Hitler´s rating

[alfonso]

Does Hitler deserve his low rating?. Is it only a 3 because of game balance or because everybody here think is the worst militar leader in WWII?. (Just trying to be polemic.... )

[Bernard]

htink he deseves a 3.
he was even worse tha Stalin.

Like :
He stopped Pz armies short of Dunkirk
he sent no troops to Rommel and then a full army (under Von Arnim's command) when it's too late
he doesn't allow retreat (worked in winter 1941, so he kept doing it ... like in Stalingrad
he believed Goering could actually win battle of Britain or reinforce Stalingrad
he didn"t listen to Raeder or Doenitz (at least when it counted).
etc.
yes, he was bad military.
remember he was a corporal in WWI. not great military education...

[alfonso]

Most of the German Generals (with the exception of Halder and Brauchitsch), Von Rundstedt (rated 7) included, agreed with the stop at Dunkirk.
Regarding Stalingrad, Hitler is not obviously the one to blame. It is typical of the post-war memories of the German Generals to exonerate themselves and to accuse Hitler of all their failures. On November 24th, 1942 Manstein (rated 9) declared that it was better for the 6th Army to resist than trying to break out.
The decision to fight in Africa was a political one, to aid Mussolini. It is the same kind of militar nosense that Chamberlain protecting Poland after leaving Czechoslovakia alone.
Most of the German generals made some blunders, (and some of them made only blunders). Rommel (rated 8) made every conceivable logistic capital sin, Zeitzler (rated 7) completely missed the Bagration offensive, and Manstein himself expended all his fortune in lands in East Prussia in November 1944 (poor inversion)
I believe that those who think that Hitlers stupidity was the only responsible for German defeat make a great discredit to the Red Army.

[Preuss]

It's generally accepted that generals make poor politicians, and vice versa.
Personally, I think Hitler and Stalin shouldn't be in the game, since us, the players take their places...yes, stroke your little, or big moustaches;)
Dunkirk was a poor decision, but one driven on political grounds. Hitler thought basically that if he showed the Brits some leniency, that they'd make peace with him.
Stalingrad was also driven by political reasons, this time to hold the city bearing Stalin's name.
Blasting Rommel is, I feel, baseless. He did with little against a numerically superior and well supplied 8th Army what could never be reproduced in any game of this type fairly.

[crusher]

well manstien actually said that there was no hope of a breakout that the 6th army should fight to the last to keep the massive soviet forces from wiping out army group A also. by fighting to feb they allowed army group A to pull back and save itself. hitler was never going to let 6th army breakout and paulus was never going to disobey orders.

[ladner]

Originally posted by crusher
well manstien actually said that there was no hope of a breakout that the 6th army should fight to the last to keep the massive soviet forces from wiping out army group A also. by fighting to feb they allowed army group A to pull back and save itself. hitler was never going to let 6th army breakout and paulus was never going to disobey orders.

Since we have brought up the topic of Stalingrad, I think the most negligent decision, was the failure to reduce the Serafimovich bridgehead. Most of the histories that I have read, tend to blame the Romanians, but I am of the opinion that this was clearly OKW/OKH's fault and this decision doomed 6th Army. It's too bad that WiR though, that even by making the right decision, the Axis allied infantry corps are too weak to hold a fortified position behind a river.

[dulsin]

Originally posted by gfish22


Since we have brought up the topic of Stalingrad, I think the most negligent decision, was the failure to reduce the Serafimovich bridgehead. Most of the histories that I have read, tend to blame the Romanians, but I am of the opinion that this was clearly OKW/OKH's fault and this decision doomed 6th Army. It's too bad that WiR though, that even by making the right decision, the Axis allied infantry corps are too weak to hold a fortified position behind a river.

The Stalingrad issue has many different facets of stupidity.

The Romanians didn't have the equipment to fight first rate Soviet units. They had very little armor and their support was non-exsistant.

It is silly to send a very succeful tank army into a city. Being good at open field combat does not equate good at house to house.

The 6th Army engaged the enemy for 6 months AFTER being cut off. A foolish waste of supplies.

There was never a plan for rescuing the 6th Army. Even if they had pulled off Hitlers cue they would have been sitting in a hostile country cut off from supply with no hope of rescue.

It would have made much more sence to by-pass the town and let the Romanians take it after it was completly cut off from aid.

[crusher]

it was very possible to take stalingrad in july had hitler not changed 6 army objectives and 4th pz armies also. romanian commander asked over and over again for equipment and men to fight tanks but was rejected. winter storm had no chance at all of reaching stalingrad even though they got within 30 or 40 km of 6th army outposts only because it took russians time to shift troops to stop it. 6th army had only one chance that was retreat and breakout right away and that was impossible due to hitler.

[MikeB]

I am currently reading the book something like "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers 1500 - 2000" by Paul Kennedy published somewhere around 1987. His arguement is that military might and world power(influence) stems from population and economic strength.[# tons of steel, food stuffs, etc).

Hitler had wanted to delay the start of war till about 1942...but for whatever reasons, time took off on him. Britain called his play for Poland...even though it could do little to correct the situation. Japan was running out of resources and was more or less forced to declare war. As Britain would not quit...and the Americans were their major supplier of food stuffs etc, the german declaration of war sort of fell into place.

Without the holocaust, Hitler may have been acceptable as a creature of his time. As to his generalship...yes, i agree it was quite poor. Poor being defined as re-defining his strategic priorities ...just before achieving the last one. Poor being defined as trying to be a REMF (Rear Echelon MF general) or interferring with the front line troops with his edict that no retreats were permitted. My perception is that the other German "good" generals were somewhat not aware of the overall strategic scene...but were competent to complete their operational objectives given less interference from above.
Due to Hitler's security and political structure of Germany, it is unlikely he be deposed from the command chain. Note that in WIR, one can make him some 4-5 levels away from the front line troops though.

Cheers.

[SLAAKMAN]

HITLER DEFINATELY DESERVES A 3 OR LESS RATING. AS A RESULT OF A PROGRESSIVE PSYCHOSIS THAT RENDERED HIM MORE AND MORE PARANOID AND UNSTABLE, HE WOULD REPEATEDLY CONTRADICT HIS OWN POLICIES. HIS REJECTION OF TECHNOLOGY, FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF AIR SUPREMACY AND FANATICAL UNDERESTIMATION OF ADVERSARIES ALL BUT DOOMED THE THIRD REICH. HIS ONLY EXPERTISE LAY IN THE PRIMATE INSTINCTS OF BECOMING TOP CHIMP IN A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN BASED ON THE GANGSTER STYLE PHILOSOPHY OF "DO UNTO OTHERS BEFORE OTHERS CAN DO UNTO YOU." NOT UNLIKE STALIN, HITLER WAS HIS OWN WORST ENEMY AND MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR GERMANYS DOWNFALL THAN ANY OTHER REASON. (NOT TO UNDERESTIMATE SACRIFICES MADE BY THE ALLIED ARMIES). A 3 RATING IS MOST DESERVED.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

If you look at Hitler's military career as a commander, he really didn't do much. All that he did was to approve certain attacks (ardennes attacks) and order his commanders where to attack, and where not to retreat. Realistically, the Player fills the role of Hitler (he tells his commanders what to do). Hitler never dealt with the details of attacks much, however, when he did, it tended to result in disaster.

Hitler's rating of 3 represents his ability at tactical command (just like all other General's ratings, which means their ability to command smaller then modeled forces, i.e., HOW each division in a Corps attacks another Corps, not just directing the Corps to attack a specific Corps). Strategic command (which he had either luck/skill) is measured by the individual player.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by dulsin


The Stalengrad issue has many different facets of stupidity.

As far as I'm concerned the decision to *attack* Stalingrad frontally before surrounding and cutting it off was a gross act of stupidity. As Patton would have said, it was a waste of d.a.m.n good infantry. If you couldn't surround it, odds were you couldn't hold it if you could take it.

