Most talented allied commander in WWII

[arya126]

The title says it all. Whats you opinion on this? Im going to say Omar Bradley for right now, although i dont know too much about commanders in the pacific so this is based on the european side of the war.

Also instead of plain commander, lets make it field commander.

 

[GoodGame]

The title says it all. Whats you opinion on this? Im going to say Omar Bradley for right now, although i dont know too much about commanders in the pacific so this is based on the european side of the war.

I think you need to further refine the question to field comanders and or general commanders, otherwise we compare Eisenhower to Bradley when they worked on the same campaigns at different levels of command.

Bradley is very respectable as is Eisenhower.

I'd go with Patton just for having two World Wars of experience and being effective, focused, and well-meaning, though a bit unhinged and occasionally abusive of his power. I think it'd be an easier choice if Patton hadn't had the accident and went on to lead troops in Korea in 1950, as I think he would have done well there as well (though at 65 years old in 1950, probably not likely). Patton in charge of the initial Korean defense in 1950 would have been very interesting.

 

[arya126]

Yes but Bradley was the one that did the actual commanding on the ground. He also made the D-day invasion plan, and the plan to surround the germans during the battle for normandy that resulted in the falaise gap. Eisenhower was better as an administrator, and a political man, who was best when at keeping the peace bewteen the birtish and americans, especially when it came to the crap from montgomery. I think bradley was the actual person to give the credit to for D-Day and most of the subsequent evets.

Yes patton was a very good general and one of my favoites, although I think he was better at a tactical level then a theater/strategic level like bradley was better at. Combined, i think they were a very impressive duo, and when you throw eisenhower in there as the leader and political guy of the army, you have an amazing triple threat that was very capable.

 

[Heraclius49]

Well not sure if we are counting Admirals but Nimitz is a really good Theater commander, better than Eisenhower in my opinion.

Ridgeway was pretty good.

The best British General was one of the North African ones. I think his name was Anderson.

 

[arya126]

I wasnt going to include admirals, but nimtiz and king were our best admirals in that war.

Anderson...well i agree he was good, but i liked alexander better. He showed he had both the tactical and strategic skills needed.

Ridgeway was good, but he was never above the divisional command during the war. But yes he did lead the 82nd airborne well in overlord and after.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I agree with Goodgame. I'd have to go with Patton. He was also the commander the Germans feared the most. They never understood his suspension over the slapping incidents. He had a genius for war, although he was a little unhinged. Admittedly, he was at his proper level of command.

I wouldn't have wanted him is Eisenhower's place. Unfortunately, Eisenhower's job was political and administrator as much as anything and Patton was not political.

In the Pacific, I'd go with Sprague (sp?) from Midway. Please don't anybody vote for McArthur. His "defense" of the Phillipines was awful.

 

[Heraclius49]

^Spruance

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Slim was always my favorite.

 

[privatehudson]

Patton reminds me of Jackson (albeit not to quite the same extent), a man who had reached his limit of command because he did not have the political and man-management skills to go further. Its hard to imagine Patton being able to hold together the disparate demands and personalities of the Western Allied Armies, especially since he spent a fair bit of time bickering with the likes of Montgomery.

I therefore prefer someone like Slim or Hobart, Bradley's involvement in the Hurtgen debacle taints his record too much for me.

 

[arya126]

Patton reminds me of Jackson (albeit not to quite the same extent), a man who had reached his limit of command because he did not have the political and man-management skills to go further. Its hard to imagine Patton being able to hold together the disparate demands and personalities of the Western Allied Armies, especially since he spent a fair bit of time bickering with the likes of Montgomery.

I therefore prefer someone like Slim or Hobart, Bradley's involvement in the Hurtgen debacle taints his record too much for me.

Do you mean that battle during the battle of the bulge? I know little about it really, although i dont think bradley commanded teh battle. To my belief, it was hodges cnad the 1st army that was in command of that wasnt it?

 

[privatehudson]

Hurtgen ended just before the Bulge and is a separate campaign. Bradley wasn't in charge of the battle itself but the Hodges' 1st Army was under his command and therefore Hurtgen and the overall strategy that called for its occupation fell under his responsibility. Thirty three thousand casualties in poor conditions in order to drive the Germans out of a position of limited strategic value is something more reminiscent of WW1 than WW2.

 

[LightSpectra]

Carl Spaatz, Stanislaw Maczek, Richard O'Connor.

Honorable mention to George S. Patton for being one of the greatest logisticians to ever live, even though he's overrated as a tactician and strategist.

 

[arya126]

Carl Spaatz, Stanislaw Maczek, Richard O'Connor.

Honorable mention to George S. Patton for being one of the greatest logisticians to ever live, even though he's overrated as a tactician and strategist.

Patton often payed little attention to logistics, as evidenced by him asking bradley if he could perform the new encirclemnt plan in france right away instead of waiting for the oil and supplies to pile up which was what was needed. He was in fact a very good tactician, basicly the american Rommel without the patience. Strategy wasnt as good as tactics, but it was still very good.

Who is maczek? Sounds russian, and i highly doubt that any russian commanders were very good.

But then bradley is not to blame. That would be the fault of hodge, not bradley, as bradley gave alot of autonomy to his commanders when he commanded his army group. He only gave them the objectives, and maybe gave suggestions, but m ost of the time he didnt interfere with their choices unless needed. Courtney Hodges was teh commander of the battle, and therefore he is to blame, although i dont see the problem. It was a staging area for the battle of the bulge. A very important position in my opinion for that reason alone. And it wasnt over until febuary, just so you know. Checked online.

 

[LightSpectra]

Patton often payed little attention to logistics, as evidenced by him asking bradley if he could perform the new encirclemnt plan in france right away instead of waiting for the oil and supplies to pile up which was what was needed. He was in fact a very good tactician, basicly the american Rommel without the patience. Strategy wasnt as good as tactics, but it was still very good.

It depends on if you want to separate Patton himself from his staff. Disengaging the front on 20 December, then driving the Third Army a hundred miles to attack the southern flank of the German bulge on 23 December is the greatest logistical feat in American military history.

I don't think he was a particularly great tactician however; above average, perhaps.

Who is maczek? Sounds russian, and i highly doubt that any russian commanders were very good.

Chuikov and Vasilevsky beg to differ, but Maczek was a Free Polish armored commander that played a critical role in the closing of the Falaise pocket.

 

[arya126]

All the soviet egnerals did was constantly throw men and tanks against the enemy in hopeless offensives, over and over no matter how much of a chance they had. Even when they didnt do that, they either mis interpreted the enemy's moves and put their reserves in the worng place (like zhukov did when citadel was going off), or they still lost to the germans. The only reason the soviets drove the germans back from 43 on was beause the germans lacked the tanks (and the fuel for the remaining tanks in some places) to use them in their usual defensive role of counterattacking any breakthroughs.

That was the feat of Patton's staff, not the man himself.

 

[Cull]

Not sure if Mao could be included, but from what I understand, due to his guerrilla tactics, his corner of China held, and diverted critical troops from the other fronts to deal with him.

 

[LightSpectra]

All the soviet egnerals did was constantly throw men and tanks against the enemy in hopeless offensives, over and over no matter how much of a chance they had. Even when they didnt do that, they either mis interpreted the enemy's moves and put their reserves in the worng place (like zhukov did when citadel was going off), or they still lost to the germans. The only reason the soviets drove the germans back from 43 on was beause the germans lacked the tanks (and the fuel for the remaining tanks in some places) to use them in their usual defensive role of counterattacking any breakthroughs.

The Soviets just throwing waves of men at the enemy is totally what won the day for Operation Uranus and Operation Bagration, mirite?

That was the feat of Patton's staff, not the man himself.

Show me a general in WWII (or really, after the 17th century) that accomplished anything of significance without a staff and I'll recede my comment.

 

[arya126]

Not sure if Mao could be included, but from what I understand, due to his guerrilla tactics, his corner of China held, and diverted critical troops from the other fronts to deal with him.

I said ALLIED. Communist china was never really part of the allies.

Anyway Mao wasnt even a real general. He was a politician. He knew nothing about warfare. That was his generals.

 

[arya126]

The Soviets just throwing waves of men at the enemy is totally what won the day for Operation Uranus and Operation Bagration, mirite?



Show me a general in WWII (or really, after the 17th century) that accomplished anything of significance without a staff and I'll recede my comment.

Yes it won the day, that doesnt mean they were skilled. Thats not tactics or strategy. Thats just careless force.

Yes but Patton himself was not a logistical man. Im not saying generals did too much without their staffs. They were a big part. But Patton had nothing to do with that logistical feat, and its stupid to give him credit for it. It was completely due to his staff.

 

[Cull]

China was with the Allied forces. Since the Nationlists tolerated the Communists during this time, yes they were part of the Allies.

He was the biggest supporter of guerrilla warfare even before WWII erupted in Europe. He was a general.