Has Russia ever won a war without relying on human wave tactics/winter/treaties until they're at least somewhat...

Has Russia ever won a war without relying on human wave tactics/winter/treaties until they're at least somewhat stronger and the enemy at least somewhat weaker?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8bCwZ-XpzUw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(1918)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Constantinople
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolean_Death_March
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yes, World War 2.

Lots of time, you might want to study history.

For a starter, why don't you go look up the wars between Russia and Lithuania in the late 15th centuries that saw Lithuania's easternmost strip being torn away into the "Third Rome".

Only under Suvorov. But this is indeed a fair assessment of Russian military history.

t.

Already a fucking thread about this fucking why.

WW3

Literally all wars Russia has won didn't use uncoordinated infantry attacks that are normally referred to as human waves.

When Russia did use "human waves"(which was in very few and desperate circumstances) they were huge failures.

In fact, with the exceptions of Rzhev and a few desperate moments in Barbarossa the Red Army didn't launch unsupported infantry attacks ever.

>have really bomb Operational mobility
>newbs think your using human waves.

The Russians never used human waves in their history, it appears that way because they're so good at moving their troops around.

Yeah, that war against Georgia.

/thread

Great northern war

All russo-turkish wars

Russian conquest of siberia

Russian conquest of central asia

Russian conquest of astrakhan

Russian conquest of kazan

these are a few i can think of

Yes, every one. Try reading a book instead of spouting discredited memes

Le "RUSSIA STRONK" meme has been creating by propaganda throughout late Russian history (both Imperial and Soviet periods, 18-21 centuries).

t. Russian, tired of hearing these broken proofless fantasies.


> Great northern war
This.

>Great northenr war
Russia didn't rely on winter in that one?

Poltava happened in June so no.

youtube.com/watch?v=8bCwZ-XpzUw

The flags of Sweden and Russia in the
>Great
>Northern
>War
are really cool

After some years of Russian weather doing their thing, yeah.

The war lasted 21 years. Famine and disease
killed more swedes than the russians did

Russians also outnumbered Sweden by like three times in that battle and even more in terms of artillery. To make matters even worse for Sweden they also had Denmark and Poland to worry about.

No.

So what? Swedish had a reputation of the best army in Europe, it means better than even French, English and Austrians, and Russia was still lingering in the Bronze Age. The numbers advantage would not matter if you don't know how to fight, check Narva battle (1700).
Russians managed to beat swedish via building a modern army first and foremost.

/thread

war against the ottomen hardly counts because of their supreme incompetence

>Building a modern army
As in massing ridiculous amount of cannons. while meeting a badly prepared army
Also Narva battle happened during a snow blizard blowing in the direction of the Russians, the Swedes were kinda helped by that.

>turks incompetent

Say it to ANZAC or brits in mesopotamia durring WW1

you mean this one

Literally never

yep

You do that a big amount of men mostly died of malnutrition and heat exhaustion right? One british soldier even said that the ottomans cuased minimal casualties to the expedition, their biggest enemy was the weather.

remember in ww1 when they tried to attack russia together with some germans and then all the turks froze to death before engaging the enemy? brilliant

>take one siege out of the entire mesopotamian campaign that was in favour of the ottomen
>when the invading force, equally strong as the defending force, killed 3 turks for every brit in hostile environment no less
>the brits even had indians who were notoriously useless at war (see: africa), the ottomen even had germans who were notoriously violent in war
>this somehow proves ottoman superiority

Was turkish immune to weather? Or they had better logistics?

I wasn't saying that turks were superior. They weren't. But they weren't incompetent fools either.

the turkish are sandniggers who have lived there for a thousand years, it's their land, their cities, their place, what the fuck do you think?

...

saying "they lost due to weather", is equal to saying "they lost due to gravity"

"If it wasn't for predictable and equally affecting powers of nature we would have won!"

lol no, it was their colony, it's like saying your average brit is a natural born jungle fighter, because they had jungles in India.

They lost because german empire lost.

>As in massing ridiculous amount of cannons.

The Russians had half the amount of cannon Napoleon had at Waterloo, while having about the same number of men.

Nothign ridiculous about that, it was modernisation at work.

that should read
>The Russians at Poltava

They lost because they got btfo by Brits

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(1918)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Constantinople

>men mostly died of malnutrition and heat exhaustion right

Literally every war ever until very recently.

>link to battle at the end of a losing war when Turks were outnumbered
>link to post war occupation, which is literally the army making sure riots don't break out as command is switched

Yes, I have the internet, I know the Allies won the war. How does this prove the Turks bad fighters?

Literally every war in which they've participated in, including the ones against the successors of the Mongol Empire?

> tired of hearing these broken fantasies

They're mostly factual, embellishment exists solely for form.

It was modernization at work

Starting from Kulikovo.

>Has Russia ever won a war without relying on human wave tactics/winter/treaties

yes

>Has Russia ever won a war in europe without relying on human wave tactics/winter/treaties

no

You might want to stop watching hollywood movies that much

>Famine and disease
killed more swedes than the russians did

That's probably the case for most of the longer military campaigns in history until the late 19th century.

>great northern war
>hat's war
>finnish war

Never said they were bad fighters, just they weren't as good as the British empire.

>British empire.
>good at war

>The Russians had half the amount of cannon Napoleon had at Waterloo, while having about the same number of men.
>Nothign ridiculous about that, it was modernisation at work.
>It was modernization at work

I meant it in the way that they had much more Artillery than their opponents, which I admitt i weren't quite clear about.

British military history is meh compared to say France, Spain and Germany, but it's definitly above Turkey

>British military history is meh compared to say France, Spain and Germany
Britain literally ended the super power status of all three of those countries. Care to elaborate?

Wut?
None of these ever were superpowers (in the sense of current USA).
As for who ended their dominance:

-Spanish dominance was ended by France at Rocroi, and their empire was destroyed by the French invasion of 1808

-French dominance was ended by Russia in 1812 and 1814

-German dominance was ended by Russia and America in 1945

When I played Russia in TW: Empire, all I really did was just pile my entire economy into more units of line infantry than my army had room for, and then bumrushed everyone. Losses weren't even that high since the enemy broke and ran about 20 seconds after being charged by three times their own number by dudes so hardcore they didn't even waver when they took two-three barrages of cannister shots to the face. Couldn't even properly kite them because there were so many they had nowhere to run.

I think the riots in Moscow killed more people than every front.

Russia didn't even have a lot of manpower before Peter the Great's reforms, they were incapable of such tactics

Dr. Pavel, I'm NKVD.

The only country in the history of mankind that ever had the "superpower" status was the USA, and only within the last 30ish years. Barely.
At all other periods either the big empires couldn't press the whole world due to technology and knowledge, or they had a counter weight preventing them from doing so.

>>the brits even had indians who were notoriously useless at war (see: africa).
found the eternal anglo.

No, it is not in Russian nature to win through finesse. Slavs aren't good at thinking.

True, we prefer brute force and melee encounters, to benefit from our inborn retard strength.

Not him, but what makes the ability to "press the world" the defining trait of a superpower?

The Soviet Union also had that status.

Unironically this, once the Red Army was fully mobilized and war industry warmed up they kicked Germany's ass

Why was the Russian flag so weird during the Napoleonic Wars?

No, during the Cold War neither the USA nor USSR could act freely, since they balanced each other.
After the USSR dissolved, the USA became an actual superpower. It can't be matched and can do whatever the fuck it wants. The only problem is that its own people riot and protest all the time.

You can't have rival superpowers. If there are rivals, they aren't superpowers.
If there is another as strong as you, that means you can't project power worldwide freely, meaning you aren't a superpower.
That is why the USA wasn't a superpower until 1990. It needed the USSR to disband to untie its hands.

So the proper definition of a "super power" is when you can project your power freely across the entire globe?

Yes, when you can affect the whole world without anyone being able to effectively challenge you beyond being shocked or deeply concerned and so on.
The USA can do it today, nobody else could ever do it.

>If there is another as strong as you, that means you can't project power worldwide freely, meaning you aren't a superpower.


You do realize that's not the definition most people (or any that I can think of besides you) use for the word "superpower" yes?

I mean fuck, Google gives you this

>a very powerful and influential nation (used especially with reference to the US and the former Soviet Union when these were perceived as the two most powerful nations in the world).

Miller's definition draws an explicit distinction between that of the superpower and that of the unopposed hegemon.

>a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony.

Dictionaries describe how a word is used, not define how it should be used or what it means. Thats why we have "Third World" in the dictionary as meaning poor or underdeveloped, when it actually means not aligned to USA or USSR during the Cold War.

Superpower meant exactly what it says. There are great powers (British Empire, or cold war USA and USSR), regional powers (German Empire before the Great Wars) and so on. The superpower is a single, one of thing. If there are two, they are actually great powers, and have to consider other great powers. The superpower has no rivals, and acts as it wishes, unopposed.

If you dislike my definition, propose your own that makes sense, and a hierarchy of the levels of power a state can have. I am willing to adjust myself.

In other words, modern Russia still has decades to go to actually challenge the United States of America on the global stage, even though they've regained their position of a world power?

>Dictionaries describe how a word is used, not define how it should be used or what it means. Thats why we have "Third World" in the dictionary as meaning poor or underdeveloped, when it actually means not aligned to USA or USSR during the Cold War.

How a word is used IS what it means. I say something, you understand it to be that thing, it means such, regardless of whatever it's original meaning was. Otherwise, you'd end up in an endless spiral of pedantry. Hell, I shouldn't even be using the words based around "you" since it's derived from "ye" only to be used when addressing equals in a formal situation or social superiors.

>Superpower meant exactly what it says.

By whom? WHo sets that? It's original usage, as far as I can trace, was coined by Nicholas Spykman to refer to the U.S., the British Empire, and the USSR back in 1943. Why isn't that controlling, and why should we be using your definition, which seems to also run into problems in being indistinguishable from "hegemon"?

>. The superpower is a single, one of thing. If there are two, they are actually great powers, and have to consider other great powers. The superpower has no rivals, and acts as it wishes, unopposed.

And I can baselessly assert any definition I please. WHAT MAKES YOURS THE "CORRECT" DEFINITION YOU STUPID SHIT?

>If you dislike my definition, propose your own that makes sense, and a hierarchy of the levels of power a state can have. I am willing to adjust myself.

I would think that Miller's definition is perfectly suitable. A superpower can project nation destroying levels of destructive power to anywhere in the world, and to more than one part of the world at the same time.

That is distinct from it being able to do so in every instance for every nation, of course, which thus doesn't preclude the existence of rivals, even rival superpowers.

The moment Russia can challenge the USA, neither of them are superpowers, because a superpower can't be challenged.
They'd both be great powers or some other term you like, but neither could act independently without feat of the other opposing him.

>How a word is used IS what it means.
I am sorry, but this is false, and very easy to prove. On /pol/ right now people use "google" to refer to black americans. This isn't what the word means however, regardless of them using it as such.

>regional powers (German Empire before the Great Wars)

It was a Great Power though

>I would think that Miller's definition is perfectly suitable. A superpower can project nation destroying levels of destructive power to anywhere in the world, and to more than one part of the world at the same time.
>That is distinct from it being able to do so in every instance for every nation, of course, which thus doesn't preclude the existence of rivals, even rival superpowers.

In which case you or Miller need to propose a new term for that exact situation, which I am referring to as superpower. As it is a situation that can occur, since it does currently with the USA.

>I am sorry, but this is false, and very easy to prove. On /pol/ right now people use "google" to refer to black americans

So? It's not like words only have one definition that spans across all of time and space. If it's reasonable to assume that such a meaning is intended in that context, well then "google" means black americans. On /pol/.

>This isn't what the word means however, regardless of them using it as such.

I can't understand what you mean by this. By proper, originalist grammar, "them" is reflexive, and can only be used by someone to refer to himself or herself, or as a group collectively speaking to refer to themselves. You are talking about a community of "/pol/, about an action that you disapprove of and do not partake in. Please learn to write properly.

>In which case you or Miller need to propose a new term for that exact situation, which I am referring to as superpower. As it is a situation that can occur, since it does currently with the USA.

You mean, "Hegemon"? It's something that's been in the political science discourse for a very, very long time. They even write up papers discussing the impact of hegemonic action on world systems.

>You mean, "Hegemon"? It's something that's been in the political science discourse for a very, very long time.

Okay, I'll switch to using it when I am writing in english. Let me rephrase another post then and you can give it a look.

Using the new words our friend provided me with, lets define hegemon as the sole power that can do whatever it pleases, superpower as a state that can project power worldwide, but is still subject to other superpowers meddling (making it a modern "great power" which would be relegated to colonial era discussion), and regional powers are states that can project power within their geographic region.
So the USA is currently a hegemon, and has been since 1990, when its last political enemy stopped attempting imperialism and we can agree nowadays Russia can't prevent the USA from acting, except possibly within its own borders. Recently Russia tried to force a truce in Syria, and USA backed agents broke it instantly, because USA can do what it wants.
If Russia were to gain strength, for example during the upcoming conflict south of China in the trade sea, it could challenge the USA and take away their hegemon status.

So we know for sure that it was the American-backed Muhammads who've violated the truce?

It was a mixed nation NATO crew that violated the truce by bombing some Syrian fortress. Of course they were not american, and were a diverse crew of british, polish, french, etc non-american not-americans.

So, their vassals?

More or less. Germany is trying to change that by asking for EU army, but all it does currently is have the USA move funding from Germany to Poland, trying to make it a leading force.

Imagine the horror of managing to kill two men for every one you lose and still being outnumbered and overrun

you are right if we limit it to mainly between 1700-1880s

t. turk

You now understand what the French felt in 1814 during the Battle of Paris and what the Germans felt in 1945 during the Battle of Berlin

Only the dead can know peace from Russian zerg rush

winrar

So why were they so weak at the start?

Yes.
In any case, it's childish as fuck to cry about numerical superiority. Numerical superiority isn't as easy to achieve as people think, you still have to mobilize, clothe, feed, and maneuver your forces. Just having numerical superiority means nothing, you have many examples of vast armies beaten by smaller armies. Warfare doesn't work like in video games.
Nor does cold mean anything, Russians are cold too. Cold and snow is something to be expected, so is mud, and those affected Russians as much as they affected anyone else.
The fact Russians often managed to exploit their manpower potential and environment is a good thing, since it allowed them to prevail.
What's the problem here? It's not epic? Real life doesn't care about that shit.
Besides if you read historical accounts many speak of how Russians are excellent soldiers, but were often badly led. When they had good leadership difference could be extreme (see their WW1 defeats and compare them with Brusilov offensive in the same war).
>human wave tactics
You don't even know what human wave tactics are. Few here seem to know.
In any case, in WW2, most ignore that Nazi Germany and her allies had bigger manpower and industrial potential, and practically had a single front to care about. Soviets lost vast tracts of land and much of manpower with it. They still prevailed, because they used what they had better (and obviously enjoyed the advantage of defending early on).
They didn't win thanks to ''hordes'' as idiots here think. In any case German soldiers rated their Soviet counterparts far better than they rated Americans and British, what do you think about that?

>On /pol/ right now people use "google" to refer to black americans. This isn't what the word means however
/pol/ speaks a specific dialect. In said dialect "google" means black amercans. It's a literal meaning of the word.
It's not hard to understand.

they had much more manpower than PLC and Sweden (their 2 immediate rivals)

Stalin purged the military command, some 50.000 officers were killed and they were caught off-guard by the betrayal of the Non-Aggression pact.

well it was a siege that lasted a very long time, many soldiers died of starvation and disease, it was another case of British generals thinking that anyone who isn't white is incompetent and they rushed to Kut too fast, my Great Grandfather fought in Mesopotamia during WW1, luckily he wasn't at Kut

Swedes has enough northeren terrain to understand what Winter is. And what makes The Great Northeren War into what it is, is that Sweden understood warfare enough to field artillery and try to take over their neighbors and trade routes.

There are wars Sweden has lost over Winter, like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolean_Death_March
>Recruit 10.000 soldatos and gear up
>Just walk over a big county
>Try to take the trade capital of the region
>Lose 4.000 men (some deserted)
>Fail at taking city
>Winter comes
>Badly geared
>Runner finally comes in with the death of Karl XII
>Try to get back to Sweden
>Decide to go for the fastest route: Just 55km
>3000 dies in the fucking mountains
>Another 700 dies after getting back to Sweden
>2100 survives, 600 where badly crippled from weather alone