Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 138

Thread: Patton's Third Army in the Pacific instead of Europe

  1. #91
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    There was no test. Patton was an Army General. Zhukov was a theatre General. The Western equivalent was Eisenhower. Only difference was Zhukov saw more combat than Patton and certainly more than Eisenhower.
    Sir, wouldn't the western equivalent be Bradley? Eisenhower always struck me as more of a politician than a fighting general. Did he see combat?

    Can you also explain briefly why Zhukov was so good?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  2. #92
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Sir, wouldn't the western equivalent be Bradley? Eisenhower always struck me as more of a politician than a fighting general. Did he see combat?

    Can you also explain briefly why Zhukov was so good?
    Eisenhower never saw combat at any rank.

  3. #93
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    There was no test. Patton was an Army General. Zhukov was a theatre General. The Western equivalent was Eisenhower. Only difference was Zhukov saw more combat than Patton and certainly more than Eisenhower.
    In Soviet terms both were front level commanders as far as operational forces were concerned given that a US Army was analogous to a Soviet Front. On the strategic level as a member of Stavka he was more akin to Bradley who commanded an army group. The Soviet's Stavka set up had Vasilevsky sitting in a position that combined that of Ike and Marshall.

  4. #94
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Sir, wouldn't the western equivalent be Bradley? Eisenhower always struck me as more of a politician than a fighting general. Did he see combat?

    Can you also explain briefly why Zhukov was so good?
    Zhukov was the Soviet Grant, keep hitting and never give up even when you are wrong. He had Stalin's ear but suffered some serious military set backs, if not as ruinous as some early Soviet commanders. His fixation on Army Group Center and the defeats he suffered trying to defeat it likely saved 4th Panzer Army and lengthened the war by a year.

  5. #95
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Ok, you're jumping all over the place. MacArthur is a poor General. That is proven by Chinese General Li Peng, the third WWI army General who kicked MacArthur's ass.

    But that is outside the argument of this thread. The argument is what is going to kill Japan quick and hard and that is the lost of Manchuria and Korea and historically that was done via maneuver war - twice - by the Soviets.

    So tell me again, how a WWI General, MacArthur, is going do better than a maneuver General, Patton, when MacArthur could not even fathom killing the IJE through taking Manchuria and Korea.

    While by the same token, Patton got shouted down from cutting off the Bastonge salient?
    History has proven that Japan can and did do very well without manchuria. I think you are basing way too much emphasis on manchuria and Korea. You are clinging to the belief that manchuria was everything to Japan and clearly it was not. A huge loss to be sure but Japan survived and even thrived without it. As for Peng kicking MacArthur's ass, well…That is another "what if discussion. Lastly, I see no proof that ANYONE involved with making the decisions in the pacific theater wanted to attack Japan via manchuria. The focus was to get to the Japanese homeland in revenge to what the Japanese did to American soil. The war in the pacific relied heavily on the navy which gave Nimitz great leverage and FDR was the one calling the shots….not McArthur.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

  6. #96
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Eisenhower never saw combat at any rank.
    That's what I thought. I don't recall him ever being in the field. He was a good politician though, able to manage all the egos in a very large multi-national force.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Zhukov was the Soviet Grant, keep hitting and never give up even when you are wrong. He had Stalin's ear but suffered some serious military set backs, if not as ruinous as some early Soviet commanders. His fixation on Army Group Center and the defeats he suffered trying to defeat it likely saved 4th Panzer Army and lengthened the war by a year.
    I know Zhukov was a strategic mind but don't know how he was tactically. Maybe Zhukov would be a great tactician if he had better trained troops and mid level commanders to carry out his plans. Not to knock on the Red Army, but I thought their mid level commanders lacked initiative compared to US commanders. And the difference is even more pronounced at lower levels.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  7. #97
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    History has proven that Japan can and did do very well without manchuria.
    Not post Japanese Industrial Revolution. Japan needed Manchuria's resources to maintain the IJN. And you're still missing this. The Imperial Japanese EMPIRE was Korea and Manchuria. Take that away, you took away the Japanese EMPIRE and she would have to withdraw to her home islands. Would she surrender like she did? No. She would fight on but the Philipines, SE Asia, DEI, Tokyo would've lost them.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    I think you are basing way too much emphasis on manchuria and Korea. You are clinging to the belief that manchuria was everything to Japan and clearly it was not.
    It clearly was since Japan demanded Manchuria and Korea as part of any peace talks.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    A huge loss to be sure but Japan survived and even thrived without it. As for Peng kicking MacArthur's ass, well…That is another "what if discussion. Lastly, I see no proof that ANYONE involved with making the decisions in the pacific theater wanted to attack Japan via manchuria.
    A lot of reasons but the main one is the lack of a staging area and no one had the foresight to attack through Tibet. Hell, I only came up with it when I challenge Eric that the Pacific War could not be shortened. Even then, I thought the traditional route, the Burma Road. It was Cactus who suggested Tibet and even then, it took a lot of thinking to go outside that box.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    The focus was to get to the Japanese homeland in revenge to what the Japanese did to American soil. The war in the pacific relied heavily on the navy which gave Nimitz great leverage and FDR was the one calling the shots….not McArthur.
    Still does not make MacArthur a better commander no matter what scenario you put up.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Feb 16, at 20:30.
    Chimo

  8. #98
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I know Zhukov was a strategic mind but don't know how he was tactically. Maybe Zhukov would be a great tactician if he had better trained troops and mid level commanders to carry out his plans. Not to knock on the Red Army, but I thought their mid level commanders lacked initiative compared to US commanders. And the difference is even more pronounced at lower levels.
    Zhukov's main advantage is that he had enough to keep the Germans off balance even when he lost. Operation MARS was a Soviet military disaster but Operation URANUS kept the Germans off balance and could not replace MARS losses even though they won.
    Chimo

  9. #99
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Zhukov's main advantage is that he had enough to keep the Germans off balance even when he lost. Operation MARS was a Soviet military disaster but Operation URANUS kept the Germans off balance and could not replace MARS losses even though they won.
    Right. Zhukov was a strategist and understood that a tactical defeat can still be a strategic victory. All he had to do was to make sure the Red Army outlasted the Wehrmacht. I did the same thing when I played Zerg in StarCraft. I know my units weren't a match in an even fight against the Terrans or the Protoss (especially the Protoss). But, I can crank them out like there's no tomorrow and keep them rolling into the field before my opponents can replace their losses. I had to completely change my play style because I was so used to playing Terrans with their more flexible units suited for a defensive war. It was very unnatural.

    Were Operations Mars and Uranus designed in concert to complement each other so that at least one would be successful in keeping the Germans off balance?

    Edit: of course everyone on the internet calls the Red Army "the zerg" for a reason. Often as a derisive term.
    Last edited by gunnut; 04 Feb 16, at 21:09.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  10. #100
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Were Operations Mars and Uranus designed in concert to complement each other so that at least one would be successful in keeping the Germans off balance?
    Well, yes and no. They were aimed at different army groups. However, either one is a set up for a follow up operation that was already in the planning stages before the ops were launched.
    Chimo

  11. #101
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Not post Japanese Industrial Revolution. Japan needed Manchuria's resources to maintain the IJN. And you're still missing this. The Imperial Japanese EMPIRE was Korea and Manchuria. Take that away, you took away the Japanese EMPIRE and she would have to withdraw to her home islands. Would she surrender like she did? No. She would fight on but the Philipines, SE Asia, DEI, Tokyo would've lost them.
    "Japan would not have surrendered like she did". Exactly. Japan would have simply not been a factor to Russia for the rest of the war. They still had a formidable navy that had to be defeated and still would have fought to the end…the end being a couple of Atomic bombs dropped in their lap.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

  12. #102
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Zhukov's main advantage is that he had enough to keep the Germans off balance even when he lost. Operation MARS was a Soviet military disaster but Operation URANUS kept the Germans off balance and could not replace MARS losses even though they won.
    Zukov also had an expansive land mass to retreat to, manpower to spare, allied materials gifted through lend lease, and he had the home-field advantage. He had the luxury of executing those under him that didn't perform. Most of all he didn't have a tactical idiot like Hitler telling him what to do and when to do it. I am not bashing the man as he did a great job with what he had at the time, but he did enjoy some inherent advantages over his german rivals.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

  13. #103
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    "Japan would not have surrendered like she did". Exactly. Japan would have simply not been a factor to Russia for the rest of the war. They still had a formidable navy that had to be defeated and still would have fought to the end…the end being a couple of Atomic bombs dropped in their lap.
    No. They won't. They wouldn't have the oil to get that far out and must retreat to the home islands. Nor the iron to keep churning out ammunition like they were spending.

    If you're saying that you want an American Army marching down in Tokyo. No, that would not have happened but we would get a surrender like Serbia and Kosovo.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 05 Feb 16, at 05:24.
    Chimo

  14. #104
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    Zukov also had an expansive land mass to retreat to,
    He never retreated. He was beaten back a couple of times but he never lost any territory through battle.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    manpower to spare, allied materials gifted through lend lease,
    He managed Stalingrad without LL.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    and he had the home-field advantage. He had the luxury of executing those under him that didn't perform.
    If they were only that lucky. Those who didn't performed were thrown into penal battalions.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    Most of all he didn't have a tactical idiot like Hitler telling him what to do and when to do it.
    Stalin ain't exactly an easy man to please.

    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    I am not bashing the man as he did a great job with what he had at the time, but he did enjoy some inherent advantages over his german rivals.
    Namely, he was smarter.
    Chimo

  15. #105
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I know Zhukov was a strategic mind but don't know how he was tactically. Maybe Zhukov would be a great tactician if he had better trained troops and mid level commanders to carry out his plans. Not to knock on the Red Army, but I thought their mid level commanders lacked initiative compared to US commanders. And the difference is even more pronounced at lower levels.
    He might be the single most over rated commander of WWII. Tactically he was weak and he relied on superior material and huge reserves to win battles of attrition. The quality of his troops didn't really make that much of an impact. Look at Vatutin, same troops, out blitzed the Germans in every battle but one.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03 Feb 13,, 20:56
  2. 2 Army Brigades to leave Europe
    By HKDan in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 22 Jan 12,, 11:51
  3. T-55 VS M48 Patton
    By RepublicanGuard in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 28 Apr 09,, 14:10
  4. Patton In Normandy
    By Triple C in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 28 Jul 08,, 06:44
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16 Jun 05,, 13:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •