What weapon during the Second World War led to the greatest number of losses: calculations and reflections

One of the topics discussed by historians related to the Great Patriotic War (WWII) concerns the most lethal weapons... Disputes revolve around what kind of weapon the troops of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht suffered the main losses from during the battles.

The data varies. If some argue that the largest number of losses can be associated with injuries as a result of the use of small arms, then other specialists have different considerations on this score.

In particular, it points to a high percentage of losses from shrapnel wounds, including during air bombing. On this score, materials are usually cited in the form of reports from the fronts. For example, evidence in the form of documentary materials about the battles near Moscow, on the Kursk Bulge. But in Stalingrad, where battles were fought literally for every square meter of territory, the greatest lethality was again recorded precisely from the bullets of firearms. This is understandable. In this situation, Soviet fighters converged with the enemy literally face to face. Something similar was observed during the Battle of Berlin.

Until now, there is no reliable and scientifically confirmed document that would unequivocally make it clear what kind of weapons of World War II led to the largest number of casualties among the military. However, there are certain calculations on this score.

Channel material "Historical facts":

Comments

[Lech from Android.]

Where to write down those who died from wounds, wounded by a shrapnel, for example, an infection went on, a person died, it seems, for another reason.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Lech from Android.

Where to write down those who died from wounds, wounded by a shrapnel, for example, an infection went on, a person died, it seems, for another reason.

The question is, what kind of weapon killed the most? In your case, the splinter was the cause of the infection. Not a bullet. But also to identify a shard of what? Air bombs, shells, mines, grenades? It is a very difficult matter to answer the question posed in the title.

[IL-18]

Strange formulation of the question in the material. The main thing in the use of weapons is to disable the enemy. Injury or death, secondary sign of task completion. Only a pathological examination can clearly answer the question.
In terms of the number of disabled personnel, mine and explosive injury from mortar fire is in the lead.

[your1970]

Quote: IL-18

The main thing in the use of weapons is to disable the enemy. Injury or death, secondary sign of task completion

Just the same wound the enemy is more important than his death. Wound consumes significantly more state resources than death

[IL-18]

I cannot disagree. But a mine fired from a mortar hits the drum: wound or kill.

[your1970]

This is yes ...
My grandfather was sitting on a hillock during the war .. Suddenly there was a clap - the grandfather was in porridge and there was a hole between his legs ... He came to himself, looked - a German howitzer projectile ... the fuse did not work because of the soft ground, apparently ...
A little closer to his grandfather and he would not have had grandchildren. And if it exploded ...

[The leader of the Redskins]

Hatred of the enemy!
Here is the main weapon. And it cannot be taken away, not broken, not transferred to someone.

[Terenin]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Hatred of the enemy!
Here is the main weapon. And it cannot be taken away, not broken, not transferred to someone.

It is, yes! But, in relation to the professionalism of a fighter, the statement of Dao Jin "A skilled warrior is never angry"

[stalki]

It is, yes! But, in relation to the professionalism of a fighter, the statement of Dao Jin "A skilled warrior is never angry"
Reply

Yes, that's right. Therefore, the most terrible weapon is cynicism.

[Undecim]

Hatred of the enemy!
Here is the main weapon.
Without slogans - no way?

[BMP-2]

And "No slogans" is definitely not a slogan?

[Mikhail m]

Hatred without a weapon and the ability to use it is non-lethal. And the article is about something completely different.

[mr.ZinGer]

And where did you see the article, the link to the YouTube video ...
"Trunks are small"

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Hatred of the enemy!
Here is the main weapon. And it cannot be taken away, not broken, not transferred to someone.

Did you want red words, in this case empty?

[paul3390]

The main lethal weapon is the ideas that dominate the minds of the masses ...

[mr.ZinGer]

In which film, in an argument between two fighters, one said
"And how to fight tanks, so instructions were given for this" the answer was
"So you give him instructions and beat him."

[svp67]

Here the question is, though interesting, but not entirely clear how to count? The bullet wound is clear, it is also a bullet wound, but who inflicted it? Infantryman or pilot during the attack.
And yet, what is the next myth here on the video that was now announced when Kalashnikov was talking about one rifle for three in the Red Army? And nothing that Kalashnikov was a tanker, and they were not entitled to rifles at all. And in general, the author of this "video opus" makes so many assumptions. That is just horror.
People in the infantry died not only from enemy bullets, but also from shelling and bombing. And to draw the conclusion that in the Red Army soldiers mostly died from bullets is "pulling an owl on the globe."

[mat-vey]

Quote: svp67

People in the infantry died not only from enemy bullets, but also from shelling and bombing.

And in Stalingrad, almost as many Germans died of typhus as as a result of hostilities.

[svp67]

Quote: mat-vey

And in Stalingrad, almost as many Germans died of typhus as as a result of hostilities.

And how many of our soldiers died in captivity, surrounded, they were also included in the losses ...

[mat-vey]

Quote: svp67

And how many of our soldiers died in captivity, surrounded, they were also included in the losses ...

Well, here you can formally otmazatsya .. not an advanced one.

[YOUR]

Loss statistics exist. The commanders without fail submitted reports on the state of the units entrusted to them. When and under what conditions there were losses from small arms or artillery fire or during bombing. In hospitals, statistics were also kept and reports were submitted to higher authorities from what wounds the soldiers died, they drew conclusions and developed the practice of providing assistance.
The greatest losses were from artillery fire between us and the Germans.

But the main thing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or no one watched the video, trying to quickly scratch up the commentary, or simply did not notice, did not pay attention to what heresy this is when and where Kalashnikov [/ b] wrote that our fighters had a [b] rifle for three people... Such an abomination, such meanness, such lies about the great inventor, I have never read or heard.

And the distributors of that kind of stuff. During the war, Kalashnikov was a simple foreman-tanker.

[svp67]

Quote: YOUR

The commanders without fail submitted reports on the state of the units entrusted to them.

With one "but", if these reports and dispatches reached the higher headquarters ...

[YOUR]

Some part did not reach. So what?
The main part of the reports reached and processed

[svp67]

Quote: YOUR

Some part did not reach. So what?

We, until the middle of the 42nd year, the FRONTS disappeared, and until the middle of the 43rd army ... you must agree, a rather large "part".
For the same damage to tanks, normal statistics went only after the Kursk Bulge, and before that everything was episodic

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: svp67

And yet, what is the next myth here on the video that was now announced when Kalashnikov was talking about one rifle for three in the Red Army? And nothing that

Also indignant at this nonsense.

[2112vda]

Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov, in fact, was a tanker. I can hardly imagine tankers armed with rifles. My grandfather and two uncles did not talk about one rifle for three. Maybe they were lucky? Although all three began to fight at Stalingrad. Now they will begin to pull all sorts of fables into the light of day.

[andr327]

Well yes: one rifle for three, two assault rifles for three (2 + 1 = 3), and one pistol for five.

[Simargl]

Quote: andr327

Well, yes: one rifle for three, two machine guns for three (2 + 1 = 3)

It turns out that there weren't enough tanks at all ...

[geniy]

Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov, in fact, was a tanker. I can hardly imagine tankers armed with rifles. My grandfather and two uncles did not talk about one rifle for three. Maybe they were lucky? Although all three began to fight at Stalingrad.

And you in vain do not believe - Kalashnikov was not in an airless space, unable to talk with other people. All of them, especially in hospitals - both infantrymen and tankers, sailors and pilots talked to each other and told how things were.
And one rifle for three is reality the first period of the war but not in the middle, let alone the end. And in fact, often there was simply not enough cartridges - there was nothing to shoot with. And everything was uneven - somewhere there was enough rifle for everyone, and somewhere there was one rifle for ten. And specifically about Stalingrad - films about the Battle of Stalingrad have just been shown, where it was directly said that all reserves were thrown at Stalingrad - even poorly armed fighters. It is not said in detail what is meant by poorly armed - whether they had bent rifles, or flintlock rifles. But in reality - just not enough weapons. BUT, of course, after Stalingrad, weapons and cartridges were enough.

[BISMARCK94]

My opinion, if we take the whole Second World War, then from artillery.

[svp67]

Quote: BISMARCK94

My opinion, if we take the whole Second World War, then from artillery.

Artillery made a tangible contribution to this process, but the aviation also showed its power. When a torpedo bomber sank a transport ship, which carried several thousand people to the bottom at a time, what did these people die from? Aircraft or drowning? When aviation was smashing into chips a suitable and overflowing echelon still in the rear, where did the author bring these losses? And this, unfortunately, for example, during the Battle of the Kursk Bulge was not uncommon.

[Prisoner]

And what difference does it make for a person with what weapon in his soldier's fate they will put an end to it? And the main task in war is to kill? The main thing is to inflict defeat and preferably crushing. The fulfillment of this task depends not only on the lethality of the weapon, but as a commander with his "orchestra", with all the oddities that a person invented for the war, he will "conduct".

[paul3390]

Until the carriers of the opposite ideology are physically destroyed, the final victory cannot be achieved. That is why they so zealously destroyed the communists - while at least one of us is alive, the bourgeois cannot sleep peacefully. However - you will shoot all of us. If you kill others, others will stand up.

Therefore, under Comrade Stalin, the bourgeois spread rot - as further sad experience showed, there was little rot. Not enough.

[mat-vey]

Quote: paul3390

However - you will shoot all of us. If you kill others, others will stand up.

So they, with their exorbitant greed, themselves grow new ones ..

[paul3390]

"The war lasts as long as its last soldier lives. Spiritual war lasts until the last righteous man." (c)

As long as at least one person lives who sincerely considers himself a communist and is ready to go to death and hardship for the sake of his convictions, the cause of communism is not lost. And such people will ALWAYS be.

And since communism, by definition, gives birth to orders of magnitude more true righteous than capitalism - the victory without a doubt is ours .. Well, where will the righteous come from among the supporters of profit at any cost?

[mat-vey]

Quote: paul3390

Well, where will the righteous among the supporters of profit at any cost come from?

Why exactly among them?

[paul3390]

Who else do we have? Bourgeois, communists and religious leaders .. The former, by definition, are not capable of righteousness, the latter - how sad it is to admit, perhaps among Muslims .. All Christian confessions have a very indirect relationship to righteousness a long time ago .. Only we remain ..

[mat-vey]

Quote: paul3390

Who else do we have? Bourgeois, communists and religious leaders ..

And the rest of the billions of people?

[paul3390]

And the rest - in one way or another, belong to one of the three groups .. In varying degrees of participation .. For at the moment only three global ideas are competing for the minds of humanity - liberal, communist and theocratic. Can you name something else?

[mat-vey]

You are confusing "idea fighters" with just people ...

[paul3390]

Ordinary people are also fighters for the idea. Each is of course at his own level. It's just that not everyone is aware of this.

[mat-vey]

Quote: paul3390

It's just that not everyone is aware of this.

Many die without regaining consciousness, especially if everything in life is less and less.

[DDZ57]

The war continues as long as its last soldier lives

Only Suvorov's phrase sounds a little different, the meaning and meaning are also different: "The war is not over until the last soldier is buried."

[geniy]

And since communism, by definition, gives birth to orders of magnitude more true righteous than capitalism, the victory without a doubt is ours.

Quote:

The person who in his youth did not share the ideas of socialism - he does not have a heart, And the person who did not abandon them until old age -he has no mind.

[svp67]

Quote: Captive

And what difference does it make for a person with what weapon in his soldier's fate they will put an end to it?

Such statistics are required to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness. And first of all, destroy these types of weapons, as well as create samples that are superior to them.

[Free wind]

The laptops, of course, brought a lot of grief, in the first year of the war they and the messengers were chasing literally every soldier. Machine guns were, of course, very dangerous. They write that a lot of mortars were killed on both sides. A wound in the stomach, a guaranteed corpse, the contents of the intestines got inside, sepsis is guaranteed. Before the battle, they tried not to eat, so that the intestines were empty, at least some chance of survival, until the appearance of pinecylin in 1944. Yes, all this is terrible.

[chenia]

Most of the losses are from artillery (more than 50%), everything else (small arms, saboteurs, aviation, navy, mines and others - less taken together.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: chenia

Most of the losses are from artillery (more than 50%), everything else (small arms, saboteurs, aviation, navy, mines and others - less taken together.

In such cases, it is necessary to say - it seems to me that (I think, it seems.)
What is your figure based on?

[chenia]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

I have to say - I think so

I know! At least in WWII.
Strain a little and find information yourself.

[novel66]

mg is the most beast ..

[Mikhail m]

The data varies. If some argue that the largest number of losses can be associated with injuries as a result of the use of small arms, then other specialists have different considerations on this score.

On this optimistic note, the consideration of the issue can be ended. It will not be possible to convince opponents in 100% of cases.

[nikvic46]

Losses in the First World War and in the Second World War are different. This is the starting point for the calculation.

