My list of the ten best generals of all time

  • Thread starter stickythighs
  • Start date
  • Tags
    List Time
In summary: Each far more important than D-Day - and Zhukov was responsible for eachJust for ray b:Richard the Lionheart was "captured" at a wayside inn in Europe, not on the battlefield or in the aftermath of any battle. he was on his way home.Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson did more with less (manpower, supplies, etc) than US Grant. Grant does not belong on the list.But where is the father of strategy? General Sun-Tzu?Attila should be on your list. Grant shouldn't be -- he was a fine general, not a great general -- and I have my doubts about Julius Caesar, who was a dem
  • #71
Zhukov should not be anywhere near this list, his colossal defeat in the Rhzev Salient during operation Mars should be enough to take him off. He beat up weak German Armies and their allies to achieve victory. When he fought an equal opponent, he was badly beaten using the same tactics he always used, massed artillery, massed tanks, and massed men, and was defeated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
JackSetter said:
Zhukov should not be anywhere near this list, his colossal defeat in the Rhzev Salient during operation Mars should be enough to take him off. He beat up weak German Armies and their allies to achieve victory. When he fought an equal opponent, he was badly beaten using the same tactics he always used, massed artillery, massed tanks, and massed men, and was defeated.

Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk & Minsk were the battles that destroyed the German Army - No commander in the war racked up a greater list of victories

Equal opponent? what does that mean in war? Zhukov generally faced better equipped and better tactically led opponents but had greater numbers at his disposal - his planning had to take this into account. Mars was a huge defeat, but no one is striking Napoleon off the list for invading Russia or Waterloo
 
  • #73
Zhukov won at Moscow because of the winter, and numerical superiority once the fresh Siberian divisions jumped into action. At Kursk, the Russians learned about the German Plan to attack and built massive fortifications and had numerical superiority in almost every sector, automatic defeat for Germans. Stalingrad was a victory because of the ferocity of the Russian troops in the city, and because Zhukov attacked weak Romanian, Hungarian and Italian units. To say Russian equipment was inferior to German equipment is incorrect. The Russians had superior artillery, tanks, until the Panther, more manpower, and by 42' an equal or better air force. The only thing the Germans really had was outstanding tactical leadership (low level and non-commission officers) at the beginning of the war, but by the end a lot of the Germans outstanding officer corps had been shot to pieces. Zhukov's greatest victory's had come after they had already lost the war.
 
  • #74
JackSetter said:
The Russians had superior artillery,...
Superior to the German 88s?
 
  • #75
mheslep said:
Superior to the German 88s?

the 88s were not properly artillery - they were direct fire anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons

individually German guns were superior, but Soviets more than made up for it in volume

at the start of the Berlin offensive the Soviets opened up with 40,000 guns

at various battles the artillery concentration was 200-300 guns per square kilometer
 
  • #76
JackSetter said:
Zhukov won at Moscow because of the winter, and numerical superiority once the fresh Siberian divisions jumped into action. At Kursk, the Russians learned about the German Plan to attack and built massive fortifications and had numerical superiority in almost every sector, automatic defeat for Germans. Stalingrad was a victory because of the ferocity of the Russian troops in the city, and because Zhukov attacked weak Romanian, Hungarian and Italian units. To say Russian equipment was inferior to German equipment is incorrect. The Russians had superior artillery, tanks, until the Panther, more manpower, and by 42' an equal or better air force. The only thing the Germans really had was outstanding tactical leadership (low level and non-commission officers) at the beginning of the war, but by the end a lot of the Germans outstanding officer corps had been shot to pieces. Zhukov's greatest victory's had come after they had already lost the war.

So let me get this correct

at Moscow you don't give him credit for gathering fresh reserves and committing them in a coordinated offensive at a time when the enemy was exhausted and the weather in his favor?

at Stalingrad somehow concentrating forces and attacking the enemy at his weakest point costs great general brownie points?

as Kursk having superior intelligence to prepare for the enemy's offensive is somehow cheating?

I said the Russians were generally less well equipped than the Germans. While I agree that the T-34 was a better tank than anything the Germans had until the PzIVG & the Tiger (both of which came before the Panther) until 1943 the T-34s lacked radios and the units often poorly trained and supplied. Similarly the artillery
 
  • #77
BWV said:
the 88s were not properly artillery - they were direct fire anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons

individually German guns were superior, but Soviets more than made up for it in volume

at the start of the Berlin offensive the Soviets opened up with 40,000 guns

at various battles the artillery concentration was 200-300 guns per square kilometer
Yes I know about the volume advantage; I was challenging the equipment comparison. As I thought, apparently nothing beat the German 88' circa the invasion of Russia, pound for pound.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
mheslep said:
Yes I know about the volume advantage; I was challenging the equipment comparison. As I thought, apparently nothing beat the German 88 in circa the invasion of Russia, pound for pound.

Yes, as far as an anti-tank gun nothing beat it until the Germans built better versions later in the war. It was used as the primary gun for the Tiger tank
 
  • #79
Moscow was a great victory for Zhukov but that's only one victory, Stalin auhorized the transfer of the Siberian troops, not Zhukov. As far as I'm concerned, Almost any Russian Commander with any smarts could have won at Stalingrad and Kursk. Kursk was do to Russian intelligence, not Zhukov. Chuikov should much more credit for Salingrad for bleeding the Germans in attrition style warfare.
 
  • #80
Patton?
 
  • #81
1. Jimi Hendrix
2. Eric Clapton
3. Rex the wonder Dog.
 
<h2>1. Who is considered the greatest general of all time?</h2><p>The title of greatest general of all time is highly debated and subjective. However, many historians and military experts consider Alexander the Great to be the most successful and influential general in history.</p><h2>2. How were the generals on this list chosen?</h2><p>The generals on this list were chosen based on their military achievements, leadership abilities, and impact on history. They were also selected from various time periods and regions to provide a diverse representation of great generals.</p><h2>3. Is there a specific ranking for the generals on this list?</h2><p>No, this list is not ranked in any particular order. Each general on this list has their own unique accomplishments and contributions to military history, making it difficult to determine a definitive ranking.</p><h2>4. Are there any female generals on this list?</h2><p>Unfortunately, there are no female generals on this list. This is not a reflection of their abilities or contributions, but rather a result of the limited opportunities for women in the military throughout history.</p><h2>5. Are there any modern generals on this list?</h2><p>Yes, there are a few modern generals on this list, including Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel, and George S. Patton. While the majority of the generals on this list are from ancient or medieval times, it is important to recognize the achievements of more recent military leaders as well.</p>

1. Who is considered the greatest general of all time?

The title of greatest general of all time is highly debated and subjective. However, many historians and military experts consider Alexander the Great to be the most successful and influential general in history.

2. How were the generals on this list chosen?

The generals on this list were chosen based on their military achievements, leadership abilities, and impact on history. They were also selected from various time periods and regions to provide a diverse representation of great generals.

3. Is there a specific ranking for the generals on this list?

No, this list is not ranked in any particular order. Each general on this list has their own unique accomplishments and contributions to military history, making it difficult to determine a definitive ranking.

4. Are there any female generals on this list?

Unfortunately, there are no female generals on this list. This is not a reflection of their abilities or contributions, but rather a result of the limited opportunities for women in the military throughout history.

5. Are there any modern generals on this list?

Yes, there are a few modern generals on this list, including Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel, and George S. Patton. While the majority of the generals on this list are from ancient or medieval times, it is important to recognize the achievements of more recent military leaders as well.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
29K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top