 |
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
While I vote for Guderian, Zhukov had an ability that must not be underrated in high command. Survival. A general who gets sacked doesn't get to fight. Surviving in both the Stalin and Hitler regimes took talent, skill, and luck. Guderian almost didn't.
Eisenhower, while not great as a field commander, did wonders in defusing political infighting in an alliance that could have hampered it even worse than it did. Good lord, the man had to put up with Monty and Patton, though at least Patton was good enough to make his Prima Donna complex worth putting up with. To discount Zhukov managing to work under Stalin is to minimize part of his skills.
Panag, I still haven't seen you reply to what I mentioned about Ben Gurion, and the Zionist activities at the founding of Israel in the first Guderian thread  (definitely fishing  ). Now if anyone wants to compare similiar commanders with similar forces, how about Ben Gurion and Rommel!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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. |
any good general shall think twice about putting the lives of his soldiers on the line , .......
it takes years to get a good soldier , and replacements like in WWII after a while are 15 year boys and 75 year old grandpa's , ....... 
so on the tactical field your argument is worthless , .....
and your serious generals have wasted human lives like they where nothing , lets start with north africa and work the way up to the north , egypt could have been occupied , getting the turks not in all the way was a huge mistake , getting the indians not in it all the way an other , ......
greece , well the italians could not handle it , neither could they handle a couple guys with 1850 era rifles in somali land , .....
next mistake , gibraltar and malta and to some extend cyprus , the airborne troops on crete where put nearly out of order all the way cause the italians forgot to put some shore bombardements in place , german ships came to late , ......
huge mistake
france , well they should have rolled there from the start all the way , .....
the allies where worth nothing , what you want on paper they where promised loads of things but in the field they got nothing , .....
battle of britain , it was nearly won if some craphead did not decide to switch from bombing strategic targets to cities , ....
the landing in norway , an other unprepared thing
kursk and stalingrad , an other costly mistake , .....
and so on and so on , ......
just take a look at the combat badges from the german army in that time , take a look at each clamp with a name , all big losses , ........
and if you want proof , well the german armed forces where an army that just loved to write everything down , and large amounts of troops where taken away from the battlefield and put in the service of the paperwork , and thanks to that you can pay a visit to those records this day , you really ought to go and see them , .......
lets see then if you still thing they are " great " generals after you have seen the facts , .............
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
and your serious generals have wasted human lives like they where nothing , lets start with north africa and work the way up to the north , egypt could have been occupied , getting the turks not in all the way was a huge mistake , getting the indians not in it all the way an other , ...... |
Egypt wasn't occupied because the Germans ran out of oil.
Why are military generals to be blamed for political failures? This is a common theme throughout your uninformed posts. You blame military leaders for political decisions.
quote:
greece , well the italians could not handle it , neither could they handle a couple guys with 1850 era rifles in somali land , .....
next mistake , gibraltar and malta and to some extend cyprus , the airborne troops on crete where put nearly out of order all the way cause the italians forgot to put some shore bombardements in place , german ships came to late , ...... |
Perhaps Israel has bad history about WW2, but the Germans did not control the Italian armed forces until 1942-43.
quote:
battle of britain , it was nearly won if some craphead did not decide to switch from bombing strategic targets to cities , .... |
So Hitler's decisions mean that Guderian and Rommel were bad generals? Furthermore, I don't remember any land troops in the Battle of Britain.
quote:
the landing in norway , an other unprepared thing |
They took Norway, you remember, and not too difficultly either.
quote:
kursk and stalingrad , an other costly mistake , ..... |
Both can be put at the feet of Hitler, especially Stalingrad.
quote:
and if you want proof , well the german armed forces where an army that just loved to write everything down , and large amounts of troops where taken away from the battlefield and put in the service of the paperwork , and thanks to that you can pay a visit to those records this day , you really ought to go and see them , .......
lets see then if you still thing they are " great " generals after you have seen the facts , ............. |
After I've seen all the facts they are STILL 'great' generals. Guderian, after all the 'mistakes', is still the greatest operational general in the war (maybe of the 20th Century as a whole). Rommel and Zhukov were wonderful commanders as well.
Like I said previously, name a general who's never made mistakes. I've continually asked you to name your 'good' general and you've failed to do so. That's because you know you've lost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
and your serious generals have wasted human lives like they where nothing , lets start with north africa and work the way up to the north , egypt could have been occupied , getting the turks not in all the way was a huge mistake , getting the indians not in it all the way an other , ...... |
Egypt wasn't occupied because the Germans ran out of oil.
Why are military generals to be blamed for political failures? This is a common theme throughout your uninformed posts. You blame military leaders for political decisions.
quote:
greece , well the italians could not handle it , neither could they handle a couple guys with 1850 era rifles in somali land , .....
next mistake , gibraltar and malta and to some extend cyprus , the airborne troops on crete where put nearly out of order all the way cause the italians forgot to put some shore bombardements in place , german ships came to late , ...... |
Perhaps Israel has bad history about WW2, but the Germans did not control the Italian armed forces until 1942-43.
quote:
battle of britain , it was nearly won if some craphead did not decide to switch from bombing strategic targets to cities , .... |
So Hitler's decisions mean that Guderian and Rommel were bad generals? Furthermore, I don't remember any land troops in the Battle of Britain.
quote:
the landing in norway , an other unprepared thing |
They took Norway, you remember, and not too difficultly either.
quote:
kursk and stalingrad , an other costly mistake , ..... |
Both can be put at the feet of Hitler, especially Stalingrad.
quote:
and if you want proof , well the german armed forces where an army that just loved to write everything down , and large amounts of troops where taken away from the battlefield and put in the service of the paperwork , and thanks to that you can pay a visit to those records this day , you really ought to go and see them , .......
lets see then if you still thing they are " great " generals after you have seen the facts , ............. |
After I've seen all the facts they are STILL 'great' generals. Guderian, after all the 'mistakes', is still the greatest operational general in the war (maybe of the 20th Century as a whole). Rommel and Zhukov were wonderful commanders as well.
Like I said previously, name a general who's never made mistakes. I've continually asked you to name your 'good' general and you've failed to do so. That's because you know you've lost. |
what the crap does Israel have to do with it , ........
cant you talk about something without bringing up Israel each time , ......... sjeeeeeee
and you give the mistakes yourself in the first line , well part of it , ......
and it had nothing to do with running out of oil , it was running out of competence , ........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
Panag, you need some help. IMHO you are hopeless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Why should I talk about such silly coments of yours?
and it had nothing to do with running out of oil , it was running out of competence , ........
If you believe that German advance in Africa was stopped by Rommel's incompentence, you are hopeless. |
was it not like that maybe , go and read about some facts , ....... 
he had oil , plenty of oil to go till damas where the french " allies " slept , ......
but the german high command was stupid , they never forsaw the landings in casablanca , the med was never blocked and controlled , hence , in 43 the landing of Sicily , ...... so yeah , rommel was incompetent , together with the entire german command , ......
so please , before you talk about silly comments , learn the facts , ........
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
I probably shouldn't waste my time in this thread but anyway...
A general who isn't prepared to order troops onto dangerous tasks will never win. Great generals take calculated risks and usually succeed, that's why they are considered great.
Guderian - A key thinker in the development of modern armoured warfare. Successful when given adequate resources and not overruled. "Achtung-Panzer" is a better insight into his thinking and contribution than "Panzer Leader".
Zhukov - A political survivor who resurrected Tukhachevsky's concepts of 'Deep Battle' and applied them to the forces at his disposal.
My vote would be for Manstein actually.
Panag - read some WW2 military history before you make ill-informed statements purporting to be fact. Try John Keegan's "The Second World War". That should help you differentiate what the generals wanted to do from what was interference by their political masters.
Last edited by CerberusIV on 21-11-2003 at 18:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CerberusIV
Zhukov - A political survivor who resurrected Tukhachevsky's concepts of 'Deep Battle' and applied them to the forces at his disposal.
|
Actually we call it "theory of deep operation". IIRC it wasn't a Tukhachevsky's concept, but a part of Red Army's charter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Actually we call it "theory of deep operation". IIRC it wasn't a Tukhachevsky's concept, but a part of Red Army's charter. |
My understanding (admittedly limited to Western sources) was that Tukhachevsky and his adherents formulated and expanded work begun by the Red Army in the early 1920's into an operational doctrine. When he and most of his associates were purged on Stalin's orders the concept was dropped, contributing to the poor performance of soviet forces during the initial german attacks in 1941. The idea was then resurrected and applied to good effect and remained the founding principle of Red Army operations.
Guderian was aware of the concept, he quotes it in one of his books.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hippi
|
|
Guderian is da man!
He had less material.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CerberusIV
My understanding (admittedly limited to Western sources) was that Tukhachevsky and his adherents formulated and expanded work begun by the Red Army in the early 1920's into an operational doctrine. When he and most of his associates were purged on Stalin's orders the concept was dropped, contributing to the poor performance of soviet forces during the initial german attacks in 1941. The idea was then resurrected and applied to good effect and remained the founding principle of Red Army operations. |
Tukhachevsky wasn't the author of this concept. His enemy- cheif of "operational department of central HQ of Red Army" (I'm not sure I translated it properly) Vladimir Triandafilov was. Tukhachevsky was pretty shitty strategist and theoretician. Look what kind of armaments he ordered for Red Army- slow multi towered heavy tanks and poorly armored light tanks (he was against t-34, btw), slow bombers, bad fighters, he agitated for absolutely stuipid idea of universal guns (anti-tank/anti-aircraft/infantry gun all in a single gun), but his major fault is complete ignoring of widespread use of radios in army. His mistakes in understanding of future war, forced Soviets to start the large program of reequipment of Red Army just before German invasion.
This concept of "theory of deep operation" wasn't dropped after his arest (once again it wasn't his concept). It was a part of Red Army's Charter of 1936. Zhukov used it versus Japanese in 1939 in Khalkin Gol.
quote:
Guderian was aware of the concept, he quotes it in one of his books. |
Sure he was. Both Guderian and Manstein visited Soviet Union in 30th and studied it in Soviet military Academies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Serb, take off the red tinted spectacles please.
When Tukhachevsky became Chief of Staff of the Red Army he ordered a review of armoured forces and doctrine in 1926 which lead to the 1929 Field Regulations setting out the Deep Battle concept. This was then refined and developed into Deep Operation and enshrined in the 1936 Regulations.
Voroshilov (described by Kruschev as "the biggest bag of **** in the army) played on Stalin's paranoia and in 1937 Tukhachevsky was arrested and shot. The following politicisation of the army led to the disbanding of the tank corps. Breaking up the units crucial to Deep Operation is pretty conclusive evidence of a move away from the concept. Zhukov's success at Khalkin Ghol wasn't really noticed in Moscow, Zhukov himself, like many other officers at the time, was trying not to be noticed and possibly shot.
The inferior equipment available to Soviet forces in 1941 was largely due to not having the industrial base in the 1920's to develop and test designs. The rearmament programme was triggered by deficiencies exposed against the Japanese (whose had aircraft proved superior) and the Finns. Deep Battle/Deep Operation were built around the prevailing tank designs of the time. During the 1920's and 1930's no army had a fast, manouverable, well armed and well protected tank. The T-34 was the first tank to be all those things at once. Until then everyone, British, French, German, Russian and American thought of a mixture of light, medium and heavy tanks each for a specific task.
The A-32 design, which eventually became the T-34 was only put to a conference on tank design in August 1938 so it is hard to see how Tukhachevsky could oppose a design that only originated after he was killed.
Wait! What am I doing? I'm trying to convince Serb he is wrong on Russian military history!  I think I will go and develop a universal cure for cancer and initiate world peace, they will be easier to accomplish.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CerberusIV
Serb, take off the red tinted spectacles please.
|
Why should I?
I have a perfect vision and don't use any spectacles.
quote:
When Tukhachevsky became Chief of Staff of the Red Army he ordered a review of armoured forces and doctrine in 1926 which lead to the 1929 Field Regulations setting out the Deep Battle concept. This was then refined and developed into Deep Operation and enshrined in the 1936 Regulations. |
Triandafilov created this concept not Tukhachevsky. Triandafilov was an artillery man. In 1926 Red Army's armored forces didn't exist. The mass production of first Soviet tank T-18 (Russian Renault) started at 1928. How he could order to review armored forces and doctrine, if there weren't such forces?
quote:
Voroshilov (described by Kruschev as "the biggest bag of **** in the army) played on Stalin's paranoia and in 1937 Tukhachevsky was arrested and shot. The following politicisation of the army led to the disbanding of the tank corps. Breaking up the units crucial to Deep Operation is pretty conclusive evidence of a move away from the concept. |
Re-organisation of armored corps (mechcorpus- mechanized corps) started because of expeirence drawn from Spanish civil war. It has nothing common with arrest of Tukhachevsky.
quote:
Zhukov's success at Khalkin Ghol wasn't really noticed in Moscow, Zhukov himself, like many other officers at the time, was trying not to be noticed and possibly shot. |
Yeah, right, his success wasn't noticed
That's why Stalin appointed Zhukov to be a cheif of staff of Red Army.
quote:
The inferior equipment available to Soviet forces in 1941 was largely due to not having the industrial base in the 1920's to develop and test designs. |
Who is talking about 20's here? Were are talking about 30's, when Soviet industry produced about 25 000 tanks and when such designs as T-34 and KV were created.
quote:
The rearmament programme was triggered by deficiencies exposed against the Japanese (whose had aircraft proved superior) and the Finns. |
Bullsh!t. Stalin's falcons kicked Japanese asses at Khalkin-Gol. Kill/loss ration was in soviet faivor.
quote:
Deep Battle/Deep Operation were built around the prevailing tank designs of the time. During the 1920's and 1930's no army had a fast, manouverable, well armed and well protected tank. The T-34 was the first tank to be all those things at once. Until then everyone, British, French, German, Russian and American thought of a mixture of light, medium and heavy tanks each for a specific task. |
Right. And look what kind of crap Tukhachevsky ordered to produce for Red Army.
Heavy tank T-35: FIVE turrets, 3 guns, 4 MG, 11 crew members, 30kmph, couldn't climb a 15 degree hill, half of the crew couldn't escape the tank in case of emergency due to construction, the commander should reload the biggest gun, fire from mg and direct the fire from FIVE turrets. How the hell he could do it? Armor: 30mm (only a small plate at front was 50mm), not a problem for German 37mm gun from 500 meters. Weight -55 tonns. Cool tank for the breakthrought, isn't it?
There was also T-28. The same crap only a bit smaller. 3 turrets, 30 mm armor. How those tanks were suppose to penetrate enemy's defensive positions, how anyone could efficiently use such tanks is beyond me.
Light tank BT- max speed 86 rmph, armor 16-20 mm. Cool isn't it?
The moron who ordered those tank never thought that tanks move in columns after the battle and can't achieve such speed because of this. How supply cars and infantry should have follow tanks that drive at 86kmph speed is beyond me too. For this stiupid 86kmph figure, designers sucrificed armor thicknes.
And the same with everything what Tukhachevsky ordered for Red Army. Planes- I-15 created in 1934, produced up to 1939. In 1941- obsolete. German Me-109, created in 1935- one of the best fighters of WW2. Used up to 1945.
Guns- he was a proponent of "universal guns" (AA/IG/AT). Grabin- the famous Russian designer who created Soviet 76mm division gun and many others weapons, true legend among soviet weapon's constructors, said once- " another ten years of Tukhachevsky's rule, and he would destroy a Russian artillery".
Every peice of equipment created under Tukhachevsky rule was obsolete in 1941, some of them like T-35 were already obsolete even before their mass production started. German fought with weapons created in middle of 30's up untill the end of war. Stukas, Me, Pkfw-IV, etc. Everything what Tukhachevsky created at this time was obsolete at the beggining of war and soviets had to create absolutely new equipment.
quote:
The A-32 design, which eventually became the T-34 was only put to a conference on tank design in August 1938 so it is hard to see how Tukhachevsky could oppose a design that only originated after he was killed. |
Koshkin (t-34 "father") started to build A-20 project in 1937. Tukhachevsky was against idea of medium well-protected tank. He liked his five turrets T-35 monsters and "paper" BT.
quote:
Wait! What am I doing? I'm trying to convince Serb he is wrong on Russian military history! I think I will go and develop a universal cure for cancer and initiate world peace, they will be easier to accomplish. |
Right You'll do a great service for a humanity.
And you're absolutely correct, it will be much easier for you.
Last edited by Serb on 12-12-2003 at 15:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CerberusIV
Zhukov's success at Khalkin Ghol wasn't really noticed in Moscow, Zhukov himself, like many other officers at the time, was trying not to be noticed and possibly shot.
|
Being noticed by Stalin for his successful service is a good thing. Being noticed as becoming popular and a possible threat is what will get you shot. Zhukov, and others at the time, were walking a thin tightrope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
Blah...I know this myth. I did believed it long time ago. When I made some research about the subject I'll start to see a bit different picture.
 Attachment: ussr_flag.gif
This has been downloaded 43 time(s).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-11-2003 12:17
. Everyone has slammed you for your uninformed opinions on Rommel and Guderian. Those two, along with Zhukov and perhaps Patton are some of the greatest generals not only in WW2 but in modern warfare.
What?
|