[yehat2]

my grandfather in the infantry went to Berlin from the summer of 41
received 3 shrapnel wounds - the first from an aerial bomb in the ass, from a mine to the side and from a high-explosive shell I don't remember where. Probably correct to write about the factors of defeat, and not about the weapon.
And the shard is leading by a large margin. Second place is a bullet.
how to take into account the increase in mortality from fatigue, hunger, disease, accidents?
the Luftwaffe lost a lot of pilots just due to accidents.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Artillery is unambiguous - a projectile, no matter how trained or motivated the soldier is.
Mikhin P.A. "Gunners, Stalin gave the order":

In any weather, at any time of the day and time of the year, I just need to give the command: "To the places!" - and in 15–20 seconds my shell will explode where necessary. The gunners' communications work like clockwork. Every second the signalman catches my command. He will not sleep! And they, the signalmen: mine from the front line and the senior officer at the firing position, when the cable breaks, they run towards each other from both ends, holding the wire in their hand. Find and eliminate the impulse. It also takes a few minutes. Difficult and dangerous business: to run as fast as possible under fire to eliminate a wire break. [170]

When I see the rupture of the first shell, I make an amendment, and the second, or even all 16 shells with the whole battery will fall to the right place with a cursory fire. The target is destroyed. The infantry is saved and already screams with delight and joy. How grateful the soldiers are to such an artilleryman who saves them from imminent death! Whether the infantry of the enemy before the last throw into our trenches is swept up by breaks; or enemy tanks stop under a hail of bursting shells - everything is in smoke, in clouds of dust, you can’t see where to go.

So my team to lose:

- On the infantry! Battery, four rounds, quick fire! “That means, as quickly as possible, each of the four guns fires four shots.

At the place where the shells fall, nothing will survive.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Mikhin PA "Artillery men, Stalin gave the order" - one of the episodes of the battles in Ukraine, showing how much the result of the battle changes from artillery:

So this time we are running with the telephone operator next to the battalion commander in a chain of advancing infantry. We are running after the retreating Germans, moving from one straw omelet to the next. The matter takes place in the last days of August, everything is clean, sunny and warm in the field, no matter where you look - even stubble is shining with pure gold, and tall and omelettes of fragrant straw that have not yet settled down and solidified are randomly scattered here and there. The infantry runs around the omelets, and we and the battalion commander Abaev jump on each one so that we can see everything better from above. We look, the German infantry jumped into the forest belt. Hardly our soldiers, and there were about fifty of them left in the battalion, approached this strip two hundred meters, when suddenly a thick black chain of fascists fell out to meet them - two hundred people! The enemy counterattacks with fresh forces! Our fighters were dumbfounded, lay down. And the Germans, shooting on the move, are struggling to meet us, and enemy machine guns open fire from the flanks of the attackers.

Our infantrymen were frightened by such a force, and one by one they began to crawl back, then everyone got up and rushed to retreat at a run. I hit the German chain with my shells - the Nazis lay down. Abaev jumped off the blow-gun and, with a pistol raised above his head, ran to stop the fleeing soldiers - he was walking backwards, shooting up, swearing, but he could not stop his retreating battalion. And at this critical moment of the battle, I suddenly lost communication with the battery! Probably, the telephone wire broke, I think, and I am sending the only communicator [177] down the line to fix the cable, while I myself, with a telephone receiver near my ear, helplessly, with bated breath, watch what is happening from the sweep. The Germans, seeing that the shells stopped bursting near them, jumped up and continued pursuing our small battalion. And now, not only our retreating infantry, but also the Germans, at which I had just fired from my guns, ran past the sweep on which I am sitting, and I find myself in the rear of the Germans! And there is still no connection! I am helpless. Time runs. The Germans who ran past me withdrew to our rear already five hundred meters! What to do?! Another signalman must run towards my signalman to correct communication from the firing position, judging by the time - they should have met in the middle of the way long ago! What happened ?! Why is there no connection ?! It is not enough that I myself can be captured by the Germans, the German infantry will break into our battery and take possession of the guns!

I turned back and continued to watch as the cursed thick black line of German infantry was moving away from me into our territory. Oh, how I need communication now to stop the Germans with my shells! Suddenly, the phone cracked, and Mineev's bass:

- "Kolomna", as you hear?

- Sight twenty, battery, fire! - instead of answering, I shout a command.

He put several shells in front of the enemy's running chain, the Germans lay down. I open quick fire on those lying. At first they slowly began to crawl back, and then they jumped up together and rushed to run away. I waited until they passed my omet, let them go to the bare stubble - and then I broke the fast as I should! My shells exploded in the midst of the fleeing Germans! There were fewer and fewer of them! When I finished off the last small groups of the Fritzes fleeing to the [178] landing, Abaev, out of breath, jumped on the omet. His battalion pursued the now retreating Germans. Watching the beating of the Nazis, he screamed with joy!

- Look, two more got up, hobble to the landing! Hit them! - begs me.

