I know fuck all about history but I was wondering, did the soviets really zerg rush the germans...

Zhukov personally said that battlefield success is measured in the amount of frontoviki cut down by german machine gun fire.

I'd just like to interject for a moment comrades. What you're referring to as Human wave tactics, is in fact, Deep Battle and Human Wave tactics,
or as I've recently taken to calling it, masterstrategy and tactishits. Human wave is not a strategy unto itself, but merely a tactic made useful by based Deep Battle,
a vital strategy thanks to which Russia exists.

Many Veeky Forums users mistake Deep Battle for Human wave tactics every day, without realizing it.
Through a peculiar turn of events, the Deep Battle strategy is often called "Human wave tactics", and many of Veeky Forumsterics are not aware that it is basically
the Deep Battle, a Russian masterstrategy

There really are Human wave tactics, but Deep Battle is no part of it. Deep Battle is different, much more civilized and stuff.
This is essential for you to realize. Human wave tactics often include Deep Battle, but basically it's Human wave tactics with Deep Battle added.
All the so called "Massed assault" are really Deep Battle.

t. Georgy Zhukov

>did the soviets really zerg rush the germans?
Yes.

Deep battle does not involve human waves. Tukhachevsky himself is not known to have used them, dude pulled back when he knew he was fucked.

>Estonians fighting Estonians

>Not playing with your toy Estonians

Tukan did not saw war since 1921, though. And I doubt Russians utilized the deep battle against Poles.

Were can I read about this?

>Tuchachevsky
>best general

He is relevant only because he supported motorization of Red army and tank warfare, he sucked in practical warfare.

*citation needed*

"I hate Germans who try to invade me but I hate Russians even more" - Georgy Zhukov

Source: Lurk moar

he was a great strategist, mediocre tactician
kinda like Rommel, but the opposite

>did the germans really zerg rush the soviets?¨
yes

>casualties higher than the number of troops
how?

loosing most of your army thanks to the shit supply lines is literally opposite of being great strategist. He was too rash.

Reinforcements

>but the opposite
You are not very good at the whole reading thing, are you?

Soviets counted literally everyone who got wounded by anything as casualty, as well as tank with broken machinegun was considered destroyed.

Everyone counts wounded as casualties.

>136,830 troops
>170,000 casualties

Truly the pinnacle of Zhukov doctrine.

Most answers here are Stormfront-tier.
Soviets used 2 squads of 8 men each that cooperated, Rifle one had 1 DP-27, 6 rifles and officer with pistol, rifle or SMG, SMG one had 1 DP-27 and 7 submachineguns. Rifle squad covered SMG squad until SMG Squad reached enemy lines and captured them.

>Zhukov doctrine

No. Germans counted only those that could not fight as wounded.

In contemporary context, such as what would be cited on wikipedia, everyone counts wounded as casualties.

Imagine being an early war German fighting the Russians.

>Hordes of Russians rushing forward, some of them not even armed with anything beyond a red flag
>Mow them down with your MG in great numbers
>They just keep coming and coming
>You mowed down so many of them you cant see anything beyond the giant pile of corpses that they use to their advantage to surprise you

>Be Khanpasha Nuradilov
>face this in Stalingrad

That's pretty much what it was like being an American on the Pacific Front for the entire war, except they all had weapons.

It cant be cited on WIkipedia when Germans did not recorded that.

>Casualties and losses
>63,345 wounded
Sure looks like they recorded it to me, you illiterate fuck.

I said that that they recorded only those that could not fight you autistic retard.

Proofs?

>No. Germans counted only those that could not fight as wounded.
take your meds please

Happened sometimes, sure. But it wasn't really anything like Enemy At the Gates portrays

It didn't happen, but several Soviet Commanders (especially Zhukov&Stalin) had no regard at all for the lives of their men.

Where is the proofs

having ´´no regard at all for the lives of your men´´ is literally only way how can you actualy win a war
Look at France, Benelux, Danmark, Yugoslavia, Greece
All those operations would look different if soldiers would fight to death instead of surrendering

Are you fucking retarded? I just cited what i said 7 replies above and its not proof for you?

That men will die is inevitable, how many die is something you can take steps to mitigate.

The difference in Leningrad casualty rates from Govorov took over from Zhukov is a good example.

Yeah. The Soviets were dumb animals with sticks for guns ridi horses and that's why they lost to the Germans with impeccable tactics and vastly overpowering equipment.

oh wait...

...

So tell me a single reason to loose more men when you can achieve your goals with less casualities.

> So tell me a single reason to loose more men

1: being gay

>some of them not even armed
Where does this meme come from? The Soviet Union was one big weapons factory. They literally had 10x more tanks than Germany when Barbarossa was launched.

Probably a combination of WWI when the Russians really did only have 1 rifle to 10 men in some instances and Enemy at the Gates. The Soviet Union also had supply problems for a lot of the fresh units after the major encirclements of Barbarossa happened which meant some of the fresh units were seriously underequipped.

Enemy at the Gates and from German generals that claim it because loosing to enemy that is just too good is worse then loosing to enemy that uses no tactics and has 1000000x trilion times more soldiers then you.
There is video on YouTube with Paulus where he claims it.

They were underequipped, but it was mostly for artilery and AT-weapons. If someone had no rifle, he had same task as in WW1, he just had task to do something that he dont have to use weapons.

Soviets utilised their advantage in manpower and territory to allow for fuckups that could have and in some cases did loose the war for other nations, like France and later Germany.
But they won because they used their second chance wisely. Getting steamrolled all the way to Moscow and desperately throwing poorly trained unequiped soldiers to hold the Germans for few more days but at the same time not getting tempted to use the strategic reserve of the highly trained, winter equipped far east front armies untill they were absolutely sure that it's safe with regards to Japan's and that they are going to make a real difference is just one example.

Germany had actualy equal population to SU in winter 1941, and this does not include population of occupied territories under German controll and other axis. Germans just had innefective economy and conscription.

>he had same task as in WW1
The task in WWI was to hold a broom over the parapet and shout BANG. I'm not even shitting you.

>zerg rushing is actually a pretty shit tactic when facing technologically advanced enemies

I feel like American natives did this a lot but I know nothing John sneew

They didn't. Native Americans generally used skirmish tactics because they were almost always outnumbered and outgunned.

Like in the movie? No, they didn't do banzai suicide charges.
Over power the nazi with superior numbers? Yes.

Where did yoy get those numbers? Germany had 80 mil and Soviets 170 mil according to 1939 censuses.

There was one unit at the Mamaev Kurgan that supposedly didn't get armed but had to attack anyway.

Do you really think real life and war is some motherfucking game and it can be summarized by some vg meme?
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Потери_в_Великой_Отечественной_войне
But this is simple. Soviet military losses due to combat actions total at 6.3mil.
German and its allies losses - 3.6 and 0.6 mil.
6.3 / (3.6+0.6) = about 1.4 ratio.
And don't forget - attacking army needs to have 1:3 ratio in general for succesful action (1:7 in urban area) and experience more casualties in process. Soviets managed to lead on offensive till the very Berlin, and capture it.
Not the Moscow got captured, but Berlin. You really don't have to wonder why soviets have more casualties.

>Zhukov doctrine
>"I must unite the Russian people under one graveyard."

funny thing is the Soviets were outnumbered by a million men at the start of the war and they still decided to constantly counterattack

Who are you going to complain to for poor strategy? Your superior in command? Stalin?

That's according to Russian wiki. Eng wiki states between 8-14 mil according to mainstream Russian sources (Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Defence Archive). Not even the theories about much larger numbers. There was litteraly no family without several dead. In my family who were living in SU at that time from the 3 men that were drafted only one - my grandpa returned. And he got badly injured as well. 6 mil seems very low.

>Germans

Are you retarded user? Or just pretending you don't see the flag?

>Soviets utilised their advantage in manpower

Soviets barely had 120 million to Germany's 80 million, and that's counting all the ethnicity who wanted nothing to do with the country, and people who were just hard to reach and enlist.

During the course of the war until the very last year they were losing far more men than that population difference, and dealing with considerable food shortages on top of that.

I have no idea how they kept drafting more men while Germany was outnumbered 10 to 1 in the last battles, that doesn't make much sense to me.

youtube.com/watch?v=I98P1AxQRUM&t=1017s

/his -> no knowledge

Its 170/80 which is more than 1:2. Perhaps soviet population was!also younger (a guess didn't check it) and soviers were much more hardcore at using women and children both in war economy and even in the army. Also Germans fought on several fronts.

Soviets lost territories with a lot of population very quickly: Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the west of Russia. It's at least 30% of all their people. Germans used them as slaves.

Guess what, men from the lost territories (like my family in Moldova) were already in the army by the time they were captured. And many have evacuated. The people under occupation were mostly women, children and old people. Young guys that somehow got stuck there were either involved with the partisan movment, joined the occupation as polizai or were part of national militias that fought both sides. But all weee somehow involved and armed.

The more I've learned about ww2 after high school the more I realize the Germans could never have won. There is literally nothing they could have done so that they would have won.

This is the best opinion I have read in a while. Winning WW2 was impossible for Germany. Whoever thinks otherwise has been playing way too much vidya or watching way too much Chinese cartoons.

Yes. It resulted in embarrassingly high casualties as well.

Yes it was a real longshot. Still, what if Japan joined in preventing reinforcements and Germans were properly equiped for winter in Moscow?
Or did you mean they couldn't have controlled the huge territory even if barbarosa was successful?
I think they could by establishing smaller free but influenced ethnic states inside USSR. Including in Russia proper by bringing in pre communist elites from immigration. But they couldn't think like that because of their nazi ideology and alienate the locals instead. On the other hand they wouldn't have invaded if they weren't nazis.
But I do think that SU was rotten and could have been toppled but Hitlers autism and barbarity made it into a zero sum game for most soviets. Better be opressed by your own kind than by genocidal foreigners.

Not the WW2 that unfolded but there surely are alternatives that could have happened.

I think the Nazis could have made lasting peace in the west if they would have been ready to immediately release all the conquered territory in West except Alsac-Lorraine. In the east they maybe could have annexed the old territories that the second reich had while granting the poles (limited) self represantation.

After that who knows how history would have unfolded.

>Still, what if Japan joined in preventing reinforcements

Then the Soviets lose out on the all of ONE division transferred from the Far East military district after the non-aggression pact was signed.

operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

>Germans were properly equiped for winter in Moscow?

If you want to bring up winter equipment, how much in the way of food and fuel and ammo are you leaving behind? Your capacity to transport stuff to the front is quite limited.

Not the guy you're responding to.

If they actually recruited 'liberated' Eastern Europeans instead of using them for slavery it could have been significantly more difficult for the Soviets.
At least i recall seeing a documentary where the Ukrainians initially welcomed them as heroes

>If they actually recruited 'liberated' Eastern Europeans instead of using them for slavery it could have been significantly more difficult for the Soviets.

Not him, but they did get several hundred thousand Hiwis. They probably could have gotten more by a lighter step, but given the poor performance of the ones that did fight, I doubt they would have been something that could have tilted the balance of the war.

>At least i recall seeing a documentary where the Ukrainians initially welcomed them as heroes
People had good memories about Germans from WW1. When Fritz passed there second time he was roflstomping red army by the speed of lightning so he could happily disregarded Ukies as subhumans.

Pretty much this.

Sometimes I wonder what the war would be like if it weren't for the officer purge. I still think the Soviets would have shit the bed at the beginning, but I also wonder if there would have been less loyalty.

All of the what-ifs only serve to prolong the defeat. The only scenarios where Germany wins are all ridiculous like Germany getting nukes and leveling cities.

Could Germany have survived if it hadn't invaded the USSR? Was fascism sustainable sandwiched between liberalism and communism

Although I commend you for going beyond the whole "lololoblitzkriegepiccc" deal, Deep Operation was not feasible with the post-purge STAVKA until sufficient experience had been gained after disprorportionate cost to the USSR through loss of men, materials, and time.

Considering geographic location of Germany, their limitations of resources compared to the Soviet Union, and overall geopolitical situation not favoring Germany globally, one could argue that one of the greatest defenses Germany had against Russia was its dictatorship.

Looking at Franco's Spain I would argue yes, Fascism is absolutely compatible with a peacetime state.

Unlikely; sooner or later, the British are going to drag the U.S. into the war, and even if they can't land on the European mainland, you're going to see nukes on Berlin come August 1945.

To be fair, Deep Operation also needed quite a bit of work from where Tuchashevsky left it off; the multi-axial attack idea is neat in theory, but in practice requires a truly ridiculous amount of buildup to be able to at least threaten to breakthrough along a frontline that can stretch almost 2,000 km long.

Even if you have no purges, you'd probably need to salt the theory with wartime practicality, which will take some time.

They had poor performances because they barley have them equipment and treated them even worse than the Romanians. Hiwis were actuall essential in the later stages of Stalingrad, and when actually given equipment and mixed into German units they performed quite well.

>Contemporary estimates
>Tactical victory
Gee, I wonder who could be behind this article.

not that user, but the way Germany was being run at the time, what with all of the jobs essentially in the Arms industry I'm certain the economy would've gutted itself if they didn't start invading shit.

Mate, can you read? I wrote about military casualties DUE TO COMBAT ACTION. Direct casualties. Not counting MIAs, POWs, and indirect casualties.
But fuck it, alright, let's do it your way.
8-14 mil of casualties on Soviet side? Ok, where are your numbers for Axis then? Ohhh, it's based on your subjective perseption and a story about your relatives, I see now... We don't need numbers then, yes?
But let's give it a try, why not?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
Here's an english wiki for ya, good? We have:
11 mil operational losses (includes POWs, MIAs and Indirect casualties)
8 mil irrecoverable losses (with returned POWs and MIAs)
6.3 mil casualties of direct combat actions. Oh fuck mate, whaddayaknow? Russian wiki did not lie??? Who would have guessed?!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II
Gonna cite Overman, cos he's numbers are closest to Soviet, so why woudn't I?
5 mil irrecoverable losses
8 mil operation losses (irrecoverable + alive 3 mil POWs held by USSR)

And I'm too lazy to find eastern front losses beside Germany, so I'm gonna cite the same Krivosheev's data:
.7 mil direct casualties + 0.1 mil inderect + 0.6 mil live POWs = 1.4 mil operational

What do we get?
Operational: 11 / ( 8 + 1.4 ) = 1.2 to 1 ratio
Irrecoverable: 8 / ( 5 + .8 ) = 1.3 to 1 ratio
Shit, son, I still see no zerg rush. How so???
Let's even take the wildest reestimates of Soviet losses, that are pulled out of modern russian liberal's arses (14 mil)
14 / 8 = 1.75 to 1. Modafukker, still no zerg rush!!!1111

But it's amazing how people in this thread continue to discuss it without refering to any actual numbers. Case can be solved in like one minute.

Are you upset? You sound upset

>There is literally nothing they could have done so that they would have won.
You are completely and utterly wrong. Kill yourself.

Kewl comment, mate. Pls contribute more. I like your arguments!

Looks like you could use some improvement yourself

You still sound pretty upset and using cringeworthy words like "kewl" won't help it lad. Do you have anger issues? Want to talk about it?

wow this comment is retarded