Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryzorian
Throwing masses of troops into machine guns and hopeing the enemy ran out of bullets before you ran out of malnurished troops doesn't really bespeak of sound tactical judgement. It's just a pure numbers game, I have more guys than you, I can afford to loose them and you can't, therefore I win.
It's more like suicidal chess, a really synical fighting style. The US never has played war that way...
|
This isn't true.
I don't know if you mean ever, or just in the world wars.
They did it in the fight for independance against the British way back when.
More recently, in the world wars, they had their fair share of trench fighting and pointless charges.
Also, you'd have to really question whether D-Day was this style of attack or not.
Anyway, the Russians only fought like that because they lacked the cavalry support to launch a proper offensive against the German heavy guns.
Had they done a more tactical Infantry assault (I'm thinking Stalingrad, here, BTW) then the Germans would have just taken them apart.
The reason they fought like this was trying to desperately take back large amounts of ground quickly, and it sometimes worked.
Of course, in Stalingrad, the Russians were absolutely famous for their clever guerilla resistance with snipers and guerilla sections. Even non military militia resistance of people fighting for their city of their own will had good effect; so saying they were not strategical is not right, it's more just they didn't have the equipment to do it the better way, often. The point is, they still managed to do it, even against the odds.