![]() |
View Poll Results :Which Allied General/Field Marshall Outshone the Rest?? | |||
Field Marshal Bernard Law Viscount Montgomery (United Kingdom) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
5 | 13.16% |
General George Smith Patton (United States of America) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
14 | 36.84% |
Marshal of Soviet Union Georgii K. Zhukov (Soviet Union) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
9 | 23.68% |
Field Marshal Gustaf Mannerheim (Finland) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 5.26% |
General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower (United States of America) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
8 | 21.05% |
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|||
![]() |
Quote:
There's also a school of thought that the Red Army casualty rates were an necessary evil to evict a skilled and determined aggressor. Certainly the Wehrmacht was and despite the average quality level of the German soldier decreasing from 1941 onwards they were still able to out-soldier their Soviet counterparts in almost every way. You know as well as I do that the Western Allies did not face the best that Germany had to offer and so you cannot directly compare operations on the Western Front compared with those on the Eastern Front. I think you're dismissing Zhukov a little too much. He was a fine strategic commander despite Operation Mars and his tendency to rely on brute force. The bottom line is that Zhukov, Konev et al got the job done. From 1943 onwards they achieved most of their objectives. The fact that Germany, despite being pushed backwards and outnumbered in every conceivable way, were still able to inflict severe casualties says as much about the quality of their troops as it does about the shortcomings of Soviet strategy. Perhaps a Western Allied commander would have gotten the job done with lower casualties, but as to quicker, that's not something I can agree with. |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
When you start learning more facts, you come off pretty disappointed. You're right that the disproportionate casualties from Zhukov and the Red Army's operations are a definitely a credit to how good the Germans truly were, but you and I both know that Zhukov needlessly sacrificed equipment, men and his own Army's strength over and over and over. Yes he was a tactical and strategic genius. He was aggressive and that attribute fits him for success on the Eastern Front. He also made some completely unnecessary sacrifices, and he did so (off and on) all the way to Berlin. You're right that Patton and the others never commanded on the scale that Zhukov did, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have done a better job. Monty, I agree with you ... hesitantly. He was slow on the attack, which is a fatal flaw for the Ostfront, but he did attack. He also would have preserved much more of the Red Army's opperational effectiveness, and this may have led to slower progress at first, but a quicker collapse later on. Monty ... I'm not gonna stand by that one as absolute. |
![]() |
|
|
G'day fellas.
Just a few thoughts. __________________________________________________ _________________________________________ Well, that doesn't even begin to compare to the numerical carnage suffered by the Soviets in Barbarossa, so I'd say Glantz is probably wrong. Additionally, the USSR had a very stacked deck in their favor by 1944. The numerical advantage held by the USSR in 1941 was insane. Germany success was as unlikely as Lennox Lewis getting is butt kicked by a 70 year old lady, but it happened anyway. Bagatration demonstrated that the Red Army had learned execute mechanized modern warfare superbly, but its still Lennox Lewis beating the crap out of a 70 year old lady and not as impressive IMHO. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ Gee, I dont know about those statements, godofthunder. First you seem to be comparing the casualties of the whole Eastern front war with one campaign, then to say that one of the foremost western experts on the Eastern front is wrong, is a pretty big call. As for the insane Russian numerical advantage in 1941, I've found the following figures..... 22 June 1941 Soviet: 2,680,000 on the front. Axis: 3,117,000 Germans+500,000 Finns+150,000 Romanians (in fact around 350,000) so a total of 3,967,000. To these forces the Hungarian and Slovak troops added after 26 June 1941. 11 September 1941 Soviet: 3,463,000 on the front. Axis: 3,382,000 Germans+500,000 Finns+150,000 Romanians (in fact around 306,000) so a total of 4,188,000 plus the Hungarian, Italian and Slovak expeditionary corps. 1 November 1941 Soviet: 2,200,000 on the front. Axis: 2,867,000 Germans+500,000 Finns+150,000 Romanians (finally a closer figure to the real one: 62,000 on the front+103,000 as occupation forces in Trans-Dnestra) so a total of 3,532,000 plus the Hungarian, Italian and Slovak expeditionary corps. 1 December 1941* Soviet: 4,197,000 on the front. Axis: 2,767,000 Germans+500,000 Finns+140,000 Romanians (60,000 on the front+112,000 as occupation forces in Trans-Dnestra) so a total of 3,439,000 plus the Hungarian, Italian and Slovak expeditionary corps. *From here on, the Red Army had a continuous numerical advantage over the Wehrmacht and its smaller allies. Plus the Russians had several Million men on the Manchurin front, untill called back by Stalin. Note the increase from Nov. [which was the low point for the Russians] to Dec. **************************** ********************************* So I think the only insane thing is how the heck the Russians survived '41, let alone winning the war. Could that man Zhukov have had something to do with it? __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ Mars alone saw the complete waste of tanks, men and equipment. Operational effectiveness of the Red Army was diminished each and every time they took staggerly disproportionate losses in both men and equipment. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ I'm not sure it was a complete waste, granted it was a serious setback for the Russians, but if they didn't attack, there was a possibility that Army group center could have syphoned off men for Stalingrad. And as I said, the Germans took quite a battering too. While causing heavy Soviet casualties, the German divisions themselves were fought to a frazzle. It was no coincidence that several months later Model asked for and received permission to abandon the Rzhev salient. He and his army could ill afford another such victory. __________________________________________________ _________________________________________ I think the war would have ended sooner with any one of them: Bradley, Patton, Monty, Macarthur. __________________________________________________ _________________________________________ I think Doppleganger nailed that one. Patton and quite a few other American officers thought that Bradley was to conservative and over cautious. __________________________________________________ _________________________________________ Your making the assumption that Patton was an idiot where he wasn't. Far, far from it. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ Perhaps I didn't explain that very well. I meant that Patton was almost certifiable, a few cans short of a six pack, a sandwich short of a picnic, a.... well you get my drift. He sincerely believed that he lived as a warrior through the ages as a viking, as a Roman leigonaire in Ceasers terrible 10th Legion, died on the plains of Troy, and fell in the battle of Crecy in the 100 years war. Also from the extract below it's obvious he wasn't the sort of person that you could admire...... "He was a successful general, but he was also a racist of the rawest and most vicious kind. His own writings show that he was convinced of the superiority of Northwestern Europeans, except the Irish, and was convinced of the inferiority of nonwhites. He also hated Jews and called Holocaust survivors "subhumans". While such views were widespread in the officer corps in the 1920's and '30's, Patton carried them to an extreme which hindered his ability to effectively act in the occupation of Germany. He was so far over the edge that you would say that he probably believed in Nordic superiority more than most of Hitler's generals did. One good source for the history of antiSemitism in the Army is a book called "The 'Jewish Threat' ". It is quite a shocker. While he served his country bravely, we should never forget that indirectly attitudes such as those held by Patton and Lindbergh might have helped to prevent America from confronting Hitler or offering timely assistance to those he would go on to murder. " ....... But this doesn't mean he wasn't a great commander. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ Sorry, but I have a very hard time respecting a man who had such small a regard for the lives of his men. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ Yes, it would have been great if the Whermacht could have been beaten without the huge sacrifices of the Russian soldiers, and perhaps others could have done it with lower casualties, but I dont think that many commanders in history didn't sacrifice their men at sometime for one reason or another, even Lee at Gettysburg sacrificed Pickets division in a vain attack on the Union lines. Anyway fellas, i'm not claiming that Zhukov was some sort of military genius, just happened to be man of the hour when Russia needed one when they were on their knees. And the most important commander of the war IMHO. Also, dont you think that the c-in-c's get too much lime light? They set up the plans, but it's the field commanders, and the poor old foot slogger that do the dirty work to make them succeed. Bye the way, godofthunder who did you vote as the best Allied commander? _____________________________________________ _______________________________ |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
1. What source did you get those figures from? 2. You appear to be listing Soviet forces that fronted the Wehrmacht but including the whole of the Wehrmacht when they clearly had obligations elsewhere too. Little unfair? Generally, the armed strength of the Wehrmacht at the start of Operation Barbarossa is listed as some 3,400,000 men compared with the 4,700,000 men of the Red Army. You're right to dispute Godofthunder's claims as although the Red Army was numerically superior, it only had some 178 divisions on it's western front on June 22nd compared with some 153 German and 47 Satellite divisions. However, the Red Army did have a big numerical advantage in tanks and overall was some 1,300,000 men stronger. Moreover, the Red Army reserves were larger than those of the Wehrmacht, which was already getting to it's operational limit. So in the overall scheme of things the Germans were outnumbered and this became steadily more important as the war went on. It's a little bit naughty to include the Finns, as they were only concerned with reclaiming territories lost during the Winter War and really did not support Army Group North much at all. Also, the performance of the German satellite divisions were generally inferior to the German ones, with 3 satellite divisions required to do the job of 2 German ones. As for the Soviets surviving 1941 that was done to 3 major reasons, none of them to do with Zhukov. Those were: 1. Hitler's delay in launching Barbarossa until June 22nd. 2. Hitler's decision to divert Army Group Centre away from Moscow to assist Army Group South to capture the Ukraine in August. 3. Hitler's decision not to put German industry on a war footing as he wanted to 'spare the German people the rigours of war." By the time Zhukov arrived with the 25 Siberian divisions the Wehrmacht had already lost the chance to take Moscow in 1941. Don't get me wrong though. Zhukov played a big role in the winter counteroffensive that threw the Germans back and nearly broke them. If it wasn't for German commanders like Guderian who ignored Hitler's insane 'stand or die' orders he might have done just that. |
![]() |