How did this absolute mad man get away with using only human wave tactics?

>invented and perfected by rokkosovky

Invented by tukachevsky actually,perfected by no one.

How did this absolute mad man get away with using only pol shity shitposting tactics?

Go back to leftypol.you can sniff your own farts there

Bitch, communism is beyond borders or boards. The entire internet is /leftypol/.

why are there transactions and currency then

Because communism is in the dollar.

Lmao

>Gommunism has never been tried
>Gommunism is everywhere

How come gommies are so soft they can't even talk about their poop tier generals historically?

>mfw invented the one true counter to the upcoming greatest war my homeland had ever faced without even living to see it in action
> mfw killed by my own countrymen and denied all my past achievement just for political matters
> mfw cant even get recognition by some retards on an obscure website

Since Veeky Forums is having threads about history memes, it should be said that the Soviet union won for other reasons than human wave tactics which were never really used.

>human wave tactics which were never really used.

Meanwhile, zhukov:
>If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there.

>it should be said that the Soviet union won for other reasons

What other reasons?

ideology
what else do you expect from I*vfcists?

That's not human wave. Minefields are used to slow down your enemy, therefore you just tell your soldiers not to get slowed down

>therefore you just tell your soldiers not to get slowed down
>By running straight into them with no deviation at all

Also,what's order 227?

>ITT Soviet LARPers justifying human wave tactics

I did recognize him above! Ussr really sabotaged themselves with shit generals. They thought kulik was good and allowed "horse warfare" budyonny to incriminate and purge superior rokossovsky.

Superior understanding of logistics and strategy, as well as adopting tactics more suited for large-scale warfare

Can you give me some actual evidence that the Soviets used "human wave tactics"?

Oh yeah, how could we forget the other brilliant soviet tactics..uh pincer tactics? That's literally the only thing Zhukov did

>Superior understanding of logistics

In Hermann Hoth's book "Panzer Operations", he says that the Soviets were giving Germans on the central front supplies on accident for up to two days because they didn't know when the Germans took a town so they just sent supplies directly into German hands. Geniuses.

>strategy, as well as adopting tactics more suited for large-scale warfare

Claims not backed up by evidence. Soviets did proportionately worse in the environments and climates they should've done better at, and by the end of the first year of fighting the Germans had defeated 3 million Soviets.

>Can you give me some actual evidence that the Soviets used "human wave tactics"?

Just did with Order 227 and the minefield treatment. Order 227 "not one step back" is the definition of this. Not even tactical retreats or peripheral attacks were authorized by anything less than division commanders. The Germans had the concept of "Führen mit Auftrag/Auftragstaktik"which gave them flexibility at all levels. Even the other allies would never think of putting MG's to their own mens backs for taking cover in a better position on the battlefield a click or two back from the enemies line.

Oh yeah he did do that. He actually wasn't very good at it. Wasn't it Kluge and Manstein both who gave him the slip?

I know he actually invented it but he died before the war.

By having their undying loyalty.

RIGHT MEN?

lmao Zap is even wearing Soviet colors!

And kill them too.

back to pol

thats not what 227 was like by the way executions were very rare

Somehow his enemies were even dumber.

>No commander had the right to retreat without an order.

It was worse.

>Order No. 227 established that each front must create one to three penal battalions (штpaфбaт, штpaфнoй бaтaльoн, shtrafbat, shtrafnoy battalion) of up to 800 middle-ranking commanders and high-ranking commanders accused of disciplinary problems. Penal battalions were sent to the most dangerous sections of the front lines.[1] Each front had to create penal companies for privates and NCOs. By the end of 1942 there were 24,993 troops serving in penal battalions, which increased to 177,694 in 1943. The number decreased over the next two years to 143,457 and 81,766 soldiers in 1944 and 1945, respectively, for a total of 427,910 who were assigned to penal battalions during the course of the war.

>The total of Red Army personnel sentenced by court was 994,300, with 422,700 assigned to penal battalions and 436,600 imprisoned after sentencing. Not included are 212,400 deserters, who were not found and escaped the custody of the military districts.

Maybe those 200k deserters were the ones who joined the SS and helped the Germans fight at Stalingrad? Got wise like Andrey Vlasov did.

The order—popularized as the "Not one step back!" (Hи шaгy нaзaд!, Ni shagu nazad!) Order—introduced severe punishments, including summary execution, for unauthorized retreats.

Also:
>if you don't agree that communist generals were the best you must be a polack

I'd say go back to leftypol, but it sucks there.

the russians had more than 5 good generals, the best germans were at least equal to the russians but the dire straights of the early ww2 meant only competent people stayed in charge.

in practice the blocking detachments rarely shot people

>Get away with
Umm.. sweetie cakes...

He had more humans than the G*rmans had bullets.

this has been debunked more days than you have lived

>Maybe those 200k deserters were the ones who joined the SS and helped the Germans fight at Stalingrad? Got wise like Andrey Vlasov did.
Risking one's life for risking one's life for different side that won't treat you any better? That's not very "wise".

Also your comparion is wrong, Vlasov didn't desert. He was captured and joined Germans so he could weasel his way to the west.

I thought that the UK and US both sat around the 500,000 mark?

its a fucking false chart?

First off nice Reddit spacing you fucking 12 year old.
>In Hermann Hoth's book "Panzer Operations", he says that the Soviets were giving Germans on the central front supplies on accident for up to two days because they didn't know when the Germans took a town so they just sent supplies directly into German hands. Geniuses.
That's an isolated incident. It's well known that the Allies had a much better understanding of strategic warfare and logistics.
>Claims not backed up by evidence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
>Soviets did proportionately worse in the environments and climates they should've done better at
For example?
>and by the end of the first year of fighting the Germans had defeated 3 million Soviets.
Barbarossa was a surprise attack and not representative of the capabilities of the Red Army in war. A massive number of those casualties are also from POW deaths as well as the Soviets recording battlefield deaths very differently than the Germans. And by the way, the Red Army was able to hold all the strategic objectives of the Wehrmacht despite being in the middle of reorganization and being caught by surprise. That's extremely impressive.

(cont)
>Just did with Order 227
Order 227 says nothing about "human waves", specifically it created "blocking detachments" (we'll get to that later) and established a "no retreat order" which may sound questionable at first, but when you realize that Hitler did the exact thing himself, it becomes irrelevant.
>"As a result it was absolutely vital to demonstrate an iron will. Any further withdrawal ultimately meant defeat for Germany. From now on a general or officer who suggested to him that there should be further retreat he would punish severely or simply shoot."(Source: "The Hitler Book")
>and the minefield treatment.
Taken out of context. The Germans used machine guns and artillery to heavily guard their minefields from enemy engineers. Because of this, trying to clear a minefield with minesweepers actually resulted in more casualties than just running through it. Source: "Zhukov" by Otto Chaney.
>Order 227 "not one step back" is the definition of this. Not even tactical retreats or peripheral attacks were authorized by anything less than division commanders.
Kind of like the Germans?
>The Germans had the concept of "Führen mit Auftrag/Auftragstaktik"which gave them flexibility at all levels.
See above. The encirclement and destruction of the German army at Stalingrad is an example of German commanders not being able to retreat and suffering losses because of it.

(cont)
>Even the other allies would never think of putting MG's to their own mens backs for taking cover in a better position on the battlefield a click or two back from the enemies line.
This is a cold-war meme propogated by Goebbels and the West. Care to give me some examples (not isolated ones) of this practice?
>>Order No. 227 established that each front must create one to three penal battalions (штpaфбaт, штpaфнoй бaтaльoн, shtrafbat, shtrafnoy battalion) of up to 800 middle-ranking commanders and high-ranking commanders accused of disciplinary problems. Penal battalions were sent to the most dangerous sections of the front lines.[1] Each front had to create penal companies for privates and NCOs.
Again, this was a practice used by other nations as well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafbattalion
>The total of Red Army personnel sentenced by court was 994,300, with 422,700 assigned to penal battalions and 436,600 imprisoned after sentencing. Not included are 212,400 deserters, who were not found and escaped the custody of the military districts.
Source? Also compare this number to the actual number of troops in the Red Army.
See

>The virgin Blitzkrieg
>The Chad human wave

I'm fairly certain that pic only counts KIA for Germany and absolutely everything for the USSR. If we only count KIA etc. for the USSR, she was actually almost on equal grounds with Germany.

Something you have to keep in mind about ww2 generals is that as the war dragged on, the most valued attribute in a commander wasnt tactical flair or strategic genius, but mere hardness of character to deal with genocidal megalomaniacs like stalin and hitler. Guys like Zhukov and Model kept thier jobs because they didnt break.

>the best germans were at least equal to the russians but the dire straights of the early ww2 meant only competent people stayed in charge

The German army had a core of veterans, it's cream of the cream, from the Weimar restriction period so when the army was reconstituted in full, they brought back the best and were far more discriminating than WW1 leadership had been.

>the russians had more than 5 good generals

I can only think of three, for an army starting at 4 million people.

>in practice the blocking detachments rarely shot people

Quantify "rarely" before we dig in. Is 10k rare? 100k? 1k?

>That's an isolated incident. It's well known that the Allies had a much better understanding of strategic warfare and logistics.

The user was arguing that the USSR did. Objectively not true. It was isolated to the entire USSR central front, so not very "isolated".

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
Means nothing. They got their shit pushed in hardcore. Again, they lost over 3 million people after the first year of invasion. That's the power of communist doctrine.

>For example?

Comparing Leningrad to Stalingrad. The southern front was the most difficult for the Germans, the central front had to send reinforcements to the south in 41.

>Barbarossa was a surprise attack and not representative of the capabilities of the Red Army in war

How is that not representative of them being shit on defense? Lookup the Wehrmacht losses in return. You'd have to be a die hard commie to not admit they got railed in terms of their crappy defense.

>A massive number of those casualties are also from POW deaths as well as the Soviets recording battlefield deaths very differently than the Germans.

Neither here nor there. Those 3 million were killed/captured, ultimately incapacitated is what matters.

rokkoskvey, vatutin, chernov, Zhukov, malinovsky, konev, vasilesky, chukov. probably a few others im forgetting

off the top of my head for germany

model, rommel (fuck off he was pretty decent), guderian, manstein sure there are quite a few I've forgotten

soviets did very well on the defence at kursk.

you should visit (r*ddit) for stuff on blocking detachments

>And by the way, the Red Army was able to hold all the strategic objectives of the Wehrmacht despite being in the middle of reorganization and being caught by surprise. That's extremely impressive.

The Soviets had moved troops back months before,suspiciously after the Germans told their allies to prepare for a war with the USSR. Fuller in his book "The Second World War" suspects the Soviets were already preparing the same time Germany was. Lookup the production tables for the USSR. They don't make sense unless the USSR was building up prior. Going back to the other sauce I mentioned, Hermann Hoth states in his book that he witnessed a massive buildup of an offensive force,primarily motorized in nature, during their invasion. The Soviets were preparing for war, but ultimately incompetent. The German plan was to capture them inside their cities after they reinforced, so no it's not impressive they fell for bulking in German kill zones.

>Order 227 says nothing about "human waves", specifically it created "blocking detachments" (we'll get to that later) and established a "no retreat order" which may sound questionable at first, but when you realize that Hitler did the exact thing himself, it becomes irrelevant.

Comparing apples and oranges. Do you actually belief a source named "The Hitler Book"? How many of those generals were shot? None. They were relieved if they didn't follow the orders of the Jodl and/or Brauchitsch, and if you bothered to read what other generals other than Manstein had to say, then it was inner generalship disputes that caused the biggest issues for the German command overall.

>Taken out of context. The Germans used machine guns and artillery to heavily guard their minefields from enemy engineers. Because of this, trying to clear a minefield with minesweepers actually resulted in more casualties than just running through it

There are more options and simply a)attack or b) send out minesweepers

Enemy at the gates is not an historically accurate film.

>What have I done?!

>Kind of like the Germans?

No, and I'm already getting tired of repeating myself. The Germans practiced "auftragstaktik". See above. It basically means the Germans practiced flexibility all the way down to the junior officer level. Whereas the for the Soviets:

>No commander had the right to retreat without an order. Anyone who did so was subject to a military tribunal of the corresponding seniority level.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

>See above. The encirclement and destruction of the German army at Stalingrad is an example of German commanders not being able to retreat and suffering losses because of it.

Strategically. Operationally and tactically they were permitted. The idea is that troops were to be stationed in the region, but left to commanders. Manstein personally puts the blame on Hitler, but it was a plan agreed on by both the Chief of Operations and the Commander in Chief.

>If we only count KIA etc. for the USSR, she was actually almost on equal grounds with Germany.

False. USSR lost about 8.1-8.9 million in pure deaths/MIA. It terms of captures in addition it's higher. Conservatively speaking, the Soviets got blown the fuck out hardcore.

If we're counting military losses in general it was 8.6 million, hence why I said KIA, because the chart that user posted was counting only KIA for Germany (Bundesarchives said it was somewhere 3.5 million KIA for the Wehrmacht), which is why I posted that fucking picture counting KIA/dead during evacuations. I completely agree with you USSR lost more than 8 million if we're counting KIA/MIA etc.

It's never been debunked once >I'm fairly certain
Nope, the ratio is 100% accurate between Germany and the SU

Can you provide sources that it is, indeed 100% accurate?

>Been debunked
>Everytime it is posted people can't come up with any hard evidence to debunk other than ad verecundium

So is that why reddit gets made fun of? huh. And I don't know how you think it was natural. Shtrafbats were drawn as penal legions, aka the criminals that the USSR wanted killed off anyways, specifically because they were disposable in Soviet eyes.They were *trying* to get them purged, but let the Germans do the work this time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat
>The first penal battalion deployed under the new policy was sent to the Stalingrad Front on August 22, 1942, shortly before German troops reached the Volga river. It consisted of 929 disgraced officers convicted under Order No. 227 who were demoted to the lowest enlisted rank and assigned to the penal battalion. After three days of assaults against the Germans, only 300 were alive.

>Penal units consisted of two types of personnel: permanent and temporary. Permanent personnel were staff officers, company commanders, platoon leaders, political officers, and other junior commanders. Temporary personnel were the shtrafniks who were sent to the unit for their crimes or wrongdoings in order to redeem themselves with their own blood.

This was said:
>"If we only count KIA etc. for the USSR, she was actually almost on equal grounds with Germany."

And it's not even close to true. Germany lost well under half using the same terms.

Holy shit YES! This is every single debate with lefties on here. Can't have a single thread without them, no matter what topic it is they're always just like
>that's already been debunked
Ok, so how?
>yeah there was some evidence a week ago
Care to share?
>*ghosts
O-ok then....

Yes

David Wallechinsky (1995)
Il'Enkov 2001, pp. 73–80.

Both sources put total KIA of the Soviet Union's military personal between 13-14. million

>David Wallechinsky
>David Wallechinsky (born February 5, 1948) is an American populist historian and television commentator,

Is Krivosheev's book not considered "hard evidence"?

As I said, ad verecundium is the only argument

>Means nothing. They got their shit pushed in hardcore. Again, they lost over 3 million people after the first year of invasion. That's the power of communist doctrine.
That's the power of backstabbing, tbeh. You can't blame Stalin's misplaced naivity combined with misplaced paranoia on shoulders of Tukhachevski and Isserson.

>Those 3 million were killed/captured, ultimately incapacitated is what matters.
Russians weren't mistreating their POWs as bad as Germans, therefore they are worse combatants? Is that your logic?

Yet Krivosvheev claims military deaths were 8.6 million. Keep in mind Krivosheev was a Soviet Corporal-General, had access to Soviet archives and even organised a team of experts to help write a book on Soviet casualties. Also Krivosheev seems to have addressed Wallechinsky's and Enkov's claims
>He maintained that it was derived in a scientific manner by a team of professional researchers who had access to the military archives and that it reflected a realistic view of casualties based on the operational situation during the war. He maintained that the database of individual war dead is unreliable, because some personnel records are duplicated and others omitted

btfo, good job mate

It is.

>Also Krivosheev seems to have addressed Wallechinsky's and Enkov's claims
Yes it's a very political manner in Russia ,but many people do not believe him and think he is trying to cultivate the mythos of the "great patriotic war".

I personally don't find his rebutal very compelling

>I personally don't find his rebutal very compelling
Why?

>gives page and author name
>but no title
You could've just provided us with the wikipedia page, you know. Also Il'Enkov argues about irrecoverable losses, not KIA. And if we go by the irrecoverable losses then I present you with this:
sti.clemson.edu/publications-mainmenu-38/commentaries-mainmenu-211/cat_view/33-strom-thurmond-institute/153-sti-publications-by-subject-area/158-history
In which Glantz shows that Germany suffered a total of 10 million irrecoverable losses, so a ratio of 1.3:1 - 1.4:1 according to you.

He is essentially handwaiving the findings of the database off as malfunctions in recording alone and is simply reasserting the original authority of the findings , which is a pretty flimsy argument when he isn't giving exact numbers of how many might be duplicated to the point where millions are simply recorded accidently

>That's the power of backstabbing, tbeh. You can't blame Stalin's misplaced naivity combined with misplaced paranoia on shoulders of Tukhachevski and Isserson.

