top 10 best commanders of ww2

[Kuniworth]

Top 10...well ok I believe you have to rank them in both defence and offence to get a realistic rating. 10 points for the best one and then we get an overall rating. Unfortunately the lack of defensive operations for example Eisenhower gives him therefore a lower reating.

Offensive capability;

10 p - Guderian(France 1940, Barbaross)

9 p -Manstein(Barbarossa, Crimea)

8 p - Rommel(France 1940, drive to egypt)

7 p - Patton(Especially france 1944)

6 p - Zhukov(Stalingrad, Bagration)

5 p - Eisenhower(Torch, D-day)

4 p - Konev(Ukraine 1943-1944)

3 p - Yama****a(Singapore)

2 p - Rundstedt(France, Barbarossa)

1 p - Yamamoto(eastfront)

Defence;

10 p - Kesselring(Italy)

9 p - Zhukov(Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad)

8 p - Model(Bagration)

7 p - Manstein(Ukraine 1943-44, Kharkov-counter)

6 p - Mannerheim(Karelian isthmus)

5 p - Rommel(Tunisia and Lybia 1941-43)

4 p - Heinrici(Bagration, Seeluw heights)

3 p - Timoshenko

2 p - Guderian(1944-45 Eastfront)

1 p - Montgomery

Top 10 Overall;

16 p - Manstein

15 p - Zhukov

13 p - Rommel

12 p - Guderian

10 p - Kesselring

10 p -Patton

8 p - Model

6 p - Mannerheim

4 p - Konev

4 p - Heinrici

I would say that the top 6 is in correct order based on their achievements.

[I/O Error]

Can't say I find too much to complain about there. Glad to see I'm not the ONLY one who doesn't think very highly of Montgomery, that git.

[John DiFool]

Hubert, would this add too little to the game to

really bother with? Personally, I like the idea

of using different HQs for different jobs. >shrug<

You could even rate some on how they did in the

air war [tho would that require the inclusion of

Fatty? 2 Offense 1 Defense? Well Galland would

be a good choice...].

John DiFool

[JerseyJohn]

-- KuniWorth

Great topic.

Pretty much agreed with your lists.

About the only thing I liked concerning Montgomery was the fact he wasn't reckless, on the other hand, had he pursued Rommel harder after El Alamein he might have overtaken him and destroyed the remnants of the Afrika Korps before it withdrew to Tripoli, later linking with von Arnim in Tunesia.

There are two other WW II generals I like that have little relevance to the "List" so I'm just mentioning them as a side note:

Joe Stillwell in the Pacific, or actually South East Asian Theater, was very underated. The newspaper men dubbed him "Vinegar Joe" but he was known among the troops as "Uncle Joe." During the retreat from Burma, for example, he not only walked with everyone else, but also went back among the straglers to urge them on, doing it all on foot -- how many senior generals did things like that? He achieved the most with meager resources in a pretty much forgotten theatre of operations.

Early in the war he was considered America's top tactician and was earmarked for North Africa but Marshal decided he was too valuable in the Pacific, having spent most of his career there and being fluent in Chinese.

Another fine commander was the British O'Conner who engineered the Italian Libyan fiasco. It seems now like a given, but the Italian defensive blocks near Mersa Matruh were pretty formidable. O'Conner had the good sense to take aerial photos and study the tire tracks to see where the gaps in the minefields were placed.

Going along those trails he ran to the Italian rear and cut their supply line, most importantly seperating their huge infantry force from it's water -- the real reason they surrendered en masse, it beat the hell out of dying of thirst! Shortly after Rommel's arrival O'Connor was captured while personally on personal recon and never achieved the higher positions he was destined for. I consider him another Rommel, but there's no way that can ever be borne out.

--- Douglas MacArthur should fit in somewhere, I suppose, but he's a hard case to figure. Some of his actions bordered upon incompetence and others bordered on genius. Also, it's hard to figure how much of his Island hopping strategy was really the Navy's. One thing is certain, his handling of the New Guinea campaign was brilliant -- but here, to, was it actually even necessary? If the offensives would have begun farther north those large concentrations of Japanese would simply have been left behind -- possessing New Guinea itself was of little significance if the place were isolated.

[ November 16, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Compassion]

I think that the scorn heaped on Mongomery is sometimes a little mispalced. He came from a generation of commanders that came out of WWI with an innate fear of repeating that history and dooming an etire generation of England's young men. He went to the desert and chased Rommel around.. but he tried to only engage him where the conditions were favorable.

He was also the architect of the battles in Northern France where yes, he burned british troops at a prodigious rate, but that was in recognition that with the corporal throwing everytihng he had in France there, he could atrit the entire german army in the West... and he was right. When the US Armored forces were set free to sweep around the rear of the enemy it was largely because of the work that Monty had done (don't ge me wrong, without excellent leadership, the US armored advances wouodln't have worked, but still... Monty had laid the groundwork).

The thing with Monty that invites so much criticism, I think, is that even though he was a good commander, he was a jackass of a man who always seemed to promise more than he could deliver and when he fell short, he was notorious for equivocating and blameing his subordinates. He was known to be a popular leader who easily gathered good staff officers around him as he could get the job done... but never gain those staffs trust or respect for anything other than his fighting ability.

An odd duck and one that can't be described with a couple words...

As for other commanders.. I'm suprised that no one has mentioned Nimitz or Halsey...

[JerseyJohn]

Fine points about Montgomery. I never felt he was incompetent, perhaps too methodical, but as you say that was in keeping with his generation of British and French generals. I think the Americans and Germans went in other directions, toward more dynamic tactical doctrine.

Nimitz and Halsey are, like MacArthur, other hard cases in comparrison with the others on that list. You may as well include Spruance.

There seem to have been two phases to Halsey during the war -- early on, when he couldn't do anything wrong, and the last year or so, when he couldn't seem to do anything right.

Starting with Leyte Gulf, where, after thumping the southern and western Japanese fleets with carrier strikes, he abruptly turned north, falling for the Japanese bait and leaving the landing area virtually unprotected for the Japanese western fleet which back tracked and came back unexpectedly. The only thing saving the entire operation from oblivion was the heroic actions of an escort carrier and a few cruisers in suicidal bluff attacks against Japanese BBs (including the 18" gun Yamato) and the mysterious withdrawal of the Japanese fleet within moments of victory. Most historians believe the Japanese admiral was decieved into thinking he was really facing Halsey, who was actually hopelessly far to the north.

In the months that followed, Halsey proceeded to sail the fleet into two typhoons, each as damaging as a major naval battle, and by war's end, even while recieving his fifth star, he was in the naval doghouse.

Nimitz was a sound strategist and made good use of his officers and ships. I'd put him very high on any list, but regarding this particular application I think those mentioned in the "10" are more relevant to the discussion.

Spruance, to me, was one of the great admirals. He never mistook opportunity with assignment, always did his job excellently, and was the recipient of a genuine miracle at the Battle of Midway -- Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

-- The original lists are very good, but if we're going to include the Pacific there should probably two seperate lists of 10, one for generals and the other for admirals -- or maybe continue having them mixed but have seperate lists for the European and Pacific Theaters.

Even so, how do you compare Rommel to Doenitz? It's the old apples and oranges issue.

Plenty of room for input in this topic.

[ November 16, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I would add under the Defensive group Douglas MacArthur, 7 -Bataan

and in the offensive group,

MacArthur, 6 - Luzon, New Guinea

Total of 13.

[JerseyJohn]

That's pretty much what I'd give him as well. His outstanding quality was low casualties. On the other hand, he did some bizarre things, like not defending his airfields after being alerted that Pearl Harbor had been attacked. He was told to launch his planes against Japanese airstrips on Taiwan but instead withdrew to his home and did nothing. Later in the day Japanese aircraft from those very bases destroyed his own planes.

His career, spanning all the decades it did, serving as everthing from youngest general ever in WW I to Chief of Staff under Herbert Hoover, then Field Marshal (!) of the Philipine Army, to WW II S.E. Pacific commander, to Japanese "Shogun" and finally U.N. commander in Korea!

Understandably it's difficult for me to evaluate him. When I was a kid, in the 50s, MacArthur was generally regarded by WW II vets who'd served in both theaters as the greatest of our generals. But a lot of that might have been due to his battling Harry Truman a few years earlier and ultimately being dismissed. The newspapers were on MacArthur's side and most Americans felt we should have gone after the Communist chinese in Manchuria and China itself. It's hard today to imagine how really unpopular Truman became after Mac's dismissal and the ensueing deadlock in Korea.

As an after thought, and in keeping with evaluating generals, I'd have to add that, militarily, MacArthur brought about his own defeat. He proceeded to the Manchurian border not only in defiance of his mandate, but also against the advice of his own intelligence officers and advisers, all of whom felt he was walking right into a trap. The newspapers of the day never got around to mentioning any of that.

One of Mac's advisers went so far as to say 100,000 Chinese infantry could be hiding in the North Korean hills and Mac, according to witnesses, just puffed on his pipe and changed the subject. A few days later the Chinese emerged from their hiding places to wreak havoc!

[ November 16, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Compassion]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Nimitz and Halsey are, like MacArthur, other hard cases in comparrison with the others on that list. You may as well include Spruance.

There seem to have been two phases to Halsey during the war -- early on, when he couldn't do anything wrong, and the last year or so, when he couldn't seem to do anything right.

Cogent point. I've always seen Halsey as a learning on the job kind of commander (at least for the kind of fleet actions WWII presented) who had good instincts. Awesome in applicaton when things break right, but the deficit in unseen 'holes' in knowlege can be equally awesome.

Nimitz was a sound strategist and made good use of his officers and ships. I'd put him very high on any list, but regarding this particular application I think those mentioned in the "10" are more relevant to the discussion.

I took WWII to mean the whole war even though it's out of scope for the game we are...erm... foruming in. As far a Nimitz goes. He's in the same rhealm of Ike. Difficult to judge how he is as an operational leader as he worked at a level once removed during the war.

[JerseyJohn]

-- Compassion,

More good points -- how can upper echelon commanders such as Nimitz and Eisenhower be compared with operational commanders like Rommel on land and Spruance on sea. We haven't even scratched the surface on air generals like Hap Arnold and Curtis LeMay or Bomber Harris for the allies and Spirille or Kesselring for Germany. Kesselring himself is an odd case as he filled many roles during the war.

--- ---

-- Rambo

Glad you realize I'm your biggest fan and supporter. Thanks for letting me borrow your special terms "over-rated and underated." Sorry you weren't around for Vietnam; it was a bad combination -- overated politicians running an underated war.

--- ---

[ November 16, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[VictorH]

Add Hoth for both attack and defense. He saved an entire army group in the Caucus when Stalingrad was surrounded.

I agree that Stilwell was excellent and don't forget Mountbatten.

Bradley was excellent too. He didn't have the star power of Patton nor the "stuck up I'm better than everyone" Montgomery attitude.

[JerseyJohn]

Mountbatten is another interesting case, how do you rate someone who starts out commanding a destroyer and ends up administering Indonesia? I've always liked the idea that he had guts enough to leave the Japanese troops there armed after the surrender primarily because they were the only police force available! Probably one of history's more unique decisions.

There's a case for Bradley, but he's more a nuts and bolts guy, gets the job done, doesn't make a splash either way and consequently he's difficult to judge. Also cases for people like von Runstedt, a similar commander to Bradley, and Auchenleck who stopped Rommel at first Alamein before being replaced by Montgomery.

Churchill and Lincoln had similar reasoning with regard to generals, when in doubt throw them out. I don't think Churchill was fair with either Wavell or Auchenleck. In Wavell's case he was removed for being right! He advised him to finish the Italians instead of sending O'Conner's best troops to Greece, Churchill sent them anyway, then sacked Wavell when the defeat he anticipated actually occurred.

This list business is turning out to be more involved than I'd originally expected.

Pretty soon we'll be down to an Italian known to the Tommies as "Electric Whiskers" because of his odd beard. He was famous for evading capture. After ordering his foot soldiers -- cut off at Sidi Barrani -- to surrender, he got in his staff car, ran through the British lines and headed west at full speed. The British gave chase, barely missing him at Tobruck, Benghazi and seveal other places before finally catching up to his parked car near El Agheala. A humorous photo has the old man wagging a finger at his captors and saying, "ah, if only I hadn't stopped for breakfast!"

Another Italian, Italo Balbo is also interesting. He became famous in 1930 when he took a squadron of sea planes across the Atlantic to New York, then back to Europe, at the time a very novel achievment. By 1939 he was Mussolini's commander in Cyrenicia. Appalled at the low standard of training and preparedness he went on a campaign to make his army more battleworthy and was shot down and killed by his own anti-aircraft guns. His successor, Rudolfo Grazziani, when ordered over the phone to invade Egypt, is alledged to have replied, "Who, me?"

