Was Deep Battle legit or was it just Soviet cope for 'human wave tactics?'

Was Deep Battle legit or was it just Soviet cope for 'human wave tactics?'

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Soviets never used human wave tactics as in constantly sending people into a grinder until they give up from attrition. They tactics was using the manpower advantage effectively.

    1. Huge barrage to weaken the frontline
    2. Send in the first group to assault and break lines
    3. Send in the second wave to push through and tell them to drive as fast as they can with the oil they got until they reach strategic goals
    4. When the enemy thinks the offense is over send in your next wave for another offense
    5. When your enemy think it is finally over, begin the offense somewhere else after they were forced to transfer away tanks to shore up the frontline.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >1. Huge barrage to weaken the frontline
      >2. Send in the first group to assault and die
      >3. Send in the second wave to push through the bodies and die
      >4. When the enemy thinks the offense is over and they're out of ammo send in your next wave for another offense to die in the melee
      >5. When your enemy think it is finally over, send in the final wave to overtake the exhausted enemy
      Ftfy
      Cause all you described was human waves followed by another human wave attack somewhere else in the line

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        hahahah true. its literally like saying "send in a human wave thst gets destroyed to lure the enemy into a FALSE sense of security. thrn send the real, true official human wave, and another until they are defeated. contongency: if this fails send a human wave attafk somewhere else OORAAHHH"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why didn't they just mow down all these human wave attacks? Do you really need numerical parity to defeat human wave attacks?

          I mean the Soviets didn't even outnumber the Germans 2:1 until practically the end of the war so what gives?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        By that definition, every attack is a human wave attack.
        The German Blitzkrieg? Human Wave Attacks. American and British tactics in Euorpe? Human Wave Attacks.
        Fucking Desert Storm? Human Wave Attacks.

        >never used human wave tactics
        >3.
        >wave
        >4.
        >next wave

        There's a very specific definition of what constitutes an actual Human Wave Attack. And no, just attacking in multiple waves is not enough to meet that definition.

        deep battle isn't 'human waves', but it's damn close. It only works if you have overwhelming numerical superiority and superior logistics, the moment either of those isn't true then things go to shit. General advance against the frontline to force an opening only works if you're willing to take massive casualties AND you have the reserves available to immediately exploit any breaks in the line. The big problem you see with Deep Battle variants like we saw the Russians use in Ukraine (after years of hyping up "recon-strike complex" they didn't fucking use it) is that to do it correctly you bypass strongpoints and try to reach further and further into enemy territory but by doing so you leave any forces still in those villages and towns to wreck havoc upon your rear echelon and logistics troops. The start of the current Ukraine war was pretty much 1970s Soviet Deep Battle vs 70s era NATO Active Defense.

        Except there was no follow-up echelons to take care of bypassed strongpoints, and the whole thing was started in the midst of the spring thaw, completely killing the whole attacking across the front aspect by funneling everyone down a few roads. And let's not even get into violating Unity of Command etc. The Russians straight-up failed to emulate 70's-era Deep Battle.

        What many people kinda ignore is that Germany is actually a pretty shitty area for large scale armored warfare. There is like a forest, river and small town every few kilometers.

        The German Army even calculated that the average line of sight would have been less than one kilometer in a case of war.

        That's central and parts of southern Germany. The North German Plain is a lot more open and flat than those parts, and rivers are the only notable geographic obstacles there.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Holy shit this is him, Armatard IS back.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He never left, it's only harder to notice him with all the vatniks and /chug/ trannies throwing a fit in every thread since February.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >never used human wave tactics
      >3.
      >wave
      >4.
      >next wave

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He means they didn't have groups of men charge blindly into machine gun fire and when that failed they sent another

        He means they softened a part of the front, send a group to attack the weak spot, and would send groups after that to attack using different goals/tactics

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >softened a part of the front
          >didn’t break that part of the front
          So they retreated or died. They didn’t retreat, they died.
          The absolute mental gymnastics

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They had human wave charges against barbed wire and machine gun nests against Finland in karelian isthmus.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviets never used human wave tactics as in constantly sending people into a grinder until they give up from attrition.
      they literally did nothing else for the first 20 years

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviets never used human wave tactics
      >Describes human wave tactics to a tee
      Watching Russia’s reinvented military history collapse along side it’s current history has been a satisfying bonus.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      in 1939 they didnt even have communication between infantry and artillery.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They still don't.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That just sounds like human wave tactics with extra steps.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they didn't use human waves
      >lengthy explanation how they actually used human waves

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they didn't use human waves
        >lengthy explanation how they used soiphisticated tactics that differ immensely from human waves

        Well, the actual military textbook definition of human waves anyway. Can't quite speak for the armchair retards on PrepHole definition, under the dumber variant of virtually every offensive operation in modern military history that includes a significant ground element can be considered a human wave attack.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What's the difference between this and a blitzkrieg?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The main difference was that where classic Blitzkrieg aimed at blowing one big hole into the frontline to then create an encirclement, Deep Battle favoured multiple smaller, parallel penetrations followed by maneuver units racing into the enemies' operational and strategic depth to cause the entire front to become dislodged and optimally into a rout.

        Then there's a whole bunch of more practical differences in how each systme tried to achieve those goals, like the emphasis on operational and strategic deception of Deep Battle, or the way either system developed a penetration through either a command-push or recon-pull approach.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        blitzkrieg is when you don't have an endless number of bodies to throw at the problem and actually have to use intellect to more efficiently solve the problem with your limited resources.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviets never used human wave tactics
      >2. Send in the first group
      >3. Send in the second wave
      >4. When the enemy thinks the offense is over send in your next wave

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Soviet generals were pretty diverse and your pathetic attempt to pretend otherwise just makes you look retarded.
      moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The problem was that Stalin executed every single officer, who could ever have enough clout (aka competence) to lead a military coup. Then he hired some snot nosed dumbos to lead his army and gave them a notebook titled "waging war for dummies", which included that guide you just typed.
      When it says "send in the first group to attack", the officers with 0 experience just lined up a human wave and sent them in. Finland showed them how magnificently that works.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Which again is why Ukraine has the advantage.

        Zelensky doesn't have to worry about coups.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Democracy tends to do that, why would anyone want to topple the government they chose and can choose again in just couple years?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >All the cope responses
      >Nobody understands actual doctrine
      I bet these retards think blutzkrieg is a doctrine.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviet system is incapable of producing coherent military doctrine because they tend to purge intelligent people they need for planning it, and when they do implement their theories they implement them with an ineffective top-down authoritarian command structure where the top doesn't know shit about what's actually going on on the ground and the bottom only follows direct orders and has no initiative to adapt to changing battlefield circumstances.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. They are run by the intelligence agencies. They purposely keep the military weak and under-experienced to prevent it from ever being able to cause an uprising. This means that they are always low skill and such.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hence WHY Ukraine was ultimately the power to finally unleash it.

      With a flexible command system and actually smart leaders, the Soviet method is far more lethal.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Legit, but also created the dependence on high ranking officers micromanaging the battle.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    deep battle isn't 'human waves', but it's damn close. It only works if you have overwhelming numerical superiority and superior logistics, the moment either of those isn't true then things go to shit. General advance against the frontline to force an opening only works if you're willing to take massive casualties AND you have the reserves available to immediately exploit any breaks in the line. The big problem you see with Deep Battle variants like we saw the Russians use in Ukraine (after years of hyping up "recon-strike complex" they didn't fucking use it) is that to do it correctly you bypass strongpoints and try to reach further and further into enemy territory but by doing so you leave any forces still in those villages and towns to wreck havoc upon your rear echelon and logistics troops. The start of the current Ukraine war was pretty much 1970s Soviet Deep Battle vs 70s era NATO Active Defense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So, is it safe to assume that had the cold war gone hot the Soviets would've been able to reach the Rhine, only to start getting pushed back as all the territory between the Rhine and east german border would be a cluster fuck of "bypassed" NATO forces and angry partisans?

      Also, how long would it have taken for Poland to revolt, I'm genuinely curious given how many small scale incidents of dissidence they and the Czechs and Slovaks had, about how long it would have taken for the pact to start imploding.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No because the USSR was more competent and the older Army more motivated. But its tough to say as many of the things that counter this doctrine so well now are more recent, but a Cold War gone hot would have brought some earlier gens of this tech in (drones, anti AA, etc)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >So, is it safe to assume that had the cold war gone hot the Soviets would've been able to reach the Rhine,
        Depends on the year, but in the mid to late 70s and the 80s, Warsaw Pact commanders certainly didn't think so. Link related if you're really interested in it https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/ZB-79.pdf

        It's pretty safe to assume that the Soviets never had a meaningful numerical superiority because they couldn't into Schwerpunkt.

