NationStates Jolt Archive

ah no i have got it, it just didnt show up on my MSN messenger thingy. thankyou.

...how many slides?

It would seem that you have the rong slide show, that was my rough edition, the finished article is on my pen drive, sorry about that :( .....i can email you the full and completed version on tuesday when i return to school, but no sooner :( there should be 18 slides of stuff.

It would seem that you have the rong slide show, that was my rough edition, the finished article is on my pen drive, sorry about that :( .....i can email you the full and completed version on tuesday when i return to school, but no sooner :( there should be 18 slides of stuff.

i was gonna say i was looking forward to reading about horrocks and frost. also i liked the detail about various commanders dogs. hehe

I'm going to have to go with George S Patton. As proof you better just go to the Patton historical society website. Patton Historical Society (http://www.pattonhq.com/homeghq.html)

i was gonna say i was looking forward to reading about horrocks and frost. also i liked the detail about various commanders dogs. hehe

Then my freind you shall receive the finished version ontuesday...but you must email me in tuesday to remind me as i have a memory like a sive...i have to go now...because i have fencing on saterday evenings 4:30 -7:30, so cheeryo
it was nice meeting you and i shall endevor to get you the finished item :)

Then my freind you shall receive the finished version ontuesday...but you must email me in tuesday to remind me as i have a memory like a sive...i have to go now...because i have fencing on saterday evenings 4:30 -7:30, so cheeryo
it was nice meeting you and i shall endevor to get you the finished item :)


woohoo! ok i will.

nice meeting you too.

Umm, Britain would have been totally screwed without the US. And if Germany wouldn't have started their attack on the Soviet Union, they could have easily prepared an attack on Britain (they would probably have started from Norway and invaded in Scotland, btw). But yeah, it was due to that unsolvable two fronts dilemma. Germany however primarily lost because they were outnumbered by Soviets and because they failed to maintain the technological advantage they had at the beginning of the war (instead they spent their resources useless gadgets such as the V2). Oh, and their logistics were also pathetic. Even the Soviet Union had better logistics despite their massive losses they had during the begin of the war.

PS: i recommend reading "Why the Allies won" by Richard Overy. It's good read on that topic. :)
Bah German Logistical command was excellent but there means of excecuting was poor due to not enough supply vehicles.
America wanted to invade Europe straight away Churchill said they were nuts and refused to participate forcing the Yanks hand and making Operation Gymnast priority.

I have came in late to this topic but I have to say that Hitler was probably the worst military leader ever, he had an highly organised and powerful military but he failed to use it properly. He had the opportunity to turn all of Russia against Stalin, they were on the edge of uprising and he went in and slaughtered the jews and pretty much managed to unite the entire country against him in one week, which led to the Nazi's defeated at Stalingrad. He was fighting stupid insignificant wars all over europe, why in the hell did he go to Africa?
Anyway on the topic of best commanders I would probably say Alexander, although he drew on the innovations of his father (Philip 2nd) and other commanders he managed to use the phalanx charge tactic for his hoplites to defeat armies up to three times his size, such as Darius's chariots.

yeah i thought tedder was in there somewhere. also i thnk a british admiral was in charge of the naval forces.

what did ike do to leigh mallory? i dont like leigh mallory becase he didnt like keith park, the commander of 11 group RAF fighter command, who took the brunt of the battle of britain, and in my opinion the saviour of the modern free world.
Keith Park NZer
Someone forgot New Zealand too as an Ally.

Australia Canada New Zealand The Carribean all British Empire Pacific Islands
HAwaii.

The Finnish Field Marshall C.G.E. Mannerheim of course! remember Finnish winter war 1939-40 and continuation war 1941-44! Without him and the finnish army we would be a part of Russia! :sniper:

That's an interesting assumption, but note, Caesar never lost, not once, never. Hannibal did lose: and to whom? The young Scipio who had little military experience. Hannibal's victories relied on overconfidence in his enemy, something Caesar didn't have. Even at Canae, Hannibal's greatest victory, the results might have been different if the Consuls hadn't left behind all of their reserves as a statement of confidence. But it's useless to speculate, all we can do is go by win loss record.


