Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Worst RKKA General of the War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Worst RKKA General of the War

    Who, in your opinion, was the worst large-formation general of the war? There's a debate going on in the WW2 forum, but most respondents don't know much about specific terrible Soviet generals - we know about Zhukov, Koniev, Rokossovsky, of course, but not the terrible ones (like, e.g, Fredendall in the west).
    "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
    -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

    (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

  • #2
    Oh, there were a plenty... Bagramian, Timoshenko, Kozlov were all nice examples of adventurers who neglected intel and were careless overall never asking themselves "and what if.."
    'Si vis pacem, para bellum' - Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De Re Militari

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jon Jordan View Post
      Who, in your opinion, was the worst large-formation general of the war? There's a debate going on in the WW2 forum, but most respondents don't know much about specific terrible Soviet generals - we know about Zhukov, Koniev, Rokossovsky, of course, but not the terrible ones (like, e.g, Fredendall in the west).
      The worst are often not known...
      If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by amvas View Post
        The worst are often not known...
        Good point, but I can't let you off the hook that easily - is there anyone on the Red side who stands out for large-scale incompetence?
        "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
        -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

        (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jon Jordan View Post
          Good point, but I can't let you off the hook that easily - is there anyone on the Red side who stands out for large-scale incompetence?
          He wasn't a 'general' but Mekhlis pretty much lost the Crimea.
          "This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad
          "Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth". Mark Twain
          "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. Voltaire

          Comment


          • #6
            Budenny is one of, if not the absolute worst, with him in command, disaster was guaranteed.

            Comment


            • #7
              It is a very difficult question. It was very easy to win in 1945. It was very difficult to win in 1941.

              Bagramian, Timoshenko, Budennyi, Kozlov - I cann't agree they were bad (especially Bagramian!!!). They fought in very difficult situation in 1941-42.

              I think the man who was a reason of many disasters and casualties of Red Army was Lev Mekhlis. He was a large scale Commissar, usually he acted as a representative of Stavka. The Soviet disaster in the Crimea in 1942 was the result of his activity as the representative of Stavka to Gen. Kozlov, the Commander of the Soviet troops in the Eastern part of the Crimea. Gen. Kozlov couldn't resist against the pressure and energy of Mekhlis.

              Konstantin Simonov, a famous Soviet author, wrote "Alive and Dead", large novel about the war. In that novel he showed a person with the name of Lvov. It is clearly seen that he showed Mekhlis as Lvov.

              Comment


              • #8
                Lieutenant General D.G. Pavlov is at the top in my list. His destructive imprint began with his after-action report from the Spanish Civil War experience which was responsible in large part(and mech corps performance in the invasion of Poland in '39) for the dismantling of the Red Army's Mech corps which had to be reconstituted on the eve of war. He was so out of touch and overwhelmed with his command of the Western MD that I cannot think of another Soviet General with a greater incompetence.

                However, Voroshilov runs a close second. Budyenny was beyond his time and out of his depth. Frankly, Timoshenko never impressed me from the Winter War to poor preparedness of the Red Army for WWII to Kharkov.

                rna
                Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 16 Jul 07, 20:45.
                Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
                  Lieutenant General D.G. Pavlov is at the top in my list. His destructive imprint began with his input from the Spanish Civil War experience which was responsible in large part for the dismantling of the Red Army's Mech corps which had to be reconstituted on the eve of war. He was so out of touch and overwhelmed with his command of the Western MD that I cannot think of another Soviet General with a greater incompetence.

                  rna
                  He was the man who commanded the Soviet forces in the direction of the main German blow.

                  He operated in the conditions when he was ordered again and again up to June, 22nd of 1941 that he should not be a victim of provocation.

                  He operated in the conditions when to speak about the large possibility of the war and to warn about the result of the first battles was equal to be called a panic-monger.

                  He lost all his aircraft in the first days of the war and it was not his blame.

                  He began the war with non-concentrated non-prepared troops...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I never liked Voroshilov just because he kept his position because of political loyalty. Maybe he saved Leningrad though so it isn't all bad with him. He was a clutz though, nobody can say otherwise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is very difficult to judge somebody and to identify what was disaster and what was a victory. Zhukov was responsible for the unprepared counter blow of the Mech Corpses of the South-Western Front in June 1941. In the result of the non-coordinated attacks against the German Army Group "South" done under constant German air strikes when the corpses attacked with a rush and separately those corpses were practically lost. So if to count tank losses it was a disaster. Zhukov was responsible for that and the visible effect of his command was approximately the same as in the other direction. But in a strategical level those attacks broke the German plans to capture Kiev with a rush.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        LOL, Bagramian himself admitted that his "prognosis was based more on guesses than on real information".
                        'Si vis pacem, para bellum' - Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De Re Militari

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CrazyArcher View Post
                          LOL, Bagramian himself admitted that his "prognosis was based more on guesses than on real information".
                          So what? It was fault of recon services that he had no exact info about the situation. Bagramian is considered one of the best Soviet Military Leaders of WWII.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            sorry, but the eastern front of ww2 is not a suitable ground for finding out - who was the best and who was the worst.
                            the eastern front was an apocalypse and not a mere series skirmishes.
                            that means that all sorts of ambiguity would then be in there.

                            the generals of both sides could neither show their skills in full, nor avoid making the mistakes.

                            btw, here's a good example:
                            guderian is hugely uderestimated when rommel is overestimated,
                            just because - the former saw a real cut-throat fight, while the latter enjoyed a tournament of chivalry which africa actually was.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If you dont have reliable recon info, don't start an offensive, better take a break and let your troops dig into teh ground where they are standing.

                              There's a difference between 'considered' and 'was'.
                              'Si vis pacem, para bellum' - Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De Re Militari

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X