15-11-2003 09:59									#1
	Zhukov or Guderian? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Imran brought up Zhukov, so here ya go...

Last edited by Lancer on 15-11-2003 at 10:04

	15-11-2003 10:10									#2
	Remove this text

I still like Guderian..... Grandpa of the Lightning War!

Zhukov was good, perhaps could have better without Stalin looking over his shoulder....that should scare anyone.

	15-11-2003 10:27									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Guderian, hands down.

Zhukov's successes were built on large part of sheer luck, the ineptness/bad luck of his opponents and his willingness to send his own men into a meat grinder. I think this sums it up nicely:

http://www.monarch.net/users/miller...roes_Zhukov.htm

	15-11-2003 10:49									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Hasty Heinz.

	15-11-2003 11:11									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Guderian spent much of the war outside actual field positions. He was responsible for developing the blitzkreig doctrine and organizing the German panzer troops.

Guderian's actual field commands were a Panzer Corps in Poland and France, and the 2nd Panzergruppe in Russia. He was defeated by Zuhkov before Moscow in December 1941, after which he was relieved by Hitler. He later became chief of the General Staff until fired again by Hitler in March 1945.

All of which begs the question. Who was the better general, Guderian, or the guy who beat him?

	15-11-2003 11:15									#6
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Guderian, hands down. Zhukov's successes were built on large part of sheer luck, the ineptness/bad luck of his opponents and his willingness to send his own men into a meat grinder. I think this sums it up nicely: http://www.monarch.net/users/miller...roes_Zhukov.htm

This is not an objective assesment, IMHO. Can you say who wrote it and what their qualifications might be?

	15-11-2003 12:15									#7
	Support Apolyton

Guderian was the theorist and strategist, Zhukov the soldier who fought, and won.

	15-11-2003 14:04									#8
	Put an end to popups!

I also think that Zhukov deserves lots of credit for managing the logistics of far larger forces, esp. later on.

	15-11-2003 15:57									#9
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Guderian, hands down. Zhukov's successes were built on large part of sheer luck, the ineptness/bad luck of his opponents and his willingness to send his own men into a meat grinder. I think this sums it up nicely: http://www.monarch.net/users/miller...roes_Zhukov.htm

That isn't evidence, it's barely veiled opinion. I vote for Guderian as well, but I think Zhukov was a decent general. His great skill was being able to develop a battle to his liking on an operational level, much as Wellesley was able to do against Napolean tactically. He was of course given a rather free hand to do so by Stalin which was nice for him, and of course excellent Soviet intelligence at the highest levels of the Wehrmacht helped immensely. Still, he was often able gain a massive superiority on selected parts of the front despite often being on the defensive and the enemy having air superiority, which compromises operational security significantly.

	15-11-2003 16:58									#10
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

One of the first things I think of when I hear or read the name Zhukov is that unfortunate start to the final assault on Berlin. Zhukov set up hundereds of lights towards the enemies position so that his troops would attack out of the 'sun'. Instead the lights reflected on the smoke from his enormous attilley barrage back and blinded his own frontoviks.

	15-11-2003 17:05									#11
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin One of the first things I think of when I hear or read the name Zhukov is that unfortunate start to the final assault on Berlin. Zhukov set up hundereds of lights towards the enemies position so that his troops would attack out of the 'sun'. Instead the lights reflected on the smoke from his enormous attilley barrage back and blinded his own frontoviks.

Fortunately for the Russians, the Germans put those lights out real quickly.

	15-11-2003 17:14									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Not that it matted much for Zhukov in the end, my grandmother could have won that campaign.

	15-11-2003 17:25									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Zhukov was good, but didn't exactly bring anything new to the table besides an ability to not get replaced by Stalin on a regular basis.

	15-11-2003 17:28									#14
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think you're underestimating this huge achievement.

	15-11-2003 17:57									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is getting old.

Reminds me a bit of Slowwhand's eternal birthday threads, every other day of the year a new thread on basically the same subject. A bit much I think.

	15-11-2003 18:02									#16
	Re: Zhukov or Guderian? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Lancer Imran brought up Zhukov, so here ya go...

hi ,

none of those two mass killers , .......

they where both responsable for the lives of to many , ......

have a nice day

	15-11-2003 22:29									#17
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Lot's of uninformed opinion on this thread. Winston's right, it's getting old fast.

	16-11-2003 00:03									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I say Zhukov, cause someone has to.

The problem with these threads is we keep comparing different kinds of generals-I mean, as has been stated, guderian held few field positions, and honestly, he was not stellar in most of them. Great military theoretician? Most certainly, so why not have a thread about military theoreticians?

	16-11-2003 10:14									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: none of those two mass killers , ....... they where both responsable for the lives of to many , ......

And this has what to do with their skill in generalship?

	16-11-2003 10:29									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: none of those two mass killers , ....... they where both responsable for the lives of to many , ...... And this has what to do with their skill in generalship?

hi ,

skill in leadership starts with that , .......

asking your troops to help on the 9 th of november 1938 has nothing to do with leadership , neither has the invasion of three countries and two wars on the african continent before 1940 , .....

that aint leadership , in fact its a sign of someone who does not know at all to lead , ......

cause he also led germany down the drain , ...... he gave the orders , he signed on the maps , etc , .... therefore he is no leader what so ever , ......

have a nice day

	16-11-2003 10:29									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

WoW, less than a banana seperates Zhukov and Guderian...

	16-11-2003 11:13									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: skill in leadership starts with that , ....... asking your troops to help on the 9 th of november 1938 has nothing to do with leadership , neither has the invasion of three countries and two wars on the african continent before 1940 , ..... that aint leadership , in fact its a sign of someone who does not know at all to lead , ...... cause he also led germany down the drain , ...... he gave the orders , he signed on the maps , etc , .... therefore he is no leader what so ever , ......

So because they asked troops to help and invaded 3 countries and participated in 2 wars in Africa, and giving orders to an ultimatly losing side means Guderian's and Zhukov's great generalship matters not?

Fact is that Guderian and Zhukov are two of the greatest generals of the 20th Century. Anyone who denies that is a fool (and yes, I consider those who look at something like skill through the blinders of politics to be fools).

I guess then you think Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are horrible leaders .

	17-11-2003 00:46									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: skill in leadership starts with that , ....... asking your troops to help on the 9 th of november 1938 has nothing to do with leadership , neither has the invasion of three countries and two wars on the african continent before 1940 , ..... that aint leadership , in fact its a sign of someone who does not know at all to lead , ...... cause he also led germany down the drain , ...... he gave the orders , he signed on the maps , etc , .... therefore he is no leader what so ever , ...... So because they asked troops to help and invaded 3 countries and participated in 2 wars in Africa, and giving orders to an ultimatly losing side means Guderian's and Zhukov's great generalship matters not? Fact is that Guderian and Zhukov are two of the greatest generals of the 20th Century. Anyone who denies that is a fool (and yes, I consider those who look at something like skill through the blinders of politics to be fools). I guess then you think Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are horrible leaders .

great generals , pffffffffff

anyone who asks his army to work with the destruction of people aint great , and if he really was that great like rommel , well then how come people dont speak german all over europe these days , ......

he was not great at all , they just found some exploits in the other sides defense , they had some luck , thats all ......

anyone who kills civilians or asks the people below him to take a part of it aint great at all , .......

they where told that romania and bulgarian troops on the east would give up , they did not believe it , ....... anyone who is something in the army knows the value of intel , they ignored it , the battle of kursk was leaked out before it started , great security og great generals , then stalingrad , how could anyone who has read some history forget about it , .......

how many deadly mistakes did they make , ....... , way to many (!)

rommel used italian infantry on several times to walk and clear minefields , he never made any secret about it and wrote that down plenty of times , ....... nice to sacrifice , correction read murder the troops of your own axis , ......; yeah , sure , those are great generals , .........

	17-11-2003 01:22									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: and if he really was that great like rommel , well then how come people dont speak german all over europe these days , ......

So Napoleon was a horrible general then? Great generalship isn't necessarily decided by who ultimately wins or loses. The loser could be the better general, such as in the American Civil War.

quote: he was not great at all , they just found some exploits in the other sides defense

THE BASICS OF GREAT GENERALSHIP! That's all .

And let's forget that he invented combined arms warfare.

quote: then stalingrad , how could anyone who has read some history forget about it

Which Guderian did not want to do. Hitler overruled him.

quote: how many deadly mistakes did they make , ....... , way to many

A. You attribute all German errors to Guderian when in fact you had Hitler make a number of bad errors.

B. NO General is ever perfect. They all make mistakes, even Alexander the Great. The question is who can deal with what they have and their mistakes to exploit the enemy's weakness.

Guderian not only exploited his enemy's weaknesses nicely, but also showed GREAT forethought and did not do what most generals do and that is fight the last war. He came up with a new style of warfare which has been highly inflential.

quote: nice to sacrifice , correction read murder the troops of your own axis , ......; yeah , sure , those are great generals

So only bad generals sacrifice their own troops for the greater good? Wow... every general is bad then .

How evil one is has absolutely no bearing on how good of a general they are. It is like saying because someone is anti-Jewish their scientific advances in atomics are useless. They have nothing to do with each other.

I'll take Guderian, you take which dreg of a general who never sacrificed any of his troops.

	17-11-2003 01:34									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: B. NO General is ever perfect. They all make mistakes, even Alexander the Great. The question is who can deal with what they have and their mistakes to exploit the enemy's weakness.

Alexander the Great... pffft.... he was gay, there is no way he could be 'great'. maybe he gave 'great' head, that's all.

	17-11-2003 01:39									#26
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: and if he really was that great like rommel , well then how come people dont speak german all over europe these days , ...... So Napoleon was a horrible general then? Great generalship isn't necessarily decided by who ultimately wins or loses. The loser could be the better general, such as in the American Civil War. quote: he was not great at all , they just found some exploits in the other sides defense THE BASICS OF GREAT GENERALSHIP! That's all . And let's forget that he invented combined arms warfare. quote: then stalingrad , how could anyone who has read some history forget about it Which Guderian did not want to do. Hitler overruled him. quote: how many deadly mistakes did they make , ....... , way to many A. You attribute all German errors to Guderian when in fact you had Hitler make a number of bad errors. B. NO General is ever perfect. They all make mistakes, even Alexander the Great. The question is who can deal with what they have and their mistakes to exploit the enemy's weakness. Guderian not only exploited his enemy's weaknesses nicely, but also showed GREAT forethought and did not do what most generals do and that is fight the last war. He came up with a new style of warfare which has been highly inflential. quote: nice to sacrifice , correction read murder the troops of your own axis , ......; yeah , sure , those are great generals So only bad generals sacrifice their own troops for the greater good? Wow... every general is bad then . How evil one is has absolutely no bearing on how good of a general they are. It is like saying because someone is anti-Jewish their scientific advances in atomics are useless. They have nothing to do with each other. I'll take Guderian, you take which dreg of a general who never sacrificed any of his troops.

and a lame attempt on the bottom also , it was a Jew who build the A bomb , .......

any serious general shall not sacrifice read murder his own troops , ....... cause hello , without troops a general is worthless , and so is the general who fails to see this , .......

	17-11-2003 06:49									#27
	Suffering from ads?

I choose Guderian.

It just seems to me Zhukov's talent was sending his men into the meat grinder until the meat grinder clogged up and broke.

Guderian was the master of manuever warfare. I recommend "Panzer Leader" by Guderian. If it wasn't for him, I doubt Blitzkrieg would have been as successful as it was or if it even would have existed like it did on the German side.

	17-11-2003 08:23									#28
	Put an end to popups!

I choose zhukov.

Im a fan of "Hammer the enemy with meat" tactic. Someone so cold and calculating to win turns me on.

	17-11-2003 08:31									#29
	Inflate your Upload Space

Guderian, for many of the already mentioned reasons. Zhukov also committed some mistakes too, by the way...

Still, this is only considering them as successful military men..morally, I'd choose neither and probably hang them both (at different points in time and for different reasons).

	17-11-2003 11:54									#30
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: any serious general shall not sacrifice read murder his own troops , ....... cause hello , without troops a general is worthless , and so is the general who fails to see this , .......

Then you think there are NO serious generals. They all sacrifice troops for certain objectives. They KNOW that 80%+ or so will die, but they really need that objective done. The general that doesn't sacrifice his troops ever for objectives is a general who isn't very good.