refute me then, with facts, I'll even accept Wikipedia links

here's an appetizer for you: the Brusilov Offensive in WW1 was only a strategic operation inside a single war and Russia lost more men in that alone than have ever died on behalf of the US in all wars

Deep Battle, the dominant doctrine of the Red Army, is basically one version of mobile warfare, relying heavily on artillery. One that is mich closer to the common conception of Blitzkrieg than the actual thing the Germans applied (which was never called Blitzkrieg by said Germans). As with modern war, of course attrition plays a role.

It is just plain wrong that Russia won by sending more people to the meat grinder than the enemy. Im fact, deep battle, refined during the fighting at the Eastern Front in WW2, is one of the more successful maneuveur warfare doctrines out there, especially in wast territory.

Not that the current Russian army seems to be very good at applying that doctrine at the moment. But that is a different story.

As far as research goes, Wikipedia is free to use for everyone.

> Im fact, deep battle, refined during the fighting at the Eastern Front in WW2, is one of the more successful maneuveur warfare doctrines out there, especially in wast territory.

It is interesting to note that the most successful offensive land operation of the World War II was the Soviet offensive in August 1945 in Manchuria against the Japanese Kwantung army [0]. Within two weeks the Soviets (1.5M soldiers) annihilated Japanese army of about 1M soldiers and conquered the territory of the size of Western Europe. This together with American nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major factors in Japan finally surrendering (better be occupied by Americans than Russians).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria