Best WW2 General

[ss3goku]

Originally posted by Sarevok
very good point case, the soviet army got a qhole lot better over the course of the war. those ural factories could curn out... what 12,000 tanks a month? while germanys did little over 800? i think this is flawed but its something i heard.

That seems about right, considering the USSR produced a total of somewhere near 100,000 tanks in the whole war. And sorry for the mistake, it was Churchill's idea, i got confused. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm

 

[Sarevok]

i did think it was a bit strange... roosevelt though Stalin was a mon who "got things done", but churchill totally despised stalin.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

My vote goes for Patton.

 

[Syterion]

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.

Yes, I also voted other because William Slim was an amzing general. Considering his resources, he did AMAZING things.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Sarevok
i did think it was a bit strange... roosevelt though Stalin was a mon who "got things done", but churchill totally despised stalin.

That's coz Churchill was a conservative and monarchist. He was also very shrewd. When Hitler was bullying Europe in the late 30s Churchill was a voice in the wilderness in his oppisition to appeasement. I spose Churchill saw very little difference between Hitler and Stalin- with good cause.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by pawpaw
model--the furher's fireman

In other words the Fuhrer's lackey.
Manstein all the way! The Western front in '40, Sevastapol, withdrawal after Stalingrad, Karkhov. Hitler was a fool to cashier him.

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by rilnator


In other words the Fuhrer's lackey.

no, the guy who got the crappy job of saving over and over bad situations on the eastern front ( mostly after one of hitler stupid no retreat orders ) the russians would brake through, hitler would say no retreat, it would get out of hand and model would get the call to reorganize the lines--then get fired till the next disaster

 

[Kentonio]

To those people who rave about the Russian late war wins, its hardly the fairest of comparisons to be honest, is it? An exhausted, desperately under-strength German army with horrific supply problems and facing ridiculous commands from Hitler that hindered their every effort to step back and regroup against a vast army with enormous amounts of hardware. Zhukov was good but he certainly wasnt a match for the likes of Manstein, Guderian and Rommel.

 

[Kev1916]

[

Generalship is not a 'one size fits all' talent. Modern thinking regards WW2 divisions and corps as the tactical level. Army is a bit more difficult but Army Group and Front were undoubtedly the operational level.

The problem is that command responsibility varied a bit at the operational level. Soviet fronts reported directly to the strategic level Stavka as did German Army Groups to OKH/OKW. However, allied AGs reported to Supreme Allied Comds. The question is were these strategic or operational level comds? If they were the latter then it could be argued that Army was a tactical level.

The importance of this is that Patton never commanded at AG level, and it could be argued that he fought his army as a large corps! This would mean that Patton could not be considered in the same league as the others, he was merely a tactical comd, which is different skills and cannot be compared to the operational level.

On the Eastern Front the Germans' operational level was consistently defeated by the superior generalship of the Soviet Front comds. (Yes I know many want to believe it was all about numbers, and I agree the Germans were tactically better).

There is a view that the best Soviet Front comd was Rokossovsky (1st Byelorussian).

It's probably worth noting that by 1944 the Germans, Russians and British had 'shaken out' their generals, those they had were at least competant and often very capable, and the odd div comd who didn't shape up on promotion was identified and removed fairly promptly. I'm not sure that the US and Japanese armies had been sufficiently tested to have sorted out their commanders, although the latter had by the beginning of 1945.

 

[Kev1916]

[

Generalship is not a 'one size fits all' talent. Modern thinking regards WW2 divisions and corps as the tactical level. Army is a bit more difficult but Army Group and Front were undoubtedly the operational level.

The problem is that command responsibility varied a bit at the operational level. Soviet fronts reported directly to the strategic level Stavka as did German Army Groups to OKH/OKW. However, allied AGs reported to Supreme Allied Comds. The question is were these strategic or operational level comds? If they were the latter then it could be argued that Army was a tactical level.

The importance of this is that Patton never commanded at AG level, and it could be argued that he fought his army as a large corps! This would mean that Patton could not be considered in the same league as the others, he was merely a tactical comd, which is different skills and cannot be compared to the operational level.

On the Eastern Front the Germans' operational level was consistently defeated by the superior generalship of the Soviet Front comds. (Yes I know many want to believe it was all about numbers, and I agree the Germans were tactically better).

There is a view that the best Soviet Front comd was Rokossovsky (1st Byelorussian).

It's probably worth noting that by 1944 the Germans, Russians and British had 'shaken out' their generals, those they had were at least competant and often very capable, and the odd div comd who didn't shape up on promotion was identified and removed fairly promptly. I'm not sure that the US and Japanese armies had been sufficiently tested to have sorted out their commanders, although the latter had by the beginning of 1945.

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by Kentonio
To those people who rave about the Russian late war wins, its hardly the fairest of comparisons to be honest, is it? An exhausted, desperately under-strength German army with horrific supply problems and facing ridiculous commands from Hitler that hindered their every effort to step back and regroup against a vast army with enormous amounts of hardware. Zhukov was good but he certainly wasnt a match for the likes of Manstein, Guderian and Rommel.

