Greatest Military Mind(s) of WWII?

New Recruits check in here! Vets debate the fine points! Tactics discussion, FAQ and "how-to" help.
If you are new to the SP:WaW community post an introduction please!

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

User avatar
K62
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:34 am
Location: DC

Post by K62 »

lynx_rattle wrote:Well anyways, after all that, I think that von Manstein's operation at Krim 1942 is quite magnificent. But is a "panzer general" any good in defending? Maybe Kesselring would be a better choice for a defensive general. But on the other hand he did have mountainous, easily defended terrain by his side. Not the plains of Ukraine or Central Europe.
Germany's best general on the defence was Heinrici. Crimea '41-'42 was a really small campaign, of little consequence, and Manstein was facing incompetent Soviet leaders. It's nice for him that he won, but hardly a great achievement.
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
User avatar
Orzel Bialy
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:39 am
Location: Wisconsin USA
Contact:

Hmmm...

Post by Orzel Bialy »

sorry ole chap...was at work and couldn't play ealier. :D

I had a nice point by point reply going (again)...but erased it all as an after thought.

You state Zhukov was a "better command than the rest of them"...such is your belief and who am I to challenge a man's belief? ;)

I, on the other hand, shall always put him as "average"...as well as in the "kissed by lady luck more than once" category. That is my belief. ;)

From what I have read...I could never agree he was the greatest any more than I could say that about Monty.

I'll simply close in saying that had he been in command a Army along the border at the outset of the campaign I have no doubt what so ever that his style of tatics would have made him like many of his peers...just another commander who had his Army shattered by the initial German thrusts.

But alas Lady Luck dealt him a nice hand...and he played it well.

ps...some interesting reading from various multi national sources on some segments of the Russian Front that involve Zhukov:
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/battles/battle13.html
read the footnotes to the battle breakdowns...some very interesting tid-bits can be found in them. ;)
Image
User avatar
Belisarius
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Belisarius »

You forgot Manstein, so I vote Guderian.

Oh, and btw; where's the Soviet commanders? Zhukov may be ruled out due to his indifference to losses but still...Rokossovskii? Chuikov? Rodimtzev? etc etc
Image
Got StuG?
User avatar
Belisarius
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Belisarius »

K62 wrote:At Kursk the Germans were again badly outwitted to the point that Russian arty opened up heavily 10 minutes before jump-off :eek:. Zhukov entirely anticipated the attack and built exceptionally strong defences at exactly the right spots. By this time the tactics of the Red Army were greatly improved. At the battle of Prokhorovka, the German tanks included Panthers and Tigers and had air support; but they were beaten by equal numbers of T-34s -now try to do that in SPWaW!Image
The axis of attack at Operation Citadel were so obvious already in early winter of '43 that it can't be credited to Zhukov alone. Even Stavka agreed on it. The surprising part is that the Germans chose to go on with it, even if expected. They still believed that they could smash through the defenses. Looking at it, it wasn't too much of and underestimation. They had never been stopped before in open battle, save for the "strategy in depth", that is Russian retreat to new defensive lines.

At Prokhorovka, the Tigers (in particular) were indeed stopped, but the T-34s were not even close to be on equal terms with them. Even Russian sources say that in some cases it was over a 50/1 kill ratio for the Tigers. But they weren't everywhere, it was PzIVs most of the T's were up against.

The failure at Prokhorovka was much due to Army detachment Kempf failing to break through 7 Guards Army and 69 Army areas to the right of II SS Panzer Corps. At the battle itself, both PzGrenadierRegiments "Das Reich" and "Totenkopf" were tied to guard the right flank and couldn't be committed to the thrust at 5 Tank Army, which meant a lot of infantry wasn't even present. Also, ofcourse, that XLVIII Panzer Corps had been diverted to the northwest and Oboian axis to deal with the 1 Guards Tank Army and couldn't assist II SS PZ Corps.
Image
Got StuG?
gainiac
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 10:20 pm
Location: Bronx, NY

Post by gainiac »

K62 wrote: Especially since strategic proficiency must be valued above tactical brilliance.

:cool:
Um.......Good tactics will make a bad strategy work?!?! Bad tactics will destroy a good strategy?!?!
User avatar
Belisarius
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Belisarius »

gainiac wrote:Um.......Good tactics will make a bad strategy work?!?! Bad tactics will destroy a good strategy?!?!
Good point. Like Artur's signature quote at the Combat Campaigns forums:

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.", Sun Tzu
Image
Got StuG?
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Charles2222 »

The often overlooked, underrated Col. Wilhelm Klink

Image

Diiiiiis - missed!
User avatar
K62
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:34 am
Location: DC

Post by K62 »

Belisarius wrote:Good point. Like Artur's signature quote at the Combat Campaigns forums:

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.", Sun Tzu
Great quote, Bel! :) Only it totally contradicts his point!?! :confused:

As you can see, good tactics will not make a bad strategy work, but it's just the noise before defeat. Whereas a good strategy with bad tactics will work, only somewhat more slowly :cool:
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
User avatar
Orzel Bialy
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:39 am
Location: Wisconsin USA
Contact:

yes..

Post by Orzel Bialy »

and therefore using bad tactics to acheive an overall strategy would mean that the person running the show is average...not Great.

ooppsss...sorry, was supposed to let this one rest. :p
Image
User avatar
K62
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:34 am
Location: DC

Post by K62 »

Orzel Bialy wrote:and therefore using bad tactics to acheive an overall strategy would mean that the person running the show is average...not Great.

ooppsss...sorry, was supposed to let this one rest. :p
Doesn't follow. First, you ran away from my challenge to prove that Zhukov's tactics were bad for his situation (leading masses of green troops with little equipment). Second, you would need to show that there was a WW2 commander who was at least his equal as a strategist but a better tactician. Then you will have really proven that Zhukov was average. So far you've been using "hit and run" tactics instead. I see you're about to run again... :p
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
User avatar
Orzel Bialy
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:39 am
Location: Wisconsin USA
Contact:

Hmmm...

Post by Orzel Bialy »

so I ran away eh?

OK...well, I'm at work again and lunch is almost over so I won't reply in length in this post...but I shall return.

My quick reply of who was better...since time is short is: Guderian :cool:

I'll be back later tonight with my complete answer.

Ran away...ppfffffffftttt!!! :rolleyes:

:p :D ;)
Image
User avatar
Orzel Bialy
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:39 am
Location: Wisconsin USA
Contact:

a reply

Post by Orzel Bialy »

First of all…what does “doesn’t follow” mean exactly? Is it to mean that because you don’t agree with the statement it is therefore an untruth? I look at it and it makes perfect sense when referring to Zhukov’s carreer.

In 1941 and part of 42’ I did agree that he probably was forced to waste manpower and equipment because of the handicap of the quality of his men and equipment. While I conceded on that point I will, however, always stand by the belief that he was a very fortunate man to have taken command of Armies at the times when the German thrusts were approaching ends of their runs…such as Leningrad and Moscow.

By the time 1944-45 rolled around, however, Zhukov had a lot of divisions of battle-hardened men at his disposal. (and I do mean disposal in this case) So the excuse of untrained green troops no longer applied…yet his approach to battle remained firmly in the primitive, old school, Russian tradition of “we can afford to bleed more than you”.

Show me what he did different at Seelowe Heights in 45’ from his earlier battles? He did nothing different from what I’ve read…except to keep feeding men and equipment into a meat grinder until the German lines broke three days later. What is so brilliant and innovative about that?

Now some may say “yes, so what? It worked didn’t it?” Which is fine for some I suppose… depending on the way one chooses to define a great commander. That is obviously where we differ in opinion in my eyes. I for one don’t determine greatness in terms of victories. To me a great commander can lose battles or even a war. If he did so against greater numbers and made the enemy pay a terrible price I think he can still far out-rate the man (or men) who won.

I also look at how a given commander evolved their concepts of war and if they helped promote a new style of warfare. To be great I think one should excel at all levels of command and be able to do more with less rather than just rely on the law of numbers. This is why I think so very highly of Guderian.

Yet another good example comes from the US Civil War. U.S. Grant was a butcher (like Zhukov) who won victories by using sheer numbers against his foes…but that doesn’t make him a great commander. General Lee (and many in the middle) was by far a better leader. However, the hero status which comes to people because of the need to promote national heroes for the war effort on the home front is all too often confused and blurred into the title of great military leadership…and the two can not be farther apart.

As such I am not running away from you or anything you have claimed or dismissed as “proof” showing Zhukov to be any better or worse than the others on the list.

In the end we have different opinions of greatness.
Image
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Grant

Post by mogami »

Hi, Grant did not have the numbers ratio versus Lee that McClellan had enjoyed for 2 years. Look again at the size of the armies in 1864-65
Just in manpower you can see comparing the North in Civil War to Soviet Union in WW2 is not close.
Grant began his final campaign with 118,000 men. Lee had at least 60k (so it was almost 2-1) However unlike WW2 where mobility allows one size to mass force at a single point in the American Civil War the defense was superior so the attacker always needed to achive a measure of surprise in order to succeed. This was impossible for Grant. He adimted that his frontal attacks were mistakes. (They were not his standard method) Grant alwyas tried to find the enemy flank. In the end it came down to a siege at Petersburg where once again Grant did not simply make repeated mass frontal attacks.
Grant was no more a butcher then was Lee or any other Civil War commander. The weapons of the day coupled with the superioity of the defense meant that any attack was going to be costly. I can see no way of ending the Civil War other then then one employed by Grant. It could have been more costly but the Union could never afford to bleed the South dry the way the Soviets did the Germans. (They did not have enough manpower advantage)
The man power advantage was significant but not so overpowering to insure victory. (The industrial advantage on the other hand was ) Napoleon defeated four armies at the start of his rise. He faced numbers that both the Northern Government and Soviets would have envied and won.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Buzzard45
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 5:57 am
Location: Regina, Canada

What have you been smoking?

Post by Buzzard45 »

Orzel Bialy wrote:
To me...everyone else takes second place....except Monty...he's last after all I've read. lol :D
Bernard Montgomery was the only commander to defeat Rommel and Kesselring.

He chased Rommel across a thousand miles of desert, while US forces were bogged down after the Kasserine pass defeat. BTW he had the same equipment available and less of it.

He masterminded the invasion of Sicily which was the most successful beach landing of the war.

He was Supreme Land Commander for Overlord which was the only cross channel invasion in 1000 years. Even Hitler walked away from it.

His strategy of a British and Canadian shield in the East (near Caen) while sacraficial to his own home armies, blocked all the forces poised to stave off a Pas de Calais crossing plus tied up all the Panzer Divisions in Normandy to allow an American sweep through the Caranten Penisula and the port at Cherburg and later the ports Brittany with the shield and threatened break-through to Paris, with Caen as its axis. He alone amoung the commanders of the day had the vision that these ports were the key to staying on mainland Europe. They were the least defended and closest to North America. His plans and strategy and patience prevailed to give the Allied Armies the victory that they attained. In five days they had a cohesive and unified beachhead almost 100 miles long.

If you don't agree that the D-day invasion was the greatest battle of WW2 (with 2 million men taking part on the Allied side alone) and the Supreme Commander (Ike was Supreme commmnader of all Allied forces including Air and Sea, Monty was Supreme Land Commander whose plan was used in detail) who pulled it off, the Greatest military mind of the time, then there is something wrong with the books you read.

Yes, he made a lot of enemies along the way. There were a lot of people jealous of him and just plain didn't like him. Yes, he wanted sure victory at each battle. Yes, he had a flair for the unconventional. But as Patton said of him "He is an actor but he is no fool."

Many books accuse him of being slow to act and say he had ample time to breakout from the beachhead but he didn't. He didn't because it was not the plan. He didn't have Dempsey take Caen until a month after the landing. He didn't need Caen. He needed to tie up the Panzer divisions to allow the American Corps to capture the ports. And he did it the same way he had beaten Rommel at El Alamein, with guns and infantry, not with tanks. He advanced behind heavy bombardmant and broke the counter-attacks on ground of his choosing from prepared positions. Ike and Churchill both understood the strategy and agreed to it. They got a little anxious for a while but Monty had no doubts from the very beginning. That vision saved a lot of lives and shortened the war.
Image" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"
POGO
User avatar
Orzel Bialy
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:39 am
Location: Wisconsin USA
Contact:

Hmmm...

Post by Orzel Bialy »

I seem to draw flak from every direction...and I'm not even an M4 driver. :eek:

Oh well...K62 can have Zhukov as his Greatest...Mogami can defend Grant...and Buz can talk up (ugh) Monty.

After all, it's not like anything posted will change my choice of Guderian any more than hours of bantering will sway anyone elses opinion.
Image
User avatar
Buzzard45
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 5:57 am
Location: Regina, Canada

Post by Buzzard45 »

Orzel Bialy wrote:I seem to draw flak from every direction...and I'm not even an M4 driver. :eek:

Oh well...K62 can have Zhukov as his Greatest...Mogami can defend Grant...and Buz can talk up (ugh) Monty.

After all, it's not like anything posted will change my choice of Guderian any more than hours of bantering will sway anyone elses opinion.


OKay, you can have the guy said tanks can go in packs. I won't put him down. I just think that Monty is way under-rated and not even included in the list. So I couldn't vote.
Image" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"
POGO
User avatar
Orzel Bialy
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:39 am
Location: Wisconsin USA
Contact:

Hey...

Post by Orzel Bialy »

Going in packs made a big difference compared to having them spread out as infantry support! :)

As for Monty...yeah he suffers a bad name to people (American's chiefly) who have read books which used sources like Bradley, Ridgeway, Patton and even Ike himself.

Are they all biased? I'm sure they are to some point...but there are also strong arguments that can support peoples views that Monty was too adventuresome in some aspects and way too cautious in others.

That's the pitfall (which I allowed myself to fall into) of getting to involved in these types of things...i.e. trying to say who's the greatest. It all ends up resting on individual opinions based off of what a given person has read. :)
Image
User avatar
K62
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:34 am
Location: DC

Post by K62 »

Yes but there's a distinctive pleasure in arguing about it Image Actually I've been learning quite a few interesting things from this discussion.

Guderian is a good choice actually. He wasn't in command for much of the war but he must receive lots and lots of credit for training the German panzer force with an excellent doctrine before the war. He was also quite good at implementing it in practice. The bad thing was that the German generals got to think of panzer tactics as being able to solve everything. Whenever they had a problem, they would throw a large armored force at it. At Stalingrad, Kursk, Mortain, the Bulge this kind of thinking met its limits and its bloody repulses.

I mostly agree with Buzzard about Monty. In North Africa he outfought Rommel, who was by no means a comfortable foe. Also I've read his memoirs and he makes much more sense and shows a much better grasp of strategy than any of the German general-writers.

I think that Zhukov is much like Grant in that he is considered a butcher unjustly. He also had to fight against a more experienced army. As for mobility, the Germans had the advantage in that.

Yes, our criteria for choosing the best general differ. But reading different things is actually good because we can each bring something new to the debate. As for me, I'm valuing what Sun Tzu said: "Know your enemy and know yourself and in a thousand battles you will never be defeated". The best generals know how to come close to that ideal.
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
User avatar
K62
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:34 am
Location: DC

Post by K62 »

Buzzard45 wrote:I just think that Monty is way under-rated and not even included in the list. So I couldn't vote.

I've posted a similar poll on the Art of Wargaming forum, you can vote for Monty there if you like.
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
Maciste
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:23 pm

RE:

Post by Maciste »

Rommel (great tactic commander, less great as strategist)
Montgomery (through the massive accumulation of resources)
Manstein (master of movement war, and also great as a siege commander)
Kesselring (never so much was achieved against so many with so few resources)
Rokkossovsky (more careful about losses than Zukov)
Zukov (another genius of massive piercing movements with armored forces)
Vlassov (one of the few competent soviet commanders since the very beginning... pity he was captured)
Stilwell (against great odds on Far East, he succeed)
Patton (the Mechanized Warlord)

Does anyone knows about any competent Italian commander [:D][:D][:D]?
Everytime I hear the word "culture" I pull out my gun.
Post Reply

Return to “SP:WaW Training Center”