Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

He won his victories when the allied armies were easy pickings. A win is a win, so he gets credit.

In 1944 he couldnt stop the Allied steamroller in Normandy, therefore he lost. A loss is a loss.



He won his battles. In fact he never lost one. It was only a general like Patton that could push his 3rd army across France in a matter of a few weeks. And it was only a general like Patton that could have aggressively contained the flank of the German army in the Battle of the Bulge.

Syscom we have covered this already, go back read the thread.

Ok, Rommel won many victories in France early in the war and then again in North A.

You discount his victories early in France, why ? B/c he won and the Allies lost? He won those battles using new theories in warfare, the Allies did not react well and lost. He then went on to win brilliant victories in North A but could not hold off the over whelming odds mounted against him.

I will repeat this again, do you think that Patton would of won in North A with the same odds against him? I think not.

You say that Patton never lost a battle, ok, tell me a brilliant battle that he won. Not the Battle of the Budge, that is no genius at work, all he had to was wait for the weather to clear and watch the waves of Allied planes pummel German ranks (that were out of gas!). I think I could of done that, I have played Risk you know!!!

You say what matters or determines who is a Great General is if he won more battles then not........? So every single Axis General was a dumb ***? Every single Allied General that won his last battle was better than every Axis General who lost his last battle???? yikes if thats what you believe then there is no hope telling you otherwise.

Ok here is a sports analogy for you. Are you telling me that if the following players had NEVER won a Championship they sucked?

Arnold Palmer?
Wayne Gretzky?
Mike Tyson?
Sugar Ray Leonard?
Mario Lemke's?
Dan Mario?

Come on Syscom you have to admit your line of logic is............faulted.

[syscom3]

You discount his victories early in France, why ? B/c he won and the Allies lost? He won those battles using new theories in warfare, the Allies did not react well and lost. He then went on to win brilliant victories in North A but could not hold off the over whelming odds mounted against him.

Agrre'd, although a closer look at the German victory had more to do with a complete collapse in the French morale and will to fight rather than super brilliant strategy and tactics of the Germans. There were several instances in which the British or French divisions that were equipped with the latest armor did inflict a telling blow on the German units.

I will repeat this again, do you think that Patton would of won in North A with the same odds against him? I think not.

We will never know, but I would say at a minimum, he could fight the Germans to a stalemate. Remember that the allied armies had a far superior logistics doctrine than the Germans did. Patton knew how to use his firepower, intuitively knew the value of mobility, plus he knew he wouldnt run low on supplies.

You say that Patton never lost a battle, ok, tell me a brilliant battle that he won. Not the Battle of the Budge, that is no genius at work, all he had to was wait for the weather to clear and watch the waves of Allied planes pummel German ranks (that were out of gas!). I think I could of done that, I have played Risk you know!!!

Actually the German offensive was contained while the weather was still horrible. Patton moved his army in the middle of horrible winter weather right into a pitched battle and crumpled the german offensive right in its tracks.

Pattons credits include the 3rd Army breakout and rush across France, the Battle of the Bulge, battles in western germany to cross the Rhine and his dash into Checkslovakia.

You say what matters or determines who is a Great General is if he won more battles then not........? So every single Axis General was a dumb ***? Every single Allied General that won his last battle was better than every Axis General who lost his last battle???? yikes if thats what you believe then there is no hope telling you otherwise.

I didnt say that at all. I just said that the German Generals were not among the greatest of all. But then, war is war and the one who wins the last battle does have claims to be the greatest.

Ok here is a sports analogy for you. Are you telling me that if the following players had NEVER won a Championship they sucked?

what do these sportsman have to do with the carnage and violence of war?

Come on Syscom you have to admit your line of logic is............faulted.

Not at all.

[Hunter368]

Syscom,

Why was the French moral low? Why did the British have to retreat to UK? B/c of telling German victories thats why. In WW1 the French were a very tough opponent for the Germans, you think that 22 years they are all just cowards now? They had low moral b/c of the unsurpassed victories of the Germans. Rommel being one of them.

My second point I think you miss understood. What I mean if Patton had what Rommel had to use in North A do you think he would of been able to hold off UK and USA forces? I don't think so.

All the battles you quote that Patton did command in I have this to say about them, he should of been able to what he did. He had ever possible advantage in his hands. Show me a battle where he fought from a disadvantage and still won against all odds, then I will give him some credit. He was a above average General, like I said before in this thread, just not a Great one.

Then you say the following:
"I just said that the German Generals were not among the greatest of all. But then, war is war and the one who wins the last battle does have claims to be the greatest."
I say the ever German General was not a Great General, I agree, but many were. They fought at huge I mean HUGE disadvantages though most of the war and made the Allies pay a huge price for their victory. But you are right they did lose, but that does not mean they are worse Generals then the Allied ones. It means that the Allied ones had a HUGE advantage to work with and at times the Allies did come up with good strategies also. There was some Great Allied Generals, Nimitz, Mac Arthur were both better than Patton. They both did more with less resources then what Patton did.

Sports analogy means alot. I am sure you fully understand what I am saying you just want to admit it. You are saying the German Generals are not Great or cannot not be considered Great b/c they lost the war. USA Generals won so they are Great. Well I am saying if those Great players I listed had not won a Championship would you have said they sucked also?? If you do clearly you are wrong. They are Great players (just like some German Generals were Great) whether they won or not.

[Udet]

Also mr. syscom3 gladly forgot to make any comments when I said the very first time the armed forces of the USA and Germany met on the battlefield during world war two, the performance of US troops and officers was wanting to say the least; the outnumbered and under-supplied German troops (commanded by Rommel) taught them what perhaps could be one of the toughest, roughest and bloodiest lessons the US Army has ever had to endure in its history.


In conclusion, mr. syscom3s behavior is not different from that the post-bolshevik keepers of the truth display on russian ww2 forums: "errrmm...tell me kid,who won the war in the end?".

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Udet

Also mr. syscom3 gladly forgot to make any comments when I said the very first time the armed forces of the USA and Germany met on the battlefield during world war two, the performance of US troops and officers was wanting to say the least; the outnumbered and under-supplied German troops (commanded by Rommel) taught them what perhaps could be one of the toughest, roughest and bloodiest lessons the US Army has ever had to endure in its history.


In conclusion, mr. syscom3s behavior is not different from that the post-bolshevik keepers of the truth display on russian ww2 forums: "errrmm...tell me kid,who won the war in the end?".

Sorry Udet what are you referring to in your last paragraph? Just wondering, are you referring to another thread or what? plz explain more

Thanks

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Patton isn't doing much better than Yamamoto!


I'm sure if he was on here........

[MacArther]

Douglas MacArthur, but I can't seem to remember why... Oh yeah, because he was great in the theatre which was presented to him, he cared about his troops, and because he is my favorite general!

[Bullockracing]

To clear up the Rommel vs Patton, which would you want to be your commander? If you haven't been in the mob, this question may seem to be a no-brainer. Patton was one tough SOB, and while he might win, it will be at cost to me if I am under his command. Rommel (when his hands were not tied by Nazi red tape) was a commander loved (and respected, not feared) by his troops.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Bullockracing

To clear up the Rommel vs Patton, which would you want to be your commander? If you haven't been in the mob, this question may seem to be a no-brainer. Patton was one tough SOB, and while he might win, it will be at cost to me if I am under his command. Rommel (when his hands were not tied by Nazi red tape) was a commander loved (and respected, not feared) by his troops.

While the point of this thread is "Greatest WW2 Military Commander" not most beloved, you do bring up a good point.

I would also rather serve Rommel 100%.

[Bullockracing]

You're correct, Hunter. I guess I was using a bottom-up view of great as opposed to how a leader of a country would see great.

I would dare say that manning, material, equipment, and support do not make a military commander great, it is what he can accomplish with what he has. The number one resource is people, and for a commander to be great, he must have the support of his troops.

[Udet]

Hunter368, hello:

What i said about syscom3, is that his comments within this thread are not different to those you can read in russian ww2 online-discussion forums.

Mr. syscom3 says things like "Patton won battles when it counted...", so perhaps Rommel´s victories in France and North Africa did not count. Rommel should have let the Brits have his butt since his very first operation in North Africa.

"Rommel might have been good, just not that good". The reason behind such assertion?

Simple Hunter, this is how it works: Patton is better for the fundamental reason he was a commander of a nation part of the victorious side, therefore, all commanders of the defeated side are by force of an inferior breed.

You know what a keeper of the truth is don´t you Hunter?

Do you speak Russian? If you do, then you ought to take a look at what so many russian guys say of the red army in their forums.

There are keepers of the truth on all allied nations: USA, UK...however, those who took the keeper of the truth role up to unprecedented levels are precisely the russians.

[Bullockracing]

You've got a point Udet, there's a certain "brand loyalty" in action here, although I voted for Rommel...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Overall I would have wanted to serve under Rommel more. Now this has nothing to do with the fact of what side they were on or what, just which commander I think overall was better. I believe that Rommel understood the whole picture better than Patton did. Patton was a wild cowboy (which dont take me wrong, that style worked for him).