I was wondering which General of WW2 was considered the best in ETO or North Africa. Please feel free to add reasons or any general you feel would be better in the list.
Greatest General of WW2 in ETO
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Jarek |
Greatest General of WW2 in ETO |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 21 (07/03/03 03:38:51) |
|
||
|
2manmatch |
Re: Greatest General of WW2 in ETO | ||
|
Posts: 47 (07/03/03 10:59:37) |
The best general knows when to go home ill when his troops are about to get the pants beaten off of them.
|
||
|
Jefffar |
Re: Greatest General of WW2 in ETO | ||
|
Posts: 78 (07/03/03 11:13:42) |
Rommel and Patton were both too agressive, they had to be reigned in by their commanders before they disrupted the entire front. Both could pull off incredible feats of millitary might when they wanted to.
Monty was too cautious. This cost him time and oppourtunities, but he did almsot always do what he set out to do. The most glaring exception to that was Operation Market Garden. Perhaps Monty's ego got the better of him and he tried a dramatic and risky operation, only to have it fail miserably. That leaves it to Guederian and Zukhov in my books, and I found that a really hard choice. Only thing I could go with was that Zukhov played for the wining side, so he won my vote. |
||
|
LiquidFlint |
Re: Greatest General of WW2 in ETO | ||
|
Posts: 174 (07/05/03 19:22:17) |
A recent view on Guderian:
Quote:Seduced by Hitler.Le Bor & Boyes 2000. |
||
|
sonzabird |
hurrying heinz | ||
|
Posts: 8 (07/24/03 10:29:21) |
recently been reading about the battles at yelnia which kept the germans from encircling smolensk for more than a month.
the main catalyst to this rather localized success on the part of the russians was guderian's headlong need to race ahead before the infantry were with him. this left the german infantry units in the yelnia salient without armor support, and they were decimated. i think guderian tends to be glamorized by most historians and biographers (like rommel, to a certain extent), but was a leader who really created headaches for branches and divisions not under his purview. he was extremely egotistical (had to have "G" painted on all vehicles under his command) and was not at all a team player. i think perhaps history has been too kind to him. a genius and visionary, for sure, but that doesn't make him a great combat leader. he was great, but not the greatest, and not without great flaws. |
||
|
malambo |
the best general? | ||
|
Posts: 17 (08/04/03 17:56:03) |
 patton - he's tough, agressive, strict and smart. he's a hell of a man! 
|
||
|
ww2player |
Greatest general WW2 | ||
|
Posts: 1 (08/15/03 00:14:20) |
Greatest general WW2.
my own contribution: Wawell. Remember conduction of operations in the western desert 1940 - 1941 and the destruction of the italian army. From the list above I think Patton was the best general Marocco campaign, Sicily, and north western europe 
|
||
|
sonder |
Best Gen | ||
|
Posts: 247 (09/05/03 17:36:47) |
Quote; patton - he's tough, agressive, strict and smart. he's a hell of a man! Ya! That is why his mem called him BLOOD & GUTS--- THEIR BLOOD-- HIS GUTS Still thinking about the best General. sonder |
||
|
aktarian |
Re: Best Gen | ||
|
Posts: 203 (09/09/03 05:42:09) |
Herman Balck.
|
||
|
nigelfe |
Re: Best Gen | ||
|
Posts: 27 (09/13/03 00:47:59) |
Generalship is not a 'one size fits all' talent. Modern thinking regards WW2 divisions and corps as the tactical level. Army is a bit more difficult but Army Group and Front were undoubtedly the operational level.
The problem is that command responsibility varied a bit at the operational level. Soviet fronts reported directly to the strategic level Stavka as did German Army Groups to OKH/OKW. However, allied AGs reported to Supreme Allied Comds. The question is were these strategic or operational level comds? If they were the latter then it could be argued that Army was a tactical level. The importance of this is that Patton never commanded at AG level, and it could be argued that he fought his army as a large corps! This would mean that Patton could not be considered in the same league as the others, he was merely a tactical comd, which is different skills and cannot be compared to the operational level. On the Eastern Front the Germans' operational level was consistently defeated by the superior generalship of the Soviet Front comds. (Yes I know many want to believe it was all about numbers, and I agree the Germans were tactically better). There is a view that the best Soviet Front comd was Rokossovsky (1st Byelorussian). It's probably worth noting that by 1944 the Germans, Russians and British had 'shaken out' their generals, those they had were at least competant and often very capable, and the odd div comd who didn't shape up on promotion was identified and removed fairly promptly. I'm not sure that the US and Japanese armies had been sufficiently tested to have sorted out their commanders, although the latter had by the beginning of 1945. |
||
|
SGM Maciborski |
Re: Best Gen | ||
|
Posts: 158 (10/03/03 03:16:49) |
Best general in the ETO is very time dependant. Did they have the resources to accomplish their mission? How did they overcome their shortages of resources? Those are two key questions to answer before and judgement can be made. Same goes for the quality of forces these generals had to use. Germany in 1940/41 was far different from 1944/45. Ditto for offense or defense.
|
||
|
nigelfe |
Re: Best Gen | ||
|
Posts: 27 (10/03/03 03:52:08) |
Have to disagree with that, it gets to the heart of the essential differences between the US and European view of warfare. The US tends to espouse the view that war is a science - got the resources, apply a bit of project managment and that's all there is to it. Some call it mathamatactics or 'war by workbreakdown structure'.
The European view is more that war is an art, involving essentially human factors. In essence generalship is about knowing which decisions have to be made when, and making them correctly in circumstances of uncertainty and incomplete information, not to mention dealing with risk and being able to spot the opportunity and adjust to it. And the further up the food chain the more difficult this is because of lead times. The bottom line is any battle can be lost, which is not the same as saying that any battle can be won, although that depends on the objectives. |
||
|
sonder |
Best General ETO | ||
|
Posts: 247 (10/03/03 17:34:10) |
Good Evening Guys; Did anyone ever think of OMAR BRADLY? Came from Division, to Corps, to Army and Army Group Command. Nick Name the SOLDIERS GENERAL. Given a task, he did it with as little loss of life in his command as possible. But got the Job done. Was not a publisity hound like Monty, or Patton. But knew how to get all the tail of a army in shape to handle what ever his combat forces would come up againest. But when Ike took what little fuel there was from him for Monty. Nothing Bradly could do about that. But he got the job done. that is my thoughts sonder
|
||
|
SGM Maciborski |
Re: Best General ETO | ||
|
Posts: 158 (10/04/03 16:22:12) |
Have to disagree with that, it gets to the heart of the essential differences between the US and European view of warfare. The US tends to espouse the view that war is a science - got the resources, apply a bit of project managment and that's all there is to it. Some call it mathamatactics or 'war by workbreakdown structure'.
From my 20+ years in it I never got that view. Rather, ANY leader knows that leadership is necessary in battle. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a fool, or a civilian. Take the Soviets in the summer of 1941. Hordes against you and your reeling back on your heels. Just to hold your force together is an accomplishment. The Germans to get exhausted soldiers to march an extra 5 miles ditto. The Gererals need to have a feel for when to use maximum effort. Too often and you feed on your young. Not enough and your not pushing the limits. The European view is more that war is an art, involving essentially human factors. In essence generalship is about knowing which decisions have to be made when, and making them correctly in circumstances of uncertainty and incomplete information, not to mention dealing with risk and being able to spot the opportunity and adjust to it. And the further up the food chain the more difficult this is because of lead times. The bottom line is any battle can be lost, which is not the same as saying that any battle can be won, although that depends on the objectives. Now using your above description, how would you rate Montgomery? What about Patton? I have not read anything about Montgomery ever leading from the front. Patton and his hand picked division commanders almost always did. MG Rose was one of the best examples of this. |
||
|
Motorfix |
Re: Best General ETO | ||
|
Posts: 45 (11/25/03 22:07:16) |
Greatest General eh? History makes mediocre generals great, and good generals become footnotes. A general is largely judged by his accomplishments..success vrs failure. For example, if you had put Patton in charge of the troops at Bataan and Corigador, he would have been defeated. Who was the general there? I certainly don't recall off the top of my head. Or if Rommell had been at Stalingrad...he too would have been beaten, and perhaps made the same choices as Paulus.
Thats my two bits. |
||
|
malambo |
Re:reply to Motorfix | ||
|
Posts: 17 (12/04/03 00:47:05) |
<B>Greatest General eh? History makes mediocre generals great, and good generals become footnotes. A general is largely judged by his accomplishments..success vrs failure. For example, if you had put Patton in charge of the troops at Bataan and Corigador, he would have been defeated. Who was the general there? I certainly don't recall off the top of my head. </B>
Yes It's true that History makes General Great and Great leaders too.Anyway, its McArthur who is in charge of the defense of Bataan and Corrigedor and was later replaced by Gen. (Skinny) Waignright. |
||
|
Pz gen |
Von Manstein... | ||
|
Posts: 47 (01/08/04 00:28:08) |
Von Manstein...leave all of the above mentioned for dead...in the application of the operational art.
|
||
|
Mars17 |
Re: Greatest General of WW2 in ETO | ||
|
Posts: 2 (01/10/04 15:36:11) |
As I was reading the posts under this topic I started wondering why the name Manstein didnt come up... untill I read the last post. It is my opinion that Manstein was the greatest operational mind of WW2. He planned the attack on France 1940 and managed to re-organise the german front after the disaster at Stalingrad (certainly not an easy task), not to mention other succeses on the eastern front.
|
||
|
Mars17 |
Re: Greatest General of WW2 in ETO | ||
|
Posts: 2 (01/10/04 15:37:43) |
As I was reading the posts under this topic I started wondering why the name Manstein didnt come up... until I read the last post. It is my opinion that Manstein was the greatest operational mind of WW2. He planned the attack on France 1940 and managed to re-organize the german front after the disaster at Stalingrad (certainly not an easy task), not to mention other succeses on the eastern front.
|
||
|
FifthAmendment |
re: best general | ||
|
Posts: 257 (01/22/04 17:54:59) |
I would have to agree with those who cite von Manstein, in fact I was suprised that his name was not mentioned until so far into the post. In judging generals it is unfair to simply guage thier levels of success because all generals fight under different circumstances, and often thier victory or defeat is decided by events beyond thier control. All in all, I'd say Manstein achieved the most, relative to the circumstances to which he was placed in.
|
||
|
EQuant |
Re: best general | ||
|
Posts: 1 (03/17/04 00:38:50) |
The order would go something like this:
1) Manstein 2) Guderian 3) Zhukov/Rommel 4) Patton 5) Montgomery First off, I don't think Patton or Montgomery should be considered since they only won when they had absolute numerical and logistical superiority over their adversaries. In fact, Monty couldn't help but screw up plenty of times despite having vast advantages (can you say Market Garden?). Patton was brash and aggressive, but it's difficult imagining him successful while outnumbered and cornered, with stymied supplies and ammunition (like, say, Rommel). I believe some of the same could almost be said about Zhukov as well, but I will spare him because of Moscow in the winter of 41-42. Despite that success, he had a knack for sending hordes of men and equipment into the meat grinder, since he generally enjoyed numerical and logistical superiority. I do rate him higher than the other allied commanders though. Again, hard to imagine him successful when faced with the type of constraints the Germans had, and he also screwed up royally on a few occasions. Rommel was certainly a tactical genius, and he fought in some rather hairy situations, but it seems he had some serious shortcomings regarding operational and strategic thinking. Tobruk was brilliant, but his strategic short-sightedness doomed him afterwards. Despite this, I still think he performed better than the allied generals would have in his shoes. Guderian very well could have been the best general, but remember, his tenure in combat ceased after the first stages of Barbarossa, after which he was relegated to staff duty. Conclusion: too hard to compare since he missed most of the refiner's fire in the east that molded the likes of Zhukov and Manstein. Still, he was a true innovator and evangelist of the armored spearhead. Though I think Rommel, Zhukov, and Guderian were all excellent, it seems Manstein was the real brains of them all. The stroke through France and the Ardennes in 1940 was the most spectacular victory in WWII (certainly most lopsided and most surprising) and this is credited to his strategic thinking. The counter-blow after Stalingrad was also spectacular, and again, pure surprise. He was also quite bright operationally. Manstein just seemed to be the one who could do the most with the least. |
||
