Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated

[wmaxt]

I think Rommel was probably the best all around General with very good abilities in Politics, Strategy and a tactical sense.
Patton was the best tactical general, good strategical planner but poor Politically.
Palus, Rundstat and most of the German generals were very good but you just can't swim with your hands tied and concrete on your feet.
Zukov was very very good.
Montgomery was a good strategic planner, good at politics and poor in the field.
Ike was the best man for his job as overall command superb at Strategy, picking generals and politics, who knows how he would have done in the field.
Bradley was OK but worried about the foot soldier to much.

Patton worried about getting it done, and in the process ate up lots of ground. By cutting the enemy off and gaining a lot of ground he kept the enemy disorientated he saved soldiers on both sides as well as the civilians caught in between. His genius was in not taking to much at any given time.

wmaxt

[pbfoot]

Once again how can we not include Tito after all they were the only country to liberate itself plus and probably had the most effective partisans of all the countries

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And he held it together after WW2. After his death it all started to unravel. Tito though I think was a great partisan commander but as a commander of large masses of soldiers I dont think he would rank with Rommel and Patton.

[trackend]

Guderian is my choice his tactics very nearly succeeded and set the mould for modern warfare Eisenhower was superb but more for his ability in controlling the political factions than as a military tactician and Yamamoto fought an incredible campaign considering the constraints and limitations he had foisted upon him by the higher ups plus the lack of renewable logistics.

[CCM von Hausser]

Also if I think that this poll isn't 100% correct - IHMO - I say:

Erich von Manstein: a Genius

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

How is this poll not correct, when it is based on peoples opinions? Are peoples opinions not valid when they dont hold the same opinion as you?

[mahross]

I had to vote for Slim. In my opinion the pre-eminent British genral of the war. He had a good grasp of every aspect of warfare. He was also the first and only Indian Army officer to become CIGS.

Ross

[CCM von Hausser]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

How is this poll not correct, when it is based on peoples opinions? Are peoples opinions not valid when they dont hold the same opinion as you?

Probably cause my little english knowledge, I was unable to write what I mean... but I try now.

I think that is not 100% correct to compare men that were in command of Army, Group of Armies or entire sectors of the main front with men who were in command of just a single division. Still, I think that someone of them are brilliant tactical and others are brilliant strategical, but I think is impossible that a single man is both these things. For these and other reasons I think it's impossible to say in absolute who is the best leader, but we need to make some differences and distinctions from leader to leader... I think that is more correct that, here, in this manner, we can say who is our preferred leader.

I voted Erich von Manstein cause I think he was the best strategical of the entire WWII, and I prefer this fase of the war. I think that Rommel was tactical a and Guderian a theorist, so I cannot compare these men one with other.

DerAdlerIstGelandet, please, excuse me and my bad english... I'm sorry if you or someone has thought bad about me and my words.

In future I'll use an online traslator before to post here

Sincerely
Cristiano

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No worries man, not offense was taken.

As for the different kinds of leaders they can be compared because at some point they were all in the same position most likely. As for tactitian or theorist, they too can be compared because it is what they accomplish. Patton and Bradley were too different leadership styles but they accomplished the same thing. Therefore they can be compared.

[plan_D]

"Still, I think that someone of them are brilliant tactical and others are brilliant strategical, but I think is impossible that a single man is both these things."

This, I believe, to be incorrect. It is possible for a man to be both tactically and strategically intelligent. General Balck comes immediately to mind. This man commanded 1st Panzer Divsion's 1st Infantry Regiment in France, where he personally led an attack against Bouillion which led to the advance on Sedan. He then proceeded to rise through the ranks, commanding Panzer Korps in the East then eventually commanding Army Group G in the West against the American onslaught in southern France and Germany. This man grasped the tactical and strategical side of combat from squad tactics to army tactics. And was commented on by Col. Gen. Guderian as being the most naturally gifted Panzer commander he had ever met, and he had met Rommel.

"I think that Rommel was tactical a and Guderian a theorist, so I cannot compare these men one with other."

What would be considered tactical against strategical in your mind, von Hausser?

I find a tactical commander to be small scale (I say small lightly), so regiment, battalion or company command. This involves having an objective and ordering small groups against the small objectives (a single village, artillery battery etc.). This would normally be a part of a grander strategic plan set up by the higher "strategic command"; division, corps, army, army group.

This would mean that Rommel was a strategic commander. His commands during actual conflict were no less down the line than commanding 7th Panzer Divsion in France. If you idea is different then please enlighten me as to why.

And I would like you idea of a theorist against a practical commander. Because to me a theorist does not see combat, or does not take combat command. He writes the theory while others practice. To call Guderian a theorist and not accept his combat command (which was remarkable) into the equation is an insult to Guderian surely.
Maybe you're not aware that Heinz Guderian's command of XIX Army Corps in Poland could have been the pivotal point of the conflict which ensured the conquest of that nation. I will list the combat commands Guderian had during World War II (he also had some in World War I, but are beyond the scope of this discussion) :

Fall Weiss : Commander XIX Army Corps
Fall Gelb : Commander Panzer Group Guderian (this had Rommel's 7th Panzer division in it)
16 November 1940 : Panzer Group 2
5 October 1941 : Second Panzer Army
26 December 1941 : Transferred to OKH Officer Pool
1 March 1943 : Inspector-General of Armoured Troops
21 July 1944 : Also entrusted as Chief of the Army General Staff

So, Guderian was not just a theorist as he commanded forces in Poland, France and Russia. His forces in Poland stretched beyond all others and captured Brest-Litovsk. His forces in France were the first to the Channel. His forces in Russia were those that were on the doorstep of Moscow.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

I think Rommel was probably the best all around General with very good abilities in Politics, Strategy and a tactical sense.

let down by his lack of understanding of logistics,

Patton was the best tactical general, good strategical planner but poor Politically.

Patton was never an Army Group Commander so he had no involvement in Allied strategy, but tactically he was very bold.

Zukov was very very good.

Far too wasteful in his men's lives, his handling of the Berlin attack was awful.

Montgomery was a good strategic planner, good at politics and poor in the field.

Monty was totally useless at politics, but he was better in the field than he is often given credit for

Ike was the best man for his job as overall command superb at Strategy, picking generals and politics, who knows how he would have done in the field.

I agree Ike was the best man for the job he was given.

Bradley was OK but worried about the foot soldier to much.

Bradley is the most overrated general of WW2, he was wasteful of his men's lives in Normandy, with his costly broad front attacks, and at the start of the Battle of the Bulge, he panicked and lost control of the situation. Ike had to step in and get Monty and Patton to help him out

Patton worried about getting it done, and in the process ate up lots of ground. By cutting the enemy off and gaining a lot of ground he kept the enemy disorientated he saved soldiers on both sides as well as the civilians caught in between. His genius was in not taking to much at any given time.

wmaxt

In open warfare he was very good but against a well dug in enemy like at Metz, he did less well, his attacks being clumsy and costly

[syscom3]

...Bradley is the most overrated general of WW2, he was wasteful of his men's lives in Normandy, with his costly broad front attacks, and at the start of the Battle of the Bulge, he panicked and lost control of the situation. Ike had to step in and get Monty and Patton to help him out ...

Bradley never panicked, and Monty NEVER provided anything substantial untill after the offensive stalled.

It was Patton who kicked *** and got his 3rd army into position and saved the day.

[CCM von Hausser]

@ DerAdlerIstGelandet - Nice to read it

@ plan D - I'm sorry for the delay, I was in holiday... I need some time to answer to you why I hope to be clear and correct as well as possible this time