[ November 16, 2002, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by VictorH:

[QB]Add Hoth for both attack and defense. He saved an entire army group in the Caucus when Stalingrad was surrounded.

QB]

Herman Hoth you say? Well 1st pz army under Kleist run the Rostov gauntlet and saved them self. But it was foremost Manstein that saved and stabilized the german front after Stalingrad.

[JayJay_H]

Dont forget Generalfeldmarschall Schörner (the bloody Ferdinand):

Winner of the Pour le Merite as Lt. in WW1, awarded on -- 5 Dec. 1917

KC: 20.04.1941 as Generalmajor, Kdr. 6. Geb.Div.

Oakleafs: 17.02.1944 as General der Gebirgstruppen, Komm. General XXXX. Panzerkorps

Swords: 28.08.1944 as Generaloberst and OB Heeresgruppe Nord

Brilliants: 01.01.1945 as Generaloberst and OB Heeresgruppe Nord

Instructor and staff member during the interwar years. During the war he led many successful attacks in Poland and the Balkans. From there he was sent to the north in Murmansk and Finland to hold back the Soviet advances. In 1944 he was made head of the Nazi command staff and Army Group South but 3 months later Army Group North, and then in early 1945 Army Group Center. Commonly thought of as Hitler's favorite General, Schörner was feared for his strict cold-blooded nature. (Deserves to be mentioned for defensive capability)

[ November 16, 2002, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: JayJay_H ]

[Valadictum]

General Slim should be a candidate. He stopped the western advance of the Japanese and then went back in to kick them out. You don't hear much about him but he did a fine job.

[JerseyJohn]

I can't see any real dogs in the lot and at this point the total must be at least double the original number of candidates.

We definitly need seperate lists for generals and admirals and seperate lists for the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters.

It's hard to compare generals like O'Conner, Schorner, Heinrici and Slim with others like Guderian, Rommel and Zhukov who were more prominent throughout the war and commanded large formations in varied conditions -- nearly hopeless defense to equally balanced offense. Some of those mentioned, such as Heinrici, didn't get a chance till things were hopeless.

The problem with seperate general and admiral lists is obvious, the European War was dominated by generals and the Pacific by admirals.

It isn't going to work out in a uniform manner, but it's an interesting thread.

[ November 18, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

About O´Connor there has been much debate concering his ability. I agree that he indeed was a great commander and maybe should be on the list.

[JerseyJohn]

And he had a fine sense of humor -- there's excellent interview footage of him in the North African episode of BBCs World at War.

Glad someone else agrees on this.

[Wachtmeister]

Great to see that there is at least one other General Slim fan out there. Had he, and possibly O'Connor, achieved higher command positions, rather than Alexander and Montgomery, the war might have been shortened.

General Schoerner, on the other hand, seems to be no better than competent. He was an ambitious true-believer Nazi General, which may well have had a positive effect on his rapid promtion. He was also a ruthless and apparently willing implementer of the rightly notorious "Commissar Order".

[Valadictum]

Problem with O'Conner, though I'm a fan of his efforts in North Africa, is that the size of forces involved were small, he had about 30,000 Brits/Indians/Aussies etc against 130,000+ Italians (fair odds I think!). There's no way of knowing what he's be like in charge of a well equipped force of 500,000 against a well equipped enemy of similar capability. When he escaped/was freed from being an Italian POW (I seem to remember a story about how he escaped in womens clothes)he was felt to be too behind the times and was given only a division to command.

As for Slim - I think he was ideal for the job he had to do and if the war against Japan had gone on (no nukes)he'd have been in China from the South eventually - perhaps preventing communist China from taking hold. Maybe the nukes were a mistake afterall? (sorry for speculation heaven on steroids). I don't think Slim would have been well suited for a European theatre though.

[JerseyJohn]

The initial North African campaign was more difficult than it appeared. Graziani realized his primarily infantry army had no chance of successfully walking across the Egyptian desert and taking the Suez Canal.

What he really wanted was to keep the status quo; fortify Tobruk and Benghazi and simply hold Cyrainica, which might well have succeeded, but Mussolini pushed him into action so he moved fifty miles into Egypt and set up a series of fortified boxes while extending the coastal railroad from the border to Mersa Matruh. He intended to repeat this proceedure as many times as he was able so his army would always have a reliable supply base.

Realizing this, Wavell ordered O'Conner to take his tanks on a flaning maneuver which was only intended as a raid but, thanks to captured Italian supplies, turned into an offensive.

Stranded far from their supply bases, the Italian infantry faced the prospect of literally dying of thirst, and surrendered by the tens of thousands. On several occasions there were battles and when they occurred the Italians put up a good defensive fight, as they did in East Africa, but were doomed primarily by their own supply and equipment troubles -- especially in armor, which was light and fast but little more than recon vehicles.

Once O'Conner began cutting his way to the rear it was all over -- the garrisons left behind at Tobruck and Bengahzi were too small and bereft of anti-tank weapons.

O'Conner's desert tactics became the basis for all Rommel's offensives and they worked as well against the British as they had against the Italians -- infantry by passed without a supply line in the desert had no source of water and was forced to surrender. Numbers -- as long as they were numbers of non-motorized foot soldiers -- were of little significance.

A more conservative general would have dug in and called to London for more troops. I suspect that would have been Monty's course of action. A head on assault of Grazziani's positions would probably not have succeded. The Italians were poorly equiped, ill-trained and poorly led, but when dug in and supported by artillery they defended well -- which was demonstrated repeatedly in Rommel's battles; if they didn't have at least that capability he couldn't have used his two to four (depending on the campaign) German Divisions as a flanking force.

Ironically, after Rommel's capture of Tobruck, the German High command had the same view Grazziani held two years earlier, that it was best to simply hold Cyrainica and tie up British forces in Egypt.

Rommel convinced them that he'd captured enough British supplies to carry him through to Cairo, where he hoped to capture much more, and he was given the green light even to the extent of cancelling the planned Malta campaign in order to send those troops, a German parratroop brigade and an Italian parratroop regiment along with additional Italian infantry to join him in

Egypt.

But the whole venture depended upon more successful flanking actions and sweeping around El Alamein, whose natural funneling characteristics were known to both sides long before the Axis reached that point. Auchinleck, having taken personnel command of the Eigth Army, fortified the position and repulsed Rommel's attack at Ruyesat Ridge (First Alamein) and was subsequently sacked by churchill for his success and Ritchie's earlier failures, replaced in the field by Montgomery and in the theater HQ by Alexander. With few tanks remaining and suddenly short of fuel and all other supplies I doubt Rommel had any remaining delusions and would probably have begun withdrawing even then had it not been for Hitler.

Having come within 40 miles of Alexandria, Hitler took continued success as a certainty and, when the battle bogged down, issued the idiotic victory or death orders that doomed the Afrika Korps.

Interestingly, the whole course of events had been spelled out months earlier by Paulus, a general staff officer prior to his appointment as Sixth Army commander.

But -- essentially the point about O'Conner can't be argued with, he just didn't see enough of the war to be properly evaluated. It was obvious, though, that he was an excellent leader and facing the Germans would not have altered that. In Lybia, facing Rommel, he would undoubtedly have fared better than men like Ritchie who were Infantry officers.

Agreed on Slim, like Stillwell a fine commander in an overlooked theatre, and also on most of the recently mentioned Germans -- all good commanders but not to be confused with Manstein or Zhukov.

[Tha_Field_Marshall]

Wheres Omar Bradley on that list?

What about Mark Clark?

[JerseyJohn]

They aren't on the lists but are mentioned in entries that came afterwards.

I like Bradley (and von Runstedt for the Germans) but don't think they're among the very best if both sides are combined.

Clark I have a problem with: not because of his specific tactics in the battles of the Italian campaign, which would have been a meatgrinder regardless of who was running things, but because, when the breakout finally occurred in early June '44 he went for Rome and personal publicity instead of trying to cut off and destroy the routed German units fleeing from Casino and Anzio.

Even Kesselring was baffled by his actions. The seasoned German units, which should have been cut off, were able to reach a new defensive line and remained a problem till the very last.

The hell of it is, Mark Clark understood what was going on and still went for the news splash!

[Wachtmeister]

Regarding Mark Clark - amen. If we get around to a "10 worst" commander list, he should be near the top.