@strategic:
Robert e lee!
Lee would be an awesome choice. I couldn’t pick him, because in the South his name is cherished in the highest degree.
Greatest WWII Generals
-
While I agree with the Idea that Montgomery was highly overrated, I disagree completely with the Idea that MacArther was over rated.
MacArther’s Pacific Campaign innovative and successful and his strategy saved lives. He isolated island garrisons and weakened them through bombing and cutting supplies. The Pacific Theater seems to be less popular though for some reason. Just like the Italian campaign. MacArther was a damn fine General and I would say at least comparable to any other general on this list.
I see your point. However, I think that MacArthur was overly egotistical, but maybe that’s just one of the flaws of great commanders and his ego was just more widely reported on.
Why no one likes the Pacific campaign? No tanks! :D
-
Zhukov led Russia in it’s biggest battle…. Amazing tactics and strategies despite serious handicaps… Zhukov definitely…
GG
-
@Guerrilla:
Zhukov led Russia in it’s biggest battle…. Amazing tactics and strategies despite serious handicaps… Zhukov definitely…
I don’t know…Zhukov is good, but he gets all the credit as far as Russian generals. My vote goes to Rokossovsky, who besides having commanded at Kursk, Stalingrad, and Moscow, stood up to Stalin, survived the purges of the 30s, and if memory serves, had false teeth made from steel.
-
well, my vote is for him, solely based on the steel teeth. the original Jaws, people, come on!
But seriously, my vote would go with Patton.
-
everyone had there different abilities that were amazing so my 2nd would be Rommel… his uncanny ability to find out his opponents strats was amazing…
GG
-
Nimitz baby. US NAVY all the way!
-
Nimitz baby. US NAVY all the way!
I can’t argue with you via this topic, because I don’t see how you can compare army vs. navy commanders effectively, however I do agree with you, as far as naval commanders Nimitz was one of, if not the best.
-
Usually Land commanders make bigger “wins” as far as proportions, which is unfair to the navy but heck! :wink:
-
cant really argue navy, because i do not understand the logistics of it really at all, let alone the tactics and strategy. however, i think the navy should be shot (you heard me). sadly, it is such a necessary branch, we will never get rid of it, but i do so truly wish we could, the army is so much better (on many levels), not to mention the marines.
-
I agree the navy will always be necessary(how else did we get to Iraq)? I’m only saying in proportions more losses are taking on the ground then at sea…
-
absolutely, i was agreeing with you, and adding that i dislike the navy, in case that was unclear
-
why? The navy is how you either invade or stop an invasion…
-
Janus1 wrote:
the army is so much better (on many levels), not to mention the marines.
army? marines? ha! try SEAL’s 8) .
oh, and by the way, i ship out for Navy Basic Training in June. -
Not if your Germany. And the SEALS are a special forces unit, all branches (except maybe the coast guard) have them. the SEALS are the shit, but they are a small part of the navy.
-
they do the “untouchables”… :wink:
-
@Guerrilla:
they do the “untouchables”… :wink:
Who does what, now?
-
@Grigoriy:
@Guerrilla:
they do the “untouchables”… :wink:
Who does what, now?
SEALS…
-
Yeah, I figured that much, but what are the “untouchables”?
-
Dirty missions, forward assualts, blowing stores, hostafe rescue….
-
@Guerrilla:
Dirty missions, forward assualts, blowing stores, hostafe rescue….
All right, who calls them the untouchables, then?
Suggested Topics
