Best Generals of ww2 and their role in this game

[SergeantPunch]

To regroup and refocus on generals -- I would like to second Yamashita for not only his conquest of Singapore but also for his defense of the Japanese position in the Phillipines. Despite arriving on the scene less than a month before the US invasion to retake the Phillipines and fighting against an overwhelming US superiority (troops, air support, supply, navy and very importantly local population support {the Japanese by this time in the war were regarded by the local population as brutal occuppiers}) Yamashita army assumed a defensive posture and managed to tie up a strong US army for months. When the war finally ended about half his original force managed to march out of their positions and go home. This is in sharp constrast to McArthur who had years to prepare for a similar strategic situation (with the exception that the US was never as unpopular with the Fillipinos as the Japanese) and managed to get stuck in Bataan without adequate supplies or a plan and then got defeated by second line Japanese troops. The fact that Yamashita was convicted or war crimes and executed now is more documentation of the lack of adequate judicial processes/evidence in the trials than it is an indictment of his behavior or responsibility (although the crimes themselves were clearly committed).
As a general, he was superb in both offense and defense.

Just checking that. Not very impressive as it seems he just had all his men slaughtered to the last man and the casualties inflicted on the americans were pretty minimal in comparison. He did hold out a long time but at a ridiculous cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Luzon

An example in the above battle.

 

[misterbean]

Just checking that. Not very impressive as it seems he just had all his men slaughtered to the last man and the casualties inflicted on the americans were pretty minimal in comparison. He did hold out a long time but at a ridiculous cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Luzon

An example in the above battle.

The main thing to remember about the Japanese Land Doctrine is this: they never had to suffer through 4 years of trench-warfare. They never had a massacre like the Battle of The Marne. As a direct result, they never "learned" to conserve manpower quite as much as the European nations did.

 

[Vonboe]

Just checking that. Not very impressive as it seems he just had all his men slaughtered to the last man and the casualties inflicted on the americans were pretty minimal in comparison. He did hold out a long time but at a ridiculous cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Luzon

An example in the above battle.

It was in a period over 8 months where the allied forces had over 4x times as big an army just in landforces.

Your beloved german army had over 800,000 casualties in just 6 months in the Battle of Stalingrad, talking about ridiculous cost huh.

 

[SergeantPunch]

It was in a period over 8 months where the allied forces had over 4x times as big an army just in landforces.

Your beloved german army had over 800,000 casualties in just 6 months in the Battle of Stalingrad, talking about ridiculous cost huh.

Yes, but they inflicted 1,2 million casualties on the enemy while your guy got all his men slaughtered and inflicted very low casualties in comparison. In the battle in my last post he inflicted 8,000 kills to 200,000 taken in return.

 

[SergeantPunch]

The main thing to remember about the Japanese Land Doctrine is this: they never had to suffer through 4 years of trench-warfare. They never had a massacre like the Battle of The Marne. As a direct result, they never "learned" to conserve manpower quite as much as the European nations did.

It was just hopeless fanaticism for me. They received far higher casualties unlike ww1 where the allies BOTH gave and received high casualties.

 

[Vonboe]

Yes, but they inflicted 1,2 million casualties on the enemy while your guy got all his men slaughtered and inflicted very low casualties in comparison. In the battle in my last post he inflicted 8,000 kills to 200,000 taken in return.

Again the alliced force were many, many times bigger than the Japanese force, and yet Yamashita managed to fulfill his order to hold the philippines ( which he did )
The german force at stalingard was just as big as the russian force ( if not bigger ) but they never managed to take the city ( a whole army group was wiped out! )
In the end the inflicted casualties wasn't of much use?

 

[SergeantPunch]

Again the alliced force were many, many times bigger than the Japanese force, and yet Yamashita managed to fulfill his order to hold the philippines ( which he did )
The german force at stalingard was just as big as the russian force ( if not bigger ) but they never managed to take the city ( a whole army group was wiped out! )
In the end the inflicted casualties wasn't of much use?

The Japanese were defeated in the end and the philipines were conquered by the allies. Needless to prolong the inevitable and have all your men killed. That's not a good general for me.

They took most of stalingrad in 2 weeks and russian efforts to save the remaining were highly costly. They were surrounded by an army of over 1 million.

Look at something more comparable though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy

The german forces only held it for 2 months but were outnumbered just as bad in the same way as the japanese but they didn't receive as high a casualties and they gave much higher casualties. So they received 113 casualties and gave slightly higher to the alliles 120,000 while the japanese gave about 60,000 to the allies and received over 300,000 in return (mostly deaths). For me the holding out time doesn't mean much if you are beaten that badly. It shows crazy fanaticism and a lack of professionalism that the germans had of a much higher level in normandy.

 

[Porkman]

The Japanese were defeated in the end and the philipines were conquered by the allies. Needless to prolong the inevitable and have all your men killed. That's not a good general for me.

They took most of stalingrad in 2 weeks and russian efforts to save the remaining were highly costly. They were surrounded by an army of over 1 million.

Look at something more comparable though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy

The german forces only held it for 2 months but were outnumbered just as bad in the same way as the japanese but they didn't receive as high a casualties and they gave much higher casualties. So they received 113 casualties and gave slightly higher to the alliles 120,000 while the japanese gave about 60,000 to the allies and received over 300,000 in return (mostly deaths). For me the holding out time doesn't mean much if you are beaten that badly. It shows crazy fanaticism and a lack of professionalism that the germans had of a much higher level in normandy.

It shows a much higher level of equipment for the Germans. The Japanese in the Philippines had no tanks, no planes, and were low on everything. They were also fighting an enemy with complete air and naval supremacy who had support from partisans on the ground.

France is twice as large as the Philippines yet the Allies were able to take it 4 times faster.

 

[Vonboe]

The Japanese were defeated in the end and the philipines were conquered by the allies. Needless to prolong the inevitable and have all your men killed. That's not a good general for me.

They took most of stalingrad in 2 weeks and russian efforts to save the remaining were highly costly. They were surrounded by an army of over 1 million.

Look at something more comparable though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy

The german forces only held it for 2 months but were outnumbered just as bad in the same way as the japanese but they didn't receive as high a casualties and they gave much higher casualties. So they received 113 casualties and gave slightly higher to the alliles 120,000 while the japanese gave about 60,000 to the allies and received over 300,000 in return (mostly deaths). For me the holding out time doesn't mean much if you are beaten that badly. It shows crazy fanaticism and a lack of professionalism that the germans had of a much higher level in normandy.

Yamashita didn't lose like the germans in normandy, also for how long had the germans been fortifying that part of france??
As phantomrider stated Yamashita arried to the philippines less than a month before the US invasion.

You're the one trying to argue that generals in fault of lossing 800.000 men in a single battle are "great leaders"
While an extremly out numbered japanese forced with no preparation time which held the philippines for 8 months and "only" lost 200.000 men, was a "ridiculous cost"

 

[Opanashc]

In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras) and 1.75 million tons of food.

By end of 1943, SU got about 30-35% of total LL it received during the war.
How much LL did UK get?

 

[SergeantPunch]

Yamashita didn't lose like the germans in normandy, also for how long had the germans been fortifying that part of france??
As phantomrider stated Yamashita arried to the philippines less than a month before the US invasion.

You're the one trying to argue that generals in fault of lossing 800.000 men in a single battle are "great leaders"
While an extremly out numbered japanese forced with no preparation time which held the philippines for 8 months and "only" lost 200.000 men, was a "ridiculous cost"

He did lose, the Philipines did fall to the allies and yes normandy was considered a german disaster and yet it was no where near the disaster of the japanese losses in the philipines at the return of low allied casualties if you compare it with normandy. Unless you think it's a good general that wants to kill everyone in his country to hold out as long as possible but for me this is fanaticism.

Staliingrad, normandy were all defeats for the germans but if you are saying the decisive victory of america in 10 months capturing the philipines from a sucidal japanese general who had all his men killed in return for 8,500 allied deaths makes this guy a good general and one of the best of the war then it's ridiculous.

Singapore as well was pretty weakly defended by commonweath troops that the british had poorly armed and motivated. Only a small number were trained well enough to withstand the japanese. Britain had enough problems trying to survive in europe 10,000 miles away.

 

[SergeantPunch]

It shows a much higher level of equipment for the Germans. The Japanese in the Philippines had no tanks, no planes, and were low on everything. They were also fighting an enemy with complete air and naval supremacy who had support from partisans on the ground.

France is twice as large as the Philippines yet the Allies were able to take it 4 times faster.

But look at the cost though? The philippines is designed for defence with lots of mountains and jungle that you can hide in and never be found if you so choose. It's idea for defensive warfare and staging an operation was easier for normandy when you had england near by to operate from and have as a staging point.

There was no rush from the americans either , they didn't see the need to have their men needlessly slaughtered and this is another reason the japanese held out so long, that and every man willing to die.

 

[Vonboe]

He did lose, the Philipines did fall to the allies and yes normandy was considered a german disaster and yet it was no where near the disaster of the japanese losses in the philipines at the return of low allied casualties if you compare it with normandy. Unless you think it's a good general that wants to kill everyone in his country to hold out as long as possible but for me this is fanaticism.

Staliingrad, normandy were all defeats for the germans but if you are saying the decisive victory of america in 10 months capturing the philipines from a sucidal japanese general who had all his men killed in return for 8,500 allied deaths makes this guy a good general and one of the best of the war then it's ridiculous.

Singapore as well was pretty weakly defended by commonweath troops that the british had poorly armed and motivated. Only a small number were trained well enough to withstand the japanese. Britain had enough problems trying to survive in europe 10,000 miles away.

He did NOT lose Philipines, the japanese government surrendered after the two atomic bombings while he was still defending the Philipines.
So because he comes from a army culture (60 years ago) were defending to the last man is seen as honorable, you point your fingers on this guy for fulfilling his order?
He was no more fanatic than any of your great german leaders.

Singapore were not "weakly defended" it was seen as the impenetrable fortress for a reason, huge artillery guns, 2 battle cruisers always at the ready, 130+ figther planes, 130,000+ soldier. You can call the UK forces inexperienced all you want but that doesn't take away the Japanese tactics, experience and motivation.

 

[SergeantPunch]

He did NOT lose Philipines, the japanese government surrendered after the two atomic bombings while he was still defending the Philipines.
So because he comes from a army culture (60 years ago) were defending to the last man is seen as honorable, you point your fingers on this guy for fulfilling his order?
He was no more fanatic than any of your great german leaders.

Singapore were not "weakly defended" it was seen as the impenetrable fortress for a reason, huge artillery guns, 2 battle cruisers always at the ready, 130+ figther planes, 130,000+ soldier. You can call the UK forces inexperienced all you want but that doesn't take away the Japanese tactics, experience and motivation.

You 300,000 of your men killed and only kill 8,500 of the enemy you are a suicidal fanatic not a good general. The Americans had mostly cleared his suicidal time delaying fanatical army by then in difficult terrain of jungle , mountains and islands.

A great general is able to make good judgement calls. Many german generals went against Hitler and defied bad orders and if this guy was any good he would have done the same.

 

[Vonboe]

You 300,000 of your men killed and only kill 8,500 of the enemy you are a suicidal fanatic not a good general. The Americans had mostly cleared his suicidal time delaying fanatical army by then in difficult terrain of jungle , mountains and islands.

A great general is able to make good judgement calls. Many german generals went against Hitler and defied bad orders and if this guy was any good he would have done the same.

Firstly were did the new number of 300.000 killed come from? in your very own wiki link it was 205.535.
Second whats's with "your" men, I surely hope you don't view nazi soldier and leader as "your" men course then you're the fanatic one.

In no book is loosing 800.000 men and get a whole army group wiped out, while still not archiving your objective seen "as good judgement call"
Still you fail to see the culture differences, which have a ton to do with warfare, good and bad on both sides.

 

[SergeantPunch]

Firstly were did the new number of 300.000 killed come from? in your very own wiki link it was 205.535.
Second whats's with "your" men, I surely hope you don't view nazi soldier and leader as "your" men course then you're the fanatic one.

In no book is loosing 800.000 men and get a whole army group wiped out, while still not archiving your objective seen "as good judgement call"
Still you fail to see the culture differences, which have a ton to do with warfare, good and bad on both sides.

That was the total campaign not one of the battles which was in my link. Not much objective achieved when you lose the Philippines either except to say almost every man under your command is dead. At least if you lose an objective for a german in europe they have some survivors.

Your man, I can't remember his name that's all. Or care too.

 

[phantomrider]

You 300,000 of your men killed and only kill 8,500 of the enemy you are a suicidal fanatic not a good general. The Americans had mostly cleared his suicidal time delaying fanatical army by then in difficult terrain of jungle , mountains and islands.

A great general is able to make good judgement calls. Many german generals went against Hitler and defied bad orders and if this guy was any good he would have done the same.

Conservation of manpower was not part of Japanese doctrine at the time. Their doctrine called for fanatical fighting until death and they in fact fought this way for much of the Pacific war. Most Europeans/US would have surrendered in similar situations in much of the Pacific Island warfare and therefore their killed in action numbers would be lower. Thus, particularly in defeat their Japanese killed in action numbers are much higher than in western armies. They did cause many US casualties though and most Marine and Army divisions that faced them were more than decimated despite their victories. (1 in 10 casualties would have been considered light by the Marines in the Pacific) Yamashita's mission was to tie up as many American forces as possible for as long as possible so that the American forces were not available for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. He was wonderfully successful at that in that a very significant force of the Japanese army was still intact when Japan surrendered after the a-bombs were used. You can not consider the Phillipines campaign as "over" or reconquered when you still have a functional enemy army there and require a large army to oppose them.

 

[vonhavoc]

Firstly were did the new number of 300.000 killed come from? in your very own wiki link it was 205.535.
Second whats's with "your" men, I surely hope you don't view nazi soldier and leader as "your" men course then you're the fanatic one.

In no book is loosing 800.000 men and get a whole army group wiped out, while still not archiving your objective seen "as good judgement call"
Still you fail to see the culture differences, which have a ton to do with warfare, good and bad on both sides.

I think you have mixed up a few things here.

Firstly, the definition 'nazi' at the time the war was going on came from the political party, the national socialists. To me it seems like you use the definition to brand people (soldiers, leaders, forum members even(?)) without any deeper thought.

Yes, there were a lot of nazis in Germany by the original definition. And even then not all those nazis really even were nazis, much like many christians these days are habitual christians. Of course, the party was a bit more mandatory thing than believing in supernatural beings these days. But in no way does this translate to all members of the said party being somehow evil or guilty of genocide or any war crimes for that matter.

To summarize: quite a large portion of the german military was there fighting for their country, in a war started by political leadership. This does not make them criminals or evil. Despite being a member of the party.

No need to get personal, anyone. We're not discussing tanks after all :closedeyes:

I do hope there is a leader DD soon so we can actually discuss the way certain leader might have an effect on the game.

 

[vonhavoc]

Conservation of manpower was not part of Japanese doctrine at the time. Their doctrine called for fanatical fighting until death and they in fact fought this way for much of the Pacific war. Most Europeans/US would have surrendered in similar situations in much of the Pacific Island warfare and therefore their killed in action numbers would be lower. Thus, particularly in defeat their Japanese killed in action numbers are much higher than in western armies. They did cause many US casualties though and most Marine and Army divisions that faced them were more than decimated despite their victories. (1 in 10 casualties would have been considered light by the Marines in the Pacific) Yamashita's mission was to tie up as many American forces as possible for as long as possible so that the American forces were not available for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. He was wonderfully successful at that in that a very significant force of the Japanese army was still intact when Japan surrendered after the a-bombs were used. You can not consider the Phillipines campaign as "over" or reconquered when you still have a functional enemy army there and require a large army to oppose them.

I for one have no problem in recognizing that he achieved the goals set for him. At a high cost.

No matter what the doctrinal situation in the country is, I just can't personally see such a waste of manpower as a sign of a great leader. In my book it more is an example of the mentality and sense of duty on the part of the actual men fighting, not brilliant leadership.

As such, I'd rate for example the aforementioned Bill Slim higher in this comparison. Easily.

 

[Porkman]

I for one have no problem in recognizing that he achieved the goals set for him. At a high cost.

No matter what the doctrinal situation in the country is, I just can't personally see such a waste of manpower as a sign of a great leader. In my book it more is an example of the mentality and sense of duty on the part of the actual men fighting, not brilliant leadership.

As such, I'd rate for example the aforementioned Bill Slim higher in this comparison. Easily.

Yes but the original question was about whether Yamashita was better than Monty. Which he is, by a longshot.