WINNER OF WW2 - Page 8




 
--
 
October 31st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Well, we both know how ridiculously outnumbered the Germans were going in. If there had been some better operational command, at the very least it would have been messier for the Germans.

True point that Stalin would have left his armies in very poor positioning. They still would have lacked all of those things. Still, the Red Army not having to wait for Stalin before acting? Good, intelligent responses on the operational level? It would have been a much harder road for Germany. Barbarossa would have had a lot harder time of it, and in the long run its a disaster anyways.

After Hitler redirected Army Group Center away from Moscow, the best chance of victory was lost and Barbarossa was the beginning of a very bad idea. Better leadership on the Red Army's part may have turned the tide sooner and may have foiled some of the German's successes.
October 31st, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
Stalin may have lacked the strategy skills needed to win the war, but his threats to kill zhukov with his own hands helped to reach berlin
October 31st, 2004  
Kick_in_the_eye
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
I should put this gently. The Soviet Union is the unquesitoned Most Valuable Ally of World War II, but you are absolutely correct. They were an aggressor nation and they were extremely dangerous. Just like Germany, it was the leader of the nation that made it so. We are fortunate that the two most dangerous men in modern history went after each other rather than teaming up and going after the world. All by themselves, either one could have made a very successful run towards conquering the world. Finland shows that the SU was less likely to manage it, but by 1941 they had all the tools they needed and so did Germany. Because they destroyed each other, neither would have the opportunity to try the rest of the world.
Yes you are right, I will not dispute that they were a part of the allies, and perhaps the most valuable one. But in context it's easier to look at them as independent. UK and US did not send much love in the direction towards SU - the co-operation was a necessity due to circumstances. And the other way around. As an example: I wonder what would have happened with the lend-lease if Barbarossa came to a halt much earlier?
--
October 31st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by drilldownmaster2004
Stalin may have lacked the strategy skills needed to win the war, but his threats to kill zhukov with his own hands helped to reach berlin
It could have been done without the needless sacrifice of so many Russian soldiers. Numerous of them need not have died if tactics and strategy has taken the place of wave tactics and Stalin's ultimatims for the Red Army to reach X location by date Y or else.
October 31st, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Quote:
Originally Posted by drilldownmaster2004
Stalin may have lacked the strategy skills needed to win the war, but his threats to kill zhukov with his own hands helped to reach berlin
It could have been done without the needless sacrifice of so many Russian soldiers. Numerous of them need not have died if tactics and strategy has taken the place of wave tactics and Stalin's ultimatims for the Red Army to reach X location by date Y or else.
Stalin did not contribute to strategy Zhukov made it to berlin himself
October 31st, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by drilldownmaster2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Quote:
Originally Posted by drilldownmaster2004
Stalin may have lacked the strategy skills needed to win the war, but his threats to kill zhukov with his own hands helped to reach berlin
It could have been done without the needless sacrifice of so many Russian soldiers. Numerous of them need not have died if tactics and strategy has taken the place of wave tactics and Stalin's ultimatims for the Red Army to reach X location by date Y or else.
Stalin did not contribute to strategy Zhukov made it to berlin himself
The Soviet losses in 1943 onwards were not entirely due to bad strategy, human waves etc, although in cases that still occurred. The Soviets at that time were employing good operational combined arms tactics thanks to leaders like Georgei Zhukov. They had learned well the lessons of the first 2 years of Barbarossa and the units that were left after the horrendous losses in '41/42, coupled with fresh units being built beyond the Urals, were the best of what had been the old Red Army. This made it easier to construct the new Red Army which was now pushing the Wehrmacht back.

The Red Army were still suffering a 4:1 loss ratio against the Germans and this was for 2 reasons. The Germans were now on the defensive and were enjoying the benefit of ever shortening supply and logistical lines, employing good tactics somewhat akin to the 'fluid defense' tactics that Manstein wanted to employ before Kursk. The 2nd reason is a little puzzling as the operational level of the average German soldier was still very high, even though the quality of the average Wehrmacht battalion must have been steadily reducing ever since 1941.

I think a combination of improved technology and the constant ability of the average German NCOs to adapt and take command of the local situation was probably the reason myself. This is why I believe that the Wehrmacht was probably the best army in modern times. This ability for soldiers at platoon level to instantly take command and react to a crisis. The Soviets still suffered grievous casualties, despite the fact that they were now employing sound strategy and tactics. I think the same fate would have been suffered by the Anglo-American forces had they been in the Red Army's shoes. Of course we will never know..
October 31st, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by drilldownmaster2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Quote:
Originally Posted by drilldownmaster2004
Stalin may have lacked the strategy skills needed to win the war, but his threats to kill zhukov with his own hands helped to reach berlin
It could have been done without the needless sacrifice of so many Russian soldiers. Numerous of them need not have died if tactics and strategy has taken the place of wave tactics and Stalin's ultimatims for the Red Army to reach X location by date Y or else.
Stalin did not contribute to strategy Zhukov made it to berlin himself
The Soviet losses in 1943 onwards were not entirely due to bad strategy, human waves etc, although in cases that still occurred. The Soviets at that time were employing good operational combined arms tactics thanks to leaders like Georgei Zhukov. They had learned well the lessons of the first 2 years of Barbarossa and the units that were left after the horrendous losses in '41/42, coupled with fresh units being built beyond the Urals, were the best of what had been the old Red Army. This made it easier to construct the new Red Army which was now pushing the Wehrmacht back.

The Red Army were still suffering a 4:1 loss ratio against the Germans and this was for 2 reasons. The Germans were now on the defensive and were enjoying the benefit of ever shortening supply and logistical lines, employing good tactics somewhat akin to the 'fluid defense' tactics that Manstein wanted to employ before Kursk. The 2nd reason is a little puzzling as the operational level of the average German soldier was still very high, even though the quality of the average Wehrmacht battalion must have been steadily reducing ever since 1941.

I think a combination of improved technology and the constant ability of the average German NCOs to adapt and take command of the local situation was probably the reason myself. This is why I believe that the Wehrmacht was probably the best army in modern times. This ability for soldiers at platoon level to instantly take command and react to a crisis. The Soviets still suffered grievous casualties, despite the fact that they were now employing sound strategy and tactics. I think the same fate would have been suffered by the Anglo-American forces had they been in the Red Army's shoes. Of course we will never know..

Ist true that after 43 the war went better and that also was in part to the fact that the new il 2 came out
November 1st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
From start to finish, there was a tendency to rush things on the USSR's part. Patience and better planning could have saved them casualties. The taking of Berlin, for instance, we again see a more hurried approach at the expense of lives. That's about as late in the war as you're gonna get.
November 1st, 2004  
Hegario
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
From start to finish, there was a tendency to rush things on the USSR's part. Patience and better planning could have saved them casualties. The taking of Berlin, for instance, we again see a more hurried approach at the expense of lives. That's about as late in the war as you're gonna get.
One of the reasons the taking of Berlin was rushed was the fact that Stalin made it a race between his two best marshals, Georgi Zhukov & Ivan Konev. The two didn't get along really well.
November 1st, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hegario
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
From start to finish, there was a tendency to rush things on the USSR's part. Patience and better planning could have saved them casualties. The taking of Berlin, for instance, we again see a more hurried approach at the expense of lives. That's about as late in the war as you're gonna get.
One of the reasons the taking of Berlin was rushed was the fact that Stalin made it a race between his two best marshals, Georgi Zhukov & Ivan Konev. The two didn't get along really well.
that and the fact that stalin did not want GB and US to get there before them