Can the Russian Winter be beaten?

[Emperor Ross]

I think this is where this post should go. . . But anyways here is my question to anyone who wants to participate. With modern technology could the an invading army successfully operate during the Russian winter, and the follow up spring thaw? Meaning they continue the fight against the Russian forces and continue the drive into Russia? I mean, Charles the XII failed first. Napoleon thought he was not going to make the same mistake that Charles did, and we all see how that turned out. Hitler probably thought that modern technology would allow his troops to be successful in the Russian winter. That also failed. So even though technology has advanced quite a bit, could a modern army really win in the horrible conditions of the Russian winter and then the spring thaw?

I really do not know who would win. The problem is not that technology can not handle it, but would foreign troops not accustomed to such low temperatures be able to defeat Russian troops in those conditions. Plus Russian military forces are much better trained in winter weathers than other countries.

The spring thaw would be bad to. Most things would have to be transported by air and irregular Russian forces behind lines with anti air equipment could cause major hassles with supply lines.

If anyone thinks they know the answer please tell us and say why!

[Emperor Ross]

By the way this is if nuclear war was not started.

[Nevins]

This isn't really the right forum for this thread, this would be better put in the VV. The Fight Club is a 1 on 1 debate club.

[Каие]

Moved to VV.

Salma Hayek in lingerie is sexy, but doesn't belong in Russia. I mean the VV. Well both.

[Babur]

well didn't the Mongols invade Russia during the winter of 1237?

[Kagemusha]

Problem with Russia is the operational depth of the country, not Winter. Finnish troops during continuation war didnt have any spectacular problems with winter. To beat winter you need to be prepared for the winter. The Spring Rasputitsa makes things bad for offensive. Operations during winter are not a substantial problem if the attacker is prepared well enough.

[pannonian]

Problem with Russia is the operational depth of the country, not Winter. Finnish troops during continuation war didnt have any spectacular problems with winter. To beat winter you need to be prepared for the winter. The Spring Rasputitsa makes things bad for offensive. Operations during winter are not a substantial problem if the attacker is prepared well enough.

IIRC the Russians treated winter proper as good operational weather. It was the mud seasons that were deemed impassible. Something that does make me wonder is whether it's possible to conduct an offensive in the rasputitsa, or whether it's not humanly possible to move much in that environment. The wiki entry for hovercraft says:

In Finland, small hovercraft are widely used in maritime rescue and during the rasputitsa ("mud season") as archipelago liaison vehicles.

Would it be practical to carry a reasonably sized force in this manner, or would it be too fuel-hungry?

[Kagemusha]

IIRC the Russians treated winter proper as good operational weather. It was the mud seasons that were deemed impassible. Something that does make me wonder is whether it's possible to conduct an offensive in the rasputitsa, or whether it's not humanly possible to move much in that environment. The wiki entry for hovercraft says:

In Finland, small hovercraft are widely used in maritime rescue and during the rasputitsa ("mud season") as archipelago liaison vehicles.

Would it be practical to carry a reasonably sized force in this manner, or would it be too fuel-hungry?

Hi Pann, nice to see you! How i would see it, the use of hovecrafts could resolve certain problems, but still during rasputitsa moving of heavy equipment becomes inpractical. Ground is simply too soft while rivers become unpassable. Ofcourse the road network of Russia is lot better then it was during 40´s and the main roads can be used no matter what season. Still the attackers heavy elements would be completely tied in the main roads. Ofcourse todays armies have more options then ones of 40´s. Still with Russia the main problems remain. How to attack such a vast country and occupy such a depth, without making logistics impossible.

[Tiwaz]

IIRC the Russians treated winter proper as good operational weather. It was the mud seasons that were deemed impassible. Something that does make me wonder is whether it's possible to conduct an offensive in the rasputitsa, or whether it's not humanly possible to move much in that environment. The wiki entry for hovercraft says:

In Finland, small hovercraft are widely used in maritime rescue and during the rasputitsa ("mud season") as archipelago liaison vehicles.

Would it be practical to carry a reasonably sized force in this manner, or would it be too fuel-hungry?

Well, for one they should have (since speaking of Finland) used proper word which would be either rospuutto (yes relative of rasputitsa) or kelirikko.

Second, issue with archipelago is not mud but ice and water. Islands which do not have bridges are accessible during winter by car or similar (on ice) and on boat during period of water. But when ice is breaking up before melting, you can use neither car or boat.

Distinctly different situation.

During rospuutto you can use any vehicles with low ground pressure to traverse the mud unlike with archipelago.

Done with nitpicking.

As for hovercrafts... Just not feasible. Largest military hovercraft can move 3 MBT distance of 480 klicks, after which it has expended all it's fuel.

Then there is the issue of fighting. Hovercraft can move the tanks (three of them) that 480km, but what good are tanks if they cannot operate on their own?
Only way it would be useful is if supply line has some distance of mud where tanks can't operate but actual battle takes place on solid ground.

Then there is issue of hovercraft taking up resources to build. To make them, you have to leave out something else. For very limited usefulness.
During solid ground other transportation methods are more efficient, and during rasputitsa your mechanized forces cannot operate efficiently anyway.

[Radosław Sikora]

Problem with Russia is the operational depth of the country, not Winter. Finnish troops during continuation war didnt have any spectacular problems with winter. To beat winter you need to be prepared for the winter. The Spring Rasputitsa makes things bad for offensive. Operations during winter are not a substantial problem if the attacker is prepared well enough.

I agree. This is not a problem of winter or technology, but a good logistic = good enough preparations to a war. Before 18th c. Russia was attacked and beaten a couple of times. Also in winter.

[intel]

Eactly. Not to mention the Polish magnate/Russian boyars/Polish state vs other Russian boyars/Swedes wars and numerous Russia vs Poland wars during XVIth and XVIIth century, when we (Poles, Rhutenians and Lithuanians) kicked ass

Furthermore, the "Russia" you are talking about is, ironically, mostly Ukraine and Belarus (hint: still not Russia), which also happened to be part of Polish-Lithuanian state.

[Lord Claremorris]

I think this is where this post should go. . . But anyways here is my question to anyone who wants to participate. With modern technology could the an invading army successfully operate during the Russian winter, and the follow up spring thaw? Meaning they continue the fight against the Russian forces and continue the drive into Russia? I mean, Charles the XII failed first. Napoleon thought he was not going to make the same mistake that Charles did, and we all see how that turned out. Hitler probably thought that modern technology would allow his troops to be successful in the Russian winter. That also failed. So even though technology has advanced quite a bit, could a modern army really win in the horrible conditions of the Russian winter and then the spring thaw?

I really do not know who would win. The problem is not that technology can not handle it, but would foreign troops not accustomed to such low temperatures be able to defeat Russian troops in those conditions. Plus Russian military forces are much better trained in winter weathers than other countries.

The spring thaw would be bad to. Most things would have to be transported by air and irregular Russian forces behind lines with anti air equipment could cause major hassles with supply lines.

If anyone thinks they know the answer please tell us and say why!

The real difficulty in Russia is the amount of space one has to occupy. Since it is so sparsely populated losing ground won't cripple Russia, but since all of it together is very populous it can still field impressive armies. It becomes an impossible game of garrisoning and charging on. The winter of course doesn't help matters but that can be overcome. The resistance and size of Russia cannot be overcome. Or at least, it hasn't been overcome in modern times. Another problem is the relatively inferior infrastructure, and the amount of mud, snow and ice. Russia is simply a massive uninviting territory teeming with proud resilient people. Only a fool would take them on lightly.

[Dr. Croccer]

The real difficculty wasn't the winter, but the rasputitsa, the extremely muddy period in autumn, which really made pretty much every military manouver impossible. Not even the Russians attacked during rasputitsa.

[OTZ]

I think this is where this post should go. . . But anyways here is my question to anyone who wants to participate. With modern technology could the an invading army successfully operate during the Russian winter, and the follow up spring thaw? Meaning they continue the fight against the Russian forces and continue the drive into Russia? I mean, Charles the XII failed first. Napoleon thought he was not going to make the same mistake that Charles did, and we all see how that turned out. Hitler probably thought that modern technology would allow his troops to be successful in the Russian winter. That also failed. So even though technology has advanced quite a bit, could a modern army really win in the horrible conditions of the Russian winter and then the spring thaw?

I really do not know who would win. The problem is not that technology can not handle it, but would foreign troops not accustomed to such low temperatures be able to defeat Russian troops in those conditions. Plus Russian military forces are much better trained in winter weathers than other countries.

The spring thaw would be bad to. Most things would have to be transported by air and irregular Russian forces behind lines with anti air equipment could cause major hassles with supply lines.

If anyone thinks they know the answer please tell us and say why!

The Germans routinely beat the Russians in winter combat conditions on a yearly basis for 4 winters.

[Lysimachus]

The Germans routinely beat the Russians in winter combat conditions on a yearly basis for 4 winters.

Does Stalingrad count as beating the Russians?

[OTZ]

Does Stalingrad count as beating the Russians?

No, but it also doesn't count as the Germans being defeated by the winter either.

I suppose my point was lost in the general nature of my comment. The Russians were not immune to the winter, nor were they masters of winter combat. The Germans had a lot of local successes throughout the war during the winter periods. They didn't lose the war because of the Russian climate, which I see is built into the intent of the OP.

[Lysimachus]

No, but it also doesn't count as the Germans being defeated by the winter either.

I suppose my point was lost in the general nature of my comment. The Russians were not immune to the winter, nor were they masters of winter combat. The Germans had a lot of local successes throughout the war during the winter periods. They didn't lose the war because of the Russian climate, which I see is built into the intent of the OP.

Oh right, my bad. But like you said, it came down to other factors and it isn't "General Winter" which is the commonly held perception.

For example, my book states (in reference to the end of 1941):

"The German Army had taken 800,000 casualties and lost 2,300 tanks during Operation Barbarossa. These losses, although nowhere near as many as those sustained by the Red Army, were enough to bring to a halt the offensive into Russia.

Many commentators have blamed the continual interference of Adolf Hitler for this failure. They have argued that by delaying the initial attack and invading the Balkans the Wehrmacht lost five crucial weeks of campaigning time. Then, in the midst of the offensive, Hitler once again interfered, ordering the removal of troops from Army Group Centre as it stood poised to take Moscow. Then he once more reallocated Germany's panzer forces for the commencement of Operation Typhoon.

These continual organisational changes point not to the operation and tactical inability of the Führer (after all, two of these three changes of plan resulted in major victories), but to a lack of resources, articularly a paucity of mechanised formations. With one or two more panzergruppen the offensive towards Moscow could have been undertaken much earlier, with more panzer assets. Operation Barbarossa might then not have been a costly defeat but a brilliant victory.

In the nine major pockets created by the advancing Wehrmacht a total of some 2,250,000 Russian prisoners were taken, along with 9,327 tanks and 16,179 guns. In thirteen smaller envelopments a further 736,000 men, 4,960 tanks and 9,033 guns fell into German hands. By the end of 1941 the Wehrmacht had captured nearly four times as many tanks as it had started the campaign with, three times as many guns and nearly as many infantrymen. And still the Red Army fought on.

As a result of the Führer's massive miscalculation of Russia's war-fighting capability most of the top-ranking officers involved in Operation Barbarossa lost their commands. Adolf Hitler was infallible, therefore the failings of the campaign had to be shouldered by the military leaders. Von Brauchitsch, Commander in Chief of the Army, was summarily dismissed, his position being taken by the Führer himself. Von Rundstedt and von Leeb both resigned before they were sacked and von Bock went on indefinite sick leave. The panzergruppen commanders Guderian and Hoepner were also relieved of their commands for daring to speak frankly about the defeat before Moscow.

The failure to conquer Russia did not come through any tactical or operational shortcomings. Blitzkrieg theory once again proved to its validity on the field of battle, with the German Army winning victory after victory, even when massively outnumbered and outgunned. Operation Barbarossa did not succeed because of a gross miscalculation of the capability of the Red Army to withstand punishment and a lack of mechanised resources given to the forces in the field from the beginning of the campaign. These failures stemmed from the very highest level of the Nazi government, Adolf Hitler himself." The Blitzkrieg Campaigns, pages 170/171.

This quotation of course implies that securing Moscow would have ended the war for the Russians (which has been a subject of debate for a long time), but the basic point is that the winter didn't break the Germans, it was simply one of the many factors which affected them.

[Wegen7 die Große]

Yes the russian winter can be beaten just bring Thermal underwear.And how to beat russia take its head st petersburg, and its heart moscow, then its legs will wiggle and die.

[Steve Holt]

Yes the russian winter can be beaten just bring Thermal underwear.And how to beat russia take its head st petersburg, and its heart moscow, then its legs will wiggle and die.

Naploeon tried that Strategy did he not? Or did he only take Moscow and not St. Petersburg?

[Wegen7 die Große]

Naploeon tried that Strategy did he not? Or did he only take Moscow and not St. Petersburg?

Nope only on Moscow,he took the head on charge instead of waiting poor guy.