Scipio Africanis

Joshua Chamberlain 20 th Maine US Civil War.

Originally Posted by 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.

I am of the opinion that while a very good commander Guderian was the writer of his own history and as such made himself out to be far better than he actually was.

If you want to pat any Germans on the back for Blitzkrieg you have to look back to the reconstruction of the German military in the early 1920s, to men like General Hans von Seeckt, armour tactician Ernst Volckheim and air tactician Helmut Wilberg who essentially laid the foundations of the Wehrmacht and combined operations through to the end of WW2.

As for my favourite General I will pick a Kiwi in the form of major general Howard Karl Kippenberger, he served in WW1 as an under-aged soldier and led elements of the New Zealand 2nd Division during WW2 until he lost both his feet at Monte Cassino...

Howard Kippenberger was New Zealand’s most popular military commander, and perhaps its most talented. He was of average height and rather slight in build and gave the impression of being wiry.

Charles Upham said he had ‘a keen, alert look about him’, while another soldier said that he had ‘steely eyes’ that ‘bloody near looked into your soul’. No other New Zealand commander inspired such loyalty and devotion from those who served with him.
In September 1943 Driver A. O. Eyles composed a military march he named ‘Kippenberger’. On Anzac Day 1983, in Christchurch cathedral, a brass plaque in honour of Kippenberger was unveiled and dedicated by returned servicemen and women of the Canterbury province: ‘ “Kip” was the most respected man in the New Zealand Army … He had a phenomenal memory for names and faces, he was no man to insist on rank, and his very manner of speech seemed to the Kiwis to be absolutely right’.

I love this person as a great Military leader (356 – 323 BC) As King of Macedonia, he established an Empire from the Ionian Sea to the Himalayas in India. Alexander the Great remained undefeated in battle.

Generalfeldmarschall Manstein( pretty obvious) but for a reason. He is arguably one of the most brilliant military minds that had ever existed. His Manstein plan and the invasion of France beats 9/10 of all military minds because France fell in just 6 weeks. Next, he breached the world’s most heavily fortified city in the Siege of Sevastopol. He is also famous for the backhand blow in the Third Battle of Kharkov. He would have helped win Stalingrad and Kursk and the Dneiper if it weren’t for Hitler’s stupidity. This all combined beats 98/100 of all military minds. Finally, his book Verolene Siege(Lost Victories) is a must read and Manstein is objective and not biased in this autobiography. My second choice would be Generaloberst Heinz Guderian( who actually didn’t invent Blitzkrieag as it has been around since the Ancient Chinese) because of his mastery of the Battlefield. My favorite Russian is Marshal Georgy Zhukov for his contributions in Stalingrad and the collapse of Generalfeldmarschall Paulus’ army. Also, a lot of the American and British Generals are overrated so my favorites would be Eisenhower and William Slim.

Originally Posted by MarshalManstein1

Generalfeldmarschall Manstein( pretty obvious) but for a reason. He is arguably one of the most brilliant military minds that had ever existed. His Manstein plan and the invasion of France beats 9/10 of all military minds because France fell in just 6 weeks. Next, he breached the world’s most heavily fortified city in the Siege of Sevastopol. He is also famous for the backhand blow in the Third Battle of Kharkov. He would have helped win Stalingrad and Kursk and the Dneiper if it weren’t for Hitler’s stupidity. This all combined beats 98/100 of all military minds. Finally, his book Verolene Siege(Lost Victories) is a must read and Manstein is objective and not biased in this autobiography. My second choice would be Generaloberst Heinz Guderian( who actually didn’t invent Blitzkrieag as it has been around since the Ancient Chinese) because of his mastery of the Battlefield. My favorite Russian is Marshal Georgy Zhukov for his contributions in Stalingrad and the collapse of Generalfeldmarschall Paulus’ army. Also, a lot of the American and British Generals are overrated so my favorites would be Eisenhower and William Slim.

Manstein was an excellent leader and strategist but I believe he was wrong in his accessment that Kursk could be won using the limited plan they had for the battle in fact its lack of vision and rather timid outlook made it the Verdun of the Eastern front.

Sadly Hitler was right in sacrificing the 6th Army at Stalingrad to protect the forces withdrawing from the Caucuses and realistically by the time Hoths relief force were within striking range it was too weak to have broken out anyway.

Manstein like many Generals was a shameless self promoters and after the war it was easy to write flourishing accounts of what should have happened especially since you had a ready scapegoat for failure in Hitler who was not going to argue back.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Manstein was an excellent leader and strategist but I believe he was wrong in his accessment that Kursk could be won using the limited plan they had for the battle in fact its lack of vision and rather timid outlook made it the Verdun of the Eastern front.

Sadly Hitler was right in sacrificing the 6th Army at Stalingrad to protect the forces withdrawing from the Caucuses and realistically by the time Hoths relief force were within striking range it was too weak to have broken out anyway.

Manstein like many Generals was a shameless self promoters and after the war it was easy to write flourishing accounts of what should have happened especially since you had a ready scapegoat for failure in Hitler who was not going to argue back.

I disagree with your belief with Kursk. I believe that it could be won after the Battle of Prokorovkha if Hitler didn’t wait and he should have kept his tanks at Kursk instead of moving it to Italy. Also, Manstein was a modest man and his trial at Nuremberg proves that.

Originally Posted by MarshalManstein1

I disagree with your belief with Kursk. I believe that it could be won after the Battle of Prokorovkha if Hitler didn’t wait and he should have kept his tanks at Kursk instead of moving it to Italy. Also, Manstein was a modest man and his trial at Nuremberg proves that.

With what were the Germans going to use to exploit Prokorovkha?
They had been entirely wrong in their estimation of Russian numbers, they had stripped pretty much every other front to achieve the numbers they had and still made almost no headway and worst of all German planners had seemingly lost their nerve in pushing such plan of limited scope.
The only way Germany "might" have won at Kursk was a bold easterly pincer around the Kursk salient and not a timid north-south attempt to pop the pimple and to prove my point about losing their nerve as soon as they enountered stiff resistence on their original lines of attack they adjusted to a further north-south line limiting the scope of the attack even further.

Lets assume though that the pincers had met and the Russian forces in the Kursk salient had been cut off, Germany still never had the manpower to maintain the encirclement and at the same time the Russians were beginning attacks at other areas of the line where the Germans had reduced manpower and material to supply the Kursk assault.

Manstein was an excellent leader (most likely Germanys best one) I am not doubting that but he was in my opinion wrong in his assumption that they could have won at Kursk.

Kursk was a huge mistake and an unmittigated disaster for the Germans in my opinion, largely due to a realisation on the German side that the war was lost.

Originally Posted by MontyB

With what were the Germans going to use to exploit Prokorovkha?
They had been entirely wrong in their estimation of Russian numbers, they had stripped pretty much every other front to achieve the numbers they had and still made almost no headway and worst of all German planners had seemingly lost their nerve in pushing such plan of limited scope.
The only way Germany "might" have won at Kursk was a bold easterly pincer around the Kursk salient and not a timid north-south attempt to pop the pimple and to prove my point about losing their nerve as soon as they enountered stiff resistence on their original lines of attack they adjusted to a further north-south line limiting the scope of the attack even further.

Lets assume though that the pincers had met and the Russian forces in the Kursk salient had been cut off, Germany still never had the manpower to maintain the encirclement and at the same time the Russians were beginning attacks at other areas of the line where the Germans had reduced manpower and material to supply the Kursk assault.

Manstein was an excellent leader (most likely Germanys best one) I am not doubting that but he was in my opinion wrong in his assumption that they could have won at Kursk.

Kursk was a huge mistake and an unmittigated disaster for the Germans in my opinion, largely due to a realisation on the German side that the war was lost.

I understand you now However, I believe that Manstein supported the full on assault instead of waiting and then attacking and many historians agree that Kursk would have been won if Hitler hadn’t given the Soviets enough time to build those tanks, as you mentioned. Also, this was on 1943, and the Germans were already demoralized. The Germans were in a financial crisis and the Soviets had many more troops and tanks and artillery. Thank you for the info though.

Originally Posted by MarshalManstein1

I understand you now However, I believe that Manstein supported the full on assault instead of waiting and then attacking and many historians agree that Kursk would have been won if Hitler hadn’t given the Soviets enough time to build those tanks, as you mentioned. Also, this was on 1943, and the Germans were already demoralized. The Germans were in a financial crisis and the Soviets had many more troops and tanks and artillery. Thank you for the info though.

The problem with that notion is that both the Russians and Germans built tanks during that time so the comparitive strengths remained the same, time in my opinion was not decisive either.

What you have to ask yourself with Kursk (and any battle you think is decisive) is what was the best case scenario for both sides had the battle gone either way.
Would a Russian defeat at Kursk changed the outcome of the war in the east?
In my opinion it would at best have given the Third Reich another 6 months and a complete German failure would have changed little.