Nimitz.

I like Halsey over Nimitz anyday ... but that's me. I'm a sucker for the badass types.

Scipio Africanus, for defeating Carthage and extending the Roman Empire to include North Africa.

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.[/quote]

Yeah, if it were up to Patton the US would have waltzed through Russia and invaded Alaska!

My fav would probably be either Erwin Rommel or Ulysses S. Grant.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

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.

Yeah, if it were up to Patton the US would have waltzed through Russia and invaded Alaska!

My fav would probably be either Erwin Rommel or Ulysses S. Grant.[/quote]

TBH I doubt very much that the US Army in 1945 would have gotten anywhere near Russia had they attempted it. Patton was a good armored commander though.

Erwin Rommel has got to be one of the most overrated commanders in history. Not that he wasn't a good commander, just that his hype is unreal here in the west.

One of the things I find fascinating: The similarities between Patton and Guderian. Both had a bad habit of fighting with superior officers when the superior was being an idiot.

godofthunder wrote: "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."

Wow. A slight edge in aircraft? Come on now. Even at the end of the war, the Russians still weren't producing quality aircraft that could compete with the Western designs to include German. The only design the Russians had that was worth anything was the sturmovik. At the beginning and the end, the Germans had far superior planes than the Russians. And if your referring to the T-34, it may have been a little better than some of the earlier panzers, but the numbers were so insignifigant. Now later on, 43 or so, when they showed up in large numbers, they were quite devastating to the German tanks. The Germans also had better communications, artillery, leadership, and overall training for their enlistedmen.

I never said the Russians didn't fight back, you put that in my mouth. But it is a fact that the Russian army of 41 was a peasant, conscript army. These poor men were given no training, and crappy leadership to fight the Nazis with. They had no training in mobile warfare, which in my opinion is what caused thier horrendous losses in that first year. They were constantly being outmaneuvered by the Germans causing large hopeless pockets for the Russians.

Originally Posted by BigBert96

godofthunder wrote: "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."

Wow. A slight edge in aircraft? Come on now. Even at the end of the war, the Russians still weren't producing quality aircraft that could compete with the Western designs to include German. The only design the Russians had that was worth anything was the sturmovik. At the beginning and the end, the Germans had far superior planes than the Russians. And if your referring to the T-34, it may have been a little better than some of the earlier panzers, but the numbers were so insignifigant. Now later on, 43 or so, when they showed up in large numbers, they were quite devastating to the German tanks. The Germans also had better communications, artillery, leadership, and overall training for their enlistedmen.

I never said the Russians didn't fight back, you put that in my mouth. But it is a fact that the Russian army of 41 was a peasant, conscript army. These poor men were given no training, and crappy leadership to fight the Nazis with. They had no training in mobile warfare, which in my opinion is what caused thier horrendous losses in that first year. They were constantly being outmaneuvered by the Germans causing large hopeless pockets for the Russians.

Hi. I think you're underestimating the numbers of T-34s available in 1941 and 1942. In 1941 the Red Army had 3020 T-34's available and a further 12572 T 34's were built in 1942. That is quite a significant number, check here for the details:

http://www.fact-index.com/s/so/sovie...ld_war_ii.html

I think you also underestimate the impact that the T-34 had in 1941. Saying it was "a little better than some of the early Panzers" doesn't quite fully measure the shock that the T34 caused the Wehrmacht. You might find the following link interesting:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm

As you will see, the Wehrmacht pressed captured T-34's into service - it was that good. The only German tank in the field in 1941 that could engage the T-34 on a one-to-one basis was the long barrelled Panzer IV.

Coming back to your points about the readiness of the Red Army in 1941, one or two points I'd like to comment on. You're right to say that they had inferior training and leadership to the German Army but at that time, those facts also applied to every other army in the world. It's true that many of the best officers were purged in the 30's but the Soviets still had good commanders at operational level. You have to remember that NO other army in the world aside from the Wehrmacht had much training in mobile warfare. I mean, that's why Germany was so successful in the first 3 years right? Would you say that the BEF and the French Army also had crappy leadership and no training because they were just as soundly spanked as the Red Army was?

I already gave you reasons why the Germans were so successful in 1941 so see no need to repeat myself. You should give some thought to giving some credit where it is due. I know it's Nazi Germany and they did some terrible things in the name of mankind but truth is from 1940-1943 they had the best damm army in the world and one of the finest in military history.

This is why I say, you just never can tell the future.
Unless you're planning to be a lawyer or an engineer, life can take dramatic turns... sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
Who would have thought the bottom of the class beating the top student?

But between these two, I think Lee was the better General. But he had less resources to work with.

Originally Posted by cullion

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.

Originally Posted by ApathyEcstasy

Scipio Africanus, for defeating Carthage and extending the Roman Empire to include North Africa.

Very very close I would say... but the overall impact on Rome that "Gauis Marius" had throughout his life, I think has "Scipio Africanus" beat.