As you have probably all ready read, the Red Army will most likely be heavily dependant on defences.
Defences? o_O This is anti-historic, because the lack of any defences is the reason why Red Army was so badly pushed away in 1941. Soviet Union pushed all his money in attack weapons, not some pimpy fortifications. Also only when the Red Army turned into attack rather than defense they were fighting in less casualties than Germans (see Battle of Berlin and Operation Bagration).
Really the Red Army was weak in defense (especially in 1941), it shown itself in attack much better.
IMHO 
hmm. i disagree. something like the Stalin line could never hope to make the central asian territories "secure." Also, combined arms tactics used on home turf usually mean "defensive" to me. the soviet union won with its strength of numbers and sturdy technology from early '43 onwards. you look at kursk and wonder how they won--- they had weeks of knowing about german offensive beforehand, so they give a HELL of a lot of AT guns, artillery pieces, fortifications where they know the germans will strike---good defense in short, then they use it as a springboard to advance on the enemy en masse.
but yea, physical defenses are part of why '41-'42 was defeat; also consider liquidation of officers/collaborators in '37/'38 and you realize that more and more are afraid to be labeled as a collaborator in red army ranks... also, while kv-1 and t-34s were present in the beginning of barbarossa...never in large numbers, and the early tank formations weren't coordinated by radios like german counterparts. lol i played call of duty 2 the other day and started to think the player is lucky to have a ppsh, cuz you wouldn't unless you were in a guards' division
but i have another suggestion: i forgot that units could build fortifications! ever think of making peasants/civilians buildable with limited fighting ability, but able to build trenches and tank traps faster than their German counterparts?
Show Posts
