Manstein Rating 10?

[Liam]

Was reading a novel on him at the Local Monster Bookshop. Plots out his ideas, they called the Ardenne blitz, "The Manstein Plan." Also mentioned his clever manuever to free up the Bottled up units in the Caucasus after Stalingrad, by counterattacking the Russians with a thrust and swinging back and forth. Showed some versatility and brilliance considering the wermacht's disposition.. For defensive and offensive warfare. In places where the Germans were outnumbered 7-1.. Something rarely reflected in SC

They say he may have been the best General of the Germans and that he should've been put in charge, though because of his Prussian outspokeness was dismissed by Hitler.. Hitler was mentioned, couldn't keep up with his strategic-tactical brilliance. That he was thinking of withdrawls something Hitler couldn't accept, so he could move back in and retake with counterattacks what the Soviets had taken.

Oddly he was constantly demoted because of his personality it seems, and not until Barbarossa did he really have a big role on the battlefield. Smashing Sevastapol... Performing superbly at Kursk. One Begs to question, if this man is not a 10, in the rating list, as I couldn't find a single error he made, even though I will admit I know little of Zhukov, I cannot compare, that may be up to specialist. I'm certian someone has read this novel a must read.. The thing that would hold his rating back would only be the GHC. I argue should Erich Von Manstein begin with a rating 10 at least and 1 or 2 bars and not be allowed to be employed till Barbarossa, deep into the conflict. mid 1942

P.S. it almost points to the fact that even Hitler wasn't entirely at fault for the lack of evacuation of the 6th Army, that there were more factors involved than we know.. The Surge of the Russians, the lack of Rails and Lack of reinforcements, the quick crumbling of the Axis Allied Armies... and partially Hitler's unwillingness to yield. Seems as though they just couldn't......Manstein nearly did accomplish the breakthrough, was he ever truly beaten?

[Mr.Dozer]

wow thats some cool info. I have to agree he should be a 10. Not that Zhukov was not as good just that when he asked for stuff he got it while manstien had to deal with bad odds, and lack of stuff,and did a great job at it.

[Scook]

Manstein and Zhukov are the only 2 that deserve a 10. If you are into reading from Buntas, see if you can find a copy of Manstein's book, "Lost Victories". It is very insightful into the inner working of German command.

He was the only Germany officer to take offense they would follow the same plan they used in WWI, so he wrote up his own, and with some luck, it became the German plan to invade France. He completly grasped modern tank tactics, he took 41st Pz. Korps (or 56th, don't feel like looking it up this second) to Riga the 1st week of the war, grabbed the bridges across the river, and dug in and waited for supply. In the Crimea, his forces were outnumbered 3:1 and he rolled the Soviets back and secured the entire area. He almost reversed the situation from Stalingrad by counter-attacking, and almost trapped the whole Soviet Souther Army on the Sea of Azov. He was brilliant.

Zhukov, he never lost to the Germans. He was responsible for the defense of Leningrad, the Winter Offensive of '41, and the encirclement of Stalingrad, and took Berlin. I have no good texts for this man, but he understood warfare at the time like very few.

[Scook]

In addition, if you want to read a good book for the battle of Stalingrad, and the mindset of the players involed, get "Enemy at the Gates." The author did research and everything in the book comes from account from people who were there. The movie of the same name takes one small part of the book and uses it. They are not alike.

[Kuniworth]

I'd vote no to this one. Manstein was not flawless and his biography after the war is nothing but an attempt to justify his actions and blame all the errors on Hitler.

His crimean campaign has lately been in questioning. Rokossovsky accused him of all out lying and overexaggerating the russian resistance to make him look better.

Manstein was an optimist and this clearly comes into play in all his campaign, and it also clouded his judgement at Stalingrad and Kursk. He should never have proposed Zitadelle as an option in the first place. Also the "genious stroke" through the ardennes can be argued that it succeeded somewhat due to luck, I know JerseyJohn has wrote about this.

Yes optimism took him far. But it also blooded him when russians counterattacked his 56th Pz Corps and trying to stop the steamroller in Ukraine in 1943-44.

I'd have him a 9. As Scook said you could argue about who was the best of Zhukov and Manstein but it would be a hard time to judge this. What I'm certain of however is that Zhukov does'nt deserve a 10 and neither would thus Manstein.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Liam:

They say he may have been the best General of the Germans and that he should've been put in charge, though because of his Prussian outspokeness was dismissed by Hitler.. Hitler was mentioned, couldn't keep up with his strategic-tactical brilliance. That he was thinking of withdrawls something Hitler couldn't accept, so he could move back in and retake with counterattacks what the Soviets had taken.

He was thinking about an elastic defense and thought he could achieve a draw in 1943. However Manstein's outspokeness can very much be questioned, I know Guderian writes of a meeting with Hitler "Manstein had not one of his better days" meaning that he would not stand up to Hitler.

Manstein was a loyal prussian officer who after the war critized Hitler for losing the war but one must remember that his troops carried out the executions and murdering without he stopping it. After war he served time for those war crimes, he was a loyal commander that would obey his orders on most occasions.

He was sacked if I recall beacuse Hitler did'nt believe that he could fight without fresh divisions.

[/QB]

[Liam]

Kursk was not all a bad idea, was it not Soviet Intel that revealed the German plans? In such detail that it ruined their chances. Also it was so ingrained in them and in the GHC by that point they weren't going to pull out.....fact is oddly, Hitler was quoted in saying that, "Russians couldn't function without Donetz Coal?" Actually it seemed they did quite well without it... He underestimated their resourcefulness.

I do not doubt that There was GRAVE soviet resistance in Sevastapol, the Key to the Black Sea... The Crimea would've been of great importance to the Russians they wouldn't have abandoned it without a hellish fight. Then again, they were very poorly organized until late '42 and finally strong '43... that is their own weaknesses. Manstein stood up against great odds, that is indisputable, losing in '44 the Ukraine with what? Is that similar to Rommel losing in the Desert when he was out of tanks and on the run. An evacuation could've been performed, didn't happen. He was not beaten, Rommel was repulsed from a defensive line and no reimbursed with fresh reserves.. His adversary Monty was however beaten many times as were the Americans.

not Bunta reading factual. Though all these German Commanders had experience and good soldiers. Americans probably an equal in their training.. though Americans better supplied. Russian Grand Strategy was Attrittion, always has been their staple in times of Great Wars. Brits, relying on their Navy, Germans..well on a great Army.. America seemed to rise to Power in all aspects, quality, quantity, navy, army and well in WW2 even Air

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam:

They say he may have been the best General of the Germans and that he should've been put in charge, though because of his Prussian outspokeness was dismissed by Hitler.. Hitler was mentioned, couldn't keep up with his strategic-tactical brilliance. That he was thinking of withdrawls something Hitler couldn't accept, so he could move back in and retake with counterattacks what the Soviets had taken.

He was thinking about an elastic defense and thought he could achieve a draw in 1943. However Manstein's outspokeness can very much be questioned, I know Guderian writes of a meeting with Hitler "Manstein had not one of his better days" meaning that he would not stand up to Hitler.

Manstein was a loyal prussian officer who after the war critized Hitler for losing the war but one must remember that his troops carried out the executions and murdering without he stopping it. After war he served time for those war crimes, he was a loyal commander that would obey his orders on most occasions.

He was sacked if I recall beacuse Hitler did'nt believe that he could fight without fresh divisions.

</font>

[Lars]

Ah, the ever popular "rate the commander" thread.

[ebitt]

Originally posted by Scook:

Zhukov, he never lost to the Germans.

The title of Colonel David Glantz's excellent book

Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942

says it all.

[guinty1]

"Kursk was not all a bad idea, was it not Soviet Intel that revealed the German plans? In such detail that it ruined their chances."

The soviets were given detail plans gleaned from coded signals at bletchley park.

[Scook]

Thanks ebitt, I will pick this up and read it.

[Blashy]

I agree with Kuniworth on voting no for one simple reason.

He let Hitler keep power. The smartest thing he ever could have done is snap his neck the minute that moron stated he was taking control of military tactics.

Manstein blames Hitler for pretty much every military blunder and I do agree with that, hell even the Allies agree with that, they loved intercepting Hitler's orders because they knew it was going to be an idiotic one. But he let him stay in control.

10 IMHO would mean virtual flawlessness and the only leader I can think off is the first emperor of Rome, Augustus, he reigned for over 40 years and when he died of natural cause, his empire was at its greatest height and mainly at peace. The first emperor and the best emperor they ever had and the best emperor ever IMO.

IF SC2 HQs had a more strategic role and were less tactical, I would rate Ike at 10 but in the game they are of more use on a tactical level so 8 makes sense.

[Scook]

I would think in-game there would be one 10, as outside this game, history wouldn't count. He would be the one with the most success and the least failures from the criteria that we have, the little pieces we get to move.

Augustus, yes a 10. what would you put Julius at? One conquered the empire, the other got to rule it.

[jon_j_rambo]

Patton should be a 10.

[Liam]

Blashy,

In this particular subject matter I am a layman at best my friend and you are not. You may know some aspects of WW2 I do not, though I cannot see your point. Manstein was not a man capable of toppling Hitler, he was a soldier and they followed orders. Generals are gauged not as A.Caesar, a General and a Dictator, as say Napoleon was..or many other great historical leaders.. Many during their time as close as you will come to a 10... In the subject of treason... Had he attempted it, off with his Uncle's friends sister head and everyone in his hometown with two letters "ma" in their name, as well as those born in the same year as him. I'm certian any German Officer was aware of what happened to those who opposed the regime? Just look at all conspirators even Rommel, he was executed though not directly involved in the plot, merely named? Serving it merely means he served a Regime of Evil and he knew perfectly well what he was doing.

So the point is in is Service of Evil as we know it was that, was he the best there was? Or was Patton or Zhukov a better Field General? HQs represent Field Generals in this game. They operate out of Real Estate in North Africa and far away places at times.. Where the General Staff wouldn't travel, they'd send a man willing to die and our Generals do die as well at times... Rare in WW2, they kept the lead men of the armies well protected..

10s in history, Grand Marshall Turenne of France? Nah... Nelson for an Admiral? Likely more so than Turenne. Temujin Khan? Babar? Suleyman? Hannibal? Julius may have been as good as the man who succeeded him, I think the elder was a bit too trusting of his Senators.. Failures politically have not to do with Warfare.. Ability on the battlefield is strictly business affair, afterwards you may give it all back at of foolishness

Originally posted by Blashy:

I agree with Kuniworth on voting no for one simple reason.

He let Hitler keep power. The smartest thing he ever could have done is snap his neck the minute that moron stated he was taking control of military tactics.

Manstein blames Hitler for pretty much every military blunder and I do agree with that, hell even the Allies agree with that, they loved intercepting Hitler's orders because they knew it was going to be an idiotic one. But he let him stay in control.

10 IMHO would mean virtual flawlessness and the only leader I can think off is the first emperor of Rome, Augustus, he reigned for over 40 years and when he died of natural cause, his empire was at its greatest height and mainly at peace. The first emperor and the best emperor they ever had and the best emperor ever IMO.

IF SC2 HQs had a more strategic role and were less tactical, I would rate Ike at 10 but in the game they are of more use on a tactical level so 8 makes sense.

[Liam]

What can be said of Patton, is this, he genuinely felt he was a reincarnated warlord, and his life's meaning was to fight. He loved War.. and he was never truly tested as the Germans were already busted, a little in Tunisia, but you can't say that Patton was anything less than STRONG, and POWERFUL. Though he had Numbers stacked in his favor, one of the best of the field Generals, he was disliked by his Government for his outspoken and brash attitude, too much for politicians. Just like Churchill he believed that the Russians were a threat and they should be dealt with in 1945, it's it odd how he died? hmmm, me thinks most ignore this man and his legacy

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Patton should be a 10.

[Konigs]

Ditto on Patton a 10, great field leader, killed, wounded, captured more enemies than all western allies, also liberated more square miles. It was his ablity to pull out of an eastward offensive against German army and turn north and attack with 4 divisions in less than 72 hours that insured the defeat of Ardennes offensive and the freeing the 101st at Bastogne. Monty still tiding up north side of Bukge with more forces, basically sitting around dong nothing while germans ran out of steam at expenes of US army.

Manstein a 10 also, new how to win with less but better tactics, Rommel 9, Guderian 10 teh first to lead from front of Armor divsion and push till enemy totally confused, British no one better than an 8. Montgomery terrible commander, stuck in the WWI attitude, creeping barrages etc.. No elan with tanks. Zukhov a 10, saved Russia. One of few generals Stalin trusted. Vatutin 9, he was aggressive and not afraid to pound it out to get the break through. Omar Bradley an 8, alot like Monty, liked set piece battles, he was antithesis of Patton. Eisenhower, no more than a 9, he was too political, should have cut Patton loose with more supplies, would have at least had a bridgehead accross Rhine before Ardennes counterstroke. May have changed the end of the war. Just my 2 cents worth.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Konigs --- Nice take, rack 'em! Somebody send him a Camp Rambo T-Shirt.

[Konigs]

Thanks Rambo, means alot coming from you, I'll take that Tee in a XL dude, look forward to playing you one day.

[Rolend]

Monty pffffftttttt In N Africa he nearly lost to Rommel when the Germans were down to about 10 tanks, no ammo and no fuel, he was the MOST over rated general in the history of warfare. Even when he had 10 to 1 advantage he would cry he did not have enough forces and delay and delay, he couldn't shine Patton’s boots.

Don't get me started on Ike, yes a very good political general but very poor military general, much like Monty couldn't make a decision to save his life and way to conservative.

Patton yep without a doubt the best the US had, give him all the supplies he needed and he would of been in Berlin in 44.

Bradley was also very good, sure more conservative then Patton but knew how and when to push and when to back off, MUCH MUCH better then that loser Monty.

For the most part the British had excellent leadership and some very fine tank and infantry generals, the only reason Monty got the hype was because he was in the right place at the right time in N. Africa with an over whelming force facing a very beat up and non supplied enemy.

[Liam]

Rommel was beaten, if Montgomery would've pursued him with only 10 tanks. Though British Tradition is keep the 'casualties low'. You can say that Monty is an overrated general, but I imagine his men not to be.. The British Officers have a rich History and a great sense of duty.

The Fatale flaws of the German leadership is less in it's Field Commanders, more in it's High Command. I think that these overrated German Generals, as some call them out of spite should be high rated 10s and 9s, but should get regular Experience Reduction Events... Due to being sacked and removed, that or take and replace Good Competent Generals with more Loyal Rated 6s ones regularly to reflect the upheaval in the German High Command. Something the Western Allies did not suffer from..

Originally posted by Rolend:

Monty pffffftttttt In N Africa he nearly lost to Rommel when the Germans were down to about 10 tanks, no ammo and no fuel, he was the MOST over rated general in the history of warfare. Even when he had 10 to 1 advantage he would cry he did not have enough forces and delay and delay, he couldn't shine Patton’s boots.

Don't get me started on Ike, yes a very good political general but very poor military general, much like Monty couldn't make a decision to save his life and way to conservative.

Patton yep without a doubt the best the US had, give him all the supplies he needed and he would of been in Berlin in 44.

Bradley was also very good, sure more conservative then Patton but knew how and when to push and when to back off, MUCH MUCH better then that loser Monty.

For the most part the British had excellent leadership and some very fine tank and infantry generals, the only reason Monty got the hype was because he was in the right place at the right time in N. Africa with an over whelming force facing a very beat up and non supplied enemy.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

... Also the "genious stroke" through the ardennes can be argued that it succeeded somewhat due to luck, I know JerseyJohn has wrote about this. ...

I think it was Guderian who wrote later about how the German columns stretched back all the way to Germany along a single narrow road that cut through the forest. Whoever wrote about this -- and I'm almost certain it was Guderian -- marvelled in dismay that there was no German air cover at all for that part of the operation, it had all been allotted to Belgium and Holland.

He wrote that a single well placed bomb at the head of the column would have blocked their way for hours, if not a full day, and anything even remotely resembling a determined air to ground strike would have resulted in the utter slaughter of German troops. In other words, it would have been the Highway of Death from the First Gulf War.

That situation would have been as much the fault of the Luftwaffe as Manstein's -- though he drew up the plan, he wasn't empowered to assign air cover, or even to direct it once it had been turned over to the general staff.

Somewhere else it was written that, had the French held Sedan, the Germans would have been backed up and unable to deploy along a wide front; it would have been similar to Xerxes at Thermopolai. And the French did assign a lot of extra artillery to the city's defenders, but at this point the Luftwaffe struck in force, destroying most of the big guns before they could cause much damage to the attackers.

-- Regarding the rest of Kuni's original post, I definitely agree with him, there was never, in all of history, any general who should be considered a perfect ten. They all had their flas, including Caesar, Hannibal, Scipio-Africanus, Alexander, Napoleon, Wellington, Lee, Grant, Zhukov, Manstein, Monty, Patton et al. 8 & 9, in my opinion, should be a very scarcely assigned designation with 10 available for use in scenarios.

But, naturally, a lot of this is so subjective that I see little point in adding my own evaluations, especially since they don't differ much from those already given.

-- However, among the few most mentioned:

9 -- Zhukov and Manstein; in both instances they were excellent strategists as well as tacticians with a very good grasp of logistics. Both men were able to effectively direct very large forces. Also, I think they were strongest and weakest in different areas from one another, with the overall nod going to Zhukov, despite Manstein's possibly better grasp of offensive tactics.

8 -- Montgomery, Rommel and Patton. For varying reasons.

Montgomery was methodical and, though his ability to gain quick victory is dubious, his ability to gain victory in the long run, while avoiding tactical defeat, was a very valuable attribute, and well documented.

Rommel was a great tactician, but the German soldiers themselves did not feel he was particularly exceptional among their own generals. I tend to agree. He paid little attention to logistics and too often plowed ahead with blind, understrength attacks that were doomed before they began. His best results were achieved against British Commanders in North Africa who had been thrown into the middle of a disasster by Churchill (often a disasster he himself created with his meddling) and Rommel, striking immediately, caught them before they had a good grasp of either the situation, or of desert warfare itself. Such tactics were useless against someone like Montgomery, who looked to solid defense first, and gaining the initiative second.

Patton, to me, is similar to Rommel. He's difficult to judge for the same reason as Montgomery, he never had to face the Germans when they were at their strongest. But he was good at getting the job done and never looked back once he started moving forward. In all three campaigns he took part in (Tunisia, Sicily and France/Germany) he was the right man in the right place and at the right time. Despite the fact that his adversaries never had a fair chance of counterattacking, it can also be said that Patton never failed very badly in pressing the attack and defeating forces that were often very formidable in defense.

7 -- Wavel, Auchinleck (needlessly maligned in the SC ratings, in my opinion), Rundstedt, Alexander, Bock, Bradley, Leeb, Kluge and Modell. Very good commanders but neither flashy nor capable of working miracles.

6 -- Clark -- Good generals who were not among the best. In the case of Mark Clark, he was an exceptionally good generals with character flaws that knocked him down a notch in actual combat, I'm thinking specifically of his going for Rome in June 1944, instead of cutting off the huge number of German troops practically routed between defenseive lines. That was one of the worst errors of WWII. But it may also have been a error on the part of his superiors in not making his offensive goals less ambiguous. Also, I think Clark would have been much better if his command had been in the comparatively open terrain of France, instead of the hills and mountains of Italy. Still, the plain fact is he went for glory and headlines instead of winning a decisive victory.

I've left out many deserving Soviet commanders because Kuni and others have already covered them much more knowledgably than I'd have been able to.

-- other U. S., Canadian/Commonwealth, UK, German -Italian/Axis and French generals would be mainly guesswork on my part, and in many instances they've already been well covered by others.

[Liam]

Interesting, sidenote on the French Generals... From what I understand, Maurice Gamelin was well respected by the Germans and a competent WW1 General. Took a gamble by committing his forces to "Dyle Plan," didn't work out in his favor however, the Germans didn't go through Belgium. Seems the whole of the French Government was in upheaval. Hard to say what would've happened to those Armored columns had the Grunt of French and BEF Forces met them headon. Instead of an encircling motion and HeadOn Collision. Not to say that superior Airpower wouldn't have won the day for the Germans but probably would've caused a lot bloodier conflict without the risk of losing your entire Nation in one Grand Miscalculation...

I wonder where Recon and such were, and why the French and Brits were so slowwww to respond, a High Command error I assume? I also assume incompetence by the Generals beneath.. The British were not in Charge in France so you cannot really blame them.

In North Africa, The hard part of Judging Montgomery is he had his opponent outnumbered and outsupplied, his men performed excellently. If I had to compare myself to one man, I much like Monty... I fight like him in Strategic Command and I've proven to be an able Commander, however never a brilliant one... Revolutionaries like Rambo, HellRaiser, etc...

If you were to rate our ArmChair Generals... It would be something like this:

Terif: 9 Superb tactical and strategic Overview

Dragon: ??? 7-8 when he plays very very competent

HellRaiser: 8 Extremely quick to adapt, fast learner

Rambo: 8.5 Gets tired but he is highly offensive and potentially unstoppable, just a little bit shakey

Iron Ranger: 7.5 Competent, and adaptability

Scook: 6 Excellent NewCommer, learning fast

Liam: 7 so so, weak defensive play, with advantage unstoppable

Odd, match up to Historical Generals, how ones pros and cons, in whatever the situation might be comes out. Perhaps a man like Rambo or Rommel would be ideally suited to one another. Monty and Myself suited. Manstein and Terif... Qualities shared and in the right situation they shine.. Some Generals may be judged to harshly like Gamelin in history or Clark as you mention, we've a clinic named after him here.. It's hard to judge absolute, unless you're there beneath him seeing him make the wrong 'move'

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kuniworth:

... Also the "genious stroke" through the ardennes can be argued that it succeeded somewhat due to luck, I know JerseyJohn has wrote about this. ...

I think it was Guderian who wrote later about how the German columns stretched back all the way to Germany along a single narrow road that cut through the forest. Whoever wrote about this -- and I'm almost certain it was Guderian -- marvelled in dismay that there was no German air cover at all for that part of the operation, it had all been allotted to Belgium and Holland.

He wrote that a single well placed bomb at the head of the column would have blocked their way for hours, if not a full day, and anything even remotely resembling a determined air to ground strike would have resulted in the utter slaughter of German troops. In other words, it would have been the Highway of Death from the First Gulf War.

That situation would have been as much the fault of the Luftwaffe as Manstein's -- though he drew up the plan, he wasn't empowered to assign air cover, or even to direct it once it had been turned over to the general staff.

Somewhere else it was written that, had the French held Sedan, the Germans would have been backed up and unable to deploy along a wide front; it would have been similar to Xerxes at Thermopolai. And the French did assign a lot of extra artillery to the city's defenders, but at this point the Luftwaffe struck in force, destroying most of the big guns before they could cause much damage to the attackers.

-- Regarding the rest of Kuni's original post, I definitely agree with him, there was never, in all of history, any general who should be considered a perfect ten. They all had their flas, including Caesar, Hannibal, Scipio-Africanus, Alexander, Napoleon, Wellington, Lee, Grant, Zhukov, Manstein, Monty, Patton et al. 8 & 9, in my opinion, should be a very scarcely assigned designation with 10 available for use in scenarios.

But, naturally, a lot of this is so subjective that I see little point in adding my own evaluations, especially since they don't differ much from those already given.

-- However, among the few most mentioned:

9 -- Zhukov and Manstein; in both instances they were excellent strategists as well as tacticians with a very good grasp of logistics. Both men were able to effectively direct very large forces. Also, I think they were strongest and weakest in different areas from one another, with the overall nod going to Zhukov, despite Manstein's possibly better grasp of offensive tactics.

8 -- Montgomery, Rommel and Patton. For varying reasons.

Montgomery was methodical and, though his ability to gain quick victory is dubious, his ability to gain victory in the long run, while avoiding tactical defeat, was a very valuable attribute, and well documented.

Rommel was a great tactician, but the German soldiers themselves did not feel he was particularly exceptional among their own generals. I tend to agree. He paid little attention to logistics and too often plowed ahead with blind, understrength attacks that were doomed before they began. His best results were achieved against British Commanders in North Africa who had been thrown into the middle of a disasster by Churchill (often a disasster he himself created with his meddling) and Rommel, striking immediately, caught them before they had a good grasp of either the situation, or of desert warfare itself. Such tactics were useless against someone like Montgomery, who looked to solid defense first, and gaining the initiative second.

Patton, to me, is similar to Rommel. He's difficult to judge for the same reason as Montgomery, he never had to face the Germans when they were at their strongest. But he was good at getting the job done and never looked back once he started moving forward. In all three campaigns he took part in (Tunisia, Sicily and France/Germany) he was the right man in the right place and at the right time. Despite the fact that his adversaries never had a fair chance of counterattacking, it can also be said that Patton never failed very badly in pressing the attack and defeating forces that were often very formidable in defense.

7 -- Wavel, Auchinleck (needlessly maligned in the SC ratings, in my opinion), Rundstedt, Alexander, Bock, Bradley, Leeb, Kluge and Modell. Very good commanders but neither flashy nor capable of working miracles.

6 -- Clark -- Good generals who were not among the best. In the case of Mark Clark, he was an exceptionally good generals with character flaws that knocked him down a notch in actual combat, I'm thinking specifically of his going for Rome in June 1944, instead of cutting off the huge number of German troops practically routed between defenseive lines. That was one of the worst errors of WWII. But it may also have been a error on the part of his superiors in not making his offensive goals less ambiguous. Also, I think Clark would have been much better if his command had been in the comparatively open terrain of France, instead of the hills and mountains of Italy. Still, the plain fact is he went for glory and headlines instead of winning a decisive victory.

I've left out many deserving Soviet commanders because Kuni and others have already covered them much more knowledgably than I'd have been able to.

-- other U. S., Canadian/Commonwealth, UK, German -Italian/Axis and French generals would be mainly guesswork on my part, and in many instances they've already been well covered by others. </font>

[Scook]

I think we are looking at the wrong scale in this game. One general has to be a 10, with all his faults, as he is better than any other general within. Then scale everyone else from that general.

[Rolend]

Originally posted by Liam:

I wonder where Recon and such were, and why the French and Brits were so slowwww to respond, a High Command error I assume? I also assume incompetence by the Generals beneath.. The British were not in Charge in France so you cannot really blame them.

They were still stuck in WWI, The French Comanders were in HQ units far removed from the front lines, they did NOT have radio or even telegraph connections to the front line units, they used messagers to move information to and from HQ/front line troops. It could be a good day before they knew what was happening then another to decide what to do then another to send out a response. In WWII mobil warfare they were doomed from the start. It was the French leadership, from the very top of goverment to the French generals and their comand and control structure that caused the French failure, certinaly not their troops or equipment.