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

>If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there. The simply logic is we would lose as many, if not more, if we attacked via a path the Germans had instead chose to defend using machine guns and snipers

Was he based, or a c**t like the rest of them?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >collectivist mentality invariably leads to the complete disregard of individual life
    Nothing special about this.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >reducing your own troops' casualties is "disregard for human life"
      He literally explains his reasoning
      Is there some fantasy world you live in where American or British generals never order attacks that guarantee that some of their men will die?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If Zhukov had fought a war where his enemy had equal or more men than he did, he would've been fricked. Everything about his generalship revolved around the fact he could take 3 to 6 times as many casualties as the enemy and still claim it as a "victory." I actually used to buy the hype and considered him one of the best commanders of the war until I read more about Operation Mars. Any general who takes an L this gruesome is not a military genius. Zhukov was good, but he was not on the level of Model, Mannstein, Guderian, or Rokossovsky.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >If Zhukov had fought a war where his enemy had equal or more men than he did,
      Wait until you realize this applies to every single soviet "victory"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >seethe about soviets winning while having numerical advantage
        >the axis forces had ~4 million men versus ~3 million soviet troops when they started barbarossa
        >as soon as they lost numerical advantage they stalled and then collapsed
        chudsisters...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Oh weird it's almost like military strategists advise attacking with superior numbers.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >when nazis have numerical advantage it means they are smart strategists
            >if they are outnumbered it's unfair and the enemy is le hordes

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >seethe about soviets winning while having numerical advantage
            >the axis forces had ~4 million men versus ~3 million soviet troops when they started barbarossa
            >as soon as they lost numerical advantage they stalled and then collapsed
            chudsisters...

            whos the show for?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If you have more troops than the enemy, are you supposed to not use them?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Stormgays literally use the number 1 cope argument in gaming.
          "YOU DIDN'T WIN FAIRLY BY /insert some moronic metrics or strategy/"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Stormgays literally use the number 1 cope argument in gaming.
          "YOU DIDN'T WIN FAIRLY BY /insert some moronic metrics or strategy/"

          >haha lets get all of our troops killed because THIS war will be the last war
          >history goes on
          >becomes laughing stock of the world
          L O L
          Confederates, Imperial Germans, Nazis, Spartans and Carthaginians are all laughing their asses off.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What you fail to add is that Nazi Germany had the technological edge and the only way the soviets could beat that is by getting up close and personal, forcing the Germans to trade lives instead of just dominating from range

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The German military in WW2 only had a minority of its forces mechanized, had only a few railways at its disposal, and was still using horse-drawn wagons for a great deal of its logistics. Soviets by comparison were decked out in Lend-Leased trucks, trucks, and weapons furnished by Uncle Sam.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >trucks, trucks, and weapons
          Meant to say trucks, tanks, and weapons.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Depends on the time period we're talking about bud, Soviets did get lend lease sure, but all of that equipment was hoarded into Operation Bagration mostly.
          And doesn't really matter how many Shermans or Jeeps the allied send as they can't defeat Tiger or Panther tanks in the wast openness of the steppes.
          And yeah, even western allies got absolutely clapped by the big cats, Operation Goodwood for an example had over 500 british shermans lose to 12 panthers and 3 flak 88 guns
          .

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >And doesn't really matter how many Shermans or Jeeps the allied send as they can't defeat Tiger or Panther tanks in the wast openness of the steppes.
            You just drive around them and destroy the logistics. Or if Tigers and Panthers are advancing, you run away until they break down and run out of fuel.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            In a perfect world maybe.
            Go tell that to the hundreds of tankers who got blown up trying to get there

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Hmm. Engage ramming speed?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Explain exatly how the dysfunctional shithole soviet union which somehow managed to get a millions of its own "citizens" to starve while holding one of the most fertile regions on europe
            Managed not to immidiately collapse and fricking starve to death via moronation the moment they lost the said fertile region

            The stavka from 43 onwards was on a strick diet of american semen as it was thousand times better than the mystery meat which was likely some fricking gulag inmate a few days ago and the sawdust filled black "bread"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Not everything is about men. The most significant factor of Nazi victories and defeats on the eastern front is logistics. Could the army be properly supplied? If and when the Nazis were well supplied, they dominated the soviets every time, outnumbered or not. With food, arms, ammo, first aid, etc, all dwindling, I'm not sure any army could hold back the human waves of the soviets

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What you fail to add is that Nazi Germany had the technological edge and the only way the soviets could beat that is by getting up close and personal, forcing the Germans to trade lives instead of just dominating from range

      Holy shit, this is some onions-tier revelation but unironically Legion-tier tactics (Romanz and shiet from Fallout New Vegas)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If it's true that the casualties are about the same, it makes sense. Especially since they'll expect an attack through a minefield a lot less. It's not a fairy tale choice, but it's the choice that wins battles, and that's what matters.

      Yeah, the entire war against Germany was won by British currency, American factories, and Russian blood. It's worth mentioning that the Germans actually did have enough troops to finish the job, but they were busy defending in the West. Even into 1944, Germany would have one a war with just the Soviet Union.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >one
        Germany could have even with substandard supplies.
        Their engineering was unironically enough to inflict enough casualties they could break up Soviet Strength and turn things into another toss up.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Even into 1944, Germany would have one a war with just the Soviet Union.

        You must be kidding.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Third battle of kharkov is the best example german ingenuity on the battlefield and of soviet incompetence

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The best butcher knows when to slaughter more and when to slaughter less

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why not use an artillery barrage to somewhat clean the minefield?

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn’t the soviets wear boots like these, or snow skis?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This shit isn't true and was just part of the anti-stalin propaganda post-khruschev. Stalin was right to treat these people like the backbiting maggots they were.
    Nobody here cares about the truth though, just that the lies rub them the right way.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *