THE COMPLETE SOVIET COMMAND LIST

[Edwin P.]

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.

Another option that achieves the same effect is to have all Russians HQ units start at Rating 4. This rating increases by 1 for every battle they are in until the HQ reaches its maximum rating. Thus a Russian HQ may enter the game with a 4 Rating and increase its Rating to a 6 or 7 as it gains more experience.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

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?

Ron got to the crux of it. I just stopped in for a look and couldn't help but notice what to me sounded like something bordering on a chauvinistic statement. I thought perhaps some of the SC folks should know that the CMBB forum has had discussions of this nature that blew my hair back at the depth of knowledge some of the notable posters displayed.

Sorry to have bugged you with mindless comments, Kuniworth.

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

My point is that german leadership in general was better than russian, and this must be clear within the game.

This is the point I am contesting.

My bad to discuss tactical warfare, there you are correct but not concering commandship - and that must show in the game.

I don't consider the elements I mentioned to be tactical. They are, IMHO, elements of warfare beginning at Corps level (and going up), which in nature are not tactical. I am not sure I understand your concept of commandship, but I must assume that you mean this to be command at the Army Group level, since these are the commanders you chose to include. If my assumption is correct, then it is your opinion that Soviet Army Group commanders were inferior in skill to the German AG commanders. This what I contest by mentioning four disciplines, at the Army Group level, in which Soviet commanders were excellent, and at least as able as their German counterparts.

Comments on the ratings I propose?

No, none. Your ratings may be perfect for what you are trying to model. I only challenged the process and the premises with which you assigned the ratings.

[Liam]

1 Tiger = 10 Russian tanks? Estimated

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Kuniworth,

Actually, I would like to comment on some of your ratings:

Zhukov. Should be a 9. IMHO the single most succesful commander of WWII. Proved his worth consistently, and both on the defense and the offense.

Rokossovsky. I would rate him 7.

[Kuniworth]

Im reading Shukmans book "Stalin's generals" right now. Excellent book with a lot of not so known information.

Yes I can agree to both of these. But making Rokkossovsky a 7 would mean Vatutin a 7 too. I consider him in Rokossovsky's league - at least. And how should we then rank Chernyakhovskii and Konev? Konev is not an 8, not IMHO.

[ June 04, 2004, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Hey, I'm not into the Russian/German/Weather/Leadership thing...but I do know this, too much BS is in this thread. Kuniworth is an expert in this area. You guys need to clarify & define alot of things.

[ev]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Another option that achieves the same effect is to have all Russians HQ units start at Rating 4. This rating increases by 1 for every battle they are in until the HQ reaches its maximum rating. Thus a Russian HQ may enter the game with a 4 Rating and increase its Rating to a 6 or 7 as it gains more experience. </font>

[Kuniworth]

ev this is a very interesting feature. Very good work.

[Retributar]

In principle...i agree with you 'ev'...although Zhukov was anything but ineffective!. He just wasn't used against the German's during the first day's of the war.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0853410.html

Zhukov, Georgi Konstantinovich:

1896–1974, Soviet marshal. He fought in the October Revolution (1917) and in the civil war (1918–20), which brought the Bolsheviks to power, and saw action against the Japanese on the Manchurian border (1938–39) and in the Finnish-Russian War. Promoted to full general in 1940, he was briefly (1941) chief of the general staff. In Oct., 1941, he replaced Semyon Timoshenko as commander of the central front and conducted the defense of Moscow. Made commander (1942) on the southwestern front, Zhukov defeated the Germans at Stalingrad (1943) and, with Marshal Voroshilov, lifted the siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg). He led the offensive of 1944 and the final assault on Germany in 1945, capturing Berlin (April) and becoming commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany.

[ev]

Originally posted by Retributar:

In principle...i agree with you 'ev'...although Zhukov was anything but ineffective!. He just wasn't used against the German's during the first day's of the war...

...I don't mean Zhukov would have been less good of a general. But, inadequate Command, Contol, and Communication organization and equipment would represent a handicap for any commander. So, if Zhukov and Rommel were to face each other, though both were excellent commanders, German's superior C3 would allow Rommel' troops to do things Zhukov's troops could not do. Unless, of course, Russians invested in upgrading their C3 and caught with the Germans.

In SC1 the HQ's were associated with two combat multipliers: supply and leadership. For SC2, I propose associating the HQ's with three combat multipliers: supply, leadership, and C3 tech. I really hope Hubert can accomodate my request.

[Glez_]

Just read about Operation Mars, the Soviet attack on Army Group Center. I am surprised as I had never heard of this operation and only read about a so called "diversionary" offensive in preparation for Uranus.

I think we have to rethink Zhukov's rating given this finding. Possibly an 8 rating is too much as it puts him with the likes of Rommel and others who triumphed under what were at times very unfavorable conditions, material, logistical and numerical.

For those of you interested this is a great read.:http://www.battlefield.ru/library/battles/battle12_04.html

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Yes I can agree to both of these. But making Rokkossovsky a 7 would mean Vatutin a 7 too. I consider him in Rokossovsky's league - at least. And how should we then rank Chernyakhovskii and Konev? Konev is not an 8, not IMHO.

Cherny and Konev could also be 7's, I guess. Konev maybe an 8, but that's dabatable. This really shows the difficulty in assigning these ratings - they are highly subjective.

Hey, I'm not into the Russian/German/Weather/Leadership thing...but I do know this, too much BS is in this thread. Kuniworth is an expert in this area. You guys need to clarify & define alot of things.

Well thanks for trying to lower the BS-rating of this thread. You've certainly clarified something for me.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Glez_:

Just read about Operation Mars, the Soviet attack on Army Group Center. I am surprised as I had never heard of this operation and only read about a so called "diversionary" offensive in preparation for Uranus.

I think we have to rethink Zhukov's rating given this finding. Possibly an 8 rating is too much as it puts him with the likes of Rommel and others who triumphed under what were at times very unfavorable conditions, material, logistical and numerical.

At work writing this. Yes Operation Mars was a failure, the magnitude not known outside the soviet censorship until the 90's I believe. The russians tried to hit a devestating blow with mars(Rhzev area), uranus and saturn. In the end only uranus could be fully completed and especially mars was a failure. Zhukov and Stalin both bears responsibility for this and of course their reputation suffers. I gave Zhukov an 8 instead of a 9 mainly for this failure. However what makes things difficult to rank the generals are that they differs in ability in planning, leadership, strategic sense, initiativ, offensive capabilities, defensive capabilities etc. No commander in the war was without flaws, in my opinion Manstein comes closest. And also remember that beeing in the thick all the time means that sometimes you gotta fail.

Zhukov had a superb strategic sense but this IMHO was not his real threat. Instead he relied to much part on a extremly tireless and energetic leadership with an outstanding ability on organizing. He was very harsh and demanded extremely much from his subordinates. In the end however looking overall his record is magnificent performing well during Barbarossa and more or less saving Leningrad(thx partly to Vatutin) and saving Moscow in a time when things were looking bleak for the red army. These are two victories that not many commanders in world war 2 could have gotten away with and makes him one of the truely great of ww2.

Seeluw heights is another often referred to as a battle to say that Zhukov lacked skill. Konev would probably have done better in that particular battle but in the end to large extent te reason for his forces getting bogged down was the skill of Heinrici.

[ June 06, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes I can agree to both of these. But making Rokkossovsky a 7 would mean Vatutin a 7 too. I consider him in Rokossovsky's league - at least. And how should we then rank Chernyakhovskii and Konev? Konev is not an 8, not IMHO.

Cherny and Konev could also be 7's, I guess. Konev maybe an 8, but that's dabatable. This really shows the difficulty in assigning these ratings - they are highly subjective.

</font>

[With Clusters]

Perhaps there needs to be a sense of what the 'average' score for generals should be (or has that been stated earlier? If so, sorry for wasting space). The range in SC1 ran from 3 (for the crappy French and Italian HQs, right?) to nine (for Manstein and such). Does that make 6 the median? Perhaps HQs need a wider range, from 1 to 10, w/ 5 being regarded as an 'average' general? I know there where some negatives attached with lower ranking generals in SC1 (or I think I know, is that correct?), making them risky to use commanding combat units. In any event, every general should give some bennefit to the units in his command, even if it is only supply (otherwise, why buy the sorry sack in the first place). So perhaps there can be more variation to the advantages HQs lend to units under their command, and thus more variabilities in their scores, and there wont be such a need to quible over whether such and such general was really a 7 or an 8? Just my beer addled cents

[Ron]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

At work writing this. Yes Operation Mars was a failure, the magnitude not known outside the soviet censorship until the 90's I believe. The russians tried to hit a devestating blow with mars(Rhzev area), uranus and saturn. In the end only uranus could be fully completed and especially mars was a failure. Zhukov and Stalin both bears responsibility for this and of course their reputation suffers.

I don't understand why you would think it would suffer? Yes Mars was supposed to be the 'devastating blow' and Uranus a diversion because Stavka believed the area in front of Moscow to be the decisive theatre, however Stavka displayed incredible strategic flexibility and skill in diverting the emphasis to the South and rewarding success when the reality on the ground became apparent. It was a level of 'strategic skill and thinking' no other Army ever really displayed; you can look at the German plan at Kursk the following year or Eisenhower's 'broad front' strategy in western Eurpoe for comparison. Yes tactically the German officers excelled until the very end of the war and the Russian officers were never their equal in that regard. The Russian skill and excellence lay in the strategic field, they may lose battles, lost of them, but they win wars. Obviously that's what counts in the end.

Ron

[Retributar]

Thanks for that deeper-evaluation of the Russian situation 'Ron',...i agree completely with your analysis!. Besides agreeing with you...it's true anyway!.

[Glez_]

The Russian skill lay in the strategic field? IMHO the Russian skill lay in his numbers and his disregard for human life.

Using the Operation Mars as a reference, give me the name of one Western General or leader that would suffer such a devastating defeat and whose reputation would go untarnished. They would be inmediatley relieved of command.

Now keeping in mind that the Russians lost more men in operation Mars than the Germans lost at Stalingrad, (300,000 Germans lost at Stalingrad,-400,000 Russians lost at Mars) the Russians seemed to have an inexhaustable force.

The simple fact that the "main" Operation was Mars and NOT as we are led to beleive Uranus, is I think reason enough to rethink many ideas and concepts that for many years were beleived popular amongst the most renouned scholars.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Ron:

First of all Mars was not the main blow. Both Uranus and Mars were main-assaults conducted with only a few days apart. So this is wrong.

Secondly losing 400 000-500,000 men, 1500 tanks is inevitable a failure as the operation did not achieve it's goals. This is considered a great loss and Zhukov's unwillingness to cut his losses displays poor judgement. Zhukov's military reputation naturally suffers from this.

[Ron]

Operations Mars:

1,890,000 Troops (31% personnel of Red Army)

24,682 Guns & Mortars (32% artillery of Red Army)

3,375 Tanks (45% of Red Army)

1,170 Aircraft (39% of Red Army)

Operation Uranus:

1,103,000 Troops (18% personnel of Red Army)

15,501 Guns & Mortars ( 20% artillery of Red Army)

1,463 Tanks (20% of Red Army)

928 Aircraft (30% of Red Army)

Like Uranus/Saturn, Operation Mars was to be followed by Operation Jupiter to exploit the planned success. It was aborted. One thing to keep in mind, unlike at Stalingrad where very few German reserves existed, to counter Mars the Germans were able to commit immediately powerful forces consisting of 1st and 9th Panzer Divsions, Grossdeutschland and 14th PzGren Divisions, later sending the 12th, 19th and 20th Panzer Divisions to seal off the Russian penetration. Not an insignificant force in light of the total German Mobile strength on the entire Eastern Front!

The fact Mars began after Uranus doesn't imply it was less important, in fact it states the opposite as any crafty strategy gamer would know

Ron

[Kuniworth]

Ron;

Not one is sayin that Mars was less important, that would be stupid. My point was that Mars and Uranus were two large planned offensives and that none of them should be seen as a divertion. That's why we react to your statement that this does'nt make Zhukov and Stalin's military reputation suffer. Of course it does, just look at the casualty-figures compared to objectives set and captured.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Ron;

Not one is sayin that Mars was less important, that would be stupid. My point was that Mars and Uranus were two large planned offensives and that none of them should be seen as a divertion. That's why we react to your statement that this does'nt make Zhukov and Stalin's military reputation suffer. Of course it does, just look at the casualty-figures compared to objectives set and captured.

Fair enough, but simply looking at one failed operation and penalizing that then every General that commanded troops should be condemned, whether Rommel, Patton or Montgomery. There's plenty of evidence to show Rommel's failure in Africa, Patton's failure in Lorraine, or Montgomery's failure in Normandy for example. Loss of life isn't an indicator either IMO, especially considering the differing mentality between East/West.

Getting back to your proposed ratings, tough call!, the only quibles I had with the original SC was I thought a few were overrated ie, Eisenhower should be a '6', Rommel a '7' and Montgomery a '7'. Totally subjective of course!

Ron

[Kuniworth]

ROn; agreed, thats what makes this difficult. Rating commanders are hard.

Anyway I'm glad that you, Sgt Emren and others are still around here discussing.

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

On the surface, it makes good sense to post this discussion in two threads - but have you all noticed how the commanders tend to be compared across nationalities regardless?

Kuniworth, would it be possible for you to post an update with whatever changes you've made, including the commanders from both sides?