USA/UK leader ratings

[SeaMonkey]

Well I have to mention one of Monty's greatest failures but conceptually one of his most brilliant plans.

Operation Market-Garden......whether you like the man or not, his ability of commanding and getting results is irrevocable.

So he never took chances? OP MG.....well what was that all about?

[JerseyJohn]

I was thinking about that too even while I was writing some of the things about him being too conservative.

And I'd stick by my earlier thoughts on him. When he came up with Market Garden he didn't know about the German SS Panzer divisions being refitted in the area. Later, when photo recon indicated they were there, he said the photographed tanks were probably elements of scattered odd units instead of major formations.

I think his advance on Cherbourg is more typically Mongomery. Slow, cautious, no thought to the necessity of attaining a first class port at the earliest opportunity. Yes, he avoided casualties but in the end the delay probably cost a lot more lives would have been lost if it had been taken quickly. Also, if the German garrison wasn't already set to sabotage the facilities, Monty's crawl gave them more than ample opportunity to do it right. -- I think Patton was the man for that assignment, not Monty.

But, as I also said, I think Montgomerry was a fine general. There's a lot to be said for consolidating and building up and knowing exactly what the situation is before making a move.

I think 7 is a pretty good figure for him (perhaps 6, but I'd round it upwards).

To me, 1-2 = degrees of inept.

...... 3-4 = workaday, nothing special.

...... 5-6 = skilled

...... 6-7 = above average

........ 8 = Inspired

........ 9 = Excellent

I hope that pretty much agrees with the scale everyone else is using.

[Edwin P.]

JJ, I like your HQ ratings scale.

Question: Which WWII Generals, if any, would you rate as inept?

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Edwin.

That's a tough question right out of the shute. Naturally I'd say Gamelin, but in the case of the 1940 French generals I think advanced age figures in much more heavily than actual ability. Gamelin and Weygrand and most of the others -- men in their late seventies and eighties -- should have been long retired instead of running things. Bilotte should have been CinC, a kid in his sixties! But we'll never actually know how able he was as he had to follow the Dyle Plan and died in an auto accident before he had the chance to either pull things together, or fail.

Some Italian generals would appear to have been inept but here too there extenuating circumstances.

Marshal Rudolfo Graziani commanded that 1940 Libya fiasco but he fought very hard to not invade Egypt! Mussolini forced the issue and, like Bilotte, he was executing a plan he didn't have faith in. Considering what he had at his dispossal, huge numbers of infantry, some artillery and only very light armor, his tactics were sound enough; he'd advance fifty miles, set up fortified boxes while a paved road was built behind the army, then advance another fifty miles.

-- Wavell and O'Conner were very clever in finding the achilles heel. They studied aerial recon photos and planned their armored breakthrough to follow the tire tracks of the supply trucks moving in and out of those fortified box positions. Once they'd gone through there was no need to attack the prepared positions, the Italians were cut off from their supplies and, most important of all, water!

-- -- Later, when Rommel arrived, it was Wavell's turn to be outflanked in his own style and, of course, once troops were isolated in the desert they had to either surrender or perish.

Anyway, so far I'd give

Gamelin a 1,

Weygand a 3 and Bilotte a 4

Grazziani gets a 4 as well.

It's liable to harder to assess the truly bad generals than it would be to find the really good ones.

Oh, among the Germans, I'd give Paulus a 5 -- about the lowest rating for them. He was an excellent staff officer very valuable there, but totally lacking as a field commander. Actually, I think the Sixth Army was the first fighting unit he'd actually commanded in his career. Incredible! Only Hitler could have come up with an idea like that putting someone like him in command of his largest army in it's most crucial sector; sink or swim and, if you sink, the whole caountry goes down with you. I've always kind of pitied the man.

-- I can already see Brother Rambo quoting that remark and replying by something from George C Scott, sorry, uh, George Patton.

[Kuniworth]

Ok I think we covered the european UK generals quite well...now what about the americans?

[Kuniworth]

OK US commanders..I'm missing Devers for one...

[Sombra]

Well, after all this discussion it would be nice to see all these generals in action. Hubert how about an option to " buy blind" . You get one of the generals but you don´t know which one...?

[santabear]

What about Courtney Hodges who led the First Army after Bradley? He would be a good, capable "6 or 7" general who should be in the game.

[Edwin P.]

Sombra, thats a good idea.

I too would like the option to purchase a HQ unit blind for a reduced cost in MPPs.

Example: Buy Monty for 450MPP or Unknown for 350MPP. The unknown might have a rating of 3 to 7.

[jon_j_rambo]

How about seperating the Leader from the Supply? Attach leaders to units, trace supply. Trains should be in SC-2.

[breezeri]

I know this subject is about UK and american generals but I wanted to make my point clear:

Mannerheim (Finland) 9

Need I say more? anyone who is familiar with his strategies on WW2 against soviets will most likely agree. Not a 10 because he kept little too much troops in the northfront when they were needed in the southern front.

[ January 14, 2006, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: breezeri ]

[Slapaho]

If montgomery had been american he would have likely been sacked after market garden. to say that he relied on artillery and air power (overwhelming firepower) i think is true, but it is also true of all the allied ETO generals. politically they could not be allowed (and rightly so) in sacrificing men and were therefore much more conservative in all their tactics - including Patton. Patton was the best general in the west european area that could exploit a victory with minimal risk, but even he got bogged down in late 1944. To me, the only reason the German and Russian generals are rated higher is due to the amount of sacrifice they were prepared to ask (and get) from the troops beneath them. To me the western generals were better than the german and russian generals because they not only conducted a war that they ultimately won, but they did it at minimal cost in THEIR soldiers lives. Essentially Russia beat Germany on manufacturing output and manpower alone, there were no grand strategies that can be claimed outstanding generalship - they simply had the expendable resources that eventually germany ran out of. As churchill said "Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre. The greater the general, the more he contributes in manoeuvre, the less he demands in slaughter."

Patton 9

Eisenhower 8

Bradley 7

Hodges 7

Montgomery 7

Alexander 6

Mannstein 8

Rommel 7

Zhukov 8

I would give Zhukov an 8 (instead of a 7) because it is arguable that he was responsible for saving Russia at the most critical point in the war, yet he was wasteful in men and resources to achieve victories that were beyond doubt (incurring higher than necessary losses).

[SeaMonkey]

Interesting Slapaho, a perspective with merit, no doubt.

But about Monty, I don't agree. Just because a brilliant plan does not work doesn't mean the commander should be sacked. Think about it, although ultimately responsible, there is no way one human being could be in control of all the intangibles and the decision making process of all his subordinates.

Remember, everyone has a boss. So who was responsible for allowing the plan to unfold? Other commanders/advisers were involved in that decision also.

[beginner's luck]

But the "buck" has to stop some where. I agree that Monty was totally responsible for that mission. He was the one really pushing it. If it had gone great you can bet he would have taken full credit for it.It works both ways ,right.

[guinty1]

i think that no general apart from manstein should be above 7 in the game.no uk/usa general could have withstood the eastern front 42-44.Zhukov was an average general that happened to be a hell of a bully (and had stalins approval on just about everything he did by 1942 unlike german generals).Look at what he did in the battle for berlin,using searchlights,then a tank attack up a 100 foot height,only came off because of the 14-1 tanks 5-1 advantage in infantry he had.Now manstein was a master in all forms of warfare,attack ..defence . ,air-ground ect.Thats why he was the only german FM that the allies listened to post 1952 when the modern west german armed forces where getting up to speed.To be honest the most underated commander in WW2 was model ,he always was shoved into a disaster zone and most of the time achieved wonders,the only FM that could disagree with hitler time and time again,pity he was a blinkered nazi at the end tho.

[guinty1]

and patton was a good commander but he always worked under that awesome air cover that all US generals had (intital battle of the bulge days was the exception).Now would he have taken the crimea,with a corps against 6 soviet armies? doubt it ........