[SLAAKMAN]

TO EVEN MAKE STALINGRAD AN OBJECTIVE WAS AN ENORMOUS MISTAKE. PERHAPS TARGETING LENINGRAD AND EMPHASIZING NEW FIGHTER/INTERCEPTER AIRCRAFT DEVELOPEMENT AS A STRATEGIC PRIORITY FOR 1942 COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE DECISIVE FOR THE AXIS WAR EFFORT THAN THROWING EVERYTHING IN ON AN OVEREXTENDED CAMPAIGN TO TAKE A REGION THAT THEY COULDNT HAVE HELD ANYWAY.

[alfonso]

Nobody has mentioned what is in my opinion the single most important factor in German defeat (more than Hitler orders): the complete failure of German intelligence throughout the war. Everything must be viewed from this point. Two examples: OKH believed Russians were finished until August 1942, when the most important strategic decisions in the Blue campaign had been already taken, even splitting Army Group South. And second, the Afrika Army catastrophe was in great part due to the Ultra intercepting of messages with the convoy supply routes. I believe that when considering the information available, most of the German decisions seem less stupid.
Concerning the thread issue, it is important to remark that we all tend to be impressed by the final outcome of the war. Because of that, the big Stalin blunders of Summer 1941 have been forgiven, and failures as Operation Mars forgotten. Or in contrast, Zhukov, for instance, has been a little bit overrated. Being impressed as we are by the Berlin battle, we tend to minimize how bloody for the Red Army were all his offensives.
In my opinion, Stalin is the one to be regarded as a 3 rated military leader, and Hitler at least a 4 (better 5)

[Kuniworth]

I don´t agree, what do you mean Zhukov overrated? He was outnumbered in the beginning of the battle for Moscow and he held Leningrad.

[Kuniworth]

Sure the Rhzev offensive was a failure but Manstein failed on numerous occasions, so did Rommel and Guderian too.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Manstein, Rommel, etc.. proved their abilities as good strategic and tactical commanders in many occasions, however, Hitler did not. His military orders were not based in logic, but through emotion. Attacking throught he Ardennes, against the advice of most of his Generals, was an uneducated calculated risk that paid off for him. The plan could EASILY have gone the other way had the British/French just slightly modified their plan to have a larger tactical reserve, or had a different unit other then the 9th Army guarding the Ardennes.

His 'stand and fight' orders around Moscow, Stalingrad, etc. were not based on the knowledge that falling back will result in larger defeat through Soviet counterattacks against a German military without the mobility to quickly withdraw. These orders were based primarily on his emotion, anger, that his troops would dare think of moving one step backward!

Other commanders may have been wrong, but they were wrong after making a choice after trying to fully understand the situation. Rommel failed at Normandy because he made the wrong decision about where to counterattack (armour close to the beach would be blown away by naval artillery). It was an incorect decision, but it was made through logical deduction (i.e., I am going to figure out how to defend the continent as best I can, should I leave my armour far in the rear, or close to the front?). Invariably one commander in any engagement will be 'wrong', as one usually loses while the other wins. That does not mean that the loser was incompetent, or should deserve a poor rating.

Hitler, on the other hand, showed nothing other then luck that his emotional orders, separate from actual military thinking, worked for the first few years of the war. Later on, they stopped working.

[alfonso]

Originally posted by Kuniworth
I don´t agree, what do you mean Zhukov overrated? He was outnumbered in the beginning of the battle for Moscow and he held Leningrad.

First of all, I have to declare that in no way I am expert on military issues, so I have to rely heavily on the books i have read, and they are perhaps not enough. I think it is a little bit presumptuous on my side to make criticisms to the great Zhukov, but as this is a place to chat among friends, i am going to make them anyway:).
Two of the most important aspects of military art are economy of forces and achievement of surprise. In my humble opinion, there were some ocasions in that Zhukov did not get the right proportions of these two ingredients. He has been depicted as a General reliyng on frontal attacks decided by brut force, from his very first succeses against Japanese troops in August 1939 until the battle of Berlin in April 1945. I like the Generals that take care of his soldiers, and Zhukov did not (Seelow Heights and some days later the bombardment of Konev troops at Berlin). He consistently had more casualties than the enemy, and this makes me wonder if he really deserves the title of best general of WWII or at least of the Red Army (rating=9).
Regarding Leningrad, Hitler decided himself for a siege, so there was no real defense. And in front of Moscow, against a frozen Army Group Centre, i doubt Red Army was in inferiority.
However, i have to admit that he managed to get the best of his men and imposed a rigid discipline that paid dividends later on. He perhaps was conscious of the operative weaknesses of his troops, as for instance Montgomery was, and did what was available to him. But i like Chuikov (I dont know the English way of writing it) more, fighting his against-all-odds Stalingrad battle with his 62th Army, or even Rokossovsky or Vassilievsky. And, obviously, Eisenhower and Patton, but it was of course another war…

And i would like to comment on what Jeremy has just said that if the germans had followed the initial, well thought, logical, orthodox and scientific Sclieffen Plan II, they had probably lost the war as early as 1940, and we would be just now with no WIR at all. And we could agree that Hitlers´s ability to frighten his own troops "deserves" a higher than 3 rating

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Hitler freightened his Generals, not his troops. Individual soldiers were inconspicuous enough to not be "afraid" of Hitler. Hitler's generals tended to listen to him because they knew that they would be fired should they refuse to follow orders. This is basically the power Hitler had over the military. Individual soldiers did what their Generals told them to do. The generals listened to Hitler. Troops did not fight better because of Hitler's commands, orders, or influence. Hitler negatively affected tactical warfare (what these ratings stand for) much more then he positively helped it.

Hitler deserves a tactical rating of 3, because this was his ability. General ratings are of their ability to command troops in tactics not represented in the game. It does not matter what these tactics were, manoever vs. frontal assaults, but their ability to succeed (i.e., to get the highest readiness of troops to engage in combat) is what is being determined. Hitler had not tactical abilty. Hitler's 'good' strategic ability is NOT represented in this game, as the player is really 'Hitler'.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by alfonso


Two of the most important aspects of military art are economy of forces and achievement of surprise. In my humble opinion, there were some ocasions in that Zhukov did not get the right proportions of these two ingredients. He has been depicted as a General reliyng on frontal attacks decided by brut force, from his very first succeses against Japanese troops in August 1939 until the battle of Berlin in April 1945. I like the Generals that take care of his soldiers, and Zhukov did not (Seelow Heights and some days later the bombardment of Konev troops at Berlin). He consistently had more casualties than the enemy, and this makes me wonder if he really deserves the title of best general of WWII or at least of the Red Army (rating=9).
Regarding Leningrad, Hitler decided himself for a siege, so there was no real defense. And in front of Moscow, against a frozen Army Group Centre, i doubt Red Army was in inferiority.
However, i have to admit that he managed to get the best of his men and imposed a rigid discipline that paid dividends later on. He perhaps was conscious of the operative weaknesses of his troops, as for instance Montgomery was, and did what was available to him. But i like Chuikov (I dont know the English way of writing it) more, fighting his against-all-odds Stalingrad battle with his 62th Army, or even Rokossovsky or Vassilievsky.

First of all you are wrong about Leningrad(as this was prior to the siege) and secondly at the beginning of operation Typhoon in october Zhukov was largely outnumbered. If we talkin december 1941 with the russian counterthrust the situation naturally was diffrent.

Zhukovs foremost was his fighting-spirit. His operation was not as elgant performed as many of the german counterparts but he did rely on the red army's strenghts eg the large manpower reserves and the tenacity. It took until 1944 before the red army begun to show the same organisation and effiency as wehrmacht so of course we have a period of trial and error here. But also remember that the Red army fought with tactics differing from the wehrmacht. Often outnumbering the opponent takin more casualties were not a big thing.

Against the Japanese in 39 he routed them but lost 40-60% of his force in the process. Yes brute and uncompromising but effective.

Guderian failed miserably at Tula and in the winter of 1944-1945. Manstein could´nt stop the tide in russia winter 1943. Rommel did not perform so good at El alamein and in the second battle for France. They all failed but still we rank them among the best commander of the war. Why, becuase they showed a lot

After the war Runstedt ranked Konev and Zhukov as the premier soviet commanders with Zhukov as the absolute best. He saw Manstein as the best german commander.