What would you do? (hypothetically)

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Jshep89, Jun 30, 2010.

What would you do? (hypothetically)

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Jshep89, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. Higgs Boson

    Higgs Boson New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    909
    Likes received:
    10
    Trophy points:
    0
    I think that the Russians would dispute the 'quality over quantity' hypothesis.
     
  2. marinefreak

    marinefreak New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    686
    Likes received:
    3
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Australia
    "Looks at history"

    Nope, fairly sure that was the main downfall of the Russians...in as many wars as i can count... Russia pushing back Germany was not just because they had more soldiers :p
     
  3. Cthulthu

    Cthulthu New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    33
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0

    I refute that statement. During the battle of kursk one of the most pivotal and important battles of the century Russian won and pushed the Germans back. Even though 80% of the losses were on the Russian side all Stalin had to do was introduce a new draft and his army #s were back up. Germany never recovered, as 20% of the casulties was probably a gigantic proportional of their army. Historian's often agree that the battle of kursk was the final nail in the coffin for the Nazis. I don't recall Russia losing a single recent war (Russia the state).
     
  4. Higgs Boson

    Higgs Boson New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    909
    Likes received:
    10
    Trophy points:
    0
    @marinefreak: Then I suggest you get you history teacher fired because he clearly did a lousy job.
    @Cthulthu: Define recent. Because they lost in Afghanistan. They lost against Poland before WW2. They lost WW1.
     
  5. marinefreak

    marinefreak New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    686
    Likes received:
    3
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Australia
    Kursk was won due to many factors. One of which was numerical superiority but that was because they were fighting a beaten army. Not to mention the Russian tanks were better,not in range but in maneuverability. If you read around many historians also say that the change in the ability of leadership between the two sides was a decisive factor. Sheer numerical superioty is a simplified version of history. However I have not yet gotten around to reading any books directly based on kursk.

    Russias failings:
    Afghanistan
    First and Second Chechnya war - Won eventually but hilariously terrible training and leadership at times
    Winter War
    WW2 .... Until Stalingrad
    WW1 .............
    Russo- Japanese war
    Think i missed a few...going back further is also pretty shocking

    I think this arguement will get confused between Russia winning because it has good production capability and Russia being over reliant on sheer numbers and thus losing easy battles or turning them into blood baths which lead to the downfall of current leadership/the economy. World War 1 underlines this, Russia had overwhelming numbers but they lost because of poor leadership and thus most top leadership was executed(not directly related) and the country turned communist...relying on numbers seemed to fail here (Yes i am using the "simplification" but these failings i mention are a product of this strategy and success came when this was overcome).

    You can't say just because an army was alot larger that that must have been the reason it wins or because 2 million people die that such and such a battle was a complete success for the country long term. I think using modern day Russia is my strongest bit of evidence to say that Russia supports the 'quality over quantity' hypothesis.

    My history teacher may not endorse any of this since it has been so long since i studied history at school...however we did smash the rest of the state in the final exam :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2010