Printable View
(If there has been a similar thread before, please ignore it.)
I know, competition is really heavy...
My vote would have to go to russian general Zhukov. He was instrumental in soviet victories against germans, and before, against the japanese.
Second place is a coin flip between Guderian and Rommel.
Your opinions, please...
Robert E LeePatton. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Erich von Manstein.
He was a genius, understood tanks and modern combat well and almost always brought better than expected results (Kursk).
Also the Germans generally had the best generals, and Manstein is widely agreed to be the best of them.
General Slim, commander of the British 14th army in India/Burma. Masterly retreat, retraining in new and effective tactics, brilliant management of very difficult logistics, and a superb campaign to retake Burma over very difficult terrain, all at the head of a sluightly rag tag army well down the priority list when it came to supplies and equipment. He proved himself in all areas of generalship.
The only point you could hold against him as being the all round general was he never handled large armoured formations (large armoured formations not being much use in jungle and hill country). But seeing how quickly he grasped the essentials of jungle warfare from scratch I reckon he would have been equally able to be at home in armoured warfare.
Difficult to say anyone was "the best" general but Slim was IMHO the best British general (by about five light years, sadly)
Manstein hands down.
He could do it all, and did it well. And unlike Rommel he had both good relations to others and was keen on logistics.
Zhukov was too willing to just bully his way across enemy lines. While in most cases it coul be argued that he was forced to do so due to various constraints, his action at the Seelöw Heights proved that it was simply his way of thinking. He was also fairly arrogant, not willing to listen to advise.
Patton, while a spirited and talented tankcommander was in fact more similar to Zhukov than Rommel in terms of tactics. He preferred to fight the enemy where he was strongest, and used his strong presence to get the troops to do their duty, as determined by him. Tactically and strategicvally he was not very impressive.
Also these two commanders generally had plenty of advantage in numbers.
I think you are not giving credit where credit is due. This is from wikipedia about zhukov:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
"In 1938 Zhukov was directed to command the First Soviet Mongolian Army Group, and saw action against Japan's Kwantung Army on the border between Mongolia and the Japanese controlled state of Manchukuo in an undeclared war that lasted from 1938 to 1939. What began as a routine border skirmish—the Japanese testing the resolve of the Soviets to defend their territory—rapidly escalated into a full-scale war, the Japanese pushing forward with 80,000 troops, 180 tanks and 450 aircraft.
This led to the decisive Battle of Halhin Gol. Zhukov requested major reinforcements and on August 15, 1939 he ordered what seemed at first to be a conventional frontal attack. However, he had held back two tank brigades, which in a daring and successful manouvere he ordered to advance around both flanks of the battle. Supported by motorized artillery and infantry, the two mobile battle groups encircled the 6th Japanese army and captured their vulnerable supply areas. Within a few days the Japanese troops were defeated.
For this operation Zhukov was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. Outside of the Soviet Union, however, this battle remained little-known as by this time World War II had begun. Zhukov's pioneering use of mobile armour went unheeded by the West, and in consequence the German Blitzkrieg against France in 1940 came as a great surprise."
"In October 1941, when the Germans closed in on Moscow, Zhukov replaced Semyon Timoshenko in command of the central front and was assigned to direct the defense of Moscow (see Battle of Moscow). He also directed the transfer of troops from the Far East, where a large part of Soviet ground forces had been stationed on the day of Hitler's invasion. A successful Soviet counter-offensive in December 1941 drove the Germans back, out of reach of the Soviet capital. Zhukov's feat of logistics is considered by some to be his greatest achievement."
And generally, tide of the war seemed to turn wherever he was given command.
Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.
Marshall Of Finland
https://img469.imageshack.us/img469/8976/istuu6ny.jpg
With the resources he had in his disposal he made more then exellent results. He was a great General but also a great States man. He lead the Finnish forces in the 1918 War of Independancy/Civil War, Winter war and Continuation War Succesfully granting results that saved Finland as an Independent Nation. Mannerheim while beeing the the High Commander of Finnish army insisted to get all the news that reached the Headquarters straight up.So he lead the War personally and was not the puppet of his closest officers like many other famous Generals.
The military Dogma of Mannerheim was pretty revolutionary at the time.The basic thought that he insisted was that it was better to loose ground in a tactical level then to loose men,and then retake the well known positions from already weakened enemy. Without that basicly principle the Soviet forces would have grinded the small Finnish army very fast. Also that principle gave him the unconditional love of the normal Grunts under his command. Also he believed that only way to effectively destroy a larger opponent was to Attack and destroy the enemy when it least expected it. This kind of mobile defence created the famous "Motti" tactics that destroyed wast amount of Soviet Divisions that were suprised surrounded and annihilated. When there are discussion about WWII and Finland many remember Winter War,but to me personally the end of continuation War in Summer 1944.Showed the Leadership of Mannerheim even better.The great Allied Assaults against Axis powers like the Soviet Attacks against The Germans and the D- Day have shadowed another big Operation.The Soviet grand offensive against Finland that started in June 1944 simultaneously with Operation Overlord in Normandy. Soviets had learned their lessons from Winter War and this time they concentrated almost 1/3 of all of the Red Army against Finland.But yet again following the main Principles The Finns first delayed the attack and Finally stopped them in the great Battles of Tali-Ihantala and Ilomantsi. Before the cease fire were made between Finland and Soviet Union,all Soviet Attacks were halted and infact at Ilomantsi the Soviet Attacking spearhead was surrounded by the Finns. So when we talk about the the Peace treaty with Soviets.While politically it was minor defeat becouse Finland couldnt take back the areas it had lost in Winter War.In military point of wiew the War ended in success becouse The unstoppable Red army of 1944.Was stopped in around the same places then they were stopped in Winter War. And without the determination and ingeniosity of Mannerheim i doubt that the Finnish army could have accomplished that.:bow:
Is it just my imagination or people tend to favourise their own countrymen?
I think its only natural.Becouse you have more information about them around you.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
What I have heard about Khalgin Gol was that Zhukov 'stole' the ideas of subordinates, and eventually also the glory.
The counterattack at Moscow is one of the most overrated actions. It is true it turned the Germans back. But they were already at the point of breaking. A lesser commander could also have done it, but with less gains of course. And now he would have been considered the savious of the SU.
Now, I don't consider him bad at all, he was most assuredly a superb commander. One I would feel safe in letting protect my country (if we had the manpower to sustain it).
But we are talking about the best, and in that regard we must pick apart the candidates' weaknesses. We can't afford to only shower out the laurels if we want to find the best.
Manstein's weakness was his own willinglessness to take decisive action politically. Not as in a coup against Hitler. But when his 'Backhand Stroke' was dismissed he didn't fight for it. The 'Forehand Stroke' was then pushed ahead. Hitler then wanted to be as sure as possible, bringing in reinforcements. Manstein tried feebly to object to this, but he never really used his position to force the battle to go ahead as he had wanted to.
Also, he could have given Paulus the order to break out from Stalingrad (and thus negated the order given by Hitler), but he never did so. He was too willing to let others decide if his pland were sound or not, and that was a terrible waste when he knew he was right and the others were not.
But that is about it when it come to him as a commander.
Zhukov was good general but not great. Everytime he fought, he got big advantage. Under Moscov Russians maybe won, but they lost 1.000.000 soldiers. Into Berlin operation despite superb advantage they lost from 300.000 to 600.000 soldiers.
Best commanders of WW2 was O'Connor for his 1940 campaign. 40.000 soldiers crushed 200.000 fortified enemies.
Good job did Kesserling into 1943 in Italy. He stopped allies for long time with quite small forces.
Possible. It is difficult to discern what is myth and what is true when Zhukov is concerned. But casulties under his command were much lower in comparison with other soviet commanders, and you have to take into account the quality of soviet troops, which was much lower than the quality of german army. Also, he wasn`t always in command of the defence of moscow. German army was very close to moscow when he was given command. He fought them to a stand still, and then started driving them back. So the majority of casualties during the defence of moscow happened before he was appointed commander of the russian western front.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
And I am not sure that german army was at the point of breakup. At the time it was discussed in the german high command whether the army should continue the offensive, or "dig-in" for the winter and than continue the offensive in spring. So, they thought it was quite possible to take moscow, it was just the matter of whether they had enough time before winter. The soviet counter offensive took them by suprise.
Manstein showed great skills in command. Zhukov particularly praised Manstein for his skills, but I think that he never commanded large enough armies to be considered. It`s like in football, a player could have all the skills in the world, but if he isn`t playing in one of the top clubs in europe he will never be considered the best. It is similar with Guderian. I singled Guderian out, because of "Achtung Panzer" :). He is, in a way, a father of german "blitzkrieg" in the wwII.
I don`t think that you can say that a military commander is "the best" on the premise of one or two battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Also, casulties of soviet troops which were under direct Zhukov command during the attack on berlin was about 4%, lower than other soviet commander during the attack, and his troops were involved in the most intense fighting.
The German High Command was out of touch with the reality of the situation at the front according to Guderian's account. The men were fatigued and ill equipped for the Russian winter (or any winter for that matter). The units were below strength due to combat losses of men and vehicles and it was a struggle to get the vehicles they did have moving. The divisions of June 1941 were not the same strength-wise in December 1941 but the High Command didn't seem to realize this. In fact, they accused Guderian (and I'm sure other Generals) of being too close to the situation - the "true" picture looked much clearer back in Berlin.:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Kraxis is correct from what I've read - the Germans were at the breaking point. That they were able to advance as far and for as long into the year as they did is really an impressive feat.
Do not forget that Zhukov also had the Siberian troops at his disposal, something his predecessor did not. Timoshenko had to make do with human waves and the like of people herded into German fire. Not surprising that they didn't do very well (but they still caused enough casualties to thin out the Germans enough).
So when the fresh, well equipped, professional and very motivated Siberians attacked it was a huge surprise not only to the High Command but the local commanders as well. Where did they come from? Just days before the Russian defences had been crumbling and the human waves finally running out.
Most German divisions, which at the outset had had about 18,000 troops if not more, were now down to about 5,000 if not less. That is a critical sapping of strength, especially in the thin long strike at Moscow.
And lets not forget that while Zhukov was indeed the Defender of Moscow, he had saved it, he also managed to bungle up the advance afterwards. He didn't personally order the lousy attacks that got encircled time and again in the late winter, but he had a hand in the planning.
I think Mannerheim, for doing an incredible job against a superior enemy. Even though the Soviet leadership there was crappy, the results were still amazing considering the difference in numbers.
Picking one is difficult, of course, though I probably tend toward Manstein slightly, since he demonstrated ability in a number of settings and with varying resources.
On Patton, I agree with Kraxis. He was a hell of a leader in many ways, but had some egregious flaws. The only time he was ever used optimally was in the initial breakout from Normandy. That is, someone ELSE did the breakthrough attack (without hammering head-on straight at the strong point like Patton) and then Patton's forces were unleashed for the "broken field running" at which he may have done as well or better than anyone.
Zhukov lived up to the reputation too many people hang on Ulysses Grant. Z was tenacious and aggressive, but his tactics weren't really "inspired." With all respect for earlier comments, his Siberian success isn't quite so impressive when you factor in the negligible Japanese armor and light artillery formations. Flanking with armor when you know the other chap can't isn't quite so shocking, and Zhukov had lots of tubes compared to the Nips. Z did know when he had the bigger hammer, and wasn't afraid to use it.
Mannerheim was a good leader who knew his resources and terrain well -- always excellent qualities. A contender.
All-around, I have always had a respect for Bradley. He seemed to have the knack for getting things done -- despite the lack of flash or reputation for brilliance in any single aspect of generaling.
I'd also add Yamashita for consideration. I've always wondered what he would have done if Japan had had a tank force of note -- he certainly wasn't a slouch when it came to speed and shock warfare.
Erwin Rommel. A tactical genius, he was undersupplied, under equipped, and had few reinforcements. Yet he managed to hold off the British in North Africa for an amazing amout of time, and even beat them in the beginning...
His victories in France at the time of the Axis invasion are not to be underestimated either.
Ok, I am not saying that he was genius while other soviet commander were idiots. It is true what you said about siberian troops, but he stopped german offensive before the arrival of siberian troops. He used them later in counter offensive. And once again I think I must remind everybody to take into account the quality of german troops and, maybe even more important, the quality of german commanders. He was up against best german generals like Manstein, Guderian etc... Also, not a single general in the entire wwII was put under so much pressure like he was. The general of opinion of the nation was the he, almost exclusively, will be held responsible for the outcome. Also, he was commander of entire russian western front, while most of the other generals named here didn`t have that kind of responsiblity. Under his command were hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and many other generals. It is not right to hold him responsible for their every action. His overall strategy was brilliant since soviet superiority never came in question and tide of the war was forever turned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
All in all, I think we can all agree that he was one of the best. In my humble opinion he was the best but it seems that no one shares this opinion :laugh4: .
If I had to single out a country that generally had best commanders, then I would have to say germany. But, in singles competition, my opinion did not change.
If we are talking about generals then we should be picking apart their strategy more then their tactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars
Rommel lost North Africa for the same reason that the Italians did. He ran out of supplies running back and forth across the desert. Add to that the amount of captured troops that was not insignificant and that he was quite foxy in not being their to lead them in the end.
====
My countrymens bias is for Bernard Freyberg and I choose him not for his victories but for his defeat on Crete. Where with a force that was lacking in heavy weapons, radios and a sorely dented command structure after the loss of Greece he managed to do some serious damage to the elite German paratroopers. In fact the damage done was so extreme that despite winning Crete with the largest airdrop to that point in history the Germans never tried that style of attack again. For some reason the New Zealanders and the German Paratroopers went head to head in a few battles.
As to the worst General in history (despite still being venerated by the command staff in Australia) is the sycophant General Thomas Blamey... read this article about the Kokoda Track Campaign and what he said to the troops at the end of it.
I´ve heard of that General Freyberg, but I am not very impressed of him. As far as I know the heavy losses on Crete occurred because the Germans underestimated the number of Allied troops on the island. I don´t think we can blame Freyberg for this. However the men under his command fought very bravely.
But he can be blamed for the senseless destruction of the Monte Cassino abbey.
http://www.silvasplendid.com/abbazia_Montecassino_2.htm
A sensible point in which case Rommel should be rapidly demoted. He absolutely should have pulled back to the Egyptian border after being stopped at First El Alamein. Give Monty the problem of the supply line accross the desert, and a wider battlefield would have played more to Rommel's strengths than Monties. Torch would still have done for him but he could probably have retired from the western desert undefeated.Quote:
If we are talking about generals then we should be picking apart their strategy more then their tactics
If war is the continuation of politics by other means then my vote goes to Mannerheim after all. Not for the Winter war. That was well conducted no doubt but ultimately IMHO turned more on the fighting qualities of the Finnish soldier, and, after all, the Soviets did eventually get what they wanted. Instead he gets my vote for the continued survival of Finland as a country outside the USSR/Warsaw pact. How many other countries went to war against Stalin and acheived that (none).
Since EA has mentioned Slim , how about Wingate ?
Outstanding tactics and strategy , unorthadox and unconventional , but inspired and effective .
Talking about Zhukov - have you heard about Seelow battle.
Stupid, unnecessary loses. Anyway if Konev lost more soldiers than Zhukov - it doesn't mean Zhukov was great. Remember that we should compare it with other generals, not only with Russians. We must remember that Russian commanders into WW2 often got big advantage in humans and equipment.
So I don't think Zhukov was superb general - hi simply was well general.
http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/manstein02.jpg
von Manstein
No one has yet mentioned operation Mars which was a costly and spectacular failure for the Russians under Zhukov despite the advantage in materiel and manpower. Some historians think the failure was covered up to protect the reputation of Zhukov to build him up as a hero.
First of all, there isn`t enough reliable data about operation mars. It is still just speculations. Educated guesses, at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Second, it wasn`t a spectular failure because it tied down german troops, which were much needed elsewhere.
Sheer numbers don`t mean anything. The scene from the film enemy at the gates where the first man gets the rifle and those after him bullets is not fictional. Many times soviets were forced to fight that way. German soldiers were experienced and battle hardened veterans, superbly equiped (just not for the winter :) and serving under excellent commanders. If you have one note worth 100 euros, and I have 5 notes worth 20 euros we still have the same amount of money.
Of course, soviets had other good generals. Konev, for example as somebody had said. But, Konev was supposed to be demoted and maybe even put to trial by russian high command. It was only after Zhukov personally insisted that Konev should be his second in command, was his career saved.
When we are talking about Rommel, there are a few things that must also be taken into consideration. He could have withdrawn his troops, but I presume that he wanted to win the war, not save his career. If he had done that, he would have surely lost. Blitzkrieg was not just a tactic germans used in battles. It was a tactic for the entire war. They knew they could not match the resources soviet and allies had, so they had to win fast. That is why withdrawal wasn`t an option for Rommel.
I dont know about the best during WWII but my fav. would have to Rommel. He did great in Invasion of France and in N Africa
I did say I selected him for his Defeat not his Victories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haudegen
Mind you as always I will lay the blame on those who setup their battle line across the Monte Cassino abbey and who then occupied it once it was rubble.
BTW it has been sacked and rebuilt about half a dozen times in its history. Being a heavily fortified structure on top of a hill kind of makes it a strategic location and hence prone to being taken over.
Considering the Tunisia Campaign ended with the General *cough, cough* absent and 275,000 or more of his troops as POWs it wasn't really such a great time in North Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russiancsar
I disagree. I think Guderian was a much better general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Guderian, then Manstein were the best. The best British was Monty. The greatest America was Patton, with MacArther a close second. Japan didn't have anyone notable, nor did Italy. Zhukov was a good Russian general, but he was too cynical with the lives of his men.
I like Ike. In my opinion i think Dwight Eisenhower is the best general in WWII. He led Operations TORCH and OVERLORD. Those were two of the biggest invasion and campaigns in the second World War. He later became president for two terms and help keep peace during the cold war.
The problem with saying Eisenhower was a great general is the fact that he was so high up he dealt little with the actual planning of the invasions and focused more on the logistical side of it. Patton, Bradley, and Montgomery had far more a hand in planning on the tactical level, while Eisenhower planned on the strategic level. Granted, he was the one who made the final decision on whether to scrap a plan or not, and it was his idea to assault normandy, but he really didn't plan the tactics on how to take it, he just went up to his Generals and said "we're going to make an assault on Normandy, now you guys need to draw something up."
Had Eisenhower not been given the rank of Supreme Allied Commander I believe he would've also made a superb General.
It was Monty's half-baked idea to try and seize Arnhem. Lets not forget that debacle. I am in the Slim camp.Quote:
The best British was Monty.
Bradley was intrumental in the planning of Operation Cobra, as well as closing the Ruhr pocket.Quote:
The greatest America was Patton,
Another thing to remember about Patton, he ended up taking orders from two of his former subordinates (Eisenhower and Bradley)
Hmm. Wingate had good PR, but how effective he was is open to debate as I understand it. I think Slim regarded the chindits as something of a mixed blessing.Quote:
Since EA has mentioned Slim , how about Wingate ?
Outstanding tactics and strategy , unorthadox and unconventional , but inspired and effective
To be fair to Monty, he was not a bad general (which by British WWII standards make him pretty good). For the big set pieces he was probably the equal of anyone, and IIRC the breakout from Normandy is generally acknowledge to have been handled very skillfully. And he had the cojones to accept huge losses where necessary in the context of the overall plan. On exploitation though, he was pretty average at best, and as was pointed out Arnhem was not his finest hour (he also failed to secure the banks of the Scheldt immediately after the fall of Antwerp which was plain strategic incompetence.)
And also he REALLY annoyed the Americans, which is OK on an internet forum but not OK as senior British commander in an allied force. Bradley in particular cut him more slack than he deserved.
Monty was probably the best British general in the European theatre but not a patch on Slim IMHO.
Educated guess? even Zhukov admitted in his writings that Operation Mars was a disaster. And it wasn't supposed to be just a holding movement. Zhukov's ham fisted approach of throwing divisions one after the other into a meat grinder isn't confined to this one operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I think I would have to go for von Manstein. Not just a great tactician, but a very cool head to go along with it. He managed near miracles on the battlefield under great stress, and whilst continually hamstrung by Hitler's absurd orders. Zhukov never had to cope with such interference from Stalin.
Manstein also outwitted Zhukov at Korsun to get his troops out of another desperate scrape.
Perhaps so, but where did Zhukov learn such tactics? From the Germans. He was acquainted with many of the top German leaders, since they helped to train him and other Soviet commanders under the secret treaty during the inter-war period. Zhukov's knowledge of the men he faced also helped him in his later battles against the Wehrmacht.Quote:
Originally Posted by sarmation
As a runner up to Manstein I'd probably go for Rommel, for his sheer daring. Right after the battle of Dunkirk, he proposed launching an immediate suprise invasion of Britain, even before the battle of France had been concluded. The German General Staff turned him down, but such an invasion would probably have been Germany's best hope of victory against Britain. The British Army lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk, and had very little with which it could have opposed a landing at that point.
Btw, Manstein held command of various Armygroups in Russia. So he can certainly be considered up there with Zhukov in terms of command of forces. But being Germany he could never have tactical decisions and stay on par in numbers, that was simply impossible.
The Soviets only occupied European territory where it would protect them against any future invasions from the west. Hence the band of countries neighbouring Germany acting as a buffer. Greece had Communists who were eager for Stalin's support, but it was a strategically unimportant area so Stalin left them to be mopped up by the British.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
George Catlett Marshall, by a distance. Facilitated the victory for all allied nations, won the peace.
The main influence was probably Tukhachevksy, the founder of "Deep Operations", which itself was developed from the experience of the wars against the Whites and the Poles.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
You see, to my mind this illustrates why Rommel is overrated. Possibly he put forward the idea knowing it would inevitably be turned down, just to create a bit of derring do PR for himself, but the idea you could throw (and sustain) any significant forces across the channel, without preparation, in the teeth of the whole RAF and Royal Navy, as if the whole thing was no more than a minor river crossing, is madness.Quote:
As a runner up to Manstein I'd probably go for Rommel, for his sheer daring. Right after the battle of Dunkirk, he proposed launching an immediate suprise invasion of Britain, even before the battle of France had been concluded. The German General Staff turned him down, but such an invasion would probably have been Germany's best hope of victory against Britain. The British Army lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk, and had very little with which it could have opposed a landing at that point
Daring is good but it does have to be realistic.
I said "speculations" and "educated guesses about casulties. It was a disaster, I agree, but we don`t know for sure how many casulties there were.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Nobody is born educated, we all learn things from other people. It is a how we implement those things we learne that counts. If french generals had taken notice of the battle, France probably would not have been conquered so easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
The fact that operation Uranus was so well documented and for posterity and propaganda and only 'speculations' and 'educated guesses' for the casualties for the equally large operation Mars suggests a huge coverup of the disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Its hard to compare the performance of all the generals mentioned since some are field commanders like Patton and Rommel while some are strategists like Eisenhower and Zhukov(?).
The greatest generals imo can do it all, like the famous generals of antiquity.
I'll cast a pro forma vote for von Manstein on the strength of his repeated success under adverse conditions, but I really want to relate a couple of stories about Freyberg and Wingate who were mentioned here earlier.
Orde Wingate was one of history's great oddballs. I'm borrowing here from an article by Charles Berges originally published in Military History Quarterly:
Wingate was posted to Palestine in 1936 as an intelligence officer. "He was entranced by the land and the people, finding the Jews far more intelligent and stimulating than his brother officers (he rarely missed an opportunity to tell them so)." He quickly became a committed Zionist at a time when the British army and police were generally pro-Arab. "He soon was on warm terms with the Zionist leadership, men such as David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weitzmann (who called Wingate 'my favorite madman')."
In 1937, responding to Arab sabotage of the Iraq-to-Palestine oil pipeline, Wingate organized and led an ambush by members of the Haganah against the saboteurs. Berges writes of the aftermath of the operation:Too much information? Sorry...Quote:
...the then teenaged Moshe Dayan described the settlers' elation at their successful first fight. Amid the excited talk and jubilation, Wingate sat in a corner, stark naked, munching onions, combing his body hair with a toothbrush, and writing a report.
Freyberg was a great favorite of Churchill, who wrote (in The Second World War):
Quote:
One day in the 1920's when I was staying at a country house with Bernard Freyberg I asked him to show me his wounds. He stripped himself and I counted twenty-seven separate scars and gashes. To these he was to add in the Second World War another three. But of course, as he explained, "You nearly always get two wounds for every bullet or splinter, because mostly they have to go out as well as go in."
What about paratroops? .Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I read somewhere that immediately after Dunkirk there were only forty machineguns in the whole of Britain. With such a critical equipment shortage, the Germans probably wouldn't have needed a large force to take over the country, or at least disrupt its communications badly enough to allow a larger invasion to go ahead.
And after all, if the Brits could get 300,000 soldiers across the Channel in a few days at Dunkirk, I don't see why the Germans, assuming the capture of a port, couldn't have done something similar with a hastily thrown together flotilla.
Also I believe what Rommel was getting at with the idea of immediately invading England after the fall of France was to drop the morale of the Brits immensely. Albeit it would be damn risky, but a small-scale invasion could had considerably dropped the british morale.
How do you plan to resupply the invasion troops? This isn't RTW, where you ferry the troops across then leave them to campaign for the rest for the game. You'll have to supply them with food, ammunition, equipment, fuel, replacements, etc. Note that the RAF was largely intact (to the irritation of the French), and the Home Fleet was at Scapa Flow waiting for the call to steam south. Note also that the Luftwaffe had already been seen to be unsuccessful at attacking ships at sea or even in harbour (wrong kind of planes), while the Kriegsmarine got the jitters whenever its ships were ordered out to sea. God help any u-boat captains who were ordered to intercept the Home Fleet (they were intended for use against unguarded merchantmen).Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Wargames of Sealion have always come to the same conclusion, that whatever troops managed to get ashore would be lost as their supply routes were destroyed by the RAF and RN.
Yes Pannonian but that assumes there's some sort of organized opposition to resist the invaders, which there would have been by the time Sealion became a possibility. According to what I've read, there was very little available at the time of Dunkirk to resist a suprise attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
When there is little or no equipment with which to resist the invaders, I think it would be a whole different ball game. You wouldn't need to get a really large force across the channel, and the supply problems would therefore be diminished.
So I don't think the idea is quite as fanciful as you and Assassin have suggested. It might have at least been worth a try.
Maybe a hypothetic tactics to launch an succesfull invasion could have been to deploy the first Wave from Air against the Channel shorebatteries .Then lay minefield on the Channel.Crossfire from both shores could have been very effective against Royal NavyThis was the tactics Finns and Germans closed down the Gulf Of Finland So that the Red Flag Navy couldnt Operate almost at all in the Baltic Sea.The crossfire from Both sides of Shore batteries from both side of Channel minefields and Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe could may have succeeded.If the Luftwaffe would have concentrated on Attacking British airfields and radar Network.That would have allowed them Air superiority could have allowed large Airborne Assaults supporting the Invasion.:trytofly:
The inventory of the defences at Dover show that there was more equipment than the defenders knew what to do with, with those at the sharp end cadging whatever they could without necessarily informing the authorities. At one point I think there was around a company defending the fort with a regiment's worth of guns of assorted makes. I daresay the returnees from Dunkirk could have organised a brigade or two at short notice to make use of these weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Then there are the numerous coastal defences. Southern and south-eastern England was possibly the most heavily fortified area in the world, with lines of defence dating back to Napoleonic days based on the idea of putting very big guns in very thick forts (the Dover guns were used to shell the French coast). In depth. In the 1930s they added anti-tank ditches as well, some of them wide enough to be used as canals. To bypass these defences, you'll have to flank to the north, which takes you into the North Sea and the mercies of the Home Fleet, or west, where you'll have little luck getting panzers through the marshes.
Such were the defences at the time of Dunkirk.
The RAF may have had something to say about that. Also, depending on the timing, the airfields of northern France may not yet be usable for the Luftwaffe, meaning they'll have to deploy from Belgium or even further east.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Who's going to lay the minefield? Are the RN going to leave them alone while they do this?Quote:
Then lay minefield on the Channel.
The English shore was controlled by the British, so there is no crossfire. Also, there were destroyers at every base capable of sinking minelayers, with cruisers on hand should anything heavier appear. And if the Kriegsmarine appear in their full glory, the Home Fleet will welcome them to the high seas.Quote:
Crossfire from both shores could have been very effective against Royal Navy
The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force has a rather firmer control of the Channel than the Red Navy and Air Force had of the Gulf.Quote:
This was the tactics Finns and Germans closed down the Gulf Of Finland So that the Red Flag Navy couldnt Operate almost at all in the Baltic Sea.The crossfire from Both sides of Shore batteries from both side of Channel minefields and Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe could may have succeeded.If the Luftwaffe would have concentrated on Attacking British airfields and radar Network.That would have allowed them Air superiority could have allowed large Airborne Assaults supporting the Invasion.:trytofly:
You are right but maybe i was little vague like i have a bad custom to be. I think the Airborne Operation could only have been succesfull in the Critical part of Battle of Britain in the time before Germans made the stupid decision to turn their attention against British cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
About the Minefields.You would be suprised how fast a naval minefield is done A task force of of mine layers could have build the field in one night.
If the Minefied Operation would have been succesfull then it would have taken acces from the main British Navy in the Channel.Also allowing free movement of German transports in the Channel The remaining destroyers the Luwtwaffe could have handled quite easily.
We have to remember that prior to the invasion of Cretes Germany had large amount of Elite Fallschrim Jäegers to take out Key locations by airdrops like Shorebatteries.
Ofcourse this plan would have been very risky.And also this is just speculation,but somebody come up with better plan?~;)
That was quite some time after Dunkirk, by which time the British army and the Luftwaffe had had the opportunity to reorganise. Either the Luftwaffe is in no state to dispute the air over the Channel, or the British army is ready to defend the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I thought the Channel was pretty heavily patrolled by the British throughout the war.Quote:
About the Minefields.You would be suprised how fast a naval minefield is done A task force of of mine layers could have build the field in one night.
How would the transport cross the Channel while it was inaccessible to the RN? Block off the eastern end to prevent the Home Fleet from sailing through? There were plenty of destroyers on the other side, and indeed everywhere. One thing the British were not short of was warships. Also, if Britain was threatened, the RN would have been willing to lose every last ship if required to stop the invasion. CF. Churchill's comment about the loss of the Hood, and Cunningham's comment about the Crete evacuation.Quote:
If the Minefied Operation would have been succesfull then it would have taken acces from the main British Navy in the Channel.Also allowing free movement of German transports in the Channel The remaining destroyers the Luwtwaffe could have handled quite easily.
The German paras were saved by the capture of an airfield and the defenders failure to counterattack. I don't think this would have been an issue in an invasion of Britain.Quote:
We have to remember that prior to the invasion of Cretes Germany had large amount of Elite Fallschrim Jäegers to take out Key locations by airdrops like Shorebatteries.
The German High Command thought the invasion of Britain would amount to suicide. Every study since shows them to be right in this assessment.Quote:
Ofcourse this plan would have been very risky.And also this is just speculation,but somebody come up with better plan?~;)
Yeah...:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Pape,Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I have a book called "Military blunders" and the defence of Crete is an example for bad troops.
I can read it if you like!
Eben Email... Just up that to a hundred such cases and you would have the situation across southern England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
How would they be dropped in southern England? The RAF was intact and fully ready for any attempted invasion. So you're asking heavily laden bombers to cross the Channel when they were expected, with the defenders aware of any concentrations of aircraft and where they were heading, with a large, skilled defending air force armed with extremely effective and modern fighters awaiting them? And as I've said, the Luftwaffe was still reorganising after the lighting Frecnh campaign. Either you're launching an immediate mass combined fighter and transport attack where any losses will not be recovered as you're still based largely in the east, or you reorganise on the ground and give the RAF and British army time to prepare as well. Also, pilots downed over France will fall into German hands, but England and the surrounding seas are British territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I think Belgian neutrality was still nominally being respected by the allies at the time of Eben Emael, meaning they could not respond in time. Everywhere surrounding Britain would be regarded as fair game for the British, so they'll have complete freedom of movement and deployment. Anything not clearly identified as friendly in the seas and air around southern England was liable to be attacked, no matter where or who they were.
Also, how are you planning to disembark your main invasion force? All major ports were prepared for destruction should they be capture by the enemy. And how are you planning to transport your main invasion force? Sealion grabbed all the barges they could find, discovered they weren't seaworthy, and there were fewer skilled crew than there were barges. The capriciousness of the Channel is well known (one of the Mulberyy harbours was destroyed by storms a fortnight after its construction despite being firmly anchored and protected by moles of ships). The proposed river barges were discovered to be vulnerable to anything other than an utterly calm sea. Even a passing destroyer could cause enough turbulence to sink them without needing to fire a shot.
Maybe we should start a new thread about this?This has nothing to do with best General of WWII anymore.:bow:
There was a Polish general. I only heard about him the other day, and I can't recall the name.
IIRC, he led an entire tank unit from Poland to liberate the Netherlands...
May I also point out that that date was the only other avqailable day for a landing in Normandy in 1944.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
as for greatest General, I'd have to say Manstein
although heres a relative unknown
Field Marshal Walter Model
not the most reliable source but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Model
I have two favorite WWII Generals.
General Norman "Dutch" Cota - for his outstanding leadership on Omaha Beach and of the 28th Infantry Division during the Battle of the Bulge. His was a hands on personal approach that all soldiers appreciate. It was he who told the struggling GIs "There are only two kinds of people on this beach, those who are already dead, and those who are going to die...now let's get going!" His stubborn defense of Clervaux to the last delayed the 2nd Panzer Division long enough for the 101st Airborne Division to reach Bastogne.
General der Panzertruppen Gerd Von Manteuffel - For his leadership of the "Grossduetschland" Panzergrenadier Division on the east front, and for his superior leadership of the V Panzer Army during the Ardennes Offensive. He was another frontline General who personally reconnoitered the American positions and recommended a change of plans to Hitler about the opening barrage. He must have been greatly respected for Hitler to even listen to such a suggestion.
His tactics, hard driving leadership, and ability to adapt to changes in plan allowed his forces to make the farthest drive west during the attack. His also held out the longest during the retreat phase.
I cannot say for the Germans, and natural bias makes me think that all British soldiers are inherently better Americans...
I have to agree with many previously and say Slim. Although, he is often overlooked, because he was in command of the "Forgotten" 14th Army. He didn't command in the European Theatre, so is less studied (Monty gets a mention for the struggle to defeat Germany in History classes. British Imperial, and hence Imperial Defence, history is overlooked in Scotland). Slim did not (as far as I am aware) command, fight below, or fight alongside Americans in his most famous struggles...
This thread is perfect. Does anyone have an "scholary" sources on Zhukov? I have to do a paper on him, and I'm having trouble finding anything.
.Quote:
Cunningham's comment about the Crete evacuation
Ah yes. Sorry for going OT but I couldn't resist laying that out. Presumably Pannonnian had in mind (when Cunningham was being urged to call off the evalucation in light of the number of ships being attacked from the air):
Cunningham gets my vote as Most Nelsonian Admiral of WW11 anyway.Quote:
It takes the Navy three years to build a new ship. It would take three hundred years to build a new tradition.
That's what I had in mind, and also when Churchill was told that the Hood was lost, he commented that there was no point in having a navy if one wasn't prepared to use them and lose them. That was the mistake of the German and Italian navies, who kept their ships safe and hence useless in harbour.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I am partial to Patton myself. But there are a few from the Pacific that rank right up there.
Slim as alreadly mentioned. And I have a liking for Ridgeway - but he recieved most of his fame and shame in Korea.