The reason i have put zhukov ahead because he was the man that stopped the german tide during the most critical hours of the war,rokkosovsky came into prominence later in the war.During the battle of moscow there were hardly massive resource availability to the soviets ,that began to happen from late 1942.Because of this crisis management ability i've put zhukov ahead.
Well, as to crisis management, you yourself mentioned Vatutin, whom I'd overlooked. Whether due to good generalship or his bond with Chernyakhovsky, the brilliant young tank general he discovered, he gave the Wehrmacht a pretty horrid time, attacking whenever he could. Wasn't there the time when Chernyakhovsky saved his skin by moving his tanks straight into battle from off their transport train? but having entered that caveat, let me leave Zhukov alone at his peak of the Soviet Russian generals and marshals. Again, I repeat, IMHO, Kholkhin Gol is better than his massed victories, because he used all arms organically.
Hmm yes i do admit i'm a little short on rokkosovsky details other than the broad outline of battle she was in. Worth reading up on him. Not much literature on him; it was through reading about the other greats - I think you are overlooking Malinovsky - that I got to know about R. As you must know, reading the Germans about the Russians is very confusing, because the German account naturally, understandably deals with what happened in front, it does not track the Russians individually, and we find people disappearing from one front in one book, and bobbing up on another front in another book. Most confusing!
@cardsharp- seelow heights ,yes zhukov admitted he had underestimated german resistance and caused heavy soviet casualities.This was mostly the work of gotthard heinrici the wehrmacht commander also the wehrmacht premier defensive expert and his deputy husso von monteuffel.Heinrici's elastic defence was very well executed at seelow heights .If he had more resources it would have been a soviet defeat.
Heinrici is probably the best defensive tactician of the war though hardly mentioned.Also balck is another great one,though most of his brilliance was at divisional level.he was uneasy at higher commands.
Don't remember much about Balck, but, yes, Heinrici should have been mentioned. Shall we?
I admit vatutin was unpredictable but very reckless.
Belisarius is the byzantine version of al waleed.He was never appreciated to the extent he deserved.Considering that he recovered the whole ruddy western Empire for that ungrateful bastard Justinian, he deserved more. Also for his tactics, although he was not necessarily a great strategist, given the tight rein the Emperor, the Empress and Narses the eunuch kept on him. I presume you have read Graves' book on him; excellent reading.
Guderain ofc is the best armour commander of ww2 and a brilliant theorist and organizer,when i said one dimensional i didn't mean that he was bad just that he wasn't much good at other things but he could do he was the best at.OK, you've got me here. What did you mean, "he wasn't much good at other things"? Are you referring to his indifferent golf? ;-)
About the steppe nomadic cavalry horde armies i agree with u.With whom? About what aspect, precisely?
Taking nothing away from slim the fact remains that the japanese while even more fanatical than the germans and just as tencious were not as organized and techincally perfect as the germans which does come in slim's way of fame to the title of best british general of ww2.Fair enough. I'm not fighting it further.
As for formations yeah i forgot adolphus mixed formations,but that was heavily modelled on maurice of nassau's dutch army.Also cromwell's new model army is a good organized force during its era.YES! Thank you for providing a point of entry. How come nobody was willing to talk about these gods of war?
U mention cataphracts but it wasn't unique to the east in fact it was perfected and used to itshighest degree of perfection in the west under the knights,and much later the heavy cavalry of napoleon.Heavy cavalry became the great western forte eventually.
Again, it is not clear whom you're answering, CardSharp by your last reference, but if I may take the liberty of answering: sure, it was taken up and perfected in the west. Nobody's denying that. But the fact is, it was used in the east and used with devastating effect, and I was referring to that when I listed it as an eastern formation. So far, so good. However, I am surprised at your connecting cuirassiers to Napoleon and his use of cavalry. Can you mention which battles of his you had in mind? It is all the more surprising considering the charge of the British heavies at Waterloo was more effective than any Napoleonic manoeuvre I remember, leaving aside the bloody end they came to after they finished the charge, and considering that the introduction of Polish lancers and hussars was far more to his credit than cuirassiers. In another person, I might have let it pass; coming from you, I am astonished, and feel entitled to ask for clarification. ;-)
The horse archer's cantabrian circle formation is one unique to the east though,it was also used to deadly effect by mongols.What on earth is this Cantabrian circle? is it the double envelopment tulughma? If the latter, it was last seen in India at Panipat I, where Babar used it brilliantly. But Cantabrian circle doesn't sound like it.
Also i left out the swiss pikemen landscnhedt squares though these were eventually evolved into the tercio.You are quite right to include it, of course, but I thought we had covered it earlier. When I went back, to my astonishment, you are right, we talked - you mentioned - tercios, but not landsknecht formations (a personal request: please check your spellings; they spoil otherwise outstanding contributions).
Also if we are talking military organizations and not formations there are the roman manipular system,then cohort legions under marius.Having read the word 'Roman', I carelessly omitted to read your putting the testudos under that. In retrospect, a bad mistake: there were dozens of examples of shields being lifted up in defence against dropping arrow shots, and the testudos was in any case specific to storming a fortress. I wouldn't count it as a battle formation.
What is the difference between maniples and century-wise legion formation? Can you enlighten me? I always thought it was the same.
Also the german panzer division,the napoleonic corps d' armee,also as a strategic formation napoleon's battali'on square used to devastating effect vs prussia in 1806.
These are not,either of them, battle formations - or are they? One has to think this through.
And squares, by Napoleon? rather than by the British? Strange!
The ottoman jannissary/sipahi army was at its height the most professional force in the world. Sure, so what? we were discussing battle formations, and this doesn't come under that.
Overall thanks for ur replies and kind comments.
