Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By 1944 the writing was on the wall, the steamroller could not be stopped.
The Russians lost millions to learn how to fight the Germans but they didn't die in vain unlike their opponents.
In 1944, there are still many battle where russians lost 3,4,5 times more men than germany.
The casualitys are just crazy.
And at this moment the germans were already retreat since months, even more than a year.
The difference has been made before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrat335
Not more warlike just better at it when the bullets start to fly. Historically Russians rarely start fights but do finish them.
You answear for WWII, and even we can conclude the same. The difference have been made with the amount of soldiers, not there individuals qualitys.
But that's a constant in russian military history that they win at the end due to the number and there capacity to send fresh troops to the battle.
I trully don't see in what "russians" are better at war. But if it makes you feel better to picture yourself as a strong warrior while chechens racket you. Let's do it.
And yeah this good old legend that Russia had never start a war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrat335
Read about the battles around St Petersburg. Ponyri on the north flank of the Kursk bulge. Stalingrad, Kharkov, Kherson, Orel, Smolensk, Rshev, Voronezh, operation Uranus, Saturn and the Crimea.
If you really want to know what happened there you need to read a lot. It's been a hobby of mine for decades. Stay away from western media.
I like the "stay away from western media". It let me imagine what you had read to make you beleive some human disaster were victory.
Why do you consider russians as strong warrior and russian culture as warrior like?
It's a stereotype I always heard, but nobody can really back it up.
It's something you learn while growing up there ( I know I did,) although I am not aware of the stereotype.
It's what you see in families that raise boys, (particularly if it's the families of the lower social ladder,) - I mean my neighbors for example were giving a stick to their 4-5 year olds, pretending it was a rifle, and making them to march around, saying to them "you are a future soldiers and defender of your motherland." And these kind of things are ingrained in boys from the early age on. It's something you observe in schools, and particularly - in after-school hours. What I observed of course took place during Soviet times, so Maxim can point whether something has changed in this respect or not. But back when I was growing up, Russia was very "politically-incorrect" place (if I'll use American definition, lol.)
That means something like "don't cry, toughen up, you are not a girl" could be heard on a regular basis from parents and teachers alike, boys fighting after school was quite regular occurrence as well, and it has been tolerated, as long as it was not happening during academic hours. Overall boys were encouraged to learn marshal arts/play hockey from early age on, and overall to be involved in physical activities on a regular basis (ditto two years conscription - it was a must for all 18 years old, with all the drilling and the rest - I hope they've cut it at least in half by now.) I mean there are a lot of things there, a lot of signs of the "warrior culture," that I don't see in America for example, and that you wouldn't know about, unless you'd witness it on a constant basis, during long period of time. So of course the kind of "backing" you are looking for, is not that easy to present.
Quote:
When I take a look at russian military history, what make them win a war isn't the quality of there soldier but there numbers. Everytime they win because they have more soldiers and are able to handle more casualitys.
I would disagree with that; it has got A LOT to do with the quality of soldiers, because the kind of battles Russians had throughout history, ( and they've had A LOT of them,) were mostly hand to hand, with no "guided missiles" and other "protective aids"; in fact during the WWI they were sent to a battle field even without rifles, with an order to "get them from the enemy during the battle." Which brings another point, that UPPER MANAGEMENT in Russia is often of questionable quality, which often brings big losses, until someone gifted/competent takes charge and works in unison with the best in the lower ranks. And that's how Russians prevail at the end and achieve their goals over and over again in history.
Quote:
In all russian history, the only war I found where russians won in numeric inferiority was the war against Persia.
I am sure you'll find plenty of examples in history, where the more numerous troops still lose the battles.
So no, it's not just about "numbers," although the numbers I'm sure play the role as well.
I think the Motorola thing is more about ego than anything else. The female version of this is your average fashionista. Guys often do run in packs and consider others to be outsiders, even their own kin in some cases. I was never that way, my kin are my pack and I would treat even good friends as Intruders at times. The boys my daughter's would hang with hated me even though I tried to make it all normal or whatever they just didn't feel comfortable around me.
I can see why a guy would do what Motorola did IF there was a threat worthy of the word I'd do the same but not for glory or something so foolish.
I am not sure what you are saying about Motorola, when you use such words as "glory" or "something so foolish." Do you mean that his participation in Donbass war is of "foolish" nature or something that's done for the "glory?" I assure you that PART of Russians take the events in Ukraine ( Eastern Ukraine in particular) as a sign of a bigger approaching trouble ( they put it in a context of a broader attack on Russian interests,) and that's why people like Givi and Motorola are regarded very highly by them. (And this is serious and intelligent crowd for the most part, so I happen to agree with them.)
Quote:
The excellence thing doesn't just apply to Russian men.
I understand that. I would think that the "warrior culture" implies the women as well, that can step up to a plate when needed. It's a given, and that's why I think no one was complaining/arguing over "gender assigned" roles, because of in spite of all the "you are a girl, and you can't behave as a boy," everyone knew that at the end women were required to shoulder so much, that they were lucky to be in their "girly" role at least for a while, when still young.
Quote:
My ex was an excellent mother, skilled and unbiased even though one was not even her own blood. It was about the family to her, northing else. Sadly the fashionista side came out and her stubborn egotistical nature became just too much.
There are few types of Russian women; I don't get along with most of them, so I kinda vaguely picture the one you are talking about)))
What's with all the religious flag-waving? It's overdone, and a turn-off.
Yes, she is also not my favorite author. But these ideas are quite common in the mass consciousness.
For example, look at Poklonskaya. Russians chuckle at she, but do not blame it.
Why do you consider russians as strong warrior and russian culture as warrior like?
It's a stereotype I always heard, but nobody can really back it up.
When I take a look at russian military history, what make them win a war isn't the quality of there soldier but there numbers. Everytime they win because they have more soldiers and are able to handle more casualitys.
In all russian history, the only war I found where russians won in numeric inferiority was the war against Persia.
With the exception of the Finnish war (it was a stupid war), a losses of the Russian army usually do not differ much from a losses of other parties. For example, in the Second World War, the losses of the Russians were 1.5-2 times more than the losses of the Germans. This is a lot, but there were objective factors, why the losses were so great - the bad command at the beginning of the war.
Russian good warriors because of their mentality. The origins of this in the history of the country. Liberation from the Tatar yoke required maximum concentration of power, human reserves and religion. As a result, Moscow destroyed the Steppe (all the lands of the Golden Horde are included in Russia at present, including the Crimea).
But this system of power was not liberal and democratic. People adopted such a system, because it allowed the country to survive. Such a system still exists and brings its results: the Poles in 1610, the French in 1812, the Germans in 1941 caused collateral damage, but this did not lead to the destruction of Russia. Russians are stubborn and know how to tolerate.
It's what you see in families that raise boys, (particularly if it's the families of the lower social ladder,) - I mean my neighbors for example were giving a stick to their 4-5 year olds, pretending it was a rifle, and making them to march around, saying to them "you are a future soldiers and defender of your motherland." And these kind of things are ingrained in boys from the early age on. It's something you observe in schools, and particularly - in after-school hours. What I observed of course took place during Soviet times, so Maxim can point whether something has changed in this respect or not. But back when I was growing up, Russia was very "politically-incorrect" place (if I'll use American definition, lol.)
I do not know how now, in the era of smartphones, but 20 years ago we were happy to play "war" ("войнушку"), we used sticks and toy pistols.
At the family level, military upbringing is really quite strong. For example, May 9 is a great holiday for children. They like military equipment and parades. In addition, almost every family has a connection with the war. Grandfathers and grandmothers fought.
Overall boys were encouraged to learn marshal arts/play hockey from early age on, and overall to be involved in physical activities on a regular basis (ditto two years conscription - it was a must for all 18 years old, with all the drilling and the rest - I hope they've cut it at least in half by now.)
I can confirm you the military duty is one year now in russia. There are many way to not make it and the majority of young men don't do their time.
I literrally witness a guy crying like a baby after he understand he will have to join army. But according to you he might e an exception?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I would disagree with that; it has got A LOT to do with the quality of soldiers, because the kind of battles Russians had throughout history, ( and they've had A LOT of them,) were mostly hand to hand, with no "guided missiles" and other "protective aids"; in fact during the WWI they were sent to a battle field even without rifles, with an order to "get them from the enemy during the battle."Which brings another point, that UPPER MANAGEMENT in Russia is often of questionable quality, which often brings big losses, until someone gifted/competent takes charge and works in unison with the best in the lower ranks. And that's how Russians prevail at the end and achieve their goals over and over again in history.
Look for exemple the great northern war:
*First battle of Narva. Russian army was bigger but was crush violently on the battle.
*Battle of Varja.Russian army 6 times bigger and suffer 5 times more loss.
*Battle of Petschora. Same thing, russians sffer far more casualities.
*Battle of Rauge. Same situation
*Siege of Noteborg
*Battle of Saladen
All thoses battles were bloody and at the end russians only take the advantages due to the possibility to send some new fresh troops. While swedish can't and have to fight at the same time some others armies.
For me it's clear that it's not the quality of the russian soldier who change the situation and get the victory.
It's the attrition of swedish army.
I can confirm you the military duty is one year now in russia. There are many way to not make it and the majority of young men don't do their time.
I literrally witness a guy crying like a baby after he understand he will have to join army. But according to you he might e an exception?
It was 10-20 years ago. Now the situation has changed.
For me it's clear that it's not the quality of the russian soldier who change the situation and get the victory.
It's the attrition of swedish army.
Attrition is what will defeat any army. It defeated the Nazis, it defeated Napoleon, the Swedes and not a few other. Look at the American civil war. Lincoln had to go through many generals before he found one who was willing to throw 10s of 1000s of lives away for a hilltop. Sherman did just that. Any general will use whatever he has and masses of troops are just another tool. Personally I think those Swedish soldiers were of lesser quality simply because they were stupid enough to be there to begin with.
In the history books you're not going to find many accounts of the qualities of the Russian soldier but I know some.
Read about Ponyri. The Russians gave as good as they got, they knew there was no point in retreating and if they did the Germans would succeed yet again so upwards of 40000 stood and fought and many died in the trenches they dug. They were more informed of the situation, if they lost others would suffer because they did. If they ran the Germans would simply run them down and kill them. It was better for them to die with a gun in their hands or behind one than a bullet in their back.
Look for exemple the great northern war:
*First battle of Narva. Russian army was bigger but was crush violently on the battle.
*Battle of Varja.Russian army 6 times bigger and suffer 5 times more loss.
*Battle of Petschora. Same thing, russians sffer far more casualities.
*Battle of Rauge. Same situation
*Siege of Noteborg
*Battle of Saladen
All thoses battles were bloody and at the end russians only take the advantages due to the possibility to send some new fresh troops. While swedish can't and have to fight at the same time some others armies.
For me it's clear that it's not the quality of the russian soldier who change the situation and get the victory.
It's the attrition of swedish army.
Quiet honestly you've surprised me to no end, that out of all wars you've picked those battles - aren't they all around 1700 or so?
This is the time when Russia shows up as a "new kid on the block" in Europe, (only to become the prominent participant in European affairs from that point on.) I mean we are talking about the times of Peter the Great, where he decides to take the country from the backwaters to the new heights, to overhaul the whole state system, and to make it work in a new, "Western" manner. So at this point (the battles you bring here as examples of Russian defeat) the Russian troops are still disorganized and totally unprepared to fight a superior enemy, so they lose, and lose badly, in spite of their great numbers.
This is just the beginning of Russia's future military success, where they are observing and learning from Europeans the "art of war" for the first time, and Peter the Great makes sure of that, in the same manner as he was learning hands-on the navy skills, serving as a sailor on a foreign ship ( I believe it was a Dutch ship.)
I mean even if you look up "Battle of Petschora" that you've mentioned, it tells you right there - "However, the same year, in 1701, they first encountered the Swedish general Wolmar Anton von Schlippenbach in the battle of Rauge where Boris Sheremetev—one of Peters' foremost generals—was defeated, which would only be the beginning of Peters' ambition for an "open window to the west".[5]"
So that's what that era was all about - Russians arriving on European theater, poorly prepared, but full of ambitions to expand their borders and to turn their country into the European state with all the advantage of trade and military, which they couldn't achieve without the access to the Baltic Sea and the Navy, which they were determined to build from a scratch. This is what the events preceding the " Great Northern War" were all about, and as the end result of it, in spite of their lack of experience and bad losses, they've managed to learn and to ultimately achieve their initial goals, as it's stated here - "The war ended with Sweden's defeat, leaving Russia as the new dominant power in the Baltic region and as a new major force in European politics."
You know, there is an old "Peter the Great" movie ( from 1937,) that I used to like, and there is a famous scene there, when he ( Peter The Great that is) finally gets his victory over Swedish generals, and they are brought in front of him, he gives them a bear hug, saying "Thank you, you are my ultimate teachers."
So those are the times we are talking about, that's why I was really surprised that it was your pick.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
