ORIGINAL: Shawkhan
Considering the last three invasions of Russia:
1. Napoleon-Russians withdrew before L'Grande Armee, even forfeting Moscow, letting winter take its toll before launching a crushing counterattack.
2. WWI- Russians launch a shoestring invasion of E. Prussia, wind up losing two armies.(interestingly enough, virtually identical to Ulver's fiasco).
3. WWII- Russians withdraw to outskirts of Moscow once again. Letting winter take its toll before launching a crushing counterattack.
...What does this tell us? Russians should withdraw in front of invasion, then counterattack with winter reinforcements. This is not rocket science.
You can't compare these situations like that Shawkhan.
Against Napoleon Russia had no possibility to gather an force to seriously fight Napoleon before the gates of Moscow at Borodino where they were forced to make a stand.
During WW2 the far majority of the standing forces of Russia was deployed (and destroyed) in the border fighting in the west. Afterwards forces was simply deployed in dribbles in an attempt to stop the Germans no matter the loss.
In WW1 there were not enough troops to get around in the east for neither side so forces were more concentrated in areas. Tactically the war was conducted different in so far that holding ground was considered more important than preservation of forces which naturally increased losses.