The means and not the ends are what determine skill. Rocky Marciano went undefeated, but no one calls him the greatest heavyweight ever. Some things are despite, and not because of. Gaius Julius Caesar had much more manpower to work with, legions transformed by centuries of experience, uniformity in his forces, took on no Empires, merely single enemies and disparate Gauls. Military historians will tell you that Caesar's success rested on his force of personality, his charisma, his indomitable will, which were considerable. What close study will also reveal is that none of his specific tactics were particularly innovative or revolutionary, or even masterful in the context of others at the time. Hannibal, on the other hand, did nothing but innovate, nothing but face one of the most ridiculously uphill battles of all time, and wreak havoc on the Italian peninsula for over two decades, right in the middle of an empire, far from his supply bases, a sea away from a home which essentially did not support him at all, traversing the Alps, with an army composed of Gauls, Iberians, and Chatti which he personally had to not only recruit but organize on the spot. His victories are not lessened by the rigidity of tight, phalanx-style opposing forces, but all the more impressive, because it shows that he, above all others, was the first to utilize mobile warfare, virtually creating the concepts of flanking, encirclement, and devising one of the most ingenius deception plans in the sabotage he set at Lake Trasimene.

Scipio Africanus Major, by the way, was hardly inexperienced. His father was a consul, and taught him all the finer points. Scipio was at his side at Ticinus, and actually saved his father from certain death. He was also at Cannae; therefore, he had insight into Hannibal's tactics, and was able to not only break the legions down into smaller units of more flexible maniples to imitate Hannibal, but gave him the great advantage of knowing his enemy while his enemy knew little of him until Zama. Scipio was also given command in Iberia, and successfully cut off Hannibal's supply lines, and intercepted the Barcid Hasdrubal, and destroyed his forces in a pitched battle. He also commanded the legions in their ambush of a Carthaginian army during the Syphax/Massanissa affair before Zama. Beyond his experience, he himself had a brilliant, innovative mind, exhibited in the great organization his army showed by breaking into separate squares during Zama, not only allowing the 80 war elephants Hannibal now had to run through without casualties to Rome, but eventually managing to even turn several on the Carthaginians themselves. Your portrayal of Scipio as some inexperienced goofball is way off; this was a clash of two of the most brilliant military minds in the ancient world. Relying on a record of success and failure itself is inadequate in the judgment of leadership, due to the great influence of mitigating factors which were truly out of the control of the noted leaders. Caesar was important as hell, all but singlehandedly subdued Gaul, there is no doubt he was a great leader, but on a battlefield with equal forces, he was not close to being in the class of Scipio, Hannibal, Domitius Corbulo, or even Trajan. His record wouldn't mean shit then, it would come down to specific strategems and tactics, and he was inferior in that regard; he just was.


This debating over whether England won the war or the US won the war is ridiculously naive. Operation Torch, all of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, it was all a ruse to keep the Russians fighting and taking the brunt of the Wehrmacht. Given that Russia had no choice but to achieve total victory or repeat 1917, they knew that they could stall while Russia and Germany beat each other into the ground. The US certainly lost plenty of men; England, especially her city dwellers, went through hell; it was nothing, however, compared to actually being occupied by Germany, including but not limited to Russia. Living in London was a dream vacation compared to living through the siege of Leningrad, bearing the horror of the Einsatzgruppen, Heydrich, Eichmann, and the rest. It is important not to diminish the significance of Overlord, and even Torch and Italy, but in terms of comparison, there almost is none. The sheer numbers on the Eastern Front are just staggering. Kursk, Kharkhov (I and II), the fighting around the Pripyat Marshes, Lvov, of course fighting around the Don and Stalingrad, Rostov, Moscow, Leningrad, Sandomierz, Murmansk, Voronezh, Dnepropetrovsk, Smolensk; do most of these sound familiar? Of course not, outside Stalingrad etc., for the same reasons we pretend the war was fought and won beginning June 6, 1944. Even considering lend-lease, in terms of total capital exhausted, land conceded and won back, length and scale of fighting, manpower lost, civilian casualties equaled out, the percentage of personal cost and contribution to success in the war won falls at about 56% Russian, 28% American, 15% English, and 3% other countries. In terms of manpower alone, without consulting specific sources, we're approaching 10-1 or higher ratios. We rationalize this by saying that the Russians just carelessly threw men at Germany in massive uncoordinated waves, which cost them more, and this is a great falsehood. Russia was not only killing Germany on the production, manpower, and axes of advance fronts, but they were actually outfighting them on the operational and tactical levels, with EQUAL numbers, against dug in, defensive enemies from the Bagration offensive onward and even before. They certainly had come a long way since 40, and may have been helped by Hitler's insistence on static defense, but the fact remains. The issue of what effect an unencumbered Germany with better leadership and one front would have had on the planning of OKW and the Stavka, and the resulting outcome is open for debate remains open for debate, but what is not is that World War II as the non-Russian world recognizes it would have been a cream-puff dream compared to what we would have faced without Hitler's obsession for Lebensraum. H.P. Wilmott has even suggested that Germany's axes of advance in the Eastern Front would have been identical throughout Barbarossa even had it been a one front affair, and that the reserves gained would have not been possible to employ outside reinforcing later doomed divisions, and in defensive measures in a lost war. As it was, Greece, England, Africa, and the other distractions notwithstanding, the war on the Eastern Front would have looked very similar (though lend-lease certainly helped Russia). The idea that additional manpower for Germany would have made the difference is fallacious. I can't explain it for shit compared to Wilmott, but he sold me on it.

I am not only outraged, but also personally offended by the exclusion of the great Mongol leader, who started with next to nothing, and gained half of the world known at the time. I am so inspired by his work that i have created a crude simulation game of his many conquests. The only copy, however, belongs to Sector Y. This is because i trashed my old comp and he is the only one who got a copy.

That's adorable. You're so confrontational. What, pray tell, haven't I addressed? I simply said that Caesar victories were more due to his cunning than his military intelligence.

Military cunning, yes. You make him out to be some sort of armchair general when he was a field commander who fought by the side of his troops. Also, yes, I will be confrontational to any pretend classics major who cops out to become an "ancient history with Rome focus."

Et Tu, Sdaeriji? I've got a highly confrontational poster all over me on another thread. Is it something in the air? In the water? I know I brought mine on myself (half on purpose, half-jokingly) but still, is it a fiesty one.

Having read Julius Caesar's "the Conquest of Gaul" (annotated, unfortunately) I can say that he writes of considerable reverses in the courses of his wars, but he expertly shifts the focus of the blame to his commanders and allies. Whenever HE is present, he wins.

Still, we must remind ourselves that Caesar's achievements were recorded...by Caesar. His every word is clearly meant to bring him fame, as was the fashion at the time. To rely on his undefeated record as factual is a little much.

Yet his victories are substantiated by other historical evidence, the fact that he did indeed annex Gaul and return with his forces nearly unscathed would indicate that he didn't suffer defeat, plus, none of his political enemies found any witness at the time to disprove his account (and I'm sure they would leap at the chance). Remember too that Caesar didn't just kill a lot of backwater tribesmen, his victories against Pompey and his ilk during the civil war were quite impressive, considering how outnumbered he was against them.

The greatest battlefield leader of all times is John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough.

but who invaded france? us british of course-who else?

Hitler. ;)

But he still was the worst leader ever. If he give the contract for jet fighters to Hienkel Aircraft Works (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Heinkel/Aero57.htm) instead of Messerschmitt (Hienkel devloped the first jet aircraft that could be made into a jet fighter, the Hienkel He-177, one week BEFORE the start of World War II, but Hitler refused to use it), and Hitler didn't foolishly invade Russia, Germany would of won World War II.

My vote is for my favorite general, Rommel! But Patton also was good. And the movie by the same name is terrific as well.

Hienkel He-177 (http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/HEINHE-178.htm):
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Heinkel/Aero57G2.jpg

Cyrus the Great of Persia.

Conquered Media, Lydia, Bactria, and to top it all off, took Babylon. Used tactics never before seen - fought (regularly) in winter, used camels (to incredible effect against Lydia) and even diverted entire rivers. Most of that was done before there was a single Persian city. Provided inspiration for Alexander, and created the first super-empire, on which Rome was based.

Hitler. ;)

But he still was the worst leader ever. If he give the contract for jet fighters to Hienkel Aircraft Works (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Heinkel/Aero57.htm) instead of Messerschmitt (Hienkel devloped the first jet aircraft that could be made into a jet fighter, the Hienkel He-177, one week BEFORE the start of World War II, but Hitler refused to use it), and Hitler didn't foolishly invade Russia, Germany would of won World War II.

My vote is for my favorite general, Rommel! But Patton also was good. And the movie by the same name is terrific as well.

Hienkel He-177 (http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/HEINHE-178.htm):
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Heinkel/Aero57G2.jpg
Ah yes but its similar to the heavy Bomber problem Germany had in 1935 they built up a large airforce quickly which is what they needed to do and so they went with many 2 engine(god i almost said wing :eek: )bombers instead of Condors.

Just like Britain in early 1940 chosing to continue producing 2 pounder guns instead of the 6 pounder because they could produce 600 2 pounders but to switch production to 6's would only allow 200 a month to be made.

