Kuniworth Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Ok Im reading editor John Keegan's book "Churchills generals" right now which give some interesting insights. As this is not my prime area of expertice I will quote the verdicts and propose some rankings. Ok? Hope this will be considered by the development team(further more I still want Rokossovsky to be in the USSR side plus all the other missing russian and german commanders as mentioned in the other threads "the complete command list of..") SC 1 had only 5 UK generals way too few. The rankings were a bit off too. They were; Monty 8 Wavell 7 Auchinleck 5 Alexander 6 Cunningham 6 I tried to sort out with the USSR and german commanders the ones that held Army group command and other able individuals that would be interesting to see in the game(Guderian, Zeitzler etc). The UK is more difficult to do as the forces were smaller so more commanders without army group command will have to be in the list. Ok this is the quotes from Keegan's book and proposed ratings on the UK commanders fighting in the north africa and Europe theatre(thus no Percival rank 3 will be included etc ) Ironside - proposed rank 5 "Ironside was certainly aware of his shortcomings as CIGS, and he had recognized from the outset that he was far from ideally suited for the post." Gort - proposed rank 5 "though he has his supporters who have praised his performance both as CIGS and C-in-C this essay inclines to agree with his critics, such as Montgomery and Brooke, that he was promoted above his mental ceiling...nevertheless he strove to do his best and it is not self-evident that alternative candidates in either post would have done much better. The fairest conclusion may be that had he commanded a division or a corps in 1940, he would have done well in command of an army later in the war." Dilll - proposed ranking 5-6 Very hard to judge his military abilities as he mostly did staff work... Wavell - proposed ranking 6 "As Wavell was the first to admit not all of his campaigns had been successes. Armies under his command had triumphed only over italians and vichy french, iraqi and iranians; against german and japanese forces he had only known defeat. Nevertheless his achievments had still been significant. Wavell had his qualities and his defects and in the last analysis, it ws not his fault that he was seemingly always fighting what has been described as a "poor mans war". Alanbrooke(or simply Brooke) proposed rating 8 "Montgomery knew that Alanbrooke was more than he, because Alanbrooke was demonstrably the most able man in Churchill's military entourage.He was a superb military technician...he was however far more than that. He was also a large minded strategist, who comprehended both Britain's interest in waging the war and the limits which Britain's strengths and weaknessess imposed on the strategic choiches which had to be made. He disapproved of sideshows....Alanbrooke was the greatest chief of the imperial staff ever produced by the British army" Alexander - proposed ranking 6 "the final verdict on Alexander's generalship was that he was not a great soldier, though he was a strategist of some insight. Alexander was not a great battlefield commander, though he never lost a battle. Alexander could never be said to be a master of detail, nor a managerial wizard, though his armies operated over the most difficult terrain encountered in the ETO, and yet they were universally regarded as well administrated" Auchinleck - proposed ranking 7 "Auchinleck was one of the most capable generals of the second world war but through a combination of misfortunes were unable to stay to the end at the operational cenmtres where the ultimate accolades were to be won. As a soldier he was complete professional and highly talented. Montgomery - proposed ranking 6-7 Already discussed earlier. The book suggest him to be a "master of understanding the battlefield" but lacking from arrogance and beeing too cautious. As we already have clearified. There must be other ways to balance the north african campaign(make axis supply hard for example) than giving this guy an 8 as Desert Dave wants. Wilson - proposed ranking 5 "...that is not to suggest for a moment that he lacked the capacity for innovative thinking. One only has to look at his desert campaign of 1941 to witness daring initiative and bold decision. But it may account for a certain wisdom and a degree of caution arising from a lifetime of rich and varied experience. Wilson was at his best guiding meetings, cementing relationships, engineering acceptable compromises and persuading the reluctant. His decision were on the whole sound, though some of his arrangements for operations in the Dodekanese have aroused criticism. Churchill undoubtedly had a high regard for Wilson and would have liked to seen him appointed to command 8th army rather than Cunningham in 1941" O'Connor - proposed ranking 6 The book wont say much about a verdict but as we all know he was regard highly by both friends and foes. Wikipedia(yeah I know but what the hell) says it quite well; "Though arguably one of the finest generals of WWII, O'Connor's modest and unassuming manner have caused historians to overlook him in favour of more flamboyant figures. His imprisonment during the conflict's truly decisive phases robbed him of many prime opportunities to prove his abilities further, and several of his peers and subordinates were promoted over him." I still only propose a 6 as no one really knows how he would handle larger forces under his command. Cunningham - proposed ranking 4-5 Not much is said in the book. But we all know he was relieved from the 8th army and "shelved" despite some early success. The book states "Cunningham was not he first and equally certainly not the last army commander to be relieved of his command in battle(8th army). As has been said before the task that he faced was one of great difficulty. A man who had been fighting a major campaign since february and who was called upon to take up the burden of Crusader without any respite, would have required great reserves of energy and will-power. Cunningham continued to fight to the finish but it would appear that his reserves had been exhausted, leaving Auchinleck with no alternative but to relieve him." Ritchie - proposed ranking 4-5 "they(Cunningham and Ritchie) shared nontheless the common disability of never fully coming to grips with their command....(Ritchie) never as commander of 8th army fully succeeded in establishing his authority in his own right...both Cunningham and Ritchie also were victims of Auchinleck's weakness in the selection of key subordinates" Leese - proposed ranking 4-5 "Leese was an extremly able man...who won the affection and respect of all those who worked for him in the 8th army...he was the new breed, fighting with the resources of men and material that had been denied to others, with an army accustomed to success. Cunningham and Ritchie were overfaced. Their task was to great for them but had they been given Leese's experience, which amounted to a carefully graduated military education, and the tools of trade, perhaps they would have been more succesful." others worth looking closer into; Horrocks(corps commander) Hobart(divisional commander) Wiart Spears [ January 09, 2006, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Now lets all calm down in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 Me think not! Me think mr Macon should copy the list, adjust just 1 or 2 and implement it together with all the russians and german leaders proposed earlier... Moving on... left to cover; Italy, France, USA and the minors.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Good list Kuni. I'm glad you recognize Auchenleck as being a much better general than his SC rating. He was placed in an impossible situation by Churchill, took personal field command though he was actually the field commander, stabilized the situation and was promptly replaced by old Winnie for having succeeded in stopping Rommel at First Alemain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beginner's luck Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Dont really disagree with the ranking at all. But wondering why UK needs more than 5 HQ's? Definately not 13 total. Maybe Derest Dave can say if UK has that big of army at any time in game. KUNIWORTH ,I know you love the Allies but wow 13 HQ's for UK is going over edge. But I am impressed how the guys like you have this knowledge of WW2 in general and the leader/generals specificly.Its actually making me research aspects of the war I really didnt know in detail. So thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I agree with beginner's luck...13 HQ'S sounds like something out of the 'Outer Limits'!. BUT!!!...To be fair...i just ask that you try to enlighten us as to why or how you came up with 13 HQ'S?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 UK will never be able to purchase them all so thats not a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Interesting take on English Generals. The English were never a great center of manpower. They relied heavily on their Navy to put them where no man could and their Allies. Their leadership was always well.. As was German leadership, however English leadership was traditionally and throughout the last 200 years superior. I would say that in WW2 they never had a chance to shine on land so the air wing would be where they shined and of course their grander insight of the War. Churchill for instance would be a far greater Commander than Stalin or Hitler. All whom conducted affairs in their military. So do we get a Grand HQ? in SC2 Hitler would be rated 2 Stalin 3 and Churchill 6 Il Duce -2 FDR 5 and a free French De Gaulle with a rating of 7 as he was an actual field commander who didn't screw up as much as Winston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Lord Gort was the commander who got steamrolled by the Germans in Belgium, BUT who managed to: 1. Keep his army together 2. Decide to retreat to Dunkirk (while the British and French governments dithered around for a few days) 3. Hold a defensive line (well, OK, so the Germans stopped...), and 4. Evacuate 300,000 troops. So maybe he should get a defensive bonus. He handled a very difficult situation very well, in this bear's opinion. SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts