The Art of War

[macbolan00]

well, time magazine declared him the best ground commander of the 20th century. they stated the reasons: his undefeated record in north africa against germany's best tank commander, and because he planned and commanded the two maneuvers that represented the zenith of 20th century fighting: the normandy invasion and the arnhem attack. both attacks are unparalled to this day in terms of size of personnel and material involvement, normandy succeeded, but it was eisenhower who envisioned it. monty did the tactical preparation and was overall coordinator. arnhem failed but it was the basis for later successful large airborne assaults.

[TheSmilingBandit]

well, time magazine declared him the best ground commander of the 20th century. they stated the reasons: his undefeated record in north africa against germany's best tank commander, and because he planned and commanded the two maneuvers that represented the zenith of 20th century fighting: the normandy invasion and the arnhem attack. both attacks are unparalled to this day in terms of size of personnel and material involvement, normandy succeeded, but it was eisenhower who envisioned it. monty did the tactical preparation and was overall coordinator. arnhem failed but it was the basis for later successful large airborne assaults.

Each and every single predecessor of Montgomery in the Western Desert was crippled by being in charge from Cyprus to Syria to the Sudan. When Monty took over, he had the same resources, but was only responsible for Egypt and Libya (less than 1/4 the territory) not to mention that Auchinleck had already built up its strength to the strongest that its ever been prior to that time.

 

El Alamein

Allied Forces: 195,000 soldiers; 1,029 tanks; 400+ armoured cars; 750 aircraft; 900 artillery; 1,300 anti-tank guns.

Axis Forces: 110,000 soldiers; 550 tanks; -200 armoured cars; 500 aircraft; 500 artillery, 400 anti-tank guns.

In addition, Rommel was over-extended (due to Hitler's orders) and was under supplied with exhausted troops. Whereas Monty had a fully supplied army with plenty of fresh troops. If Monty hadn't won it would have been a miracle, if he had the same meagre resources as his predecessors, I'm rather doubtful of his success.

 

Operation Overlord

Allied Forces: 2,000,000+ men (in Normandy alone)

Axis Forces: 1,000,000 men (thruout France)

Again, Monty won it, but by having overwhelming forces and of course with tremendous casualties (200,000+ dead, 800,000+ wounded vs Axis 300,000 dead and wounded).

 

Market Garden was a total failure and I don't recall there being another massed airborne assault since then. Anyways, that Monty was overrated is just my personal opinion, I feel that Alan Cunningham would have done a better job with far less casualties.

[macbolan00]

as far as comptence in planning and actual execution is concerned, many generals in ww2 will trump monty. but the normandy and market garden operations stand out as the tactical highlights of the war, indeed of the 20th century. the amazing thing about normandy is that it was virtually unnoticed by the enemy. imagine, the biggest amphibious invasion in history going undetected. yes, it was a meat grinder for americans and monty was known to ignore large losses.

 

market garden is now being revised by many. people now think monty's plan was brilliant. of course there are still nay sayers. some say even if it had succeeded, the britons will still wait 3 months for all the western forces to veer north and rush through the opening. others say it should have been perceived by monty to be a clear failure even before the first plane took off. but then, where do you think the americans based their helicopter-born assaults in vietnam, lat-am and the first gulf war?

 

the most effective ground campaigns were france with 400,000 french and british encircled by one salient, and kiev where marshall budenny's force of 600,000 was surrounded by a pincer movement between guderian and von runstedt's forces. kursk would have been a bigger encirclement had it succeeded.

[TheSmilingBandit]

as far as comptence in planning and actual execution is concerned, many generals in ww2 will trump monty. but the normandy and market garden operations stand out as the tactical highlights of the war, indeed of the 20th century. the amazing thing about normandy is that it was virtually unnoticed by the enemy. imagine, the biggest amphibious invasion in history going undetected. yes, it was a meat grinder for americans and monty was known to ignore large losses.

 

market garden is now being revised by many. people now think monty's plan was brilliant. of course there are still nay sayers. some say even if it had succeeded, the britons will still wait 3 months for all the western forces to veer north and rush through the opening. others say it should have been perceived by monty to be a clear failure even before the first plane took off. but then, where do you think the americans based their helicopter-born assaults in vietnam, lat-am and the first gulf war?

 

the most effective ground campaigns were france with 400,000 french and british encircled by one salient, and kiev where marshall budenny's force of 600,000 was surrounded by a pincer movement between guderian and von runstedt's forces. kursk would have been a bigger encirclement had it succeeded.

So who is the better general for you? Rommel vs. Monty vs. Patton vs. Zhukov. No I'm not talking about the press releases, if you had to have one general to command your armies, which one would you pick?

[macbolan00]

rommel, because he has commanded during positions of both strength and weakness. also, as a junior officer, he really stood out (not to mention he was romantically linked with french fashion designer coco chanel.)

[TheSmilingBandit]

rommel, because he has commanded during positions of both strength and weakness. also, as a junior officer, he really stood out (not to mention he was romantically linked with french fashion designer coco chanel.)

 

I tend to agree (though I don't really care about the romantic links), his campaigns tended to try to preserve the lives of his men and his use of maneuver to penetrate enemy lines was astounding.

 

Patton and Zhukov would both tie for 2nd place. Then I'll probably sneak in a few dozen other generals before going down to Monty.

 

Hmmm ... what about naval officers? Any candidates for the best of the best?

 

PM me the picture and I'll attach it to your post.

Edited December 4, 2009 by TheSmilingBandit

[macbolan00]

my two best ship skippers are destroyer captain tameichi hara and light cruiser skipper gilbert hoover. hara had an incredible night during the culminating battle at guadalcanal. hoover commanded the lucky helena and was also disitnguished at the solomons. sadly, he made a tactical error, leaving a crippled ship untended and was relieved of his command of the helena.

 

best fighting admirals? toss off between reizo tanaka and kincaid.

 

Can you identify this WW2 commander (though he looks more like a grandfather than a fighting admiral)

Edited December 4, 2009 by TheSmilingBandit

[TheSmilingBandit]

my two best ship skippers are destroyer captain tameichi hara and light cruiser skipper gilbert hoover. hara had an incredible night during the culminating battle at guadalcanal. hoover commanded the lucky helena and was also disitnguished at the solomons. sadly, he made a tactical error, leaving a crippled ship untended and was relieved of his command of the helena.

 

best fighting admirals? toss off between reizo tanaka and kincaid.

 

Can you identify this WW2 commander (though he looks more like a grandfather than a fighting admiral)

Black Jack Fletcher (that's an easy one).

 

Best fighting admirals? I'd say Andrew Cunningham and maybe Raymond Spruance (though technically he never commanded in a real battle).

[macbolan00]

how bout this guy?

 

http://www.edsombra.com/imagenes/kom-09-03.jpg

 

and this one (clue: these guys are candidates for the superior race breeding program. too bad they're both dead now)

 

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p79/FELIX50/OTRAS%20FOTOS/kuum3.jpg

Edited December 4, 2009 by macbolan00

[TheSmilingBandit]

how bout this guy?

 

http://www.edsombra.com/imagenes/kom-09-03.jpg

 

and this one (clue: these guys are candidates for the superior race breeding program. too bad they're both dead now)

 

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p79/FELIX50/OTRAS%20FOTOS/kuum3.jpg

Aside from the Iron Cross decorating the chest of the 2nd picture, I've got no clue. Rank tabs can't be seen clearly either.

[macbolan00]

the first guy's obviously a russian. you liked enemy at the gates? the guy's name is vasily zaitsev, russian sniper at stalingrad, credited with over 200 kills.

 

the german guy is kurt knispel, leading german tank ace with 168 confirmed tank kills (almost a tank division!) though claims went as high as 195.

[TheSmilingBandit]

the first guy's obviously a russian. you liked enemy at the gates? the guy's name is vasily zaitsev, russian sniper at stalingrad, credited with over 200 kills.

 

the german guy is kurt knispel, leading german tank ace with 168 confirmed tank kills (almost a tank division!) though claims went as high as 195.

Very interesting, I must admit I tended to concentrate more on the strategic and logistical level with only some interest in the tactical level and almost none at all in the field level.

 

So who would win Alexander the Great's army vs. the Legions of Rome (1st Triumvirate period). This is a subject that I've shifted side so many times I sometimes argue with myself about it.

[uaeboy25]

aminado ako na art of war ang isa sa basis ko sa strategical management.

[macbolan00]

not much knowledge in roman, greco and peleponesian warfare but from what i've read, comparing alexander's army to julius caesar's legoins is like comparing the british army to the US army in world war 1. the british were more numerous, had a very monolithic command structure, and in general had superior weaponry compared with their opponents. they were partly multi-national and command structure often suffered. much of command appointments were through influence and birth-right, rather than meritorious. the US army, on the other hand, was composed of hardened volunteers, commanded by professional military officers, with a very simplified command structure. promotions were chiefly meritorious.

 

the macedonians engaged with at least 10,000 troops and cavalry at any time and they seemed to favor and aggressive offense, aimed at breaking the main enemy lines. caesar, on the other hand, faught legion-sized. they were very hardy and mobile. they also operated on the principle of aggressiveness, often sending a cohort right into an enemy's flank to destroy it, or waves of cohorts attacking frontally, sparked by javelin throwers who then whip out their gladius swords and take on anyone not hit by their pillum.

 

alexander was the more audacious commander and was rarely known to hesitate. he was also a gracious conqueror who improved the cities and towns he captured. there were dozens of cities named alexandria scattered around asia minor, middle east, perhaps up to india but only that in egypt remained. the egyptians crowned him pharaoh.

 

caesar was known to have been defeated by the gaul chief vercingetorix on a couple of engagements but the roman legions' chief skill showed itself in caesar's time: siege warfare. what does it matter if your beat caesar in the field when he captures your chief city and fortress? casar was also a resourceful commander who deafeted numerically superior opponents, roman legoins under pompei.

 

so to summarize, alexander had the support and resources of an entire kingdom (and several annexed territories.) caesar was tied down by his lack of power within the triumvirate, his personal debt burden, weakening hold on the chief troika member, pompey. but he was a popular leader and inspired loyalty from his men --his chief asset.

 

i'll go with alexander's army. aside from having more resources, alexander was born to command. caesar was of the rare type like oliver cromwell who, although received military training, was more of a politician and administrator. he then commanded an army and found he could beat professional soldiers in their own game.

[TheSmilingBandit]

The Macedonian Army

The Hypaspists were the elite of the infantry under Alexander the Great and organized into 2 battalions of 1,500+ officers and men in 6 smaller units of 264 men. They wore laminated or quilted layered linen armor (enough to turn swords and arrows), helmets with cheek pieces, a small shield and greaves, their weapons include a double edged sword and a 2.7 meter spear.

 

The Macedonian Phalanxes at the time of Alexander the Great had battalions of 1,500+ officers and men in 6 distinct unit of 264 men each, all were armored (laminated and/or quilted layered linen armor), a helmet with cheek pieces, a small shield, and greaves. Their offensive armaments were their sarissa (6.5 meter pike) and a short heavy sword (probably single edged). Officers would have heavier armor (probably metal reinforced) and a double edged sword. According to multiple sources, Alexander the Great probably only had 6 battalions of these well-trained fighting men (9,000+).

 

In addition, Alexander normally had mercenary slingers, archers, javelineers and Greek hoplites (pretty much armed and armored as Hypaspists) probably numbering about 9,000+ hoplites and some 20,000 mixed slingers, archers, and javelineers (based on multiple sources, Alexander prefered to have more javelineers than archers and slingers).

 

Alexander's cavalry arm was also pretty well organized with the main strength being the right wing Companion cavalry 8 squadrons of 200 men (aside from the Royal Squadron which had 300) for a total of some 1,800+ heavy cavalry in bronze chest plates, with 3 meter spears and double edged swords. Similarly equipped were the 1,800 Thessalian cavarly soldiers that guard the left flank of the Macedonian army. In addition Alexander recruited hundreds of javelin armed light cavalry and even thousands of horse-archers from various Bedouin Arab tribes (yes the same type of horse archers that would cause the disaster atCarrhae).

 

So the average strength of Alexander's army would be typically 40,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry.

 

The Roman Army

 

During the time of Julius Caesar, the Roman Legion was one of the most flexible fighting units around. 9 cohorts, each with 6 centuries of 80 men and the 1st cohort with 8 centuries of 160 men plus their officers and under-officers would round up to some 6,000 fighting men backed by auxiliaries that are often as strong giving each Legate around 11,000 soldiers. While the legionaries would all be equipped in metal armor (either chain mail or banded armor) with large shields, a double-edged short sword, and 2 javelins each, the auxiliaries would have more variation in equipment, being a mixture of cavalry, slingers, archers, and javelineers.

 

In all, Caesar would field about 12 legions at the height of his career before the civil war. That would give him some 50,000 soldiers (since his legions were notoriously understrength due to restrictions placed upon him by Pompey).

 

The dilemma, both leaders (despite Alexander's towering reputation, Caesar had more victories against greater odds) were deemed the best generals of their respective days. Each could maximize the use of their armies that couldn't be matched by their opponents or even those that led the same type of armies after their deaths. Was their success merely because of their armies or a combination of their native skills, trained talents, or something more?