Talk:Commander Kubrik Chenkov

From 1d4chan

I thought in the middle ages (which I believe 40k is largely based off of), hot wars were mostly waged not in battle, but by laying siege.--Emerald Claw (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how suffering massive casualties is an indication of competence in any capacity.--Emerald Claw (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolute numerical counts of casualties are less relevant than the ease of their replacement. Remember that in the Soviet victory at Kursk, they still lost 3-5x more soldiers and tanks than the Germans did, but could sustain the losses and still continue operating. The Imperium is never lacking for manpower, and so enduring high casualties for tangible strategic gains, such as breaking a siege swiftly or rapidly dominating the field is a more efficient use of resources than keeping nominally low casualty rates and then losing the war.--63.230.63.13 21:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RL Prototype[edit]

Chenkov is pretty much Suvorov in SPAAACE! with bits of Konev thrown in. The only detail they differ on is Chenkov's moustache. Both are brutal, ruthless, prefer front-line command, overly fond of charge and distraction charge at superior enemy with nothing but bayonets, improbably efficient against every reason to fail, both ended prolonged and would-be prolonged sieges in one decisive storm. Also both got a lot of shiny medals and are whitewashed by their compatriots despite being ruthless butchers at best. Especially Suvorov. But then again, Genghis Khan is worshipped in Mongolia.

Suvorov in a nutshell: Enemy fortress? Chaaarge! Enemy surrenders? Kill them all. Squad routed? Kill them all! Civic unrest? Poles/Turks being uppity? Kill them all!!! Lacking artillery? Seize enemy batteries. Allied commander feeling queasy? Bayonet him! Unpassable terrain (brass-balls freezing mountains) ahead? Fuck rules, it's passable.

Some quotes: "The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap" "Death is better than the defensive" - on defensive warfare. "The more comfort the less courage there is" - on his troops' living conditions. "Europe says that I am a monster. I myself have read this in the papers, but I would have liked to talk to people about this and ask them: is it not better to finish a war with the death of 7,000 people rather than to drag it on and kill 100,000" - might as well have been said by Chenkov. Note that this was said about the bloody suppression of unrest in a single polish suburb, thus relatively small causalities. Also note that those are his own estimates. Poles still try to convince the world that he butchered 13,000 to 26,000 of them in the process.

Suvorov dying of old age (he was 69, so poisoned on jelly Tzar's orders, more likely, no ill nor weather had ever stopped him before) was the only reason Napoleon got to Moscow. Well that, and Russian commanders being utter shit, but for a few exceptions when they weren't?

Konev's bits are "modern" ideas of Chenkov, like rapid defusing of the minefields via penal company, or tarpitting the enemy deathstar so the artillery can blast it to smithereens.

Should we mention that in the article, or maybe past this at the end of it?

You fail to mention that he only lost 500 men out of the 25000 total when charging said artillery, while his enemy lost over 20 thousand out of his 100. Suvorov was a genius strategist and tactician who favored aggressive tactics, frequently achieving victory with smaller forces. He didn't pelt the enemy lines with an endless supply of troops. As for his reputation for that one suburb storm, the infamy comes from the army robbing the town. Suvorov claimed he that forbade the army from doing any harm to the civilians and that the army broke his orders.
About Suvorov-Chenkov analogy: imagine the latter saying "They say one experienced soldier worth 3 recruits, but it's wrong, he's worth 6, no, 10 enemies! In last campaign enemy lost 75 thousands, while we didn't lose even one!" or "Where in some armies 1 out of hundered man dies of attrition, in mine it's one of five hundreds". Also, yeah, would like historical proof on "rapid defusing of the minefields via penal company" --Flutist (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Regardless I feel as though some mebtion could be made at the end of the article, though it should be kept brief. Interesting as this read was I feel as though too much info in the article proper would be unnecessary and wasteful. Redmaw (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't deserve a mention because the similarity basically ends at "they're both military officers and they both liked being on the offensive". Chenkov throws people at enemies until he wins, Suvorov identified the enemy's weak points and deployed forces to attack them. Hell, he even had a Creed moment during the battle of Cassano when he infiltrated some forces over the river and disrupted the enemy formation by unexpectedly striking the center, winning him the battle.

Cleaning this page[edit]

If nobody has an objections I’m going to do a bit of a clean and purge of this page to remove the unnecessary crap

I'm not sure what's crap needs to be removed. The page has two sections that give two alternate takes on the character. Neither seems particularly bad. Phas (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)