Russia won because of its gigantic territory

And this advantage has always been Russia's vast territory.

Even if the Russian enemy had military and industrial superiority, it was Russia's vast expanse that allowed it to completely neutralise this advantage.

And the paradox here was that the more advanced the enemy was, the more difficult it was to cover these distances. Because as weapons technology grew, so did the complexity of supplying the frontline. And the longer the distances were, the more difficult this task was.

Well, conventionally, the armies of the past could carry blacksmiths with them to repair or make weapons and armor on the spot, and they could get supplies from the conquered territories.

And with the advent of rifles and field guns, the army could no longer carry this production with them. And to solve this problem, it was necessary to increase military convoys that could carry the necessary stock of weapons. Over time, with the advent of tanks, modern artillery, and automatic weapons, the task of supplying became even more complicated. Ammunition, fuel, and spare parts for equipment repairs also need to be supplied there.

Although the advent of rail and road transport improved the mobility of modern armies, it did not help over long distances. As distances grow, even more equipment is needed to maintain a certain level of supply. And on the other hand, each road has its own capacity, which did not allow for increased supplies.

And Russian military leaders understood this advantage. Therefore, every time they were attacked by a serious enemy who could not be defeated in open combat, they chose the tactic of retreat. And with them, they took away or destroyed all equipment and production so that the enemy could not use it for his own purposes.

And when Russian enemy was exhausted, because the shortage of ammunition, weapons, fuel and ammunition was increasing due to the increasingly long distances, the Russians would counterattack and drive the enemy back. This was the case with the armies of Napoleon and then Germany in World War II.

Source

About the author: Pavlo Vernivskyi, economist, expert at the Oleksandr Pol Institute

The editors do not always share the views expressed by the authors of the blogs.