-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
To be fair their is some truth in the myth. During the period from September 1941 - mid 1942 the Red Army was in a desperate position, with virtually untrained soldiers in most divisions, a dire lack of artillery and virtually no ammunition for the guns it did have, almost no surviving armour and perhaps most crucially a desperate shortage of properly trained officers and NCOs. Hence the need to resort to highly primitive tactics, i.e. direct frontal assaults, relying on mass to achieve a breakthrough, which sometimes gets described as 'human wave assaults'.
These tactics served the Soviets surprisingly well in the early part of the winter counter-offensive but proved largely ineffective once the German defences began to solidify around strongpoints. As the quality of the Soviet forces gradually recovered during 1942-44 the sophistication of Soviet methods at all levels from local tactical to operational began to improve. By 1944 the Soviets had a sophisticated combat system that was able to use their material advantages to crushing effect.
My problem is that none of this remotely describes Ottoman methods, which while not generally sensitive to casualties in the levies were, by the standards of the period, highly sophisticated with combined arms, effective scouting and logistical support producing a military that was the envy of Europe.
I mean OP seems to fundamentally not understand the Ottoman military. They were the most disciplined, organized standing army for most of the early modern era when most other nations had motley assortments of contract mercenary bands and feudal levies. Also, the Ottomans aquired more european territory by conquest than virtually any other European power of the time, with the possible exception of Russia, and the ottoman territory was much more heavily populated.