PDA

View Full Version : The greatest field commander?



arcadeace
01-13-2004, 09:59 AM
Many historians chose Zhukov and as an American and I could wish it was Patton or Bradley...but I'm gonna pick a German and loser, Rommel. His early war success was staggering.

His undoing in the African campaign was not a result of his efforts, but lack of supplies. It can be argued not taking major Mediterranean islands (especially Malta) to ensure the supply routs resulted in his eventual defeat. But even if Italy's navy had taken a more active role it may have made a big difference. And fortunately for the allies Franco didn't side with the axis.

In spite of substantial supply deficiencies Rommel's achievements were remarkable. I can't think of anyone as effective in making the most of what they possessed. Considering the allies' overwhelming superiority, his hard fought, even brilliant retreat put a painful damper on inevitable victory.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167449.jpg

arcadeace
01-13-2004, 09:59 AM
Many historians chose Zhukov and as an American and I could wish it was Patton or Bradley...but I'm gonna pick a German and loser, Rommel. His early war success was staggering.

His undoing in the African campaign was not a result of his efforts, but lack of supplies. It can be argued not taking major Mediterranean islands (especially Malta) to ensure the supply routs resulted in his eventual defeat. But even if Italy's navy had taken a more active role it may have made a big difference. And fortunately for the allies Franco didn't side with the axis.

In spite of substantial supply deficiencies Rommel's achievements were remarkable. I can't think of anyone as effective in making the most of what they possessed. Considering the allies' overwhelming superiority, his hard fought, even brilliant retreat put a painful damper on inevitable victory.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167449.jpg

Blutarski2004
01-13-2004, 01:15 PM
Some others to consider -

Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Belisarius, Genghis Khan, Clive of India, Napoleon, Nelson, Grant (Vicksburg campaign!), Moltke the Elder, Allenby, Petain, Yama****a (Singapore campaign!), Manstein.

BLUTARSKI

JG26Red
01-13-2004, 01:17 PM
2 for Rommel...

If hitler woundnt have given in to von rudstedt? in 1944 and listened to Rommel on how to defend the beaches and mainly the locations i think DDay could have failed easy...

Rommel wanted the reserve panzer divisions close to beaches to quickly repell a attack, he knew exactly where it would happen, hitler and von rundstedt thought calais? area since it was closer, they had most of panzers up there and the few rommel had at his disposal where rather far back and he (rommel) couldnt just say comon lets go, he had to wait for hitler... and hitler initially delayed, thinking normandy was a diversion... Rommel and his other generals knew it wasnt but couldnt react in a timely manner to keep allies from getting a foothold...

lbhskier37
01-13-2004, 01:20 PM
my vote goes to whoever was the Vietnamese commander who circled the French.

bazzaah2
01-13-2004, 01:20 PM
Julius Caesar, Zhukov, Napoleon, Montgomery, Wellington, Rommel, Manstein, Ludendorff amongst many many others.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

BpGemini
01-13-2004, 01:24 PM
Don't forget about Lee.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

VMF513_Wolf
01-13-2004, 02:04 PM
I'm and was a great general..in Sudden strike, C&C, redalert, homeworld 2, starcraft etc....lol :P

Zhukov is greatest in WW2....
hanibaL was also good(not in WW2)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://server5.uploadit.org/files2/181203-avia_036F.jpg
<The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his>
VMF513-Flying Nightmares (http://www.vmf513.com/)

Korolov
01-13-2004, 02:10 PM
Peter the Great is where my vote goes.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

VMF513_Wolf
01-13-2004, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Peter the Great is where my vote goes.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Peter pervij, puknul pervij, pokazal primer polku http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif lol &lt;&lt;something I heard long time ago(when I was smal) lol..

http://server5.uploadit.org/files2/181203-avia_036F.jpg
&lt;The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his&gt;
VMF513-Flying Nightmares (http://www.vmf513.com/)

Chuck_Older
01-13-2004, 05:42 PM
The only commander I can think of who was able to make his enemy change plans to anticipate his eventual attack, when he didn't even have an army to command, is George Patton. His reputation as an opposing commander was that high.

I'd have to say that R.E. Lee is also a good choice because of his ability to not only carry a field but his ability to maintain the morale of an army that was virtually unsupplied and under equipped, while still keeping them a viable fighting force. Don't forget, his nickname near the beginning of the Civil War was "Granny Lee" and by the time of Gettysburg came around, his men loved him and were awed by him. That's no mean feat, especially considering his health.

*****************************
This is a public service announcement~Clash

Zeus-cat
01-13-2004, 05:56 PM
I go with Patton. He was an egotistical ba$tard, but he knew how to win.

Rommel lost in North Africa. He was brilliant at first, but he became predictable and that is how Monty defeated him. Lack of supplies hurt him, but he constantly outran his logisitcs chain and support troops. He put his armor at risk by driving them farther than he could support them. Not a good trait in a commander.

Zeus-cat

SECUDUS
01-13-2004, 07:10 PM
Rommel... Hmmm if you knew where and what your Enemy was to try next, I'd guess anyone would have a advantage over those who did not!

The Leaks from the American Embassy in Cairo
It was not only Germany and Japan who found it hard to accept that the enemy might be reading their codes. In January 1942 the intelligence available to Rommel in the Western Desert was suddenly much improved, because the Italian Secret Service had been able to steal a copy of the Black Code in which the US military attaché in Cairo, Colonel Fellers, communicated with the Pentagon.

The British had rapidly started to keep their new ally well informed and so Rommel became almost as well informed about British plans as was London or Washington, and almost as quickly. This was of great service to Rommel in his counter-attack of 21st January.

It took the British by surprise, partly because BP had been unable to read 'Chaffinch' from 6th December, and the Italian high-grade book cyphers were becoming difficult to read, though BP had broken two new Luftwaffe Mediterranean cyphers ('Locust' and 'Gadfly'). BP had sent one clear warning to Cairo on 19th January, but it was only one straw in the wind where the local Intelligence team, unlike BP, believed that Rommel had suffered far more severely in the recent fighting than in fact he had.

The CIGS, Sir Allen Broke, wrote to the C-in-C in Cairo, General Auchinleck, after the loss of Benghazi on 29th January, "I cannot help thinking that optimistic intelligence played a part in accounting for your troubles."

In February Auchinleck replaced his chief of military intelligence by Colonel de Guingard. When de Guingard complained that he had had no experience of intelligence work, the 'Auk' replied, "Excellent, that is why I have appointed you."

The information from the US military attaché was also to prove of much value to Rommel in his remarkable advance in May and June 1942 to Alamein, taking Tobruk on the way. The information suddenly dried up on 24th July, because at last the US had accepted the warnings originating from BP, via Enigma decrypts, that the Germans were reading their Black code. At first the US had believed the warnings were a covert way of saying that BP was reading their code, just as had happened when the British had first warned Stalin that his codes were being read in June 1941. (Of course this may have been true in both cases but it did not alter the fact that the Germans were certainly doing so.)

In fact Churchill had written to Roosevelt on 25th February 1942 saying, "Some time ago‚... our experts claimed to have discovered the system and constructed some tables used by your Diplomatic Corps." In June 1942 the British bluntly informed Washington that their Cairo code was compromised, after reading a particularly unfortunate Enigma intercept of 29th May passing on intercepted information from Colonel Fellers that severely criticized the British military performance in Egypt.

Rommel's Y station that had been carrying out the reading of the Cairo Embassy messages was over-run in front of the Alamein line on 10th July by the Australians. The Germans failed to break the replacement US military attaché codes, and by then BP had mastered the Africa Corps Enigma signals, which it was reading regularly. But perhaps even more important the military commanders in North Africa were at last coming to trust the Intelligence they were receiving from BP, to appoint better quality Intelligence staff, and to integrate them into the whole decision making process.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

WhiskeyRiver
01-13-2004, 11:25 PM
Belisarius. Commander under Emperor Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire. He was instrumental in the recovery of the western half of the old Roman Empire from barbarians.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Slush69
01-14-2004, 02:45 AM
Great. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif A Google contest ...

(The first who mentions Alexander gets a free brownie point.)

I nominate myself. In a snowball fight in school, I managed to rally my troops (firstgraders to sixthgraders) and make a stand in our school yard. I then ordered a twopronged counterattack against the seventh to tengraders. One axis of attack took the direct route between the two schoolyards and another made a flanking movement through the schoolwing. We caught the older pupils out in the open, outnumbered and outmanouvered. It was a turkey shoot.

That, gentlemen, makes me the greates field commander in history, and there's not a damn thing you can say to prove me wrong, for the very simple reason that there's no way to judge relative greatness.

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

HellToupee
01-14-2004, 02:59 AM
David Stirling

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Rajvosa
01-14-2004, 03:19 AM
Hm, this thread is quite pointless. Just like those threads asking for the best fighter... Almost everyone will stick with their own countries/generals. Germans go for Rommel, Americans for Patton, British for Monty, Russians for Zhukov, French for.... ahh... ?? Petain? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif No pun intended http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v

HellToupee
01-14-2004, 03:24 AM
""I intend the next offensive to be the last offensive. What's the matter with you, Colonel Stirling? Why are you smiling?" "Nothing, sir, its just that we heard the same thing from the last general - and the one before" -Montgomery and Stirling, October 1942



"They have lost their most adaptable and skillful leader of the desert group, who has make us more harm than any other English unit of similar size."

Words said by Erwin Rommel when he was informed of David Stirling's capture.

As for David Stirling's exploits between July 1941 and January 1943, Pleydell, the SAS doctor who served with him in the desert, can best sum these up.

"To those who love statistics, I can only quote from the following figures: we destroyed a total of approximately four hundred enemy aircraft in the desert; 'A' squadron, during the autumn of 1942, demolished the enemy railway line on seven occasions; while between September 1942 and February 1943 forty three attacks were made against German key positions and communications. Our raids then were more than mere pin-******; and there were occasions when we must have diverted enemy forces and upset their road convoy system considerably; while the steady drain on aircraft exercised an influence on the desert war"

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

[This message was edited by HellToupee on Wed January 14 2004 at 02:51 AM.]

ELEM
01-14-2004, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
my vote goes to whoever was the Vietnamese commander who circled the French.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vo Nguyen Giap in 1953. The French called him "The Snow covered Volcano".

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

MarkVI
01-14-2004, 09:31 AM
Patton. He immortal commander. He think he fight from begin of time to the end of it. Maybe he correct. Maybe he come again, no?

He was VERY good!

MarkVI

Blutarski2004
01-14-2004, 09:41 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
I go with Patton. He was an egotistical ba$tard, but he knew how to win.

Rommel lost in North Africa. He was brilliant at first, but he became predictable and that is how Monty defeated him.

..... Alamein was actually two battles. It was Auchinleck's dispositions at Alam Halfa which stopped Rommel at first Alamein; Montgomery organized and executed the counter-attack which ultimately pushed Rommel back into Tunisia. IMO, predictability was not the defect in Rommel's conduct of the Alamein battle; it was insufficient strength. The forces he brought to Alamein were exhausted and depleted after the bitter Gazala fighting and the subsequent pursuit. In addition, his supply lines were terribly over-extended. By contrast, the British had fresh reserves available from the Middle East to occupy the Alamein, which was also situated quite close to their main supply depots in Alexandria.

He put his armor at risk by driving them farther than he could support them. Not a good trait in a commander.

