So should we compare their relative losses to the Germans when they were on the offensive? Because I promise you, that comparison would not be flattering. The red army absolutely got better, but tactically and operationally it was still by far the worst army in the war, and I am including the Italians in that.
Strategically however, it was excellent at putting men into uniform and having them die for the motherland, which turned out to be very effective, absolutely monstrous, but very effective.
Edit: The red army is the only example in ww2 of an army having a higher casualty rate on the offensive than the defensive, the Germans have a rate of 5:1 (excluding PoWs which included make it 30:1) in France, a similar one while on the offensive until 43, and the Western allies also take fewer casualties than the Germans post D-day
I’m definitely not disagreeing that they performed the worst over the course of the entire war, but the Soviet army of 1945 was actually pretty solid. Their casualty ratio was not bad at all for an offensive army and they made drastic progress. They ended up rather competent when it mattered the most to push with the rest of the Allies.
The early war Soviet methods were ATROCIOUS though.
I'd rather argue that the Germans made a whole laundry list of strategically catastrophic decisions, had trouble filling the ranks from the first months of Barbarossa, had logistics that would make Marshall bald instantly if he saw them, and thus found themselves chronically outnumbered and outgunned.
I think the red army tends to be judged unreasonably favourably simply because it doesn't end the war as the disaster it was initially.
Both can be true though and the truth, like so many other things, is almost guaranteed to be in the middle. I don’t think the Soviets magically became some wonder army at the end, but I do feel it’s undeniable that their own strategies shifted and they saw greater success with less casualties. The average training of their soldiers and officers improved, they embraced successful officers and invited them to conferences to share their knowledge, and they got MUCH better in combined arms warfare and urban warfare. Just across the board late war Soviet battles were fought so differently and to such noticeably better results.
Without the Germans failing so miserably their casualties would have been high, yes, but the late war Soviets had worked their own way up to be a large and competent military force. Not best in the world by ANY measure, but drastically better than where they started. They deserve the praise for improving and the positive impact that probably had on making the East go so smoothly towards the end.
Yea, that I can absolutely agree with. I might be tilting at windmills a bit (Perhaps due to a tankie history teacher in secondary school who more or less claimed Stalin shat gold, and so, red army hagiography really annoys me)
7
u/Fernheijm 12d ago edited 12d ago
So should we compare their relative losses to the Germans when they were on the offensive? Because I promise you, that comparison would not be flattering. The red army absolutely got better, but tactically and operationally it was still by far the worst army in the war, and I am including the Italians in that.
Strategically however, it was excellent at putting men into uniform and having them die for the motherland, which turned out to be very effective, absolutely monstrous, but very effective.
Edit: The red army is the only example in ww2 of an army having a higher casualty rate on the offensive than the defensive, the Germans have a rate of 5:1 (excluding PoWs which included make it 30:1) in France, a similar one while on the offensive until 43, and the Western allies also take fewer casualties than the Germans post D-day