Great Generals and Tactics Through the Ages - Page 3




 
--
 
April 12th, 2004  
JaegerWolf08
 
 
Doesn't always though? You gotta allow for some digression in a broad topic like this one.
April 19th, 2004  
hc^patonki
 
As a Finn I have to say Mannerheim, he was really a great tactic, and thanks to him Finland stopped the assault of soviet union in WWII.
May 6th, 2004  
silent driller
 
 
All the Army and Marine generals who had the courage to continue the island hopping campaigns after so many losses. Those guys had some brass ones.
--
May 9th, 2004  
Scondren
 
For my money, it would have to be Arthur Wessesly (The duke of Wellington). The man defeated Napolean, and doesn't even consider it the victory he was most proud of( He was most proud of Assaye).
May 10th, 2004  
Marksman
 
 
I think Erwin Romel was prety god strategist,how he menaged the panzer divisions,no one can
May 10th, 2004  
Scondren
 
Rommel was ok. He was pretty good at tactics, but strategically he'd fail. He didn't seem to grasp the problem with blitzkrieg is you can overrun your supply lines, something he repeatedly did in North Africa.
May 10th, 2004  
M1AbramsGuy
 

Topic: Top commanders of WWII


It is almost held in total non-dispute that von Manstein was the greatest commander of WWII, both sides, including Japanese.

The only other general held in as much esteem would have probably been Heinz Guderian, father of the modern Blitzkreig/combined arms tactic used by the Germans to sweep Europe and the Soviet Union, until Hitler interfered one too many times and turned them into a defensive force.

On the US/Allied Side Bradly was probably the best, then Monty, Clark and Patch. Halsey was also a capable commander in the Japanese Theater.

Other great commanders were von Leeb, von Bock and List... all very capable army groupe commanders (some commanding as many as 70 divisions at a time). The Soviets had good men in Zukov, and Timoshenko. However, their German counterparts were clearly the better quality officers and commanders. The German Army of that era, was probably the highest quality military force the world had ever seen (factoring out technological advancements). The men were well trained, and motivated, the junior officers were equally motivated, and the senior commanders had about as much experience as can be expected or demanded of a general officer (many of them were decorated WWI vets). The average age of a German general was some 10 years older than his allied counterpart, and 15 years older than his Soviet counterpart. Many of the best Russian generals were purged by Stalin in the 20's and 30's.

They made do with far less resources and a far less intimidated soldier to accomplish a lot. They could have beaten the Soviets had Hitler allowed them to take Moscow before turning them South. By the time Hitler realized his folly (due to the constant pressure from Halder), it was already the onset of winter.

LTG Suzuki, commander of the 38th Japanese Army was also a capable commander, as was Yamashida. They gave MacAurther (a very over rated commander) a hard time.[/b]
May 13th, 2004  
Young 1
 
I think it's hard to compare generals from different ages, so I'll give my personal favorites for a few time periods...

Gengis Khan was the best of his age, arguably the best of all time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he have the largest empire ever?

Alexander the Great, obviously

I would definitely have to pick Scipio Africanus over any other Roman or other general in the time, even over Julius Caeser and Hannibal. Think about it, Caeser was a great politician and leader, but for tactics and stategy, no chance. And the one time Hannibal and Scipio met, Scipio won, in Carthaginian territory.

And Robert E. Lee rounds out my list, doing what no other Confederate general could have done in handing repeated defeats to the Union and acting extremely honorably throughout the entire war, especially at the end.

p.s. I'm new here too
May 15th, 2004  
Brogan
 
 

Topic: Best General


Hi my name is Brogan and I am new to the site. Although I am only 15, I do love military history and I do believe you guys have left off a few generals who are definately deserving of the title.
You have to love Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is arguably the greatest general to be produced from the American Civil War. You also have to see Thomas"Stonewall"Jackson, Robert E. Lee, I would agree with Ghengis Khan for he did take over more land than Caesar did and one of the only reasons Caesar did do so good in the first place was the economy helped him so much and he had a huge deal of luck which is ironically present in all generals. I do however disagree with Patton being the greatest general. In world War II alone, Rommel and Guderian give him flak for that and they also came to America before the war and based their studies on Nathan B. Forrest^^. Just a few thoughts to ponder....
May 15th, 2004  
Young 1
 
The reason they came to study Nathan B. Forest is because he was a cavalry general and they were working on their modern cavalry, tanks. I still think overall Robert E. Lee was best because of his eye for terrain, grasp of the tactical AND strategic pictures, and the honor with which he served.