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. 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
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"
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.
Fricking 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 fricking 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.
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
>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
>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
>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.
>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 morons on /k/ 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.
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.
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.
>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
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.
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.
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.
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 fricking 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.
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 frick 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.
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)
>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 fricking 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 moron 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 fricking 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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 fricking 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 moron tier pushes and then the rout, so they are now restricted to what is effectively a trench warfare variant.
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.
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.
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
>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
>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
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.
It is a cope because they still got fricked 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.
>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
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.
>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.
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...
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.
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.
Every attack by a larger formation against an enemy defensive line is a "human wave" as per /k/'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.
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.
Fricking 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?
>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.
>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).
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 fricking 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.
>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 fricking shit up
Nothing unusual about that either.
1 year 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 year ago
Anonymous
We may very well see that eventually in Ukraine. The Kharkiv and Kherson groups finally trapping a Russian concentration between them.
>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.
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.
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.
>Was Deep Battle legit or was it just Soviet cope for 'human wave tactics?'
Look at that fricking 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
>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.
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.
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.
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 year 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 year ago
Anonymous
Are you really going to tell me a FORMER soviet nation, the fricking 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 year 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 year ago
Anonymous
If it's the fricking 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 year ago
Anonymous
Okay wise guy, WHAT is Ukrainian military doctrine?
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.
But their strategy overall is very Soviet. At least three or more Stalingrad type defenses (Mariupol, Kyiv, Severodonetsk), followed by Operation Uranus on steroids.
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 moronic.
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.
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.
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. 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
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"
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?
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.
Fricking 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.
Holy shit this is him, Armatard IS back.
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.
>never used human wave tactics
>3.
>wave
>4.
>next wave
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
>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
They had human wave charges against barbed wire and machine gun nests against Finland in karelian isthmus.
>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
>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.
in 1939 they didnt even have communication between infantry and artillery.
They still don't.
That just sounds like human wave tactics with extra steps.
>they didn't use human waves
>lengthy explanation how they actually used human waves
>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 morons on /k/ 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.
What's the difference between this and a blitzkrieg?
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.
Thank you
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.
>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
Soviet generals were pretty diverse and your pathetic attempt to pretend otherwise just makes you look moronic.
Black person.
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.
Which again is why Ukraine has the advantage.
Zelensky doesn't have to worry about coups.
Democracy tends to do that, why would anyone want to topple the government they chose and can choose again in just couple years?
>All the cope responses
>Nobody understands actual doctrine
I bet these morons think blutzkrieg is a doctrine.
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.
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.
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.
Legit, but also created the dependence on high ranking officers micromanaging the battle.
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 fricking 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.
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 frick 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.
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)
>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
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.
>If Russians had approached the invasion of Ukraine like a real war to begin with, instead of fricking 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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
>tactically rigid
>implement maneuvers at the operational level
Lmao rigidness is hindrance when shit hits the fan
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.
It's pretty safe to assume that the Soviets never had a meaningful numerical superiority because they couldn't into Schwerpunkt.
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 fricking 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 moron tier pushes and then the rout, so they are now restricted to what is effectively a trench warfare variant.
>It only works if you have overwhelming numerical superiority
Wrong
No it isnt. Deep battle requires overwhelming superiority in numbers, firepower and logistics.
run into a problem? go around. use raw manpower, firepower, and material advantage to consolidate gains while keeping pressure wherever you can.
>Kill your enemy
>Press your advantage
>Avoid fights you can't win
Beeg thonk
There is a reason why the Wehrmacht and then later Israel and NATO put so much effort on tactical freedom of small units.
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.
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.
>I have a silly opinion based on zero understanding of doctrine
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
>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
>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
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.
It is a cope because they still got fricked 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.
>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
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.
>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.
The 'success' of Deep Battle basically happened once the German forces were degraded beyond repair.
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...
Wermacht was at its strongest 41-42, 43 was numerically wise but they were effectively broken by the time Stalingrad was over lmao
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 dipfricks.
Deep Battle was ultimately perfected by modern Ukraine, refining it into a combat philosophy that actually works.
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.
>Was Deep Battle legit or was it just Soviet cope for 'human wave tactics?'
yeah
Every attack by a larger formation against an enemy defensive line is a "human wave" as per /k/'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.
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?
>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.
>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).
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 fricking 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.
>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 fricking shit up
Nothing unusual about that either.
nowadays it isn't, but back in WW2 commanders would try to link up with other breakthroughs in order to encircle the broken line.
We may very well see that eventually in Ukraine. The Kharkiv and Kherson groups finally trapping a Russian concentration between them.
>the trouble is, is that
I fricking hate people who use speech, and it’s even worse that you typed it out. But you are right
Who writes this cope. They need to start selling novels
>Human wave attacks
slovenly cavemen trying to war good
>multi-echelon assault
operators operating operationally
>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.
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.
>endless waves of zergs,
Ayyo look at this gay
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.
>Was Deep Battle legit or was it just Soviet cope for 'human wave tactics?'
Look at that fricking 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
>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.
Aw sweet, a Dunning-Krueger thread.
No kidding. I can't believe people still believe this deep battle bullshit in the current year
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
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.
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
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.
>the perfect land warfare doctrine
No such thing.
And then the Ukrainians promptly dusted off the books and used it all against the Russians.
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
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.
>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
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.
>all multiple lines of defence are based on Kursk
>all city defences are based on Stalingrad
>all counteroffensives are based on Op Uranus
Are you really going to tell me a FORMER soviet nation, the fricking 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?
>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.”
>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?
Okay wise guy, WHAT is Ukrainian military doctrine?
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.
But their strategy overall is very Soviet. At least three or more Stalingrad type defenses (Mariupol, Kyiv, Severodonetsk), followed by Operation Uranus on steroids.
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 moronic.
are you stupid
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.
>Deep Battle™: I have more reserves than u
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.
>all instances of armies gathering strength for an offensive are based on Deep Battle(tm)
If it's the fricking brains of the former Soviet Union, it actually is, lol.
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.
Deep Battle is basically like ww2 german's mobile doctrine but for morons.
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.