galley / trireme, preferably with a ram.
they must have seen Ben Hur or whatever, by this age.
As I have stated before lets not debate over
an issue like this. Why not see what Patton
thought about Rommel?
PATTON, SAID " ROMMEL IS THE MOST MAGNIFICENT
SON OF A BITCH I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ALL MY
LIVES" Patton thought he lived many lives
including being in battles in the Civil War
and wars back during the Greek period.
You see if Patton himself believes this
and so do most experts/historians why
even debate it? However, Patton was an
awesome leader so I respect your passion
for him.
Don’t worry, I never said Rommel anything that would try to discredit or tarnish his reputation. (BTW in the present era many generals are not “present” at the actual battles simply because the size of armies has evolved from Ceaser’s 5,000 man legions to Patton’s 3rd Army numbering almost 500,000). Rommel was one of the best generals the Germans had during WWII and for any other time. His actions in North Africa and the stubborn defense of Normandy was nothing short of brillant due to the superior forces of his opponent.
Umm…. Rommel was a Field Marshall.
Marshal
In America there is no rank of Field Marshal since it is a European term for an Armny Officer. I’m pretty sure if there was, Patton would’ve attained such a position.
Normandy landings:
very little point in judging a general by this success as Germany had already lost the war. it was only a matter of time. After the failed russian campaign effectively ending at the battle of kursk and the north african failure -the germans were retreating. Russia wanted the invasion of france to happen a whole year before it actually did, but the allies declined - seeing fit to pursue the war on the easier target of southern italy - possibly a good decision there as it would have been less heavy on casualties than a normandy invasion. On the other hand, the war could have been brought to a swifter end had they attaked in 1943…possible?? who knows, history can’t be decided on ifs and buts… It is certainly true that the russians bore the brunt of the war and should be praised for doing so even if stalin proved to be as callous, evil and ruthless as hitler. anyway, not enough room here to post my historical perspective of the war.
While Italy was not the soft underbelly of Europe (as Curchill had said) and one of the bitterest campaigns fought in WWII, I think that casulties would’ve be much lighter than if the Allies had Normandy early. Case in point the Raid on Dieppe in August 19, 1942 was certainly a disaster for the Allies.
I always liked Aldolf Galland. Youngest Inspector of Fighters General in history. What a sweetheart ace.
Kesslring. he had his eyes on the prize (malta) and kept us running till the end.
rommel pulled too many blunders IMO. and monty sux as much as the boston red sox.
What about Erich von Manstein?? He was very good at warfare!!!
Actually it was Kesselring that pulled many blunders too. Though many will remember him for the staunch defense of Italy against the Allies, he was marred by two critical incidents.
During the Battle of Britian, he was instrumental in Hermann Goring’s decision to change Luftwaffe tactics from direct pressure on RAF Fighter Command to bombing Britain’s cities. This led to the ultimate loss of the Battle of Britain.
The second was when Resistance members detonated a bomb in Rome killing 32 German soldiers. In retaliation, Hitler demanded that all able-bodied men in Italian capital be transported to prison camps. Kesselring instead had 335 citizens of Rome rounded up and shot at nearby Grotto Via Ardeantina. Kesselring worse then Hitler?
To add on from what you said, when the foundations of the Luftwaffe were being set, Kesselring was not an advocate and protested harshly about a long-range heavy bomber. This had many repercussions especially during the Battle of Britain and the war against Russia.
From what my brother has in his World War II binder, the use of the Luftwaffe was based more on the experiences from the previous Great War. He writes,
"…The continued domination of the European skies by the Luftwaffe was caused by two factors, the first of which was the difference in military theory between the Luftwaffe and the Royal Air Force. The theories concerning the purpose and function of the Luftwaffe and RAF were exactly opposite and were a result of their experiences in World War I.
During WW I, Germany attempted a strategic bombing effort directed against England using Gothas (biplane bombers) and Zeppelins (slow-moving hydrogen balloons) which did not give much of a result. This, plus the fact that German military theory at the beginning of WW II was based much more on fast, quick results (Blitzkrieg), meant that Germany decided not to develop a strategic air force. The Luftwaffe had experienced great success when they used tactical ground-attack aircraft in Spain (e.g. at Guernica), and so they figured that their air force should mainly consist of this kind of plane. So Germany made the Luftwaffe a ground support force that was essentially an extension of the army and functioned as a long-range, aerial artillery.
The RAF, on the other hand, had experimented with ground-attack fighters during WW I, and had suffered grievous casualty rates. This, combined with the fact that the British had been deeply enraged and offended by the German Gotha and Zeppelin attacks on their home soil, made them determined to develop a strategic air force that would be capable of bombing German soil in the next war. Thus, at the beginning of WW II, the RAF was mostly a strategic force that consisted of heavy bombers and backup fighters, and lacked any tactical dive-bombers or ground-attack fighters."
There still leaves one question left. How would Kesselring, a army officer, have any say on the Luftwaffe? Did he use to be a fighter pilot like Herman during the Great War? Can anybody shed some additional light on this? I will try to look into his notes some more.
Still, all projects regarding the heavy bomber were scraped, hindering the development of one in the future. The closest the Germans ever got to a heavy bomber was the Heinkel 177 and it was a piece of crap. I guess the Germans had no perception of the limitations of the Blitzkrieg, which was their downfall.
Oh, so you must be the legendary Candyman I spoke too. hee-hee :smile:
In response, the Germans never intended to fight a long-term war. In reality, German high command expected the war to be over with the invasion of Britain in 1941-1942. When Germany invaded Russia, they expected the fighting to end within six weeks. Of course even with the initial success of Barbarossa, this planning was very optimistic.
As you can see, long-range, strategic bombers weren’t the primary concern of German planners. The heaviest bomber the Germans had was the Focke-Wulf Condo, which was designed as a commercial transport. During the Battle of Britian, Bf-109s could only spend 30 minutes over Britain after crossing the English Channel before turning back. Even then the Germans were one the verge of winning the Battl of Britain if not for Hitler, Kesselring, and others.
Umm, I changed my mind. I think the best General was Zhokov. You try leading the largest army the world has ever known, with Stalin breathing down your neck.
k, im Zhukov; i’ll just take my army and throw it at the enemy, regaurdless of the casualties. A fine WW1 strategy.
Zhukov was during WWII imbecile. But it worked didnt it??
Kesselring started off the war commanding Luftwaffe airfleets in Poland, then France, then against England. In March 1941, Hitler sent him to Rome to be the German co-commander of the Italian/German effort in Africa. Rommel reported to Kesselring. So Rommel was the field commander in Africa, but Kesselring directed the larger effort. He didn’t leave Italy until March 1945. That’s about all I know of Kesselring, and as far as I know he is the only WWII general to command both air and land armies.
Hess
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-04-18 10:37 ]