|
arras -> RE: what is the opinion on this 1 to 1 retreat result for the Russian's (6/27/2011 6:40:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
The root of the whole thing lies in the social system of the USSR. Lenin himself had said that if the country was attacked the Red Army would be "the most agressive army of history".
In other words, the military professionals have NOTHING to do here. What they did, of course, is developing this "agressive" army theory thing. Which is why the Red Army focused on attacking, not in defending.
It's easy to see that this "agressive" thing lead to unnecessary, suicidal attacks: the waves you describe.
But again, it was about the revolutionary spirit. Not about some random military formulating this doctrine from his desk [;)]
Emphasize on attack and aggressiveness doesn't automatically lead in to "human wave". Germans were pretty aggressive themselves, yet nobody think that lead in to "human wave". there are about dozen different concepts of attack. So why wave?
quote:
ORIGINAL: cookie monster
Anyway here's some info. I'm not gonna dig further I'm just gonna accept what was written in the manual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave#Usage
That wiki article claims single book by Paul Davis from 2001. Do anybody know what primary sources he uses? There must be order or manual which articulate such tactics. Red army was using military regulations just like any army from time of Napoleon. And there is plenty of military literature from Soviet Union, they had pretty developed military education system, just like any other modern army.
If Soviets were using human wave tactics, there must be plethora of military manuals and textbooks which define such tactics. So where is it? Idea of human wave imply itself that Red Army fought according to strict and rigid rules ...so where those rules, orders are???
quote:
ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
Just as WITE's "morale" concept can be more accurately termed as "force proficiency" (to borrow from the Operational Art of War), the concept of "human wave tactics" can probably be more accurately termed as "Soviet deep battle", wherein the Red Army attacks all across the line until one part breaks*, then hurls the second echelon into the break to hold it open, then a third echelon would exploit the break into the enemy's rear areas.
It then follows (and was historically demonstrated) that such a doctrine will be very costly in terms of casualties and resources, as you're amassing forces to attack everywhere, then doing so and hoping for a break somewhere.
Deep battle is about engaging enemy in depth -tactical, operational, even strategical. There is nothing in it about throwing waves of humans on enemy lines. In fact "human wave" looks outright ridiculous from point of "deep battle". That theory was developed in USSR because WWI tactic was found insufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_battle
Unless you can provide me with quotations from relevant Soviet military writers and theoreticians of course.
My impression so far is that famous soviet "human wave" tactics is just another of those Western stereotypes about Eastern front like another famous kliche of NKVD or barrier troops marching behind such "human wave" and shooting in to their backs to bolster courage.
There were of course occasions when Soviet commanders used unimaginative frontal attacks, often without support. But those are and where considered by Russians themselves as results of insufficient experience and faults of commanders doing it. Along with deficiencies in equipment and supply. It other worlds, such tactics was considered wrong! Exact opposite to it been part of established doctrine.
quote:
ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
* To provide a contrast, German operational doctrine was more about identifying a specific point along the line where you wanted to create a break, and concentrating your heavy forces along that point: The schwerpunkt. The key difference is in how the break is created in the first place.
Germans did not develop operational doctrine until 1970.
|
|
|
|
