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?
Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated
- Thread starter davparlr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
CCM von Hausser
Airman
Probably cause my little english knowledge, I was unable to write what I mean... but I try now.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
let down by his lack of understanding of logistics,wmaxt said:
Patton was never an Army Group Commander so he had no involvement in Allied strategy, but tactically he was very bold.
Far too wasteful in his men's lives, his handling of the Berlin attack was awful.
Monty was totally useless at politics, but he was better in the field than he is often given credit for
I agree Ike was the best man for the job he was given.
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
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
Pacific Historian
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
Airman
@ 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
@ 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
Banned
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
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
Staff Sergeant
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
Senior Airman
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.
I agree
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
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.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Are you absolutely sure about that?
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!
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!
