Manstein Rating 10?

[Liam]

This sounds much like the Poles, who actually were able to fight fairly well, when well organized. Their equipment however was a war or two behind that of the Western Allies.

Originally posted by Rolend:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Liam]

P.S. Ratings are subjective even the Battlefront staff is quite off, their just balancing the game with their choices, Kuniworth has picked out many Soviet Generals not even represented, sadly they probably were very capable

A Rating 10 was my concept to make reward the best of the WW2 Generals. In their own Right, in accomplishments. Rommel, Kesselring, Manstein, Montgomery, Patton and perhaps Not reflected due their levels Hugh Dowding or H.Guderian. (more than likely two of the more brilliant minded generals, many will say Hugh made zero errors and won vs Goering as an Air General that would be close to a 10)

not even reflected on the German side to name a few: Milch, Paulus, Beck, Halder, Jodl, Keitel

Many High Command many subordinates to others... many more out there on all sides, USA even