..... Rommel pushed his armor toward Alamein because he knew he was facing a ticking clock. There was a window of opportunity after the British collapse at Gazala to push on into Egypt and knock the British out of N Africa. Had Rommel stopped to consolidate his position at Halfaya, as in the past, the British would simply have built up a new force and advanced against him once again. Every time the British did this, they came in stronger numbers.

BLUTARSKI

MajorBloodnok
01-14-2004, 10:06 AM
Gordon Bennett. That's my final offer.

Founder Member and Official Sporran Wearer of the EuroTrolls
Spouting evil commie brain-rot at, er, well Imperialists mainly, since like 1977, you know, when Star Wars came out?

Zen.Fighter
01-14-2004, 10:16 AM
I know that Alciviades never lost a fight as a general. Not enough words to describe how big was Alexander the Great. He was just Great!
Napoleon? A great general too. Rommel was too.

But still I would say Alciviades cause tactics matter more as you go back in history.

Lucius_Esox
01-14-2004, 03:40 PM
Lol,
Someone earlier said that these sort of threads turn into "nationalistic" nonsense. Patton????
Lol. Please read a lot more and tell me when and how he came to be thought of in this way??
I'm English and in the 2ww I would have to say Manstein without a doubt. Study the campaign during and especially afer the fall of Stalingrad to see where I'm coming from

RAF74_Buzzsaw
01-14-2004, 10:20 PM
Salute

In WWII, and just prior, there is no question but that Zhukov was the most successful Commander.

Some of the battles he won:

Khalkin Gol 1939 (versus Japanese) Kept Japanese out of war against the Soviets, they were frightened of testing the Soviets after they were whipped badly in these battles in Mongolia.

Moscow Counter Offensive Dec 1941

Saved the Soviet Union from being conquered in that dark first year. The first major defeat inflicted on the Germans and enormously costly in terms of manpower and equipement. Had the Soviet Union fallen, then the rest of Europe would have been securely in German hands.

Stalingrad Counter Offensive December 1942

The decisive turning point in the war. Zhukov held the Germans in a grinding battle of attrition for the city of Stalingrad, and then at exactly the right moment, smashed through on both flanks to encircle and destroy the entire German Sixth Army, plus two Rumanian and one Italian Armies. Nearly 500,000 Axis troops killed or captured.

Kursk (Greatest tank battle in history)

Zhukov met and fought to a standstill the most powerful attack the Germans ever mounted during the entire war, (more tanks and elite Panzer formations concentrated into a smaller area than at any other time) then Zhukov launched outflanking attacks that drove the Germans back to the Dneipr and ended the German hope of ever being able to regain the initiative they had lost at Stalingrad. After Kursk, the Germans were permanently on the defence, driven back in one series of Soviet offensives after another until the surrender at Berlin.

Patton was small potatoes compared to Zhukov, none of his achievements even came close to the Soviet General's. His commands were much smaller as were the number of enemies killed or captured.

Rommel also was nowhere near as important to the final result of WWII, although he was a brilliant Divisional and small Army commander. He was only a divisional commander in France 1940. His battles in North Africa were small affairs compared to the gigantic engagements in the Soviet Union. (Afrika Korps was only a Corps of Germans and a few Italians Corps) And he was beaten in his biggest command, Army Group B in France versus the Allied invasion led by Mongomery, who was the ground commander for Overlord and in charge of all tactical planning for D-Day.

Of the German Commanders, Manstein was probably the most gifted, but he was beaten in the end.

He provided the original plan for the invasion of France in 1940, (although he was not in command), led an Army which captured the Crimea and the fortress of Sevastopol, and also led the counterattack in February of 1943, which threw back the Soviets who were advancing on the Dneipr after Stalingrad and drove them back past Kharkov. But he was beaten at Kursk and after that, was removed from command.

RAF74 Buzzsaw

Lucius_Esox
01-15-2004, 01:18 PM
Yes you are right Buzzsaw. Zhukov in terms of achievments, and to a lesser extent "ability" was unsurpassed in ww2. Manstein was ultimately beaten, but how much of this was down to resource limitations. Both were pragmatists but the Russians had "more" always after late 42/early 43. It is an impossible comparison inasmuch they both faught totally different types of war/battles. Being a Brit my own vote goes for Auckinleck!! The first battle of El Alemain was a perfect illustration of how to defeat German armour tactical doctrine First rule, do not panic!!

S!

SpremeCommander
01-15-2004, 06:34 PM
Germans:

1. Manstein
2. Guderian
3. Rommel

The Russians used overwhelming force and a complete disregard for casualties to achieve their ends.

jensenpark
01-15-2004, 06:46 PM
Hannibal is the early ages...

Ghengis and Kubla Khan as well...

Near modern times: Zhukov, Rommel, et al were certainly successful - with their overwhelming manpower But much of their success was against surprised/and or comparitively weaker/outnumbered enemy forces.

Mondern age: Moshe Dayan maybe?..did alot more against overwhelming forces (yea, poorly led and corrupt forces - but overwhelming numbers none the less).

Just a thought...

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

JG27_Dacripler
01-15-2004, 07:25 PM
How about these screwballs..(off the topic but use extreme prejudice to accomplish their agenda)

1) Kim Il Sung- North Korea
2) Enver Hoxha- Albania
3) Mao Zedong- China
4) Anastasio Samoza Garcia- Nicaragu***

jensenpark
01-15-2004, 08:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG27_Dacripler:
How about these screwballs..(off the topic but use extreme prejudice to accomplish their agenda)

1) Kim Il Sung- North Korea
2) Enver Hoxha- Albania
3) Mao Zedong- China
4) Anastasio Samoza Garcia- Nicaragu***<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How 'bout Kim Il Jung (son of first Kim). What with those groovy glasses he wears, and that freaky perm...man, what a leader!

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

Kampfmeister
01-15-2004, 09:20 PM
Every age, every nation, and every war seems to have its great commanders. What do you consider the attributes of a great commander? How many battles he wins or how he fights those battles. Although I consider Zhukov to be the greatest of the soviet generals, he had command of overwhelming forces. Most competent commanders could have achieved the same results with what he had to work with. Mannstein was probably the most brilliant strategist on the German side if not the whole war, but he was outgunned, and more importantly would not go against Hitler‚'s insane directives even though he knew better. In a scenario with all things being equal as far as manpower and equipment, I believe Mannstein would have prevailed over Zhukov. The Germans were almost continually outnumbered on the Eastern Front, but there were many instances where they actually managed to achieve a tactical superiority of at least 2 to 1 over a superior Russian force and won.

That being said, as far as the rest I‚'d say Patton for the U.S. and as Lucius_Esox noted, Auckinleck for the Brits. Monty was a good organizer, but he was overrated as a field commander. As far as the rest go, I think Blutarski2004 covered most of them although he missed Frederick the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, and Marlborough among others. My all time personal favorite has to be the little known general Paul von Lettow Vorbeck who against overwhelming odds fought a four year guerilla war in German East Africa during WWI. He finally surrendered several weeks after the Armistice and only when he got word of the German surrender. He was undefeated, he never gave up, and he genuinely cared for the well being of his men as well as his prisoners, and endured all their hardships.

All in all though, I think the number one though out history has to be Alexander. He conquered most of the civilized western world or at least the most important portions of it by the time he was thirty. Hannibal would be my next choice. Even though he eventually lost the war, his tactics have been studied, admired and emulated by many if not all the afore mentioned great commanders that came after him.

johann_thor
01-16-2004, 08:41 AM
HEINZ GUDERIAN !

clover4
01-16-2004, 09:33 AM
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.

Lawrence of Arabia.

Boandlgramer
01-16-2004, 09:38 AM
anyone know
Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius von Wallenstein ?
he was a very important general in the " Thirty Years War ".
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/30yearswar.html

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg