|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 1, 2021 6:43:59 GMT
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. How was Stalin the best? Vorošilov would have 100% failed, slightly outnumbered and strategically incompetent. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 1, 2021 6:45:12 GMT
There was not much to do there for Voroshilov. Stalin was best of the three. Shaposhnikov as a military commander was anything but brilliant. How was Stalin the best? Vorošilov would have 100% failed, slightly outnumbered and strategically incompetent. But German troops were barely able to advance. Voroshilov and Shaposhnikov were more incompetent than Stalin. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 1, 2021 6:51:02 GMT
How was Stalin the best? Vorošilov would have 100% failed, slightly outnumbered and strategically incompetent. But German troops were barely able to advance. Stalin was least worse of the three. Stalin had no real military experience. Šapošnikov had successfully replaced Vorošilov in the Winter War along with Timošenko. Yes the Germans advance was a struggle, but it was partially because of Soviet defence. At one point Žukov said to Stalin that there are huge holes in the front that can't be filled and that the roads to Moscow are open. Žukov literally had to recruit officer cadets to defend Moscow. Vorošilov would have not been able to revive the helpless situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 1, 2021 7:01:29 GMT
But German troops were barely able to advance. Stalin was least worse of the three. Stalin had no real military experience. Šapošnikov had successfully replaced Vorošilov in the Winter War along with Timošenko. Yes the Germans advance was a struggle, but it was partially because of Soviet defence. At one point Žukov said to Stalin that there are huge holes in the front that can't be filled and that the roads to Moscow are open. Žukov literally had to recruit officer cadets to defend Moscow. Vorošilov would have not been able to revive the helpless situation. 1. Russian Civil War and Polish Soviet War are saying hello to you. Shaposhnikov had done little for pyrrhic victory in Winter War, it was Marshal Timoshenko whom the credit for victory goes. 2. But largely because of freezing fuel, autumn mud and exhausted and under strength divisions. 3. I am not aware of any such incident |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 1, 2021 7:20:19 GMT
Stalin had no real military experience. Šapošnikov had successfully replaced Vorošilov in the Winter War along with Timošenko. Yes the Germans advance was a struggle, but it was partially because of Soviet defence. At one point Žukov said to Stalin that there are huge holes in the front that can't be filled and that the roads to Moscow are open. Žukov literally had to recruit officer cadets to defend Moscow. Vorošilov would have not been able to revive the helpless situation. 1. Russian Civil War and Polish Soviet War are saying hello to you. Shaposhnikov had done little for pyrrhic victory in Winter War, it was Marshal Timoshenko whom the credit for victory goes. 2. But largely because of freezing fuel, autumn mud and exhausted and under strength divisions. 3. I am not aware of any such incident 1. Russian Civil war is totally different to WW2, and Stalin wasn't an excellent commander even there. 2. Yes, but they were the elite of the Wermacht. |
|
|
|
Post by Voltaire on Aug 1, 2021 7:32:32 GMT
Manstein without a doubt, he is one of the greatest generals to ever exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 1, 2021 11:32:57 GMT
1. Russian Civil War and Polish Soviet War are saying hello to you. Shaposhnikov had done little for pyrrhic victory in Winter War, it was Marshal Timoshenko whom the credit for victory goes. 2. But largely because of freezing fuel, autumn mud and exhausted and under strength divisions. 3. I am not aware of any such incident 1. Russian Civil war is totally different to WW2, and Stalin wasn't an excellent commander even there. 2. Yes, but they were the elite of the Wermacht. 1. Explain How? He was an average commander. 2. Even most elite units will have a very difficult time in achieving their target if they are under strength and are barely able to move. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 1, 2021 11:36:41 GMT
1. Russian Civil war is totally different to WW2, and Stalin wasn't an excellent commander even there. 2. Yes, but they were the elite of the Wermacht. 1. Explain How? He was an average commander. 2. Even most elite units will have a very difficult time in achieving their achievements if they are under strength and are barely able to move. Well warfare in WW2 was alot more advanced than in the Russian Civil War, the best example is tanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 1, 2021 11:39:49 GMT
1. Explain How? He was an average commander. 2. Even most elite units will have a very difficult time in achieving their achievements if they are under strength and are barely able to move. Well warfare in WW2 was alot more advanced than in the Russian Civil War, the best example is tanks. Anything else? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 1, 2021 11:45:59 GMT
Well warfare in WW2 was alot more advanced than in the Russian Civil War, the best example is tanks. Anything else? High speed warfare. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 1, 2021 11:46:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by NotRandom on Aug 15, 2021 19:03:28 GMT
no love for my boy Yamamoto, I guess
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 15, 2021 19:12:52 GMT
no love for my boy Yamamoto, I guess Well, Pearl Harbor wasn't even that great. |
|
|
|
Post by NotRandom on Aug 16, 2021 4:53:53 GMT
no love for my boy Yamamoto, I guess Well, Pearl Harbor wasn't even that great. Yeah because Nagumo lost his nerves and the US (probably) knew that they're coming. In midway Nagumo again lost his nerves and decided to switch torpedo to bombs to torpedo, but I won't be too harsh on him this time because he didn't have enough planes. Which is because of coral sea when the Japanese commander lost his nerves and decided not to be aggressive, and missed 2 opportunities to completely destroy the us carriers. And after midway the US steamroller is online and the Japanese are simply outnumbered. But im being too much of a armchair general here, I would have probably lost my nerves too. My point is that the failures of the Japanese earlier on in the war are not directly Yamamoto's faults because he wasn't in command. Everyone's saying how great Manstein is great because of Fall Gelb and stuff but if Yamamoto's plans was executed and the US didn't know they were coming Yamamoto can destroy the US pacific fleet twice, once at Pearl and once at Midway, even if Nagumo lost his nerves. It's like if the French and British knew Fall Gelb beforehand it would have been a complete disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Aug 21, 2021 7:30:45 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. 1. Defence and counteroffensive near Moscow weren’t fruitless at all. Germans had numerical superiority even at the point, when the Red Army started the counteroffensive, so the operation was very difficult for the Soviet side. There was no option of losing Moscow, in terms of morale, transport, war industry etc. 2. Rokossovskiy commanded only one front (the 1st Byelorussian) of 4, which participated in operation Bagration. The operation plan was developed mainly by Vasilevskiy, Zhukov and Stavka members, Rokossovskiy planned only its southern wing - Bobruisk cauldron. During the operation he was subordinated to Zhukov, who coordinated the actions of the 1st and the 2nd Byelorussian fronts - and that’s a big part of executing the whole offensive. 3. Zhukov commanded the 1st Ukrainian front after the death of Vatutin in 1944 and led the Proskurov-Chernovzi operation, which has seen a partial success, but still liberated a big part of Ukraine. 4. Vasilevskiy and Zhukov were the 2 co-authors of the general idea of operation Uranus - so Zhukov played a role in the Battle of Stalingrad. 5. Zhukov literally saved Leningrad in September 1941 by organising an effective defence. 6. He lose less percents of his men in both Moscow and Berlin battles than his neighbour Konev. |
|
