THE COMPLETE SOVIET COMMAND LIST

[Kuniworth]

Ok here it is. I've spent some time compiling a list of the red army commanders in world war 2 that actually held army group command. The list should be 99% accurate and hold all the famous top commanders as well as important people missing in strategic command 1.

I hope we can use this as the standard hq list for pre-set scenarios in sc 2.

First the questions;

What commanders are in the list?

All red army commanders that held army-group(fronts) resonibility during world war 2 in Europe. Some may be missing because they held army-group command for a short time(a couple of months). They are listed at the bottom for Hubert to decide if he wants to use them.

Why only army-group commanders?

Because that is the obvious size of hq-units in strategic command 2. It would be more than possible to add general-staff generals, famous commanders etc etc but where do you draw the line? The red army fielded 100's of generals able for army and army-group command during ww2.

How did you do to rate the commanders?

I've studied world war 2 for many years. My knowledge of the war and generals combined with the suggestions in the leadership-thread and the combat record of that individual is what makes up the rating.

Combat-record mean that commanders of army group's late in the war probably will have a higher rating which may seem unfair due to the great advantage of the red army at that point. This have been taken in to consideration but one should also remember that the commanders emerging late in the war had proved able.

Did you deliberatlety lower red army commanders towards for instance german´generals?

Yes. German tactical- and strategic school of warfare was far better than the russians throughout the war. The victories late in the war were to a high degree a result of weak german opposition more than a trained red army. For instance in the large winter-offensive in 1945 russian tanks could press 60-70 kilometers ahead per day. That was not a result of high knowledge in tank-warfare rather the result of an obliterated german defence thanks to impossible odds of 1:10 or more.

That means that the average russian rating is about 4, with a good general reaching 5. A highly talented general recieve 6(Vatutin, Rokossovsky) while Konev and Zhukov are the only to reach above that rating.

After the war german fieldmarshal von Rundstedt named only Konev and Zhukov as commanders in class with the best german ones, and I think that is a quite good description.

What language and spelling do you use?

All commanders-names are written in english.

Hey, where is Chuikov??? He was in strategic command and is a warhero!

Vasilii Chuikov is most reknown for the stand of 62nd army at Stalingrad 1942-43. He later commanded the 8th guards army and remained succesful becoming one of many marshals of the soviet-union. However he never held army group command which disqualifies him in this list.

Although he is a russian war-hero, his leadership in the war sometimes was quite inadequate. Stalingrad suited his "grab'em by the belt" tactics, but one should not remember his adventures as commander in chief of the 9th army during the winterwar. Soumoussalmi anyone??

The complete red army commanders list;

Vatutin 6

Voroshilov 4

Zhukov 8

Budenii 3

Konev 7

Rokossovskii 6

Timoshenko 5

Golikov 4

Govorov 4

Purkaev 4

Bagramian 5

Cherniakhovskii 6

Eremenko 5

Malinovskii 5

Meretskov 5

Petrov 4

Popov 4

Tolbukhin 5

Chozov 4

TEMPORARY ARMY-GROUP COMMANDERS THAT CAN BE USED IF MR CARTER WANTS TOO;

Kirponos 5 (during barbarossa)

Was killed n 1941

Pavlov 3 (during barbarossa)

Shot july 4, 1941

Tiulenev 4 (during barbarossa)

Kuznetsov 4 (during barbarossa)

Shifted between north-west, central- and western fronts some month at the time in 1941. Otherwise no frontline command.

Vasilevskii 6

Chief of general staff, only army-group command as late as 1945

Fediuninskii 5

Kurochkin

Sokolovskii

[ January 09, 2006, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Kuniworth]

german complete commander list is coming soon...

[Edwin P.]

Excellent list, much appreciated.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Excellent work. Looking forward to the German one. And then the UK and US one. Hell, do an Italian one as well.

[Hubert Cater]

Great list and perhaps this just might be helpful

Thanks!

