Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated

[plan_D]

"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]

Mannerheim was a good leader imo.

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

 

[syscom3]

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]

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]

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

 

[plan_D]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[davparlr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.