Zhukov or Guderian

[Mr. Harley]

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]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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 , .............

[Serb]

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/...oes_Zhukov.htm

What a bullsh!t.
Where did you get this crap?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

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.

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.

the landing in norway , an other unprepared thing

They took Norway, you remember, and not too difficultly either.

kursk and stalingrad , an other costly mistake , .....

Both can be put at the feet of Hitler, especially Stalingrad.

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.

[Saras]

Guys, read "Panzer Leader". While some of it should be taken with a grain of salt, since EVERYONE is bound to lay some of the blame for their mistakes on others, it paints a vivid picture of how Hasty Heinz kicked arse and took names, and (my guess) would have done that all the way to Magnitogorsk should okw and okh listened to him.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

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.

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.

the landing in norway , an other unprepared thing

They took Norway, you remember, and not too difficultly either.

kursk and stalingrad , an other costly mistake , .....

Both can be put at the feet of Hitler, especially Stalingrad.

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]

Panag, you need some help. IMHO you are hopeless.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Serb
Panag, you need some help. IMHO you are hopeless.

talk about the topic , not the posters , ........

[Serb]

Originally posted by panag



talk about the topic , not the posters , ........

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.

[Panag]

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 , ........

[Serb]

No coments.


damas, my as$

[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.

[Serb]

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]

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.

[Saras]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


My vote would be for Manstein actually.

Great, so we had Rommel/Patton, then everyone said "Guderian", "Pyrrhus" and "Hannibal". So now we'll have Mannstein against who? Koniev? Budenny?