• '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10


  • I would choose Rommel to lead the ground forces and Chennault of the Flying Tigers to lead the Air Force.


  • In truth, though, I feel that Napoleon and Alexander the Great are very much underestimated, especially Napoleon.

    Read up on Napoleon’s work, especially all that he did for the French people. Imagine the effects he could’ve had if he hadn’t invaded Russia… or if he lived longer…


  • Hannibal Barca

    From WW2: Erich von Manstein and Mannerheim (Finnish marshal who kept Soviets from entering Finland soil and with little loss of Finnish soldiers).


  • For me…there is only ONE Desert Fox…Field Marshall Erwin Rommel…He attacked like a tornado…where he went…there was only VICTORY…if only Hitler had given him the support he asked for in North Africa…who knows how that campaign would have ended?


  • And the fact that his archenemy, Montgomory, only dared to attack while Rommel himself was in Bavaria, recovering from a desease (don’t know the English name for that desease…) says a lot!


  • @Tavenier:

    And the fact that his archenemy, Montgomory, only dared to attack while Rommel himself was in Bavaria, recovering from a desease (don’t know the English name for that desease…) says a lot!

    Umm, the commonweath had waaaaay more supplies and troops and would’ve won even if Rommel was there. Him not being there would just make the job easier.


  • Ummm actually, the reason that Rommel failed in North Africa has way more to do with his supplies being disrupted by malta then anything the British did on the ground in Egypt. Rommel had even said that in order to take Egypt, first malta had to fall, which he had said before he had taken command. Rommel got distracted by something shiny, (Cario and the Suez) and forgot.
    British command in Egypt, was some of the worst, and it didnt do them any good that they had the bombastic nutcase in London shouting at them to attack when they shouldnt of. The whole reason the axis forces pushed in to Egypt in the first place was because the utter failure of operation crusade, which was launched before it should have been.
    Had malta be silenced, and Rommel had the supplies he needed, I dont think he could have been stoped short of Palastine and direct American involvment.

    On another note, I think Joe Stillwell would be my choice for army commander. He was a top notch commander, who, during the 1940 army manuvers, which was supposed to take 2 weeks,  He won in the first 2 days.


  • @Clyde85:

    Ummm actually, the reason that Rommel failed in North Africa has way more to do with his supplies being disrupted by malta then anything the British did on the ground in Egypt. Rommel had even said that in order to take Egypt, first malta had to fall, which he had said before he had taken command. Rommel got distracted by something shiny, (Cario and the Suez) and forgot.
    British command in Egypt, was some of the worst, and it didnt do them any good that they had the bombastic nutcase in London shouting at them to attack when they shouldnt of. The whole reason the axis forces pushed in to Egypt in the first place was because the utter failure of operation crusade, which was launched before it should have been.
    Had malta be silenced, and Rommel had the supplies he needed, I dont think he could have been stoped short of Palastine and direct American involvment.

    On another note, I think Joe Stillwell would be my choice for army commander. He was a top notch commander, who, during the 1940 army manuvers, which was supposed to take 2 weeks,  He won in the first 2 days.

    I think its a testament to Montogomery’s character and prowess in command that they resisted a premature attack on the Afrika corp only attacking when they were completely ready. Montgomery was a great leader of men, a soldiers general, but far from the greatest in the history of the world.

    Rommel was a overall a good commander but with the technology of 1940 not the most effective. His subordinates often complained that he was absent at the time that important decisions must be made because he was too busy leading from the front, that was part of what made him a legend but also part of what made him a failure.

    One of the leaders of naval forces would be Isoroku Yamamoto, one of the most underated leaders of all time. Possibly the smartest Japanese Admirals as he knew that war with the Americans would mean eventual Japanese defeat, despite this he did his best to come up with a cohesive plan to dominate the pacific and for a time the Japanese succeeded. But like Yamamoto said after 6 months the Americans would come back from their early defeats with avengance and that they had awakened “the sleeping giant”. If the Japanese high commanded had listened to Yamamoto and only attacked the European powers in Asia the war would of probably resulted in a Japanese victory in the Pacific.

    Yamamoto’s plan for the attack on Pearl Harbour was a sound one, Nagumo’s execution was rubbish only sinking battleships, some of which would be refloated and brought back into service anyway. Had he destroyed the dry docks and the fuel and oil storage and reserves the U.S Navy would of been forced to create its defencive line much further back than they actually did in reality.

    The overall naval commander would have to be Horatio Nelson, the man who revolutionised the tactics of Naval combat for centuries to come well past the end of the age of sail.


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Tavenier:

    And the fact that his archenemy, Montgomory, only dared to attack while Rommel himself was in Bavaria, recovering from a desease (don’t know the English name for that desease…) says a lot!

    Umm, the commonweath had waaaaay more supplies and troops and would’ve won even if Rommel was there. Him not being there would just make the job easier.

    But some famous battles were won because of brain and not power.


  • well from my singniture you have #1 and #2 favrite commander guderian(#1) rommle(#2) and #3 major general james wolfe the youngest person at the time to be a major gemeral in the british empire and also desisevle defeted the french in the battle of the plains of abrham.


  • well from my singniture you have #1 and #2 favrite commander guderian(#1) rommle(#2) and #3 major general james wolfe the youngest person at the time to be a major gemeral in the british empire and also desisevle defeted the french in the battle of the plains of abrham.
    Ah… OK.

    1. Manstein
    2. Rommel
    3. William Duke of normandy. Conqueror of england.

  • @i:

    well from my singniture you have #1 and #2 favrite commander guderian(#1) rommle(#2) and #3 major general james wolfe the youngest person at the time to be a major gemeral in the british empire and also desisevle defeted the french in the battle of the plains of abrham.

    hmm when you say you like Medieval Times under your picture do you mean the times or the show in California (and other places.)

  • '19 '18

    Patton of course, who could argue with old blood and guts. “No one ever won a war by dying for his country, he won the war by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his.”


  • @cts17:

    In truth, though, I feel that Napoleon and Alexander the Great are very much underestimated, especially Napoleon.

    Read up on Napoleon’s work, especially all that he did for the French people. Imagine the effects he could’ve had if he hadn’t invaded Russia… or if he lived longer…

    I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.

    Hannibal fought Rome without his nation’s full support and time after time won.

    Napoleon bagged Europe, destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. Should he get discredited for attacking Russia, a country so vast that it lacks any vital objectives. The Russians did not defeat him, Jack Frost did.


  • @ABWorsham:

    If the subject were expansed to any military commander throughout history, who would you choose?

    Ronald Reagan was a military commander, right?  I choose Reagan!


  • @dinosaur:

    @ABWorsham:

    If the subject were expansed to any military commander throughout history, who would you choose?

    Ronald Reagan was a military commander, right?  I choose Reagan!

    My family hates Reagan, however I love the man. It makes for some great family discussions at the dinner table.


  • Charles de Gaulle, Marie Pierre Koenig, Leclerc or de Lattre.


  • My list of Generals is as follows: Hannibal Barca, Alexander the Great, Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, Robert E. Lee, Erwin Rommell, George S. Patton. Any of these commanders would lead my army to victory (unless they were fighting another one of these commanders…)


  • @GrizzlyMan:

    My list of Generals is as follows: Hannibal Barca, Alexander the Great, Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, Robert E. Lee, Erwin Rommell, George S. Patton. Any of these commanders would lead my army to victory (unless they were fighting another one of these commanders…)

    Of your list who is your first choice?


  • @ABWorsham:

    @cts17:

    In truth, though, I feel that Napoleon and Alexander the Great are very much underestimated, especially Napoleon.

    Read up on Napoleon’s work, especially all that he did for the French people. Imagine the effects he could’ve had if he hadn’t invaded Russia… or if he lived longer…

    I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.

    Hannibal fought Rome without his nation’s full support and time after time won.

    Napoleon bagged Europe, destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. Should he get discredited for attacking Russia, a country so vast that it lacks any vital objectives. The Russians did not defeat him, Jack Frost did.

    Napoleon did more than that. He brought law and order to a France in ruins and on multiple occasions tried to force Britain to the peace table. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m convinced that the wars he fought were of defensive nature against hostile European monarchs. His personal genius also bears mention: he could dictate to four secretaries on four separate letters without losing track of what he was saying to all four!

    Yes, he failed in Russia, but he still won nearly sixty battles! And some of those he won brilliantly even AFTER the invasion of Russia!

    If I wasn’t restricted to World War II leaders I would always pick Napoleon, one of the greatest military minds to have ever existed. It’s very fascinating to speculate on what kind of leader he would be in the 20th century. Unfortunately he gets a bad stain in history for the Russian invasion and for his “tyranny” over Europe, but I suppose history is written by the victors.

    I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.

    I don’t think so: more books have been written on Napoleon than any other historical figure in history, except for Jesus Christ himself!


  • Auchinleck 😛


  • Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc. Of WW2 leaders i’d pick Rommel not including he fought for the Nazis. Or Gen. Puller in Korea.


  • micheal collins,hey wait,he did leed my country to victory against the british


  • General George Smith Patton or Erwin Rommel

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 2
  • 9
  • 9
  • 2
  • 13
  • 18
  • 852
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

31
Online

15.4k
Users

36.6k
Topics

1.5m
Posts