Best commander of WW2

[bojangles]

I think Guderian or Manstein

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bojangles:

I think Guderian or Manstein<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Montgomery.

Guy Simonds was actually the best, but none of you will know who he was. Next time you gamey bastards buy Kangaroo APCs, think of him - he invented them.

I'm sure tero will be along to name some Finnish general or another...

[YECoyote]

wasn't Guy Simond that Canadian commander that the Canadian troops absolutely despised? The only person to think highly of him was Monty himself.

BTW. My vote on best commander is Erwin Rommel. No one did more with his meager troops than Rommel.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: YECoyote ]

[Stalin's Organ]

Who was the original commander of hte British Desert forces who got captured or killed??

[Gyrene]

Not this one again...You all cut this out, or I'll bring up my "Best Soldier of WWII?" thread up again!

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YECoyote:

wasn't Guy Simond that Canadian commander that the Canadian troops absolutely despised? The only person to think highly of him was Monty himself.

BTW. My vote on best commander is Erwin Rommel. No one did more with his meager troops than Rommel.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: YECoyote ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one had better press than Rommel, either, or did more to promote himself.

Everyone confuses Monty's personality with his ability to command, so I guess I shouldn't do the same with Rommel.

Really, what criterion are we using to judge these men? Or is it simply a popularity contest?

What difference does it make what Simond's men thought of him? Thousands of American troops hated Patton's guts, too, but he usually rates pretty high in these dog and pony discussions.

I am not sure what Simond's men thought of him - his senior officers didn't like him, but all respected him, and Granatstein and other historians rate him (deservedly) highly. He was the best Canada had, and perhaps one of the best generals the Allies had in Normandy.

I get the feeling no one in either of these commander threads has actually read anything about Montgomery (or perhaps any Allied commanders) and are more interested in simple Wehrmacht hero worship. Correct me if that is not the case.

[PiggDogg]

In no particular order: Zhukov, 'Smiling' Albert Kesselring, Bradley, Mainstein, Rommel, Patton, MacArthur.

[Simon Fox]

Has to be Monty, after all he never lost a battle, hehe

Rommel was a propaganda product.

Kesserling was much better except Rommel never listened to him.

Best commander of WW2: Brigadier Arnold Potts

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Who was the original commander of hte British Desert forces who got captured or killed??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>O'Connor

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

In no particular order: Zhukov, 'Smiling' Albert Kesselring, Bradley, Mainstein, Rommel, Patton, MacArthur.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My fault - I forgot to add "except MacArthur" in my comments about Rommel above.

[russellmz]

ike.

imagine a job where you have to babysit patton and montogmery while having churchill as your boss who wants to tag along with you.

hell this could be a cool wwii themed sitcom...

[von shrad]

Let us not forget of Chuikov and the tough assignment he was given in taking over the 62nd Army at Stalingrad.

What was the name of the comander of easy Co. of the 506th PIR, 101st Airborn? Was it Winters?

von shrad

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Has to be Monty, after all he never lost a battle, hehe

Rommel was a propaganda product.

Kesserling was much better except Rommel never listened to him.

Best commander of WW2: Brigadier Arnold Potts

O'Connor<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, hairtrigger - I'm listening. Instead of a retarded recitation of names from a list, how about some reasons. I'd love to hear about Potts - Freyburg (he of the VC) was no lout either, but I would love to read a dissertation on Aussie and Kiwi generalship rather than "Guderian is best because in the only book I ever read on WW II he sounded really cool, man."

So what was so great about Potts?

And for everyone's info - Keller was not yeller....but MacLauchlan was.

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Freyburg (he of the VC) was no lout either, but I would love to read a dissertation on Aussie and Kiwi generalship ....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Freyburg was realy more Pom than Kiwi, but as with so many commanders of national contingents he was loved by his men despite any handicaps. He didn't have an real strengths as a commander, but no real failings either. His campaign in Crete was about all yuo could expect him to do given a couple of truly appalling cock-ups by subordinates and the unfortunate situation at the time.

Appart from that he had the political ear of the NZ Govt., and could (and did) refuse to "co-operate" with some plans put to him, since he wasn't actually answerable to 8th army command!!

[Enoch]

Here's a name you don't usually hear in these discussions: Lucian Truscott, Commander of the US VI Corps during the Vosges Campaign. In terrain that heavily favored the defender, that had never sucussfully been attacked across, with little or not air or armor support, and with minimal numerical advantages he soundly defeated the Germans. Maybe not the best commander or WWII but certainly one of the better ones.

Instead of a repeat of a debate between Rommell and Patton how about some other names of Divisional or Corps commanders.

[Simon Fox]

Sorry Dorosh at the moment I'm a little busy to type out a treatise. I'm just in here stirring up the Monty bashing Patton idolisers and the Monty bashing Rommel arsekissers who get their history from readers digest or somefink.

Potts commanded the 25th? Brigade in Papua New Guinea. His Scipio-like fighting retreat across the Owen Stanleys set up the eventual allied victory. He correctly assessed the situation and fought the battle his own way while completely ignoring his orders (which were to attack).

Other good Aussie commanders: Lavarack and Morshead, both of whom commanded Tobruk at one stage.

[Viceroy]

Stalin's Organ,

the British commander in the desert was O'Conner. A shame he got captured.

Dorosh,

I agree that some of the criticism of Montgomery is unfair, like his "slowness" in Normandy. But don't you feel he did a poor job of supporting the Canadian troops clearing the Scheldt?

As for Rommel, his crossing of the Meuse in 1940 seemed a remarkable performance FWIH.

When this topic comes up on the various threads, few seem to put forward Zhukov's name. How come?

Also, IMO Slim was a great leader who did well with his "forgotten" 14th Army.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Viceroy ]

[zphil74]

William Slim, commander of the British 14th Army in Burma

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viceroy:

Stalin's Organ,

I agree that some of the criticism of Montgomery is unfair, like his "slowness" in Normandy. But don't you feel he did a poor job of supporting the Canadian troops clearing the Scheldt?

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Viceroy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an interesting question; I've never heard any kind of mention of this before. I do know that 52nd Lowland Division was put in to support 2nd Div on the Beveland Peninsula - whether Monty was "late" or not is interesting. Can you expand? Second Div was fighting on a narrow front and there wasn't much room there for another div (4th Armoured also pushed down the peninsula).

I do know my own regiment got pasted on the Causeway to Walcheren, and that was pretty dumb - though I think the orders came from 2nd Canadian Div. The island later fell to British troops of an SS Brigade landing from the sea. If you mean why didn't Monty do this earlier, that would be a good question. Is that what you mean?

Otherwise, the Scheldt was bloody awful but I don't see any other, clever, ways to have done it. That it happened at all is of course a black mark on someone's part; most likely Montgomery, though I really don't know whose idea it was not to go for Antwerp when they had the chance. Ultimately, as commander 21 Army Group, the responsibility fell on him.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch:

Here's a name you don't usually hear in these discussions: Lucian Truscott,

Instead of a repeat of a debate between Rommell and Patton how about some other names of Divisional or Corps commanders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truscott did well in Sicily, too, if I recall correctly - including the end run at Brolo (one of several, wasn't it?)

Hard to seperate skill from personality when talking about Army commanders, but division and corps commanders are a little easier to discuss intelligently.

I think many commanders were best suited for one particular level of command - usually made obvious when they are promoted past that level. I won't bore anyone with details, but many good Canadian divisional commanders made poor corps commanders.

Then there were those who never got the chance; Bert Hoffmeister was a great battalion level officer, and an even better Brigadier. He eventually commanded Fifth Canadian Armoured Division (Mighty Maroon Machine) but never got a chance at corps command (though I think he was slated to command the Canadian division headed in to Japan before the A Bomb).

Some say that Sepp Dietrich was a good battalion commander, but should never have been made a general.

I think discussions like this are hampered because no one really has any sense of what a commander at the various levels actually did. The vision of the general hunched over a mapboard for the majority of his service career is patently false, especially in WW II - and every level of command brought with it different skills.

A battalion CO, for example, had to sit in orderly room and listen to summary trials (for, say, drunk and disorderly conduct of men on leave). He was very closely attached to his men in a way that a brigadier was not. A divisional commander had worries and concerns that a brigade commander did not.

These things are not talked about in books because they are dull - and is why histories, and discussions like this - revolve around personalities.

[JasonC]

Erich von Manstein.

He planned the 1940 blitz of France on the staff. It was his operationally design.

He commanded part of the northern panzer spearhead in Barbarossa and led AG North.

Transfered to infantry, he reduced the Crimea cheaply in a frontal, fortress, infantry and artillery attack. Without needing acres of reserves or large expenditures of men or time.

He nearly relieved Stalingrad when it looked completely impossible on the map. When Hoth, his armor commander leading the attempt, was criticized (in scapegoat fashion) despite his efforts, Manstein threatened to resign if Hoth were so much as reprimanded. He ordered Paulus to break out of Stalingrad even if it meant disobeying a direct order from Hitler, but Paulus declined to do so.

He saved AG South from total destruction in the winter of 42-43. That involved restoring a front that had a few burnt out hulks of divisions to cover a gap hundreds of miles long facing half a dozen Russian armies, when he took over.

By February 43, he directed the Kharkov counterattack and returned the initiative to "neutral".

He advised against Kursk. He advised against holding at all costs in the Dnepr bend. He relieved and evacuated pockets in the Dnepr fighting on his own authority, ignoring "hold" orders from Hitler, and lost his command for it.

He thus showed throughout the war that he had mastered the operational art - on offense and defense, with armor and with infantry, from the staff and from the front, from corps level to army group, in victory and in disaster, in counsel taken and in counsel spurned.

And he added a very rare additional quality - moral courage toward superiors, putting the welfare of the men under his command above his own position, not to mention his safety. His weapon was only the technocrat's threat of resignation - eventually accepted - and his reasoning.

No doubt someone will note that he was also very arrogant and self-serving in his judgements. But that goes with the job description. Senior generals are prima donnas and self-aggrandizers as a matter of course, and one can count the exceptions on one hand. The converse, however, is not true. Just being an arrogant prima donna will not rack up that record.

[Viceroy]

Dorosh,

I'm reading Murray & Millett "A war to be won". While they are never shy about offering their opinions on various commanders (I enjoy that) they generally rate Monty as quite good.

They do feel he messed up on the Scheldt big time. By halting at Antwerp in September and not cutting off the German forces he missed an opportunity. It allowed the Germans to strengthen their defences making the Canadian forces task very difficult indeed.

The Canadian 1st army was concentrating (Monty's orders ) on Boulogne and Calais, rather than the crucial approaches to Antwerp. The forces in the Scheldt were given very low priority for supplies by Montgomery until the RN complained to Ike.

Antwerp was taken intact on Sept 5th but the first convoy didn't arrive until Nov 28th. Considering the supply problems facing the Allies this was an awful blunder.

It would seem that Montgomery was concentrating too much on Market Garden and ignoring the Scheldt. Ironic how he is often portrayed as a cautious General who wouldn't take risks, yet he gambled a lot on MG when he should concentrated on the "plodding" task of the clearing the Scheldt.

It's great to have the advantages of hindsight.

[Viceroy]

Dorosh, JasonC,

"Senior generals are prima donnas and self-aggrandizers as a matter of course,"

Very true indeed.

How do you rate Zhukov? I'm curious why no one on this thread has touted his name as a possible contender for best commander. I've seen his name on the worst commander thread which amazes me.

[niles]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

[QB]Has to be Monty, after all he never lost a battle, hehe

Monty never lost eh"?!!! MAY I BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO OPERATION MARKET GARDEN!!!

[niles]

Peiper wasnt the best but he was damn good.

In no particular order

Manteuffel,Henricci, Manstein, Guderian, Rommel, Rundstedt, Kesslering, von Kluge, Peiper, Model, Detrich, Patton, Bradely, Yamamoto, Ike, and thats all she wrote

-Niles "Fieldmarshall" Hirschi

[Ex Bellator]

Wavell did an amazing job early in the war with pitiful resources, and Morshead masterminded the first ever defeat of German arms in WW2 when his Aussie infantry and Brit tanks/gunners beat Rommel at Tobruk.

It seems Montys irascible personality is usually responsible for him being used as a scapegoat, most people who have studied his career would agree that he was not a bad general by any means.

On the German side there was a guy who fought a forgotten war and ran the allies ragged in East Africa for years unsupported and with almost no resources, sucessfully tying down many times his own numbers. Hopefully someone can recall his name before I can, he certainly deserves a mention.