Favorite Military Leaders - Page 5




 
--
 
October 15th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
So, by what you've said, there is no great reason to be impressed with Rommel or Guderian.

Lots of military leaders concieved of Blitzkrieg, but Guderian DID IT. He started out with dummy tanks, many of which had no engines. From 1933-1939 he was able to get some very good training done.

Lidell Hart and De Gaulle also concieved of massing tanks if memory serves.
October 15th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Hmmm almost exclusively land commanders.

Here's a sea commander.
Lee Sun-shin. The war between Japan and Korea during 1590-1610 (roughly).
After returning to duty from brief imprisonment, he finds that all that is left of his fleet is 12 ships worthy of combat. His opponents at sea are Japanese ships exceeding 10 times his number.
He used his "weakness" to lure the over confident Japanese fleet who were so used to smashing victories at sea against the Korean navy. The Japanese seeing his small number, dispatch all the ships in their vicinity to finish off what's left of the Korean navy.
Lee Sun-shin laid a trap in a narrow channel. The current here changes like clockwork and they are strong. When the water draws out, the water level also sinks. Prior to the operation he had men string chains from one side to the other, which was a big task all in itself.
So what happened was the 12 ships, with the Japanese ships in persuit made it through the channel. The Japanese, still behind were caught in the draft and as the water level went down while pulling their ships back, the hulls were ripped apart by the chains.

So he used 12 ships to sink around 120 Japanese ships without a shot fired and without a single casualty to his side.

That is brilliance.
October 15th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Good one! Interesting story! That would be an excellent candidate for "Most One-Sided Battle Ever", since only one side lost anything. We don't get enough of military history from Korea or anywhere else in that neighborhood of the world on this board.
--
October 15th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBert96
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.
Well you make the huge encirclements of 1941 by the German Army sound as if they were simple and easy but they were not as easy as you seem to suggest. It took a degree of sound strategy, lightning armored thrusts, very close coordination with the Luftwaffe and classic encirclement maneuvers all whilst individual Soviet pockets were fighting like maniacs. In otherwords, Blitzkrieg tactics executed almost perfectly. The Red Army did have many weaknesses it's true, but they still had massive superiority in numbers, they were fighting a defensive war with ever shortening supply lines and they were brave, ferocious fighters who often fought to the death.

BTW I have to state that you're incorrect to state that all generals that witnessed the tank began to rethink tactics. This is really far from the truth. If you are right, why was it that the French army that had better tanks than the Germans in 1940 were still committing their tanks in support of the infantry? Why was it that most Wehrmacht generals thought that dedicated panzer divisions were nonsense? Even someone as respected and experienced as Field Marshall Gerd von Rundstedt said that 'he didn't fully understand Blitzkrieg' and constantly during the Battle for France he was telling Guderian to halt and wait for the infantry to catch up. It took that battle to finally convince most people that Blitzkrieg and combined arms tactics was the way to go.

Universally in military history Guderian is rightly credited with the invention of Blitzkrieg. You cannot say that what Patton was doing with horses in the 1920s was Blitzkrieg. You cannot say what the Mongols did way back was Blitzkrieg. One reason is that Blitzkrieg requires close cooperation with air units designed to support the ground thrust, something that was deemed very difficult to do before the Germans did it. We've always had mobile warfare as long as man has had access to horses in warfare. The difference is that Blitzkrieg also advocates that the infantry be mechanized to keep up with the tanks so that the whole army moves at a lightning pace and not just the traditional mobile units.

You seem not to want to rightly credit someone when every military historian and ex-general of the period does. It's one thing having a general idea. It's entirely another thing to have the idea, to invent and devise units that will put the idea into practice, to refine the idea by introducing close air support, to put the idea into practice yourself at the head of your own troops and to execute the idea better than anyone else.
October 15th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the Northern Alliance against the Taliban in Afghanistan. A hero, a great man. He was cowardly killed by Usama Bin Laden's agents (as fake journalists they were hiding a bomb in the camera ) 2 days before 9\11. RIP Great Massoud.

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

http://hometown.aol.com/mbeve10258/Massoud.html

Message to the People of the United States of America
From Ahmad Shah Massoud



I send this message to you today on behalf of the freedom and peace-loving people of Afghanistan, the Mujahedeen freedom fighters who resisted and defeated Soviet communism, the men and women who are still resisting oppression and foreign hegemony and, in the name of more than one and a half million Afghan martyrs who sacrificed their lives to uphold some of the same values and ideals shared by most Americans and Afghans alike. This is a crucial and unique moment in the history of Afghanistan and the world, a time when Afghanistan has crossed yet another threshold and is entering a new stage of struggle and resistance for its survival as a free nation and independent state.

I have spent the past 20 years, most of my youth and adult life, alongside my compatriots, at the service of the Afghan nation, fighting an uphill battle to preserve our freedom, independence, right to self-determination and dignity. Afghans fought for God and country, sometime alone, at other times with the support of the international community. Against all odds, we, meaning the free world and Afghans, halted and checkmated Soviet expansionism a decade ago. But the embattled people of my country did not savor the fruits of victory. Instead they were thrust in a whirlwind of foreign intrigue, deception, great-gamesmanship and internal strife. Our country and our noble people were brutalized, the victims of misplaced greed, hegemonic designs and ignorance. We Afghans erred too. Our shortcomings were as a result of political innocence, inexperience, vulnerability, victimization, bickering and inflated egos. But by no means does this justify what some of our so-called Cold War allies did to undermine this just victory and unleash their diabolical plans to destroy and subjugate Afghanistan.

Today, the world clearly sees and feels the results of such misguided and evil deeds. South-Central Asia is in turmoil, some countries on the brink of war. Illegal drug production, terrorist activities and planning are on the rise. Ethnic and religiously-motivated mass murders and forced displacements are taking place, and the most basic human and womenís rights are shamelessly violated. The country has gradually been occupied by fanatics, extremists, terrorists, mercenaries, drug Mafias and professional murderers. One faction, the Taliban, which by no means rightly represents Islam, Afghanistan or our centuries-old cultural heritage, has with direct foreign assistance exacerbated this explosive situation. They are unyielding and unwilling to talk or reach a compromise with any other Afghan side.

Unfortunately, this dark accomplishment could not have materialized without the direct support and involvement of influential governmental and non-governmental circles in Pakistan. Aside from receiving military logistics, fuel and arms from Pakistan, our intelligence reports indicate that more than 28,000 Pakistani citizens, including paramilitary personnel and military advisers are part of the Taliban occupation forces in various parts of Afghanistan. We currently hold more than 500 Pakistani citizens including military personnel in our POW camps. Three major concerns - namely terrorism, drugs and human rights - originate from Taliban-held areas but are instigated from Pakistan, thus forming the inter-connecting angles of an evil triangle. For many Afghans, regardless of ethnicity or religion, Afghanistan, for the second time in one decade, is once again an occupied country.

Let me correct a few fallacies that are propagated by Taliban backers and their lobbies around the world. This situation over the short and long-run, even in case of total control by the Taliban, will not be to anyoneís interest. It will not result in stability, peace and prosperity in the region. The people of Afghanistan will not accept such a repressive regime. Regional countries will never feel secure and safe. Resistance will not end in Afghanistan, but will take on a new national dimension, encompassing all Afghan ethnic and social strata.

The goal is clear. Afghans want to regain their right to self-determination through a democratic or traditional mechanism acceptable to our people. No one group, faction or individual has the right to dictate or impose its will by force or proxy on others. But first, the obstacles have to be overcome, the war has to end, just peace established and a transitional administration set up to move us toward a representative government.

We are willing to move toward this noble goal. We consider this as part of our duty to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence and fanaticism. But the international community and the democracies of the world should not waste any valuable time, and instead play their critical role to assist in any way possible the valiant people of Afghanistan overcome the obstacles that exist on the path to freedom, peace, stability and prosperity.

Effective pressure should be exerted on those countries who stand against the aspirations of the people of Afghanistan. I urge you to engage in constructive and substantive discussions with our representatives and all Afghans who can and want to be part of a broad consensus for peace and freedom for Afghanistan.

With all due respect and my best wishes for the government and people of the United States,



Ahmad Shah Massoud.
October 15th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBert96
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.
You're going to have a very hard time selling me on being unimpressed with German successes against the Soviet Union in 1941. You make it sound as though the Russians didn't even fight back, and that's complete nonsense. The Germans did not have any advantage in anything technologically. The Russians' best tank was better than the Germans best tank in 1941. Perhaps a slight edge in quality of combat aircraft.

Quote:
Guderian didn't invent Blitzkrieg. He just copied the idea and put a name with it.
Oh? Copied from whom?
Quote:
Its known that after WW1, all generals that witnessed the advent of the tank began to rethink tactics.
Right, they thought it was a wonderful invention for supporting the infantry. Only very few military leaders had the correct vision.
Quote:
Patton was practicing "Blitzkrieg" tactics in the 20's with horses. He couldn't get congress to fund him for some tanks.
Bad luck for Patton I suppose.
Quote:
Guderian just got the credit because he was the first to successfully use it in combat.
He was one of a handful of commanders worldwide who all figured the same things out, mostly from the Battle of Calais (I think it was). All of them were conceiving of the idea somewhat independently of one another. Guderian had his own ideas, but read extensively from others with the same theories: Best way to perfect his own theory.

Quote:
But then again, Ghengis Khan did the same thing 1000 years ago.
What Gengis Khan did with his forces was mostly irrelevant to Blitzkrieg. The obstacle for Blitzkrieg was to find a way to make stationary trench warfare fail. Ghengis Khan's lightning tactics were not focussed on creating and exploiting a breach in the enemy's line, but moreso focussed on luring and/or outmaneuvering the enemy into extremely disadvantageous circumstances. Ghengis Khan didn't have the numbers to waste on cutting the enemy armies in half, nor did technology of his time favor such a move. Much is similar, but modern warfare doesn't necessarily leave you the option of going around.
October 15th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
mine for sea would be admiral nelson. good guy and very good comander.
ground would be major muir of the argyle and sutherland highlanders , dispite being wounded he led what remained of his troop and stormed the hill and held it even after beiing bombed by friendly forces and being out gunned , outmanned and undersupplied and undermanned. hell he got a victory cross for it.
October 16th, 2004  
cullion
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Quote:
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.
Fact: Robert E. Lee graduated at the Top of his class at West Point.

Fact: Ulysses S. Grant graduated BOTTOM of his class at West Point.
October 17th, 2004  
11bravo8387
 
Quote:
Gen. George S. Patton, United States Army
FSgt. Trevor Perry,
746 Lightning Hawk RCACS (Flight Commander, Starfighter Flight)


I have to agree with Trevor there. General Patton was a bad man. He didn't take no S**T from anybody...not even his superiors. If it would have been up to him we would rolled into Russia. There may not have been any Korea, Bay of Pigs, or Vietnam.
October 17th, 2004  
11bravo8387
 
I would like to add a little tid bit of info to cullion's post about Robert E. Lee. He not only finished #2 in his class but, he was, and still is the ONLY cadet in history to graduate with NO demerits. That is an awesome accomplishment in itself. Sorry folks just thought I'd share that...I'm a BIG Civil War buff.