It also does not differentiate between British losses during the Battle of France and those after 1942. I noticed your initial post cherry picks those numbers, allowing the Germans the benefit of numbers racked up during that early blitzkrieg victory, against unprepared and in France’s case, unwilling opponents. But you don’t want to include the number of German casualties after 1944.
When I respond with actual hard numbers, which will include the enormous number of Germans surrendering en masse, the idea of an effective German armed forces that won perhaps a handful of battles after Kasserine Pass, will be statistically unsupportable.
It's unbecoming to dodge a simple question.
It's ok to admit you realize something you didn't at first.
only a graphical comparison.
Which is conveniently defined. Watch closely, FRiend.
Nor does it offer a source, at least during that part of the presentation. Perhaps it does at the end.
ADD? ;)
It also does not differentiate between British losses during the Battle of France and those after 1942.
You're correct that British losses are not thusly subdivided in the presentation, but you're incorrect in your conclusion. The graph shows the German losses and ALL other national losses from those earlier victorious campaigns, adding in the British losses to that point would actually increase the German kill ratio. But you knew that, and you were trying to help me, right? ;)
I noticed your initial post cherry picks those numbers, allowing the Germans the benefit of numbers racked up during that early blitzkrieg victory, against unprepared and in France’s case, unwilling opponents.
So do you contend that the unprepared armies were more effective? What exactly are you getting at here? Oh! More help for my argument about the most effective Army. Thanks, FRiend!
But you don’t want to include the number of German casualties after 1944.
What's to be learned exactly emphasizing the last four months of the Wehrmacht, when it was composed largely of Volksturm divisions minus equipment and staffed with boys and infirm men? Be honest with yourself.
That portion of the war drives home my original point in this thread, that without a population to sustain, a war against greater powers is doomed.
The repeated ability of the Wehrmacht to deliver more casualties than it suffered didn't matter once the political apparatus bit off more than it could chew.
I don't share the view that Putin is a Hitlerite menace bent on invading his neighbors.
I do believe he's a nationalist, but I'm not scared in the least of global Russian imperialism in the 21st century.