Great Heros! Geh!

[Sarmatian]

No one said it didn't have any effect. Term "General Winter" (and sometimes "General Snow" - Russians sometimes refer to it as "General Mrazov") refers to excuses by various armies, most notably French and German that they were defeated by Russian winter. They weren't defeated by Russian winter, they were defeated by Russian army which used climate, among many other things, to its advantage. It's only logical - if your troops are trained to fight at night and enemy troops aren't, you'll try to fight at night, if you have superior cavalry, you'll try fight in a terrain that suits cavalry, if your army is better suited for winter warfare, you'll try to engage enemy in winter etc etc... It's what armies did since the ancient times.

It's not like those armies tried to invade Ethiopia and were surprised by sudden and very cold winter. That would be a valid excuse. But in the case of a country like Russia or some country in Scandinavia, it's just silly. Who would imagine snow and cold winter in Russia or Scandinavia, really...

In fact, the winter during Napoleon's invasion (1812-1813) was one of the mildest winters in years, not to mention that Grande Armee was pretty much defeated before the winter (Borodino was on 7th September)...

Oh, and then there's the infamous raspustsina(sp?)

Rasputitsa (Cyrillic - распу́тица)...

[CountArach]

In fact, the winter during Napoleon's invasion (1812-1813) was one of the mildest winters in years, not to mention that Grande Armee was pretty much defeated before the winter (Borodino was on 7th September)...

Errr... no... The French won that battle...

[Husar]

No one said it didn't have any effect. Term "General Winter" (and sometimes "General Snow" - Russians sometimes refer to it as "General Mrazov") refers to excuses by various armies, most notably French and German that they were defeated by Russian winter. They weren't defeated by Russian winter, they were defeated by Russian army which used climate, among many other things, to its advantage. It's only logical - if your troops are trained to fight at night and enemy troops aren't, you'll try to fight at night, if you have superior cavalry, you'll try fight in a terrain that suits cavalry, if your army is better suited for winter warfare, you'll try to engage enemy in winter etc etc... It's what armies did since the ancient times.

It's not like those armies tried to invade Ethiopia and were surprised by sudden and very cold winter. That would be a valid excuse. But in the case of a country like Russia or some country in Scandinavia, it's just silly. Who would imagine snow and cold winter in Russia or Scandinavia, really...

In fact, the winter during Napoleon's invasion (1812-1813) was one of the mildest winters in years, not to mention that Grande Armee was pretty much defeated before the winter (Borodino was on 7th September)...

Or in other words, if you cannot fight very well you wait until the enemy makes a mistake and is rendered unable to fight well, whether that makes you a great soldier/fighter/general depends entirely on definition, if the one who wins in the end is always the greatest, then yes, but doesn't mean he can hit the side of a barn at 200 yards using a sniper rifle, he may just have to wait for termites to eat a hole into it. And that's what others would not call a great soldier.
And no, I'm not trying to say Russians can't shoot, but that they were somehow greater or better equipped just because they could fight better during winter is a bit far-fetched IMO.

[Sarmatian]

Errr... no... The French won that battle...

Familiar with the term Pyrrhic victory?

Or in other words, if you cannot fight very well you wait until the enemy makes a mistake and is rendered unable to fight well, whether that makes you a great soldier/fighter/general depends entirely on definition, if the one who wins in the end is always the greatest, then yes, but doesn't mean he can hit the side of a barn at 200 yards using a sniper rifle, he may just have to wait for termites to eat a hole into it. And that's what others would not call a great soldier.
And no, I'm not trying to say Russians can't shoot, but that they were somehow greater or better equipped just because they could fight better during winter is a bit far-fetched IMO.

I didn't say they were greater or better (or in any other way inherently superior to other armies), where did you read that? I've said they were very adaptable and used every possible advantage they had over their opponents, and that's what you do in war. Like Germany used Stalin's purges and fed him false information in order to further destabilize Russian army. It's not like German generals said: "Hey, why are we doing this? Let's help them reorganize and fight them when they're at their strongest"...

My initial reply was directed to HoreTore stating that Russian just used to throw hordes of unarmed peasants at the enemy. That's a myth as much as "General Winter" or "General Mud" is... That's all I'm saying...

[HoreTore]

My initial reply was directed to HoreTore stating that Russian just used to throw hordes of unarmed peasants at the enemy. That's a myth as much as "General Winter" or "General Mud" is... That's all I'm saying...

Spot the mistake, Sarmatian

[Watchman]

That's a myth as much as "General Winter" or "General Mud" is... That's all I'm saying...

Those are quite real. Large-scale warfare has always been above all about logistics - to put it bluntly, keeping your soldiers fed, clothed and generally supplied and alive.

Which gets pretty difficult when the supply columns (and for that matter, combat troops) can no longer move owing to the roads having turned liquid, engines and pack animals freezing, men and beasts starving and losing bits to frostbite, heck, even weapon mechanisms freezing solid on a bad day.

Just as an example, when the Germans were checked at the gates of Moscow a very important factor was their logistical chain pretty much collapsing in the early winter weather. Hard to keep fighting at peak efficiency when the fuel and ammunition and w/e plain isn't getting through because the supply trucks and carts are stuck in cold mud, tanks refuse to start in the cold, lubricants freeze in guns and soldiers keep having their fingers fall off...
(Similarly, in the monumental cock-up that was the Soviet first-phase invasion of the Winter War the hapless Red Army troops trapped in the forests of Finland suffered at least as direly, as their supply lines were flatly cut and the winter was of record ferocity.)

On the same vein Napoleon's army more or less starved and froze to death under him. Not that the Russians weren't only too happy to add to the misery and attrition by stepping up their raids and harassement the second they realized the French were screwed...

Comparable cases can be dug up from any number of wars. The cold may be absent owing to geography, but the overwhelming importance of keeping armes supplied - one way or another - remains.

[Sarmatian]

Those are quite real. Large-scale warfare has always been above all about logistics - to put it bluntly, keeping your soldiers fed, clothed and generally supplied and alive.

It seems we are running around in circles here. Climate is a factor, especially harsh climatic conditions, like you would find in Russia. I'm saying it's not an excuse. It's not an excuse in case of German or French invasion on Russia, it's not an excuse in case of Soviet invasion on Finland. What did you expect, that you would need suntan lotion in Finland in winter??? That winter wouldn't have any effect on logistics? If you're mounting an attack in that situation, you have to be prepared for that... Not being prepared is no excuse

It is often used as convenient excuse to why certain armies failed in Russia. It is especially evident in case of French invasion under Napoleon. This diagram represent strength of the French army during its invasion.

EDIT: Sorry, removed because it's hotlinked. Please host it yourself. BG

As you can see, French army lost half of its troops in the first two months of the campaign, before the battle of Borodino, which was on 7th of September. That means that half of the French troops were lost in the summer (August and July).

If you're not adequately prepared, it's not excuse. Like, gee I would have won but I wasn't prepared... An idiotic excuse. It's like saying that you would have won against UK but you didn't have a navy, so all your troops drowned when you ordered them to march across the channel. It's an island, of course you need a navy - it's Russia, of course you need to prepare for winter warfare...

P.S. Happy New Year to everyone...

[CountArach]

Familiar with the term Pyrrhic victory?

Indeed I am. I do not believe that Borodino was one, though Napoleon certainly could have used the extra men. Still, without the winter being present Napoleon would have reached Moscow.

[Sarmatian]

Indeed I am. I do not believe that Borodino was one, though Napoleon certainly could have used the extra men. Still, without the winter being present Napoleon would have reached Moscow.

It's a matter of opinion, yes, but if an army wins a battle and a short time later has to abandon the campaign without any other battle in between, I'd call it a Pyrrhic victory.

And, anyway, Napoleon did reach Moscow and he did it before the winter.

But, we strayed too much off topic. Maybe we should continue this in the monastery...