# Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated



## davparlr (Apr 26, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> I heard this from somewhere, but was it Guderian who thought of the Blitzkrieg?



It depends on the definition of Blitzkrieg. Guderian was certainly instrumental in the development of the modern concept of tank maneuvers. Now was he involved in the development of the concept of coordinated artillery and air attacks with tanks, I don't know.

There's a difference in being a great military stategist and a great leader. I know Guderian led some battles but I don't think he is considered a great leader, certainly not in the league of Rommel. Of course Rommel had the press behind him.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 26, 2006)

Guderian invented the co-ordination of every arm into service, be it infantry, artillery and air force. He also demonstrated the need for everything to be mechanized (So Patton didn't expand on anything).

He led the battles in Poland, France and early Russia. In Poland he practically carried the whole campaign on his shoulders, pushing through the north and encircling the Polish armies as he went, then capturing Brest-Litovsk ended the Poles. In France he reached the Channel first, it was he who pushed over Sedan with just armour instead of waiting for infantry which could have been the win/lose descision of that campaign. And in Russia he pushed through Smolensk and to the gates of Moscow ... the only mistake he made was at Tula. But the push he did alone after being deprived of armour that was sent to Kiev rank him alongside, if not above Rommel. 

Patton had the backing of the American industry, something the German Generals could only dream of. They performed many more feats of tactical genius than Patton, in fact he didn't do any. In the Ardennes the German armies were already crushed and retreating, Patton did nothing special there. Anyone with a bit of sense knows that if German Generals had that kind of industrial backing, they'd have won every battle they entered. Throughout the war they continually out-manuevred and out-marched the Allied armies.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 26, 2006)

Gen Patton was also instrumental in developing the doctrine of mobile warfare. As an old cavalry soldier, he had an intuitive grasp of mobility and firepower.

As from the wikipedia artical...".....Patton also wrote professional articles on tank and armored car tactics, suggesting new methods to use these weapons. He also continued working on improvements to tanks, coming up with innovations in radio communication and tank mounts. ......"

I dont know if this is true or not...".....Alan Axelrod in his book "Patton" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) quotes German Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt as stating "Patton was your best" and, surprisingly, Joseph Stalin as stating that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton's advance across France....."

It is a fallacy to think that Guderian was the sole inventor of the "blitzkreig". Many different officers of many countries thought of the various componants and tactics and integrated them into a doctrine.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 26, 2006)

Good info on Guderian. Like I said, Rommel had the press behind him. Everybody knows Rommel, nobody knows Guderian.


----------



## Truk (Apr 26, 2006)

I voted "other," and my choice would be Matthew Ridgway. I don't really have time to provide a defense for him, and maybe he is not a good comparison to the other generals and admirals list because they are three stars and above where strategic-only decisions are made.

I am surprised that Zhukov is not listed.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 26, 2006)

Which of these Commanders is the greatest?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 26, 2006)

General Marshall for me.

You may brag about a general who knew how to win battles, but it takes an organizational genius to know how to equip, train, transport and then deploy whole armies.

he was also a very keen appraiser of men. He knew how to pick members of his staff and which general officers to promote to high command.

After the war, he helped formulate and impliment the Marshall Plan that saved the butts of Europe.

Name soemone on the list that had that type of resume.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 26, 2006)

Balck, simply the greatest armour commander of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 26, 2006)

Guderian brought the ideas of many generals from other nations, yes, mainly Britain and France to be precise. In the book _Achtung: Panzer_ Guderian admits that Britain were at the forefront of armoured warfare in the 1920s, and this is where Guderian took many lessons. However, no nation or general developed Blitzkrieg in such a precise manner as Guderian had written into the book _Achtunganzer_. Just read the book yourself and you will see, it's what we came to know as 'Blitzkrieg'. 

Patton developed ideas for the Allies, and they were never as good as German ideas. And I notice that you are forgetting Patton's first attempts to smash through the West Wall ... like smashing a sledgehammer against a three metre thick concrete wall. The great mobile sides of the war were Germany and Russia, the Allies never achieved anything along the lines of excellency in mobile warfare as these two nations. Zhukov, Guderian, Balck, Rommel and Manstein all ranked above Patton.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 27, 2006)

I should have put Doolittle instead of MacDonald. Not that Doolittle was the greatest, but he was greater than MacDonald and a general to boot.

My poor brain.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2006)

I think it is really hard to decide on one great commander. My votes go for Rommell, Patton, and MacCarthur.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 27, 2006)

Rommel, Slim and Dowding for me.


----------



## Wurger (Apr 27, 2006)

I agree with DerAdlerIstGelandet.Therefore, my votes go for E.Rommell,H.Guderian,G.Zhukov and Gen. Tadeusz Kutrzeba instead of Edward Rydz-Śmigły.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 27, 2006)

Rommel, Guderian, Zhukov, and Spruance for me. did anyone know about the battle at Khalikan Gol ( might have misspelled) where Zhukov crushed a invading Japanese army and that caused Japan to sign a nonaggression pact with Russia. That way when Hitler invaded Germany Stalin could deploy lots of divisions from the Asian part of Russia to the Europe part of Russia without fearing a Japanese attack.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 28, 2006)

I read about that battle on Wikipedia not too long ago.


----------



## Udet (Apr 28, 2006)

Zaitzev:

Not entirely correct when affirming Zhukov "crushed" an invading Japanese force eh...

In fact an accurate approach on losses for both sides during the series of skirmishes between Japs and Russians in 1939 is apparently non-existant.

What most people who have studied this battles apparently do agree when saying both sides suffered very high losses. Right, the Japs were not succesful, however to affirm they got crushed is somewhat exaggerated.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2006)

It's spelt Khalkin-Gol. Zhukov used a simple, but effective, armour pincer movement on the Japanese forces and destroyed them. The Japanese armour could not stand up to the Red onslaught and crumpled.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 28, 2006)

Japanese Armor doesn't need much to crack, all u need are a few 37mm and 50mm AP rifles and ur set


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

what's this? no "Bomber" Harris? the man that sent the whirlwind? the man that helped destroy huge areas of germany, not just cities but communications and transport networks, the man that came up with the massive moral booster that were the first 1,000 bomber raids? the man that provided the only real means with which the battered British could strike back at the heart of germany, the man thousands of young airmen looked to for inspiration..........


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 29, 2006)

no "Bomber" Harris?



Put "Other". I can't change the poll now.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2006)

"Bomber" Harris was no great leader. The "Whirlwind" that was set upon Germany was clumsy, at best. The Bomber Command should have been used more directly against the war machine, than being wasted against German cities. 

You are talking about a man that opposed the Pathfinders, and thought it a drain on his resources to divert heavy bombers away from smashing cities to support Operation Overlord. He was so tied up on bombing cities he missed the key link to the German war machine, it's oil. Bomber Command should have been thrown at the German oil production facilities at full strength, but instead they were sent out against the cities in a waste of steel, lives and bombs. 

The bombing campaign was effective, but any commander could have set that kind of destruction against their opponent. While the bombing campaign was vitally important to the winning of World War II, Bomber Command could have been used more effectively.


----------



## ozumn (May 4, 2006)

Mannerheim was a good leader imo.

http://www.winterwar.com/M-Line.htm


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2006)

The failure to recognize the importance of the oil facilities early in the war was a failure of both British and American commanders.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2006)

Oil production facilities were detected as the key to the German war machine in 1939, but it was not acted upon by the leader of Bomber Command.


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2006)

And that was a failure of the bomber command (as well as the 8th AF)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2006)

Yes. I mention it being recognised to point that the failure of both bombing forces to pinpoint their bombs on these vital strategic targets is even worse than merely missing it in their write-up of important targets. 

They knew it was the most important target and still didn't bomb them in force until 1944!


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2006)

And the sad thing is, the oil plants were easy to disrupt and burned hot and bright so the night misisons would have been easy.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2006)

True. Although this may seem a tad optimistic, I think a concentrated effort against the oil production zones in 1941-1942 could have crippled the German war effort by late 1943. It could have been started earlier but I'm giving Bomber Command a time to get something worth mentioning as a heavy bomber. They only had Hampdens, Blenheims, Wellingtons and Whitleys for a bomber force. Hardly the planes to be waging a large strategic campaign against the enemy heartland with. Although the 1000-Bomber Raids would have been better used on the oil production facilities ...


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2006)

If the oil offensive was started in spring 1943, then Germans would have been in serious trouble by early 1944.


----------



## davparlr (May 4, 2006)

I saw a Military Channel story on strategic bombing where it said that, even when the US started an effective campaign against German oil facilities, Harris refused to join in until forced.

A note on Patton. When he was with Pershing chasing Pancho Villa he got into a wild west shoot out with some of Pancho,'s men, shooting his 45 as they rode by shooting at him. I think he got the main guy. They loaded him up on a jeep like a deer and took him back to headquarters.


----------



## Hop (May 5, 2006)

RAF Bomber Command began an offensive against the German oil industry in 1940. It became it's main target in early 1941. The oil campaign was abandoned in July 1941 because post raid recce showed that little if any damage had been done to the targets.

In 1940, about 15% of BC tonnage went on oil targets, which is about 15 times as much as they expended on area bombing (their main job in 1940 was anti invasion work, and the Battle of France)

The simple truth is that the RAF could not bomb oil targets in 1940, 1941, 1942 or 1943. The accuracy simply wasn't there. It wasn't until the development of better targetting aids, which were in widespread use by 1944, that the RAF was capable of bombing oil successfully. 



> If the oil offensive was started in spring 1943, then Germans would have been in serious trouble by early 1944.



Whilst the RAF didn't have the accuracy to go after oil by night in 1943, the USAAF didn't have the numbers, or the escorts, to do so in 1943. Oil targets frequently meant deep penetrations which were suicide without escort, and required large numbers to do significant damage. The USAAF was still a small bombing force in Europe in 1943.



> The Bomber Command should have been used more directly against the war machine, than being wasted against German cities.



It was. Once the accuracy to hit small targets was available in 1944, BC moved from area bombing German cities (which was about all it could do in 1943) to attacking a large variety of German targets, from specific factories to oil installations, troop concentrations to transpot targets. In 1943 BC dropped about 90% of it's bombs on German cities. In 1944 and 1945 that dropped to about a third, with the rest being expended on various specific targets, not area bombing.



> He was so tied up on bombing cities he missed the key link to the German war machine, it's oil. Bomber Command should have been thrown at the German oil production facilities at full strength, but instead they were sent out against the cities in a waste of steel, lives and bombs.



What a lot of people don't realise is that BC bombed oil targets heavily in 1944 and 1945. In fact, they dropped far more bombs on oil targets than 8th AF did. It's only when you count in the USAAF forces in the Med that they dropped more bombs on oil than the RAF.

Tons of bombs dropped on oil targets:
RAF BC: 97,914
8th AF: 60,800
USAAF Med: 51,860


----------



## Bullockracing (May 14, 2006)

I put Rommel, just because of what he accomplished with the lack of resources at his disposal. Patton accomplished what he did because: There is no limit to what you can achieve when you have vision, drive, determination, and an unlimited supply of expendable labor.

Either I was unfamiliar with the others, or their ability to lead was not on par with Rommel's or Patton's.


----------



## syscom3 (May 14, 2006)

What Rommel could do with a massive logistics base supporting a truely mechanized army, supported by effective air support is purely conjecture.

Patton did all that and therre is no question about what he accomplished.

Id say Patton ranks above Rommel simply beacuse he is fact, and Rommel is fiction.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

How is Rommel fiction? Rommel achieved great success with little logistical support, whereas Patton never had to deal with a supply problem in a desperate situation. 

Rommel was very much real, syscom. Read about the 7th Panzer Division in 1940, or the Afrika Korps. There's a lot of mention of this man called Erwin Rommel. 

Can you describe what Patton could do with inferior numbers and limited supply? No. Because Patton never had to be in that disadvantaged situation. The mere fact that Rommel achieved victory in that case ranks him above Patton. And Rommel also performed in a supplied situation during 1940, in which performed with distinction and bravery ... not to mention, great skill. 

If Rommel had the logistical support, air support and fully-mechanized army of Patton in 1943. He would have won in North Africa, there's no doubt. 

I actually can't get over that comment "...Rommel is fiction." what a stupid comment to make. My god ... that has to be the worst comment I've read all day. What kind of ****nut comes out with that? Sorry... sorry, but jesus christ, syscom. You could have worded it better.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> What Rommel could do with a massive logistics base supporting a truely mechanized army, supported by effective air support is purely conjecture.
> 
> Patton did all that and therre is no question about what he accomplished.
> 
> Id say Patton ranks above Rommel simply beacuse he is fact, and Rommel is fiction.




I agree with PlanD, what the hell??????? fiction??? What part of Rommel is fiction dude? 

I am sure when you made that comment you knew you were going to get called on it. There is alot of reading material out there on him, plz read it before making that comment.

Please explain your statement better?


----------



## syscom3 (May 14, 2006)

If Rommel had this, Rommel had that....blah blah blah.

Rommel won his battles in 1940 and 1941.

Patton won his battles in 1944 and 1945, when it counted.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

Of course, because the battles in 1940 and 1941 were pointless. Not like if Germany didn't win those battles it wouldn't have made the blindest bit of difference. And Rommel won battles in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944 actually. 

You're basing the skill of the commander on the fact that his side won. That's ****ing stupid ...! 

Roles reversed, Patton would be ****ed in the *** and Rommel would shiner in an even greater light. As it were Rommel still proved to be the better commander by overcoming so many tactical disadvantages to come out on top. Patton just through all of the US into a meatgrinder and hoped for the best.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If Rommel had this, Rommel had that....blah blah blah.
> 
> Rommel won his battles in 1940 and 1941.
> 
> Patton won his battles in 1944 and 1945, when it counted.




Oh boy!! This is one of those pointless arguments. If you can't tell the difference and make a unbiased opinion using common sense, history, tons of literature. Then PlanD, myself and anyone else here with the same opinion cannot tell you anything else. We would be wasting our time and effort.

If you feel that Patton is a better general, fine. That is your opinion and I will respect that. But don't go saying that Rommel is fiction or blah blah blah or Rommel wons battles in 40-41 and that means nothing or ....... this is the best one that Patton won his battles in 44-45 when it counted. lol **** man.

Look PlanD has made points for Rommel, I made points for Rommel earlier in this thread (read them) and so have others. Read them

Agree or disagree fine but make some real points other than.....Patton won in 44-45 when it counts!!! Let me break it to you this way, in 44-45 the war was over except the fat lady just had not sung yet. The fat lady was warming her singing voice up though. 44-45 the war was lost by Germany, long lost by Germany. It did not take a genius to command the troops in 44-45. USA had massive air control, huge reserves, they had massive Russian armies closing in from the east. Not to mention the UK at its side!!!

If you are basing your whole opinion that Patton was a better General than Rommel, b/c Patton won battles in 44-45...... wow you have say more than that to make me believe. Good luck you need it.


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2006)

There is only one way to judge the success of a general, and that is if he won the battles that mattered.

Rommel won his battle's in France and Africa against army's that were still equiped for fighting 'the last war".

When he went up against the allied generals that knew their business, he got his butt whipped.

Rommel was successfull early in the war against ill equiped and poorly led allied armies, and fell flat against allied generals who where well equipped and knew what they were doing.

There is something unique and beautiful about the concept of "I won my battles the ugly way, but I still won"


----------



## Hop (May 15, 2006)

Rommel's reputation was really built during the time when he had the best possible tactical intelligence, thanks to his intercepts of Col Fellers reports from Egypt to Washington.

After Fellers was replaced, and Rommel lost the incredibly detailed information about allied deployments, the success of the DAK was ended. It spent several months attacking allied positions without any result, then was thrown back at Alemain.

Excusing Rommel for his lack of supplies ignores one vital point. Rommel _knew_ the ports he had were inadequate, he knew he couldn't get sufficient supplies forward to his front line in Egypt, yet he went ahead and advanced anyway, contrary to his orders to defend further back (closer to his supply line). That's Rommel's mistake. He overextended himself, and essentially ignored the logistics. As the saying has it, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.


----------



## Soren (May 15, 2006)

syscom3 I really hadn't expected such dumb posts from you, and yeah I do mean "DUMB" ! 

You haven't even considered the circumstances of the situation Rommel was in by 41-43 in Africa, and then you try to undermine his victories by saying they were against ill equipped and poorly led allied soldiers, it doesn't get more ignorant than that syscom !

Truth is Patton was a shitty leader compared to Rommel, waaay to aggressive/foolish and impatient to be a good leader !


----------



## Soren (May 15, 2006)

Btw I voted for Guderian


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2006)

plan_D said:


> How is Rommel fiction? Rommel achieved great success with little logistical support, whereas Patton never had to deal with a supply problem in a desperate situation.
> 
> Rommel was very much real, syscom. Read about the 7th Panzer Division in 1940, or the Afrika Korps. There's a lot of mention of this man called Erwin Rommel.
> 
> ...



Come on Plan_D that is easy. Syscom feels that way because Rommel was not an American Commander. He can not fathom the fact that someone that was not American was that good.


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2006)

Soren said:


> ......You haven't even considered the circumstances of the situation Rommel was in by 41-43 in Africa, and then you try to undermine his victories by saying they were against ill equipped and poorly led allied soldiers, it doesn't get more ignorant than that syscom !



He won his victories when the allied armies were easy pickings. A win is a win, so he gets credit.

In 1944 he couldnt stop the Allied steamroller in Normandy, therefore he lost. A loss is a loss.



> Truth is Patton was a shitty leader compared to Rommel, waaay to aggressive/foolish and impatient to be a good leader !



He won his battles. In fact he never lost one. It was only a general like Patton that could push his 3rd army across France in a matter of a few weeks. And it was only a general like Patton that could have aggressively contained the flank of the German army in the Battle of the Bulge.


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Come on Plan_D that is easy. Syscom feels that way because Rommel was not an American Commander. He can not fathom the fact that someone that was not American was that good.



Rommel was a good general. Id even say in the early part of the war, he was a brilliant general.

But after 1943, and definatly in 1944, he was only a "good" general. No way near "the greatest".


----------



## Hunter368 (May 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> He won his victories when the allied armies were easy pickings. A win is a win, so he gets credit.
> 
> In 1944 he couldnt stop the Allied steamroller in Normandy, therefore he lost. A loss is a loss.
> 
> ...



Syscom we have covered this already, go back read the thread.

Ok, Rommel won many victories in France early in the war and then again in North A.

You discount his victories early in France, why ? B/c he won and the Allies lost? He won those battles using new theories in warfare, the Allies did not react well and lost. He then went on to win brilliant victories in North A but could not hold off the over whelming odds mounted against him.

I will repeat this again, do you think that Patton would of won in North A with the same odds against him? I think not.

You say that Patton never lost a battle, ok, tell me a brilliant battle that he won. Not the Battle of the Budge, that is no genius at work, all he had to was wait for the weather to clear and watch the waves of Allied planes pummel German ranks (that were out of gas!). I think I could of done that, I have played Risk you know!!!

You say what matters or determines who is a Great General is if he won more battles then not........? So every single Axis General was a dumb ***? Every single Allied General that won his last battle was better than every Axis General who lost his last battle???? yikes if thats what you believe then there is no hope telling you otherwise.

Ok here is a sports analogy for you. Are you telling me that if the following players had NEVER won a Championship they sucked?

Arnold Palmer?
Wayne Gretzky?
Mike Tyson?
Sugar Ray Leonard?
Mario Lemke's?
Dan Mario?

Come on Syscom you have to admit your line of logic is............faulted.


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2006)

> You discount his victories early in France, why ? B/c he won and the Allies lost? He won those battles using new theories in warfare, the Allies did not react well and lost. He then went on to win brilliant victories in North A but could not hold off the over whelming odds mounted against him.



Agrre'd, although a closer look at the German victory had more to do with a complete collapse in the French morale and will to fight rather than super brilliant strategy and tactics of the Germans. There were several instances in which the British or French divisions that were equipped with the latest armor did inflict a telling blow on the German units.



> I will repeat this again, do you think that Patton would of won in North A with the same odds against him? I think not.



We will never know, but I would say at a minimum, he could fight the Germans to a stalemate. Remember that the allied armies had a far superior logistics doctrine than the Germans did. Patton knew how to use his firepower, intuitively knew the value of mobility, plus he knew he wouldnt run low on supplies.



> You say that Patton never lost a battle, ok, tell me a brilliant battle that he won. Not the Battle of the Budge, that is no genius at work, all he had to was wait for the weather to clear and watch the waves of Allied planes pummel German ranks (that were out of gas!). I think I could of done that, I have played Risk you know!!!



Actually the German offensive was contained while the weather was still horrible. Patton moved his army in the middle of horrible winter weather right into a pitched battle and crumpled the german offensive right in its tracks. 

Pattons credits include the 3rd Army breakout and rush across France, the Battle of the Bulge, battles in western germany to cross the Rhine and his dash into Checkslovakia.



> You say what matters or determines who is a Great General is if he won more battles then not........? So every single Axis General was a dumb ***? Every single Allied General that won his last battle was better than every Axis General who lost his last battle???? yikes if thats what you believe then there is no hope telling you otherwise.



I didnt say that at all. I just said that the German Generals were not among the greatest of all. But then, war is war and the one who wins the last battle does have claims to be the greatest. 



> Ok here is a sports analogy for you. Are you telling me that if the following players had NEVER won a Championship they sucked?



what do these sportsman have to do with the carnage and violence of war?



> Come on Syscom you have to admit your line of logic is............faulted.



Not at all.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 15, 2006)

Syscom,

Why was the French moral low? Why did the British have to retreat to UK? B/c of telling German victories thats why. In WW1 the French were a very tough opponent for the Germans, you think that 22 years they are all just cowards now? They had low moral b/c of the unsurpassed victories of the Germans. Rommel being one of them.

My second point I think you miss understood. What I mean if Patton had what Rommel had to use in North A do you think he would of been able to hold off UK and USA forces? I don't think so.

All the battles you quote that Patton did command in I have this to say about them, he should of been able to what he did. He had ever possible advantage in his hands. Show me a battle where he fought from a disadvantage and still won against all odds, then I will give him some credit. He was a above average General, like I said before in this thread, just not a Great one.

Then you say the following:
"I just said that the German Generals were not among the greatest of all. But then, war is war and the one who wins the last battle does have claims to be the greatest." 
I say the ever German General was not a Great General, I agree, but many were. They fought at huge I mean HUGE disadvantages though most of the war and made the Allies pay a huge price for their victory. But you are right they did lose, but that does not mean they are worse Generals then the Allied ones. It means that the Allied ones had a HUGE advantage to work with and at times the Allies did come up with good strategies also. There was some Great Allied Generals, Nimitz, Mac Arthur were both better than Patton. They both did more with less resources then what Patton did.

Sports analogy means alot. I am sure you fully understand what I am saying you just want to admit it. You are saying the German Generals are not Great or cannot not be considered Great b/c they lost the war. USA Generals won so they are Great. Well I am saying if those Great players I listed had not won a Championship would you have said they sucked also?? If you do clearly you are wrong. They are Great players (just like some German Generals were Great) whether they won or not.


----------



## Udet (May 15, 2006)

Also mr. syscom3 gladly forgot to make any comments when I said the very first time the armed forces of the USA and Germany met on the battlefield during world war two, the performance of US troops and officers was wanting to say the least; the outnumbered and under-supplied German troops (commanded by Rommel) taught them what perhaps could be one of the toughest, roughest and bloodiest lessons the US Army has ever had to endure in its history.


In conclusion, mr. syscom3s behavior is not different from that the post-bolshevik keepers of the truth display on russian ww2 forums: "errrmm...tell me kid,who won the war in the end?".


----------



## Hunter368 (May 15, 2006)

Udet said:


> Also mr. syscom3 gladly forgot to make any comments when I said the very first time the armed forces of the USA and Germany met on the battlefield during world war two, the performance of US troops and officers was wanting to say the least; the outnumbered and under-supplied German troops (commanded by Rommel) taught them what perhaps could be one of the toughest, roughest and bloodiest lessons the US Army has ever had to endure in its history.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, mr. syscom3s behavior is not different from that the post-bolshevik keepers of the truth display on russian ww2 forums: "errrmm...tell me kid,who won the war in the end?".




Sorry Udet what are you referring to in your last paragraph? Just wondering, are you referring to another thread or what? plz explain more

Thanks


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 15, 2006)

Patton isn't doing much better than Yamamoto!


I'm sure if he was on here........


----------



## MacArther (May 15, 2006)

Douglas MacArthur, but I can't seem to remember why... Oh yeah, because he was great in the theatre which was presented to him, he cared about his troops, and because he is my favorite general!


----------



## Bullockracing (May 15, 2006)

To clear up the Rommel vs Patton, which would you want to be your commander? If you haven't been in the mob, this question may seem to be a no-brainer. Patton was one tough SOB, and while he might win, it will be at cost to me if I am under his command. Rommel (when his hands were not tied by Nazi red tape) was a commander loved (and respected, not feared) by his troops.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 15, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> To clear up the Rommel vs Patton, which would you want to be your commander? If you haven't been in the mob, this question may seem to be a no-brainer. Patton was one tough SOB, and while he might win, it will be at cost to me if I am under his command. Rommel (when his hands were not tied by Nazi red tape) was a commander loved (and respected, not feared) by his troops.



While the point of this thread is "Greatest WW2 Military Commander" not most beloved, you do bring up a good point.

I would also rather serve Rommel 100%.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 15, 2006)

You're correct, Hunter. I guess I was using a bottom-up view of great as opposed to how a leader of a country would see great.

I would dare say that manning, material, equipment, and support do not make a military commander great, it is what he can accomplish with what he has. The number one resource is people, and for a commander to be great, he must have the support of his troops.


----------



## Udet (May 15, 2006)

Hunter368, hello:

What i said about syscom3, is that his comments within this thread are not different to those you can read in russian ww2 online-discussion forums.

Mr. syscom3 says things like "Patton won battles when it counted...", so perhaps Rommel´s victories in France and North Africa did not count. Rommel should have let the Brits have his butt since his very first operation in North Africa.

"Rommel might have been good, just not that good". The reason behind such assertion? 

Simple Hunter, this is how it works: Patton is better for the fundamental reason he was a commander of a nation part of the victorious side, therefore, all commanders of the defeated side are by force of an inferior breed.

You know what a keeper of the truth is don´t you Hunter?

Do you speak Russian? If you do, then you ought to take a look at what so many russian guys say of the red army in their forums.

There are keepers of the truth on all allied nations: USA, UK...however, those who took the keeper of the truth role up to unprecedented levels are precisely the russians.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 15, 2006)

You've got a point Udet, there's a certain "brand loyalty" in action here, although I voted for Rommel...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2006)

Overall I would have wanted to serve under Rommel more. Now this has nothing to do with the fact of what side they were on or what, just which commander I think overall was better. I believe that Rommel understood the whole picture better than Patton did. Patton was a wild cowboy (which dont take me wrong, that style worked for him).


----------



## lesofprimus (May 16, 2006)

General "Wild Bill" Donovan, head of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) during WWII, definatly deserves some sort of recoginition here.... A former Medal of Honor winner from WWI, his work helped end the war months if not years ahead of time...

As far as the Rommel vs Patton gimmick, Rommel served better in his capacity than Patton did, vice versa.... Patton was great, Rommel was greater....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> General "Wild Bill" Donovan, head of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) during WWII, definatly deserves some sort of recoginition here.... A former Medal of Honor winner from WWI, his work helped end the war months if not years ahead of time...
> 
> As far as the Rommel vs Patton gimmick, Rommel served better in his capacity than Patton did, vice versa.... Patton was great, Rommel was greater....



I agree with you. I am not trying to take anything away from Patton. He was a great commander I just think that he was a bit wild and rash sometimes. Dont take me wrong though it worked for him.

I have a book by Donovan and had it autographed by him. This was so many years ago though but it still is a great book and was neat to have it signed by him. I actually think it was my dad that got it signed when he toured my dads place of work in the army.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 4, 2006)




----------



## Dac (Jun 5, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Rommel, Guderian, Zhukov, and Spruance for me. did anyone know about the battle at Khalikan Gol ( might have misspelled) where Zhukov crushed a invading Japanese army and that caused Japan to sign a nonaggression pact with Russia. That way when Hitler invaded Germany Stalin could deploy lots of divisions from the Asian part of Russia to the Europe part of Russia without fearing a Japanese attack.



Is that also called the Battle of Nomonhan. Zhukov was brilliant, he pioneered some of the basic Blitzkrieg techniques there. He built submerged bridges over the river separating the two forces and brought up hundreds of BT series tanks running rapidly on their road wheels with tracks removed. He coordinated artillery, air, infantry and armor to totally overwhelm the Japanese forces and something like 65,000 were killed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 5, 2006)

Zhokov deffinatly was one of the great commanders and what he did for the Russians was simply amazing. He basically took nothing and made it somethign with his tactics.

My favorites as stated however are Rommel and then Patton.


----------



## Dac (Jun 5, 2006)

Rommel and Patton were great tactical commanders but somewhat limited when it came to strategy. I picked Ike even though he had little field experience. He had the managerial and diplomatic skills to lead a huge multinational force that might have fallen apart under a lesser commander.


----------



## Dac (Jun 5, 2006)

Shouldn't "Smiling Albert" be on the list. Not many officiers commanded both land and air forces the way he did in WW II.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2006)

Dac said:


> Rommel and Patton were great tactical commanders but somewhat limited when it came to strategy.



Are you serious? Rommel was a strategic genius. His strategies are still studied today and he did so well with what limited resources that he had.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 6, 2006)

Rommel and Guderian are the best 4 me though


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 27, 2006)

For me, General Patton was the Greatest in my opinion. He was a true, born leader. He is someone to respect. 


> "No ******* ever won a war for dieing for his country. He won it by making that other poor, dumb ******* die for his!"



Now *that's* what the Germans needed!!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 28, 2006)

in most cases, they'd either surrender or kill as many till they can't kill any more


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 28, 2006)

Yeah. Maybe it should have been aimed toward the Russians. By the way, how many Russian soldiers died in WWII? 




> Originally Posted by Dac
> Rommel and Patton were great tactical commanders but somewhat limited when it came to strategy.



Like Alder said, Rommel was given limited resources by the German Army. If they had kept him well supplied and given more tanks, the war in N. Africa would've lasted longer.

As for Patton; he also used strategy! Yes, he did modernize the blitzkreig tactics and made them American, but that was the amazing! He took a battle strategy thought to be outdated by Allies, and turned it into a superior weapon which ultmately got him into Czechoslovakia!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2006)

P38 Pilot how did they think it was outdated when the first time the allies saw the Blitzkrieg they were still fighting trenches?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 1, 2006)

What I mean is the plan later on in the war. The Germans weren't using it in 1944. I know the allies in the beggining didn't catch on, but when things started heating up for them, thats when Patton took the Blitzkreig and made it American.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 1, 2006)

P38, the US Army early on in the 30's embraced the concept of mobile warfare. Patton was among the many officers in the corps that contributed to this doctrine.

The main difference between the US and Germans through out the 30's and first couple years of the war was the Germans generally had superior weapons and eqmt. However, as the war progressed, the US eqmt got progressively better.

One thing where the US excelled in mobile warfare (or blitzkreig if you prefer) was the US emphysis on all levels of logistics. The US could support sustained thrusts by dozens of divisions while the Germans couldnt.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

The Germans used 'blitzkrieg' right up until the end of the war. Their tactics were developed beyond the Allies, only the Soviet Union were close to an equal in mobile warfare. 

Great Britain developed mobile war in the deserts of North Africa, and had the only fully mobilised Army on the planet in 1939. But compared to the German doctrine of arm supporting arm to cut off the enemy logistical support, it was pityful. The German equipment was not so superior, in fact a lot of cases found it inferior to the British equipment of 1939-1940 but the tactical genius saw them through. 

Before any of you claim to know what the Germans were doing with their tanks in 1943-1945, read Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin. It'll put you straight on the ideas of Germany suddenly becoming imobile when the Allies reached the Continent.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> What I mean is the plan later on in the war. The Germans weren't using it in 1944.



They were not using it as much because they were on the defensive....


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 4, 2006)

I think Rommel was probably the best all around General with very good abilities in Politics, Strategy and a tactical sense.
Patton was the best tactical general, good strategical planner but poor Politically.
Palus, Rundstat and most of the German generals were very good but you just can't swim with your hands tied and concrete on your feet.
Zukov was very very good.
Montgomery was a good strategic planner, good at politics and poor in the field.
Ike was the best man for his job as overall command superb at Strategy, picking generals and politics, who knows how he would have done in the field.
Bradley was OK but worried about the foot soldier to much. 

Patton worried about getting it done, and in the process ate up lots of ground. By cutting the enemy off and gaining a lot of ground he kept the enemy disorientated he saved soldiers on both sides as well as the civilians caught in between. His genius was in not taking to much at any given time.

wmaxt


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 4, 2006)

Once again how can we not include Tito after all they were the only country to liberate itself plus and probably had the most effective partisans of all the countries


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

And he held it together after WW2. After his death it all started to unravel. Tito though I think was a great partisan commander but as a commander of large masses of soldiers I dont think he would rank with Rommel and Patton.


----------



## trackend (Jul 6, 2006)

Guderian is my choice his tactics very nearly succeeded and set the mould for modern warfare Eisenhower was superb but more for his ability in controlling the political factions than as a military tactician and Yamamoto fought an incredible campaign considering the constraints and limitations he had foisted upon him by the higher ups plus the lack of renewable logistics.


----------



## CCM von Hausser (Aug 11, 2006)

Also if I think that this poll isn't 100% correct - IHMO - I say:

Erich von Manstein: a Genius 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

How is this poll not correct, when it is based on peoples opinions? Are peoples opinions not valid when they dont hold the same opinion as you?


----------



## mahross (Aug 11, 2006)

I had to vote for Slim. In my opinion the pre-eminent British genral of the war. He had a good grasp of every aspect of warfare. He was also the first and only Indian Army officer to become CIGS.

Ross


----------



## CCM von Hausser (Aug 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How is this poll not correct, when it is based on peoples opinions? Are peoples opinions not valid when they dont hold the same opinion as you?


Probably cause my little english knowledge, I was unable to write what I mean... but I try now. 

I think that is not 100% correct to compare men that were in command of Army, Group of Armies or entire sectors of the main front with men who were in command of just a single division. Still, I think that someone of them are brilliant tactical and others are brilliant strategical, but I think is impossible that a single man is both these things. For these and other reasons I think it's impossible to say in absolute who is the best leader, but we need to make some differences and distinctions from leader to leader... I think that is more correct that, here, in this manner, we can say who is our preferred leader.

I voted Erich von Manstein cause I think he was the best strategical of the entire WWII, and I prefer this fase of the war. I think that Rommel was tactical a and Guderian a theorist, so I cannot compare these men one with other.

DerAdlerIstGelandet, please, excuse me and my bad english... I'm sorry if you or someone has thought bad about me and my words.

In future I'll use an online traslator before to post here 

Sincerely
Cristiano


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2006)

No worries man, not offense was taken.

As for the different kinds of leaders they can be compared because at some point they were all in the same position most likely. As for tactitian or theorist, they too can be compared because it is what they accomplish. Patton and Bradley were too different leadership styles but they accomplished the same thing. Therefore they can be compared.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 14, 2006)

_"Still, I think that someone of them are brilliant tactical and others are brilliant strategical, but I think is impossible that a single man is both these things."_

This, I believe, to be incorrect. It is possible for a man to be both tactically and strategically intelligent. General Balck comes immediately to mind. This man commanded 1st Panzer Divsion's 1st Infantry Regiment in France, where he personally led an attack against Bouillion which led to the advance on Sedan. He then proceeded to rise through the ranks, commanding Panzer Korps in the East then eventually commanding Army Group G in the West against the American onslaught in southern France and Germany. This man grasped the tactical and strategical side of combat from squad tactics to army tactics. And was commented on by Col. Gen. Guderian as being the most naturally gifted Panzer commander he had ever met, and he had met Rommel. 

_"I think that Rommel was tactical a and Guderian a theorist, so I cannot compare these men one with other."_

What would be considered tactical against strategical in your mind, von Hausser? 

I find a tactical commander to be small scale (I say small lightly), so regiment, battalion or company command. This involves having an objective and ordering small groups against the small objectives (a single village, artillery battery etc.). This would normally be a part of a grander strategic plan set up by the higher "strategic command"; division, corps, army, army group. 

This would mean that Rommel was a strategic commander. His commands during actual conflict were no less down the line than commanding 7th Panzer Divsion in France. If you idea is different then please enlighten me as to why. 

And I would like you idea of a theorist against a practical commander. Because to me a theorist does not see combat, or does not take combat command. He writes the theory while others practice. To call Guderian a theorist and not accept his combat command (which was remarkable) into the equation is an insult to Guderian surely. 
Maybe you're not aware that Heinz Guderian's command of XIX Army Corps in Poland could have been the pivotal point of the conflict which ensured the conquest of that nation. I will list the combat commands Guderian had during World War II (he also had some in World War I, but are beyond the scope of this discussion) :

Fall Weiss : Commander XIX Army Corps
Fall Gelb : Commander Panzer Group Guderian (this had Rommel's 7th Panzer division in it)
16 November 1940 : Panzer Group 2
5 October 1941 : Second Panzer Army 
26 December 1941 : Transferred to OKH Officer Pool
1 March 1943 : Inspector-General of Armoured Troops
21 July 1944 : Also entrusted as Chief of the Army General Staff

So, Guderian was not just a theorist as he commanded forces in Poland, France and Russia. His forces in Poland stretched beyond all others and captured Brest-Litovsk. His forces in France were the first to the Channel. His forces in Russia were those that were on the doorstep of Moscow.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 21, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> I think Rommel was probably the best all around General with very good abilities in Politics, Strategy and a tactical sense.


let down by his lack of understanding of logistics,


> Patton was the best tactical general, good strategical planner but poor Politically.


Patton was never an Army Group Commander so he had no involvement in Allied strategy, but tactically he was very bold.


> Zukov was very very good.


 Far too wasteful in his men's lives, his handling of the Berlin attack was awful. 


> Montgomery was a good strategic planner, good at politics and poor in the field.


 Monty was totally useless at politics, but he was better in the field than he is often given credit for


> Ike was the best man for his job as overall command superb at Strategy, picking generals and politics, who knows how he would have done in the field.


 I agree Ike was the best man for the job he was given.


> Bradley was OK but worried about the foot soldier to much.


 Bradley is the most overrated general of WW2, he was wasteful of his men's lives in Normandy, with his costly broad front attacks, and at the start of the Battle of the Bulge, he panicked and lost control of the situation. Ike had to step in and get Monty and Patton to help him out 



> Patton worried about getting it done, and in the process ate up lots of ground. By cutting the enemy off and gaining a lot of ground he kept the enemy disorientated he saved soldiers on both sides as well as the civilians caught in between. His genius was in not taking to much at any given time.
> 
> wmaxt


In open warfare he was very good but against a well dug in enemy like at Metz, he did less well, his attacks being clumsy and costly


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 22, 2006)

> ...Bradley is the most overrated general of WW2, he was wasteful of his men's lives in Normandy, with his costly broad front attacks, and at the start of the Battle of the Bulge, he panicked and lost control of the situation. Ike had to step in and get Monty and Patton to help him out ...



Bradley never panicked, and Monty NEVER provided anything substantial untill after the offensive stalled.

It was Patton who kicked *** and got his 3rd army into position and saved the day.


----------



## CCM von Hausser (Aug 28, 2006)

@ DerAdlerIstGelandet - Nice to read it 

@ plan D - I'm sorry for the delay, I was in holiday... I need some time to answer to you why I hope to be clear and correct as well as possible this time


----------



## Joe2 (Oct 26, 2006)

I say the best generals where Rommel, Patton and Montgomery

Rommel because of his blitzkrieg movements. In 1940 The british called him the gost as whenever they counterattacked he wasent there

Patton was really an american form of Rommel

and Monty as he really only lost one battle (Arnhem). And when people say he was over-coutius, he was just trying to protect his men


----------



## Emac44 (Oct 30, 2006)

Sorry gentlemen and ladies but going home grown talent by voting other by Voting for Generals Vasey and Blamey of the Australian 2nd AIF. Both had served under General Monash from WW1. though not in the same infamous catergories as the aforementioned Allied and Axis generals in the poll. Both had to put up with Prima Donna Douglas Macarthur. But for sheer talent and ability to conduct a campaign through some of the most roughest terrian in the south Pacific namely Papua New Giunea Owen Stanley campaign i have no choice but to vote for Home grown over foriegn. Sorry to disappoint


----------



## Desert Fox (Dec 23, 2006)

Rommel is the stand out in that list. He had a brilliant tactical mind, made even better by the fact that Hitler had not twisted it with Fascism and anti-Semitism. He was one of the greatest pure military leaders in history.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2006)

I agree


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 30, 2006)

I agree too. He was a great military leader and a general by heart. But Patton will always be my hero and favorite military leader. Ive been doing some reasearch on him and have discovered many great things.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2006)

Do some research on less famous Generals, and you'll find out even more great things. Like the fact that Patton is over-rated.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jan 2, 2007)

Patton isnt overrated. Eisenhower and Montgomery are. The problem is that they were both too much of politicians rather than soldiers. Patton got the job done and if they had let Patton fully surround the Falaise Gap the war would've ended sooner in Europe sparing the lives of more than 1 million Jews along with civilian and military casulties.

Patton too me did more to help the US Army than any other general. Patton was always on the offensive and knew what he was doing. But his superiors held him back. Patton isnt praised enough for his accomplishments.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2007)

The only thing right there was saying that Ike was a politician more than a soldier. But while your closed mind centers itself on the U.S, Ike had more things to worry about like the whole Alliance. He held the Allies together in a time when they were on the brink of collapse. 

As for calling Montgomery a politician, well I don't think that's even worthy of a reply. You are talking about a man just as egotistical as your beloved Patton; who wasn't a man for diplomacy. 
He certainly wouldn't be there for the U.S Army, because he commanded British forces. The 8th Army in North Africa who sealed the defeat of the Afrika Korps, the landing forces in Normandy, and then the 21st Army Group in northern Europe. 
While making mistakes, Montgomery made sure that the situation was right for victory. There was no rush; and sometimes you need that kind of thinker in your general staff. 

If you're big on researching Patton; go research the 3rd Army offensive into Lorraine. Patton disobeyed the most common military maxim; march divided, fight concentrated. Instead of giving the Germans a knock-out punch he made the aim of being strong everywhere along his front, which made him decsively strong nowhere. He out-numbered the German defenders with 25:1 artillery; 20:1 tanks and 250 000 to 86 000 in infantry. But with his constant mis-use of armour and the ego driven belief that his operations in Lorraine were still a pursuit, what was supposed to be the final sweep into Germany ended up lasting three months with a turn north to save the US First Army.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 3, 2007)




----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2007)

Not only did he fail in Lorraine but also deprived other armies of their knock-out punches. The U.S First Army was deprived of fuel because Patton thought it was a good idea to hi-jack their fuel supplies. He must have believed in his deluded state of mind that a front facing the Saar industrial sector was more important than those facing the Ruhr. 

Ike, of course, was part in blame for the mistakes on the assault on Germany. His idea of a broad front was naive and a waste of man-power. But Patton seemed to be fine with this strategy at times, as he proved in Lorraine. Even the Corps commanders under Patton seemed to believe that dividing their tanks up amongst the infantry was a good idea. When it had been proven in World War I - and during most of World War II that it wasn't a good idea. 

On top of that, Patton constantly over-stretched his supply lines. As much as he was in a rush, as all the Allies were, he should have halted when he supply lines were stretched to their limit. His tanks actually ran out of fuel and his artillery ran out of ammo. What if the Germans counter-attacked in Lorraine instead of the Ardennes? The 3rd Army was immobilised until just before the Ardennes offensive, and it had been shattered at Metz - some units suffered 50% casaulties. And the only reason Metz fell because Hitler took some of the garrison away to take part in the Ardennes Offensive. 

Patton never mentioned Lorraine - I wonder why?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

P38 Pilot said:


> if they had let Patton fully surround the Falaise Gap the war would've ended sooner in Europe sparing the lives of more than 1 million Jews along with civilian and military casulties.



Are you absolutely sure about that?


----------



## merlin (Jan 4, 2007)

I am staggered that Manstein is not head shoulders in the lead!! If Hitler had the sense to put a 'general' in command on the Eastern Front, Manstein would've have been the only one every other commander in the theatre would've followed.
Manstein had the vision in 1940 to advocate goiing through the (impassable to the French) Ardenne, rather than the expected _Schleffin _(right spelling?) style Plan.
And subsequently, proved himself in the East - whether Sevestapol or Kharkov.
Guderian - a worthy option for his passion vision for armoured warfare. Too often held back by either Rundstedt, or Hitler.
Rommel, how good was he? In Africa he had access to allied intentions from espionage. If he had commandered in Russia - would he have succeeded there? Better than Hoepner - doubt it!


----------



## Raf ace (Jan 12, 2007)

For me i think general Marshal


----------



## Desert Fox (Jan 14, 2007)

I would also like to point out that Hermann Goering was an abosolute idiot who couldnt get his head out of Hitlers arse long enough to command the Luftwaffe properly. There, i said it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)

I think everyone knows that and that is why he did not get any votes.


----------



## renrich (Feb 12, 2007)

Before the 2nd WW began and before Churchill had become PM, von Ribbentrop was trying to demonstrate to him why GB should stay out of any war that might involve Germany. He stated that Germany had the finest air force, the finest army "and this time we shall have Italy on our side." Churchill said,"that seems fair, we were stuck with them last time." Don't forget that Rommel won most of his victories in North Africa with more than half of his forces comprised of poorly equipped Italian troops. I would give much consideration to Kesselring and how about Adolph Galland. On the American side definitely MacArthur.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2007)

The thing that held Rommel back in France 1944 was Hitler himself...


----------



## renrich (Feb 13, 2007)

Too right!


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2007)

Except the fact that Rommel had it all wrong anyway in 1944. He had his armour on the front; in range of Allied naval guns - they were pratically wiped out and were only poised to react to their part of the front. 

Guderian wanted the armour back, to use to roads to react anywhere and be out of the naval gun range. Rundstedt agreed to Guderian at first; but gave in to Rommel's constant whining. Which resulted in the 21st Panzer division being splattered by the Royal Navy.


----------



## Marriott (Apr 10, 2007)

Erwin Rommel by a long shot in my opinion


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

I'm missing Felix Steiner of the 5th SS Div. Wiking here....





Many great commanders to find here and a few not so "great"..


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 20, 2007)

People dont give Omar Bradley enough credit


Oh and by the way wheres Andrew Macnaughton


----------



## rogthedodge (May 9, 2007)

Just joined so this is my first post:

It has to be William Slim - no-one else single-handedly turned a routed, defeated and defeatist army on the run into one that could take the Japanese on in what was seen to be their 'natural' environment and defeat them - resoundingly.

He did this with virtually no support, few extra resources and very little recognition - almost purely through his humanity, communication skills, and outstanding personal leadership. 

He wasn't nick-named 'Uncle Bill' for nothing!

Contrast this with other greats Monty, Patton and Rommel - all of whom were talked up by their respective countries' PR machines for good military reasons but had significant resources at their disposal and often a numerical / technical advantage over their opponents.

On the basis of his comment to Churchill - *'Well I know one thing, Prime Mininster, my Army won't be voting for you'* he was probably the bravest too.


----------



## nosta3824382 (May 10, 2007)

Zhukov should be the best he command soviet army to fight the strongest army in the world in late 1941 .That time soviet lost million mens and have only few troop left (fewer than German). And he command and win many battle in Moskov Stalingrad Operation Uranus Kursk Operation Bagration .He control all logistic partisan strategic and battle tactic until Soviet win German. Some battle he have not good killing ratio but because German have better weapon and more expert men.German can win with 10 /1 catualty ratio in many country .And 1 Panther or Tiger can destroy 5 Ally tanks when their enemy control air.
But about battle of Berlin I think if he just surround and cut food it enough to win .But may be he think if he lost men and let German surrender million of men it should better. He trap major German force in sounteast of city and capture Berlin with his 360,000 catualty. If half of wounded soldiers can medic .He lost only 220,000. But if this made more than million of German troop surrender it ok.


----------



## mkloby (May 10, 2007)

I believe Zhukov is credited with making a comment that the best way to clear a minefield is to send the infantry across it. I don't know if this is substantiated, though.


----------



## nosta3824382 (May 11, 2007)

I dont know about that Zhukov strategy.Wikipedia and some other web is my only source.But if it true it too much cruel T_T.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2007)

davparlr said:


> It depends on the definition of Blitzkrieg. Guderian was certainly instrumental in the development of the modern concept of tank maneuvers. Now was he involved in the development of the concept of coordinated artillery and air attacks with tanks, I don't know.
> 
> There's a difference in being a great military stategist and a great leader. I know Guderian led some battles but I don't think he is considered a great leader, certainly not in the league of Rommel. Of course Rommel had the press behind him.



My fist vote goes to MacArthur with Patton, Guderian, and Rommel in there as the best at the next level.

MacArthur was an absolute master of 3 dimensional warfare that maximized gains and minimized losses of grunt GI's - At least two of the above lost more troops dead in one day than MacArthur lost in his SW Pacific campaigns (somewhat of an exaggeration but not by much)

I also think that Monty was a great leader and a strategist as well as Alexander, Rundstedt, Balck, Kesslering and Zhukov as well as Yamamoto and Tamashita. As to the latter, he is/was under rated.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I believe Zhukov is credited with making a comment that the best way to clear a minefield is to send the infantry across it. I don't know if this is substantiated, though.




mkloby - when my father led the last Shuttle Mission, over Warsaw, on 18 September (the Escort Group not the 3rd Div bomber force led by Truesdale) his singular most memorable experience of the mission was watching Russian soldiers, men and women, arm in arm marching across Piryatin airfield and taxi areas kicking up mines.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Just joined so this is my first post:
> 
> It has to be William Slim - no-one else single-handedly turned a routed, defeated and defeatist army on the run into one that could take the Japanese on in what was seen to be their 'natural' environment and defeat them - resoundingly.
> 
> ...



How about Guadalcanal, Roge? Although it wasn't won single handed by anybody, just a bunch of raggedy ass Marines and soldiers..

Monty did fairly well at El Alemein as I recall, and the guys at Stalingrad did a pretty good job in similar 'psychological circumstances' - all against the 'undefeatable'..


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you serious? Rommel was a strategic genius. His strategies are still studied today and he did so well with what limited resources that he had.



Shock-horror..... Imagine what Rommel might have done if he had had all the support and means that he so much needed.....  

The North African theatre might have had a somewhat different ending....


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Except the fact that Rommel had it all wrong anyway in 1944. He had his armour on the front; in range of Allied naval guns - they were pratically wiped out and were only poised to react to their part of the front.
> 
> Guderian wanted the armour back, to use to roads to react anywhere and be out of the naval gun range. Rundstedt agreed to Guderian at first; but gave in to Rommel's constant whining. Which resulted in the 21st Panzer division being splattered by the Royal Navy.



Laughing a little and wondering if you ever held an opinion that you were uncertain of? or have it function on the basis of anything but 20/20 hindsight?

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.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 9, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Shock-horror..... Imagine what Rommel might have done if he had had all the support and means that he so much needed.....
> 
> The North African theatre might have had a somewhat different ending....



I would trade Rommel for Monty any day of the week  Imagine Patton and Rommel on the same side.


----------



## lucanus (Aug 10, 2007)

Where's Chesty and Red Mike Edson?


----------



## majorwoody10 (Oct 14, 2007)

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 (Oct 14, 2007)

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 (Oct 22, 2007)

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 (Oct 22, 2007)

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 (Oct 23, 2007)

I give my vote to Kesselring


----------



## Instal (Oct 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (Oct 24, 2007)

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 (Oct 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 25, 2007)

Agree instal...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2007)

Instal said:


> 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 (Oct 26, 2007)

_"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 (Nov 11, 2007)

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.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

plan_D said:


> _"Still, I think that someone of them are brilliant tactical and others are brilliant strategical, but I think is impossible that a single man is both these things."_
> 
> This, I believe, to be incorrect. It is possible for a man to be both tactically and strategically intelligent. General Balck comes immediately to mind. This man commanded 1st Panzer Divsion's 1st Infantry Regiment in France, where he personally led an attack against Bouillion which led to the advance on Sedan. He then proceeded to rise through the ranks, commanding Panzer Korps in the East then eventually commanding Army Group G in the West against the American onslaught in southern France and Germany. This man grasped the tactical and strategical side of combat from squad tactics to army tactics. And was commented on by Col. Gen. Guderian as being the most naturally gifted Panzer commander he had ever met, and he had met Rommel.
> 
> ...



I think I agree with his point, there really should have been different polls, best tactical/theater commander, and a different one for strategic command. 

Warspiter you are right that Kesselring should be on the list, and where is General Alan Brooke? 

I had to vote "other" because General Brooke wasn't listed. His command of the BEF 2nd corps prevented a complete rout of the British in 1940, if he had not done such a masterful job of organizing the retreat into Dunkirk there would have been no evacuation, the British would have lost 300,000+ men and very likely lost the war. His later strategic command as C.I.G.S also saved the British from many disasters. I think there was no other commander in WWII who made such a critical difference to his country.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

freebird said:


> I had to vote "other" because General Brooke wasn't listed. His command of the BEF 2nd corps prevented a complete rout of the British in 1940, if he had not done such a masterful job of organizing the retreat into Dunkirk there would have been no evacuation, the British would have lost 300,000+ men and very likely lost the war. His later strategic command as C.I.G.S also saved the British from many disasters. I think there was no other commander in WWII who made such a critical difference to his country.



This is for another discussion you can thank the Germans also for Dunkirk....

I would not rank someone based off of commaning the BEF as being the greatest of WW2 when there were plenty of commanders who were allied or axis that were far better.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This is for another discussion you can thank the Germans also for Dunkirk....
> 
> I would not rank someone based off of commaning the BEF as being the greatest of WW2 when there were plenty of commanders who were allied or axis that were far better.



Who would you propose as the greater STRATEGIC commander? (So I am not comparing Tactical/Army/Theater commanders like Patton,Rommel, Zhukov, Montgomery etc.) The Strategic decisions for the Russians, Germans Japanese were basically made by Stalin, Hitler Tojo. On the American side it was Marshall, Stimson King that proposed their plans for the war. (but the British plan for "Torch" prevailed over the American plan for "SledgeHammer")
It was Brooke's leadership as the head of the British Army from 1941 -1945 that deserves credit as greatest commander. It was HIS plan that the Allies followed (the "concentric strategy") that won the war. If the Allies had followed the American plan, or even Churchill's plan it would have been much more difficult for the Allies to win the war, it would have taken much longer. All the major allied operations followed the strategic plan that he proposed in 1941. (Torch, Husky, Overlord, Anvil)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

If we go with strategic per say and not tactical then I agree he is a strong contender. I am not sure he is the greatest but he is certainly a very strong contender.

I was looking at this from a different point of view.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If we go with strategic per say and not tactical then I agree he is a strong contender. I am not sure he is the greatest but he is certainly a very strong contender.
> 
> I was looking at this from a different point of view.



Thanks. By the way I just signed up on this forum, and I appreciate the debate. Its nice to hear opposing views facts without rancor.

I would have liked to see two sparate polls for Tactical Strategic. I think most of the people have polled their Tactical favorite (Patton, Rommel, Manstien etc) and the results are not far wrong. Just curious, who would also be contenders for best WWII "Strategic" commander? I would guess Nimitz would be one, who else would you suggest?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

freebird said:


> Thanks. By the way I just signed up on this forum, and I appreciate the debate. Its nice to hear opposing views facts without rancor.



I agree.



freebird said:


> I would have liked to see two sparate polls for Tactical Strategic. I think most of the people have polled their Tactical favorite (Patton, Rommel, Manstien etc) and the results are not far wrong. Just curious, who would also be contenders for best WWII "Strategic" commander? I would guess Nimitz would be one, who else would you suggest?



Honestly I prefer to look at the "Tactical" ones because that is what interests me the most. I would have to think about the "Strategic" ones a bit.

If you wish to start up 2 seperate threads you may do so. Forum members have the ability to do so and you can start polls in them as well.


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 23, 2007)

I just signed enlisted for this forum. I love the discussions, I have all ready learned a lot. Looking forward to learning more.
I have had a couple thoughts about this topic. Wanted your gentleman's opinions. I have read several times the arguement that is easy to consider Patton being a greater commander than Rommel when Patton had all the advantages when the two squared off. But if this thinking is true, would it not be unfair to use the arguements of Poland and France in the opening months of Blitzkrieg for the arguement of the German generals? What I mean by this is that the German Generals had the advantage over every country they invaded at this point. Germany had the avantages of technology, better trained men, better weapons, better tactics. I have not done very much research about where the countries that Germany invaded ranked in these catagories, but the Polish military was and in no way a match for the German army. France's military was in disarray. I believe they sunk most of the french defense budget into the Maginot Line, (so much so that it's construction almost bankrupted France) believing that this huge and over rated fortification was all that they needed. When the Germans simply went around it, it proved that the fixed fortification was almost useless in modern warfare, and that the France's militry plan for defense was a total disaster. What I am trying to say is that if France Had sunk more money into weapons developement instead of the Maginot line, it may have changed things quite a bit. Building the Maginot line took away vast amounts of resources and money which could have gone into defense and the building of planes and armour. Germany had the advantage over France by far.

But in arguement of Rommel, could you imagined how much better the German Generals could have done had Hilter not thought himself to be a smarter tactician than all of his generals, and had he also not insisted of being involved in every aspect of war planning. Imagine how different things could have been had Hitler trusted the advice of all his true brillant generals? Imagine Rommel or any of the other top german generals under a Roosevelt or Churchill. I believe (churchill, Roosevelt) that they had total confidence in the heads of their respected military branches, and did not get so directly involved. 
Patton or Rommel. Different men, different tactics. But both are truely great in their own right.
People have been debating topics like this ever since the war ended, will be for quite a while. 
I am looking forward to reading people's opinions on this. thanks for adding me!


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 23, 2007)

Messy1 said:


> France's military was in disarray. I believe they sunk most of the french defense budget into the Maginot Line, (so much so that it's construction almost bankrupted France) believing that this huge and over rated fortification was all that they needed. When the Germans simply went around it, it proved that the fixed fortification was almost useless in modern warfare, and that the France's militry plan for defense was a total disaster. What I am trying to say is that if France Had sunk more money into weapons developement instead of the Maginot line, it may have changed things quite a bit. Building the Maginot line took away vast amounts of resources and money which could have gone into defense and the building of planes and armour. Germany had the advantage over France by far.




You just missed an interesting thread, though I guess you could still comment on it if you want. Anyway, welcome, I'm a newbie myself.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 23, 2007)

I myself was wondering when the Strategic vs. Tactical commanders discussion would appear. I've always enjoyed studying both, but strategical decisions are often made with political strings. Thats why I prefer tactical on a strictly military/battlefield basis. In that case, I would pick three as my favorites, two of which are not mentioned in the poll.

1- Of course it is Patton. Though most remembered for his role in the Battle of the Bulge, I think his breakout from Normandy through the Britanny peninsula was the work of a genius.

Other 2 not named:

2- Gen. Middleton, who under Patton, exploited the void left by the Germans in the Loire valley, thus allowing 3rd Army to sweep all the way to the Seine.

3- Gen. Leclerc, also under Patton and a good friend of his (the two had very similar backgrounds) made a surprisingly long dash to the strategically important city of Strasbourg, capturing it and taking the Germans in the region completely by surprise and throwing them off balance.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 24, 2007)

freebird said:


> Thanks. By the way I just signed up on this forum, and I appreciate the debate. Its nice to hear opposing views facts without rancor.
> 
> I would have liked to see two sparate polls for Tactical Strategic. I think most of the people have polled their Tactical favorite (Patton, Rommel, Manstien etc) and the results are not far wrong. Just curious, who would also be contenders for best WWII "Strategic" commander? I would guess Nimitz would be one, who else would you suggest?



Try MacArthur.. for mastery of the 3 dimension battle, for territory re-taken with fewest casualties.. and compare his campaigns to any others - especially Nimitz's

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Freebird (Nov 24, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Try MacArthur.. for mastery of the 3 dimension battle, for territory re-taken with fewest casualties.. and compare his campaigns to any others - especially Nimitz's
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill



Interesting, as I think that of the British generals Brooke had the best understanding of total warfare. (he had commanded mechanized, army units, had first-hand experience with air naval power dynamics -Fall of France) He states that he considered McArthur to be the most able of the American commanders. 

One point though, I have read some accounts of the Dec 8 attack on Clark field, Philippines that he delayed making the call to send the bombers to attack Formosa, which left them waiting on the runway, and were caught by the Japanese. Or do you think Brereton was at fault?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 24, 2007)

freebird said:


> Interesting, as I think that of the British generals Brooke had the best understanding of total warfare. (he had commanded mechanized, army units, had first-hand experience with air naval power dynamics -Fall of France) He states that he considered McArthur to be the most able of the American commanders.
> 
> One point though, I have read some accounts of the Dec 8 attack on Clark field, Philippines that he delayed making the call to send the bombers to attack Formosa, which left them waiting on the runway, and were caught by the Japanese. Or do you think Brereton was at fault?



At the end of the day it doesn't matter - he was at the top of the food chain.

The single best book about MacArthur, in my opinion, is American Caesar by Manchester.

MacArthur along with Patton, Grant and Lee are probably the only US Commanders who are studied universally with any particular focus re: positives. Hodges, Harmon, Ridgeway and MacArthur (WWI) are some notable US leaders at Tactical levels.

Great Respect for Guderian and Rommel and Kesslering and Balck and Yamashita. 

I'm very impressed by Brooke - a lot, moreso than Monty. 

I know many Soviet Generals like Zhukov made important cotributions but I feel that too many casualties were absorbed in the process due to a lack of imagination.. I am less informed in this area than I should be to make this comment.

Curtis LeMay in my opinion is the top Air Strategist and overall leader if you consider his contributions to 8th AF Bombing, formation and lead crew doctrines over Germany, then b.) his totally out of the box thinking about B-29 Ops over Japan and c.) shaping and driving the professionalism and competence of SAC post war.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 25, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Try MacArthur.. for mastery of the 3 dimension battle, for territory re-taken with fewest casualties.. and compare his campaigns to any others - especially Nimitz's
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill



Do you think Nimitz was at fault for the plan at Tarawa, etc? Could they have known that there would be so many casualties?


----------



## Derfman (Dec 19, 2007)

A SOLID vote for Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ike was God's gift to the Allies. But NOT as a battlefield commander or even a strategist.

Ike was probably THE best "political general" in the history of the human race, and in this case I say "political general" in a positive fashion.

Any general that could get a Monty and a Patton to make even vague attempts to work together cannot be underrated. And thats only the most famous of the problem children he had to deal with.

Ike is THE key thing that made the Western militaries cooperate as well as they did. Its a low key detail, and as vital as supply ships and shovels.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 19, 2007)

Derfman said:


> A SOLID vote for Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Ike was God's gift to the Allies. But NOT as a battlefield commander or even a strategist.
> 
> ...



*A very astute observation there. *

I think this poll would probably been best split into best "Tactical" best "strategic" best "political" leader or general. Hard to compare Ike Patton, they had different roles.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 20, 2007)

If you did split the thread... the Ike gets political military leader, and Balck gets tactical and strategic. For Guderian to call him the greatest armour commander he'd ever met...really seals it for Balck - Rommel was nothing compared...the desert was perfect armour terrain .. Rommel had it easy.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2007)

freebird said:


> Do you think Nimitz was at fault for the plan at Tarawa, etc? Could they have known that there would be so many casualties?



This is difficult question. We knew (assumed) we would be invading Japan and Europe and the tactics of amphibious assault had not been fully fleshed out. 

We had to 'do something like this' - and the airfield at Tarawa was important at that time.

A better question was Pelilau..because history shows we didn't need it for Phillipines invasion

Contrast the losses incurred by MacArthur (few) versus Nimitz (many) in each island hop/bypass strategy.

It still boggles the mind how many dead and wounded Marines were required to move up the chain.. and then reflect that the 8th AF lost more KIA than USMC


----------



## Freebird (Dec 20, 2007)

plan_D said:


> If you did split the thread... the Ike gets political military leader, and Balck gets tactical and strategic. For Guderian to call him the greatest armour commander he'd ever met...really seals it for Balck - Rommel was nothing compared...the desert was perfect armour terrain .. Rommel had it easy.



I must admit that I hadn't heard of Balck, but I looked him up. It seems like he was not a "Strategic" commander, only tactical. If we say that a strategic commander does not direct the battles, but decides war policy, decides which troops commanders will be sent to which theater, how many divisions will be sent to each sector of the fron (in the case of the Germans) So I think I could agree that Ike did very well as "Political general" he did great work sorting out the Free French/Vichy problem in Africa, avoiding many headaches. 

For "strategic leaders" we would have Churchill, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini. You would also have Nimitz, Brooke, perhaps Yamamoto also Manstien for his control of the eastern front later in the war (also for planning France 1940). Anyone want to add others?

I don't think anyone could compare with Brooke for best Strategic leader, I think it was mainly his planning that allowed the successes in '43 '44, and avoiding a disasterous 1942 landing in France. Although Manstien would be my choice for #2, luckily for the Allies Hitler took over the Strategic direction of the war instead of Manstien!


----------



## h.whiteman (Apr 6, 2008)

greatest ww2 military commanders? i've never heard of some of these men---i know the us and german ones of course,but---. i think you may have overlooked some candidates--- generals kurt student, jimmy dolittle, ira eaker, karl spaatz, george s. patton. i would also attempt to separate out some political/military commanders from pure combat commanders. there may also be a need to discount the myth surrounding some who had significant advance knowledge of their enemies intentions and still did not do better. just some basic thoughts to try to separate some of these men accurately by contribution. hope this helps,h.whiteman.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2008)

This is an interesting topic, I think the best part is the Rommel vs Patton issue

Not a big student of patton, but have some comments about rommel.

Rommel was a tactical genius. Anyone who denies that, denies a fundamental truth. He was perhaps the best tactician in modern history. But he was far from infallible. some people have described as an excellent Corps Commander, and a limited Army or Army group Commander.

Rommel was the product of his training, the result of the german general Staff. His training taught him the value of initiative and speed, of exploiting success, and to adjust ones objectives according to the changing battlefield situation. It was, essentially, a strategy of opportunity.

However the approach of the german general Staff had its limitations. 
Time and again the General Staff was single minded and unable to grasp the broader strategic picture. It is a bit unfair to level this solely at the general Staff, it was endemic in the whole axis command and leadership structure. Axis planning did not follow any sort of strategic plan during the war, it was essentially opportunist in character. In stark contrast to that, allied leadership was measured, and planned, and holistic in character. there was nothing comparable to the JCS in the axis camp. It was a major reason why the allies enjoyed such marked material advantages throughout the latter part of the war. They planned for it. moreover allied military leadership took a far more objective driven approach to operations than their axis counterparts. this worked initially against the allies, but eventually, once they were able to wrest the initiative from the germans, their overall performance started to pull right away from the axis efforts. 

The salient evidence of Rommels limitations as a military commander was his decision to continue his advance into Egypt after the fall of Tobruk. His decision is understandable, he knew that unless he took the delta, the axis tenure in North Africa was of a temporary nature. But this is precisely where he went wrong. The original brief for the German expeditionary force was never the capture of the Delta, nor was it ever an achievable goal with the forces available. Even if the WDF (later the 8th Army) were completely destroyed, the reserves being held back within the Delta, Palestine, and the middle east command generally were such that it was quite unrealistic to expect the Germans to be able to achieve the new goal that was set for them after the fall of Tobruk. Moreover, Rommels unilateral decision to keep going was contrary to agreements already in place, which could well have led to the capture of the strateegic island of Malta. Rommel evidently did not relaize the imporatnace of coalition warfare (the Italian Navy was being destroyed by the Allied control of Malta), nor did he give much weight to the original orders that put him in North Africa,. these original orders were that he was essentially to undertake a holding operation, not to embark on some adventure to take the Pyramids. if Malta had been taken, and Rommel had rested as he should, he would have been in a far better position to complete his written orders than he ended up doing. Who knows, with Malta down, he may even have managed to withdraw some of DAK when the time came to abandon North Africa

There are plenty of other examples of Rommels limitations. This is just the most well known that I can think of

Mind you I have not even mentioned Patton, I am certain that he has many mistakes that are of his doing.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 14, 2008)

Great post Parsifal!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 14, 2008)

Shucks...thanks, I was expecting a shrill chorous of objection, because rommel is something of a sacred cow to many. i am a great fan as well, but one has to size him up properly.

I didnt make the same critique of patton, because i am not as well versed in his achievements and limits. My gut feeling is that his limits were greater than Rommels, but I need to do more research before asseting that completely


----------



## Njaco (Apr 14, 2008)

I think sometimes everybody fails to recognize that generals fail, just some more splendidly than others.

Rommel had faults, no doubt, but within the constraints of the military system he was working with, he stood out. Not many Generals within the Wehrmacht that I can recall, blatantly disobeted Hitler's orders. A few but most didn't have the backbone like Rommel. IMHO.

Patton I know hardly anything except he was real old school and sometimes rubbed everyone the wrong way. But he did get results. Same for Monty.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 14, 2008)

Hi njaco

It occurs to me that in order to determine the greatest general of the modern era, we firstly need to understand the qualities needed in a General, to achieve greatness

I will start the running list with the following

1) Initiative
2) Boldness
3) Charisma/leadership
4) Understanding of ones force capabilities
5) Understanding of the opponents capabilities
6) The ability to anticipate what is going to happen as a situation develops
7) Related to (6), the ability to assess the situation, both in terms of the details, AND the general trends


----------



## parsifal (Apr 15, 2008)

_Rommel had faults, no doubt, but within the constraints of the military system he was working with, he stood out. Not many Generals within the Wehrmacht that I can recall, blatantly disobeted Hitler's orders. A few but most didn't have the backbone like Rommel. IMHO._

Agreed

*Patton I know hardly anything except he was real old school and sometimes rubbed everyone the wrong way. But he did get results. Same for Monty.[/QUOTE]*

I have to agree that Monty was effective, and the right man for the british at the time. But he was agonizingly slow in his movements, and just so annoyingly cautious. This tends to put people right off him, but he was the right man for the british army. The overriding shortage for the Brits late in the war was manpower. By 1944, every man lost was not going to be replaced. if the british lost 5000 men in a battle, than the British army was 5000 men smaller the next day, The British just could not afford to fight expensive battles. Everything had to be done slowly, and with a minimum of casualties.

Just the same, Monty's battles looked more at home in a 1917 context, rather than a 1944 context. He was just so cautious. There are quite a few who argue that his caution actually cost lives, rather than save them 

He wa everything that Rommel was not. Cautious, measured, very much in the mould of a WWI general (understandable).

In my opinion, Monty's best battle was at Alam Halfa, when he first took command of the newly created 8th Army. He really took that army, a defeated force id ever there was one, and held it together superbly. From there he just went from strength to strength. 8th Army never looked back from there. he resisted all the badgering attempts from Churchill to make a move, until he was absolutely guranteed superiority in all the key areas. For Alamein his hallmark was to make sure everybody knew what they has to do. As it turned out, Alamein did not quite work out as planned, but with only slight adjustment, Monty was able to adapt the batle plan and push on to victory. 

I think the italian call Alamein the "battle without hope". probably true, but it was an amazing turn around from the situation even just four months prior to that


----------



## Njaco (Apr 16, 2008)

From my limited knowledge about Monty, I've always thought El Alamein was one of his glowing moments. Had a plan and when it bogged down, threw in a little Rommel influence and changed direction or at least the plan. And succeeded.

One thing that allowed Rommel, Patton and Monty to succeed IMHO was a strong personality - whether likeable or not. Allowed them to expand and free-range on basic military training and thought.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 16, 2008)

Yes

They all had a strong belief in their own abilities


----------



## starling (Jun 16, 2008)

monty is my man.he kicked most of the jerry generals on the poll list,and made several blow their heads off,in hari kiri.in fact you could open a thread on here called...german generals monty knocked about,big time.... .yours,starling.p.s,i will start.rommel. .


----------



## Kruska (Jun 16, 2008)

Monty?? You must be joking.

If British at all, why not Slim or Gott or Alexander?

Monty IMO was just as good as any other common general in any other army. Britain needed a Hero, Churchill needed a Hero and a victory before November 42 and the only one around to bag in a success was Monty at that time after Auchinlek was deprived of his victory. Even though Auk. was C-in-C rather than just GOC Eighth Army.

Rommel’s frontline touch with the front commanders right down from Brigade level to Company level is what enabled him to move his troops in spirit, Monty did about the same thing, and the British and Commonwealth troops were totally, desperately in need for that.

And that about sums it up for Monty, anything else was just a slow, yawning and standard movement of superior troops in numbers and supplies.

Rommel would not be amongst my favorites since I regard him rather a gambler then a superior strategist. For me a good candidate would be Paul Hausser.

Regarding the list:
Josef Priller a military commander? 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Monty?? You must be joking.



Thankyou

If you have not asked the question, I would have. 8)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 16, 2008)

I have to nearly stop myself from gagging here, because i am no fan of Monty, however, he did work out the means to beat rommel. He realized the british were just never going to win the manouvre battle, so what did he do, remove manouvre from the equation. He always was a stickler for the detail, and his battles always had the look af a 1917 style "big push" in the style of a Haig, or a Foch, but it worked. He could always count on massive and effective artilery and air support. he knew his Infantry was superior to anything that was likley to be ranged against him, and he just pushed his tanks forward Infantry support style, with no pretentions about deep penetration, or encirclement. it was a pedestrian strategy, but it worked...


----------



## Freebird (Jun 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Monty?? You must be joking.
> 
> Monty IMO was just as good as any other common general in any other army. Britain needed a Hero, Churchill needed a Hero and a victory before November 42 and the only one around to bag in a success was Monty at that time after Auchinlek was deprived of his victory. Even though Auk. was C-in-C rather than just GOC Eighth Army.
> 
> ...



Good post Kruska, if Monty does deserve credit, it would be for not screwing up at El Alamein {not allowing the British to be drawn into another of Rommel's traps. 

If I were picking a British general it would be Brooke or O'conner, not Gott or Slim



parsifal said:


> I have to nearly stop myself from gagging here, because i am no fan of Monty, however, he did work out the means to beat Rommel. He realized the british were just never going to win the manouvre battle, so what did he do, remove manouvre from the equation. He always was a stickler for the detail, and *his battles always had the look af a 1917 style "big push"* in the style of a Haig, or a Foch, but it worked. He could always count on massive and effective artilery and air support. he knew his Infantry was superior to anything that was likley to be ranged against him, and he just pushed his tanks forward Infantry support style, with no pretentions about deep penetration, or encirclement. it was a pedestrian strategy, but it worked...



Good analysis.

I think we mentioned it before, but it's difficult in one poll to compare Strategic commanders like Eisenhower, Marshall or Brooke to tactical ones like Patton or Rommel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2008)

The poll really is a basic simple poll. If you really wanted to debate the best commander's you would have to beak it down to strategic and tactical and maybe even political.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 16, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The poll really is a basic simple poll. If you really wanted to debate the best commander's you would have to beak it down to strategic and tactical and maybe even political.



Indeed. I think perhaps one major contributor to Germany's defeat was the lack of a strong, competent *Strategic* leader, unlike the many very capable tactical generals {or "theater" commanders} {Rommel, Kesselring, Model, Manstein etc}

They could have done better if Halder or Keitel {or another} had the power to stand up to Hitler and impose some logical order, rather than depend on the moody untrained Hitler for the direction of the war.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 16, 2008)

I would love to see the explanation for whoever voted for Hermann Goering.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 16, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I would love to see the explanation for whoever voted for Hermann Goering.



Doesn't HG have some relatives in the USA? 

Maybe they voted for Gramps....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 16, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I would love to see the explanation for whoever voted for Hermann Goering.



greatest allied general of wwii ???


----------



## Njaco (Jun 16, 2008)

Thats it!!! I forgot!


----------



## Kruska (Jun 17, 2008)

freebird said:


> If I were picking a British general it would be Brooke or O'conner, not Gott or Slim



Why, O'conner and not Slim? besides bagging in the Italians – a feat that is very difficult to evaluate IMO, his performance at Caen wasn’t very convincing. Slim managed to hold out all the while and ended as a victor at the end. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 17, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The poll really is a basic simple poll. If you really wanted to debate the best commander's you would have to beak it down to strategic and tactical and maybe even political.



Fully agreed

What about Josef Priller, that guy was a Luftwaffe Colonel-fighter pilot, or did I miss out on any General with that name?

Regards
kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 17, 2008)

Slim is one of the most underrated generals of the war. befor you make any observations about this thetre, and his leadership, you should read some of the background material. 

That takes nothing away from o'Connor. He was a good tactical general. And caen was a ba*tard of a place to fight, against the best the wehrmacht could throw into the defence.


----------



## starling (Jun 17, 2008)

monty took over cossack,kicked out most of the rubbish,eg general k.e.n anderson,proposed c.o of brit 2nd army,planned overlord.would that not make him a strategic general.starling.8) .


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2008)

starling said:


> monty took over cossack,kicked out most of the rubbish,eg general k.e.n anderson,proposed c.o of brit 2nd army,planned overlord.would that not make him a strategic general.starling.8) .


If I'm not mistaken didn't Montgomery also loiter after taking Antwerp for about a month allowing the Germans to reinforce or build defences in the Scheldt


----------



## parsifal (Jun 17, 2008)

Therere was one single recurriing theme that slowed all allied operations down to a crawl in the late fall of 1944....logistics. Monty was no more immune to that than the others. With the majority of stores still being hauled over the mulberry in Normandy, and then shipped by a massive truck fleet (the red ball highway???) no trasins as yet and no permanent port to use as yet, the pace of operations at the front was bound to suffer. 

Not that I find it easy to defend Monty, he was the supreme ditherer.....that doesnt necessariy mean he is a purely bad general


----------



## starling (Jun 17, 2008)

i once saw doc areyce nusbacher say..the only way to sttop a german blitz attack,was defence in depth like kursk...well he never read about medenine did he.our monty stopped a whole german panzer corps;10pz div,15pz div and 21pz div,dead.commanded by rommel,again.he gave rommel a real kick in the face,which apparently made rommel ill.poor boy had to go home,i believe.yours,starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 17, 2008)

Err medenine wa fought by the british, under Monty, as an artillery/AT defense, using defence in depth tactics, as had been employed at Alamein. Moreover the entire "PanzerKorps" that refer to consisted of no more than 200 Tanks. The Axis was badly outnumbered.

Monty's brilliance in this battle was once again his ability to "smother " the mobility factor that made Rommel so dangerous. But I do not think he "kicked Rommels a*rse" in any sense. Rommels just lacked the strength to dominate the battle. Other advantages were at play here as well, Monty had very good intell through Ultra and air recon. He had near total air superiority, and his artillery support was at least 6:1 in favour of the Brits. I believe he possessed something like 500 tanks for this battle, but might be corrected. in any event, the tanks of both sides played second fiddle to the Art and AT forces of both sides. The quadrillage defence system that you are so disdainfully dismissing was the best method of defensing with Infantry against tanks. A return to a continuous front strategy really would have been mindless. Monty was employing the best tactics avaiilable to the allies so as to write down the advantages of manouvre enjoyed by the Axis. Your post suggests that Monty was somehow able to grasp and defeat Rommel at his own game. This is patently untrue.

Monty was good at what he did, but lets not start celebrating his brillance at manouvre just yet. And I disagree completely with your disparaging remarks about Rommel. I suggest you be a little more careful in future


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Fully agreed
> 
> What about Josef Priller, that guy was a Luftwaffe Colonel-fighter pilot, or did I miss out on any General with that name?
> 
> ...



I honestly do not know why he is in the poll. I did not make the poll or the thread. 

It was made by a regular user of the forum. You can all create polls in threads that you start.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2008)

starling said:


> monty took over cossack,kicked out most of the rubbish,eg general k.e.n anderson,proposed c.o of brit 2nd army,planned overlord.would that not make him a strategic general.starling.8) .



First of all "Monty" did not plan Overlord. Overlord was planned by many Generals. 
You can not give him the credit for Overlord.



starling said:


> i once saw doc areyce nusbacher say..the only way to sttop a german blitz attack,was defence in depth like kursk...well he never read about medenine did he.our monty stopped a whole german panzer corps;10pz div,15pz div and 21pz div,dead.commanded by rommel,again.he gave rommel a real kick in the face,which apparently made rommel ill.poor boy had to go home,i believe.yours,starling.



I recommend that you get over your personal bias and national pride for everything British and learn about other commanders as well.

You make it seem in your posts that Rommel was the most inferior General known to man and he was beaten in every battle he commanded. Frankly you are very very wrong...

Also just to give you a heads up, Rommel did not leave Africa because Monty beat him. Learn some history.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 17, 2008)

Rommel will always stand very tall for me. Quite apart from his considerable military talents, what stands out for me, was his ability to stand up for what he believed to be right. When ordered to shoot all commandoes summarily, without trial, he very publicly tore up and burned the written orders in the presesence of his IA,

After his expereineces in the Desert, Rommel advocatted a strong shift to Infantry/AT defence, because he doubted the ability of tanks to be as effective in defences. He foresaw the great material advantage of the allies that was coming, and believed the only way to stop it was by a sustained conventional defence, to extract the maximum casulaties out of the allies (which he rightly saw as the allied achilles heel). He also believed it absolutley necessary to seek peace terms for germany after 1943, and was bitterly disappointed when he realized that Hitler intended no such outcome. I believe he foresaw hitlers intentions for Germany, victory or destruction, and was horrified to realize just how out of touch hitler had become.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Rommel will always stand very tall for me. Quite apart from his considerable military talents, what stands out for me, was his ability to stand up for what he believed to be right. When ordered to shoot all commandoes summarily, without trial, he very publicly tore up and burned the written orders in the presesence of his IA,
> 
> After his expereineces in the Desert, Rommel advocatted a strong shift to Infantry/AT defence, because he doubted the ability of tanks to be as effective in defences. He foresaw the great material advantage of the allies that was coming, and believed the only way to stop it was by a sustained conventional defence, to extract the maximum casulaties out of the allies (which he rightly saw as the allied achilles heel). He also believed it absolutley necessary to seek peace terms for germany after 1943, and was bitterly disappointed when he realized that Hitler intended no such outcome. I believe he foresaw hitlers intentions for Germany, victory or destruction, and was horrified to realize just how out of touch hitler had become.



I agree, he was a very noble man.

I have met his son on many occasions. He used to be the mayor of the city I lived in. I have actually had dinner with him, when he was the guest of honor for my BN banquent. He did a lot for German/American relations in the Stuttgart area. 

I used to travel to Rommels grave site every year as part of the military memorial on the day of his death, and I took a tour of his house near Ulm and got to see his Knights Cross and Pour le Merit as well as several of his uniforms and photo albums.

I actually own an original picture (well sort of original, it is taken from the original negative) of Rommel in Africa that was given to me by his son and a member of the Afrika Corps association.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 17, 2008)

Chris, that is amazing!

I have always considered Rommel one of the greatest generals not only based on his war exploits but on his character as well.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 17, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree, he was a very noble man.
> 
> I have met his son on many occasions. He used to be the mayor of the city I lived in. I have actually had dinner with him, when he was the guest of honor for my BN banquent. He did a lot for German/American relations in the Stuttgart area.
> 
> ...




Very impressive. 

Im not saying that Rommel was not without fault. What I really object to is mindless criticism not based on any subjective analysis at all. The man deserves better respect than thet, just the same as Monty does for his exploites as well.

I often have wondered what would have happened if Rommel had survived the war. What would have been the effect of his commentary to the post war histories???


----------



## Freebird (Jun 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *I often have wondered what would have happened if Rommel had survived the war*. What would have been the effect of his commentary to the post war histories???



He probably would have made some trouble for the post-war balance in East Germany. He seems to be the kind to speak his mind regardless of the consequences.

I wonder if he would have been involved in an "unfortunate accident" if he was in East Germany? Like Patton.....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2008)

oooh, are you suggesting that P{atton was done away with???? I'd never heard that, but he was considered a nuisance even by his own side by that stage.....


----------



## Kruska (Jun 18, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I often have wondered what would have happened if Rommel had survived the war. What would have been the effect of his commentary to the post war histories???



Sad as it is, but I think he would just have blamed Hitler for everything, such as the majority of the other surviving Wehrmacht “icons”. 
This is what I do not like; accept about these people (incl. Rommel), they went all along from the very beginning and once the situation turned against Germany or their fortune it simply comes down to Hitler.

Rommel / Kesselring did not take Malta, he was not able to devise and persist on a vital plan in order to conduct his conquest in Africa, he points out at the disastrous fuel situation but still prefers to continue (gambling) instead of pulling back or digging in his troops and pressuring towards High Command and Hitler to ensure a solid basis for an ongoing war.

If he was as open spoken as historians try to make him, well he should have said: My Fuehrer if the supply situation can’t be guaranteed or ensured, I advice to pull out the Africa Corps before it becomes exterminated. Off course he never went as far as to forward a pull out, since then his career would have ended drastically. 

Generals such as Paul Hausser didn't run around and complain, they made the best out of the prevailing situation, disobeyed openly attack, retreat and battle orders of Hitler in order to ensure a German victory, Kharkov was a classic example, Generals like Rundstedt and Guderian opposed Hitlers orders openly and got sacked, some later reactivated.

As far as I know, Parkinson disease is inherited, Manfred Rommel his son, suffers from it since he is 68/70 and I tend to believe that his father had it too from 1942/3 onward. It is very obvious that E. Rommel deteriorated very rapidly after 1943 and I do not think that it was due to the defeat in Africa or a resignation towards Hitler and the war.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## starling (Jun 18, 2008)

oh come along gentlemen,monty kicked rommel at alamein,and then kicked him for 1200miles across north africa.and then kicked his arse at medenine.i suppose you will twist this around,poor old rommel.yours,starling.
i also know a very close relative of sir brian horrocks,c.o of different formations in the desert and ending up most famousley as xxx corps commander.yours,starling8) .


----------



## Kruska (Jun 18, 2008)

starling said:


> oh come along gentlemen,monty kicked rommel at alamein,and then kicked him for 1200miles across north africa.and then kicked his arse at medenine.i suppose you will twist this around,poor old rommel.yours,starling.
> i also know a very close relative of sir brian horrocks,c.o of different formations in the desert and ending up most famousley as xxx corps commander.yours,starling8) .



I do appreciate your nationalistic spirit, but why don’t you start to “neutrally” analyze Al Alamein till Tunis?

If the 5 fuel tankers would not have been stopped by (Enigma decoding) it would have been most likely Rommel who would have succeeded at Al Alamein. Rommel was defeated at AA but to say he got his butt kicked is not doing the fallen allied soldiers or Germans any favors, it was actually a very costly victory for Monty, especially for the Australians and NZ boys.

After that Monty dragged and moved in slow motion behind Rommel enabling him to set up defenses at Medenine which again were costly for the allies to overcome.

If not for the 2nd front at Tunis, the defensive position at Medenine would have been a second Al Alamein, but in favor for Rommel.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## starling (Jun 18, 2008)

are you missing mareth out for other reasons kruska.
there were many soldiers from the commmonwealth as well as british soldiers.they fought and died to rid the world of a megalomaniac.or madman.
monty visited his soldiers,talked to them.he sacked commanders in private.rommel ignored manyunits and chastised officers in the open.8th army soldiers trusted monty.yours,starling.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 18, 2008)

starling said:


> are you missing mareth out for other reasons kruska.
> there were many soldiers from the commmonwealth as well as british soldiers.they fought and died to rid the world of a megalomaniac.or madman.
> monty visited his soldiers,talked to them.he sacked commanders in private.rommel ignored manyunits and chastised officers in the open.8th army soldiers trusted monty.yours,starling.



Mareth line is Medenine (Operation Pugilist and Supercharge II) you joker. Operation Capri at Medenine was an attempt to delay the British attack on Mareth. Any general will visit and talk and ......

Which units did Rommel ignore? and which occasions are you refering to in regards to chastising his officers?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2008)

Hi Starling

The british did defeat the Axis at Alamein, and that did result in a long retreat from Egypt all the way to Tunis, and beyond. However, Montgomery did not defeat Rommel by outmanouvering him. He defeated Rommel by forcing the battle to be fought as an attritional excercise, which was a battle the Axis could not win. This is why the italians call Alamein "the battle without hope". 

How did the Axis find themselves at such a material disadvantage? It has a lot to do with the poor strategic choices made by the axis leadership, the most immediate of which was the failure to take Malta. Rommel played his part in this poor decision making. Quite simply also the Axis in the North African scenario werre very badly outnumbered. 

But there were also things happening that affected the outcome of the air-land battle in Africa, over which neither Monty or rommel had any control. Chief among these was the defeat of the Axis at sea, with the Italians and Germans no longer able to control the central basin. This was primarily a battle that pitted the Royal Navy against Supermarina and the LW. Despite the most frightful of attrition, the RN was, in the end, able to retain Malta as a functional base, that spelt the death knell for the Axis forces in Egypt.

Then, of course, there was the Anglo-American landings in French North Africa. here again, neither monty or Rommel had any direct influence on the events. The landings in western africa, spelt the end for DAK, and Rommel knew it. He repeatedly recommended the evacuation of the forces to Europe, but was constantly overruled. All of a sudden, Hitler saw Africa as important, so many thousands of troops and planes were poured into a theatre that no longer had any hope of success (and materially affected the airlift to Staingrad as well). None of this was Rommels doing, but he did the best that he could, and managed to delay the inevitable for a long time. This is hardly the work of an infereior general.

Your references to medenine as a manouver battle are just plain wrong, and a suggestion that the Axis were somehow out-generalled just a plain misconception of the facts


----------



## starling (Jun 18, 2008)

t.v programme on yesterday,where rommels a.d.c told of rommel having a go at an officer,in front of his men.the a.d.c. said this was simply not right.and not reading wiki or google,immsmc,50div holding either the 90th light and one pz div,at mareth,and sending the nz div,1st armd div and i believe the 8th armd bde,along with lt.gen.horrocks and acting a.v.m harry broadhurst.this was the left hook behind i believe a range of mountains.this was the first blitz attack monty had ordered horrocks to commit.several sqdrns of p40,s and hurricanes attacked with bombs and mg and cannon,along with a heavy arty barrage,which i believe allowed the 1st armd div to breach and fan out,forcing the german units to retreat from mareth and run away northward.this was a battle of manourve,ordered by monty.yours,starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2008)

Medenine was NOT a mobile action by the british. 

Here is an extract from the Official NZ War history

The Battle of Medenine 
From the Mareth line Rommel launched his last attack in Africa. He had concentrated his two infantry divisions (90 Light and 164 Light) and the panzer divisions of the Afrika Korps (15 and 21), and 10 Panzer Division had come down from the north. In addition, he had Italian infantry formations which could hold the Mareth defences as a base. It was estimated that he could field a force of about 200 tanks.

Facing these forces were 51 (Highland) Division on the coast, then 7 Armoured Division and 2 NZ Division on the left, with 4 Light Armoured Brigade as a mobile force covering the open southern flank. Their defences were arranged as at Alamein—defence in depth with artillery and anti-tank guns deployed and tanks ready to move to pre-arranged positions when the direction of the attack became clear. The attack was expected as early as 3 March, but it did not come until 6 March and was directed towards the high ground north of the main road between Medenine and Mareth. The area round Medenine is mainly flat, the town itself being slightly elevated with a dip to the north and west. There were infantry and tank clashes, but all along the front as far as Eighth Army was concerned it was fundamentally an artillery battle, and once again the defensive power of an anti-tank gunline, supported by massed artillery, was demonstrated. By the end of the day the enemy had nothing to show for his costly offensive except many dead and wounded and over fifty knocked-out tanks counted on the battlefield. Rommel accepted the reverse, and during the night withdrew his battered forces to the Mareth defences. He is reported to have stated after the battle: ‘This is the beginning of the end in Tunisia for the Axis Forces.’

By 9th march Rommel had left North Africa, for good as it turns out, due to health reasons


----------



## Njaco (Jun 18, 2008)

I would read the history again, starling.

Operation Lightfoot (2d El Alamein) did not go exactly as planned by Monty.

The first day 51st Highland barely advanced, 1st SA was stopped with heavy casualties, and the minefields were barely crossed. 1st Armoured only had one gap to go thru and traffic was clogged. 

Second day 10th Armoured was fully exposed to AT gunners on Miteirya Ridge and much of the rest of Monty's tanks were stuck in traffic and minefields.

Third day 10th Armoured was being hammered so badly that Major General Gatehouse ordered his tanks back to Miteirya Ridge. The Italians made the 7th Armoured and 50th Div suffer for what little they gained. Monty decided to cancel attacks by the 2d NZ Div and 10th Armoured. Monty then decided to modify 'Lightfoot' with a new operation, 'Supercharge' and concentrated his attacks along the coast (shades of Rommel?) and eventually broke free. But even then, it was difficult. The 9th Armoured brigade was almost decimated in this new attack, losing 75 out of 94 tanks!

The point being that with overwhelming numbers of men and guns, ample fuel, superiority of the air and a willingness to sacrifice and be flexible, anybody can win. What made Monty such a force was getting the troops ready in the weeks before El Alamein.

Rommel didn't join the battle until the 3d day. All respects to Monty, if Rommel had the same forces and reserves as Monty I wonder what the outcome would have been.

and to support Parsifal, this is what I posted for 6 March

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/day-war-europe-65-years-ago-6116-49.html

NORTH AFRICA: Feldmarschall Rommel, with a mixed German / Italian force, launched an expected attack on the Mareth Line near Medenine, Tunisia. There were 4 thrusts by Rommel toward Medenine, which were repulsed by the Britsh Eighth Army. It was concieved as the second phase of a counter-attack which began with the Battle of Kasserine Pass last month.
....The Desert Fox could not even surprise the Allies for they had broken his coded messages and seen his tanks on the move. Allied strengths had quadrupled in the last 10 days, and this gave Eighth Army a decisive strength on the battlefield. Rommel had no more than 160 tanks against his enemy's 400 and with 3 fighters wings operating from forward airfields, the Allies had air superiority. 35 Allied planes strafed and bombed installations in the Mareth Line as Rommel's sttack was defeated.
....When the attack began, Montgomery was waiting in well-sited defensive positions. The British had time to camuouflage a line of AA guns across Rommel's path. Cool British gunners held their fire until the panzers were within close range of the hidden guns, then loosed a holocaust of armour-piercing shells. The Germans were soon pinned down and subjected to a withering assault from tanks and the air. The British used only one squadron of tanks at Medenine, but their AA guns cost Rommel 52 of his panzers. Rommel renewed the attack in the afternoon and, once again, failed to make any headway against the thick defenses. By the end of the day Rommel had less than 100 tanks left. *The British had blunted the attack and in doing so may have found the tactic that could stop the panzers: massed artillery and AA fire combined with air raids.*


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2008)

Another small point is that thje operational plan for Medenine was not even Rommels, it was the result of planning by the italian general Messe, with Rommel essentially acquiescing so as to allow troops under his (Rommels) command to participate. There was also some contribution to the plan by Ziegler. Rommel did endorse the plan, so he bears some responsibility, despite his being quite ill at the time. But neither Messe (who was a good defensive general) nor Rommel had any great expectations about the results of this initiative. The entire Panzer Corps was more than 67% understrength at this time, attacking with a combined tank strength of just 141 tanks and air support not exceeding 80 aircraft. 

The british deployed a full corps strength to repel this, consisting of 2 NZ, two other Infantry Brigades (directly involved, , and two armoured brigadesalong a front of just 43000 yards, at right angles to the known MLA of Rommels forces. Supporting the Infantry in this defensive line were 810 medium and field artillery pieces, including considerable numbers of the new 17 pdr AT guns 

Montgomery issued orders that expressly forbade the Allies from pursuing the retreating Germans after the battle, despite his overwhelming numerical superiority. 

Most of this material is from very general references, including "history Of the Second World War" and Eddie Bauers "History Of WWII"


----------



## Njaco (Jun 18, 2008)

> Most of this material is from very general references, including "history Of the Second World War" and Eddie Bauers "History Of WWII"



same here, from

"War in Europe: North African Struggle" by Edwin P. Hoyt
"World War II Battle Plans" by Stephen Badsey
"21st Panzer Division: Rommel's Afrika Korps Spearhead" by Chris Ellis
"Campaigns of WWII: Day by Day" by Chris Bishop Chris Mc Nab

Starling, if you can, grab one or two of these books and check them out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Very impressive.
> 
> Im not saying that Rommel was not without fault. What I really object to is mindless criticism not based on any subjective analysis at all. The man deserves better respect than thet, just the same as Monty does for his exploites as well.
> 
> I often have wondered what would have happened if Rommel had survived the war. What would have been the effect of his commentary to the post war histories???



I completely agree. Rommel was not perfect as some people like to believe, but I do agree with you on the respect issue.

I too often wonder what would have happened. I would like to think he would have helped rebuild Germany. He was loved by the people, so he might have been able to do a lot of good.



freebird said:


> He probably would have made some trouble for the post-war balance in East Germany. He seems to be the kind to speak his mind regardless of the consequences.
> 
> I wonder if he would have been involved in an "unfortunate accident" if he was in East Germany? Like Patton.....



He would not have been in East Germany. He was from near Ulm which is near Stuttgart. His son became mayor of Stuttgart from 1974 to 1996. All in West Germany.

Patton was not in East Geramny either. Patton was in an accident near Neckarstadt and died in Heidelberg. Both in West Germany.

Interesting tidbit Pattons son George Patton IV and Rommels son Manfred Rommel were both born on the same day, December 24th. George Patton IV was in command of the 2nd Armored Division in Stuttgart at the same time that Manfred Rommel was the mayor of Stuttgart. 

Both George Patton IV and Manfred Rommel became very very good friends during that time and did a lot for German/American relations.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 18, 2008)

Thanks, Adler, did not know that. That is eerie.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2008)

Kruska said:


> As far as I know, Parkinson disease is inherited, Manfred Rommel his son, suffers from it since he is 68/70



Actually he is 80 years old now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2008)

starling said:


> oh come along gentlemen,monty kicked rommel at alamein,and then kicked him for 1200miles across north africa.and then kicked his arse at medenine.i suppose you will twist this around,poor old rommel.yours,starling.
> i also know a very close relative of sir brian horrocks,c.o of different formations in the desert and ending up most famousley as xxx corps commander.yours,starling8) .



I will not even begin to touch this post. As Kruska has stated I applaud your national pride (I think everyone should have it), but there is much for you to learn outside of everything British.

You should try it sometime...



starling said:


> are you missing mareth out for other reasons kruska.
> there were many soldiers from the commmonwealth as well as british soldiers.they fought and died to rid the world of a megalomaniac.or madman.



Did you know that Americans, French, Russians, Australians, Canadians, South Africans, and many many nore nations fought against Germany to?

Just wondering if you actually know this.



starling said:


> commanders in private.rommel ignored manyunits and chastised officers in the open.



Sources and quotes please. 



starling said:


> 8th army soldiers trusted monty.yours,starling.



Was he the only commander that was trusted by his men.

Rommel was loved and trusted by his men.

I am sure Patton was trusted by his men.

I am sure there are hundreds of commanders from many different countries that were trusted and loved by their men.



starling said:


> t.v programme on yesterday,where rommels a.d.c told of rommel having a go at an officer,in front of his men.the a.d.c. said this was simply not right.and not reading wiki or google,immsmc,50div holding either the 90th light and one pz div,at mareth,and sending the nz div,1st armd div and i believe the 8th armd bde,along with lt.gen.horrocks and acting a.v.m harry broadhurst.this was the left hook behind i believe a range of mountains.this was the first blitz attack monty had ordered horrocks to commit.several sqdrns of p40,s and hurricanes attacked with bombs and mg and cannon,along with a heavy arty barrage,which i believe allowed the 1st armd div to breach and fan out,forcing the german units to retreat from mareth and run away northward.this was a battle of manourve,ordered by monty.yours,starling.



Starling if you think that Rommel was the only commander to get into an arguement with another commander in public, then you are very naive or have never been around the military.

I think you actually need to do some research. Try going outside of the box and being a bit more neutral in your research. You might actually be surprised at what you find.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually he is 80 years old now.



Yes indeed, I think he will be 80 in December this year, and he's taking a dozen tablets a day since he's 73 or 74. It's quite striking that he starts to look more and more like his father the older he gets.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Yes indeed, I think he will be 80 in December this year, and he's taking a dozen tablets a day since he's 73 or 74. It's quite striking that he starts to look more and more like his father the older he gets.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



I agree


----------



## Freebird (Jun 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He would not have been in East Germany. He was from near Ulm which is near Stuttgart. His son became mayor of Stuttgart from 1974 to 1996. All in West Germany.
> 
> Patton was not in East Geramny either. Patton was in an accident near Neckarstadt and died in Heidelberg. Both in West Germany.



Sorry I didn't make myself clear, I didn't mean to imply that Patton was in East Germany. I was referring to the rumour that Patton was assasinated by {someone?} as he was very dangerous to the developing "cold war detente". He had no love for Stalin our "allies", he advocated continuing the war to stamp out communism {using the bomb if needed}

I don't know how much was conspiracy theory, but his death cetainly was suspicious. 

As to Rommel, if he was from the west then it would be different. I mentioned East Germany because under the Soviets many "charismatic figures" from Poland the other new satellites were "liquidated" {Stalin did not want any Polish, German, Czech or Hungarian "national heros", who could be a focus for rebellion.


----------



## starling (Jun 19, 2008)

my posts are about firstly the battle of medenine ie the defence of this place,while being attacked by a pz corps.10pz.div,15pz.div,21pz.div,and 90th light div,the 8th army kicked rommel in the face,big time and made rommel run away.
secondly,the battle of mareth;the left hook.see my post written a few posts ago.yours,starling.8) .p.s do not try to tie me in knots,allow me the time to respond to each one.i do not understand how to pick out bits and stick on my responses.lee. .


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2008)

*my posts are about firstly the battle of medenine ie the defence of this place,while being attacked by a pz corps.10pz.div,15pz.div,21pz.div,and 90th light div,the 8th army kicked rommel in the face,big time and made rommel run away.*

A piece of advice, if you dont want people to really start getting rough with you, choose your language a bit more carefully. Instead of saying " "kicked Rommel in the face", I suggest a more appropriate way of describing the outcome as "forced Rommel to withdraw" or even "Rommel was defeated". If you couch your replies wih a certain amount of respect, you will improve your credibility and peole wont get rough with you as much. Having said that, there are people on this forum that, if you cross them even a little, they are going to get stuck into you anyway. Get used to that. This place has a LOT% of knowledge, and you will make some good friends if you are patient.
Now, the truth of medenine needs you to do some background reading. Myself and Njaco have each given you a few basic WWII references that you might want to look at , perhaps in your local library. The NZ history is also on line, so you can do some Google searching as well. You will not need to go far to find the truth about medenine.

The truth is that Medenine was Rommels last battle in North Africa. Moreover, the actual plan, and the actual tactical handling were not his own. Rommel was so ill that within 3 days he had left North Africa, for good. 

The battle plan was doomed from the start for a whole range of reasons. Monty did read the plan very well, and fought it on his terms, but the outcome could hardly have been different, no matter what either General did. It was incidentally, planned as nothing more than a spoiling attack, nothing more, an attack designed to gain time for the Mareth defences to be put into place. In this sense the assault was a resounding success for the Axis, because the British did not move to attack the mareth position for nearly a month. The medenine operation was the strategy of desperation really. And its aftermath was not a resounding success for the Allies. Once again they allowed the Axis remnants to slip away, unpursued, and largely intact, to fight yet more battles, for another 2 months in the theatre. 


*secondly,the battle of mareth;the left hook.see my post written a few posts ago.yours,starling.8) *.

Mareth was fought nearly a mjonth later, after Rommel had left the theatre sick. Here, and at Wadi Akarit, it was fought against mainly italian formations, who showedf their mettle and fought very well indeed. The allies won, but it was a mark of meticulous planning rather than any inspred geeralship that won these battles. Moreover by this stage Monty could start to rely on the abilities of his lieutenants to a much greater extent. Men such as Horrocks and Tuker began to shine from the ranks in eight army.

*p.s do not try to tie me in knots,allow me the time to respond to each one.i do not understand how to pick out bits and stick on my responses.lee*The replies to your rather aggressive posts are very restrained compared to some that i have seen. You are very lucky these guys have not gotten stuck into you like some in this forum would. i think thats because they can see that you dont have a lot of experience. But you have been corrected several times, and advised to check your facts several times, but you dont seem to be listening. Eventually, the patience of the forum members is going to wear thin and all hell is going to break loose.

If you are going to make explosive posts, you7 need to be well researched and knowledgeable on a subject. If you dont, yoou are going to come across as flippant, and I will predict you wont last long in this place. 

What bits do youo not understand. I am not the best person to give you advice about how to post attachm,ents, but perhaps one of the moderators or other forum members can help. If you cant find better help, i will tell you what I kknow, but youor question needs to be more specific.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 19, 2008)

Hello starling,

I think that parsifal has put it very professionally and friendly to you. So please take his advice and read on the topic more into detail or forward questions or your (reasonable) opinion to the subject.

BTW every time I read and see your avatar flag and forum name I do have to grine a bit. One of my favorite ww2 movies (based not on true accounts as I had to find out painfully a week ago  , Njaco even thought it was a documentary  ) is “The Eagle has Landed” where this Irish agent working for the Germans is named Starling.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## starling (Jun 19, 2008)

yes,but i am an avid ornitholigist,and starlings are beautiful,but i will change later today.is sparrow o.k.yours,lee.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 19, 2008)

starling said:


> yes,but i am an avid ornitholigist,and starlings are beautiful,but i will change later today.is sparrow o.k.yours,lee.



Hello starling,

Sparrow sounds fine, but why take away my amusement in regards to starling?  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Njaco (Jun 19, 2008)

Starling, I don't think he's asking you to remove it, just explain it as he thought it might represent something else.

As for posting, most of what you can do is right on the page. It you want to change something you said, press the edit button at the bottom of your post and you can change and save. If you want to quote someone, press the quote button (it looks like a yellow piece of paper) across the top after you hit the edit. Then you can cut and paste whoever said what between the brackets.

Back on thread. Starling you must remember two things about the battle you support. Like Parsifal said, Rommel was forced to accept plans with the Italian general, who, funny as it sounds, was the highest authority at that time in NA. He was not happy with that.

Second, the British were not facing all of the German forces as some were facing the Americans coming in from the west. It was a two front battle and German forces were split.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2008)

Kruska said:


> . One of my favorite ww2 movies (based not on true accounts as I had to find out painfully a week ago  , Njaco even thought it was a documentary  ) is “The Eagle has Landed” where this Irish agent working for the Germans is named Starling.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



Very good book and movie!


----------



## starling (Jun 20, 2008)

i apologise to you all,if my remarks upset any one here.yours,starling.
i try to read books and my memory,instead of google or wiki,to me these are tools,not complete fact.thanks for pointing the way forward though,i will try and get my books out of storage.yours,starling. .


----------



## Kruska (Jun 20, 2008)

starling said:


> i apologise to you all,if my remarks upset any one here.yours,starling.
> i try to read books and my memory,instead of google or wiki,to me these are tools,not complete fact.thanks for pointing the way forward though,i will try and get my books out of storage.yours,starling. .




 You have a great character, I will enjoy to have you on this forum

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2008)

Starling 

Its a good sign that you can apologize like that. I for one did not set out to denigrate you. But i did want to try and educate you on how to present your cases. If you dont you will get into all sorts of strife.


Just to summarize....know your facts, then choose your language. Dont see this as a competition, but rather an exchange of ideas. you can make any statements that you like, but if you do, be well prepared. 

I am saying this to try and help you, not inslut or belittle you


----------



## Njaco (Jun 20, 2008)

I agree with Parsifal and Kruska, Starling. I would just add that phrases like "kick a**" and "he's a dope" really don't get you too far especially when trying to make a point. I say that because I have done that a few times and learned the hard way! 



> not inslut or belittle



Parsifal, sounds like a flyboyism!


----------



## Kruska (Jun 20, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Parsifal, sounds like a flyboyism!



  darn it, why didn't I see that?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Njaco (Jun 20, 2008)

Since he is on the list, was there any redeeming value having Hermann Goering as a commander?


----------



## Kruska (Jun 20, 2008)

Off course, sure he ….....ahhh……..yeah……...hmm…. well as a buddy of him or favored subordinate, you would have been invited to one of his swell parties at Carinhall, hunting and bathing your hands in semi precious stones. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Freebird (Jun 20, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Since he is on the list, was there any redeeming value having Hermann Goering as a commander?



I think I've heard he was a fairly good brave flyer in WWI, only later in WWII did he turn into a pompous ass.

But if you consider the early history of the Luftwaffe they were quite effective, do you think that was all the work of subordinates? 

Consider thet he {presumably as head of LW}:

1.) Built up in secret from nothing into a potent force.

2.) Promoted competent subordinates like Kesselring, not just useless toadies

3.) Allowed presided over a whole new set of strategies for air power, such as the use of Stuka's as "forward artillery" {in France 1940, etc}

4.) Allowed such revolutionary concepts such as the destruction of the enemy air power on the airfields, {Poland, France, Russia etc.}, while the British RAF were starving their own air defences to feed the "Trenchard" folly, RAF doctrine was almot totally fixated on "Heavy Bombing"

I'm not saying that he did all of this, but the Luftwaffe was a very effective tool of war {with the only failing 39 - 42 being "BoB"}, so if he was totally wrong and incompetant I don't think they could have done this well


----------



## starling (Jun 21, 2008)

i know of a mr franz goering,who is a member of the german cross country ski team.he is a very large man,who excells in the skating technique.i do not know if he is a relative of herman though.yours,starling.p.s.i hope you like my new avatar,my grandad is on the left.alas,i know not what regt he was with.a wonderful man,he liked holland,belgium and germany,but died 2 months after i broke my neck.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 21, 2008)

I think I've read that after Richtohfen died and Goering took over, he failed to fly again and really wasn't well liked by his subordinates.


Starling, broke your neck?! Are you ok? If you have a bigger pic of your grand-dad you might want to post and see if anybody can recognize what unit he was with.


----------



## starling (Jun 21, 2008)

yes,njaco,i severed the c-5,c-6 and c-7 vertibrae,and am paralised.i have the use in 1 finger,but i type with a garden peg.there are numbers on the back of my grandads pictures.he was a bofors gunner,and the numbers were simply...27....163..776...i believe.i have checked wiki and the others,but alas no joy.i thought they were regts or batteries.yours,starling.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 21, 2008)

Some info regarding Goering:

Franz Goering is not related with Hermann Goering.

HG became commodore of JG I in July 1918 after the previous commander Wilhelm Reinhard was killed during a test flight.
After the war till 1922 Goering was working as a civil aviator in Denmark and Sweden.

1922 Leader of the SA
1923 During Hitler’s Munich revolution attempt Goering was shot and as an ironic part of history, he fled into the house of a Jew named Robert Ballin, who later he spared from the Holocaust. Due to this wound he started to take morphine and stayed addicted until his death.
1928 HG was elected to a NSDAP parliamentarian and promoted by AH to general of the SA and was the Mastermind in regards to dispose of the previous German government.

1933 HG was appointed Minister and Interior Minister for the Prussian police; this position enabled the NAZI’s to replace almost all police ranks with former SA members, ensuring the election in 1933 of the NSDAP.
He then founded the GESTAPO the RSHA and instituted the first KZ camps. As such he became 2nd most powerful NAZI next to AH. 
1933 HG was promoted from Captain to General of the infantry and to Minister for aviation.
1934 HG became Minister for Forestry and Hunting and Minister for Environment.

1935 HG was re designated to General of the Luftwaffe and supreme commander of the Luftwaffe.
1936 HG was promoted to 4 star General and Chief executive for the 4 year plan – as such he was the Industrial Development Minister before Speer. 
1938 after the Blomberg-Fritsch incident he hoped to become the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, however AH took over this position, and AH promoted HG to Field marshal, as such HG held the highest military rank in Hitler Germany at that time.
1938 HG was the “Brain” behind the Jew expulsion program” and one of the leading heads in preparation for the Holocaust in 1941. 

In summary; due to his enormous amount of functions and political inflictions he wasn’t able to fulfill even one task properly (besides the Hunting department) whose laws apply until today. He failed miserably in the Industrial development Ministry – since Germany’s industry was not war programmed/instructed till 1943 at all.

The buildup of the Luftwaffe was conducted by others such as Wever (pursued 4 mot bombers) Stumpff, Jeschonnek, Udet and Kesselring. HG was very opposed to all planning’s towards war by AH and almost screwed up the occupation of Czechoslovakia – after that AH isolated HG in regards to foreign policy.

HG made a total blunder out of the BoB and carries most of the fault’s that caused the Stalingrad fiasco. HG had no influence or anything to do with the development of tactical or strategically setup of the Luftwaffe, he presided over the respective department bodies. 

IMO, HG was the most precious contribution the allies could have wished for.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 21, 2008)

starling said:


> yes,njaco,i severed the c-5,c-6 and c-7 vertibrae,and am paralised.i have the use in 1 finger,but i type with a garden peg.there are numbers on the back of my grandads pictures.he was a bofors gunner,and the numbers were simply...27....163..776...i believe.i have checked wiki and the others,but alas no joy.i thought they were regts or batteries.yours,starling.



Hello starling,

That doesn’t sound good at all. But I can see that you are able and have mastered to cope with this situation, my due respect to you and anyone else in this situation.

Try to upload your avatar onto the forum; there are a lot of very able people on here that might be able to recognize certain patches or markings which as such could help to identify your grandfathers unit.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2008)

Göring had one relative in the USAAF. Werner G. Göring was the son of Göring's younger Brother Karl and was a Captian and pilot of B-17 bombers. Werner flew 48 combat missions over Germany.

By the way Göring's daughter is still alive today and still lives in Munich, Germany.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 21, 2008)

I believe there was also Peter Goering, a nephew, who was killed on a sub during 1943. I think I posted that last month or so.

I always thought Goering took over JG 1 from Richtohfen and wasn't promoted Feldmarschall until 19 July 1940.

Starling, sorry to hear of your trials but it sounds and looks like you're fighting and overcoming. Thumbs-up to you!


----------



## Kruska (Jun 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Göring had one relative in the USAAF. Werner G. Göring was the son of Göring's younger Brother Karl and was a Captian and pilot of B-17 bombers. Werner flew 48 combat missions over Germany.
> By the way Göring's daughter is still alive today and still lives in Munich, Germany.



Hello D.I.A.G.,

I find it very surprising that the USAAF allowed/trusted “him” to be engaged in missions against or over Germany.

BTW how are AH nephews doing in the USA?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## starling (Jun 21, 2008)

i will try to upload my avatar,as recomended.i also will try to upload the ones where my grandad is sitting in the cocpit of a late model me-109 with his dog,those are a bit fuzzy.i looked at the pictures in a magnifying glass,and it looks like an old scrapyard,bits and pieces,twisted metal and allsorts.yours,starling.


----------



## starling (Jun 21, 2008)

sorry guys,i uploaded those pictures.they should be around now.yours,starling.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello D.I.A.G.,
> 
> I find it very surprising that the USAAF allowed/trusted “him” to be engaged in missions against or over Germany.
> 
> ...



Apparantly the copilot had orders to shoot him if he tried to defect with a plane.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 22, 2008)

Starling, found this site that gives a pretty good account of NA battles in the last months.

Tunisia


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2008)

*Parsifal, sounds like a flyboyism!  *

I dont even has a crayon. Maybe I meant to say fashionable street walker


----------



## Njaco (Jun 22, 2008)




----------



## Freebird (Jun 22, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *Parsifal, sounds like a flyboyism!  *
> 
> I dont even has a crayon. Maybe I meant to say fashionable street walker



Speaking of "Flyboyisms" thank goodness I was finally able to upload my new siggy, otherwise I was likely to get something different than I wanted.....


----------



## Freebird (Jun 22, 2008)

Kruska said:


> In summary; due to his enormous amount of functions and political inflictions Goering wasn’t able to fulfill even one task properly (besides the Hunting department) whose laws apply until today. He failed miserably in the Industrial development Ministry – since Germany’s industry was not war programmed/instructed till 1943 at all.
> 
> The buildup of the Luftwaffe was conducted by others such as Wever (pursued 4 mot bombers) Stumpff, Jeschonnek, Udet and Kesselring. HG was very opposed to all planning’s towards war by AH and almost screwed up the occupation of Czechoslovakia – after that AH isolated HG in regards to foreign policy.
> 
> ...



So I guess what you are saying is that the Luftwaffe succeeded in 39' - 42' *in spite* of Goerings blunders?

Perhaps you are right....


----------



## Njaco (Jun 23, 2008)

Thats what I thought, too....on both posts!


----------



## starling (Jun 23, 2008)

so who was in command of the british 1 army,american 2 corps and french units before alexander was given control of them.yours,starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

In overall command was Eisenhower with the title, Allied Forces Commander. his second in charge was Vice Admiral Cunningham, who was also the Naval forces commander

The actual landings consisted of three parts, a Western TF, aimed at Casablanca and Rabat, a Center TF,aimed at Oran and an Eastern TF aimed at Algiers. 


The plan was for a a three-pronged amphibious landing to seize the key ports and airfields at Casablanca (and Rabat), Oran and Algiers. Successful completion of these operations was to be followed by an advance eastwards into Tunisia.

The Western Task Force (aimed at Casablanca and Rabat) comprised American units, with Major General George Patton in command and Rear Admiral Henry K. Hewitt heading the naval operations. This Western Task Force consisted of elements from U.S. 2nd Armored Division, the U.S. 3rd and 9th Infantry Divisions—35,000 troops in all. They were transported directly from the United States.

The Center Task Force, aimed at Oran, included the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion, 1st Infantry Division, and the 1st Armored Division—18,500 troops. They sailed from Britain and were commanded by Major-General Lloyd Fredendall, the naval forces being commanded by Commodore Thomas Troubridge.

The Eastern Task force, aimed at Algiers, was commanded by Lieutenant-General Kenneth Anderson (who later commanded 1st Army) and consisted of two brigades from British 78th and the US 34th Infantry Divisions and two British Commando units - 20,000 troops. During the period of the amphibious landings the force was to be commanded by U.S. Major-General Charles W. Ryder, commander of 34th Division, because it was felt that a U.S.-led invasion would be more acceptable to the French defenders than a one led by the British. Naval forces were commanded by Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Burrough.

Aerial operations were split into two, east of Cape Tenez in Algeria, with British aircraft under Air Marshal Sir William Welsh and west of Cape Tenez, all American aircraft under Major General Jimmy Doolittle, under the direct command of General Patton.

There were no French regular units in the attack, however french resistance units captured the HQ of the French XIX Corps. The field commander of the Vichy units was gen Juin, and the Officer in charge of the colonies was Adm Darlan. 

General Giraud was the nominal commander of the Free french forces, but in relaity De Gaulle excercised real control (though the Ameericans had not yet realized that). Giraud took no real part in the battle until after Darlans assassinatioon on the 13 november 1942.


----------



## starling (Jun 23, 2008)

so you would agree,before alexander and the 8th army ambled up,eisenhouer was ground forces commander in tunisia.yours,starling. .


----------



## Njaco (Jun 23, 2008)

Only after the US entered the war. Before that it was the British and its commonwealths that held the torch in NA.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

*so you would agree,before alexander and the 8th army ambled up,eisenhouer was ground forces commander in tunisia.yours,starling*


No, Eisenhower was the theatre commander, in command of the overall assets, land, sea, and air. he also had certain authority viz a viz political events, particualrly with respect to negotiating with the Vichy forces, and the free French Forces, and theresistance fighters as well

There are really two phases in the Allied command structure for the north african campaign, with a major re-organization occurring after the defeats at kasserine. 

Victory at Casablanca, Oran, and Algiers gave the United States Army and its British ally solid toeholds in the western Mediterranean Theater of Operations. But it offered no guarantee of easy access to Italy or southern Europe, or even to the eastern end of the Mediterranean, where the British desperately needed assistance to secure Egypt and strategic resources in the Near East. The sudden entrance of American forces during 8-11 November 1942 created an awkward deployment in which two pairs of opposing armies fought in North Africa, one in Tunisia, the other in Libya. Neither Axis nor Allies found any satisfaction in the situation; much fighting remained before either adversary could consider North Africa secure. 

At this p[oint, the ground forces commanders were Anderson (in charge of 1st Army), and Fredendall (I think, in charge of US II Corps), later Juin would join, in comand of XIX French Corps

The awkward command structure forced on Eisenhower following the Torch landings contributed significantly to the slow progress of the allis in western africa. 

The apparent progress of the allies in the theatre belied a string of muddled operations and stinging reverses. Frustrated and furious, Eisenhower wrote a scathing description of Allied performance in the Tunisia Campaign. To Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall he confided his view that American and British operations had thus far managed to violate every accepted tactical principle of warfare and would be condemned in the military school system for decades to come .

While Eisenhower struggled to contain squabbles on the Allied side, the Germans hit Sidi Bou Zid, ten miles beyond Faid. With over 200 tanks on both sides, a huge, drawn-out battle appeared in the making. But US armor was spread too thin, and the panzers punched through in only one day. An ineffective counterattack the next day and the stunning capture of some 1,400 troops forced the US to undertake a major withdrawal. As the 1st Armored Division fell back, enemy pressure eased. However, on the 16th the Germans resumed their westward push, seizing Sbeitla, twenty-five miles beyond Sidi Bou Zid. Again the Americans scrambled back to establish a new defensive position, this time at Kasserine Pass. Four days of successive defeats cost II Corps dearly. The Americans lost 2,546 missing, 103 tanks, 280 vehicles, 18 field guns, 3 antitank guns, and 1 antiaircraft battery. 

The succession of II Corps defeats did not end with the loss of Sbeitla. Rommel saw the opportunity to keep his battered adversary reeling with a push for an even bigger prize: Kasserine Pass, gateway to Algeria. Adding the 10th and 21st Panzer Divisions to his German-Italian Panzer Army, Rommel struck the II Corps on 19 February. By the next afternoon the pass was in Axis hands. Only the valiant stands of individual battalions and companies on isolated hilltops interrupted Rommel's progress. As an alarming indication of falling morale, American troops abandoned huge stocks of equipment. In a final insult, the disastrous series of defeats was ended not by stiffening American resolve but by a shift in Axis priorities. Concerned that the British Eighth Army might attack from Libya while he was moving west, Rommel turned back to the east. 


The conduct of Allied operations in both northern Tunisia in December 1942 and the central mountain ranges in February 1943 forced a total reexamination of Allied organization and plans. In short order General Eisenhower restructured the Allied command and changed key personnel. A new command—the 18th Army Group under British General Sir Harold R. L. G. Alexander—tightened operational control over the combat corps and armies of the three Allied nations. With the British Eighth Army now close enough to the Allied southern flank to affect Axis operations, the three national commands in Tunisia narrowed their battlefronts and shifted north. Because the U.S. II Corps had taken high casualties and lost so much equipment during the February battles, and—in the British view— shown tactical incompetence, the Americans were to play a role auxiliary to the British in the next phase of the campaign. Accordingly, Alexander's staff was primarily British 

The Americans received the highest-level personnel change when in early March Eisenhower selected Maj. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr., to command II Corps. Now the Allies had a field commander who would cause his adversaries genuine concern for his willingness to attempt maneuvers others thought rash. With Maj. Gen. Omar N. Bradley as his deputy, Patton set about rebuilding the II Corps into the panzer-killing force he knew it could become. Overlooking no detail—including neckties in the heat of North Africa—Patton pushed his men to fight and dress like the best soldiers in the world. Within days they knew they were led by a commander who would not let them fail


----------



## starling (Jun 24, 2008)

when ike wrote his scathing report to marshal about american and british problems,do we know where eisenhowre,s hq was. 
the squabling in the west,or torch area must have been militarily forseen,should they not.
when alexander took control of 18th a/g.did he become the allied ground force comander then.someone mmust have.
how were the allied airforces disposed after 18th a/g became operational.yours,starling


----------



## Njaco (Jun 24, 2008)

Those are questions that I don't know, maybe parsifal or Kruska or others can give you an idea. But as far as Air Forces after NA you can check this site as it gives the US deploment of AF from around the globe. It is a lot of boring reading though.

Index of /~mcgrew/wwii/usaf

BTW love your avatars with Clint!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2008)

*when ike wrote his scathing report to marshal about american and british problems,do we know where eisenhowre,s hq was.*


His HQ was at Gibraltar, he may have moved it as the campaign wore on. however, it is unlikley, given the very extensive communications, naval and air facilities that he could call on at the bas. I also suspect that the Allies did not want to risk a fifth column pro-vichy attack on Eisenhower in the same vein as Darlans assassination. 

*the squabling in the west,or torch area must have been militarily forseen,should they not.*
I dont think anyone realized at the time the immense difficulties that would present themselves in co-ordinating a multi-national force, across such vast distances

*when alexander took control of 18th a/g.did he become the allied ground force comander then.someone mmust have.*

Alexander was placed in command of 18AG. As the name suggests, it had under its command, 1st and 8th armies. Alexander was in nominal control of the land forces, but the Americans in particualr tended to bypass and go directly to Eisenhower. This created obvious Command Control problems. 


*how were the allied airforces disposed after 18th a/g became operational.yours,starling*

Not sure, suggest you look at the site provided by NJ


----------



## starling (Jun 25, 2008)

so from the beginning of torch,nov 42,until the creation of 18th a/g in feb 43,under the command of alexander,this is 3 months.eisenhower was in command of brit 1st army,american 2 corps and the french,his hq was at gibraltar.
instead of writing scathing letters to marshal,perhaps he should have been up the front with his commanders,putting the schoolboy remarks right,that he had written to marshal beforehand.yours,starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2008)

*so from the beginning of torch,nov 42,until the creation of 18th a/g in feb 43,under the command of alexander,this is 3 months.eisenhower was in command of brit 1st army,american 2 corps and the french,his hq was at gibraltar.
instead of writing scathing letters to marshal,perhaps he should have been up the front with his commanders,putting the schoolboy remarks right,that he had written to marshal beforehand.yours,starling.*


Eisenhower was not the ground forces commander at any stage. He was the theatre commander. In that capacity, he did an excellent job of an exceptionally difficult assignment. And he was acting 100% correctly to work through the higher command in order to make the changes that he did. You make it sound like the letters he was writing were frivolous and pointless. I have not see those letters, but he would have needed the agreement of his boss, Marshall, in order to carry out the administrative changes that he did. 

The land forces commander (at the army level) Anderson (with the 1st Army). Montys forces were not placed under Eisenhowers control until after the formation of 18AG. However, the French XIX, under Juin, and the US IICorps , under fredendall, frequantly did not work in well under Anderson, co-ordination seems to have been the ain problem. This was firmly the responsibility of Anderson, but it was simply beyond him. Eisenhower eventually did act, but perhaps he was too slow to do so. But in his defence, there were a lot of other issues to take care of at the time.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 26, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *so from the beginning of torch,nov 42,until the creation of 18th a/g in feb 43,under the command of alexander,this is 3 months.eisenhower was in command of brit 1st army,american 2 corps and the french,his hq was at gibraltar.
> instead of writing scathing letters to marshal,perhaps he should have been up the front with his commanders,putting the schoolboy remarks right,that he had written to marshal beforehand.yours,starling.*
> 
> 
> ...




Good post Parsifal.

Starling, there were a few US commanders that did a poor job - but I don't think Ike falls in that category. He did a good job keeping the lid on all the political problems brewing up in North Africa. 

If there had been an un-diplomatic leader there {yes, like Patton or Monty!} the Allies could have easily ended up using 75% of there troops defending their supply lines from hostile rebellious French, Bedouins etc!


----------



## starling (Jun 26, 2008)

i believe rommel attacked 8th army at medanine on 6/3/43.his corps contained primarily the,90 light div,164th div,and 10th,15 and 21st pz div,along with some italian units.
do we know when alexander was given ultra info,which gave him knowledge of date of rommels attack on 8th army.cheers,starling.


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2008)

I voted for Nimitz for his management of the Pacific War.

Spruance for his ability to rise for the occasion, suddenly from a cruiser commander to carrier fleet commander in eve of decisive battle (Midway) and his handling of that battle. IMHO a cool and analytical leader also very brave IIRC.

Park for his handling of BoB and Malta air battles in 42. Very skillful fighter leader.

von Manstein very good operational mind, very good planner and also very good field commander.

Juha


----------



## JugBR (Jun 28, 2008)

rommel should win by 10+ votes diference, of course.

so i voted for zhukov, because the man is a legend on russia and im very interested by the russian history of ww2 ate the moment


----------



## starling (Jun 29, 2008)

i believe monty usually ambled behind rommel with 2 divs.at the time of medanine,xxxcorps;51st highland div,7th armd div and 201 guards bde.
anyone else got more info.starling.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 29, 2008)

Operation Capri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 51st (Highland) Division commanded by Major-General Douglas Wimberley, 7th Armoured Division (General George Erskine) and New Zealand 2nd Division (Bernard Freyberg) of the 8th Army. The open southern flank was covered by the 4th Light Armoured Brigade, which included the Free French Flying Column (FFFC) and the 1e Bataillon d’Infanterie de Marine et du Pacifique.

on the German side - Two German infantry divisions, the 90th Light and 164th Light, and the 10th, 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions of the Deutsches Afrika Korps (estimated 200 tanks). The Spezia Division of the Italian 1st Army occupied the Mareth Line.


----------



## starling (Jun 29, 2008)

o.k,we now have the o.o.b,roughly.although the opposing air forces are a bit fuzzy.all we need are thedates when the africa corps were known via ultra to be attacking,and when alexander was given the approx date.this,i believe is very important.i also would,if anyone knows ,like to know the approx rommel plan of attack.yours,starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2008)

Order of Battle
(Please note I have basede my response mostly on wiki. i have other sources, but none of them summarizes the situationas well as the wiki article)

I dont actually have the total forces assigned to 8th Army at the time of Operation Capri the Medennine battle, however, I am almost certain that they were the same as those employed in Operation Pugilist Operations to break the Mareth line, which began just 9 days after the Medennine battle ended), since Allied losses associated with the Medennine battle were minimal. The following is the list of forces for both sides, in the battles for Medennine, Operations Pugilist (19-23 March) and Supercharge II ( 26 Mar - 31 Mar). 
*British Eighth Army* (General Sir Bernard Montgomery)
XXX Corps (Lieut.-General Sir Oliver Leese)
British 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division 
British 51st (Highland) Infantry Division 
4th Indian Infantry Division 
British 201st Guards Brigade 
British 23rd Armoured Brigade 
New Zealand Corps (Lieut.-General Bernard Freyberg)
New Zealand 2nd Division 
British 8th Armoured Brigade 
1st Battalion King's Dragoon Guards 
64th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery 
57th Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery 
One Battery 53rd Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery 
LeClerc's Force 
X Corps (Lieut.-General Sir Brian Horrocks)
British 1st Armoured Division 
British 7th Armoured Division (including 4 Light Armoured Brigade, less King's Dragoon Guards) 
Free French Flying Column 
*1st Italian Army *(General Giovanni Messe)
In the line:
XX Corps
136 Motorised Division Young Fascists (actually no stronger than a reinforced regiment)
101 Motorised Division Trieste 
German 90th Light Afrika 
XXI Corps
80 Infantry Division La Spezia 
36 Infantry Division Pistoia 
German 164th Light Afrika 
In reserve:
German 15th Panzer Division 
Covering Tebaga:
Saharan Group 
Uncommitted:
German 21st Panzer Division 
On the Gafsa front:
German 10th Panzer Division 
Centauro Group 
The 19th Flak Division, with sixteen 88-millimetre batteries and several 20-millimetre anti-aircraft batteries, was all on the coast, the 1st Luftwaffe Brigade, little stronger than a battalion, was behind Young Fascists, and Africa Panzer Grenadier Regiment watched the main Gabès–Mareth road. These, together with 164 Light Division, comprised the only mobile infantry groups available


----------



## starling (Jun 30, 2008)

cheers parcifal.i understood horrocks was o.c.x111 corps.i also read that x111 corps,was stripped of its transport,to supply xxxcorps.
we must also remember that as rommel retreated,his pioneers,or whatever german engineers r called destroyed docks,harbours etc,tobruck,benghasi,tripoli,were all heavily smashed up.do not forget this.8th army did have problems not dissimilar to the africa corps.starling.


----------



## starling (Jun 30, 2008)

cannot find any sites giving the so called ultra info monty got in advance of the africa corps attack on him at medenine.i can only find sites involving areal recon.very interesting is this.starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 30, 2008)

As far as I know, 8th army's supply problems, whilst not small (they advanced over 1400 miles in 3 months) were quite well managed. The British built a railway link from the railhead at Matruh, to Tobruk in a very short space of time. Dont know when Tobruk and Benghazi were returned to operations, but neiuther was it a big problem. The British made full use of the Via Balbia, and were far better placed as far as the availability of supply trucks were concerned. I have never read that there were severe supply problems for the British in the cyrenaican Theatre. Now, that just didnt happen, the british paid a lot of attention to logistics, which is something the germans did not do. Even if they had had a bigger supply tail to call on, i doubt the germans would have done as good a job as the british in this particular area of warfare.

As the 8th Army approached Tripoli, however, things started to get a little tense, the British by then were starting to reach the end of their supply lines, and had to capture Tripoli to ease this problem. The Brits captured tripoli 23-01-43, and as you say the port facilities had been demolished. However, it was not so comprehensive as you suggest. The first steamer entered the harbour 26-01-43, and was more or less restored to full capacity by 04-02-43


----------



## parsifal (Jun 30, 2008)

starling said:


> cannot find any sites giving the so called ultra info monty got in advance of the africa corps attack on him at medenine.i can only find sites involving areal recon.very interesting is this.starling.



Try this link

The North African Campaign Of World War II

It does not give specific details on the effect of Ultrs on medennine, however, it does say that towards the end of the North African Campaign, (ie after Alam halfa) the Allies were receiving Ultra intelligence that was of benefit from a battlefield perspective


----------



## Freebird (Jun 30, 2008)

starling said:


> Instead of writing scathing letters to marshal,perhaps eisenhower should have been up the front with his commanders,putting the schoolboy remarks right,that he had written to marshal beforehand.yours,starling.



What are you getting at Starling? Are you comparing Monty, Rommel Patton in their performance in North Africa to that of Ike?


----------



## starling (Jul 1, 2008)

well,all i can find,as well as others,is no specific dates for the ultra intell,just remarks on google,etc.
my personal opinion is that rommel was simply out generalled,by monty,when rommel attacked medenine.i did find a site quoting monty,he expected rommel to lash out at 8th army,because rommel undrstood that supplying large formations was indeed very difficult.i believe rommels intel said 51st highland div and 7th armd div,were the 2 formations,leading 8th army.
unfortunately for rommel,monty did pre-empt him,and bought up other units, new zealand div and 4th armd bde,and thoroughly defeated rommel,and his africa corps,who had all sworn allegance to hitler.
i never mentioned patton,although i have nothing but praise for him,he was perhaps the finest cavalry general in the allied line up.yours,starling.p.s.i just wish we knew the so called ultra dates.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2008)

suggest you read the article I attached to my last post. The allies were receiving direct battlefield advantages in the latter stages of the NA campaign, and specifically from Alam halfa and onwards. 

Also Rommel was not even in direct control of the formation, nor was it even his own plan. He is guilty of simply acquiescing, and allowing German units to be committed to the attack.

Finally, medennine was only ever meant to be a spoiling attack, which it partially was. It allowed the axis two weeks grace, in which to get into position, and then resist the allies push, with Italian units, for the most part, no less


----------



## Bigxiko (Jul 6, 2008)

my vote is with Rommel and Montgomery


----------



## starling (Jul 7, 2008)

all the wiki info suggests rommel was indeed in command of the forces;10pz div,15pz div,21pz div,90th light div,164 div and italian units,that attacked monty,although google suggests rommmel was a bit sickly.
but we must also remember that monty was gatherng supplies with which to attack mareth.yours,starling


----------



## starling (Jul 8, 2008)

this battle was imho the best-executed brief defensive battle of ww2.invigorated by their spectacular performance at kasserine,rommel and messe,concentrated the africa corps and 10th pz div,in the matmata hills,while mounting a feint attack by mobile infantry from the north.the axis attack was a disaster.starling.


----------



## starling (Jul 9, 2008)

so,does anyone know the o.o.b for montys attack at the mareth line.i know the 4th indian div,less one bde,was present in the british attack.starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 16, 2008)

Medennine was a carefully prepred and sucessful defensive battle, but it is contentious to say it was the best defensive battle of the war. There are a lot of battles, long and short, fought defensively that many might argue are comparable

To name a few, in no particular order

Kerala
Kokoda
Cassino
Alam Halfa
Stalingrad
Kursk (Russian) 
Bataan
Guadacanal
Bastogne
British defence at Arnhem
Rommels defensive/offensive battles at Gazala, and earlier against battleaxe
Defence Of Tobruk
American defensive at midway
American CAP defences at Phil Sea
Japanese defence at okinawa

Etc etc


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 17, 2008)

I've gone with the best as I see them from each Country.

Mannstein
Patton
Yamamoto
Montgomery
Lascar (not on list - Romania)
Mannerheim
Messe (not on list - Italy)
Juin (not on list - France)
Anders (not on list - Poland)
Zhukov
Blamey (not on list - Australia)
Freyberg (not on list - New Zealand (inspite of his blunder at Crete))
Smuts (not on list - South Africa)
Veress (not on list - Hungary)

But the best of the best is IMO still by far Mannstein.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Medennine was a carefully prepred and sucessful defensive battle, but it is contentious to say it was the best defensive battle of the war. There are a lot of battles, long and short, fought defensively that many might argue are comparable
> 
> To name a few, in no particular order
> 
> ...



Stalingrad and Bastogne have to take my prize here (perhaps Cassino aswell)!


----------



## Freebird (Jul 17, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I've gone with the best as I see them from each Country.
> 
> Mannstein
> Patton
> ...



Good choice of Freyburg - but why do you say "blunder at Crete"? He did the best he could with very inadequate air, armour material resources. {They did not even have enough shovels to dig foxholes! Did you mean to say "failure" instead of blunder?

Good choice of Smuts, although he was not really a military leader, he would be a good choice on the other "political leader" poll.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 19, 2008)

freebird said:


> Good choice of Freyburg - but why do you say "blunder at Crete"? He did the best he could with very inadequate air, armour material resources. {They did not even have enough shovels to dig foxholes! Did you mean to say "failure" instead of blunder?



With the ULTRA available to him - it should have been the first large scale German defeat of the war IMO. In "Crete - the battle and resistance" Anthony Beevor speculates that he misread the ULTRA messages and that this caused him to be preoccupied with seaborne landings - instead of launching an attack at Maleme airfield in time. All the German paradrops where a disaster - except the one at Maleme. And a counterattack at this airfield would have doomed the german operation. Sadly Freyberg would not release reserves or troops guarding the beaches. And in turn the 2nd Mountain division was airlanded in and turned the tide.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 20, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> With the ULTRA available to him - it should have been the first large scale German defeat of the war IMO. In "Crete - the battle and resistance" Anthony Beevor speculates that he misread the ULTRA messages and that this caused him to be preoccupied with seaborne landings - instead of launching an attack at Maleme airfield in time. All the German paradrops where a disaster - except the one at Maleme. And a counterattack at this airfield would have doomed the german operation. Sadly Freyberg would not release reserves or troops guarding the beaches. And in turn the 2nd Mountain division was airlanded in and turned the tide.



Hmm. Well Seaborne landings *were* a serious threat, but the invasion fleet was caught by the RN with heavy casualties. 

I had read that one of the subordinates "lost his nerve" and failed to push the Para's back. I will have to look that one up though.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 21, 2008)

freebird said:


> Hmm. Well Seaborne landings *were* a serious threat, but the invasion fleet was caught by the RN with heavy casualties.
> 
> I had read that one of the subordinates "lost his nerve" and failed to push the Para's back. I will have to look that one up though.



Well - if ULTRA had not been available seaborne landings might have been a threat. But ULTRA signals sent to Freyberg clearly stated that the main threat was airborne and that seaborne landings would only be diversionary. Furthermore the trip from Greece took more than 12 hrs and at night the agressive RN "ruled the waves". The boats that sailed from Greece where found in pitch darkness and slaughtered along with their single destroyer escort (the soldiers in liferafts where then machine gunned and depthcharged by orders of the commanding Brittish officer - taking revenge for the past days losses). Yea some subordinates lost their nerve - but none that had any decisive influence on the battle when compared to the failure to not order an attack on Maleme.

The reason I do not think of Freyberg as a poor commander (far from it) is that agree with Anthony Beavors assesment that he must have misunderstood the messages he recieved (and remember *only* he was allowed to read them). Other than that he was a very capable and sympathetic field commander who's only weakness IMO was an odd hesitation to replace poor performing officers serving under him (rumor has it that he was a man who wanted to be loved by all).


----------



## Freebird (Jul 21, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Other than that he was a very capable and sympathetic field commander who's only weakness IMO was an odd hesitation to replace poor performing officers serving under him (rumor has it that he was a man who wanted to be loved by all).



This may indeed be the case. 

In the overall picture Freyberg was left "holding the bag" for a truly foolhardy mission pushed by Churchill Eden, for a Greek intervention that the underequipped British Army was not capable of, and which the Greeks themselves did not want.


IMO the main loss was in Greece where the Allies lost all of their heavy equip. I would rate the battle in Crete almost a draw, because most of the Allied troops were evacuated, while the German para's suffered such heavy losses that they weren't used in Malta or Azores, far more important targets.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 21, 2008)

freebird said:


> This may indeed be the case.
> 
> In the overall picture Freyberg was left "holding the bag" for a truly foolhardy mission pushed by Churchill Eden, for a Greek intervention that the underequipped British Army was not capable of, and which the Greeks themselves did not want.
> 
> ...



I agree - Greece was a doomed cause - and an expensive PR job to put it bluntly. The overkill employed by the Germans in the Balkans theatre meant that any ammount of Brittish reinforcements wouldn't have helped. Much less when keeping an eye on what it cost in the fragile desert war. However making a show of standing by Greece - yet another fall to the axis - was probably important in the bigger world political view.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 21, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I agree - Greece was a doomed cause - and an expensive PR job to put it bluntly. The overkill employed by the Germans in the Balkans theatre meant that any ammount of Brittish reinforcements wouldn't have helped. Much less when keeping an eye on what it cost in the fragile desert war. However making a show of standing by Greece - yet another fall to the axis - was probably important in the bigger world political view.



A very interesting topic {there must be a thread on it} IMHO, the answer is to send about 1 well equipped division to Crete, and nothing to Greece. Send a generous batch of supplies to the Greeks {AT rifles, AA guns Artillery etc} and about 2 squadrons of RAF Hurricanes to contest the air. if the situation falls apart the Hurri's can always withdraw.

Transfer as many squadrons of Hampdens, Whitleys Wellingtons to Crete as will fit, and start heavy night bombing of the Italian Adriatic ports to help interdict the re-supply of Albania. The night bombing in 1941 is nearly useless at hitting anything *except ports*, so it won't make any difference to the northern effort


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 21, 2008)

freebird said:


> A very interesting topic {there must be a thread on it} IMHO, the answer is to send about 1 well equipped division to Crete, and nothing to Greece. Send a generous batch of supplies to the Greeks {AT rifles, AA guns Artillery etc} and about 2 squadrons of RAF Hurricanes to contest the air. if the situation falls apart the Hurri's can always withdraw.
> 
> Transfer as many squadrons of Hampdens, Whitleys Wellingtons to Crete as will fit, and start heavy night bombing of the Italian Adriatic ports to help interdict the re-supply of Albania. The night bombing in 1941 is nearly useless at hitting anything *except ports*, so it won't make any difference to the northern effort




I totally agree on your asessment of what would have been the best solution. But saying "Thanks for being on our side - but sorry we can't help" to the Greeks wouldn't exactly have helped the allied cause much.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 21, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I totally agree on your asessment of what would have been the best solution. But saying "Thanks for being on our side - but sorry we can't help" to the Greeks wouldn't exactly have helped the allied cause much.



In fact this is what the Greeks preffered! They would much rather have supplies than troops! It was only after some heavy persuasion that the Greeks reluctantly agreed to have British troops on the mainland. Metaxas assumed {correctly} that British troops landing would *guarantee* that Hitler would invade with the maximum effort. 

Hey how about Metaxas as Greek leader?

Anyways, a significant bombing effort would probably do more to hamper the Italian war effort than any ground troops sent to Greece. And the Hurricanes deployed to contest the air would be a very visible show of support. Meanwhile the Desert Army could make much quicker work of the Italians in Africa, a real solid benefit.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 21, 2008)

freebird said:


> In fact this is what the Greeks preffered! They would much rather have supplies than troops! It was only after some heavy persuasion that the Greeks reluctantly agreed to have British troops on the mainland. Metaxas assumed {correctly} that British troops landing would *guarantee* that Hitler would invade with the maximum effort.
> 
> Hey how about Metaxas as Greek leader?
> 
> Anyways, a significant bombing effort would probably do more to hamper the Italian war effort than any ground troops sent to Greece. And the Hurricanes deployed to contest the air would be a very visible show of support. Meanwhile the Desert Army could make much quicker work of the Italians in Africa, a real solid benefit.



Metaxas - Don't really know alot about him. Yihaa - a new subject to read about  years of geeking through WW2 books makes it hard to find new subjects  

Yea - the Greeks made the right assesment (well - Hitler would have squashed them anyway - but the Brittish forces neither helped nor made it worse). However again - I think that the bigger picture was what made the difference in making the brits so persistent.

I Remember reading that Churchill and certain brittish commanders believed that the balkan front could hold on and even make offensive moves by combining the 2 million strong Yugoslav army (impressive number but horribly trained, placed, equipped and motivated) , the greek army and brittish and commonwealth forces. However I'll want to see that statement from more than one source before I believe it.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 21, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Metaxas - Don't really know alot about him. Yihaa - a new subject to read about  years of geeking through WW2 books makes it hard to find new subjects
> 
> Yea - the Greeks made the right assesment (well - Hitler would have squashed them anyway - but the Brittish forces neither helped nor made it worse). However again - I think that the bigger picture was what made the difference in making the brits so persistent.
> 
> I Remember reading that Churchill and certain british commanders believed that the balkan front could hold on and even make offensive moves by combining the 2 million strong Yugoslav army (impressive number but horribly trained, placed, equipped and motivated) , the greek army and brittish and commonwealth forces. However I'll want to see that statement from more than one source before I believe it.



Churchill had very poor strategic sense, he often ignored good advice from the Generals. 

In fact {IIRC} Metaxas was quite old, it was only after he passed away that the UK convinced the Greeks to allow their troops in. And I disagree, the arrival of the Brits made Hitler send a much larger force, he didn't want to allow them to get set up on the continent.

Brooke had the smartest approach to this question, the Brits simply were not ready or properly equipped for this operation, and it was foolish to "let up" on a beaten enemy {the Italians in N.Africa} to switch to a different front. This would only allow the beaten Italians time to rebuild, and would probably result in *both* operations failing. {Which is exactly what happened}


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 23, 2008)

freebird said:


> Churchill had very poor strategic sense, he often ignored good advice from the Generals.
> 
> In fact {IIRC} Metaxas was quite old, it was only after he passed away that the UK convinced the Greeks to allow their troops in. And I disagree, the arrival of the Brits made Hitler send a much larger force, he didn't want to allow them to get set up on the continent.
> 
> Brooke had the smartest approach to this question, the Brits simply were not ready or properly equipped for this operation, and it was foolish to "let up" on a beaten enemy {the Italians in N.Africa} to switch to a different front. This would only allow the beaten Italians time to rebuild, and would probably result in *both* operations failing. {Which is exactly what happened}



Agreed - it was a foolish undertaking. And IMO a curoius echo of Gallipoli (luckily not with the same amount of wasted life). And yes Churchill was no strategic genius - and in many ways very old fashioned. But the same stubborness and foolhardy decisions that led to Greece, Gallipoli, Singapore etc.. - also led to the defiance of Hitler after Dunkirk, during the blitz and laid the ground for the alliance that would ultimately destroy the Japanese and Germans.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 24, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Agreed - it was a foolish undertaking. And IMO a curoius echo of Gallipoli (luckily not with the same amount of wasted life). And yes Churchill was no strategic genius - and in many ways very old fashioned. But the same stubborness and foolhardy decisions that led to Greece, Gallipoli, Singapore etc.. - also led to the defiance of Hitler after Dunkirk, during the blitz and laid the ground for the alliance that would ultimately destroy the Japanese and Germans.



Thats why I rate him as about the best Prime Minister, but among the worst Ministers of Defence. {He was both from 1940 - 1945} In fact Gallipoli did have an effect in WWII. The public was willing to forgive one major "blunder" - but likely another would end him as PM. Brooke writes in his diary that Churchill would sometimes latch onto these wild ideas, {"Jupiter" and "Imperator" among others} but if the Chiefs of Staff were united in opposition he wouldn't dare to overrule them. Hitler on the other hand could ignore or fire his Generals at any time - and with disasterous results.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 27, 2008)

translated parts of book "zhukov", writen by otto preston chaney jr.

december 1940 - january 41:

the russian high commamd, makes an important meeting in moscow followed by "war games", developed over maps. the meeting was attended by stalin and all the responsibles for the defence of ussr including the military district of kiev, driven by zhukov.

many topics was discussed, like the modernization of russian war devices, the lack of training by the high level officers - consequence of stalin´s persecutions - and also the modern ofensive operations, presented by zhukov.

later, after presentations was started the great exercise over maps, and the theme was an german invasion over ussr. 

zhukov played the german army - the blues - , pavlov commands the reds, the defender army.

after the exercise, stalin openly criticised the way as pavlov commanded the reds, he ask if someone has something to say. zhukov complain that the fortified zones along the russian frontier was too close to the borderline, in case of war, they wouldnt be able to resist much time.

voroshilov, president of peoples defence comission and very close of stalin, severely interrupted zhukov, to say the zones was builted acording to the plans aproved by the main military council.

feeling that argue would be useless, zhukov sit and stay silent.

then, general meretskov, chief of staff, show his briefing about the situation, his briefing was inconsistent and with lack of many infos. asked about the past exercise, he couldnt make a good analisys wich made stalin very angry.

after the meeting, stalin invite zhukov for his office and says: 
- the "politiburo" decided fire meretskov and mominates you as chief of staff.


----------



## Amsel (Oct 7, 2008)

The most dangerous man in Europe.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 9, 2008)

okay, I give up...who is it and why is he the most dangerous man in europe?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2008)

The man in the picture is Otto Skorzeny.

He was an Obersturmbannführer (Lieutenant Colonel) in the Waffen SS.
Otto Skorzeny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## parsifal (Oct 10, 2008)

Well, in the sense of the larger unit commanders, I dont think Skorzeny could reasonably be included, any more than the great british commando leaders, like Stirling or Bagnold could be included. 

For the record, however, I do think that Skorzeny was one of the most effective commandoes of his time, and certainly deserves a great ddeal of respect


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Well, in the sense of the larger unit commanders, I dont think Skorzeny could reasonably be included, any more than the great british commando leaders, like Stirling or Bagnold could be included.



I don't know, I did not throw him in the pot.


----------



## Freebird (Oct 13, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Well, in the sense of the larger unit commanders, I dont think Skorzeny could reasonably be included, any more than the great british commando leaders, like Stirling or Bagnold could be included.
> 
> For the record, however, I do think that Skorzeny was one of the most effective commandoes of his time, and certainly deserves a great ddeal of respect




Yes, you are right about that.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

OOOps....

I didn't read the poll carefully and thought it meant Military _leaders_ instead of Military _commanders_ and so I voted for George Marshall!!!!


----------



## steelDUST (Dec 22, 2008)

Gen. Douglas MacArthur is, for me, the greatest WW2 general.
With fewer casualties of troops in comparison to eisenhower, montgomery, patton, and even rommel, with even fewer war materials used, MacArthur is definitely the best WW2 general.


----------



## HerrKaleut (May 27, 2009)

Unless I missed it on a page somewhere, why has nobody mentioned Karl Doenitz?


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

I know it has been chewed over many times, but how an efficient commander like Montgomery allowed such a stupendous coke-up as Market Garden puzzles me endlessly.

Even the radio sets had the wrong crystals and when intelligence officers tried to point out the presence of Panzers in the region, they shrugged it off as scare-mongering etc.

Un-real

I therefore say that all military commanders are only as good as their last victory.


----------



## Freebird (May 27, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> I know it has been chewed over many times, but how an efficient commander like Montgomery allowed such a stupendous coke-up as Market Garden puzzles me endlessly.
> .




Monty has been harshly critisized for the plan, but overall it was not a bad plan, and even with all the "****-ups" very nearly succeeded, as they almost captured the Arnhem bridge. 

It was a big gamble, which {they supposed} if it succeeded would prevent a long nasty slog similar to the Italian campaign.

If it failed, it would cost about 10,000 paratroops, which could be replaced. They decided it was worth the gamble.


To be fair, things like the wrong crystals or the poor para DZ's are not Monty's responsibility, alot of leaders dropped the ball on this one


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

Yes, it does seem that Monty was not well-advised or supported in retrospect. It was almost as if they (his supporting cast) were becoming *complacent* or perhaps jaded and war-weary ?

Still, it must rate as one of the greatest reversals Post D-Day BAR 'The Bulge' of course !

- and Monty must take at least some responsibility for the failure, after all it was his show, and he was in a position to select his subordinates to some degree.

BUT most battle plans go to pot within about 5 minutes of the action starting, especially where airborne forces are involved.

They never seem to land in the right place !!


Crom



freebird said:


> Monty has been harshly critisized for the plan, but overall it was not a bad plan, and even with all the "****-ups" very nearly succeeded, as they almost captured the Arnhem bridge.
> 
> It was a big gamble, which {they supposed} if it succeeded would prevent a long nasty slog similar to the Italian campaign.
> 
> ...


----------



## Amsel (May 27, 2009)

I had to vote for Hugh Dowding. Without him who knows what might have happened if the Battle of Britain was lost.


----------



## pbfoot (May 27, 2009)

I think the forerunners of Dowding should get more acclaim then him. It was guys like Freeman and Ellington that got the Spits and Hurricanes and radar , they had foresight to make sure the Merlins were 100 octane capable in 37 and also were the people that got the Mosquito on line , Dowding had all the weapons he needed thanks to Freeman and Ellington and Newell


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

It is a sad fact, almost a platitude or by-word, that credit is rarely distributed fairly or to the right person 

My father, bless his soul, made several unique discoveries or innovations during the war - but could never talk about them for decades due to the official secrets act. Neither could he make money out his discoveries either, for the same reason(s)


There must be 100s of stories of lost or mis-placed credit, in combat or further back in the supporting ranks.

What can you do ? 




pbfoot said:


> I think the forerunners of Dowding should get more acclaim then him. It was guys like Freeman and Ellington that got the Spits and Hurricanes and radar , they had foresight to make sure the Merlins were 100 octane capable in 37 and also were the people that got the Mosquito on line , Dowding had all the weapons he needed thanks to Freeman and Ellington and Newell


----------



## Amsel (May 28, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I think the forerunners of Dowding should get more acclaim then him. It was guys like Freeman and Ellington that got the Spits and Hurricanes and radar , they had foresight to make sure the Merlins were 100 octane capable in 37 and also were the people that got the Mosquito on line , Dowding had all the weapons he needed thanks to Freeman and Ellington and Newell



While that is all true and great, Dowding is the one who organized the fierce resistance in the air, facing several challenges from his own goverment as well as the pesky huns. If Dowding wasn't so resolute then Churchill might have used up all the Spitfires in the Battle of France, etc etc.


----------



## Freebird (May 28, 2009)

Amsel said:


> While that is all true and great, Dowding is the one who organized the fierce resistance in the air, facing several challenges from his own goverment as well as the pesky huns. If Dowding wasn't so resolute then Churchill might have used up all the Spitfires in the Battle of France, etc etc.



Spot on! 

Churchill was ready to thow everything into the defence of France, and the cupboard would be bare for the BoB


----------



## Jackstar (May 31, 2009)

I voted 'other' as in General Kuribayashi


----------



## Freebird (May 31, 2009)

Jackstar said:


> I voted 'other' as in General Kuribayashi



And what about him stands out?


----------



## Waynos (May 31, 2009)

Voted for Dowding, he always seemed to be ahead of the game. First commander of fighter command it was he who foresaw the importance of fighter control and melded the Spitfires, Hurricanes, radar and observer corps into the patterm that every air force later followed and it was he who saw the pointlessness of flinging aircraft into the defence of France when a bigger battle was certainly coming. A genius who was despicably treated after his greatest victory.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 31, 2009)

I had to go with Patton. I think his only fault was he stunk at politics. 2nd would be Erich von Manstein, who also stunk at politics.


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Voted for Dowding, he always seemed to be ahead of the game. First commander of fighter command it was he who foresaw the importance of fighter control and melded the Spitfires, Hurricanes, radar and observer corps into the patterm that every air force later followed and it was he who saw the pointlessness of flinging aircraft into the defence of France when a bigger battle was certainly coming. A genius who was despicably treated after his greatest victory.



It is a sad fact that in the UK we have a nasty habit of treating our greatest sons with contempt.

See also Frank Whittle, and even Barnes Wallis to some extent.


----------



## Jackstar (May 31, 2009)

freebird said:


> And what about him stands out?




I'm certainly no expert on military tactics etc but I liked his defiance of the norm like pillboxes and heavy beach defences as he went with an innovative yet simple plan (tunnels) that might not have won the Japs Iwo Jima but they put up one hell of a fight


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (May 31, 2009)

I picked Patton.
He just seemed to get the job done.


Wheelsup


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 3, 2009)

I re-iterate my previous remark.....Why is Doenitz not in the listings???


----------



## Freebird (Jun 3, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> I re-iterate my previous remark.....Why is Doenitz not in the listings???



I think it would be also good to have a "strategic" commanders poll, as opposed to "tactical" like Monty, Patton, Rommel etc.

The job of deciding which forces are sent where, and who commands is as important {or more!} than the guy on the ground who wins the battle. 

Certainly, had the German command followed Doenitz's wish to send many more boats for "Drumbeat" instead of keeping them in the Med, it might have been a much harder task for the Allies.

He suffered the common problem of brilliant commanders, being over-ruled by leaders who had little clue of what they were doing.


Imagine if Hitler had put the direction of the war into the hands of the professionals, Doenitz Manstein {or Guderian etc} instead of himself Goering Bormann etc?


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 3, 2009)

freebird said:


> I think it would be also good to have a "strategic" commanders poll, as opposed to "tactical" like Monty, Patton, Rommel etc.
> 
> The job of deciding which forces are sent where, and who commands is as important {or more!} than the guy on the ground who wins the battle.
> 
> ...



That is a very scary thought FB! That has always been Hilter's greatest mistake IMO, thinking he knew far more than professional soldiers, and not listening to them. Scary to think how things might have turned out had he left all military decisions to his top military men.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 3, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> That is a very scary thought FB! That has always been Hilter's greatest mistake IMO, thinking he knew far more than professional soldiers, and not listening to them. Scary to think how things might have turned out had he left all military decisions to his top military men.




And combine that with the US commanders in some areas being weak inexperienced {Navy responce to Drumbeat, defence of Pearl Manila etc} it could have caused huge problems.

Luckily for the US { Allies} the American production was so huge that it dwarfed everyone else


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 3, 2009)

Very true FB. 

There was a HBO movie that told the story about how things would have turned out after he war had Germany won. I think it starred Donald Sutherland. I always wanted to see it, I cannot remember its name anymore. But wondering how things would have played out always has been a topic that has interested me.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Jun 4, 2009)

Speaking of HBO Messy, has anyone seen that short movie "Into the Storm," about Churchill as Prime Minister during the Second World War. Even though it's only 90 or so min. long, I liked it a lot. Very factual, good acting, and the props weren't that bad either, even though they used some footage from the 1960's movie The Battle of Britain, and that they had the wrong kind of Spitfires in it for the time period. 

As for commanders, I went with Rommel, Patton, Zhukov, Slim, Yamamoto, and Yamaguchi. As for other, I'm thinking about Alphonse Juin. Personally, I think that Slim should get a little more limelight that Monty, since he managed to beat the Japanese out of Burma, even though he's front wasn't always on the top list for resupplying. Yamaguchi wasn't bad too. I think he was a little more daring and bolder than Nagumo (the Battle of Midway might have turned out differently if Yamaguchi was in command, and not Nagumo, least in my opinion). Unfortunately, or fortunately for us, he went down with the Hiryu.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 5, 2009)

Was'nt aware that the luftwaffe used Merlin engines either


Re; Midway, the US navy were very lucky there, the whole thing could have turned out a lot different irrespective of who was in command.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 5, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> Was'nt aware that the luftwaffe used Merlin engines either
> 
> 
> Re; Midway, the US navy were very lucky there, the whole thing could have turned out a lot different irrespective of who was in command.



I agree 101% 

I would say that Midway was a 'Do or Die' mission - in fact you could say it was Thermopylae fought at Sea ... Or perhaps a Kamikaze mission !

It proved one thing : you could spend 5 years building a complex, massive, super Battle Ship, manned by 100s of men.

Then *one* 500lb bomb could spoil your Whole Day


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 5, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> Was'nt aware that the luftwaffe used Merlin engines either
> 
> 
> Re; Midway, the US navy were very lucky there, the whole thing could have turned out a lot different irrespective of who was in command.



Some captured Spits were flown with DB engines

They flew really well !! - in fact it was the perfect marriage (from hell)


----------



## Freebird (Jun 5, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> Then *one* 500lb bomb could spoil your Whole Day



It's a real pain in the a** that British carriers have only half the aircraft due to the reduced space with the armoured decks.

But when 500 pound bombs kamakazis only leave a big dent your deck, maybe not such a bad trade off....


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 5, 2009)

freebird said:


> It's a real pain in the a** that British carriers have only half the aircraft due to the reduced space with the armoured decks.
> 
> But when 500 pound bombs kamakazis only leave a big dent your deck, maybe not such a bad trade off....



You know what - the history of WW2 aviation really IS a history of Trade Offs - especially in aviation.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 5, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> Some captured Spits were flown with DB engines
> 
> They flew really well !! - in fact it was the perfect marriage (from hell)


----------



## Yerger (Jun 17, 2009)

I feel there are 2 types. Tactical and strategic minds, then personality leaders regarding the men under them being inspired, loyal, and going above the norm in combat as a result.

Tactical minds I'd pick Manstein, Model, von kleist, Nehring, Maunteuffel, and Yamamoto

Via press or within the unit, for personality leaders (real or imagined) towards those under them I'd pick Hausser, Rommel, Yamamoto, Dietrich, Montgomery


----------



## Njaco (Jun 17, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> Was'nt aware that the luftwaffe used Merlin engines either



The very first Bf 109 used a 695hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel imported from Britain and the last Bf 109 (actually Spanish HA-1112 M4Ls) used a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Hows that for coincidence?!


----------



## HerrKaleut (Dec 15, 2009)

Why has nobody mentioned Doenitz, the only chap who really worried Churchill and who was worshiped by his men. A true leader.

Re; Rolls Royce, I feel certain that the Kestral was used in the 109 during development before going into Luftwaffe service, ( but stand to be corrected) and the 1112 was not a luftwaffe aircraft.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 15, 2009)

You are correct but I was speaking in general terms of airframe. Kinda like a 1964 Ford Mustang and a 2009 Ford Mustang - similar yet different but same yet not...... Just interesting the two examples of the Bf 109 I mentioned both used a Rolls-Royce engine.


----------

