Best General?

[Bowkers]

Who was your best general and why?

Mine would have to be Rommel. The way his panzer divisions cut through first France then his attacks in Africa. It was a shame that Hitler after the July Plot suspected Rommel otherwise I think the Allies would have found it more difficult through France.

[Rischer]

Mine would probably be Rommel. Otherwise, it would be Heinz Guderian. A genius in armoured warfare.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Manstein IMO, without a doubt. The Ardennes Offensive and the counterattack at Kharkov were pure genius, and he was successful at Kursk when basically no other German officer was.

[Col Von Barring]

It depends on how you measure greatness. And at which level. Theatre command, Army command, Corps, Division all need different attributes. A General who was a good Divisional commander may not have been a success at a higher level.

Rommel? Only a Divisional Commander in 1940. Got a bloody nose from the British at Arras. Did quite well against the British but always suffered because North Africa was always considered a sideshow by Hitler.

Heinz Guderian was one of the pioneers of "modern" tank warfare. Also known as "The Fuhrer's Fireman" as Hitler used him to rescue the situation on the Eastern Front several times.

I suggest you explore the history of the Eastern Front. Zhukov never lost a battle and went on to plan the destruction of the Japanese armies in 1945. Rokossovsky commanded whole Fronts and was a major player in the advance into Germany.

On the British side, Slim and his Forgotten Army in Burma achieved amazing victories over the Japanese in 1944/5. Wavell was very successful against the Italians in 1940 in North Africa.

Many Generals (on all sides) suffered from political interference.

[Handyman]

I would say Manstein and Rommel. Both were good leaders, even though Rommel was a bit impulsive.

I don't know much about Guderian though, other than that he developed the motorized warfare doctrines, tank warfare and helped inventing new tanks and assault guns.

[Bowkers]

On the British side, Slim and his Forgotten Army in Burma achieved amazing victories over the Japanese in 1944/5

I simply dont know enough with regards to Generals in the Pacific Front-to even judge on how good the generals were. Zhukov I am aware of as well, as mentioned in my previous posts on other threads in this thread.

[Hammerguard]

Orde Wingate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate) to be one of the best Allied Generals during WW2.

The Chindits and his clandestine methods of warfare were for their time as revolutionary as David Stirling and the SAS.

[Shoota Fodder]

Well Rommel was good, but I have allot of respect for his counter, Montgomery. As flawed as the Market Garden campaign was, his tactics were pretty amazing and he seemed to care a whole lot about his men. Perhaps not the greatest, but still pretty damned good. He played defensive and succeeded most of the time. If he was more aggressive then he would probably win as best General for me.

On the other hand we have Patton. A great man as well and brilliant master of offensive warfare. His race to Messena was expertly executed and he turned the German flank during the battle of the bulge.

[EmilCrane]

I'd have to agree that Monty was one of the best Generals in WW2, Market Garden was plagued by technical difficulties like broken radios and bad weather. He played a brilliant game in North Africa with limited forces, who were out gunned, out numbered and low on morale. Well done that man!

[valiant_rhino]

I'd have to go with Patton. Although a lot of people consider him to be overrated, the simple fact that the German officers thought he was so good lead them to make poor decisions. By naming Patton as the head of a fake army, the Germans held off on counter attacking Normandy after the invsion because they though the real invasion would be lead by Patton. This was crucial for gaining a foothold at Normandy, and practically sealed Germany's fate. Also, Pattons move to relieve Bastonge in the Battle of the Buldge was a jaw dropping feat. To move that many soldiers that far in such as short amount of time is nearly unbelievable. No general would top that until Schwartzkopf in the Gulf War 46 years later.

[EmilCrane]

Patton was a bit reckless though. He really didn't care about protecting his own flanks which, if Germany had more men, could've gotten a lot of men killed. He also opposed getting a batter tank than the craptacular Sherman, which got more men killed.

[Infidelicious]

The Sherman is very underrated, but that is another story.

As far as Monty goes; winning battles with 2:1+ ratios of men and material isn't particularly impressive. I'd love to see what Rommel could have done with Monty's logistics.

[Rischer]

Orde Wingate to be one of the best Allied Generals during WW2.

The Chindits and his clandestine methods of warfare were for their time as revolutionary as David Stirling and the SAS.

His 'Gideon Force of Patriots' in North Africa was one of the most effective guerrilla units of the Second World War.

[Bowkers]

I'd love to see what Rommel could have done with Monty's logistics.

sadly for him and us, Hitler ordered his suicide...

[EmilCrane]

sadly for him and us, Hitler ordered his suicide...

Another one of Hitler's "brilliant" decisions!

I don't understand the Montgomery hate, he was a very good general, he actually cared about his men, and didn't risk everything in mad rushes like Patton.

I'm not saying he's the best, that's reserved for Rommel or Guderain, but he's up there.

[Rischer]

Another one of Hitler's "brilliant" decisions!

Like when he sacked Rundstedt.

[Bowkers]

Indeed, I wonder if Rommel hadn't of died,whether the outcome of D-day/casaulties would have been greater? My guess is probably

[Jedi1]

Rommel didn't die until after D-day. He was away at his wifes birthday tho.

[Bowkers]

ah ok-shows how little about my general I know. Where was he at D-Day?

[Jedi1]

In Germany with his wife for her Birthday. He rushes to the front the moment he heard but I'm not shore how long it was before he got back to the front.

[Infidelicious]

He couldn't move his panzer divisions to the beaches due to micromanagement from HQ. They were paranoid about Normandy being a feint. For the "real" Calais invasion.

[Bowkers]

I've just read the wiki page of him. Loads of generals regarded him as foolhardy..which I can see, but he won many victories..

[Tempe]

As far as Monty goes; winning battles with 2:1+ ratios of men and material isn't particularly impressive. I'd love to see what Rommel could have done with Monty's logistics.

It may sound stupid but I don't think being a good General just depends on how good you are in command. Monty had great respect for his men and saw them as people, not just fodder. He also never backed down to the US generals and tried to do what he thought would be best and not just accept what he was told.

[Infidelicious]

Bowkers: There are different levels of command. I think Rommel was/is one of the best field commanders in the past 100 years. However his leadership style was not really fit for anything above a Corps or even a Division, because of his fixation on mobile warfare, regardless of the logistics needed to support it.

The only General I can remember that thought of his men as fodder was Zhukov. Though I'm not sure if the citation I'm thinking of is true (Having infantry clear a minefield for his armor by charging through it, so he could be the first in Berlin.).

[Bowkers]

That is simply because Russia had the manpower to do that. I am sure Zhukov was perfectly capable a his job. For example, Stalingrad ultimately swung in the Russian's favour, in part down to him.

[NeCoHo]

How about Halsey? However unlikely it may seem, Admiral "Bull" Halsey shouldn't be remembered for his mistakes in Leyte, but more for his victories, like at Midway, Guadalcanal, the Solomon Islands, and the Bismark Archipelago. His raids on Formosa and China were daring to say the least, and from a Propaganda stand point, he was a genius. My grandfather was in his fleet most of his time in the Navy, and to this day Halsey's anti Japanese attitudes are still visible in my grandfather's opinion. The Doolittle raids were great examples for moral boosting, and who would have authorized something as crazy as launching B 24's off an Aircraft carrier other than the Bull himself?

[Infidelicious]

Midway was pretty much luck. The dive bombers were wandering around and just happened to find the Japanese fleet while the torpedo bombers were getting shredded by zeros.

[Col Von Barring]

Doenitz masterminded the U-boat war against the UK and damn near succeeded. He had realised during the First World War that the surest way to defeat Btitain was to cut off its supply of food and raw materials.

His development of the Wolf pack tactic took the Admiralty totally by surprise. The Royal Navy depended on Asdic to detect U-boats but could not not detect a U-boat on the surface! As the U-boats attacked at night and on the surface they were virtually undetectable! Add to this a sad lack of suitable escort ships, no ship-borne radar and poor coordination between what escorts that were available and its a wonder the Germans didn't win!

The first use of Tthe Wolf Pack was in October 1940 and saw the almost complete destruction of convoy SC-7.

For an authorative account of SC7 I can highly recommend "Night of the U-boats" by Paul Lund and Harry Ludlam. Published by New English Library 1974. They also wrote "P.Q.17-Convoy To Hell"

Another very interesting and informative book about the Battle Of The Atlantic is "We Captured A U-boat" by Rear-Admiral Daniel V.Gallery. The story of the U-505 and its dramatic capture by the USN. Published 1958.

[EmilCrane]

It may sound stupid but I don't think being a good General just depends on how good you are in command. Monty had great respect for his men and saw them as people, not just fodder. He also never backed down to the US generals and tried to do what he thought would be best and not just accept what he was told.

There we go, thanks you for giving Montgomery the respect he deserves

[Panzer General]

I see Rommel alot!

Well I am going with Rommel, AND a guy that most of you have never herd before. He is Hermann Balck. His achevments around Stalingrad are great.

[Sturmhaubitze]

Rommel was an excellent tactical commander, but his talents did not scale well to the operational or strategic levels. He was a brilliant and inspiring divisional commander in France, and pulled off some excellent moves in North Africa, but could not string together those successes into sufficient momentum to defeat Montgomery (and later Patton). Pulling everything together to secure a victory is where the operational and strategic skills come into play, something that Rommel was not exceptional at.

Now a dream team of Manstein as the Army or Army Group commander, with Rommel being a divisional commander underneath him, would be difficult to stop.

[Krisis]

I'd have to agree with those who put Manstein as the greatest General of the war. As far as the greatest defensive general, Field Marshal Model would have to go up there. Hermann Hoth was also an exceptional panzer commander, more of a divisional and corps level commander though.

[Caesar]

I think I'm going to have to go with either Manstein or Mannerheim. Guderian and Patton are close seconds for me. But, ultimately, Guderian let his emotions get the best of him occasionally (which, in my personal opinion, let's me identify with him more and makes me like him more than the first two I've mentioned, but Manstein and Mannerheim were still more effective). Also, I have to keep in mind that Guderian was sidelined in 1941 and was kept in reserve and off the front lines until late in the war. Patton was impressive as well, but ultimately, Manstein and Mannerheim's achievements outweigh his.

[mattman1991]

I think Monty is given too much credit, of course he could have done a better job than me. But, waiting to stockpile artillery, soldiers and tanks till you outnumbered the enemy is not exactly revolutionary tactics.

Of course it can be argued that any defeat Germany sustained was self inflicted, and due to their own decisions.

Fair enough, he was cautious, but this resulted in Caen (D-day+0 objective) not being taken until 6 weeks later.

Operation Market Garden, his idea, can be blamed by both poor logisitics (US colonel incharge of us airbone logistics wanted glider/aircraft pilots to have a rest, dividing the drop into two days, all of the AT guns, heavy weapons other equipment were on the 2nd half of the drop) and of course poor intelligence. In addition assuming all resources went to Patton and his drive east, it is possible to assume the war could have been over by christmas.

It has to be a tie with Patton, his recklessness out of necessity seems to speak to me as pragmatism, something I admire. ALso some of the smaller actions and encirclements in the Western Front post 1943, really amazing what the German Generals could have done had they been allowed to fight a war they wanted to fight, not this Scorched earth, not one step back business.

[hanz gooblemien]

I think most here are suffering from a case of the "deutch-land uber alles" syndrome.

If youre talking WW2 generals...its criminal not to mention the finest Allied general.

Zhukov for the win!

I mean pick amy major German defeat on the Eastern front and you will find the mastermind as none other than the cantankerous one himself...Stalingrad, Kharkov, Berlin....

I think we all tend to overrate the impact of German generals...while we rather poorly rate the Allied ones...in part becuase of this pervasive myth that in every case the Allies simply overcame Germany with sheer numbers...this is rather misleading ...

Im voting for Zhukov...Za Stalina!!!

[k0mmandant]

I find German generals far better since they dont have:

Superior Air Support
Great Supply lines
Reliable Tanks
Mass Numbers
Superior communications and Artillery support

German generals, on almost all fronts had to do more with less troops than the Allied Generals. Not saying the Allies didn't have great Generals, but the Germans had to do with the best they had, and they still prevailed in some cases. That and German offensive tactics in to France against superior numbers and better armored tanks was something very hard to accomplish, and most of those victories would have been pure tactics.

The Russians under Zhukov had plenty of numbers. You have to take that in to account. Zhukov could mess up, lose a thousand men, and have them all replaced the next day, and still win the battle. He may have been a good tactician, but if a German general defeats an army much larger than his, a lot of tactics needed to be involved.

[EmilCrane]

Fair enough, he was cautious, but this resulted in Caen (D-day+0 objective) not being taken until 6 weeks later.

Which tied up around 5 panzer divisions allowing US troops to breakthrough and encircle. Also in the desert, he could've attacked Rommel, but that would be just playing to Rommel's strength, he used the resources he could count on, superior logistics, and dealt Rommel a crushing defeat.

[JHuschke]

I would have to say General Erwin Rommel, he gave the ideas of setting up defenses along the beaches and placing mines in many good spots to prevent advancement of any enemy infantry and armor.

He had some great ideas...if Hitler supported most of his ideas, it could have made a bit of a difference in the war.

[Panzer General]

I find German generals far better since they dont have:

Superior Air Support
Great Supply lines
Reliable Tanks
Mass Numbers
Superior communications and Artillery support

German generals, on almost all fronts had to do more with less troops than the Allied Generals. Not saying the Allies didn't have great Generals, but the Germans had to do with the best they had, and they still prevailed in some cases. That and German offensive tactics in to France against superior numbers and better armored tanks was something very hard to accomplish, and most of those victories would have been pure tactics.

The Russians under Zhukov had plenty of numbers. You have to take that in to account. Zhukov could mess up, lose a thousand men, and have them all replaced the next day, and still win the battle. He may have been a good tactician, but if a German general defeats an army much larger than his, a lot of tactics needed to be involved.

I think the same thing!

[Sturmhaubitze]

Keep in mind that the Soviets were able to achieve local superiority in numbers thorugh strategic and operational deception and foresight, which are the hallmarks of good generalship. Army Group Center was crushed in Operation Bagration not because the Soviets showed up with more numbers, but because they managed to dupe the German High Command into moving much of its heavier elements to reinforce Army Group South (They were tricked into thinking the next major offensive would be there), leaving it easy pickings. So, yes, they out-numbered Army Group Center, but did so through trickery and not mass production.

The Soviet war industry was in full swing in 1944, but the Soviets were starting to feel the manpower pinch. It wasn't uncommon to see regiments with the manpower of battalions, battalions with the manpower of companies, and companies with the manpower of platoons. Battalions and regiments that started off with support/weapons platoons of various kinds found them streadily reduced to nothing, and with no replacements available. The situation was still better than what the Germans faced, but they hardly had limitless resources.

[killerpoodle]

I'd say Montgomery, why? because he did wait till he new he could win. Whats wrong with waiting till you know you can win, in war why risk having your arse kicked when you can wait till you are in a much better postion.And historically the British public have always truly hated large numbers of casulties more so than the other 'powers' of the time, so had Montgomery attaclkd and taken large number of casulties it will of caused more problems than it solved (as if you want to admit it or not he was good at his job)

[k0mmandant]

But that is only a few incidences. In general, Germans have always had greater strategies when Hitler wasnt meddling with their generals. Even though the Soviets may have had some understrength battalions, how many were there? Far more than the Germans, who were facing the problems on a far greater scale because Russia didnt have a major problem with their factories being bombed in 1944-1945.

[Rummy]

I think most here are suffering from a case of the "deutch-land uber alles" syndrome.

If youre talking WW2 generals...its criminal not to mention the finest Allied general.

Zhukov for the win!

I mean pick amy major German defeat on the Eastern front and you will find the mastermind as none other than the cantankerous one himself...Stalingrad, Kharkov, Berlin....

Im voting for Zhukov...Za Stalina!!!

I noticed that you left out Operation Mars (a massive and bloody defeat) or the Battle for the Seelow Heights where he made a series of blunders leading to massive casualties.


Heinz Guderian. Also known as "The Fuhrer's Fireman" as Hitler used him to rescue the situation on the Eastern Front several times.

Hmm that was actually Walther Model, both very intelligent men, though Guderian was better suited to attacking (his importance cannot be stressed enough given that the was the brain tank of Blitzkrieg), and Models experience suggest he was one of the best defending Generals going around, though not so suited to attacking.

My vote would have to go to Manstein with other notable ones being Guderian, Model, Rommel, Heinrichi and Hoth.

As for Allied commanders (none of which I think were better than the above commanders) the best in my book would have to Montgomery, he had the right strategy in how to defeat the Germans in the grand area of operations, like the narrow drive over the Rhineland into Germany, however the US who had the deciding control, opted for the broad front advance which crawled to a halt due to a lack of supplies (exactly as Montgomery predicted) and it allowed the Germans to recuperate. As for his performance in Africa, it was sound, and he wasn’t about to throw away his material advantages in rash moves. Its true he had an advantage with the code breaking of Enigma, but the Germans/Italians could also read his codes too.

Patton on the other hand was fortunate his codes had not been broken whilst he knew everything the Germans were up to. And also cared for nothing but gaining another medal for himself, he would advance his troops in such a way that he would force it upon his fellow commanders along side him to support his open flanks with their troops whilst he used all of his to gain propaganda objectives. Even after the Battle of the Bulge had been launched by the Germans, he screamed for the reserves that historically halted the advance, to instead to of been transferred to him so that he could launch his own offensive into German territory that had no strategic value. Luckily Eishenhower told him for once to do with the troops he already had (which were already numerically superior to the Germans opposing him). Otherwise this grossly undermanned German offensive might of actually had a chance if Patton was calling the shots.

As for Zhukov, I would have to agree with other posters that all he cared about was obtaining the objective with no forethought to the results that massive casualties would have on future operations. Throwing waves of attacks at a defender until he is completely exhausted whilst you suffer 5 times as many casualties in doing so, does not make someone a better commander.

The Germans on the other hand managed incredible feats against superior odds, and when they did have the odds in their favour they blitzed through enemy territory in a mere fraction of the time it took the Allies to recover it. And this was all whilst the Allies were reading their every order with the decryption of Enigma!

[von Falken]

of the Germans -Rommel
of the Americans -Patton & Bradley
of the British -Montgomery

[Bowkers]

of the Germans -Rommel
of the Americans -Patton & Bradley
of the British -Montgomery

Reasons?

[Rummy]

Ah how can I also forget to mention Kesselring. he did a fantastic job in keeping the Allies bogged down in Italy for 2 years with very few resources. But what made it even harder was that Wilhelm Canaris, the Chief of German military Intelligence was a traitor and betraying Kesselring with false reports at every opportunity he got. I think the biggest instance where the Allies wanted to land behind the German line in Anzio, though Kesselring was keeping a division in reserve there, though wanted to move it into the forward line, so he asked Canaris (who knew about the Allies intentions) who then went to great lengths to assure him the Allies were incapable of a landing. Historically the landing only just succedeed, had Canaris not of been a traitor though. Its highly likely that the operation which flanked the Germans and forced them to abandon their successfully held lines, would have been aborted or failed terribly.

[hanz gooblemien]

While its easy to see that German victories were achieved with a certain elan and flare that Russians lacked at the start of the war..I think that if you look more closely at the Russian advance from Stalingrad on..you will see the Zhukov and the like performing the same deep penetrations and combat tactics that were employed against them.

In fact one can argue that German victories over the Russia in the 41-42 were achived at a time when the German had total Air superiority, a technical advantage in tanks in the form of a 3 man turret and radios that could not be matched by a technically inferior Russian army. Radios and 3 man turrets made every German tank farmore effective than the better armed and armoured russian tanks.

Sure the t-34 and KV's had better armour and main gun..but had an overworked commander firing and picking targets as well as using flags to conduct tank to tank communications left the Russians far behind in true tank v tank combat.

As the soviets wrestled Air superiority and redressed some of their technical inferiority you see that few german attacks made more then preliminary success, and that when Russians penetrated German lines they made the same "superior" generalship maneuvers that we laud german generals for..such as bypassing strong points and conducting far reaching encirclements.

No one would argue that Germany had crappy generals...but too much is made of the cult of German generalship and too much made of the "russian hordes" just sweeping endlessly at German soldiers.

As far as German generals go though I would give the nod to Balck who fought predominatley on the eastern front and showed tremendous elan in both attack and defense.

and cause im canadian ill give the nod to Guy Simmons..though i believe he was a Lt. Gen...use of Kangaroo, night fight etc in Opertation Totalise.

And as for Zhukovs various failures..thats a rather pointless argument as we can name many occassions where German attacks also failed or were repulsed with high losses. i think were more interested in thier overall record as opposed to thier failures in exclusion of all other considerations.

[k0mmandant]

As the soviets wrestled Air superiority and redressed some of their technical inferiority you see that few german attacks made more then preliminary success, and that when Russians penetrated German lines they made the same "superior" generalship maneuvers that we laud german generals for..such as bypassing strong points and conducting far reaching encirclements.

What are you talking about? Of course German Generals did great things in the early war, but they did far greater later in the war when they were on the defence. Poland fell in a month. You know how long it took Germany to fall when being attacked on 3 fronts, being attacked by 3 major powers, and being undersupplied? A year. That's astonishing to me.

Of course Russia was lacking early war with their inferior tanks. But guess who's lacking in late war? Germany. Lost the air superiority, supplies were in dire need, and also they were outnumbered. The only way to continue on like that is great generalship and great soldiers, which Germany had many of. Much more than the Allies.

[Panzer General]

As the soviets wrestled Air superiority and redressed some of their technical inferiority you see that few german attacks made more then preliminary success, and that when Russians penetrated German lines they made the same "superior" generalship maneuvers that we laud german generals for..such as bypassing strong points and conducting far reaching encirclements.
Blitzkrege relies on combined arms to be 100% effective. It means a close cooperation from infantry, tanks, artiliry, and air power!


As far as German generals go though I would give the nod to Balck who fought predominatley on the eastern front and showed tremendous elan in both attack and defense.
You mean Hermann Balck? He was great, He served with Rommel in Afrika.

[von Falken]

Patton with his energy and battleness filled Bradleys precise planning, they were a great couple.
Montgomery was ok, nothing too special
Rommel was a real prussian general, exact and deadly, if he had a larger force in normandy, maybe he could break the invasion, but its better this way.

[hanz gooblemien]

As i said..im not arguing wether or not Germany had fine soldiers or fine generalship...thats pretty self evident. The professionalism of the German military to the end was admirable.

But to say that Germany held out for over a year?..hmm...more accurate to say that Germany performed a fine organised retreat for over a year.

A quick look at any WW2 operational map will show the russians recapturing all the territory from Leningrad all the way to the Oder River in less than 8 months from June of 44 to Jan 45. As impressive as early German victories were on the eastern and western front (to me the western front campaign was more impressive)...the soviet redress of the German gains was equally impressive.

While there is no doubt that the Soviets had numerical advantages in every major area too much is made of the idea that every Soviet victory was accomplished through sheer weight of numbers. This idea is simply does not bear the scrutiny of closer examination.

Take a look at the eastern Fronts advances from 43 on and youll notice that there are fast mosving deep penetrations and encriclements conducted by the Soviets that really are only halted by the exhaustion of supply and limitations of weather.

This is not to say that there werent fine local tactical counter attacks by German units that still demonstrated some the German mastery of mobile operations to the end. However these local victories does not in anyway dimish the accomplishments of Soviet Generals for conducting the very same "operational" generalship that we praise Germany for.

I just find it funny that Soviet achievements in both defense and offense are always contributed to either "soviet hordes" or "german lack of reserves", there seems to me to be a real reluctance for anyone to accept that anyone other than a German general were capable military minds.

The truth of it is that all sides had fine military minds and that were "great" generals on all sides of the conflict.

.....including Canada EH!