Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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.

Great post Parsifal!

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

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.

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

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

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.

Yes

They all had a strong belief in their own abilities