|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Sept 16, 2016 15:23:45 GMT
Deliberately trying to change topic
Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Sept 16, 2016 16:41:15 GMT
Deliberately trying to change topic Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel anyone? Order Wingate fan over here. Shame he dies in a plane crash, or else he could've made an impact on the latter half of the war. |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Sept 17, 2016 0:03:59 GMT
Deliberately trying to change topic Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel anyone? Since my original post seems to have been edited I'll redo what I said about Rommel. I voted for Rommel because he was a brilliant tactician and strategist and a master of both offensive and defensive warfare. He was no only a good general but also a great leader and a good and honourable man. Had he not have been forced to commit suicide by Hitler after his implication in th Valykire plot I'm sure he would have done many things that would influence Germany and therfor the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall Jackson on Sept 17, 2016 1:11:17 GMT
Deliberately trying to change topic Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel anyone? Since my original post seems to have been edited I'll redo what I said about Rommel. I voted for Rommel because he was a brilliant tactician and strategist and a master of both offensive and defensive warfare. He was no only a good general but also a great leader and a good and honourable man. Had he not have been forced to commit suicide by Hitler after his implication in th Valykire plot I'm sure he would have done many things that would influence Germany and therfor the world. Agreed. Rommel was tactically brilliant. He was defiantly good at heart, unlike other generals (Primarily Goring) |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Sept 17, 2016 9:33:29 GMT
Since my original post seems to have been edited I'll redo what I said about Rommel. I voted for Rommel because he was a brilliant tactician and strategist and a master of both offensive and defensive warfare. He was no only a good general but also a great leader and a good and honourable man. Had he not have been forced to commit suicide by Hitler after his implication in th Valykire plot I'm sure he would have done many things that would influence Germany and therfor the world. Agreed. Rommel was tactically brilliant. He was defiantly good at heart, unlike other generals (Primarily Goring) Wow a First lieutenant here? I think your one of the youngest to come here. Welcome to the general board where the cool kids hang out and peer pressure you into joining a TW  (just kidding). |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Sept 17, 2016 10:24:47 GMT
Agreed. Rommel was tactically brilliant. He was defiantly good at heart, unlike other generals (Primarily Goring) Wow a First lieutenant here? I think your one of the youngest to come here. Welcome to the general board where the cool kids hang out and peer pressure you into joining a TW (just kidding). naw mate, don't "recruit" him this early |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Sept 17, 2016 10:30:03 GMT
Wow a First lieutenant here? I think your one of the youngest to come here. Welcome to the general board where the cool kids hang out and peer pressure you into joining a TW (just kidding). naw mate, don't "recruit" him this early Why not? We need new meat now that we lost half of TW 14's men. And it's not recruit...it's indoctrinate... |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 17, 2016 10:38:41 GMT
naw mate, don't "recruit" him this early Why not? We need new meat now that we lost half of TW 14's men. And it's not recruit...it's indoctrinate... No offense Fred, but indoctrinate sounds even worse lol. We will just...educate them properly >  |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 17, 2016 10:40:21 GMT
Again, I said Stonewall Jackson as I believe the U.S Civil War could have been prolonged if he lived. Not WON by the Confederacy, because that could not happen unless something else happened instead like if Lee had won Gettysburg or if McClellan had been elected U.S president., but definitely prolonged, resulting in more destruction of the American South and possibly a larger division between our great nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Sept 17, 2016 10:44:47 GMT
Again, I said Stonewall Jackson as I believe the U.S Civil War could have been prolonged if he lived. Not WON by the Confederacy, because that could not happen unless something else happened instead like if Lee had won Gettysburg or if McClellan had been elected U.S president., but definitely prolonged, resulting in more destruction of the American South and possibly a larger division between our great nation. J. E. B. Stuart could have done that too, but at what extent I don't know. His raiding skills could have been useful in the end of the war, tying up Union resources. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 17, 2016 10:54:13 GMT
Again, I said Stonewall Jackson as I believe the U.S Civil War could have been prolonged if he lived. Not WON by the Confederacy, because that could not happen unless something else happened instead like if Lee had won Gettysburg or if McClellan had been elected U.S president., but definitely prolonged, resulting in more destruction of the American South and possibly a larger division between our great nation. J. E. B. Stuart could have done that too, but at what extent I don't know. His raiding skills could have been useful in the end of the war, tying up Union resources. Yes, but the Confederates needed defensive generals more than offensive generals. While most Confederate commanders were smart and tactical, the defensive minded ones usually were better off than the offensive minded. The commanders in Texas were especially useful, they were able to fight off the Union armies even after the Union secured the Mississippi and blocked all contact between Texas and the rest of the South. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Sept 17, 2016 10:57:36 GMT
J. E. B. Stuart could have done that too, but at what extent I don't know. His raiding skills could have been useful in the end of the war, tying up Union resources. Yes, but the Confederates needed defensive generals more than offensive generals. While most Confederate commanders were smart and tactical, the defensive minded ones usually were better off than the offensive minded. The commanders in Texas were especially useful, they were able to fight off the Union armies even after the Union secured the Mississippi and blocked all contact between Texas and the rest of the South. I've heard of a battle where a fortress garrison in Texas defeated an invasion force. Is that true? |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 17, 2016 11:04:59 GMT
Yes, but the Confederates needed defensive generals more than offensive generals. While most Confederate commanders were smart and tactical, the defensive minded ones usually were better off than the offensive minded. The commanders in Texas were especially useful, they were able to fight off the Union armies even after the Union secured the Mississippi and blocked all contact between Texas and the rest of the South. I've heard of a battle where a fortress garrison in Texas defeated an invasion force. Is that true? Sure is, the Second Battle of Sabine Pass. A 46 man Confederate garrison led by Lt. Richard W. Dowling successfully held off a much larger Union force from New Orleans led by General William B. Franklin. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Sept 17, 2016 11:20:32 GMT
I've heard of a battle where a fortress garrison in Texas defeated an invasion force. Is that true? Sure is, the Second Battle of Sabine Pass. A 46 man Confederate garrison led by Lt. Richard W. Dowling successfully held off a much larger Union force from New Orleans led by General William B. Franklin. What I've read is that the artillery won the day. To date I only knew the Battle of Thompson's Station as a huge victory with a huge margin for the Confederates. |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Sept 17, 2016 11:35:22 GMT
Why not? We need new meat now that we lost half of TW 14's men. And it's not recruit...it's indoctrinate... No offense Fred, but indoctrinate sounds even worse lol. We will just...educate them properly > No offence taken, I meant to make it sound worse  Anyway back on track. I know pretty much nothing about the American Civil Anwar but I know enough to recognise the South certainly needed more defensive generals than offensive ones. |
|
(just kidding).
