Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated

lucanus · 08-10-2007, 02:11 AM

Where's Chesty and Red Mike Edson?

majorwoody10 · 10-14-2007, 07:04 AM

patton and monty had overwhelming logistcal support and a sky devoid of enemys they were great allied commanders but it is kind of apples and oranges to compare them with kesselring ,manstein ,rommel ,manteuffele et all ..im a yank and love patton but interms of doing the most with the least we cant really use the same scale on allied and axis commanders ..sure we allies won but that was pretty much a forgone conclusion by mid 43.. winning battles or even maintaining cohesion while completely outclassed everywhere is to my view the mark of greatness ..the finns in 39 ,the germans in the east after stalingrad where they had to do a battle of chosen resevoir every week only without aircover , these are schools the anglo american forces never had to attend ,thankfully...

syscom3 · 10-14-2007, 11:02 AM

But then an argument can be made that many of the allied generals understood the vital importance of logistics from a troop level to national industrial capability. And then theres the question of integrating air power into a coherent doctrine for all levels.

The allies were able to do it because they had the capabilities to do it.

Instal · 10-22-2007, 02:41 AM

I am going to have to say Dowding. Those in the Rommel camp have made much of how Rommel did so much with so little. (remind you of a quote perhaps?) I think Dowding did much more than Rommel with less than Rommel. As a matter of fact if Dowding hadn't done what he did this topic would be moot as we would all be speaking Gerussian.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-22-2007, 12:58 PM

Comparing Dowding to Rommel is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

The people who deserve the credit for the BoB are the pilots who flew the Hurricanes and Spits and not Dowding.

WARSPITER · 10-23-2007, 01:17 PM

I give my vote to Kesselring

Instal · 10-24-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Comparing Dowding to Rommel is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

The people who deserve the credit for the BoB are the pilots who flew the Hurricanes and Spits and not Dowding.

Please explain Adler

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-24-2007, 07:00 AM

Dont take me wrong Dowding was a great Commander and I would not take that away from him. However comparing Rommel to Dowding (or any ground commander for that matter) can not be done.

Rommel for instanse did what he did (in N. Africa where he gained his fame) not on his own soil. He was a logisticial mastermind who did all this thousands of miles from home.

Dowding also did a wonderful job instilling his system into the RAF and building a large reserve fighter force. He however allowed his commanders free roam to fight the battle. Therefore I believe the credit for the Battle of Britain really goes to the pilots of the Spits and Hurries. It was there sacrifice.

Dowding deserves his place in history but I dont think you can compare Rommel and him.

Instal · 10-25-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Dont take me wrong Dowding was a great Commander and I would not take that away from him. However comparing Rommel to Dowding (or any ground commander for that matter) can not be done.

Rommel for instanse did what he did (in N. Africa where he gained his fame) not on his own soil. He was a logisticial mastermind who did all this thousands of miles from home.

Dowding also did a wonderful job instilling his system into the RAF and building a large reserve fighter force. He however allowed his commanders free roam to fight the battle. Therefore I believe the credit for the Battle of Britain really goes to the pilots of the Spits and Hurries. It was there sacrifice.

Dowding deserves his place in history but I dont think you can compare Rommel and him.

You're making it difficult to have a good debate as I agree with everything you said. However I have not been convinced to change my mind. I think the measure of a great commander must include what pressures that commander was under while performing his duties. The fate of his country if not the free world rested squarely on Dowdings shoulders during the BOB when the outcome was anything but sure. Any one of Rommel's campaigns could have been lost without resulting in certain defeat for Germany. Also isn't it a quality of a great leader to know when to let his Commanders have free roam to fight the battle? Particularly when you have someone like Kieth Park to rely on.

Aussie1001 · 10-25-2007, 11:32 PM

Agree instal...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-26-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instal

You're making it difficult to have a good debate as I agree with everything you said. However I have not been convinced to change my mind. I think the measure of a great commander must include what pressures that commander was under while performing his duties. The fate of his country if not the free world rested squarely on Dowdings shoulders during the BOB when the outcome was anything but sure. Any one of Rommel's campaigns could have been lost without resulting in certain defeat for Germany. Also isn't it a quality of a great leader to know when to let his Commanders have free roam to fight the battle? Particularly when you have someone like Kieth Park to rely on.

Okay lets put it another way. Rommel did it under much harsher battle field conditions with an illness thousands of miles away from home and did not have competetant leaders above him that were able to give him full support.

Dont take me wrong your arguement for Dowding is valid as well. I just guess it is how you look at it and from what angles.

plan_D · 10-26-2007, 07:47 AM

"IF you KNEW that a.) the Allies had the advantage of suprise, b.) 100% control of the air, c.) ability to move and distribute enormous reserves at any beach head permitted to expand greatly (i.e no 'opposition' at the beach - just melt away strategy) - what would you have argued? And assume Calais because that is whatr German High Command believed.

Rommel KNEW the above before the fact and developed his strategy from those assumptions.

Now put "Your" Wermacht in position to respond first to Calais, let the Allies take the beaches and move armor in unopposed and grant total control of the air to TacAir and Strategic Air to deal with German movement of reserves to the front without any fear of Blue on Blue."

It seems that you have forgotten that there were people in 1944 that would agree with me. Heinz Guderian gives a good account of the days leading up to Overlord and what he would have done differently, and his discussions with Rommel and Rundstedt.

Rommel took a distinct fear of airpower home with him from the desert where air power is paramount - there is no cover. Rundstedt and Guderian had not served in the desert, so their operating theatres were places where armour could hide. Both Guderian and Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin in their books state that air power in Russia was not of the greatest concern in Russia, but one nevertheless.

Guderian planned to have the armour on the road networks (extensive on the Channel coast) ready for a reaction to Calais or Normandy. Guderian knew that armour could move, even under the intense attacks by the Allied air forces. As Rommel was scared of this, and maybe didn't realise the potential cover of the French landscape, so he brought them forward under the guns of the Royal Navy.

If you read Panzer Leader you'll see that the head of the German Army recognised both Normandy and Calais as potential landing zones, and was putting forward ideas to react to both quickly.

drgondog · 11-11-2007, 11:33 AM

Since this was a one vote discussion I go with MacArthur.

Rebounding from the Phillipines he orchestrated a masterful three dimensional strategy to emply air, sea and land power to cut off stong points, leapfrog to weakly defended areas, set up the air bases, starve the garrisons he by passed and repeat - taking fewer casualties than the Normandy campaign alone.