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.

"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.