About Best Army Commander of the WW2 Allies

godofthunder9010 · December 8th, 2004

We seem to have spun off a lot of topics about the "Best of", but somehow this one seems to have been missed. So who was the best Commander in all the Allies Armed Forces and Why do you think they are the best?? Just for giggles, Finland gets included as one of the Allies.

I'm virtually guaranteed to miss some of the best candidates, so they'll have to be added as we go. As I am tired at the moment, please forgive the short list.

Anya1982 · December 8th, 2004

I think british leader.............(not cus i am from uk.......lol)

Just that for 6 yrs we put up a good old fight.................nearly lost everything and come back blazing.............defending another country which by all means was a good thing.

Winston churchHill was the former primeminister in 1911 and when retired was brought back to run this war due to his leadership.......feel sorry for the guy after WW2 kinda got made redundent lol

(shouldn't laugh)

I think england has been under rated in some ways that the victory and glory was taken out of our hands yet we seem to have had this war in our hands from the day we gave hitler our warning

Doppleganger · December 8th, 2004

Probably should have included an 'other' selection, as some candidates like Generals Bradley and MacArthur are not listed.

I think of the choices listed I would say the following:

Montgomery: Solid strategist but overly cautious and not blessed with attacking flair or vision
Patton: Charismatic leader with a real flair for mobile warfare
Zhukov: Another solid strategist with a real indomitable spirit but overly reliant on brute force rather than tactics
Mannerheim: Very able Marshall who waged an extremely effective defensive war against a vastly superior Red Army and won
Eisenhower: Very effective administrator and strategist who perhaps was a little too far removed from the front

Of those choices I'd have to pick Mannerheim 1st, Patton 2nd and Zhukov 3rd.

godofthunder9010 · December 8th, 2004

Well, as stated I'm quite tired, so we'll have to pester a Mod to add all the many superb generals I inadvertantly left out.

General Douglas Macarthur should have been put on the list. There's a Chinese general that I can't for the life of me remember the name of. There's several other really solid Russian and British commanders. We'll get them added, I just can't think of them right now. Please feel free to throw in their names ...

Young Winston · December 8th, 2004

George Patton really worried the Germans.

He had more flair and flexibility in attack than Monty.

Sorry Monty fans.

beardo · December 8th, 2004

Its not all about attack though...

Young Winston · December 8th, 2004

True, but refer to posts on the topic about Monty in this forum.

godofthunder9010 · December 8th, 2004

Well, in WW2, being good on attack was a lot more important than defense capabilities. Also, being good at attack takes more skill than defense IMHO.

Doppleganger · December 9th, 2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Well, in WW2, being good on attack was a lot more important than defense capabilities. Also, being good at attack takes more skill than defense IMHO.

Not necessarily so. Erich von Manstein was the master of fluid defence as was Albert Kesselring, 2 of the finest commanders of WW2. From 1943 onwards the Wehrmacht was on the defensive and inflicted casualty rates all out of proportion to their size or levels of combat strength due to skilful use of local tactical situations. In many situations utilizing proper defensive tactics take just as much skill as offensive operations.

Young Winston · December 9th, 2004

Defence and attack are both important.

If its Monty that is on peoples minds then forget about him being a great attacking general. He still was a very good general. Given the right resources and freedom of movement, he could produce an excellent WW1 style attack, keeping his forces well balanced.

When distracted and movement was restricted, he didn't do so well. eg later actions in the desert war, Sicily, Caen, failing to capture Antwerp quickly, Arnhem etc.

Even with the break-through at El Alamain, Rommel was never worried about Monty chasing him and cutting him off. He knew Monty would not take the risk. Don't forget, Monty had overwhelming force.

He did some good work at the Battle of the Bulge in attack to help break the German forces but Patton really was the star there. Of course, Monty tried to take the credit.

He did some great planning work for the D-Day landings.

View Poll Results :Which Allied General/Field Marshall Outshone the Rest??
Field Marshal Bernard Law Viscount Montgomery (United Kingdom)	5	13.16%
General George Smith Patton (United States of America)	14	36.84%
Marshal of Soviet Union Georgii K. Zhukov (Soviet Union)	9	23.68%
Field Marshal Gustaf Mannerheim (Finland)	2	5.26%
General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower (United States of America)	8	21.05%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

About Best Army Commander of the WW2 Allies

Best Army Commander of the WW2 Allies info

u had to ask info

December 8th, 2004	#1
godofthunder9010	Best Army Commander of the WW2 Allies info We seem to have spun off a lot of topics about the "Best of", but somehow this one seems to have been missed. So who was the best Commander in all the Allies Armed Forces and Why do you think they are the best?? Just for giggles, Finland gets included as one of the Allies. I'm virtually guaranteed to miss some of the best candidates, so they'll have to be added as we go. As I am tired at the moment, please forgive the short list. "It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!! "It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase

December 8th, 2004	#2
Anya1982	u had to ask info I think british leader.............(not cus i am from uk.......lol) Just that for 6 yrs we put up a good old fight.................nearly lost everything and come back blazing.............defending another country which by all means was a good thing. Winston churchHill was the former primeminister in 1911 and when retired was brought back to run this war due to his leadership.......feel sorry for the guy after WW2 kinda got made redundent lol (shouldn't laugh) I think england has been under rated in some ways that the victory and glory was taken out of our hands yet we seem to have had this war in our hands from the day we gave hitler our warning

December 8th, 2004	#3
Doppleganger	Probably should have included an 'other' selection, as some candidates like Generals Bradley and MacArthur are not listed. I think of the choices listed I would say the following: Montgomery: Solid strategist but overly cautious and not blessed with attacking flair or vision Patton: Charismatic leader with a real flair for mobile warfare Zhukov: Another solid strategist with a real indomitable spirit but overly reliant on brute force rather than tactics Mannerheim: Very able Marshall who waged an extremely effective defensive war against a vastly superior Red Army and won Eisenhower: Very effective administrator and strategist who perhaps was a little too far removed from the front Of those choices I'd have to pick Mannerheim 1st, Patton 2nd and Zhukov 3rd. "An Emperor is subject to no-one but God and justice." Frederick 1, Barbarossa

December 8th, 2004	#5
Young Winston	George Patton really worried the Germans. He had more flair and flexibility in attack than Monty. Sorry Monty fans.

December 8th, 2004	#6
beardo	Its not all about attack though... \'\'St George for England!!\'\' \'\'May we give the dragons tail a damned good twist!!\'\' \'\'They call this one the \'Withstand-inater\' It\'ll take a 6 Megaton nuclear blast. No more, No less\'\'

December 9th, 2004	#10
Young Winston	Defence and attack are both important. If its Monty that is on peoples minds then forget about him being a great attacking general. He still was a very good general. Given the right resources and freedom of movement, he could produce an excellent WW1 style attack, keeping his forces well balanced. When distracted and movement was restricted, he didn't do so well. eg later actions in the desert war, Sicily, Caen, failing to capture Antwerp quickly, Arnhem etc. Even with the break-through at El Alamain, Rommel was never worried about Monty chasing him and cutting him off. He knew Monty would not take the risk. Don't forget, Monty had overwhelming force. He did some good work at the Battle of the Bulge in attack to help break the German forces but Patton really was the star there. Of course, Monty tried to take the credit. He did some great planning work for the D-Day landings.