Best Battlefield Commander of World War II ... Period!! - Page 2




View Poll Results :Who was the very best Battlefield Commander of World War II??
Field Marshall Carl Mannerheim (Finland) 5 8.33%
Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery (United Kingdom) 2 3.33%
Field Marshall Philippe Leclerc (France) 0 0%
General Nikolai Fedorovich Vatutin (USSR) 1 1.67%
Field Marshal Ivan Konev (USSR) 0 0%
Field Marshall Georgii K Zhukov (USSR) 12 20.00%
General George S Patton (USA) 6 10.00%
General Mitsuru Ushijima (Japan) 0 0%
General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Japan) 1 1.67%
Lieutenant-General Masaharu Honma (Japan) 0 0%
General Tomoyuki Yamashita (Japan) 2 3.33%
Field Marshall Hermann Hoth (Germany) 0 0%
Field Marshall Fedor von Bock (Germany) 0 0%
Field Marshall Walther Model (Germay) 1 1.67%
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel (Germany) 9 15.00%
General Heinz Guderian (Germany) 8 13.33%
Field Marshall Erich von Manstein (Germany) 5 8.33%
General Dwight D Eisenhower (USA) 4 6.67%
General Omar Bradley (USA) 1 1.67%
General Douglas MacArthur (USA) 3 5.00%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
April 4th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Zhukov leads the tally so far. I probably included too many options for this poll to have conclusive results very quickly. I believe that all of them definitely should have been included though.
April 4th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashes
Have to stick with Zhukov.
Hard to say if he was the best, but he was the commander that saved Russia when it was on it's knees,[following on that, saving Europe] defeat the Germans and their top commanders, [including Guderian and Manstein] sometimes against the odds, in the most decisive battles of WW2, and eventually capturing Berlin.
Hi Ashes. I know we've 'agreed to disagree' over Zhukov but I take issue about your statement that Zhukov prevailed "against the odds". AFAIK Zhukov was always in a position of numerical superiority (often by some margin) against his enemies, at least on the Eastern Front. There is no decisive battle that I can think of where Zhukov was involved against German forces and this was not the case.
April 4th, 2005  
KC72
 
 
I have to plump for Guderian, an up and at them commander
--
April 5th, 2005  
Shadowalker
 
 
Mannerhein was impressive, leading the finnish army and stopping the soviet advance, even defeating them. But i would have to say Guderian, development of blitzkrieg changed warfare for ever and was not afraid to disagree with hitler.
April 8th, 2005  
Ashes
 
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

Hi Ashes. I know we've 'agreed to disagree' over Zhukov but I take issue about your statement that Zhukov prevailed "against the odds". AFAIK Zhukov was always in a position of numerical superiority (often by some margin) against his enemies, at least on the Eastern Front. There is no decisive battle that I can think of where Zhukov was involved against German forces and this was not the case.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________


Hi Doppleganger.

These are figures i've found for the start of some of the key battles concerning Zhukov.

They show that the odds were marginally against Zhukov at Leningrad and Moscow, and fairly even at Stalingrad, he didn't seem to have numerical superiority in these most decisive battles of the war.

Leningrad.
Germans and Allies.
810.000 men, 5300 guns, 440 tanks, 1200 aircraft.
Russians.
540.000 men, 5000 guns, 700 tanks, 235 aircraft.

Moscow.
Germans and Allies.
800,000 men, 10,000 guns, 1,000 tanks, 600 aircraft.
Russians.
700,000 men, 5,700 guns, 720 tanks, 1,170 aircraft.

Stalingrad.
Germans and Allies.
1 million men, 10,290 guns, 675 tanks, 1,200 aircraft.
Russians.
1 million men, 13,541 guns 894 tanks, 1,115 aircraft.
April 8th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
I wouldn't call 810,000 Germans and allies to 540,000 Russians at Leningrad "marginal". The rest are close enough though.
April 8th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashes
Hi Doppleganger.

These are figures i've found for the start of some of the key battles concerning Zhukov.

They show that the odds were marginally against Zhukov at Leningrad and Moscow, and fairly even at Stalingrad, he didn't seem to have numerical superiority in these most decisive battles of the war.

Leningrad.
Germans and Allies.
810.000 men, 5300 guns, 440 tanks, 1200 aircraft.
Russians.
540.000 men, 5000 guns, 700 tanks, 235 aircraft.

Moscow.
Germans and Allies.
800,000 men, 10,000 guns, 1,000 tanks, 600 aircraft.
Russians.
700,000 men, 5,700 guns, 720 tanks, 1,170 aircraft.

Stalingrad.
Germans and Allies.
1 million men, 10,290 guns, 675 tanks, 1,200 aircraft.
Russians.
1 million men, 13,541 guns 894 tanks, 1,115 aircraft.
Hi Ashes.

Firstly, where did you get those figures from? There are numerous sources for troop numbers for the Eastern Front, not all of them correct. Secondly, we can ignore the Battle of Leningrad to a certain extent as it was not decisive.

The Battle of Moscow represented the first time in 1941 that the Red Army had material and troop superiority in numbers. So while your numbers are a little off they're not as bad as your claims for Stalingrad which I will address shortly. This was partly assisted by the transferring of Siberian divisions to the Moscow region in October - November 1941. But more importantly, the Red Army had shortened lines of supply and communication, adequate winter clothing and fresh men in the arrival of the afore-mentioned Siberian winter troops. By contrast the German troops were still fighting in their summer uniforms, had been fighting non-stop since June and many of their formations were at less than half listed strength due to combat losses and attrition. One could argue that the Red Army had also been fighting since June but the big difference is that, due to their combat losses, the Red Army were fielding mainly fresh troops at each new battle. So the vast majority of the troops present at the Battle of Moscow were fresh. This fact, and not numbers, is the main reason why the Soviets were able to push back the superior trained, but exhausted Wehrmacht.

As far as the Battle of Stalingrad is concerned, your German numbers are wildly inaccurate. The following link, which references both Antony Beevor (1998), Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege 1942-1943, Viking, 1998, hardcover, ISBN 0670870951; paperback, 1999, ISBN 0140284583 and William Craig (1973), Enemy at the Gates: the Battle for Stalingrad. New York, Penguin Books. ISBN 0142000000 states around 500,000 Axis troops maximum. This is the number that I have also seen referenced in other works and in my impression was the commonly accepted figure. If one simply goes through the Axis OOB for Army Group B in the time period between August 1942 and January 1943 it would be impossible for 1 million Axis troops to be present in the Stalingrad campaign. 6th Army was the most powerful German army in the field in 1942 and its maximum strength was about 330,000 men.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;...2_1&sbid=lc02b

An excellent site all about Stalingrad can be found here:

http://216.198.255.120/germanpart/gerhead.htm

Anyway. I think Zhukov is one of the finest strategic commanders of the war but it's important to be honest and truthful. He did have numerical superiority in all decisive battles and he made some bad errors (Operation Mars for example).
April 8th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashes
Hi Doppleganger.

These are figures i've found for the start of some of the key battles concerning Zhukov.

They show that the odds were marginally against Zhukov at Leningrad and Moscow, and fairly even at Stalingrad, he didn't seem to have numerical superiority in these most decisive battles of the war.

Leningrad.
Germans and Allies.
810.000 men, 5300 guns, 440 tanks, 1200 aircraft.
Russians.
540.000 men, 5000 guns, 700 tanks, 235 aircraft.

Moscow.
Germans and Allies.
800,000 men, 10,000 guns, 1,000 tanks, 600 aircraft.
Russians.
700,000 men, 5,700 guns, 720 tanks, 1,170 aircraft.

Stalingrad.
Germans and Allies.
1 million men, 10,290 guns, 675 tanks, 1,200 aircraft.
Russians.
1 million men, 13,541 guns 894 tanks, 1,115 aircraft.
It is probably important to point out that Zhukov was not the man in charge of any of those battles anyways. I would have to agree with Doppleganger on wanting to know where you got the numbers, even if none of those battles are usable to establish Zhukov as the greatest general of World War II.

I do find it especially amusing that Patton has pretty much wrapped up "Best Allied Commander" with ease, yet Zhukov appears to be winning "Best Overall" at this point.
April 20th, 2005  
Farseer
 
Very hard to choose between four brilliant commanders:
-Mannerheim, only leader eligible to stop Russians in 1939-40 and 1944
-Rommel, definitely best tactician of war, could change any situation into victory.
-Manstein, brilliant strategist in Eastern front
-Guderian, mainly remembered as outstanding theorist but also able field commander.

Well, with small home ground support I have to give my vote to Mannerheim at this poll.
April 20th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farseer
Very hard to choose between four brilliant commanders:
-Mannerheim, only leader eligible to stop Russians in 1939-40 and 1944
-Rommel, definitely best tactician of war, could change any situation into victory.
-Manstein, brilliant strategist in Eastern front
-Guderian, mainly remembered as outstanding theorist but also able field commander.

Well, with small home ground support I have to give my vote to Mannerheim at this poll.
Good choices! You overrate Rommel a bit, underrate Guderian as a field commander and I wouldn't agree that Mannerheim was the only leader eligible to stop the Russians though he was an excellent commander agreed.