Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated

[freebird]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

This is for another discussion you can thank the Germans also for Dunkirk....

I would not rank someone based off of commaning the BEF as being the greatest of WW2 when there were plenty of commanders who were allied or axis that were far better.

Who would you propose as the greater STRATEGIC commander? (So I am not comparing Tactical/Army/Theater commanders like Patton,Rommel, Zhukov, Montgomery etc.) The Strategic decisions for the Russians, Germans & Japanese were basically made by Stalin, Hitler & Tojo. On the American side it was Marshall, Stimson & King that proposed their plans for the war. (but the British plan for "Torch" prevailed over the American plan for "SledgeHammer")
It was Brooke's leadership as the head of the British Army from 1941 -1945 that deserves credit as greatest commander. It was HIS plan that the Allies followed (the "concentric strategy") that won the war. If the Allies had followed the American plan, or even Churchill's plan it would have been much more difficult for the Allies to win the war, it would have taken much longer. All the major allied operations followed the strategic plan that he proposed in 1941. (Torch, Husky, Overlord, Anvil)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If we go with strategic per say and not tactical then I agree he is a strong contender. I am not sure he is the greatest but he is certainly a very strong contender.

I was looking at this from a different point of view.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

If we go with strategic per say and not tactical then I agree he is a strong contender. I am not sure he is the greatest but he is certainly a very strong contender.

I was looking at this from a different point of view.

Thanks. By the way I just signed up on this forum, and I appreciate the debate. Its nice to hear opposing views & facts without rancor.

I would have liked to see two sparate polls for Tactical & Strategic. I think most of the people have polled their Tactical favorite (Patton, Rommel, Manstien etc) and the results are not far wrong. Just curious, who would also be contenders for best WWII "Strategic" commander? I would guess Nimitz would be one, who else would you suggest?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by freebird

Thanks. By the way I just signed up on this forum, and I appreciate the debate. Its nice to hear opposing views & facts without rancor.

I agree.

Originally Posted by freebird

I would have liked to see two sparate polls for Tactical & Strategic. I think most of the people have polled their Tactical favorite (Patton, Rommel, Manstien etc) and the results are not far wrong. Just curious, who would also be contenders for best WWII "Strategic" commander? I would guess Nimitz would be one, who else would you suggest?

Honestly I prefer to look at the "Tactical" ones because that is what interests me the most. I would have to think about the "Strategic" ones a bit.

If you wish to start up 2 seperate threads you may do so. Forum members have the ability to do so and you can start polls in them as well.

[Messy1]

I just signed enlisted for this forum. I love the discussions, I have all ready learned a lot. Looking forward to learning more.
I have had a couple thoughts about this topic. Wanted your gentleman's opinions. I have read several times the arguement that is easy to consider Patton being a greater commander than Rommel when Patton had all the advantages when the two squared off. But if this thinking is true, would it not be unfair to use the arguements of Poland and France in the opening months of Blitzkrieg for the arguement of the German generals? What I mean by this is that the German Generals had the advantage over every country they invaded at this point. Germany had the avantages of technology, better trained men, better weapons, better tactics. I have not done very much research about where the countries that Germany invaded ranked in these catagories, but the Polish military was and in no way a match for the German army. France's military was in disarray. I believe they sunk most of the french defense budget into the Maginot Line, (so much so that it's construction almost bankrupted France) believing that this huge and over rated fortification was all that they needed. When the Germans simply went around it, it proved that the fixed fortification was almost useless in modern warfare, and that the France's militry plan for defense was a total disaster. What I am trying to say is that if France Had sunk more money into weapons developement instead of the Maginot line, it may have changed things quite a bit. Building the Maginot line took away vast amounts of resources and money which could have gone into defense and the building of planes and armour. Germany had the advantage over France by far.

But in arguement of Rommel, could you imagined how much better the German Generals could have done had Hilter not thought himself to be a smarter tactician than all of his generals, and had he also not insisted of being involved in every aspect of war planning. Imagine how different things could have been had Hitler trusted the advice of all his true brillant generals? Imagine Rommel or any of the other top german generals under a Roosevelt or Churchill. I believe (churchill, Roosevelt) that they had total confidence in the heads of their respected military branches, and did not get so directly involved.
Patton or Rommel. Different men, different tactics. But both are truely great in their own right.
People have been debating topics like this ever since the war ended, will be for quite a while.
I am looking forward to reading people's opinions on this. thanks for adding me!

[Arsenal VG-33]

Originally Posted by Messy1

France's military was in disarray. I believe they sunk most of the french defense budget into the Maginot Line, (so much so that it's construction almost bankrupted France) believing that this huge and over rated fortification was all that they needed. When the Germans simply went around it, it proved that the fixed fortification was almost useless in modern warfare, and that the France's militry plan for defense was a total disaster. What I am trying to say is that if France Had sunk more money into weapons developement instead of the Maginot line, it may have changed things quite a bit. Building the Maginot line took away vast amounts of resources and money which could have gone into defense and the building of planes and armour. Germany had the advantage over France by far.

You just missed an interesting thread, though I guess you could still comment on it if you want. Anyway, welcome, I'm a newbie myself.

[Arsenal VG-33]

I myself was wondering when the Strategic vs. Tactical commanders discussion would appear. I've always enjoyed studying both, but strategical decisions are often made with political strings. Thats why I prefer tactical on a strictly military/battlefield basis. In that case, I would pick three as my favorites, two of which are not mentioned in the poll.

1- Of course it is Patton. Though most remembered for his role in the Battle of the Bulge, I think his breakout from Normandy through the Britanny peninsula was the work of a genius.

Other 2 not named:

2- Gen. Middleton, who under Patton, exploited the void left by the Germans in the Loire valley, thus allowing 3rd Army to sweep all the way to the Seine.

3- Gen. Leclerc, also under Patton and a good friend of his (the two had very similar backgrounds) made a surprisingly long dash to the strategically important city of Strasbourg, capturing it and taking the Germans in the region completely by surprise and throwing them off balance.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

Thanks. By the way I just signed up on this forum, and I appreciate the debate. Its nice to hear opposing views & facts without rancor.

I would have liked to see two sparate polls for Tactical & Strategic. I think most of the people have polled their Tactical favorite (Patton, Rommel, Manstien etc) and the results are not far wrong. Just curious, who would also be contenders for best WWII "Strategic" commander? I would guess Nimitz would be one, who else would you suggest?

Try MacArthur.. for mastery of the 3 dimension battle, for territory re-taken with fewest casualties.. and compare his campaigns to any others - especially Nimitz's

Regards,

Bill

[freebird]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Try MacArthur.. for mastery of the 3 dimension battle, for territory re-taken with fewest casualties.. and compare his campaigns to any others - especially Nimitz's

Regards,

Bill

Interesting, as I think that of the British generals Brooke had the best understanding of total warfare. (he had commanded mechanized, army units, had first-hand experience with air & naval power dynamics -Fall of France) He states that he considered McArthur to be the most able of the American commanders.

One point though, I have read some accounts of the Dec 8 attack on Clark field, Philippines that he delayed making the call to send the bombers to attack Formosa, which left them waiting on the runway, and were caught by the Japanese. Or do you think Brereton was at fault?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by freebird

Interesting, as I think that of the British generals Brooke had the best understanding of total warfare. (he had commanded mechanized, army units, had first-hand experience with air & naval power dynamics -Fall of France) He states that he considered McArthur to be the most able of the American commanders.

One point though, I have read some accounts of the Dec 8 attack on Clark field, Philippines that he delayed making the call to send the bombers to attack Formosa, which left them waiting on the runway, and were caught by the Japanese. Or do you think Brereton was at fault?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter - he was at the top of the food chain.

The single best book about MacArthur, in my opinion, is American Caesar by Manchester.

MacArthur along with Patton, Grant and Lee are probably the only US Commanders who are studied universally with any particular focus re: positives. Hodges, Harmon, Ridgeway and MacArthur (WWI) are some notable US leaders at Tactical levels.

Great Respect for Guderian and Rommel and Kesslering and Balck and Yamashita.

I'm very impressed by Brooke - a lot, moreso than Monty.

I know many Soviet Generals like Zhukov made important cotributions but I feel that too many casualties were absorbed in the process due to a lack of imagination.. I am less informed in this area than I should be to make this comment.

Curtis LeMay in my opinion is the top Air Strategist and overall leader if you consider his contributions to 8th AF Bombing, formation and lead crew doctrines over Germany, then b.) his totally out of the box thinking about B-29 Ops over Japan and c.) shaping and driving the professionalism and competence of SAC post war.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Try MacArthur.. for mastery of the 3 dimension battle, for territory re-taken with fewest casualties.. and compare his campaigns to any others - especially Nimitz's

Regards,

Bill

Do you think Nimitz was at fault for the plan at Tarawa, etc? Could they have known that there would be so many casualties?

[Derfman]

A SOLID vote for Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ike was God's gift to the Allies. But NOT as a battlefield commander or even a strategist.

Ike was probably THE best "political general" in the history of the human race, and in this case I say "political general" in a positive fashion.

Any general that could get a Monty and a Patton to make even vague attempts to work together cannot be underrated. And thats only the most famous of the problem children he had to deal with.

Ike is THE key thing that made the Western militaries cooperate as well as they did. Its a low key detail, and as vital as supply ships and shovels.