Ah yes but its similar to the heavy Bomber problem Germany had in 1935 they built up a large airforce quickly which is what they needed to do and so they went with many 2 engine(god i almost said wing :eek: )bombers instead of Condors.

Just like Britain in early 1940 chosing to continue producing 2 pounder guns instead of the 6 pounder because they could produce 600 2 pounders but to switch production to 6's would only allow 200 a month to be made.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a small jet fighter made as fast as a small propeller fighting, assuming they have the BMW jet engines for the planes? ("BMW engines" that always makes me laugh! :)).

And the funny thing is those "two engine bombers" you're talking about were also made by the same aircraft company as the first jet fighter, Hienkel. The He-111 was the bomber. The He-177 was the jet. (Wait! I forgot about Junker Aircraft (Pronouced YUNKER! NOT JUNKER!). They also made a popular two engine bomber, the Ju-88. And they made the Ju-87 Stuka single engine dive bomber. My favorite airplane. I need to buy one later on in life!)

Germany would've had more time if the war had been a one front affair, and the fact that they would've deployed jet aircraft en masse years ahead of any foreign force by 1945 would've given them control of the skies, and ultimately the direction of the war.

Some info on this guy might have been posted since he was mentioned.. I didnt go through all the pages to see. If not then...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/manstein.html


I'm not listing it to say he was the best, just linking a couple of pages since hardley any (including me) had even heard of him.

This debating over whether England won the war or the US won the war is ridiculously naive.

erm, we werent debating over who won the war, we were confirming that lots of countries had equal parts to play in the defeat of nazi germany.

Gog, the cro magnum, when he got Gig and Gug together to beat the hell out of Ug, Ag, and Ig, for access to Mag, Mug, and Mog. Of course, Gig was the power behind the throne, but history will remember the Mighty Gog, nonetheless.

Hitler's refusel to accept his own lack of military ability caused the Germans to lose the Eastern Front far quicker than they would have otherwise.
Rommel was the best of his generals.

Rommel was a good general with a fine tactical feel. He did, however, have a lack of talent in the grand strategy area and was weak on logistical matters. He also was pretty good about puffing up his own accomplishments to look better than he was. In short, the was the German version of Montgomery. :p Read The Trail of the Fox for more details about Rommel that aren't always what we as Americans grew up knowing to be true.

Bradley, Zhukov, ID White... now, those were great generals. Patton and LeClerc were pretty good too. :) Yes, I just named a French general, me, of all people.

er Julius Caeser Hello??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a small jet fighter made as fast as a small propeller fighting, assuming they have the BMW jet engines for the planes? ("BMW engines" that always makes me laugh! :)).

And the funny thing is those "two engine bombers" you're talking about were also made by the same aircraft company as the first jet fighter, Hienkel. The He-111 was the bomber. The He-177 was the jet. (Wait! I forgot about Junker Aircraft (Pronouced YUNKER! NOT JUNKER!). They also made a popular two engine bomber, the Ju-88. And they made the Ju-87 Stuka single engine dive bomber. My favorite airplane. I need to buy one later on in life!)
You are correct but they didnt have time to switch production.
Its also funny to see Hitler when first seeing a 'Modern' Tank said this is what i want(or whatever)
He was talking about the Panzer I!
But he did his best at least hes not Mussolini. :D

Some info on this guy might have been posted since he was mentioned.. I didnt go through all the pages to see. If not then...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein


http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/manstein.html


I'm not listing it to say he was the best, just linking a couple of pages since hardley any (including me) had even heard of him.
Ive heard of him he ws great
Polish child adopted by Prussian Aristocrats he was quite possibly of Jewish origin master of the Eastern Front.

erm, we werent debating over who won the war, we were confirming that lots of countries had equal parts to play in the defeat of nazi germany.


That's fine, but that too is fallacious. Equality can only be applied in abstract senses like "we fought as hard as you" which really mean nothing. In terms of casualties, strategy, logistics, equipment, each country is vastly different, and very close to the percentages I gave (by the intentional design of the western Allies). Contrary to your statement, nobody was "confirming that lots of countries had equal parts to play" either, merely saying "my country won the war" and being retorted with "no, MY country won the war!" in so many words. It was a great effort, good countries came together to destroy genocide and evil, everyone should be commended, let it end there. If you were going to name the one country who was most responsible for the victory, however, it was the Soviet Union, that is beyond dispute.