K62
Posts: 666
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: DC
Status: offline
|
I'm glad you admit the Red Army was in a very bad state. Now let's say you are right; let's say Zhukov was a mediocre general; let's imagine you would be in his place after the disasters of '41. Could you do better? Remember, you have under your command very inexperienced troops. In North Africa the Americans will have a similar problem in '42; to overcome it they will need to rely heavily on arty and air support. But you don't have that. All the big guns have been lost in the retreat and the Luftwaffe rules the skies. All you have is: numbers and maybe the weather. If Zhukov failed to use his troops properly, then there must be a better way of doing it. What kind of fancy tactics would you use to break the enemy line instead of the simple and easy to understand echelon attack, with a lot of echelons?
[QUOTE]The Siberian Divisions (25 infantry Div / 9 Amrored Brigades) were held back not because of any great planning...they were released because after Dec 7th the Russians knew that the Japanese would not be an offensive danger to them any time soon do to the Pacific war.[/QUOTE]
The Russians knew much earlier about that because of Sorge. The movement began much earlier and at the beginning of December they were already concentrated and ready to strike. Concentration is always a matter of planning, you don't just bring multiple divisions over on a single train.
[QUOTE]And they were indeed employed en masse...and basically ground down like the other Russian units via the unimaginative tactics used by Zhukov and his peers.[/QUOTE]
Again, please supply a more imaginative tactic given the situation (rememeber, it has to be implemented by green troops with little equipment and mainly untested leaders; Siberians or no Siberians they were no match man for man to the Germans)
[QUOTE] the utter disaster that Operation Mars turned into and which I left out as being too easy of a target. :)[/QUOTE]
I think this is where our ways part, since you seem to be interested in battles as tactical achievements but I look at them as elements of a strategy. If you read Manstein's memoirs you will notice his repeated frustration at not getting any reinforcements from Army Group Center during the Uranus/Saturn period. Operation Mars worked as a fixing attack and prevented the Germans from shifting troops to the critical spots. Tactically, it was won by the Germans; strategically, it worked for the Soviets. The Germans did not win anything out of it, so you can't really label it "the utter disaster".
[QUOTE]The Soviets had the benefit of intelligence from their spy ring and information from deserters that tipped off the start date. That and the fact that both sides knew where the next big battle was going to be...as the Kursk salient could not be left in the German lines. The Germans were just too cocky to call it off even though they knew the Soviets were well prepared.[/QUOTE]
The Soviets were smart enough to get and act on good intelligence. Imagine the Germans doing the same before Stalingrad and things would have turned out differently. You call the Germans "cocky" to go forward with a predictable (and predicted) attack. I call them "dumb" Or at least outsmarted :)(By the way Manstein was one of the leading advocates of the attack :p)
[QUOTE]Had Zhukov been in charge at Kiev instead of Budenny do you believe the outcome would have been much different? I don't...maybe not as bad, but it would have still been a defeat.[/QUOTE]
We're getting too relativistic here. When you look at Zhukov you look at when his leadership has actually been tested. It was tested plenty of times and never found wanting. I don't know what he would have done at Kiev and neither can you or anyone else. Let's stick to facts. I grant he wasn't a great innovator, but neither was Napoleon and that didn't work against him. Zhukov was just consistently highly efficient as a strategic level commander and that makes him better than any other military leader of WW2. He maybe wasn't a genius, but if you compare his standard of efficiency with Manstein's or anyone else's he'll come out on top. Especially since strategic proficiency must be valued above tactical brilliance.
:cool:
_____________________________
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak"
John Adams
|
Printable Version
can we compare them? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread