Who was the most brilliant general of the war?

  • 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.

Montemurro

Worker
15 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
1.221
67
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
1) Italian name of the occupation of Malta was C.3, Herkules was the German.

Note taken :)

2) Hitler refused his support to that operation for many reasons (the most important: Rommel wanted in North Africa the units that had to be used for Malta), but not for the fear that German forces would have been abandoned (by the way, the only German unit would have been the Ramcke parachute brigade, all the other divisions were Italian) during fighting. The only excuse he gave was that he feared the Italian Navy would not has been able to escort supplies to Malta after the occupation, but adm. Raeder pointed out that Italian Navy was able to supply the far larger Italo-German Army in North Africa.

Rommel actually offered Hitler "to have this pleasant task entrusted to his own army", but he was turned down.
As to the last part about supposed trouble with supplying Malta, that just put the "genious" of Adolf Hitler in an even brighter light :D
 

unmerged(2943)

Sergeant
Apr 12, 2001
77
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Patton777
First off, I don't think USSR generals should get too much credit. Anyone can win when you have an infinite number of everything!!

This is SO wrong! Soviet Union troops were badly supplied, badly trained and with more then 90% obsolete equipment until early 1943. Why would PQ convoys exist if they had everything? They had hearts and nothing to loose. Being WASP American, you knew that if you are captured you'll go to Stalag or Oflag and wait until the war ends (except those 80 shot at Malmedy). If you are a Russian, it means slavery and extermination. The ocupation ment shootings, deportation, death. That's why partisans were active everywhere.

If there is a chance, you should see the movies of Soviet production "Operation Barbarossa" and "Operation Typhoon". One of best mass scenes ever, shows pretty well what shock effect has "Ura!" (Hurah!) - battlecry of Soviet infantry.
 

w_mullender

Human Rights Advisor of Atilla
7 Badges
Apr 11, 2001
2.149
4
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
My picks:
Dowding and Zhukov for winning the 2 most important battles of WW2. If either one of these battles had been lost Germany would probably not have been defeated.
 

Arkestra

On War
44 Badges
Aug 26, 2001
496
20
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
Battle of Britain?
 

unmerged(16377)

First Lieutenant
Apr 19, 2003
271
0
aia.just.nu
As several posts here have said, the brilliance of a leader all depends on what and where we are talking. Zhukov was e.g. in my eyes not a great general. His tactic was the so-called "human-wave" tactic where his forces would mount massive attacks by all the available means and thereby taking advantage of overwhelming numbers of men the russian armies possesed.
Guderian, which was one of my favourite leaders before, was dropped on my list after I read into a little bit more of him. As someone stated before it's true that it's som kind of myth that he invented the "Blitzkreig" doctrine. It was, correctly stated above, Charles DeGaulle that laid forward the first basic tactics in using tanks a spearheads in a fast advance deep into enemy lines (this already as early as in WWI). What Guderian did was that he altered the basic ideas a little and had the luck to bring the ideas into the very conservative german general staff. He was also, by an accident, the one that convinced Hitler to use the tactic during thr France campaign.
Another one of my old favourite leaders was Rommel, who I also have dropped a little bit on my list after reading into a little bit more about him. Without going to deep into what he did, I can say that it was more luck than skill that created his brilliance.

But what leaders is great then?
If I shall take one during WWII I would pick Gotthard Heinrici. The german general that was assigned to defend Berlin against the russians in the end of the war. His forces composed of a mix of old men, young boys, reserves and homeguard soldiers. He faced a russian enemy that outnumbered him atleast with 10:1 and that also had unlimited supplies of both ammunition and fresh soldiers. Still with this odds he managed (sadly to say) to keep the war alive for one more month as the russains didn't manage to break his defense. What constituted his success was true brilliant defensive tactics. It should also be noted that he didn't just succed in his tactics in front of Berlin. During the retreat in russia he managed to several times halt the russian offensive so that other german units got the chance to retreat backwards, this often meeting a enemy force with an overwhelming odds considering men, weapon and logistics. If u want to go deeper into this defense orientated generals achievments u can look in the book "The last battle" written by Cornelius Ryan (same person who wrote "A bridge to far").

I also have to put a note on my absolute favourite character of the second world war; Michael Wittman. As I'm a tank soldier myself in the army I cannot say anything else than that I'm impressed by this man. Michael Wittman was the german farmer that became the most succesfull tank commander in the whole WWII. He's tank took out over 200 (!) enemy tanks during the war and a lots of more artillery pieces. June 13th 1944 he and 3 other tanks took out 25 british tanks by there own, this even after his own tank got hit and he rushed away to grab another one!
Wanna read more about this the ace of the aces on tanks during the WWII:
Wittman 1 Wittman 2
 

unmerged(1973)

Lt. General
Mar 18, 2001
1.313
2
Originally posted by Mygel
As several posts here have said, the brilliance of a leader all depends on what and where we are talking. Zhukov was e.g. in my eyes not a great general. His tactic was the so-called "human-wave" tactic where his forces <snip>


Well, if you think so I guess you should read a bit more about Zhukov. You should probably start with the Khalkin Gol campaign... :D
 

Arkestra

On War
44 Badges
Aug 26, 2001
496
20
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
Hasn't the "human-wave" myth been debunked? I recall hearing that the Soviets merely, like any good army, assured superiority of materiel and manpower in a small area to overwhelm the defenders who wouldn't have been expecting them thanks to the Soviet mastery of deception.

Reading some German general's memoirs, you'd think it was a struggle between the heroic German five thousand and the millions and billions of Soviet barbarians, when clearly this was not the case.
 

unmerged(13017)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 21, 2002
186
0
Actually, Zhukov's actual tactic of choice was a superior artillery doctrine. He'd pulverize you self-propelled guns and artilley before sending the trops in. Sometimes, (von Manstein's or Heinrici's orders on occassion) would have the troops pull back and attack the Sovie waves proper from superior positions. The shelling would not be effective on these events and the Soviets would stop and dig in while the bombardment began again. I'd personally say Koniev was the best Soviet leader of the war, especially his love foe mobility. But Guderian's greatness was not the creation of the blitzkerg(his memoirs says he learned it from books of Liddell Hart and other Englishmen) but the way he shaped the Panzer Korps and it's superior training. Heres my List:
UK - Alexander
US - Patton on the field and Eisenhower at the desk.
USSR- Koniev
Germany - Guderian, von Manstein, Heinrici(for defensive tactics)
 

unmerged(1973)

Lt. General
Mar 18, 2001
1.313
2
Originally posted by Lennox
I'd personally say Koniev was the best Soviet leader of the war, especially his love foe mobility.


Koniev was indeed good, but I would say that Vassilevsky and Rokossovsky were even better. But it's not easy to argue with Zhukov's track record... :D

Pretty much agree with your german leaders, but if I had to pick a british one, I'd prefer Slim...
 

unmerged(1973)

Lt. General
Mar 18, 2001
1.313
2
Originally posted by Lennox
But Guderian's greatness was not the creation of the blitzkerg(his memoirs says he learned it from books of Liddell Hart and other Englishmen) but the way he shaped the Panzer Korps and


And perhaps Guderian didn't invent the blitzkrieg but neither did Liddel Hart. His name were never mentioned in the books Guderian wrote before the war.

But Liddel Hart did an efficient job as "pr agent" for the german generals after the war, and they on their side showed their gratitude by namedropping Liddel Hart as one of their main inspirations...

In fact, the origin of the blitzkrieg concept is probably more the stormtroop tactics of the german army in 1918. If you should have to name a single father of the blitzkrieg (and there were lots of them), I would probably say Hans von Seekt...
 

unmerged(469)

Rear Admiral
Nov 19, 2000
1.120
0
Visit site
I think there were broad similarities between the US and Soviet styles of war, and for that reason I don't think there were really great generals in either army. Offensives were set pieces, gather intelligence, assemble superior forces, advance to objective lines. Defense was strong positions arrayed in depth.

What sets the German generals apart was their ability to improvise, whether Rommel on the offensive in France and North Africa or Manstein during fighting retreats on the East Front. I'd say O'Connor showed this ability as well against the Italians.
 
Dec 23, 2001
683
1
Visit site
Originally posted by Frodon
In fact, the origin of the blitzkrieg concept is probably more the stormtroop tactics of the german army in 1918. If you should have to name a single father of the blitzkrieg (and there were lots of them), I would probably say Hans von Seekt...



Among the British armour theorists, Fuller had a lot more impact upon German thinking than BH LH did.


As for German WW1 stormtroop tactics, they almost certainly played a certain role. Arguably, the German Army never got over the same flaws that they had in 1918 either.
 
Dec 23, 2001
683
1
Visit site
Incidentally, I believe Azar Gat has written a book investigating the influence of British armour theory on inter-war German thinking. It's meant to be excellent, and mostly primary source based, though I'm not sure exactly what conclusions he reaches.
 

unmerged(11008)

Captain
Sep 13, 2002
442
0
Visit site
Wasn't there a thread similar to this one about 20th century generals?

Whoever brought up Heinrici on the German side made an excellent observation. Much can be similarly said about Kesselring in Italy.

Zhukov was over-rated. While the Soviet propoganda machine extolled its successes at Stalingrad, it failed to inform you Zhukov's simulataneous massive assault around Moscow was stopped cold by the Germans. Zhukov's performace at Berlin was extraordinarily average. He was a good general as his performace in 1941 shows, but was not the human embodiment of a Roman Mars.

Monty was nowhere near in the same league as Slim. Slim's Burma operations in 1944-45 should be a classic, alas nobody knows about it.

Guderian deserves the nod over all the other armored "paper theorists" for the simple reason he translated theory into decisive success on the battlefield.
 

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
I can't believe no-one has mentioned Viscount Slim of Burma.

He is often referred to as the best general the war produced: http://www.burmastar.org.uk/slim.htm

No-one else was so successful at turning a horrible defeat into an overwhelming victory.

As for the worst general - what about that fellow in Malaysia?
 

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Zeppelin
Monty was nowhere near in the same league as Slim. Slim's Burma operations in 1944-45 should be a classic, alas nobody knows about it.

Great minds think alike, Zep. :D

I just posted my recommendation of Slim, at the same time you did.
 

unmerged(11008)

Captain
Sep 13, 2002
442
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Malthus
Great minds think alike, Zep. :D

I just posted my recommendation of Slim, at the same time you did.

:D

Yeah, Slim definetly needed a better public relations staff.
Good link, I'm glad there are the Frank Owens out there with to time to fight the good fight to give credit where credit is due.
 
Jun 4, 2002
589
0
Visit site
Well, perhaps if the four of us put our heads together, we can force the acceptance of Slim upon those who would deny him his due. ;)

Then again, I don't think it's all Slim's fault, since generally speaking generals outside of Europe don't get much attention. What little is left goes to Americans hopping islands, like MacArthur. Anyone fighting on the Asian mainland was totally ignored. :(