Alright guys! Here is an off-topic thinking cap thread about who would you consider the best general to ever grace the battlefield. This sounds more like some war forum kinda thread, but can't find one and ergo this goes here.

A simple format: Name a general or leader of an army/nation at war from history and give us a reason why he should be considered as the best general evah! Now for the critical analysis. You need to give the context of when this person lived and what form of war this person waged (describe the war itself, technological conditions, tactics of the era, ect) and then rate the person on their strategic and tactical skills. Don't forget to mention the tangibles and intangibles of what this person brought in terms of not only their generalship, but who was their opponent, the general level of skill of opponents they faced, and what they did that also influenced their ability to win that did not involve strategy or tactics, such as their ability to inspire morale/fear into their troops, their logistical creativity, engineering feats to overcome obstacles, ect. Finally, as a part of the critical analysis, make sure to also mention shortcomings that led to their defeat and/or hampered their skills. Remember that not every general is perfect.

And hell, you can assign a score of 1(worst)-10(best) if you want and categorize everything to make it easy.

Example:

Robert E. Lee- leader of the Confederate Army of Virginia 1862-1865 and Commander of the CSA armed forces for duration of war during 1865; defeated several numerically larger Union armies and waged war in invader's territory twice after lopsided victories favoring his army.

Context- Robert E. Lee lived in a transitional period of warfare that was transforming technologically at a faster pace than the previous era's Napoleonic tactics could catch up with. America's experience at war was ancient by modern standards with few brushes of war rivaling what European nations had fought in the last century. Lee's Confederacy fought a war in which all advantages materially belonged to the agressor save for leadership, terrain, and iniitially the quality and morale of the men that joined Lee's armies. Robert E. Lee principally fought his battles with firing line tactics using weapons that varied in quality and generally inferior to the arms produced by the enemy, fighting mainly on the defensive on terrain he knew quite well. Despite facing superior numbers, General Lee often fought troops that were greener than his and generals that were more incompetent than him.

Strategy Score: 6
Robert E. Lee was a capable strategist. He planned out several of the war's eastern campaigns that helped stave off defeat of the Confederacy for several years, including being credited with the idea of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's Valley Campaign. While limited to control of the Army of Northern Virginia, the control of this army and the surround regions was vital to the Confederate war effort, as it was his army that lied between the enemy capitals. As a strategist, Lee gambled with plans that had high risk-high reward dividends that could of potentially of paid out a victory for the South, including two invasions of the North. Noting the sensitivity of the Lincoln administration's defense of the Washington capital, made it a point to harass the capital in order to tie up troops that would of otherwise went to reinforce the Army of the Potomac that he fought almost consistently from 1862-1865. Was able to correctly appraise the relative weaknesses of enemy generally and thus planned his army movements to reflect the timidity and defensive posture most of the generals he fought had shown. Lee was rarely fooled by opposing generals and was able to adapt long term plans to compensate for army movement that he himself did not control.

Tactical Score: 8
Above all, Lee was an excellent tactician. Able to read the terrain, personality of the enemy commander, and morale of the troops he encountered, Lee often confused and outwitted his enemies during battle. Planning battles primarily with defense in mind, Lee would suprise opponents by the savage attacks and tenacity of Southern forces that often routed the armies of the Union from 1862-1863. Lee often chose the battlefield in which his opponents would fight him, and in doing so gained a terrain advantage in order to compensate for number disparities or hide the skillful deployment of his forces, such as in the Battle of Chancellorsville where he split his army into halves in order to execute a devestating flanking attack against a static army corps.

Tangibles and Intangibles Score: 7
Lee was eventually crippled with a manpower and supply shortage that drained Lee of the capacity to reinforce his army or feed it. Despite this eventual handicap, Lee gained a reputation of invincibility that reinforced the morale of his army and depressed the expectations among the generals of the opposing army of their chances to win. Lee was an army engineer which helped his army in terms of battlefield preparation and especially operations involving fording rivers and logistics. Lee's army generally had to fight defensive battles. Lee was also supported by able army corps commanders that were of a higher quality than their Union counterparts.

Shortcomings:

Lee was not as strong of a strategist as he was a tactician. The invasions he planned while executed with daring and skill eventually were lost because the gambles themselves relied on factors that did not pan out in Lee's favor, such as Lee's famour lost order that lead to the Battle of Antietam and the inability to secure high ground and primarily defend his ground during the Battle of Gettysburg. This hight risk, high reward strategy eventually backfired as Lee lost more than his army could lose in the course of two invasions of the North. Further, Lee would not command an army outside the Army of Northern Virginia, as he sided with defending his state above saving the Confederacy when it came right down to it. Lee also lacked the authority to command the general war effort of the Confederacy until it was too late. Lee's tactics generally cost the South a greater number of casualties when he took the initiative to attack; this would be more crippling to his army late in the war when such casualties were nigh impossible to replace. Lee was unable to counter the war of attrition that Grant forced upon Lee as he was locked into trench warfare to save the Confederate capital of Richmond from falling into enemy hands.

And there you have it.

I would like to put Alexander the Great down, but I really don't know enough about his actual battle-strategies to grade him.

I give you John Chard, actually a Lieutenant but he masterminded the defence of Rorke's Drift against 4000 Zulu warriors with only 139 men (80 of them fit for duty) and a few sand bags and boxes.

Strategy Rating 6 - loses marks for choosing to make a stand at such a crap defensive position, but would he and his men been cut down on the march if they'd left?

Tactical Rating 10 - once the decision was made to stay, he extracted every last bit of tactical value from the few resources he had at his disposal.

Genghis Khan?

Bran Dawri wrote:Genghis Khan?

He was freaking amazing but the actual wars were fought with a free hand by his generals. He didn't tend to interfere with what they were doing.

He is perhaps Best Conqueror Ever!

Emperors Faithful wrote:I would like to put Alexander the Great down, but I really don't know enough about his actual battle-strategies to grade him.

I second this guy. I also don't know too much, but I know he rode a pony to war (it died at 30 or something insane) and he conquered most of the old world if not all of it.

Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

Flashman wrote:Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

He did? *facepalm*

Tim the Biovore wrote:

Flashman wrote:Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

He did? *facepalm*

No but he made the game Polo out of whacking the faces of the enemy heads with sticks......like a long distance facepalm I guess

I will suggest Julius Caesar. His brilliance pacified Hispania, conquered Gaul and defeated the other most brilliant general of his time Pompey the Great. Serious, read the Gallic Wars and his Civil Wars, and you will see why he is probably the greatest polymath of all time.

Squig_herder wrote:

Tim the Biovore wrote:

Flashman wrote:Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

He did? *facepalm*

No

Ahem Squig Herder, think you'll find he did, check your history

General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

Although carried out with inferior special effects and at cost in Jedi lives, General Yoda's assault on Geonosis was pretty efficient. Got his hands dirty too...

Hitler managed to get 3 countries at the start of his regime without firing a shot, thats pretty fething good for these modern days

General Monty

Was one of the big wieghts behind operation overlord and defeated Rommel in Africa (and Normandy)

Shortcomings: operation market garden. Nuff said.

Erwin Rommel
Hans Guderian( how dose one spell his last name?)
Marshal Zukov
Wilhelm the Conqueror
Simon Bolivar

wizard12 wrote:General Monty

Was one of the big wieghts behind operation overlord and defeated Rommel in Africa (and Normandy)

Shortcomings: operation market garden. Nuff said.

Monty loses points for being too practical. His repeated insistance on building extraneous reserves of fuel, ammo and other supplies lead not only to the (failed) "battle of the Bulge" push by German Panzer units, but also limited the effeciveness of one of his best "subordinates" (also the best Mechinised tactitian in the Allied Army) Geo. S. Patton.

It should also be noted that the German army was more "afraid" of Patton than Montgomery, a fact that was used in Operation Quicksilver. The German Army was deceived into thinking Patton was leading the Main Assault into mainland Europe via Calais, and kept 15 divisions in reserve to contest Patton.

Flashman wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

Although carried out with inferior special effects and at cost in Jedi lives, General Yoda's assault on Geonosis was pretty efficient. Got his hands dirty too...

But there were no AT-ATs...

helgrenze wrote:It should also be noted that the German army was more "afraid" of Patton than Montgomery, a fact that was used in Operation Quicksilver. The German Army was deceived into thinking Patton was leading the Main Assault into mainland Europe via Calais, and kept 15 divisions in reserve to contest Patton.

That's not necessarily a fear of Patton as a general, Those 15 divisions would have been a holding force defending the most critical port in the region from a force larger than the one that landed in Normandy while the Armoured Divisions were mobilised.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Flashman wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

Although carried out with inferior special effects and at cost in Jedi lives, General Yoda's assault on Geonosis was pretty efficient. Got his hands dirty too...

But there were no AT-ATs...

Cos they had these instead Not as intimidating, but less prone to getting their legs tangled in harpoon cables.

Flashman wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Flashman wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

Although carried out with inferior special effects and at cost in Jedi lives, General Yoda's assault on Geonosis was pretty efficient. Got his hands dirty too...

But there were no AT-ATs...

Cos they had these instead Not as intimidating, but less prone to getting their legs tangled in harpoon cables.

And there were funny bug-men.

Anyway, I would nominate Hermann Göring. He led perhaps the greatest, non-sci-fi airforce in WWII. And, to top it all of, he was too fat to fit into a fighter. An entire air campaign led from the ground.

helgrenze wrote:

wizard12 wrote:General Monty

Was one of the big wieghts behind operation overlord and defeated Rommel in Africa (and Normandy)

Shortcomings: operation market garden. Nuff said.

Monty loses points for being too practical. His repeated insistance on building extraneous reserves of fuel, ammo and other supplies lead not only to the (failed) "battle of the Bulge" push by German Panzer units, but also limited the effeciveness of one of his best "subordinates" (also the best Mechinised tactitian in the Allied Army) Geo. S. Patton.

It should also be noted that the German army was more "afraid" of Patton than Montgomery, a fact that was used in Operation Quicksilver. The German Army was deceived into thinking Patton was leading the Main Assault into mainland Europe via Calais, and kept 15 divisions in reserve to contest Patton.

Wasn't Monty the guy who botched Market Garden?

Soladrin wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

wizard12 wrote:General Monty

Was one of the big wieghts behind operation overlord and defeated Rommel in Africa (and Normandy)

Shortcomings: operation market garden. Nuff said.

Monty loses points for being too practical. His repeated insistance on building extraneous reserves of fuel, ammo and other supplies lead not only to the (failed) "battle of the Bulge" push by German Panzer units, but also limited the effeciveness of one of his best "subordinates" (also the best Mechinised tactitian in the Allied Army) Geo. S. Patton.

It should also be noted that the German army was more "afraid" of Patton than Montgomery, a fact that was used in Operation Quicksilver. The German Army was deceived into thinking Patton was leading the Main Assault into mainland Europe via Calais, and kept 15 divisions in reserve to contest Patton.

Wasn't Monty the guy who botched Market Garden?

The plan was fine the drop into and around Arnhem wasn't and intel wasn't up to scratch either. Also remember that Monty was all for pushing directly towards Berlin, seeing its a political and strategic prize. Eisenhower decided to operate on a broader front due to intel advising and fueling the general fear that the German army and partizans would be operating from mountainous bases supported by munitions factories deep in the mountainsides.

There's this thing between Americans (Monty sucked!) and Englishmen (Monty ruled!) that's really, really dull. I think it's just 'coz he and Patton didn't get along. The guy had great strengths, particularly in logistics and was loved by his men, but he also had his weaknesses and that he was a key figure in Operation Market Garden - he just doesn't belong in a thread about the best or worst generals.


My vote goes to Zukhov. He led the first mechanised blitz, at the battle of Khalkin Ghol. Unlike the Germans (who's admittedly impressive tactical skill and culture of aggression ended up largely blundered into similar success) his blitz was part of a greater operational plan - drawing the full strength of the Japanese forward while secretly keeping mechanised units in reserve for a strike at the Japanese supplies. He was a key figure in the defence of Stalingrad and Operation Mars - perhaps the classic example of Deep Operations. He was a key figure in Kursk, lifted the siege on Leningrad, retook Belorussia and was a major player in capturing Berlin. Eisenhower thought he was awesome.

He understood operational level war better than anyone, and given the emphasis placed on operational level thinking in military thinking you'd have to say he was miles ahead of his time.

Trotsky?

Was instrumental in reforging the Red Army into an effective fighting force, recognized the importance of the railways, organised effective propaganda to motivate peasants in support of the Bolsheviks, mobilised the entire force, defeated several ex-Tsarist officers with far greater experience than he, organised the defence of Petrograd, planned the movements of every division of the Red Army, AND travelled through the country on an armoured train to where the fighting was thickest.

Awesome.

Tim the Biovore wrote:Anyway, I would nominate Hermann Göring. He led perhaps the greatest, non-sci-fi airforce in WWII. And, to top it all of, he was too fat to fit into a fighter. An entire air campaign led from the ground.

This is a joke right? Goring cocked up (or ignored) every major action he was involved with.

Gaius Marius
Who turned the Roman army into a world stomping killing machine. So effective that all subsequent Roman generals mimiced his methods and he laid the foundations for what beceome the modern army once his logistical ideas were resurrected in the 17th century. His strategic and logistical legacy remains today.

sebster wrote:There's this thing between Americans (Monty sucked!) and Englishmen (Monty ruled!) that's really, really dull. I think it's just 'coz he and Patton didn't get along. The guy had great strengths, particularly in logistics and was loved by his men, but he also had his weaknesses and that he was a key figure in Operation Market Garden - he just doesn't belong in a thread about the best or worst generals.

Oh I agree. Monty does not belong in a 'Best War General' thread. But being a brit ill defend his arrogance and stiffness to the last!

Tim the Biovore wrote:Anyway, I would nominate Hermann Göring. He led perhaps the greatest, non-sci-fi airforce in WWII. And, to top it all of, he was too fat to fit into a fighter. An entire air campaign led from the ground.

This is a joke right? Goring cocked up (or ignored) every major action he was involved with.

Didn't Goring promise Hitler that no enemy airforce would penetrate German airspace? that was a joke!

Anyway I would go for:
Napoleon Bonaparte
Zhukov
and possibly Erich Von Manstein

Edging Zhukov slightly.

Mr. Burning wrote:Oh I agree. Monty does not belong in a 'Best War General' thread. But being a brit ill defend his arrogance and stiffness to the last!

Sure, and he should be defended against claims he was a bad general. He just wasn't the best, but he certainly wasn't the worst.

Sherman. The March to the Sea campaign was one of the best examples of strategic maneuver anywhere. He was among the first to grasp the importance of 'Total War' and was ruthless enough in carrying it out that I'm sure the southerners on here will flame me for posting this, over 100 years later...

Furthermore, he had an amazing grasp of what the Civil War was going to be, right from the beginning, that far exceeded any of his contemporaries. Lee is a fashionable heroic losing general, while Sherman was a pragmatic bastard who really understood what was going to happen, and didn't shy away from what it was going to take to win the war. Near the beginning of the Civil War, he predicted casualty rates that had contemporaries calling him insane, yet by the end of the war, those estimates were close to what had actually transpired.

+1 for sherman, Yankees know how to fight a war.

I choose Moses from the bible. after leaving Egypt, the hebrews went on a 40 year rampage. Saking cities killing even the cattle, and leaving no stone in place. In one battle it's said the hebrews would gain the upper hand just by him holding up his arms.


10 all around for my man Moses

sexiest_hero wrote:+1 for sherman, Yankees know how to fight a war.

I choose Moses from the bible. after leaving Egypt, the hebrews went on a 40 year rampage. Saking cities killing even the cattle, and leaving no stone in place. In one battle it's said the hebrews would gain the upper hand just by him holding up his arms.


10 all around for my man Moses

That's not what they mean with having "the upper hand" .....

If we're doing bible generals, then respect to the guy who commanded an army made up entirely of left handed people. That's one army I'd join in a flash (in some kind of administrative capacity).

Flashman wrote:If we're doing bible generals, then respect to the guy who commanded an army made up entirely of left handed people. That's one army I'd join in a flash (in some kind of administrative capacity).

And Samson who killed a 1000 guys with a donkey's jaw bone

Haig.




Just kidding.

Albatross wrote:Haig.



Just kidding.

How did he get a statue in London? On bloody Whitehall as well...

Actually Haig wasn't as bad as modern thinking makes him out to be. Sure the Somme was a disaster and lives on as an expression in futility and incompetence but you have to consider that he technically did 'win' the Battle and certainly achieved what is often seen as his main objective of reducing the pressure on the French at Verdun.
By 1918 his 'Hundred Days offensive' achieved massively disproportionate successes in comparison to the larger French army and he was employing mechanised and Air support to great success frog-marching the Germans back towards their border and critically weakening their armies.

However I would still not rate him as one of the best Generals ever but he certainly does not deserve his modern legacy.

I can't really decide upon 'the Greatest General' as almost every great military command I can think of had a flaw.

Possibly Alexander the Great due to the legend that his conquests only ended because his soldiers were to scared to go beyond the corners of what they considered to be the world.

ok.. My nomination....

Saladin:
- fought during the crusades.
- United large tracts of the Middle East
- Captured Damascus
- Annahilated a Crusader Army led by Guy of Lusignan
- Orchestrated the Capture of Jerusalem
- Earned the respect of Richard the Lionhearted
- Was recognised as a model of chivalry first by Richard and later by much of Europe.
- Was honored as both a general and a leader by Wilhelm II of Germany
- Was offered a Salute of Respect by General Allenby when the Brits capured Damascus during WW1

@ yani

Re: Haig - I could win a battle if I had 620,000 men at my disposal and nobody was too bothered about seeing them again.

I accept your challenge Flashman! Meet me on the rugger pitch in half an hour with your men and we'll set to! 5th Edition rules, pitched battle agreeable? Capital!

Gwar! can referee!

Kaiser Wilhelm II

Edit: Because I can't spell kaiser or Wilhelm

CadianXV wrote:I accept your challenge Flashman! Meet me on the rugger pitch in half an hour with your men and we'll set to! 5th Edition rules, pitched battle agreeable? Capital!

Gwar! can referee!

Kaiser Wilhelm II

Edit: Because I can't spell kaiser or Wilhelm

Hang on, that's not fair. You only need 465,000 men for your side (if we're using the same army lists). I need more time for my recruitment campaign.

Ohh? against a well entrenched and experienced enemy who is approximately equal in number to you?

Also it's not really fair to say that no-one was too bothered about the 620,000 Allied casualties. The British Armies losses of about 400,000 were from the first wave of volunteers who were usually the fittest, most motivated and best educated of the civilian soldiery.

As I said the Somme is still a tragedy but it did bring significant benefits to the Entente namely relieving pressure on Verdun enabling a valuable stronghold to remain in French hands and damaging the German's who while having a slightly larger population than Britain was having to support operations against the Russians and the French.

Oh and how come you're comparing casualty figures? More than 620k British fought against more than 463k Germans, unless your suggesting that their were no survivors from the Somme?

Yep, my cunning plan is to advance all 620,000 men across the battlefield at the same time making sure they adopt a pace that is brisker than walking. Should by done by teatime.

EDIT - I am using Somme casualty figures because I figured I could win the same engagement with Haig's losses. All with the benefit of hindsight of course. Apologies also if you think I'm being flippant about the loss of human life. I understand that nobody, not even Haig, took these losses lightly.

Aghhh Apologies for the thread hijack :/

Egads! Advance ALL of them!?! At a brisk pace!?! TEATIME!!! We're doomed!

Now that's tactical genius...

Ive been a fan of this man for years. He was a great President, and was a bad ass General as well.

Andrew Jackson. He beat Indians good at Horse shoe bend. As well as beat the tar out of the English in the war of 1812 (I cant remember the numbers but it was pretty bad)
He marched with his men on foot from New Orleans back to Tennessee, even letting some of the more sick men ride on his horse. As well as paying all his men out of his pocket before the war broke out.
Then became the only President to pay off the national debt. He was a one of a kind in my book.

Well... Best General? All I can say... is this.

<_<
>_>

CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!

In all reality, I sez,

Eisenhower

Tactical Score: 9. I give Him props for Destroying the Nazi Regime in Europe

Tangible Score: 10. Ike had Something that most generals didn't: The uncanny ability to owrk with people. The man was able to smooth rifts between the Competing UK and US Generals, he had amazing people skills.

*cough* Sword, Juno and Gold *cough*

KingCracker wrote:Ive been a fan of this man for years. He was a great President, and was a bad ass General as well.

Andrew Jackson. He beat Indians good at Horse shoe bend. As well as beat the tar out of the English in the war of 1812 (I cant remember the numbers but it was pretty bad)
He marched with his men on foot from New Orleans back to Tennessee, even letting some of the more sick men ride on his horse. As well as paying all his men out of his pocket before the war broke out.
Then became the only President to pay off the national debt. He was a one of a kind in my book.

Jackson was a good general, but I sez he is guilty of treason (Supreme Court case Worchester vs. The state of Georgia)

Say that all you want, the man was arguably the best President period. And was a fantastic general.

Hmm after considering for a while I would have to say that I would rate Sir Francis Drake as the greatest war leader of all time.
He effectively laid the foundation for the Empire by his state sponsored piracy campaign against the Spanish. For the first time since about midway through Henry the 8ths reign England's coffers were in a healthy state and the expansion of the navy, that would take Britain to superpower status, started during this period. He effectively handled the Spanish during the Armada using the faster British ships to harry the lumbering Spanish galleons and initiating surprise attacks to great effect. It was he who 'singed the Spanish beard' at Cadiz and effectively was Britain's wall throughout the Elizabethan age. While not strictly being a General I think he deserves mention among the great military leaders.

@Flash
I never assumed you were being flippant about the Human cost. And sure with hindsight the Somme could have been far far more effective but at the time the best was made from a horrific situation.

Henry V.


Purely for Agincourt. His decision to kill most of his captives probably saved the day. A tough decision, but the right one - that makes a good general in my book.

Henry V, Rommel, Saladin, Genghis Khan.

I'm way too lazy to note why I like them, so feel free to Wikipedia them as you see fit.

How about good old George W?

Earned his command rank in the Brit Army then was elected to head the Continental Army in 1775.
Drove the brits from Boston, lost in NYC then took a dejected and almost defeated force into an enemy stronghold at Trenton.
Had his defeats but learned and corrected them.
Eventually won through to force the brits to surrender at Yorktown.
Made his own whiskey, beer and Ale.

Although I'm not privy to the historical nuances of the hows and whys, I've always thought Napoleon and Ghengis Khan were the greatest generals.

KingCracker wrote:Ive been a fan of this man for years. He was a great President, and was a bad ass General as well.

Andrew Jackson. He beat Indians good at Horse shoe bend. As well as beat the tar out of the English in the war of 1812 (I cant remember the numbers but it was pretty bad)
He marched with his men on foot from New Orleans back to Tennessee, even letting some of the more sick men ride on his horse. As well as paying all his men out of his pocket before the war broke out.
Then became the only President to pay off the national debt. He was a one of a kind in my book.

That thing ended up in a tie, no ones borders were enhanced, you lost more men than we did, and we managed to burn down each other's Capitol Building. Say what you want, but a President who lets the Whitehouse get burned down on his watch can not be called the greatest general ever.

I for one would like to nominate Admiral Ackbar, for his uncanny ability to locate and recognize surprise attacks and ambushes.

Ratbarf wrote:That thing ended up in a tie, no ones borders were enhanced, you lost more men than we did, and we managed to burn down each other's Capitol Building. Say what you want, but a President who lets the Whitehouse get burned down on his watch can not be called the greatest general ever.

Er, I think you are mistaking Gen. Jackson with James Madison who was actually the POTUS during the War of 1812. The White House was rebuilt and ready for Big Block of Cheese day by the time Ol' Hickory took up residence there....

Flashman wrote:Yep, my cunning plan is to advance all 620,000 men across the battlefield at the same time making sure they adopt a pace that is brisker than walking. Should by done by teatime.

EDIT - I am using Somme casualty figures because I figured I could win the same engagement with Haig's losses. All with the benefit of hindsight of course. Apologies also if you think I'm being flippant about the loss of human life. I understand that nobody, not even Haig, took these losses lightly.

Having troops advance at a quicker rate results in them arriving at the enemy lines piecemeal and exhausted. Contrary to popular myth, the majority of assaults in WWI succeeded in penetrating the enemy lines, including those at the Somme. The problem was command and control, as technology and operational control had not developed sufficiently to inform commanding officers where offensives had been successful so they could reinforce those positions*. The sad truth is that Haig like all generals of the day was greatly restricted by the scarce and poor quality of information he received from the front during operations.

Haig actually revolutionised war where he could, the British innovations in combined arms were not fully realised duing the Great War, but were a feature of all armies by the start of WWII. Like Monty, Haig was neither the greatest of generals nor the worst.




*Trains also made it far easier for the defender to reinforce weakpoints than for the attacker to reinforce them.

Orlanth wrote:Gaius Marius
Who turned the Roman army into a world stomping killing machine. So effective that all subsequent Roman generals mimiced his methods and he laid the foundations for what beceome the modern army once his logistical ideas were resurrected in the 17th century. His strategic and logistical legacy remains today.

Definitely Top 10.

Here's some more.
Lee-already mentioned but I'd push intangible to 10 and drop tactic to 6. His tactics were good but his understanding of his opponents was superior. His tactical advantages were two fold: Longstreet and Jackson.

Subotai (sp) Genghis Khan's #1 general and an absolute brilliant buttkicker. To fight Subotai means you're a dead man walking. I'd put this guy as the odds on favorite against Alexander in the world domination bowl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai

Alexander. Well enough said on that guy.

Napoleon. invented the-wait for it-Napoleonic strategy of combined arms. Kicked everyone's butt, except Mother Nature.

Shaka Zulu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka

Osman, effective founder of the Turkish Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_I

Tamerlane, perhaps the bloodiest in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur

Agrippa!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa

Ew, forgot about Octavian's general. Good call.

Nathan Bedford Forrest. His civil war cavalry tactics were studied by Rommel and others. Arguably the best cavalry general since firearms were invented.


General Giap, brainchild behind the NVA (and Vietminh's I think) military strategy. Beating the most powerful military in the world with mortars, rpgs, and assault rifles.

Flashman wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:

Tim the Biovore wrote:

Flashman wrote:Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

He did? *facepalm*

No

Ahem Squig Herder, think you'll find he did, check your history

I thought "Squig Herder" was an insult til I read the quote lol.

I nominate Sgt Alvin York and I quote "He was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 32 machine guns, killing 28 German soldiers and capturing 132 others."

There was no strategy, there was no bravado, He just got shizz done.

^ If we are going by sheer awesomeness in a soldier than you can't really beat Simo Hayha.

Probably the best sniper the world has ever seen.

If it comes down to who is the best General, than it probably goes between Alexander and maybe Subutai. A lot of the Mongols military success can be attributed to the fact that their armies were mostly ridiculously skilled horse archers, a formation that didn't have an appropriate response until the invention of effective gunpowder weapons.

Agrippa was a fine commander, but Caesar was better. I should mention both Trajan and Scipio Africanus while I am at it. For a nomination fail can I mention Crassus?

helgrenze wrote:How about good old George W?

At first this really confused me.

Ratbarf wrote:That thing ended up in a tie, no ones borders were enhanced, you lost more men than we did, and we managed to burn down each other's Capitol Building.

Actually, we gained a little land. An island or something.


My nomination for best general is the illustrious Colonel, George Armstrong Custer!

Strategy Score: -
Not high ranking enough.

Tactical Score: 4
The Battle for Little Big Horn. Yup.

Tangible Score: 11
What beautiful hair! Do you think Saladin had hair like that?

I vote for Napoleon. Simply becuase he was the only living man I know of for the major countries of Europe to actually declare war on as an individual. After his escape from exile Britian/Prussia ect didn't declare war on France, they declared war on Napoleon. A wanted man, to say the least.

Definatly sabutai, oh is that you nice million man army that outnumbers me 5 to one is that all. Remember kids don't feth with Genghis khan

Orkeosaurus wrote:

helgrenze wrote:How about good old George W?

At first this really confused me.

Ratbarf wrote:That thing ended up in a tie, no ones borders were enhanced, you lost more men than we did, and we managed to burn down each other's Capitol Building.

Actually, we gained a little land. An island or something.


My nomination for best general is the illustrious Colonel, George Armstrong Custer!

Strategy Score: -
Not high ranking enough.

Tactical Score: 4
The Battle for Little Big Horn. Yup.

Tangible Score: 11
What beautiful hair! Do you think Saladin had hair like that?

Forget Little BigHorn. Custer was a genius cavalry guy in the Civil War, if a bit er, foolhardy.

Bismarck by far, honestly one of the most intelligent military officer ive researched till Wilhelm the II fked it up.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

helgrenze wrote:How about good old George W?

At first this really confused me.

Ratbarf wrote:That thing ended up in a tie, no ones borders were enhanced, you lost more men than we did, and we managed to burn down each other's Capitol Building.

Actually, we gained a little land. An island or something.


My nomination for best general is the illustrious Colonel, George Armstrong Custer!

Strategy Score: -
Not high ranking enough.

Tactical Score: 4
The Battle for Little Big Horn. Yup.

Tangible Score: 11
What beautiful hair! Do you think Saladin had hair like that?

His character in night at the museum 2 made me like that movie. The rest was garbage, but dammit his character was hilarious


And uh yea Andrew Jackson isnt to blame for the White House burning down, not even close. It was Madison who was the president during that awesome time, so blame him. Andrew Jackson has a pretty much flawless/perfect military record. The man was unstoppable. Infact I think that would be the only reason he isnt THE best. I think a good general needs to at least know of losing to be good.

I think thats the main reason Genghis Khan was so good at what he did. Before becoming the Khan, he really had his taste of the gaks

But then he killed his own brother and from then on life was gravy, just gravy.

Murray wrote:Bismarck by far, honestly one of the most intelligent military officer ive researched till Wilhelm the II fked it up.

He wasn't a general though, he was a statesman.

That demonstrates his true cunning!

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the best general does not appear so, as he wins wars without fighting them.

Field Marshall Viscount William Slim. (Ex-private from 1st WW, Ghurka Officer, tough no nonsense, working class hero!)

Read the book "Defeat into Victory". Outclassed, Outmanoeuvred, No Logistics, No Support, on the far side of the world, where the Jungle and Weather Killed almost as many troops as the Japanese.

Strategy : 9 out 10 (No logisitics, very little assistance, balanced Political concerns, Army of the Raj on the verge of revolt)
Tactical : 9 out 10 (Pioneered active Counter Patrolling tactics, infiltration techniques, Chindits, Psychological warfare using Ghurkas!)


One of the Greatest, frankest and most open accounts of High intensity warfare. A definite read for any military professional.

Some People are nominating Organisers and Regulators like Marius, Eisenhower or Jackie Fisher rather than War fighting Rat Catchers like Rommel, Jackson or Slim.

Some good nominations but many of the Generals you've all mentioned are Popular or in the popular conciousness.

Case in Point Fieldmarshall Haig.

Not many military or historical writers of an reknown would paint Haig as a Butcher or incompetent. The reformation of the British Army and its Military tactics including trenching clearing and Infantry Section/Platoon attacks came from Haig and his staff. Lampooning from inaccurate history books and things such as Blackadder goes forth have coloured an entire generation with one way of thinking which is both narrow and invariably inaccurate.

Another good example is the total lack of understanding of the Vietnam War, the subsequent Ceasefire and the final betrayal and invasion of South Vietnam by the North.

My advice is Read widely on all conflicts from all different sides and do not following public opinion as it is usually wrong.

Heinz Guderian.

He combined theory, operational know-how, and persnickety attention to detail to capture France.

General George S. Patton. He was in WWII and gained alot of notoriety.

But mostly because of his quote: "Your job in war is not to die for your country but make the other bastard die for his!"

How about General Stelek? I hear he was a pretty brilliant tactician.

Well, he said he was, but I don't recall him winning any major battles.

What happened to him anyways?

There was a prussian general I read in a book. Napoleon invaded prussia, trying to force him out of city central. Napoleon was unsuccessful, and the lazy arse General just let the cold russian winters destroy Napoleon's forces before they can get out of there. Doing nothing well does something.

My list [Alphabetically]
-Alexander the Great: He invented crap that we are still studying and making his enemies going, “What, he did that?”
-Grant: He knew what to do with his Commanders
-Patton: Charismatic, Dedicated and Aggressive, everything you needed to pull off Modern Mobile Warfare.
-Rommel: A master at maneuver Warfare and Improvisation.
-Schwarzkopf: Conducted a secret operation in front of the world and surprised an enemy that new he was coming, when he was coming and what he was bringing to the fight with little in the way casualties.
-Sherman: Invented Modern Mobile-Total Warfare.

I have nothing against Monty other than he was not aggressive enough for me, I just believe that if Patton had his way WWII in Europe would have ended by the fall of 44.

Anpu42 wrote:

I have nothing against Monty other than he was not aggressive enough for me, I just believe that if Patton had his way WWII in Europe would have ended by the fall of 44.

Patton's greatest obstacle was logistics. Even when orders were handed down for his army movement, the simple fact was he outstripped the supplies that fed his army the fuel and food needed to continue. It would of taken a herculean effort for him to continue his rapid advance versus the progress of the other armies.

Anpu42 wrote:... I just believe that if Patton had his way WWII in Europe would have ended by the fall of 44.

Yeah, behind enemy lines and surrounded.

"General Patton, for you zer var is over"

As a military professional and a bit of a buff, i've never rated Montgomery that highly. He was Competent, maybe even efficient but the title great doesn't fit. El Alamein = Good, Market Garden = Poor and the British Airbourne was sacraficed at Arnhem and Osterbeek. The sheer gall of the man to advance along a main road in the face of the worlds most professional army (even in its disorganised state after the Falaise Pocket collapse) was childish mistake and unworthy of a man supposed highly schooled in the Military arts. Poor Strategic decision that lengthened the War and killed an awful lot of people and destroy a fair bit of Holland.

Patton was a prima donna, but talented as hell. He never got the opportunity to display his full strategic and tactical prowess in battle over a prolonged period and his death not long after WWII didn't help.

mwnciboo wrote:Field Marshall Viscount William Slim. (Ex-private from 1st WW, Ghurka Officer, tough no nonsense, working class hero!)

Read the book "Defeat into Victory". Outclassed, Outmanoeuvred, No Logistics, No Support, on the far side of the world, where the Jungle and Weather Killed almost as many troops as the Japanese.

Strategy : 9 out 10 (No logisitics, very little assistance, balanced Political concerns, Army of the Raj on the verge of revolt)
Tactical : 9 out 10 (Pioneered active Counter Patrolling tactics, infiltration techniques, Chindits, Psychological warfare using Ghurkas!)


One of the Greatest, frankest and most open accounts of High intensity warfare. A definite read for any military professional.

Some People are nominating Organisers and Regulators like Marius, Eisenhower or Jackie Fisher rather than War fighting Rat Catchers like Rommel, Jackson or Slim.

Some good nominations but many of the Generals you've all mentioned are Popular or in the popular conciousness.

Case in Point Fieldmarshall Haig.

Not many military or historical writers of an reknown would paint Haig as a Butcher or incompetent. The reformation of the British Army and its Military tactics including trenching clearing and Infantry Section/Platoon attacks came from Haig and his staff. Lampooning from inaccurate history books and things such as Blackadder goes forth have coloured an entire generation with one way of thinking which is both narrow and invariably inaccurate.

Another good example is the total lack of understanding of the Vietnam War, the subsequent Ceasefire and the final betrayal and invasion of South Vietnam by the North.

My advice is Read widely on all conflicts from all different sides and do not following public opinion as it is usually wrong.

but he had ghurkas so it wasn't vary fair was it

mwnciboo wrote:...the subsequent Ceaesfire and the final betrayal and invasion of South Vietnam by the North.

*skeptical face*
That's one way of saying it...

No offence "Emperors Faithful" but you really need to read about the exact events of the Vietnam Conflict, especially from 1973-1975 when the US withdrew almost all its forces from vietnam, Campaign 275 and the Norths kicking of the South.

Read and be enlightened, don't follow the Hollywood, John Lennon, popular culture version of Vietnam. The media painted Vietnam as a massive US defeat, despite not being the US finest hour, Militarily the US kicked ass (less than 1% of all casualties were US, think about that!) it was the classic Military/ strategic/ tactical victory squander by politics and the local Geo-political situation (China/Russian influence, the use of 3rd party state actors "LAOS, CAMBODIA" etc the fact that Brits, Aussies, French, Chinese and Vietnamese had fighting for nearly a hundred years!).

Vietnam is not black and white, it was mutliple shades of grey and has some resonance today in the future of Afghanistan.

mwnciboo wrote:No offence "Emperors Faithful" but you really need to read about the exact events of the Vietnam Conflict, especially from 1973-1975 when the US withdrew almost all its forces from vietnam, Campaign 275 and the Norths kicking of the South.

Read and be enlightened, don't follow the Hollywood, John Lennon, popular culture version of Vietnam. The media painted Vietnam as a massive US defeat, despite not being the US finest hour, Militarily the US kicked ass (less than 1% of all casualties were US, think about that!) it was the classic Military/ strategic/ tactical victory squander by politics and the local Geo-political situation (China/Russian influence, the use of 3rd party state actors "LAOS, CAMBODIA" etc the fact that Brits, Aussies, French, Chinese and Vietnamese had fighting for nearly a hundred years!).

Vietnam is not black and white, it was mutliple shades of grey and has some resonance today in the future of Afghanistan.

Sort of. While the US military was dominant and doled out a brutal kill/death ratio the simple reality is that doesn't equal military success. You need to remove the ability of the enemy to make war, and while the US pretty much destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force they never really made that headway into the NVA. Sure, there were political limitations that prevented the US pursuing the NVA, but there are always political limitations.

"They will kill many of us we will kill a few of them, and they will tire of it first." - Ho Chi Minh (sorry if spelling is wrong.

Basically it was the switch from active search and destroy missions to try and hold/disrupt, though I think the entire strategy used in Vietnam with the air cav going in, killing a couple hundred/thousand dudes and then bugging only to take back the area they just cleared two months later stupidity. That and they really should have pressure the Cambodians into allowing them to close the Minh Trail.

My votes for Patton.

John of Bedford. Without him the battle of Verneuil would of been lost. Despite being outnumbered and losing most of his archers in the opening french cavalry charge he managed to pull of a victory through sheer grit and determination. Although the Lomard knights on the French side who were pillaging the English baggage train rather than rejoining the fight also played a small part.

mwnciboo wrote:As a military professional and a bit of a buff, i've never rated Montgomery that highly. He was Competent, maybe even efficient but the title great doesn't fit. El Alamein = Good, Market Garden = Poor and the British Airbourne was sacraficed at Arnhem and Osterbeek. The sheer gall of the man to advance along a main road in the face of the worlds most professional army (even in its disorganised state after the Falaise Pocket collapse) was childish mistake and unworthy of a man supposed highly schooled in the Military arts. Poor Strategic decision that lengthened the War and killed an awful lot of people and destroy a fair bit of Holland.

El Alamein played to his strengths, actually being there on the ground (he inherited the plan). If Market Garden was such an obviously bad plan for the US why did Eisenhower (Monty's boss) green light it? The hubris was obviously pretty far spread.

mwnciboo wrote:Patton was a prima donna, but talented as hell. He never got the opportunity to display his full strategic and tactical prowess in battle over a prolonged period and his death not long after WWII didn't help.

The whole of WWII wasn't long enough? If he never displayed his full talent how do you know he was good?

Vo Nguyen Giap - Made the Americans fight a losing battle in Vietnam with expertly played guerilla attacks, an unrivalled spy network, and morale crushing deception =P

Sun Tzu - Does he need an explanation? The greatest military mind EVER!

Oda Nobunaga - Conquered the majority of Japan within 30 years and laid the ultimate foundation of what would be a completely unified Japan in the 17th century.

Cao Cao - The political mastermind, and expert commander and general from Ancient China, ruled with an iron fist dominating the country under his setback at the ever famous Battle of Red Cliff.

They are the first that come to mind.

So you don't think Eisenhower was under pressure from Churchill? The US was focused on the Pacific, No Monty's operation was a Gamble and a tempting one from Eisenhowers perspective especially after the fall of the Falaise pocket. But the German forces were completely under estimated.

Why was Patton, not given the opportunity to display his own skills. Well it is self evident, if he didn't have the same resources you cannot compare him with Monty. I personally believe if he had been given those resources (Market Garden) he would have used it to great effect (but this is IMHO). So really he never got to display his true potential.

Even the Wehrmacht and SS acknowledged that PATTON was the greatest threat.

Patton did show his hand though, at turning his army north and attacking the German breakthrough at the bulge, and his run up/crossing of the rhine. After market garden it was all Americans all the time.

Patton did show his hand though, at turning his army north and attacking the German breakthrough at the bulge, and his run up/crossing of the rhine. After market garden it was all Americans all the time.

Agreed, I believe he could have eclipsed Rommel and Slim but was never given an opportunity. He may have been the Greatest of the entire 2nd World War but we will never know now...

Hm, how abouuuuuuuuuuuut.........wait for it......
Generalfeldmarschal Friedrich Von Paulus!!!
German hero of the battle of Stalingrad - the only ever german marshal to have surrendered, and one of the few WW2 leaders to lose 850,000 men in a single major battle. Under his leadership and in the aftermath of the battle, the Soviets captured 23(!!!) generals. Well, my vote goes to him, as there was no one to overcome such a man, no one quite as capable of such an epic fail.

aka_tizz wrote:Hm, how abouuuuuuuuuuuut.........wait for it......
Generalfeldmarschal Friedrich Von Paulus!!!
German hero of the battle of Stalingrad - the only ever german marshal to have surrendered, and one of the few WW2 leaders to lose 850,000 men in a single major battle. Well, my vote goes to him, as there was no one to overcome such a man, no one quite as capable of such an epic fail.

Wait couldn't you say that about most of the French general staff? They lost a country in 6 weeks.

Yes, but not 850,000 men.
EDIT : after a little more documenting, it appears France's losses were 567,000 deaths (both military and civilian) during the WHOLE WW2 period

Yea, Im with Fraz, how the hell do you lose a COUNTRY in that short a time frame. Thats pretty epic fail there

aka_tizz wrote:Yes, but not 850,000 men.

What was his name Gamelin? Lost the entire French army/air force/and navy. In terms of Fail he's a winner. I'd reckon only the soviet generals in the beginning months of the war were as Uber Fail Gifted, but much of that wasn't their fault. Gamelin however, yea he's the Elvis of Fail Generals.

As fart as i remember, in the first few days of the war the Russians were forbidden to fire upon the advancing German forces because Stalin didn't actually believed Hitler capable of breaking the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Silly him

if we are discussing national disgrace's Lieutenant General Arthur Percival. The fall of Singapore, if i could travel back in time and slap some one in the Face it would be him, or possibly Admiral Byng. I think Von Paulus is in good company in hell..

Orlanth wrote:Gaius Marius
Who turned the Roman army into a world stomping killing machine. So effective that all subsequent Roman generals mimiced his methods and he laid the foundations for what beceome the modern army once his logistical ideas were resurrected in the 17th century. His strategic and logistical legacy remains today.

Wasn't he the crazy who tried to get his horse elected consul, and then married and killed his sister? Or was that another guy?

I think you're actually referring to Caligula

samrtk wrote:Vo Nguyen Giap - Made the Americans fight a losing battle in Vietnam with expertly played guerilla attacks, an unrivalled spy network, and morale crushing deception =P

Giap definitely deserves a mentioning, but in my opinion it should be more becuase of his ingenuity concerning the placement of artillery in the battle for Diem Bien Phu rather than his actions against the Americans. Diem Bien Phu is one of the few "decisive battles" of our day (post 1950's).

@mwnciboo: It's fairly ignorant of you to immediately jump to the conclusion that I am a Hollywood fan of Vietnam (although I must say that Platoon and Forest Gump were full of hot sauce). My quarrel with you was not about America being 'kicked out' of Vietnam, it was more about you labeling the breaking of the Ceasefire as a 'betrayal'. A 'quick-fix' approach wasn't going to cut it like it worked in Korea. North Vietnam was never going to settle for a divided country, especially when they had been fighting for Independance for the better part of a century. The US was well aware of what would likely happen as soon as they pulled out their forces.

mwnciboo wrote:So you don't think Eisenhower was under pressure from Churchill? The US was focused on the Pacific, No Monty's operation was a Gamble and a tempting one from Eisenhowers perspective especially after the fall of the Falaise pocket. But the German forces were completely under estimated.

Why was Patton, not given the opportunity to display his own skills. Well it is self evident, if he didn't have the same resources you cannot compare him with Monty. I personally believe if he had been given those resources (Market Garden) he would have used it to great effect (but this is IMHO). So really he never got to display his true potential.

Even the Wehrmacht and SS acknowledged that PATTON was the greatest threat.

No I don't think Eisenhower went with Market Garden due to pressure from Churchill. He's always maintained that it was the best plan available to him.

Patton was given 'the resources' they were redirected from Market Garden as it wound down. Patton advanced until he found a German fort, then stopped. If the war in Europe was all anyone after the Bulge it was all USSR.

At the Bulge Patton attacked an armoured force that had run out of fuel and lost the bad weather advantage that neutralised allied air cover. Not really a test of a great General or even an average one. Air power ended the bulge just as it allowed his 'great' breakout from Normandy.

Re: Paulus at Stalingrad. He was a bit too good at following bad orders. He should have broken out to meet Manstein.

Don't feel like reading the thread.

Vote for Ho Chi Minh based on success vs quality of foes he was up against.

Mao at #2 for creating the guerilla warfare Minh perfected.

On the Subject of Market Garden, the Logisitics lines for the Operation were massively overstretched prior to the Operation. There was not enough fuel available for a dual thrust, One by Monty the other by Patton (this would have been the most successful option if fuel had been available). After considerable pressure on Eisenhower from Churchill, and (Monty's less than pleasing attitude towards Eisenhower) Ike went with the Plan (mainly because he wanted a deep water port in northern europe so his precious fuel could be brought more directly and not across most of northern France.
This diversion of Resources had a massive effect on Patton who was successfully driving towards Germany. He pretty much ran out of Fuel for his Armoured Units and took up an almost static defensive position.

So IMHO Patton never got the Chance to show he was a Great General because he never had resources to pursue his strategies.

You are all correct that the USSR really put WW2 to bed, but then the Cold War began, Swings and Round abouts anyone?

I like Forums, its a good way of challenging perceptions and opinions and discussing events

Again, Patton was given the resources after Market Garden (technically during, fuel was diverted to him from Market Garden). Patton's thrust went nowhere when he encountered some genuine resistance (the first time this had happened to him). He was outmanoeuvred by static defences!

mwnciboo wrote:...but then the Cold War began, Swings and Round abouts anyone?

Absolutely agree 100%. I was going to mention something along these lines in my post.

I'll chip in with a few brief summarized viewpoints on some of the mentioned generals. As a War Studies student, I've analysed many campaigns and generals from a neutral standpoint, so I'll try not to get bogged down in detail:-

Haig:- After the war finished, he was a hero in the history books. Then ten years later, historians changed their minds, and slated him as a complete moron. Forty years later, the counter-revisionists changed their minds, and decided he wasn't really all that bad. Result? Many armchair historians and tacticians have analysed him from the comfort of their own homes, arguing over minor details and making things out of nothing. The likelihood is that he was an adequate general. Not too good, not too shabby. He wasn't the quickest to adapt to the new style of warfare, but neither was anyone else.

Rommel:- THere was a perception built up in Germany post war about Rommels infallibility, similar to how the Schlieffen Plan and Graf Schlieffen became almost deified post WW1. If you go over his campaigns in North Africa, you'll realise that most of his success was a result of having far better equipment than his British counterparts, and taking good advantage of British blunders. He was still fooled and beaten several times, but he's far from the figure of heroic portions many would have you believe.

Guderian:- Like Rommel, Guderians reputation is somewhat inflated, largely due to the popular series of books he wrote. Guderian was a mechanized commander of the finest tactical ability, but he had a fair number of shortcomings when it came to larger strategy.

Patton:-Highly aggressive commander, somewhat deified by the US. Had his reputation ruined for a while due to his repeated assaults on soldiers suffering post traumatic stress disorder, and was withdrawn from service temporarily as an embrassment to the US army. Had an ego the size of a mountain, and his obssessive perceived rivalry with Monty led him to making several incredibly stupid tactical mistakes, however, he later got over his paranoia and settled down somewhat. Was utterly taken by his media image, took cameras everywhere. His style of warfare tended to cover a lot of ground, and do a lot of damage, however he would often disregard his supply situation, and the condition of his own men for combat in his eagerness to attack. Had an incredibly fine intuitive grasp of mechanised tactical warfare, like Guderian, but was abrasive even to his own subordinates, such as General Omar Bradley, who later eclipsed him. Interesting to note that when he first met Monty, he thought Monty was the only real soldier in North Africa apart from himself, and despite the rivalry, he had a healthy respect for Montys capabilities.

Eisenhower:- Desk strategist. Had a few books written about him post war that tried to implicate him as a tactical genius, but this is utnrue, and detracts tremendously from his real talents. He was an incredibly skilled administrator and politician, and his ability to make disparate elements work together, and to organise and supply a campaign on such a scale was nothing short of astounding. He was a political beast and a desk soldier, but I doubt there could have been anyone better placed in charge.

Monty:-Hyped up by the British, but not quite as much as you think. You find a lot of American historians trying to marginalise him, and a lot of British ones trying to deify him. The truth is that he had perhaps the finest grasp on strategy of perhaps any of the generals in WW2, but he was let down by his own hubris. Like Patton, he had an ego that could move mountains, and due to his many, many successes in which he showed off his strategical acumen(the campaign in North Africa, planning the attack on Sicily and Italy, The Normandy landings), his failure at Market Garden tarred his unbeatable reputation somewhat. Monty believed he was the only competent commander in the whole business, apart from Omar Bradley, who he had a healthy respect for. His style of warfare was to wait until he knew he had the resources to take the enemy position, and the one behind, launch his assault, capture both, consolidate, and repeat ad infinitum. In other words, a controlled, sustained approach, in which he kept a fine eye on men and material available. He had a nasty habit though, of assuming he was the only competent person around, and tended to bull in, dismiss other peoples plans as inferior and absurd, take over, and manage them himself.(such as the sicily and normandy landings). Doing so made him a LOT of enemies, especially in the allied airforce.

Zhukov:- Highly competent general, forced his way through the Russians back door. He had a nasty habit of just throwing men at problems though, in a very Un-western approach. If he was on our side, we'd be comparing him to Haig.

Sun tzu for his understanding of the psychology of war.

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. "

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.

Excerpts from Art of War by Sun Tzu

Rommel- His greatest ability was in presence. At the operational level, Rommel was not as effective as he was at the tactical. Being in the front lines, commanding troop movement, and driving his men foward were all qualities that Rommel displayed in abundance. The command structure of the British army in North Africa was not suited to the rapid advance in which Rommel executed against his enemies. The British could not at the beginning of Rommel's campaign launch effective counter offensives, but that was largely due in the early part to quality of leadership rather than lack of supplies.

Rommel eventually lost the ability to conduct a campaign in the style of his quick attacks and mobility when he lost most of his trucks and resources to attrition and eventual Allied air superiority.

When forced to retreat from Africa, his army was hampered by one of the amazing, victory at all cost commands by Hilter, and after his army was beyond salvation fought a skilled delaying action to cover his retreat.

Above all, Rommel was very much in the same mold as Patton as a general who liked decisive, quick, and bold assaults (bordering on the reckless) and became more concerned about his image the longer time went on.

Bran Dawri wrote:Genghis Khan?

I've been trying for twenty minutes to remember the name of one of his generals. I wanted to post about that general but I can't remember his name! I only remember he was general during Genghis Khan's reign and then for a time afterward in addition to that.

I put down Alexander the Great, he turned an enemy island into a peninsula by having a few men pile rocks into the water until it formed a small land bridge to the island. Then he led the charge in and took the island fortress that he admitted his navy never could have taken.

General Lando Calrissian for his successfull destuction of the second Death Star!
Wedge was there too!

Im going to have to vote for Mandalore the Ultimate. That Mother fether made the galaxy tremble.

Creed
Tactical score 10... Come on, he is a tactical genius HURRRR


And Admiral Akbar
Perception 10... Because he knows when something is a trap.

Ketara pretty much nailed it. I'd probably add a bit to Zhukov's text about the execution of genuinely new concepts of warfare, and point out that both Haig and Zhukov were greatly limited in the command and control of their forces, resulting in the often horrendous body counts. But they'd be quibbles, it was an excellent post.

Gandair wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:Genghis Khan?

I've been trying for twenty minutes to remember the name of one of his generals. I wanted to post about that general but I can't remember his name! I only remember he was general during Genghis Khan's reign and then for a time afterward in addition to that.

As noted earlier Subotai, the grand master buttkicker. I believe he kicked butts in Asia, Asia minor and Eastern Europe. If thats correct he kicked more butt on more continental masses than anyone.

Didn't Ghengis Khan kill, literally, everyone in Persia at one point? Now THATS how you deal with political discontent.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Didn't Ghengis Khan kill, literally, everyone in Persia at one point? Now THATS how you deal with political discontent.

No. however the Mongols did wipe out several cities, but not all of Persia.

Again Heinz Guderian, he invented the BlitzKrieg and if my history is correct he would have won the war if Hitler hadnt stopped him just short of Dunkirk, thus allowing the B.E.F to be evacuated.

Also what about Wellington, the man beat Napolean into the groundeven though he was ridiculed early in his career for being Irish

chub wrote:Again Heinz Guderian, he invented the BlitzKrieg and if my history is correct he would have won the war if Hitler hadnt stopped him just short of Dunkirk, thus allowing the B.E.F to be evacuated

Guderian lifted almost all his ideas from other sources (though not Liddell Hart apparently). What Guderian had that almost nobody else had was someone willing to listen to him. A singularly underrated skill.

chub wrote:Again Heinz Guderian, he invented the BlitzKrieg and if my history is correct he would have won the war if Hitler hadnt stopped him just short of Dunkirk, thus allowing the B.E.F to be evacuated.

I'm not sure your history is all that correct. Defeating the British at Dunkirk wouldn't have won the war. It would have made a ceasefire with the British impossible, and the loss of troops wouldn't have threatened Britain personally (as Operation Sea Lion was pretty much a joke). It also wouldn't have changed anything in the grand scheme of the war, Germany was defeated by the Soviets.

There's also not a lot of support for the idea of Germany inventing this great idea of Blitzkrieg. German use of the word in military studies basically used it to mean a swift attack, didn't attach it to technological developments and mostly considered a successful blitzkrieg at the national level an impossibility. German writing of the time was largely limited to tactical operations, giving individual commanders freedom, and giving them weapons to fight rapid engagements - tanks and motorised troops. Guderian was a proponent of this, but it is only one element of the greater strategic concept that came to be known as blitzkrieg and mistakenly attributed to some grand German plan.

