How come soviets won? Their only tactic was a zerg rush and most of them didn't even have rifles!

How come soviets won? Their only tactic was a zerg rush and most of them didn't even have rifles!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AATAvMm3Kvs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

What bout their "die move?"

...

Because of sheer numbers and the size of Russia. It also didn't help that Hitler was a complete retard when it comes to tactics and strategies.

Zerg rush is myth created by German generals in their memoirs and by their apologists like Paul Carell.

Manstein, Guderian and others portrayed themselves as all-knowing supermen who could literally read Stalin's mind and would surely won the war if not several "ifs". Those were Hitler's incompetent interference and Soviet massive numbers. This was nothing but a lie, but this stuck in popular culture. Why? For the Soviet numbers and rushes, the reasons are as follows:

1. Soviet's own account of the war is notoriously unreliable and clouded with their own propagandist purposes. What Germans gave was therefore accepted as honest.
2. The Soviets actually were throwing the lives of their soldiers down the drain, but nothing on the scale that the myth would suggest. However all you need is to point out a few documented cases for people to accept that this was the norm.
3. It sort of suited the mindset of Western leaders to dehumanize people on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

In reality, the Soviets were masters of deceptions and achieving local superiority. The deception convinced the German generals that there were hundreds of divisions that never existed. This had serious strategic consequences, as Germans were shifting their armies in anticipation for attacks that would never come. On the other hand, Soviets massed their units on small points in which they wanted to achieve their breakthrough, creating the illusion of unending numbers.

Erm...no. They always rushed Germans with fists.

Bollocks
Russians have relied on zerg rush since Napoleon, pic related
Their precious zerg rush failed in WW1 but it didn't stop them from using it again in WW2

>Zerg rush is a myth

Welp, let's have a look at some major battles of World War 2 and losses, shall we?
Oh wait, Soviets always have more casualities, sometimes even five or six time higher!

That either means that their generals were utter shit or that the zerg rush was a real thing.

>generals were utter shit
>or that the zerg rush was a real thing

why not both?

Jassny-Kishniev, Oder-Vistula, Belgrade.

You know, it's almost like the offensives late in the war when they were crushing the Germans actually were crushing the Germans!

Or why don't you look at Rudiger Overmans's work on eastern front casualties. To get a whole war ratio of 2.4:1 in favor of the Germans, when the Germans were inflicting about 20:1 in Barbarossa, it means the Soviets have to make that back somewhere.

>it's russia's fault that they destroyed the french army comprehensively enough to give them an overwhelming superiority of numbers

:^)

>Soviets always have more casualities

That's true.

>sometimes even five or six time higher!

That's also true, but only partially. The Germans and Soviets had different methods of counting causalities which cause such numbers disparity. Germans counted 1) wounded who were pulled out, 2) dead, 3) missing. The light wounded German soldiers who could return to their unit after initial patching up (i.e. without being returned from the front) weren't even counted. The Soviets counted 1) replaceable causalities, 2) irreplaceable causalities. The former represented all wounded who could return to the front within some foreseeable time, the latter included all dead, missing, crippled or even wounded who could return to normal service, albeit after lengthy healing.

Many historians equate soviet irreplaceable with German dead and call it a day, while those numbers document something completely different. Considering who sloppy the historiography of the Eastern Front was (and to some extent, still is) it would take several decades until such inaccurate data is weed out.

In reality, Soviets lost tons of soldiers, but not on such crazy scale. Also, basically half of Soviet casualties took place in the very first half year of war.

>have overwhelmingly superior numbers
>battle should be a walk in the park
>end up with huge casualties while barely inflicting any to the enemy

Yep, that's human waves tactics

>Stalingrad
>Kursk
>Moscow
>Kharkov

Of course, soviets didn't ALWAYS have higher casualities but if you look at the most significant battles you can see that their casualities are usually higher.

Yeah, claiming that their casualities were that much higher was exaggerating and much of the myth was probably German propaganda about "Slavic hordes".

Zerg rushes are literally how Iran got a bunch of teenagers to beat Saddam.

if they used silly and suicidal zerg rush tactics, how come the ratio of men killed in combat is about 1.2 (soviet) to 1 (german), were the germans that incompetent?

>1 (german)
sorry, meant (axis)

>Of course, soviets didn't ALWAYS have higher casualities but if you look at the most significant battles you can see that their casualities are usually higher.

And again, to end a war with 2.4:1 loss ratios when they started at around 20:1, means they won it back somewhere.

And it's not like the Germans didn't habitually undersell their own losses in OKH records, which by the way break down completely come 1945 when they were suffering their heaviest losses.

Germans suck at war.

People love to talk mad shit about Human Wave tactics, but it was actually Ingenious and Zuhkov should be praised. Russian manpower was actually literally infinite. Zuhkov understood this and just threw those russians into minefields, machine guns, and tanks with impunity because he understood that the primary goal in life for a Russian is to die. If a Russian did not die in combat, he was seen as a failure in life. The Commissars did not exist to shoot those who retreated, but to shoot all survivors after a successful battle.

>zerg rush
>retreat
>burn your own towns
>wait for winter
>???
>profit
Russian strategy, gitting it done since 1812

Zhukov meme is the best thing that happened to Veeky Forums

good old Georgy 'I lost count already' Zhukov

See? I knew the fake Zhukov quotes would bring in actual idiots.

Let's not forget that the average Russian has little more intelligence than a cow. The finer points of military tactics are completely unknown to him. Zhukov understood that, in order to maximise their fighting potential, the Russians had to be herded towards the enemy position like cattle. The secondary role of the infamous political Commissars was not to shoot those who retreated, but to trigger stampedes that would drown the enemy in hordes of ravenous Russians.

It's a good meme though, we gotta keep it going

also, checking

pretty much this.
also, dat chin

>no rifles
Literally invented by that shitty movie Enemy at the Gates.

This idea that the Red Army was somehow under-equipped is complete bullshit. The Soviet industry was more productive than the German from the beginning.

It was more of a tank rush. From early on they had more, but weaker tanks and later had air superiority and also were better supplied with ammo, food, fuel and winter clothing.

>Literally invented by that shitty movie Enemy at the Gates.

Nope. There are reports from many eyewitnesses' who saw penal battalions go into battle without all of them being armed. It's not a myth.

>penal battalions

Germany was fighting on several fronts, not just the Soviets, which were in turn supported heavily with supplies by the other Allies.

>allies were struggling with Hitler youth

>muh last day of the war
The Germans were fighting in the Balkans, Italy, Africa, not just France after D-day, idiot.

Germany lost more men on the Eastern Front than all the other fronts put together. It's true Russia was receiving a lot of supplies from the Allies but supplies don't win wars on their own. Germany stalled out in the intractable Russian countryside, got frozen in winter, and then clawed uselessly against the wall of bodies Stalin put between the Wehrmacht and Moscow.

It was a very Roman-esque victory really. Outlast the enemy and eventually defeat him due to logistical advantages and bottomless tenacity even in the face of total slaughter of your own men.

>The Germans were fighting in the Balkans, Italy, Africa, not just France after D-day, idiot.
Germans had barely any forces in those places.

Their army was on the east front, together with the Romanian and Hungarian armies, not to mention volunteers.

And they were defeated, because Hitler and German leadership were retarded to go in like that.

They NEVER stood a chance against the USSR.

why do "the allies" get so butthurt when people say USSR won ww2

i think it's because they identify their countries with france, who surrendered, while the USSR fought off the nazis

Germans suck at diplomacy.*

Why did they lose to USSR then. Germans weren't even fighting alone on the eastern front, the only front that mattered I might add.

>when people say USSR won ww2
Because they didn't do it on their own?

If they had lost, the Nazis would have won Europe, with the exception of a closed up island off the coast.

There is no way US would have been able or willing to invade Europe and fight off the Germans on THEIR OWN soil.

This is the reason why the Nazis sent virtually all their forces to defeat Stalin.

>many eyewitnesses

Such as?

The Allies invaded through Italy in 43 and then in France in 44. What the fuck are you talking about?

patton.

I was talking provided the Nazis hadn't been defeated by USSR and actually could fight back on the Western front and nod just have 2 guys in a bunker trying to delay 20000 "brave americans"

They literally (literal) were cattle. The documentary "Enemy at the Gates" shows this in the beginning with the Russians being crowded onto a train, much like cattle.

ITT Russian cucks pretending WW2 was just Germany vs USSR

Pathetic retards.

These are mentioned in two memoires;

The first one is of a Norweigan SS Soldier called Ivar Skarlo

The other one was in either the memoires of Hans von Lucks/Siegfried Knappe/William Lubbeck. I read them back to back and I forgot which one it was. I think it's William Lubeck.

>Let's not forget that the average Russian has little more intelligence than a cow

Your ideological reasons for throwing a shit fit cloud my ability to judge if you're being sarcastic or if you're being really serious

It was USSR supplied by allies vs Nazi Germany supplied and militarily supported(as in they sent soldiers to the eastern front) by allies

later allies arrive in europe for political reasons

meanwhile americans were fighting the most elite of nazi science as shown in the documentary "SS Doomtrooper"

hey guys, quick question. did the soviets introduce more advanced small arms during the entirety of the great patriotic war?

>the great patriotic war
Don't call it that.

well the soviet part of ww2 then.

Did the ruskies introduce more advanced small arms during the war?

What will have happened if the Nazis had managed to BTFO USSR.

Who would have stopped them and taken back Europe?

NOBODY

>"Winning the Great Patriotic War was my greatest error in life. In truth, I was rooting for Hitler the entire time. I pray every night that the Americans will nuke Russia into oblivion to fix my mistake."

What did he mean by this?

desu i don't think it would be that easy for the nazis to hold onto all that territory, just think of the sheer amount of resistance getting worse and worse, especially with US&GB potentially knocking on their door

rev up those zhukov quotes

Kek. I love seeing European """"""""education"""""""" in action.

>the sheer amount of resistance
there were volunteers from all over europe in the ss, and generally on the side of the nazis

>US&GB potentially knocking

no way, no way these two would be able to fight and win a war, where they invade Nazi Germany and have to face their REAL army, on their OWN soil, in Germany

besides, they didn't have to hold on to it for very long, just enough to sort things out

they knew this and that's why they pushed so hard eastward

Where did this meme came from? Germans are rather good at diplomacy and scheming in general.

Even with two retards like Ribbentrop and Hitler in charge, they've managed to revive the war machine, wipe their arses with Versaille treaty and annex Austria and Czechoslovakia; without anything but grave concerns from Allies.

>there were volunteers from all over europe in the ss, and generally on the side of the nazis

Spooky

Russians had the best strategists of the war.

Prove me wrong.

Allies did jack shit though.

reasons why i can be objective

1. i am neither from russia nor from usa
2. i speak both russian and english (and my own language)

reasons why you can't be objective

1. because you are an indoctrinated american

>american
>education

Where, don't just throw names around. Name the book, give a source

What strategies did they even employ besides "just wait for Germany to get tired"?

You're not objective though, you sound like a communist shill who knows nothing about the western front.

>Allies did jack shit though.
Yes, they didn't die like flies which by the Russian logic means they didn't do anything.

>you sound like a communist shill
>muh communist boogey man
>muh shills

You are literally indoctrinated, just look at your lingo.

True. He knows jack shit about struggles Allies had against italian """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""army"""""""""""""""""""""" and Hitler youth.

it was a joke user.

>die like flies.
>britain literally was on the verge of losing it's army at dunkirk.

Zerg rush, mutalisk spam.

Not him, but making claims like this, which are quite honestly ludicrous, don't do you any favors when trying to claim objectivity.

It's pretty objectively noted that the Western Allies faced more of the Luftwaffe's air assets by a huge margin, and if you count Luftwaffe personnel equal to Heer personnel, you had a 50/50 split between the Eastern Front commitments and the commitments to the collection of fronts the Western Allies were either fighting in or were threatening by July of 1944.

>literally 1 wounded german per bunker shooting at le brave allies, while playing solitaire

that fucking file name

>Luftwaffe's air assets
>le meme american fighters shooting down le ebil nazis and hollywood making a movie about it with special effects and all

here's a word of common wisdom

winning == having boots on the ground, soviets knew this, that's why their air forces did nothing in the ww2 and they still pulled of a victory

nazis might as well use the idle planes somewhere

for

Such objectivity you're displaying.

Here's WW2 contribution for defeating the Nazis

USSR - 80%
US - 10%
UK - 5%
Italy - 5%

It may surprise you that these men only ever wrote one book;

Their memoires.

Heres the amount of nazi aircraft shot down during ww2
Western front 80%
Eastern front 20%

>their air force did nothing.
>muffled sturmoviks in the distance.

Be honest, do you really believe Nazis would have won if they could use those aircrafts else where?

youtube.com/watch?v=AATAvMm3Kvs

Not necessarily, and of course, you have the logistical issues to think of: It's enormously easier for Germany to put a Luftflotte together over Germany itself than it is near Dnepropetrovsk (or anywhere else you care to mention on the Eastern Front).

But of course, there's a big difference between

>The Germans win a total victory and completely annihilate the Soviet state

and

>The Soviets win a total victory and completely annihilate the German state.

And with a huge chunk of not just planes, but of artillery and ancillary transport structure to support said planes, as well as however you're going to measure the lost production from strategic bombing, to the actually not insignificant at all deployment of troops to ancillary Western theaters (many of whom would never even see combat, simply being bypassed and irrelevant to the war) being able to be redirected East, yes, you are looking at a VERY different war, especially once the Soviets started to counterattack and the logistical pressures on the Germans ease up as they give more ground.

you made a good post, you have nuance, i see your point

still by the end of 1942 ussr wasnt the losing side anymore and d-day and american envolvement in europe happened much later

Except that by the end of 1942 ground forces on the Eastern Front were on a more or less even keel again; you had the traditional Soviet winter offensives, and then the traditional Soviet spring offensives that failed badly, and the summer of 43 started with a German offensive, not a Soviet one. Turned out disastrously of course, and probably sealed the fate of things, but the war is only irretrievably lost in the absolutist sense with Kursk, not with Stalingrad.

By that time, we have well over a million men, Heertruppen, committed to Western theaters. Italy being the biggest (and would swell to slightly over a million alone), but also an extended garrison in Norway (13 divisions, IIRC), the troops in France, the troops needing to take over garrison duties in Yugoslavia and Greece with the collapse of Italy, which was definitely due to Western efforts, etc.

A good chunk of why the momentum turned against Germany in close of 42-43 are the developments of other fronts, not just the Eastern, which necessitated deployment of reserve forces to said other fronts instead of continuing the same level of commitment to the Eastern Front.

>2016
>Believing this lie

Died germans
Eastern front - 72%
West front - 28%

Destroyed german tanks
Estern front - 75%
West front - 25%

Destroyed german artiller
Eastern front - 74%
West front - 26%

Not him, but Kursk was already doomed from the start, with the German army simple not the capacity to encircle sovietic forces in Kursk even if the achieved a breakthrough because of the sovietic reserves.

Guys, I think we're taking Zhukovposting too far

Its not that they were lacking rifles, its just that they didnt want to give rufles to the ukrainians for a laugh so they made up this meme of being undersupplied

>training bomb dogs to run under your own tanks
Soviets were playing mindgames with the germans so hard

PPS-43 comes to mind. Several MGs were also introduced, but in relatively little numbers. USSR focused largely on producing more of weapons that that were already tried and tested instead of actively implementing new ones. They even back pedalled on implementing SVT as the primary infantry rifle as they had planned before the war started.

zerg rush is the most valid military tactic

russia once thought of invading china but they calculated that if all the chinese started walking towards moscow, and whole russian army kept firing at them, they would still make it moscow with a significant amount of people
so they didnt attack

>zerg rush
there you have it

[citation needed]

we're gonna use meme magic to retroactively raise the soviet casualty rate in WW2