Kunikov wrote:Soviet defensive strategy revolved around an offensive mindset.
This is just brilliant. This way one could substantiate anything. We develop offensive weapons but this is for defence as our strategy revolves around an offensive mindset. Or we develop defensive weapons but this is for offensive because our strategy…….
One doesn't need to substantiate anything but the truth.
In fact there is such a thing as defensive weapon and such a thing as offensive weapon although a lot of weapons are good both for defence and offence. Such is the case with the small arms and with a lot of the artillery systems, say with the howitzers. But hardly with such things as anti-tank artillery pieces which shoot high velocity small calibre rounds and are good against advancing heavily armoured targets. The same goes with the fighters which are more needed in defence against bombers although they could be used as fighter escort in a bomber offensive.
Defensive weapons and offensive weapons are not mutually exclusive, both can exist, and do exist, at the same time. Soviet defensive lines, the Stalin and Molotov line, are well enough known. But the Soviets understood that fixed fortifications were not a long term solution. Thus the emphasis on offensive warfare which would take center stage after an initial period of border skirmishes.
The same certainly goes for tanks. These are very expensive machines because they could not only shoot, but move as well. If we strip them of their wheels, motors, etc and put their guns and machine-guns in a concrete bunker, we’ll be better protected for less money. For much less money.
Yes, for less money, but you'll also lose and lose all that money you've been saving.
"Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest violence." Jewish proverb
"This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad