| Revision as of 17:12, 7 October 2005 edit141.117.94.190 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:14, 7 October 2005 edit undo141.117.94.190 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Can someone explain how this was a strategic victory for the Russians? They lost Sevastopol and its garrison. They lost the relief force sent to relieve them (Kerch Peninsula). The fall of Sevastopol, then the strongest fortress in the world was a huge military and political blow to the Russians. --] 02:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC) | Can someone explain how this was a strategic victory for the Russians? They lost Sevastopol and its garrison. They lost the relief force sent to relieve them (Kerch Peninsula). The fall of Sevastopol, then the strongest fortress in the world was a huge military and political blow to the Russians. --] 02:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| This is quite clear. For a long time this battle was distracting large number of German troops, while being of secondary value. | This is quite clear. For a long time this battle was distracting large number of German troops, while being of secondary value. | ||
| Sevastopol wasn't "fortress" from the land side. It was well-defended against naval assault, but not well protected from the land army actions. Defenses were largely improvised. Also it's loss, while being very bitter for Russians, wasn't any military or political blow. Holding for 250 days against enemy, while deep behind main front line was a thing to be proud of. It's considered an example of Soviet courage in modern Russia, not a humiliating defeat. | Sevastopol wasn't "fortress" from the land side. It was well-defended against naval assault, but not well protected from the land army actions. Defenses were largely improvised. Also it's loss, while being very bitter for Russians, wasn't any military or political blow. Holding for 250 days against enemy, while deep behind main front line was a thing to be proud of. It's considered an example of Soviet courage in modern Russia, not a humiliating defeat. | ||
Revision as of 17:14, 7 October 2005
Can someone explain how this was a strategic victory for the Russians? They lost Sevastopol and its garrison. They lost the relief force sent to relieve them (Kerch Peninsula). The fall of Sevastopol, then the strongest fortress in the world was a huge military and political blow to the Russians. --Pelladon 02:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
This is quite clear. For a long time this battle was distracting large number of German troops, while being of secondary value.
Sevastopol wasn't "fortress" from the land side. It was well-defended against naval assault, but not well protected from the land army actions. Defenses were largely improvised. Also it's loss, while being very bitter for Russians, wasn't any military or political blow. Holding for 250 days against enemy, while deep behind main front line was a thing to be proud of. It's considered an example of Soviet courage in modern Russia, not a humiliating defeat.