Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: masurianlakes.png (244KB, 362x832px) Image search:
[Google]
244KB, 362x832px
Why did the Russian Army perform so poorly against the Germans in WW1? The casualty ratio was something like 4-1 in the Germans' favor, a more one-sided exchange ratio than pretty much any other theater of the war. The Russian Army wasn't a BAD army by WW1 standards.
They consistently kicked the hell out of the Ottomans during the Caucasus Campaign; even while the Ottomans were winning a decisive victory against the British at Gallipoli, the Russians were cleaning their clock in the east. More importantly they utterly mauled the Austro-Hungarian Army in the Galicia Offensive and three Carpathian Offensives, and would've probably knocked them out of the war early on if not for the massive German success in East Prussia forcing them to conserve themselves. Then you have shit like the Battle of Lutsk, where 600,000 Russians facing 500,000 Austro-Hungarians launched a masterfully rehearsed assault and ended up routing them and taking over 200,000 prisoners in four days.
So what happened? Why did they get so roughly handled by the Germans to an extent that no one else really did?
Pic related, one example of many.
>>
>>2499309
They pushed into Germany and Austria early on and were succeeding but by the 1916 they were worn out, tired and starving.
>>
>>2499309
Because, same as in World War 2, the Russians acted like the Imperial Guard in 40k and just kept throwing bodies at the problem rather than trying anything resembling tactics. It's hard to do that when your commanding officer tells you to do that across trenches in open space with guns everywhere. They threw bodies at them until the enemy ran out of ammo and kept coming.
And Russia HAS done military shit before and done tactics, so why they suddenly became zergs during the two world wars I have no idea.
>>
>>2499327
Ignoring how utterly wrong you are on WW2 for a second, they didn't do any of that in their masterfully coordinated offensives against the Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans.
>>
>>2499320
their most successful offensive was in 1916
>>
>>2499345
And after it they were worn out and starving.
>>
>>2499334
>wrong about ww2
>literally sent people off with commissars who shot people running away because they had 1 gun for every few dudes and the rest were meatshields
Okay, stop. I get you like Russia, but don't just flat out lie. If anything WW2 makes more sense for the zerg tactics.
>>
>>2499366
(You)
>>
>>2499309
Germans were better trained then the Ottomans perhaps. Also in the Caucases the Ottomans were being lead by absolute moron Enever Pasha and sent into freezing mountains with no winter clothing and proper equipment, the Russians would be stupid to lose against the Ottomans in the Caucuses.
Russian performance throughout ww1 was pretty mixed, some great victories over the Turks but some really bad loses against Germany and A-H.
They performed at their worst in their war against Japan about 10 years prior to ww1 so they did improve militarily.
>>
>>2499532
The Russian Imperial army performed pretty well against AH actually.
>>
>>2499532
They wrecked Austria-Hungary though, Austria-Hungary could only get large victories against them with heavy German support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Galicia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Przemy%C5%9Bl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Przemy%C5%9Bl#Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusilov_Offensive
>>
>>2499532
None of what you said is based on reality
>>
>>2499532
>Caucuses
>>
>>2499327
So that's it? Zerg rush is the epitome of rusky tactics? Makes sense when i think of CSGO
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1