Rating German generals

General WWII era German military discussion that doesn't fit someplace more specific.
Vinnie O
Supporter
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:07 am
Location: Washington, DC

Rating German generals

Post by Vinnie O »

There is a fascinating little wargame available free for downloading at

http://www.matrixgames.com/Games/warinrussia/links.asp

It's called "War in Russia", and it covers most all of the fighting in the East.

One of the most interesting features of the game is that you can edit most of the values for weapons, units, and leaders. So if you don't think the simulation is accurate, just make your Tiger tanks stronger, etc.

I don't like the game's rating of leaders, of which there are 50 for each side. Since many of these men have practically nothing written about them, I'd be interested in some opinions about adjusting the values

(9 = best, 1= worst. Corps, Army, Army Group, OKH, OKW use leaders)

Kesselring - 9
Rommel - 8
Rundstedt - 7
Kleist - 6
Paulus - 5
Busch - 4
Dietrich - 4
Kuchler - 4
Weichs - 4
Constantinesc - 4
Dumitrescu - 4
Garibaldi - 4
Himmler - 3
Hitler - 3

This is a sample of the higher ratings, but all of the leaders rated 3 or 4.

Were Busch and Weichs really that bad? Etc.
Vinnie O
User avatar
Abwehr
Contributor
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 7:16 pm

Post by Abwehr »

Where's Hausser? He should be a 6 or 7 IMO.
User avatar
derGespenst
Associate
Posts: 776
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
Location: New York City

Post by derGespenst »

What are Kesselring and Rommel doing in Russia? Had Rommel been there, my contention is he would have rated much lower relative to his peers - only his "splendid isolation" in Africa against a bumbling foe allowed him to come off so well. His disregard for orders and logistics and his habit of disappearing among his front-line platoons so that he couldn't exercise command of his Corps would have had him falling on his face (or worse) in Russia.

Also, rating Himmler a 3 gives him far too much credit. Even a 1 is probably generous.
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Vinnie O,

This list seems rather random.

Look at the two Romanians - Dumitrescu and Constantinescu. Both are rated 4.

Yet Dumitrescu had campaigned successfully in the southern Ukraine, Crimea and Caucasus in 1941-42 and his army fought better than Constantinescu's in late 1942 at Stalingrad.

Constantinescu only held army level command at Stalingrad and was not reappointed. By contrast, Dumitrescu went on to command armies in southern Ukraine, Transnistria and Romania proper until August 1944.

It is quite clear that Dumitrescu was well regarded by both Romanians and Germans because he held army-level commands from the first day to the last day of Romania's war in the Axis. By contrast, Constantinescu held army level command for less than a year and was not reappointed.

If the Romanians are anything to go by, this list is not well researched.

Cheers,

Sid.
GvB17SS
Supporter
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:20 am

Post by GvB17SS »

I found very inadeguate these generals.
I don't see the two best german generals of WWII, in my opinion sure:
Von Manstein, the best for offensive
Model, the best in defensive art of war.

Anyone have opinions on my statement?

Regards
BFC
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 22, 2003 2:49 pm
Location: Great Britain

Post by BFC »

I concur with Abwehr in his questioning, how could Hausser be left out of such a table? In my own view, he was one of the best career soldiers ever to wear a German uniform. What about von Manstein? The same qualities could be attributed to him, and Jochen Peiper also...
Peiper's reputation is often overshadowed by the Malmedy Incident, but I have yet to see evidence linking him with the order given to execute American POWs.

But that is another subject altogether, and I apologise for straying from the current topic...

Regards,
Matt
8)
User avatar
Qvist
Banned
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 10:22 am

Post by Qvist »

Well, where are Bock, Kluge, Manstein, Leeb, Schörner, Höppner, Guderian, Reinhardt, Hoth, Reichenau, Hollidt, Kempf, Hube, Balck, Heinrici and Model, to name a few?

Himmler should be "1" I think, if there is any such value. Otherwise, I think you've evaluated pretty good.

cheers
Vinnie O
Supporter
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 8:07 am
Location: Washington, DC

The Complete List

Post by Vinnie O »

The game abstracts the Mediterranean Theater and The West so that the German player can control all of the German forces actually available. (Norway is not played, nor is the north of Finland. German forces stationed there are not part of the game.) If you do not maintain a reasonable number of troops and aircraft in the Med and the West, the game concludes that you have lost that campaign, eliminates any units that are assigned to that theater, and deducts some units from OKH pools (or something). You can't actually fight battles in Africa or France.

The game allows the German player to freely reassign commanders, so you can transfer Rommel to Russia on the first turn. Similarly, Kesselring can be given a major ground command in Russia. You might not be able to remove Hitler as OKW (or Stalin as the most senior Russian commander.) However the commander's rating boosts the value of forces in the Med and West, so a weak commander can cause the machine to conclude you've lost that campaign.

Remember that the ranking is as a General, not a division or battalion commander. Corps and below do not get commanders. Only Army, Army Group, OKH, OKW. Luftwaffe flying units are played in the game, but they are assigned to ground Army HQs.

Here is the complete list of German and Axis Allied commanders, sorted by ranking and then alphabetically --

Guderian-9
Kesselring-9
Manstein-9
Model-9
Hoth-8
Mannerheim-8
Reichenau-8
Rommel-8
Rundstedt-8
Balck-7
Brauchitsch-7
Heinrici-7
Kleist-7
Reinhardt-7
Zeitzler-7
Hoepner-6
Hollidt-6
Kluge-6
Leeb-6
Lindemann-6
List-6
Luttwitz-6
Mackensen-6
Raus-6
Schobert-6
Stulpnagel-6
Wohler-6
Blaskowitz-5
Bock-5
Busse-5
Harpe-5
Hausser-5
Hube-5
Jany-5
Paulus-5
Ruoff-5
Schmidt-5
Schorner-5
Strauss-5
Student-5
Witzleben-5
Busch-4
Constantinescu-4
Dietrich-4
Dumitrescu-4
Garibaldi-4
Kuchler-4
Weichs-4
Himmler-3
Hitler-3
Vinnie O
BFC
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 22, 2003 2:49 pm
Location: Great Britain

Post by BFC »

Sorry to be a pain, but I still think Jochen Peiper deserves a mentioning on that list...

Regards,
Matt
User avatar
derGespenst
Associate
Posts: 776
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
Location: New York City

Post by derGespenst »

Actually, in the context of the game Vinnie O describes, the list isn't too bad. I would only quibble with Hausser (rated too low) and Himmler (rated WAY too high).
User avatar
Abwehr
Contributor
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 7:16 pm

Post by Abwehr »

i would give Kurt Student a bump too.
GvB17SS
Supporter
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:20 am

Post by GvB17SS »

I have reserves about the rating of some Generals.
Guderian have much more impact on War for his theories than for his skill as tactician or strategist: he is and adequate General but not so good for a 9. Also Runstedt appear overstimated. The lack of mention of Student is an error, and i agree with Abwehr. Model and Manstein deserves a 10. Reichenau and Brauchtisch again is overstimated. Heinrici is a true disaster (5 for me). Kluge deserve an 7. Paulus an 4. Himmler(who have a military role only in late 1944) is one of the worst in military history: 0 is more effective. And Hitler? This is greatest problem...Any opinion on Hitler military capacity?
User avatar
Qvist
Banned
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 10:22 am

Post by Qvist »

Of course, we can bicker endlessly about this. On the other hand, why not?

I too would take Guderian and Model down a peg or two. There is no way I can see that Model deserves such a high rating. A good defensive tactician, but at both Kursk and Arnhem his performance was sub-average. I'd put him at 6 or 7 - at most. And Hausser deserves better than a 5 I think, not to mention Hube!

Peiper? He was not a general!

cheers
BFC
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 22, 2003 2:49 pm
Location: Great Britain

Post by BFC »

Sorry Qvist, I thought senior officers of all calibres and ranks were included in the table.

Regards,
Matt
User avatar
mellenthin
Supporter
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re:

Post by mellenthin »

derGespenst wrote:What are Kesselring and Rommel doing in Russia? Had Rommel been there, my contention is he would have rated much lower relative to his peers - only his "splendid isolation" in Africa against a bumbling foe allowed him to come off so well. His disregard for orders and logistics and his habit of disappearing among his front-line platoons so that he couldn't exercise command of his Corps would have had him falling on his face (or worse) in Russia.

Also, rating Himmler a 3 gives him far too much credit. Even a 1 is probably generous.
Rommel would have excelled in operation Barbarossa. Just the type of operation that suited him. Leading from the front is not something that prohibits you from exercising command as the commander keeps in touch with his staff by radio.
Post Reply