NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, There has probably already been one of these, but What the Hell? I'm with Rommel.

Rommel was pretty good. Guderin was great as well. The Germans just seemed to get all the best commanders.

Poll Added. Even though I believe that there should be more Germans, I scraped up a Russian Marshal to apease the masses.

I'd say Model, but since he's not in the poll I'd have to go for Rommel and Guderian.

While Guderian did perfect the Blitzkrieg tactics, von Mansteins tactical and strategic genius were unmatched. Liddell, Montgomery and most German generals themselves agreed that he was the most able German commander of the war.

P.S. It's good once in a while to have a poll such as this without names like MacArthur tainting it.

MacArthur is overrated. There were really no tactics involved in the Island Hopping Campaigns, just send a division or two ashore. The European War was where true strategy and tactics comes into play. I get excited just thinking about it. Rommel Versus Monty, Timishenkeno(sp) versus Guderian. Ah, warfare.

MacArthur is overrated. There were really no tactics involved in the Island Hopping Campaigns, just send a division or two ashore.
MacArthur only notable for his tactics because of the landing at Inchon, which itself was at least as lucky as it was brilliant. All the rest of his notoriety is tied up in his ego. Overall, I think he survives as a spectacular example of what one doesn't want in a military commander.

What about Gen. Terry Allen? Seems like nobody knows who he was. He was a peer of Patton's (picked up rank same time and all) but he actually cared about his men surviving. Hell, he credited his men for his promotions, ran recon missions as a high ranking officer, and could be found getting trashed on whiskey with his enlisted men. Now thats a damn leader! He didn't give a rats ass as to if his appearence was spotless while fighting, unlike Patton, who fined an artilleryman for not being in "full uniform" during combat. (He didn't have his shirt on, something i've done during combat.) Terry Allen, a real mans leader....

Yeah, he's a real American General, a Slacker through and through! Patton had that relentless drive that makes for such a great Commander. During Rommel's Romp though France, he once only had half a day's fuel left, but he charged on to the coast, and made it with fuel to Spare. Patton knew that a disiplined soldier made a good soldier. I believe he is the greatest American General of the 20th Century.

Were there any truly great generals in WW2? I mean generals on the scale of Hannibal, Wellington, Scipio? I don't believe so, but it's not my chosen field of history. I'd say Guderian was the closest. Rommel I believe is vastly over-rated. Had he approached the level of the three generals I listed, he shouldn't have had any trouble pushing Monty out of Africa. Monty, I feel is a bit of an unexceptional general. Not bad. Not great. Patton is just a Caesar wannabe, but not the real deal.

Out of those options i go with Fast Heinz.
But Freyberg is the best!
Rommel faled for 2 reasons both can be summed up in one word
ANZAC!

Also, where is Field Marshall the Viscount Slim? A gGeneral who made his way up from the ranks to beat the Japanese out of Burma. He had the brilliant leadership qualities to know when he couldn't win (seldom talked of) when he retreated into India, and then attacked when the time was right....he was so good they made him a Lord (as well as Monty). Slim...underrated genius, loving his work.

Rommel could most deffinatly have won in North Africa had he had the proper supplies. During the Africa Campaign, only 44% of the minimum supplies reached the Axis Troops. That is why Romel didn't reach Suez.

I think people put more emphysyis on Rommel's Africa Campaign, but he was also sucessful in France, twice. His 7th Panzer Division was the Spearhead of Army Group B during the Battle of France in 1940. And he also enjoyed some suecess in Normandy. He managed to keep the Allies bottled up in Normandy for about a month or two, until he was replaced.

While Guderian did perfect the Blitzkrieg tactics, von Mansteins tactical and strategic genius were unmatched. Liddell, Montgomery and most German generals themselves agreed that he was the most able German commander of the war.

P.S. It's good once in a while to have a poll such as this without names like MacArthur tainting it.
Terranus got it right. Manstein was the "best" general in WWII - and that was with Hitler's interference, although Manstein was one of the few who actually had the ability to stand up to Hitler (for a while, anyway).

Terranus got it right. Manstein was the "best" general in WWII - and that was with Hitler's interference, although Manstein was one of the few who actually had the ability to stand up to Hitler (for a while, anyway).
Didn't Hitler send him into a campaign that was bound to fail, just to get rid of him, by pure jaleousy?

When you look at everything you think Germany probably would have just pwned everyones ass had the people in charge not been crazies

Were there any truly great generals in WW2? I mean generals on the scale of Hannibal, Wellington, Scipio? I don't believe so, but it's not my chosen field of history. I'd say Guderian was the closest. Rommel I believe is vastly over-rated. Had he approached the level of the three generals I listed, he shouldn't have had any trouble pushing Monty out of Africa. Monty, I feel is a bit of an unexceptional general. Not bad. Not great. Patton is just a Caesar wannabe, but not the real deal.

Fast Heinz was awesome, but von Manstein was even better. I'd say both deserve to be considered in the same league as those you listed. Guderian for writing the book on modern manuver warfare and von Manstein for applying it best.

Bump.

Yet taking into account these fine German commanders, one cannot ignore that despite their skills, they suffered total defeat on every front when it came to conclusion. You cannot simply pin all of this disaster on Hitler's ruinous meddling, but upon faults made in German operations. Rommel in North Africa for example did great tactical things, but he proved himself utterly unable to function with the supplies that he did have, he constantly outran his inadequate supplies and did not make provision to consolidate where an abler if less daring commander would have been as effective but more cautious. Rommel was simply too aggressive and whittled his army down until at El-Alamein, where consequently Monty had an almost 2-1 superiority in force and had prepared a minutely organized and detailed set-piece battle, his ideal, and gave the Afrika Corps a blow from which it would never recover. Though Manstein for example was a great commander, he still failed in the Caucasus offensive of 1942 because to be frank, Zhukov's strategic plan worked more effectively.

Overall in that war my personal favorites for Generals would be either

George. S Patton
Marshall Zhukov
or the unlisted Vasily Chuikov (the Russian commander of the 62nd Army in Stalingrad and the leader of the final assault on Berlin arguably making him the official "Conqueror of Berlin", these being among his years of notable service as a Soviet Army commander.)

*Bump back to life!*

Manstein

a) Yet taking into account these fine German commanders, one cannot ignore that despite their skills, they suffered total defeat on every front when it came to conclusion.
b) Rommel in North Africa for example did great tactical things, but he proved himself utterly unable to function with the supplies that he did have, he constantly outran his inadequate supplies and did not make provision to consolidate where an abler if less daring commander would have been as effective but more cautious.
c)Though Manstein for example was a great commander, he still failed in the Caucasus offensive of 1942 because to be frank, Zhukov's strategic plan worked more effectively.
a) There were strategic reasons for the total defeat. The generals had nothing to do with it. There comes a point where you cannot win if you're outnumbered 10:1 and the other side has total air superiority.
b) It wasn't his fault that he didn't get the supplies he had. If you would like to check the Afrikakorps at El Alamein, you will see that he had nothing. Desert Warfare does not offer the possibility of "consolidating" anything. Rommel's strength was his superior maneuverability, digging in would have lead to total destruction of the Afrikakorps, as ammunition and fuel was inadequate to stop anything. Add the huge Allied forces in his back and there was no way Rommel could have done anything better than he did.
c) Again, Zhukov's plan had less to do with it than the state the German forces were in compared to what the Soviets had to offer. And what exactly was Zhukov's plan? Stand and hold, no matter what the cost. Great.
========
I would end up saying that the German Generals left the stage unbeaten, for they were no longer provided by the country with an army capable of holding off the onslaught. If you want to find incapable Germans, look at the ones intent on holding places like Breslau.

Once again, somebody's forgotten the Pacific theatre, where the suffering was equal and the war equally difficult.

Once again, somebody's forgotten the Pacific theatre, where the suffering was equal and the war equally difficult.
Well, all in all - I doubt it.
Sure people died, but it wasn't the scale, nor was it of the importance of what was happening in Europe.

Well, all in all - I doubt it.
Sure people died, but it wasn't the scale, nor was it of the importance of what was happening in Europe.

!#!@#$^!#$%!@!@%!@%!@!

Heard of the Nanjing Massacre lately? What about slave labour with Allied prisoners? Chemical and biological tests on Chinese civilians?

See this?

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics41/78266h.jpg

My GAAAWD, you!

!#!@#$^!#$%!@!@%!@%!@!
.
.
.
My GAAAWD, you!
:D
Got you angry there, didn't I? Don't take it too seriously ;)
I know about the atrocities that happened, and I don't mean to discount them. But General-wise, what does the Asian Theatre have to offer? Admirals, maybe but actual land generals? The armies used were tiny (in comparison), the only space where operations could actually be done was in China, and there we had small and brutal Japanese units fight what amounted to little more than armed peasants. Impressive, yes, but no great Generals of the calibre of a Guderian or Manstein.
Sorry if my unwisely chosen tone angered you though. One could see my comment as ethnocentric to an almost Chinese extent....
:p

:D
Got you angry there, didn't I? Don't take it too seriously ;)
I know about the atrocities that happened, and I don't mean to discount them. But General-wise, what does the Asian Theatre have to offer? Admirals, maybe but actual land generals? The armies used were tiny (in comparison), the only space where operations could actually be done was in China, and there we had small and brutal Japanese units fight what amounted to little more than armed peasants. Impressive, yes, but no great Generals of the calibre of a Guderian or Manstein.
Sorry if my unwisely chosen tone angered you though. One could see my comment as ethnocentric to an almost Chinese extent....
:p

...

Your attitude could have been the same if I waved the Holocaust away like that, no?

Mao Zedong was a good commander - better than Chiang Kaishek at least...

What about Japanese admiral Yamamoto? He pulled off Pearl Harbor quite significantly.

1. Your attitude could have been the same if I waved the Holocaust away like that, no?
2. What about Japanese admiral Yamamoto? He pulled off Pearl Harbor quite significantly.
1. Actually, I'd be happy if people could leave that behind them already. I'm so sick of it influencing everything that my country does...which doesn't mean that I don't think it was a horrible thing to happen. (You always have to add that - otherwise people call you "Nazi"...)
2. And since it says "Commander of WWII", he would be a valid addition. But there is still the matter of a maximum of 10 points in a poll...

1. Actually, I'd be happy if people could leave that behind them already. I'm so sick of it influencing everything that my country does...which doesn't mean that I don't think it was a horrible thing to happen. (You always have to add that - otherwise people call you "Nazi"...)
2. And since it says "Commander of WWII", he would be a valid addition. But there is still the matter of a maximum of 10 points in a poll...

1. Actually, no. We need to learn from history. But it is unfair to "blame it all on Germany", because Germans are humans too, and everybody in the human race may one day be capable of conducting such an atrocity. It's a collective lesson, not just for Europeans.

2. I've never heard of Bradley. Have you?

1. Actually, no....
2. I've never heard of Bradley. Have you?
1. Read any random copy of "Die Zeit" for example, and you'll know what I mean. One can take it too far...
2. Actually I have, he was an incompetent moron. But Americans like to hear their kinds in a list like this. Same reason that Patton is in there. Having thousands of planes win a battle for you isn't tactical skill in my opinion, but I won't bother - I'll already cop enough flak for just saying that one.

1. Read any random copy of "Die Zeit" for example, and you'll know what I mean. One can take it too far...
2. Actually I have, he was an incompetent moron. But Americans like to hear their kinds in a list like this. Same reason that Patton is in there. Having thousands of planes win a battle for you isn't tactical skill in my opinion, but I won't bother - I'll already cop enough flak for just saying that one.

1. Well, of course there is radical opinion. Ignore the idiots. Let's all be progressive and intelligient centrists.

2. YAH! I DEMAND AN ASIAN PUT INTO THE POLL FOR IT TO BE OBJECTIVE!

Well, of course there is radical opinion. Ignore the idiots. Let's all be progressive and intelligient centrists.
"Die Zeit" means "The Times". It is not a radical newspaper. They are intelligent centrists, and yet they cannot cut the connection, after so many years.

and there we had small and brutal Japanese units fight what amounted to little more than armed peasants.
You'll actually find that even though indeed there was a guerrilla war, the war in China was on a scale far larger than what you would call "small units vs. armed peasants", and that many overlooks the Chinese strategy of - at the first parts of the war - "trading space for time". The Chinese ground forces were stronger in terms of numbers (the numbers of Chinese divisions were almost five times those of the invading Japanese divisions), with little backing from mechanized ground forces, a small air force, and a very small navy, there were still an evident gap. Despite this and the fact that many Chinese troops were unexperienced at that time, the determined resistance that were put up by the Chinese forces not only delayed the Japanese forces' schedule, but inflicted huge casulties as well. The Battle of Shanghai, despite a Chinese defeat, was a prime example.

...Despite this and the fact that many Chinese troops were unexperienced at that time, the determined resistance that were put up by the Chinese forces not only delayed the Japanese forces' schedule, but inflicted huge casulties as well. The Battle of Shanghai, despite a Chinese defeat, was a prime example.
And as I said: impressive.
However, are there any commanders there that qualify to go on the list - of the calibre of a Guderian or Manstein?
If there are: Why aren't they on the list? Grrr...how horrible :p

George S. Patton was undefeated everywhere he fought. He was a walking and talking encyclopedia of historical military and tactical knowledge.

"Die Zeit" means "The Times". It is not a radical newspaper. They are intelligent centrists, and yet they cannot cut the connection, after so many years.
Okay okay. I don't know any German. By your tone I assumed it was radical...SORRY!

George S. Patton was undefeated everywhere he fought. He was a walking and talking encyclopedia of historical military and tactical knowledge.
Wow. A shame he didn't get to use any of it, hey?

Who was it that said:
"Adversity reveals the genius of a general, good fortune conceals it."?

I vote Rommel.
He curbstomps them all :p

Ummm...excuse me? Where's Yamamoto? I do believe he deserves to be on that list! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Well, all in all - I doubt it.
Sure people died, but it wasn't the scale, nor was it of the importance of what was happening in Europe.
Yeah it was the reason why America got Militarily involved in WWII.
And the Batte Of Manners Street was influentual in the turning of the war.

Patton was all Hat and No cattle.
Conninghams Fighters and Bombers won it for him.

You'll actually find that even though indeed there was a guerrilla war, the war in China was on a scale far larger than what you would call "small units vs. armed peasants", and that many overlooks the Chinese strategy of - at the first parts of the war - "trading space for time". The Chinese ground forces were stronger in terms of numbers (the numbers of Chinese divisions were almost five times those of the invading Japanese divisions), with little backing from mechanized ground forces, a small air force, and a very small navy, there were still an evident gap. Despite this and the fact that many Chinese troops were unexperienced at that time, the determined resistance that were put up by the Chinese forces not only delayed the Japanese forces' schedule, but inflicted huge casulties as well. The Battle of Shanghai, despite a Chinese defeat, was a prime example.

Although there was quite a large number of soldiers in China, after the bootkicking the Japanese gave the Nationalists from the coastal areas in 1937 until the institution of the Ichi-Go Offensive in 1944, there was minimal fighting, especially given the vast number of troops. The Communists didn't really do to much that was in a coordinated effort (I'm sure someone can cite various battles, but given the time and number of troops, there should be a lot more), though I will cut them some slack because they were in a very remote region of China at the time. The Nationalists likewise did not make significant attempts against the Japanese until the Japanese forced thier hand with the Ichi-Go Offensive, after they were effectively defeated in 1937-38.

The only times the Chinese made significant moves were in the attempts to reopen the Burma Road (Which were at the urging of the US and Britain, and led by a US General, Stilwell) and the responses to the Ichi-Go Offensive and eventual offensives when Japan was crumbling.

Ummm...excuse me? Where's Yamamoto? I do believe he deserves to be on that list! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:


He didn't really do anything that great though. Sure, he planned the Pearl Harbor attack (he didn't lead it), but then he proceeded to follow through with several inept strategies. Despite the fact that he could've beefed up the Midway Force, he didn't, instead spreading out his carriers in useless "masking" endeavors instead of concentrating all of them as at Pearl Harbor. He also failed to keep the Americans back until his death. And maybe he guessed at the outcome of the war. but that speaks volumes against him that he actually planned to start one.

I vote Rommel.
He curbstomps them all :p


He might've been incredibly charismatic, but he really is not as great as most would consider. He definitely earns credit for his feats in World War I, but some of the things he is celebrated for are just ludicrous. First, his use of the 88mm guns of his flak battalion to stop the British at Arras was not revolutionary, and in fact was doctrine. Why else would the 88's be able to depress that low, or be supplied with AT ammunition.

His war in North Africa, where to start. His dramatic reversal when he first arrived was more to do with the British leaving a pitiful force to defend Cyrenica by funneling divisions into the hapless adventure in Greece. After his second reversal, he seriously overextended himself, and he engaged the British in the First Battle of El Alamein (or the Battle of Alam El Halfa, same thing), a decisive defeat. He never grasped the idea of logistics (which is why I find Manstein far superior to him), so vital to fighting in the Desert. To him, it was always someone else's priority to get supplies to him. He would complain about his lack of supplies, and if he only had a few more he could push on. But he always left his supply corps in a horrible position, and did little to prepare them for any of his offensives. He didn't devote many resources to securing forward ports (Tobruk being a prime example) to ease them either (though granted there were other things preventing that too).

In Italy, Kesselring's strategy proved the right one over Rommel's, not really too much to say about that. In France, he really showed his poor understanding of Logistics. He wanted those panzer divisions right on the beach, but he didn't care for the fact that if he moved them, he would clog the roads (what were left) to prevent supply from moving to the fighting divisions, or that there was little chance of his armoured forces being supplied given the state of the French infrastructure network in the North in '44. Furthermore, had he gotten his way,p they would have moved as fast as possible, which means also in daylight, a godsend for the wandering Air Forces of the Western Allies. It would have been a nice little present to Spaatz.

George S. Patton was undefeated everywhere he fought. He was a walking and talking encyclopedia of historical military and tactical knowledge.

Of pretty much beat your head against something until it breaks. His campaign on Sicily, while successful, was at a cost that far outweighed the few days saved. In Normandy, he wanted to hook further around the Germans, which could have spelled disaster for an entire Corps (the farthest south, which he wanted to swing further around). For starters, that Corps moving further away means it cannot support holding in the Mortain counterattack, so if the Germans push the Corps holding them at Mortain out of the way (likely withot the support of the southern forces), then the US forces are now surrounded in the South.

His actions later in the war get worse, such as stealing supplies form other armies. That is outright insubordination, the Commander decides the strategy, not Patton. There is always the Task Force Baum incident, throwing away hundreds of men to save one person for personal reasons? The man deserved a court martial.

is it possible to name the best tactician?

surely you cannot judge the best, as especially in modern warfare technology gave different generals "more to play with"

ie german tanks in both wars were far superior.

also how u define a great general, (gains minus losses?), surely no WW general could claim to have gained anything worth the slaughters that took place.

Rommel :mp5: Monty

Voted for Monty :D

1. ie german tanks in both wars were far superior.
2. also how u define a great general, (gains minus losses?), surely no WW general could claim to have gained anything worth the slaughters that took place.
1. Meh, check your facts first.
2. Well, I guess you can define them by what they did in a military kind of sense. Where they successful in achieving their objectives? What obstacles did they have to deal with?
But I agree, I'd rather not have a war than a war I'd win.

Bernard Montgomery
Erich von Manstein
Heinz Guderian
Erwin Rommel
Georgi Zhukov
Chuikov
Harold Alexander
Aleksandr Vasilevsky(Battle of Kursk)
And the Soviet General alongside Zhukov in the advance on Berlin whose name I shamefully forget. Timoshenko?

George S. Patton was undefeated everywhere he fought.


Did not make a him a great General. Just lucky. Strategy was not his strong point.


He was a walking and talking encyclopedia of historical military and tactical knowledge.

He talked. He did not walk. Had he been great, US troop casualties would have been lower. He just charged troops in until they broke through. No strategy or genius there. That man is overated. Big time.

is it possible to name the best tactician?

surely you cannot judge the best, as especially in modern warfare technology gave different generals "more to play with"

ie german tanks in both wars were far superior.

That last line is a highly debatable claim. The French Somua S-35s and Char B1s were more than a match tank-for-tank for the German vehicles, but were deployed in such an insane fashion (spread all over the lines rather than concentrated) that they were little more than speedbumps during the initial Blitzkreig. Post-fall of France we see the T-34s coming into service which were once again more than a match for German tanks.

The Germans really only had superiority during the war when it came to heavy tanks such as the Tigers, but the fact that they were being out-produced by the allies neutralised this advantage. The fact that it took on average about 6 or 7 Ronsons to take out a Tiger may seem like a weakness for the Allies, but matters little if you are able to pour that many tanks into the frontlines and keep them supplied.

Even towards the end of the war the German one-on-one superiority as far as heavy tanks goes disappeared with the coming of the Josef Stalins and the Pershings.

Wow. A shame he didn't get to use any of it, hey?

Who was it that said:
"Adversity reveals the genius of a general, good fortune conceals it."?Excuse me? The man practically steamrolled over any oppositition encountered in WW2. And his turning of the 3rd Army in Bastogne to save the surrounded 101st Airborne was one of the most brilliant military manuevers of all time.
Did not make a him a great General. Just lucky. Strategy was not his strong point.

He talked. He did not walk. Had he been great, US troop casualties would have been lower. He just charged troops in until they broke through. No strategy or genius there. That man is overated. Big time.
Maybe later today I'll post some information on the man. A very well written biography into the military genious that was George Patton.

Not to mention that his 3rd Army suffered the lowest death rate in all of the occupying forces in France and that the D-Day invasion was loosely based on his leadership on his flank of the North African and Sicilian invasion.

Patton, definatly Patton

...
And the Soviet General alongside Zhukov in the advance on Berlin whose name I shamefully forget. Timoshenko?
Do you mean Ivan Konev (or Koniev), who commanded the First Ukrainian Front, or Commander of the Second Belorussian Front Konstantin Rokossovsky?

Ahh Konev, to get an idea of this man...He was Stalin's favorite general, Stalin actually admired this man for his ruthlessness towards the enemy... How this was achieved one can only imagine... the crushing of several encircled German pockets of resistance in early 1944 are indicative of his tactics.


As for the criticism of Zhukov, his strategic planning for Operation Uranus...the Russian counterattack north and south of Stalingrad which led to the destruction of the German 6th Army, 4th Panzer Army, and several axis-ally armies, was a stroke of strategic genius, completely reversed the southern area of the Eastern Front...far from simply holding on at all costs...actually it was turning the Germans' earlier strategy of pincer envelopment against them...

As for the contention that the Russians had air superiority, the Red Airforce was never comparable to the other allied air arms, and was never able to achieve superiority for most of the war, though it managed to eventually offset the Luftwaffe once Germany's air resources were primarily concentrated on the air war in the west against the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command bomber offensives. On ground forces, though Russia had greater reserves, actual mobilization especially after the ruinous losses of 1941 was roughly equal 4 million axis on the front vs 4 million Red Army soldiers, this gradually shifted slightly in the Soviet Union's favor as it was able to replace its losses (which after 1941 again shrank to eventually nearly equal the Axis losses sometime in 1943-44). Leading to Operation Bagration where because of German redeployment of many divisions to Normandy led to a significant superiority of combat divisions in the area of the offensive, spelling doom for Army Group Centre...anyway, I do feel that the German commanders, though quite skillful are overrated.

Any particular reason the Japanese have been excluded from this poll? :rolleyes:
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto; Without a doubt.

He didn't really do anything that great though. Sure, he planned the Pearl Harbor attack (he didn't lead it)
Sure, he just made an attack that most commanders would have thought impossible. Americans brag how we "discovered" the power of the Aircraft carrier after being forced to use them after Pearl Harbor. We didn't "discover" the Aircraft carrier's power, it ran up to us and bit us in the ass!
Despite the fact that he could've beefed up the Midway Force, he didn't, instead spreading out his carriers in useless "masking" endeavors instead of concentrating all of them as at Pearl Harbor.
He outnumbered the Midway force. Also he demanded more forces for Midway, other commanders refused him.
And maybe he guessed at the outcome of the war. but that speaks volumes against him that he actually planned to start one.
This would probably be a good time to point out that he was one of the most outspoken critics of a war with america. But yeah it speaks volumes against him that the decision was out of his hands :rolleyes:

And his turning of the 3rd Army in Bastogne to save the surrounded 101st Airborne was one of the most brilliant military manuevers of all time.
Oh, you mean when the bad weather stopped and the USAF could finally fly again?

Oh, you mean when the bad weather stopped and the USAF could finally fly again?No... it was more around the time when Patton turned his 3rd Army 270º degrees inward and away from the line to save fellow american soldiers. Hit the books you'll get there someday.

No... it was more around the time
a) when Patton turned his 3rd Army 270º degrees inward and away from the line...
b) to save fellow american soldiers...
c) Hit the books you'll get there someday.
a) Oh bloody hell...moving your army around is not a great maneuvre. Generals did that since the beginning of time
b) Well, in that case...his intentions make him a great tactician?
c) Ohh, now I'm impressed. The entire war effort of the Allies depended on the USAF. Everytime there was resistance...it got bombed. The soldiers then collected what was left.
And you will find that the offensive in the Ardennes pretty much reads as a case study on how bad weather can turn a battle. Weather got better - swoosh, German forces were bombed to bits again.

And BTW I am seemingly not the only one who thinks Patton was a halfwit, a pompous moron and one that was quite happy to send his boys into death because he couldn't think of a tactic for the time being...

If that's the way you feel about Patton... let me tell you that you are wrong.
The German's feared one general above all others... and that was Patton.

I will prove you are wrong... later on in the day. Check back for uptades. ;)

i reckon zhukov was the best seeing as he never lost a battle

The German's feared one general above all others... and that was Patton.
Unlikely. If there was one man the German generals feared, it was Hitler, not a dyslexic farm boy with a bad temper.

Fact is also, the move of Patton's army was not actually very revolutionary at all, as he had ordered it previously to speaking to Eisenhower, thus it was half way complete when Eisenhower gave the order for it.

Fact is also that he couldn't control himself, that he supported hatred in his forces (making him indirectly responsible for the death of dozens of POWs) and that he slapped his own men.

Fact is also that he probably had brain damage from his many horse- and car accidents.

And fact is that Germany was in no position to defend itself in the West when it had a war to fight in the East.

All in all, it paints a picture of a pompous moron, who happened to be in the right place at the right time AND still managed to cause trouble in the allied camp and more US casualties than would've been necessary, so that he could celebrate himself as a hero.

He's nothing compared to Guderian.

As promised...
right click and save target as...
http://www.gaesi.org/~canada/pattonbio.pdf

You say it's unlikely that Patton was the allied General most feared by the Germans?

Why do you think they used Patton and the positioning of a fictitious army as a decoy for the invasion of normandy? They (the germans) refused to believe that the invasion on the field would be handed over to anyone other than Patton and so they searched for and followed any and all news as to the whereabouts of George Patton when the invasion seemed imminent. And they where totally caught off guard. There were many ways that the allies managed to fool the germans and this was one of them.



p.s. the bit you said about allied casulties is just simply not true. His third army had the lowest casulty rate among the whole of the occupying allied forces in Europe.

And pompous moron's don't write the manuals of armoured warfare that are still in use today. He wasn't perfect but jeez pal... Take a hint.


As for the file... if that short bio doesn't inspire the slightest bit of respect for a man... than nothing will.

I'd say Model, but since he's not in the poll I'd have to go for Rommel and Guderian.



rommel is the only person i know of

Why do you think they used Patton and the positioning of a fictitious army as a decoy for the invasion of normandy?
So he didn't fuck things up?

So he didn't fuck things up?
That must be the reason why he went farther and faster throught the German lines than any other General in WW2, with the smallest loss of American Blood.
General's that screw things up get sent home. They don't fight wars.
Patton despite his controversial behaviour, his brashness and indiscretion and even insubordination as to what he thought was right... was still kept leading soldiers on the front lines until the outcome of the war was practically decided and over with. No other General could've behaved so badly and still be kept in the army. His genious was needed.

As promised...
right click and save target as...
http://www.gaesi.org/~canada/pattonbio.pdf

....

... the Mongolian savages known as Russians.


As for the file... if that short bio doesn't inspire the slightest bit of respect for a man... than nothing will.

Aye, nothing will.

He had certain set ways of motivating soldiers. By being a bigot ass he gained their trust because that's what would motivate soldiers. His 3rd army also held the record for transfer requests. The soldiers wanted in.


That's what war is all about. Any other general just simply isn't or wasn't capable of embracing war's true nature. And for what it's worth he's currently 2nd on this poll behind a deserving Erwin Rommell.

Not Eisenhower, that's for sure. I'd say either Patton or Rommel.

Patton was a person with deep sitting emotional troubles.
His bigotry was not show, it was real. He lived for war, he saw it as the only reason he existed, and that is psychopathic at best.
And he managed to go fast with his tanks - great, for the most part there was no resistance after he broke through the lines (thanks to the USAF), and then he managed to run out of fuel...

Patton was a person with deep sitting emotional troubles.
His bigotry was not show, it was real. He lived for war, he saw it as the only reason he existed, and that is psychopathic at best.
And he managed to go fast with his tanks - great, for the most part there was no resistance after he broke through the lines (thanks to the USAF), and then he managed to run out of fuel...Fuddle-duddle

Fuddle-duddle
:confused:
You need to structure your arguments better. English is not my first language, and I have never heard of a fuddle-duddle...

What I am saying is that the odds where so fundamentally in favour of the Western Allies in everything they did when they landed that no general had at any point any chance to prove skill.
You like Patton because he's a stereotypical hero. Granted, that's okay.
But the real man had nothing to do with that image, and you must be able to look past it.

You like Patton because he's a stereotypical hero. Granted, that's okay.
But the real man had nothing to do with that image, and you must be able to look past it.I like Patton the hero and Patton the man. I am fully aware the he had many different roles to play in life and that he was sort of like a chameleon adapting as necessary.

And about "fuddle duddle". It's canadian parliament lore. :D Think nothing of it.
p.s. Your english is great don't worry about it.

I like Patton the hero and Patton the man. I am fully aware the he had many different roles to play in life and that he was sort of like a chameleon adapting as necessary.
Patton the hero is essentially a comic - a figment of propaganda.
Patton the man was clearly a troubled person. Look what he did after WW2, or even how he almost lost his command for good on Sicily.
Add his obvious racial hatred, and you see why I can feel no respect for the man.

and rommel pulls ahead.....

Patton was a person with deep sitting emotional troubles.
His bigotry was not show, it was real. He lived for war, he saw it as the only reason he existed, and that is psychopathic at best.
And he managed to go fast with his tanks - great, for the most part there was no resistance after he broke through the lines (thanks to the USAF), and then he managed to run out of fuel...

I at times think you are honestly overestimating the ability of the USAAF and RAF to destroy Wehrmacht formations in the field. Yes they were a crucial factor, but the campaign in Normandy was marked by extremely bloody fighting (My Grandfather's division, the 29th infantry suffered in excess of 100% casualties in the liberation of France, mostly in Bocage country, many others suffered similarly) Patton's breaking out in Operation Cobra enabled mobile warfare to reduce losses and destroy the German army in northern France, an example being the Faalaise pocket.



As for the mention of Konev, I have this to say...

Ahh Konev, to get an idea of this man...He was Stalin's favorite general, Stalin actually admired this man for his ruthlessness towards the enemy... How this was achieved one can only imagine... the crushing of several encircled German pockets of resistance in early 1944 are indicative of his tactics.


As for the criticism of Zhukov, his strategic planning for Operation Uranus...the Russian counterattack north and south of Stalingrad which led to the destruction of the German 6th Army, 4th Panzer Army, and several axis-ally armies, was a stroke of strategic genius, completely reversed the southern area of the Eastern Front...far from simply holding on at all costs...actually it was turning the Germans' earlier strategy of pincer envelopment against them...

As for the contention that the Russians had air superiority, the Red Airforce was never comparable to the other allied air arms, and was never able to achieve superiority for most of the war, though it managed to eventually offset the Luftwaffe once Germany's air resources were primarily concentrated on the air war in the west against the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command bomber offensives. On ground forces, though Russia had greater reserves, actual mobilization especially after the ruinous losses of 1941 was roughly equal 4 million axis on the front vs 4 million Red Army soldiers, this gradually shifted slightly in the Soviet Union's favor as it was able to replace its losses (which after 1941 again shrank to eventually nearly equal the Axis losses sometime in 1943-44). Leading to Operation Bagration where because of German redeployment of many divisions to Normandy led to a significant superiority of combat divisions in the area of the offensive, spelling doom for Army Group Centre...anyway, I do feel that the German commanders, though quite skillful are overrated.

Patton the hero is essentially a comic - a figment of propaganda.
Patton the man was clearly a troubled person. Look what he did after WW2, or even how he almost lost his command for good on Sicily.
Add his obvious racial hatred, and you see why I can feel no respect for the man.Nobody is perfect. But as a wartime general he was as close to it as anyone i've ever read about and I've read quite a bit on this subject. I'll repeat myself again if I have to. No other General could've created so many headaches and still kept his army. There is a reason for that. A reason that is perfectly clear to me.

Yes they were a crucial factor, but the campaign in Normandy was marked by extremely bloody fighting (My Grandfather's division, the 29th infantry suffered in excess of 100% casualties in the liberation of France, mostly in Bocage country, many others suffered similarly) Patton's breaking out in Operation Cobra enabled mobile warfare to reduce losses and destroy the German army in northern France, an example being the Faalaise pocket.
About the Bocage and so on, I like the story of Wittmann and Möbius (while not Generals they should actually be on the list) as well as the 90. US Division in Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte.
As for Cobra: 24. July, 800 tons of Bombs were dropped by the USAF (and the RAF), and managed to beat back the Allied advance by killing 156 of them.
On the 25th it was merely a matter of material. And indeed it was the planes that destroyed German resistance. In some cases, there still was resistance, but even where there wasn't, the Yanks didn't want to move far because their commanders where scared apparently. The SS Panzerlehrdivision, one of the best units of the war, was destroyed by the bombers, and there was no more meaningful resistance. And yet US officers criticised the USAF for not achieving enough, when the reason they weren't moving forward was really that they were scared they could be cut off.

Operation Cobra is avtually the classic example of how the USAF and the RAF won the war for the Western Allies.

I at times think you are honestly overestimating the ability of the USAAF and RAF to destroy Wehrmacht formations in the field. Yes they were a crucial factor, but the campaign in Normandy was marked by extremely bloody fighting (My Grandfather's division, the 29th infantry suffered in excess of 100% casualties in the liberation of France, mostly in Bocage country, many others suffered similarly) Patton's breaking out in Operation Cobra enabled mobile warfare to reduce losses and destroy the German army in northern France, an example being the Faalaise pocket.I salute and thank your Grandfather. Wherever he may be. :)

Operation Cobra is avtually the classic example of how the USAF and the RAF won the war for the Western Allies.That's laughable and quite ironic. Considering that tons of bombs were dropped on American troops and tanks due to poor visibility.

I salute and thank your Grandfather. Wherever he may be. :)
:rolleyes:
My grandfather got half his leg shot off in Stalingrad.
My Great Grand Uncle lies dead somewhere in France (killed in 1918).
Who's thanking them?

That's laughable and quite ironic. Considering that tons of bombs were dropped on American troops and tanks due to poor visibility.
Which I mentioned if you read. Fact is also that the SS Panzerlehr held the important part of the front, and that after the 25th it was blown to bits. (Keeping in mind that it was planes who did it...not the few inexperienced and often scared US divisions)
As well as the matter of all communication being cut off because couriers were straved by Jabos.
Add to that that all German tanks had to be hidden during the day, and you get a pretty clear picture.

!#!@#$^!#$%!@!@%!@%!@!

Heard of the Nanjing Massacre lately? What about slave labour with Allied prisoners? Chemical and biological tests on Chinese civilians?

See this?

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics41/78266h.jpg

My GAAAWD, you!
*cough* China has commited more atrocities against it's own than Japan ever has. Also, strategically the pacific theater was much simpler than the european.

:rolleyes:
My grandfather got half his leg shot off in Stalingrad.
My Great Grand Uncle lies dead somewhere in France (killed in 1918).
Who's thanking them?
I haven't thanked them simply because you haven't mentioned them yet.
They made the ultimate sacrifice for each and everyone of us.

I haven't thanked them simply because you haven't mentioned them yet.
They made the ultimate sacrifice for each and everyone of us.
Well in that case...good.
Although I'm not sure how their sacrifice benefits you, or your fellow countrymen.
As you may have picked up, I'm German.

Now that you mention it... I'm not sure either. :confused:
War is hell... :-(

*cough* China has commited more atrocities against it's own than Japan ever has.
And how is the action of the communist Chinese government in the 50es-70es era, in any way, relevant to the atrocities committed by the Japanese? Are you trying to make a direct comparison as if one greater evil can be suddenly made right by the presence of another lesser evil? Really, it makes as much sense as implying that we should forget about Stalin's gulags for the fact that the Soviets were a fundamental factor in crushing the Nazis.

...implying that we should forget about Stalin's gulags for the fact that the Soviets were a fundamental factor in crushing the Nazis.
Apart from the fact that Stalin killed more people than the Nazis...

And how is the action of the communist Chinese government in the 50es-70es era, in any way, relevant to the atrocities committed by the Japanese? Are you trying to make a direct comparison as if one greater evil can be suddenly made right by the presence of another lesser evil? Really, it makes as much sense as implying that we should forget about Stalin's gulags for the fact that the Soviets were a fundamental factor in crushing the Nazis.
No, but the chinese government has been putting on hissyfit about the subject of Nanking lately. Yet they don't even properly mention incidents like Tiananmen Square(which was in '89, not in the range of 50-70), let alone the earlier ones in their historybooks. As soon as they come clean about their self-made bloodbaths they can bitch about one created by Japan.

Stalin killed more people than the Nazis...True. But I hope you're not attempting to excuse the Nazis of their deeds by that. I know for a fact that pulling the "Stalin killed more people than Hitler" is a tactic commonly used by today's Nazi or extreme right wing supporters.

No, but the chinese government has been putting on hissyfit about the subject of Nanking lately. Yet they don't even properly mention incidents like Tiananmen Square(which was in '89, not in the range of 50-70), let alone the earlier ones in their historybooks. As soon as they come clean about their self-made bloodbaths they can bitch about one created by Japan.
...and you are implying that the Japanese should adopt a policy of an "eye for an eye until we go blind" by denying their own atrocities? You are also forgetting that the Tiananmen Square Incident is the result of domestic conflicts and disagreements over government policies orchestrated by people within the country, which makes a direct comparison between Tiananmen and wartime atrocities irrelevant. By directly implying as if the controversy surrounding the Nanjing Massacre is simply a tool of the Chinese government, you are failing to effectively distinguish the Chinese government on mainland China from the Chinese populance both in and outside of China, who you will find are all against the Japanese position in this textbook deal. Unlike what you are implying, the issue surrounding Japanese atrocities is a matter common among all Chinese as opposed to being predominantly a political tool of the Chinese government on the mainland, which means that you can't justify these atrocities solely based on the actions of the Chinese government against their own population on the domestic front.

Sure, he just made an attack that most commanders would have thought impossible. Americans brag how we "discovered" the power of the Aircraft carrier after being forced to use them after Pearl Harbor. We didn't "discover" the Aircraft carrier's power, it ran up to us and bit us in the ass!

He planned it, he didn't lead it. Hell, if we're going by who plans it, then Eisenhower trumps all the Western Commanders who earned credits in the Liberation Campaign and Assault on Germany. And it is arguable who "discovered" the power of the aircraft carrier. The British used it to dazzling effect at Taranto a year before Pearl Harbour, and the Japanese are always said to be true visionaries. But it really is the Americans who perfected it, and probably realized its power before the Japanese.

Let's examine the evidence, first, the Japanese never built a purpose-built carrier until well into the war, the US on the other hand had already done so. All Jap carriers were usually made to get the most out of their limits. Next, the Japanese still held onto the Grand Battle Doctrine until the end of the war. Before the war, they constructed two massive battleships, not carriers (they show that they might be coming around, by converting the Shinano into a carrier). Also, in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the carriers were used as a diversionary force, the Main Force was still composed of battleships (as at Midway, contrary to popular belief, the Main Force at Midway was not the Carrier Force). The US on the other hand, at almost every chance they had to go ship to ship with the Japanese, they called in the carriers, this is not what the Japanese did.

He outnumbered the Midway force. Also he demanded more forces for Midway, other commanders refused him.

By Midway Force, I was referring to the Japanese Force, not the American forces station there or the Carrier Task Forces assigned to cover the island. And there were no other commanders, he was the commander of the Combined Fleet (The ultimate military naval authority), and it was his decision on what went where. Granted the carriers he sent away were mostly light carriers, with the exception of the force he sent to Coral Sea, they still could have given the Japanese Force some valuable flat top space. They used almost all their forces, but he split them up in a bunch of diversionary campaigns, it was his decision.

Who's justifying anything? The chinese government has been pushing the issue through diplomatic channels and has probably been orchestrating at least a few of the rallies about the issue that have occurred in mainland china. In fact there was the whole blurb over Saaya Irie(details found here (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fd20050522tc.htm#2) ). Dragon's Bay brought it up originally, for what reason I'm not quite sure since it really didn't apply to the thread which concerned commanders and their strategic and tactical ability. I just continued the off-threading with a blurb of my own.

Apart from the fact that Stalin killed more people than the Nazis...

I'm thinking that not even Stalin killed 27 million Russians...as the Germans did...and that is even without mentioning the most infamous Nazi crimes against occupied Europe and the Soviet Union

...

As for the criticism of Zhukov, his strategic planning for Operation Uranus...the Russian counterattack north and south of Stalingrad which led to the destruction of the German 6th Army, 4th Panzer Army, and several axis-ally armies, was a stroke of strategic genius, completely reversed the southern area of the Eastern Front...far from simply holding on at all costs...actually it was turning the Germans' earlier strategy of pincer envelopment against them...

As for the contention that the Russians had air superiority, the Red Airforce was never comparable to the other allied air arms, and was never able to achieve superiority for most of the war, though it managed to eventually offset the Luftwaffe once Germany's air resources were primarily concentrated on the air war in the west against the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command bomber offensives. ...
Zhukov was definitely one of the best. He had his share of costly mistakes.. but neither Patton nor Montgomery had a real possibility to face the firing squad in case of defeat. Soviet counterparts of Kimmel and Short were shot, you know... He had a forceful, brusque personality, and he wasn't thinking much about his armies' losses - but that was (and is :-() Russian way of waging war. I voted for him in the poll, I admit.

If our Air force had been fighting like the RAF in 1940, we would have win the war by 1944, I admit it. We had too many obsolte and/or unsuitable aeroplane types and a lot of ill-trained pilots, who died in scores...

I'm thinking that not even Stalin killed 27 million Russians...as the Germans did...and that is even without mentioning the most infamous Nazi crimes against occupied Europe and the Soviet Union
It's quite possible that Stalin did that, but it cannot be an excuse for Nazis and Hitler. Mao isn't an excuse for Stain either.

on the actual topic though...

I think Eisenhower is seriously underrated, as he kept the Allies on track and led the Allies in successfully liberating Western Europe. Keeping Mony and Patton from killing each other was a military feat of great significance in itself.

In the air war, I would rate very very highly Jimmy Thach (US Navy), the inventor of the Thach Weave which allowed slower American fighters to successfully compete with more maneuverable Japanese Zeros as one of the great commanders of the war and one of the most influential... especially for his rank. American tactics allowed the US Navy and Marines and later Army Air Force to successfully destroy the cream of Japanese Naval aviation in the Solomons and to get everything started at Midway.

Werner Molders of the Luftwaffe was even more influential. In addition to being a very high scoring ace himself, he invented the scwarm and rota formation, (2 and 4 aircraft flights with wingmen protecting the leader of each pair).... that tactical formation is still in use today and is the ideal way for fighters to act both offensively and defensively.

also underrated is Admiral Lockwood, commander of US Submarine Forces in the Pacific... a force that at a cost of 52 submarines lost sank nearly 70% of the Japanese Merchant Marine, completely crippling its ability to make war and even survive. The US Submariners also sank several aircraft carriers and cruisers, and a battleship, and numerous other combat vessels of the IJN.

Japanese Admiral Ozawa was also brilliant, but he never really had a chance against overwhelming US Naval superiority by the time he reached the top of the Japanese Combined fleet.

Rommel wasnt just about 'inventing' the 88 as a Tank killer no what he did was lead Brtish tanks onto the 88's that was his special contribution to the 88.

I'm thinking that not even Stalin killed 27 million Russians...as the Germans did...and that is even without mentioning the most infamous Nazi crimes against occupied Europe and the Soviet Union

Death toll
About one million people were shot during the periods 1935–38, 1942 and 1945–50 and millions of people were transported to Gulag labour camps. In Georgia about 80,000 people were shot during 1921, 1923–24, 1935–38, 1942 and 1945-50, and more than 100,000 people were transported to Gulag camps.

On March 5, 1940, Stalin himself and other Soviet leaders signed the order to execute 25,700 Polish intelligentsia including 14,700 Polish POWs. It became known as Katyn massacre. See massacre of prisoners.

It is generally agreed by historians that if famines, prison and labour camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, Stalin and his colleagues were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million. Comparison of the 1926–37 census results suggests 5–10 million deaths in excess of what would be normal in the period, mostly through famine in 1931–34. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million and in 1937 another census found a population of between 162 and 163 million. This was 14 million less than the projected population value and was suppressed as a "wrecker's census" with the census takers severely punished. A census was taken again in 1939, but its published figure of 170 million has been generally attributed directly to the decision of Stalin[7] (see also Demographics of the Soviet Union). Note that the figure of 14 million does not have to imply 14 million additional deaths, since as many as 3 million may be births that never took place due to reduced fertility and choice.

A quote popularly attributed to Stalin is "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." (possibly said in response to Churchill at the Potsdam Conference in 1945).

That's from Wikipedia. So I guess, it's possible he may have killed 27 million, but maybe not very likely...

True. But I hope you're not attempting to excuse the Nazis of their deeds by that. I know for a fact that pulling the "Stalin killed more people than Hitler" is a tactic commonly used by today's Nazi or extreme right wing supporters.
Meh, moderate left myself.
I do think we've been sorry for long enough now, with the second and third generations of completely innocent people being dragged through that whole "you should be ashamed"-business. And I'm not making it up.
It may be time that Germany move past that, just like the US managed to move past slavery, or the genocide on the Native population for example.

Meh, moderate left myself.*sigh of relief* :D
I do think we've been sorry for long enough now, with the second and third generations of completely innocent people being dragged through that whole "you should be ashamed"-business. And I'm not making it up.
It may be time that Germany move past that, just like the US managed to move past slavery, or the genocide on the Native population for example.I speak for myself when I say that people of present day Germany had very little to do with what happened in the past. Just like every single nation has their skeletons in the closet. Moments in history of which they feel ashamed. In some ways Germany has more than made up for their past. The same cannot be said about other nations.

Bump.

I dunno.... Guderian? Monty? I'm not that familar with there individual tactics...

But I do have one thing to say: Yamomoto did a crappy job at Pearl Harbor and Midway. At Pearl Harbor, his planes failed to destory the primary target! Of course, the primary target wasn't their, but still. They missed our oil and our repair shops. And at Midway, we kicked their asses.

At Midway, we had several particularly good Dive-bomber squadron commanders that found the Japanese carriers during a five-minute window when most of the Japanese fighter cover were engaged in mowing down the remains of three obsolete Torpedo-plane squadrons...and while Admiral Nagumo was completely unnerved by a confusing American attack pattern, ordering his bombers to rearm once again. The result: our dive bombers sink three Japanese carriers and return to finish the fourth later on...

Midway was won by a combination of luck, excellent junior commanders being at the right place at the right time, and Admiral Spruance and Nimitz taking calculated risks but acting in a deceisive fashion. It wasn't a one-sided match, it was the US Navy in general and several squadron commanders having a particularly good day and good intelligence. The Japanese were at their peak form, but Nagumo was out-Admiraled into blundering, and the day went badly for them.