(False) Historical stereotypes

I think it's more the fact that many of them didn't have shoes, and that in some cases there was one gun for every four soldiers.

Brusilov was Russia's only hope for World War I. Yet the Czar couldn't see past his own nose to see that... think of the possibilities if Brusilov would've had more support and more authority. He could've turned the Central's march in Russia into a retreat to Berlin and Vienna.

It's not a myth.

So you're saying that basically Russia's only successful offensive of the war provides proof that were not terrible. The ghosts of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes would like to have a word with you.

This actually shows Russia's incompetence, Yudenich was one of Russia's best generals but was placed on the least important front of the war.

Many people believe that the wars of 1812 were Russia against France and the United States against the United Kingdoms. In actuallity, Russia was against the United State while France and the United Kingdoms declared war on the moon.

Us lost the tet offensive

Sherman was a bad tank

Russians used human wave tactics throughout the second world war

German tanks were the best in ww2

Napoleon was the aggressor throughout the Napoleonic wars

wehrmacht didn't commit war crimes

(I will just transfer some stuff here from the fun historical facts thread)
during the ww2 western allied tank kills were mostly done by CAS planes. Wrong only 2-3% of tank kill were done in combat operations by cas planes on all fronts.. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/myth-combat-aircraft-destroying-tanks-27496.html

Battle of kursk was mostly a tank battle and the largest one. Wrong, the battle was ultimately won and lost by infantry divisions. And it wasn't the biggest tank battle in history.
http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

The biggest stereotype of history was the Americans losing in vietnam.
It was a tie okay?

@D3adtrap wehrmacht committed dozens of war crimes. Thanks to people like manstein who made the imagine of "clean wehrmacht" after the war, the truth hasn't dawned to many people... Sure SS committed more, but still it would be childish to say, wehrmacht wasn't stained with blood during those years.

Well I figured the thread name is false historical stereotypes.. So yea

So your source is basically saying that it's a crap shoot, Google scholar might show some reliable results.

And this is based on what exactly? For starters that offensive should have been much more successful than it ended up being, but Brusilov's colleges refused to coordinate with him. Regardless Russia lost over a million men in that offensive (Axelrod, page 203) and sped up the revolution.

Placing your only two quality generals on peripheral fronts shows incompetence. Brusilov and Yudenich should have been fighting against the Germans not on lesser opponents such as the Turks and Austrians.

Well, there is hardly any argument saying that the Russians were even close to being prepared for war. They rushed straight into it thinking it was their last chance to get a piece of that wonderful Balkan cake. Their unpreparedness probably supports the thought of a pathetic Russian army. Another contributor to that is the fact that THE GENERALS USED OUT OF DATE STRATEGIES! Morale was pathetic, and soldiers formed soviets and refused to fight for the idiotic Czar Nicholas II. So the Russian Army was pretty awful

... So the Russians were prepared, their soldiers were happy to fight for a hated Czar, the Generals were the cream of the crop, and their were no soviets in the army.

Here's a good one:

The Japanese were experts at jungle warfare.