Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But then a lot of minor commanders will score better than the best generals/marshals. I think the "quantity" should also be taken into account. After all, it's very different to command 100 men, and a multi-million strong army.
That's ultimately the problem with doing this, the definition of the title "field commander". In the western forces, you have a man like Eisenhower, he was definitely not a "field commander", but the men under him like Patton, Montgomery and Bradley could be put into that bucket. Even then, you could make a case that those guys weren't really "field commanders" and it would be their subordinate corps and division commanders that were the real "field commanders".
In the Soviet forces it's sort of like Zhukov vs. Vatutin vs. Golikov. Which of them was really the "field commander"?
Quote:
A gazillion's lesson in English language. Of course I didn't mean that Americans didn't put an effort - after all, I'm sure that USA had its share of heroes, live and KIA. It's just that the amount of fighting is incomparable with the Eastern Front.
I agree with that, the Eastern Front was roughly five times the scale of the Western Front. Still though, I think you can make comparisons of the commanders that makes sense.
The more important question is - "how to compare them"?
Quote:
I agree with that, the Eastern Front was roughly five times the scale of the Western Front. Still though, I think you can make comparisons of the commanders that makes sense.
Then commanders of the Pacific War should also be included - it was no small event.
The more important question is - "how to compare them"?
Well, that's the tricky part isn't it. Look at the Soviet example, each of them had a very different role at Kursk. Is it fair to compare them to each other? Is one's role more important then the others?
Quote:
Then commanders of the Pacific War should also be included - it was no small event.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread about the omission of some of the pivotal Pacific commanders like Bill Slim.
In that case, I'd pick Patton. He inherited II Corps from Fredendall on March 6, 1943, after the disaster at Kasserine and blunted a German offensive at El Guettar two weeks later. He had begun by implementing strict discipline and an aggressive approach to engaging the enemy. He was an energetic hands-on commander, touring positions by scout aircraft. These same energetic qualities were evident in the Sicilian operation and the dash across France.
I think his best campaign was in the Ardennes when he guessed the German's intentions very early on, disengaged the Third Army from an engagement, wheeled it 90 degrees, and began a counteroffensive within a few days.
So, yeah. Patton's my guy. Interviewed in captivity, Rundstedt stated bluntly that Patton was the best general the Germans faced. This was echoed by many of the Germans after the war, using the words 'brilliant' and 'unpredictable' a good deal.
new to this thread- but my great-grandfather was in Ardennes and "Battle of the Bulge"......and I wanted some more info on what it was like for a 22 year old (mortar gunner, on front lines) to be a Private First Class in that war....
Greatly appreciate anyones posts on facts w. this.
Were there any Japenese commanders of note? This sounds a bit insulting, but I don't know anything of Japenese military history during WWII.
In general, the Japanese high command (extending on down to the principal field commanders) were noted for their extraordinary and stunning capacity for self-delusion. Many of them continued to hold onto the notion that the superior Japanese "fighting spirit" would be able to triumph over the superior firepower of the Americans. This was disproved again and again by the failure of the "banzai" frontal attacks. There was a prejudice in favor of offense to the detriment of defense which held until very late in the war, but by the time the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945, immense attention was given to defense, and the Americans paid a high price for their victories there. The Japanese Imperial Navy had much the same mindset; protecting their merchant shipping was considered beneath them - the warrior spirit in them demanded that they seek opportunities to fight the U.S. Navy. That irrationality cost them deeply in the long run.
I want to emphasize the two words I started with, "in general". I think one of the exceptions may have been Y*a*m*a*s*h*i*t*a (which I have to spell that way to defeat the City-Data profanity filter, otherwise it comes out looking like this: Yama****a) in the Philippines, who some people think out-generaled MacArthur there. And that's why he paid with his life following the war crimes trials.
Other posters know more than I do about this - please chime in.
new to this thread- but my great-grandfather was in Ardennes and "Battle of the Bulge"......and I wanted some more info on what it was like for a 22 year old (mortar gunner, on front lines) to be a Private First Class in that war....
Greatly appreciate anyones posts on facts w. this.
Your best bet is to just start checking out some books on the topic. The works by Stephen Ambrose tend to tell the story from a personal perspective. His work Band of Brothers (also a 10-part HBO documentary) covers the story of an Airborne unit including their time at the Battle of the Bulge. His work D-Day is written in a similar style and focuses on personal accounts. Either of them would give you a decent view into a soldiers life during the war.
If your great-grandfather was in Patton's Third Army there are a ton of books out there on the topic. One you may want to check out is Patton's Third Army (G.I. Series) by Chris Anderson. It's a pictorial view of the uniforms, equipment and life of soldiers in Patton's Third Army. It shows you what they looked like and the kind of equipment they used from what kind of underwear they were issued to small arms, mortars and artillery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldrick
I have to say that General Sir Harold Alexander would be my first choice with Field Marshall William Slim a very close second.
In my opinion General Sir Harold Alexander is very underrated.
Could you explain why you think Alexander is underrated? I tend to agree that he is often overlooked and his contributions a little underrated, but as an actual commander, beyond getting the Allies to work together, he was pretty deficient and lacking in terms of strategic vision.
Could you explain why you think Alexander is underrated? I tend to agree that he is often overlooked and his contributions a little underrated, but as an actual commander, beyond getting the Allies to work together, he was pretty deficient and lacking in terms of strategic vision.
I think at that stage of the war with the levels of animosity that was occurring amongst the Allied High Command getting them to work together was a major achievement. Whilst i'll agree he isn't known for his tactical panache he had a talent for identifying ability in subordinate officers and encouraging them to think and act independently. He also seemed to not disregard the abilities of the forces of other countries under his command.
I think at that stage of the war with the levels of animosity that was occurring amongst the Allied High Command getting them to work together was a major achievement. Whilst i'll agree he isn't known for his tactical panache he had a talent for identifying ability in subordinate officers and encouraging them to think and act independently. He also seemed to not disregard the abilities of the forces of other countries under his command.
I think we are in agreement on Alexander. I guess my only criticism then would be to place in the comparison group of "field commanders" when his particular talents lent him to being a good theater/group commander during the war. He was reliant on his subordinates and staff for strategic planning, but he could actually get his staff and subordinates to work together. Of course, this reliance was also his weakness where some commanders like Mark Clark could use him to their advantage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course I didn't mean that Americans didn't put an effort - after all, I'm sure that USA had its share of heroes, live and KIA. It's just that the amount of fighting is incomparable with the Eastern Front.
