Overall,were Russian forces successful due to good leadership/tactics or just brute force,throwing everything they had at the Germans?I know very little about the Russian military of WWII.
I think it was rather this, if you look at their casaulties. But their tactic changed during the war and the red army was a professional army, more or less, in 1944/45. Look in 1941 germany captuered in battles like Kiew, Smolensk and Wjasma and Brijansk hundred of thousands of russian soldiers. In 1945 in the Battle of Budapest russia lost 80.000 and the germans 30.000, so the relations had changed. In Stalingrad germany lost 110.000 men captured (5000 came back in 1955) 36.000 were evacuated and 100.000 fall in combat. Now look at the russians they lost over one million men and civilians. If you have seen "Enemy at the gates" you will understand why, because of their brute tactic.
I agree that the majority of their battles were via brute force and this is also shown in some of their equipment T-34 and the PPSH Whilst both were excellant examples of their time they represented a mass produced, simple to use and deadly without the need for vast training or experiance type of weapon. However their tactics and stratgy did improve over time whilst the Germans seem to have failed to develop new ones. Originally the russians lost men and material due to obvious but lightning fast encirclement tactics which when coupled with a slow command system and static defences left thousands of troops stranded. I'd be interested to know whether Kursk represented a fine piece of stratagy based upon keenly gathered intelligence or simply a brute force static defence and huge counter attack to a known and obvious plan. FNG
kursk was both. the defence line was great, 3 lines of the biggest tank trap ether. however from what i read the t-34s had to use brute force to launch suicide charges against the tigers. however once at close range the red army was better, faster turret larger ammo suppy and a hugh number overwhemmed the germans
So the counter attack was just force. Huge numbers to overwhelm the Germans who ran out of ammo knocking them out. By the way, turret speed I believe is often proportionate to the revs/vehicle speed so it can vary on the same vehicle deponding on what it's engine is doing. FNG
They had a very good army , but many people don't realize how many lives simply wasted , in many urban battles many more soldiers died than necessary, and many open battle as well , for example Stalin or his cronie would send troops to protect random un protectable positions and many lives were wasted because of this.
I think with the size and power of the Russian army during WWII there was no need for tactics on a piecemeal status. With such large armies it would have been unpractical in the least. The saying goes for every Russian killed there was a thousand more at home. The Russians were suicidally offensive even before Germany invaded. In one Finnish account during the Winter War, the Russians cleared a mine field by forming a line of soldiers the length of the field and then ordered them to walkthrough hand in hand and while whistling the whole time. You can see from this why in 1942-45 the Germans were so afraid of the Russians. They seemed so mindlessly robotic and followed any order valiently. When you see an enemy who is willing to walk through a minefield to kill you, there isn't much else left that will protect you from his determination.
I've read that the Russians were actually most vicious on a tactical level which won them the day more than once. They sought to apply as often as possible the tactics and situations which unnerved the Germans most, such as close combat and city fighting, both of which the Russian army was equipped for and skilled at (through experience).
In any consideration of the "eastern Front," one must remember that the late 1930's purge of the Soviet Army removed several hundred experienced regimental, division and corps commanders. I don't know if a bunch of battalion and company commanders got whacked or not, but I would be greatly surprised if at least some weren't disposed of. That loss of leadership and the fear the purge inspired would have had a chilling effect on army training, maneuvers, etc from then until the war started, and even after. Execution is not much of an inducement to displaying initiative. After the war started, the presence of commisars at nearly every level must have also had a chilling effect as well - screw up and you get a bullet in the back of the head. I have also read that the commisars frequently intervened in tactical operations even when they had no miliatry experience. That is, the political might have been regarded as being more important than tactical good sense. Furthermore, the education level of the average Russian soldatski (?) must have been much lower than that of the average soldat. And, lets face it, the German Army was just plain good. By 1943, though, the Germans had lost so many experienced people that they simply couldn't replace them. Finally, the vastly superior numbers of Sov men and equipment overwhelmed them. It's not surprising that the Germans lost to the Sovs. What's surprising is that it took the Sovs almost 4 years to beat them.
At the higher levels of command, STAVKA and front/army group, the Soviets were at least as good if not better than the Germans. At the army/corps level it may have been a toss-up. At divison and lower (operational and tactical) levels the Germans had a clear, but not complete, advantage. Because the Soviet talent was int he upper echelons, no one was allowed to improvise, almaost exacltly the opposite of the Germans, who basically improvised the whole war at all levels. The Soviets had to make up for thier lack of tactical expertise with raw numbers. By the fall of 1944, the best Soviet units were probably equal to anything in the German army.
Like the Germans had only Tigers at Kursk?! BTW Running out of ammo means with a Tiger firing 92 rounds.... T-34/85 had IIRC 55 rounds.... Good Leadership by ysing Brute Force and throwing everything they had at the Germans was about the best tactics the Russians had and it worked !
i was statinen what happend to the tigers, i wasnt saying that was the only german tank there. and yes tigers had twice as much ammo but there were more then twice as many russian tanks
The Germans were crushed by the Soviets because of: - The size of the Soviet Union - The immense mass of soldiers - The productive capacity of the Urals factories - The American and British aid - The sheer number of delaying actions in 1941 - And the Soviet infantry's ability to throw death aside These were only the main reasons that Hitler's hopes for the capture of the Soviet Union were ruthlessly crushed.
the russains did learn from their mistakes on a tactical level..and werent afraid to use germans tactics against their opponenets when they had already suffered from it. they learnt that a combination of sheer firepower and force of numbers applied in the rite manner could be devesatingly effective if applied in the rite way. thats why they employed huge amounts of artillery tanks and aircraft to batter the german armed forces..but they also learnt to keep the germans off balance and not allow them to regroup once a breakthrough was achieved. thats why u see the russians used tank armies and cordinated the forces accordingly..they honed this skill throughout the war..but they were reckless with the lives of their soldiers and often the generals paid little thought to this, evryone was expendable as long as the objective were achieved. unfortuantely the german army never learnt or wasnt allowed to adapt to this tactic..until a few occasions late in the war..were some generals did manged to side step the intial soviet onslaughts at the opening of offensives..but by then it was too little too late
I think you mean Heinrici's defensive tactics, which involved abandoning the MLR just hours before an expected enemy attack so that his opening bombardment hit nothing but empty positions?
i do indeed...heinrici used this tactic most famously in the defense of berlin. reinhardt did some similar when the russians opened their offensive in east prussia in mid january 1945 with some success, he managed to hold the offensive temporarily. where as further south in poland the front line was torn open very quickly.
