Top 10 Military Generals of All-Time - by the numbers
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
That is a great find, thanks. Nappy was the obvious choice, generals for a hundred years tried to imitate him completely. I can't wait for the boards I read to pick this up, several Union generals are above Lee and Lee has very vocal defenders.
The big problem is sample size. Most generals are rated on 5 battles or so, that isn't very impressive. Imagine rating an MLB hitter on their first 5 ABs. So I question how accurate WAR can be in such a limited sample. Still, it is fun.
Great read and much appreciated. Thanks for posting.
However, I wonder about the methodology.
The number of battles shouldn't matter. It gives Napoleon extra credit because he fought 43 battles while Alexander only fought 9. "No other general came close to Napoleon in total battles," it says. That's like saying Brad Stevens could never be judged better than Coach K because he wasn't in enough battles.
And, the "Wins Against Replacement" stat was calculated in a way that sounds too much like a +/- variant.
And, how many deflections, steals and blocks did Napoleon have? Doesn't say,
A group of us once did a unscientific yet still objective spreadsheet on WW2 fighter pilots using strength of opponent kills and amount of missions flown to determine who the best ace was. Basically giving more "points" for Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Sturmovik and 4 engine bomber kills with an emphasis on kills vs missions flown.
IIRC as I no longer have the spreadsheet.. The top three Luftwaffe pilots were Egon Mayer, Josef Wurmheller and Hans Joachim Marseilles. Most of the Eastern Front pilots dropped considerably. The top allied ace was Ivan Kozhedub though he was a known braggart and may have overestimated his kills a bit..Top American in the ETO was Gentile.
........................
It seems the gamblers who broke the rules and were successful have higher ratings. Alexander wasn't by the book, he attacked fortified positions head on, including uphill on a riverbank after crossing, split his forces without having numerical superiority and used stratagems with little chance of success but they always worked because of the superiority of his troops.
Lee's blunder at Gettysburg ie pressing a frontal attack on a fortified position and especially without accurate and proper intelligence should probably remove him from consideration even though he did show strategic and tactical mastery in other battles.
Rommel is the most overrated imo. He ignored logistics in his battleplans, even stating as much, while in a terrain that demanded an emphasis on logistics.
I have one complaint. Why release this without Subutai, Genghis or Jebe? I get he didn't have the data, but why not get the data first. It would be like doing a list of great NBA players and not including Oscar, Wilt or Big Bill.
That spreadsheet would have been neat. The German Eastern Front pilots had an interesting problem. Their planes were far more maneuverable and they were far better trained. But by 1943, the Russian planes were basically flying tanks. It was awful hard to knock one down.
Lee is overrated because he's a symbol more than a general (same for Rommel and the battleship Bismark). Aside from Gettysburg, one of Lee's great victories was Chancellorsville. But when one looks at the Southern losses there one has to wonder how many more wins they could have survived.
Rommel and Patton shared that hatred of logistics. And it got both into trouble at times. But there is something about that hard-charging persona that boosts their popularity.
On the other hand, audacity served Napoleon. In an age without wireless, his ability to move fast and hard was a huge advantage. It was the advantage that Germany used in 1940. The French generals expected WW1, they did not move with any real alacrity. There was no need to hurry, the Germans tomorrow would be just yards away from where they are now.
Is that right?
The Yak-1 was better than the Bf 109E, but inferior to the Bf 109F[10] - its main opponent - in rate of climb at all altitudes, although it could complete a circle at the same speed (20–21 seconds at 1,000 meters [11]). In comparison, a Bf 109, with its automatic wing slats, had a lower stall speed and was more stable in sharp turns and vertical aerobatic figures.[8] A simulated combat between a Yak (with M-105PF engine) and a Bf 109F revealed that the Messerschmitt had only marginally superior manoeuvrability at 1,000 meters (3,300 ft), though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within four or five nose-to-tail turns. At 3,000 meters (9,800 ft), the capabilities of the two fighters were nearly equal, as combat was essentially reduced to head-on attacks. At altitudes over 5,000 meters (16,400 ft), the Yak was more manoeuvrable. The engine’s nominal speed at low altitudes was lowered to 2,550 rpm, and the superiority of the Bf 109F at these altitudes was reduced.[9]
At low altitude in which it operated predominantly, the Yak-9 was more maneuverable than its main foe, the Bf 109, but was far less well armed. A series of improvements in performance and armament did not hamper the superb handling characteristics that allowed its pilots to excel at dog-fighting. Soviet pilots regarded the Yak-9's performance as on the same level as the Bf 109G and Fw 190A-3/A-4
The Yakovlev Yak-3 (Russian: Я́ковлев Як-3) was a World War IISovietfighter aircraft. Robust and easy to maintain, it was much liked by pilots and ground crew alike.[1] It was one of the smallest and lightest major combat fighters fielded by any combatant during the war. Its high power-to-weight ratio gave it excellent performance.[2] It proved a formidable dogfighter. Marcel Albert, World War II French ace, who flew the Yak in USSR with theNormandie-Niémen Group, considered it a superior aircraft when compared to the P-51D Mustang and theSupermarine Spitfire
IIRC, Lee's tactics resembled some strategies of Napoleon. I believe in at least a couple of battles, he concentrated on a sharp attack in the center of the Union lines to divide and disorient the forces (there's a French name for the assault b/c it was perfected by the Emperor)
Similar to the Germans, the French were outnumbered and overextended, but much more efficient in battles. One wonders if Hitler was more of a military strategist (like Napoleon), how it may have changed his approach to each front.
What was the outcome, aircraft-wise? Did you expand this to include the Pacific Theater?
I believe Marv was talking about the Sturmovik, which was reputedly one of the hardest planes to bring down due to its sturdiness and durability.
Notice something it's Russians talking about their planes. Russians are generally FOS even when sober. Russian planes performed well at low attitudes, yea, but they were complete junk. The same difference in engineering and workmanship between Russia and Germany that exist currently, existed then.
Also dive rate, climb rate, range, stability and service ceiling are as important to air combat as speed and maneuverability. The main difference in any dog fight unless a huge technical advantage is always the pilot.
Marcel must have been drunk, or just loved the bird he flew. If Russian planes were actually superior to a P-51 or Spitfire why did many Russian pilots prefer the American made P-39 and later developments from Bell to their own planes, even though it was deemed unsuitable for combat in the ETO by both British and American forces.
Also, that article compares a Yak 9 which was one of the later developments of the Yak to an early version of the Focke Wulf ie an A3/4. Better to compare the Yak 9 (or 3) to a Fw-190 A6/7/8 and/or even the FW 190 D9 and the Yak 1 or 7 to 190 A3 or A4. IIRC the Yak 3 came later than the 9 and was more of an attack version one still used in fighter interceptor roles, but with improved low level characteristics
Most Russian pilots favored the La.5fn, La.7 to the Yaks and a majority of German pilots respected the La. series more.
The Bf-109 was basically outdated after the F series, it was still formidable in the hands of the experten, but the increase in speed and weight of the G series killed its handling characteristics.
Last edited:
I am thinking more along the lines of ground attack planes. That is where pilots could run up big numbers with very little risk. The Stuka, for example, was a heck of an artillery piece, but it had virtually no defense. So Brit pilots got a lot of fairly easy kills against it in the Battle of Britain.
I think the Sturmovick was the plane i was thinking of that caused Germany a lot of problems. If I recall from the last Kursk book I read, German pilots complained they could not bring them down. Their ability to fly through fighters and deliver a payload helped ensure German defeat (combined with terrible German overconfidence). That is what I recall, I could be wrong.
In the West, we used a lot more of the fighter bomber concept, p-51s attacking ground targets. That was a challenge for a 109. Of course our other advantage, by mid 44 there were no longer experienced German pilots and the new pilots were rushed through training.
I don't know about comparing the Yak to the P51. The Mustang was far better than the Spit (the Frenchman compared the Yak to both) but the Mustang should have been given how much knowledge was gained since the Spit was developed. As far as I can recall the biggest complaint pilots had was they could not see the ground when landing.
My favorite plane was the Lightning just because of its looks. When I go to airshows it is the plane i make sure to see fly.
Germany's weapons were propagandized. Their planes were good, not great. Their tanks were OK but drank too much fuel and needed maintained far too much. The Bismark and Tirpitz were vastly inferior to modern ships other nations had (both combined) wouldn't have stood a chance against the Yamato. But the Germans wanted the world to believe their weapons were superior, and Churchill wanted his people to believe German weapons were superior. So history is replete with German superiority.
My favorite was the P47 b/c of its payload. The fact that the A10 continued its legacy demonstrated how effective and deadly well-equipped aircraft could be, even if they sacrificed speed or maneuverability.
The Soviet Il-2 Sturmovik is more closely related in concept to an A-10. Like the A-10 it was slow moving and had an armored bathtub like cockpit, with a high velocity 37mm anti-tank cannon in the nose, and which was solely designed as a ground attack plane that specialized in anti tank operations. Another similar plane was the Hs.129 which was a two engined German ground attack plane similar in concept to the above.
The P-47 was multi role platform, being used for ground attack, interception and bomber escort. . It was a beast and it may not have been very maneuverable but it was fast had a good climb rate and could out dive anything in the air.
Pretty cool thread .. thanks for starting it. I love military history.
Here's my favorite . It's a late model Fw-190 with an in-line instead of rotary engine like early versions and though it came too late and in too little numbers to have much effect, it ranks with the P-51, and late mark Spitfires as being one of the best piston engined fighter interceptors in the war.
Here's some pictures vbg
Fw-190 D-9
Il-2m
Hs.129
For those of us that are horrible engineers, what does this tweak in engine type mean?
I also give it credit for being the first US single engine craft with rockets and was actually unaware that the Corsair and Hellcat were also able to be fitted with those. I'm a big Corsair fan too and really like the Pacific Theater.
Air cooled radial engines didn't perform as well at high altitude, inline V engines were water cooled and gave better aerodynamics because of their shape. Each engine had weakness and strength but inline were thought of as superior by western designers.
Radial engines were popular in the PTO where combat wasn't fought as high in altitude compared to the ETO and where the extended range given was a huge benefit. .
Hellcat, Corsair and T-Bolt all used the same radial engine, a Pratt and Whitney, and were good examples of proving the inline people wrong..
You're a radial engine fan .. vbg
The most famous and well liked fighter bombers that used rockets was the British "Tiffy" .. Or Hawker Typhoon Mk.1b. Rocket armed Typhoons devastated German armor in the late stages of the war. P-38 and P-47 were really good in that role also.
Last edited:
One problem Germany had with air cooled in WWI was oil, air cooled is much harder on oil. Germany made a lot of ersatz oil, using castor oil often, and it couldn't hold up. It caused a lot of problems with the Dr1. I assume they may have had the same problem in WWII given their significant lack of oil.
Oil and Rubber .. they didn't have enough of either.
Also, on an inline, the radiator or even the hoses if hit even by a small piece of shrapnel would cause the engine to overheat quickly, while the radial could take hits directly and sometimes, depending on what was hit, continue flying.
Radial was a bit hardier.. but service ceiling was a huge advantage as it gave the higher plane initiative or the ability to dictate when and if combat takes place. That was the one advantage the MiG-15 had over the F-86. The F-86 pilots did not get to initiate combat and the first move (generally) belonged to the Migs. That's a big advantage to have.
Since a lot of us like military history, Germany released in November an 8 episode Das Boot tv sequel. It has some very good reviews, just not here yet.
Still finishing WWII in Color, which I find to be quite good.
Air cooled radial engines didn't perform as well at high altitude, inline V engines were water cooled and gave better aerodynamics because of their shape. Each engine had weakness and strength but inline were thought of as superior by western designers.
Radial engines were popular in the PTO where combat wasn't fought as high in altitude compared to the ETO and where the extended range given was a huge benefit. .
Hellcat, Corsair and T-Bolt all used the same radial engine, a Pratt and Whitney, and were good examples of proving the inline people wrong..
You're a radial engine fan .. vbg
The most famous and well liked fighter bombers that used rockets was the British "Tiffy" .. Or Hawker Typhoon Mk.1b. Rocket armed Typhoons devastated German armor in the late stages of the war. P-38 and P-47 were really good in that role also.
Liquid cooled fighters were more fragile. A hit in the cooling apparatus and the ship was toast—literally.
Edit: didn’t see the post above. All correct.
The Soviet Il-2 Sturmovik is more closely related in concept to an A-10. Like the A-10 it was slow moving and had an armored bathtub like cockpit, with a high velocity 37mm anti-tank cannon in the nose, and which was solely designed as a ground attack plane that specialized in anti tank operations. Another similar plane was the Hs.129 which was a two engined German ground attack plane similar in concept to the above.
The P-47 was multi role platform, being used for ground attack, interception and bomber escort. . It was a beast and it may not have been very maneuverable but it was fast had a good climb rate and could out dive anything in the air.
Pretty cool thread .. thanks for starting it. I love military history.
Here's my favorite . It's a late model Fw-190 with an in-line instead of rotary engine like early versions and though it came too late and in too little numbers to have much effect, it ranks with the P-51, and late mark Spitfires as being one of the best piston engined fighter interceptors in the war.
Here's some pictures vbg
Fw-190 D-9
Il-2m
Hs.129
Have you read Thunderbolt by Robert S. Johnson? The chapter describing how he and his P47 survived a mission with nearly 2 dozen 20mm hits and hundreds of 30 cal hits is one of the most riviting air war stories I’ve read. And he was in his early 20’s at the time.
it was better looking 
. If I remember, the original engine did not perform as expected. The bigger engine needed a bigger prop, which became a lawnmower. So the wing had to curve up.
. If I remember, the original engine did not perform as expected. The bigger engine needed a bigger prop, which became a lawnmower. So the wing had to curve up.
it was better looking
Close. The bigger engine and prop required longer landing gear, but with a straight wing the gear was too long. So bend the wing down and make the gear shorter.
Latest posts
-
Southern Miss vs IU: IU ends the season by getting blasted, 15-3...
- Latest: hoosier roadtrips
-
-
