Greatest military commanders

[SMIDSY]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Didnt realise the Roman Army was considered a "second rate Military."

at the time, yes! the roman army, while being well equipped, was poorly led. it was like the americans whooping the iraqi army: on paper the iraqi army had the advantage, but they had incompitent leadership. any commander who allows his army to be surrounded by a force with inferior numbers is a fool.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Gixer
Err how was Rommel's campaign a battle against unseasoned troops with enferior weaposn and outdated tactics? Unless your thinking of his attacks against American Troops which he favoured against the British or ANZACS. North Africa was a long hard campaign on both sides long before the US even entered the war. And Rommel was a genius.

As for Patton nothing more then a pistol head primadona a name that comes up by Americans partly because he had a good movie. What genius did Patton show where he didn't gain victory through numbers,air superiority and atrition?

As for the "Care to back up that claim with actual data?" I don't need to there are plenty of books on history of commanders if you'd care to read them other then the pro US ones.


...-Gixer

France. where he first made a name for himself.
but then again Germany also had that air superiority you mentioned also as he did in north africa for a time.
in NA he did well untill he was met with Able leadership (monty) who then proceeded to push his arse across Africa.

Patton. North africa and Sicily. In Sicily he was up against the Herman Georing Div. Arguably one of the best the germans had. and in spit of the bulk of support going to Monty still managed to reach and take Palermo (rathr then fight a battle of attrition) then move along the coast and take Massina
  While the allies at the time had air superiority in both north africa and sicily Patton received little of it untill the breakout in normandy and then half the time Allied bombers had to abandon their targets because
Pattons forces had already reached and captured them
Patton didnt fight battles of attrition. If you look at his numbers he tended to loose less men while killing or capturing more germans then his allied counterparts. Battles of attrition tend to be very costly for both sides.

Im not going ot say Rommel wasnt a genius or a great commander. Indeed he was. But to put him so far ahead of Patton is beyond absurd.
none less then  Rundstedt claimed Patton and Mongomery were the two "best" the allies had.
I thinik I'll trust his opinion over yours as he was only slightly more qualified to make that kind of judgment

LMAO I've read plenty of books about the commanders on all sides.
Its obvious you have only read the books on the commander you decided to like

[Habu]

Authur Currie

He invented the Blitzkrieg, which has evolved into the modern tactics that are still used to today (Desert Storm).

[Nashwan]

Patton had the luxury of Quantity. The Eighth Army (mainly Aussie and NZ) kicked Rommel off of Africa, NOT Patton, nor the US.

The 8th was not mainly Aussie and New Zealanders.

The casualty figures for North Africa:
British 68,553
Dominion, Colonies and Allies 56,274 (allies are the various "Free" forces, not the US)

[SMIDSY]

you cant calculate an army's manpower by the casualty report. perhaps the dominion troops were better at keeping their heads down.

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by SLO
Furballz sucks...


in that case try the Desert Rat, Rommel, a leader who actually lead in combat and not a the rear...

Desert Fox(obvious reasons), or Silver Fox(due to grey hair), not desert rat.

The Desert Rats were the men of the British Eighth Army.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Any book written on North African Campaign will REFUTE you DRED.  To ignore the FACTS is the funniest thing.

Most people do NOT realize how close the Allies were kicked off of Africa AFTER Operation Torch began.   The US and British did NOT put much stock into armor prior to WWII.  They stuck with the "anti-infantry guns" on them instead of the 75mm.  The only "effective tank" the Allies had in Africa was the Matilda, and even that is a stretch.  At the onset of the War the French had some of the best tanks of the "Allies".  They chose to break them up to Infantry Divisions, had they consolodated them France would have held out longer than it did.  

Patton had the luxury of Quantity.  The Eighth Army (mainly Aussie and NZ) kicked Rommel off of Africa, NOT Patton, nor the US.  Rommel is in a class all by himself.  He ate what his troops ate and fed the "Allied POW's" what his troops ate.  Rommel had the respect of his men and the respect of his enemies on the battlefields on which he fought.

It's like Rommel said after Hitler appointed him Field Marshal: "I would rather he had given me one more division."    

Karaya

Actually they dont refute me at all. Nor am I refuting your statements. the Allies the americans in particular did indeed have problems in north africa.  The  tendancy to leaving the high ground to the germans and taking up defencive positions in front of rivers instead of behind them,and ignoring the benefits of air and ground reconnacence along with poor traffic management, poor road maintanence all the result of poor leadership and a lack of cohesion in the command system (noted by Marshal in communications with Eisenhower)deteriorating weather. combined with good coordination by the germans in the use of infantry, tanks,artillary and divebombers.

Patton In part because of uncertainties about the situation in spain
 For a good deal of the northafrican campaign was stuck in Casablanca.
And wasnt even involved in situations like Kassarine.
It wasnt untill March 43 that he took over II Corps
but once he did get back into the fighting he did well and dd so successfully.
While the american and British armies as a whole didnt put alot of stock in the Tank. Patton did.

He did warn them about the insufficiancies and correctly so of the tank they did use.

I never said Patton Kicked Rommel off north africa.
And yes the brits had the larger hand in doing the job.(largely due to political reasons) but did so with the assistance of the US

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Nashwan
The 8th was not mainly Aussie and New Zealanders.

The casualty figures for North Africa:
British 68,553
Dominion, Colonies and Allies 56,274 (allies are the various "Free" forces, not the US)

WTG Statsman.  Glad you googled that one!  Thanks.

Karaya

PS - the Aussies and NZ's made the other soldiers in the Eighth Army fight harder, for they would not give ground easily.

[Masherbrum]

Dred,

   I have have read "Patton: A Genius for War" - Carlo D' Este.  Patton, again, was a good commander.  But read "An Army at Dawn" - Rick Atkinson.  You'll realize an unbiased fact of how fragile the north African campaign was for the Allies.  

Karaya

[63tb]

Not to hijack the thread, but I saw "Gettysburg" on TV this weekend and have a question. The show made it appear that Chamberlain (sp?) and the 20th Maine's actions the second day saved the Union position, thereby the battle and possibly the war. Is this true? Also I read that Chamberlain received the South's surrender and ordered his men to come to attention for the Southern troops.

63tb

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by 63tb
Not to hijack the thread, but I saw "Gettysburg" on TV this weekend and have a question. The show made it appear that Chamberlain (sp?) and the 20th Maine's actions the second day saved the Union position, thereby the battle and possibly the war. Is this true? Also I read that Chamberlain received the South's surrender and ordered his men to come to attention for the Southern troops.

63tb

He ordered his men to a Bayonet Charge that saved Little Round Top and drastically reduced Oate's Confederate Force.

Karaya

[greentail]

DELETED

5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.

[Lizking]

DELETED

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[greentail]

In what way? Can you refute it? Or can you only make snide comments? By our own admission, we do not even control the road to the Baghdad airport, for example.

Can you think of a more effective way to conduct the campaign from the Iraqi side?

Our military is crippled, in case you haven't noticed. All this talk of campaigns against Syria and Iran is a joke now. And the recent insults from North Korea show we don't seem to be much of a threat to them. Iran and Iraq have signed an agreement where the Iranian military will be training Iraqi troops. Seems like a slap in the face to me.

But that is OT for this thread.

[Lizking]

Give me the name of this commander and I will shut up.  Otherwise, I stand by my assessment.