Did Russians use modern military tactics on the battlefront or just brute force to beat the Nazi's in WWII

Question

The question has being extended. Disappointed by apparent 'top contributor's' answers. Maybe they have just got lazy...! Personally I would want more from a History lesson.

Answer 1

What do you think of their tactics of sending waves of soldiers forward with no weapons, knowing that their dead comrades would be supplying them soon enough...or of their machine guns set up in the rear by the Commissars ready to mow down anyone who retreated. I'd say their tactics were pretty brutal......and effective.

Answer 2

Modern military tactics involve using the minimum numbers of men, and the best use of remote technology so the Russians surely didnt use those.

In the pogroms of the thirties they also managed to wipe out most of their officer class so they had few strategists left when war came.

What they did do however is that they used brute force of numbers and a very active NKVD to drive the Germans back by brute force.

Where they did excell however was in two areas. One was tank warfare where they became very effective at managing tank formations in battle, which was no mean feat against the Germans who were also more than competant in that field.

The other was taking the initiative, whereas the western allies would fight and rest, the Russians pushed on regardless, although they did not have the supply chain issues of the west.

Answer 3

The russians used quite modern military tactics under the leadership of Field Marshall Zhukov, a brilliant strategist and commander.Coupled with the siege at Stalingrad which the Germans could not take was the beginning of the end for the German forces in Russia. From day one of the invasion by the German Armies, Stalin had his factories working night and day producing Tanks, artillery, weapons , planes, etc. He was building up for a huge counter attack, but it all depended on Stalingrad holding out against the onslaught of the German war machine. which they did by supplying Stalingrad with supplies across the River Volga ( the back door). The city held out until the winter began to set in. As the germans expected to be in Moscow before the winter, they were not equipped with winter clothing. Temperature plunged and the German tanks diesel froze, their transpotr froze and so did many of the german troops. That is when Zhukov counter attacked with hundreds of tanks and artillery. So began the German retreat from Russia. Incidentally, Napolean did enter Moscow but found an empty city and no food or animals. The whole population had retreated and took all the food and animals with them. Clever people, yes?

Answer 4

A combination of the two, plus they had Marshall Zhukov and the invincible Red Army.

In addition to all of this 'brute force' in man[women]power - the Soviets were able to outproduce German battle tank production.

The Red Army [comprising five shock armies] stormed into Nazi Germany and literally rolled their tanks over the retreating German Army.


In addition to the Wiki info on the Red Army, there are a number of Russian sites out there which may be well worth visiting..

Red Army's tactics in World War II - Wiki - The tactics used by Red Army during World War II have presented an interesting subject matter to war historians due to the unusual circumstances shaping ...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army's_tactics_in_World_War_II

Answer 5

A few of these answers have it pretty sown up. The answer is both.

Stalin had purged the military of it's officer corps leaving lackluster officers who had high standing with the Communist party but no field or command experience (something that plagued Hitler at the end of the war). Stalin feared that if he had left the more experienced officers in place they would lead a revolt against him. So he had thousands of officers (loyal or not) put to death or imprisoned.

as the war broke out the officer corps that reminded was overwhelmed. They were not able to handle the logistics needed to fight effectively. Stalin demanded results and brute force seemed to at the very least occasional provide results.

as the war raged on several officers who had been imprisoned were released and sent to lead the military. once the qualified officers were in place, tactics changed. Suicidal and pointless attacks became cunning plans, pincer movements and solid strategies that helped obliterate the Germans.

It is almost fortunate Stalin did not kill off all his officers. History would have been very different.

ADD ON: Thumbs down?!?!?! couple people need to go crack open a history book. or maybe even watch a little history chanel if reading to to complex for them.

Answer 6

the germans invaded russia with 3million men. and were held up by the russian units until winter.

when the russians finally went on the offensive, they had a large numerical advantage, (especially in artillery) and most attacks would start with an air attack, an artillery barrage, then tanks and infantry advance. This is still used in the same way by most armies of the world.

Were they modern tactics??? probably not, but improved definatly, mainly by the new war machines they had to use (russian artillery was the best around at the time).

the tactics used, have been in use for hundreds of years, but the russians probably perfected them.

Answer 7

I believe that cold brutal winter helped defeat the Nazi Regime.the Nazi didn't read the history of what happened to Napoleon, when his army tried to do the same thing. determination and personal resolve of the people and the Russian, sniper program helped with brute force and Hitler , fighting a War on three fronts.

Answer 8

It's a peculiar Russian mix. They had a doctrinal obsession with the offensive. They had some political problems early but it didn't take long for them to out-do the Germans with combined-arms combat (Blitzkrieg). At the same time, they were particularly unconcerned with casualties. It was an odd mix of first- , second-, and third-generation warfare, with some aspects being more advanced than any other nation, and some being what we'd consider completely crude.

Answer 9

The answer is once the Soviets got the upper hand in any situation they used brute force. Once the they make a breakthrough in a defensive line, the Soviets did everything to exploit it with the principle force turning the flanks and rolling it up like one rolls up a tube of toothpaste. Follow on units would be forced through the breech to help widen it and to push back any possible counterattacks. The ultimate goal was to smash and destroy their enemy so as rapidly as you made the breakthrough you started the pursuit to run the Germans to ground. Any Soviet officer found not pursuing the Germans on the retreat with the upmost speed was very likely to be shot out of hand by the NKVD or GRU security forces.

Answer 10

Yes.

The Russians started out generally pretty weak on tactics, although their camouflage was superb. the tactical weakness was not helped by Stalin having purged all the brighter officers.

By 1945 they'd learned most of the small-unit tactical lessons the Germans could teach.

The strategy was still conservative, but when you're winning easily why take risks ?

The main weakness of the late-war soviet army was in command and control - the soviet system is just not geared for initiative - even mid to senior officers did not dare deviate from orders - even to exploit an unexpected opportunity.

In contrast, the Germans always showed the greatest flexibility and use of initiative - from NCOs to generals - they could be criticised for not exploiting a chance in breach of orders!

As well as this institutional inflexibility they were short on radios, and limited in the use of indirect artillery and close air support.

Answer 11

One thing for sure, Hitler was never good in history otherwise he would have learnt from Napoleon's stupidity. In any warfare, supplies are the main bloodstream of the troops. In this case, I believe the Russian military tactics were far superior to the Nazis' and brute force had little to do with it.
Take 'Nam for instance, Americans were twice the size of the vietnamese and had more sophisticated weaponry yet they lost.
Why? military tactics had everything to do with it.