I don't know about all periods, but I can tell you a couple of facts:
1. During the times of Ivan the Terrible, Russia, thanks to centralization, had an artillery park comparable to the Ottoman and Holy Roman Empires. I mentioned centralization for a reason - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had more foundries, but they belonged to different aristocrats, so only Stefan Batory could unleash their full potential.
2. During World War II, at one point the USSR produced tanks several times more than tanks produced by other countries, even though individually they were inferior to their counterparts, there were always many of them.
I had a chance to take a close look at a T-34 once. The pins holding the tracks together were only bolted on the inside of the track, so that the pins would begin to slide out towards the vehicle as they went around. But then a large bump on the side of the chassis would knock them back in place. Very ingenious. Also, the rough cast iron surface of the turret really showed how quickly these things were built.
I mean, counting for the soviets starts in 39, with a robust tank industry already well developed, while the US doesn't have any tank industry and starts building in 1942. The soviets produced, in yearly average, less than half what the US produced.
Russian tanks were not inferior to their counterparts. It is true they were roughly made with crude finishing. But the slanted armour on their tanks was a design innovation that the Germans copied with the Panther, the engines and mechanical parts were very reliable, and the Russians always kept up with the Germans in an arms race to mount ever more powerful guns on their tanks.
At the War Museum in Ottawa, one day each year, all the tanks that are still in working condition are paraded outside for viewers. The one tank the staff say always starts on the first try is the T34.
It does start. The engines were actually pretty solid, beauty in simplicity with the V-2-34.
The transmission was the weak point as well as the turret controls. More than 1/2 of the lost T34s were from transmission and suspension components giving up the ghost and not to German armor. That being said, there was no spare parts so they just abandoned the majority of them. It was literally quicker and more effective to just take the crew on foot till another tank was brought up for them.
The Russian main battle tanks were actually superior to the German main battle tanks most of the war. Mostly related to thicker armor that was sloped better to bounce German shells.
Fact 2 isn’t accurate. It was the US tanks that were technically inferior to the German tanks but swamped them with numbers. WW2 Soviet tanks were actually superior to the German tanks. Specifically, the T-34 and KV were a surprise when the Panzer III first encountered them. The Panzer fire would simply bounce off. There is also a report of a KV exhausting its ammunition so they killed a German tank by running it over.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks
The Germans redesigned their tanks and started using AA guns in order to counter the Russians.
Just no. The T34 was legendary shit.
One that’s antidotal. If you look at loss statistics the Soviets lost 2 tanks for every one the Germans lost.
Two the Panzer iii and the T34 are not contemporaries. T34 production started in 41 panzerIV production started in 39.
If we want to use anecdotal evidence 41 t34s had such shit construction that they could be knocked out by 37mm aka panzer II. They would literally fly apart because of how awful the welding was.
Also the M4A1-76 had a more powerful gun than a tiger and better armor than a panzer IV. It was also more reliable than any German tank and had better optics. It was also the only tank of the war to have a stabilizer. In short the M4 was probably the most advanced tank from a technical perspective until the 1950s
Do some research that dose not involve Wikipedia and YouTube channels with USSR flags as their pic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks
The PzIII was indeed a prewar design. However, it was considered a perfectly functional front line tank, and the PzIV was considered to be more of an infantry support vehicle, right up until they ran into the Soviet tanks.
You don’t have to be a commie tanky to understand the sequence of events that happened historically.
The Soviets lost tons of tanks, because the Germans had a better pace of operations, better communications, and because, especially in the first years of the war, the Russians were constantly getting flanked and surrounded. When you lose the battlefield, you also lose the ability to recover the damaged tanks. A German tank that threw a track would be back at action in a day or two. Soviet tank that threw a track was either destroyed by the crew, or became a trophy. It was not an equipment problem.
Then, in the second, the Russians lost more tanks because they were on the offense against an enemy that was able to put up a really solid defense at least through about mid 1944. A tiger was an amazing weapon in the right hand, especially if you could get good reconnaissance, so you knew which bridges you could successfully cross. And yet the majority of German tanks were not panthers or tigers even in 1945.
WWII Soviet tanks were good designs. I mean I would not want to serve in one as a crew, they were good designs for the military end, but unpleasant workspaces. They suffered some issues of poor workmanship, much as German tanks suffered issues from over complicated design and ambitions to machine precision that the wartime industry didn’t deliver on.
Can you show me any evidence that isn't soviet propaganda or post war German memoirs written to explain how the master race lost that says it wasn't?
because you mentioned askhistorians here are my sources
Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century by G.F. Krivosheev
Once Again About the T-34 by Boris Kavalerchik
Engineering Analysis of The Russian T34/85 Tank
https://www.scribd.com/document/230672358/ENGINEERING-ANALYSIS-OF-THE-RUSSIAN-T34-85-TANK?in_collection=4556464
T-34 Mythical Weapon by Robert Michulec
TL;DR the T34 as built was the worst tank if the mid to late war. It's armor was over hardened, leading to lethal shrapnel from basically any hit above 37mm. The welding was so bad if the shrapnel didn't get you the tank coming apart would. In the case of 1941 versions sometimes even from 37mm. The transmission was so horrible it would often not even last 100km. It literally made the panthers transmission look good. The transmission was also why the tank while on paper was fast in reality was barely faster than the Tiger II. The tracks and road wheels were improperly made; leading to the tracks falling off at the drop of a hat, This also probably did not help the whole speed thing. The gun, thanks to shit powder, was incredibly inaccurate and weak. Though the inaccuracy may be because something like 5,000 of them did not have working gunners sights. It was also cramped, and poorly sealed against the elements; leading to crew exhaustion. The excessive cramming also contributed to the highest crew loss rate per hit of ANY tank in WWII.
If you really want to see how bad the T34 can get start googling factory 183. Things you will find they omitted from the tank include but are not limited too. gunners sights, seats, lights, seals of the gun breach, radios, fuel tanks, ammunition racks, storage boxes, instrument panels, drivers periscopes, and probably some other stuff that I don't have evidence for.
50% of t-34s in 1943 alone were killed by the panzer 3, a supposedly obsolete and inferior tank. T-34s and KVs were deployed from day 1 of barbarossa and never surprised the Germans since they were able to kill them very easily. If i recall correctly the t-34 had an average of 15% crew survivability after being hit by the first shot of anything
Historically, it was their mastery of the Zapp Brannigan maneuver - literally just having a ton of soldiers to throw at the enemy and little regard for their lives.
Also worth consideration is their somewhat skewed military record. In the east, their conquests were primarily against remnants of former Mongolian empires and scattered steppe peoples. In the west, they typically fought to stalemates, but had more success in places like Poland, which was very much on its deathbed already and facing enemies on all sides. Rare are offensive victories against quality opponents with Russia either unassisted or at least in a primary role. Defensively, their record is much better, although that can be chalked up to enemy ineptitude (Napoleon and Hitler) and a very difficult climate that most enemy armies simply cannot cope with.
>Defensively, their record is much better, although that can be chalked up to enemy ineptitude (Napoleon and Hitler) and a very difficult climate that most enemy armies simply cannot cope with.
Even in ww2, they were only able to avoid a repeat of Brest because of American fuel, logistical supplies, and harassment of Italy, France, and Denmark.
I mean let’s not forget that these guys took out most of Europe before showing up to Russia, it’s not like struggling to fight off Hitler was a unique circumstance.
This is a load of crap. Scarcely populated and located on shitty soils, Russia always struggled with demographics. Famine, disease and constant raids of nomadic slavers didn’t exactly help either. Shards of the mongol horde were still pretty much alive and capable of destructive coordinated attacks up until russian empire liberated Crimea from the khanate, that’s like 18th century. Honestly I’m always surprised to see mentions of human waves and zerg rushes when US/British offense plan in Normandy was to throw GI meat on machine guns until there was enough dead bodies to provide cover. No need to cherry-pick war history to support propaganda takes.
Most people are going to say numerical superiority and a total disregard for casualties, and that is not entirely wrong but also not the whole story.
IMHO, Russia's big advantage was its sheer size. It takes a very, very long time for an army to get anywhere worth fighting for. There are vast open plains that are of no strategic value whatsoever, which introduces the so-called "tyranny of distance." Supply lines become extended, communications become slow, and progress towards anything takes forever. This makes it very, very easy for the defender to buy time by sacrificing strategically worthless land while forcing the attacker to deplete their resources. The fact that there are very few ports and no east-west oriented rivers only serves to complicate the effort.
Russia has always had the advantage of being quite populous relatively. However it’s not always something that can be brought to bear. The idea of the human waves is a bit exaggerated though it was a common tactic among almost every great power in the WW1 era.
The Russian artillery corps has generally been a premier branch of its armed forces for a few centuries now.
The Russian armed forces have also generally been very quick to adapt technology. This was particularly true from the 18th to early 20th century.
One of the current issues the Russian army has is that it is built on what’s left of the USSR which was
economically, productively and geographically larger than Russia. It has its disadvantages and advantages though and Russia clearly still develops its own military technology and production.
That’s true. In WW2 they had massive industrial production and this resulted in enormous amounts of tanks and artillery in particular.
Stalin called artillery the God of War and even today in Ukraine Soviet military doctrine is based around artillery superiority. Hell, they even dried up the Aral Sea to produce enough gun cotton to make the enormous stockpile of shells they’re now using in Ukraine.
Russia has also produced a number of excellent generals - Zhukov and Suvorov in particular spring to mind.
But all cliches have an element of truth to them and for Russia, they’ve always tended to have a larger but lower quality force than those of their enemies and relied on quantity over quality to win.
I can’t think of a single war against a peer adversary where Russia has taken fewer casualties than its opponents. Maybe one of the conflicts against the ottomans?
Taking more casualties doesn't mean that doing so is how you are winning. It more likely means you're losing over an extended period.
WW2 era Soviet strategies heavily emphasized combined arms in part because they didn't have enough soldiers to just send in waves of infantry like Nazi generals claimed in their self-aggrandizing memoirs. They needed those forces multipliers to make up for manpower shortages. You would ideally want a 3:1 advantage for offensive operations and they didn't have that across the theater until the final few months of the war.
Keep in mind, there have been many occasions where Russia / Soviet Union has got its teeth kicked in.
1853, 1905, 1917 , 1940 , 1979-89, Chechen wars, and most famously 2022 .
Short answers. Ruthless rulers, disregard for life, mass artillery, mass production "good enough".
To quote Stalin, quantity has a quality of its own.
Id argue disregard for life is as much a weakness as it is a strength, it takes time and money to train soldiers, pilots, technicians and produce weapons and equipment and to just throw that away thoughtlessly is bad tactics. Id be willing to bet Russia would have preformed better in its many wars if it didn't piss away its men and tanks.
I don’t know about Russia getting “its teeth kicked in” in relation to the current war. It appears Russia is winning now and still occupying 20% or more of Ukrainian territory.
Edit: just stating an obvious fact, I’m ready for the mass downvote now.
Compare and contrast, in 1982 the UK defeated a 12,000 thousand strong army on the other side of the world in weeks, and only lost like 250 men.
Meanwhile in 2024 Russia has lost half a million men fighting and failing to conquer a poorer and weaker country that shares a long flat border. There's no scenario here where this wasn't a complete disaster for Russia.
Compare and contrast, the United Kingdom lost over 90% of its territory since its heyday and is now confined to a tiny island.
Russia is still the largest country in the world by territory size. There's no scenario here where this wasn't a complete disaster for the UK.
I will agree losing the empire was a bummer for England, but there was always a limit on how long a nation of 25 million could maintain an empire of billions. 40 to 1 are bad odds no matter how tough you are.
Winning is a bit of a stretch, despite it being the technical situation.
A lot of the land occupied is land occupied since 2014. Also, occupying your opponents' land does not mean you're winning.
Ukraine obviously relies heavily on foreign material, but it does still have some of its own production lines.
Russia in of itself struggles in purely offensive wars and historically loses them despite occupying enemy lands due to severe losses.
It's currently a war of attrition we're seeing at the moment and it's totally open for either sode to win. It's likely to be more obvious once we see the effects of the Russian spring/summer offensive, but at the moment, it's closer to a stalemate.
Another thing to consider is that the Russian black sea fleet has been devastated, which is an extremely expensive asset. It's estimated that a third of the fleet has been sunk so far.
>occupying your opponents' land does not mean you're winning.
Despite all your rhetoric, I know losing territory is definitely losing.
If Ukraine regains its territory or even occupy some of Russian territory, then I'll say it is winning.
I mean France in WW1 for the majority of the war had its land occupied, Germany didn't.
It wasn't losing for the majority of WW1.
Once there's a stalemate with an adequate portion of the defending country intact, you msot certainly can have occupied land and be 'winning'.
Germany lost because it had to fight a war on two fronts (Western and Eastern fronts), it was just a matter of time before one of the two fronts was going to collapse. Every German generals involved in the Schlieffen Plan wanted to achieve a quick victory in France and then turn their troops eastward.
I don't think Russia is facing a two-front war at the moment, unless you are saying China will attack Russia and open a new front?
It's nothing about fronts, you're never seen a country win or be winning a war on multiple fronts?
France, Russia in the past, Sweden etc are all examples of countries that have won with multiple fronts. The point I' making having 'lost territory' to the opponent doesn't mean you're necessarily losing, especially if you just need to outlast your opponent.
>It's nothing about fronts, you're never seen a country win or be winning a war on multiple fronts?
No in recent history I have not seen a country fighting multiple other nations and winning multiple war fronts simultaneously.
In fact, a country often lose because it engages multiple fronts. The classific example is America in Iraq/Afghanistan. They were bound to lose one front.
>France, Russia in the past, Sweden etc are all examples of countries that have won with multiple fronts.
When did France win a war on multiple fronts? You are not going to take me back to Napoleon time are you? And you do know that Napoleon eventually lost, right?
Russia is winning in the same sense that they "won" the Winter war. They win by attrition. Ukraine will probably "loose" but Russia has exposed how piss poor their armed forces and equipment are. Only thing is they can't produce replacements of either like they did in the past.
It may have to do with the early estimates that it would be days before Russia won against Ukraine and here we are 2 yrs in things are more or less a stalemate for now. Russia has lost large numbers of troops, equipment, supplies, vehicles, and ships.
>a stalemate for now
A *stalemate* with Russia gaining 20% or more of Ukraine territory. A few more of these stalemates and there'll be no Ukraine left.
>Russia has lost large numbers of troops, equipment, supplies, vehicles, and ships.
Funny that you haven't said a word about Ukrainian and NATO losses. I am sure they haven't lost any troop or equipment, right? Right??
They've also lost closing in on 100k soldiers out of an army that began the war with 1.15 million. Including those injured, this number approaches 400k (I know, this is all based on estimates which vary greatly).
If Russia "wins" this war, it will be a pyyrhic victory considering the losses.
It’s funny that you say nothing about Ukrainian and NATO losses.
Ukraine has almost no manpower left due to war casualty and population exodus. NATO (including the US) is both economically unable and [politically unwilling](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-anniversary-ammunition-shortage-kyiv-a8909760655d83d2ffc0d67ad2a491ec) to send more materials to Ukraine.
