Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The 5 Greatest Generals of World War 2

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
makif130289 said:
I don't think so. You are completely right about Rommel's ignorance about logistical problems ( I indicated it in my list too ) but the numbers were so much against him that I think he could have defeated the British even with his logistical problems.
Click to expand...
More tanks = more severe logistical problems. This is especially true if you want Rommel to have as many tanks as the British.

I agree, but I don't see how Churchill 'ignored' Singapore. The British had more then adequate forces in the region to repel a Japanese attack, it was extremely poor leadership combined with racism that led to the completely avoidable 'fall of Singapore'.
Click to expand...
... and the supply situation, which pretty much meant that Singapore was doomed to fall sooner or later. Lack of adequate naval forces which would be able to secure the long-term dominance in the region was obviously an important factor as well.
 
Funny how people who don't give credit to Allied generals because of their presumed material and air power, do give huge credit to von Manstein, Guderian, etc. who with militiamen and cavalry crippled the high tech armies of Poland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and eventually even the Soviet tank armies that were extremely strong in the early phases of Barbarossa. And totally those guys did it lacking any Luftwaffe help, which would have been useless anyway, such ww1 zeppelins as they were.
 
Mr_B0narpte said:
I agree, but I don't see how Churchill 'ignored' Singapore. The British had more then adequate forces in the region to repel a Japanese attack, it was extremely poor leadership combined with racism that led to the completely avoidable 'fall of Singapore'.

What about Alexander as well?
Click to expand...

Look at for example number of aircrafts in Singapore just before the Japanese invasion. There were very few and mostly obsolete ( I can't remember exact numbers but I guess Liddell Hart gave some account in his book ). Also, there were not any aircraft carriers in the region. One of them was sailing towards Egypt from the Pacific at that time. Number of troops were high but their training was poor. I still believe that Singapore could have been held with a sheer superiority of numbers, but compared to NA Campaign, Singapore was seriously ignored.
 
NiiloN said:
Funny how people who don't give credit to Allied generals because of their presumed material and air power, do give huge credit to von Manstein, Guderian, etc. who with militiamen and cavalry crippled the high tech armies of Poland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and eventually even the Soviet tank armies that were extremely strong in the early phases of Barbarossa. And totally those guys did it lacking any Luftwaffe help, which would have been useless anyway, such ww1 zeppelins as they were.
Click to expand...

I give credits for Allied generals but compared to German generals, most of non-german ww2 generals seem like second class. German generals were the best of all and that's why Wehrmacht was the most efficient fighting force of WW2. Even in 1945, German losses were less than American losses in almost each single battle.

I don't think nobody gave credits to German generals for victory over Poland, but to defeat such a huge country within a mere 28 days was a great success in that time. Look at Battle of France. Germany was outnumbered. Aircraft numbers of two side was almost equal. Total tank numbers of French-British were more than that of German ( yeah, we don't hear of French tanks because they didn't create seperate divisions ). Germany won that war in 4 weeks. Germany landed at Norway in a daring operation in spite of overwhelming supremacy of Royal Navy. Early phase of Barbarossa is full of brilliant tactics of German generals. And late phases of the war is full of intelligent defensive tactics. Other WW2 participants had also a lot of good generals that contributed to turning the tide, especially Soviet generals like Zhukov and Rokossovsky. But German generals deserve a special place in such a competition.
 
Aircraft numbers of two side was almost equal. Total tank numbers of French-British were more than that of German ( yeah, we don't hear of French tanks because they didn't create seperate divisions ). Germany won that war in 4 weeks.
Click to expand...
We have to be fair here. Aircraft numbers were NOT equal, the Germans had the advantage in the air, while the Allies had more tanks. However, on paper (and only on paper) the Battle of France was probably the operation with the most equal forces during the whole war.

EDIT: Still, part of strategy is to force the enemy to fight on unequal terms and I wouldn't disregard the importance of this aspect of war.
 
Last edited:
I think you guys respect offensive maneuver and honour too much. This is understandable in gaming forum, but the truth is wars are won with rational decision making.
Defensive generals don't get enough love, although they have probably turned the course of wars.

MacArthur gets blame for withdrawing. He should have died right there, I guess. Well, I think when we look at today's Japan and Philippines, it was strategically sound to come back like he said he would. He saved lives, island hopping to low defence sites, and just leaving heavily defended islands to starve. Very good casualties-taken score given the circumstances. This is what the best generals are made of. Rationality. Not sending your tanks everywhere prepared to die along with your men. That's what maniacs are made of.
 
Cybvep said:
We have to be fair here. Aircraft numbers were NOT equal, the Germans had the advantage in the air, while the Allies had more tanks. However, on paper (and only on paper) the Battle of France was probably the operation with the most equal forces during the whole war.

EDIT: Still, part of strategy is to force the enemy to fight on unequal terms and I wouldn't disregard the importance of this aspect of war.
Click to expand...

I checked, you are right.

NiiloN said:
I think you guys respect offensive maneuver and honour too much. This is understandable in gaming forum, but the truth is wars are won with rational decision making.
Defensive generals don't get enough love, although they have probably turned the course of wars.

MacArthur gets blame for withdrawing. He should have died right there, I guess. Well, I think when we look at today's Japan and Philippines, it was strategically sound to come back like he said he would. He saved lives, island hopping to low defence sites, and just leaving heavily defended islands to starve. Very good casualties-taken score given the circumstances. This is what the best generals are made of. Rationality. Not sending your tanks everywhere prepared to die along with your men. That's what maniacs are made of.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I put Model and Kesselring in my list, both of them are defensive generals. For me, the important thing is to perform well in one or one of the following situations :

+ Lack of manpower
+ Lack of air cover
+ Lack of naval support
+ Lack of enough tanks and trucks
+ Lack of food and supplies


When we look at German generals, almost everytime they fought with at least one of the situations above. Later in the war, with almost all of them. As for US Generals, they allmost never encountered the situations above. Patton's victory in NA is meaningless for me because Rommel was already defeated by all of the factors listed above.

Withdrawing and fleeing is a different thing. Manstein was in favor of massive withdrawals from Russia to implement a large scale elastic defence, and he was listed as top 1 WW2 general in majority of the lists. MacArthur left his troops to die in POW camps while he fled to Australia. He left Wainwright in his place to suffer for him in POW camps. If you look at the pictures of him from 1945, you could understand how hard was life for him during his captivity. MacArthur ordered his troops to fight on but he chose not to fight himself. Wainwright resisted for a couple of months bravely before surrendering. MacArthur should have done this, not Wainwright. Percival could have very well fled from Singapore, but he chose to surrender with his troops. That is called honour. Cby said that I can't blame Mac for wanting to live, but even Japanese killing a high rank general would have been extremely unlikely. In my book, if you want your men to go into hell for you, you should yourself take the risk to go into hell.

Some say that Mac' decision to flee was rational because he helped US to take back these territories. I say, come on, MacArthur was not really that bright general. He didn't invent island-hopping strategy either, it was old known strategy and there were many other US generals of Mac' calibre that could have implemented it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That is called honour. Cby said that I can't blame Mac for wanting to live, but even Japanese killing a high rank general would have been extremely unlikely. In my book, if you want your men to go into hell for you, you should yourself take the risk to go into hell.

Some say that Mac' decision to flee was rational because he helped US to take back these territories. I say, come on, MacArthur was not really that bright general. He didn't invent island-hopping strategy either, it was old known strategy and there were many other US generals of Mac' calibre that could have implemented it.
Click to expand...
You don't have to die in order to have your life destroyed. Anyway, I didn't say that MacArthur fleeing was good or bad, I said that in many cases it's better to save a good general than to allow him to die or to be captured, whether it's honourable or not. Whether's MacArthur was a good general or not is an another matter (IMO he wasn't), but when you lose an army, it's already a loss. There is no point in wasting even more resources (men are also resources during war) by losing a general. Put Rommel in MacArthur's position and consider whether you would like to lose an army AND Rommel or only the army.

For me, the important thing is to perform well in one or one of the following situations :

+ Lack of manpower
+ Lack of air cover
+ Lack of naval support
+ Lack of enough tanks and trucks
+ Lack of food and supplies
Click to expand...
For me, the important thing is to ensure that you DO NOT have to perform under these conditions. That's strategy - to put yourself in a position which makes the opponent's chance of victory slim or non-existent.
 
Cybvep said:
You don't have to die in order to have your life destroyed. Anyway, I didn't say that MacArthur fleeing was good or bad, I said that in many cases it's better to save a good general than to allow him to die or to be captured, whether it's honourable or not. Whether's MacArthur was a good general or not is an another matter (IMO he wasn't), but when you lose an army, it's already a loss. There is no point in wasting even more resources (men are also resources during war) by losing a general.


For me, the important thing is to ensure that you DO NOT have to perform under these conditions. That's strategy - to put yourself in a position which makes the opponent's chance of victory slim or non-existent.
Click to expand...

But most of the generals don't determine the strategy. Their duty is to get their job done with the resources at hand. It may be Hitler's poor strategy that led to most of the hardships German generals faced but still how they did under these conditions shows their skills.

If you don't have any of the hardships above ( i.e US Generals ) then the importance of generals' skills become less and less important.
 
But most of the generals don't determine the strategy. Their duty is to get their job done with the resources at hand.
Click to expand...
Rommel was partially responsible for the logistical problems he faced. Also, in a way he failed, because he didn't manage to convince the German leadership to support him with more tanks.

Moreover, despite the fact that politicians always intervene in strategic planning in one way or another, people like Manstein, Zhukov etc. greatly influenced the strategies that were used during WWII.
If you don't have any of the hardships above ( i.e US Generals ) then the importance of generals' skills become less and less important.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that doesn't make these generals bad.
 
Last edited:
Cybvep said:
Rommel was partially responsible for the logistical problems he faced. Also, in a way he failed, because he didn't manage to convince the German leadership to support him with more tanks.

Moreover, despite the fact that politicians always intervene in strategic planning in one way or another, people like Manstein, Zhukov etc. greatly influenced the strategies that were used during WWII.

I agree, but that doesn't make these generals bad.
Click to expand...

Rommel's logistical failures was due to his tactical moves, not really about German strategy of NA. However, he could have more help from Germany but Hitler chose not do so, this was part of the strategy. However, bigger part of the strategy was dictated by Royal Navy's superiority in the Mediterranean. That alone created few of the hardships I lsited above for Rommel.

Yeah, lack of any real hardship doesn't make US generals bad but it prevents some real talented ones to step forward. For example, You know, Germany could have never defeated France within a month without Manstein's plan. But I think US and the British could have successfully landed at Western Europe with or without Eisenhower. Odds were so favourable to the Allies that they would have eventually defeated Germany, even with average generals.
 
Rommel's logistical failures was due to his tactical moves, not really about German strategy of NA.
Click to expand...
You know that he refused to follow orders to adopt a defensive posture in Libya, right? Hitler and co. wanted to keep Italy in war and tie the Allied troops in Africa, not to capture Suez, as it was originally intended by the Italians in 1940. Hitler approved of Rommel's moves only after Rommel managed to defeat the Allies in 1941. Then the whole back-and-forth warfare began - Rommel was the one who started it and he lost, eventually.

However, bigger part of the strategy was dictated by Royal Navy's superiority in the Mediterranean. That alone created few of the hardships I lsited above for Rommel.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct, but this superiority wasn't constant - in some cases the Axis was able to secure the waters around Sicily and Libya. Still, the Allied naval superiority is one of the reasons why Rommel-style offensives were likely to fail in Africa and Rommel did not realise that in time.

You know, Germany could have never defeated France within a month without Manstein's plan.
Click to expand...
You cannot possibly know that... It's just speculation. Also, what if the Allies guarded the Ardennes more heavily or left more troops in reserve? We know what happened IRL, but that doesn't mean that it was the only possible outcome.

But I think US and the British could have successfully landed at Western Europe with or without Eisenhower. Odds were so favourable to the Allies that they would have eventually defeated Germany, even with average generals.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the question is how long would it take and at what cost. In many aspects Operation Dragoon was much more successful than Operation Overlord, which makes me wonder whether Overlord was really that impressive...
 
Cybvep said:
I agree, but the question is how long would it take and at what cost. In many aspects Operation Dragoon was much more successful than Operation Overlord, which makes me wonder whether Overlord was really that impressive...
Click to expand...

I'm not as familiar with Operation Dragoon as say Overlord, but there are likely reasons it went off better than Overlord. Three months later was probably enough time to digest the lessons learned in Normandy and I would suspect that many German forces would have been drawn away to the main line of battle in both the West and East to combat the Allied forces in Normandy and the Soviets respectively.

Now as I said I don't know a terribly lot about Dragoon and Wikipedia isn't the best option to use for resources when debating something like this, but I would think that the points I am making are valid ones. Good commanders learn from their mistakes, tactics, and strategy change to compensate for past difficulties, failures, and for victories.
 
Cybvep said:
You know that he refused to follow orders to adopt a defensive posture in Libya, right? Hitler and co. wanted to keep Italy in war and tie the Allied troops in Africa, not to capture Suez, as it was originally intended by the Italians in 1940. Hitler approved of Rommel's moves only after Rommel managed to defeat the Allies in 1941. Then the whole back-and-forth warfare began - Rommel was the one who started it and he lost, eventually.
Click to expand...
IMO if the Italian generals and leadership had been willing to replace Italian divisions with German ones as proposed late-1940 to enable Germany to send even more support earlier on then Rommel might have been much more successful.


Cybvep said:
Yes, you are correct, but this superiority wasn't constant - in some cases the Axis was able to secure the waters around Sicily and Libya. Still, the Allied naval superiority is one of the reasons why Rommel-style offensives were likely to fail in Africa and Rommel did not realise that in time.
Click to expand...
I should point out the Royal Navy managed to achieve this 'naval superiority' even in the face of overwhelming Italian superiority (on paper anyways).

Cybvep said:
You cannot possibly know that... It's just speculation. Also, what if the Allies guarded the Ardennes more heavily or left more troops in reserve? We know what happened IRL, but that doesn't mean that it was the only possible outcome.
Click to expand...
It's not just speculation. The Allies planned for such an invasion, Germany in the least would've been delayed in France for several months if not more if they didn't adopt the 'Manstein Plan'.

Cybvep said:
I agree, but the question is how long would it take and at what cost. In many aspects Operation Dragoon was much more successful than Operation Overlord, which makes me wonder whether Overlord was really that impressive...
Click to expand...
Operation Overlord, from a naval point of view, is one of the most impressive amphibious invasions in history.
 
It's not just speculation. The Allies planned for such an invasion, Germany in the least would've been delayed in France for several months if not more if they didn't adopt the 'Manstein Plan'.
Click to expand...
We don't know that. There were many proposed variations of Fall Gelb and we can only assume how successful or unsuccessful they would be.

Operation Overlord, from a naval point of view, is one of the most impressive amphibious invasions in history.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "from a naval point of view"? What about Operation Dragoon? It was a complex operation, too, casualties were much lower, the Allied advance was fast and the Germans were forced to abandon southern France.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back