with your lies.

Quote: Gopnik

But there were more German divisions - in 1917.

Yes. It was. But at the same time, in the west, the Germans still had from 1917 to 124 German divisions during the year 153, and in the east there were much less - from 107 to 124 in the SUMM, incl. German from 65 to 84, i.e. still within 34-37% of the German forces and up to 42-45% of the combined German forces.

Quote: Gopnik

And a third of the Germans from their forces in the West - this has never happened.

1. Have you really forgotten how to read, or are you pretending to be?
I talked about half to a third of the GENERAL German forces, which was just the normal picture, and a third of the German forces is generally close to the typical picture for the entire war.

2. In August 1914, there were 80 German divisions in the west, 14 German + 28 Austrian divisions in the east, that is, of the total German forces, even equating the landwehr and the Austrians with the best German (!) personnel (!) troops, we see on the eastern front less than 15% of the German forces and 34,4% of the total German forces.

For bakers who are stuck at the level of class 1 CPN, spell: 15% of German forces in the east, 85% of German forces in the west - this is not even a third, this is slightly more than 1/6 of the forces in the east of the west
In November 1914. 89 German divisions in the west, 27 in the east, i.e. still 89/27 = 3,296> 3.
In December 1914. in the west there are 81 German divisions, in the east 36, i.e. only after that 81/36 = 2,25 <3.

That is, your "never happened before" lasted continuously for 4 months

So once again, I "congratulate you, citizen, lie" (C)
= * =

[Gopnik]

Ah, there it is, a third of the GENERAL German forces. It’s you who recorded the Hungarians in the Germans. Yes, you are not only a Petrosyan and a sharpie, but also a noble acrobat, so change your shoes on the fly They wrote, "The rest of the time, the number of GERMAN troops in the east amounted to one third to half of their forces in the west." One third is 25%. Once again for rodent crackers with soviet crackers - 25% of German forces in the East were only in August-September 1914 (well, I wrote only in August, we add September), i.e. 2 months, not four, what’s wrong, Mr. liar?

[murriou]

As soon as it comes to facts, hobbyists have problems reading and understanding in Russian
Do you, "Gopnik", better than Zayonchkovsky know the distribution of forces of the belligerent powers along the fronts? I wonder where from?

And I already cited the figures of Zayonchkovsky, and for them it was just 4 months of 1914, from August to November, without a break, that the German forces in the east were LESS than 25% of their total forces.

At first, even MUCH less. However, this did not stop them from defeating the two Russian armies in the East Prussian operation. Aha-aha, again we recall your statement that the Russian army in WWI was the most effective - For some reason you have forgotten to prove this amusing thesis.

This is not to mention your initial distortion - I talked about a third in the east of the general German forces, i.e. about 33%, of which there was most of the WWII, and you yourself were forced to admit it.

Quote: Gopnik

"The rest of the time, the number of GERMAN troops in the east amounted to one-third to half of their forces in the west"

1. Yes, the wording is unsuccessful, this is generally a hasty reservation, but in vain you hoped to cling to it: after all, half the forces in the east of the forces in the west - this is a third of the total.
2. This unsuccessful option, essentially a reservation, was only in ONE place for a long time, at the very beginning of the discussion.
Before and after this, I wrote MANY times more adequately, and you adequately "did not notice" these adequate formulations.
3. As you can see, and it was. Almost the whole of 1914.

Quote: Gopnik

One third is 25%.

Poor thing, I sympathize with you even more. You have not only the Russian language, you also have arithmetic problems!
I’ll tell you a terrible secret: a third is 33, (3)%.

[Gopnik]

Yes you are my friend a sharpie, you would not be able to teach a candelabrum on the red and mustached muzzle interfered
"And I have already quoted Zayonchkovsky’s numbers, and it’s just 4 months of 1914, from August to November, without a break, that the German forces in the east were LESS than 25% of their total forces."
Count? November 1914 in the West 89 in the East 27; December 81 and 36. Are you able to subtract the percentage? or didn’t they teach this in a coup, but only to crunch with a soviet cracker?

"Poor thing, I sympathize with you even more. You have not only the Russian language, you also have arithmetic problems!"

Do not turn on the fool Or is it your natural state? you wrote about a third of the forces in the West, i.e. 25% of the total strength. Or didn’t pass arithmetic, more and more the history of the party and Marxism-Leninism?

[murriou]

For the umpteenth time, I warmly sympathize with your problems with arithmetic within the framework of the 2nd grade of elementary school.

Or is it already in the 1st grade that you should be able to divide 89/27?
I don’t remember, for a long time already my youngest son from elementary school grew up, but some adult uncles still have not grown up.

[murriou]

= * =

Quote: Gopnik

It’s you who recorded the Hungarians in the Germans.

1. No, dear sharpie. It is you who turn a blind eye to the different combat capabilities of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops, dumping them together.
If we accept the difference in combat effectiveness from 1,5 to 2,0 times, then the difference in the number of German forces in the east and west varies greatly, and just not in your favor.

For example, 65 German divisions and 41 Austrian, this is the maximum in 1915, then they are not equal to 106 German, as you accept, the bakers, but to 85-93 German.
Those. it turns out exactly equally, and in the rest of the war - we see an even more significant advantage of German forces in the west over their forces in the east,

2. The Austrians are also Germans, Deutsche, if anyone forgot
Yes, the troops of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were mixed up with Germans, Czechs, Hungarians and something else.
Can you give the exact numbers of the national composition of their army? Can you justify how important this is in the context of the topic?

3. Since we are talking about a coalition war, we also had to fight with Turkey and Bulgaria, which means that their forces must also be taken into account.

Your selective consideration of only those forces with which Russia had to fight, and "forgetting" other forces and other theater of operations - this is cheating in its purest form. And it is exposed instantly when moving to the full amount of data.

Quote: Gopnik

those. 2 months, not four, which is not so

Spell for the most bakery:
August 1914 , germ. divisions: 80 in the west, 14 in the east. 80/14 = 5,71 >> 3
September 1914 , germ. divisions: 76 in the west, 19 in the east. 76/19 = 4,0 >> 3
October 1914 , germ. divisions: 77 in the west, 20 in the east. 77/20 = 3,85 >> 3
November 1914 , germ. divisions: 89 in the west, 27 in the east. 89/27 = 3,30> 3
More questions?

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

If we accept the difference in combat effectiveness from 1,5 to 2,0 times, then the difference in the number of German forces in the east and west varies greatly, and just not in your favor.

Why not immediately from 3,0 to 4,0 ??? Do not trifle!

Quote: murriou

2. The Austrians are also Germans, Deutsche, if anyone forgot

especially if you remember that actually the Austrians and Sudeten Germans there were much less than half

Quote: murriou

As you can see, and it was. Almost the whole of 1914.

Yeah, the maximum when it was was August, September and October. But November and December 1914 are no longer there. 3 months out of 5 is, of course, "almost all of 1914." And then this will never happen during the war NEVER, until the Bolsheviks concluded a truce, and then not immediately.

Quote: murriou

More questions?

Yes, what questions can you have? everything is clear with you

[murriou]

Again, you have sprinkled with saliva instead of a conversation in essence, in which you seem to have even realized your futility.

Quote: Gopnik

3 months out of 5

You progress, congratulations!
At first, “it never happened,” then they recognized August, then they recognized it for 2 months, now they even got to 3.

Interestingly, even with the FIFTH attempt you can read this:

November 1914 , germ. divisions: 89 in the west, 27 in the east. 89/27 = 3,30> 3

And November is the FOURTH consecutive month of state, which "NEVER was"
And yet, yes, 4 months out of 5 - this can already be called "almost the whole year."

Quote: Gopnik

Why not immediately from 3,0 to 4,0?

And from the point of view, your interlocutor justifying, yours, that evaluations of the comparative combat effectiveness of the German and Austrian divisions in the WWI from 1,5 to 2,0 were expressed by respectable specialists, including Zayonchkovsky already mentioned here.

Quote: Gopnik

Yes, what questions can you have? laughing everything is clear with you

Well, I will hope that you really have a wisdom

[murriou]

Gopnik, and for dessert, the last seems to be a portion of your lies from your one and only comment

Quote: Gopnik

everything is right with me.

You will not praise yourself, who will praise? This is after repeatedly exposing your lies, see above.

Quote: Gopnik

The USSR did not supply anything to the Allies

And here I will not spend time on the detailed exposure of your wretchedness. There were supplies of raw materials, there were supplies of documentation and weapons, this can be found in any primer.

But I repeat the IMPORTANT: the USSR provided its basic needs almost completely, RI in the PMV could not even provide its army rifles. and all high-tech weapons more than half (some almost completely) went to the Russian army with foreign supplies.

Quote: Gopnik

in 1MB we didn’t have “more than half” of the allied lovers.

Distort for the umpteenth time. From foreign deliveries there were even MORE than half of the "Russian" machine guns.
Well, yes, if you find fault with words and punctuation marks - not all suppliers could be considered allies, Italy and the USA at the beginning of the war were not such, but the degree of backwardness of tsarist Russia and its dependence on developed countries does not decrease.

Due to the weakness of the domestic war industry, the Russian government had to transfer [172] orders for machine guns abroad. During the war, 33 machine guns came from America and 808 from allies. However, the shortage of machine guns was still enormous.

Get it, sign it

[Gopnik]

Well, you are a noble cheater you yourself wrote "during the WWII, the Russian army received more than half of the easel machine guns from the supplies of the allies," and I distort. Yes you dodger! This scoop khrustosuharovets! Comrade, once again, I didn’t pull you by the tongue, you wrote about STANKOVYE, don’t need to punch handbrake on them, okay? You, my friend, are a liar, a liar and a cheater. Q.E.D. Receive and sign

[zoolu300]

The sharpie is just you. Russian told you in black: "RI during the WWII received most of the high-tech weapons (guns, machine guns, cars, airplanes) from foreign countries (allies, etc.)." They brought statistics, but you don’t understand yours.

[Gopnik]

And I will write "The USSR received the death star from the Martians" and you will refute it with numbers. Who writes let it prove.
Most of the guns and easel machine guns Russia produced herself. Yes, I bought any insignificant exotic from neutrals or from allies. Also, all handbrake bought because By 1917, its own constructed factory had not yet begun production, just as England was actively procured from the United States.

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Most of the guns and easel machine guns Russia produced herself.

Most guns are permissible.

Only in this case, except for three-inch arr. 1902, and those with an eye on the French cannon arr. 1897, including their "short" versions of arr. 1913, plus mountain cannons arr 1904, quickly replaced by a cannon 1909 already not so Russian origin.

The rest were: "Russian" 122-mm howitzers arr. 1909 Krupp designs, "Russian" howitzers 122 mm arr. 1910, 152 mm howitzer arr. 1909 and arr. 1910 and 107 mm guns arr. 1910 - Schneider’s designs, “Russian” 37-mm and 47-mm guns of the Gochkis design, mountain guns of the Dangliz design (adapted already in Russia to the Russian caliber), bombers of the Dumézil design (translated by Likhonin), etc.
Well, the "Russian" guns of the Kane system, 120mm and 152mm, it’s a sin not to remember

But they were made according to foreign drawings in Russia, yes

And besides, 400 Vickers howitzers 114mm and about a hundred Vickers howitzers 152mm, several. dozens of Vickers 203mm howitzers, about a hundred Japanese Type38 cannons, mainly converted to 107mm caliber, 70 37mm MacLin guns, dozens of pom-pom anti-aircraft guns, too, and something like that.
This is your "insignificant exotic", yeah yeah

As a result, during the WWII, about 9 thousand artillery equipment were produced in Russia, of which more than half were of foreign design, and at least 1 thousand was purchased — not even that bad, with much more than what Russia had in WWI was much worse.
But in the Second World War, the USSR provided on its own the production of 97% of artillery, moreover, of its own design, and only 3% were purchased.

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

But they were made according to foreign drawings in Russia, yes

Those. the vast majority of RIA guns were made at Russian factories, and not delivered by the Allies. Well, thanks to Stalin, admit that you lied. And it was worth it to rest so, right word?

Quote: murriou

But in the Second World War, the USSR provided on its own the production of 97% of artillery, moreover, of its own design, and only 3% were purchased.

Those. The USSR without damned tsarism, almost 40 years later, still could not fully provide itself with artillery? It’s strange. Truth?

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

its built plant did not start production by 1917

Yeah, they slowed down for 3 years, and then the Bolsheviks became to blame for this.
You know how, guys, bakeries, to amuse ...

Quote: Gopnik

England was actively purchased from the same USA.

England, unlike Russia, supplied a huge amount of high-tech weapons to other countries, including to Russia.

And the American Lewis light machine guns during WWI did more than they were made in the USA themselves at the same time.

Developed countries were in an approximately equal position, exchanging high-tech products, and Russia was only a consumer in relation to them.

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

Yeah, they slowed down for 3 years, and then the Bolsheviks became to blame for this.
You know how, guys, bakeries, to amuse ...

What are you to blame? What did not begin to produce handbrake in 1918? This is their business.

Quote: murriou

Developed countries were in an approximately equal position, exchanging high-tech products, and Russia was only a consumer in relation to them.

Well, like the USSR in the years of WW2, in comparison with the developed allies, we already talked about this

[murriou]

You never know what you said - the price of your words could already be seen here

And I have already reminded you many times that the USSR provided more than 99% of small arms, 97% of artillery equipment, 88% of aviation, 87% of tanks on its own.
And at the same time he was armed with all the high-tech weapons of his design and on his components.

I also reminded you many times that tsarist Russia, being about technologies in deep, um, backwardness, MOST of the high-tech weapons in WWI taught from foreign supplies.

But even from what was being done, as it were, in Russia, MOST was done according to the foreign design and with foreign components.

And that’s all, unlike yours * statements *, not my fantasies, but real facts, confirmed by sources that you yourself recognized as worthy of respect. We have already managed to discuss this too.

And how, you still do not see the difference between the position of the USSR in WWII and RI in WWI? To the optometrist, to the optometrist!

PySy. So how have you already solved your problems with arithmetic for the 2nd grade of elementary school, or still can’t divide 89 by 27?

[Gopnik]

Wait i.e. even having 1MV experience, having arranged industrialization at a high price, having thrown off tsarism that prevented living, and having 30 years of existence of the USSR, not only did not supply its equipment to backward bourgeois, but even received it from them, and even buttons for uniforms?
By the way, how many jet planes did the USSR have in WW2? Che there with a connection? "In the USSR there were no analogues to stations similar to American ones: interdivisional, regimental, and also inter-battery. They tried to copy and establish mass production. But until the end of the war, domestic industry was unable to organize their serial production. By the end of the war, the share of allied communications equipment in Krasnaya The army and navy made up 80%. "
"The revolutionary nature for the rearmament of the Red Army was the supply of western radars. The Soviet Union, having begun the hostilities, had only the very first prototypes of these systems. On the entire Red Fleet, one Molotov cruiser was equipped with a radar installation. Domestic developments carried out during the war on based on foreign systems, they became outdated instantly: military electronics developed so dynamically during these years, therefore, the supply of radar in accordance with Soviet applications continued to increase until the very end of the war . In the years 1944-1945, compared with the first war years, they have been increased five times. Locator 2181, including 373 sea and 580 aircraft were delivered to the Soviet Union in those years! "
As of June 1, 1945, out of 2036 artillery radars of the Red Army, only 248 SON-2 systems were of domestic production. More precisely, of domestic assembly, since the SON-2 locators were an exact copy of the English GL-2 locator, assembled using imported equipment and using imported components "
Oh, yes, all high-tech - its own. In my opinion, someone again shamelessly stars

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

And I will write "The USSR received the death star from the Martians" and you will refute it with numbers.

No, I will not refute.
Unless I will show to specialists who are more interested in this topic. Not in history and not in military affairs, but in medicine

[Gopnik]

Yes you are Petrosyans, I will not resist it’s nice when a person’s knowledge is close to zero, but a sense of humor, inferior, but still have Burn more!
So there, England and Germany released 2-3 engines for each aircraft, as one figure claimed or how?

[murriou]

Have you already noticed the figures for the production of aircraft and aircraft engines in tsarist Russia, as well as their comparison with France and other developed countries?

I’m sinful and repent, I lied about Russia's lag behind the developed countries by 30-40 times, and it turned out to be one and a half to two times more from France, 65,6 times, and only from Germany or England - "only "30 times with a ponytail.

Will you continue to lie about advanced Tsarist Russia and its equal position with the developed countries in the WWII, or will you take an example from me and also repent of your mistakes?

[Gopnik]

Those. Tsarist Russia until February 1917 produced engines 65,6 times less than France and 30-40 times less than Germany and England FOR THE SAME PERIOD?

[zoolu300]

The total amount of field heavy artillery guns received by the troops was 966 units. Of these, about 53% of the guns were purchased abroad.
1. Requirements Rates for 1917 in 4-inch guns - 384 units.

2. Actually received - 336 units.

3. Shortage - 48 units.

So, by 1917, the need of the Russian army in 4-inch guns was satisfied by 87,5%. Please note that overseas deliveries of these guns accounted for 64%!
1. Requirements of the Bet for 1917 in 6-inch howitzers - 516 units.

2. Actually received - 224 units.

3. Shortage - 292 units.


So, by 1917, the need of the Russian army for 6-inch howitzers was satisfied by 43,4%. Please note that overseas deliveries of these guns amounted to 32%.
1. Requirements Rates for 1917 in 6-inch long-range guns - 812 units.

2. Actually received - 116 units.

3. Shortage - 696 units.

So, by 1917, the need of the Russian army for 6-inch long-range guns was satisfied by 14,3%. At the same time, 72,4% here are overseas purchases.
1. Requirements of the Bet for 1917 in 8-inch howitzers - 211 units.

2. Actually received - 51 units.

3. Shortage - 160 units.
So, by 1917, the need of the Russian army in 8-inch howitzers was satisfied by 24,2% and only due to overseas purchases!
. Requirements Rates for 1917 in 9-inch guns - 168 units.

2. Actually received - 0 units.

3. Shortage - 168 units.

So, by 1917, the need of the Russian army for 9-inch long-range guns was not satisfied at all!
. Requirements Rates for 1917 in 11-inch howitzers - 156 units.

2. Actually received - 6 units.

3. Shortage - 150 units.

So, by 1917, the need of the Russian army in 11-inch howitzers was satisfied by 3,8% and only due to overseas purchases!
. Requirements Rates for 1917 in mortars and bombers - 13900 units.

2. Actually received - 1997 units.

3. Shortage - 11903 units.

So, by 1917, the need of the Russian army for bomb and mortars was satisfied by 14,3%. Soyuz put about 1050 bomb and mortars.

Over the entire war, in terms of the number of guns, the Russian army lost 1,35 times to the Austro-Hungarians (to its main enemy!), And to the Germans in general 5,47 times! But that's not all! By the start of the war, Russia was 2,1 times inferior in terms of heavy weapons to the Austro-Hungarians, and 8,65 times (!) To the Germans.
In total, machine guns were produced in Russia during the years of WWII - 28000 units. Received from abroad - more than 42000 units.

[murriou]

Thank you for your help on art equipment, colleague! I didn’t find it in my near memory, but I regretted searching the sources.

[zoolu300]

Not at all, comrade. Bulkokhrustov "wrinkle" is an important thing. At the beginning of the 20th century, they did not break off to give us to slaughter the Fed owners. And today we should not let them do it. No pasaran!

[Gopnik]

But pasaran, comrade! The main thing is more pathos! And then the enemy does not sleep!
Lord how small children

[Gopnik]

Comrade Why are you writing this at all? Also decided to distort? So easel machine guns, with a deft movement of the hand turn into hand, and artillery guns into new heavy artillery guns. "Yes, they’re playing dirty" (c)

[murriou]

Do you have to object to the next fact presented to you of the deep backwardness of tsarist Russia, this time in the production of heavy artillery?

Well, try it. Do not deceive our expectations and perform as funny as always

[zoolu300]

The stubborn one got a bunk crunch. If machine guns, then easel, if guns, then light, if cars, then cars, if planes, then only at the beginning of the war, and the main thing:
“During the entire war, the number of guns in the Russian army was 1,35 times lower than that of the Austro-Hungarians (their main enemy!), And 5,47 times to the Germans in general!” He doesn’t want to see point blank. But here everything is clearer than clear.
Table 4. Arms production during the First World War

Types of military equipment and ammunition Germany Austria-Hungary France England Russia Italy Italy USA Total
Rifles (in thousand) 8547 3500 2500 3854 3300 2400 3500 27601
Machine guns (in thousand) 280,0 40,5 312,0 239,0 28,0 101,0 75,0 1075,5
Artillery pieces (in thousand) 64,0 15,9 23,2 26,4 11,7 6,5 4,0 151,7
Mortars (in thousand) 12,0 - 3,0 2,5 - - 0,6 18,1
Tanks (in thousands) 0,1 - 5,3 2,8 - - 1.0 9,2
Aircraft (in thousands) 47,3 5,4 52,1 47,8 3,5 12,0 13,8 181,9
Artillery shells (in millions of pieces) 306,0 80,0 290,0 218,0 67,0 70,0 20,0 1051,0
Ammunition (in billion pieces) 8,2 4,0 6,3 8,6 13,5 3.6 3,5 47,7
Trucks (in thousand) 65,0 - 110,0 87,0 20,0 28,0 30,0 340,0

[Gopnik]

The near-withered biting, the main thing at point-blank refuses to see, or is he pretending to be a fool (or not pretending?
All these figures are indicated for all warring countries until November 1918, and only for Russia for 1915-1917. Moreover, Russia in 1917 produced much less guns than in 1916, because hard workers instead of work went to Lenin’s grandfather to listen to rallies, and after VOSR they generally got them to work, because a truce with Germany.
But for example, during 1915-1916 the Republic of Ingushetia produced 7250 guns, Germany 18, France 000, England 6200, Austria-Hungary somewhere around 8400. That is, Before February, RI produced more guns than France and Austria-Hungary, and slightly less than England.
The rifle Russia in 1915-17 produced more of England, France and Austria-Hungary, more than Germany alone.
By the way, 1 thousand tanks looks very funny, as if made by the USA Where does this source of secret knowledge come from?

[zoolu300]

Own production was delayed due to the need to convert sizes from the metric system to the inch, adopted in the United States. In addition, the production of Renault engines in the United States failed, and the tanks had to install the American Buda motor with a capacity of 43 liters. from. A total of 4440 "6-ton tanks of the 1917 model" was ordered, but due to the end of the war, only 950 tanks were manufactured at American plants, which in the 20s and 30s formed the basis of the armored forces of the US Army.
Now there is a baked-crunch victim of the exam.

[murriou]

In addition, in the United States, before the end of the WWI, they had a small batch - 15 copies of them had a small experimental batch! - make a Ford 3-ton, which, with a fairly noticeable influence of Renault FT-17, was a technically original machine, plus a number of experimental designs of ersatz tanks, most likely armored tractors that could not withstand competition with full-fledged tanks.

In different countries, and even in Russia, starting in 1916, they also managed to make a number of similar designs of ersatz tanks, the benefit is something simple: to take and armor a serial tractor. The French and the British managed to go through this stage of experiments on the way to real tanks even earlier.

Only the Germans, not wanting to go the simple way, took and made for their "Dür-Wagen" the original chassis, the first batch of 10 copies. even managed to work as an armored personnel carrier.

The Italians used their serial tractor "Pavezi", turning it into an armored tractor "Autocarro", but abandoned the case when they saw the FT-17.

In the forefront Tsarist Russia, in the absence of its own production of tractors, experimented, of course, with imported American ones, and even managed before the summer of 1917. to make a SERIES in TWO copies (compare with the American small experimental series of 15 copies!), the WWII did not even reach the fighting.

Quote: Gopnik

By the way, 1 thousand tanks looks very funny, as if made by the USA

Funny - this is your mixture of ignorance with self-confidence, with problems even with arithmetic.

For almost a day now, how can you not solve the problem for elementary school: divide 89 by 27. Have you managed to do it now? Or sympathize with you again?

However, the attempts of imperial Russia to imitate advanced countries also look * touching *and the efforts of the bakers to give these attempts for comparable success are completely ridiculous

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

and even managed before the summer of 1917. to make a SERIES in TWO copies (compare with the American small experimental series of 15 copies!), before the war, the WWII did not reach

Opposing, well, stupid dry bites. You still remember Liberty. Compare, yes, 2 tanks BEFORE the summer of 1917 and 15 tanks in the fall of 1918, which also did not reach the combat operations of the WWII.
Once again, for the alternatively gifted - the United States produced literally several tanks that did not participate in the hostilities until the end of the WWII. No 1 thousand. Tanks DURING US PMV DIDN'T let out. Although, probably, they were released by the American schutzkor, and therefore they were not included in the statistics, yes, murriou

[Gopnik]

What are you, crackers, funny))) The first M1917 tanks appeared only in October 1918, "two tanks arrived in France on November 20, nine days after the end of hostilities." The vast majority of tanks were made AFTER the war, until the end they managed to make just a few pieces.

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

You wrote about the STANKOVYE, do not puck on them handbrake, okay?

1. Give the numbers for the production of machine guns, not a question, we will discuss.
Until 1915, the Germans did not make light machine guns at all.

In 1915, they, as an answer to Chamberlain, i.e. “Lewis,” appeared MG 08/15 - a “lightweight” water-cooled machine gun, very conditionally hand-held: more than 20 kg without cartridges, but with water, plus 6-8 kg box with tape.

They were made in a as-manual and as-easel version with respect to 5/2, and in many archival photographs, in many films about the PMV, you can see the characteristic stock on the German easel machine gun - so this is the “manual” MG 08/15.

A full-fledged light machine guns weighing 14,5 kg among the Germans appeared only in 1918. and were called, respectively, MG 08/18.

Quote: Gopnik

You, my friend, are a liar, a liar and a cheater.

Come on, “gopnik”, justify your nickname, shout louder “hold the thief!” After you yourself have repeatedly been caught in the hot

[Gopnik]

And why are you writing me all this? I know, unlike you, what is easel, and what is a light machine gun. Want to brag about that, too, found out? Congratulations!
Once again, you, dear liar, wrote that

Quote: murriou

the Russian army received from the supplies of the Allies more than half of the machine guns

so this is a lie. Everything is simple and no need to chatter

[murriou]

Well, they persuaded: Russia received one and a half times more machine guns from foreign deliveries than it itself could do, i.e. Among the “Russian” machine guns, Russian production amounted to about 40%, noticeably LESS THAN HALF.
Will such a formulation suit you?

And at the same time, Russia for the WWII machine guns produced an order of magnitude less than Germany. It even comes out in your numbers, and even more worthy of respect.
Do you recognize? Or can you clearly objection?

Do you have any arithmetic at school, admit it? Why is the final production of machine guns in Germany an order of magnitude greater than in Russia, you are trying to argue that throughout the war the German production of machine guns was more than Russian at times?

Do you acknowledge that even Russia’s rifles in its army were able to provide no more than 70%, and received at least 30% from foreign supplies?

Do you acknowledge that Russia itself produced almost 15 times less aircraft than France, and its engines - more than 65 times less than France?

Do you acknowledge that for ALL types of high-tech weapons, "Russian" weapons were less than half Russian?

I look forward to a clear objection to each of this paragraph, or your open and direct recognition of them all in bulk.
Your constant sprinkling of saliva does not convince me of anything, except for conclusions about your psychological ill health.

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

Will such a formulation suit you?

comrade, don’t fidget like a girl with reduced social responsibility, ok? You wrote about easel machine guns, and do not try to distort, with an indignant look, we have all the moves recorded. With such cheaters and liars you need an eye and an eye

Quote: murriou

Your constant sprinkling of saliva does not convince me of anything, except for conclusions about your psychological ill health.

Oh, my friend, you’re a little arrogant liar and a cheater, and even a boor

Do you acknowledge that RI received less than 50% of machine guns from its allies and neutrals?
Do you acknowledge that in the East, the Germans in some months after 1915 held more than a third of their forces?
Do you acknowledge that England and Germany did not produce engines 2-3 times larger than aircraft?
Do you acknowledge that comparing production before November-December 1917 for one country and until November (inclusive) 1918 for others is not a sign of intelligence?

I look forward to a clear objection to each of this points, or your open and direct recognition of them all at once, without wagging the stern and trying to distort.
Your constant sprinkling of saliva, flavored with emoticons, does not convince me of anything, except for the conclusions about your deep psychological ill health.

[murriou]

I answer. No emoticons, because you used to amuse me before, but you already managed to pretty much get it with your * lack of information * and * lack of honesty *.

You have already managed to lie many times here, and many times you have been poked into your lies with your face.

For starters, you grabbed my disclaimer in the wording and tried to accuse me of a lie peculiar to you.

I was referring to the presence on the eastern front of a third-half of the total German forces, you have interpreted this as no more than a third (instead of a third-half) of the forces from those German forces that are in the West, and declared that it was NEVER.

Several times I poked you in the face in real numbers, according to which this "never" lasted from August to November 1914 continuously. You wagged your ass, first recognized August, then 2 months, then 3, because you did not manage to solve the arithmetic problem for grade 2 - divide 89 by 27.

Since then, several. hours have passed, how are your successes? Oh, I still can not resist the smiley face over your amusing attempts to get out, not recognizing your very obvious lies

[Gopnik]

You are a comrade, a cheater and a liar. It’s not me who "reposted", but only quoted you. Trying to jump off, such as "mistake in the wording", well, then, I will pretend that I believe, yes.
And several times I poked you with your mustachioed red muzzle that even after the summer of 1915 the Germans happened to hold more than a third of their forces in the East. Will you continue to wag stern, or again "were mistaken in the wording"?

[murriou]

Now about MY inaccuracies.

Quote: Gopnik

Do you acknowledge that RI received less than 50% of machine guns from its allies and neutrals?

I haven’t seen your figures and sources, by the way. Only your stories about how easy it is to see these numbers in any books about the WWI - only for some reason, except for a few "unloving" books that I opened
Nevertheless,
1. There are reliable figures for the supply of ALL machine guns, light and machine guns - this is more than 42 thousand, one and a half times more than Russia's own production during the WWII.
Do you recognize this?

2. All the “Russian” machine guns, except for a few copies of the Fedorov assault rifle, were of foreign design: Maxim, Madsen, Lewis, Shosh, Vickers, Browning ... Have you forgotten anyone yet?
Do you acknowledge this?

3. The production of machine guns in Germany and other developed countries was about an order of magnitude more than Russian.
Do you recognize this?

4. I’m ready to admit that for precisely machine guns (and not machine guns in general!), The share of Russian-made “Russian” machine guns could be higher than 50%.
But even by your numbers - not much. Maximum, 28 / (28 + 23) = 0,549 ~ 55%
Accordingly, the share of deliveries is 45%.
(remembering your problems with arithmetic, I decided to help the poelik perhaps). How do you like this "victory"?

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

I am ready to admit

uh, comrade, do not do me a favor, ok ?? Someone, I see, is not moderately swollen with pathos, who is trying to interrogate me in the style of the prosecutor and the judge in one person.
RI did more easel machine guns than it received from the neutral allies. Contrary to your lies. Not to mention the fact that the lion's share of foreign deliveries came to RUSSIA (and not even necessarily to the troops) only in 1917. Well, that’s okay.
Russia did not make light machine guns, since the plant that was built only managed to produce an experimental batch of handbrakes, and then VOSR happened, and the Bolsheviks did not start production before the Brest Peace. therefore, all light machine guns in the Russian army were foreign. I wrote it repeatedly and will write,
especially for you, again.
The production of easel machine guns in Germany, England and France, of course, was not an order of magnitude higher than the Russian one. And the production of Austria-Hungary was less.
Did you get it this time? Or will you still wobble?
You wrote nonsense about easel machine guns, I’m already tired of poking you in the face with your face, and you all strive to dodge your face by writing about light machine guns.

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Do you acknowledge that in the East, the Germans in some months after 1915 held more than a third of their forces?

If you didn’t notice, I gave the exact numbers.
Somewhere 34%, somewhere even as many as 37%

And a third, I have to remind you again, this is 33, (3)%, and not 25% at all, as you said here, apparently confusing a third and a quarter

But it happened less and often.
January-February 1916 51 / (51 + 105) = 0,327 = 32,7%
Март 1916г. 48/(48+108)=0,308=30,8%
Март 1916г. 48/(48+108)=0,308=30,8%
Апрель-май 1916г. 47/(47+111)=0,297=29,7%
Июнь 1916г. 46/(46+113)=0,289=28,9%
Well, how?

However, even 40% is clearly far from the "! Overwhelming majority of forces" allegedly abandoned by the Germans against the Russian Empire

More questions?

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

And a third, I have to remind you again, this is 33, (3)%, and not 25% at all, as you said here, apparently confusing a third and a quarter

Oh my Stalin! Are you stupid again? 25% is a third of the forces in the West, i.e. when in the West 3 times more than in the East, what you wrote about. Not tired of arranging a clowning party?
By the way, this table compiled by the French does not take into account individual Austrian brigades, as Zayonchkovsky himself wrote about.
And who wrote about the "vast majority of forces," by the way?

Quote: murriou

More questions?

yeah. when you stop lying and cheating? And one more, can I? Have you sorted out the Finnish losses? Otherwise, I won’t find Shyutkor divisions and corps in losses, which, like, were not taken into account. Do not tell me on which front they fought?

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Are you stupid again?

No. You are still stupid.

Quote: Gopnik

25% is a third of the forces in the West

I sympathize with your lingering problems with arithmetic.
25% is QUARTER.
One third is 33, (3)%.
How do you understand the reception?

The figures I cited by Zayonchkovsky show that during the WWII just around a third of all German forces in the East walked around. Now a little more, a little less.

At least the entire first half of 1916 is LESS, and in 1914 MUCH less.
When you learn arithmetic for elementary school, do the rest yourself, okay?

And a third of the forces in the east is when exactly half of the forces in the West are in the East.
Have you already mastered arithmetic for grade 2?
Have you already learned to divide 89 by 27?
Or when you expect to master this high art?

Quote: Gopnik

who wrote about the "vast majority of forces," by the way?

There are enough Khlebobakers in the world, you are not the only one affected by this ailment, and even you are not the worst case. There are even such * unique *who seriously and with foam at the mouth prove Russia's victory in the REV.
Are you one of those, by any chance?

[Gopnik]

You, it seems, for the lack of arguments and facts decided to starve to death one third of the forces in the West, this is 25% of the total. Doesn't get it, doesn't it? You wrote

Quote: murriou

the number of German troops in the east amounted to one third to half of their forces in the west.

Why are you turning on the fool again?

Quote: murriou

There are enough Khrustobuchnikov in the world,

And, of course, you, as a crunchman, with a soviet cracker and an adherent of Stalin, fight with windmills. Be vigilant, the enemy is around, yes!

[zoolu300]

Everything here has already gone. A third is 33,3%, and 25% is a quarter. I’ll make an unambiguous diagnosis to you: “Bulkhrustam even pisses in the eye, all God's dew.”

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Do you acknowledge that England and Germany did not produce engines 2-3 times larger than aircraft?

Yes. I admit it. I was misled by the individual figures of production, in which the ratio was far from normal.

Do you acknowledge that the superiority of developed countries over Russia in the production of aircraft and aircraft engines turned out to be even BIGGER in real numbers than I claimed from approximately recalled and incomplete data?

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Do you acknowledge that comparing production before November-December 1917 for one country and until November (inclusive) 1918 for others is not a sign of intelligence?

NO. I do not recognize.
Because I gave you not only the totals for the entire WWI, but also the monthly production figures for years.

And according to these figures, a significant advantage of developed countries over Russia is visible for each year.
Yes, for Germany and for at least part of these years - at times.
However, England and France in cr. at least in 1917, the monthly production of machine guns was also many times greater than that of Russia.

Do you acknowledge this? Or again with the same numbers you need to poke * face *?

[Gopnik]

Your comrade poke hasn’t grown yet to poke something here, I’m already tired of your wobbles
You cited the maximum monthly production figures, easel machine guns, along with manual. And I’m sure that you’re not so stupid not to understand this. Just expect to chat and distort, as usual.

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

I look forward to a clear objection to each item

Well, wait. Are you satisfied? Get it. sign up

[murriou]

[/ quote] [quote = Gopnik] Yes, you rave! see the same Barsukov. [/ quote]
Isn't that the great historian who seriously called Russia the homeland of aviation and proved the immeasurable aviation power of Russia by the fact that before the First World War, its Air Force had the most aircraft?

Nothing so that the vast majority of these "Russian" aircraft were of French design, almost all - on German and French engines, and most - bought abroad?

In general, well, who would talk about nonsense ...

[quote = Gopnik] Germany produced 230 thousand for the war. machine guns. [/ quote]
That's strange, 280 thousand are written in all sources worthy of respect.
But personally, of course, you know better? Otkeda firewood?

[quote = Gopnik] Until February 1917, Germany produced a comparable number of looms, more, of course, than RI, but not at times. [/ quote]
Your personal alternate universe may have everything you want.
In our

[murriou]

An underreported comment set off. Admins, pass by - kill. The edited one is already there.

[murriou]

Gopnik,

Quote: Gopnik

Yes you are raving! see the same Barsukov.

Isn't that the great historian who seriously called Russia the homeland of aviation and proved the immeasurable aviation power of Russia by the fact that before the First World War, its Air Force had the most aircraft?

Nothing so that the vast majority of these "Russian" aircraft were of French design, almost all - on German and French engines, and most - bought abroad?

In general, well, who would talk about nonsense ...

Quote: Gopnik

Germany produced 230 thousand for the war. machine guns.

That's strange, 280 thousand are written in all sources worthy of respect.
But personally, of course, you know better? Otkeda firewood?

Quote: Gopnik

Until February 1917, Germany produced a comparable number of machine gunners, more, of course, than RI, but not at times.

Your personal alternate universe may have everything you want.
In our reality:

In the pre-war time, machine guns were made only at the Tula Arms Plant, where there was a special machine gun department designed to produce 700 machine guns per year. ... During the war, the products of the machine-gun department exceeded the pre-war level of production by 25 times.

Let's estimate: at the end of the war 17,5 thousand / year, almost 1,5 thousand per month; at the beginning of 0,7 thousand year, almost 60 copies. per month, on average up to 9 thousand / year, 750 per month.

Now for Germany:

In the manufacture of rifles and machine guns, German industry surpassed all the warring European countries. The monthly production of rifles according to the mobilization plan was to be brought up to 30 thousand units for the fifth month of the war. However, the need for rifles far exceeded pre-war calculations. As a result, the production of rifles was growing rapidly. The monthly production of rifles was determined for the month of July of each year by the following figures: 100 thousand in 1915, 250 thousand in 1916, 210 thousand in 1917, 110 thousand in 1918. For all the time war in Germany was made 280 thousand machine guns {36}. Machine gun production increased as follows: 200 units per month - in 1914, 800 - by the end of 1915, 2300 - in August 1916, 7000 - in the spring of 1917 and 14000 - in the autumn of 1917 {37}. For the entire time of the war in Germany, 280 thousand machine guns were made.

We count. For those who are difficult to climb beyond the 1st grade of the central vocational school, I will help:
1914 200/58 = 3,43
1917 beginning of the year 7000/1458 = 4,8
1917 end of year 14000/1458 = 9,6
That is, the production of machine guns in Germany was higher at times, and the lag of Russia from Germany during the war even grew.

For the umpteenth time you are caught in a direct and unequivocal LIT?

[Gopnik]

How funny you are, right word After all, you have knowledge with Gulkin’s nose, and aplomb with Everest, no less
I’m not sorry, I’m kind today, I serve! http://kosmodesantnick.livejournal.com/35849.html
Once again: the Germans fired 230 thousand machine guns during the war. For the war, this is counting November 1918, and not before VOSR (when was it, to remind?) Like Russia, and most of them are light machine guns.
So, I'll throw it on poverty. In 1915, the Republic of Ingushetia produced 4251 machine guns, Germany, France and England at about 6000 each, Austria-Hungary 2500. the production of looms was comparable. Then Germany, France and England began to produce handbrake, Russia, yes, admittedly, braked, although it built a plant, and then the Bolsheviks came and it became irrelevant. And the rest riveted the whole of 1918. In general, learn materiel, and not just crunch breadcrumbs

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Once again: the Germans fired 230 thousand machine guns during the war.

Once again: where are the firewood from? In sources known to me, including the numbers you mentioned, the figure is 280 thousand.
Or do you have problems with vision, which is confusing 3 and 8?

Quote: Gopnik

In 1915, RI released 4251 machine guns

Again the same question: where did the firewood come from?

By 1914, the rate of production of machine guns in Russia was 700 copies. per year, 3,5 times less than German, respectively. I have already quoted you.
A six-fold increase over the year, despite the fact that beyond this pace is not observed at all? I can’t believe it. Moreover, ALL Russian industry began the war until mid-late 1915, hibernating and rocking, and then had to frantically engage in procurement abroad and pray for help from the Allies.

Quote: Gopnik

Germany, France and England at about 6000 each

In 1915 the rate of production of machine guns in Germany, according to Shigalin, amounted to 800 machine guns per month. It’s XNUMX times more.
In England and France, yes, 6 thousand are confirmed.

Quote: Gopnik

Russia yes, admittedly, it’s a drag

Sincere recognition softens That's how much they rested, but I had to admit - you can’t argue against the truth.

Quote: Gopnik

although it built a factory, and then the Bolsheviks came and it became irrelevant.

Aha-aha, in the three years of the war there were only projections, dreams and a certain amount of slowly started long-term construction, and then the Bolsheviks came, and all the failures of a bad dancer could be blamed

And in developed countries, in the very first months of the war, the production of arms and ammunition was able to be raised significantly. Feel the difference.

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

Once again: where are the firewood from? In sources known to me, including the numbers you mentioned, the figure is 280 thousand.

Well, I brought you a link, everything is in the discussion, read it, it’s easy

Quote: murriou

Again the same question: where did the firewood come from?

Yes, you open any book on 1MV and look. The same Barsukov or Manikovsky.

Quote: murriou

By 1914, the rate of production of machine guns in Russia was 700 copies. per year, 3,5 times less than German, respectively. I have already quoted you.

Yeah, and so the Germans had less than 5000 machine guns by the start of the war. Just for 2 since 1912 riveted, and before that, no, no.
In 1914, the Russians made 1300 machine guns, in 1915 - 4300, in 1916 - 11 100, in 1917, despite the notorious events - 11 400 copies. Whether you believe it or not, you need it in church, I don’t discuss issues of faith

Quote: murriou

Sincere recognition softens That's how much they rested, but I had to admit - you can’t argue against the truth.

petrosian again well you scream I will tell you more than that. Russia has traditionally had a hard time with the massive launch of technical innovations, but then how they put it on the conveyor - they won’t stop even when it’s already out of date. Therefore, the production of aircraft engines and light machine guns Russia began later France-England-Germany. In principle, the USSR had the same garbage. What, I'm sure, even you know about At least on the example of jet engines and radar

Quote: murriou

And in developed countries, in the very first months of the war, the production of arms and ammunition was able to be raised significantly.

In RI, too, the production of weapons (guns, machine tools and rifles) and ammunition was raised at times, you are our mathematician

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Yes, you open any book on 1MV and look.

Well, I open the book of Shigalin - 280 thousand. And in almost all other sources the same thing. Maybe this is for you to the optometrist?

Quote: Gopnik

in 1915 - 4300

Per year. And the Germans at this time produced 800 a month, for the year 9600.
Twice with a tail more.

Quote: Gopnik

in 1916 - 11

Per year. And the Germans at this time production of 2300 per month, for the year 27600. 27600/11100 = 2,486

Quote: Gopnik

in 1917, despite the notorious events - 11 copies.

Almost 1 thousand per month, more precisely 0,95 thousand

And at the beginning of 1917 the Germans had 7 thousand a month, at the end of the year 14 thousand a month — more than in Russia over the YEAR.

And other developed countries have several. thousand per month was done. In England, up to 12 thousand machine guns and 120 thousand rifles per month reached, for example.

Quote: Gopnik

In RI, too, the production of weapons (guns, machine tools and rifles) and ammunition was raised at times, you are our mathematician

What are you not a mathematician well at all, I already noticed, thanks

And that for you all "at times" are the same, also noticeable. Only here English or German times - many times more Russian times go

Once again, in syllables and on fingers.
Here is the world-recognized figure for the production of machine guns in Germany during the WWII: 280 thousand

Here is your personal figure, no matter where it came from - I’m not Freud, I’m not interested in finding out the origin of your personal kookies, even if 230 thousand - and this is also an order of magnitude more than Russian production in the 28 thousand recognized by you.
280/28 = 10, it’s even for you to count as much as possible.
230/28 = 8,21 it is already more difficult, but I will help you.
And how, with comparable, as you are trying to prove, production every month (contrary to real numbers, but for now you can forget about it) can you get the difference by an order of magnitude?
I just sometimes want to understand the course of your "thoughts"

And once again I remind you of the fact that for all the mighty rise of Russian industry during the WWII machine guns, Russia bought one and a half times more than it did itself, even rifles, and that was at least 30% purchased, Russia made 14,9 times less than France and 13 times less than Germany, and less engines 65,6 and 31,4 times respectively, and so on with all the stops.

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

Well, I open the book of Shigalin - 280 thousand. And in almost all other sources the same thing. Maybe this is for you to the optometrist?

Maybe it's a thread to you? Do not read Soviet books half a century ago. Read about foreign armies, foreign sources, and preferably newer. In the link are written the same sources that they did not see? To the optometrist? D. Faustin, R. Merrion "The German Army 1914-1918" and the German site about machine guns http://www.maximgun.de/maxim-gun-hersteller/

Quote: murriou

And the Germans at this time, production of 800 per month, per year 9600

Comrade, is your native language Russian? Or Stalin, who knows a lot about linguistics, doesn’t tell you to study? Do you see the difference between "UP to 800 per month" and "800 each month"?
About the difference between "easel" and "easel and manual" I do not say, I see that it does not reach.

Quote: murriou

In England, up to 120 thousand rifles per month reached, for example.

Stunned. Day but a developed country! In Russia, it reached more than 120 thousand. rifles per month, if that. Before February, Russia generally produced more than all rifles except Germany.

Quote: murriou

Here is the world-recognized figure for the production of machine guns in Germany during the WWII: 280 thousand
Here is your personal figure, no matter where it came from - I’m not Freud, I’m not interested in finding out the origin of your personal kookies, even if 230 thousand - and this is also an order of magnitude more than Russian production in the 28 thousand recognized by you.

Once again, and in syllables. Germany produced 230 thousand., Easel and light machine guns together, and for the war this included November 1918. RI produced 28000 only easel, and until the end of 1917 do you really see the difference, or include a fool ???
Once again, 28 thousand. looms until the end of 1917 and 72 thousand. looms until the end of 1918 is not an order of magnitude, it is not even 3 times. Although, if you want, to increase the effect, you can still count submachine guns, garbage, since Germany produced them, and also a “machine gun”

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

http://www.maximgun.de/maxim-gun-hersteller/

Thanks for the reference, really interesting.

Nothing so that it indicates the total production of German "maxims" for all models and all plants 429 thousand from 1908 to 1918.?

And which of these results in the superiority of pre-war Germany over pre-war Russia? Although, you have arithmetic even up to grade 2 of elementary school is not pumped

But it’s nothing so that the production of MG 08/15 130 thousand copies is indicated there. and 1 thousand. MG 08/18?

For those unfamiliar with arithmetic, I explain: this means that the production of the remaining German machine guns, even according to your data for WWI, is at least 99 thousand copies, according to more respected people, at least 149 thousand copies. - And you about how many lied, do not remember?

And it’s nothing that MG 08/15 produced production in the ratio of 2 easel sets to 5 manual sets, i.e. Of the 130 thousand indicated on your link machine guns were another 37 thousand easel?

How much fun can be found when a person has not looked carefully at his own link, and besides, logic and arithmetic are at odds.

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

Nothing so that it indicates the total production of German "maxims" for all models and all plants 429 thousand from 1908 to 1918.?

Nothing. Ignorance of a foreign language is not a sin, although not a virtue. Try to use an online translator, you will see

[murriou]

It was not a foreign language, but my haste and carelessness. He looked, understood.

At the same time, I realized where you got such stubborn confidence in the number of 230 thousand copies - it turned out to be a deep secret for you to manufacture machine guns in Germany except for "maxims", and the very maximum ones were just 230 thousand.
Once again, I warmly sympathize with you!

And besides them, there were Bergman machine guns: easel arr. The year 1902, which even appeared before the “maxims” of MG-08, then there was the “lightweight” model MG-10, also purely easel, the production of which continued until the end of the WWII, and the manual LMG-15 and MG-15na — these total about 5 thousand copies
There were machine guns Dreyze arr 1908/15 - purely easel, not to be confused with the "Maxim" MG 08/15.
There were machine guns MG-14 "parabellum", produced as aircraft and anti-aircraft, but as infantry, also applicable and applied.
There was a small number (up to 1,5 thousand) of Gast super-rapid-fire machine guns.

This is where you “lost” with fifty thousand German machine guns that you didn’t take into account.

By your link, the number of MG-08/15 produced is 130 thousand, of which 37 thousand MG-08/15 were issued as easel.
It was also released 1 thousand MG-08/18 and 5 thousand. Bergman light machine guns - a total of 136 thousand, of which 37 thousand. As-is-easel, 6 thousand. Manual and 93 thousand. As-manual.
We subtract from the total output up to 3 thousand machine guns.

The total output of 280 thousand, of which 178 thousand easel, 99 thousand manual and 3 thousand aviation.
Although, you have problems with arithmetic ... Have you already learned to divide 89/27?

[Gopnik]

It is you, as usual, that you are inattentive and knowledge brings you, incl. sympathize better with yourself.
Although, it is commendable that you were able to read Fedoseyev.
The link is 227 machine guns, including those issued before the war.
In the link that I first gave you, 5000 Bergmanovs are mentioned, they compensated for the pre-war issue of "maxims."
And we recall that we are talking about machine guns fired during the war, not before and not right right after (like the bulk of Gast machine guns)
The 5000 Bergmann MG15 nA is just about the balance of pre-war production. And in any way you do not pull the owl on the globe and you will not go out for 280 thousand, reconcile.

Quote: murriou

of which 37 thousand MG-08/15 were issued as easel.

why is this?

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

why is this?

With the terms of the government military order.
Have you already learned to share 89/27?

[murriou]

zoolu300, Mr. (understand how you like) the baker with initial arithmetic has serious problems, and hardly only with it. If it’s interesting and not a pity to get to know my correspondence today, look at how much time he was unable to complete division 89 by 27 - and it looks like he’s still convinced that there should be LESS THREE

In reality, 89/27 = 3,30 - I even told him several times in plain text, but the curtain of secrecy over this simple equation for him seems to remain forever
Other respectively. Only a lobotomy can save him ...

[zoolu300]

It will not save. This sacrifice of the Unified State Examination will be corrected only by uranium mines. And you well done, prove everything with numbers and links. What some young people. damaged exam (not completely killed as Gopnik), read our srach, think, and then there is not far from the cure. I was so cured of rezunism at one time.

[murriou]

Quote: zoolu300

well done, prove everything with numbers and links.

Well, what else is there to prove? “motherclanus”, as our opponents usually do, for lack of more worthy arguments?

Quote: zoolu300

he will read our srach, think it over, and there it is not far from cure.

I hope for one.

Quote: zoolu300

I was so cured of rezunism at one time.

ABOUT! A non-trivial achievement, in fact, rezunism is treated hard, especially on its own.
Although in my account there is at least one healed - even publicly thanked for the reduction of brains.

[Gopnik]

How touching, right on the classic "a cuckoo praises a cock ..." (c) He burst into tears of emotion
Once again: Austria did not produce more guns than imperial Russia, and the United States during the WWII did not even close 1000 tanks. Accept it, and try to live somehow with it

[murriou]

During WWI, the USA managed to DEVELOP even several models of battle-worthy tanks or ersatz tanks, I won’t say the exact number offhand, but from a half dozen to a dozen for sure.

The United States managed to produce real samples of most of these tanks and conduct their full tests during the life of the Russian Empire.

The United States managed to establish the LARGE-SERIES production of the 6-ton clone FT-17 and the original Ford 3-ton during this time, and this production began.

What during this time the Russian Empire COULD DO?
Draw some pictures and projections.
Get Russian patents on them
Build in a single copy and experience two non-combat-ready versions of something-like tanks: Lebedenko and Porokhovshchikova.
BUY English and French armored cars, some of them dress up in their armor, as well as begin preparations for their serial copying, carried out already at the end of the existence of the Republic of Ingushetia.
Oh yeah, still make in a makeshift way single copies of the "as-Russian" armored cars based on foreign cars and tractors, as well as their units

Of the countries participating in WWII, only Turks and small Balkan countries made less, well, also Japan, which was not going to wage a large-scale war on land, because it almost did not engage in armored vehicles.

Those. as you can see, the United States during the WWII created a fully capable tank building.
An even better result by October 1917. achieved other leading industrialized countries - England, France, Germany.

Even Italy in 1917. already had results much better than Russian ones at that moment: it had SERIAL production of its armored cars on its own engines and units, managed to make its own armored tractor based on its own serial tractor, and began to develop its own tank based on FT-17, which came out later, but it’s much BETTER than the original.

And the Russian Empire, in comparison with the leading world powers even in 1917, was deep, hmm, backward - and it was not capable of anything like that.

Accept it, and try to live somehow with it

By the way, have you already learned to divide 89 by 27, or not yet?

[Gopnik]

Ohhh, the stern wobble started again.
Comrade, don’t have to jump off the topic .. USA DO NOT RELEASE 1 thousand tanks during WWII, as it appears in a ridiculous table.
And "during the same time" RI did not, because at "this time" no longer existed. Why in Soviet Russia "at the same time" did not produce tanks is an interesting question. And by March 1917 there were no tanks in Germany.

[murriou]

The United States established and launched a SERIAL production of tanks during the WWII, and out of the almost thousand called up to the end of the hostilities, WWI managed to make 64 copies. M1917 plus 15 copies of a 3-ton Ford did some more during the time from the establishment of the truce to the official signing of the peace treaty - by this time there were already 209 serial copies and a production rate of about one and a half hundred a month, unimaginable for artisanal Russian industry.
The production of the indicated thousand was completed already in 1919.

And to make experimental copies of these SERIAL tanks and to test them in the USA, SUCCESSFUL in the spring and summer of 1917, and immediately then went on to setting up serial production, rather than the artisanal piece, which was usual for tsarist Russia.

Moreover, - unlike Russia - the United States did all this on its own industrial base, with developed production of cars and tractors - nothing like this in tsarist Russia in its entire history.

In addition to the United States, in the spring and summer of 1917, before the Bolsheviks began to interfere with bad dancers, also in Germany and Italy made prototypes of tanks or ersatz tanks and conducted their tests, and in France and England at that time there was already LARGE serial production of full tanks.

And in the "front line" For all this time, the Russian Empire failed to do ANYTHING with tanks.
Or do you know the achievements of the Russian tank industry in 1917? Tell them to the world, ask, ask!

With the “Russian” armored cars in Russia, they achieved nothing more than artisanal dressing of foreign (for lack of domestic) cars and tractors in Russian armor, in few copies read on fingers or even completely.

The most massive "Russian" armored cars, more than a hundred "Austin" and several. Dozens of Armstrongs were made mainly in England. Russian participation in their creation came down to an order, installation of Putilov’s armor instead of thinner English (with corresponding chassis overload), minor repairs and improvements.

That’s all that tsarist Russia was capable of creating “her” armored vehicles.

[Gopnik]

Listen, jokes with jokes, but you really are already tired. The United States did not produce 1000 tanks until the end of the WWII, as indicated in the ridiculous table. This is a medical fact showing the level of competence of its compilers. No need to fool around and jump off topic.

[murriou]

Spell it again.
Before the end of the WWI, the United States did a much more important task than the release of 1000 tanks.

They made the LARGE-SERIES PRODUCTION of these tanks, and in case of continuation of the WWII already at the end of 1918. they could be stamped like all of Europe combined, or even more.

England and France, in 1915 Having begun their work, in the same year they brought the matter to combat-ready prototypes, at the beginning of 1916. already created battle-worthy tanks and then organized their mass production, - having begun the first experiments not much earlier than Russia, but as a result it was ahead of it drastically.

Germany and the United States, having begun work in this direction much later than Russia, did already in the spring and summer of 1917. battle-worthy tanks carried out their tests, and then set about organizing mass production, while in Russia these matters, which had been at zero for a year now.
Even Italy by this time made its ersatz tank out of a tractor.

And that’s all - even before the Bolsheviks started to interfere with a bad dancer

And what is characteristic: developed countries had their own industrial base for tank building even before they were puzzled, and could create their own combat vehicles on their own units and their own production.

And tsarist Russia lived on handouts from the table of developed powers, for the "advanced" tsarist industry could not even provide its bearings.

[Gopnik]

Listen, are you healthy at all?
I write that the table is bullshit, because contains false information, and you begin to tear the vest

Quote: murriou

The United States did much more important work before the end of the WWII

Yes, I do not care what business they did before the end of the WWII, well done. Once again, spell - TABLE FUFFLO. What is not clear?

[murriou]

1. I remember that we did not start talking about American tanks, but about the Russian military-technical and general-technical backwardness during the period of the REV and WWII.

2. ALL the data discussed here show that Russia’s lag behind developed countries usually turns out to be even greater, sometimes - MUCH MORE than expressed in cautious preliminary estimates.

3. Even if the United States or Germany had by the summer of 1917. only 2 tanks - this is 2 more tanks, and an infinite number of times more than at the same time in Russia.

4. I emphasize: we are talking about time BEFORE the Bolsheviks began to interfere with a bad dancer in everything

5. Constantly brought to you and also constantly “not seen” or “not mastered” You data on artillery equipment, machine guns, aircraft, aircraft engines, etc. ALL show the same sad picture:
in all high-tech areas, Russian weapons are predominantly foreign.

3. You, as I look, your military "knowledge" received in the WOT, or what other computer toy?

Because only there, and not in real life and real history, the fact of mass production or its absence, which you are constantly trying to declare as "insignificant," may not matter.

Quote: Gopnik

Yes, I do not care what business they did before the end of the WWII, well done.

Yes, yes, all developed countries and even Italy have done what Russia did not even close.
Don't you care about this fact?

Quote: Gopnik

FUFFLO TABLE

Well, let’s own, non-bullish, business something.

Just do not forget to justify. otherwise you don’t always understand where the numbers come from, and of all sources - "open any book ..."

And do not forget to compare the number of Russian tanks in your "non-bullish" table with the number of tanks in developed countries. It can be broken down by year or month. Huh?

Quote: Gopnik

What is incomprehensible?

It is unclear how you, with your "knowledge" and your "good breeding", survived to an adult age.

[Gopnik]

Listen comrade, you are tired of me. You are viscous as a well-known substance, and I managed to step on you in a discussion, tired of wiping on the grass.
No need to lie and wobble tail tail, it was a question of the table and the bullshit of the numbers in it, using the example of 1000 American tanks. Although you, of course, tried to distort again.

[Gopnik]

Oh my Stalin! It seems to me your brilliant thought

Quote: murriou

some more has been done during the period from the establishment of a truce to the official signing of a peace treaty

Those. "released to the end of the war" this must be understood before July 1919 !!! ?? Congenially))) Well then, yes, and 280 thousand. machine guns and 1000 American tanks immediately become reliable.

[zoolu300]

Well, your “cuckoo” has already moved into a parallel boulder reality. Do not cry, in your parallel reality, RI in PMV will produce 10000 tanks, 100000 guns, 50000 aircraft, 10 Gopnik-17 class superdreadnoughts, and forgotten sweet things, 1 machine guns (which are not tame) machine guns. Take Berlin, Istanbul and Vienna. Evil Bolsheviks do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. And the crunch of French rolls with haloperidol will delight your hearing until the end of time!

[Gopnik]

Do not clown around. I understand that you have nothing to cover, because you can’t argue against the facts, but looking clumsy looks sorry.

[zoolu300]

So tables, links and mathematics do not affect you, so at least I’m screaming over you.

[Gopnik]

Well, yes, with a bad game it's time to make a good face. Once again - your bullshit table, because it contains data for different countries (Russia and everyone else) for a different period of time. In addition, with frankly incorrect information, such as 1000 American tanks released before the end of the war.

[zoolu300]

This "bullshit", if we get out of the bulky-crust reality, slips in almost all articles on the production of weapons in the WWI, in particular on tank resources.

[Gopnik]

This speaks very well about the level, not the best, of these "studies", which are still re-soviet Soviet books 50 years old (at best) ago. Well, about their authors

[murriou]

Once again we ask YOU to share your unearthly wisdom and sources of your "knowledge"

Textbooks of the Russian language and arithmetic were clearly not among them.

[Gopnik]

Lobotomy, you are ours, have you found the secret divisions of the Finnish shutskor? The difference between November 1917 and November 1918 mastered? The difference between an easel machine gun and a manual one, how did it open for you in its entirety? What Germany and England did not produce engines 2-3 times more than aircraft realized the same? That the USSR was completely dependent on allies in high-tech equipment and godlessly lagging behind in modern engine building even from Italy was a discovery for you?
Yes, according to the FRENCH data used by Zayonchkovsky, the Germans kept in the East no more than a quarter of their divisions in August-November. Although, to be precise, until mid-November, when several corps arrived from the Western Front during and immediately after the Lodz operation.
Read books, and not just the history of the party, you look stop writing nonsense

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

Yes, according to the FRENCH data used by Zayonchkovsky, the Germans kept in the East no more than a quarter of their divisions in August-November.

ABOUT! You finally managed to divide 89 into 27, congratulations !!!

[Gopnik]

"Do not sincerely say, but sorry!" (from)

[soldier]

Perfectly!
Great article and heated debate, in many ways not really related to its topic.
I would like to wish the author to continue the comprehensive development of this important topic - the role of Russia in the First War

[Gopnik]

murriou,

What government order, rave again? MG 08/15 is a light machine gun

[murriou]

You are unfamiliar with equipment, as usual.
MG 08/15 is the so-called "light" machine gun, which was used as an easel, and as if-manual, and as aircraft and anti-aircraft machine guns, too.

Order conditions MG 08/15 - for 5 "manual" machine guns 2 easel.

Have you already learned to share 89:27, or is the result of this division still a mystery to you?

[Gopnik]

I am aware of what MG 08/15 is. What makes you think that he is easel ???? The Germans did not, like some, and as an easel continued to do MG 08 until the end of the war

[murriou]

Quote: Gopnik

I am aware of what MG 08/15 is.

You are not aware of the Russian language, you constantly experience problems reading even the simplest phrases.
You don’t even know arithmetic, for a whole day you couldn’t divide two double-digit numbers into each other, but you are trying to climb smartly to teach more knowledgeable people.
Than and funny, thanks

You do not know that in addition to light and heavy machine guns there were and are unified, and during the WWII the so-called "lightweight", that is, too heavy for manual, but lighter than easel, and can be used in both versions.

Here's a close-up view of the MG 08/15 with the NUMBER of the STANDARD socket for mounting on a conventional MG 08 machine.
The stock is also visible there, so do not try to LY in your usual manner, as if it were a regular MG 08.


Here you have pictures of the 08/15 MG on universal infantry / anti-aircraft machines:



And what else will you then lie to us about your “knowledge” here, what more fun?

[murriou]

Separately, duplicate the photo, because something the engine here is very buggy on uploading / displaying images:

[Gopnik]

And what should I see in this photo? Trigger guard? Is it you who painted these circles?

[murriou]

further view of the machine

[murriou]

further more photos on the machine

[murriou]

further more photos on the machine

[Gopnik]

Quote: murriou

You do not know that in addition to light and heavy machine guns there were and are unified, and during the WWII the so-called "lightweight", that is, too heavy for manual, but lighter than easel, and can be used in both versions.

I know that there are "single machine guns", the first of which was MG 34. MG 08/15 is NOT a single machine gun. This is exactly what a machine gun made by facilitating easel. As a result, it was equally bad for both easel and manual, which entered modern German.
And why do you show me a photo, where the machine is attached to the bipod mount point ??? Want to show that you have google? Great, google it and find, for example, Lewis on the machine.
And it is NOT

Quote: murriou

conventional machine MG 08

google further and see how it looked, this is MG08 / 15 for firing at air targets. What the sight directly points to.

[murriou]

I also sympathize with your vision problems. The socket for attaching the MG08 / 15 to a regular MG08 machine behind its pistol grip is as eternally secret for you as the 89/27 result was recently classified.

[Gopnik]

Well, bring, then, the photo with the MG 08/15 mount on a regular MG08 machine, from the time of the PMV. Do not languish

[murriou]

Something "gopnik-with-capital-letters", today getting out on the forum with its regular * revelations *, these photos are "not noticed" or "not mastered."

Well, who would be surprised

[Gopnik]

lying again? you are our liar

[murriou]

No. You are lying brazenly here. Sometimes I am mistaken, and in such cases I admit my mistakes, but you somehow constantly do not “notice” it.

But you yourself tried to convince us in a LOT of messages for a whole day that 89/27 <3, and the German forces in the East were NEVER three times or more times less than in the West, although in reality this "NEVER" lasted as much as 4 months

It was quite amusing to watch how, after several hours spent in futile attempts to deny the obvious, you gradually recognized one after another every month of the four. Thanks for the fun delivered.

and other similar deceptions you try not to admit, as if without your recognition they are not visible anyway

Now we look at the time of messages. This was written by me at 13:43.
Your first * statements * the forum today was at 13:11 and 13:19.
Your answer to the commentary on the photos appeared at 13:21 (you still tried to “not notice” something that contradicts your, ahem, “knowledge”), then at 13:29.

That is, my message, which was a reaction to your appearance at 13:11 p.m. - 13:19 p.m., at the time of writing and sending it, was behind reality, due to my non-operational viewing of all messages of the topic, for FULL 43-29 = 14 minutes.
Yes, I admit.
Horror horror horror! Scandal for the whole of France!

You really don’t understand who you look, trying to cling to such trifles?

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

That is, you acknowledge that not all mobilized took part in the hostilities?

I = admit = ?!
My dear, you have problems either with the ability to read Russian, or with memory, but this = I = constantly reminds you of the inconsistency at times (!!!) between the number of fighters and the number mobilized.

And again I have to remind you. that such a colossal difference indicates the complete inability of tsarist Russia to dispose of its huge, but wasted human resources. In any of the options for explaining the reasons for this difference.

By the way, you escaped from its explanation - therefore, you understand that on this topic you will find the inevitable exposure of your crystal-bread mythology.

Quote: Dart2027

But still, where do 136 divisions come from?

For those who are completely incapable of reading - for the umpteenth time I’ll call them: A.M. Zayonchkovsky, the First World War, the alphabet for everyone who is familiar with the topic, unlike you.
Separate forces are given there in the divisions for each theater of operations for each month of PMV.

In this case, the figure 136 is taken from the summation of the number of divisions on the combined Western and South-Western front, i.e. on the eastern front of WWI, and on the Caucasian front, for the month that interested us, i.e. December 1915 .. As I already wrote, but at a discount on your * talent in arithmetic * I repeat, 128 + 8 = 136.
More questions?

Quote: Dart2027

According to a period of 2 months? He can also find 288, and in the same table.

Are you pretending to be moronic, or ... aren't you pretending?
Yes, each cell in the table has its own purpose and content.
Yes, for different cells and for different dates, it can be DIFFERENT.
It is not difficult for a person who is intellectually developed at the level of a sane younger schoolchild to read the names of the cells in the table, find the desired value and understand its meaning.

This is a problem for you.
I sympathize

And the figure 288 in these tables shows the total number on all fronts of the divisions of the central powers in December 1915, and not at all what you thought

However, perhaps you were unlucky and you got a crooked table damaged by an unsuccessful scan + text recognition in some garbage dump? This also happens, while the most unexpected distortions are possible.
And you, in your ignorance and * outstanding intellectuality *, did not understand this?
Sorry again

[murriou]

= * = some more digits = * =
And by the way. Since the baker was accidentally bumped into the figure of all the forces of the Central Powers of the WWI in December 1915, then for comparison we find which of these forces at the time acted against Russia:
86 German + Austrian + 12 Turkish, total 98 divisions, 34%, almost exactly THREE.
Given the comparative combat effectiveness of the German divisions and the divisions of its allies - MUCH LESS THAN a third.
Including German forces: 50 of (104 + 50 + 5 = 159), 31,4%, LESS THIRD.

Including Turkish forces: 12 out of (12 + 14 + 5 = 31), i.e. 38,7%. More than a third in as many as 2 divisions, but much less than half.
We consider this only at the fronts by Turkish forces, of the total number in 52 divisions, the Russian share does not even reach a quarter.

Including Austrian forces: 36 of (20 + 6 + 36 = 62), i.e. 58% More than half, but not by much: only 5 divisions. Minuscule. If we take into account divisions not fighting on the front, then a little more than half will come out at all.

There were also 10 Bulgarian divisions operating on the Balkan front against the British, French and Serbs, and not against Russia.
Not yet at the front, but in the garrisons, in the occupied territory of the enemy or in reserve, there were 3 Austrian divisions, 2 Bulgarian divisions, 22 Turkish divisions.

That is, the crunchy myths about great Russia — almost alone heroically holding the blow of the alliance of opponents while its allies rested — well, if not all of the war, then at least in 1915, the year of the Great Retreat of the Russian army — they crumble into ashes at the slightest acquaintance with real numbers at any time PMV.

In reality, the main and most combat-ready force of the Triple Alliance, Germany, held about a third of its forces against Russia, sometimes a little more, more often even less.

Significant forces of Turkey and Austria-Hungary acted against Russia, much less combat-ready than Germany - but, as we see, even these forces were not completely directed against Russia, and a significant part of the WWII time was much less than half of the Turkish forces and not much more than half Austro-Hungarian.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

To begin with, RI also fought on two fronts.

It was only on the Russian second front that there were incomparably small forces: from 3 to 16 RIA divisions, from 9 to 22 Turkish divisions for the entire WWII.

On the Western Front, WWII operated from 80 (in the east at that time there were 14) to 200 German divisions, from 84 to 222 Entente divisions.
The scale is significantly superior to the Russian-German front, and it is ridiculous to compare with the Russian-Turkish one.

And so, for crystal bakers, world history outside of Russia is strictly classified, I understand

For the rest of humanity, it is no secret that Austria-Hungary in 1915 fought on 3 fronts: with Russia, Serbia and Italy.
At the Turks in 1915 there were FOUR fronts: the Caucasus with Russia, the Gallipoli with England and France, the Syrian and Messopotamian with them. And Turkey held at that time against England and France up to 2,0-2,5 times more than against Russia.

But for the bakers this is all strictly classified, as always
You usually, out of your ignorance, think that Turkey and Austria-Hungary fought ONLY with Russia, and Germany - primarily with Russia, for Russia is Uber Alles!
You have been deceived. Sorry again

Quote: Dart2027

At one time, the Turks, beaten by the Republic of Ingushetia, piled well on the same British.

And the French at the same time.
But this was not in an open field, but in a narrow strait of the Dardanelles, where the Russians would have even less chance of winning.
And at the same time, the Turks, being in a defensive defense, lost their troops on land many times more than in the largest battles against Russia.
And the Turkish fleet at the same time lost more in a couple of months than in the entire WWI against Russia, comparable to the losses from the Greeks in the Balkan war
(for the most talented in arithmetic, I explain: over the six months of the Balkan War, Turkey suffered much more losses from small and weak Greece than from the great, powerful and advanced Russia for the entire WWI).

And so, yes, if you do not know (and do not want to know) the circumstances and details, then you are right

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

We continue with the fact that the only data based on archives is the data from the CSB (626)

And this data is obviously incomplete and inaccurate.
Again, for the umpteenth time, I ask: WHERE have many millions of mobilized Russian soldiers gone?
1,4 million were in the army before the war.
15,8 million were drafted into it during the war, totaling 17,2 million
At the end of the war, 7 million were in service.

Where did more than 10 million go?

Quote: Dart2027

And finally, remember that RI had to save its allies, which they themselves admitted

And who asked Russia whether to join the war for Anglo-French interests? The interests and desires of the Russians did not bother anyone of the Great White Masters. Russia was the sixth Entente, and the role of the six was performed with all its might, as far as they were enough.

But Russia was supplied with high-tech weapons, which Russia alone could not even provide half, for aviation and cars - even less. At 3,5 thousand “Russian” aircraft in Russia produced less than 1,5 thousand engines!

Russian machine guns were sold one and a half times more than their own manufactured, and still this was enough for 12% of the army’s needs.
Ammunition was supplied, with units and spare parts, even rifles at the beginning of the war had to be bailed out by “advanced” Russia - at least 30% of the “Russian” rifles were of foreign origin during the whole war, and at the beginning of the war this share was much larger.

Quote: Dart2027

By the way, in the USSR they wrote a lot about this.

Unfortunately, in the USSR there was a protracted period of indulgence in crystal-bread myths. It was believed that Russian patriotism is an integral part of Soviet, etc.

In all school textbooks, Rudnev’s lies were repeated without comment, which quickly became clear already during the RJV, for example, when Takachikho, who was “sunk” by Rudnev, took part in the RJV battles, as did the destroyers “sunk” by Russian brave newspapers.

Other similar crust-baked tales were also supported by Soviet literature, and historians pointed to their lying carefully and quietly in their circle. As a result, they still excite immature minds, as we see

[murriou]

Do you keep pretending to be moronic? Or is my guess true that you are not pretending?

Quote: Dart2027

To begin with, I refer to the author of which you yourself brought.

To begin with, this author has LOTS of numbers. There are thousands of them.
And at the same time, each of the numbers has its own meaning.
If you want to be, at least sometimes, at least a little like a sane person - do not forget to indicate this value.

So I, unlike you, when I call the number, I do not forget to indicate which army, which theater, and at what time it belongs.
You do the same, okay?

Quote: Dart2027

We continue with the fact that even 219 is not 136 about which you wrote before.

We continue to be obvious to a reasonable person (but surprising you ) by the fact that May 1917, when there were 219 divisions on the Russian front from the Russian side, this was not December 1915, when there were 128, and 136 were together with the Caucasian Front.

We add the fact already indicated to you, but not "mastered" by you, that the Russian divisions of 1917 were heavily (up to 12 battalions) cut off from the original (16 battalions) composition, which was in 1914-1915, i.e. division of 1917 this is approximately 3/4 of the 1915 division, and 219 of these divisions in numbers approximately correspond to 164 divisions of 1914-1915.

I already said this before, and you still have not yet learned it with your problems with arithmetic and the Russian language, or with something else. I sympathize traditionally

Quote: Dart2027

We conclude that even during the Second World War not all troops were concentrated against the Germans, some were either on other parts of the border, or in the rear, not front-line, namely the rear.

And the number of them was well known. It was at times LESS than the number of troops on the main front, and not at times MORE, as you try to talk about the WWII and convince that this is a normal state.

And again, the same question to you, from which you (and all of you, the bakers), so stubbornly evade: WHERE did the Russian soldiers mobilized in the WWII go?

[murriou]

= * = some more digits = * =
Losses according to Krivosheev, which you think are overstated, but actually turn out to be even very underestimated, amount to 6,5 million for the entire WWI
At the same time, the number of prisoners and deserters from the Russian side is record-breaking in comparison with all other powers that fought in the WWII, with a wide margin, and the number of those killed is in second place immediately after Germany.

And there still remain 2,3 million of losses not accounted for by Krivosheev, i.e. the number of mobilized and the number (demobilized + recorded losses) at the same time by 2,3 million does not converge.
Russian irrevocable losses in the WWII should be accumulated at least 8,8 million, so that the balance of personnel. And at Krivosheev only 6,5 million were taken into account.

I recall the figures of Russian losses according to Krivosheev, which are still significantly (by 2,3 million in total) underestimated:
Total irretrievable combat losses: 1,89 million
Including, 1,2 million were killed in battle or died at the stage of sanitary evacuation
Missing and never returned: 0,44 million
Died of wounds in hospitals: 0,24 million
Died from gas poisoning - 0 million
The total irrevocable non-combat losses: 0,364 million, including those who died from illnesses, from accidents, died in captivity.
Total irretrievable demographic losses of 2,25 million.
Deserters 1,87 million
Prisoners of 2,4 million
= * =
At the same time, counting Russian prisoners according to foreign sources, and accounting for their return to their homeland, makes their number increase significantly compared to Krivosheev’s data: figures from 2,64 to 3,3 million are given, but even the lower border is record-breaking among other countries, and even the upper limit of another 1,4 million is not enough to balance.

Hence the need to STRONGLY correct the number of those killed in the upper side. In this case, it may even exceed the similar losses of Germany, which fought on 2 fronts, and at the same time mainly in the West.

[murriou]

Gopnikif you translate into Russian your usual "self *****":
you cannot argue in essence.

You cannot offer your “non-bullish” table as opposed to the generally accepted “bullshit” one.

You cannot declare specific sources of your unearthly wisdom, except as the sentence "open any book ..." or "google yourself."

You cannot see the photographs offered to you and read the quotations offered to you.

Even to count the numbers at the elementary school level, without errors and in less than a day, and then you can’t

All you can do is be rude and snarl. Kindergarten.
As usual, I sympathize with you warmly

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

To begin with, this author has LOTS of numbers. There are thousands of them. And at the same time, each of the numbers has its own meaning.

So what prevents you from reading them all? If you are referring to a source that has brought them into a pair of tables, so please read them. Essentially nothing to say?

Quote: murriou

We continue to be obvious to a reasonable person (but surprising you ) by the fact that May 1917, when there were 219 divisions on the Russian front from the Russian side, this was not December 1915, when there were 128, and 136 were together with the Caucasian Front.

And we will take into account the fact, unknown to you, that millions of people mobilized were not mobilized from the very beginning all at once, but the process went on continuously during the war, so pushing them all in 1915 is not a sign of a rational person.

Quote: murriou

We add the fact already indicated to you, but "not mastered" by you, that the Russian divisions of 1917 were heavily (up to 12 battalions) cut off from the original (16 battalions) composition, which was in 1914-1915.

But still, this is more than what you claimed

Quote: murriou

And the number of them was well known. It was at times LESS than the number of troops on the main front, and not at times MORE, as you try to talk about the WWII and convince that this is a normal state.

Show where I said that in the deep rear and at other borders of the troops there were many times more?

Quote: murriou

Losses according to Krivosheev, which you think are overstated, but actually turn out to be even very underestimated, amount to 6,5 million for the entire WWI
At the same time, the number of prisoners and deserters from the Russian side is record-breaking in comparison with all other powers that fought in the WWII, with a wide margin, and the number of those killed is in second place immediately after Germany.

And Comrade Krivosheev takes into account the collapse of the army arranged by revolutionaries of all stripes as a result of which, at the end of the war, entire divisions lost control and actually deserted without any consideration? Rather, the numbers are much too high, because you need to justify the revolution and the collapse of everything and everything that has begun.

Quote: murriou

Gopnikif you translate into your Russian your usual “***** himself”: in essence, you cannot argue.
All you can do is be rude and snarl. Kindergarten. As usual, I sympathize with you warmly

You mixed up your reflection in the mirror with me. This is very sad, but I am not a doctor and can not help.

Quote: murriou

And again I have to remind you. that such a colossal difference indicates the complete inability of tsarist Russia to dispose of its huge, but wasted human resources. In any of the options for explaining the reasons for this difference.

But this does not mean that they were all killed, however much you would like to.

Quote: murriou

For those who are completely incapable of reading - for the umpteenth time I’ll call them: A.M. Zayonchkovsky, the First World War, the alphabet for everyone who is familiar with the topic, unlike you. Separate forces are given there in the divisions for each theater of operations for each month of PMV.
Yes, each cell in the table has its own purpose and content.
Yes, for different cells and for different dates, it can be DIFFERENT.

Actually, I had in mind why you took exactly this figure as an indicator for the entire war. Sorry, I didn’t think it was so hard to understand.

Quote: murriou

And the figure 288 in these tables shows the total number on all fronts of the divisions of the central powers in December 1915, and not at all what you thought

Truth? Then why is it in the column entitled “Rus” in the table on page 870? Hmm, we can’t read, but we teach others.

Quote: murriou

from 3 to 16 RIA divisions, from 9 to 22 Turkish divisions for the entire WWI.

Truth? Only in the battle of Erzurum, Turkey lost almost 80 thousand killed, wounded and prisoners. The army of the Republic of Ingushetia at the end of the war was under 800000. And when you consider that the landing operation that you hated

Quote: murriou

The scale is significantly superior to the Russian-German front, and it is ridiculous to compare with the Russian-Turkish one.

Of course, because there is no way to shout that everything is gone. Allies received exclusively on the neck, and not RI.

Quote: murriou

Austria-Hungary in 1915 fought on 3 fronts: with Russia, Serbia and Italy.
At the Turks in 1915 there were FOUR fronts: the Caucasus with Russia, the Gallipoli with England and France, the Syrian and Messopotamian with them.

That's just the most they got from the Republic of Ingushetia, and Gillipolsky ended in a grandiose and shameful defeat for the British and the company.

Quote: murriou

And at the same time, the Turks, being in a defensive defense, lost their troops on land many times more than in the largest battles against Russia.

And how many times?

Quote: murriou

And the Turkish fleet at the same time lost more in a couple of months than in the entire WWI against Russia, comparable to the losses from the Greeks in the Balkan war.

Which is natural, since the Turkish admirals prudently hid from the Black Sea Fleet, so as not to lose their fleet in the first battle, and the success of the German ships was the defeat of one radio station and one attack on Sevastopol, before Turkey entered the war.

Quote: murriou

And who asked Russia whether to join the war for Anglo-French interests?

That is, you acknowledge that the "White Lord" without RI would be very bad? Well, her interests were quite traditional - the Straits and the Balkans.

Quote: murriou

But Russia was supplied with high-tech weapons, which Russia alone could not even provide half, for aviation and cars - even less. At 3,5 thousand “Russian” aircraft in Russia produced less than 1,5 thousand engines!

That is, you acknowledge that RI could manufacture motors, and not just purchase? Already good. Well, the fact that they didn’t manage to complete industrialization as a secret isn’t just a process without natural disassembly.

Quote: murriou

Unfortunately, in the USSR there was a protracted period of indulgence in crystal-bread myths. It was believed that Russian patriotism is an integral part of Soviet, etc. .. In all school textbooks, Rudnev’s lies were repeated without comment

I’ll tell you a secret. Stalin really did not like lovers "to talk about crystal bakery myths and believed that Russian patriotism is good." And I don’t remember Rudnev’s report in the textbooks, by the way, he refers to information received from Shanghai about the drowned cruiser, and does not claim that he saw the drowning with his own eyes, so he didn’t lie, but to him.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

To begin with, this author has LOTS of numbers. There are thousands of them. And at the same time, each of the numbers has its own meaning.

So what prevents you from reading them all?

I don’t even know what you’re trying to show here: your dementia or your arrogance.
I already read all these figures many, many years ago and am well acquainted with them.

And you, having become acquainted with them only after my reminder and not so long ago not having the slightest idea about them, call the numbers from anywhere and demand that I guess from which shelf you took them

Quote: Dart2027

If you are referring to a source that has brought them into a pair of tables, so please read them.

No.
It is your pleasure to call them humanly.
So that you can understand what you are trying to talk about.
So, how I do it: with a name, to what this figure refers.

And you bring all kinds of blizzards and demand that I practice telepathy or clairvoyance and guess what you are talking about.

Quote: Dart2027

Essentially nothing to say?

You - yes, as usual.
Have you ever been able to answer my substantive questions?
Wh, where did the millions of Russian people mobilized for WWII go?
Have you presented the lists of Russian victories in the REV?

You can only evade answers to such questions.
Because you yourself understand: the truth is against your myths, and your lies will not work with me.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

That is, you acknowledge that RI could manufacture motors, and not just purchase?

That is, you are trying to continue brazen fraud.

France could produce engines, which produced 52 thousand engines for 98 thousand aircraft, including for deliveries to backward Russia.

Other developed countries could manufacture engines, including even Italy, for which the number of engines produced was tens of thousands, and was comparable to the number of aircraft produced by them.

By the way, the vast majority of these aircraft and these engines in developed countries had their own (!) Design.
And Russia could only make pathetic attempts to imitate developed countries.

3,5 airplanes, as it were, as if they were their own production, 14-15 times less than France, 12+ times less than Germany and England, several times less than Italy.
At the same time, from “Russian airplanes”, even made as if in Russia, of their own design - less than half a thousand, and as if by their own engines (completely foreign construction!) Provided much less than half - this is a shame, not an aircraft production.

What nonsense do you count on trying to equate Russian handicraft picking, mainly copying foreign samples, with serial and large-scale production of your own products in developed countries?

Quote: Dart2027

the fact that they didn’t have time to finish industrialization as a secret isn’t just a process without natural disassembly.

And here you have the traditional lies and fraud.

"naturally" in the 3 years of the war, Russia’s lagging behind developed countries only increased.
the "natural way" the Russian army had to supply all the time with the products of foreign developed powers - in one respect to a large extent, in others - the vast majority

“naturally”, tsarist Russia abundantly made only dreams, plans, and orders, which overwhelmingly were not fulfilled or were fulfilled slowly and in insufficient volume.

Can you name the categories of weapons in which the dependence of tsarist Russia on external supplies to the WWII would be less than 30%?
Try

And only after 3 years of continuous failure and loss the Bolsheviks began to interfere with the bad dancer

In the same way as from the very beginning to the very end, the tsarist army and navy suffered continuous defeats, and then (! Then!) The Bolsheviks again became to blame

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

I don’t remember Rudnev’s report in the textbooks, by the way, he refers to the information received from Shanghai about the drowned cruiser, and does not claim that he saw the drowning with his own eyes, so he didn’t lie, but to him.

The report itself was not given in a textbook known to me, because was excessively verbose, but “data”, i.e. lies out of it - brought.

As for Rudnev’s lies, he was a little smarter than you, I tried to lie not directly, but in such a way that it was difficult and long to prove his lies.

Here he, lying about the grave injuries of Japanese ships, refers to foreign observers, NOT NAMEING (!) A single specific name.
And if you look at the map of the battle at Chemulpo - it turns out that most of the Japanese ships were closed from the observers during the battle, and foreigners could not do the observations attributed to them.

Here he refers to a report from Shanghai - it is not clear how and when he could receive this report, and who sent this report, and not the fact that this report was at all.
And the fact that this "report" is completely false, no matter how Rudnev is to blame, yeah, yeah.

It’s the same with the allegedly huge, according to the same anonymous "intelligence," the number of losses on Japanese ships.

The same thing with the allegedly significant consumption of ammunition - well, Rudnev did not expect that the Japanese pogans, having picked up the cruiser flooded by him at the smallest part of the harbor, would not be too lazy to calculate the shells remaining in the cellars and publish this information, giving out Rudnev’s multiple overestimation of the number of his shots.

And it was then that Rudnev clearly lied himself. Even being so naive as to believe in the anonymous sources of his other statements

However, many of Rudnev’s colleagues during the REV and WWI lied about the same insolently. Why should they, Basurmans, regret - write more They could not fulfill their duties in a real battle - but they more than exceeded them on paper.

In the reports of their opponents, there’s no lie at all and never, but incomparably less. Including, during the battle in Chemulpo, all Japanese reports on hits on the "Varyag" were fully confirmed by a survey of the cruiser after raising.

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

I don’t even know what you’re trying to show here: your dementia or your arrogance. I already read all these figures many, many years ago and am well acquainted with them.

But choose only comfortable for yourself?

Quote: murriou

No. It is your pleasure to call them humanly. So that you can understand what you are trying to talk about. So, how I do it: with a name, to what this figure refers.

To the size of the army of the Republic of Ingushetia, why else. Is it that hard to understand?

Quote: murriou

You - yes, as usual. Have you ever been able to answer my substantive questions? Wh, where did the millions of Russian people mobilized for WWII go? Have you presented the lists of Russian victories in the REV?

In the war-inflated states of the army and the rear support services (the fact that they had enough mess, I never denied), but I don’t remember about the RPE anymore how many times were quotes from historical works, including the Japanese professor, in which it was clearly and legibly explained how the war would end and it would last another year.
You can only evade answers to such questions. Because you yourself understand: the truth is against your myths, and your lies will not work with me.

Quote: murriou

And Russia could only make pathetic attempts to imitate developed countries. 3,5 airplanes, as it were, as if they were their own production, 14-15 times less than France, 12+ times less than Germany and England, several times less than Italy.
At the same time, from “Russian airplanes”, even made as if in Russia, of their own design - less than half a thousand, and as if by their own engines (completely foreign construction!) Provided much less than half - this is a shame, not an aircraft production.

So you do not know that the USSR began by copying foreign-made equipment? And even the first strategic bombers and atomic bombs were torn with the United States? And that this is a completely natural process - not to reinvent the wheel, but to take the finished one, in order to build up our own experience of production experience? In what year was it possible to restore engine production after the revolution?

Quote: murriou

"naturally" in the 3 years of the war, Russia’s lagging behind developed countries only increased.

And at the same time, production increased many times, for example, by the end of the WWII shells by 12 times compared to the beginning. And this is without general work to the front.

Quote: murriou

The report itself was not given in a textbook known to me, because was excessively verbose, but “data”, i.e. lies out of it - brought.

That is, you are lying. By the way, in the textbooks that I remember, there wasn’t any data at all, just the fact of the battle.

Quote: murriou

Here he, lying about the grave injuries of Japanese ships, refers to foreign observers, NOT NAMEING (!) A single specific name.
And if you look at the map of the battle at Chemulpo - it turns out that most of the Japanese ships were closed from the observers during the battle, and foreigners could not do the observations attributed to them.

The Italian officers watching the battle and the English steam boat RETURNING from the Japanese squadron claim

You did not read the report?

Quote: murriou

Here he refers to a report from Shanghai - it is not clear how and when he could receive this report, and who sent this report, and not the fact that this report was at all.

That is, you personally do not really know anything?

Quote: murriou

In the reports of their opponents, there’s no lie at all and never, but incomparably less. Including, during the battle in Chemulpo, all Japanese reports on hits on the "Varyag" were fully confirmed by a survey of the cruiser after raising.

That is, you acknowledge that the Japanese lied? No, I don’t blame them, that's just why believe that all of their differences with the description of the battle, right? I recall the congratulations received by YA from progressive Russian freedom fighters.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

But choose only comfortable for yourself?

I take the figures corresponding to the reality under discussion. At the right time and right place.
And if real numbers are terribly inconvenient for you, because contrary to your mythology - these are your problems.

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

No. It is your pleasure to call them humanly. So that you can understand what you are trying to talk about. So, how I do it: with a name, to what this figure refers.

To the size of the army of the Republic of Ingushetia, why else. Is it that hard to understand?

After the thirtieth chewing, it’s still hard for you to understand that if a war has been going on for several years on several theater of operations, and on each of these theater of operations for each of the belligerent armies, including For Russia, figures are given for each month — THESE numbers are many, and it is YOUR duty to indicate what the figure YOU are discussing is, and I am not obliged to guess the winding course of your thoughts.

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

You - yes, as usual. Have you ever been able to answer my substantive questions? Wh, where did the millions of Russian people mobilized for WWII go? Have you presented the lists of Russian victories in the REV?

In wartime-inflated army and logistics services

This is not even an excuse; it is not an answer at all.
Do you really think that more people could graze in the Russian rear at times, than they fought at the front?
Do you really think this is normal?
Do you really think that this speaks of the effectiveness of the Russian army in WWI?
I continue to wait for intelligible answers to these extremely uncomfortable questions for you. Dodge does not work, do not expect.

Quote: Dart2027

I don’t remember how many times quotes from historical works, including the Japanese professor

I remember, I remember, but there was no list of Russian victories, and there
And there was nothing abolishing the fact of Japanese permanent victories.

Quote: Dart2027

how the war would end it would last another year.

If I had a grandmother.
The Japanese won the war for the time allotted to it in history, and won purely, without a single defeat.
They were not interested and needless to continue the war.
And Russia, after so many defeats and losses, after the complete loss of the fleet in the theater of operations, even twice, after such a clear superiority of the Japanese in combat readiness, it was not interesting to continue running on the same rake.

Quote: Dart2027

You can only evade answers to such questions. Because you yourself understand: the truth is against your myths, and your lies will not work with me.

Are you talking to a mirror?
Where is your list of Russian victories in the REV?
Where are your calculations explaining the disappearance of millions of mobilized Russian people in WWI?
Where are your specific answers to my specific questions?

Your attempts to answer me with my own phrases are funny as a polemical device, but nothing more. Because I, unlike you, have numbers, and you have only arrogant lies.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

And Russia could only make pathetic attempts to imitate developed countries. 3,5 airplanes, as it were, as if they were their own production, 14-15 times less than France, 12+ times less than Germany and England, several times less than Italy.
At the same time, from “Russian airplanes”, even made as if in Russia, of their own design - less than half a thousand, and as if by their own engines (completely foreign construction!) Provided much less than half - this is a shame, not an aircraft production.

So you do not know that the USSR began by copying foreign-made equipment?

I know of course.
But tsarist Russia at this stage was forever stuck until the end of its existence, and the USSR quickly went much further. Feel the difference.

Quote: Dart2027

it’s a completely natural process - not to reinvent the wheel, but to take the finished

YES. But only
1. Ready-made and tested several years behind advanced developments.
2. Industrial development of someone else’s finished - for a few more years.
As a result, tsarist Russia, sitting on the ready, constantly found itself in an ever deeper, ahem, backwardness compared with the industrially developed powers.
3. The Tsarist RI was not even able to take the stranger properly. Neither in quantity nor in quality.

Quote: Dart2027

in order to build up our production experience

And tsarist Russia created a lot of its own for a couple of decades in the late 19th - early 20th century?
Not experiments, projections and homemade student, and industrial products?

Bend your fingers: the plane "Ilya Muromets" and the destroyer "Novik", made in small quantities, on other people's units, with someone else's help, i.e. Pts conditionally "their own", and at the same time having been in the forefront of strength a year, and after two already hopelessly backward.

Plus, let’s say with great reservations, Fedorov’s assault rifle, released by tsarist Russia in a mega-quantity of fifty pieces in a year and a half — when developed countries of a similar level stamped products thousands of a month.
The damned Bolsheviks made the same automatic machine hundreds of months a month, their subsequent machines - in quantities of more than a million a year.
Tsarist Russia could not cope with the production of their light machine guns, and their Bolsheviks
provided one in each division, 420 per infantry division.

What else was OWN in tsarist Russia in industrial production, and not in plans, orders and dreams?

Quote: Dart2027

In what year was it possible to restore engine production after the revolution?

What engines?

The Fiat engines, which in tsarist Russia were assembled from ready-made kits, the Bolsheviks went into mass production from their materials in 1924.

Those few engines that were still made in Russia continued to be made after the revolution, including RBVZ for the "Murom". But their relevance was quickly lost, a new generation was required.

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

"naturally" in the 3 years of the war, Russia’s lagging behind developed countries only increased.

And at the same time, production increased many times, for example, by the end of the WWII shells by 12 times compared to the beginning.

Yes, it grew, but it didn’t cope.
Even after a significant reduction in the standards for issuing and consuming ammunition (a good way to overcome the deficit, yes ) for some reason, reports on overcoming shell and bullet hunger strictly coincided with a long lull at the front, and each intensification of hostilities again revealed a severe shortage.

The production of “Russian” machine guns grew from pre-war 700 a year to almost a thousand a month, but at the same time, Russia bought one and a half times more machine guns abroad than she did, and the army’s need for machine guns was fulfilled by 12%.

And so in everything.
The growth rate - it is, of course, good, if you do not forget to compare the real quantity with real needs, and not with the past century.

Quote: Dart2027

And this is without general work to the front.

Do you consider the inability to mobilize industry for military production a merit of tsarist Russia?
But the Russian army, deprived of everything necessary for military operations, did not think so.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

The report itself was not given in a textbook known to me, because was excessively verbose, but “data”, i.e. lies out of it - brought.

That is, you are lying.

* sighing heavily * candelabra at you, bakers, you will not stock up.

Quote: Dart2027

By the way, in the textbooks that I remember, there wasn’t any data at all, just the fact of the battle.

What do you remember there - you know better, of course, but are there really no details attached to the "fact of the battle"?

Quote: Dart2027

The Italian officers watching the battle and the English steam boat RETURNING from the Japanese squadron claim

1. Where are the names of witnesses? Specifically? I still don’t see a single one.
2. WHERE did the Italians observe the course of the battle, and what could they see, and what could not?
3. WHEN did the English boat return from the Japanese, and what could they observe from it?
0. WHERE is all this data, except in the free retelling of Rudnev, allegedly from the free retelling of these anonyms, without the slightest confirmation?

Quote: Dart2027

You did not read the report?

I read it many times. And even over him I thought that for you an unattainable result

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

Here he refers to a report from Shanghai - it is not clear how and when he could receive this report, and who sent this report, and not the fact that this report was at all.

That is, you personally do not really know anything?

1. That is, you are once again trying to brazenly distort.
2. Rudnev did not indicate the source of his information, and moreover, it is doubtful that he had the technical ability to obtain this information from this source.
3. In the report, the source of information is not specified at all specifically.
4. Already after several. months after the battle, it became reliably known that this "information" is utter lies.

What else are you trying to use for your next muhlezh? I'm really interested

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

In the reports of their opponents, there’s no lie at all and never, but incomparably less. Including, during the battle in Chemulpo, all Japanese reports on hits on the "Varyag" were fully confirmed by a survey of the cruiser after raising.

That is, you acknowledge that the Japanese lied?

0. Again, you pretend to be a mentally retarded teenager, unable to distinguish between anything other than extremes

1. Absolutely accurate data, as a rule, do not exist.
But there is a constant and arrogant lie with three baskets, like Rudnev and many of his colleagues, and there are a relatively small number of inaccuracies, or indeed deliberate distortions, like their opponents.

2. On the battle in Chemulpo from the Japanese side no significant errors or distortions were found, all reports of the Japanese about their hits on the "Varyag" are fully confirmed by an examination of the cruiser after it was raised.

3. A survey of the "Varangian" was started more than a week after the battle, and was carried out by people who were not interested in hiding or distorting information.

4. Rudnev almost three times overestimated the consumption of ammunition during the battle, and then no one in his lies could be guilty, except for himself.

Quote: Dart2027

why believe that all of their differences with the description of the battle, right?

You have traditional problems with the Russian language
As I understand it, you tried to say "if the opinion of the Japanese disagrees with the opinion of Rudnev, then how do we determine who is right of them," right?
You poor thing, who can’t determine the truth except by open voting and vote counting on the forum

A very simple.
The presence of holes on the cruiser is an OBJECTIVE FACT.
The coincidence of the number and location of these holes with the declared hits of the Japanese is a fact.
Participation in further battles of the nuclear warfare of all Japanese ships that were at Chemulpo - FACT.
The false claims of Rudnev about the allegedly severe damage and sinking of these ships - therefore, also a fact.
The absence of any confirmation of Rudnev’s statements about the allegedly heavy losses of the Japanese - FAT.
The number of shells in the Varyag cellars at the time of its examination is FACT.
Disinterest of the Japanese in belittling the merits of Rudnev - FACT.
The absence in Rudnev’s report of specific references to specific witnesses, and other specific sources of information allegedly confirming his statements - FACT.

Here, in fact, it turns out that Rudnev lied, and the Japanese did not lie.
How do you understand the reception?

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

I take the figures corresponding to the reality under discussion. At the right time and right place. And if real numbers are terribly inconvenient for you, because contrary to your mythology - these are your problems.

If you have not noticed, then I have cited the figures from the source you proposed and if they are terribly inconvenient, because contrary to your mythology - these are your problems.

Quote: murriou

figures are given for each month - there are LOTS of these figures,

That is, you didn’t bother to get acquainted with the source? And we are discussing the whole war, not a specific month.

Quote: murriou

Do you really think that more people could graze in the Russian rear at times, than they fought at the front? Do you really think this is normal? Do you really think that this speaks of the effectiveness of the Russian army in WWI?

As far as I remember, I have already quoted Krivosheev again proposed by you, which clearly stated that at least half of the mobilized people carried out tasks to support the warring part of the army and explained that the fact that there was a mess with security did not mean that they were killed, despite your ardent desire.

Quote: murriou

The Japanese won the war for the time allotted to it in history, and won purely, without a single defeat. They were not interested and needless to continue the war.

King Pierre also won the war, until it lasted a little longer than he expected. In fact, the opinions of historians have nothing to argue with?

Quote: murriou

Where are your specific answers to my specific questions?

The answers you never bothered to read. Because I, unlike you, have numbers, and you have only arrogant lies.

Quote: murriou

But tsarist Russia at this stage was forever stuck until the end of its existence, and the USSR quickly went much further.

Because in the USSR everyone who tried to rebel was reassured quickly and harshly, avoiding internal unrest. Feel the difference.

Quote: murriou

1. Ready-made and tested several years behind advanced developments.
2. Industrial development of someone else’s finished - for a few more years.

And at the same time it allows you to prepare the personnel necessary in order to develop something of your own. If all kinds of lovers do not intervene, destroy everything. I already told you how the first attempt to introduce universal secondary education in Japan ended?

Quote: murriou

The damned Bolsheviks made the same automatic machine hundreds of months a month, their subsequent machines - in quantities of more than a million a year.

Here are just a workshop for the production of machines was designed and built before the revolution. But to transfer it from one city to another, the feat is not great, and only 3200 made them, and millions of machine guns appeared already when the equipment became a new generation.

Quote: murriou

The Fiat engines, which in tsarist Russia were assembled from ready-made kits, the Bolsheviks went into mass production from their materials in 1924.

That is seven years of inactivity. Achievement.

Quote: murriou

The growth rate - it is, of course, good, if you do not forget to compare the real quantity with real needs, and not with the past century.

The fact that they did not manage to carry out industrialization as planned and the lag really was I wrote to you more than once. That's just the growth rate and determine development. Where would the USSR begin its production, if not for the foundation laid in the Republic of Ingushetia?

Quote: murriou

* sighing heavily * candelabra at you, bakers, you will not stock up.

After the Varangian was raised and it was included in the Japanese fleet, the original name was left on its stern, and a sign was inscribed on the ship that we will teach you to love the Motherland on this ship, and they told the cadets who were preparing to become officers of the Japanese fleet about the heroic fate of their training ship, citing the feat of Russian sailors worthy of samurai traditions as an example. It is a fact.
Unfortunately, the Japanese you loved so much were crystal bakers, so I find it difficult to say how many candelabra you need to find.
By the way, who examined the Japanese ships after the battle with the Varangian for hits?

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

If you didn’t notice, then I gave the figures from the source you proposed

You didn’t notice this, despite my repeated reminder to you that each digit has a binding to a value, dates and TVD, and I always call these bindings - and you, with the naivety of a special boarding school pupil, pull out the numbers from nowhere, and demand that I have them guessed the value.

Quote: Dart2027

And we are discussing the whole war, not a specific month.

“we discuss” the war as a process, and we track its results for each year, and the figures are given monthly.
If it’s too complicated for your “intellect” and “multi-buff niasilil”, then you are mistaken for the address, in this forum among people who know the topic you have nothing to do.

Quote: Dart2027

which clearly stated that at least half of the mobilized carried out tasks to ensure the warring part of the army

You definitely have problems reading in Russian and reading comprehension.
The number mobilized in 1914 reached more than 6,5 million, at the end of 1915 11,6 million, at the end of the war 15,8 million, and the number of logistic officers was within 2,2 - 2,55 million.

You have an interesting “half”. However, arithmetic is also obviously not in the list of skills since childhood.

Quote: Dart2027

and explained that the fact that there was a mess with security did not mean that they were killed, despite your ardent desire.

Your "explanations" are not related to reality, so their value is below zero. Keep them for intimate use.
And the number of those killed in the WWII has not been dependent on our desire or unwillingness for about 100 years. Our task is to find out, nothing more.

And here once again you are evading calculations, realizing that you do not want to recognize Russia’s record world record of 6,5 million total irretrievable military losses in WWII, but will not work.

We note in parentheses that in the number of those killed, Germany in the WWI did not exceed Russia by much, but the world record in the number of deserters and prisoners automatically puts Russia in an inconsistent first place and by a large margin.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

King Pierre also won the war

Translated into Russian from the crystal bakery, Pyrrhic victory is a victory too obvious to be challenged, and too unpleasant to be honestly recognized

Note that in real history, King Pyrrhus in the famous battle inflicted three times more losses to the Romans than he suffered, and if he did not win and lose, this would end the story of his power and him personally.

I do not get tired of explaining this to the bakers and personally to you, but it still hasn’t reached you and is unlikely to reach

Quote: Dart2027

In fact, the opinions of historians have nothing to argue with?

I have already reminded you many times that historians are different, and the vast majority of them have no disagreements: the REV was lost by Russia, and certainly and shamefully.

And even Okamoto, with a couple of quotes from which you rush about, like with a written sack, "forgetting" to read the rest of the text of your book you cite - does not dispute either the victory of Japan or the defeat of Russia, and does not call a single Russian victory - like you, by the way

Quote: Dart2027

I, unlike you, have numbers, and you have only arrogant lies.

You are already tired of a parrot repetition of my phrases, which in your performance become pure lies.
Where are these your numbers?
Where is the list of Russian victories in the REV?
Where is the alternative Krivosheevsky balance sheet of the personnel of the Russian army in WWI?

Quote: Dart2027

I already told you how the first attempt to introduce universal secondary education in Japan ended?

You told a lot of things
1. The introduction of universal primary education in Japan immediately went quite successfully, in a matter of years, and you could not dispute that.
Tsarist Russia could not cope with this in its entire history.

2. The introduction of universal secondary education was not immediately possible, yes - but in 1907. it was nevertheless fully introduced, and became widespread long before that.
How was this with tsarist Russia? When did it come to secondary education, well, if not universal, but at least a noticeable part of the population?

3. During the REV, the vast majority of Japanese soldiers already had secondary education, Russian soldiers in the majority were completely illiterate, even without primary education, and therefore poorly capable of performing complex joint operations and mastering complex military equipment.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

After the Varangian was raised and it was included in the Japanese fleet, the original name was left on its stern, and a plate was also installed

... and so on, we know, we know.

So what? Does this abolish Rudnev’s complete helplessness in battle and his lies in the reports?

Yes, the Japanese, then obsessed with the samurai spirit, awarded Rudnev for this very spirit, praised the feat of the Russian sailors and set it as their example - but they noted the complete inefficiency of the Russian fire and were surprised why the Russians chose the smallest place of the bay for the sinking of their ships , and also did not attend to the destruction of ship documents.

And also, the bakers constantly forget that the Japanese are neither Russian nor Europeans.
It is customary for the Japanese to be proud of the merits of a defeated opponent, and not to belittle them after victory, and to be proud of their own losses, despite which they won.
Therefore, when the Japanese praise the "Rudnev samurai spirit", they praise themselves, not us.

Quote: Dart2027

By the way, who examined the Japanese ships after the battle with the Varangian for hits?

Japanese. But not those who drowned him.
And if you are trying to argue with the facts on this basis, then your destiny will again flop into a puddle at every step, as always.

The Japanese would not hide the mistakes of their colleagues if such a thing had a place to be.
The Japanese could not have faked numerous photographs of the "Varyag" after the battle and after its raising.
The Japanese could not even if they wanted to falsify retroactively the reports of the combatants filed, accepted and published a week before the Varyag survey.

And certainly they would not need and it would not be easy to add Russian shells to the Varyag cellars in huge numbers, which Rudnev did not fire despite his self-worthy report.

By the way, once again you could not answer the questions I asked about sources and witnesses in favor of Rudnev, whose names were not indicated in his reports, and never surfaced in any subsequent documents.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

But tsarist Russia at this stage was forever stuck until the end of its existence, and the USSR quickly went much further.

Because in the USSR everyone who tried to rebel was reassured quickly and harshly, avoiding internal unrest.

In tsarist Russia there were also prisons and penal servitude, but the trick was not in them, but in the fact that the USSR had achievements classified by the bakers: a well-developed public education system, incomparable with individual and optional central vocational schools, a specialist training system also incomparable with the scale Tsarist Russia, and a powerful, time-appropriate industry.
Tsarist Russia had nothing of the kind.

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

1. Ready-made and tested several years behind advanced developments.
2. Industrial development of someone else’s finished - for a few more years.

And at the same time it allows you to prepare the personnel necessary in order to develop something of your own.

Well, WHERE, once again I ask, examples of YOUR own made in tsarist Russia on an INDUSTRIAL scale, and not in a shed on your knee?

The only fetishes of crystal bakers, “novices” and “Murom”, upon closer inspection, turn out to be very small in comparison with their counterparts in developed countries, and not at all so advanced and brilliant - moreover, they very quickly turned from almost-advanced to hopelessly retarded.

And the USSR from ruin to the position of one of the world leaders passed in a couple of five-year periods.

Quote: Dart2027

If all kinds of lovers do not intervene, destroy everything.

There is always something to complain about to a bad dancer

But tsarist Russia remained helpless and miserable from the end of the 19th century until the end of its existence, for at least 20 years continuously, and here it is impossible to blame the impotence of tsarism on any "lovers".

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

“we discuss” the war as a process, and we track its results for each year, and the figures are given monthly. If it’s too complicated for your “intellect” and “multi-buff niasilil”, then you are mistaken for the address, in this forum among the people who know the topic you have nothing to do.

Then be so kind as to give the monthly figures for the entire war. According to what I have given, there is nothing to refute?

Quote: murriou

The number mobilized in 1914 reached more than 6,5 million, at the end of 1915 11,6 million, at the end of the war 15,8 million, and the number of logistic officers was within 2,2 - 2,55 million.

You definitely have problems reading in Russian and reading comprehension. Well, once again we read Comrade Krivosheev:

The balance of human resources during the First World War (September 1, 1917)
Remained in the armed forces (total) of them:
- in the composition of the army 7949,0;
- as part of the rear formations and bodies of military command subordinate to the Minister of War
(spare regiments of military districts, spare parts of special combat arms, command and
institutions of the Ministry of War) 6512,0 [183] ​​1437,0 [184]
[184] Calculated on the basis of data on the number of military personnel on quarterly allowance of the fronts (North, West, South-West, Romanian, Caucasian) and front-line military districts (Petrograd and Odessa) as of September 1, 1917. The calculation result is 6512 thousand people (minus 700,0 thousand people of the Romanian troops, standing on the contentment of the Russian Romanian front). - Russia in the world war 1914-1918 (in numbers). - M., 1925, p. 23.
[184] The number was obtained by calculation: of the total number of troops in the rear military districts as of February 1, 1917, there were 1442,3 thousand people. (minus the troops of the Petrograd and Odessa front-line military districts - 404,4 thousand people), the calculated figure (318,3 thousand people) was deducted, the value of which decreased the number of troops in the rear military districts from February 1 to 1 September 1917. The result (1124 thousand people) was supplemented by the number of servicemen who were in the spare parts of special combat arms (313,0 thousand people).
Several million killed are not a needle in a haystack, so I'm waiting for your facts about the numerous officially unaccounted burial places of Russian WWI soldiers.

However, reading and arithmetic in you, too, is clearly not in the list of skills since childhood.

Quote: murriou

Your "explanations" are not related to reality, so their value is below zero. Keep them for intimate use. And the number of those killed in the WWII has not been dependent on our desire or unwillingness for about 100 years. Our task is to find out, nothing more.

Your "explanations" are not related to reality, so their value is below zero. Keep them for intimate use. And the number of those killed in the WWII has not been dependent on our desire or unwillingness for about 100 years. Our task is to find out, nothing more. And here once again you are evading calculations, realizing that the world record figure of 6,5 million total irretrievable military losses of Russia in the WWII is nothing more than a myth that has nothing to do with reality, and if you don’t recognize it, it won’t work out.

Quote: murriou

Note that in real history, King Pyrrhus in the famous battle inflicted three times more losses to the Romans than he suffered, and if he did not win and lose, this would end the story of his power and him personally.

King Pyrrhus won the war or not? Where does it say that he won?

Quote: murriou

I have already reminded you many times that historians are different, and the vast majority of them have no disagreements: the REV was lost by Russia, and certainly and shamefully.

I have already reminded you many times that historians are different, and the vast majority of them have no disagreements. And even Okamoto unequivocally writes that the war lasted and that’s it.

Quote: murriou

You are already tired of a parrot repetition of my phrases, which in your performance become pure lies. Where are these your numbers? Where is the list of Russian victories in the REV? Where is the alternative Krivosheevsky balance sheet of the personnel of the Russian army in WWI?

I didn’t write about the victories in the REV, but wrote that Japan would have lost anyway, about the data of Krivosheev, see above (all of a sudden you won’t guess?)

Quote: murriou

1. The introduction of universal primary education in Japan immediately went quite successfully, in a matter of years, and you could not dispute that.

Led by teachers studying in a medieval country. So what could they teach?

Quote: murriou

2. The introduction of universal secondary education was not immediately possible, yes - but in 1907. it was nevertheless fully introduced, and became widespread long before that.

That's only when Japan stopped receiving the most advanced technology from its allies, as it immediately began to lag behind them in a technical sense. It became a high-tech country after WWII. So, when did it become truly massive and advanced?

Quote: murriou

3. During the REV, the vast majority of Japanese soldiers already had secondary education.

But there was nowhere to take new ones from. What I wrote to you more than once.

Quote: murriou

but they noted the complete inefficiency of the Russian fire and were surprised why the Russians chose the smallest place of the bay for the sinking of their ships, and also did not bother to destroy the ship's documents.

Inefficiency only according to them, by the way, as the first shell hit Asama destroyed the rangefinder post on the Varyag, thanks to which his gunners shot by eye. The place of diving was chosen on the basis of considerations that then it would be raised not by the Japanese, but by the Russian fleet.

Quote: murriou

And also, the bakers constantly forget that the Japanese are neither Russian nor Europeans. It is customary for the Japanese to be proud of the merits of a defeated opponent, and not to belittle them after victory, and to be proud of their own losses, despite which they won. Therefore, when the Japanese praise the "Rudnev samurai spirit", they praise themselves, not us.

That is, they are bakers? And how was the candelabra prepared?

Quote: murriou

The Japanese would not

The shells after the battle were evaluated by eye, since there was no time to count them, so Rudnev’s mistake was understandable, but hiding their damage was common practice. After the fight, Asama seems to have disappeared for two months, the question is where?

Quote: murriou

By the way, once again you could not answer the questions I asked about sources and witnesses in favor of Rudnev, whose names were not indicated in his reports, and never surfaced in any subsequent documents.

Why didn’t he indicate their names in the report? I don’t know, but was there any sense in lying? Well, with shells it’s clear, but to think of a drowned cruiser is basically meaningless.

Quote: murriou

developed public education system, incomparable with individual and optional central vocational schools, a specialist training system, also incomparable with the scale of tsarist Russia, and a powerful industry corresponding to the times.
Tsarist Russia had nothing of the kind.
A bad dancer will always have something to complain about.

Please show on the map of the USSR. Or the country that built communism. Or a country that is about to build it.
What did you say there about an old maid who dreams of being raped, but nobody really needs? There is always a bad dancer to complain about.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

kindly provide monthly figures for the entire war.

You will first digest those already given ent ent times

Quote: Dart2027

Several million dead are not a needle in a haystack, so I'm waiting for your facts about the numerous officially unaccounted burial places of Russian soldiers

Take information on the locations of the largest battles of the WWII.
Or for you, if there is no officially recognized burial place with a nameplate, then you are not already killed?

Quote: Dart2027

the world record figure of 6,5 million total irretrievable military losses of Russia in WWII is nothing more than a myth that has nothing to do with reality

An anonymous member of the VO forum against Krivosheev, besides nickname! Hurry up to see! Make your bets, gentlemen!

Quote: Dart2027

King Pyrrhus won the war or not? Where does it say that he won?

The battle at Auskul, after which the famous phrase was said, won. At the same time, inflicting losses to the enemy 3 times more than their own.

After this, the Romans did not just ask for peace, but preferred to fight with other opponents.
After this, Pyrrhus didn’t calm down either - for another 4 years he fought with both Carthage and Sparta, that is, also very serious opponents. And he died quite by accident from a tile thrown from the roof.
So he did not lose the war to Rome, and was not defeated by the Romans.
More questions?

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

Okamoto unequivocally writes that the war lasted and that’s it.

If I had a grandmother. The Japanese judged the Russians on their own, and the Russians at that time, having a huge numerical advantage, sat behind fortified positions and did not dare to stick their nose out of them, morally suppressed by constant defeats.

Quote: Dart2027

I didn’t write about victories in the REV

Those. do you finally admit that Russia’s RJV was mediocre and helpless, not having won a single victory even with its numerical superiority?

Quote: Dart2027

wrote that Japan would still lose

IF. Justify try, suddenly it turns out, for any fun come out
Have you already seen the figures of the ratio of losses in the main battles of the REV? Have you learned? Did you make any conclusions?

Quote: Dart2027

Led by teachers studying in a medieval country. So what could they teach?

The Japanese and Chinese alphabets, which are incomparably more complicated than European, Japanese and Chinese medieval poetry, which are no poorer than the European ones, the culture of behavior and the way of thinking with which the Japanese were not bad, and European basics at the level of the European school curriculum.

I think the little Japanese had no more problems with arithmetic than you have now

Quote: Dart2027

when Japan stopped receiving the most advanced technology from its allies, it immediately began to lag behind them in a technical sense.

She managed to get ahead of Tsarist Russia, but the USSR set the bar higher.
And besides technology, more resources are needed. Japan was very bad with them.

Quote: Dart2027

Inefficiency only according to them

Do you have objective evidence of the success of the military operations of Rudnev? Share them with the world!
Do you know cases of Russian victories over the Japanese in the REV? Share it too!
This, by the way, is about the comparative effectiveness of Russians and Japanese, not only under Chemulpo, but throughout the war.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

By the way, Asama destroyed the rangefinder post on the Varyag with the first missile, thanks to which his gunners shot by eye.

The pants failed Rudnev, yes.
Excuse is counted, but the number of Russian hits in the Japanese from this is no longer.

But it’s nothing so that in 1903 his gunners in range (!) Conditions, with a working rangefinder, at a short distance, on a motionless and unanswered target, could not beat out more than 3% of hits, but in battle Was the task more difficult?

And it’s nothing so that shells less than GK could not do anything at all with Chemulpo, and GK shells from "Varyag" took no more than 160, i.e. even if you got 3% of hits, is this still nonsense?

Quote: Dart2027

The place of diving was chosen on the basis of considerations that then it would be raised not by the Japanese, but by the Russian fleet.

After the Japanese victory in this battle and the obvious seizure by the Japanese of Korea the next move, with landing craft already visible on the horizon, yes

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

And also, the bakers constantly forget that the Japanese are neither Russian nor Europeans. It is customary for the Japanese to be proud of the merits of a defeated opponent, and not to belittle them after victory, and to be proud of their own losses, despite which they won. Therefore, when the Japanese praise the "Rudnev samurai spirit", they praise themselves, not us.

That is, they are bakers?

No. They are sane people, although not without their oddities, in our opinion. Compliments to the defeated enemy are part of their military etiquette and the exaltation of their own victory, nothing more.

Quote: Dart2027

The shells after the battle were evaluated by eye, since there was no time to count them, so Rudnev’s mistake was understandable

You can immediately see the sofa dreamer in you.
To confuse the ammunition consumption times in THREE and report on almost exhausted ammunition when it was enough for several more such battles - this is not a mistake, this is a conscious LIE.

Quote: Dart2027

hiding your damage is a common practice.

From whom and why hide?

Yes, there was a case - the Japanese hid the sinking of their EDB on mines, because they were afraid that the Russians would learn about their advantage and rush into the offensive.
Well, I say, they STRONGLY overestimated the Russians, judging them by themselves

But why hide Asama’s injuries from their own superiors?
Especially to hide them after the war?

You still tell the tale that the "Goeben" actually blew up on Kolchak’s mines in 1916. and the Germans still hide this fact from the whole world, and Kolchak is an honest officer.

The Germans scrupulously described the bombings from the Ebergard and Entente mines in their documents, and they hid them from the Kolchakov mines, yeah

Quote: Dart2027

After the fight, Asama seems to have disappeared for two months, the question is where?

It’s not with the history or arithmetic of the problem, but with medicine, apparently.

1. The battle at Chemulpo was January 27 (February 9). In what battles did the Asama RPE take part before the end of March (beginning of April)?

2. How much would he have to repair if Rudnev’s tales were true? “Rurik-2” was required for six months, I remember.

3. By the way, thanks for the reminder. I quote from the report of Rudnev:

Its aft tower, apparently, is damaged, since it did not function until the end of the battle

Rudnev for such a passage, you can immediately prescribe complete unsuitability or impudent lies.

For you, with your complete ignorance of the topic, it is excusable. But even it would be unforgivable for me to bear such a blizzard:

"Asama" pursued the "Varyag" and was turned with his nose!

Those. neither Asama could fire from the aft tower, nor Rudnev could assess its condition.
This is a plus to the listing of points of his undoubted and arrogant lies.

4. or even 0.
Damage suffered by Asama in the Battle of Tsushima is described in detail in his ship's journal and all other relevant documents.

Now explain why the Japanese would hide the damage to the same ship in one battle, but paint them in detail in another.

Quote: Dart2027

But just the point was lying?

What is the point of lying to a naughty child if his lies are inevitably revealed? Just to postpone the punishment.

It’s even clearer for the naughty adult: they can be executed under a hot hand, and later they will most likely be forgiven.

But Rudnev was exactly what he had encrypted, and he understood this very well.
Many team members were waiting for the court to return to Russia, and were very surprised that they decided to make heroes, not scapegoats.

In addition, Rudnev did not expect that the Japanese were not too lazy to count the shells. He himself would not do that, that’s the whole secret.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

Please show on the map of the USSR. Or the country that built communism. Or a country that is about to build it.

We managed to build socialism in the Soviet Socialist Republic.
And managed to build a developed industry.
And to become one of the leaders in industrial, scientific and technological development.

With science in the Republic of Ingushetia, it was also relatively good, but with its industrial application in any way. And everything else achieved in the USSR, of tsarist Russia, did not even shine in any real future.

Can you find a map of the USSR yourself, or do you need help?
Can you see East Prussia, now the Kaliningrad Region, on this map?
Learn about the state. belonging to this territory during WWI you will not be beyond the limits of labor?

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

After the fight, Asama seems to have disappeared for two months, the question is where?

When something seems to you, you need to be baptized, or better, go straight to the doctor.

Returning to the parking lot near Chemulpo, the cruiser IJN Asama again joined the 2nd combat detachment of the Kamimura squadron. As part of the combined fleet, on February 24 (11), he participated in the cover of fire-steamers trying to block the exit from Port Arthur, and the next day in a shootout with the cruisers Bayan, Askold and Novik, as well as coastal batteries in the vicinity of Tae Bay.

That’s the whole price of your “knowledge”, and Rudnev’s report at the same time.

[murriou]

More on Rudnev and his report. In the first report:

One of the enemy destroyers drowned in front of everyone. Subsequently, it turned out that the Takashiho cruiser was so severely damaged that it sank on the road to Sasebo, having 200 wounded taken from the squadron after the battle for delivery to the hospital. The cruisers Asama and Naniva went to the dock for corrections. Also, the Japanese brought 30 killed during the battle to A-san Bay. (This information was obtained from observing foreign officers, our missions in Japan and Seoul, from Japanese and English sources.)

1. As you can see, here Rudnev does not name any specific sources at all.
An anonymous source is also in Shanghai, as well as ext. Details about foreign observers, to reinforce the credibility of his words (but still without indicating names and titles!), they came up with a little later.

2. The drowned Japanese destroyer here is indicated to them as seen directly, without reference to third parties who also appeared later.

This, of course, is also a lie, as it turned out already during the REE, where all the Japanese participants in the Chemulpo battle continued their service, and in the 20s. all destroyers noted there safely went into scrap.

3. "Takachiho" was sunk 10 years later and by the Germans near Qingdao, took an active part in the NRW, including when finishing "Rurik" in the Korea Strait.

4. 200 wounded, 30 killed, too, a lie, has not received confirmation.
In all cases of clashes, where the Japanese side really had injuries and casualties, these losses were fully and in detail SPECIFIED by the Japanese side.

5. ALL the hits indicated in the reports of the Japanese participants in the battle were fully confirmed by both Rudnev's report and the Varyag survey after it was raised.
Rudnev’s inventions of his hit did not receive any confirmation.

6. The effectiveness of Japanese fire in real combat:

6 "40klb, similar to the Varyag’s guns - 4,39%, that is, one and a half times more than the Varyag’s in range (!) Firing.
8 "45klb - 11,11%, that is, three times or more higher.
The effectiveness of the fire "Varyag" in a real battle - 0,00%.

Again, Captain Evidence speaks out about the veracity of Rudnev and the crunchy myths in general.

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

You will first digest those already given ent ent times

The number of divisions of the Republic of Ingushetia as of June 1917 is 288 (Andrey Zayonchkovsky, World War I) Is that more clear?

Quote: murriou

Take information on the locations of the largest battles of the WWII. Or for you, if there is no officially recognized burial place with a nameplate, then you are not already killed?

Well, where are these millions?

Quote: murriou

An anonymous member of the VO forum against Krivosheev, besides nickname! Hurry up to see! Make your bets, gentlemen!

Anonymous except Nick Murriou forum member VO against Krivosheeva!
According to Krivosheev, all losses of the Republic of Ingushetia were 2254369 people, despite the fact that he openly wrote that the differences with the numbers of the Central Statistical Bureau (626440) and B.Ts. Urlanis (1200000) was obtained by calculations and assumptions, not real data.

Quote: murriou

So he did not lose the war to Rome, and was not defeated by the Romans. More questions?

Battle of Benevente (275 BC) - his army was defeated. More questions?

Quote: murriou

If I had a grandmother.

That is, the fact of the loss of Japan in the war of attrition, you do not deny?

Quote: murriou

Those. do you finally admit that Russia’s RJV was mediocre and helpless, not having won a single victory even with its numerical superiority?

Show me where I wrote about victories?

Quote: murriou

Japanese and Chinese alphabets that are incomparably more difficult

Well, and what does this have to do with technology?

Quote: murriou

She managed to get ahead of Tsarist Russia, but the USSR set the bar higher. And besides technology, more resources are needed. Japan was very bad with them.

Well, suppose, before the USSR, the Americans managed to cheat them. That is, you acknowledge that Japan can only wage short-term wars and that it is knowingly doomed to a protracted conflict?

Quote: murriou

Do you have objective evidence of the success of the military operations of Rudnev? Share them with the world!

The question was whether the Varangian hit on Asama or not entirely on the conscience of the Japanese themselves.

Quote: murriou

Excuse is counted, but the number of Russian hits in the Japanese from this is no longer.

That is, in essence there is nothing to object, although I really want to?

Quote: murriou

But nothing so much that in 1903 his gunners

Do you know how they knew how to shoot at the time of the battle?

Quote: murriou

After the Japanese victory in this battle and the obvious seizure by the Japanese of Korea the next move, with landing craft already visible on the horizon, yes

We hoped for the best, since raising a ship is not a matter of one day.

Quote: murriou

No. They are sane people, although not without their oddities, in our opinion. Compliments to the defeated enemy are part of their military etiquette and the exaltation of their own victory, nothing more.

I’ll tell you a secret - in Europe, too, there was something similar, even in the Second World War there were cases in relation to Soviet soldiers. And besides, they only honored worthy enemies, so alas, the Japanese believed that it was a feat.

Quote: murriou

From whom and why hide?

From the enemy. And to confess after the war is already stupid.

Quote: murriou

To confuse the ammunition consumption times in THREE and report on almost exhausted ammunition when it was enough for several more such battles - this is not a mistake, this is a conscious LIE.

To do this, they need to be counted, but there was no time for this.

Quote: murriou

2. How much would he have to repair if Rudnev’s tales were true? “Rurik-2” was required for six months, I remember.

Depends on the amount of damage.

Quote: murriou

"Asama" pursued the "Varyag" and was turned with his nose! Those. neither Asama could fire from the aft tower, nor Rudnev could assess its condition. This is a plus to the listing of points of his undoubted and arrogant lies.

For you, with your complete ignorance of the topic, it is excusable. The ships of that time during the shootout sought to turn on board to the enemy, since otherwise they could not use all the artillery. And certainly Asama could not pursue him when he went to her.

Quote: murriou

Now explain why the Japanese would hide the damage to the same ship in one battle, but paint them in detail in another.

The Tsushima battle put an end to the war at sea.

Quote: murriou

It’s even clearer for the naughty adult: they can be executed under a hot hand, and later they will most likely be forgiven.

That is, the fact that the Varangian and the Korean turned out to be an order of magnitude stronger than themselves against the squadron, and those locked in the port mean that they messed up?

Quote: murriou

2. The drowned Japanese destroyer here is indicated to them as seen directly, without reference to third parties who also appeared later.

... Italian officers watching the battle, and an English steam boat returning from the Japanese squadron, claim that ... and also one destroyer was sunk ... What report are you talking about?

Quote: murriou

We managed to build socialism in the Soviet Socialist Republic. And managed to build a developed industry. And to become one of the leaders in industrial, scientific and technological development.

Yes, I know. As well as about the victory in the Second World War, space flight and other achievements. As well as the fact that millions of repressed are sucked from the finger. And, nevertheless, please show on the map of the USSR. Or the country that built communism. Or a country that is about to build it.
What did you say there about an old maid who dreams of being raped, but nobody really needs? There is always a bad dancer to complain about.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

According to Krivosheev, all losses of the Republic of Ingushetia were 2254369 people

You BAD can read and count. And to be honest, you do not know how at all.
Counting it again, especially for bakery and * talented *.

2,25 million is NOT "all losses", as you are Lying, but only demographically irrevocable, combat + non-combat.

Combat including 1,89 million, not counting those who died from illnesses (the wounded were often attributed to this article) and were held captive for all reasons, including again from battle wounds. Okay, I'm sorry. In the irrevocable, they are still included.

Plus to them:
If we consider sanitary losses, then an additional 3749,0 thousand of them
If the sanitary facilities are not counted, as I did, then:
2,25 million demographic + 3,34 million prisoners and missing + 1,87 million deserters = 7,46 million

There is some scope of the order of +/- 10% with the inclusion / non-inclusion in these categories of individual subcategories, but in any case:
1. losses by prisoners - Russia has a world record in WWI;
2. Losses by deserters - - Russia has a world record in WWI;
3. Irrevocable demographic losses - in Russia are close to the values ​​of Germany and England + France combined. With an incomparably lower intensity of the databases in which Russia participated.

So I have complete agreement with Krivosheev, and you have a conflict with him and with his brains

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

before the USSR, the Americans managed to cheat them.

In 1939 year ?!

Or are the words "Khalkhin-Gol" strictly classified for you?

And how much did the Americans manage to fight in mainland Asia before August 1945, will you remind me?

I recall to the most illiterate bakers that the USSR had 4 major armed conflicts with Japan.
In brackets, in words, in capital letters, in bold: FOUR

And the USSR won them all.
In brackets, in words, in capital letters, in bold: WIN. IN ALL

1. 1922-1924, the expulsion of Japanese interventionists from the Russian Far East, the Far East joining the USSR.

2. Cross-border conflict at Lake Hassan in 1938

3. The invasion of the Japanese in a union Mongolia and their expulsion from there, 1939.

4. The Soviet-Japanese War of 1945, a magnificent blitzkrieg, with a terrible loss for us and a brilliant ratio of losses for us, with an offensive pace of the world record.

How do you understand the reception?

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

The question was whether the Varangian hit on Asama or not entirely on the conscience of the Japanese themselves.

You, with your habit of petty scam at every turn, are trying to judge everyone by yourself.

You are hopeless in your attempts to prove myths that have gone bad more than 100 years ago.

Rudnev’s lies already during the REV became clear to his colleagues, but it cannot reach you even in 100+ years

Hits in battle are quite objective facts.
The Japanese do not need to hide their damage in battle.
Their damage in Tsushima and in all the other battles where they were, on the "Asam" are indicated in detail.
And only in the battle with Rudnev, whom they praise, did the Japanese decide to hide their damage ?!

You are enchanting, as always, thanks!

Quote: Dart2027

the fact that the Varangian and the Korean were against the squadron an order of magnitude stronger than themselves, and the ones locked in the port mean that they messed up?

1. NO.
At the same time, the king’s admirals and governor, as well as His Imperial Insignificance, encroached upon us, with the already obvious threat of war, which did not give the command in time to draw forces to the base, and thus lost considerable forces at the very beginning of the war.

2. An order of magnitude stronger than yourself - it’s you lying, well, as usual.
Even if you count by the number of ships, then 9/2 = 4,5 - still not an order of magnitude.
Where the bakers get 14 enemy ships, I don’t know. Maybe they even counted landing vehicles or boats
Up to 20 ships (which would be true = an order of magnitude = more), even the most notorious bakeries did not dare to lie.

3. Of the entire Japanese squadron, only Asama was stronger than the Varyag.
The remaining full-fledged ships are the Chiodo, which was considered an armored cruiser due to the presence of an armored belt, but was actually the weakest of the cruisers, and armored cruisers with a displacement of 2,7 - 3,7 thousand tons, i.e. 1,8 - 2,5 times smaller than the Varyag.
Total full-fledged warships 6 vs. 2, and another 3 destroyers with a displacement of 152 tons (40 times! Less than the "Varyag").

Those. the advantage of the Japanese was about 2 times, with large, very large stretches up to 2,5-3 times, but no more.

4. Shkodnichestvo Rudnev was that:
4.1. He could not inflict losses on the enemy.
4.2. He showed himself completely helpless in battle.
4.3. Because of long fluctuations, he chose an extremely unfortunate time (low tide) to go to sea, thereby greatly limiting his already poor capabilities.
4.4. In fact, he presented his ship to the enemy, without flooding flooding it in the shallowest place of the bay.
4.5. At the same time as the ship he presented the enemy with ship documentation.
4.6. He lied many times in his report, and became even more entangled in this lie when trying to get out.

Quote: Dart2027

Italian officers watching the battle

5.1. For the umpteenth time I ask the names and titles of these "Italian officers" invented by Rudnev.
5.2. For the umpteenth time I ask: WHERE did they supposedly observe and WHAT could they really observe from there?

Quote: Dart2027

English steam boat returning from a Japanese squadron

6.1. And how long did he return from there? The whole hour?
6.2. The names and titles of the source of information are still missing.
Moreover: ANYWHERE, except for Rudnev's report and his rehash in the newspapers, these "alleged information" are not given. The British themselves did not confirm them.

Quote: Dart2027

What report are you talking about?

OU! Are you really so illiterate in the subject, so much time floundering helplessly in it that you do not know about the existence of more than one Rudnev report ?!
Sorry! *Laughter through tears*

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

atomic bombs torn apart from the USA

I sympathize with your technical illiteracy, but can you tell me that it was the USSR that “torn apart” from US atomic bombs?

The basic principle has been “distorted” by the whole world from the works of German theorists in the late 20s and 30s.
The principle of a centrifuge, the Americans later torn at us, and not vice versa. They held onto the diffusion technology through the porous septum for a long time.

GKO Decree No. 2352ss “On the Organization of Work on Uranium” was made in 1942, when even the Americans did not have detailed information about the American atomic bomb.
An own reactor in the USSR was launched in 1946, and in the same year designs for Soviet atomic bombs were created.
The test of the first Soviet nuclear bomb was in 1949, and the official announcement of it was in 1950.

Soviet intelligence, of course, was extremely interested in obtaining as detailed information as possible about the American nuclear project.
But if we were waiting for the ready clue, and did not do our parallel, the atomic bomb would have appeared with us many years later.

And at the same time, tell me another of your favorite fairy tales: who did the USSR tear at the world's first space satellite?

[murriou]

According to the huge number of rear services (rear services, spare and training parts, reserve, etc.).
Their number is also counted by Urlanis, and Krivosheev also mentioned:
for 1914-1915 up to 2,3 million
at the end of 1916 up to 2,55 million
as of May 1917 2,29 million
Yes, a lot, but the difference with the number of people mobilized does not even cover remotely.

The payroll at the front: the end of 1914 (rear as of January 1915) 3,514 million, front + rear approx. 5,8 million
Mobilized at this moment: 6,553 million
Difference: 0,75mln

end of 1915 (rear as of February 1, 1916) 6,773 million according to lists at the front, front + rear approx. 9,07 million
Mobilized at this moment: 11,600 million
Difference: 2,53mln

May 1917 At the front and in the rear together 9,047 million, mobilized 15,8 million,
difference: 6,75 million

At the same time, for the entire war the number of hospitalized at one time is up to 0,35 million, and they continue to appear on the lists.
The number of demobilized by age 0,227 million for the entire war.
Where did the remaining millions go if there is NO “loss” (C) Tymchuk?

But the figures of losses according to Krivosheev, to which I was initially unfair (I admit! Do not miss!), Already fit into such a picture (taking into account the rear officers).
But you, the bakers, Krivosheev figures do not want to recognize?

And if we recognize them, then the losses of Russia by the victims are not much, comparable with the calculation error, less than the German (with a clear inequality in the intensity and scale of the database) and the total Anglo-French, losses by prisoners and deserters - a world record for both positions.

Any objections? Waiting for your alternative numbers with a detailed balance of personnel. Just not from an alternative Galaxy, can I?

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

I sympathize with your technical illiteracy, but can you tell me that it was the USSR that “torn apart” from US atomic bombs?

Comrade Sudoplatov can do this in more detail.

Quote: murriou

But the figures of losses according to Krivosheev, to which I was initially unfair (I admit! Do not miss!), Already fit into such a picture (taking into account the rear officers).

Well read Comrade Krivosheev:

The balance of human resources during the First World War (September 1, 1917)
Remained in the armed forces (total) of them:
- in the composition of the army 7949,0;
- as part of the rear formations and bodies of military command subordinate to the Minister of War
(spare regiments of military districts, spare parts of special combat arms, command and
institutions of the Ministry of War) 6512,0 [183] ​​1437,0 [184]
[184] Calculated on the basis of data on the number of military personnel on quarterly allowance of the fronts (North, West, South-West, Romanian, Caucasian) and front-line military districts (Petrograd and Odessa) as of September 1, 1917. The calculation result is 6512 thousand people (minus 700,0 thousand people of the Romanian troops, standing on the contentment of the Russian Romanian front). - Russia in the world war 1914-1918 (in numbers). - M., 1925, p. 23.
[184] The number was obtained by calculation: of the total number of troops in the rear military districts as of February 1, 1917, there were 1442,3 thousand people. (minus the troops of the Petrograd and Odessa front-line military districts - 404,4 thousand people), the calculated figure (318,3 thousand people) was deducted, the value of which decreased the number of troops in the rear military districts from February 1 to 1 September 1917. The result (1124 thousand people) was supplemented by the number of servicemen who were in the spare parts of special combat arms (313,0 thousand people).

Several million killed are not a needle in a haystack, so I'm waiting for your facts about the numerous officially unaccounted burial places of Russian WWI soldiers.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

Comrade Sudoplatov can do this in more detail.

That is, you are hiding behind Sudoplatov and yourself are not able to answer such an elementary question.

Well, helping the wretched is a godly affair. As always, I have to help you decrypt your own * statements *

So, foreign intelligence reported in the USSR:
1. That work is underway on a nuclear project in England and the USA, subsequently the English group joined the American.
The information is important, but has nothing to do with the design of the bomb.

2. That the creation of an atomic bomb in the course of these works seems possible.
That is garbage.

3. That Americans are developing an electromagnetic and diffusion method for separating uranium isotopes.
Infa is again important. but we went the other way, MORE effective - the separation of UF6 in centrifuges, which the Americans then torn at us, and which then became the most popular in the world.

4. A drawing of a nuclear bomb device. This is about what is now taking place in schools and is accessible to anyone. How many nuclear bombs were made by schoolchildren in kitchens and garages during this time? How many countries have joined the "nuclear club" and how?

In addition, there were refinements of the critical mass parameters and a lot of other technical information. Yes, the intelligence work was necessary and useful, it saved a lot of time and other important resources, and there is no point in arguing with this.

But only for the early teenage level of intelligence, about 4-5 grades of high school, the above statement is no different from yours * statements * that the USSR torn Americans at ALL the device of the atomic bomb.

Because a very important part of the Soviet atomic project was done BEFORE receiving respectively. information from intelligence, independently and independently, and in some ways we even got ahead of the Americans.

How do you understand the reception?

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

I am waiting for your facts about the numerous officially unaccounted for burials of Russian WWI soldiers.

Already answered, but because I have not yet reached you, I repeat here: for sure, any place of a major battle of the WWII with the participation of the Russian army is.

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

Already answered, but because I have not yet reached you, I repeat here: for sure, any place of a major battle of the WWII with the participation of the Russian army is.

Well, if for sure, then this is very serious. The same Krivosheev makes his calculations on the basis of at least something specific, and you already for sure. That is, there is nothing concrete.

Quote: murriou

2,25 million is NOT "all losses", as you are Lying, but only demographically irrevocable, combat + non-combat.
2,25 million demographic + 3,34 million prisoners and missing + 1,87 million deserters = 7,46 million

And since when have prisoners and deserters been equated with those killed?

Including: killed, died from wounds, diseases, from gas poisoning, accidents and died from the number of missing persons (demographic losses) - 2254,4
Krivosheev

Quote: murriou

2. Losses by deserters - - Russia has a world record in WWI

Thanks to the revolutionaries of all stripes who ruined the army. If it were not for the traitorous agitators, February, and then October, then there would have been far fewer of them.

Quote: murriou

In addition, there were refinements of the critical mass parameters and a lot of other technical information. Yes, the intelligence work was necessary and useful, it saved a lot of time and other important resources, and there is no point in arguing with this.
But only for the early teenage level of intelligence, about 4-5 grades of high school, the above statement is no different from yours * statements * that the USSR torn Americans at ALL the device of the atomic bomb.

The AB device, as you yourself write, can be drawn by a student. It is the technical details that are critical. As for our own developments, it is impossible in principle to create something new without an existing base. But this only applies to the Republic of Ingushetia - they started by copying someone else’s technology, as in the USSR, then they would go on to their own.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

Krivosheev makes his calculations based on at least something specific

So do you acknowledge Krivosheev’s calculations?
Tell me clearly and in Russian, if you are capable of it: YES or NO?
If NO, then try to argue with them at the same level. So far you have not even succeeded close, but your attempts were very funny, bravo.
And if YES, then all my conclusions based on Krivosheev’s numbers are completely fair, and for you it’s very sad.

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: murriou

2,25 million is NOT "all losses", as you are Lying, but only demographically irrevocable, combat + non-combat.
2,25 million demographic + 3,34 million prisoners and missing + 1,87 million deserters = 7,46 million

And since when have prisoners and deserters been equated with those killed?

Your problems with reading and understanding in Russian, AND ALSO WITH ARITHMETICS, continue all the time as I see you here, and most likely from childhood. Sorry!

It is you who equate all categories of losses and do not understand the difference between them.
And understanding people, like me and Krivosheev, Do not forget to indicate the CATEGORY of losses to which specific numbers relate.

Prisoners are listed separately, deserters separately, killed separately. Each category has its own quantity.
And all this is LOSS, but different.
And all of them are militarily irrevocable, because fighters lost in these categories will not be returned to the ranks until the end of the war.

Quote: Dart2027

Thanks to the revolutionaries of all stripes who ruined the army.

The Bolsheviks are to blame for the bad dancer.
But is it so that the number of prisoners and deserters in the Russian army became a world record already in 1915, during the Great Retreat, when there were no revolutionaries in the army?
Nothing so that the failure of the Russian army and navy in the NEC were also from beginning to end without any agitators?
Nothing so that the WWII before VOSR lasted more than 3 years, and began with the crushing failure of the East Prussian operation without any Bolsheviks?

Quote: Dart2027

If it were not for the traitorous agitators, February, and then October, then there would have been far fewer of them.

Is the start date of WWI strictly classified for you? I'm sorry again!

Quote: Dart2027

But this only applies to the Republic of Ingushetia - they started by copying someone else’s technology, as in the USSR, then they would go on to their own.

Is it not so that the beginning of the first five-year period was enough for the USSR to switch to its technology, and did RI, for several decades at the end of its existence, only lag behind developed countries more and more?

I continue to wait for you to list YOURS in the INDUSTRIAL issue of the Russian Empire.

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

If NO, then try to argue with them at the same level. So far you have not even succeeded close, but your attempts were very funny, bravo

The only officially documented losses of the Republic of Ingushetia were made according to the data cited in the CSO publication - 626 people. This is a fact that is not disputed by Krivosheev himself. The fact that they are incomplete is quite probable, but all other figures are deduced theoretically - this is also a fact that no one disputed.

Quote: murriou

Your problems with reading and understanding in Russian, AND ALSO WITH ARITHMETICS, continue all the time as I see you here, and most likely from childhood.

In other words, you can’t justify the 6 million killed and start composing?

Quote: murriou

during the Great Retreat

This is when the Germans could not surround the army of the Republic of Ingushetia, and lost 660000 thousand, of which 95000 were killed? Apart from the Austrians?

Quote: murriou

Is the start date of WWI strictly classified for you?

Hmm, doesn’t the religious fanatic of revolutions know that the first was in February and the second in October? And what exactly did they finally ditch the army?

Quote: murriou

It’s nothing that the beginning of the first five-year plan was enough for the USSR to switch to its technology

Own or copies already available? And at what capacities did it do - weren't they built on those in RI?

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

The fact that they are incomplete is very likely

This is not "likely", but obvious.
The difference between the number of those who went to war in those who returned from it is several million.
In the official statistics of the tsarist Republic of Ingushetia, losses are taken into account at times several times less than actually observed.

Here you can argue about units and fractions of percent as much as you like, and complain about the lack of official data, theoretical approximations of estimates, etc., but it is OBVIOUS that the tsarist statistics are lying, underestimating the number of losses by about ORDER.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

justify 6 million killed

Let it be justified for the millions of dead Russians, the passion-bearer Nikolashka and the crystal-bakers praising him.

But I see the fact of huge losses, and I see quite convincing calculations, including Krivosheeva. which they try to take into account these losses even with all the lies and incompleteness of official data.

Where are your alternative equally convincing calculations? In addition to the empty talking room and your unwillingness to recognize well-known and obvious facts, there have never been any sane objections from you.

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

when the Germans could not surround the army of the Republic of Ingushetia, and lost 660000 thousand, of which 95000 were killed? Apart from the Austrians?

The loss figures can be disputed in some way, but it is an undeniable fact that the Russian losses were MORE at times, especially prisoners. About a million of them ran there.

The fact that they managed to escape from the environment, sometimes for the sake of this throwing whole corps to cover, covering the withdrawal of the main forces - this, of course, is a brilliant victory for the tsarist strategists

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

did they finally ditch the army?

Finally, yes.
But the tsarist army and navy did not shine with victories either, on the contrary, they purged one battle after another with a bang.
And the PMV Tsarist army began the shameful failure of the East Prussian operation at a time when the main German forces were thrown at France.

In total, even before the February Revolution, the tsarist army and navy, a damn dozen years without a break, were frankly failures.
But only the Bolsheviks are to blame for this among the bakers, and only 1917, yes

[murriou]

Quote: Dart2027

at what capacities was it made - weren't they built on those in RI?

Well, if you overcome your problems with arithmetic and remember that in the first five-year plans, the USSR had production capacities MUCH MORE than those that were in the Republic of Ingushetia, then probably, basically, not on those

Quote: Dart2027

Own or copies already available?

To a large extent - his own.
WHERE is your RI industrial product list? I’ve been waiting for him from you for a long time, and still you can’t give birth to him

And I undertake EVERY item on your list of YOUR RI industrial products for the period in the last 20 years of its existence to bring at least 2-3 points of YOUR Soviet equipment made in just a couple of the first five-year periods.
Well, would you risk trying at least with such discounts?

[Dart2027]

Quote: murriou

but it is OBVIOUS that the tsarist statistics are Lying, underestimating the number of losses by about ORDER.

Is there a source?

Quote: murriou

But I see the fact of huge losses, and I see quite convincing calculations, including Krivosheeva. which they try to take into account these losses even with all the lies and incompleteness of official data.

I rely just on the calculations of specialists, despite the fact that Krivosheev causes the highest losses, and your millions were taken from nowhere. In addition to the empty talking room and your unwillingness to recognize well-known and obvious facts, there have never been any sane objections from you.

Quote: murriou

The loss figures can be disputed in some way, but it is an undeniable fact that the Russian losses were MORE at times, especially prisoners. About a million of them ran there.

And how many times?

According to Boris Urlanis, in 1915, on average, Russia lost 207 thousand people killed, captured and wounded in a month, which in the 5 months of the Great Retreat gives 1,035 million people.

Are you talking about this? So here not only prisoners.

Quote: murriou

The fact that they managed to escape from the environment, sometimes for the sake of this throwing whole corps to cover, covering the withdrawal of the main forces - this, of course, is a brilliant victory for the tsarist strategists

Please tell me, how many soldiers of the Soviet army were killed or captured in the first months of the Second World War, thanks to Soviet strategists? Imperial look somehow better.

Quote: murriou

And the PMV Tsarist army began the shameful failure of the East Prussian operation at a time when the main German forces were thrown at France.

Examples of victories of the army of the Republic of Ingushetia in the WWI I have already given you. And by the way, malware was the only way to save France from total defeat.

Quote: murriou

Well, if you overcome your problems with arithmetic and remember that in the first five-year plans, the USSR had production capacities MUCH MORE than those that were in the Republic of Ingushetia, then probably, basically, not on those

Truth? But I thought that the first five years - this is industrialization.

Quote: murriou

WHERE is your RI industrial product list? I’ve been waiting for him from you for a long time, and still you can’t give birth to him

I remember that I explained to you more than once that in the Republic of Ingushetia they started by copying someone else’s equipment to create their own production facilities and trained people. And that although she herself did not have time to carry out the planned program, it was this reserve that ensured the further industrialization of the country.