Best Generals of ww2 and their role in this game

[lemonsquid]

But the theory was, to make Russians and Germans to kill each other as much as possible. How very ally-like of the Western Powers.

Yea... I wouldnt really call the Western Powers and the USSR allies, more like colleagues with common goals. I think it was smarter to delay a war with the Germans at the expense of the USSR. Reason being that it was clear both parties did not agree with each other on much besides finishing off Germany. Im sure Roosevelt/Truman and Churchill agreed that it would be best to meet a fatigued USSR in Germany rather then a big wholesome one.

 

[kashkin]

Considering, that the same leadership was telling Stalin, that Germany concentrated less than 50% of its troops on the Soviet Border - Stalin had very good reasons to what he did.

Which leaders specifically? And to blame the likes of Voroshilov, Budenny and Kulik is to also put a large share of the blame on Stalin for elevating such idiots after the Purges.

 

[Zinegata]

A lot of weight is on that word "initially" there. I don't think anyone doubted that the allies could muster two hundred thousand men to capture a beach. The question is could they get the two million men to make use of that beach?

People can repeat that Italians were crappy soldiers until they are blue in the face but when the Italians switched sides the Germans captured about half a million Italian troops outside Italy, 100k Italian troops kept fighting and a sizable number went over to the Allies without capture. So even if we ignore the half million Italian troops inside Italy and suppose they would have stayed there, that's a very large number of troops to the Axis has to replace.

First off, no one is saying Italians are crappy soldiers. The question is how realistic is it to expect Italy to commit large numbers of troops for the defense of France; and how hard they will fight when they're fighting in France instead of Italy. The answer to both questions is very likely "not very realistic" and "not very hard" respectively.

Secondly, while the follow-on forces may have been weaker in 1943 than in 1944 (although this ignores the very real fact that the British Army was in much worse shape in 1944 due to the Italian campaign losses), you're still going up against a much weaker German position in France that has maybe one Panzer Division instead of seven, no Atlantic Wall, and the Germans still busy with Kursk.

Sure, the Allies may not reach Berlin in 1943, but the dominant and false narrative is that a 1943 invasion was mass suicide when in reality this is far from the case. The Western Allies were almost guaranteed that they could land their forces successfully and with much less loss, and the force ratio for the post-landing campaign was in fact in many ways more favorable than in 1944 which means they could very likely replicate and perhaps even exceed their performance in 1944.

 

[scroggin]

-The Normandy landings would probably have failed in 1944 without air superiority, they Didn't have it in 1943.
-The Germans weren't tied down in Italy and they weren't tied down as desperately it Russia, so there would have a far stronger response to a 1943 Normandy landing.
- The Americans were a lot weaker and still quite green in 1943, the Italian campaign gave a lot of experience without such a risk of having the invasion force wiped out.
-The British didn't have Hobarts funnies in 1943 without these they could have suffered very heavy casualties getting across the beaches if they had the bad luck to land on a heavily defended beach. Think of what happened on Omaha beach.

I don't blame Churchill for not wanting a 1943 invasion of France, he was probably right.

 

[keynes2.0]

First off, no one is saying Italians are crappy soldiers. The question is how realistic is it to expect Italy to commit large numbers of troops for the defense of France; and how hard they will fight when they're fighting in France instead of Italy. The answer to both questions is very likely "not very realistic" and "not very hard" respectively.

"Not very realistic" for them to leave Italy in this case meaning "happened historically"?

 

[Secret Master]

People can repeat that Italians were crappy soldiers until they are blue in the face...

Sorry, despite your objections, I must go with Rommel's assessment of the Italians.

"The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier."



EDIT: If you want a truly interesting analysis of Italian soldiers, you'd have to read chapter 11 of the Rommel Papers. He gives a scathing indictment of the Italian officer corps, which he sees as large part of the failure of Italian soldiers. I'd have been a crappy soldier if I had been in the Italian army in 1942 and put up with their leadership. :shakes head:

 

[lemonsquid]

Sorry, despite your objections, I must go with Rommel's assessment of the Italians.

"The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier."



EDIT: If you want a truly interesting analysis of Italian soldiers, you'd have to read chapter 11 of the Rommel Papers. He gives a scathing indictment of the Italian officer corps, which he sees as large part of the failure of Italian soldiers. I'd have been a crappy soldier if I had been in the Italian army in 1942 and put up with their leadership. :shakes head:

So then Italy is the French of the Axis Powers?

 

[Secret Master]

So then Italy is the French of the Axis Powers?

Well, the analogy is somewhat apt, although I think Mussolini is a bigger idiot than anyone in the French political or military leadership.

Keep in mind the after the Italian army had demobilized 600,000 men after the Battle of France (they needed the manpower for the upcoming harvest, I think), he then decides to attack Greece on the spur of the moment. That means the Italian army has to mobilize again, in the middle of a demobilization, and when the economy could use the extra labor.

That kind of behavior makes Maurice Gamelin look brilliant in comparison. At least Gamelin didn't strip France of 600,000 troops two weeks before the Germans executed Fall Gelb.

 

[RisingSun]

I would say the Malayan Tiger (Yamashita), but I still like Ozawa around incase the yankie show up.