I can't help but notice that wherever communists go, from China to anywhere in the history of the USSR, to the African socialists that communists generally tend to use enormous amounts of manpower to achieve very little. The only exceptions to that rule is rare, like the Cuban revolution. Actually that's the only exception I can think of.

>Russians weren't mistreating their POWs as bad as Germans, therefore they are worse combatants? Is that your logic?

How did you get that from what I said? You said what the Soviets did was impressive. I said no, because a)the Soviet buildup in major cities was what the Germans wanted in the first place, that's why they weren't captured and b)losing over 3 million men, basically Germany's entire losses during the war, in the first year of combat is irredeemably terrible and there's no excuse for that soviet failing.

>Glantz

Please provide reasons why Glantz is an unreliable authority in this case.

>Getting into the santics of KIA vs irrecoverable losses (heavy casualties)

Except David Wallechinsky found about 13 million KIA , and if you could cite where in the PDF it cites it sources that would be appreciated

>not being able to figure out why glantz is unreliable

At least I can reliably say you haven't read any first hand accounts of the world wars.

>ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????????
This is not an argument, I'm open to be proven wrong, but this isn't exactly how you convince someone.

Nice argument.

>but this isn't exactly how you convince someone.

Oh I'm just here to laugh at you now, you obv can't be helped

It's a common criticism of his that he is somewhat unreliable in terms of talking about German forces in that he uses (used, not sure if he has corrected it) Soviet sources to cite German losses

Glantz is known as a military historian of the Soviet role in World War II.[3] Glantz has also, however, met with some criticism for his stylistic choices, such as inventing specific thoughts and feelings of historical figures without reference to documented sources.

google, took 3 seconds not him btw

>you are wrong, get rekt!!!
Also judging by your filename I'm gonna assume you're the same person who thought Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht were the same thing and Germany was the only one to have jets.

So you're admitting you haven't read any first hand sources? And you want to argue ww2? The guy who thinks Chuikov was a "good" general ladies and gentlemen.

Fair enough, guess I'll look into Glantz more, I do recall reading his When Titans Clash once and he seems to have used a soviet source, which made it seem like the USSR lost less men in the Winter war than previously thought.
I feel like discussing Soviet casualties in general is straight up a fucking shitshow at this point.

Good thing we're talking about Soviet losses here.

>Extrapolating this much from a simple brainlet post
you're really reaching aren't you

>Also judging by your filename I'm gonna assume you're the same person who thought Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht were the same thing and Germany was the only one to have jets.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is exactly why the brainlet meme works so well for you. I said that slavs and Balts had joined the SS AND had fought with the wehrmacht at Stalingrad. Both true, but for some reason you thought that meant both organizations were the same for admitting slavs and Balt's in. Then I said the Germans had devised and integrated jet engines first, and you took the liberty of rewriting the argument to mean "only Germany had jets". I was right when I said you can't be helped.

>Fair enough, guess I'll look into Glantz more
I wouldn't bother. I'm pretty sure this is the same guy I've been debating with for the past few months. Another Glantz user actually comes in here, I like to give him hard to but he actually corrects the guy you're talking to. I'd wait for him to show up.

>you're really reaching aren't you

lmao that's a NO! Read more kid.

>inb4 yes to should be too

>It's a shit show
>At this point
Lel it's always been this way it seems. It's been a very quasi-poltical topic for awhile now as far as I'm aware

I mean

And German losses too

>said that slavs and Balts had joined the SS AND had fought with the wehrmacht at Stalingrad. Both true, but for some reason you thought that meant both organizations were the same for admitting slavs and Balt's in. Then I said the Germans had devised and integrated jet engines first, and you took the liberty of rewriting the argument to mean "only Germany had jets". I was right when I said you can't be helped.
You're not talkign about the same person, then. When I was referencing jets I meant this post here
desuarchive.org/his/thread/3896109/#3897779
Secondly, the discussion about Wehrmacht and SS was when the statement was "Wehrmacht did not engage in war crimes" or some shit like that, in which it was shown they were forgiven from any crime they commit in the Eastern Front. You (supposedly) then showed an SS officer getting punished and refused to admit you fucked up and showed SS and not Wehrmacht.

>ttps://desuarchive.org/his/thread/3896109/#3897779
Russia should just release the fucking archives and we'd finally know for certain. Now we have deaths ranging from 7 million to 14 million in the military and who you believe is basically entirely up to you.

Didn't mean to quote that URL, dunno how that got there.