Great Heros! Geh!

[Watchman]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

[Ironside]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

Thankfully, with what appears to become the new history book at Russian schools (it's in the draft sended to the teachers), they don't need to longer ignore that little detail. To ignore things, you actually need to heard about them first...

[CrossLOPER]

Thankfully, with what appears to become the new history book at Russian schools (it's in the draft sended to the teachers), they don't need to longer ignore that little detail. To ignore things, you actually need to heard about them first...

Not quite sure with what you are trying to say, but let's be frank. How many general history books have you come across that went into great detail of every single key figure?

[Ironside]

Not quite sure with what you are trying to say, but let's be frank. How many general history books have you come across that went into great detail of every single key figure?

Well, they usually doesn't contain lines indicating that Stalin's purges improved the efficiency. From what I understand, it goes downward from there (can't read russian os only second hand sources).

I'm refering to "The Modern History of Russia 1945-2006. A teachers guide" (Novejsjaja istorija Rossii 1945-2006 gg. Kniga dlja utjitelja), by Aleksandr Filippov and History of Russia and the World in the 20th Century, by Nikita Zagladin.

I was wrong, appearently is the second book is already used.

[HoreTore]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

[Kralizec]

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

Trivia: the image of Russian troops being sent against the enemy unarmed and expected to pick up weapons from the slaughtered comrades that preceded them is actually based on reality. Except that it was during WW1.
Trotsky left behind a reasonably modern and capable Red Army when he got exiled. The real reason why it nevertheless performed so horroribly in the first months of the German invasion has been pointed out several time now.

[Sarmatian]

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

[rvg]

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

During the Winter War of 1940 the Red Army didn't exactly shine either.

[Sarmatian]

During the Winter War of 1940 the Red Army didn't exactly shine either.

True, but reasons for that were mentioned several times in this thread so I didn't think there was need to repeat it...

If Russian soldiers were so great, then why did Napoleon slaughter those armies that were sent out, and the Ruskies retreat over most of their own country; and again millions were captured by the Nazis - the country was almost bled dry due to the truly appalling tactics that were employed.

In which battle did he slaughter them? Borodino? There he had numerical advantage and the losses were similar on both sides. It may appeared to be a Russian defeat from a tactical point of view, but strategically, it was great victory. At the beggining of WW2, due to purges and modernization, army was in a pretty bad state and suffered terrible defeats. Nevertheless, it was reorganized in very short time and managed to fight German army to a standstill and to drive them back. Pretty good if you ask me... Especially when you consider the excellent state of German army in 1941, great commanders, great morale, technological advantages...

[rory_20_uk]

Stalin took an early lead in trying to loose the war with his purges, and Nazi Germany made good use of this.
Germany then caught up for lost ground having delayed the attack too late, splitting targets, no winter preparations (the winter does help when the enemy guns don't work) and finally copying Russian tactics of holding strategically unimportant ground for no reason; the persecution of the locals was a genius move, not only loosing masses of potential troops but also requiring massive garrisons to protect the captured land. This helped reduce an armoured fist to three weak increasingly infantry based forces

The tenacity of the Russians isn't in doubt, and the war did show about the only time that Communism works with its fixed command economy.

Against Napoleon I think the Russians did so well as they were not breakable as other armies were. But I don't see how you can discount the use of the weather when the Russians retreated, only to advance after the winter had set in.

[Watchman]

It's simple math really. The Russians were by default used to the vicious inner Eurasian winter, since they lived through it every year; wannabe invaders from the warmer western parts of Europe... weren't. (Note that playing the winter card didn't normally work against others used to similarly mean seasons, like the Scandinavians, Polish-Lithuanians, any bunch of smelly horsemen from the inner steppes...)

Ergo, mass frostbites and freezings, guns and motors freezing solid, and what-have-you fun and games. The Russians weren't stupid; they knew they had ample amounts of real estate they could afford to yield if necessary to buy the time needed for the other guy's logistics to get totally screwed up. And the snows to come.
Oh, and then there's the infamous raspustsina(sp?), when the roads turn into so much bottomless mud. Does something interesting to logistics and mobility.

Tended to work like a charm much of the time, although that trading ground for time thing wasn't always done in a very voluntary and organised fashion (eg. with the Germans).

[Husar]

Of course they used the winter, most european invaders were not used to those really cold temperatures which gave them a considerable disadvantage, not only the normal soldiers who's fingers are freezing, making the use of his gun harder but also tanks or carriages getting stuck in mud, plane engines that cease working (the Russians had some tricks to get their own planes in the air, the rest was target practice) etc.
Of course it was the fault of the invaders to consider that but saying it had no impact and russian soldiers were just superior is plain wrong IMO.

[rory_20_uk]

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

If Russian soldiers were so great, then why did Napoleon slaughter those armies that were sent out, and the Ruskies retreat over most of their own country; and again millions were captured by the Nazis - the country was almost bled dry due to the truly appalling tactics that were employed.

Russian soldiers were first in the army for life, then for 25 years. Service was brutal and most wouldn't live much longer than their service. They were deeply religious. The armed forces were also unable to make decisions unless commanded by senior echelons. You there have soldiers that know death is coming, and that's not such a bad thing - difficult to break the army, but inflexible on the battlefield.

Well equipped? They used muskets way beyond almost all other forces in Europe.