Just wondering. I really don't know much about most of them except Rommel and Manstein, so I can't really compare between say, Manstein and Zhukov.
-
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.
This really belongs in the history thread...
Manstein, Zhukov, Guderian, Rommel, Patton, Marshall, Montgomery (shudder)...
It depends, are you including naval leaders? Air leaders? There are many different ways of looking at this.
Additionally, there is at least one more thread on this topic, it is in the history forum somewhere.
Steele
Manstein, Zhukov, Guderian, Rommel, Patton, Marshall, Montgomery (shudder)...
It depends, are you including naval leaders? Air leaders? There are many different ways of looking at this.
Additionally, there is at least one more thread on this topic, it is in the history forum somewhere.
Steele
i think Guderian is probably the best land gerneral of the war.
just my opionion though...
just my opionion though...
Maybe not the best but one of them, I like Heinz Guderian (that steelehc mentioned), mostly because he was one of the inventors (if not the main) of the revolutionary Blitzkrieg, which he wrote about in Achtung - Panzer!.
/Elisson
/Elisson
I like George Custer he singlehandedly iis responsible for the nvention of modern day scouting and recon.
Yes, I was impressed with Custer's scouting and recon at Little Big Horn.
You knew that was coming...
Originally posted by Elisson
But was he a general during WWII?
/Elisson
No. But what if he was?
Custer and the SS?
What defines "brilliant?" Based on fame it's hands down Rommel.
On the other hand, if it's intelligence and military know-how who can say? Perhaps the most brilliant general of World War II was in a half mobilized division of the Yugoslavian army that got steam rolled before it could mobilize...who is to say?
On the other hand, if it's intelligence and military know-how who can say? Perhaps the most brilliant general of World War II was in a half mobilized division of the Yugoslavian army that got steam rolled before it could mobilize...who is to say?
Patton.
Guderian may have invented Blitzkrieg, but most of his success was against armies that were taken completely by surprise. Never having seen this type of attack.
Patton on the other hand went against the obviously well prepared German Army and beat them at their own game. And he did it with vastly inferior tanks. Most of America's modern Armored land doctrine was developed by studying his successes.
Guderian may have invented Blitzkrieg, but most of his success was against armies that were taken completely by surprise. Never having seen this type of attack.
Patton on the other hand went against the obviously well prepared German Army and beat them at their own game. And he did it with vastly inferior tanks. Most of America's modern Armored land doctrine was developed by studying his successes.
I'd put Rommel alongside Napoleon and Alexander, so in my opinion he is easily one of the best commanders of the Second World War.
Richard O'Connor performed well, and I think General Chuikov deserves high praise for the defence of Stalingrad.
In the air, I think Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding puts in a claim for being the best commander.
At sea? It would be difficult to decide between Admirals Chester Nimitz and Sir Bertram Ramsay.
Richard O'Connor performed well, and I think General Chuikov deserves high praise for the defence of Stalingrad.
In the air, I think Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding puts in a claim for being the best commander.
At sea? It would be difficult to decide between Admirals Chester Nimitz and Sir Bertram Ramsay.
It depends entirely on the criteria used to define brilliant.
Rommel's ambivalence towards logistical problems made him a poor choice to control an entire front or campaign, but his tactical instincts made him an excellent choice for a divisional commander.
On the other side of the spectrum, Dwight D Eisenhower had little or no battlefield experience and thus would have been a poor choice to command a division. However, his logictical accumen allowed him to coordinate and plan the D-Day invasion and, more impresively, supply the Allied armies during the drive to the Rhein without the benefit of a major port, such as Antwerp, to land supplies.
Rommel's ambivalence towards logistical problems made him a poor choice to control an entire front or campaign, but his tactical instincts made him an excellent choice for a divisional commander.
On the other side of the spectrum, Dwight D Eisenhower had little or no battlefield experience and thus would have been a poor choice to command a division. However, his logictical accumen allowed him to coordinate and plan the D-Day invasion and, more impresively, supply the Allied armies during the drive to the Rhein without the benefit of a major port, such as Antwerp, to land supplies.
At sea, what about (Grand) Admiral Dönitz? He developed the Wolfpack-tactics. I think he at least should be mentioned.
For land generals I always liked Guderian. You just got to be good if you can sit behind a desk and invent a new doctrine and then a few years later, prove your point in real life as the head of a panzergruppe.
Generals tend to be either good at theory or good at the practical stuff, he was both.
For land generals I always liked Guderian. You just got to be good if you can sit behind a desk and invent a new doctrine and then a few years later, prove your point in real life as the head of a panzergruppe.
Generals tend to be either good at theory or good at the practical stuff, he was both.
Very true, very true. For an unusual answer, how about Beck or Yammamoto? Beck was the first German General to realise that the Nazi party's control over the Reich would result in the destruction of Germany, and resigned in protest. Likewise, Yammamoto knew the Japanese army's control over the nation would lead to the ultimate destruction of Japan, though he was too much the loyal samurai to oppose it. To my knowledge neither of them ever directly commanded forces in Battle. Yet you have to admit that they saw, quite clearly and before anyone else, a bigger picture than their peers.
That's one way to look at it, anyway.
Most likely the best land General was a German. Many of them were brilliant in one way or the other: Guderian, Rommel or Manstein.
Anyways not Patton!
The Americans did not need much brilliance, not even at the D-Day, because whenever problems occured, they simply had to call in the airforce.Personally I prefer Manstein, because he won a war against an equally strong enemy (France) with a brilliant performance. All others, except Rommel, just had inferior enemies in my eyes.
edit: I forgot to mention Zhukov. He was brilliant too, but he, like most others, simply had an inferior enemy, except at Leningrad. Anyways he is the only not-German General who can be compared with those mentioned above.
Last edited:
yes call in the airforce. the gloriuos airforce at the battle of the bulgeOriginally posted by Deserteur
Most likely the best land General was a German. Many of them were brilliant in one way or the other: Guderian, Rommel or Manstein.
Anyways not Patton!
Personally I prefer Manstein, because he won a war against an equally strong enemy (France) with a brilliant performance. All others, except Rommel, just had inferior enemies in my eyes.
edit: I forgot to mention Zhukov. He was brilliant too, but he, like most others, simply had an inferior enemy, except at Leningrad. Anyways he is the only not-German General who can be compared with those mentioned above.
it was there after the first week or so i admit but hey i belive most of the 3rd armies early counter attack lacked any airsupport
and i am suprised this isnt in history yet?