It’s all part of propaganda to whitewash one’s own incompetence. It reminds me of WWII when the British lionised Erwin Rommel, in order to cover up British incompetence.
To be fair, the Germans (with generals like Rommel at the forefront), basically invented modern combined arms mechanised warfare. The allies were smacked around hard until they caught on to the concept.
Even more, the allies didn’t really win the war due to superior strategy, tactics, training, or equipment, but rather due to better logistics, manufacturing capacity, and more manpower. It’s actually a bit ironic that NATO has built its current doctrine around smaller but highly advanced and well trained forces; which is what the Germans relied on, rather than simpler equipment that is easy to mass produce; which is what beat the Germans.
Clicked on the link and no where did it say he was “Hitler’s Chief of Staff”. The closest I found was Operations Chief for the General Staff. But in either case, yes, definitely familiar with German military doctrine.
Shaped military doctine I would say… The man was Generalleutnant at the Ostfront. English is not my first language, what’s the difference between the two.
equipment that is easy to mass produce; which is what beat the Germans.
Over simplification. That was the Soviet strategy sure. Almost no changes were allowed to Soviet tank design unless in lowered cost or simplified manufacture. But that wasn’t British or American doctrine and they often had much more advanced equipment in key fields like radar and aircraft than their adversaries. I like your first point better though: the allies won thru superior manufacturing capacity. The Americans were a juggernaut and the Soviets managed to move most of their factories east beyond the reach of German aircraft while Germany itself got pummeled by bombing campaigns.
Sure, the allies had more advanced equipment in some areas (e.g. air power). On the other hand, what made the Sherman a good tank was never that it was individually better than a Tiger, but rather that there were more of them, and that they were easier to repair in the field. Basically, Sherman’s were production-line tanks, while Tigers were not. Looking at the production time of anything from submarines to Leaopards in NATO today is what makes me think that’s a bit ironic: It takes a loooong time to build stuff today.
So…the United States just can’t stop building Abrams tanks. We’ve got thousands of them, fields full. The US Army has begged congress to stop ordering them. We’ll finish four more by Friday.
The latter is what the Russians seem to have gone for. They just never considered that training their personnel was very important, so it never worked very well either.
?? The russians had weathered multiple wars by that point? Like the amount of wars the red army was involved in after the october revolution, they were extensively trained I should think
Nah, Russia has never cared about its soldiers (or russians in general really), they just rely on having enough numbers to throw into the grinder. Many soviet troops send to the wars against us finns in ww2 for example just froze to death because the leaders were incompetent and didn’t care enough about them to order proper equipment.
Part of the incompetence is they can’t tell anything negative to higher ups so the chain of command all lie from the bottom to the top, so the leaders have no fucking idea what is actually happening. You can see this still going on in today’s Russia; the start of the war against Ukraine was a good example, conquering Kyiv in a day my ass. Putin clearly had no idea what was the actual state of his army. I doubt he still has too good of an idea about what is actually happening out there - people who tell hard facts are likely defenestrated
It’s all part of propaganda to whitewash one’s own incompetence. It reminds me of WWII when the British lionised Erwin Rommel, in order to cover up British incompetence.
To be fair, the Germans (with generals like Rommel at the forefront), basically invented modern combined arms mechanised warfare. The allies were smacked around hard until they caught on to the concept.
Even more, the allies didn’t really win the war due to superior strategy, tactics, training, or equipment, but rather due to better logistics, manufacturing capacity, and more manpower. It’s actually a bit ironic that NATO has built its current doctrine around smaller but highly advanced and well trained forces; which is what the Germans relied on, rather than simpler equipment that is easy to mass produce; which is what beat the Germans.
Not that ironic considering they hired hitlers chief of general staff lol
Clicked on the link and no where did it say he was “Hitler’s Chief of Staff”. The closest I found was Operations Chief for the General Staff. But in either case, yes, definitely familiar with German military doctrine.
Shaped military doctine I would say… The man was Generalleutnant at the Ostfront. English is not my first language, what’s the difference between the two.
Over simplification. That was the Soviet strategy sure. Almost no changes were allowed to Soviet tank design unless in lowered cost or simplified manufacture. But that wasn’t British or American doctrine and they often had much more advanced equipment in key fields like radar and aircraft than their adversaries. I like your first point better though: the allies won thru superior manufacturing capacity. The Americans were a juggernaut and the Soviets managed to move most of their factories east beyond the reach of German aircraft while Germany itself got pummeled by bombing campaigns.
Sure, the allies had more advanced equipment in some areas (e.g. air power). On the other hand, what made the Sherman a good tank was never that it was individually better than a Tiger, but rather that there were more of them, and that they were easier to repair in the field. Basically, Sherman’s were production-line tanks, while Tigers were not. Looking at the production time of anything from submarines to Leaopards in NATO today is what makes me think that’s a bit ironic: It takes a loooong time to build stuff today.
So…the United States just can’t stop building Abrams tanks. We’ve got thousands of them, fields full. The US Army has begged congress to stop ordering them. We’ll finish four more by Friday.
We, at least, haven’t forgottem logistics.
The latter is what the Russians seem to have gone for. They just never considered that training their personnel was very important, so it never worked very well either.
?? The russians had weathered multiple wars by that point? Like the amount of wars the red army was involved in after the october revolution, they were extensively trained I should think
Nah, Russia has never cared about its soldiers (or russians in general really), they just rely on having enough numbers to throw into the grinder. Many soviet troops send to the wars against us finns in ww2 for example just froze to death because the leaders were incompetent and didn’t care enough about them to order proper equipment.
Part of the incompetence is they can’t tell anything negative to higher ups so the chain of command all lie from the bottom to the top, so the leaders have no fucking idea what is actually happening. You can see this still going on in today’s Russia; the start of the war against Ukraine was a good example, conquering Kyiv in a day my ass. Putin clearly had no idea what was the actual state of his army. I doubt he still has too good of an idea about what is actually happening out there - people who tell hard facts are likely defenestrated
Rommel was an ardent Nazi and a bad general.