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
majorwoody10
Banned
- 44
- Oct 10, 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
Pacific Historian
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.
The allies were able to do it because they had the capabilities to do it.
Instal
Airman
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.
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.
The people who deserve the credit for the BoB are the pilots who flew the Hurricanes and Spits and not Dowding.
Instal
Airman
Please explain Adler
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.
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
Airman
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
Staff Sergeant
Agree instal...
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.
"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.
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
Major
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.
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
Master Sergeant
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.
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
Master Sergeant
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)
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.
I was looking at this from a different point of view.
Freebird
Master Sergeant
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?
I agree.
freebird said:
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
Master Sergeant
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!
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!