He was also master of the battles that brought Germany down: Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk.

 

[Lynx]

Rommel

 

[naervod]

I will go with choice not many others seem to be picking I say Guderian. Why? He was largely responsible for developing the blitzkrieg that overrun Poland, France, and the Low Countries. However, his conquests went down the tube largely because of Germany's size, Hitler's horrible strategies (topped onl and lack of effectiveness at controlling territories. Not only this, but he helped develop modern tank warfare from the antiquated WW1-era style and is responsible for alot of the basic strategies we use today. Any serious tank warfare/WW2 buff should read Achtung! Panzer by Guderian himself. It is a very detailed look at the development of modern tank warfare and Germany's armored buildup before the war.

 

[Sarevok]

true, this is indeed a herd vote as it was Guderian who developed the panzer strateges that are still used extensively today.

 

[privatehudson]

Yes, but his theories themselves owe much to a British officer who wrote some of them down before him, Lidell Hart I think his name was. The difference really is that the Germans put them into action before anyone else and combined their armoured forces at one (or select) strategic point.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by bholed
There is a view that the best Soviet Front comd was Rokossovsky (1st Byelorussian).

I agree, and I vote him for the best general.

He wasn't Stalin "favourite general" as Jukov, but still managed to achive some great succeses with few resources available.

Regards,

P.S. : If the "political aspects" are included I would vote probably for De Gaulle. He succeded to bring back France to the "table of winners" at the end of the war ... even that the premature eliberation of Paris caused a lot of trouble for Allied supply lines ...

 

[Adler17]

Because of the mentioned reasons I vote for Guderian. He had also a plan to buil a mssive tank army until 1944. In summer 1944 they should be thrown onto the Russians. But he was dismissed by Hitler, so Kursk happened...
Hitler, Gröfaz how he wanted to be called (Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten (greatest Captain of all times), better would have been Größter Fatzke aller Zeiten (Fatzke~ arrogant idiot)), was the the reason why the superior German marshalls were not successfull.
Rommel was good but not as good as Guderian. Many other Germans I could mention who were able to get the honour of the best WW2 General, but it is Guderian who has at least a small advantage.
Patton and Monty lacked in strategical genius. Monty is the most overestimated General of ww2. His only main victory El Alamain was only a victory because of the lack of German supplies. Therefore he nearly lost the battle before the lack became serious. Later Market Garden which was the last German victory in this war: Montys plan to attack at one stronges points of German defense. Because of this Germany was defeated in 1945 and not ´44.
I can´t really say any thing about Zhukov. His great victories were victories because of Hitlers failing orders. And he won his battles with a high blood tribute. Over 1 million own soldiers at Stalingrad and in the battle of Berlin where only chaothic resistance by German forces was he lost (from the Oder river) 500.000 men to take Berlin. Through the last defending army instead of flanking and encircling them. When he finally took Berlin his forces were too exhausted and too weak to advance further more. 1 intact German army would have been able to retake the Berlin, the Oder line, Breslau and perhaps Königsberg until Russian troops copuld have stopped them.
Churchill wanted indeed having the German divisions intact for a war with Russia. And even in May 1945 when the first Germans came back my Grandma once told me they were very keen to fight against the Russians. In that year most of the Germans defended the country and not Hitler. Perhaps if he died in 1944 and the Prussian coupe d´état under Stauffenberg was successfull a democratic Germany and the allies would have also been able to liberate Russia. I mean mass production of German Panther tanks and Me 262 fighter in the USA would have been enough to take Moscow at least in ´46. But that´s only speculation.
At last I say Guderian was the best general of WW2.

Adler

 

[Sarevok]

that would have been an interesting reality if the bomb plot suceeded and hitler died with it. I wonder where history would have turned.

 

[Mobilize]

MacArthur would be the best. Vowing to return to the Philipines and doing so. His other offenses in the Pacific were well-done especially since they were against such different enemy than European and American standards.

Yama****a and Zhukov would be my other choices.

 

[privatehudson]

I disagree, during the campaign in New Guinea lightly armed Australians held a pass 7 miles wide whilst vastly outnumbered by some of the finest troops in the entire Imperial Army. McArthur on the other hand had convinced himself of the opposite, that the enemy was smaller in number and repeatedly ordered the Australians to attack. Despite the terrain on the Kokoda trail being pretty much the worst in the entire Pacific (and that's saying something).

He even went so far as to tell Washington that the Australians "lacked fighting spirit" MacArthur "persuaded" australian commanders to criticise the men on the trail (despite the fact that none of them had been anywhere near it). The officers on the trail were demoted or dispersed for not following MacArthur's ruinous ideals. The Australians fought a masterful fighting withdrawl, inflicting heavy losses despite their inequality in arms and numbers. Worn down my disease, lack of food and battle losses the Japanese withdrew.

For that single act of stupidity in command and stubborn refusal to admit he was wrong, or recognise the real heroes of that campaign I'd say others deserve the accolade before such a man.