MacArthur is first mentioned on post #10 of this thread. Nimitz also was involved with the Marianas Turkey Shoot, Saipan and other operations.
Soviet Military losses in troops would be considered TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE from a U.S. Military Standpoint. The Nazi's killed MILLIONS of Soviet Troops but the Soviets did repel the Nazi Invasion attempt of Moscow. AboveAlpha
It was just referring to the person who said that Soviet losses sharply declined after Moscow, which isnt true. The Soviets literally lost enough men to completely destroy the German army (which was pretty big) almost 3 times over.
Im very surprised that no one has considered Yamamoto, Hausser, or Manstein. If anyone doesnt know about them here is some quick tidbits. Yamamoto- Planned pearl harbor and the rapid expansion of Japanese in the pacific. Hausser- Major proponent of combat training for the SS, Divisional commander of 2nd SS Das Reich, fought in Battles of Kharkov. Manstein- Planned German invasion of France, Captured Sevestapol, Commander of German Army Group South, Initiated back hand solution.
What should he have done. His big guns are facing the wrong way, he has no armor. The long promised air units never arrived and a substantial amount of the navy is lost on an ill conceived disruption mission. He also has to contend with a large civilian population in his battle field. As an Australian I have no love for Percival, but not for the way he conducted the defense. The decision to continue landing reinforcements onto the island when the situation was already hopeless was inexcusable. The real truth of Singapore was based in racism. Fortress Singapore would not fall, because it was British. As for Percival, no one realized until well after the war the Japanese where also at the end of their rope and if Percival had hung on for a few more days the Japanese were getting ready to call of the attack
The Soviets lost 2/3 of their men in the first six months of the war. After the Battle Of Moscow, Soviet battle doctrines improved greatly, and the amount of intelligence they were receiving from the British helped them both work out the axis of attack the Germans might employ and how to disrupt German assembly points. Many of the reports of the Soviets throwing men away came from propaganda pieces put together by the Germans. The biggest change for the Soviets was the love affair for artillery. By the time the got to Seelow Heights, they presented over 40,000 artillery pieces on a 23 mile front. By the beginning of 42 the Soviet air force was starting to become a very effective force. The realization the Yak fighters could outfly the BF109 at certain altitudes and the murderous efficiency of the IL 2 Llyushin once the Russian realized how to actually fly the things.
Sure, but remember, Finland was when the Soviet forces were without leaders because Stalin had purged the generals. AND 90% of the Nazi military man power and machines where thrown at the USSR, only 10% at the allies. So we need to account for the relative forces thrown against them. Moi
What should he have done, Start Digging Defensive lines. Construct a better fortress rather than just hunker down and wait. What did he do ? What did he do in the actual defense of Singapore to demonstrate "leadership". To Rommel and Manstein supporters, what did they do when a battle was not going their way to turn things around? They had a doctrine and as long as the battle followed their doctrine, things were okay. Moi
This just isnt true. The Soviets had lost 3million men by the end of the battle for moscow. The soviets lost 9 million men in the war. The soviets incurred huge losses afterwards. 1million plus at Leningrad. 1million+ at stalingrad. 300k at the final battles of kharkov, 300k at kursk. etc. The soviets might have inflicted more kills on the germans as the war dragged on but the soviets casualties remained high in pretty much all cases except for Bagration.
Meretskov, Voroshilov, and Timoshenko were the soviet generals in charge of operations in Finland. This doesnt account for that fact that even 90% of the german army was still only about one-fifth of the soviet army. The soviets had a manpower advantage from day one.
If we had listened to Patton, we would have run the Bolshevik Commies back to Moscow in '45 and there would have been no cold war, no Berlin wall and no "Iron Curtain"...MacArthur was a brilliant General in WWII after returning from Australia, and also as acting ruler of Japan. Truman was controlled by a bunch of commie (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who were a lot smarter than him. Both Patton and MacArthur were America first guys. Eisenhower was an armchair General and politician who was once MacArthur's flunkie. .
So you have nothing better to do than troll, guess just being a bitter Canadian dweeb isn't enough too get you thru life.
The Soviets had lost closer to 6.5 million men by Moscow. POWs who die in captivity count towards the final total of 9 million. Sadly of just over 5 million captured troops, about 3.5 million died in captivity - - - Updated - - - The United States would have been handed its arse
I already listed other battles where the soviets lost lots of men. The soviets highest casualties occurred at Stalingrad losing more than a million men. That occurred after moscow.
Patton beat Rommel, and Rommel had better weapons so whomever voted that way is wrong. Beating up on the lesser powers may have been fun, but Patton ended all that. Moved through the German forces faster then anyone else reducing long stalemate chances etc... Nimitz and MacArthur had a completely new type of war to fight, never done before. They have to get credit for that.
I suppose I cant actually argue it, since there's so many sources with different numbers and they are all estimates, but either way they still lost half a million men in one battle. And it was after moscow. - - - Updated - - - What weapons did rommel have that were better? At best he was short of men and supplies.
Better tanks. Veteran soldier advantage for some time, but that changed. Established air bases for support but was never able to coordinate like a Patton could. I think Patton's ability to coordinate air support with his movements is what sets him apart. That type of fast invasion with close air recon, and air defense couldn't have been that easy to do back in the day with limited resources and no computers etc... He probably had a staff of math and logistics wizards, but the commander gets the credit.
Rommel had tanks that didn't behave like Ford Pintos A good anti tank gun too. Patton was the best at what he did, command tanks. I wonder how Patton would have behaved if he were in McAulliffe's place at the Bulge, aggressively I suspect. Moi
The best? Too hard to decide. I can though say that Rommel shouldn't even be on the list to be in consideration. He is one of the most overrated military commanders in history. He was at best a mediocre general/field marshal. He had no real feel for higher command, had poor understanding of strategy and basically zero understanding of logistics.
MacArthur was a dickhead. I've seen Australian historians say nicer things about Hitler than MacArthur. MacArthur gets a good image because the guy surrounded himself with a sycophant press corp that ate up every word he uttered and reported him in nothing but flattering light. Any mistakes he made were quickly passed off as the fault of the Australians and anytime something went right he was quick to get 100% of the credit for himself even if the commanders in the field had disobeyed his crappy orders to do it.
Defining "the best" commander is impossible by itself, since most of these commander have never been in equal situation, thus it is hard to compare. Frankly I was surprised so many people voted for completely blown out of proportion Rommel. He was good in Africa but only due to one successful trick, which was mostly to Brits lacking proper reconniance. I would vote for Rokossovsky, but he is somehow not in the list. Had to vote for Konev.
Forgot to mention, that I find ignorant yanks with Cold War propaganda in their tiny little heads being amusing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties USSR - KIA/MIA - 7,051,000 Axis - KIA/MIA - 4,428,000 That is 1,5/1. Meanwhile on the Western Front (1944-1945): Allies: Total of 160 000 KIA Axis: Total of 80 000 KIA That is 2/1. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), please!