A new command to the battery sounded into the receiver. Explosion - and the Germans are destroyed.

[voyaka uh]

The author is an artilleryman. It seems to him that from the artillery were the greatest
losses.
There are also opposite opinions.
There have been cases when massive artillery preparation before
the offensive took place with zero effect. The Germans were hiding in pillboxes,
deep dugouts. And when the fire ended, the machine guns reflected
attacks. And the offensive was thwarted. Thousands of shells into milk.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: voyaka uh

The author is an artilleryman. It seems to him that from the artillery were the greatest
losses.
There are also opposite opinions.
There have been cases when massive artillery preparation before
the offensive took place with zero effect. The Germans were hiding in pillboxes,
deep dugouts. And when the fire ended, the machine guns reflected
attacks. And the offensive was thwarted. Thousands of shells into milk.

The above episode shows the competent interaction of the battalion in the offensive and the battery of M-30 howitzers supporting it - in most cases it all depends on the professionalism of the spotter - in this case, the battery commander personally conducts reconnaissance and corrects fire.
That allows him to hit individual soldiers, machine-gun nests, set barrage fire on tanks, while the remaining strength of the battalion is 50 people (!), But the highly professional actions of the battery commander make it possible to neutralize the enemy's numerical and technical superiority.

The example of artillery action on areas (presumable deployment areas), which you gave, takes place during a general offensive, when it is not possible to reconnoitre the enemy's defenses to the full depth. Artillery grinds the front line of defense, strikes the originally reconnoitered targets.
The enemy leaves the first line of defense for the duration of the shelling, until the transfer of fire to the supposed areas of the second line of defense, and here, indeed, the effectiveness of artillery preparation largely depends on the possibility of reconnaissance and adjustment. The tactic of the "firewall" was born in the First World War, the Second World War, and gave greater mobility due to communication.

What is a deep dugout? From the First World War?
This was during the positional First World War, the defenders were buried 10-15 meters from the German "suitcases" mortars 21 cm Mrs.16., French Mortier de 280 modèle 1914 Schneider and trench mortars 240 mm Dumezil-Batignolles.

And the eastern front was much less saturated with heavy artillery
On the eastern front, dugouts were usually built in 3 rolls - they can withstand a hit of 76,2 mm, and even then not always, and a 122 mm M-30 howitzer projectile is not able to withstand a XNUMX mm howitzer shell.
Less often, dugouts were built in 5 rolls - the war on the eastern front was different from the positional war of the First World War.

The German machine gun nest, Crab, was a damn tough target:

The most effective method of dealing with an armored firing point was aimed fire at it with artillery and anti-tank weapons, if the lower part of the "Crab" was exposed. It was also recommended to damage the periscopes of the armored hood, thus blinding the machine-gun crew, to fire rifle and machine-gun fire at the embrasure of the structure. Since the sector of fire of the firing point was 60 degrees, free-standing "crabs" could be destroyed by an attack by assault groups of infantry that got close to the structure from the rear or from non-projectile flanks

Four of these "crabs" could hold back the division in the offensive, since a very accurate direct hit or several howitzer hits in the immediate vicinity were required to shock the machine-gun crew.
But the density of fire across the areas rarely provided direct hits into such shelters.

[betta]

The most terrible weapon is the Human!

[zenion]

Graduation to the bulb and there is the impression that it was written by a fourth grade student. But I can't understand the partisans, whatever they write. They used only small arms and did not want anything else, the Germans also used small arms against the partisans, and aircraft and tanks were not counted, although there were bombings and tanks. After all, partisans and saboteurs must have got on Stalin's nerves when they abandoned rocket launchers, tanks and aircraft, saying that they did not have enough kerosene for tanks and it was hard to carry lathes from place to place to make shells for Katyushas. He worked with a colleague who was a tank commander during the war. Of course, there were places on the tank where the infantrymen were attached, who helped the tankers to survive. The tankers asked the infantry how you are not afraid to go on the attack when they shoot at you, to which the infantry replied - this is nonsense, because you know that they will not kill. This is how you go on the attack in these boxes, although you know that there are guns against you that burn these boxes and not everyone will come out of there. They agreed that this is a habit. Although both said the worst - bombing and shelling, bombs were the worst.

[Pavel57]

In street fighting, there was a relatively high percentage of melee weapons. But this is a fraction of a percent.

[Time traveller]

The greatest combat losses were from mortar fire.

[Aleks2000]

Kalashnikov really left memories that there was one rifle for three ???
It seems that now it is already considered a liberal fiction ...

[modun]

definitely MG-42