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...