WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Williamb -> WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/22/2004 11:39:12 PM)

Since we had the MacArthur thread and arguments for against him.

Thought might be interesting to see what Pac war generals/Admirals. of all stripes we admire.

And can do by nationality.

US

Admiral - Nimitz or Halsey would be my favorites.
general - Like "Howling mad" Smith and General Vandergrift.

British

Admiral - hmm Will go with Captain Leach (not too familiar with britsh ac war Admirals)

General - I vote for leader of the chindits Gen. Wingate

Australian (will entertain suggestions)

Dutch - (ditto)

japanese _

Admiral - Yamamoto who was smart enough to know he couldnt win yet fought as well as he could.

General - Will go with Yamashita but with reservations.

also any leader you want tp mention



Platoonist -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 4:06:16 AM)

My vote would have to go Admiral Lockwood for finally cutting through that Gordian Knot that was the U.S. torpedo situation in WW2.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 5:59:12 AM)

Fletcher for sure. He basically wins at Coral Sea, Midway,and Eastern Solomons and gets dumped on by soft arsed historians. The guy helped field test a new type of warfare, succeeds in his objectives exceeding anyones expectations and history books have him remembered as a never ran. Halsey and Mac screw up big time on more than one occasion and they are near Ceasars.



Mike Scholl -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 6:04:27 AM)

On the Japanese side, I'll go with Yamashita without reservations. Malaya was a
masterpiece of rapid success with minimum forces. And I won't hold the activities
of a bunch of Naval Personell he had no control over in the PI against his rep.
For an Admiral, I vote for Tanaka. He was always successful even against high odds, while Yamamoto was also the one who "approved" those overly complicated plans
that kept leading to Japanese failure.



rogueusmc -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 6:06:35 AM)

Gen. Vandergrift...ooohraaah gimme one ooohraah!!...future Commandant at the 'canal rocked...[8D]

And Adm. Yamamoto was a genius who gave them about the only plan that had a snowball's chance in taking on the US of rockin' A!!!



afspret -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 8:01:19 AM)

Gen Roy Geiger, USMC, CO of the Cactus Air Force on the 'canal, Adm Clifton Sprague, CO of Taffy 3, Gen Simon Buckner (as a kid I actually stood on the spot were he was killed on Okinawa) and "The Soldiers General" Omar Bradley, are some of my unsung heros.

Outside of "Bug Out Doug" I also don't really care for "Old Blood and Guts" Patton, Gen Mark Clark or Adm "Bull" Halsey. Great men all, but their major egos got a lot of good men unneedlessly killed.



JamesM -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 9:17:54 AM)

Raymond Spruance, he has been condemned for his cautious nature. But he never took his fleet into typhoons and commanded some of the most complicated campaign of the war.

Field Marshall William (Bill) Slim, for keeping is corps relatively intact during the retreat in Burma and his subsequent victories at Imphal and Rangoon.



testarossa -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 10:32:46 AM)

I dont see any Germans here. So here we are:

Wehrmaht: "Fireman" Manstein (Erich von Lewinski ), author of plan to attack France in 1940 (Fall Gelb, the attack in the West). Dismissed by Adolf in march 1944 as he didn't want to follow Fuhrer's orders. Convicted for 18 years for war crimes (attacking France?), but released after 3 years (Allies needed his help with rebuilding bundeswehr).
I think he is much more prominent strategist then famous Rommel. (photo is taken from Achtung panzer! website)

Kriegsmarine: Don't want to be trivial but Karl Donitz.

Luftwaffe: Erhard Milch (half jewish - i still don't get it how nazis missed it), actually built luftwaffe from scratch.

Russian Army: Rokossovsky - achieved almost the same success as Zhukov but wasted much less human lives.

Navy: dont know.

Airforce: was used by army, so not that many strategists here.

[image]local://upfiles/14153/Pn362495404.jpg[/image]



Howard Mitchell -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 11:20:53 AM)

Admiral James Somerville, RN.
When the Japanese had sunk the cruisers HMS Dorsetshire and HMS Cornwall off Ceylon he risked the Far Eastern fleet, very much against the prevailing ‘fleet in being’ concept, to pick up their survivors. The risks were great as the Japanese carrier fleet could still have been present; his staff knew this as well as he did and advised strongly against it. But he went ahead anyway and 1,112 men were rescued.

Weeks later one of his staff spoke to the survivors in hospital and asked how they had lasted 48 hours in shark-infested water. The answer from them all was that they knew Somerville would come to pick them up.

Admirals have to have many qualities. To risk a fleet for a great victory is one thing, but to risk it for something which will only ever become a footnote in the history books is quite another.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 11:29:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Howard Mitchell

Admiral James Somerville, RN.
When the Japanese had sunk the cruisers HMS Dorsetshire and HMS Cornwall off Ceylon he risked the Far Eastern fleet, very much against the prevailing ‘fleet in being’ concept, to pick up their survivors. The risks were great as the Japanese carrier fleet could still have been present; his staff knew this as well as he did and advised strongly against it. But he went ahead anyway and 1,112 men were rescued.

Weeks later one of his staff spoke to the survivors in hospital and asked how they had lasted 48 hours in shark-infested water. The answer from them all was that they knew Somerville would come to pick them up.

Admirals have to have many qualities. To risk a fleet for a great victory is one thing, but to risk it for something which will only ever become a footnote in the history books is quite another.


Sommerville was alright. Cunningham was brilliant. Both had the balls to maintain the finest traditions of the RN. I especially love his response to a critic regarding his intent to press on with the evacuation of the Army in Greece despite grievous losses to the Royal Navy at the had of Fleigerkorps X.. "It only takes two years to build a ship, two hundred to rebuild a tradition."

Great stuff![8D]



adsoul -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 11:34:29 AM)

Admiral Andrew Cunningham. Somebody could say he fought mainly the helpless Italians but Crete and Malta were not small affairs.



Andy Mac -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 2:29:36 PM)

I think my suggestion will get me shot on these boards but here goes love him or hate him..

Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery

Overwhelming Ego yes !!! but as a British General he did what few others seemed able to do he won inspired his men and was a competent soldier.

Also Slim / O Conner/ Horrocks/ Leese / Dempsey/ Freyberg (Ok he lost at Crete but hell of a soldier despite this/ Morsehead)

RN Cunningham/ Max Horton not to mention Captain Walker.

For the IJA Yamashita for Malaya
IJN Tanaka

Andy


Andy



Andy Mac -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 2:34:21 PM)

Oops didnt read starter for thread only Pac war so ignore most of mine as they didnt serve in Pacific



Frank W. -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 5:07:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa
Wehrmaht: "Fireman" Manstein (Erich von Lewinski ), author of plan to attack France in 1940 (Fall Gelb, the attack in the West). Dismissed by Adolf in march 1944 as he didn't want to follow Fuhrer's orders. Convicted for 18 years for war crimes (attacking France?), but released after 3 years (Allies needed his help with rebuilding bundeswehr).
I think he is much more prominent strategist then famous Rommel. (photo is taken from Achtung panzer! website)

Kriegsmarine: Don't want to be trivial but Karl Donitz.

Luftwaffe: Erhard Milch (half jewish - i still don't get it how nazis missed it), actually built luftwaffe from scratch.



i don´t agree with manstein + donitz.

with milch you are right.

but since the thread says "pac war" i can´t discuss
further due to being total off topic [:(]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 6:06:22 PM)

Let's not forget the Air Force, folks. My choice should be obvious - Curtis LeMay.



Skyros -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 6:07:23 PM)

Admiral Rockwell Torrey, he does it on land, sea and air.[:D]



Cav Trooper -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 8:46:01 PM)

Montgomery??? humm, I'd have to disagree on some points. Africa earned him points. Sicily a draw. Normandy again a draw (Operation Goodwood, Caen). Operation Market Garden -- major snafu. Here I think his ego got the best of him. Lost most the the Red Devils, trashed the Poles, all that for minor gains.

British:

Montgomery (with the reservations noted above).
"Bomber" Harris
Douglas Bader (Big Wing concept and changing of RAF fighter tactics)

American:
Einsenhower, Bradley, Blakeslee(4th FG England), H.H Arnold,
Spaatz, Lockwood, Nimitz

German:
Galland
Milch
Rommel
Donitz

Japanese:
Yamamoto
Genda
Yamashita
Nagano


Just a couple I'm familiar with and think deserve mention.



RAM -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 8:58:31 PM)

German:
Army: Manstein, Balck, Hübe (Rommel was suicidal in character)
Navy: Dönitz
Air forces: General der Jagdwaffe Adolf Galland (Milch was a d*ick, Luftwaffe found itself at disadvantage in 1943 because him and his politic fights)


Italian:
Army: Duke of Aosta (only inspired italian general, gave quite a fight at Etiopia)
Navy: None
Air forces: None


Japanese:
Army: Yamashita
Navy: Tanaka (Nagumo was *hit, Yamamoto can't be there, he did plan Midway...)
Air forces: no idea


British:
Army: O'Connor (brilliant offensive at Egypt and cyrenaica in 1940)
Navy: Cunningham, Sommerville
Air Forces: Dowding, Portal


French:
Army: De Gaulle (only inspired fighter during 1940 german offensive)
Navy: ...none [:D]
Air Forces: ...same as above [8|]


Soviet:
Army: Micahael Kirponos (only truly operational-capable soviet general of WW2...gave Runstedt a run for his money with his very nice defence of Ukraine, was killed by Stalin's stupid order of not retreating from Kiev)
Navy: the guy who put concrete on Marat's decks to give her a decent chance to survive air attacks [:'(] (needless to say, it didn't work [;)])
Air Forces: none, really. Red air force doctrine was flawed in it's concept of focusing the fight at very low altitudes, giving the much less strong jagdwaffe a chance to survive and cause hard losses to the Soviets by flying at higher altitudes.



GBirkn -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 9:05:10 PM)

I'll give a salute for Jesse Oldendorf, for closing the book on the battleship era with style.



Tanaka -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 9:56:52 PM)

Everyone always gives Yamamoto hell for his midway plan which was complicated but I think despite the giant proportions of it it would have worked if the Americans did not know most of the moves the Japanese were making. Take away the American code breaking and all and add the advantage of surprise which the Japanese thought they would have I think the battle might have been a different story. It probably would have really caused mass confusion and disruption like it was supposed to. I think the dumbest thing about the plan was not keeping all his carriers together and only using four. If he had had all his carriers the battle may have been completely different even despite the Americans knowing the Japanese moves. Enough planes for attacking Midway and the American carriers. As it was they only had enough for one or the other.

Take away the code breaking and I think his plan for Midway was pretty good.... so Ive never really counted this against him.....JMHO...



RAM -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 10:34:58 PM)

can't agree with that. Midway failed because the huge diversion of forces. Instead of making a concentrated attack against one spot with the most weapons at hand as possible, the Japanese dispersed their fleet around all the central and northern pacific areas. had the whole combined fleet focused on Midway, the results would've been VERY different (more flattops around, more scouting platforms apart of the extra carriers, etc). Because of that Midway planning ran completely against Sun-Tzu rules, for instance. And had Midway been planned as an attack with a concentration of forces, is VERY unlikely the outcome would've been adverse for the Japanese.


Midway attack plan hoped to distract the attention of the Americans far north to the Aleutians so they would be caught off-attention on Midway. It could've payed dividends if the code-breaking had not happened...however, I see it as a failure and a very high risk

First because with all the KB (xcept the Shokaku and Zuikaku) focused around Midway, if the Americans came to battle, they were to fight a battle with less numbers of carriers and carrier aircraft around.

Second because the japanese assumed that the Americans had bited for the Aleutians trap, and never did true efforts in the searches conducted by the fleet, as they didn't think there were any american carriers nearby. They got confident and payed a dearly price for it. In an all-out attack without distraction operations they wouldn't have run confident, would've been with all eyes open and in all probability the american CVs would've been spotted much before and with better chances of attacking them successfully while not being caught off-ward

Remember that Nagumo was caught with his planes launching because he had to rearm the planes he had chosen to arm with land-attack bombs...if he had certainty or at least uncertainty about nearby enemy carriers ,he'd never have reloaded them from naval-strike to Ground-strike configuration, and wouldn't have had to reverse orders later when the Yorktown was reported...the strike would've been launched quite before the real launch happened and the SBD wouldn't have caught the japanese carriers in such a vulnerable position...


Midway plan was fundamentally flawed IMHO...



Toast -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/23/2004 11:39:21 PM)

I think an even more daming indictment of Yamamoto and his strategic plans were the fact that after PH, the six KB were never concentrated as a force. They were split up and sent on far flung missions from the Indian Ocean to the Coral Sea and never concetrated for an operation again. There direction of naval strategy after PH was definitely flawed and lost the Japanese the only slim chance for a victory they ever had.

On that same note, I think the American strategic planners, Stark, King and even Marshall deserve a lot more praise. The Allied side consistantly had superioer strategic thinkers than the Allies and let the over come tactical losses and less experience to eventually achieve victory.



Frank W. -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/24/2004 1:35:03 AM)

quote:


Army: Manstein, Balck, Hübe (Rommel was suicidal in character)
Navy: Dönitz
Air forces: General der Jagdwaffe Adolf Galland (Milch was a d*ick, Luftwaffe found itself at disadvantage in 1943 because him and his politic fights)


you mean hube i guess.

also heinrici was good.

the case of milch isn´t clear anyway.

it´s true that the luftwaffe made some bad decissions
but they also were to overstretched in too many theatres
of war, so it was a hard time for them. milch did good
work in the beginning phase of the luftwaffe, also udet.
but both had difficulties with göring + hitler.



Frank W. -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/24/2004 1:37:10 AM)

also note that galland doesn´t qualify 100% because
he was more a front commander and even flew air missions
untill late in the war. not exactly a general whose
decsissions had much impact on the strategic scale.

of course he was a good pilot and low level
commander - no question.



madmickey -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/24/2004 1:53:31 AM)

General; Holland Smith
Spruance, but Morrison did not underrate him; he knew strategic goals and knew when to be cautious and when to be bold. Unlike Fletcher he launched his entire strike plane in first strike at Midway.
He was Nimitz chief of staff then deputy when he was not on the seas. The air combat AA protective screen was to a large extent his idea.

On Bernard Montgomery one nit wit move that is not mentioned was the failure to clear the approaches to Antwerp.



The Dude -> RE: WWII Generals we admire/think are underated. (10/24/2004 3:33:13 AM)

Best leaders

Brit:Slim, Horrocks, Roberts, Monty, O'Connor for the army, Tedder, Cunningham for the RAF, and Somerville, Fraser, Cunningham, Vian for the Navy

Germany-KM:Vadm Marshall, Lwaffe:Galland,Priller, Kammhuber,Army/SS-Hoth, Hausser, Model, von Senger

US-Patch, Krueger, Hodges, truscott for the army, Zemke, Spaatz Doolittle, USAAF, Nimitz, Lockwood, Kinkaid for the navy

Russia, Vatutin, Konev, Rokossovsky

Japan , Takagi and Tanaka

Italy-This playing field is for grown ups



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25