The idea of blitzkrieg that's now been adopted by modern fighting forces was only really identified by one fighting force during WWII - the Soviets. Russian planning of the mid and late war was centred around the concept of deep operations - co-ordinating multiple regiments to commit the enemy, strike in force and advance through their supply lines, aiming to encircle them. The breakthroughs and encirclements would be achieved with concentrated, mobile forces - this was Guderian's ideas given a strategic purpose.

The contrast in strategic value of German and Soviet plans is well demonstrated. Despite tactical superiority and overwhelming successes against an initially paralysed Soviet army, Operation Barbarossa didn't destroy anywhere near as many Russians forces as a grander strategic plan could have, and most Russians forces escaped to mount successful defensive operations in the winter. In contrast, Operation Mars and the encirclement of the German sixth army is the classic example of deep operations, with Kursk being probably a better if oft misunderstood example. Contrary to popular belief, Russian forces at Kursk were not that numerically superior, and despite tactical superiority and the introduction of new tanks the German offensive was blunted and drawn into an excessive commitment of forces, before Russian counter attacks achieved breakthrough and collapsed the German offensive.

Seriously, when you look at operational and strategic excellence in WWII it is all about the Soviets. Tactically they were a bit poo, of course.

Guderian was an excellent panzer commander, with a hands on nuts and bolts knowledge few could match. Not only that, it was due to him and his personal relationship with Hitler that the Panzer units were put together the way they were pre-war.
However, if you read his books, you tend to get a sense that he thinks he was far more important than he actually was. He complains about everything his fellow commanders did, and generally gives off the impression if he'd been in charge, and everyone had listened to him, the war would have been won.

Wellington's an interesting one. He had a lot of tactical skill on the battlefield, it must be said. I'm no Napoleonic historian, but from all I've ever read on him, he was a most able commander, and he trumped virtually all of Napoleons marshals on the battlefield.

I'm going to put forward ADM Sergey Gorshkov, because there's a lack of naval leaders.

Often called the Soviet Mahan, mostly by himself. He only ever fought in one major engagement: the liberation of Kerch. He's remembered more for his accomplishments as Admiral of the Fleet bringing the Soviet navy from an inferior defensive force to one that could challenge and probably defeat the US Navy in open conflict in the short span of a decade.

Werll I have to say I'm totally disgusted with this post so far... There has been no mention of the Iron Duke, his lord The Duke of Wellington. Here was a man that took a British army that was being destroyed and was about to be kicked out of Europe, sorted them out and kicked old Boney out of Europe twice. Ok he wasn't flash and didn't win all his battles, but he was a brilliant General. He would only fight on his own terms if it at all possible. some may say he was lucky in some battles... but that's what makes a great General, they take advantage of that luck and win. You only have to take a look at some of the great battles in history and a big chunk of them were won due to luck.

The man was never phased or paniced and took everything in his stride, Arthur Wellesly all the way for me

Best Medieval General
Bertrand du Guesclin- His execution of the Fabian strategy in the 100 years war merits a- 9 out of 10

Greatest possible potential
Jeanne d'Arc-Peasant girl whom by the Time she was 19 had lead several successful campains during rhe 100 years War. If she had not been "captured" and burned at the stake there is no telling how far she would have risen.
Her ability to raise an army, rally them from looming defeat, and effectively lead them into a winning battle merits a- 9.5 out of 10 and ties Patton, IMO.


Maybe not best but definitely most overlooked:
General Omar Bradley- His planning of operation cobra and ability to get the right man for the job merits a- 9.5 out of 10

Ketara wrote:Guderian was an excellent panzer commander, with a hands on nuts and bolts knowledge few could match. Not only that, it was due to him and his personal relationship with Hitler that the Panzer units were put together the way they were pre-war.

I think what holds Guderian back is in failing to take his talent for mechanised warfare and blitzkrieg and apply it to a greater level of strategic thinking. It was enough to beat the French, but they’re just the French.

To be fair, no-one really considered how that might work except Tukhachevsky, and he was thinking in terms of the open expanses of the East, a totally different environment that hadn’t stagnated into trench warfare during WWI. And even then no-one paid enough attention to him until the Germans had (in a sense accidentally) proven the value of Blitzkrieg on a national level.


Wellington was obviously a very skilled commander, but I haven’t really studied the period so I don’t really know how much his success was due to his abilities, and how much was the result of the quality of the British troops of the time. Admittedly I’m basing my understanding on what dudes in pubs have told me, plus Empire Total War plus a couple of Sharpe movies, but as I understand the regular British infantry of the time were better trained than their counterparts, and were the only force to train with live ammo.

sebster wrote:Wellington was obviously a very skilled commander, but I haven’t really studied the period so I don’t really know how much his success was due to his abilities, and how much was the result of the quality of the British troops of the time. Admittedly I’m basing my understanding on what dudes in pubs have told me, plus Empire Total War plus a couple of Sharpe movies, but as I understand the regular British infantry of the time were better trained than their counterparts, and were the only force to train with live ammo.

Yeah, the (admittedly) little I've read on th subject seems to indicate they were a lot better drilled in terms of 'FRF!, SRF!', and were very high in morale. They were trained to keep cool heads, and broke a lot less than the French or Spanish. Also, I've heard that the British bayonet charge was pretty much the most feared weapon of the age - the troops willingness to get up close and give 'em a taste of cold steel was enough to panic many, and you had instances of numerically outnumbered units charging much bigger French/Spanish units, and the enemy fleeing in total dissarray.

The difference in tactics helped the British too, the British 'line' allowed a lot more people the ability to fire on an enemy unit as opposed to the french 'coloumn'

Edit: Also against cavalry the British 'square' was virtuslly unreakable. But on the other hand Wellington was in command of a professional army while Napoleans army was made up largely of conscripts

Well, to say that the square was 'British' may be crediting them too much. Napolean had famously used the exact same tactic earlier in Egypt if I recall correctly.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, to say that the square was 'British' may be crediting them too much. Napolean had famously used the exact same tactic earlier in Egypt if I recall correctly.

It was a standard tactic.

The British three line was better defensively. The French column was better offensively, which was its purpose. It had less opportunity to fire, but unrifled muskets were craptacular anyway. Napoleonic French columns would deliver a large portion of troops en masse for the heavy close assault. napoleonic combined arms was designed to use artillery to break up reistance while those columsn were being deployed into your face.

What the Brits conveniently forget is that Napoleon ran amok for years. it wasn't the Brits that stopped him at all. It was the Russian winter. They also forget in only 100 days from his escape Napoleon wielded together an army sufficient to fight both the British and the Prussians. Had Wellington actually faced a younger (not sick) Napoleon, and not "Hey I know lets charge again" Ney he would have had his ass handed to him Austerlitz style.

Vive le France! Vive Napoleon!

Like I said, I admire the guy becuase (when he escaped) it is the only moment in history that I know of when power nations such as Britain, Prussia and Austria actually declared war on Napolean as a man. Not as the head of a country such as France. Not even Hitler got that 'honour' of being most hated.

That and Napolean was pretty much in the underdog situation from the start forces me to like him. It's the aussie in me.

Frazzled wrote:

Gandair wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:Genghis Khan?

I've been trying for twenty minutes to remember the name of one of his generals. I wanted to post about that general but I can't remember his name! I only remember he was general during Genghis Khan's reign and then for a time afterward in addition to that.

As noted earlier Subotai, the grand master buttkicker. I believe he kicked butts in Asia, Asia minor and Eastern Europe. If thats correct he kicked more butt on more continental masses than anyone.

YES!! He was the guy I was trying to remember, thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai I thought it was spelled with an "o" and was confused when it didn't turn up any results. It's apparantly a "u" I guess. Read about this guy for a moment because he's crazy-awesome.

Frazzled wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Didn't Ghengis Khan kill, literally, everyone in Persia at one point? Now THATS how you deal with political discontent.

No. however the Mongols did wipe out several cities, but not all of Persia.

yeah, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Khwarezmia
This one's pretty exceptional as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29

Thats what you get when you behead ambassadors. Excellent.

Also Mongols, it turned out, where excellent at defeating the first terrorists (Assassins).

Ok I stand corrected on the British Square comment, but i stll stand by the 'Line' versus 'columns' comment yes columns packed a hell of punch when they got up close but not only did they suffer from massed fire against them like i said previuosly. They were also more susceptable to larger amounts of casualties from artillery fire which meant more often than not they had to be deployed in cover, for instance at austerlitz the french were forced to deploy behind a hill. However to raise an army in 100 days is fething impressive.

Perhaps the greatest general should be Mother Nature as surely she has stopped and defeated more armies than anyone

Ask napoleon about that

chub wrote:Ok I stand corrected on the British Square comment, but i stll stand by the 'Line' versus 'columns' comment yes columns packed a hell of punch when they got up close but not only did they suffer from massed fire against them like i said previuosly. They were also more susceptable to larger amounts of casualties from artillery fire which meant more often than not they had to be deployed in cover, for instance at austerlitz the french were forced to deploy behind a hill. However to raise an army in 100 days is fething impressive.

Perhaps the greatest general should be Mother Nature as surely she has stopped and defeated more armies than anyone

Yes weather and disease are the ultimate butt kickers.
Weather stopped napoleon and Hitler (twice).
Weather sniggered the Armada.

Of course the Mongols ignored even the weather.

Wasn't their Japanese invasion fleet sunk by a typhoon?

Guess that didn't work out too well.

avantgarde wrote:Wasn't their Japanese invasion fleet sunk by a typhoon?

Guess that didn't work out too well.

One of them - can't remember if it was the first or second fleet. Thats not weather, thats not listening when those Greek guys you captured in the caravan curse you with the wrath of poseidon. Psh what do you care upon some water god? You're 2,500 miles inland. Its not like you or your ancestors will ever try to cross the sea or anything...

Mongolians were so tough they ignored the Russian Winter? I smell new chuck norris jokes.....

They preferred cold weather. Warmer climes tended to get their horsies sick. A cold winter meant good times for the Mongol armies. Germans, not so much.

What does mean good times for Germans? XD

Germans always liked the summer to stretch their legs.

Thats why they did so well in central Texas. It has only two seasons: summer and DEAR GODITS SODAMN HOTIMGONNADIE summer.

Alexander V. Suvorov

Hardly lost a battle.

Had less to work with than Alexander the Great.

Actually wrote books on his tactics that stand today.

See link, good summary of his efforts:

http://www.clausewitz.org/suvorov.html

He understood the molding of the soldier, logistics, making opportunities, less the chess player but more the coach making the winning team into a living adaptable weapon.

Can't believe that people are peddling the old cliche about the failure of Operation Barbarossa as a result of the Russian winter. German failure was a result of strategic failure at the highest level. By August, Army Group Centre was ready for the push against Moscow, but failed to capitalise on the opportunity.
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not downplaying the effects of weather on the campaign from October to december. Bad roads, people frezing to death, tanks not starting etc. But it was lost before this.
I expect better from dakka members. I expect them to be erudite,eloquent, and articulate. I'm sorely disappointed

Frazzled wrote:What the Brits conveniently forget is that Napoleon ran amok for years. it wasn't the Brits that stopped him at all. It was the Russian winter. They also forget in only 100 days from his escape Napoleon wielded together an army sufficient to fight both the British and the Prussians. Had Wellington actually faced a younger (not sick) Napoleon, and not "Hey I know lets charge again" Ney he would have had his ass handed to him Austerlitz style.

If, if, if.... totally pointless, because we aren't talking about a parallel universe. The British won. In THIS universe.

You might as well argue that if it wasn't for the French, the USA would still be the Thirteen Colonies and you'd be speaking Spanish. Or you could say that if The British Empire had allied with The Third Reich, that the Nazis would have won WWII!

It just seems that you're one of 'those' Americans. You know, the ones who will go to ridiculously great lengths not to give the British credit for ANYTHING. Why the bitterness? Secret inferiority complex?

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What the Brits conveniently forget is that Napoleon ran amok for years. it wasn't the Brits that stopped him at all. It was the Russian winter. They also forget in only 100 days from his escape Napoleon wielded together an army sufficient to fight both the British and the Prussians. Had Wellington actually faced a younger (not sick) Napoleon, and not "Hey I know lets charge again" Ney he would have had his ass handed to him Austerlitz style.

If, if, if.... totally pointless, because we aren't talking about a parallel universe. The British won. In THIS universe.

You might as well argue that if it wasn't for the French, the USA would still be the Thirteen Colonies and you'd be speaking Spanish. Or you could say that if The British Empire had allied with The Third Reich, that the Nazis would have won WWII!

It just seems that you're one of 'those' Americans. You know, the ones who will go to ridiculously great lengths not to give the British credit for ANYTHING. Why the bitterness? Secret inferiority complex?

What are you on about? We're talking Wellington. The Russian winter and the Russian army beat Napoleon. What came later was not the 500,000 man Grande Armee but a thrown together force. The common British soldier stalled them long enough for the Prussians to arrive, then it was over. It wasn't Wellington's brilliant tactics, it was the British soldier who, pardon a US Civil War phrase "stood like a stone wall." against the French, long enough for the Prussians to arrive.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What the Brits conveniently forget is that Napoleon ran amok for years. it wasn't the Brits that stopped him at all. It was the Russian winter. They also forget in only 100 days from his escape Napoleon wielded together an army sufficient to fight both the British and the Prussians. Had Wellington actually faced a younger (not sick) Napoleon, and not "Hey I know lets charge again" Ney he would have had his ass handed to him Austerlitz style.

If, if, if.... totally pointless, because we aren't talking about a parallel universe. The British won. In THIS universe.

You might as well argue that if it wasn't for the French, the USA would still be the Thirteen Colonies and you'd be speaking Spanish. Or you could say that if The British Empire had allied with The Third Reich, that the Nazis would have won WWII!

It just seems that you're one of 'those' Americans. You know, the ones who will go to ridiculously great lengths not to give the British credit for ANYTHING. Why the bitterness? Secret inferiority complex?

What are you on about? We're talking Wellington. The Russian winter and the Russian army beat Napoleon. What came later was not the 500,000 man Grande Armee but a thrown together force. The common British soldier stalled them long enough for the Prussians to arrive, then it was over. It wasn't Wellington's brilliant tactics, it was the British soldier who, pardon a US Civil War phrase "stood like a stone wall." against the French, long enough for the Prussians to arrive.

Because most of our best troops were tied up fighting you lot! Also, you're simplifying a bit.

And what about the Peninsular War?

Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

Frazzled wrote:Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.


EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

Albatross wrote:You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.


EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

A generally accurate statement. Americans were woefully ill-equipped for a war with another major power at the time, especially when it reduced the navy to little row boats in essence and the regular army to a few thousand troops at most.

Soladrin wrote:What does mean good times for Germans? XD

A plan to invade France.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Can't believe that people are peddling the old cliche about the failure of Operation Barbarossa as a result of the Russian winter. German failure was a result of strategic failure at the highest level. By August, Army Group Centre was ready for the push against Moscow, but failed to capitalise on the opportunity.
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not downplaying the effects of weather on the campaign from October to december. Bad roads, people frezing to death, tanks not starting etc. But it was lost before this.
I expect better from dakka members. I expect them to be erudite,eloquent, and articulate. I'm sorely disappointed

I'd touched on it, personally I think the primary failure was allowing so much of the Russian force to escape encirclement and be available for the Winter war. It was really another example of German tactical excellence that wasn't fully capitalised on at the operational and strategic levels.

sebster wrote:

Soladrin wrote:What does mean good times for Germans? XD

A plan to invade France.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Can't believe that people are peddling the old cliche about the failure of Operation Barbarossa as a result of the Russian winter. German failure was a result of strategic failure at the highest level. By August, Army Group Centre was ready for the push against Moscow, but failed to capitalise on the opportunity.
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not downplaying the effects of weather on the campaign from October to december. Bad roads, people frezing to death, tanks not starting etc. But it was lost before this.
I expect better from dakka members. I expect them to be erudite,eloquent, and articulate. I'm sorely disappointed

I'd touched on it, personally I think the primary failure was allowing so much of the Russian force to escape encirclement and be available for the Winter war. It was really another example of German tactical excellence that wasn't fully capitalised on at the operational and strategic levels.

When the russians realised the japanese weren't going to attack from the east.
They had enough troops available in reserve for the winter war

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.


EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

Incorrect. A war is over when Amurica says its over! besides my relatives didn't start killing your relatives (in America) until 1814. As Yoda would say, your ass was handed, newbs to how Southerners fight you were.

We fired our guns and the British kept a commin, was not as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began a runnin, down the Mississippii to the Gulf of Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

Frazzled wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

Thats what happens when you use low BS soldiers shooting into hard cover.....

No wonder they lost...

Learn to tactics!

Don't forget, when the other side has guys with muskets AND PIRATES, you don't attack, unless you have your own band of Ninjas (or Chuck Norris).

Any city that has pirates defending it, is my kind of city!

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.


EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

Incorrect. A war is over when Amurica says its over! besides my relatives didn't start killing your relatives (in America) until 1814. As Yoda would say, your ass was handed, newbs to how Southerners fight you were.

Ah, yes. This being the war during which we burnt your capital.

I love how much of a big deal this seems to be to you - it's a minor footnote in Britain's long and glorious military history.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.


EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

Incorrect. A war is over when Amurica says its over! besides my relatives didn't start killing your relatives (in America) until 1814. As Yoda would say, your ass was handed, newbs to how Southerners fight you were.

Ah, yes. This being the war during which we burnt your capital.
I love how much of a big deal this seems to be to you - it's a minor footnote in Britain's long and glorious military history.

























http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

@Frazzled - Bugger! You quoted my post before I edited it to make myself look less slowed!

You had this planned all along didn't you? DIDN'T YOU!?!

IMO, The British should have thrown their lot in with the Southerners during the Civil War. It definitely would have made things interesting! Well, the whole slavery thing's a bit of a problem, actually. I'm sure we could have talked you lot out of it, though. You seem like reasonable chaps...

More tea?

Albatross wrote:@Frazzled - Bugger! You quoted my post before I edited it to make myself look less slowed!

You had this planned all along didn't you? DIDN'T YOU!?!

IMO, The British should have thrown their lot in with the Southerners during the Civil War. It definitely would have made things interesting! Well, the whole slavery thing's a bit of a problem, actually. I'm sure we could have talked you lot out of it, though. You seem like reasonable chaps...

More tea?

Tea, a civilized drink, in uncivilized times.

Everyone needs to read Imperial Grunts by Robert Kaplan and take a long hard look at American Foreign Policy. Holy gak.

Zhuge Liang, i know he was mainly an advisor- but he was pretty much in charge. that guy owned.

anyone else ever defend a city against an entire enemy army with 0 men?

i think not..
the man was a psychology of war understanding machine!