I believe about 1/3 of all Soviet casualties took place in the first couple of months or so of Operation Barbarossa.
Zhukov, He won the Battle of Kursk, the largest land battle of the entire war. And it sealed Germany's fate.
I wouldn't say that. In North Africa, he was pretty much stuck with having to make do with what he had. He had no way of managing his supply lines, bucause the Allies took such a terrible toll on shipments across the Mediterranian. The Germans did not have the capability to keep him fully supplied by air (as they didn't have the ability to airlift supplies sufficiently at Stalingrad). The Allies had much longer supply lines, but they were largely completely secure. The allies had unlimited oil, something Rommel didn't have. And, in the end, even the sorry Grant tank was a better tank than the 1st generation Panzers that Rommel had.
Not at all. When you are ordered to stand and die you, usually, stand or die. It happens when stable frontline isn't established, thus allowing the enemy to be more flexible and effective in attacking and surrounding hundreds of thousands of your troops.
He always felt logistics was something that should be done by someone else. It is a bit of trend right through the German army at the time. The emphasis the Americans and British put on the movement of supplies was perhaps the most telling single factor in the war.
I have never known how to consider MacArthur. Trying to distinguish between the man and the ego is extremely tough. I think he was a little more willing to take chances and as you pointed out when those chances go wrong, it often seemed to be always someone else fault. Although not directly related to his generalship, his willingness to shoot at his fellow Americans in Washington is telling
However you have agree the first 6 months of the war were very tough for field commanders. Often they would get orders that were either already irrelevant or impossible to accommodate. When well led and with time to do get organized the Soviets could put up reasonable defenses, as seen in the relatively slow progress of Army Group South towards Stalingrad
Rommel lead his army like he was still a company commander. He gave specific tactical orders, at the front, which meant that he was interfering with the jobs of those officers under him and no one ever knew how to get in contact with him. Germans were trained with what we now call Mission Type Tactics. It's where you give simple orders, an objective, time limit, and the resources to carry it out. You then let those under you figure out the rest. Rommel though always had to do everything himself which meant he pissed off everyone under him (he was actually one of the most hated Generals in the Wehrmacht) and so didn't let them do their jobs. If the French had been more competent Rommel probably would have been killed or captured during his rush through France where he constantly outran his own lines of communications and supply. When you do that against a competent enemy they kill you.
Ralph Honner, the famous Australian commander of the 39th Battalion, had an anecdote about MacArthur He told of a time when it was passed on down to him that MacArthur was unhappy with him because he hadn't taken enough casualties. MacArthur it seems was judging the Australian advance by its casualties. Honner said something like, "Since when is taking casualties the metric you judge your success upon?" Another time MacArthur ordered the Australians at Gona to frontal attack through a swamp (because his map didn't show it so he refused to believe it existed) and denied request after request to conduct a flanking recon mission. The Australians attacked time and time again through the swamp without success. Finally Honner had enough, ordered a flanking recon mission through the swamp, found a better direction to attack from and took it. MacArthur released to the press that it was his (MacArthur's) insistence on recon that won the day.
Well you only really have to study DeGaul in the last weeks of the war - A tanker himself, his forces were handing the Germans their arses, but it was too little too late
I posted this about Rommel on Reddit a while back. People since then have reposted it and received more upvotes than I originally did lol. I consider him over hyped. Rommel was able to get a combat command due to his relationship with Hitler. Rommel had known Hitler for years and had asked Hitler for a combat command. In France his division became known as the Ghost Division. That's generally seen as praise. However, it was called that because no one in his own chain of command ever knew where it was because Rommel kept out running his own lines of communication and command. If his French opponents had been more on the ball they could have cut him off in a Kessel (surrounded) and destroyed him. German military officers were trained to think for themselves. Today this is known as Mission Type Tactics. The commander was supposed to give an order which stated the resources available to be used (troops, tanks, etc) and the objective. It was up to the lower ranked officers to use their own initiative in how to obtain the objective. Rommel however was quite an interfering General. He gave orders with specific instructions and expected them to be followed to the letter. He would also drive around the front and give orders to soldiers thus cutting their actual officers off (there's accounts of him issuing individual targets to anti tank guns rather than let their own officers decide and almost being killed by the return fire. In fact, Rommel lost quite a few aids while "touring" the front in this manner). This could lead to confusion and also resentment. Rommel was loved by the enlisted men under his command and quite detested by his officers as they considered him interfering and that he didn't trust them to do their actual jobs. By going around the front Rommel also quite often cut himself off from everyone. No one knew where he was and it could be quite difficult to get in communication with him. People also seem to cherry pick things Rommel did or said to prove he was great. They will point out that Rommel believed the Allies would invade Normandy but then leave out that he thought said invasion would be a feint which made him like every other German officer. I also think that Rommel looked good in North Africa due to the Allies helping him with that image. Churchill "stole" quite a lot of troops from Wavell for the impossible task of defending Greece. Wavell was so worried about his job that he didn't say anything and thus made it easier for Rommel to attack him, which Rommel did against orders. Wavell also isn't considered one of Britain's finest. It is easier to look great if your opponent isn't. A lot of people try to make North Africa look like this huge battle for the control of the Suez Canal, to block access to oil fields in the Middle East, etc and thus state that Rommel was sent there as he was the best of the best. In reality the years of war in North Africa were pretty much because Rommel disobeyed orders to not attack. Which leads me to my next point that if Rommel was so great why wasn't he on the Eastern Front? Why was he never given what OKW thought was a prestigious and highly important command? In the West we like to "pretend" that North Africa and Western Europe were every bit as important as the Russian Front, but to the Germans the Russian Front was it. That's where they sent over 2/3 of their military and suffered 80% of their casualties. Rommel wasn't even privy to knowing that the invasion of the Soviet Union would be happening which is why he thought when he launched his attack across North Africa that he would quickly be given all the men and supplies he would need. Sadly for him this wouldn't be the case. Rommel though was a gallant enemy. He didn't order his men to execute troops. He didn't set out to oppress Jewish populations. If he could have avoided this on the Eastern Front we'll never know, but we can credit him for it where he did fight. In fact, he is said to have ripped up an order from Hitler that ordered him to execute prisoners and then announced that the order wasn't clear to those around him. The Australian General Morshead considered Rommel to be highly predictable in how he would initially attack. This is one of the reasons why he failed to take Tobruk from the mostly Australian garrison. Morshead was able to time and time again work out where Rommel would attack and would have the needed defences there to resist. Morshead said that if Rommel had shown a bit more unpredictability the "Fortress" would have fallen as the defenders did not have enough antitank guns, etc to defend everywhere. I feel that a lot of people talk Rommel up because he's well known and he's the "Nazi" you can openly talk about respecting without people looking at you funny. However, I would say he was a mediocre general who was promoted above his means due to his relationship with Hitler. He was a captain trapped in the body of a General/Field Marshal. As a captain things he did wouldn't have been a problem, in fact they would have worked well. As a general though he acted as a captain. Rommel is quite often praised for his tactical abilities. Tactics though (the small scale stuff, what soldiers do in battle) wasn't supposed to be what a general worried about. Books I have on my bookshelf about Rommel and areas he fought are as follows: * Tobruk 1941 by Chester Wilmot * The Longest Siege Tobruk by Robert Lyman * Alamein War without Hate by John Bierman and Colin Smith * Tobruk by Peter Fitzsimons * Anzac Fury by Peter Thompson (this books is about Crete which isn't about Rommel but it examines issues with Wavell, who was one of Rommel's opponents) These are books that are currently sitting on my bookshelf. I have a few more laying around somewhere but their names escape me. Also watched quite a few docos over the years. Hope the list helps.
Stalin got caught with his pants down. In his simple peasant's mind, he thought Hitler was just another variety of socialist who would be content to take his half of Poland and then go quarrel with the hard-core Imperialist/Capitalists in England and America. He didn't particularly trust Hitler, but he didn't imagine that the Germans would come storming into Russia before Hitler had taken all of Western Europe, including Great Britain.... So, when they did, all Stalin had was manpower, really. "Cannon fodder", and very little in the way of any advanced weaponry at all, and not nearly enough of the old crap they still had from World War I. As the conflict developed, America sent him arms and ammunition through Murmansk, but the Soviet Union was already in a hell of mess, with Heinz Guderian poised to take Moscow (if Hitler had given him the support he really needed). But it's hard to criticize the Soviet field commanders in view of the horrible logistical and strategic situation they faced. The one person who ****ed-up, obviously, was Comrade Stalin, but no one dared criticize him....
Yes, I have to agree. Germans were pushing fast, thus the operative situation was pretty messed up, add Red Army traditional problems with proper communication till the end of the war and the thing gets even worse. Luckly, the frontline was finally established in the end of the autumn 1941. Wasn't that slow either (500 km per 2 months). Soviet General Headquarters was expecting a second attempt to capture Moscow, which would be a reasonable idea, thus the main forces were stationed there. Luckly, it ended up with the biggest defeat Axis have ever known and predetermined their defeat in the entire war. Why this forum interface does not support down-voting a post? This one is both stupid and ignorant and deserves it perfectly well.
Everyone knew the Germans would eventually invade the Soviet Union. Hitler had even published a book about it.
You are right about one thing, the Soviets lacked tactical expertise at every level of command. Stalin's purge a few years before had pushed junior officers into senior level commands way beyond their ability. Russian military doctrine had traditionally always relied on superior numbers winning battles of attrition; sophisticated tactics had never been emphasized before the 1930s. Soviet action against Finland seemed to verify the perception of Soviet military ineptitude at the time. The Germans had good reasons to believe they could defeat the Soviet Union.
Even as late as 1945 Soviet tactical doctrine was not very sophisticated, their first assault on the Seelow Heights was a disaster.
Rommel studied Guderian. I also like Guderian because he often contradicted and questioned Hitler's ideas.
I am not all that sure why it would been seen as a disaster. Depending what casualty figures you work with, at best the Germans inflicted 2.5 to 1 as a defender in well prepared positions against an enemy fighting across a mire (created by the Germans) and holding all the high ground. The Soviets were caught out by a major change in German defensive deployment, which saw the concentrations of German infantry not where it should have been.
The Soviets enjoyed a ten to one advantage in men, eight to one in artillery, and six to one in tanks. They were poorly deployed.
Or maybe I should put it another way. The Germans fully exploited their terrain advantage, they also had the advantage of having far superior leadership at every level.
I cant disagree with your points here. But my point remains, given how much was against the Soviets they actually did pretty well. Seelow was not a good place to attack, but a breakthrough would give an advancing army a huger advantage if they can gain control of the road between Seelow and Berlin
