Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best General of WWII?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    George Marshall was one of the best generals of the war and was called 'the organizer of victory' by Churchill. No other army had a general like him.
    Administrate and commanding troops are two different things. Especially if you have much more ressources than everybody else.
    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

    Comment


    • #47
      How was Hitler? Was he even a general or just "commander-in-chief" as Americans have it?
      "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

      "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by American87 View Post
        How was Hitler? Was he even a general or just "commander-in-chief" as Americans have it?
        He was the best general the allies had
        Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

        That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Emtos View Post

          They lead army groups operations. Harder than assemble everything for plenty of time and no interference.
          Eh? How often do army group offensives run the risk of catastrophic failure? Amphibious landings do.

          It was still not on the scale of the Eastern Front. Many operations involved more units than were present on all Western Front.
          Western Allied operations in 1945 were quite on par in size and scope with anything on the Eastern Front 41-45.



          The sea prevented that happening earlier.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Gooner View Post

            Eh? How often do army group offensives run the risk of catastrophic failure? Amphibious landings do.
            Barbarossa failed for exemple. Mars failed. Etc

            Amphibious landing with a total superiority in everything, has little chances to fail.
            There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Gooner View Post

              Eh? How often do army group offensives run the risk of catastrophic failure? Amphibious landings do.
              Um, every single time?

              Failure at Overlord vs failure at Kursk. Both seem like they'd be/were pretty catastrophic to me.

              Failure at Kursk ceded the initiative to the Soviets. Failure at Overlord would have been pretty bad, to be sure, but England would not have been threatened and the initiative would still remain in the hands of the western allies.

              Western Allied operations in 1945 were quite on par in size and scope with anything on the Eastern Front 41-45.
              Eh... kinda.

              Overlord was on the same scale as the larger operations on the eastern front. After that, most of the allied operations tended to be much smaller.

              You're making a decent case for Montgomery for the planning stages of Overlord, but it definitely pushes things a bit too far to claim that the stakes were any lower on the eastern front.

              I remain unconvinced that most of the normal candidates for "best general of WW2" from the western front actually deserve to be considered. You need something more than just Overlord.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                Because he could be a bit insensitive to others, at times?
                A natural scrum half...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                  Um, every single time?

                  Failure at Overlord vs failure at Kursk. Both seem like they'd be/were pretty catastrophic to me.

                  Failure at Kursk ceded the initiative to the Soviets. Failure at Overlord would have been pretty bad, to be sure, but England would not have been threatened and the initiative would still remain in the hands of the western allies.

                  The difference between failure for Overlord and Citadel is that in the former initiative isn't just ceded, the army is gone.



                  Overlord was on the same scale as the larger operations on the eastern front. After that, most of the allied operations tended to be much smaller.

                  You're making a decent case for Montgomery for the planning stages of Overlord, but it definitely pushes things a bit too far to claim that the stakes were any lower on the eastern front.

                  I remain unconvinced that most of the normal candidates for "best general of WW2" from the western front actually deserve to be considered. You need something more than just Overlord.

                  Your criteria for 'best general' is size of operation? For size of operation, Plunder - the crossing of the Rhine - must be right up there in comparison with any on the Eastern Front, no?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Aber View Post

                    A natural scrum half...
                    His Rugby Football coach at St. Paul's School:

                    "He was a good centre three-quarter, exceedingly plucky but inclined to try and do too much himself, and he had often to be warned against tackling opponents in a manner likely to break their collar bones. He was a most inspiring leader of boys on the football field. He would assemble the XV around him at half-time and carefully outline his policy for the rest of the game."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                      Your criteria for 'best general' is size of operation? For size of operation, Plunder - the crossing of the Rhine - must be right up there in comparison with any on the Eastern Front, no?
                      Sorry, where did that come from? You're the one that raised the idea that the size of operations on the western front was as large as on the east. I merely raised a small objection to that.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                        Western Allied operations in 1945 were quite on par in size and scope with anything on the Eastern Front 41-45.
                        I'll have what you're drinking!

                        In June 1944, the Red Army Offensive Operation Bagration advanced 450 miles in five weeks through Minsk to the outskirts of Warsaw.

                        The Vistula-Oder Operation began on January 2 from three bridgeheads over the Vistula, arriving at the Oder February 2, 300 miles.

                        From Western Allied Normandy invasion June 6, 1944, entered Paris August 24th, 138 miles.

                        Paris to Bastogne, 200 miles and a six week Battle of the Bulge.

                        Western* Allied invasion of Germany 22 March 45, Red Army attack on Berlin April 16 - March 8 and captured Berlin.

                        Added edit.
                        Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 17 Jun 20, 14:22.
                        Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                          The difference between failure for Overlord and Citadel is that in the former initiative isn't just ceded, the army is gone.
                          In the worst outcome for Overlord, only a couple of divisions would be lost. Not much.
                          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

                            I'll have what you're drinking!

                            In June 1944, the Red Army Offensive Operation Bagration advanced 450 miles in five weeks through Minsk to the outskirts of Warsaw.

                            The Vistula-Oder Operation began on January 2 from three bridgeheads over the Vistula, arriving at the Oder February 2, 300 miles.

                            From Western Allied Normandy invasion June 6, 1944, entered Paris August 24th, 138 miles.

                            Paris to Bastogne, 200 miles and a six week Battle of the Bulge.

                            Allied invasion of Germany 22 March 45, Red Army attack on Berlin April 16 - March 8 and captured Berlin.
                            Those are some ... really bad faith and disingenuous comparisons. On 6 June there were no allied troops, supplies, infrastructure in France. All those had to be built up while still expending resources for the continuous expanding of the bridgehead. If you want to compare it to Bagration or Oder operation than why not include the build up phases of those operations too. And why are you splitting a single exploitation - to Paris and from Paris to Bastogne in two ?

                            Anyhow it's roughly like 450 miles for Saint Lo--Paris to Aachen and some 400 for Tilly-la Campagne-Rouen-Brussels-Valkensward, achieved in some 5-6 weeks since the beginning of actual offensives that started those drives.

                            And to be pedantic - while I'm no expert, I think it's the Lublin-Brest forces - 2nd Tank in particular that got to the outskirts of Warsaw and Bagration's 65th Army went for the Narew bridgeheads.
                            Last edited by phaze; 18 Jun 20, 07:04.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                              In the worst outcome for Overlord, only a couple of divisions would be lost. Not much.
                              Worst outcome would probably be nearer the better part of 10 divisions lost.

                              And no successful invasion of Western Europe in 1944 and thus no defeat of Germany in 1945.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by phaze View Post
                                And to be pedantic - why I'm no expert,
                                Agree, you miss the scale, depth, and densities of the Red Army operations in 1944 and 1945. And, you forget, the Red Army fought the major portion of the German forces on the eastern front.
                                Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X