Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
notice_1006_html
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Patton's Third Army in the Pacific instead of Europe
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView 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.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView 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.
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.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView 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.
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.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView 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.
Originally posted by Officer of EngineersView 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.
"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.
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.
Comment