Best defender of ww2

List here your opinions about who was the most efficient general in defending during ww2.

For me, Heinrici is on the top of the list. He conducted great defensive battles(Moscow,retreat from Smolensk,Zeelowe for example). Especially in Moscow, where he held the front for around 2 months while greatly outnumbered(around 10 to 1 IIRC). As far as i know it was said that "he could retreat only when air became lead and still, after much thinking".

 

I vote for Albert Kesselring, for holding the Allies at the Gustav line, and then the Gothic Line for 23 months, despite having no reinforcements and the allies having complete air support for that time...

 

Heinrici, definitely. I completely agree. He was a dedicated defender and good only in that role, but there was no one who could beat him at it.

I think Kesselring mostly had the terrain on his side. Heinrici pulled off his feats on the plain.

 

I double Kesselring

 

I triple it

 

Hmmm ... "most efficient".......... define?

I would have to say Stalin. His refusal to give up Stalingrad and defend it at all costs, turned the tide of the war.

;-)

Greg

:smok:

 

hmm, I don´t think Stalingrad turned the war, coz Kursk could have changed the war. You have also to consider that many defeats of the german army, especially in Stalingrad were caused by Hitlers ignorance and obstinacy, so the best defender, fighting along the Red Army was Hitler

Regards,
Che.

 

You're right Che,

Clearly since Hitler ultimately failed to successfully assault Europe, that must make him a grrrr-eat defender!!!

I'd like to personally thank him for defending Russia, Britain, America and all other nations which we THOUGHT he was trying to subjugate and enslave,
ya' really had us fooled there Adolf

 

Che,

Stalingrad ensured that Germany would not win the war. Kursk ensured that they would lose it.

- Greg

:smok:

 

No, thats not right, coz of the battle of charkow the front was stabilised in 1943, if the german army had won at Kursk, they probably won the war against russia. Unfortunately russia had a great defender called Adolf Hitler, who postponed and postponed the Operation, to get the heavy tanks, so russia had enough time to prepare their positions. Thx to Hitler we lost the war! This fool and his disgusting nazi party

 

I disagree, I think after the failure of Barbarossa and with the direct involvement of the US in the war the defeat of Nazi Germany was only a matter of time. Neither Stalingrad nor Kursk would or could have changed that since the Soviets were at that point able to produce and crucially maintain armies at a rate faster than Germany could destroy them.

However, I do not think Stalingrad was decisive, I think Moscow was far more decisive since this was where the offensive capabilities of the German army were first blunted. Germany probably could and arguably did regain the initiative after then, but importantly long term it was a steady withdrawal to Berlin after the failure to capture Moscow.

I'd put the two events at the earlier battles, Moscow ensure Germany would not win, Stalingrad and the destruction of 6th army at a point when they still potentially could have swung things ensured Germany would lose. Kursk meant ultimately that Soviet losses would be less severe since the forces lost there could have been better used in fighting withdrawals later.

 

Well, we are all entitled to our opinion.

I don't feel that the Germans lost the battle of Moscow (1941). They chose not to capture it and turned their main striking force south towards Kiev, which resulted in capturing a million Soviets. Yes, a bad decision, but not a lost battle. No question, Moscow was the key, but we see that in retrospect.

The rest is speculation, and your opinion is as valid as mine.

- Greg

:smok:

 

OK, so what would you base that opinion on? Germany failed to capture Moscow yet you don't feel they lost the battle. By this yardstick many defeats can be invalidated, in North Africa Germany chose to abandon it, Kursk, Germany abandoned, BoB Germany called off the attacks, but in each case Germany arguably chose not to persue her objectives.

Would either Stalingrad or Kursk have proved decisive if the results had been reversed? I don't believe either would, either or both would have lengthened the war, but neither battle offered Germany the chance to reverse the course of the war. Can you offer an alternative history by which either would?

Moscow on the other hand, the capture of an enemy capital city, quite aside from the logistical implications of the industry and rail involved could prove internally and externally devastating.

 

Heinrici are the best defender if the german high command dont call hem off the war can take few year more becose after that russian take some speed to berlin :smok:

 

I think that Žukov is one of the best general´s the history has ever known.He led a first succesfull counterattack at Yelna in 1941.He saved Leningrad and Moscow from German ocupation and led succesfull counterattack which has driven german´s from the gates of Moscow.His only unsuccesfull operation was Mars because OKW was informed by german chief of inteligence Gehlen then Vyazma salient will be the main target for the soviet winter offensive in 1942 and OKW moved there extra troop´s.He is also a creator of the soviet summer campaign in 1943. He led a battles on Ukraine in the spring of 1944. His 1st Whiterussian front achieved great victory during Oder and Vistula offensive as well as in Berlin operation.

 

.



Heinrici no contest ,
hitler thought so and while not liking him was aware that nobody ever broke his front .
I'm a big fan of joukov but he stuffed up as a field commander quite a few times ,
the most obvious was at the crossing of the oder where he lost time and forces messing up a pretty straightforward assignment ,
koniev on his left crossed with no problems ,
had joukov been a bit less stubborn , he could have taken berlin earlier at less cost ,
anyway he didn't defend ,he was a staff man , a planner .
at leningrad he reorganised the defence , and well , but left pretty quickly
he had nothing to do with the stalingrad defence , the front was under yeremenko , the fighting to chiukov
( in this one case, the greatest defender in the universe )
as a matter of fact chiukov was under joukov at 1st bielorussian front ,they didn't like each other and ripped into mad argument with gutso on occassion ,
considering both men reputation , it must have been quite a sight !!





.

 

but we talk here about the best defender an i think no one russian officier is the best just look on loose mans in operations she push soldiers in to death

 

I quadruple Kesselring or is it kettlering? :-?

 

Keith Park

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Park

 

Kesselring. "Kessel" means cauldron, but that's not really relevant...

I do wonder though, why do so many people choose him? It's been said three times without offering any kind of argument. Heinrici and others have meanwhile had their cases made for them. Please, defend your choice.