Germany's Greatest General

Comparing Allie and German commanders is in many ways like comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the German commanders were trained to exploit success, look for weaknesses, and seize opportunities, they were not that strong on combined operations, or working toward a strategic goal. they tended to to see, and deal, only with that issue that was immediately in front of them. Rommels last offensive in NA is a classic example of this.

This tended to make them appear as poor strategists.

By comparison, the Allied generalls were trained to stick to the operational plan much more rigidly, and to consider the higher needs of the theatre as a whole. They were, in other words, much more "strategically" oriented. But this emphasis came at the cost of tactical prowess. This was because the Allied commanders tended to be much less flexible than their Axis opponents.

However, the Allies also learned to co-ordinate theatre assets much more effectively than the Axis. It was quite common for an Allied general to command the land, air and sea assets within his theatre of operations. Examples of this might be Eisenhower, Mountbatten, and Macarthur. This happened to a far lesser extent in the axis camp

from an allied point of view,paulus must rate highly.his inability to try and an attempted breakout toward manstein,led to the capture of german 6th army.that was a large bag of prisoners.
the best german general imho was manstein,his recapture of kharkov was masterful.yours,starling.

Paulus isnt quite what i had in mind. he was not able to manage his LW assets, and was more a hitlerian lackey than a free thinker.

Manstein is a very good choice, and quite out of the ordinary as far as the german generals are concerned. He was able to grasp the wider needs of his front very well, had a good operational insight, and was a good "manager " to boot.

Strategist:
Erich von Manstein

Tactician:
Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

von Manstein to me

Comparing Allie and German commanders is in many ways like comparing apples to oranges. Whereas the German commanders were trained to exploit success, look for weaknesses, and seize opportunities, they were not that strong on combined operations, or working toward a strategic goal. they tended to to see, and deal, only with that issue that was immediately in front of them. Rommels last offensive in NA is a classic example of this.

Click to expand...

Regarding this, heres a question. I remember reading once (can't remember the name of the book or anything so its only on memory) that German officers didn't have that much flexibilty of thought and command whereas the Allies felt confident even down to platoon leaders to adapt to situations presented before them. That there was a rigidness of command within German troops that was a failing. Any truth?

Regarding this, heres a question. I remember reading once (can't remember the name of the book or anything so its only on memory) that German officers didn't have that much flexibilty of thought and command whereas the Allies felt confident even down to platoon leaders to adapt to situations presented before them. That there was a rigidness of command within German troops that was a failing. Any truth?

I would have to dissent on that one. German officers were actually noted for their flexibility. They were highly adaptable, and trained to be opportunistic, to reinfoce those parts of the front where they were achieving success.

The problem with German military thinking was that they could not think holistically as well as the allies. The allies could seem to work to an agreed set of objectives and employ a range of fiffernt meium and unit types, for example air and naval resources, and to plan what we now call comined operations, to a far higher degree of efficiency than the germans. An example of german limitations might be found in their planning for sea lion, or in Rommels decision to push into Egypt after tobruk. They often failed to see the fores, for the trees that were immediately in front of them.

However, as commanders in a land battle, they were generally much better than eithe the Allies or the Russians. The opponents of the germans were not ever really able to undertake a campaign of manouver against the Germans, it was always firepower, and broad front strategy that won their battles (although Zhukov did come up with his innovative variation of that, in the great 1944 offensives, where the russinas, once they won the initiative would run up and down the front, with successive offensives, where massive local superioirities were abale to be achievede.

parsifal said:

Regarding this, heres a question. I remember reading once (can't remember the name of the book or anything so its only on memory) that German officers didn't have that much flexibilty of thought and command whereas the Allies felt confident even down to platoon leaders to adapt to situations presented before them. That there was a rigidness of command within German troops that was a failing. Any truth?

I would have to dissent on that one. German officers were actually noted for their flexibility. They were highly adaptable, and trained to be opportunistic, to reinfoce those parts of the front where they were achieving success.

The problem with German military thinking was that they could not think holistically as well as the allies. The allies could seem to work to an agreed set of objectives and employ a range of fiffernt meium and unit types, for example air and naval resources, and to plan what we now call comined operations, to a far higher degree of efficiency than the germans. An example of german limitations might be found in their planning for sea lion, or in Rommels decision to push into Egypt after tobruk. They often failed to see the fores, for the trees that were immediately in front of them.

However, as commanders in a land battle, they were generally much better than eithe the Allies or the Russians. The opponents of the germans were not ever really able to undertake a campaign of manouver against the Germans, it was always firepower, and broad front strategy that won their battles (although Zhukov did come up with his innovative variation of that, in the great 1944 offensives, where the russinas, once they won the initiative would run up and down the front, with successive offensives, where massive local superioirities were abale to be achievede.

Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree - The faults you mention are correct - but not caused by the military doctrine taught to german officers. Rather by their strategic leadership. More notably Hitler who ensured that after France the war was without any "concrete" goals.

The germans where to my knowledge the first to introduce true "combined arms operations". While in other armies different arms were squabbling between themselves in the interwar years (and early in the war) - the german arms were much more trained for interarm cooperation. For example - All Panzer divisions had luftwaffe liason officers able to call in close airsupport - something not mastered by the allies until later in the war. Operation Weserübung was a near perfect combined arms (Paras, Marine, land and airpower) operation which at the time of its execution could not have been pulled of by any other armies in the world.

Another example of the incredible level of tactical leadership taught to officers in germany is actually the finnish army. At the time of the Winter War virtually all of its higher ranking officers were veterans of the 27th Royal Prussian Jäger Bt. (WW1).

the guy made a lot with few resources.

Field Marshal Erich von Manstein during the battle for Kharkov after the collapse of 6th army at Stalingrad, saved the entire Eastern Front and provided the Germans with the launchpad for the offensive to Kursk. After the failure of Citadel the Soviets counterattacked. In September he withdrew to the west bank of the Dnieper River, while inflicting heavy casualties on the Red Army. From October to mid January of 1944,von Manstein "stabilized" the situation but in late January was forced to retreat further westwards by a Soviet offensive. In mid-February of 1944, von Manstein disobeyed Hitler's order and ordered 11th and 42nd Corps (consisting of 56,000 men in six divisions) of Army Group South to breakout from the "Cherkassy Pocket", which occurred on February 16/17th. Eventually, Hitler accepted this action and ordered the breakout after it already took place. Manstein continued to argue with Hitler about overall strategy and in March 1944 he was dismissed from office.

Who Is Germany's Greatest General?

Click to expand...

It's difficult to pick one but Field Marshall Erich von Manstein would be one of the top contenders, in my opinion.

from an allied point of view,paulus must rate highly

Click to expand...

From the allied point of view the top marks would fall on the bohemian corporal we all have come to know as Adolf Hitler, however; he is know where to be seen in the poll…and for obvious reasons.


//Eric

Guderian was the greatest General in my opinion. He had the best tactical sense, but Rommel is also great.

Manstein. His command in southern Russia and the Ukraine was near flawless given the circumstances. And as far as Germans not being adaptable, I don't think that to be the case, As what I have read this is the opposite. Several times a lot of the generals mentioned where saved by the decisions of there subordinates. And Rommel was great, but would his personal style of command be prudent for a army group commander on the eastern front? I believe his best would be as a corps commander. Just my opinion.

Rommel.
Gotta say that I've got to respect a man who knows his hardware, and how to apply it.
Sry, it's late, I'll go sleep now.

Rommel won me over because not only was he one hell of a general, he also realized the horrors of the "Final Solution" and helped in a few plots against Hitler. The story of the July 20th conspirators proved to the rest of the world that Germany and Germans were people. People that made mistakes and lost a great war not a century ago. People who couldn't buy anything with billions in marks. People who were most desperate in a time when the economy was at its sickest. People who wanted a life worth living and a bright future, but desperate enough not to care for its cost. Rommel overcame that, and saw his flaws and his people's mistake. He tried to fix that the best he could. Exactly why Rommel wins hands down in my book.

BikerBabe said:

Rommel.
Gotta say that I've got to respect a man who knows his hardware, and how to apply it.
Sry, it's late, I'll go sleep now.

Click to expand...

Waiter, CHECK PLEASE!

BikerBabe said:

Rommel.
Gotta say that I've got to respect a man who knows his hardware, and how to apply it.
Sry, it's late, I'll go sleep now.

Click to expand...

Alrighty then.....

In a pure cold clinical way I would have voted for Manstein.
But since Im not cold and clinical I voted for Rommel. Rommel even wrote a book "Krieg Ohne Hass" ("War without hate") reflecting his desert war experiences.

von Manstein did issue an order on November 20, 1941: his version of the infamous "Reichenau Order" , which equated "partisans" and "Jews" and called for draconian measures against them. Hitler commended the "Reichenau Order" as exemplary and encouraged other generals to issue similar orders. Von Manstein was among the minority that voluntarily issued such an order. It stated that:

"This struggle is not being carried on against the Soviet Armed Forces alone in the established form laid down by European rules of warfare.
...
Jewry is the middleman between the enemy in the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe they hold all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings.
The Jewish Bolshevik system must be wiped out once and for all and should never again be allowed to invade our European living space.
The German soldier has therefore not only the task of crushing the military potential of this system. He comes also as the bearer of a racial concept and as the avenger of all the cruelties which have been perpetrated on him and on the German people."
...
"The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevik terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings which are mostly plotted by Jews."
The order also stated: "The food situation at home makes it essential that the troops should as far as possible be fed off the land and that furthermore the largest possible stocks should be placed at the disposal of the homeland. Particularly in enemy cities a large part of the population will have to go hungry."

In the Nuremberg trial, Manstein was found guilty of two charges and accountable for seven others, mainly for employing scorched earth tactics and for failing to protect the civilian population and was sentenced on December 19, 1949, to 18 years imprisonment. He was released on May 6, 1953 for medical reasons.

Just ask yourself "would he have had the same attitude if he would have been a British or American General?" . Did he fall victim to the thinking of his culture at that time? I am not defending the terrible acts committed, but at some level you have to be able to admire the purely military achievements. That is how I interpreted the poll.

Strange thing to see Rommel as best voted here. A place I don't think he deserves.

He was a General who always got himself in trouble. He was a big gambler, only getting away with it, because the British generals at the time were blundering big time. One of the reasons Rommel always ran out of supplies was because he didn't mind them, outrunning it all the time, which is a stupid thing to do (as was proven later). He lost when the British cleaned up the mess and decided to make up a good plan instead of blundering about.

I think Rommel still has the reputation, made up by the German propaganda. It was good propaganda, as it still works today.