        Moreso that treaties limited the amount of forces they could station outside of the USSR and the US made it quite clear that if they thought the Soviets were breaking it they'd go ahead with REFORGER.

        Aren't human wave attacks and deep battle operations in the different stages of an attack? Human wave is used to achieve a breakthrough while deep battle is a concept of exploiting breakthroughs. Albeit a military that relies on human wave attacks is likely not mobile enough to perform deep battle.

        I might be talking out of my ass here but isn't it effectively a parallel development with blitzkrieg from the 1920's kraut-soviet tank exercises anyways.

        If Russians had approached the invasion of Ukraine like a real war to begin with, instead of fucking the whole thing up in 3 days with the Kiev convoy and whatnot they might have been far more successful, they lost their best spearhead equipment in their retard tier pushes and then the rout, so they are now restricted to what is effectively a trench warfare variant.

        >If Russians had approached the invasion of Ukraine like a real war to begin with, instead of fucking the whole thing up in 3 days with the Kiev convoy and whatnot they might have been far more successful,

        All of their problems could have been mitigated if they simply appointed a theater commander instead of waiting for Month 9 of their three day invasion.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They would have gotten highway of death'd the second NATO air power started making sorties and deleting their command structure, becausebthey would have tried bumrushing to more defensible positions to get out of the open and creating traffic jams along roads in the process

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What many people kinda ignore is that Germany is actually a pretty shitty area for large scale armored warfare. There is like a forest, river and small town every few kilometers.

        The German Army even calculated that the average line of sight would have been less than one kilometer in a case of war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Soviets had a few advantages other than numbers
        They actually had a faster OODA loop than NATO, even though NATO invented the term
        Their incessant drilling meant that while their forces were tactically rigid, they were able to plan and implement maneuvers at the operational level with way less fuss than NATO

        Before airland battle leverages the advantage in PGMs and tactical initiative to strike at the achilles heel of brittle tactical planning, Soviets would have enjoyed more cohesive large scale maneuvers

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You say that, and it's true from a theoretical standpoint, but Soviet commanders thought otherwise https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/ZB-79.pdf

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is covering the late 80s period when the Soviets were effectively neutered as a military force. Plus it's looking at the Czechs in particular who indeed did have real problems trying to get out of their country - CENTAG would be a shitshow all around with the major plays actually being in the north.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Soviets barely had real recon elements attached to their units. Any battlefield recon would have been by contact.

          Meanwhile NATO had the luxury of dedicated recon planes like the German F-4 and Tornados.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >tactically rigid
          >implement maneuvers at the operational level
          Lmao rigidness is hindrance when shit hits the fan

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It really depends. Odds are it would have taken months for the US to gather enough strength to start pushing the Soviets back. At the same time the Soviets would have struggled to push into France and France was liable to nuke them to stop a repeat of 1940. Pretty much the Soviets hoped that once they reached the Rhine they could negotiate and end the war.
        >Assrape Germans and outnumbered US, British, and French units
        >Reach Rhine
        >GG no re
        >Hope US is willing to negotiate and give the Soviets somewhat favourable terms to avoid a five year ling blood bath with millions of dead

        The real question is if the Soviets would have been able to reach the Rhine. If not than the US might have been confident enough to try and take East Germany, but neither side wanted a protracted war with the threat of nuclear exchanges. The idea of Americans marching through Moscow or Soviet paratroopers in Britain is a pure fantasy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's pretty safe to assume that the Soviets never had a meaningful numerical superiority because they couldn't into Schwerpunkt.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Aren't human wave attacks and deep battle operations in the different stages of an attack? Human wave is used to achieve a breakthrough while deep battle is a concept of exploiting breakthroughs. Albeit a military that relies on human wave attacks is likely not mobile enough to perform deep battle.

      I might be talking out of my ass here but isn't it effectively a parallel development with blitzkrieg from the 1920's kraut-soviet tank exercises anyways.

      If Russians had approached the invasion of Ukraine like a real war to begin with, instead of fucking the whole thing up in 3 days with the Kiev convoy and whatnot they might have been far more successful, they lost their best spearhead equipment in their retard tier pushes and then the rout, so they are now restricted to what is effectively a trench warfare variant.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It only works if you have overwhelming numerical superiority
      Wrong

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No it isnt. Deep battle requires overwhelming superiority in numbers, firepower and logistics.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    run into a problem? go around. use raw manpower, firepower, and material advantage to consolidate gains while keeping pressure wherever you can.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Kill your enemy
      >Press your advantage
      >Avoid fights you can't win
      Beeg thonk

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is a reason why the Wehrmacht and then later Israel and NATO put so much effort on tactical freedom of small units.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Deep battle is basically the same strategy everyone else was going. But instead of finding exploitable points in the front line. They would make an opening with artillery. And instead of concentrating their force for a break through they would deploy their forces along a long front due to believed manpower advantages they would enjoy. In practice it was not a decisive way for victory, and basically led to ww1 style conflict. The Soviets would adapt quickly, and no one held their breathe to use deep battle as the be all end all.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's basically not doing the home work and some general several hundreds miles away would draw some fun arrows on a map. And there was no ways for officers on the front to change anything reflecting the reality of the actual battle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I have a silly opinion based on zero understanding of doctrine

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Deep battle was legit when opposition had 9 out of 10 divisions made from infantry foot slogging division that two guns and supplies with horse carts. Against such opposition it is natural to use motorized and tank divisions for deep strikes to cut off supply lines. Foot slogging infantry is in a very bad spot as they can't compete in maneuver, speed and resilience in pitch chaotic battles against tanks.

    But not everyone understands that time of horse cart is gone and now thirrd tier "light infantry" units can move at sonic speeds using technicals and tanks doesn't scare infatry anymore because RPG and ATGMs

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >being proud of an operational doctrine which needs a massive numerical advantage and foreign supplied logistics because your own industry is incapable of providing enough material

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >retreat until winter
    >retreat some more
    >wait til everyone, friend or foe, freezes and dies of starvation
    >send fresh conscripts following year and declare victory

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. Breaking through the enemy line and then sending more troops through that breakthrough has never worked, will never work, and every army that has ever tried it has failed.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It is a cope because they still got fucked by Axis forces on a tactical level all the way until the end. It was not outright human wave but it the doctrine didn't really give a shit if your attacking units were not "offensive units" and just used them to attack and fix the enemy. Soviet breakthroughs were also reckless and often destroyed by Axis reserve units. Compare this to Germany which had isolated units managing to break out of encirclement on their own multiple times. Both Germany and America were far better at mobile warfare. Germany struggled with production, supply and manpower, which the Soviets didn't.
    Though I am basing this on WW2. Russian doctrine during the Cold War was more refined and less of a cope.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviet breakthroughs were also reckless and often destroyed by Axis reserve units

      True, look at Kursk for example. On paper, there's no reason why Army Group Centre should have been able to survive, let alone continue to fight all the way till the end of the war, but the Soviets turned what should have been a coup de grace into a costly failure

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Deep battle was in fact a real legit doctrine as conceived. The concept was less the "deep operations" as discussed by some other people here but more the idea that war is conducted on more than just the frontline, that a breakthrough's goal should not just be ensoyclements for muh kesselschlacht. The idea of penetrating an enemy's logistics, communications, support, airfields in lieu of simply looping around was a good one. The problem was simple:
    1) Much like any other military, having a skilled officer corps capable of independent action was very useful for deep battle. At the beginning of WWII, the Soviets did not have an officer corps capable of pulling this off. Later on, such as during Bagration, they had gotten enough experience to at least be decent, but even then many of the best generals were Ukrainian, Polish, Georgian, etc. and not necessarily Russians.
    2) There was a major counter to the doctrine, which is if the general in question kept a large portion of their troops in reserve and not on the front line. Using a relatively small number of troops to man strongpoints on the frontline allowed some German generals to keep a large mechanized force in the rear. This could then be used to either fill in holes in the wall (as per Field Marshall Model) or to in turn encircle and destroy the operational maneuver group that was supposed to penetrate the German lines. The latter method was what eventually got incorporated by the US into Air-Land Battle. Of course, this strategy also means that one is then vulnerable to having a frontline ground down by attrition due to it being loosely defended. It also was much harder to coordinate, and for instance when later in the war the retreating Germans clogged up roads, communications lines, logistics, and other arteries of transport, it was nearly impossible to defend against and deep operations worked their best in that environment.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >There was a major counter to the doctrine, which is if the general in question kept a large portion of their troops in reserve and not on the front line. Using a relatively small number of troops to man strongpoints on the frontline allowed some German generals to keep a large mechanized force in the rear.
      Except this is much harder to do than implied. Your mechanized forces are useless if they're in the wrong spot. This is literally what happened with operation Bagration. The soviets successfully fooled Germans into believing the main Soviet effort will come in Ukraine which is where they concentrated their mobile reserves.

      Then you had a couple million Red army troops barging trough Belorussia and before your mobile reserves can move around half the army group is gone.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The 'success' of Deep Battle basically happened once the German forces were degraded beyond repair.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Define "degraded beyond repair" and at what point in time did they reach this status.

      Both the Wehrmacht and the Red army had peak strength in mid 1943, cca 4 million axis vs cca 7 million soviets. Its fair to say the Soviets had offensive success beforehand (notably Stalingrad in the winter of 1942 and the winter counter offensives of 1941) but then again one can define German units as degraded beyond repair already a few months into the campaign in 1941 so...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wermacht was at its strongest 41-42, 43 was numerically wise but they were effectively broken by the time Stalingrad was over lmao

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one in this thread has any idea of what they're talking about and is regurgitating memes.

    Russia cannot conduct deep battle like the soviets envisioned. Russia's invasion of ukraine does not resemble deep battle beyond anything but superficiality.

    Go read FM-100-2 dipfucks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Deep Battle was ultimately perfected by modern Ukraine, refining it into a combat philosophy that actually works.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Initially, it was just a more focused approach to human wave tactics. Use arty to blow holes in the enemy line and then throw as many men into those holes as possible. This tended to backfire as the Red Army didn't have the experience to quickly envelope small groups. The holes got plugged and the breakthrough forces got cut off in the middle of Russian Winter.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Was Deep Battle legit or was it just Soviet cope for 'human wave tactics?'
    yeah

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Every attack by a larger formation against an enemy defensive line is a "human wave" as per PrepHole's logic.

    The only offensive that isnt a human wave is some hollywood style raid behind enemy lines where Rambo commando takes out the entire enemy armed forces by himself.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      By that definition, every attack is a human wave attack.
      The German Blitzkrieg? Human Wave Attacks. American and British tactics in Euorpe? Human Wave Attacks.
      Fucking Desert Storm? Human Wave Attacks.

      [...]
      There's a very specific definition of what constitutes an actual Human Wave Attack. And no, just attacking in multiple waves is not enough to meet that definition.

      [...]
      Except there was no follow-up echelons to take care of bypassed strongpoints, and the whole thing was started in the midst of the spring thaw, completely killing the whole attacking across the front aspect by funneling everyone down a few roads. And let's not even get into violating Unity of Command etc. The Russians straight-up failed to emulate 70's-era Deep Battle.

      [...]
      That's central and parts of southern Germany. The North German Plain is a lot more open and flat than those parts, and rivers are the only notable geographic obstacles there.

      But can you explain what sets apart "Deep Battle" from "human waves"?

      Napoleon's attacks actually relied on massed artillery and cavalry, and timing the attack to defeat the enemy by "shock and awe"; he was the creator of the combined-arms corps

      German "blitzkrieg" actually relied on concentrated armoured attacks; they invented the Stuka and the whole gamut of armoured fighting vehicles

      NATO "forward defense" strongly emphasises winning the information war rather than the attrition game; they achieve this by targeting the enemy's C3i assets

      Although all 3 strategies aim to destroy the enemy ultimately, none of them have winning the attrition game as the method by which the breakthrough is made; the primary methods are respectively shock, armour, and C3i. What new innovation did the USSR bring to the art of war that wasn't simply massing more shooty bits and seeing who runs out first in which sector?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >But can you explain what sets apart "Deep Battle" from "human waves"?
        human wave would be across the whole battlefield and continuous regardless if someone broke through or not. in a human wave people would still be attacking the hard spots.
        with deep battle it starts out the same. however when a breakthrough happens whoevers in charge notices and sends the rest of the reinforcements to that weak point.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >however when a breakthrough happens whoevers in charge notices and sends the rest of the reinforcements to that weak point
          That's what everybody does regardless. Literally nobody ignores a hole in the enemy lines; the objective since literally Alexander the Great has been to punch a hole in the enemy lines and then pour your troops through that.

          >continuous regardless if someone broke through or not. in a human wave people would still be attacking the hard spots
          No, that's not it at all. A "human wave" is called that because it seems rely on nothing more than sheer numerical superiority despite qualitative inferiority to achieve the breakthrough.

          The whole game is HOW to achieve the breakthrough, not what happens afterwards (the exploitation).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think the trouble is, is that everyone is explaining this is a bit poorly, so I'll try and break it down as simple as I can.

            A Human Wave Attack is focused on one SPECFIC objective, such as a hill, or a FOB, or anything like that. Due to having a lack of artillery, or airpower, or any other support; as well as lacking in adequate firepower to suppress the defenders (Literally "First man gets a rifle, the second ammunition" type situation) which leaves a haphazard bumrush as the only option left to you for taking that position through force. This means that you need to have such a numerical advantage over your enemy that they enough of your troops will get through all of their defences and be able overwhelm the enemy.

            So basically Zapp Branigan levels of strategy.

            Deep Battle Doctine is focused across the ENTIRE FRONT and is basically a series of probing attacks to work out where the enemy line is weakest. Once this is discovered, you launch a diversionary attack at the furthest point to try and draw as many of the enemy reserves away from this weak point as possible before hitting it with everything you have and try to break through.

            So far, so normal, but this is where things get different and is basically the do or die stage for the entire strategy. Once a breakthrough is achieved, you just keep going. No mop-up, no securing the land behind you, just keep racing ahead so you can get into the rear command and supply areas and just start fucking shit up. The entire idea is to make the enemies entire situation untenable, so that they are forced to pullback across the entire front to counter it. At which point, you just repeat the process until you win.

            This doctrine was originally created back before WW2 and so is stuck in the thinking of the Inter-War years where trench lines spanning the entire front was the norm and the asymmetric, partisan warfare wasn't as effective as it was today.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >this is where things get different and is basically the do or die stage for the entire strategy. Once a breakthrough is achieved, you just keep going. No mop-up, no securing the land behind you, just keep racing ahead so you can get into the rear command and supply areas and just start fucking shit up
              Nothing unusual about that either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                nowadays it isn't, but back in WW2 commanders would try to link up with other breakthroughs in order to encircle the broken line.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We may very well see that eventually in Ukraine. The Kharkiv and Kherson groups finally trapping a Russian concentration between them.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >the trouble is, is that
              I fucking hate people who use speech, and it’s even worse that you typed it out. But you are right

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Who writes this cope. They need to start selling novels

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Human wave attacks
    slovenly cavemen trying to war good

    >multi-echelon assault
    operators operating operationally

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Was Deep Battle legit or was it just Soviet cope for 'human wave tactics?
    There's no difference, as it is a doctrine suited to the USSR's large numbers of less-trained conscripts

    First, let's remove nukes from consideration, as they only lead to MAD. Will Deep Battle work?

    IMHO, before 1980, yes; NATO hadn't achieved sufficient qualitative advantage yet. By 1985, against a fully-prepared NATO, no.

    In 1985 against an unprepared NATO? Possibly, yes, if they could achieve strategic surprise.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Soviet deep battle is about operational level of war which they basically invented and that NATO struggled a long time to properly implement (if they managed at all).
    If you believe German army was broken by endless waves of zergs, you might want to find another hobby.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >endless waves of zergs,
      Ayyo look at this fag

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Great exemple. An absolute failure of a battle. If you believe Gerasimova, 2M+ losses and the germans were able to retreat in good order. Wave after wave were sent because the soviets badly underestimated the strength of the germans in the Area. This is not how the german army was destroyed.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Was Deep Battle legit or was it just Soviet cope for 'human wave tactics?'
    Look at that fucking graphic I mean holy shit they even painted their own red faction significantly larger like they are just admitting they're throwing more men at the problem head on

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they even painted their own red faction significantly larger like they are just admitting they're throwing more men at the problem head on
      You always want to have localized numerical superiority. I get that we're all giddy with the realization that modern Russia is currently incapable of proper warfare but even Ukraine made use of numerical superiority in Kharkiv. There's a bunch of riot cops, SWAT teams and Donbabwe conscripts defending an entire oblast with no secondary defense line? Getting numerical superiority there turns an easy fight into a massacre.
      Part of good recon and intelligence is finding out where these weakly defended areas are and then use numerical superiority there because you never willingly get into a fair fight. So even a smaller army would have a similar graphic, it's standard to force a numerically superior force to split up and then achieve numerical superiority at the small scale even if in the whole theater you are outnumbered.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Aw sweet, a Dunning-Krueger thread.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No kidding. I can't believe people still believe this deep battle bullshit in the current year

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What if........

    Soviet deep battle was hybridised with Japanese tactics (where even defense was offense ultimately)?

    https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJA/HB/HB-7.html

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, sending in wave after wave of your own men and still managing to capture your enemy by surrounding them is a valid military tactic.

    It may be costly or deep, but it is a price that Private. Suka is willing to take.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. Deep battle was never employed during ww2
    2. Deep battle is brilliant
    3. Its got a really cool name
    4. Haters are dumb liberals

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    From what I understand the Soviets basically locked all of their strategy autists in a room and made them come up with the perfect land warfare doctrine. The problems arose with having a military that was actually capable of executing it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the perfect land warfare doctrine
      No such thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And then the Ukrainians promptly dusted off the books and used it all against the Russians.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Seriously, that's one of the real JOYS of this war.

        Seeing the Russians who never STFU about how great they are at military strategy getting owned by their OWN war style done far better, lol.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Seriously, that's one of the real JOYS of this war.

        Seeing the Russians who never STFU about how great they are at military strategy getting owned by their OWN war style done far better, lol.

        You're strongly discounting the role of NATO ISR and weapon systems in Ukraine

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          My point is simple.

          The Ukrainians know the Russian military system intimately, so they hybridised it with NATO concepts. Competent officers given maximum flexibility, and a good NCO corps to respond to changes on the ground.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >so they hybridised it with NATO concepts
            and thus you can't say that they used the Russians' own playbook against them; it's not the same

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The line against the Donbas Offensive? Kursk Defense: tie up the attackers in multiple lines of defence, stopping the blitz dead in its tracks.

              The city defenses to bleed Russian forces are Stalingrad.

              The counteroffensive was right out of Operation Uranus.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >all multiple lines of defence are based on Kursk
                >all city defences are based on Stalingrad
                >all counteroffensives are based on Op Uranus

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Are you really going to tell me a FORMER soviet nation, the fucking brains of the USSR no less, led by a man (Valeriy) trained by the chief of staff of Russia (Gerasimov), wouldn't use what it knows best against the Russians?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >But Zaluzhny also respected and admired the institutions of his Russian counterparts. In his office, he keeps the collected works of General Valery Gerasimov, the head of the Russian armed forces, who is 17 years his senior. “I was raised on Russian military doctrine, and I still think that the science of war is all located in Russia,” Zaluzhny says. “I learned from Gerasimov. I read everything he ever wrote … He is the smartest of men, and my expectations of him were enormous.”

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If it's the fucking brains of the former Soviet Union, it actually is, lol.

                >everything this guy does must certainly come from this guy's background regardless of what it actually is
                tell me, when Valeriy takes a shit, is it a Deep Battle doctrine shit?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Okay wise guy, WHAT is Ukrainian military doctrine?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine are straight up using small units NATO tactics. In the early days they even deployed a full decentralized app controlled command and control system - something the Soviets would have never done even with the technology available.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But their strategy overall is very Soviet. At least three or more Stalingrad type defenses (Mariupol, Kyiv, Severodonetsk), followed by Operation Uranus on steroids.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Blitzkrieg isn't doctrine - it's a term used by the media for the German implementation of deep battle doctrine. Comparing the two in this manner is retarded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        are you stupid

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Your "deep battle" is literally just the left side with more armies.
      And this isn't Blitzkrieg which is a term only invented to describe how fast mechanized force advanced. You could argue Ukrainian started their counter-offensive with one blitzkrieg.

      Soviet "deep battle" is indeed a first wave as sacrifice, followed by more waves focused where the enemy is struggling. Not particularly smart but for soviet it's just cannon fodder & single use soldiers.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Deep Battle™: I have more reserves than u

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Well it is telling the Ukrainians WAITED a good long time before counterattacking, getting numerical superiority over Kharkiv's defenders.

      Even enough extra force to strike at Kherson as well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >all instances of armies gathering strength for an offensive are based on Deep Battle(tm)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If it's the fucking brains of the former Soviet Union, it actually is, lol.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One thing is clear.

    The Russian military was NOT designed to fight a Slavic military that knows Russian weapons and military history just as well, if not better.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Deep Battle is basically like ww2 german's mobile doctrine but for retards.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Deep battle is designed to counter the practice of holding defensive forces back and reinforcing points that are attacked. If you attack the entire line you cant reinforce the whole line, so somewhere will break.

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