[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy any of the [censored] about the Russians being inferior tactically

[/ QUOTE ]

The Germans didnt need blocking squads. Blocking squad equals a squad ordered to shoot the guys who run back from the MLA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not equal poor tactically. Simply does not follow.

Do you think Napoleon was poor tactically? He used "blocking squads". They're called Grenediers - lol.

Besides this, the presentation of this idea is way overstated because it's shocking to say "Oh look, they sometimes shot their own men." It's overused. Commissars had the power to shoot a man but it was hardly the standard way to organize attack.

In any case, there simply were few Soviet Infantry Division attacks in the entire 1941 campaign. If anything, they were defending. Hardly need commissars to urge anyone to fire their weapon at the approaching "Guy who is going to kill you if you don't fire at them." Easy decisision. The key is keeping your men calm enough to aim and think.

Most Soviet attacks were done by starving armored divisions in 1941, and there certainly was no "blocking squad" for those.

The problem is not that the Soviet Union is tacticaly missing anything whatsoever. It's all about the fact that they're terribly disorganized at the level where it matters most - operationally. Disorganization is standard tactially, for everyone. Strategically the Soviet Union managed to do the right thing, if not in spite of a horrible supply network. Their problems were operational. Had nothing to do with their combat abilities.

Frankly, there was nothing wrong with the Germans tactically either (in fact they were the best in the entire world at the time) but they failed to mobilize for more than a 1 year campaign. Whoops.