Best Generals of ww2 and their role in this game

[Gratch11]

I agree with that Balck was one of Germanys best generals, but I would put him just below Manstein, Guderian and Rommel(who I think did brilliant with what he had, that he didnt have a chance is another matter)

But I would put Manstein and Guderian before Rommel

 

[vonhavoc]

A quick note on Gibraltar: once Suez is locked down, the British supply lines are even further overextended to having to supply Gibraltar. And I can tell you right now, you would not find British convoys in great quantity near the Middle East if their port is on the other side of the Mediterranean.

Since we are in a realm of what-if, there is also the possibility of invading and taking Malta. That alone would have helped the supply issue. Even if in 1940 the aerial forces on Malta were quite small. But they did have an effect later on.

However, instead of wishy-washing for a Sealion (was pretty clear it wasn't doable at that point anyway (France had fallen, Brits evacuated from Dunkirk, no invasion plan even ready yet)) in 1940 and wasting resources bombing Britain, Malta would have been easy pickings in comparison. After all, taking Crete worked out later.

 

[Dalwin]

Since we are in a realm of what-if, there is also the possibility of invading and taking Malta. That alone would have helped the supply issue. Even if in 1940 the aerial forces on Malta were quite small. But they did have an effect later on.

However, instead of wishy-washing for a Sealion (was pretty clear it wasn't doable at that point anyway (France had fallen, Brits evacuated from Dunkirk, no invasion plan even ready yet)) in 1940 and wasting resources bombing Britain, Malta would have been easy pickings in comparison. After all, taking Crete worked out later.

I believe there were plans for an airdrop on Malta after Crete, but they got cancelled because of the heavy losses taken on Crete.

 

[vonhavoc]

He sounds like a nazi apologist to me who cannot grasp the reality of the situation or the war.
Just my opinion on his comments.

Him not appreciating british leadership doesn't make him an apologist. Nor anything related with nazism. Besides, we are discussing military leadership here, not political system of Germany during the times.

To be frank, I don't really know many great british leaders from WW2. You could just provide us all with the information, that's what the thread is for after all I know Monty, but being famous/known doesn't automatically translate to anything spectacular.

And as spectacular I'd point for example to the Manstein's miracle of early winter/spring 1943. And yes, Manstein gets my vote.

Followed by Guderian.

 

[vonhavoc]

I believe there were plans for an airdrop on Malta after Crete, but they got cancelled because of the heavy losses taken on Crete.

Would be interesting to know what the paratroopers actually did after that.. I mean, not using them at all seems like a bit of a silly option. Or using them to garrison something, or transfering them into regular infantry units.

After crete might have been a bit late to do anything about Malta anyway. A lot of Luftwaffe resources were spent in Battle of Britain and Barbarossa was just behind the corner. I do recollect reading about an increase in bombing activity on Malta anyway, something of a half-measure strategically anyway.

 

[SergeantPunch]

Walter Model is one of the most under rated. I think the idea from the land doctrine here of "desperate defence" is inspired by him.

 

[RorySheen]

To be frank, I don't really know many great british leaders from WW2. You could just provide us all with the information, that's what the thread is for after all I know Monty, but being famous/known doesn't automatically translate to anything spectacular.

The thing is, most people don't realise that Monty was a fantastic general because he ISN'T as famous as others.
Americans liked to big up their generals and turn them into superstars and of course, thanks to Hollywood's strength at the time, we all know about American generals and we all know about the German generals they fought.
Of course we all know about Rommel because it was "acceptable" for him to be idolised because he was one of the famous German generals who wasn't a Nazi. My grandpa fought in North Africa and he had huge respect for Rommel he also had huge respect for Monty.


I wouldn't call SergeantPunch a Nazi apologist but he definitely has some chip on his shoulder about the British.

 

[Dalwin]

The thing is, most people don't realise that Monty was a fantastic general because he ISN'T as famous as others.
Americans liked to big up their generals and turn them into superstars and of course, thanks to Hollywood's strength at the time, we all know about American generals and we all know about the German generals they fought.
Of course we all know about Rommel because it was "acceptable" for him to be idolised because he was one of the famous German generals who wasn't a Nazi. My grandpa fought in North Africa and he had huge respect for Rommel he also had huge respect for Monty.


I wouldn't call SergeantPunch a Nazi apologist but he definitely has some chip on his shoulder about the British.

I think you are right about the Hollywood connection. This means that Americans all know Monty, not because he was a good general which he was, but because he butted heads with Patton. It is hard to tell Patton's story without including Monty.

 

[SergeantPunch]

So basically that chip on your shoulder is so large that it's starting to have a negative effect on your mental thought process?

I can only assume that's the case or you just have no idea what you're on about at all and just decided to keep talking nonsense.

lol, I have played 3 nations in hearts of iron 3. I've played the United States, Soviet Union and France. I haven't done a germany game and not all that much interested either.

I don't like hype distorting history and in ww2 the British army didn't perform very well. Italy also seems to be over powered in hoi3 considering they performed badly as well.

 

[vonhavoc]

The thing is, most people don't realise that Monty was a fantastic general because he ISN'T as famous as others.

Don't get me wrong, but not being famous doesn't necessarily translate to being fantastic. I can easily see Monty being a decent general, it's just hard to see those amazing saves or such from him. However, I'm more than happy to learn more!

