|
|
Post by NotRandom on Aug 28, 2021 21:44:27 GMT
Yeah all the PG commanders are really bad in this game except guderian for some reason, i suppose they made them worse than IRL and made guderian better (although guderian was a good Panzer commander) Guderian was great as one of the fathers of German Panzerwaffe, but if you look closer on his actions in the East, it becomes obvious that he was a mediocre field commander. He was relieved of command of his PA during the Battle of Moscow not because Hitler was hysterical, but due to his loss of important Sukhinichi-Belev region, where the Red Army formed a big bulge, which became a real headache for AG “Centre” later. Even then, Guderian's reputations was heavily skewed in his favor after the war. He's a great author of military theories, but there's a reason he was out of command for most of the Eastern Front, and was a colonel general. I just don't get why ET makes him the best tank (except for Manstein later on) in every game. |
|
Grigory Kulik
Captain
"What the hell do we need rocket artillery for? The main thing is the horse-drawn gun."
Posts: 53
|
Post by Grigory Kulik on Aug 29, 2021 3:11:26 GMT
Guderian was great as one of the fathers of German Panzerwaffe, but if you look closer on his actions in the East, it becomes obvious that he was a mediocre field commander. He was relieved of command of his PA during the Battle of Moscow not because Hitler was hysterical, but due to his loss of important Sukhinichi-Belev region, where the Red Army formed a big bulge, which became a real headache for AG “Centre” later. Even then, Guderian's reputations was heavily skewed in his favor after the war. He's a great author of military theories, but there's a reason he was out of command for most of the Eastern Front, and was a colonel general. I just don't get why ET makes him the best tank (except for Manstein later on) in every game. Because it seems like the only primary sources easytech uses to make their games are Panzer Leader and Lost Victories. That being said, I can't really think of anyone else who would be a better "tank" commander in an easytech game than Manstein or Guderian. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 29, 2021 3:16:41 GMT
Yeah all the PG commanders are really bad in this game except guderian for some reason, i suppose they made them worse than IRL and made guderian better (although guderian was a good Panzer commander) Guderian was great as one of the fathers of German Panzerwaffe, but if you look closer on his actions in the East, it becomes obvious that he was a mediocre field commander. He was relieved of command of his PA during the Battle of Moscow not because Hitler was hysterical, but due to his loss of important Sukhinichi-Belev region, where the Red Army formed a big bulge, which became a real headache for AG “Centre” later. I wouldn't blame him for loss in Battle of Moscow. You cannot expect an army which not even 50% of its original strength with enormous supply issues, to win against an enemy which has almost inexhaustible manpower and material (I know this statement is oversimplified) Then Guderian played an important role in the German victory in Battle of France which was the most stunning success of the entire war. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Aug 29, 2021 4:01:22 GMT
Guderian was great as one of the fathers of German Panzerwaffe, but if you look closer on his actions in the East, it becomes obvious that he was a mediocre field commander. He was relieved of command of his PA during the Battle of Moscow not because Hitler was hysterical, but due to his loss of important Sukhinichi-Belev region, where the Red Army formed a big bulge, which became a real headache for AG “Centre” later. I wouldn't blame him for loss in Battle of Moscow. You cannot expect an army which not even 50% of its original strength with enormous supply issues, to win against an enemy which has almost inexhaustible manpower and material (I know this statement is oversimplified) Then Guderian played an important role in the German victory in Battle of France which was the most stunning success of the entire war. If you look on the 2nd PA’s positions east of Tula... well, they (pardon my French) suck. One shouldn’t disperse his forces like that. Trying to advance to the north - to encircle Moscow, to the west - to encircle Tula and to the east - for whatever the reason (securing his flank?) with limited forces was definitely a bad idea. And I remind you that Germans still had numerical advantage, even when the Soviet counteroffensive began. Soviet sources state that the Red Army had 1,1 mln men against 1,7 millions Nazis. English Wikipedia states that the Soviet forces slightly outnumbered the Germans on the 5th of December 1941. Anyhow, the Soviet manpower wasn’t the main reason of the victory near Moscow |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 29, 2021 4:15:38 GMT
I wouldn't blame him for loss in Battle of Moscow. You cannot expect an army which not even 50% of its original strength with enormous supply issues, to win against an enemy which has almost inexhaustible manpower and material (I know this statement is oversimplified) Then Guderian played an important role in the German victory in Battle of France which was the most stunning success of the entire war. If you look on the 2nd PA’s positions east of Tula... well, they (pardon my French) suck. One shouldn’t disperse his forces like that. Trying to advance to the north - to encircle Moscow, to the west - to encircle Tula and to the east - for whatever the reason (securing his flank?) with limited forces was definitely a bad idea. And I remind you that Germans still had numerical advantage, even when the Soviet counteroffensive began. Soviet sources state that the Red Army had 1,1 mln men against 1,7 millions Nazis. English Wikipedia states that the Soviet forces slightly outnumbered the Germans on the 5th of December 1941. Anyhow, the Soviet manpower wasn’t the main reason of the victory near Moscow Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army was outnumbered and exhausted, with fuel issues making advance even more difficult, while 50th army was the one of the strongest armies in the entire red army and it has its position's fortified. Germans failed to take Moscow despite "numerical superiority", is probably the reason why other commanders are not that good. |
|
|
|
Post by NotRandom on Aug 29, 2021 5:30:35 GMT
Even then, Guderian's reputations was heavily skewed in his favor after the war. He's a great author of military theories, but there's a reason he was out of command for most of the Eastern Front, and was a colonel general. I just don't get why ET makes him the best tank (except for Manstein later on) in every game. Because it seems like the only primary sources easytech uses to make their games are Panzer Leader and Lost Victories. That being said, I can't really think of anyone else who would be a better "tank" commander in an easytech game than Manstein or Guderian. Panzer Leader is essentially Guderian talking about how great he is and how he singlehandedly built the German Tank force (which isn't true) and Lost Victories is Manstein ranting about how he could've won Germany the war despite the fact that he's writing it from a post-war perspective. Soviets generals seems to be especially disregarded in this game. Rokossovosky was objectively a better commander than Guderian yet he's been made so much worse. And dudes like Model is completely trashed despite being great commanders irl (unlike Guderian). I feel like Rommel and Rundstedt were the only T4 Heer commanders that are portrayed accurately (relatively speaking). Yes Manstein is a good commander but he's not as godly as ET makes him out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Port on Aug 30, 2021 1:14:57 GMT
I'd put Rokossovski over Vatutin. , Rokossovsky was a Brilliant commander in general, while Vatutin was a Brilliant tank commander. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Aug 30, 2021 4:50:14 GMT
I'd put Rokossovski over Vatutin. , Rokossovsky was a Brilliant commander in general, while Vatutin was a Brilliant tank commander. Yeah, that is true. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Aug 30, 2021 16:30:53 GMT
If you look on the 2nd PA’s positions east of Tula... well, they (pardon my French) suck. One shouldn’t disperse his forces like that. Trying to advance to the north - to encircle Moscow, to the west - to encircle Tula and to the east - for whatever the reason (securing his flank?) with limited forces was definitely a bad idea. And I remind you that Germans still had numerical advantage, even when the Soviet counteroffensive began. Soviet sources state that the Red Army had 1,1 mln men against 1,7 millions Nazis. English Wikipedia states that the Soviet forces slightly outnumbered the Germans on the 5th of December 1941. Anyhow, the Soviet manpower wasn’t the main reason of the victory near Moscow Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army was outnumbered and exhausted, with fuel issues making advance even more difficult, while 50th army was the one of the strongest armies in the entire red army and it has its position's fortified. Germans failed to take Moscow despite "numerical superiority", is probably the reason why other commanders are not that good. 50th army was one of the strongest in the Red Army? Definitely no. It was almost completely destroyed in Bryansk encirclement in October and received only 4 rifle divisions from High Command’s Reserve. These 4 divisions, 2 cavalry divisions, NKVD units and volunteer troops consisting of Tula’s workers were “the great force”, which held off Guderian for 45 days. Tula’s fortifications weren’t extremely strong, definitely not for Germans, who crushed Maginot line’s defences in June 1940. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 31, 2021 8:58:48 GMT
Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army was outnumbered and exhausted, with fuel issues making advance even more difficult, while 50th army was the one of the strongest armies in the entire red army and it has its position's fortified. Germans failed to take Moscow despite "numerical superiority", is probably the reason why other commanders are not that good. 50th army was one of the strongest in the Red Army? Definitely no. It was almost completely destroyed in Bryansk encirclement in October and received only 4 rifle divisions from High Command’s Reserve. These 4 divisions, 2 cavalry divisions, NKVD units and volunteer troops consisting of Tula’s workers were “the great force”, which held off Guderian for 45 days. Tula’s fortifications weren’t extremely strong, definitely not for Germans, who crushed Maginot line’s defences in June 1940. 50th escaped largely intact. Germans punched through Ardennes which was the weakest point of the maginot line. Guderian's group was suffering from fuel shortages and its advance was very slow due to muddy roads created by Rasputi-tsa. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Aug 31, 2021 9:50:32 GMT
1. Some numbers of strength of 50th Army units after Bryansk encirclement: 217th rifle division (RD) - 1600 men 278th RD - 357 men 290th RD - 2119 men 299th RD - 1320 men 279th RD - 1500 men 260th RD - 404 men 154th RD - 1400 men Soviet standard for a division was 12 000 men (7 000-10 000 men in practice) 2. By breaching the Maginot line I mean Leeb's operation against the main part of the line starting on 14th of June 1940 3. Autumn rains and mud in Central Russia begin already in September, which didn't prevent Guderian from completing Bryansk encirclemnt and rushing to Orёl Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat, |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 31, 2021 11:16:36 GMT
1. Some numbers of strength of 50th Army units after Bryansk encirclement: 217th rifle division (RD) - 1600 men 278th RD - 357 men 290th RD - 2119 men 299th RD - 1320 men 279th RD - 1500 men 260th RD - 404 men 154th RD - 1400 men Soviet standard for a division was 12 000 men (7 000-10 000 men in practice) 2. By breaching the Maginot line I mean Leeb's operation against the main part of the line starting on 14th of June 1940 3. Autumn rains and mud in Central Russia begin already in September, which didn't prevent Guderian from completing Bryansk encirclemnt and rushing to Orёl Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat, 1. I am not sure about the numbers of 260th. I agree on the other numbers. I take back my claim that 50th army was one of the strongest in the Red army. 2. By the time when Leeb broke through those lines, French troops were isolated and were flanked and he never broke through entire. 3. Bryansk was encircled by Guderian? Bryansk encirclement worked because the roads were metalled there. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Aug 31, 2021 11:52:01 GMT
1. Some numbers of strength of 50th Army units after Bryansk encirclement: 217th rifle division (RD) - 1600 men 278th RD - 357 men 290th RD - 2119 men 299th RD - 1320 men 279th RD - 1500 men 260th RD - 404 men 154th RD - 1400 men Soviet standard for a division was 12 000 men (7 000-10 000 men in practice) 2. By breaching the Maginot line I mean Leeb's operation against the main part of the line starting on 14th of June 1940 3. Autumn rains and mud in Central Russia begin already in September, which didn't prevent Guderian from completing Bryansk encirclemnt and rushing to Orёl Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat , 1. I am not sure about the numbers of 260th. I agree on the other numbers. I take back my claim that 50th army was one of the strongest in the Red army. 2. By the time when Leeb broke through those lines, French troops were isolated and were flanked and he never broke through entire. 3. Bryansk was encircled by Guderian? Bryansk encirclement worked because the roads were metalled there. Bryansk was encircled by Guderian and Weichs. What do you mean under metalled roads? Never heard of it. They weren't isolated,it was exactly the goal of Leeb's operation to encircle them. And armies never break through a defense line on its whole length - they make (a) wide gap(s) to advance through it/them and force the enemy to abandon the intact parts of the line. I brought up the Maginot line example to show that Germans did have enough instruments (artillery, assault groups, aviation etc.) to break any European fortification in 1940-1942. |
|
|
|
Post by 曹操 on Aug 31, 2021 11:55:16 GMT
i like how this GoG3 General discussion totally turn into History debate
|
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 31, 2021 12:24:20 GMT
1. I am not sure about the numbers of 260th. I agree on the other numbers. I take back my claim that 50th army was one of the strongest in the Red army. 2. By the time when Leeb broke through those lines, French troops were isolated and were flanked and he never broke through entire. 3. Bryansk was encircled by Guderian? Bryansk encirclement worked because the roads were metalled there. Bryansk was encircled by Guderian and Weichs. What do you mean under metalled roads? Never heard of it. They weren't isolated,it was exactly the goal of Leeb's operation to encircle them. And armies never break through a defense line on its whole length - they make (a) wide gap(s) to advance through it/them and force the enemy to abandon the intact parts of the line. I brought up the Maginot line example to show that Germans did have enough instruments (artillery, assault groups, aviation etc.) to break any European fortification in 1940-1942. A metalled road has a level surface made of small pieces of stone; used especially of country roads and tracks. (Google) Those instruments were not present at Tula in significant number. Maginot line was isolated from rest of the army. Breakthrough on Maginot line occurred on the northern part of the line |
|