 

[SergeantPunch]

Sorry, despite your objections, I must go with Rommel's assessment of the Italians.

"The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier."



EDIT: If you want a truly interesting analysis of Italian soldiers, you'd have to read chapter 11 of the Rommel Papers. He gives a scathing indictment of the Italian officer corps, which he sees as large part of the failure of Italian soldiers. I'd have been a crappy soldier if I had been in the Italian army in 1942 and put up with their leadership. :shakes head:

From hoi3 they seem a bit over powered considering the history of ww2. They struggled against a small number of french troops in the Alps. Had to be helped by the germans in the Balkans and Greece and also routed by a much smaller British force in North Africa the germans sent in divisions to help. The performance is not that good and that's not a comment on the italian soldier but for whatever reasons this was a very poor performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass

In the latter 36,000 British defeats 150,000 Italians taking 115,000 prisoners. So yeah I think hoi3 really over estimates Italian power and under estimates French power.

 

[Secret Master]

Italian leadership was exceptionally lacking. They also had bad equipment. Add to that the fact that Mussolini planned for war in 1943, and you have the perfect recipe for the military disaster that was Italian performance in the war.

I'm not sure Italy is overpowered in HOI3, though. Italy is weaker than the other major powers, and it's reflected in the game.

The catch, I feel, is that Italian leadership was so ridiculously poor that even an average human player can do better. Even something as simple as taking Malta immediately upon entering the war is a vast improvement upon historical performance. This doesn't even address things like fixing the lousy OOB, streamlining divisions, or investing in key technologies.

Italy starts out in poor shape compared to everyone else (hell, even her colonial empire sucks), but she has the most room to grow just by having a decent leader in charge.

 

[SergeantPunch]

Italian leadership was exceptionally lacking. They also had bad equipment. Add to that the fact that Mussolini planned for war in 1943, and you have the perfect recipe for the military disaster that was Italian performance in the war.

I'm not sure Italy is overpowered in HOI3, though. Italy is weaker than the other major powers, and it's reflected in the game.

The catch, I feel, is that Italian leadership was so ridiculously poor that even an average human player can do better. Even something as simple as taking Malta immediately upon entering the war is a vast improvement upon historical performance. This doesn't even address things like fixing the lousy OOB, streamlining divisions, or investing in key technologies.

Italy starts out in poor shape compared to everyone else (hell, even her colonial empire sucks), but she has the most room to grow just by having a decent leader in charge.

I've seen more than one successful Italian invasion of France in play through. I have seen Italy on their own pushing the British back in North Africa. This shouldn't be happening if Italy were not over powered. They should be a liability to the Germans like in reality.

yeah I agree with what you are saying though is that these errors can be changed by a human player (and the AI it seems also) but I don't think the same is applied to France and Britain during the battle of france 1940.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I've seen more than one successful Italian invasion of France in play through. I have seen Italy on their own pushing the British back in North Africa. This shouldn't be happening if Italy were not over powered. They should be a liability to the Germans like in reality.

yeah I agree with what you are saying though is that these errors can be changed by a human player (and the AI it seems also) but I don't think the same is applied to France and Britain during the battle of france 1940.

Your also not taking into account the lack of supplies due to allied sinkings of axis convoys. It is quite easy to push back forces when their supplies are very low.

The "Italy pushing back Britain" can quite easily be explained that Germany (whether human or AI) is having success in its Atlantic convoy campaign. If you manage to actually sink all the convoys Britain has in it's pool, the first cuts to the transports are to places like Africa where there is only troops and no resources. Cutting the resource lines would make the blockade of Britain go much faster.

If this happens Italy easily captures and controls all of Africa without any German troops.

That isn't overpowered, that is what would have happened if the Germans had been more successful in their convoy campaign.

 

[Dina1954]

-The Normandy landings would probably have failed in 1944 without air superiority, they Didn't have it in 1943.
-The Germans weren't tied down in Italy and they weren't tied down as desperately it Russia, so there would have a far stronger response to a 1943 Normandy landing.
- The Americans were a lot weaker and still quite green in 1943, the Italian campaign gave a lot of experience without such a risk of having the invasion force wiped out.
-The British didn't have Hobarts funnies in 1943 without these they could have suffered very heavy casualties getting across the beaches if they had the bad luck to land on a heavily defended beach. Think of what happened on Omaha beach.

I don't blame Churchill for not wanting a 1943 invasion of France, he was probably right.

Yes I agree but what had happen if the invasion had started in june 1943.Now I am sure that Germany will not attack in kursk (5 July ) Hitler sees a chance to an big victory in west and send back say 5 armoured divisions from Russia to France and rest of
his mobile force in russia will be deployed in reserv behind the lines and now must russian attack all their work with defence in Kursk worth nothing when the germans will not attack them.
offensive

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Yes I agree but what had happen if the invasion had started in june 1943.Now I am sure that Germany will not attack in kursk (5 July ) Hitler sees a chance to an big victory in west and send back say 5 armoured divisions from Russia to France and rest of
his mobile force in russia will be deployed in reserv behind the lines and now must russian attack all their work with defence in Kursk worth nothing when the germans will not attack them.
offensive

The landings in 1943 simply weren't possible, but for none of the reasons anyone has mentioned:
1. Landing craft had barely been invented in 1943 and there would not be enough of them to even launch 1/10 the D-Day force.
2. Their would be no port available to the allies, as it would be destroyed by the germans, so no supplies except by landing craft. The Allies built the floating ports and this served as the primary ports for several months after D-Day.
3. Oil pipelines for the troops (operation pluto) would have not existed yet, which would need to be shipped in by convoy (which see #2 the allies wouldn't have). Also I believe most oil terminals are in southern France not Northern.
4. Convoy transports were in extremely desperate need, to the point that they almost delayed the African campaign, and D-day as it was. Yes the USA had built 10,000's of vehicles and weapons, but there was such a shortage of convoys that they couldn't get it to Britain in time for 1943 invasion. If the allies hadn't broken the naval enigma when they did, both would have been delayed due to the hundreds of additional convoy transports sunk.

All of that added up means allies simply could not even possibly do a 1943 invasion of mainland Europe and 1944 was the earliest possible time.

 

[Secret Master]

I've seen more than one successful Italian invasion of France in play through. I have seen Italy on their own pushing the British back in North Africa. This shouldn't be happening if Italy were not over powered. They should be a liability to the Germans like in reality.

yeah I agree with what you are saying though is that these errors can be changed by a human player (and the AI it seems also) but I don't think the same is applied to France and Britain during the battle of france 1940.

Which is a point I made in another thread.

France seems nerfed far more than necessary, even compared to Italy. So, it's not so much as Italy overpowered, as France is underpowered.

 

[Dalwin]

Yes I agree but what had happen if the invasion had started in june 1943.Now I am sure that Germany will not attack in kursk (5 July ) Hitler sees a chance to an big victory in west and send back say 5 armoured divisions from Russia to France and rest of
his mobile force in russia will be deployed in reserv behind the lines and now must russian attack all their work with defence in Kursk worth nothing when the germans will not attack them.
offensive

I could see the above scenario resulting in the SU reaching Berlin before the Western Allies have even reached the Rhine.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

No, I'm pointing out that German Generals do in fact keep resorting to the "Hitler made me do it" excuse, and they in fact had the advantage not of "superior leadership", but of strategic surprise against the Soviets. For the French, there was very bad generalship involved on the French side, but that still doesn't change the fact that the balance sheet of regular Divisions ultimately favored the Germans.

This does not at all support these constant attempts to find "middle ground", because that kind of silliness is how you get 1+1=3 because delusional people insist that 1+1=4 (3 being in between 2 and 4, hence "middle ground").

The reality is that German Generalship wasn't all that cracked up to be. Decent tacticians, but were outdone completely by 1944 in this regard; and they were never particularly good at figuring out how to win a war in the first place. Because again, winning a battle and winning a war are two very different things, and people seriously need to stop believing winning battles automatically leads to winning a war and no amount of "If only Hitler..." is going to change that. Heck, again, America won every battle in Vietnam and yet still lost the war.

I think a major issue with the decline of German success tactically and operationally has to do with their lack of a formalized doctrine. If you think about what formal doctrine does, especially if it continues to evolve, it creates a catalog of what works and what doesn't work as per the requirements of your doctrine. The Germans didn't have this overarching guideline and as a result, I would argue many mistakes which were repeated throughout the war could have been avoided by providing the framework of a formal doctrine.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

Because the entire impetus for the Manhattan project was to develop Atomic weapons before the Germans did.

Europe First was the strategy because the US saw the Germans as a greater threat, so if Germany is still alive and kicking in August of 45, they'll be the first to get the bomb.

Also, the US was set to produce 5 more bombs in September and then 10 every month after that. There is no counterfactual where brilliant generalship for the Germans pulls it out in 1944.

I'm not sure America would have used bombs on Germany. Dropping them on Japan was a totally different prospect. Japanese were asian and racism was far more widely accepted and even culturally ingrained. I think the decision to drop bombs on white Europeans would have been far more difficult. ESPECIALLY if bombs had been dropped on Japan already. In addition, the strategic impact of atom bombs at that point in the war against Germany would have been dubious. The German cities were already basically rubble, and as a tactical weapon, it is debatable how effective dropping nukes on dispersed German forces would have been. Not to mention dropping them anywhere near the front where friendly casualties would have been nearly equal.

 

[Porkman]

I'm not sure America would have used bombs on Germany. Dropping them on Japan was a totally different prospect. Japanese were asian and racism was far more widely accepted and even culturally ingrained. I think the decision to drop bombs on white Europeans would have been far more difficult. ESPECIALLY if bombs had been dropped on Japan already. In addition, the strategic impact of atom bombs at that point in the war against Germany would have been dubious. The German cities were already basically rubble, and as a tactical weapon, it is debatable how effective dropping nukes on dispersed German forces would have been. Not to mention dropping them anywhere near the front where friendly casualties would have been nearly equal.

Read the contemporary accounts. No one in the Manhattan Project saw Japan as the target until mid 1944. The bomb arrived late so the US dropped it on the target of opportunity.