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.
It is a fact that under equal conditions, large-scale battles and whole wars are won by troops which have a strong will for victory, clear goals before them, high moral standards, and devotion to the banner under which they go into battle.
- Georgy Zhukov
He probably wrote that when he was shivering in Moscow..;-)...
These debates have come up many times. A lot depends on the question and the criteria...
In this thread, the title was "favorite", I would take that to mean the one you like the best. It doesn't necessarily need to have criteria as to why, though people should be free to ask for reasoning.
If the intent is "best" than the question morphs. In that comparative we need criteria. There are many levels of the military command structure and you shouldn't compare people across levels. For instance, Montgomery vs. Patton works if we are talking North Africa and Sicily. However, it doesn't work post Normandy as Monty technically outranked Patton. Monty's equals were Bradley and Devers.
Manstein and Heinrici are more "Bradley" then they are "Patton". Guderian vs. Patton (Guderian ) would be a decent comparison. A lot of people are naming Marshall, King, etc. Who are you comparing them too if the topic is "best"?
I wholly agree but I'd also say that, given the enormous material and numerical superiority Patton enjoyed, his achievements are much less impressive than what Heinrici or Von Manstein achieved.
Yes, this sounds like American industrial power is a "fault" which made Americans less "brave" but it's not what I meant, be it clear.
Americans could enjoy a net and wide numerical superiority (and sometimes also in quality) and that allowed them to a wide range of choices (a much inferior number of casualties, enormous theatres open at the same times, lend-lease etc) and it made the Allied victory a certainty.
Yet, it's also evident that given the condition in which Heinrici, Guderian or Von Manstein had to fight, the scale and the strength of the USSR, their achievements easily outmatch those of most Allied generals (bar Bradley, Slim, O'Connor and a few others).
Russian generals are often undervalued, I always had a soft spot for Rokossovskij and Chernyakhovsky.
I wholly agree but I'd also say that, given the enormous material and numerical superiority Patton enjoyed, his achievements are much less impressive than what Heinrici or Von Manstein achieved.
A general is judged by how much he does with what he has. His success is also dependent upon him being the right person in the right place at the right time.
I agree that Heinrici was brilliant and I am not sure Patton could have done what he did, very different styles and situations. I am not a fan of Manstein and feel he is overrated.
Quote:
Yes, this sounds like American industrial power is a "fault" which made Americans less "brave" but it's not what I meant, be it clear.
Americans could enjoy a net and wide numerical superiority (and sometimes also in quality) and that allowed them to a wide range of choices (a much inferior number of casualties, enormous theatres open at the same times, lend-lease etc) and it made the Allied victory a certainty.
It also greatly dictated the tactics available. One thing the Americans were better at than anyone else was artillery. American artillery responded faster and was on target quicker than any other nation. When Americans hit a hard point, they called in an artillery strike and sometimes in as little as a minute shells were raining down and being adjusted for accuracy on the fly.
Quote:
Yet, it's also evident that given the condition in which Heinrici, Guderian or Von Manstein had to fight, the scale and the strength of the USSR, their achievements easily outmatch those of most Allied generals (bar Bradley, Slim, O'Connor and a few others.
I agree to an extent. It's no surprise that the Germans had some excellent commanders throughout their ranks. If only those brilliant stategic and tactical minds thought a little about logistics, lol. What I find most redeeming about some of the commanders was their ability to adapt and make the most of orders that were counter to their own strategic view.
Quote:
Russian generals are often undervalued, I always had a soft spot for Rokossovskij and Chernyakhovsky.
Agreed again. The Russian generals were not mindless idiots launching human wave assaults against the Huns. When one studies the various operations on the Eastern Front that the Russians undertook you get a sense of the immense scale of the planning and the required strategic vision.
It also greatly dictated the tactics available. One thing the Americans were better at than anyone else was artillery. American artillery responded faster and was on target quicker than any other nation. When Americans hit a hard point, they called in an artillery strike and sometimes in as little as a minute shells were raining down and being adjusted for accuracy on the fly.
Valid point. The Americans enjoyed superiority in three key areas, artillery, air power and mobility. Why wouldn't they attempt to capitalize on their advantages? Why bleed lives attempting to take a position with an infantry assault if the desired results could be achieved without the expected attrition?
Had the enemy the means to fight like the Americans, they would have.
For me, it is Patton - he has the most 'juice' after the great movie with George C. Scott - he is my emotional choice. Balls and Brains he had them in spades. Kind of our last Aristocrat general with style. Just my perosnal thoughts.
What about:
Monty?
Rommel?
MacArthur?
Chuikov?
von Reichenau?
Paulus?
They don't necessarily have to be a victorious general - just your personal favorite.
Patton. He got results. Period. Monty was definitely overrated. Bradley had an air of common sense....Rommel was brilliant. Chuikov actually cared about his men and was punished for it later....Paulus was insignificant...just got his 6th Army beat up and defeated.....
MacArthur had too big of an ego. I think I would rather hear more about the junior officers (Major-Colonel).
Patton. He got results. Period. Monty was definitely overrated. Bradley had an air of common sense....Rommel was brilliant. Chuikov actually cared about his men and was punished for it later....Paulus was insignificant...just got his 6th Army beat up and defeated.....
MacArthur had too big of an ego. I think I would rather hear more about the junior officers (Major-Colonel).
Monty was the master of the set piece battle. Something generals like Patton and Rommel were not good at it. Second El Alamein and the resulting roll-up of North Africa and then the entire Normandy campaign were masterful and all were planned and led by Monty. Patton was better on the fly and relished the fluid situation.
I would also question Rommel's "brilliance". He was a master tactician, but an incredibly short-sighted strategic thinker.
Tired of all the Monty hate from people who, it seems, get their history from Saving Private Ryan. As already mentioned, Patton wouldn't have got very far if Monty (who we're told was "bogged down") wasn't holding off the bulk of the German forces around Caen.
Tired of all the Monty hate from people who, it seems, get their history from Saving Private Ryan. As already mentioned, Patton wouldn't have got very far if Monty (who we're told was "bogged down") wasn't holding off the bulk of the German forces around Caen.
Agreed. There have been several discussions about WW2 generals and many of them feature people bashing Monty. He was one of the key allied generals of the war. He planned and executed some of the most critical campaigns and battles. I don't think many people realize what a brilliant battle Second El Alamein was or that Monty was responsible for the planning of Overlord along with the contingencies and that he was the Ground Forces Commander from the invasion through Falaise (meaning the Americans reported to him).
Many also don't realize his critical role during the Battle of the Bulge where he took command of the northern side of the bulge and led the American forces in the delaying action at St. Vith and the defense of the Meuse River crossings. The German after action reports equally credit Monty and Patton for the German defeat.
NJGoat, wasn't there also a time when Monty had to take over from a US general (Hodges?) because he couldn't cope? I remember reading about it a while ago, but I don't recall the details!
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.
) would be a decent comparison. A lot of people are naming Marshall, King, etc. Who are you comparing them too if the topic is "best"?
