Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?