Not really. In one of his public statements, he explicitly accepted responsibility for the operational failure where the failure rested on him. I will dig out the quote later when I get back to my pc.
-
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.
But which Reaper do you think was the best?
Personally I'm leaning towards Star Child. Easily the most horrifying and destructive of the bunch.
It is even worse in Asia. Almost nobody mentions Japanese or Chinese commanders. Yamashita's campaign in Malaya was one of the great campaigns of the war, using a combination of sea power, air power, bicycle equipped troops and a willingness to attack through the jungle to destroy the British and Commonwealth formations with minimal casualties.
What about operation Compass, when the 30000 British army under General O'Conner killed, wounded, and captured 130,000 of the 150,000 strong Italian army of Libya?
You are correct.
But perhaps the treatment dealt to the British who surrendered honorably according to international agreement - but who were, enslaved, to put it politely - might be a contributing factor.
Last edited:
Could be. But there are plenty of people who lionise the likes of Model and the Waffen SS so complicity in war crimes does not seem to be a decisive factor... I would guess a combination of the relative unimportance of the theatre combined with the Eurocentrism of most historians (plus a healthy dose of good old fashioned racism) leads to a relative ignorance of this area.
In addition Japanese was not a language well understood by most Europeans so the primary documentation is comparatively poorly studied (at least in English language publications). The same applies to Chinese documentation combined with a politically closed system which restricts access to archives and does not want Nationalist generals praised, which leads to a huge gap in our knowledge of the period.
A great campaign - although as it didn't take place in Asia I don't see its relevance to my post...
Why all the hate on Halder? After all, he was the chief of staff at the time when the world viewed the German armies as invincible and conquered most of Europe. That ought to count for something imo.
The most dull and unimaginative German General ever and the Father of Zitadelle, which was the worst of all the bad options* the Germans had.
*-attack the enemy where he the strongest is
- give the enemy the advantage of inner lines
- do not threaten any strategically significant target, so that they can freely apply the forces according to the military needs
- do not mask your intents, have a rigid plan with no alternatives
- give the enemy enough time to properly fortify
- use your mobile forces for the breakthrough and not in the exploitation phase
- make an all in, because honestly who needs a strategic reserve
and the expected result: fabolous success
(really just look at how much better Hitler was with the Wacht am Rhein, that offensive achieved operational surprise, 1:1 exchange ratio against the Western Allies and they have to delay their planned offensive, so Fritz was a worse Chief of Staff than Adolf, that's not a really high bar to clear, but he failed in that)
Umm...this is a kind of indirect answer to the original question, but the Finnish Jaeger Generals possessed some excellent and superb skills militarily, tactically and strategically. These Finnish generals are widely ignored and the magnificent capabilities they represented are unknown.
The appellation, Jaeger General has its roots in Prussian military education. Young Finnish secondary school graduated boys went to Germany during the Great War for military education and doctrines. During the interwar years they had achieved high ranks in Finnish social life, in politics and in the field of military. Through their teachings Finland managed to prevent the Soviet invasion in the Winter War and again during the last stages of the Continuation War. Finland avoided the Soviet occupation and maintained its independence largely due the brilliant skills of these Jaeger Generals. During the post-war years some former Finnish Jaeger Generals commanded the troops of the United Nations.
If you want to read more of this topic, there is a thread in the HOI4 section, 11 Jaeger Generals.
The appellation, Jaeger General has its roots in Prussian military education. Young Finnish secondary school graduated boys went to Germany during the Great War for military education and doctrines. During the interwar years they had achieved high ranks in Finnish social life, in politics and in the field of military. Through their teachings Finland managed to prevent the Soviet invasion in the Winter War and again during the last stages of the Continuation War. Finland avoided the Soviet occupation and maintained its independence largely due the brilliant skills of these Jaeger Generals. During the post-war years some former Finnish Jaeger Generals commanded the troops of the United Nations.
If you want to read more of this topic, there is a thread in the HOI4 section, 11 Jaeger Generals.
General Winter gets my vote for best WW2 general. His (her?) plans, especially late 1941 - early 1942, and again late 1942 - early 1943 are the most masterfully executed and effective plans in that entire war.
For worst, I'll go jointly with:
Whoever generalled the British forces from 1939 to the Dunkirk evacuation.
Whoever generalled the French forces from 1939 to the surrender of France.
Whoever generalled the Russian forces pre-Stalingrad
Whoever generalled the Italian forces for the entire whole war (and WW1 as well)
For worst, I'll go jointly with:
Whoever generalled the British forces from 1939 to the Dunkirk evacuation.
Whoever generalled the French forces from 1939 to the surrender of France.
Whoever generalled the Russian forces pre-Stalingrad
Whoever generalled the Italian forces for the entire whole war (and WW1 as well)
I think his ego is often overstated, as with most popular views of famous people, they tend to focus on the most extreme of personality traits, often charicature get the individual - Eisenhower the film star, Patton the crazy horse, Churchill and his booze/cigars etc. Montgomery was likely dealing with Asperger's syndrome and when this level of self assuredness is combined with achievement, it is often seen as being a sign of arrogance and 'ego'. The thing is he was very critical of the performance of the US generals, which wjen combined with his turn shows him in a negative
I would also disagree with Montgomery being unsuccessful. Consider his position in the desert in 1942. The fall of France was characterised by Germaby having dedicatedd upto 25% of its economy tonre-armament and almost fully mobilising the nation in preparation for war with the western powers. It combined this huge military force with the operational gamble of placing it's strongest mobile forces into one sector. Due to French incompetence, and strategic serendipity the 'Blitzkrieg' of 1940 was successful. The west needed a reason to understand why it had lost so spectacularly, while Germany needed believed that they had found the miracle to rapid victory and the end of attritional war that was the guiding factor of industrialised conflict. What neither side really appreciated was that the Blitzkrieg concept was successful because of the situation of its use. Cue to North Africa, where both sides attempted to replicate this kind of fighting. While both sides would achieve operational success, this success always failed to achieve strategic success. Now queue Monty's arrival. He understands that the strategic success will only come when you can exploit the operational successes. The problem with armoured breakthroughs will always be the logistical tail and that is what stops an operational success becoming a strategic success.
Thus Montgomery's strategy was not to punch through the German forces, but to engage him and defeat his force and not simply punch through, but to keep this defeated force engaged and keep advancing without allowing him to disengage, reform and regroup. This means slow advances that allow operational success to turn into strategic success. This is why the back and forth of the desert war finally ended in victory. No, it didnt have the deep armoured penetrations that capture the imagination of the Rommel fanboys, but it was hugely successful.
Last edited:
General Winter is the alibi that German commanders used for the Soviets mysteriously not giving up after two weeks and the Germans themselves screwing up their logistics (they knew there'd be problems before they started.) Same deal for 42-43. A key reason the Germans had such issues at Stalingrad was that their logistics were overstretched covering the advance on the Caucasus and the Volga.
The mud doesn't count as an alibi either. Sorry. It's all people pushing too many trucks (and wagons and all the rest) down too small a road.
As for Soviet commanders, well, pretty much the line up you find prior to Stalingrad is the line up you'll find afterwards. The men who took Berlin are also the men who, amongst other things, screwed up the Western Front (the Soviet formation) and much of the rest.
market garden wasn't even monty's fault either. It was a mix of General Gavin of US 82 airborne and general browning of 1st airborne corps. The whole thing was lost when Gavin didn't take Nijmegen bridge, instead taking a high point because they thought 10 panzer armies equivalent in tanks (1000) were in a small patch of forest near Nijmegen. Because of the 1st airborne not being able to secure Arnhem fully and block german troops, 9th ss panzer division crossed the rhine and took up positions at Nijmegen bridge, which caused a fatal 36 hour delay. Market garden wasn't a rotten plan like some believe.
Market garden was overhyped and so could not work - it could maybe cross the Rhine if everything went brilliant, but then what? There's no logistic way to reach anything further.
Mind that the Germans might not notice either and do something stupid to throw them back across the Rhine.
Mind that the Germans might not notice either and do something stupid to throw them back across the Rhine.
It was not to invade the Ruhr, the plans were to push to the zuiderzee and cut off German troops in Holland.
You may note I did not mention the Ruhr. Anything beyond Arnhem is too much, supplied along the one road.
Couldn’t they had resupplied partially by air from Arnhem airport?
EDIT: I agree logistics would be shaky until they secure area around the road, as axis counterattacks repeatedly breached hell's highway in Eindhoven sector.
Last edited: