galley / trireme, preferably with a ram.
they must have seen Ben Hur or whatever, by this age.
Greatest WWII Generals
-
Who do you think was the best high ranking officer during WWII?
-
I would have to say zhukov was one of the greatest generals of ww2 because he survived stalin’s purge in 1935 and lead the counterattack against the the wehrmact in 1943 to the end of the war. he also led the attack on the japanese at the battle of khalkin gol which was highly overlooked but changed the entire russian country. when hitler invaded russia, japan was thinking of invading from the south but with the rememberance of khalkin gol fresh in their mind, they decided not to this may have changed the face of the war
-
I’d go for Rommel or Zhukov …
byw, the name is “Kesselring” … and putting Goering there is a bit of a joke, isn’t it? -
and putting Goering there is a bit of a joke, isn’t it?
Agreed. From the list, I’d go with Patton, Rommel, or Zhukov. Montgomery was definitely overrated, and so too, I think, was MacArthur. Nimitz was an excellent naval commander, but as all the other options were land-based leaders, he’s kind of out of place. Eisenhower was an okay general, but his main claim to fame was smoothing out relations between the various Allies than any actual combat. Unfortunately, though, I know nothing of Kesselring and am not going to judge him at this time.
-
AFAIR Kesselring commanded the germans at Kursk… and probably some more places.
-
Kesselring was the overal commander of German forces in the Mediterranean; when the Battle of Kursk was going on, Kesselring was preparing defences in Sicily. He conducted a brilliant defence of Italy against the Allies.
-
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.
-
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.
Suggested Topics
