|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 29, 2021 16:16:41 GMT
I admit Žukov did suffer ALOT of unnecessary casualties, but he did defend Moscow with unexperienced troops and inferior equipment. Although operations Uranus and Bagration weren't his ideas he did lead them successfully and he has the reputation of the saver of Leningrad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Jul 29, 2021 23:56:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 30, 2021 0:31:49 GMT
Or Gerd von Rundstedt, despite him being the single most important German Commander of the war. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 30, 2021 12:28:27 GMT
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. It consisted of raw recruits in 1944. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 30, 2021 12:29:34 GMT
I admit Žukov did suffer ALOT of unnecessary casualties, but he did defend Moscow with unexperienced troops and inferior equipment. Although operations Uranus and Bagration weren't his ideas he did lead them successfully and he has the reputation of the saver of Leningrad. Germans were in even worse situation during operation typhoon |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 30, 2021 13:46:01 GMT
How did armygroup centre consist of raw conscripts? Also Bagration goes to Rokossovski not Zhukov. It consisted of raw recruits in 1944. The Germans lacked manpower in operation Bagration, since the German command expected the Soviets to launch the great summer offensive in Ukraine, but they weren't raw recruits, many of them had experienced 3 years of battling on the eastern front. Only after the total destruction of Army Group Centre did Hitler have to defend with Volksturm battalions, that he chose to put under the command of nazi politicians without real military experience like Heinrich Himmler, to get fanatical resistance. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 30, 2021 13:48:06 GMT
I admit Žukov did suffer ALOT of unnecessary casualties, but he did defend Moscow with unexperienced troops and inferior equipment. Although operations Uranus and Bagration weren't his ideas he did lead them successfully and he has the reputation of the saver of Leningrad. Germans were in even worse situation during operation typhoon Well, yes they had problems like outstretched supply lines, but Žukov masterfully utilized the tactical advantage he had. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 31, 2021 13:00:07 GMT
It consisted of raw recruits in 1944. The Germans lacked manpower in operation Bagration, since the German command expected the Soviets to launch the great summer offensive in Ukraine, but they weren't raw recruits, many of them had experienced 3 years of battling on the eastern front. Only after the total destruction of Army Group Centre did Hitler have to defend with Volksturm battalions, that he chose to put under the command of nazi politicians without real military experience like Heinrich Himmler, to get fanatical resistance. But most of them were raw recruits. |
|
|
|
Post by Emilio Mola on Jul 31, 2021 13:01:04 GMT
Germans were in even worse situation during operation typhoon Well, yes they had problems like outstretched supply lines, but Žukov masterfully utilized the tactical advantage he had. Masterfully? |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Aug 1, 2021 5:54:11 GMT
Well, yes they had problems like outstretched supply lines, but Žukov masterfully utilized the tactical advantage he had. Masterfully? Well, the point overall is that he still defended Moscow irrespective of casualties, which triggered a series of actions ending in this -  |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 1, 2021 6:16:15 GMT
Well, the point overall is that he still defended Moscow irrespective of casualties, which triggered a series of actions ending in this - Red Army would have defended it irrespective of who commanded them. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 1, 2021 6:32:08 GMT
Well, the point overall is that he still defended Moscow irrespective of casualties, which triggered a series of actions ending in this - Red Army would have defended it irrespective of who commanded them. Not if I commanded them  |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 1, 2021 6:33:28 GMT
Red Army would have defended it irrespective of who commanded them. Not if I commanded them They would have successfully defended even if Voroshilov, Shaposhnikov or Stalin commanded. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 1, 2021 6:36:13 GMT
Not if I commanded them They would have successfully defended even if Voroshilov, Shaposhnikov or Stalin commanded. Šapošnikov maybe yes he was brilliant commander, well atleast in reforming the army. But if you look at Vorošilov (Leningrad, Winter War) no. Stalin was probably the worst of those three. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 1, 2021 6:38:48 GMT
They would have successfully defended even if Voroshilov, Shaposhnikov or Stalin commanded. Šapošnikov maybe yes he was brilliant commander, well atleast in reforming the army. But if you look at Vorošilov (Leningrad, Winter War) no. Stalin was probably the worst of those three. There was not much to do there for Voroshilov. Stalin was best of the three. Shaposhnikov as a military commander was anything but brilliant. |
|
.
