Why were russians so shit in WW1?
I know they had shit tier equipment, training and tactics, but they had the same things applied to them in WW2 and they won.
Except their equipment wasn't all that bad in WWII. Their tanks, for example, were superior to German tanks in many instances.
The whole "USSR did nothing but throw human waves at the Germans" is false, too.
>>827001
True, but you their good equipment was in too few numbers during the early years of war.
Most of the time it was shitty inter-war light tanks.
>>826996
>Poor communication
See Tannenberg
>Lack of fucking everything
While by WW2 one rifle per several people was mostly a meme that actually did happen in WW1
>Horrible logistics
Russians can't into them, not now, not ever.
>Shortage of supplies later on
And people say Lend-Lease didn't do anything
>No morale to speak of
There was mass jingoist hysteria in the beginning of the war which even led to renaming of Saint Petersburg to Petrograd but it stopped just as quickly as it started.
>>827001
>The whole "USSR did nothing but throw human waves at the Germans" is false, too.
Human waves still were there, though.
When will the WW2 Russian human wave zerg rush meme die? They only tried it in the first year of the war and guess what it did not work.
>>827041
Nah they were doing it in 1942 and 1944 as well.
I remember Germans recalled they made a bridge out of bodies in 1944 when they were overrunning the Korsun pocket.
>>827041
They were doing it for the whole war. It's just that they started complementing zerg rushing with actual tactics.
>>826996
See:
Brusilov Offensive
Erzurum Offensive
To be honest not bad at all family
>>827054
Read "Panzer Operations" by Erhard Raus. The Russians tried some clever tactics, habitually using sunken bridges to take the Germans by surprise, even using sunken tanks to create a causeway across a river. They were also pretty proficient at camouflage and infiltration.
The Russians may have made a lot of mistakes and lost a lot of men in doing so, but when they needed to they pulled a rabbit out of a hat more times than not. The Jerries severely underestimated them until they were balls deep and had no option but to fight to the bitter end.
>>827020
Shitty inter-war tanks is also what the Germans had during Barbarossa. The T26 or BT series might not be worldbeaters, but they were entirely capable of going against most of what the Germans had. Better in plenty of cases (Pz2).
Meanwhile, tanks like the T-34 or KV-1 - while in relatively small numbers (still a couple of thousand, mind you) is something the Germans did not have during Barbarossa. At all.
>>827178
The problem was lack of radios on the tanks.
>>826996
>"zerg rush"
>k/d ratio is the same as le american heroes while doing 5x as much work as the entire western front combined
lol
>>827054
That's the thing though. Plenty of the 'endless Russians' memery comes from German records. Except often that's not some mindless throwing men at the enemy, but a successful strategic and operational side of things - the Soviets excelled at amassing troops without the Germans knowing and forcing a breakthrough.
Ultimately any action against defensive positions will result in casualties, obviously. And with poor small unit leadership which plagued the Red Army especially early on that will often result in higher casualties than a more seasoned army might have chalked up.
However, a 'human wave' with the connotations of soldiers somehow simply running into machine guns and dying, cuz dey stupid ivans haha xDD or with a single rifle for two men or somesuch BS like that is not how the Soviets did things. Incidentally it's not how WW1 combat, which also gets that unfortunate label, looked like either.
>>827188
How come that western allies still did lose that many men in 45'?
>>827191
>Plenty of the 'endless Russians' memery comes from German records
It comes from German records because someone doesn't want to open any relevant archives.
>>827219
not sure. battle of the bulge was 100k, rest of the invasion was probably that amount again. part of the rest may have been yugoslavians?
>>826996
russia would be considered part of the undeveloped world today
www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls
gdp per capitas in 1939 (1990 dollars)
soviet union = $2237 (1990 dollars) = $4048.97 (2016 dollars)
germany = $5406 (1990 dollars) = $9784.86 (2016 dollars)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
the soviet union was about as wealthy as central america while nazi germany was as wealthy as mexico, it would be very roughly like the 2 squaring off against each other, plus maybe some other countries in south america on the side of central america
>>827188
The "funny" thing about Soviet casualties in the east is that these numbers include dead Soviet POWs.
Of which there were roughly three million (!!!).
When you see the German dead on the Eastern Front - and Overmanns puts them a bit higher than 4.3, for a 5.3 total East+West - and that is dead, not casualties, not POWs, the comparable losses are 4.5-5 vs. 5.5-7.5 million. The former possibly rising by close to a million when counting minor Axis members, the latter depending on whether you go with the 8.5 or 10 figure.
But this doesn't fit the stupid zerg rushing Russians just running into ubermensch machine guns for comrade Stalin narrative when people go on about muh K/D.
>>826996
>Why were russians so shit in WW1?
They raped Austrians and Turks easily so it's British=French>Germans>Russians>Austrians>Turks>Italians pretty much aka mid tier.
>>827661
>Raped Austrians
They got kicked out of Galicia quite fast, then it was a stalemate.
>Turks
That one is true.
>>827661
Didnt Turks rape themselves in trying to get to russia? Because of the snow storms.
>>827188
It's worth pointing out that germans surrenderd in droves to the western allies, which tilted the loss ratio in favor of the burgers.
>>826996
WW2 was more politically loaded. Under WW1 conditions, Russians would have never tolerated high losses like in WW2, occasionally losing more than ten times as many men as the enemy. However, the political commissars on the Soviet side kept them in line, and they knew that things wouldn't be better if the Nazis won, so surrendering wasn't an option either.
>>827270
thats why most sources cut soviet casualties by half. Thats based on russian propaganda numbers ofc
More importantly why was Austria Hungary so shit in WW1? They managed to recapture Galacia and lose it 5x in a row!
