Greatest WWII Military Commanders: Updated

[starling]

monty is my man.he kicked most of the jerry generals on the poll list,and made several blow their heads off,in hari kiri.in fact you could open a thread on here called...german generals monty knocked about,big time.... .yours,starling.p.s,i will start.rommel. .

 

[Kruska]

Monty?? You must be joking.

If British at all, why not Slim or Gott or Alexander?

Monty IMO was just as good as any other common general in any other army. Britain needed a Hero, Churchill needed a Hero and a victory before November 42 and the only one around to bag in a success was Monty at that time after Auchinlek was deprived of his victory. Even though Auk. was C-in-C rather than just GOC Eighth Army.

Rommel's frontline touch with the front commanders right down from Brigade level to Company level is what enabled him to move his troops in spirit, Monty did about the same thing, and the British and Commonwealth troops were totally, desperately in need for that.

And that about sums it up for Monty, anything else was just a slow, yawning and standard movement of superior troops in numbers and supplies.

Rommel would not be amongst my favorites since I regard him rather a gambler then a superior strategist. For me a good candidate would be Paul Hausser.

Regarding the list:
Josef Priller a military commander?

Regards
Kruska

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Monty?? You must be joking.

Thankyou

If you have not asked the question, I would have. 8)

 

[parsifal]

I have to nearly stop myself from gagging here, because i am no fan of Monty, however, he did work out the means to beat rommel. He realized the british were just never going to win the manouvre battle, so what did he do, remove manouvre from the equation. He always was a stickler for the detail, and his battles always had the look af a 1917 style "big push" in the style of a Haig, or a Foch, but it worked. He could always count on massive and effective artilery and air support. he knew his Infantry was superior to anything that was likley to be ranged against him, and he just pushed his tanks forward Infantry support style, with no pretentions about deep penetration, or encirclement. it was a pedestrian strategy, but it worked...

 

[Freebird]

Monty?? You must be joking.

Monty IMO was just as good as any other common general in any other army. Britain needed a Hero, Churchill needed a Hero and a victory before November 42 and the only one around to bag in a success was Monty at that time after Auchinlek was deprived of his victory. Even though Auk. was C-in-C rather than just GOC Eighth Army.

Rommel's frontline touch with the front commanders right down from Brigade level to Company level is what enabled him to move his troops in spirit, Monty did about the same thing, and the British and Commonwealth troops were totally, desperately in need for that.

And that about sums it up for Monty, anything else was just a slow, yawning and standard movement of superior troops in numbers and supplies.

Rommel would not be amongst my favorites since I regard him rather a gambler then a superior strategist. For me a good candidate would be Paul Hausser.

If British at all, why not Slim or Gott or Alexander?

Good post Kruska, if Monty does deserve credit, it would be for not screwing up at El Alamein {not allowing the British to be drawn into another of Rommel's traps.

If I were picking a British general it would be Brooke or O'conner, not Gott or Slim

I have to nearly stop myself from gagging here, because i am no fan of Monty, however, he did work out the means to beat Rommel. He realized the british were just never going to win the manouvre battle, so what did he do, remove manouvre from the equation. He always was a stickler for the detail, and his battles always had the look af a 1917 style "big push" in the style of a Haig, or a Foch, but it worked. He could always count on massive and effective artilery and air support. he knew his Infantry was superior to anything that was likley to be ranged against him, and he just pushed his tanks forward Infantry support style, with no pretentions about deep penetration, or encirclement. it was a pedestrian strategy, but it worked...

Good analysis.

I think we mentioned it before, but it's difficult in one poll to compare Strategic commanders like Eisenhower, Marshall or Brooke to tactical ones like Patton or Rommel.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The poll really is a basic simple poll. If you really wanted to debate the best commander's you would have to beak it down to strategic and tactical and maybe even political.

 

[Freebird]

The poll really is a basic simple poll. If you really wanted to debate the best commander's you would have to beak it down to strategic and tactical and maybe even political.

Indeed. I think perhaps one major contributor to Germany's defeat was the lack of a strong, competent Strategic leader, unlike the many very capable tactical generals {or "theater" commanders} {Rommel, Kesselring, Model, Manstein etc}

They could have done better if Halder or Keitel {or another} had the power to stand up to Hitler and impose some logical order, rather than depend on the moody untrained Hitler for the direction of the war.

