Most over-rated WWII Leader

@KurtGodel7:

Unfortunately, both your post and mine are off topic. My next post in this thread (assuming there is one) will be on topic.

Actually, if anything how over-rated, the Japanese are in WW2 in directly on topic and lowering yourself down to the level of “flinging poo around the monkey cage” behavior that others preoccupy themselves with is more off topic then anything else.

It really seems to me that the Japanese had learned a great deal from its limited experiences in war with the west and from WW1, but never evolved in the inter-war years as the other powers did. The Japanese didn’t even have a standard issue for the main infantry rifle (with some versions requiring different caliber ammunition) let alone proper artillery. Their infantry tactics (as they had little else) seem to be a mirror image of Germany’s Storm trooper tactics from 1918. Pointing out that Japan was able to achieve a 1 to 1 exchange ratio with the Soviets, while other nations achieved ten fold, highlights how backward the Japanese military really was.

Two interesting historical facts, 1) Japanese infantry formations were larger then Soviet infantry formations, which makes the whole idea of the Soviets “human wave” attacks interesting, and 2) the Japanese rifle used in WW2, the type 99 rifle, was actually created in response to the IJA experience fighting in China and discovering that the Chinese “Zhong-shan” rifle was superior. Puts the IJA into a little bit of a different perspective

@Clyde85:

@KurtGodel7:

Unfortunately, both your post and mine are off topic. My next post in this thread (assuming there is one) will be on topic.

Actually, if anything how over-rated, the Japanese are in WW2 in directly on topic and lowering yourself down to the level of “flinging poo around the monkey cage” behavior that others preoccupy themselves with is more off topic then anything else.

It really seems to me that the Japanese had learned a great deal from its limited experiences in war with the west and from WW1, but never evolved in the inter-war years as the other powers did. The Japanese didn’t even have a standard issue for the main infantry rifle (with some versions requiring different caliber ammunition) let alone proper artillery. Their infantry tactics (as they had little else) seem to be a mirror image of Germany’s Storm trooper tactics from 1918. Pointing out that Japan was able to achieve a 1 to 1 exchange ratio with the Soviets, while other nations achieved ten fold, highlights how backward the Japanese military really was.

Two interesting historical facts, 1) Japanese infantry formations were larger then Soviet infantry formations, which makes the whole idea of the Soviets “human wave” attacks interesting, and 2) the Japanese rifle used in WW2, the type 99 rifle, was actually created in response to the IJA experience fighting in China and discovering that the Chinese “Zhong-shan” rifle was superior. Puts the IJA into a little bit of a different perspective

Good post. I enjoyed reading it. As you’ve pointed out, petty personal squabbles are always off-topic, and in addition are generally dull to read. They’re not what most of us came here for. Unfortunately, there are those here who seem to feel determined to derail discussions into any number of rabbit trails, with petty personal squabbles being one such rabbit trail.

This is a thread about overrated leaders, not a thread about overrated things in general. In order to stay on topic, I’ll add a name for consideration: Herman Goering. While he’s not generally considered a military genius–or anywhere close–he’s not lowly rated enough!

In 1940, Germany was significantly farther along in developing jet aircraft than were the British or (especially!) the Americans. Goering responded by greatly reducing the number of engineers allocated to jet development. He also talked Hitler into pausing the attack on the trapped British Expeditionary Force in France. He said the soldiers could be destroyed from the air, and that there was no need to expose Germany’s tank force to hostile fire. That directly lead to the evacuation at Dunkirk. Goering then went for a trifecta in 1940, when the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain, in large part because Germany’s planes were not as advanced as British Spitfires.

In 1942, Germany’s force in Stalingrad had gotten cut off. Conquering the city in the first place had been very costly. Earlier in the war against the Soviet Union, a relatively small German force had been cut off for a while, and was supplied by air until it could be relieved. Goering assured Hitler the same could be done for the Stalingrad force. Goering waved away any concerns which were raised about whether the supply effort would be adequate. (Casually waving away legitimate concerns seems to have been a habit of Goering.) The Stalingrad force remained in place, and starved to death, after Goering had wholly failed to live up to his lofty promises of supply.

Germany deployed a few jet aircraft in 1944 and ‘45; but the overwhelming majority of its late war aircraft production continued to consist of piston-driven aircraft. Had Goering not removed so many engineers from jet development back in 1940, it’s possible that outcome would have been different. Germany’s lack of jets allowed the Allies’ D-Day invasion to be successful, and was also pivotal to the success of their strategic bombing effort against Germany. Goering thus had a hand in nearly every major tactical or strategic defeat Germany suffered; and thus deserves consideration for most overrated WWII leader.

I agree on the Japanese. I think you could call almost all of their leaders overrated. As Clyde pointed out, they never learned.

People like to think that the Japanese were really the innovators in the aircraft carrier coming to the forefront of the naval tactics, when in fact they didn’t even learn from their success at Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese navy was still locked in the Mahan belief that the battleship was still king, battles should be fought with almost your entire navy (don’t split your forces) and you should look for the big decisive fight. That’s why Midway was tried again so shortly after Pearl Harbor.

Of course at Midway they showed one of their biggest flaws of having to make everything so complicated and deceptive. By doing those they actually went against Mahanian philosophy and split the fleet to act as a decoy towards the Aleutians. Of course, the US knew it was a decoy and ignored it.

Believing they could beat them like it was still the Russo-Japanese war, the Russians embarrassed the Japanese along the border when they tried to instigate a fight. From there on, the only good the million men in Manchuria did was keeping Russia’s Siberian troops waiting for a Japanese invasion. We all know what happened after Stalin figured the Japanese wouldn’t attack and those Siberian troops were allowed to help at Moscow.

Their banzai charges more often led to them being mowed down rather than be successful. It wasn’t until they adapted the highly defensive tactics of the island hopping campaign that they started to see any form of unity in causalities.

Kurt,

Thanks for bringing up Goering. I hadn’t thought of him, but way overrated. One of history’s greatest “Yes” men. He would have told Hitler that the Luftwaffe could have won the entire war by itself.

To your comments on the jet fighters, another of Hitler’s drawbacks was they he invested in many, many technologies. Some of them worked, and worked very well, but others didn’t. Had he concentrated more on quality than quantity when it came to funding technology, that could have made a difference.

@Col.:

LOL! THis is good. How about the last 10 posts you sent my way. Do you have multiple personalities and each one happens to visit the axisandallies.org message boards? That would actually make sense.

I presume you are also able to list the many references I am alleged to have made  to Monty as supreme commander (sans scare quotes)?

I can help you.

I re-entered this thread at post 48 (May 03, 2012, 08:17:40 am) and have 23 posts to date.

The word commander is mentioned in 4 posts.  Straight away that nails your last 10 posts you sent my way fabrication

The 4 posts below:
_POST 62
Yes. The overall ground Commander for Normandy, the man who planned it and the man who brought about the complete collapse of the German Army in France in 1944 lacked any strategic boldness !!!

POST  88
The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!

POST  100  
He(Monty) was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that

POST   114  
It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion_

The 4 terms used:
overall ground Commander/overall Commander/‘supreme commander’/in Command.

Anyway I applaud your decision to stop trying to argue the facts. Totaly trounced in that department you fall back on your only remaining weapons. Falsehood and slander.
Follow Clyde’s lead. Recognise your error and  and bow out gracefully……

@KurtGodel7:

1941, the German Army achieved a better than 10:1 exchange ratio against the Red Army.

Is that counting the millions of POW’s they starved to death or shot on the spot?

@KurtGodel7:

This is a thread about overrated leaders, not a thread about overrated things in general. In order to stay on topic, I’ll add a name for consideration: Herman Goering.

Strange claim because I have never seen any  (considered)opinion other than Goering was an innefective commander.
I have never seen  a debate where anyone gave examples  his successes. Starting in 1940 his is an unbroken line of missed chances and fumbled balls.
Setting him up as something to be knocked down seems odd when history has already firmly put him in the failed category.
I could be wrong though and await the links that show the data that confirms his moments of glory

@KurtGodel7:

Germany deployed a few jet aircraft in 1944 and '45; but the overwhelming majority of its late war aircraft production continued to consist of piston-driven aircraft.

