Best commander of WW2

[Grisha]

I'd say Rokossovsky or Vasilevsky. Rokossovsky's my favorite, but Vasilevsky had tremendous talent to command from a strategic level.

[danyzn]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't this in the First World War? Germany lost all her African colonies after that one.

[s_e_avenger]

As one of the bravest, Gen. Johnathan Wainwright deserves mention for defense of the Phllipines/ Bataan.

(Of course, MacArthur is the flip side of that equation , but that's another thread... )

[Rupert_2]

I would have to say Wavell, though he was badly let down by Churchill who wanted bigger results so was moved on. His only bad point was that Wavell didn't think Airbourne troops would be of any use in warfare.

My favortie General would be Alexander or Slim you just have to see the results of the XIVth Army when Slim took charge.

And Alexander cared more for his troops than Monty did and was better at working with his American Allies.

I would choose Manstein for the Germans though I have a few doubts about him.

[Grisha]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zhukov as a general was above average. He had a tremendous temper at times, truly putting the fear of god into his subordinates. More than a few were removed from command when they did not meet his expectations. It goes without saying that Zhukov was not well liked among subordinates. His attack plans called for very powerful bold thrusts right up the middle, almost as if to show his opponent that it didn't matter where he was attacking, because he was going right through anyway. Before the effective use of maskirovka this usually meant heavy losses for Zhukov's units, which came to be a characteristic of his: crude use of his forces. If any word described Zhukov's attacks best it was, indeed, meatgrinder.

Still, in 1941, Zhukov was quite instrumental in helping to keep it together. He was a person Stalin could rely on, since Zhukov was a staunch Party member and he was a fighter. His rough handling of troops was not of much concern during a time when hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were being encircled by the Germans. And Zhukov did get the job done.

However, after this time other generals came up during the war who were much better then Zhukov. Vasilevsky was plainly superior to Zhukov at that level of command. He was even tempered, and very analytical in his approach to war. It was Vasilevsky who probably planned the majority of Uranus, even though much press seems to go to Zhukov. The fact is that Zhukov was busy planning Mars, which ended up being a bloodbath for the Soviets. At the Front level(equivalent to Army level in the Wehrmacht) commanders like Rokossovky, Vatutin, Chernyakovskiy, and Bagramyan were of excellent caliber. Even Konev was a good commander, though he was much like Zhukov in temperament, and was not well liked. Probably the best of the Front commanders was Rokossovsky. He was an excellent planner and was known for his compassion. Vatutin was much like Rokossovsky in these ways, but tended to be quite dynamic, like a horse chaffing at the bit. Vatutin was the youngest of the lot, but was killed in late '44 when his vehicle was ambushed by Ukrainian Nationalists while he was checking on his units' redeployments during a maskirovka operation.

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

[Blenheim]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

His name is Paul Von Lettow, one of the most brilliant military minds of the First World War (not much competition, but well, he was brilliant).

In fact, he never lost a battle. Only surrendered when he got news about the defeat in Europe, actually. Althought he was not supplied at all, he managed to hold Tanganika with about 218 officers and 2500 askaris (native troops) at first. He never had more than 11,000 troops; in contrast, the allies had 300,000 troops at the highest point of the campaign. He inflicted 60,000 casualties, and by the end 155 of the original 218 officers were still alive. When he surrendered, 90% of his weapons were captured ones.

Talk about Guerrilla warfare.

BTW, to show that we live in a small world. When he was sent to Afrika, he met Karen Blixen in the ship (the writer of Out of Africa). They became quite good friends, but only met again several years afterwards, in Europe, being both famous.

[PiggDogg]

Viceroy: "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."

>>>>>>

Zhukov is near the top of the best commanders. See my two threads in the "Worst Commander". I heartily defended Zhukov there.

[CombinedArms]

I started another thread on this subject, not realizing this one had begun. So, I guess I'll pop my vote from that thread in on this one:

The answer to THIS question seems to me far less clear, and I'm less confident of whom to suggest--but I'll take a stab at someone you might not think of: Admiral Nimitz. This guy took over a military situation that was nothing but a succession of disasters and rapidly turned it around. He found a core of effective leaders, got his demoralized forces quickly back on the (limited) offensive, and started to quickly win a series of battles. He identified effective leaders and gave them tasks they could handle and grow in. He relieved ineffective leaders (like Gormley) when relief was necessary. He figured out how to work effectively with MacArthur and Admiral King--two giant egos who hated each other-- without getting crushed between them. His forces won at Midway and Guadalcanal with limited resources and when he got stronger forces he managed these with great economy and skill, conducting a lightning campaign across the Central Pacific in 1944. It's hard to think of a single major mistake he made throughout his tenure--or even substantial minor ones. (Well, maybe Pelieu, a costly and unnecessary attack.)

Whether this qualifies him as the Greatest Military Commander of WWII I'm not sure. His scope, though vast, wasn't quite as big as some others. But it's a heck of a record!

[Grisha]

Richard Cuccia,

You posted this in the 'Worst Commander' thread:

Are you kidding about Zhukov. I am no Russian or Communist lover by any means, but Zhukov is probably one of the absolute "best" commanders of WW2. At every place that he command, he won.

In 1941, in initial German rush to Leningrad, Zhukov commanded at that city, stablized the front at the city, and saved that city from German capture, albeit at horrendous cost.

Later in l941, Zhukov commanded at Moscow, saved the city from German capture, and, with the help of the Russian winter, he even counterattacked throwing the Germans back from Moscow's front door. Once again, he accomplished it at horrendous cost.

This is certainly true. Zhukov was instrumental in both Leningrad and Moscow. His leadership was of great value during that year.

In 1942, Zhukov commanded the defense of Stalingrad and the incredible Russian encirclement of the German 6th Army.

This is incorrect. Zhukov did not command the defense of Stalingrad. At best, Zhukov's role at Stalingrad was limited to the initial planning of Uranus along with Vasilevsky who eventually took over the entire operation. This was because Zhukov was quite busy in preparation with Operation Mars, an operation he was working on in cooperation with Konev. And an operation that he failed in, with great loss of men and equipment.

Granted, Hitler's stupidity contributed mightily to the German defeat, but, guess what - Zhukov won, of course with horrendous loss, but not a horrendous as Zhukov's prior two battles.

During the rest of the war in old mother Russia, Zhukov continuted to win wherever he commanded. But actually, after Stalingrad, the Russians could hardly lose barring utter stupidity, which the Russians did not show.

Notice that Zhukov and, for that matter, all Russian commanders lost battles and won battles at horrendous loss. Horrendous loss was almost a prerquisite for Russian battle in WW2. The Russians paid the major butcher bill to defeat the best army in WW2, the German. The western democracies of course contributed most of the materiale to defeat the Nazis.

The Soviets could have still lost the war, had they not learned from their mistakes. The operational excellence displayed by such commanders as Vasilevsky, Rokossovsky and Vatutin, to name a few, was on par with any officer of similar rank in any army in the world at that time. The Soviet's development of maskirovka was instrumental in the success of their offensive operations from mid '43, on. And while the western allies contributed key materials and equipment that greatly facilitated Soviet success, it was Soviet production that was the backbone of their success.

[busboy]

Hello all, remember me?

I'm something of a lurker now, I can't play CM until my current graphics problems get fixed (I'm hoping NVIDIA will release some new drivers for the Geeforce2 card soon... my Mac needs to see exploding Tigers on it again... )

Anyhoo, if anyone recognizes me they'll probably remember I am a huge Patton fan, I have to chip my vote in for him. Now, that is NOT to take away from others though, Patton was good, but I don't think anyone can be "the best" in a broad sense. "Most sucsessful" can be said, so thats why I always say Patton.

I won't start a Patton-Monty pissing contest (I don't like Monty...)

In studying Patton, I have read a bit about other commanders. Lucian Truscott was an outstanding commander. I'd put him on the list in a heartbeat. I'd like to throw in Abrahms of the 4th Armored division too. Great thread, btw.

[offtaskagain]

We should split this question into different groups, i.e. Army, Corps, Division, both Axis and Allied. For division level I would say Gavin of the 82nd Airborne, and Rommel when he had the 7th Panzer. Honestly I don't know that many division commanders, but they are the best of the ones I know.

[Ex Bellator]

Thanks Bleneim & Danyzn - von Lettow was the man. I'd definitely like to know more about the campaign if anyone can recommend a source. I might even get the correct war then

[thor]

A lot of good suggestions have been made thus far, including Wavell and Von Manstein (the latter in particular proved himself again and again).

I want to throw in one candidate, who changed the course of the war in the Pacific (and thus of the war overall) -- Admiral Spruance. He defeated the Japanese at Midway, with forces inferior both in numbers and experience. He did have superior intelligence, and he put that to good use. If things had gone the other way, as they well might have, it could have set the US back YEARS in that theatre. We would have lost most of our experienced carrier pilots, and thus not only our fighting force but also our pool of trainers.

[The Commissar]

Strange how I didn't see this thread! I throw my votes in with the many Soviet generals who usually get "overshadowed" by the votes of the Western majority on wargaming forums.

I side with Grisha, von shrad, and Richard in proclaiming Zhukov as one who is amongst the best.

Grisha, can you suggest some good reading on the other generals you mentioned which got less attention then Zhukov, Konev, etc? I'd like more information on them since the most Ive ever heard of them is brief mentions here and there.

[gatpr]

My list is Manstein, Patton, Slim, Rokosssovky, and Kilroy!? Germany was surely going to lose by the time Manstein was sacked but look how quickly the East Front went south when Hitler decided Model could handle Manstein's fireman job. Patton tied up an entire German army because the Germans couldn't believe he wasn't in command of troops during the Normandy invasion. Slim did more with less than any other army group commander in the war. Rokossovsky was one of the prime movers behind Kursk and Bagration.

[Mark IV]

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

Thanks Bleneim & Danyzn - von Lettow was the man. I'd definitely like to know more about the campaign if anyone can recommend a source. I might even get the correct war then <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"The Great War in Africa", Brian Farwell, W. W. Norton & Company, 1986. There is also a Penguin edition in Canada.

One very good commander was Yama****a Tomoyuki, whose conquest of Singapore was brilliant, and whose subsequent career confirmed that of a great and principled military man. General Homma Masaharu must receive some notice as well.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

Vatutin was the youngest of the lot, but was killed in late '44 when his vehicle was ambushed by Ukrainian Nationalists while he was checking on his units' redeployments during a maskirovka operation.

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

Excuse my ignorance Grisha, could you explain the term "maskirovka"? I'm guessing it's something like massive build up of force at one point but it's purely guesswork on my part and I don't own a Russo-English dictionary.

Regards

Jim R.

[Tanaka]

Erwin Rommel

[BK6583]

Excuse my ignorance Grisha, could you explain the term "maskirovka"? I'm guessing it's something like massive build up of force at one point but it's purely guesswork on my part and I don't own a Russo-English dictionary.

I don't know the exact translation, but the word refers to deception operations, something the Soviets were arguably the best in the world at in the '43-'45 time frame.

[Das Boot]

Makirovka translates to something like deception. The idea is to keep the enemy guessing as to what you're going to do so that his resistance will be less than optimal.

This involves everything from camouflage of build up areas, information and misinformation to probing attacks in "dummy" sectors. A good example of this would be the invasion of Normandy. The Germans thought that an attack would be around Calais and the Allies reinforced that belief through airraids, mock up areas and a stream of misinformation.

Tue

[Jeff Heidman]

I know it is currently very popular to bash whatever "conventional" wisdom claims as accuracy, but in the case of Rommell the CW is spot on.

He was an outstanding tactician and leader. His men loved him, fought for him, and died for him, nad he was very, very good at what he did.

I don't know if he was the "best" general in WW2, but he was certainly extremely effective. He (literally) wrote the book on infantry tactics, and anyone who has done a nominal study of the mans battles in WW1 (prior to his fame) can see why he was recognized as one of the finest tacticians of his generation.

The CW on Monty is similarly accurate. Mediocre, at best. Overly cautious, and unwilling to understand his role in the war. Very little success when asked to improvide or modify his plan to account for a non-static situation. And in war, static situations are rare.

Jeff Heidman

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Thanks for the info. on "Maskirovka". I can see that I was way off!

Regards

Jim R.

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Thanks for the info. on "Maskirovka". I can see that I was way off!

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Jim,

The previous posts in response to yours are pretty much correct. Maskirovka means 'Deception' and 'Camouflage' all rolled into one. In Army combat operations maskirovka was implemented by doing any and all of the following:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> Secret redeployments either by road or rail of units, usually at night, or under heavy smoke during daylight hours.

<LI> Simulations of troop movements into specific areas for diversionary purposes. This could include dummy tanks and artillery placement along with special 'maskirovka' units used to 'animate' the area.

<LI> Actual troops concentrations in specific areas for diversionary purposes. This could be followed by real attacks from these 'false' assembly points to trigger enemy reserves. Much would be done to 'broadcast' the development of these areas to the enemy: sloppy radio discipline and march movement.

There are many other details that make up maskirovka like leaving the very first echelon of the original units when new units secretly deploy into the area, but suffice to say maskirovka was extremely detailed, and was the instrument that allowed the Soviets to make effective use of their numerical superiority by adding the element of surprise.

[CJMello]

Oddball, of course

[coe]

Howabout Hermann Balck?