Who was the greatest military genius of the 20th century

...

Doesn't get much more genius than this man right here.

>Rommel
E B I N
B
I
N

He dig more damage to Axis than any allied leader.

>lmao dude, Germany was strong, Hitler was the reason Germany lost

when will kids leave this board...

Hitler worship is over there

but hitler is the reason germany lost

also the reason germany fought

>>>>/reddit/
The retarded leftis aggregation site is over there

He is the genius that choose the good way to BTFO France. It make him a better miltary than all other german failure.

woah dude you sure showed him

well trotsky's red guards were infamous and world renowned. They managed to beat the whites and the allies.

lol hitler lost when he failed at stalingrad

>those two anywhere near the greatest

americans shouldnt be allowed to post on the history board

...

#1 for Guerilla Warfare
#1 for Grand Strategy conventional warfare

>#1 for Grand Strategy conventional warfare

>The best way to conduct an offensive is to perform multi-axial attacks, each of which is going to need a 3-4:1 localized advantage over an enormous geographical area where the spearheads won't be able to support each other.
>Yeah, I mean, it's totally worthless unless you already have an overwhelming advantage, but think of how cool and how quickly you'll crush them if you do have that overwhelming advantage?
>Wait, you want a strategic direction if you don't have an overwhelming material and manpower lead? Fuck, I dunno.

Stalin and Ho Chi Mihn
They discovered that human waves is the safest way toward victory

The level of english in this thread is amazing.

Keeping of up the well working fellowship friendlies ,

Of concurrence, sieg heil

:^)

...

>meme replies general

Willy rohr
Ridgeway
The skunkworks

What is ulysses grant

Not exactly a 20th century military figure.

>discoveries count once each century

Tukhachevsky/Rokossovsky for their work in pioneering and executing Deep Operations doctrine.

Guderian for being the most vocal and successful exponent of blitzkrieg manuever warfare.

Talking about land warfare only, of course.

Since when did Grant attempt infiltration tactics a la Chinese, or belt buckle hugging a la the Vietnamese?

Grant's innovation was attempting to win from steady pressure, as opposed to a decisive victory, which hell, Fabius came up with millenia before. His only innovations that can be directly credited to him are 19th century tactical constructs.

Mao was good at politics but a terrible military tactician

Guderian

Unironically he was one of greatest tacticians and field commanders of all time, maybe even the greatest, but as strategist he was at best mediocre.

For one of the "greatest tacticians" of all time, he got outmaneuvered pretty badly on both of the big British counteroffensives in the Desert Campaign, not just outweighed.

I mean hell, Monty gets pissed on all the time, but everyone seems to forget he turned Rommel's main trick right back at him at El Alamein, wrecking most of Rommel's armored forces by luring them to an ATG trap.

He was a good tactician, he wasn't superb. Even in WW2 you get far better German tacticians, guys like Kesselring and Model and Balck. There's no way he's anywhere close to "maybe the greatest of all time".

>Rommel
>Strategist
This has to be bait.

What you fail to realize is this: Rommel placed great faith in high command to maintain supply chain and logistics. Between the arrogance and short-sightedness of German high command, and the Italians who ran the supply ports, he never had a chance to achieve a successful campaign.

If you still think he wasn't a strategist, then STFU until you've read something written by him. Start with Infanterie Greift An,and you'll have a newfound respect for the man.

>What you fail to realize is this: Rommel placed great faith in high command to maintain supply chain and logistics. Between the arrogance and short-sightedness of German high command, and the Italians who ran the supply ports, he never had a chance to achieve a successful campaign.

Please, continue talking out of your ass.

They did manage to supply him, to the order of 1.8 million tons of stuff, shipped from between his landing and 2nd Alamein. You know what happened? He squandered it, launching offensives all the way to Egypt. His supply problems weren't the result of getting it across the water, his supply problems were borne out of moving hundreds of kilometers away from his supplies without any means of transporting them with him, losing untold amounts of material and man-hours driving the same trucks back and forth across the desert, guzzling fuel, getting them broken down in the sand when they weren't strafed by the RAF or shot up by the LRDG and similar groups.

None of that had to do with high command, that had to do entirely due to his own ideas and his unwillingness to actually hold to his orders to preserve a presence in Cyrenica as long as possible, because he was a tertiary front in a multi-faceted war, another fact that went right over his head.

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf

>If you still think he wasn't a strategist, then STFU until you've read something written by him. Start with Infanterie Greift An,and you'll have a newfound respect for the man.

You mean, a book that has absolutely nothing to do with strategy and is almost entirely about company level or smaller tactics? Are you completely retarded as well as ignorant?

Georgy Zhukov

Khalkhin Gol, Moscow and Stalingrad. Enough said.

Then why doesn't anyone use battleships any more?

No it can't. Not if that carrier "flotilla" included proper escorts (which any actual carrier group does; no one sends out "flotillas" of just carriers).

Until ~1940, battleships were more powerful than aircraft carriers. Before then, aerial torpedoes were garbage and had to be dropped near the surface and at near stall speeds, making them impractical to use. Shipborne airplanes at that point didn't have the necessary payloads either for heavy bombs against ships.
Combine these factors with carriers having a relatively small complement of aircraft, they were rightfully regarded as support ships to battleships.

What if it's a flotilla of only escort carriers?

>did what the Soviets admitted they couldn't have done
>not the greatest
I know that Veeky Forums sucks tiny commie cock, but come on.

>arrogance
Rommel was an arrogant piece of shit who didn't even have the decency to acknowledge that Italians fixed their shit and contributed a lot to his victories.
Instead he used them as a scapegoat for his failures, along with his subordinates.
Rommel is overrated as fuck.

What are some good books on historical logistics/strategy?

I've read Supplying War by van Creveld and The Desert Generals by Barnett but don't have anything else.

t. livid luigi

Well the escort carriers could still probably send out planes outside of the range of any ships threatening them.

he screwed the French and the American

...

Arthur Balfour. It was his idea to use the concept of an ethno-nation state for Jews to manipulate them into steering global super powers into wars that ultimately benefit the Jews and cause ongoing strife for white races, who are the greatest threat to Jews. This has continued to be effective even to this day.

This strategy has had the largest impact of any other that I'm aware of. Jews now have the ability to manipulate the state affairs of any nation in which they reside, with an option to seek sanctuary in Israel as a backup plan any time the people of these nations become aware their subversion.

Nah senpai. The credit for Germany's success goes to its Generals. Hitler did way more damage than good.

>#1 for Guerilla Warfare
Võ Nguyên Giáp

He managed to drag his little shithole though 30 years of war against far bigger and stronger entities.

>Rommel placed great faith in high command to maintain supply chain
>Between the arrogance and short-sightedness of German high command
Rommel had unrealistic expectations from german high command and expected an absolutely absurd numbers of supply trucks routed to him when Germany was already struggling.

So the best strategy is to rely on high command to do it for you.

this

Fighting against 5 countries + riots at the same time and remaining victorious is fucking insane.

The best strategy involves having a realistic grasp of what your forces are and aren't capable of, instead of charging blindly ahead and hoping it'll work out.

Not him, but honestly probably wouldn't have helped, even if he had gotten all the motorized transport he wanted. You run into a similar problem with rocket fuel for take-offs.

More trucks to haul your supplies means more supply necessary to just keep the trucks going, as they constantly need fuel and spare parts and personnel to man them and thus all the supplies necessary to keep them going. What he really needed was a railroad connecting his home port in Tripoli to the front, and a couple of armored trains to carry stuff. Trains are far more fuel efficient than trucks in the mid 20th century.

Alan Turing

also
>1708008

This Kesselring bio provides interesting insight on this and related topics. Rommel apparently was skilled at tactics and motivating troops, but shit at logistics and strategy. And an arrogant prick, at least until he'd been taken down a peg or three by the high command and der furher after fucking up the desert campaign.

Eh... on the ground Giap was a strategic blunder walking. He just happened to have a really good political and propaganda corps behind him.