A wise move considering the jets needed frequent engine changes and the jets needed the cover of these same piston aircraft just to take off and land!
@KurtGodel7:

Had Goering not removed so many engineers from jet development back in 1940, it’s possible that outcome would have been different. Germany’s lack of jets allowed the Allies’ D-Day invasion to be successful, and was also pivotal to the success of their strategic bombing effort against Germany

The problem with that fantasy scenario is it depends on the Allies standing stock still with their technology whilst the game is rigged by allowing every doodle by a german engineer to appear as a fully fledged fault free weapon system that ran on water!
Every new invention is always countered by the enemy. Once you introduce super-dooper weapon X it casues you enemy to build super-dooper enemy weapon-killer Y
The Allies sat on their Jets because they had no  urgent need to use them. The existing aeroplane stock was swatting the Luftwaffe like flies so why  disrupt your quipment chain for no good reason. You can bet if  German jets were seen over England in 1942 then they would have been Allied Jets over Germany in 1943.

@Col.:

Their banzai charges more often led to them being mowed down rather than be successful. It wasn’t until they adapted the highly defensive tactics of the island hopping campaign that they started to see any form of unity in causalities.

It’s my understanding was that Banzai charges were kind of a last resort, when all other options were exhausted. However this is in contrast to their main attack tactics of the “Mass Assault”, which I know sounds like i’m splitting hairs, but there was a difference. The mass assault was conducted with artillery support (usually in the form of the Type 96,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96_15_cm_Howitzer ) but was identical to trench assaults of WW1.

Goering is an interesting character to be sure, and as leader of the Luftwaffe he was a dud, but its funny to remember that during WW1 he was one of Germany’s fighter aces. One does have to wonder what happened in the inter-war years to take him from dashing and heroic fighter ace to massive (and I do mean massive) morphine addicted retarded piece of cartilage we know from WW2.

@Lazarus:

@KurtGodel7:

1941, the German Army achieved a better than 10:1 exchange ratio against the Red Army.

Is that counting the millions of POW’s they starved to death or shot on the spot?

Oh boy, here we go again  :roll:

I believe that if they were shot on sight then they weren’t taken as POW’s and would therefore be counted as regular casualties wouldn’t they? Regardless of how they became a casualty they would still be counted in the 10 to 1 ration.

Oh boy here we go again.

He said EXCHANGE RATE not POW’s

And thank you for confirming the 3 million who died in camps are counted.

It ties in nicely with the 3  milion German POW’s (from a end total of 4 million) taken in the west before the surrender in May 1945.

@Lazarus:

Oh boy here we go again.

He said EXCHANGE RATE not POW’s

And thank you for confirming the 3 million who died in camps are counted.

I did nothing of the sort, I was commenting on your statement that some were shot on the spot, like communist party members and commissars, and that if they were shot on the spot, as you said, then how could they be counted as POW’s if they didn’t live long enough to make it that far?

@Clyde85:

I did nothing of the sort, I was commenting on your statement that some were shot on the spot, like communist party members and commissars, and that if they were shot on the spot, as you said, then how could they be counted as POW’s if they didn’t live long enough to make it that far?

Please re-read my initial post

Is that counting the millions of POW’s they starved to death or shot on the spot?

You first capture them(where they become POW’s) and then you shoot them.

Please specify some incidents.

I can think of several, but they are in the 20 to TOPS 100 people range.

Millions of POW’s were never shot.

@Lazarus:

@Clyde85:

I did nothing of the sort, I was commenting on your statement that some were shot on the spot, like communist party members and commissars, and that if they were shot on the spot, as you said, then how could they be counted as POW’s if they didn’t live long enough to make it that far?

Please re-read my initial post

Is that counting the millions of POW’s they starved to death or shot on the spot?

You first capture them(where they become POW’s) and then you shoot them.

You are being a troll, and it’s not because I disagree with you, but because you are dragging this thread down in to stupid arguments over Semantical non-sense. Also, i’ve noticed that you’ve once again gone back an edited your posts after you someone has challenged what you’ve said as this sentence
@Lazarus:

It ties in nicely with the 3  milion German POW’s (from a end total of 4 million) taken in the west before the surrender in May 1945.

was not there before. If you can support or stand by your previous statements and need to go back and reword them, then it shows what little faith you have in what you are saying, or that you are just being argumentative for its own sake, ie, being a troll

@Clyde85:

You are being a troll, and it’s not because I disagree with you, but because you are dragging this thread down in to stupid arguments over Semantical non-sense

I asked a perfectly reasonable question. Your hysterical reaction tells me you are still smarting over earlier reverses.

