How to invade Russia?

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the Germans had refocused their advances and aimed solely for the Baku oil fields and Moscow, they would have probably dealt the Russian a far more serious blow than they would have.
 
Archonsod said:
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
So, is there any conceivable way to invade, defeat, and occupy Russia? I have been thinking about this for around a year now and I still have not found a solution that does not require the use of nuclear weaponry, which I, and indeed, most of us, would like to avoid using.
Yes. Invade DURING THE ****ING SUMMER.

They did, actually. It's just things got a little tied up, and then they were stuck there for the winter.

And pushing them too far east wouldn't work, as, if I remember, the Russians had moved a extraordiniary amount of their industry into Siberia before, when the Germans had already taken many of their industrial centers.
 
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Archonsod said:
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
So, is there any conceivable way to invade, defeat, and occupy Russia? I have been thinking about this for around a year now and I still have not found a solution that does not require the use of nuclear weaponry, which I, and indeed, most of us, would like to avoid using.
Yes. Invade DURING THE ****ING SUMMER.

They did, actually. It's just things got a little tied up, and then they were stuck there for the winter.

And pushing them too far east wouldn't work, as, if I remember, the Russians had moved a extraordiniary amount of their industry into Siberia before, when the Germans had already taken many of their industrial centers.

And they wanted to attack even earlier. But, with Yugoslavia messing them around they had to postpone it.

Even more odd, the Germans had relied on Soviet food for most of the pre-war period, in exchange for other goods. The Germans said they would pay it all back on June 23rd, 1941.  :grin:
 
stygN said:
I would say this is something to debate. I have not heard that if they had launched 2 months earlier they'd crush the Russians 100% sure.
They drove the Russians before them without a setback. It was only once the winter set in that they began to falter, particularly in December when the temperature caused the German vehicles to sieze up. Just look at the casualty figures - the Germans lost far more men to the cold than they did to Russians.
And you also say that the massive army Stalin had in Siberia had nothing to do with the defeat of the Germans?
No, The Germans outnumbered the Russians. In 1941 Stalin did not have a large army anywhere, let alone in Siberia. It wasn't until mid - late 1942 that the Soviet economy could ramp up to a war footing.
The winter and the bad planning is of course the main factors, but without reinforcements from Siberia the Germans would have a fair chance in Moscow and Stalingrad, even with lord Winter smashing them.
Erm, after the reinforcements the Red Army had an advantage in manpower over the Germans of around 100,000 men, barely a 10% advantage. They had far less armour and artillery, and thanks to German reinforcement the Luftwaffe had regained air superiority over the Soviets.
AFAIK, mud slowed down the Germans more then snow and frost did...
Nope. Mud was a problem, but the German engines siezed up in the cold. They abandoned far more vehicles than were destroyed by the Soviets purely because the weather rendered them inoperable. It hampered their logistics, preventing fuel and munitions being supplied at anything like what was needed, and perhaps the killing blow was the grounding of the Luftwaffe (weather was a problem for the Soviets too, but they had various tricks to keep their planes running).

Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
They did, actually. It's just things got a little tied up, and then they were stuck there for the winter.
The end of Summer. It's Hitler's fault really, he demanded they secure the Ukraine rather than continue the advance.
And pushing them too far east wouldn't work, as, if I remember, the Russians had moved a extraordiniary amount of their industry into Siberia before, when the Germans had already taken many of their industrial centers.
Industry yes. Shame all the oil is in the West ....

Mirror said:
And they wanted to attack even earlier. But, with Yugoslavia messing them around they had to postpone it.
Greece actually. The soldiers Hitler deployed to counter the attempted Greek uprising were the same one's earmarked for Barbarossa.
 
No, The Germans outnumbered the Russians. In 1941 Stalin did not have a large army anywhere, let alone in Siberia. It wasn't until mid - late 1942 that the Soviet economy could ramp up to a war footing.

Quote from Wikipedia:

"During the autumn, Stalin had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin's master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead). On 5 December 1941, these reinforcements attacked the German lines around Moscow, supported by new T-34 tanks and Katyusha rocket launchers. The new Soviet troops were prepared for winter warfare, and they included several ski battalions. The exhausted and freezing Germans were routed and driven back between 100 and 250 km (60 to 150 miles) by 7 January 1942."

I guess there were some guys in Siberia after all. And I'd say 7th of January is more early 1942 then mid...
 
Well first, you've neglected to mention the Northern Crusades, in which Knights of the Livonian Order were defeated by Novgorod (1242).  That invasion is a better analogy to Hitler's invasion that Napoleon's is.  It was even used as Soviet propaganda when the Germans invaded. 

Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
However, Napoleon's invasion set precedent for the next invasions, as it was there that the Russians revealed their main tactic: slash and burn, retreat, wait till General Winter, their most deadly ally, sets in, harass, then advance. Even when the Germans invaded, wise of Napoleon's mistake, they could not take Russia.

I think people misinterpret both Napoleon's and Hitler's invasion, and lump the two together, despite the fact they don't have as much in common as other Russian invasions. 

Everyone says "learn from history" and "he should have known his history" and "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it". 

The problem was, Napoleon did know history, was fully aware of it, counted on it, and that was his mistake.

Napoleon was aware of how war worked back then, -it's history-, and went into Russia with that attitude.  For about 16 years, war operated on a simple enough system.  A major victory in battle will cause the enemy to admit defeat in the war and negotiations will begin.

Napoleon, knowledgeable as he was, came to the same rational conclusion that anybody else would - that war would follow the same pattern as before.  For 16 years enemies followed the exact same pattern, why would that change? 

You also have to remember that Napoleon did not want to conquer Russia, but inflict enough damage on the Russia army as to force a surrender.  The consequent surrender would force Russia to comply with the continental system and honor the treaty they agreed to at Tilsit. 

For the time leading up to it, the Russians fought perfectly straightforward and with honor, why would that change?  Because it's their own soil?  Most Russians hate their government, hate fighting for their army, and likely don't care who rules them because ultimately life won't change. 

He did not count on the fact the Russians would run, would avoid battles, would burn their own villages, would burn their own, hundreds of years old sacred capital.  He did not count on the fact the Russians would become completely desperate. 


However, there is the massive difference between Napoleon's invasion and Hitler's invasion that everyone mysteriously overlooks.

Napoleon didn't lose a battle.  The Nazi's, after initial success, quickly started losing every major battle. 

If you look at Napoleon's record in Russia, you'll see he didn't lose a single battle.  His generals lost two, but out of 13 battles, 11 were complete French victories, and Napoleon himself was undefeated.

The Russians proved they were not a match militarily for Napoleon's armies.  Even when retreating, Napoleon's armies still defeated the Russians.  It was the winter, pure and simple, the overcame him, not the Russians. 


Compared to the Nazi's, who lost two of the most major, decisive battles in the war, Stalingrad and Kursk, to the Soviets on Soviet soil.  The Nazi's lost militarily to the Soviets, unlike the French, who, despite the increasingly harsh conditions, spent the campaign stepping on the Russian army. 

So Napoleon's invasion of Russia is much closer to Alexander's expedition into India.  Militarily, they were both successful.  They were harsh and costly, but they were not defeated by the enemy.  They were defeated by the elements. 

I'm not sure why Napoleon gets so much flack for Russia but Alexander gets virtually none for India.  The two are a much more valid comparison than Napoleon and Hitler. 


Now with Hitler, he likewise knew history and counted on it.

You have to remember that this notion that "you cannot invade/defeat Russia" is quite new and a result of history, but at the time it was not history itself.   

What was Hitler thinking?  Simple, the Russians fight piss-poor, and could be no match for the armies of the Third Reich. 

In recent memory, the Russians were defeated by Japan (who just came out of a 200-year technological coma), Poland, and Sweden.  With a record like that, how could they possibly defeat the world's most powerful and battle-hardened army? 

Hitler did not count on Russia's secret weapon - bat**** crazy leaders.  The Soviet Union was a nation of hundreds of millions, and Stalin would see to it that every single one of them would be given a gun and sent against the Nazi's before the Nazi's could claim victory. 

The Soviet tactic of attrition - overpowering the German army with numbers, waves of recruits, and unrelenting attacks overtook the Germans.  The German army was well trained, but no amount of training is going to save you from hundreds of Soviets storming your one machine gun nest.  And even if you manage to take out that wave of hundreds, there's plenty more where they came from. 


So to reiterate, Napoleon and Hitler had very different campaigns and things went quite different for both sides.  Napoleon won his battles, the Nazis were very badly beaten.  It's the difference between Alexander's India campaign and Xerxe's invasion of Greece.  It's the difference between Hannibal's Italian campaign and his Zhama campaign. 

There is a distinct difference between winning your battles but having to leave for other reasons, and flat out losing your battles.  The Russian winter defeated Napoleon, the Russian army defeated Hitler.


To answer the original question, how to do it?  I guess the simple answer would be attack when there is political and social unrest; at a time when faith in the government is somewhat low.  Prepare for the winter, you'll end up dealing with it ultimately.  And prepare to deal with large numbers.  Oh, and soldiers who throw axes while back flipping.  I'm sure what to do about that one.
 
Don Doggy said:
hyperion said:
Don Doggy said:
hyperion said:
You are aware that Russia is the country with THE largest nuclear stockpile?
They have enough bombs to glass the entire planet.
But most of them are old, from the 70s/80s so the quality is rather poor.