Of course, if one has less troops and materiel the great moments are more easily visible than if you fight someone who is at a disadvantage. And in some cases great feats performed by subordinates get credited to the higher-up leader.

As an example the finnish marshal Mannerheim is/was almost worshipped in Finland for a long time. And reducing him to a mere mortal was almost a taboo. However, as it turns out, he truly was an old-guard raised in russian imperial army, and had a good deal of fear of Russia in him. He also displayed some hitlerian elements that made him a less of a leader: he was ill-tempered and a true procrastinator. On top of that he apparently really liked his schnapps.. Not such a legendary leader of men really, but due to his prestige value from the struggle for the independence and the following civil war, he was the necessary figurehead at the very least.

And one has to remember, even a broken clock is right twice in a day.

 

[SergeantPunch]

The thing is, most people don't realise that Monty was a fantastic general because he ISN'T as famous as others.
Americans liked to big up their generals and turn them into superstars and of course, thanks to Hollywood's strength at the time, we all know about American generals and we all know about the German generals they fought.
Of course we all know about Rommel because it was "acceptable" for him to be idolised because he was one of the famous German generals who wasn't a Nazi. My grandpa fought in North Africa and he had huge respect for Rommel he also had huge respect for Monty.

I wouldn't call SergeantPunch a Nazi apologist but he definitely has some chip on his shoulder about the British.

Montgomery is quite a famous general but the fact is he didn't achieve anything remarkable except being a competent defensive commander like most trained military men should be.

 

[DarkCruor]

Even in Bagration the Soviets somehow managed to lose more men than Germany (about 500k Axis and 770k Soviet). It's difficult to acknowledge genius Soviet offensives when they still suffer more casualties than the enemy they have encircled and destroyed. Same in Stalingrad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

Germany lost an entire Army Group, the Soviets lost probably several divisions worth of troops, a lot of militia, and a lot of civilians- is the thing.

 

[SergeantPunch]

Seriously, what are you on about? Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with Stalingrad or the German campaign in the east as a whole.

The German 1942 goal was to establish a defence line across the Don and the Volga while taking the Baku oilfields. That failed. At no point was there a question of "150 or 200 k german troops attack a large soviet army of over 1 million" because:
a. there was a lot more than 200k axis troops
b. there was less than 1 million soviets until right before the counteroffensive
c. there was never a plan to proceed beyond the Volga

But in any case, these fantasies of yours have nothing to do with whether Stalingrad was successful. The obvious fact it was successful is that it was the first time in the war that such a massive axis force (an entire army group) was decisively defeated, with 5 armies annihilated, and the rest of the army group forced to retread hundreds of kilometres. How would anyone see it a "Verdun" is beyond me.

Yes and the war goal was already a failure with or without the battle of stalingrad. You don't make a defensive line inside a city. The forces defending the flank were too thin on the ground before looking at the fact they were under equipped. Yes if 5 armies were destroyed you must remember the soviet losses were higher. Refer to what I have already said as I will just have to keep repeating until you learn to read.

 

[Dalwin]

Yes and the war goal was already a failure with or without the battle of stalingrad. You don't make a defensive line inside a city. The forces defending the flank were too thin on the ground before looking at the fact they were under equipped. Yes if 5 armies were destroyed you must remember the soviet losses were higher. Refer to what I have already said as I will just have to keep repeating until you learn to read.

You know, it is one thing to have opinions that others disagree with, but are the insults really necessary? If you think they sound clever, you may want to rethink that position.

 

[Opanashc]

If it was planned to be just a "raid" they are beyond retards. For this British generals should lose more skill rating in hoi4, no more than 2 stars for any of them and for Dieppe if possible -1 skill.

Dieppe raid was ALL POLITICAL. Organized by Churchill, to prove to Stalin, that western powers could not open a 2nd front against the Reich.

 

[SergeantPunch]

You know, it is one thing to have opinions that others disagree with, but are the insults really necessary? If you think they sound clever, you may want to rethink that position.

When I get "what are you on about" instead of responding to the written spoken language of letters, words and sentences then an "insult" is the appropriate response.

 

[Dalwin]

When I get "what are you on about" instead of responding to the written spoken language of letters, words and sentences then an "insult" is the appropriate response.

That may be true on the WoW forums, but here things are usually a bit more civilized, though tempers tend to flare on certain issues, like Panthers.

 

[SergeantPunch]

That may be true on the WoW forums, but here things are usually a bit more civilized, though tempers tend to flare on certain issues, like Panthers.

If I said to you "what are you on about"? then you can reasonably assume I have literacy difficulties. It's not an insult really.

 

[SergeantPunch]

Dieppe raid was ALL POLITICAL. Organized by Churchill, to prove to Stalin, that western powers could not open a 2nd front against the Reich.

Probably, it was a terrible thing to do. It was just a death sentence for Canadian troops to assault this defended port directly. Total madness.

 

[Dalwin]

Probably, it was a terrible thing to do. It was just a death sentence for Canadian troops to assault this defended port directly. Total madness.

This one I can agree with. The price paid at Dieppe was much too steep. Yes they learned valuable lessons that helped with DDay. They also failed in some of their tactical objectives like gathering physical intel from the radar installation.