Super units you’d like to see

A soviet infantry unit with ability to not lose morale when flanked or surrounded. I would say this represents the the "not one step back" order given.

It is a myth...
Thanks to great historians (Glantz, Erikson, House...) the broad western public has nowadays a more precise information on this topic:

The Red Army was outnumbered by Axis forces in 1941 at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Soviet mobilization efforts and steady German losses began to change the force ratios in 1942, but the Red Army only had a roughly 2:1 advantage from February 1943 until mid-1944 before maxing out at a little over 4: 1 at the very end of the war.

Here’s another way of looking at the force ratios. The Red Army in the field actually peaked in size in mid-1943, but the ratios continued to shift in its favor due to Germany’s inability to replace losses. The Red Army didn’t keep getting bigger, but it maintained its size while the Wehrmacht steadily lost ground, literally and figuratively.

A 2:1 advantage is significant, but falls short of the 3:1 force ratio that is generally regarded as necessary for attacking forces, and it’s a long way from the double-digit advantage that is often claimed. Both sides were able to temporarily achieve greater numerical advantages in certain times and places by concentrating forces.

What about force ratios at the Battle of Stalingrad, which has been the focus of so much attention? It turns out there are some surprises here, too. During the defensive phase of urban warfare (August through mid-November 1942), the Red Army was outnumbered about 1.6:1. The Red Army reversed the odds in its counteroffensive in November 1942, achieving about a 2:1 advantage during Operation Uranus.



It was exactly the same situation with other Allies

At the Battle of the Bulge, the Allies were initially outnumbered nearly 1.8:1, but in less than ten days gained the upper hand in troops and a 4:1 advantage in tanks. Within the span of four weeks, the Allies reversed the troop ratio and attained an 11:1 advantage in tanks. The Allies also had quantitative superiority in the Pacific, where they had more divisions than the Japanese from late 1942 until the end of the war, achieving advantages of 1.5:1 in 1943, 2:1 in 1944, and 2.6:1 in mid-1945.

Yeah, "stupid" russian military that can fight only in case the enemy is already defeated by general Winter/Frost. Whatever historical era.. either Napoleon, Hitler or even medieval. Useless russian military hordes built and secured biggest country in the world with the help of wheather. I can't understand how people in Europe can still believe in that.

Have You ever compared the number of divisions defeated by Allies and by Soviets? Casualties? Don't use Wikipedia. Overall casualties on the Eastern front is about 1,5:1. Why only Germany? Romania, Italy, Hungary even 25000 french were killed. Btw more than french who died fighting against Germany in french resistance.

1.It is ABC actually. 
Germany 
Total (incl. conscripted foreigners)
18,200,000


Killed/missing
5,318,000


Prisoners of war Captured
11,100,000


Percent killed
29.2


USSR

Total (incl. conscripted foreigners)

34,476,700




Killed/missing

10,725,345




Prisoners of war Captured

5,750,000




Percent killed

31.1

So, we have:
1. Yes Soviet losses were bigger, but 2/1 ratio says nothing about "human waves". It is imposiible to create any wave with figures above.
2. Most serious casualties were at the beginning of the war, at the end USSR could simply kill all German PoW (like Germany did) and thus seriously equal the numbers. But USSR didn't do it, as I said in another thread.
3. Every 8 division out of 10 were destroyed on Eastern front, that explains low casualty rate by other Allies.

German war machine was the best millitary creation in millitary history. And it was basically annihilated on Eastern front.

I’m sorry, but when you lose three or four times the soldiers your enemy does in a victorious battle, “human wave” is the only way to describe what occurred.

I do not know the quality of your education and don't want to judge it. I give you opinion of David Glantz, a scholar with world-wide reputation. You can make a decision what to do next: believe old myths or rethink some points. I do not have a desire to convince you. I even think it's better, that many think this way. I'm more afraid of another opinion in fact :

"World War II has much to teach us. Debunking the myths of this war can improve our understanding of the military situation today. We might even avoid generating new myths based on old stereotypes".
Reina Pennington, PhD, teaches military and Russian history at Norwich University in Vermont. She is a former Air Force intelligence officer and Soviet analyst