They're still nukes.

OLD nukes and unreliable nukes because russian standards are not that high.

He still does have a point though. The Atomic bombs in 1945 still did a hell of a lot of damage.

And the difference of 1945 nukes and 1980's nukes is staggering.
 
@ Barry_bon_Loyale

Good post!

Of course, the Germans did face a darn harsh winter, but they did loose battles. Not because of the winter alone.

Its like racing a guy who have used a wheelchair for 10 years, and its the first time you sit in one, you loose the race and blame it on the wheelchair..

The winter terrorized the Russians too, but they were used to it, and beat the Germans with large numbers and eventually better equipment and supply lines.

And besides, the winter didn't kill many "fresh" troops, they mostly killed starved troops and wounded troops. And starved and wounded troops are pretty close to dead or useless anyway.
 
Germany blamed their losses on the winter because it was far more emberassing for them to tell people that they had been beaten and outsmarted by a people they had deemed 'sub-human'.
 
if i was to invade russian i would nuke it then take over it after the radio active radiation went or was cleaned
 
To get back on topic. How to invade Russia.

First we need to look at history. There have been 3 attempts to invade (or do mayor battle) with Russia from 1800 and up. The French once, and the Germans + allies twice, right? (You could add the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, but thats not a large enough to count I think).

Why did the French loose? Winter. Why did the Germans loose in WW1? Got no clue, but I think I remember that they didn't get very far into Russia, thus it could not have been the winter. Thereby, manpower. Why did the Germans loose in WW2? Winter and manpower.

So, you should invade Russia in the summer and make sure they don't have manpower, great!

I still feel that a 2 front war against Russia is a better way to do it then a 1 front.

However, 1 thing that was learned in WW2, and during the cold war, Submarines is a must! And AFAIK Russia have the largest operative sub fleet in the world, but the Americans have more advanced. However, another thing we learned in WW2 is that quantity often prevail over quality.

I am pretty sure that if a war started right now and no one used nukes and USA had all the forces in Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/where ever on a ship or truck headed for the Russian border I think it would be a fair chance that USA would win.

dubaiboy said:
if i was to invade russian i would nuke it then take over it after the radio active radiation went or was cleaned

The rule is no nukes... On either side...
 
The Germans beat Russia in WW1, but they did not take it. They rather got deep, destroyed the Government by getting Lenin removed from his Exile and into Russia, therefore there was no fighting after this. The Germans in WW1 wanted simply to end Russias capability to wage war rather then take over their land and wipe them out like in ww2.
 
russian is too big to be invaded by any nation. you can take parts of it but you can't take it as whole.

but you can try run for a president...(of course you need fake your identity quit well and you might need to fix election and do plenty of other stuff... and most likely you would fail)

but really... not worth trying. you'd need to use more resources than you would gain.
 
Revilo said:
Why bother invading atall? Just let them sit around drinking vodka, violating women and getting into fights with eacho....

Oh.

shut the hell up you idiot
why does everyone think all that Russians do is drink vodka?
its like me saying to someone from US "go eat mcdonald's, watch porn, and invade iraq"....
 
lordwolf17 said:
Revilo said:
Why bother invading atall? Just let them sit around drinking vodka, violating women and getting into fights with eacho....

Oh.


its like me saying to someone from US "go eat mcdonald's, watch porn, and invade iraq"....

You're saying they don't?

You're destroying everything I know.

I had no idea watching Porn was a US trait though.
 
Mirror said:
lordwolf17 said:
Revilo said:
Why bother invading atall? Just let them sit around drinking vodka, violating women and getting into fights with eacho....

Oh.


its like me saying to someone from US "go eat mcdonald's, watch porn, and invade iraq"....

You're saying they don't?

You're destroying everything I know.

I had no idea watching Porn was a US trait though.

I was under the impression that that was a universal trait.

siprus said:
russian is too big to be invaded by any nation. you can take parts of it but you can't take it as whole.

but you can try run for a president...(of course you need fake your identity quit well and you might need to fix election and do plenty of other stuff... and most likely you would fail)

but really... not worth trying. you'd need to use more resources than you would gain.

Well, I'm not sure about your first two points now, after the arguments presented before, but I think your last point is pretty accurate.
 
Tiberius Decimus Maximus said:
Mirror said:
lordwolf17 said:
Revilo said:
Why bother invading atall? Just let them sit around drinking vodka, violating women and getting into fights with eacho....

Oh.


its like me saying to someone from US "go eat mcdonald's, watch porn, and invade iraq"....

You're saying they don't?

You're destroying everything I know.

I had no idea watching Porn was a US trait though.

I was under the impression that that was a universal trait.

This is what I believed too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom