Patton vs. Zhukov

[bard32]

You don't know bard32, do you?

Did I say I did, kojack?

 

[bard32]

Arbitrary personal criteria, most likely.

Bard, I'm afraid we'd need more information than that. What are the forces set-up? Terrain? Who's the attacker? Preparations? Earlier engagements? You know... anything quantifiable? Sorry if I come across as harsh, but this scenario needs a load more details to be usable.

Admiral, according to the book, it's about a war between the Western Allies
and the Soviet Union. Patton, according to Fox News Channel's War Stories w/ Oliver North, would have been useless in peacetime. He was better when there was a war to fight. The Soviet Union, in the book, is the aggressor.
After World War II, we were demobilizing our Armies in Europe, and preparing
to send them to Pacific to fight the Japanese. That's the background.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

Admiral, according to the book, it's about a war between the Western Allies
and the Soviet Union. Patton, according to Fox News Channel's War Stories w/ Oliver North, would have been useless in peacetime. He was better when there was a war to fight. The Soviet Union, in the book, is the aggressor.
After World War II, we were demobilizing our Armies in Europe, and preparing
to send them to Pacific to fight the Japanese. That's the background.

So, are you talking about the book, or are you positing a hypothetical scenario? What forces can we assume each General has available for the battle? We need to know if we're to say who'd win. Should we just assume parity of numbers with respective power's equipment as of 1946, or what?

 

[bard32]

What do you base that on? The superiority of the Sherman to the T-34/85? The relative size of the two armies? The superior weight of shells being thrown by the U.S. artillery?

For that matter, how did you decide that Patton & Zhukov are the best general from their countries, much less in the entire war? EXACTLY what criteria was used to determine this ranking?

I was looking at them tactically. Historians agree that the best Allied tank of the war is the T-34/85. However, the Soviet Union had other tanks. For example, the Josef Stalin. The worst Allied tank, it can be said, with unanimity, is the earlier version of the M4A4 Sherman. However, by the end of
the war, we had the M26 Chaffee, with a 90mm gun, and the M4A4E8 tank, an
uparmored version of the M4A4. The differences between the two include a better gun than the M4A4.

 

[bard32]

So, are you talking about the book, or are you positing a hypothetical scenario? What forces can we assume each General has available for the battle? We need to know if we're to say who'd win. Should we just assume parity of numbers with respective power's equipment as of 1946, or what?

I'm doing both. I personally believe that Patton would defeat Zhukov. Then again, that's just my opinion.

 

[kojak]

I was looking at them tactically. Historians agree that the best Allied tank of the war is the T-34/85. However, the Soviet Union had other tanks. For example, the Josef Stalin. The worst Allied tank, it can be said, with unanimity, is the earlier version of the M4A4 Sherman. However, by the end of
the war, we had the M26 Chaffee, with a 90mm gun, and the M4A4E8 tank, an
uparmored version of the M4A4. The differences between the two include a better gun than the M4A4.

Define 'best'.

There are lots of different 'best' tanks of WWII depending on how you define it. I'm sure you'll get some arguments here regarding the T-34/85 being the best tank of the entire war.

 

[Paulo the Limey]

However, by the end of
the war, we had the M26 Chaffee, with a 90mm gun

No. No you didn't.

 

[Earling]

How exactly did you decide Zhukov and Patton were their sides 'best generals'?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't think The History Channel is much of a guide.

In a contest between Patton and Zhukov, with material assets equal, I would give Zhukov a slight edge increasing on a dramatic curve with the size of the armies commanded, i.e. a lesser advantage with small forces and a massive advantage with large forces.

I'm always amazed that people are willing to believe peoples' own press about themselves. Patton, Rommel, MacArthur et. al. were all good at image manipulation. Patton carried Colts. Big deal. What does that say about his abilities as a general? Rommel had the nickname "Desert Fox". Well, he lost badly, often due to his own mistakes. But he has a cool-sounding nickname so he must be a great general.

 

[bard32]

What?

Why do you keep doing this? You keep talking in non-sequiturs about things wholly unrelated to the scenario at hand, and you garnish it with facts that are common knowledge to everyone on AH.com.

I'm beginning to think you're some sort of elaborate advertisement bot or something, with the amount of books, television programs and hollywood films you keep mentioning.

The part about Patton slapping the two soldiers isn't a nonsequitir. It's related.
It actually happened. Patton was ordered to apologize to the soldiers by Eisenhower and he almost missed D-Day.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

I don't think The History Channel is much of a guide.

In a contest between Patton and Zhukov, with material assets equal, I would give Zhukov a slight edge increasing on a dramatic curve with the size of the armies commanded, i.e. a lesser advantage with small forces and a massive advantage with large forces.

I'm always amazed that people are willing to believe peoples' own press about themselves. Patton, Rommel, MacArthur et. al. were all good at image manipulation. Patton carried Colts. Big deal. What does that say about his abilities as a general? Rommel had the nickname "Desert Fox". Well, he lost badly, often due to his own mistakes. But he has a cool-sounding nickname so he must be a great general.

Or the crap that Rommel was supposedly the first to use 88s as ground artillery, when they had in fact been so used in the Spanish Civil War...

 

[CalBear]

I was looking at them tactically. Historians agree that the best Allied tank of the war is the T-34/85. However, the Soviet Union had other tanks. For example, the Josef Stalin. The worst Allied tank, it can be said, with unanimity, is the earlier version of the M4A4 Sherman. However, by the end of
the war, we had the M26 Chaffee, with a 90mm gun, and the M4A4E8 tank, an
uparmored version of the M4A4. The differences between the two include a better gun than the M4A4.

As usual, you are factually incorrect.

The M-26 was the Pershing. The PERSHING had a 90mm gun, it was also about as common as hen's teeth in mid 1945. The CHAFFEE was the M-24, a light tank, and came with a 75mm gun. A T-34/85 would have been able to put an AP round through both sides of a Chaffee

 

[CalBear]

The part about Patton slapping the two soldiers isn't a nonsequitir. It's related.
It actually happened. Patton was ordered to apologize to the soldiers by Eisenhower and he almost missed D-Day.

So you believe that actually LAYING HANDS on and STRIKING an enlisted man with PTSD is an indicator of excellence on the part of a ARMY commander?

 

[Admiral Canaris]

So you believe that actually LAYING HANDS on and STRIKING an enlisted man with PTSD is an indicator of excellence on the part of a ARMY commander?

Zhukov used to beat up his commanders as well. Really.
And he set up great spotlights at Seelow so his soldiers
got blinded by the light. A lot of Russian soldiers died,
honest.
And I read in a book that Hitler was gay.


Help! Bard32 has hijacked my account!
(Just kidding...)

 

[Dave Howery]

I don't know which man was more tactically adept... IMO, both made use of their own side's material superiority to smack down the Germans, so you'd think Zhukov would have the edge here, since the Russians would be more numerous. Then, you have the undoubted Russian superiority in tanks (although if the Pershing was available in large numbers, it'd take a lot of that edge down). Even if Patton is the better general, those Russian advantages would be hard to overcome...

 

[Atreus]

WI the two best generals of World War II, George S. Patton, Jr., and Georgi
K. Zhukov, met each other on the field of battle? That's subject of Bill Yenne's
alternate history novel, A Damned Fine War, who, in your opinion, would
win? Remember, this is the same George Patton, who, during the North African
campaign, suggested that he and Rommel get into a tank and meet each other
in the desert and go at it one on one. Me? Personally, I think Patton would kick
Zhukov's butt all the way back to Moscow.

I find declaring either of them the best generals of world war two a questionable move. Many of the better known and mroe popular generals of the war are nowhere near as good as they are believed to be. I think if you want the better generals, this short list would be useful.

William Slim
Harold Alexander
Omar Bradley
Konstantin Rokossovsky
Kirill Meresokov
Aleksandr Vasilevsky
Erich von Manstein
Heinz Guderian
Fedor von Bock
Tomoyuki Yamashita

 

[Superdude]

Zhukov, definitely.

 

[bard32]

Arbitrary personal criteria, most likely.

Bard, I'm afraid we'd need more information than that. What are the forces set-up? Terrain? Who's the attacker? Preparations? Earlier engagements? You know... anything quantifiable? Sorry if I come across as harsh, but this scenario needs a load more details to be usable.

I'm no good at math, Admiral. I'll try. As for the terrain around Berlin in 1945,
it was pretty muddy and cratered. There was one battle in which Zhukov inadvertently gave away his position with search lights. The Red Army had more men and Hitler was using old men and boys in the defense of the truncated Reich's capital. The Red Army's Beylorussian Front, roughly the size of an Allied division, was larger than the Wehrmacht at that time. I hope this
partially answers your questions.

 

[bard32]

Is that so... Hmm, that must be why he came off as such a Luftwanker in the Luftwaffe '46 thread. Well, it's better than a Rockpuppet, and hopefully he'll learn with the passing of time.

I like the History Channel. I don't watch it that often but I like the programs.
I read novels and nonfiction. The Luftwaffe '46 thread is an attempt to get
a discussion started.

 

[Jozon]

I'm no good at math, Admiral. I'll try. As for the terrain around Berlin in 1945,
it was pretty muddy and cratered. There was one battle in which Zhukov inadvertently gave away his position with search lights. The Red Army had more men and Hitler was using old men and boys in the defense of the truncated Reich's capital. The Red Army's Beylorussian Front, roughly the size of an Allied division, was larger than the Wehrmacht at that time. I hope this
partially answers your questions.

I don't know what I find more disturbing; the fact that you think the 1st Belorussian Front comprised (at the time of the Battle of Berlin) about 15,000-20,000 men, of the fact that you think the entire Wehrmacht did not even comprise 20,000 men.

Since I'm bothering to respond now anyways, I'll give you some facts:
Soviet forces involved in assaulting Berlin numbered about 1,500,000;
German forces defending Berlin (actually in the city's defense zone itself) numbered about 100,000 -this figure includes the additions of the police force, the Hitler Youth and the Volksstürm-.

Now, you want to try this again, or what, my 13 year old fellow board member? Oh, that's right, you're about 50, no?