.@Clyde85:

Also, i’ve noticed that you’ve once again gone back an edited your posts after you someone has challenged what you’ve said as this sentence
It ties in nicely with the 3 milion German POW’s (from a end total of 4 million) taken in the west before the surrender in May 1945.
was not there before. If you can support or stand by your previous statements and need to go back and reword them, then it shows what little faith you have in what you are saying, or that you are just being argumentative for its own sake, ie, being a troll

Reply #152 on: Today at 08:55:31 am » was my original message
I edited it straight away and finished by Last Edit: Today at 09:00:29 am by Lazarus »

Whilst I was doing this you posted Reply #153 on: Today at 08:59:09

Are you seriously claiming that I read your message and took but  30 seconds to rush into edit mode and change the original?
It does not even make any difference to the Russian POW point so what exactly are you saying was the change in meaning the edit introduced?
You are paranoid

@Lazarus:

@Clyde85:

You are being a troll, and it’s not because I disagree with you, but because you are dragging this thread down in to stupid arguments over Semantical non-sense

I asked a perfectly reasonable question. Your hysterical reaction tells me you are still smarting over earlier reverses.

.@Clyde85:

Also, i’ve noticed that you’ve once again gone back an edited your posts after you someone has challenged what you’ve said as this sentence
It ties in nicely with the 3 milion German POW’s (from a end total of 4 million) taken in the west before the surrender in May 1945.
was not there before. If you can support or stand by your previous statements and need to go back and reword them, then it shows what little faith you have in what you are saying, or that you are just being argumentative for its own sake, ie, being a troll

Reply #152 on: Today at 08:55:31 am » was my original message
I edited it straight away and finished by Last Edit: Today at 09:00:29 am by Lazarus »

Whilst I was doing this you posted Reply #153 on: Today at 08:59:09

Are you seriously claiming that I read your message and took but  30 seconds to rush into edit mode and change the original?
It does not even make any difference to the Russian POW point so what exactly are you saying was the change in meaning the edit introduced?
You are paranoid

Thank you for proving my point, another diversion in to semantical nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It’s not paranoia to call you a troll if you are actually being a troll. You didn’t ask any question nor are you adding anything to this discussion. If anything you are they one showing you are “smarting over earlier reverses” but continuing to be objectionable to anything posted in here by someone who was on the “monty-bashing” side of previous discussion. The problem is that there seems to be no bases in reality for any of your claims, and most of what you bring up sounds like revisionist nonsense. Also, as an aside, I wouldn’t but too much faith in the times listed here, as they are subject to some strange alternate reality where passes differently, not to mention it’s not even close to the correct time zone for most of us.

All of which is delightfully off topic, good job troll.

I think this sums it up much better though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc

:-D

@Clyde85:

The problem is that there seems to be no bases in reality for any of your claims, and most of what you bring up sounds like revisionist nonsense.

Look hard in the mirror.  I remember an earlier post where you  introduced  British losses for Goodwood (to prove Monty always came off worst) that turned out to be an estimate of POW’s.
I see a lot of  spamming  of the thread with Wiki cut and pastes in  reply to my use of book quotes.
You are welcome to call me anything you like but in comparison to you I am  overburdened with references.

@Lazarus:

@Clyde85:

The problem is that there seems to be no bases in reality for any of your claims, and most of what you bring up sounds like revisionist nonsense.

Look hard in the mirror.  I remember an earlier post where you  introduced  British losses for Goodwood (to prove Monty always came off worst) that turned out to be an estimate of POW’s.
I see a lot of  spamming  of the thread with Wiki cut and pastes in  reply to my use of book quotes.
You are welcome to call me anything you like but in comparison to you I am  overburdened with references.

Yeah but most of your refrences make less sense than the posts.

You spent a whole day posting things you thought proved that Germans thought Monty was on Pattons level, when nobody else who read that passage came to your conclusion. It’s easy to be ‘overburdened’ when you take selective parts of passages that make you sound right, when the whole passage is proving you wrong.

You still continue to use one of your phrases or words to defend yourself from both sides. When someone tries to say Monty wasn’t any good, you say he was Supreme Commander. When someone asks you when he was Supreme Commander, you tell them June to Sept. When someone asks you who replaced Monty, you said Eisenhower. But when someone claims you said any of this you, you go back through and show all of the posts where you said it as proof that you didn’t mean it.

Your circular logic has ripped more holes in the space-time contimuium than the flux capacitor.

And I see you’re still trying to edit history so you don’t look as foolish, but you still can’t seem to get it to work can you.