Why did the Soviets perform so poorly(massive losses) despite

Superior ? Theirs was underwhelming for most of ww2

I'd imagine because they threw men into battle in the same way FDR threw money at our nation's social ills.

>>2122966

>Better sub-machine gun
>Best anti-tank rifle
>Better tanks

>>2122968
>FDR

That's not how you spell LBJ

Two words:

Georgy Zhukov

>>2122974

Ah true. My mistake.

>>2122975
>I hate Krauts who want to kill me, but I hate Russians even more.
t. Zhukov

>>2122969
MOST of ww2 , they got crushed pretty early , eventually stabilizing.

>>2122957

Are you even aware of the words "Command structure" and "doctrine"?

File: stalin.gif (3MB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 291x300px

DUDE TROTSKYIST PLOTS LMAO

>>2122957
the russians had horrible command structure, military doctrine and Inept leadership throughout most of the war and took extremely heavy casualties during the first 6 months of fighting.

Because during the opening stages of the conflict the Red Army was poorly led (conseuqences of the purges), poorly equipped (the good equipment was only available in large quantities later), and was strongly discouraged from retreating by Stalin (over a million USSR PoWs died of neglect).

During the later stages of the conflict, Germany was defending tenaciously with a lot of land to sell dearly (1600 km from Moscow to Berlin), and the Red Army's commanders were judged ny Stalin more for their rate of advance than by their minimisation of losses.

>>2122957
At first it was because they were caught ridiculously with their pants down. The initial German advance was a slaughter, Soviet armies encircled, thousands of aircraft destroyed, losses reaching 23,000 a day.

Later on, when it became apparent they were probably going to win, they just didn't give a fuck. They had the people and could sustain the casualties.

>>2122969
You're confusing quantity with quality

>>2123060
No he's not. Soviet equipment was good individually, and you sure as fuck need to take ease of manufacture into account when judging "the best".

File: Very Short Recap of the Eastern Front.png (165KB, 1893x1147px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1893x1147px

I poorly summarized this up a while ago.
Don't base any history papers off it, but for someone completely new to the Eastern Front this may help a little.

File: Very Short Recap of the Eastern Front 2.png (92KB, 1894x748px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1894x748px

>>2123072

File: oh voy.jpg (45KB, 625x415px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 625x415px

Stalin had more than 60% of his Generals exiled or killed. Poor equipment, the military basically had hand-me-down weaponry and armor. There wasn't enough for everyone, also the about of famine that they had experienced. It is a surprise that Soviet Union was able to function afterward.

>>2122957
Shit low-rank officer corps and Stalin.

File: IMG_13607.jpg (290KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1600x1200px

I have a question regarding some plastic soldiers I own. I got these Russians online some time ago, they're all pretty nicely detailed with realistic weapons and gear, but strangely they were packaged with Napoleonic-era field guns, even painted in camouflage.

Is there any historical basis for this, was there ever a time that things were so desperate for the Red Army they pressed such museum pieces into service against the Germans?

>>2123056
>discouraged from retreating by Stalin
When will this meme die

>>2124446
Over 60,000 Russians were killed for retreated in WW2.
This is the Soviet official number. No telling how many were killed in total, but it was definitely more than the official figure.

>>2124446
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops#Barrier_troops_in_the_Red_Army

>>2124446
>what is Order No. 227

File: wut.gif (3MB, 359x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 359x202px

>won the war
>preformed poorly

>>2124526
Well yeah dude, America and Britain also won and they did that without crawling over a mountain of their own corpses.

>>2122957

No training, leadership didn't care about casualties, orders coming from politician not a general, etc

File: lel.jpg (4KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x225px

>>2124530
>vulture

>>2123074
>>2123072
ty for your quality copy-pasta

>>2124488
>>2124490
Oh, evil Stalin keeps soldiers from running away.

stalin's ego and his refusal to heed his generals' advice.

>>2124442
>Is there any historical basis for this, was there ever a time that things were so desperate for the Red Army they pressed such museum pieces into service against the Germans?

no

>>2124728
The oldest cannons in use were old 76,2 cannons of Russian Empire and M1914/15 AA gun

>>2122957
>Soviets perform so poorly
>won the war

???

>>2124740
You can win and still perform poorly if the odds are in your favor.

>>2124761
Winning is by definition performing good enough.
You could've performed better, surely, and that is always the case.
But if you won, you were good enough (to win). Not poor.

>>2124530
America and Britain weren't invaded by land...

>>2124774
You can discuss with your future employers whether having performed "good enough" is reason enough to hire someone.

>>2124785
If you don't get hired, you didn't do good enough.
You are literally arguing against the definition of the phrase.

>>2124785
When a team wins the Superbowl by one point they get the same trophy as the team that wins by 30. A win is a win nigga.

>>2122957
>I must unite the Russian peoples under one graveyard
T. Zhukov

>>2124808
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

>>2124821
A Pyrrhic victory is achieved on the battle level, not on the war level.
If you won the war, you did well enough.

>>2124828
>not on the war level
Tell that to the French in WWI.

>>2122957
They weren't on drugs

>>2124879
The french won WWI. They were good enough to stop the german advance, and push back.

>>2124889
And lost so many men that they were unable to field an actual reserve in WWII. The war was a Pyrrhic victory for the French.

>>2124900
Loss less men than Germany in WWI. Lack of men wasn't the reason for the WWII defeat.
Read a book, nigger.

>>2124915
You're right, being unable to field a fucking reserve was. Something they couldn't do because they didn't have the men for it.

>>2124916
>wehraboo talking about inability to field sufficient reserves

>>2124916
The french army was outmaneuvered, not grinded out.
And army size has more to do with morale and popular opinion, not with actual manpower.
If the French fielded as big a percentage of their population as Serbia did, they'd march form Paris to Moscow in victory.

Again, read a fucking book. I won't respond to your uneducated claims anymore.

>>2122957
unironically the answer is better tactics

>>2124928
>can't field a reserve after your main force got swept past
>claim it had nothing to do with the lost later on and tell others to read books
Lol

>>2122974
implying it wasn't both

people love to wax lyrical about the New Deal "golden age" but take one good look at how much we spend on entitlements now and tell me how worth it those twenty years were.

>>2124935
>wehraboo still talking about inability to field reserves

@2124939
>implying the Wehrmacht didn't field a reserve
>implying the Volksgrenadiers and Volksturm didn't exist
Still not getting any (You)'s from me fampai

>>2123072
>>2123074
qualitypost

It is obvious why the Soviet Union lost so many infantry, but not why they failed to make good use of tanks and aircraft.

It seems like every power in ww2 made huge blunders, but the democracies were better placed to remove incompetent generals like Fredendall while the Germans inherited a capitalist economy to play with, so their incompetence levels were lower.

@2124945
>wehraboo so buttblasted at his country's crippling inability to field sufficient manpower reserves that he has to cite old men and children for his counter argument

>>2124889
The Soviets won the finno-russian war
They mist have performed well in the war to win it

>>2124975
I suppose they must have performed well enough, else they would've lost.

>>2124977
They performed well enogh to win, but the performance was still abysmal.

>>2124982
Was it abysmal? They won. They did good enough.

>>2125005
>the heavily industrialised USSR losing a third of a million troops compared to 70,000 finns is a good performance

>>2125026
>USSR making a claim on X land
>X land is denied to them
>they go to war
>they win the war
>they gain X land, and also Y land as well
>and they force Finland out of certain alliances
>and they humiliate Sweden and Germany who didn't join the war despite popular protests, empowering communist movements

They won. Was it expensive? It was. All winter war is, and unlike the memes about Napoleon or Hitler invading in winter, the war with Finland actually was planned for and fought in winter. It wasn't even a too slow victory, they won in 3 months, and got everything they wanted and extra.

A victory. They did well enough, and got what they wanted, and more.

>>2125038
The goal was to conquer the whole of Finland. Their tactics were terrible and took huge casulties to Finns who often relied on motoliv cocktails when they lacked anti-tank guns.
The soviets were massively superior in terms of military strength, and yet achieved reduced war goals for casulties much higher then expected.

>>2125050
>The goal was to conquer the whole of Finland.

Yeah, no.
The goal was to take over a specific region, which was requested peacefully before the war, and war was declared when the request was denied.
The war ended the moment the desired territory was occupied, before the western countries can intervene. Despite the high casualties the USSR could have continued fighting, Finland was practically out of men, and every demand the USSR made would've been accepted.

Finland suffered a complete surrender and gave away its largest city and all its factories and its two ports that didn't freeze.
You underestimate the value of the land they lost, and overestimate the value of the land that was not demanded of them.

>>2122969
>Better tanks
No, just cheaper

>Best anti-tank rifle
Irrelevant

>Better sub-machine gun
Irrelevant

They had equipment advantages, such as artillery, but not where you're looking

>>2125066
Ok the soviets got their war demands but the thing is that a Soviet Victory was inevitable. But you just don't seem to see just how much they fucked up in the process. They should've won with ease amd yet routinely fought battles with 5x the losses that rhe finnd took. A finnish vivtory would've required another napoleon, but they still performed better than the Russians in every way, thry were simply dwarfed by the sheer size of the soviet military, not their tactics or performance.

>>2125066
Also historians believe that the USSR intended to make finland a puppet state, but the designs outside of the original war goal but were not realised because of the extend of the soviet losses during the invasion.

>>2125097
You are grasping at straws when the raw fact is that they won an absolute victory, got everything they wanted plus tip, thus they did good enough.

>>2125123
It wasn't an absolute victory, they took horrendous losses far in excess of what they should've taken and weren't able to puppet or conquer finland. They should've been able to take more for less casulties but didn't because they performed badly.

>>2125137
I am done responding, you can scroll up and reread my previous posts which already address everything you say.
I'll urge you to learn to argue before getting passionate about it.

>>2122969
>>Best anti-tank rifle
oh wow, what a game changer.

>>2124805
>If you don't get hired, you didn't do good enough.
Good enough to get a degree does not imply good enough to get hired.

>>2124805
If you got hired, you are good enough to get hired you shitstain.
Not that you would know.

>>2125146
>I have no response so I will handwave away all criticism

>>2124442
>>2124728
Yes, this is plausible as the russians would also give 1 clip of ammo each to 2 men but only 1 of them would have a rifle and when he died his comrade would then pick up his rifle and carry on the charge

>>2125066
>Yeah, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

>The goal was to take over a specific region, which was requested peacefully before the war, and war was declared when the request was denied.

It was denied because the claim was baseless and retarded. Finland was very determined to remain neutral and had no interest in starting a war with Soviet Union. They weren't aligned with any of the Soviet enemies either, so the demands where total bollocks and no one bought them.


>Finland suffered a complete surrender and gave away its largest city and all its factories and its two ports that didn't freeze.
You underestimate the value of the land they lost, and overestimate the value of the land that was not demanded of them.
Yes, and in the progress Soviet Union was humiliated beyond believe, lost its League of Nations membership and directly caused German invasion against them. Meanwhile, Finland gained reputation and aid from all around the, retained its sovereignty to this very day and in the long term came far better off than Soviet Union, which (COLLAPSED) and left behind a legacy of barely functioning shitholes.

Absolute Victory indeed. Good revisionism my man.

>>2123012
>1942 they turn it around
>War lasts until '45
>Somehow that counts as most

Are you trying?

>>2122969

>I played COD world at war and think it's historical fact

>>2125539
>1942
They didn't turn it around until '43. Germany was still executing offensive operations until Kursk.

>>2125524
>we lost half our population, all out industry and our only ports, but in the end we actually won the war, because i make more monthly wage in 2016

Are you fucking retarded?

>>2125657
>finnish nationalist

Whaddya think?

>>2125524
>the soviet union collapsed in 1991
>this means even though finland lost it's most valuable parts of the country it came out ahead in the run up to the second world war.

>>2122969
>better tank
Nope, on paper the T-34 is better, better mobility, better armour, but it had terrible gun sights and only the command vehicles had radios, and had to Communicate with the rest via signal flags, this it performed poorly against panzer 3 and 4.

>better submachine guns
And more, but Russia didn't have enough qualified leadership at the start, so their men were ineffectively lead, despite not being as poorly trained as they were often accused of. Besiddes, the differences in infantry weapons were not significant enough to really make a noticeable difference outside of close City fighting such as in Stalingrad.

>anti tank rifles
Largely obsolete in WW2, and the germans had better anti tank rocket launchers because the russians had none outside of lendlease and scavenging, until they made their own in 1944.

File: 79e0f76f22f429dc6a79ebbe8f3b484d.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>2125657
>all out industry and our only ports
Which forced our government to industrialize and creat it out of nowhere otherwise it woudln't have happened. There was some fortune in that thing. And we didn't become a warsaw pacter you can pretty much see the differences when you go 10m off the eastern border.

>>2125661
Fuck you cunt.

>>2125678
>we lost everything, so we had to build from scratch
>this is good fortune

I hope you are as fortunate in the future, makes for good comedy.

File: charles-ii-of-spain_mainstory1.jpg (15KB, 468x326px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 468x326px

>>2125123
It was a clear pyrrhic victory you tard. They had planned victory parades week past the declaration fo war.

File: hqdefault (2).jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>2125684
We were literally not industrialized at all. The population was 80-90% farmers. even with our industrial holdings in Karelia. The war forced us to build an economy which we couldn't have built up in peace time because of our politicians own beliefs on how to proceed.

>>2125687
Pyrrhic victory is a meme, you mongoloid, and it still means a victory.
They won the war, they got what they wanted, they got more than they wanted, they humiliated their opponents by doing a drive by during winter, so nobody could reinforce Finland before it fell, England and Germany both didn't have the time or the will to react.

USSR won the war. Finland lost the war. USSR achieved their objective, and extra. Finland lost their objective.
Stop being a nationalist twelve year old taking pride in a military defeat that your grandfather wasn't born to see, let alone you.

>>2125694
>see, we are the real winners, because even though we lost all our factories, we didn't have many to begin with lol

>>2125657
Are you?

>Half our population
False.
>All of our industry
False again, sizeable part was lost but after the war was rebuilt
>All our ports
>What are Turku, Kotka, Pori and Rauma

>>2125661
>>2125684
>>2125698
>>2125700
Oh, we are dealing with a raving commie revisionists. Now the bullshit starts to make since.

>>2125506

i also heared the guys with no rifle distracted the mchine gunners so the snipers could pick them off.

File: juhlakuva.jpg (76KB, 327x344px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 327x344px

>>2125657
Pretty much. while Ukraine and Russia was getting the good ol' treatment of uncle Stalin finland was enjoying a pretty good status already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0XlkUNx8mE
>>2125700
>>2125698
Btw someone of you mentioned They had no annexation plans, which is complete bogus and judging form the aggressiveness i'd dare to argue your most likely russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic


Not the original argumentor here but still, far as icare we came in as the winners atleast in the long run. We have strong economy, one of the best welfare countries alongside sweden and norway. Best education by any standard. Now what does the warsaw pact has under it's belt other than famine, deaths gulags and lovely cold war.

>>2125643

the war was pretty much lost in 42 overall tho,maybe even in 41 when they failed to take moscow.

>>2125721
The USSR had plans for the whole world, its called communism. They signed the worst peace deal ever to end WWI with the assumption that they are getting all that clay back when the german communist party joins the revolution in a couple of years.

Are you aware that even today Canada has plans to invade the USA, and the USA has plans to invade Canada? Multiple detailed plans.
Its what every country does. I am sure Finland has plans to attack Russia as well, doesn't mean it realistically thinks it can.

Calling me a communist/russian/soviet/bolshevik or whatever else you check for under your bed isn't an argument.

File: 1334329164853.jpg (18KB, 366x380px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 366x380px

>>2125755
Lol what an fucking post.

>Ofc they had plans for everyone and you sure might have too xD that stil won't mean when they enter armed conflict they won't pursue those plans whilst they've already set up the puppet government

Really fucking weak. And no, we don't have any plans to attack russia. Only thing we're prepared for is Russian aggression which is the backbone of our defense.

>>2125643

They were still executing offensives in 1945 (Lake Balaton). Doesn't mean that the tide of the war hadn't turned against them, and badly.

>>2125667

Not the anon you're responding to, but I would point out that a lot of the flaws you've mentioned in the T-34 have to do with doctrine rather than the tank per se.

And it's less accurate to say it performed poorly against the PZIII and IV than it is to say it performed badly against German anti-tank guns, much more so than the panzers performed against Soviet ATGs; armored clashes were pretty rare in the opening phases of Barbarossa.

>>2125643
The battle of the bulge was an offensive German action, in 1944's latter days- come on mate, don't be thick

>>2125762
>And no, we don't have any plans to attack russia.

I hope this is false, else yours might be the worst government on the planet, since everyone else has plans to attack everyone else. Its expected.

File: t7uwRVN.jpg (81KB, 584x584px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 584x584px

>>2125762
Also calling you a commie wasn't the argument and never was Just got that hitch cause most of people who go so aggressively to defend soviets tend to sympathize with them, same goes for those who defend Ww2 germany etc.

>>2125776
I don't defend communists, I defend the truth.

>people who disagree with me are nazicommies
Reconsider your life.

>>2125755
>Canada has plans to invade the USA
As a preemptive strike against American aggression. If Canadian government got a whiff of something fishy about the Americans, such as annexation (or as the Americans like to say "The Day of the Rake"), the Canadians would strike at major populated areas and high targets. Same way that the Finnish prepare for Russian aggression. You're a fucking retard.

>>2125774

btw was nordwind the final german offensive of the war or just on the western front?

File: touchdown_o_1110633.jpg (44KB, 639x494px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 639x494px

>>2125780
>I defend the truth.
Well you seem to spewing a lot of bullshit and awfully lot awoiding answering my argument by making a whole load of strawmans.

>>2125787
Your argument is "we won by losing and you are a commie". I don't ignore it, and multiple times I've asked you to replace it with an actual one.

>>2125784
I am a retard for being correct and having you agree with me?
How is a preemptive strike not plans for invasion?
It literally says in the plan itself that they want to INVADE in the USA territory, capture bases there, and fight there.

File: pg-35-napoleon-1-dea-getty.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>2125789
Another strawman. You deny the annexation plans by throwing in weaksauce "But everyone has one Lol" I really don't want to argue with some revisionist bullshitter whose asshurt he probably lives in some post commie shithole.

>>2125786
Just last official action on western front, the eastern front fought on past the collapse for days- probably due to the hostile treatment of POWs on that front compared with the more "friendly" western front

>>2125792
Defensive. Canada wouldn't invade America out of spite, while the Americans actually would invade Canada for shit and giggles (and don't lie, we all now that many Americans, for one reason or another, hate Canadians and wants to wipe out the Canadian population and fill it with Americans). If Canada magically won a war like this, there's a highly good chance that American lands will go back to America, while the Americans would take all of Canada for themselves if they won.

>>2125786

It definitely wasn't the last of the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spring_Awakening

>>2125794
>You deny the annexation plans
No, I inform you of the common sense truth that the USSR had plans to annex China, Germany, France, Italy, all the Balkan states, Sweden, Turkey, and so on.
Don't feel special, you aren't.

>I really don't want to argue with some revisionist bullshitter whose asshurt he probably lives in some post commie shithole.
Not an argument, even less so since Finland is a post commie shithole.

>>2125808
The USSR won a war against Finland and, by square mile, most finish lands went back to Finland, and weren't occupied.
Similarly, Canada winning the war against USA by some magic would only take airports and bases right on the border, and nothing else.

>>2125821
>even less so since Finland is a post commie shithole

Yeah no.

Also as i said before they had already set up a puppet government for the victory so it's again just bogus that they had plans for everyone lol and they'd never actually do it. Some dank ass mental gymnastics there Ivan.

>>2125828
That was the wartime government, which ruled the occupied territory during the war.
When the war was over it was disbanded, and the territory it used to rule was annexed.

And again, saying "lol dank ivan commie" isn't an argument.

>>2125825
You do have a point. I've also been treated like shit by Americans before, which makes be biased with Americans. I'm the retard, because I allowed emotion to judge what I say. I'm sorry.

>>2125841
I am pleasantly surprised that you'd make such a post, most people either argue bitterly or just close the tab.
Cheers!

>>2124774
GB lost 5/6 wars of coalition.

File: image.png (903KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 800x800px

>>2125841
Tfw American rudeness is a cause of international friendship

Stalin simply wanted to get rid of part of their army, those Bolshevik believers

>>2122969
>Best anti-tank rifle
that's like wondering why the shogunate lost the boshin war when they had the best matchlock muskets.

File: 1474755393407.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>2125506
>>2125720

>>2122957
>superior equipment
Myth of soviet propaganda.

>>2122957
They're peasants.

>>2122957
>superior equipment

>>2125506
COD ruined the eastern front for a whole generation

File: Nxb6nZ1.png (169KB, 1113x2165px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1113x2165px

>>2125808
I don't know of any Americans who want to destroy Canada. Most of us take it as a higher offense for Canada to be threatened than for the US to be threatened.

>>2122966
Soviets mostly had tanks, Germans mostly didn't. Therefore Soviets had superior equipment.

>>2127039
By that logic the soviets also had superior soldiers

>>2127056
You sure are stupid. But don't let that get you down!

>>2127039
I have seen these approximate figures about mechanization of WWII armies:
German - tank per 6000 soldiers
Soviet - tank per 20000 soldiers.

>>2127111
And you deduced from those context-less, unverified numbers that Germans had more support from armor.... Holy shit, you are an imbecile.

>>2122969
You have a pretty naive understanding of war. Heavy equipment superiority is definitely a battlefield advantage, but shit like"best sub-machine gun" and "best anti-tank rifle" are almost 100% irrelevant in turning the tides of war

File: 1434130379591.png (465KB, 619x481px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 619x481px

>>2127111
Here's a better way to determine that.
Look at the total number of AFVs produced by both countries and then look at the total number of soldiers deployed by both armies.
I can tell you right now those numbers are bogus, as that would imply the Germans only produced 2,100 tanks in the war and the Soviets only 1,700.

>>2127121
Figures were based on many official (including Soviet) documents. I havent seen these rates in WWII articles, but it explain everithing. Im glad to hear other figures (with proofs).

>>2127154
Please provide the proofadoodledoos.
The Soviets lost more armor in a single battle than you're claiming they had on average throughout the war.

>>2127111

Bullshit.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf

Skip down to page 70 of the PDF itself, Annex A

While admittedly only an analysis of the situation in 1944, you see the Soviets with 1 tank per 608.6 ground soldiers, and the Germans with 1 tank per 580.8 ground soldiers.

>>2125005
A man and a toddler get in a fight. The man kills the toddler but broke many ribs, his nose, and has a serious concussion. Even though he won his performance was poor.>>2125774

>>2125627

95% of this board is unfortunately retards who gained their knowledge through video games and spout it on here with confidence

>>2125005
A man and a toddler get in a fight. The man kills the toddler but broke many ribs, his nose, and has a serious concussion. Even though he won his performance was still abysmal

>>2125050
>The goal was to conquer the whole of Finland.

Nope

>>2125137
>>2125524
1. The USSR never wanted all of Finland.
2. Absolute Victory does not entail a lower casualty count. It entails all demands of the winning side being fulfilled.

>>2125716
>no sources

>>2125721
Britain has offensive plans against Ireland. Same for most of the world's major powers.

Does that mean they want to annex them?

>>2125794
The existence of annexation plans != The goal of X war against X nation

>>2127316
>1. The USSR never wanted all of Finland.

пpyфы гдe блят?

>>2124700
You fucking idiot no one said he was evil for doing so.

File: de.jpg (120KB, 1603x628px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1603x628px

>>2124828
>A Pyrrhic victory is achieved on the battle level, not on the war level.

>>2122957
>Why did the Soviets perform so poorly

Shitty training.

Shitty tactics.

Shitty leadership.

The Soviet military essentially followed a "zerg" doctrine that went something along the lines of: If you send a platoon, and it fails, send a company. If you send a company, and it fails, send a battalion. If you send a battalion, and it fails, send a regiment....and on, and on.

Their troops were also far less able, and willing, to act on initiative, which means they lost opportunities to exploit the situation on the battlefield that their German counterparts would use initiative to take advantage of.

>>2124937
Only big entitlement FDR added was Social Security and a bit of unemployment insurance reform. The real blood-suckers didn't start until LBJ;s Great Society.

>>2124482
>>2124488
>>2124490
227 was meant to stop unordered retreats from the battle. Most of the time, troops would be ordered to return if the blocking units encountered them --though they could fire on them if deemed necessary to prevent a rout. The meme of Soviet soldiers literally not being able to step backwards without being shot be a commissar came from that shitheap that is Enemy at the Gates. Plus, the Red Army order retreats all the time.

>>2125775
>Only thing we're prepared for is Russian aggression which is the backbone of our defense.

What chance would Finland have of winning an offensive war against Russia?

>>2125506
Fuck Enemy at the Gates.

>>2125643
The war was pretty much over for the Germans when the Soviets successfully pushed them back 100 miles around Moscow during the Winter Offensive of 1941/42.

File: 1DSL8807s.jpg (190KB, 800x653px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x653px

>see ww2 thread
>quickly scroll through thread
>entire thread made up of one or two line replies
>no sources or links

lol not today, /his/, not today

File: dumbfaggots.png (285KB, 576x782px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 576x782px

>>2126852
>>2126889
>>2127850

I hate idiots like you. You're worse than the COD retards or those who quote films/movies as fact. Not only are you just as wrong, but you've convinced yourselves your right by buying into the same "common knowledge" bullshit that starts the original misconception. Read a fucking book and stop fucking posting.

>>2122957
>"why did the soviets perform so poorly?"
>win the war

File: 0216-british.jpg (320KB, 1024x792px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1024x792px

>>2124780

This. Allied performance during the first half of the second world war was terrible on all fronts. America and Britain were lucky they had water to keep them away.

File: 1482278581135.png (12KB, 243x243px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 243x243px

>>2128237
>Singapore has fallen
I can't imagine how most people in Britain reacted to seeing that the Gibraltar of the East had been lost. It must have been a horrifying thought.

>nobody has fucking mentioned the Mosin-Nagant.

File: 1402981310476.png (82KB, 1225x226px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1225x226px

>>2128382

>>2127843
One Russian general said it pretty well.

"they're not training an standing army, they're training an population of partisans"

Go figure.

>>2128101
>not enough equipment
>armed with grenade or Molotov cocktails

How does this translate to every other soldier armed only with a clip?

Do you have any sources for that situation outside of Leningrad? Literally nobody is disputing supply problems there, since it was a multiple year long siege, a unique engagement not replicated elsewhere on the eastern front.

>>2128821
>How does this translate to every other soldier armed only with a clip?

It's taken directly from the Soviet sources writing (what is assuredly propaganda) about the brave and patriotic opolchenie;

>On the morning of July 10 the 1st (Kirov) Division of Volunteers under command of Major General F. P. Rodin was mustered for the front. Hand grenades and Molotov cocktails were issued to each man. There were not enough rifles to go around. The unit was starting into battle with 35 percent of its allotted machine guns, 13 percent of its artillery and 8 percent of its authorized mortars. Many men carried only picks, shovels, axes or hunting knives. Some had guns last used by the Bolsheviks against General Yudenich’s attack on Petrograd in 1918. Many had nothing but empty hands and brave hearts.

>There were some who watched the Leningraders form up who could not help recalling the July days just twenty-seven years earlier. That was the month when the Czar’s armies assembled by the million and moved west against the forces of Wilhelm II and Franz Josef. Then, too, rank after rank had no rifles. Not until their comrades fell in combat would they be able to arm themselves. History was repeating itself on the Russian battlefield.

Enemy at the Gates, like literally every other piece of historical fiction ever written, used an amalgam of stories and experiences from relevant sources. To blame the West for the Soviet's own haphazardly politicized history is absurd.

>since it was a multiple year long siege, a unique engagement not replicated elsewhere on the eastern front.

This is only weeks into Barbarossa and a month prior to the beginning of the siege.

>>2125957
The wars of coalition are one war, that GB was good enough to win.

>>2127232
>>2127243
>the post so abhorrent it had to be made twice

>>2127625
>let me show you how another person misuses the term, thus justifying my own misusing of it

>>2128908
>To blame the West

I've seen nobody in this thread blaming western academic studies and historians. Stop trying to defend Hollywood and high budget videogames (which people actually criticized) as the end all be-all of western thought.

>This is only weeks into Barbarossa

So the part where the russians got caught with their pants down. Find me accounts of such widespread supply problems during late 1942 when Enemy at the Gates specifically took place. If it took place at a specific time and place it's not allowed to "amalgamize", it's only allowed to depict events as they were there and then.

>>2122957
Official fugures of tank producing of USSR are liar. Main source of steel - Ukraine - was lost in 1941 and USSR could not produce more tanks later.

File: 43527874.jpg (17KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x300px

>>2127237
This

Just read Victor Suvorov books, it's all there - with numbers and sources

>>2128987
Main source of steel was Ural region in Russia.

>Quality of equipment wins battles
>Winning lots of battles means lesser casualities

How does it feel to be so wrong?

File: 1481991099453.png (158KB, 617x825px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 617x825px

>>2125755

>support party leader in target country with agenda of overthrowing leading party and replacing it with your own that just happens to include membership in your club

>WTF DUDE I ONLY HAD PLANS FOR A SMALL PORTION OF THAT COUNTRY ROFL STUPID NATIONALIST

>Headed by Finnish politician Otto Ville Kuusinen, the Finnish Democratic Republic was Joseph Stalin's planned means to conquer Finland.[1][2][3][4]

>>2129418
>[1][2][3][4]
>all opinions

Read the actual books and the paper quoted.
They have facts, and they have opinions. The reason they were cited here was for the opinions.

>>2129431
R e d h e r r i n g

>>2129435
What did he mean by this?

The books are literally like:
>Fact 1 - quoting a proclamation
>Fact 2 - quoting military plans
>Fact 3 - quoting a document
>Fact 4 - quoting a public speech
>Opinion - from these facts, i think that X and Y can be assumed

And then the wikipedia article quotes that opinion.
It is an interpretation of facts, not a fact.

The finish communist party was a temporary organization that governed the occupied territory, until they were annexed. It didn't do anything else. I am sure it had many great plans, but how realistic they are, and how much russian command pursued them, is entirely speculation.

>>2129446
>A declaration delivered via TASS on behalf of the Finnish Democratic Republic stated, "The People's Government in its present composition regards itself as a provisional government. Immediately upon arrival in Helsinki, capital of the country, it will be reorganised and its composition enlarged by the inclusion of representatives of the various parties and groups participating in the people's front of toilers. The final composition of the People's Government, its powers and actions, are to be sanctioned by a Diet elected on the basis of universal equal direct suffrage by secret ballot."[6]

>upon arriving in helsinki

>>2129452
Did you read that telegraph?
>sent by the finns, not the soviets
>says provisional government right in it
>talks of election, thus obviously no russian annexation planned

>>2127775
Kys

>>2124446
So you're saying that Stalin encouraged retreat in his army? Or that he just didn't give a shit? At least normal pol has some bullshit to back up what they say, you faggots just make shit up.

>"performed so poorly"
>beat the Germans all the way back from the outskirts of Moscow to Berlin itself

I'd say they did pretty well, OP. The Soviets made up for their tactical deficiencies with excellent operational and strategic planning alongside brilliant logistics implementation.

The reality is that everyone performed horribly against the Germans at a tactical level, and this includes the Americans and Brits. Both the Western Allies and Soviets won through pure numbers and better planning, not having better soldiers.

>>2129865
no u

>>2129912
>The reality is that everyone performed horribly against the Germans at a tactical level
How do you get to a point where you are so dumb that you can make posts like this without a second thought?

>>2129937
>How do you get to a point where you are so dumb that you can make posts like this without a second thought?

You're American, aren't you?

>>2122975
Ah good old Georg "Kill us all" Zhukov

>>2129970
"at the tactical level" Germany lost as often as they won.
France was a series of tactical defeats into a strategic victory into more tactical defeats. Their strategic victory was so crippling as to make France's vigorous defense ultimately futile. Against the British it was always back and forth. Same with the Americans. They did great against the Russians until they outran their supply lines and committed massive strategic blunders and ended up losing tactically as well as strategically almost without fail.

The meme that Germany had superior soldiers and fought so hardddd but just lost cause they were outnumbered is goddamn bullshit. On the Western Front they had a 1-1 casualty ratio against the Allies, at Barbarossa thanks to strategic encirclements the ratio was heavily skewed in Germany's favor, but by 1945 the ratio was 1-1 as well. The Soviets never had more than a 2-1 manpower advantage over Germany until 1945, if they were getting as massacred 20-1 like everyone on the internet thinks happened Russia would have run out of men in a week.

>>2130129
I'm not saying the Germans were super soldiers or anything. But a 1:1 casualty ratio on the Western Front after the Germans have nearly been bled white after years on the Eastern Front combined with overwhelming logistical and aerial superiority isn't something to write home about.

In the West, people have a common tendency to rank Soviet troops as mere cannon fodder while all Western troops were supposedly Band of Brothers 506th PIR paratroopers just mowing Germans down left and right. What I'm trying to say is that the Western troops generally weren't much better than Red Army troops, if at all.

>>2130252
German troops weren't much better either. 80% of German divisions were cannon fodder by their own assessment. Lopsided casualty ratios are results of encirclements and exploitation.

>>2130252

> But a 1:1 casualty ratio on the Western Front after the Germans have nearly been bled white after years on the Eastern Front combined with overwhelming logistical and aerial superiority isn't something to write home about.

Anon, you only get to 1:1 on the Western Front by including the the enormous loss in the French forces in 1940, well before any "bleeding white" had occurred and most of that being surrenders after encircling.

If you're only counting later stuff, after the war in the USSR, you have a 5:3 ratio (Allies favor) in Italy, and about 6.5:1 (Again, allied favor) from France and Germany itself.

>>2128913
>misusing the term
The only idiot doing that is you, the only qualifier for using it is that the victor got his ass beat just as bad/worse than the loser, this can apply to tactical or strategic, as well as non-military such as business.

Despite having superior equipment the Soviets simply didn't have the money to equip their overly large army which was needed to fight them out of the strategic corner they were backed into.

>>2129894
It applied to soldiers on the front line. Officers could order retreats if such made sense, like hold back to defend more valuable territory.
Of course a soldier routing had a good chance of ending up in a penal battalion, but if they were actually ordered to move back and did so orderly there was no problem.

>>2123072
>>2123074
>zerg rush meme

Why are wehraboos unable to accept Deep Battle > Blitzkrieg?