Best Generals of ww2 and their role in this game

[phantomrider]

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.

While I admire your humanism and as a former member of the military would hope to have commanders who also value the lives of their soldiers there are a few problems with your statement. One of the jobs of a military commander is to achieve the assigned objectives. In most cases achieving the objective will result the deaths of some of his men but the assigned goal is to achieve that objective. The role of the commanders is to trade lives for "objectives" as efficiently as possible but rarely can you achieve an objective in war without losing lives. Yamashita's objective was to defend the Japanese home islands by carrying out a war of attrition which would prevent the transfer of US forces from the Phillipines to the home island invasion force. In addition, the prolonged campaign caused over 47,000 combat casualties for the US and another 93,000 non combat casualties (fighting in jungles and mountains is not good for your health even if you don't get shot or blown up) that for the most part were more or less permanently unavailable for the invasion of Japan. By the end of the war there were still 115,000 Japanese soldiers in the Phillipines opposing a significant American Army (the 6th Army was slowing transitioning to an invasion force for the home islands but was being replaced by the 8th Army). The US Army's evaluation was that by March 1945 the campaign was won but.... (they still had to have many more than 115000 men in the Phillipines because of Yamashita) (www.history.army.mil/brochure/luzon/72.28.htm) The US Army thought Yamashita could have fought more actively and maybe caused a few more difficulties and possibly combat casualties but admits that that would have meant fighting in open terrain around Manila and central Luzon against overwhelming US superiority in armor, artilllery, supply, air support etc and that if they did so the campaign in the Phillipines would really have been over much more quickly. (possilby with a few more combat casualties but a lot less non combat casualties).

Yamashita obviously didn't see it that way. What Yamashita did was correctly evaluate a strategically hopeless situation and make the most out of it which I think is the sign of a superb leader and commander. In modern warfare commanders rarely get to pick their wars or strategic situations they have to play the hand they are dealt.

 

[vonhavoc]

While I admire your humanism and as a former member of the military would hope to have commanders who also value the lives of their soldiers there are a few problems with your statement. One of the jobs of a military commander is to achieve the assigned objectives. In most cases achieving the objective will result the deaths of some of his men but the assigned goal is to achieve that objective. The role of the commanders is to trade lives for "objectives" as efficiently as possible but rarely can you achieve an objective in war without losing lives. Yamashita's objective was to defend the Japanese home islands by carrying out a war of attrition which would prevent the transfer of US forces from the Phillipines to the home island invasion force. In addition, the prolonged campaign caused over 47,000 combat casualties for the US and another 93,000 non combat casualties (fighting in jungles and mountains is not good for your health even if you don't get shot or blown up) that for the most part were more or less permanently unavailable for the invasion of Japan. By the end of the war there were still 115,000 Japanese soldiers in the Phillipines opposing a significant American Army (the 6th Army was slowing transitioning to an invasion force for the home islands but was being replaced by the 8th Army). The US Army's evaluation was that by March 1945 the campaign was won but.... (they still had to have many more than 115000 men in the Phillipines because of Yamashita) (www.history.army.mil/brochure/luzon/72.28.htm) The US Army thought Yamashita could have fought more actively and maybe caused a few more difficulties and possibly combat casualties but admits that that would have meant fighting in open terrain around Manila and central Luzon against overwhelming US superiority in armor, artilllery, supply, air support etc and that if they did so the campaign in the Phillipines would really have been over much more quickly. (possilby with a few more combat casualties but a lot less non combat casualties).

Yamashita obviously didn't see it that way. What Yamashita did was correctly evaluate a strategically hopeless situation and make the most out of it which I think is the sign of a superb leader and commander. In modern warfare commanders rarely get to pick their wars or strategic situations they have to play the hand they are dealt.

I do appreciate that he as a commander was in quite a pinch. However, the battle of Luzon with it's casualty figures tell that clearly something was done a bit less than optimally. I am fully aware of the clear material and manpower advantage the allies had, including complete domination of sea and air. I'm not arguing that he should have surrendered, but maybe use some other methods than subjecting your troops to a massacre at the hands of your enemies.

Had the japanese troops not been wasted (I know, a bit weighted word) they would have tied up even more US forces on the Philippines. But then again, they would have also required more supplies.

 

[phantomrider]

I do appreciate that he as a commander was in quite a pinch. However, the battle of Luzon with it's casualty figures tell that clearly something was done a bit less than optimally. I am fully aware of the clear material and manpower advantage the allies had, including complete domination of sea and air. I'm not arguing that he should have surrendered, but maybe use some other methods than subjecting your troops to a massacre at the hands of your enemies.

Had the japanese troops not been wasted (I know, a bit weighted word) they would have tied up even more US forces on the Philippines. But then again, they would have also required more supplies.

Yamashita was limited by Japanese doctrine at the time. When situations were deemed "hopeless" tactically the troops were supposed to attack even if it would result in their deaths with minimal chance of taking more enemies with them into the afterlife. This was effectively trained into the Japanese soldier (death before dishonor of surrender). In a sense the average Japanese soldier was even more dedicated the the "cause" or the emperor than any other elite soldier group in any army in the world at the time. Essentially the whole Japanese military was like this given the few numbers of captured or surrender Japanese military personnel there were in WWII. This is not something an individual General or leader could change (There was even concern that the Emperor himself could change it when Japan finally surrendered). This is not to say that they were invincible {they weren't} and that this strength or dedication could not be exploited by their enemies (it was). People don't get to pick who their parents are or what national/tribal group they get born into and as a result are stuck with the hand they are dealt.

 

[Gratch11]

1/ The planes and tanks the USSR got wasnt that good, the planes were ok but the tanks were 2nd rate, the big contribution they got were the trucks
2/ Its not that strange that most german losses were 43 and after, the germans were good at salvaging tanks and that is easier when you are advancing.
3/ Found these numbers, USSR lost 84000 tanks but produced 105000 and had 19000 at start of ww2, so the argument would be that the loss ratio would be close to 1 to 3, but it could be argued that as of 1/1 1942 the losses are one lost german tank to just over 2 sovjet during 42-45. As a lot of german tanks were lost during half of 43 and onwards, it would suggest that the kill rate including Zitadel was 1 vs 3 and the more like 1 to 1-1,5. after zitadel The majority of these killed by infantry and not by other tanks for both sides

 

[SergeantPunch]

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.

To be a great japanese you have to delay the inevitable with massive casualties to your own army and small to the enemy then you are an idiot.

 

[SergeantPunch]

Yamashita was limited by Japanese doctrine at the time. When situations were deemed "hopeless" tactically the troops were supposed to attack even if it would result in their deaths with minimal chance of taking more enemies with them into the afterlife. This was effectively trained into the Japanese soldier (death before dishonor of surrender). In a sense the average Japanese soldier was even more dedicated the the "cause" or the emperor than any other elite soldier group in any army in the world at the time. Essentially the whole Japanese military was like this given the few numbers of captured or surrender Japanese military personnel there were in WWII. This is not something an individual General or leader could change (There was even concern that the Emperor himself could change it when Japan finally surrendered). This is not to say that they were invincible {they weren't} and that this strength or dedication could not be exploited by their enemies (it was). People don't get to pick who their parents are or what national/tribal group they get born into and as a result are stuck with the hand they are dealt.

I don't see anything particularly good about him as a general though. Italian partisans were in the same period of time able to inflict as great a loss on german soldiers in Italy lol it's a joke if these guy is a great general.

 

[vonhavoc]

To be a great japanese you have to delay the inevitable with massive casualties to your own army and small to the enemy then you are an idiot.

Not really constructive.. I thought the point was to discuss. The thing is, as there is no universal definition for greatness, it's a matter of opinnion for everyone. Even with Model who ended up ending himself. Someone might see that as a character flaw too.

 

[Porkman]

I don't see anything particularly good about him as a general though. Italian partisans were in the same period of time able to inflict as great a loss on german soldiers in Italy lol it's a joke if these guy is a great general.

That's true. Maybe the plentiful and well trained Anti Japanese Philippino partisans kept Yamashita from doing something similar.

Also, the invasion of Malaya was amazing.

 

[scroggin]

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.

This raises one of the things that makes comparing Generals very difficult. How much of an army's success or failure is due to their general and how much is due to the army's doctrine, culture, equipment, experience, officer training etc.

The "bansai charges" and "fight to the death defences" happened right through the Japanese army. So can you say Yamashita was a poor General because they happened under him?

 

[misterbean]

To me, a good general is one that, in the end, will allow you to win most fights. Banzai charges only happened when they knew the game was up anyway. I don't think they ever did that at the beginning of a conflict. More as a way of saying: "If I have to go, I'm taking as many of you with me as I can."
So, did Yamashita win most of the battles he was involved in? I only know about Singapore. His tactics and strategy there were masterful.

 

[Opanashc]

To me, a good general is one that, in the end, will allow you to win most fights.

German generals lost in the end. Ergo, they were not good generals.

 

[Klausewitz]

German generals lost in the end. Ergo, they were not good generals.

Does not matter.
The question is many fights they won before they went down...

 

[misterbean]

Does not matter.
The question is many fights they won before they went down...

Exactly. I don't think anyone will argue about the abilities of a Guderian or a Patton. But even those guys couldn't win a fight stacked 10-to-1 against them.

 

[Had a dad]

So, did Yamashita win most of the battles he was involved in? I only know about Singapore. His tactics and strategy there were masterful.

Yes they were.

 

[Dalwin]

Exactly. I don't think anyone will argue about the abilities of a Guderian or a Patton. But even those guys couldn't win a fight stacked 10-to-1 against them.

Nuts.

Couldn't resist. This is not a nomination of McAuliffe as best general. Now if we had a discussion of best quote by a general this might be a candidate.

 

[Opanashc]

Exactly. I don't think anyone will argue about the abilities of a Guderian or a Patton. But even those guys couldn't win a fight stacked 10-to-1 against them.

A little exaggeration, 10 to 1, neh? How much men and materiel did the Axis field vs the Allies?

 

[misterbean]

A little exaggeration, 10 to 1, neh? How much men and materiel did the Axis field vs the Allies?

just an example, not a realistic situation.

 

[Klausewitz]

A little exaggeration, 10 to 1, neh? How much men and materiel did the Axis field vs the Allies?

It is always a question of strtegic vs. local.
D-Day for example number 150.000 Allied against a bit over 50.000 Germans.
On the Beach however and it immediate environs the numbers of the Allies would have been much higher in relation to the German troops.
And so forth...

 

[Dina1954]

Guys! Read Antony Beever and Max Hasting.They say that only Patton was good of the West allied powers.The Russian had severel good generals.Von Manstein was the best General in ww 2 And I must say The best soldiers ever Waffen SS no allied divisions could take so much punish as them.If you read the last book from the amoured battle in Prochorovka by Walter Schüle and Martin Månsson .LSSAH strike with only about70 tanks and assult guns (only 4 Tigers no Panther the rest Panzer III and IV andStuG III )
back 500-600 Russian tanks and assult guns.LSSAH lost only totally destroyed 4 tanks the russians 340-350 tanks.In all this year have this been hide by the russians.

 

[amalric de g.]

Didn´t say it didn´t exist. Just saying that no LL = defeat is a dubious claim. Specially because in 1941 the material wasn´t exactly huge.

Back to topic

As i stated in another thread thats not true. The USSR received wares and materials worth 1$ billion in 41/42 from the USA.

Ok total numbers US LL (Oct41 till June 1942) only:
1,5 Mio. Tonns wheat and wares worth 1 billion $, total:
1.800 planes
2.250 tanks
1.000 AA
5.000 Jeeps
85.000 trucks all 4x4 (production SU 1941-45 205.000 trucks, 150.000 military)
108.000 fieldtelephones
562.000 miles cabels
9.000 T. tank plates
30.000 T. Toluol and TNT
15.000 T. chemicals
3.253 peaces heavy machines
1.6 Mio. pairs military boots
1 Mio. yards. military cloth

without LL contract:
rd. 100.000 MP´s
rd. 1000 tractors,
45.000 Tonns barbedwire

so not huge??