Hitler´s rating
i agree with you all.
Zhukov was brute and didn't care about bleeding his own troops to death (i don't know his record agaisnt Russia but seelow heights was definitely a mess of his own).
However russian tactics was brute force and heavy casualties.
so i figre with the resources he had and the organisation of rusian troops and hq's, he was a good general.
however, some woudl be better, like rokossowsky, vatutin etc.
they were just less popular with Stalin.
As for Hitler, there again you're right : he was a corporal whoreacted on some elements in some ways, without aalysing and his decisions were not military sound.
but he was usually right in most decision, even if he jeopardized hisown plans later on.
look at the battle f the bulge : any sound commander would have put these armies against russian frot, but he gambled on creating havoc politically between allied troops by isolating most of US and british troops in apocket with Anwerp in the middle. succes probability was naring zero, but he knew a tactical victory in the east at that time was of no use.
so maybe more than 3 would be wise.
after all, even Napoleon asked when presented a new potential general :'yes, he is smart, but is he lucky ?'
Zhukov was brute and didn't care about bleeding his own troops to death (i don't know his record agaisnt Russia but seelow heights was definitely a mess of his own).
However russian tactics was brute force and heavy casualties.
so i figre with the resources he had and the organisation of rusian troops and hq's, he was a good general.
however, some woudl be better, like rokossowsky, vatutin etc.
they were just less popular with Stalin.
As for Hitler, there again you're right : he was a corporal whoreacted on some elements in some ways, without aalysing and his decisions were not military sound.
but he was usually right in most decision, even if he jeopardized hisown plans later on.
look at the battle f the bulge : any sound commander would have put these armies against russian frot, but he gambled on creating havoc politically between allied troops by isolating most of US and british troops in apocket with Anwerp in the middle. succes probability was naring zero, but he knew a tactical victory in the east at that time was of no use.
so maybe more than 3 would be wise.
after all, even Napoleon asked when presented a new potential general :'yes, he is smart, but is he lucky ?'
Ben
Verzage ni
Verzage ni
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I read that Hitler decision to siege the city and not to fight in Leningrad was dated in August 21st. Zhukov took command of the Leningrad front on September the 9th, and the 4th Panzer Group began to be redeployed against Moscow a week later, so in this case I believe Zhukov´s defensive skills were not decisive. With respect to Typhoon, I have to concede that when Zhukov arrived in October the situation was seemingly hopeless, and he, with the help of the mud, saved the day. (mmmmmmm, rating 7 I guess)Originally posted by Kuniworth
First of all you are wrong about Leningrad(as this was prior to the siege) and secondly at the beginning of operation Typhoon in october Zhukov was largely outnumbered. If we talkin december 1941 with the russian counterthrust the situation naturally was diffrent.
Originally posted by alfonso
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I read that Hitler decision to siege the city and not to fight in Leningrad was dated in August 21st. Zhukov took command of the Leningrad front on September the 9th, and the 4th Panzer Group began to be redeployed against Moscow a week later, so in this case I believe Zhukov´s defensive skills were not decisive. With respect to Typhoon, I have to concede that when Zhukov arrived in October the situation was seemingly hopeless, and he, with the help of the mud, saved the day. (mmmmmmm, rating 7 I guess)
No this is wrong.
Directiv 34 Hitler dated 12 of august and repeadted on the 21st of august stated that the offensive against Leningrad should continue to isolate Leningrad. However it was not until the 8th of september when the finns cut the murmansk railroad that the 900 days(872 to be correct) are officially said to have begun.
BUT it was not until late september Hitler really agreed to give up the offensive(the troops had order not to accept the city's surrender) and to starve Leningrad to submission. But then the siege was already pratically in use.
Zhukov arrived as you said the 9th and from the 11-14 september he organized the defence, fortifying streets and leading by brute tactics(once again). Commandant Marshal Klement Voroshilov was fighting in the first line of defence at this point trying to die a glorious death, so hopeless were the situation.
Zhukov did a good job at Leningrad.
The siege of Leningrad begun in sep
"Those men on white horses are terrifying...but we´ll match´em with our lancers!"
Napoleon 1815
Napoleon 1815
Originally posted by Kuniworth
Guderian failed miserably at Tula and in the winter of 1944-1945. Manstein could´nt stop the tide in russia winter 1943. Rommel did not perform so good at El alamein and in the second battle for France. They all failed but still we rank them among the best commander of the war.
I don't know too much about Manstein in the winter 1943 (you mean winter 1943/44, don't you?), but as to Guderian and Rommel:
Guderians defence in Poland 1944/45 was greatly hampered by Hitler's decisions. Hitler withdrew several divisions from the already weak Eastern Front and he also rejected Guderians proposal to put the main line of defence 20 km behind the actual front line. Thus the weakened defenders were crushed by the artillery barrage and the first assault of the Soviet attackers.
If there ever was a chance to stop the Russians or limit their success it was taken away by Hitler, you cannot blame Guderian for this.
Rommel: Given the supply situation in Nort Africa it's perhaps questionable whether a great offensive was a sensible decision for the Germans in the first place. But the battle at El Alamein was not lost by Rommel - he never had a real chance there. Rommel was great at maneuvering his army, but at El Alamein there was just no space to maneuver, you had to break through head-on. And the Germans were much too weak for that (I've read they arrived at El Alamein with just 25 panzers).
In France 1944 Rommel had the problem that the powerful (SS-)Panzerdivisions were against his wish deployed too far back, needed a long time to arrive at the front and were already seriously weakened on the march by the Allied air supremacy. But basically as soon as the Allies had gained a foothold on the continent not even a genius of a German general could have made much of a difference.
What I want to say is that whether a general wins or loses a battle is not always an indication if he was a good or bad leader. And especially later in the war all German generals had to cope with Hitler's constant interfering. Hitler had had a lot of luck with some strategic decisions early in the war - for instance the invasion of Norway, the attack against France or holding and air-supplying the Demyansk pocket in winter 1941/42 might as well have turned into disasters. But they went well, and so Hitler thought he knew more than his generals and stopped listening to them. And when the Supreme commander doesn't listen to the advice of his generals you cannot really blame the generals for defeats.
1. Supply situation was gratly due to Rommel himself. he was offered resources to take Malta (airpower, brigade Ramcke and what lese) an coould have take it by air (a second CKreta of some sorts). Instead he chose to put these troops on his front.Originally posted by Micha
IRommel: Given the supply situation in Nort Africa it's perhaps questionable whether a great offensive was a sensible decision for the Germans in the first place.
But the battle at El Alamein was not lost by Rommel - he never had a real chance there. Rommel was great at maneuvering his army, but at El Alamein there was just no space to maneuver, you had to break through head-on. And the Germans were much too weak for that (I've read they arrived at El Alamein with just 25 panzers).
Consequencee, Malta was resupplied (operation Pedestal etc) and took a heavy toll on maritime traffic.
2. El Alamein had some place to maneuver...
However, Auchinelek played correctly for once.
3. 25 tanks seem plausibel to me. but 25 german tanks. there were some M13 italian tanks, not the best but sometimes, when well used...
4. if he didn't lose, who failed ? he was in charge and had taken other bets. he was the one who launched this offensive, perfectl aware of his situation. i guess he hoped for a massal withdrawing or collapse of 8th army. hich could have happened.
best regards.
Ben
Verzage ni
Verzage ni
Originally posted by Micha
What I want to say is that whether a general wins or loses a battle is not always an indication if he was a good or bad leader. And especially later in the war all German generals had to cope with Hitler's constant interfering. And when the Supreme commander doesn't listen to the advice of his generals you cannot really blame the generals for defeats.
Granted of course. My simple point was that all commanders fail at one or another point. This is nothing odd, maybe we should hail the once making the least mistakes during a long period instead of the ones showing stunning victories once or twice???
"Those men on white horses are terrifying...but we´ll match´em with our lancers!"
Napoleon 1815
Napoleon 1815
Bernard - It's true that the Germans probably lost the North Africa campaign because they failed to take Malta, but that was a strategic decision made by the OKW. I think Rommel very much favoured an attack on the island.
As I said before, the decision to attack at all in North Africa was questionable. But once that decision was made there was nothing else to do for Rommel but push as hard as possible to reach the Nile, hoping that the British would crumble. With the supply problems there was no sense in reverting to the defensive and trying to hold positions somewhere in Egypt.
Kuniworth - you're absolutely right. It's a shame that some generals become celebrated heroes for winning one or two important battles, sometimes without even really influencing the outcome, just for being by chance the one in charge at that moment.
As I said before, the decision to attack at all in North Africa was questionable. But once that decision was made there was nothing else to do for Rommel but push as hard as possible to reach the Nile, hoping that the British would crumble. With the supply problems there was no sense in reverting to the defensive and trying to hold positions somewhere in Egypt.
Kuniworth - you're absolutely right. It's a shame that some generals become celebrated heroes for winning one or two important battles, sometimes without even really influencing the outcome, just for being by chance the one in charge at that moment.
Rommel is my vote
Admittedly, i have not read a great deal of the details of the Russian front. My memory is books tend to focus upon the Russian Front as in 500 miles by 500 miles. Individual leaders tend to get lost in such a broad brush.
Zhukov and other Russian Generals used quantity makes right...because their command/radio structure was poor, soldier training was abysmal, their economy had lots of material production, their population was huge compared to upstart Germany. In essence, they used the strength of Russia.
Admittedly, Rommel missed the call upon Malta. He used the forces he had and pushed as hard as possible toward Egypt. As a team player, he relied upon others to keep the supply line open. How does one draw the line between one responsibilty and another? His advances in North Africa...often, he did so with minimal forces, out maneuvering/psyching his opponent, using captured resources, and generally making good on risky maneuvers - repeatedly. He also chose to skillfully retreat when other Generals(Hitler?) would have stood still and completely died.
Rommel's arrival in France was a resounding drum roll. He energized the Atlantic Wall and made efficient use of resources available to him. He was defending EVERYWHERE with as much as he could scrape together.(shore obstacles, reinforced concrete, guns, etc). The western alliance resources mounted against him...would have overwhelmed anyone. The western air force and naval combat vessels made any forward oriented defence suicide. Nevertheless, look how long it took to capture Caen.
Historical perspectives are always subject to interpretation. I doubt we as historical gamers will ever agree on the perfect WWII general(or should i say "most" perfect).
Zhukov and other Russian Generals used quantity makes right...because their command/radio structure was poor, soldier training was abysmal, their economy had lots of material production, their population was huge compared to upstart Germany. In essence, they used the strength of Russia.
Admittedly, Rommel missed the call upon Malta. He used the forces he had and pushed as hard as possible toward Egypt. As a team player, he relied upon others to keep the supply line open. How does one draw the line between one responsibilty and another? His advances in North Africa...often, he did so with minimal forces, out maneuvering/psyching his opponent, using captured resources, and generally making good on risky maneuvers - repeatedly. He also chose to skillfully retreat when other Generals(Hitler?) would have stood still and completely died.
Rommel's arrival in France was a resounding drum roll. He energized the Atlantic Wall and made efficient use of resources available to him. He was defending EVERYWHERE with as much as he could scrape together.(shore obstacles, reinforced concrete, guns, etc). The western alliance resources mounted against him...would have overwhelmed anyone. The western air force and naval combat vessels made any forward oriented defence suicide. Nevertheless, look how long it took to capture Caen.
Historical perspectives are always subject to interpretation. I doubt we as historical gamers will ever agree on the perfect WWII general(or should i say "most" perfect).
-
Stefdragon
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:51 pm
- Location: New York, NY
Zhukov
Zhukov was hardly known for either economy of force or surprise,Originally posted by alfonso
Two of the most important aspects of military art are economy of forces and achievement of surprise. In my humble opinion, there were some ocasions in that Zhukov did not get the right proportions of these two ingredients. He has been depicted as a General reliyng on frontal attacks decided by brut force,
but...
If you take a look at it from his perspective:
1.SURPRISE-By the summer of 1944 the Germans knew very well when an offensive was on the way in that thousands of Russian Katayusha Rockets and 152mm guns would pound the crap out the Axis lines for days before any offensive would begin. You would have to be deaf, drunk, or dead not to know you were about to get attacked!
2.ECONOMY OF FORCE-Zhukov by 1944, was in a very unique situation as commander in that he had some of the greatest reserves in both men and material of almost any General in history. Not that this made it okay to get his men slaughtered but look at his situation at the time, and I quote from his autobiography:
"Between February 18 & 20 [1944], I was at the GHQ where I reported to THE SUPREME COMMANDER on the plan of further operations. STALIN ordered me to resume coordination of the actions of the 1st and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts, and to immediately
begin an offensive."-G. Zhukov, from his two volume autobiography: "Marshal of the Soviet Union, G. Zhukov, Reminiscences and Reflections"-1974, Progress Publishers, Moscow
Now...I don't have to elaborate to any of you fellow students of history that when Stalin said "ATTACK!", you said "YES SIR!, When and where? With an army, or alone?", otherwise you would go from General of the Army, to Private in a mine clearing battalion, at the very least!
So where did that leave Zhukov? He faced a determined and highy experienced enemy, that albeit was progressively more and more a line of Kampfgruppes than Divisions or Corps, but were experts in fact at small unit command, as they had been trained, which the Russkies found to be quite effective against them when the Germans used it on the defensive.
Zhukov was left with the one choice that made complete sense to him under the circumstances, which was to employ that nasty word to all of you dashing Generals...ATTRITION.
The Germans had to be overwhelmed and crushed, not just allowed to retire to new positions. How do you achieve that against such resistance, with a minimum of 3 to 1 odds, and as you all know, probably as much as 8 or 10 to one to dislodge an opponent such as the Germans were.
In a war of attrition, the Commander is bound to make some sort of what could be considered tactical errors such as Seelow, but the results were still the same, which is what mattered to Stalin, and is what kept Zhukov's head on his shoulders.
We Americans have a General in our history who in fact has a lot in common with Mr. Z., and that is U.S. Grant from our Civil War.
Why? Because both had a preponderance of force against a spirited enemy, both used it with seemingly total abandon, both have been heavily criticized by historians for it, both were hated and reviled by mothers and wives on both sides who had lost loved ones, and most importantly, both achieved total eventual victory for their Commanders in Chief in the face of complete adversity, due to their tactics...and that speaks volumes.
"When I was a toddler in Europe, my U.S. Diplomat parents relocated a number of times. Ultimately though, my nanny and I would always find them." - Stefdragon
WELL PUT STEF. ATTRITION IS INDEED THE MEATGRINDER OF HUMANITY. STALIN; AN ALCOHOLIC PSYCHOPATH FANATICALLY OBSESSED WITH KEEPING POWER AT ALL COSTS. ONE OF THE BLOODIEST MURDERERS IN HISTORY WITH AN AXE TO GRIND WITH ALL OF HIS GENERALS. WHAT A FREAK. AS MOST GENERALS WHO CONSIDER ATTRITION TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF WARFARE, ITS THE DOWNFALL OF THE HUMAN RACE TO ACQUIESCE TO THE CONCEPT OF EXPENDABILITY AS AN ACCEPTABLE MEANS TO AN END. TRADING THE LIVES OF WHOLE POPULATIONS SO THAT FREAKS CAN STAY IN POWER. WHAT A DISASTER. GOOD THING IM NEVER GOING TO FALL FOR THAT SCAM. ANYONE FOR A GOOD WARGAME??
SLAAKATTAK
SLAAKATTAK
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
— Winston Churchill