I know the second guy is Rommel, third guy is MacArthur, and last guy is Zhukov.
- 1
Who is the leftmost guy on the cover art?
- Thread starter sepoquro
- Start date
-
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.
They are all Field Marshals
Interestingly enough Montgomery and Rommel both admired each other on the field and were essentially like-for-like in terms of personality and morality etc hence why they are placed side by side. The similarities between both of them are startling to say the least (even pre-war) and they had never met each other in person through out the war.
After the war and Rommel's death, Montogomery wished he had the chance to discuss the great battle of El Alamein with Rommel.
Interestingly enough Montgomery and Rommel both admired each other on the field and were essentially like-for-like in terms of personality and morality etc hence why they are placed side by side. The similarities between both of them are startling to say the least (even pre-war) and they had never met each other in person through out the war.
After the war and Rommel's death, Montogomery wished he had the chance to discuss the great battle of El Alamein with Rommel.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Would have been an interesting discussion but the British had a 2:1 advantage in men, tanks and armoured cars vs the German/Italian troops so if no mistakes were made, the battle outcome would not come as a surprise to anyone. Other fronts had these odds and miracles happened all the time.
- 1
Maybe that impressed Montgomery and added to list of reasons why he would have wanted to talk to Rommel.
- 2
2:1 is a tad misleading, in reality, Montgomery had a much bigger advantage than that.
He had 1029 tanks against the Axis 547, which is indeed 2:1. However, of those 547, only 249 were German, and of those 249, only 30 were Pz. IV's with a 75mm. The rest were either Pz. III's with 50mm cannons (not reliable against modern allied armor, to say the least), or even worse, Pz. II's with 20mm's. The Italian tanks were all useless except at point blank range.
In addition to the 1029 tanks allocated for the offensive, Montgomery also had hundreds of tanks in reserve, and over 1000 in the repair shops in various states of readiness.
Finally, add that the Afrika Korps didn't have any fuel reserves, so they could not manouver. Then with the allies knowing about the supply situation as well as the entire German OOB down to the last man through the ULTRA decrypts, i'd say that El Alamein was about as uneven as it is possible to get
- 10
The First Battle of El Alamein had similar numbers and ratios, but ended in a stalemate. Still a victory for the Allies, since they still held the ground, but far from the victory of the second battle. Second Battle of El Alamein devastated the Axis forces, wiping out nearly all of their armour and costing the Axis as much as half of their troops, while Allied troop losses remained around the same as the First Battle of El Alamein. I don't think any battle prior went quite so well for the Allies, and few after; regardless of numerical advantages.
There's certainly the argument to be had that the battle would have been won regardless, but the situation didn't change that much between the First and Second Battles. Both sides had more tanks, but in both cases the Allies had more and better tanks (and about a thousand sitting in the repair shop for both battles). The Axis were overextended and having significant supply problems and ULTRA provided intelligence in both cases. Yet the First Battle of El Alamein lasted longer and was not nearly as costly for the Axis. The extra tanks and the debut of the Sherman on the battlefield would have helped, but I don't think the massive difference in the outcome between the two battles can be primarily attributed to that.
Technically, MacArthur is not a Field Marshal as the US did not have that rank due to the "Catch 22 style- Marshal Marshal" word becoming a joke.
Again, Monty and Rommel were opposite poles- Monty was all about planning, piling on the forces, building a huge artillery park, hundreds of tanks and then bombing the enemy and then walking over the prostrate man, similar strategy to the one used by the allies in the "100 day offensives" in WW1.
Rommel was a total improviser, always trying to pull a "fast one" on the allies, using Volkswagon cars as "Dummy Assault Guns", using the "88s in camouflage to deadly effect" etc.
Again, Monty and Rommel were opposite poles- Monty was all about planning, piling on the forces, building a huge artillery park, hundreds of tanks and then bombing the enemy and then walking over the prostrate man, similar strategy to the one used by the allies in the "100 day offensives" in WW1.
Rommel was a total improviser, always trying to pull a "fast one" on the allies, using Volkswagon cars as "Dummy Assault Guns", using the "88s in camouflage to deadly effect" etc.
- 8
Part of that was due to their circumstances, over which they had almost no control - Germany didnt have as many planes/tanks etc.so field commanders had to take extra risk, to have any chance of victory. On the other hand, allies were able to provide enough weapons and ammo that their commanders were able to take "low risk" road.
That "road" also meant that pre-1943 (1943 onward was when the US numbers really started pouring in), the allies almost always lost when they were numerically equal to German forces. So, doesn't mean that the "road" chosen by the Allies was good.
yes, it worked in the end and yes, the casualties figure for the western allies was minimal. But the Germans till about mid-1941 also raked up a very low body count.
I wonder why they picked MacArthur to represent the US instead of Eisenhower (or even Patton)? Though MacArthur was likely the most popular and well known general in the US at the time, his actual military role during the war was limited. I think his greatest impact on history was actually his role as SCAP, ruling Japan during the post-war occupation and reconstruction.
- 2
I didnt recognise him. Patton would have been a better choice.
- 5
I recognize him easily, thanks to his pipe and his sunglasses. But I agree, he's more famous for his action after the war and during the Korean War. IMHO, Eisenhower should have been a better choice.
- 4
Either Eisenhower or Patton IMHO. If they're trying to go for the most famous of each nation then it would probably be Patton. If they're going for Field Marshals then Eisenhower is the guy.
- 3
Probably to get some "Pacific focus" into the cover art. This is a global war game after all, and it'll be odd if we only have the European theatre commanders present.
- 2
Those 4 poster-boys are (or were, when people knew such things) the most well-known successful commanders of their respective nations. Three of them are widely regarded as the most capable of their nation, and the fourth and his acolytes held that opinion of himself.
Like Marshall heading the joint chiefs, Eisenhower was Supreme Commander and not a commander of troops in the field, instead wrangling in the spheres of politics and service rivalries as well as military strategy. Competent, but as exciting as your uncle or grandpa, which won him two elections.
As mentioned above, Patton did not reach field marshal or equivalent rank.
Like Marshall heading the joint chiefs, Eisenhower was Supreme Commander and not a commander of troops in the field, instead wrangling in the spheres of politics and service rivalries as well as military strategy. Competent, but as exciting as your uncle or grandpa, which won him two elections.
As mentioned above, Patton did not reach field marshal or equivalent rank.
His biggest achievement was getting China into the Korean war. MacArthur snatched a draw from the jaws of victory. He is the only American General to have the title of Field Marshal, though it was with the Philippine army.
If I take iconic out of the equation I would take G.C. Marshall, would be interesting if they replaced them with Naval leaders. Personally I would put Cunningham, Raeder, Nimitz, and replace USSR with Yamamoto of course
. How about everyone else? I picked Raeder over Doenitz because after reading into his Strategic mindset I believe him to be a much more capable war leader at that level then Doenitz.