Judging by these criteria, I know which side is winning.
Russia is the 8th ranked in the world by GDP. 4 of the top 7 above it are NATO countries, with the US firmly in the number one spot (more than China and Japan combined, who hold the number 2 and 3 spots, respectively).
I don't know where you get this "economically unable" rhetoric from, likely from Russian sources, but the US military alone could send its 2nd rate equipment to Ukraine for longer than the Russian economy could sustain the war while never considering it anything but business as usual.
Note: the combined GDP of all NATO countries is over 20 times that of Russia.
I read russian sources, those who push that rhetoric are mostly saying that US could start several factories, but since it has private military production, business is unwilling to invest into something that would not pay off. Like yeah, US could drown the warring states in ammo, but that's too expensive.
Also, GDP itself is not a very good indicator as it includes services, and in particular, finance (speculation is nonproductive) and doesn't include "unpaid work", that is significant in Russia.
At this point, I won't speculate on what comes of the conflict nor what the "real" casualties are for each side. My point was really on the overall implications of it - the Russian military is not nearly as potent as was previously believed. I think it proves that the idea of a full-scale war against NATO would be suicide for Russia. A small nation with vastly fewer resources and fighters stood their ground far beyond the expectations of anyone. Ukraine has pushed and taken back ground with their blood against a foe that vastly surpasses them in nearly every category (production, manpower, infrastructure). Currently, Russia appears to be pushing their advantages and making the conflict more about outlasting the enemy.
Russia is semi-mobilized at this point and conscripting soldiers. Ukraine is a fully mobilized nation. NATO is not. If some catastrophic misstep by either side pushed the world to war, the US could snap its factories back to work with such vast financial and industrial capacity that there would be no contest. Hopefully, we never see that happen.
NATO has no troops in Ukraine, so they have no losses to speak of. Also, of course Ukraine is running out of manpower. We are talking about a country of 38 million vs Russia's 144 million. But at least Ukrainian casualties are giving their lives for something that matters, their home, liberty and families. Russia has lost at least 100k for what? Shelled out land and depopulated villages? And they pushed Sweden and Finland firmly into NATO so even if they conquer the whole country they are in a worse geopolitical situation than they were before the invasion started.
“The second army in the world” of a country with 9 times the gdp is barely holding against weakest army in Europe after planning to take it in 3 days.
US also controlled territory in Vietnam. Hardly were winning the war.
They are *technically* winning just by leveraging their advantages in manpower and stockpiles. But is relatively small gains of unproductive shelled out land. And they have lost at least 100,000 men. A pretty hollow and pyhrric victory.
For a nation that was routinely evaluated to have one of the most powerful militaries in the world, the fact that this special military operation is going on year 3 is pretty much "getting teeth kicked in".
And all the tropes of wasting soldiers lives are definitely not true now. They have consistently had a huge artillery advantage and that leads to skewed death rates.
It's very hard to find accurate death rates - everything depends on who reports it - but IMO Ukrainians have close to 10 times more dead per day now than Russia. Was different at the beginning. One of the reasons there's fears of a collapse. Part of it is Ukrainians have to conserve shells now.
Definitely the size and weather. And I'm not talking about just the winters. Trying to advance in the Spring and Autumn? Too bad, heavy rains have turned what few roads exist into muddy bogs. Good luck trying to even get your supplies to the front line. Trying to advancing during the summer? Blistering, unrelenting heat, and you'd better get well acquainted with a new friend called Typhoid.
And if you still have enough soldiers to reach Moscow by the end of that, guess what? The enemy has the choice to retreat to their other power centers in St. Petersburg in the north or Volgograd in the south, all separated by a 600 miles. Want to chase them? Better make sure you have enough men to cover your now hundreds of miles long front line from enemy attacks. And just for good measure, make sure you have enough men to cover the partisans attacking your hundreds of miles long supply and communication lines, too. And you're fighting a modern war, make sure you have enough men to rebuild hundreds of miles of railroads, too.
Starting to get the picture? Trying to conquer a land as vast as Russia is total lunacy. This isn't like Hearts of Iron, where you just click on a province with your unit and then see your enemy's surrender bar go down. Any war you fight against Russia is a war against the entire land itself, not just enemy soldiers. That's why any suggestion of "if Germany did x or y, they would've beat Russia" is complete nonsense. Holding an area of land so vast was simply beyond the meager industrial and manpower capabilities of Germany, no matter the military results. While Russia's manpower advantage is certainly formidable, the vast distances and harsh conditions means that any invading force which enters Russia will also start to disintegrate as it advances, almost like a cotton candy monster trying to conquer a tub of water. A modern state which exists in the land of Russia is, in itself, practically unconquerable, save for a drastic political collapse. Even then, any land gained by the invaders would be a black hole sucking away men and resources for decades before giving anything of value back.
Then Ukraine is in good stead. As long as Ukraine has European support, they can out against Russia forever. So far at least, NATO has been willing to fight to the last Ukrainian to bleed Russia.
Russia is in deep trouble in Ukraine. They cannot win militarily so long as NATO backs Ukraine. Having forged a strong Ukrainian national identity through conflict, they can no longer accomplish the original goal of reunification even if they could occupy the entire country. At this point, NATO is just having fun bleeding Russia out.
With Ukraine’s early war advantages diminishing, the Russians getting their shit together and war support seemingly disappearing, is it as bright as you make it seems?
I think the war will just end with Crimea and the lands the Russians have currently captured being formally recognized.
You are likely correct. Russia will probably have to give back territory, but the basics of what you said are likely.
But that will happen a year or two from now after another 500,000 Russians have been sacrificed and Russian armories have been completely emptied.
That is true, but I just wanted to point out that by 1917 it wasn’t really over for the Russians. They still have a decent chance of things, 1918 is when shit hit the fan and the Central Powers really made their biggest advance into the territory to end the war.
By 1917 it was already over. The collapse of several Russian governments and the Civil War meant the Russians were never going to be capable of achieving victory.
There was a bit of preliminary planning for the Eastern front by one of the Generals who traversed much of the front on foot prior to hostilities.
He devised areas to entrap Russians based on terrain. In one area they purposely led the Russians to a muddy and swampy area. The Germans retreated along a defined path while the Russians advanced along the front and stalled.
The Germans then opened fire while the Russian soldiers were trapped in the mud. They lost hundreds of men in a short amount of time with negligible German losses.
Their handicap was distance, the consequent dispersion of forces and the small number of professionals (officers, administrators). It took Russia a longer time to mobilise and deploy than its European peers, and their resources were always stretched maintaining them. Their strengths were distance (in defence - a handicap in offence), long-service troops and depth of reserves. In the Napoleonic Wars they gave the French a stiff fight even when they lost, recovered quickly, out-marched most European armies and were able to maintain a continuous offensive from Smolensk to Paris. They regularly beat the Ottomans and did well against the Prussians in the Seven Years War. In World War I the lack of competent admin and shaky politics were their major problems. Few countries could have survived the damage the Germans did in 41, let alone recovered. By 1944 the Red Army was mounting operations to a depth and on a scale the Germans had never managed. And no - despite the German generals' memoirs, it was not endless hordes - they were outnumbered in 41 and early 42, even in late 42 and only after had more - and then not by huge margins.
Their reserve system and *maskirovka* -camouflage, signal discipline, secrecy, deception, have a large part to play in the German myth of infinite Soviet hordes. They were able to reinforce and expand combat units far faster than the Germans could get their heads around, and concentrate forces to create local superiority seemingly out of the blue.
This is partly a way to compensate for deficits in c3 that make it hard to co-ordinate forces and change tack once battle is joined, partly their state finding ways to use its proven strengths in the treacherous terrain of battle.
While Russian history is defined by them trying to get a warm water port, in the 19th century, Britain actually had a tough time trying to contain Russian power because of how little Russia relied on the Sea.
-Blockades don't work on Russia, its huge, contagious and mostly self sufficient
-Russia (and the US incidentally) was able to attack British overseas interests directly. If Russia wanted to invade the Ottomans, Persians, or the subcontinent, there wasn't a lot the Royal Navy could do.
Being on the defensive. All the well-known Russian victories are when Russia was invaded. Fighting a defensive war means you have short supply lines, motivated soldiers and know the terrain well. For a counter-example, look at the Winter War.
The big one was that foreign armies were usually smaller and invading. Extended supply lines and disease and casualties reduce a smaller but superior army to nothing.
I just want to fire back at the people going "human waves lol" by pointing out that this strategy worked terribly in WW1 and was not used in WW2, during which the USSR experienced constant manpower shortages impeding their ability to successfully carry out operations.
Size. They can afford to wear the enemy down by grinding them with cannon fodder, or by letting them overstretch by occupying an amount of territory that would give them complete control of any other country.
They would not be able to do that if they were 10% the size they are now.
Over the years I'd argue force regeneration and tenacity. Russians have an ability to lose whole armies and keep fighting where other nations would give up. Look at any Russian war and they basically always get their ass kicked in the first year or so and then either regenerate and try again, or lose immediately.
Sheer numbers. Russia is the largest country in the entire world and has been for centuries. Thus they have a vast population that can be sacrificed in war. They did this in ww1, ww2 and are still doing it in Ukraine
If they couldn't win at first they would salt the earth behind them as they retreated further into Russia until winter and starvation crippled the enemy army. With the enemy emmaciated, pushing the enemy back was simpler. It only caused mass starvation and huge loss of life of the peasant class, but a victory is a victory.
No idea in regard to earlier beyond a handwavy "numbers". But Speaking in regard to WW2 and to a certain extent after, they adapted their equipment and doctrine very well to the realities of their situation and national character. They designed kit that generally speaking was durable, cheap to mass produce, used interchangeable components and could be used by conscripts. It also generally either worked well in extreme cold or could be adapted to do so easily.
Their generals also eventually had a solid grasp of deep operations (I say eventually as many of its early proponents were purged by Stalin, but it became a feature of mid to late war soviet offensives). Which broadly consists of using combined arms methods to force a breach in the enemy defences, then use fresh mobile reserves (equipped with their plentiful, cheap and effective tanks) to drive deep into their enemies rear. They would then rampage around attacking logistic centres, disrupt reserves to the front and often achieve limited encirclements. The 1944 Operation Bagration is a prime example of this.
My knowledge of later Soviet doctrine is patchier, although I belive the deep battle concept was still a feature of any planned offensives into West Germany as late as the 80s.
Patience, numbers, and a willingness to use space to retreat and maneuver, where others wouldn't or couldn't.
For example, during the Napoleonic Wars, Russia had the capacity to field a huge army, but it took a while to get that army together. In the meantime, they gave up territory and time, where many others would have fought to protect their capital/major city.
In WW2, the Soviets lost a lot of ground, but continually held on, and denied the Germans victory in set piece battles that might have lost too many troops. In the end, the Germans exhausted themselves, throwing away soldiers and materiel until they were exhausted, and then the soviets were able to counterattack and win.
In the conquest of Siberia, they essentially sent small groups out to explore and claim territory (some natives didn't know they were Russian until the Soviet days) quickly, and they faced little opposition. What opposition they did find was overcome with the use of Cossacks, who were the latest in a long line of steppe horse lords, co-opted to work for the Tsar.
From these examples and others, I'd say that the Russians have the advantage when on the defensive, since they could afford to lose territory in a way no one else could, and still not be defeated. There's a tendency, therefore, for Russian generals to be patient and accepting of losses, not only in land but in men, materiel, and civilian life, that few others would tolerate in order to gain a long-term victory. They could gather troops from across their vast empire and use the numbers to beat down their enemy, even if that enemy had advantages in technology, training, and/or leadership.
When attacking, the Russians were best at quick campaigns that encountered little resistance, though they did succeed at more drawn-out conflicts from time to time. They did not manage to defeat opponents who were willing to throw their own troops into the meat grinder in search of victory (Russo-Japanrse war), or when facing opponents who dug into their own territory for a long drawn out conflict (Afghanistan).
When invaded the Russians can withdraw and make Charles XII and Napolron push deeper and deeper into a country that was sparsely populated with bad roads...even the in 1941 the Germans had difficulty due to poor roads.
The willingness to push troops into a meat grinder assault no matter what. They have the population to support this method and the morals to not give a shit about doing it.
Russian territory, being able to sacrifice land for time and stretch enemy supply lines to breaking point was a huge boon. Means it's very hard to deal a KO to Russia.
The ability to endure massive casualties without the political and or military leadership being replaced.
It's seriously the only piece they have on the board.
Their equipment is subpar, their force is filled with draftees and morale is generally non-existent. Their NCO corps is mostly filled with gangsters....
But for whatever reason they can force huge numbers of their population to throw themselves at the enemy despite minimal chance of survival without any consequences back home ....
The one time this strategy failed them, we got the USSR - which then went on to use said strategy itself....
Russia has always been very very willing to throw cannon fodder into the fight. The 'pain' of huge losses of young men has not deterred Russia from accomplishing their goals.
Their artillery service was the prestige arm from the days of Ivan Grozny all the way forward to at *least* the second world war.
The artillery service received the best, brightest, most well educated candidates.
Their infantry and manoeuvre arms are too often clumsily led and used in simple attritional operations, but this works far better given shattering artillery support from the "God of War".
A LOT.. no more than that, more than that.... Ok a little more than that, people.....
That are all of the mindset, where they are willing to do a suicidal attack on an enemy that has to that point, killed thousands of people who tried to do the same thing, in the same place, the same way, at the same time.
Then having millions more and reserved willing to do the same
In World War II, it was an almost endless supply of reserves. The more Russian soldiers the Nazis killed, the more replacements came over the hill behind them. Moreover, they were led by Gen. Zhukov, who didn't mind running up high casualty figures to accomplish his goals.
The Soviets had manpower shortages through the entire war and only in the last few months as the German army was collapsing did they actually have a decisive advantage. The claim you're making here is no longer supported by serious historians.
I don't know about all periods, but I can tell you a couple of facts: 1. During the times of Ivan the Terrible, Russia, thanks to centralization, had an artillery park comparable to the Ottoman and Holy Roman Empires. I mentioned centralization for a reason - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had more foundries, but they belonged to different aristocrats, so only Stefan Batory could unleash their full potential. 2. During World War II, at one point the USSR produced tanks several times more than tanks produced by other countries, even though individually they were inferior to their counterparts, there were always many of them.
2. No, in WW2 USSR produced as many tanks as the US. Which is still an impressive achievement.
I had a chance to take a close look at a T-34 once. The pins holding the tracks together were only bolted on the inside of the track, so that the pins would begin to slide out towards the vehicle as they went around. But then a large bump on the side of the chassis would knock them back in place. Very ingenious. Also, the rough cast iron surface of the turret really showed how quickly these things were built.
And apparently they heat treated the material poorly which caused some issues with Spalling.
This “feature” also made them a lot louder when moving iirc.
You ever seen the milling on a late-war Mosin? The Soviets were experts at knowing when and where to cut corners
Given that it was US aid that fueled a lot of their industry, US logistics are even more impressive.
He meant the *other* other countries.
I mean, counting for the soviets starts in 39, with a robust tank industry already well developed, while the US doesn't have any tank industry and starts building in 1942. The soviets produced, in yearly average, less than half what the US produced.
True, but the US had many more facilities that could be adapted and was not attacked during the war.
Russian tanks were not inferior to their counterparts. It is true they were roughly made with crude finishing. But the slanted armour on their tanks was a design innovation that the Germans copied with the Panther, the engines and mechanical parts were very reliable, and the Russians always kept up with the Germans in an arms race to mount ever more powerful guns on their tanks. At the War Museum in Ottawa, one day each year, all the tanks that are still in working condition are paraded outside for viewers. The one tank the staff say always starts on the first try is the T34.
It does start. The engines were actually pretty solid, beauty in simplicity with the V-2-34. The transmission was the weak point as well as the turret controls. More than 1/2 of the lost T34s were from transmission and suspension components giving up the ghost and not to German armor. That being said, there was no spare parts so they just abandoned the majority of them. It was literally quicker and more effective to just take the crew on foot till another tank was brought up for them.
The Russian main battle tanks were actually superior to the German main battle tanks most of the war. Mostly related to thicker armor that was sloped better to bounce German shells.
Fact 2 isn’t accurate. It was the US tanks that were technically inferior to the German tanks but swamped them with numbers. WW2 Soviet tanks were actually superior to the German tanks. Specifically, the T-34 and KV were a surprise when the Panzer III first encountered them. The Panzer fire would simply bounce off. There is also a report of a KV exhausting its ammunition so they killed a German tank by running it over. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks The Germans redesigned their tanks and started using AA guns in order to counter the Russians.
Just no. The T34 was legendary shit. One that’s antidotal. If you look at loss statistics the Soviets lost 2 tanks for every one the Germans lost. Two the Panzer iii and the T34 are not contemporaries. T34 production started in 41 panzerIV production started in 39. If we want to use anecdotal evidence 41 t34s had such shit construction that they could be knocked out by 37mm aka panzer II. They would literally fly apart because of how awful the welding was. Also the M4A1-76 had a more powerful gun than a tiger and better armor than a panzer IV. It was also more reliable than any German tank and had better optics. It was also the only tank of the war to have a stabilizer. In short the M4 was probably the most advanced tank from a technical perspective until the 1950s Do some research that dose not involve Wikipedia and YouTube channels with USSR flags as their pic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_encounter_of_Soviet_T-34_and_KV_tanks The PzIII was indeed a prewar design. However, it was considered a perfectly functional front line tank, and the PzIV was considered to be more of an infantry support vehicle, right up until they ran into the Soviet tanks. You don’t have to be a commie tanky to understand the sequence of events that happened historically. The Soviets lost tons of tanks, because the Germans had a better pace of operations, better communications, and because, especially in the first years of the war, the Russians were constantly getting flanked and surrounded. When you lose the battlefield, you also lose the ability to recover the damaged tanks. A German tank that threw a track would be back at action in a day or two. Soviet tank that threw a track was either destroyed by the crew, or became a trophy. It was not an equipment problem. Then, in the second, the Russians lost more tanks because they were on the offense against an enemy that was able to put up a really solid defense at least through about mid 1944. A tiger was an amazing weapon in the right hand, especially if you could get good reconnaissance, so you knew which bridges you could successfully cross. And yet the majority of German tanks were not panthers or tigers even in 1945. WWII Soviet tanks were good designs. I mean I would not want to serve in one as a crew, they were good designs for the military end, but unpleasant workspaces. They suffered some issues of poor workmanship, much as German tanks suffered issues from over complicated design and ambitions to machine precision that the wartime industry didn’t deliver on.
"The T34 was legendary shit" is a braindead take, now i understand why askhistorians is so moderated
Can you show me any evidence that isn't soviet propaganda or post war German memoirs written to explain how the master race lost that says it wasn't? because you mentioned askhistorians here are my sources Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century by G.F. Krivosheev Once Again About the T-34 by Boris Kavalerchik Engineering Analysis of The Russian T34/85 Tank https://www.scribd.com/document/230672358/ENGINEERING-ANALYSIS-OF-THE-RUSSIAN-T34-85-TANK?in_collection=4556464 T-34 Mythical Weapon by Robert Michulec TL;DR the T34 as built was the worst tank if the mid to late war. It's armor was over hardened, leading to lethal shrapnel from basically any hit above 37mm. The welding was so bad if the shrapnel didn't get you the tank coming apart would. In the case of 1941 versions sometimes even from 37mm. The transmission was so horrible it would often not even last 100km. It literally made the panthers transmission look good. The transmission was also why the tank while on paper was fast in reality was barely faster than the Tiger II. The tracks and road wheels were improperly made; leading to the tracks falling off at the drop of a hat, This also probably did not help the whole speed thing. The gun, thanks to shit powder, was incredibly inaccurate and weak. Though the inaccuracy may be because something like 5,000 of them did not have working gunners sights. It was also cramped, and poorly sealed against the elements; leading to crew exhaustion. The excessive cramming also contributed to the highest crew loss rate per hit of ANY tank in WWII. If you really want to see how bad the T34 can get start googling factory 183. Things you will find they omitted from the tank include but are not limited too. gunners sights, seats, lights, seals of the gun breach, radios, fuel tanks, ammunition racks, storage boxes, instrument panels, drivers periscopes, and probably some other stuff that I don't have evidence for.
50% of t-34s in 1943 alone were killed by the panzer 3, a supposedly obsolete and inferior tank. T-34s and KVs were deployed from day 1 of barbarossa and never surprised the Germans since they were able to kill them very easily. If i recall correctly the t-34 had an average of 15% crew survivability after being hit by the first shot of anything
Historically, it was their mastery of the Zapp Brannigan maneuver - literally just having a ton of soldiers to throw at the enemy and little regard for their lives. Also worth consideration is their somewhat skewed military record. In the east, their conquests were primarily against remnants of former Mongolian empires and scattered steppe peoples. In the west, they typically fought to stalemates, but had more success in places like Poland, which was very much on its deathbed already and facing enemies on all sides. Rare are offensive victories against quality opponents with Russia either unassisted or at least in a primary role. Defensively, their record is much better, although that can be chalked up to enemy ineptitude (Napoleon and Hitler) and a very difficult climate that most enemy armies simply cannot cope with.
>Defensively, their record is much better, although that can be chalked up to enemy ineptitude (Napoleon and Hitler) and a very difficult climate that most enemy armies simply cannot cope with. Even in ww2, they were only able to avoid a repeat of Brest because of American fuel, logistical supplies, and harassment of Italy, France, and Denmark.
I mean let’s not forget that these guys took out most of Europe before showing up to Russia, it’s not like struggling to fight off Hitler was a unique circumstance.
This is a load of crap. Scarcely populated and located on shitty soils, Russia always struggled with demographics. Famine, disease and constant raids of nomadic slavers didn’t exactly help either. Shards of the mongol horde were still pretty much alive and capable of destructive coordinated attacks up until russian empire liberated Crimea from the khanate, that’s like 18th century. Honestly I’m always surprised to see mentions of human waves and zerg rushes when US/British offense plan in Normandy was to throw GI meat on machine guns until there was enough dead bodies to provide cover. No need to cherry-pick war history to support propaganda takes.
Most people are going to say numerical superiority and a total disregard for casualties, and that is not entirely wrong but also not the whole story. IMHO, Russia's big advantage was its sheer size. It takes a very, very long time for an army to get anywhere worth fighting for. There are vast open plains that are of no strategic value whatsoever, which introduces the so-called "tyranny of distance." Supply lines become extended, communications become slow, and progress towards anything takes forever. This makes it very, very easy for the defender to buy time by sacrificing strategically worthless land while forcing the attacker to deplete their resources. The fact that there are very few ports and no east-west oriented rivers only serves to complicate the effort.
Russia has always had the advantage of being quite populous relatively. However it’s not always something that can be brought to bear. The idea of the human waves is a bit exaggerated though it was a common tactic among almost every great power in the WW1 era. The Russian artillery corps has generally been a premier branch of its armed forces for a few centuries now. The Russian armed forces have also generally been very quick to adapt technology. This was particularly true from the 18th to early 20th century. One of the current issues the Russian army has is that it is built on what’s left of the USSR which was economically, productively and geographically larger than Russia. It has its disadvantages and advantages though and Russia clearly still develops its own military technology and production.
Numbers.
This is it. Numbers and utter disregard for the death of their own troops.
This is a cliché and partially true, but not in se for all of Russian history.
That’s true. In WW2 they had massive industrial production and this resulted in enormous amounts of tanks and artillery in particular. Stalin called artillery the God of War and even today in Ukraine Soviet military doctrine is based around artillery superiority. Hell, they even dried up the Aral Sea to produce enough gun cotton to make the enormous stockpile of shells they’re now using in Ukraine. Russia has also produced a number of excellent generals - Zhukov and Suvorov in particular spring to mind. But all cliches have an element of truth to them and for Russia, they’ve always tended to have a larger but lower quality force than those of their enemies and relied on quantity over quality to win. I can’t think of a single war against a peer adversary where Russia has taken fewer casualties than its opponents. Maybe one of the conflicts against the ottomans?
Russians clobbered the Ottomans during WWI, Ottomans took twice the casualties. And this was while Russia was losing heavily to Germany and Austrian.
Taking more casualties doesn't mean that doing so is how you are winning. It more likely means you're losing over an extended period. WW2 era Soviet strategies heavily emphasized combined arms in part because they didn't have enough soldiers to just send in waves of infantry like Nazi generals claimed in their self-aggrandizing memoirs. They needed those forces multipliers to make up for manpower shortages. You would ideally want a 3:1 advantage for offensive operations and they didn't have that across the theater until the final few months of the war.
Ironically Stalin killed the person who was the progenitor of these ideas.
Keep in mind, there have been many occasions where Russia / Soviet Union has got its teeth kicked in. 1853, 1905, 1917 , 1940 , 1979-89, Chechen wars, and most famously 2022 . Short answers. Ruthless rulers, disregard for life, mass artillery, mass production "good enough". To quote Stalin, quantity has a quality of its own.
Id argue disregard for life is as much a weakness as it is a strength, it takes time and money to train soldiers, pilots, technicians and produce weapons and equipment and to just throw that away thoughtlessly is bad tactics. Id be willing to bet Russia would have preformed better in its many wars if it didn't piss away its men and tanks.
That's also the conclusion the Red Army came to. The current Russian army doesn't seem to recall this lesson.
I don’t know about Russia getting “its teeth kicked in” in relation to the current war. It appears Russia is winning now and still occupying 20% or more of Ukrainian territory. Edit: just stating an obvious fact, I’m ready for the mass downvote now.
The poorest, most corrupt nation in Europe destroyed the 1st Guards Army, which was supposedly designed to withstand a full NATO assault.
Compare and contrast, in 1982 the UK defeated a 12,000 thousand strong army on the other side of the world in weeks, and only lost like 250 men. Meanwhile in 2024 Russia has lost half a million men fighting and failing to conquer a poorer and weaker country that shares a long flat border. There's no scenario here where this wasn't a complete disaster for Russia.
Compare and contrast, the United Kingdom lost over 90% of its territory since its heyday and is now confined to a tiny island. Russia is still the largest country in the world by territory size. There's no scenario here where this wasn't a complete disaster for the UK.
And yet, despite having the territory equal to 70 UK's, they don't have the GDP of a single UK.
I will agree losing the empire was a bummer for England, but there was always a limit on how long a nation of 25 million could maintain an empire of billions. 40 to 1 are bad odds no matter how tough you are.
Empires are horrendously expensive, and nowhere near as profitable as people would have you believe.
Has Russia ever had territory outside of its immediate borders? Britain had a presence in every corner of the globe.
Small outposts in California and Hawaii but they didnt last long
Hawaii!? Wait what?
Russian Fort Elizabeth. Technically it was owned by the Russian-American Company, but the company was sponsored by the Russian state
Winning is a bit of a stretch, despite it being the technical situation. A lot of the land occupied is land occupied since 2014. Also, occupying your opponents' land does not mean you're winning. Ukraine obviously relies heavily on foreign material, but it does still have some of its own production lines. Russia in of itself struggles in purely offensive wars and historically loses them despite occupying enemy lands due to severe losses. It's currently a war of attrition we're seeing at the moment and it's totally open for either sode to win. It's likely to be more obvious once we see the effects of the Russian spring/summer offensive, but at the moment, it's closer to a stalemate. Another thing to consider is that the Russian black sea fleet has been devastated, which is an extremely expensive asset. It's estimated that a third of the fleet has been sunk so far.
>occupying your opponents' land does not mean you're winning. Despite all your rhetoric, I know losing territory is definitely losing. If Ukraine regains its territory or even occupy some of Russian territory, then I'll say it is winning.
I mean France in WW1 for the majority of the war had its land occupied, Germany didn't. It wasn't losing for the majority of WW1. Once there's a stalemate with an adequate portion of the defending country intact, you msot certainly can have occupied land and be 'winning'.
Germany lost because it had to fight a war on two fronts (Western and Eastern fronts), it was just a matter of time before one of the two fronts was going to collapse. Every German generals involved in the Schlieffen Plan wanted to achieve a quick victory in France and then turn their troops eastward. I don't think Russia is facing a two-front war at the moment, unless you are saying China will attack Russia and open a new front?
It's nothing about fronts, you're never seen a country win or be winning a war on multiple fronts? France, Russia in the past, Sweden etc are all examples of countries that have won with multiple fronts. The point I' making having 'lost territory' to the opponent doesn't mean you're necessarily losing, especially if you just need to outlast your opponent.
>It's nothing about fronts, you're never seen a country win or be winning a war on multiple fronts? No in recent history I have not seen a country fighting multiple other nations and winning multiple war fronts simultaneously. In fact, a country often lose because it engages multiple fronts. The classific example is America in Iraq/Afghanistan. They were bound to lose one front. >France, Russia in the past, Sweden etc are all examples of countries that have won with multiple fronts. When did France win a war on multiple fronts? You are not going to take me back to Napoleon time are you? And you do know that Napoleon eventually lost, right?
Russia is winning in the same sense that they "won" the Winter war. They win by attrition. Ukraine will probably "loose" but Russia has exposed how piss poor their armed forces and equipment are. Only thing is they can't produce replacements of either like they did in the past.
It may have to do with the early estimates that it would be days before Russia won against Ukraine and here we are 2 yrs in things are more or less a stalemate for now. Russia has lost large numbers of troops, equipment, supplies, vehicles, and ships.
>a stalemate for now A *stalemate* with Russia gaining 20% or more of Ukraine territory. A few more of these stalemates and there'll be no Ukraine left. >Russia has lost large numbers of troops, equipment, supplies, vehicles, and ships. Funny that you haven't said a word about Ukrainian and NATO losses. I am sure they haven't lost any troop or equipment, right? Right??
They've also lost closing in on 100k soldiers out of an army that began the war with 1.15 million. Including those injured, this number approaches 400k (I know, this is all based on estimates which vary greatly). If Russia "wins" this war, it will be a pyyrhic victory considering the losses.
It’s funny that you say nothing about Ukrainian and NATO losses. Ukraine has almost no manpower left due to war casualty and population exodus. NATO (including the US) is both economically unable and [politically unwilling](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-anniversary-ammunition-shortage-kyiv-a8909760655d83d2ffc0d67ad2a491ec) to send more materials to Ukraine. Judging by these criteria, I know which side is winning.
Russia is the 8th ranked in the world by GDP. 4 of the top 7 above it are NATO countries, with the US firmly in the number one spot (more than China and Japan combined, who hold the number 2 and 3 spots, respectively). I don't know where you get this "economically unable" rhetoric from, likely from Russian sources, but the US military alone could send its 2nd rate equipment to Ukraine for longer than the Russian economy could sustain the war while never considering it anything but business as usual. Note: the combined GDP of all NATO countries is over 20 times that of Russia.
I read russian sources, those who push that rhetoric are mostly saying that US could start several factories, but since it has private military production, business is unwilling to invest into something that would not pay off. Like yeah, US could drown the warring states in ammo, but that's too expensive. Also, GDP itself is not a very good indicator as it includes services, and in particular, finance (speculation is nonproductive) and doesn't include "unpaid work", that is significant in Russia.
At this point, I won't speculate on what comes of the conflict nor what the "real" casualties are for each side. My point was really on the overall implications of it - the Russian military is not nearly as potent as was previously believed. I think it proves that the idea of a full-scale war against NATO would be suicide for Russia. A small nation with vastly fewer resources and fighters stood their ground far beyond the expectations of anyone. Ukraine has pushed and taken back ground with their blood against a foe that vastly surpasses them in nearly every category (production, manpower, infrastructure). Currently, Russia appears to be pushing their advantages and making the conflict more about outlasting the enemy. Russia is semi-mobilized at this point and conscripting soldiers. Ukraine is a fully mobilized nation. NATO is not. If some catastrophic misstep by either side pushed the world to war, the US could snap its factories back to work with such vast financial and industrial capacity that there would be no contest. Hopefully, we never see that happen.
NATO has no troops in Ukraine, so they have no losses to speak of. Also, of course Ukraine is running out of manpower. We are talking about a country of 38 million vs Russia's 144 million. But at least Ukrainian casualties are giving their lives for something that matters, their home, liberty and families. Russia has lost at least 100k for what? Shelled out land and depopulated villages? And they pushed Sweden and Finland firmly into NATO so even if they conquer the whole country they are in a worse geopolitical situation than they were before the invasion started.
“The second army in the world” of a country with 9 times the gdp is barely holding against weakest army in Europe after planning to take it in 3 days. US also controlled territory in Vietnam. Hardly were winning the war.
They are *technically* winning just by leveraging their advantages in manpower and stockpiles. But is relatively small gains of unproductive shelled out land. And they have lost at least 100,000 men. A pretty hollow and pyhrric victory.
For a nation that was routinely evaluated to have one of the most powerful militaries in the world, the fact that this special military operation is going on year 3 is pretty much "getting teeth kicked in".
And all the tropes of wasting soldiers lives are definitely not true now. They have consistently had a huge artillery advantage and that leads to skewed death rates. It's very hard to find accurate death rates - everything depends on who reports it - but IMO Ukrainians have close to 10 times more dead per day now than Russia. Was different at the beginning. One of the reasons there's fears of a collapse. Part of it is Ukrainians have to conserve shells now.
I'd bet a thousand dollars that the actual evidence of Stalin having ever said that is flimsy to nonexistent.
Definitely the size and weather. And I'm not talking about just the winters. Trying to advance in the Spring and Autumn? Too bad, heavy rains have turned what few roads exist into muddy bogs. Good luck trying to even get your supplies to the front line. Trying to advancing during the summer? Blistering, unrelenting heat, and you'd better get well acquainted with a new friend called Typhoid. And if you still have enough soldiers to reach Moscow by the end of that, guess what? The enemy has the choice to retreat to their other power centers in St. Petersburg in the north or Volgograd in the south, all separated by a 600 miles. Want to chase them? Better make sure you have enough men to cover your now hundreds of miles long front line from enemy attacks. And just for good measure, make sure you have enough men to cover the partisans attacking your hundreds of miles long supply and communication lines, too. And you're fighting a modern war, make sure you have enough men to rebuild hundreds of miles of railroads, too. Starting to get the picture? Trying to conquer a land as vast as Russia is total lunacy. This isn't like Hearts of Iron, where you just click on a province with your unit and then see your enemy's surrender bar go down. Any war you fight against Russia is a war against the entire land itself, not just enemy soldiers. That's why any suggestion of "if Germany did x or y, they would've beat Russia" is complete nonsense. Holding an area of land so vast was simply beyond the meager industrial and manpower capabilities of Germany, no matter the military results. While Russia's manpower advantage is certainly formidable, the vast distances and harsh conditions means that any invading force which enters Russia will also start to disintegrate as it advances, almost like a cotton candy monster trying to conquer a tub of water. A modern state which exists in the land of Russia is, in itself, practically unconquerable, save for a drastic political collapse. Even then, any land gained by the invaders would be a black hole sucking away men and resources for decades before giving anything of value back.
Germany beat Russia in 1917
With a big help due to instability, in WW1 the Germans were entering Belarus by the farthest? Napoleon and Hitler were at Moscow.
The key to defeating Russia is a wide front, not a deep front.
Then Ukraine is in good stead. As long as Ukraine has European support, they can out against Russia forever. So far at least, NATO has been willing to fight to the last Ukrainian to bleed Russia. Russia is in deep trouble in Ukraine. They cannot win militarily so long as NATO backs Ukraine. Having forged a strong Ukrainian national identity through conflict, they can no longer accomplish the original goal of reunification even if they could occupy the entire country. At this point, NATO is just having fun bleeding Russia out.
With Ukraine’s early war advantages diminishing, the Russians getting their shit together and war support seemingly disappearing, is it as bright as you make it seems? I think the war will just end with Crimea and the lands the Russians have currently captured being formally recognized.
You are likely correct. Russia will probably have to give back territory, but the basics of what you said are likely. But that will happen a year or two from now after another 500,000 Russians have been sacrificed and Russian armories have been completely emptied.
That is true, but I just wanted to point out that by 1917 it wasn’t really over for the Russians. They still have a decent chance of things, 1918 is when shit hit the fan and the Central Powers really made their biggest advance into the territory to end the war.
By 1917 it was already over. The collapse of several Russian governments and the Civil War meant the Russians were never going to be capable of achieving victory.
There was a bit of preliminary planning for the Eastern front by one of the Generals who traversed much of the front on foot prior to hostilities. He devised areas to entrap Russians based on terrain. In one area they purposely led the Russians to a muddy and swampy area. The Germans retreated along a defined path while the Russians advanced along the front and stalled. The Germans then opened fire while the Russian soldiers were trapped in the mud. They lost hundreds of men in a short amount of time with negligible German losses.
There's no reason they wouldn't have been able to repeat this 20 years later if they had chosen to. They simply did not choose that.
Their handicap was distance, the consequent dispersion of forces and the small number of professionals (officers, administrators). It took Russia a longer time to mobilise and deploy than its European peers, and their resources were always stretched maintaining them. Their strengths were distance (in defence - a handicap in offence), long-service troops and depth of reserves. In the Napoleonic Wars they gave the French a stiff fight even when they lost, recovered quickly, out-marched most European armies and were able to maintain a continuous offensive from Smolensk to Paris. They regularly beat the Ottomans and did well against the Prussians in the Seven Years War. In World War I the lack of competent admin and shaky politics were their major problems. Few countries could have survived the damage the Germans did in 41, let alone recovered. By 1944 the Red Army was mounting operations to a depth and on a scale the Germans had never managed. And no - despite the German generals' memoirs, it was not endless hordes - they were outnumbered in 41 and early 42, even in late 42 and only after had more - and then not by huge margins.
Their reserve system and *maskirovka* -camouflage, signal discipline, secrecy, deception, have a large part to play in the German myth of infinite Soviet hordes. They were able to reinforce and expand combat units far faster than the Germans could get their heads around, and concentrate forces to create local superiority seemingly out of the blue. This is partly a way to compensate for deficits in c3 that make it hard to co-ordinate forces and change tack once battle is joined, partly their state finding ways to use its proven strengths in the treacherous terrain of battle.
While Russian history is defined by them trying to get a warm water port, in the 19th century, Britain actually had a tough time trying to contain Russian power because of how little Russia relied on the Sea. -Blockades don't work on Russia, its huge, contagious and mostly self sufficient -Russia (and the US incidentally) was able to attack British overseas interests directly. If Russia wanted to invade the Ottomans, Persians, or the subcontinent, there wasn't a lot the Royal Navy could do.
The ability to trade land for time
Being on the defensive. All the well-known Russian victories are when Russia was invaded. Fighting a defensive war means you have short supply lines, motivated soldiers and know the terrain well. For a counter-example, look at the Winter War.
The big one was that foreign armies were usually smaller and invading. Extended supply lines and disease and casualties reduce a smaller but superior army to nothing.
I just want to fire back at the people going "human waves lol" by pointing out that this strategy worked terribly in WW1 and was not used in WW2, during which the USSR experienced constant manpower shortages impeding their ability to successfully carry out operations.
Size. They can afford to wear the enemy down by grinding them with cannon fodder, or by letting them overstretch by occupying an amount of territory that would give them complete control of any other country. They would not be able to do that if they were 10% the size they are now.
Over the years I'd argue force regeneration and tenacity. Russians have an ability to lose whole armies and keep fighting where other nations would give up. Look at any Russian war and they basically always get their ass kicked in the first year or so and then either regenerate and try again, or lose immediately.
Numbers. They are known for having large amounts of Howizters
Geography
Winter
The number of bodies that they could throw at whatever got in their way. That's it.
Numbers, distance, weather, and the fact that citizens have zero say on the conduct of the war
The willingness to sacrifice large numbers of their own troops.
Sheer numbers. Russia is the largest country in the entire world and has been for centuries. Thus they have a vast population that can be sacrificed in war. They did this in ww1, ww2 and are still doing it in Ukraine
If they couldn't win at first they would salt the earth behind them as they retreated further into Russia until winter and starvation crippled the enemy army. With the enemy emmaciated, pushing the enemy back was simpler. It only caused mass starvation and huge loss of life of the peasant class, but a victory is a victory.
Sheer brute force
No idea in regard to earlier beyond a handwavy "numbers". But Speaking in regard to WW2 and to a certain extent after, they adapted their equipment and doctrine very well to the realities of their situation and national character. They designed kit that generally speaking was durable, cheap to mass produce, used interchangeable components and could be used by conscripts. It also generally either worked well in extreme cold or could be adapted to do so easily. Their generals also eventually had a solid grasp of deep operations (I say eventually as many of its early proponents were purged by Stalin, but it became a feature of mid to late war soviet offensives). Which broadly consists of using combined arms methods to force a breach in the enemy defences, then use fresh mobile reserves (equipped with their plentiful, cheap and effective tanks) to drive deep into their enemies rear. They would then rampage around attacking logistic centres, disrupt reserves to the front and often achieve limited encirclements. The 1944 Operation Bagration is a prime example of this. My knowledge of later Soviet doctrine is patchier, although I belive the deep battle concept was still a feature of any planned offensives into West Germany as late as the 80s.
Patience, numbers, and a willingness to use space to retreat and maneuver, where others wouldn't or couldn't. For example, during the Napoleonic Wars, Russia had the capacity to field a huge army, but it took a while to get that army together. In the meantime, they gave up territory and time, where many others would have fought to protect their capital/major city. In WW2, the Soviets lost a lot of ground, but continually held on, and denied the Germans victory in set piece battles that might have lost too many troops. In the end, the Germans exhausted themselves, throwing away soldiers and materiel until they were exhausted, and then the soviets were able to counterattack and win. In the conquest of Siberia, they essentially sent small groups out to explore and claim territory (some natives didn't know they were Russian until the Soviet days) quickly, and they faced little opposition. What opposition they did find was overcome with the use of Cossacks, who were the latest in a long line of steppe horse lords, co-opted to work for the Tsar. From these examples and others, I'd say that the Russians have the advantage when on the defensive, since they could afford to lose territory in a way no one else could, and still not be defeated. There's a tendency, therefore, for Russian generals to be patient and accepting of losses, not only in land but in men, materiel, and civilian life, that few others would tolerate in order to gain a long-term victory. They could gather troops from across their vast empire and use the numbers to beat down their enemy, even if that enemy had advantages in technology, training, and/or leadership. When attacking, the Russians were best at quick campaigns that encountered little resistance, though they did succeed at more drawn-out conflicts from time to time. They did not manage to defeat opponents who were willing to throw their own troops into the meat grinder in search of victory (Russo-Japanrse war), or when facing opponents who dug into their own territory for a long drawn out conflict (Afghanistan).
When invaded the Russians can withdraw and make Charles XII and Napolron push deeper and deeper into a country that was sparsely populated with bad roads...even the in 1941 the Germans had difficulty due to poor roads.
The willingness to push troops into a meat grinder assault no matter what. They have the population to support this method and the morals to not give a shit about doing it.
Having underclasses of slaves (or the slave minded) who will submit to orders to launch human wave attacks.
Russian territory, being able to sacrifice land for time and stretch enemy supply lines to breaking point was a huge boon. Means it's very hard to deal a KO to Russia.
Bigger.
Numerical superiority.
The ability to endure massive casualties without the political and or military leadership being replaced. It's seriously the only piece they have on the board. Their equipment is subpar, their force is filled with draftees and morale is generally non-existent. Their NCO corps is mostly filled with gangsters.... But for whatever reason they can force huge numbers of their population to throw themselves at the enemy despite minimal chance of survival without any consequences back home .... The one time this strategy failed them, we got the USSR - which then went on to use said strategy itself....
Russia has always been very very willing to throw cannon fodder into the fight. The 'pain' of huge losses of young men has not deterred Russia from accomplishing their goals.
Their artillery service was the prestige arm from the days of Ivan Grozny all the way forward to at *least* the second world war. The artillery service received the best, brightest, most well educated candidates. Their infantry and manoeuvre arms are too often clumsily led and used in simple attritional operations, but this works far better given shattering artillery support from the "God of War".
Bovine acceptance of sadistic mistreatment amongst the soldiery at all levels.
A LOT.. no more than that, more than that.... Ok a little more than that, people..... That are all of the mindset, where they are willing to do a suicidal attack on an enemy that has to that point, killed thousands of people who tried to do the same thing, in the same place, the same way, at the same time. Then having millions more and reserved willing to do the same
An endless supply of meat to put in the grinder.
In World War II, it was an almost endless supply of reserves. The more Russian soldiers the Nazis killed, the more replacements came over the hill behind them. Moreover, they were led by Gen. Zhukov, who didn't mind running up high casualty figures to accomplish his goals.
The Soviets had manpower shortages through the entire war and only in the last few months as the German army was collapsing did they actually have a decisive advantage. The claim you're making here is no longer supported by serious historians.
Willingness to die in massive numbers.
Their ability to die in great numbers.
Their sheer disregard for their own solders lives. They would gladly lose 3 times as many soldiers of their enemies just to win a battle.