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni

Great List, although HQs undoubtedly are Army Group Commands, if they're capable of being rebuilt I don't think the generals should be limited to those who actually held such a position. It leaves out too many capable generals who would have been equally deserving of such a position. In many cases the only thing keeping them away from such a position was either the dislike of a superior officer or non-military politics.

Hubert I've often meant to ask why von Richenau isn't one of the German HQ commanders; aside from commanding the Sixh Army during the early years of the war, he actually was an Army Group commander at one point, replacing von Rundstedt for Army Group South. He suffered a fatal heart attack a short time later.

Despite being one of the less pleasant figures, he was a bona fide Nazi, he happened to be one of the war's better generals. I understand that Germany already has quite a few, however.

[Kuniworth]

*brought up to page 1 again*

[With Clusters]

Are there many ( any? ) wargamers from Russia out there? Or from the Commonwealth of Independant States (did I say that right? does it even exist anymore?)? I'd assume they'd be fairly qualified (or maybe not) to comment on things regarding the Soviet military in WWII.

Plus, it would be interesting to know if there were, and if not, why not. You'd think they'd love to replay the Great Patriotic War! Or is there an SC site in Russian out there somewhere?

:cool:

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

German tactical- and strategic school of warfare was far better than the russians throughout the war.

What nonsense. If anything, German commanders may have had an edge at the beginning of the war due to the lessons learnt in 39-41, but I'd say that that edge had more than levelled out by the end of 1942.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

What nonsense. If anything, German commanders may have had an edge at the beginning of the war due to the lessons learnt in 39-41, but I'd say that that edge had more than levelled out by the end of 1942.

I disagree, the generalship obviously hadn't improved much by 1942 or even '43. The only reason Zhukov didn't let the the exhausted 6th army escape from Stalingrad and then rout the entire army group was because he didn't think his tank commanders were up to the task. He didn't want to give them any tasks which he thought they might **** up. Kursk was the first time that Russian tank formations hadn't floundered in mass. The russian co-ordinated attacks were never a patch on the German summer offensives of 1941.

Think of it this way, in 5 months the Germans had captured virtually as much territory as the Russians had taken back between the whole of 1943 to mid 1944. The Germans did it with a starting ratio of 1:5 against them and the Russians did it with about a 4:1 ratio in their favour, which increased as the battles went on. Sure, Koniev, Zhukov, Rokossovsky and Chuikov were great commanders, but they were few and far between. The Russian army may have become far more competent than what they were in 1941, but they would never match the prowess of the German commanders.

[Radmeister]

I agree with Sgt. The reason that germany made such early advances was in large part due to their modern equipment matched with modern tactics. Similar to why they succeded in the west. A lot of times Hitlers "hold" orders sucedded not due to brilliant strategy but due to the fact that the Panther tank for example could not be destroyed from the front by any available weapons to the russians. Later as the technological edge of germany eroded and when modern weapons like the T-34 (in large numbers)and not trench tanks became avilable the tide shifted. As for the number advantage and the mass of russian equipment used it can be argued that it was the correct strategy to counter the nearly impregnable armor of the german heavy weapons. Mass artillery and Katusha rocket attacks as well as numerical superiority is what slowly turned the tide on the front, but I don't think is was coincidence. This WAS a smart strategy by the russian commanders. I think people forget that. So, the briliance of commanders had an effect in my mind but on a strategic level blood, steel and politics were the deciding factor. Just an opinion. :cool:

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> German tactical- and strategic school of warfare was far better than the russians throughout the war.

What nonsense. If anything, German commanders may have had an edge at the beginning of the war due to the lessons learnt in 39-41, but I'd say that that edge had more than levelled out by the end of 1942. </font>

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

They don't know what they're talking about.

[Shosties]

Hmm. Wonder what Grisha and Andreas would say to this? But I doubt they drop in here very much. Copy posting this over to the CMBB forum would be an interesting excercise, I think.

Maskirovka. *cough*

Bagration. *cough* *cough*

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Kuniworth,

I think it's plain wrong to state that "German tactical- and strategic school of warfare was far better than the russians throughout the war". It is a gross oversimplification, and certainly a conclusion which runs contrary to what plenty of historians find when studying the subject. The Soviet offensives by the end of the war were just as elaborate in nature as the German offensives. The Soviets excelled in disciplines such as:

- Deception

- Force concentration

- Artillery coordination

- Deep penetration using mobile units

Sorry, but I just don't agree with your statement. But maybe I misunderstand your point...

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

Kuniworth,

I think it's plain wrong to state that "German tactical- and strategic school of warfare was far better than the russians throughout the war". It is a gross oversimplification, and certainly a conclusion which runs contrary to what plenty of historians find when studying the subject. The Soviet offensives by the end of the war were just as elaborate in nature as the German offensives. The Soviets excelled in disciplines such as:

- Deception

- Force concentration

- Artillery coordination

- Deep penetration using mobile units

Sorry, but I just don't agree with your statement. But maybe I misunderstand your point...

I have some comments here. This discussion is probably due to me beeing unclear but I will still adress this discussion. My point is that german leadership i general was better than russian, and this must be clear within the game. My bad to discuss tactical warfare, there you are correct but not concering commandship - and that must show in the game.

The tactical debate has been raging for many years. What historians concludes are that the Red army during the war followed it's tradition of organization, tactics and leadership.

It did learn from the germans but developed it's own type of warfare eg the "deep operation" doctrine which in many cases are closer to blitzkrig than germany's own tactics. It's also true that the axis advantage even out in the aspect that german casualties lowered the wehrmachts level of training. The red army did also decentralize it's command structure but it came not until the middle part of the war.

But the turning point after Stalingrad and the following offensives were in most cases the result of a numerical and material superiority on 5:1 or even 10:1 which makes it hard to rate the russian leadership and easier to rate the germans. And I won't rate Cherniakhovskii or Vatutin in the same class as Guderian, Rommel or Kesselring.

comments on the ratings I propose?

[Roosevelt45]

I have some comments here. This discussion is probably due to me beeing unclear but I will still adress this discussion. My point is that german leadership i general was better than russian, and this must be clear within the game. My bad to discuss tactical warfare, there you are correct but not concering commandship - and that must show in the game.

Then how did they win the war?

Von Paulus was certainly not a better general than Zhukov.

I think that both sides had their good generals and their bad generals.

[Kuniworth]

And what ratings do you want to change? As you will se Paulus is not in the complete german command list and Zhukov got an 8 here.

Any particular ratings you think are wrong?

[ May 23, 2004, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Roosevelt45]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

And what ratings do you want to change? As you will se Paulus is not in list and Zhukov got 8.

WHAT RATINGS DO YOU THINK ARE WRONG AND WHY?

In general, I think the list is very good and historicaly correct.

But I would have given Zhukov a nine.

[Retributar]

I was just watching one of my VHS films...ACHTUNG PANZER-"Steel Tigers"...and i could be wrong...but, i thought i heard that from May of 1943 the Germans had on Average only about 4000 Operational tanks in all theatres as verses the allies who had 20,000 Tanks.

I find this hard to believe...so i will try to do some checking on this. But, if this is anywhere near the truth,...then its no wonder that the Russians would be able to overrun the German Forces in the East!.

-------------------------------------------------

http://members.aol.com/xbutchx/

Operational Tanks:

Year-Germany--USSR-----USA

1939--249----------------------

1940--1460--- 2794-----331

1941--3256--- 6590-----4052

1942--4278--- 24,668---24,997

1943--5966--- 20,000---29,497

1944--9167--- 29,000---17,565

Total-24,370- 56,952---76,442

German Tank Production Totals:

Tank------------------Quanity

PzKpfw-I-about------3000

PzKpfw-II-about-----3580

PzKpfw-III -----------644

PzKpfw-IV------------9000

PzKpfw-V-"Panther"-4814

PzKpfw-VI-"Tiger"---1350

"King Tiger"----------484

Total------------------27,872

[ May 23, 2004, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Kuniworth]

Ok, because as I stated above I deliberately set german ratings higher than russian due to better leadership.

[Col. Gen. Guderian]

Originally posted by Roosevelt45:

Then how did they win the war?

Von Paulus was certainly not a better general than Zhukov.

I think that both sides had their good generals and their bad generals.

He had already said, vast numerical superiority. Let me tell you what one German officer said during barbarossa. It went something like this:

"Us attacking Russia is like an elephant attacking a host of ants. The elephant may kill thousands, perhaps millions of ants, but it will eventually be killed and eaten to the bone"

I think it was quite applicable in that situation.

[Shosties]

Just a suggestion here: Some of you guys might want to consider putting down the memoirs of Guderian, Manstein, and von Mellenthin, (or all those grotty old copies of Signal); and consider taking up recent scholarship on the Red Army, Glantz say.

Such a degree of numerical superiority at the point of contact was achieved by concentration of their forces. The overall numerical superiority was not as great as it is often made out to be. This concentration, in the case of the Bagration operation, was achieved without German intel finding out about it before it was too late. This is what Grisha means when he talks about late war superiority of the Red Army in operational art (the level between tactics and strategy, which intimately involves the less glamorous aspects of OpSec and logistics).

[Kuniworth]

Yes I have David Glantz's book "when titans clashed - how the red army stopped hitler" and yes I'm very well aware of this.

But this still does'nt make the leadership as a whole better. Im getting tired of this - Shoestie please give us suggestions on change in the proposed ratings or else what is the point of this mindless discussion?

What ratings do you think are not correct? Please compare those to the ones in the COMPLETE GERMAN COMMAND LIST thread and give us your opinion.

[ May 23, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Ron]

Did you deliberatlety lower red army commanders towards for instance german´generals?

Yes. German tactical- and strategic school of warfare was far better than the russians throughout the war. The victories late in the war were to a high degree a result of weak german opposition more than a trained red army.

I think what Sgt. Emren and Shosties4th (and others more familiar with the Eastern Front) are calling into question is your very first, basic assumption.

If you have read Glantz/House and more specifically "When Titans Clashed", then you should know better. There are detailed tables in the book outlining German/Russian Troop strength and War Production throughout the struggle. The Russians never had 10-1 overall, it wasn't until late 44 that they achieved 3-1 Troop superiority, ie after Bagration. They achieved a local superiority at times of up to 10-1 because of their mastery at Deception and deep understanding of the 'Operational Art', in conjunction with, to put it mildly, German incompetence at higher levels. The Russians went to a Total War Economy from the very beginning, something the Germans didn't do until 42/43 and thus were never able to 'catch up' production wise.

What the Germans excelled at over their Russian (and Western) counterparts, because of their storied Military Tradition, was 'Mission Based Orders' (I forget now the German term) or in other words subordinate initiative at all levels. Their thinking and force structure was based around this flexibility and ability to adapt to changing battlefield conditions. As history has shown this didn't extend to the Strategic realm. German Strategic thinking never developed beyond the 'decisive battle' concept, which proved winning in Poland and France, but was incorrect in Russia and throughout the remainder of WWII.

Trying to compare the two opposing Armies and Generals, and arrive at some concrete 'rating' to reflect the different strengths and weaknesses(which lay in different areas) is difficult to say the least! My opinion is that the Russians should not be penalized at all, because history proved they were better than the Germans especially in the last half of the war. As a suggestion to reflect the Russian Army coming into its own as the war progressed is to have the better Russian Generals not become available until late 42/43.

For what it's worth,

Ron

[ May 23, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]