IIRC there was not sufficient or capable specialised invasion craft for the job and much of the initial transport would have been via rhine barges or similar which were not the best of transports to say the least. I also agree though that sea-lion was unlikely to be a serious consideration given the escape of the army at dunkirk and the strong position of the RAF and RN.
Yes there weren´t enough specialized landing vessels. So every boat afloat should be used. How realistic it was to do such an invasion with boats slowlier than the Roman invasion ships, can be doubted, however it could be possible. But it was unrealistic either.
If Britain lost the BoB and Churchill would use his BBs as swimming batteries ont the ground they would have been a perfect target for German pilots. This would also clear the way for German BBs and cruisers into the Atlantic. There they would have sunk each convoy they get without a big threat. Then Britain would have made peace being without any supplies. This would have given Hitler a free back to make the Operation Barbarossa. And the Operation Seelöwe would only have been an operation like a fleet in being.
Originally posted by privatehudson If I remember correctly, Montgomery was seriously wounded as a junior officer in WWI. The others I don't know about. And frankly, by WWII generalship had progressed from the stage where leading attacks in person and getting suicidally brave were the yardsticks of a fine general.
You are correct, but the question was best general, not best
field marshall. Just making a point that the best general is
not necessary a winning general, but the general who makes
the best use of tactics, material and moral (backseat generals
don't get max. moral).
If you look at most of the commanders there, most don't qualify in your category of general, I think the term was just a broad one, used to cover the different officers. As for morale, that depends, Rommel was good at morale, but wasn't constantly leading from the front. On the other hand he did tend to eat and live like his men did and work his backside off. I agree the best general might not be the one who wins all the time, but he won't always also be the one who gets the most combat wounds
I good General in the status of Corps or Division should still be colose enough to the front to be vulnerable to artillery and air attack, from a practical standpoint.
Yes, but how many of those spent the last years of the war at that level of command? You can hardly advise against the likes of Rommel or Manstein simply because they were doing their job, where they were supposed to be doing it.
I think some of these people shouldn't even be on the list... Eisenhower was a great mediator (between British and American commanders) and a glorified quartermaster, but not a brilliant general.
I find it intriguing that Patton toured the French countryside up and down the coast and into the Loire Valley on foot and horseback in 1912 because he was convinced he would lead army to victory on that ground some day.
On a sidenote: I purchased a book the other day claiming to list the top 500 military commanders of all time. I was extremely dismayed when I saw the Lord Cardigan in the book (he commanded the Charge of the Light Brigade) -- I guess that just goes to show how much the judgement of a General is subjective...
I am sure that book valued bravery and dedication to cause.
I don't fault Army and Army group commanders from not bieng at the front. But the majority of gernerals are not at that level but rather the Corps and Division.
I honestly don't think Eisenhower did anything special that anyone else couldn't have done. He dealt in gernal terms with everything, which admittedly is what someone in hsi position did. His brilliant idea;
Ike: "We will land at Normand"
General: "Thats a great idea Ike, how do you propose we do it?"
Ike: "How the hell should I know, I am the lofty idea guy, its your
job to figure out HOW."
I don't consider Roosevelt to be a great strategist because of this awesome and inovative idea to "win the war."
I said this on another post somewhere, but to me the best general was General O'Connor in the North African campaign. Had his driver not gotten lost i think he possibly could have outmaneuvered Rommel. Hell he took two understrength divisions on a "raid" and in the process captured 300,000 Italian Prisoners. So in my mind you can't beat that with any of the other generals on the list.
@ Patroklos: I might agree with you, but Cardigan wasn't dedicated to anything but his own ego. He literally purchased his commission, and used the men under his command in a desperate quest for self glory. The one good thing he did was drill his men incessantly (so they would make him look good) -- if he hadn't, the Charge could have been even more disastrous than it was...
@Throgrimm: capturing Italians isn't exactly an impressive feat. The Italian armed forces had a hard time conquering Ethiopia, whose main footsoldier weapon was a spear. (Before anyone gets offended, my family is from a village just outside of Rome).
WildWolverine, true but he did it the way most British did not do it, he outmaneuvered them, and most tacticians will state that the force multiplier of fortified troops is greater when those troops are not used to maneuver. Also look at the battle of Beda Fomm, just a few British troops held and captured them. A small town about 190 km/120 mi south of Benghazi on the Libyan coast road. Elements of the British 7th Armoured Division had cut across the desert and set up a road block in which the retreating 10th Italian Army was ambushed. Over 25 , 000 prisoners , 100 tanks , 216 guns , and 1 , 500 other vehicles were captured.
Originally posted by Thorgrimm I said this on another post somewhere, but to me the best general was General O'Connor in the North African campaign. Had his driver not gotten lost i think he possibly could have outmaneuvered Rommel. Hell he took two understrength divisions on a "raid" and in the process captured 300,000 Italian Prisoners. So in my mind you can't beat that with any of the other generals on the list.
It was always my impression that O' Connor only captured just over 100,000 as 300,000 is I believe little short of the entire Italian field army that began the invasion. I could be wrong though, but I wonder where that figure came from?
Wow, what a tough poll! I picked Bradley, as he was a good mix of Patton's drive and Montgomery's patience. Patton and Rommel are my favorites to read about.
The Italian armed forces in ww2 were mostly, diplomatically said, not capable to fight against even smaller forces. Ethiopia and Greece and even Africa are good examples. In Germany we have some jokes about the Italians in WW2. They might be partly unfair, but in general they are not so far away from reality. So actions against Italians in WW2 are difficult to rate.
Originally posted by Adler17 The Italian armed forces in ww2 were mostly, diplomatically said, not capable to fight against even smaller forces. Ethiopia and Greece and even Africa are good examples. In Germany we have some jokes about the Italians in WW2. They might be partly unfair, but in general they are not so far away from reality. So actions against Italians in WW2 are difficult to rate.
Awww....Dunno about that! I read somewhere those Ethiopians had very sharp spears!
I blame Mussolini myself, surely he could have done more to get his country ready for war. He needed a good propaganda minister for starters and he also had a lot of defeatists and anti- German ministers around him. His foriegn minister (I think it was Count Ciano) hated Hitler.
Originally posted by Adler17 The Italian armed forces in ww2 were mostly, diplomatically said, not capable to fight against even smaller forces. Ethiopia and Greece and even Africa are good examples. In Germany we have some jokes about the Italians in WW2. They might be partly unfair, but in general they are not so far away from reality. So actions against Italians in WW2 are difficult to rate.
Generally correct in terms of armies, but unfair to the soldiers of some units. I think the biggest problems the italians faced were poor equipment and atrocious leadership/planning. Many of their troops weren't actually that bad such as the Besgaleri (sp?) and their artillery. Their equipment though was awful, planes and tanks that were incapable of prolonged desert warfare when it began, and it took almost to the end of the war to produce decent versions of either. The officers were awful and cared more for their political positions than they did for their men, with very few professionals. Add that to the lack of motivation Mussolini gave his people for the war and in reality he was on a loosing streak from the start.
Italy had probably the best equipped navy in the Med (i.e., newest, biggest battleships), but they didn't know how to use them properly, and consequently were ineffectual -- another point towards bad leadership.
On a lighter note, I think that the Italian armies were the best armies in the war -- for the Allies. If Barbarossa hadn't been postponed a couple of months, things could have turned out pretty differently. A negotiated peace between Britain, the U.S., and Germany, w/ a quasi-client French state, resulting in a different Cold War: SSDD....
I dont think Zhukov was great. He made major blunders on the drive to Berlin against Heinrici and Stalingrad was more because of Hitler's stupidity then Zhukov's strategy.
Anyway, I voted for Manstein. He saved Germany after Stalingrad in '42-'43 (temporarily at least) and I think he had a major role in saving Germany after Moscow in '41.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
he was fairly bold and inventive for a wwII english general
