Le Russians just used zerg tactics maymay!

>le Russians just used zerg tactics maymay!

Read a book Sup Forums. The Russians who fought at Stalingrad were some of the bravest men to ever live.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes they were brave enough to Zerg rush the Germans or else get shot by their own commanders

Show me proof of this.

they literally defeat germany swarming them with corpses and iron

>reading books instead of relying on call of duty jew
Wrong generation.

pol is full of retarded americans who learn history via hollywood and company of heroes, what would you expect from them?

just ignore those debils, they can't be saved

The Russians who fought at Stalingrad were slaves to their Zionist overlords.

Any good books you would recommend on the subject? Ive read "Stalingrad" by Anthony Beevor, wich i liked.

Stalingrad is next on my reading list. It's a fucking massive book though.

The bravery and the sacrifice of the individual foot soldiers was something else. It was tragic that the officers were so incompetent.

In fairness, I don't think there was a battle that was as bloody as Stalingrad was and probably never will be. Am I wrong?

What is it about Company of Heroes that triggers Russians more than any other WWII game?

David Glantz is one of the best western experts on the red army in wwii because he's fluent in russian.

Some battles of WW1 seemed equally shitty.

They did use Zerg tactics, why do you think they had the highest total casualty ratio and overall net casualties of any other nation in WW 2?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation

Because it shows Russians in their natural state.

Interesting... whats the source of that quote? Is it legit?

Thanks!

The Somme maybe?

yea, because they had a gun pointed at them in both directions.

The mission where Russians burn down their village (which happened in real life) sent the poor Pidorashka snowflakes into a frenzy of butthurt.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

Because it aims to point Soviet army incompetent and unsuccesfull. Just change the heroes to americans/brits/anyone and people will start whining that it makes no sense.

The "russia-hating narrative" just continues the "soviet-hatred narrative".

>"Stalingrad" by Anthony Beevor
that really was as good as book as I have ever read. amazing details.

Russian fluency would take a regular white man about 5 months, really not that much of an accomplishment.

I think a million men died in the Somme and a similar number died at Stalingrad. Well you're probably right as the Battle of the Somme didn't last as long.

Well as i heard there were officers that shot any one who was not going at the enemy.
Not sure but Russian might say how it was.

Italian front WWI was pretty fucked up because it devolved into trench warfare but one side was hundreds of feet above the other. Most of the mine explosions in the war came about because it was easier to spend months digging beneath positions then fighting up a slope.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270

>Bravery

They didnt have much of a choice did they?
They would have Germans in the front and Commanders in the back, shooting whoever stopped moving.

I bet you believe the "1 rifle for every 2 men" meme too

Germans lost Stalingrad because half of their Army split off and went down south to help Italy invade Greece.
If the Sixth Army was at 100% full super sayian power, The Mongrel Asiatic Red Army would've been destroyed.

Call of Duty screenshots

dude... those russians didn't even know what was happening all those people have ben shiped to the war from siberia

fun story when they marched through poland and came by my grand grand mothers house they riped off the water tap of the sink and smashed it into random places in the wall to look if water would come out

trie living in reality pajeet

No soldier back then had any choice. Americans and brits would execute their men for desertion the same as the soviets.

What is the riddle of steel for 1000 alex.

Chagrin head first into a Machine gun as part of a mass wave is very brave, maybe try and make a competent point.

Imagine you spend your entire life being told that the Russians were dumb, the Soviets were poor, bumbling incompetents, and that the US could have won the Cold War with a fart at any point and just didn't want to. You build an identity around this, because you are a patriotic red-blooded American.

Then you read a book/watch a documentary/talk to somebody who has done either of those, and are told that the Russians were at the forefront of tactics in WW2, that the Red Army could have crushed Western Europe at any point from 1945 up until 1985, and that the entire reason there was a Cold War was because the USSR was in fact a credible threat to Allied hegemony - that far from being a failed state, the USSR rose to a level of power most capitalist countries have never and will never reach, and that Russia peaked under the USSR. And not just that all this was possible because of "zergs" but that Russians actually had superior land tech and better training and doctrinal development than the Allies. Worst of all, imagine being told all of this and realising that the actual military assessments made by real generals at the time in question agree.

Imagine realising that you have been lied to for your entire life, just another arrogant fat American pig being fed tall tales by the media, and dumb enough to believe them uncritically.

That is what fuels the endless butthurt replies you will get about how Patton should have "finished the job" - something that all the Allies agreed was literally impossible at the time and yet that 80 year late armchair generals will insist would have been as easy as drawing breath.

>Because it aims to point Soviet army incompetent and unsuccesfull
So you mean a realistic portrail?

>the Red Army could have crushed Western Europe at any point from 1945

They didn't have nukes until 1949. If they tried that they would've been glassed.

Every nation in the world brainwashes their population. There is no freedom, democracy or free speech anywhere nowadays, not even in Switzerland. Realpolitik wise, USSR and Russia by extension achieved things which were deemed not possible by the Rotschilds. Thats why the west was afraid and hated USSR - it was an alternative to the system already in place.

By 1954 the US only had 300 nukes and 32 bombers capable of carrying them.

In 1945 they had 0 nukes, and could produce a single one every few months. They would have lost Western Europe before they ever had a chance to drop one.

This is the opinion of the actual people who actually considered the plans.

You shouldnt even be talking roach.
romas are the reasons Germans lost on the Eastern Front, you couldn't hold it. Then you switched sides once you were about to get fucked. Don't kid yourself that anyone respects you roaches on /pol

And? Desertires are considered as traitors in every army except americucks.
Nobody shot them in the spine though.

It was mostly zerg rushes though. Stalingrad was just a major exception.
But after the war with Germany, they went back to using real tactics again. (like the battle of Manchuria or involvement in Korea)

Anyone who fought in Stalingrad was brave.

>They would have lost Western Europe before they ever had a chance to drop one.

They would've quickly taken it back. The only way the soviets could've taken Western Europe would be waging war on the US/UK/ and France. You think they had the resources and manpower at the time to fight another world war and win?

Dying for Jewish communists also makes them the stupidest men to ever live

That's not exactly zerg rushing. If you read the full text of the article it's basically saying that when the germans encircle you, fight to the last man. It's a measure to buy time against the german advances, not an offensive tactic as zerg rushing would imply.

>They would've quickly taken it back
Why do the actual generals who were actually alive making this assessment in 1945 disagree with you?

Protip: the reason is because an opposed landing is the single hardest thing that you can try to do as a military, and that the Allies only succeeded against Germany in that task because Russia was doing the heavy lifting on the Eastern front.

The Allies would never have been able to retake Western Europe. An Allied attack on the Soviets would have just ended in a Cold War with the Iron Curtain at Normandy instead of in Germany when the Allies were pushed off the continent and never made a serious attempt to retake it.

Lol. Numbers don't lie. Germans outclassed everyone including Americans in actual fighting capability

...

For like every 1 German soldier 8 RUssians died. Also jsut look at soviet invasion of Finland. Germany was also strecthed fighingt whole world

>romas are the reasons Germans lost on the Eastern Front, you couldn't hold it.
The Wermacht didn't allow the Romanian 3rd Army to push up and captured the Soviet Bridghead over the Volga during the entire fight over the city.
Germany promised deliveries of heavy AT weapons which the Romanian forces lacked but never delivered anything.
Romanian recon planes started noticing and informing the Germans of a Russian built up weeks before the attack, and the Germans ignored those reports.
The 22nd Panzer Division had hardly any functional tanks since rats ate their cables meaning that the under strength and under equipped Romanian Armored Division was the only Armor unit present on the flank. It suffered heavy casualties in the battle but allowed 3 other divions and it's self to escape encirclement.
And last but not least the Russians didn't actually overun the Romanian forces, they lasted a whole week on the front line, it's just that the 400km front line was too big to hold so the Russians went around.

But you are a fucking leaf so not like you would know shit.

Yeah, and you guys were never allied with the Nazis and the famine was a total accident.

Red October ruined your once great country.

Tell that to the Chinese in the Korean War.

Nobody forced Russians and Soviets to fight for Communists. They were literally living the Socialist dream of gulags and starvation so they had no reason not to form fifth columns to restore the monarchy and/or fight with the Germans against Communism. Tough luck. 50 million dead Soviet dogs wasn't nearly enough. Kill 'em all.

>its another retard who thinks ratio of kills to deaths has anything to do with the fighting capability you have.

If Germany actually had the strongest military, they wouldn't have lost.

Never not once in history has a battle happened that can even compare to the loss of life and total destruction that occurred during the battle of Stalingrad.

I HOPE a battle like Stalingrad never has to happen again. The where scale and number of people that died is STAGGERING. More people died in that one battle than all of Americans in both WW1 and WW2.


Stalingrad was Hell on earth, and anyone that took part in that battle, God rest their souls.

>The Somme
>cant even compare

Slow your roll junior.

That's a stupid statement. WW2 wasn't fought by nations, it was fought by allied groups. A nation can have the strongest military because militaries are national, but it can also be part of the weaker alliance.

>26.6 million dead
>by far the worst k/d of any country in the war
But you ARE incompetent

Flesh becomes weak, steel breaks, but a mans will is unbreakable.

That's like pitting the strongest man in the world in a fight against the next 10 strongest men all at once and when he gets beat you can just laugh and say "Oh hurr hurr looks like he wasn't that strong xDDDDDD"

Yeah, you can't.

Obviously you can't comprehend how significant both battles were.

The Somme was insignificant in the long run as even if it would have been a total victory for the Brits it still wouldn't have achieved anything.

Yea ok sure, if the survivors of the Somme were around and being told by a neckbeard autist im sure they'd love to hear you talk about how they dont understand how much tougher someone else had it.

More Americans died in the Civil war than died in WW 1 or WW 2. Hate to break it to you, but we weren't that significant in either war. The most notable thing we did in. WW 2 was in the Pacific , which were the Battle of Midway and the nuking of Japan.

The Somme was fought in equal if not more intensity than Stalingrad because it only lasted 4 months

Don't move the goalposts.


Stalingrad was a much larger battle and more people died.

You can't compare Somme against Stalingrad.

There has simply never been a battle that can hold a candle to it.

The reason Russians seemed to use Zerg tactics was because they used overwhelming force to create breaks in the line instead of spreading out along a battle line. It's actually well documented.

>use overwhelming numbers to create breaks in the enemy battle line
>pour through the gap, disrupting the enemy and shaking their discipline
>create more gaps as the line crumbles

Zerg tactics would be to do the same thing along the entire battle line, not applying it at specific pressure points

Death isn't a measure of contribution, only incompetence

Yeah because they were literally told to run into enemy fire just so the rest of the zerg could advance a few meters.

hey @ anyone on this thread

i find this discourse really interesting so i'm doing a research project about it! if any of you have like 15 minutes to kill email me at [email protected] and i'll send you a short survey! it'd be super helpful 4 me in my quest to pass a class (⁄ ⁄•⁄ω⁄•⁄ ⁄) if u participate i'll think that ur cool forever (°◡°)

My Austrian great grandfather killed soviets at Stalingrad and came home to tell the tale, eat shit and die commie

Ostfront: Hitler's War on Russia 1941-1945 is good and contains many charts and photographs. It covers the entire eastern war in better detail than Beevor's book.

>Death isn't a measure of contribution, only incompetence
>Russians kill 8 out of 10 Germans in the war
>Lol guize da russians didnt do shit, they only died

This is why Americans would get BTFO if they ever faced an actual competent military instead of only joining in when the war was already over.


Stalingrad was the most important battle of the 20th century. It was at that moment the Nazis suffered their first large defeat and it was the first time they ever did a mass-retreat. Had the Nazis beat the Russians at Stalingrad and taken over Moscow, you would be speaking either Japanese or German.

>Die in the process of trying to save a woman from being raped
>"Wow what an incompetent fag'

>Russians kill 80% of the German population

[Citation definitely fucking needed]

are you plain stupid or just pretending?

I was being a dick about proper grammar.

Lrn2 troll

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths

5 million Germany military casualties

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

4.3 million were killed in the Eastern Front, against Soviet forces

Look at pic related you retarded. The Western Front was NOTHING. The vast majority of the German army was fighting on the Eastern Front, that's where everything went down.

Despite the tiny amount of Germans present in the Western front, the US and allies feared that they would still fail at Normandy and had to resort to deception tactics to lure German forces to Greece.

You really have no idea how WW2 was basically entirely the Soviet Union's victory. Anybody else claiming victory is a goon trying to profit off the blood of others.

Yeah using zerg tactics is pretty fucking brave and stupid. Running into gunfire without a gun is probably not the best idea.

ITT: RIDF trying to prove that the politicians here shilling the "Big Bad Russian" narrative right and that we should invade and destroy Russia right now

Should've said so

My first language is french (based Quebecois), not english, I'm good at talking english but not at writing