Best WW2 General

[Sarevok]

who was the best ww2 general in your opinion?

 

[Sarevok]

note: the asterisk in #13 is an i

 

[Godwynn]

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the 'Desert Fox'

 

[ss3goku]

Desert Fox all the way. Almost, probably all, strategies worked or would have worked. He saw the weakness in Normandy, he drove the allies out of N. Africa. He was a good man too. The only reason he lost was because of a lack of resources.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Yamamoto, Dönitz and Nimitz were technically admirals.

Maybe you should make a poll for best admiral. Would be interesting.

 

[Zardnaar]

Manstein. Rommel had his moments but was often reckless. Up to a point that is good but El Alamein basicly smashed the Africa Korp. He overextended himself. manstein I think was the most capable of the German generals although Guderain was good to.

 

[Sarevok]

Id say zhukov, but because of his virtues, rommel gets my vote.

I dont know a whole lot of admirals, so I probably couldnt do that.

 

[pawpaw]

model--the furher's fireman

 

[Sarevok]

Field Marshall Model?

 

[ss3goku]

Originally posted by Zardnaar
Manstein. Rommel had his moments but was often reckless. Up to a point that is good but El Alamein basicly smashed the Africa Korp. He overextended himself. manstein I think was the most capable of the German generals although Guderain was good to.

He had to overextend himself for his fuhrer's goals. Due to the Soviet invasion, more and more troops to Russia and less and less for occupation and invasion of other areas.

 

[privatehudson]

Of those I'd choose between either Rommel, Manstein or Guderein, of all of them though I think Alexander deserves a mention as he was at least the equal of Montgomery, and respected far more by the Americans also. On the German side Kesselring also showed some ability in the Italian campaign. De Gaulle is out for me because of his lack of action on the battlefield, he only briefly fought in the 1940 campaign and not really that capably in comparison.

Patton and Montgomery were far too arrogant and way too busy competing with eachother to win for me as this cost the allies dearly on some occaisions. McArthur was a prima donna with no respect for the men under his command or his superiors. Bradley to me was the most capable American general as he simply did his job quietly rather than hunted glory.

If I had to choose.... I'd probably pick Manstein

 

[Constantine]

Patton. The American panzer general. His drive across France in '44 was tru blitzkreig. Thens there's Sicliy where he won the race despited having to go over horrible terrain. He commanded the first allied troops to cross the Rhine. And his march to save the 101 in Bastonge.

If the gas and supplies hadn't gone into Market Garden then he would have smashed through the West wall and captured the Rhur in 44.

I admit he was always trying to beat or look better then Monty but he was a better commander than him.

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Constantine
Patton. The American panzer general. His drive across France in '44 was tru blitzkreig. Thens there's Sicliy where he won the race despited having to go over horrible terrain. He commanded the first allied troops to cross the Rhine. And his march to save the 101 in Bastonge.

If the gas and supplies hadn't gone into Market Garden then he would have smashed through the West wall and captured the Rhur in 44.

I admit he was always trying to beat or look better then Monty but he was a better commander than him.

Patton broke out of Normandy first because he faced much less tanks than Montgomery, and whilst the drive was a true sucess it was made possible by Montgomery tying down and engaging the majority of the Armour in Normandy, as planned by Ike. I agree he was marginally better than Montgomery in terms of ability, but he almost always faced better conditions or less troops than Montgomery ever did with usually better resources and manpower. Considering those factors, whilst Patton was certainly no worse than Montgomery, I don't rate him that much higher, just different. Montgomery was a cautious, methodical planner, Patton an inspirational driving commander. They each suited different situations best, and yes Patton suited a drive into Germany better than Montgomery.

The true test of his mettle though would have been to place him in the shoes of Montgomery with his resources and see the results, because whilst I have some respect for Patton's abilities, I doubt these could have stood the test of less troops or more enemies.

 

[Patroklos]

Rundstedt,

While most don't know about him becuase he was rarely the "top dog" in any campaign, he was a reliable and well rounded officer. And whiel he lost the post-Normandy suggfest with the Allies, the fact that he inflicted the losses he did considering how much equiment, air power, and troops the Allies had in comparison to him, it is truly amazing.

-Pat

 

[Constantine]

But why Monty holding the German armour? Because he couldn't stage an effective breakout. All those operations that failed miserably.

 

[onejayhawk]

Patton accomplished much with little. That was the fate of a social outcast. I think the true measure of the man was the months leading up to the Battle of the Bulge. I have had the opportunity to speak with one of his tank cammanders from 3rd Army. He, like many of his colleagues was in awe of Patton's abilty to analyze battle remains.

In the particular case of the Christmas offensive, he was convinced something was up as early as October. He would go on and on about what was missing from the wreckage: winter clothes, AP shells, whatever. I have heard it said the the single greatest achievement of the war was when his staff cut the contingency orders, which resulted in the charge to free Bastoigne, in the week preceding the attack.

Patton IMO was clearly the best Allied field General of the war. My vote went to Manstein.

J

 

[Case]

I voted 'other' - IMO, British Field Marshal William Slim was the best general of the war. He did reasonably well in the retreat from Burma in 1942, and his reconquest of Burma in 1944-45 was brilliant, especially when you consider the incredibly severe logistical constraints he was operating under.

If this poll is meant to be including Admirals as well, then British Admiral's Cunnigham and Ramsey both deserve places in it. Cunnigham has rightfully been called the best British Admiral since Nelson, and Ramsey masterminded all the major amphibious operations in the European and Meditteranean theatres from Dunririk until D-Day.

Originally posted by Constantine
But why Monty holding the German armour? Because he couldn't stage an effective breakout. All those operations that failed miserably.

...until the last one, where the forces under Monty's command actually moved significantly faster then forces under Patton's command

Anyway, you can't really compare Montgomery with Patton in 1944-45 for the simple reason that they had different jobs. While Montgomery was an Army Group commander, Patton was only comanding an Army. Hence, Montgomery should be compared to Bradley and Patch, while Patton should be compared to Dempsey and the guy in charge of the 1st Canadian Army (whose name starts with 'C').

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Constantine
But why Monty holding the German armour? Because he couldn't stage an effective breakout. All those operations that failed miserably.

1) It was allied strategy to draw german armour onto the British and Canadians enabling the encirclement Patton caused around Falaise.

2) Said breakouts failed due to the small factor of 2-3 times the number of tanks facing the British than was facing Patton when he tried... Kind of important I'd say before deciding whether such a failiure was important to montgomery's quality. Yes his breakout's failed, and frankly the tactics used were all too often appaling, but when you consider Patton faced just 2-3 divisions with any kind of numbers of tanks in them when he tried, and Montgomery faced more often than not faced 6-8 it might help to understand just why it failed rather than simply to note that it did.

3) The germans also felt the British the greater threat of the two, hence the concentration of 4 SS Panzer divisions against them to the single one facing the Americans for most of the Campaign.

As for the stuff about Patton's race across france, well so did Montgomery and Bradley at roughly the same time with equal speed. I also seem to recall that part of the reason why the Falaise gap remained open so long was partly Patton's doing. I don't quite reason why Patton had little on comparison to Montgomery though to be frank. I don't think Patton was a bad general (I'd possibly rate him 2nd or third best of the Allies), but I do think that his reputation has been exploded out of all proportion in comparison to the problems he and his other commanders faced. That's before the whole issue of his constant bickering with Montgomery is taken into account, a factor that shames both commander's records.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Patton.

Military genius.

He knew the politics of war. One thing he said is that we should have drove to Berlin, then continued on to Moscow. He knew better. Only if he had been in charge.

 

[privatehudson]

Uhmmm no, Britain couldn't be counted on to do that for one, British manpower and the economy were on the verge of collapse by the end of the war as it was, there's no way the British could have continued on to invade Russia after Germany was beaten. Also I somehow doubt you're going to find too many allied commanders willing to incur the kind of losses associated with the fall of Berlin.

Case: Good point on the levels of command, I think the Canadian was called Crear if my memory serves me correctly.