I like Mr. George W. Bush the best. He's a good leader.



Alright, now quiet down. I was kidding.

Anyways, Mr. Douglas C. McArthur is a favorite of mine. Good old, McArthur, leave it up to him to.. lead.. stuff.

Erwin Rommel did not invent the Blitzkrieg. Rommel studied military tactics at West Point in the United States. His favorite study was Nathan B. Forest, a confederate general of the American civil war:

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

Forrest was one of the first men, if not the first, to grasp the doctrines of "mobile warfare" that became prevalent in the 20th century. His one directive to his men was to "get there firstest with the mostest", even if it meant pushing his horses at a killing pace, which he did more than once. Forrest's victory at Brice's Cross Roads became the subject of a class taught at the French War College by Marshal Ferdinand Foch before World War I, and his mobile campigns were studied by the German general Erwin Rommel, who as commander of the Afrika Korps in World War II emulated his tactics on a wider scale, with tanks and trucks.

Originally Posted by BigBert96

What about the man, Robert E. Lee? He's got to be up there somewhere. Great tactician, leader, and organizer.

Lee was a great man and one of my favorites. However, I'm a big fan of the folks who pulled of completely ludicrous victories against comparably equipped enemies. Lee beat the odds on many occasions, but he never beat 20 to 1 odds. Guderian and Subedai did.

Overall package, Robert E. Lee, the man, is hard to argue with. Great choice.

"Gaius Marius" also referred to as the third founder of Rome......his military ideas changed the very structure of the Roman Army for tactics, logistics and equipment. All of his changes were followed and found to be a tried and true model for the Roman armies that took over most of the known world at that time and for hundreds of years to follow.

Originally Posted by ravensword227

Erwin Rommel did not invent the Blitzkrieg. Rommel studied military tactics at West Point in the United States. His favorite study was Nathan B. Forest, a confederate general of the American civil war:

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

I don't think there's any argument that Erwin Rommel didn't invent Blitzkrieg. In fact I've never heard that claim made for Rommel before, even by his most ardent fans.

Lee was a good general and in general his tactics could be argued as being a very early form of Blitzkrieg in a way. But it wasn't Blitzkrieg as the concept is generally understood. Erwin Rommel probably got most of his mobile armored warfare tactics from a certain Heinz Guderian, who DID invent Blitzkrieg. The only other man that can claim to have some credit for the concepts of Blitzkrieg is Captain Liddell Hart. But he never had the chance to develop and refine the theories as Guderian did.

Erwin Rommel is overrated. He was a very good divisional commander with a real grasp of mobile warfare but that's it. I urge the Rommel fan boys to read some history and discover some of the truly great commanders; Alexander, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Subotai, Napoleon, Guderian, Manstein and so on.

Gauis Marius also deserves a mention too. Like you say he introduced big changes to the Imperial Roman Armies that stood firm until Adrianople.

I find the contrast interesting: Had Hitler allowed Rommel to do his thing, he may or may not have been able to secure North Africa and eventually the Middle East. There is also a very good chance that Rommel would have repelled the D-Day invasion.

Lets compare that with Heinz Guderian. Firstly, Blitzkrieg (as we remember it) would not have ever existed without him. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" would have never happened, which MIGHT have led Churchill's opposition to over-rule him and negotiate for peace with Germany. Had Hitler not interfered, Moscow would have fallen in '41 and this would have probably completely reversed German fortunes on the Ostfront.

As I've said before, Rommel is a good protege of Guderian's, yet only after the concepts of Blitzkrieg were more or less proven. Sure, he may have studied Forrest, but he was right there with other military traditionalists claiming that everything still centered on Infantry alone. In Poland, the concept proves itself and lots of German commanders have a sudden change of heart.

Godofthunder, I agree and disagree with you on Guderian. He was a great leader. But look what he went up against. The Soviets were so easily defeated in the first year because their top leadership had been executed by Stallins purges. They were generally a ragbag conscript army at the beginning with poor leadership, and poorer supplies. I think Guderians success in Russia is overrated to some extent. Still a good leader though.

Originally Posted by BigBert96

Godofthunder, I agree and disagree with you on Guderian. He was a great leader. But look what he went up against. The Soviets were so easily defeated in the first year because their top leadership had been executed by Stallins purges. They were generally a ragbag conscript army at the beginning with poor leadership, and poorer supplies. I think Guderians success in Russia is overrated to some extent. Still a good leader though.

True, the 1930's purges did strip out many of the best Soviet commanders but that doesn't take away from the stunning success of the Wehrmacht in 1941 and 1942. They had pretty good supplies though, partly due to Lend-Lease and as a defensive army on the retreat their supply lines were shortening as a result.

Remember Guderian actually invented the Panzerwaffen and Blitzkrieg as well as leading the Wehrmacht to some of their greatest victories. That is his legacy. He was an old school General that led his men from the front, just like all the greats of ages gone by. And he had no battlefield command after 1941 because he dared to disobey Hitler. A shame for him but a bigger shame for Germany.

Consider the odds:
3,500,000 Germans vs 12,000,000 minimum Soviets (actual number unknown, 9,000,000 POW's taken in Barbarossa)
3900 German Tanks vs 20,000 minimum Soviet tanks (15,000-17,000 confirmed killed in Barbarossa alone)
3900 German Combat Aircraft vs 12,000 minimum Soviet Combat Aircraft (12,000 confirmed as destroyed in Barbarossa)

German totals are approximate but close to actual. Soviet totals were probably a good deal higher, but the Soviet Union has never reported reliable numbers for it. These are minimums -- the number we know for certain were there. The actual number was almost certainly higher in all cases. Now whether the Soviets had leadership or not, those are EXTREMELY impressive odds to beat.

Consider that Guderian did the same sort of thing to France. In the case of attacking France+UK in 1940, Germany DID NOT have a numberical advantage in anything except combat aircraft, yet they won in 40 days. Guderian was the best battlefield Panzer commander involved and it wasn't air power that ruled the day. It was the tanks.

Throw in that Guderian wrote the book, "Actung Panzer!" and ... I have a hard time being unimpressed.

I agree with some of what you said, but like I said, the Red Army in 41 regardless of numbers, was in no shape to combat the technically and tactically superior German army. The Germans simply made huge pockets around russian armies, and nibbled till they were out of ammo. Ex. Kiev. The Germans simply cut off their supply routes and forced the defenders to attack without ammo.

Ps.. Guderian didn't invent Blitzkrieg. He just copied the idea and put a name with it. Its known that after WW1, all generals that witnessed the advent of the tank began to rethink tactics. Patton was practicing "Blitzkrieg" tactics in the 20's with horses. He couldn't get congress to fund him for some tanks. Guderian just got the credit because he was the first to successfully use it in combat. But then again, Ghengis Khan did the same thing 1000 years ago.