 

[Njaco]

I would love to see the explanation for whoever voted for Hermann Goering.

 

[Freebird]

I would love to see the explanation for whoever voted for Hermann Goering.

Doesn't HG have some relatives in the USA?

Maybe they voted for Gramps....

 

[parsifal]

I would love to see the explanation for whoever voted for Hermann Goering.

greatest allied general of wwii ???

 

[Njaco]

Thats it!!! I forgot!

 

[Kruska]

If I were picking a British general it would be Brooke or O'conner, not Gott or Slim

Why, O'conner and not Slim? besides bagging in the Italians – a feat that is very difficult to evaluate IMO, his performance at Caen wasn't very convincing. Slim managed to hold out all the while and ended as a victor at the end.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Kruska]

The poll really is a basic simple poll. If you really wanted to debate the best commander's you would have to beak it down to strategic and tactical and maybe even political.

Fully agreed

What about Josef Priller, that guy was a Luftwaffe Colonel-fighter pilot, or did I miss out on any General with that name?

Regards
kruska

 

[parsifal]

Slim is one of the most underrated generals of the war. befor you make any observations about this thetre, and his leadership, you should read some of the background material.

That takes nothing away from o'Connor. He was a good tactical general. And caen was a ba*tard of a place to fight, against the best the wehrmacht could throw into the defence.

 

[starling]

monty took over cossack,kicked out most of the rubbish,eg general k.e.n anderson,proposed c.o of brit 2nd army,planned overlord.would that not make him a strategic general.starling.8) .

 

[pbfoot]

monty took over cossack,kicked out most of the rubbish,eg general k.e.n anderson,proposed c.o of brit 2nd army,planned overlord.would that not make him a strategic general.starling.8) .

If I'm not mistaken didn't Montgomery also loiter after taking Antwerp for about a month allowing the Germans to reinforce or build defences in the Scheldt

 

[parsifal]

Therere was one single recurriing theme that slowed all allied operations down to a crawl in the late fall of 1944....logistics. Monty was no more immune to that than the others. With the majority of stores still being hauled over the mulberry in Normandy, and then shipped by a massive truck fleet (the red ball highway???) no trasins as yet and no permanent port to use as yet, the pace of operations at the front was bound to suffer.

Not that I find it easy to defend Monty, he was the supreme ditherer.....that doesnt necessariy mean he is a purely bad general

 

[starling]

i once saw doc areyce nusbacher say..the only way to sttop a german blitz attack,was defence in depth like kursk...well he never read about medenine did he.our monty stopped a whole german panzer corps;10pz div,15pz div and 21pz div,dead.commanded by rommel,again.he gave rommel a real kick in the face,which apparently made rommel ill.poor boy had to go home,i believe.yours,starling.

 

[parsifal]

Err medenine wa fought by the british, under Monty, as an artillery/AT defense, using defence in depth tactics, as had been employed at Alamein. Moreover the entire "PanzerKorps" that refer to consisted of no more than 200 Tanks. The Axis was badly outnumbered.

Monty's brilliance in this battle was once again his ability to "smother " the mobility factor that made Rommel so dangerous. But I do not think he "kicked Rommels a*rse" in any sense. Rommels just lacked the strength to dominate the battle. Other advantages were at play here as well, Monty had very good intell through Ultra and air recon. He had near total air superiority, and his artillery support was at least 6:1 in favour of the Brits. I believe he possessed something like 500 tanks for this battle, but might be corrected. in any event, the tanks of both sides played second fiddle to the Art and AT forces of both sides. The quadrillage defence system that you are so disdainfully dismissing was the best method of defensing with Infantry against tanks. A return to a continuous front strategy really would have been mindless. Monty was employing the best tactics avaiilable to the allies so as to write down the advantages of manouvre enjoyed by the Axis. Your post suggests that Monty was somehow able to grasp and defeat Rommel at his own game. This is patently untrue.

Monty was good at what he did, but lets not start celebrating his brillance at manouvre just yet. And I disagree completely with your disparaging remarks about Rommel. I suggest you be a little more careful in future

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Fully agreed

What about Josef Priller, that guy was a Luftwaffe Colonel-fighter pilot, or did I miss out on any General with that name?

Regards
kruska

I honestly do not know why he is in the poll. I did not make the poll or the thread.

It was made by a regular user of the forum. You can all create polls in threads that you start.