|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Jul 29, 2021 2:59:14 GMT
Who do you pick?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 3:52:42 GMT
Erich von Manstein
|
|
|
|
Post by 曹操 on Jul 29, 2021 4:16:40 GMT
Rommel obviously. He is Vorbeck lite i'll say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 29, 2021 5:38:26 GMT
Why am I not on the list, Žukov.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 6:32:14 GMT
Zhukov. And ZHUKOV ONLY!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Francisco Franco on Jul 29, 2021 9:46:45 GMT
De Gaulle
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 10:16:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 12:24:09 GMT
Gotthard Heinrici
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 12:24:42 GMT
OF THOSE LISTED: MacArthur.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 12:30:00 GMT
*Sigh* Such threads never cease to exist. This debate also, never cease to exist. Then let's have some debate. Gerd von Rundstedt, why MacArthur? Why not Zhukov? |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 29, 2021 13:22:37 GMT
*Sigh* Such threads never cease to exist. This debate also, never cease to exist. Then let's have some debate. Gerd von Rundstedt, why MacArthur? Why not Zhukov? Zhukov was completely dependent on the brilliance of his subordinates, and in addition, wasted many men, vehicles, and money on a fruitless defense and counterattack of Moskva. Bagration was almost entirely Rokossovsky, Operation Kutuzov and the Ukrainian and Leningrad and Stalingrad operations weren't him, either. I fail to see a single good operation where he was the commander. In the case Of MacArthur, his Army (with naval support) single-handedly won the Southern war in the Pacific, IMO only second to China in terms of Importance (this was where Japan was getting the vast majority of its natural resources). In addition, he did this without the need for subordinate brilliance (which, except for Vandegrift, he mostly lacked), and with very few casualties. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 14:29:43 GMT
*Sigh* Such threads never cease to exist. This debate also, never cease to exist. Then let's have some debate. Gerd von Rundstedt , why MacArthur? Why not Zhukov? Zhukov was completely dependent on the brilliance of his subordinates, and in addition, wasted many men, vehicles, and money on a fruitless defense and counterattack of Moskva. Bagration was almost entirely Rokossovsky, Operation Kutuzov and the Ukrainian and Leningrad and Stalingrad operations weren't him, either. I fail to see a single good operation where he was the commander. In the case Of MacArthur, his Army (with naval support) single-handedly won the Southern war in the Pacific, IMO only second to China in terms of Importance (this was where Japan was getting the vast majority of its natural resources). In addition, he did this without the need for subordinate brilliance (which, except for Vandegrift, he mostly lacked), and with very few casualties. In Zhukov's point, what more can you expect from raw conscripts (Like Stalingrad)? And why was defence of Moscow fruitless? |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 29, 2021 14:41:55 GMT
Zhukov was completely dependent on the brilliance of his subordinates, and in addition, wasted many men, vehicles, and money on a fruitless defense and counterattack of Moskva. Bagration was almost entirely Rokossovsky, Operation Kutuzov and the Ukrainian and Leningrad and Stalingrad operations weren't him, either. I fail to see a single good operation where he was the commander. In the case Of MacArthur, his Army (with naval support) single-handedly won the Southern war in the Pacific, IMO only second to China in terms of Importance (this was where Japan was getting the vast majority of its natural resources). In addition, he did this without the need for subordinate brilliance (which, except for Vandegrift, he mostly lacked), and with very few casualties. In Zhukov's point, what more can you expect from raw conscripts (Like Stalingrad)? And why was defence of Moscow fruitless? The tactics used in counterattack after defence of Moscow were terible, Russians suffered huge casualities in attacks in freezing winter, a large number of them froze to death. German army also consisted of raw conscripts in campaigns like Bagration, even then it inflicted much more casualities. Romanian army (over 1 million men) was also largely consisting of raw recruits, why did it inflict heavier casualities on soviets than it took? |
|
|
|
Post by Pietro Badoglio on Jul 29, 2021 15:29:50 GMT
Patton
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 29, 2021 16:10:15 GMT
In Zhukov's point, what more can you expect from raw conscripts (Like Stalingrad)? And why was defence of Moscow fruitless? The tactics used in counterattack after defence of Moscow were terible, Russians suffered huge casualities in attacks in freezing winter, a large number of them froze to death. German army also consisted of raw conscripts in campaigns like Bagration, even then it inflicted much more casualities. Romanian army (over 1 million men) was also largely consisting of raw recruits, why did it inflict heavier casualities on soviets than it took? How did armygroup centre consist of raw conscripts? Also Bagration goes to Rokossovski not Zhukov. |
|
