Zhukov's Tactic

It seems simple but actually it is very complicated. I sorta loved reading about Kursk where the defensive belts directed the Germans straight to death, the only way to go was into crossfire or where AT guns had clear view. In Kursk I recall the Red Army had more At guns than Germans had tanks to start with...

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp

 

Don't worry Sturmkruez I believe that you saw it, because I have heard the same thing. Mine was in "The Battle For Russia" some American prpoganda film (well it looks like one anyway, "look at how great the americans are" but "look how terrible the Germans are at everthing") I hate those films. lol.

BUt yes the tactic displayed in that film and to be honest in a few I have seen, did the "break through the first line and fall bacl to the next line, break through the second and fall back on the third, and it continously goes on and the defensive line just gets deeper and deeper making any attack and attempted envolope suicidle, for the fact that even 'if' you penetrate the line then the sheer weight of men and materials just crush the attempted envelope.

 

I do believe this could be shown as the simple model for stopping an attack. It is very rigid though in my opinion, and if the enemy should get through you´re truly f*?#¤d because once the troops realize the enemy might be through they start running, and at least in the pics there are no reserves to counter the breakthrough area. Usually the enemy is trying a breakthrough with 3-5x overpower locally, and the Soviets preferred minimum 5x so fast moving reserves are necessary because the Soviets expected a huge force trying to get through.

Actually I always thought Zhukov liked to attack not defend...?!!



In front of Moscow-he attacked.

In Rzhev - he attacked

In Stalingrad- he attacked

After Kursk- he always attacked

That was also the idea that the Red Army had for years preached- take the war to your enemy´s ground, not your own.

 

Kai-Petri indeed. In my first post is written "When the Germans gained Terrain" then it stopped, this tactic is used for defense, not for attack.

@Tomcat, thanks.

 

Better than anything you have now, ain'tcha? Have to start someplace

After you go through this I'll give you access to more.

 

Zhukov's tactics lacked imagination, and mastery. Compared to other Generals/field Marshalls during WW2, I have to ask, did he ever win a battle with a numerically inferior advantage in men or tanks?? as Rommel had in Africa?? Simmonds in the Scheldt??

Blitzkrieg or lightning war was not intended to smash an army in large confrontation as shown in France in 1940, and early into Barbarosa in june/july 1941...Advance scouts, many in sidecars sought ahead to locate a static army, direct the armour to by-pass and disrupt communication or withdrawl. This placed the military response on the shoulders of the leader whom commanded these mostly static defenses, and when left on their own, the prospect of re-supply, demoralization of troops having been surrounded or passed led many leaders to accept the passionate response and to surrender or come to terms with those whom had the advantage.

I am unsure if Zhukov, while commanding an army ever met the full brunt of an advancing army, or was sent to take control of the situation, once the advance had petered out, or a counter attack was planned. His great victory at Stalingrad has been debated by historians and buffs alike. The view of Stalingrad and the defeat was as much as Paulus fault as Zhukov's mastery. Had Paulus the foresight, or knowledge of an armour commander perhaps as von Manstein or Guderian had then he might have taken steps necessary to prevent the collapse of Stalingrad. Had he scene his armour was ineffective in Stalingrad, pulled them back, stocked, refueled he'd have been able to send or meet any threat which incompanied it. As it was he never did or had the ability to send or aid Zhukov's attack from the northern flank or keep a corridor open for Hoth's 4th panzer to reach.

this is only my view as i am sure if the attack by Zhukov had failed, Stalin would have found him more troops and weapons until Stalingrad was re-claimed or person sacrificed for mother Russia had turned the tide...

 

Thanks for the post!

Mhhh. Friedrich Paulus was the wrong man for those kind of situations, he was more a person who sat behind a desk, I'd rather seen Von Rundstedt or Guderian.

Stalin would have done MANY to defend Stalingrad, Millions would have gone there to re-claim it when this would've happened.

 

good point...Stalingrad would have been either a victory or defeat for the Soviets, but to abandon it even if the German 6th army had captured the west bank, even though this might have been scene as the decisive key is hard to fathom. Numerous historians succumb to the fact that had Moscow been captured, the Soviets would have been finished??? Napoleon had succeeded in doing this, and the capital, or czar Alexander moved his head or control to St Petersburg (Leningrad) ...Look at Holland, the Queen Willamina took refuge in Canada, and in Belgium the King eradicated to set up shop in the U.K. as did the King of Norway i believe. Would the Soviet Union had ever signed an armistice as did the French, and allow German control...will never be known, but to say Stalin would have said, ya, Moscow is captured, lets surrender is hard to believe...

bf109 Emil

 

Besides that, Stalin knew - or probably - knew Germany never could fully control (Soviet-Union) Russia. They are with too less to fully control Russia.

 

True, the lack of law or constitution of the third Reich reaching a thousand years was in trouble from the beginning...the Wiemar republic which handed the reigns to the Nazi's had a base or foundation for the existence of order or law/constitution to follow as did the US have as a base for theres. much less so for Britain as a defined set of rules, but times/tradition established their people or goals...without this bases the Third Reich lacking foundation to build on, was doomed from the start, as a political or lasting era in the sense of the word..

 

Actually, in spring 1942 In the AGS area and Crimea area after that they still fought to the last man . The Germans were getting ready for 'Blau' and shortly destroyed the Soviet offensive. In 1943 Stalin wanted to attack in wide area but Zhukov made him change his mind to defend Kursk and once the Germans were exhausted start their own massive attack.

 

Don't forget the Germans Lost their veteran soldiers during Winter 1941-42, as well as equipment why Hitler could only start an offensive in One Army Group area alone. Not three.

 

In early Barbarossa Zhukov noticed the Germans were too deep to stop them more west and decided to create a new defensive line in the Estonian area and downwards, I think this was the Stalin line. He did not think of attacking, but start defending and stop the German offensives thus.