A reason just as good as any
, just wondered as it werent that many German WWI ex-officers that left der Vaterland when the nazis took over. And all the more reason to put him forth as a commander.-
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.
, just wondered as it werent that many German WWI ex-officers that left der Vaterland when the nazis took over. And all the more reason to put him forth as a commander.
What does leaving Germany when nazis take over have to do with one's skill as a military leader?
Maybe Ray Spruance should be on the short list. Certainly if results count, his victory at Midway ranks with Nelson's at Trafalgar in terms of importance. Spruance was a very quiet, unassuming guy who took care of business and didn't make much noise about it. If he'd been flamboyant like Halsey more people might remember him.
Rommel writes in his Papers the toughest fight he faced in North Africa was against the Free French troops in the Bir Hacheim box on the southern end of the Gazala line. Anyone know the name of the French commander there? Had a German sound I recall, like Koenig or something.
I also believe the authors of the Blitzkrieg doctrine were actually two Brits., Captain Fuller and B.H. Liddell-Hart. Certainly Guderian and Rommel both refer to their writings as influential on those commanders' thinking.
Rommel writes in his Papers the toughest fight he faced in North Africa was against the Free French troops in the Bir Hacheim box on the southern end of the Gazala line. Anyone know the name of the French commander there? Had a German sound I recall, like Koenig or something.
I also believe the authors of the Blitzkrieg doctrine were actually two Brits., Captain Fuller and B.H. Liddell-Hart. Certainly Guderian and Rommel both refer to their writings as influential on those commanders' thinking.
I think you misunderstod me, Paul von Lettow Vorbeck´s military accomplishments speaks for itself, and are reasons enough to put him forth as one of the greatest commanders of last century. But his refusal to dabble with the Nazis does show that some old Prussian officers still had some backbone, and makes him IMHO a better man then say Manstein or Rommel, and thus should be valued higher then said Field marshalls.
I dont know what Rommel had to do with the Blitzkrieg doctrine to begin with, but Guderian refered to B.H. Liddell-Hart, in the interviews made by said Brit with numerous German generals after the war, during their time as PoWs. In exchage for giving him the credit for the Blitzkrieg doctrine, B.H. Liddell-Hart wrote more favourably on the generals then what otherwise may have been the case.
Last edited:
Here's a response for Zhukov...Marshal Zhukov seemed to believe that greatness was achieved by recklessly risking the lives of his men. Most of his decisions were not the result of any superior military knowledge, but rather were born of his ambition to curry political favor from Stalin. Ivan Konev was, by far, the most able military leader of all the Soviet Marshals. That being said, I still would not pick Marshal Konev as the greatest military mind of the Red Army or the twentieth century...that honor I would give to a man who achieved greatness by mastering a type of warfare that, even today, most generals will avoid like the plague. I am, of course, referring to urban warfare.
So, my nomination is for Colonel General Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov, commander of the 62nd Army at Stalingrad, and Headmaster of the "Stalingrad Academy of Street-Fighting".
So, my nomination is for Colonel General Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov, commander of the 62nd Army at Stalingrad, and Headmaster of the "Stalingrad Academy of Street-Fighting".
Agreed. Spruance was both extremely competant and extremely lucky, a combination that is rare.
Interesting sidelight on Spruance v Halsey. When, after the war, the Congress got around to the business of selecting the fourth and final 5-star for the Navy, the choice was obviously between Halsey and Spruance. Both had their backers. Carl Vinson, who had grown to admire Spruance enormously, realized that the 5-start rank was a sop to ego that Spruance didn't frankly care much for. He then engineered a compromise: Halsey got the fifth star, and Spruance got to be the only member of the US armed forces ever given the privelege of retiring at full pay. Spruance thought it was far better than a fifth star - after all, there were lots of 5-stars around, but he was unique (and the privelege was worth a lot more, since no pay raise went with the fifth star)!
hmmm talking about ww1....who was the architect behind the german infiltration tactics which they introduced in the last part of ww1....? As far as I understand that was almost a big an innovation for the infantry of time as mobile warfare would be for tanks 20ish years later.....
Smith-Dorrien super lucky? Super unlucky I'd have said. Subject to a massive personal vendetta by his immediate superior, then relieved of his post for wanting to do the right thing (which was then done by his successor anyway), then shipped off to Africa where he gets taken ill immediately and nearly dies thus bringing his career to an abrupt halt, then killed in a car crash.
Admittedly, more lucky than Jimmy Grierson, by virtue of not dying of a heart attack on the way to take up his command.
Admittedly, more lucky than Jimmy Grierson, by virtue of not dying of a heart attack on the way to take up his command.
and thats why i picked currie. he wasnt a german but he was an innovator along thse lines.
Again, why does a general's politics play a part in ranking his abilities as a leader of men? Manstein, Rommel, and Guderian were all fine leaders. What side they fought for shouldn't even come into consideration.
How much did any of them know about the Nazis before the war?
Wouldn't this also disqualify all Soviet generals? Stalin was every bit as bad as hitler, if not worse.
Patton, Guderian, Manstein, Slim.
Slim gets the nod because of what he accomplished in a theatre that was basically irrelevant to the war. The other three should be pretty obvious. If we're going beyond generalship and heading into the realm of politics, I'd add George C. Marshall to the list.
If the scope of this list could be widened a bit, I'd put Otto Skorzeny on the list.
How was the Burma theatre irrelevant to the war? It denied the Japanese massive amounts of raw materials, kept the Chinese in the war and saw the destruction of the single largest force the Japanese ever put into the field, including most of their best troops. It wasn't glamorous but it was hardly irrelevant.
It was a sideshow. It had no bearing on VJ. On the list of supply and reinforcement priorities, I really don't think anywhere was lower than Burma. At the time, there was no reason to take it. It had resources, yes, but the japs had no way of moving them anywhere but to the bottom of the ocean.
I think I might have edited my post with another candidate after you responded.
This is by far to hard to say about Zhukov, he was the only general to refuse Stalins orders and shout at the same. (and to surive it).
About his tactics, he rallied on concetrated massive attacks, from several directions on several spots to converge on the same points. This strategy was the Red Army doctrine. He further understood the capabilties of armour and knew how to use it effectivly. Yes, he didn't care much about the losses, but this way of thinking is/was very common in certain cultures, like the Sovjet and Chinease.
About Slim, how many men did the Japanease put against him?
About the doctrine, Guderian used to a great extent De Gaules work.
Why does it matter whether De Gaulle came up with the theories employed in blitzkrieg? In judging the merits of generals, application of theory is what is important. This is a question of great leaders, not great military thinkers.
Guderian was a great general becouse he knew anything about his panzers. He knew how far they can go, how many fuel they need, which obstacles they can take and which they have to bypass. This knowledge was based on theory.
Besides who said De Gaule didn't know how to implement his theory?
Besides who said De Gaule didn't know how to implement his theory?
That's a great question. I wish I had the answer.
At Imphal and Kohima, the Commonwealth and the japs were evenly matched as far as number of divisions go, but I don't have any figures on the strength of the formations involved (15th, 31st, 33rd Japanese divisions, 2nd Division and the 17th and 20th Indian divisions).
The opposition to Slim during the liberation of Indochina came in the form of the 15th Army, under a general Mutaguchi.
I couldn't find any figures on men and material more specific than divisions and brigades in the sources I have right now.
Madner, that information is based on technical specifications and experience, not theory. If DuGaulle knew how to implement the theory, he was never given an opportunity to do so.