Best Army Commander of the WW2 Allies - Page 4




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

 
--
 
December 13th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
After Patton's success in the pursuit across France, in the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Saar-Moselle Triangle, it is little wonder that in the Germans' view he was the Allied general most to be feared.

http://www.longwood.edu/staff/hardinds/Blitzkrieg.html


Eisenhower said that Patton was “‘indispensable to the war effort—one of the guarantors of our victory’, and later by German Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, what said, ‘Patton was your best’”(2). Everyone involved in the war knew that Patton was the greatest leader in the whole effort. The opposition quivered hearing his name, knowing his swift advancements and harsh fighting styles.

http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ad1/keb269.shtml
On the Western Allied side yes he was. Don't forget though the Germans also had a little skirmish going on further east. 2 guys named Konev and Zhukov respectively may have disputed Patton's claim to that title.

He certainly wasn't the greatest leader in the whole effort, unless you are counting just the Western Allies of course. Also remember by the time Patton got there Germany was already defeated for all intents and purposes.
The eastern front was the Germans biggest headache. No doubt.

Zhukov was outstanding in a strategic capacity on the Russian front.

I have read a liitle about Konev. Please tell me why he was an outstanding commander.

I would be interested to know if the Germans on the eastern front were in awe of a particular Russian commander.

MacArthur and Slim should be on the list.

I do believe that Patton was supportive of Montgomery in the idea of the western allies taking Berlin instead of leaving it to the Russians. History shows that Eisenhower rejected it.
Firstly, Zhukov was a good strategist but far from the genius he is considered by many in the West. He had some serious flaws namely a reliance on brute force and an inability to switch tactics or to recognise when a particular plan wasn't working. Perhaps he did so knowing that he could throw superior numbers at the Germans and know that he could replenish his losses whereas the Germans could not. I firmly believe that had Zhukov been a Western or German Marshall he'd have been dismissed in disgrace after the disaster that was Operation Mars.

Konev was quite similar to Zhukov as it happens. A good strategist with an appreciation and understanding of mobile warefare and combine arms tactics. He was in charge of the 2nd largest Soviet Army (2nd Ukrainian Front) after Zhukov's and operationally, there was little to distinguish between them in capability or tactics. Indeed both Zhukov and Konev were fiercely competitive of each other and both constantly vieved for Stalin's favour. There was a race of some sorts to be the first to reach Berlin which Zhukov won.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/berlin_03.shtml

Neither Zhukov or Konev, good as they were, should be compared in any way to someone like Erich von Manstein.

Patton was good enough to be a German Panzer Army commander. That's the biggest compliment I can pay him.
December 14th, 2004  
victortsoi
 
regardless of the validity of finlands struggle in the winter and continuation wars they shouldnt be part of the "allies" in this poll. they were germany's co belligerants, (not alies).
every russian soldier killed by the finns during world war ii was a net loss for the allies (read: US, UK, USSR) because it set back victory in euroupe and caused strain on allied resources.
yes finland was a democracy vs a dictatorship but still, their actions in fighting for self determination was detrimental to the allied war effort.
December 15th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
After Patton's success in the pursuit across France, in the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Saar-Moselle Triangle, it is little wonder that in the Germans' view he was the Allied general most to be feared.

http://www.longwood.edu/staff/hardinds/Blitzkrieg.html


Eisenhower said that Patton was “‘indispensable to the war effort—one of the guarantors of our victory’, and later by German Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, what said, ‘Patton was your best’”(2). Everyone involved in the war knew that Patton was the greatest leader in the whole effort. The opposition quivered hearing his name, knowing his swift advancements and harsh fighting styles.

http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ad1/keb269.shtml
On the Western Allied side yes he was. Don't forget though the Germans also had a little skirmish going on further east. 2 guys named Konev and Zhukov respectively may have disputed Patton's claim to that title.

He certainly wasn't the greatest leader in the whole effort, unless you are counting just the Western Allies of course. Also remember by the time Patton got there Germany was already defeated for all intents and purposes.
The eastern front was the Germans biggest headache. No doubt.

Zhukov was outstanding in a strategic capacity on the Russian front.

I have read a liitle about Konev. Please tell me why he was an outstanding commander.

I would be interested to know if the Germans on the eastern front were in awe of a particular Russian commander.

MacArthur and Slim should be on the list.

I do believe that Patton was supportive of Montgomery in the idea of the western allies taking Berlin instead of leaving it to the Russians. History shows that Eisenhower rejected it.
Firstly, Zhukov was a good strategist but far from the genius he is considered by many in the West. He had some serious flaws namely a reliance on brute force and an inability to switch tactics or to recognise when a particular plan wasn't working. Perhaps he did so knowing that he could throw superior numbers at the Germans and know that he could replenish his losses whereas the Germans could not. I firmly believe that had Zhukov been a Western or German Marshall he'd have been dismissed in disgrace after the disaster that was Operation Mars.

Konev was quite similar to Zhukov as it happens. A good strategist with an appreciation and understanding of mobile warefare and combine arms tactics. He was in charge of the 2nd largest Soviet Army (2nd Ukrainian Front) after Zhukov's and operationally, there was little to distinguish between them in capability or tactics. Indeed both Zhukov and Konev were fiercely competitive of each other and both constantly vieved for Stalin's favour. There was a race of some sorts to be the first to reach Berlin which Zhukov won.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/berlin_03.shtml

Neither Zhukov or Konev, good as they were, should be compared in any way to someone like Erich von Manstein.

Patton was good enough to be a German Panzer Army commander. That's the biggest compliment I can pay him.
Thanks for the good info Doppleganger.

That's a bloody big compliment you gave Patton.

I think you and I agree the German Commanders (not all) were the best ww2 produced.

OK, so who is your choice for best Allied Commander or have you already done so? Zhukov? Don't forget MacArthur (he should be on the list).

If Monty was on the German side (heaven forbid!) how do you think he would have fitted into the German command structure. Planning??? Do you think they would have used him?? I don't think Hitler could have stomached him!
--
December 15th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
After Patton's success in the pursuit across France, in the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Saar-Moselle Triangle, it is little wonder that in the Germans' view he was the Allied general most to be feared.

http://www.longwood.edu/staff/hardinds/Blitzkrieg.html


Eisenhower said that Patton was “‘indispensable to the war effort—one of the guarantors of our victory’, and later by German Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, what said, ‘Patton was your best’”(2). Everyone involved in the war knew that Patton was the greatest leader in the whole effort. The opposition quivered hearing his name, knowing his swift advancements and harsh fighting styles.

http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ad1/keb269.shtml
On the Western Allied side yes he was. Don't forget though the Germans also had a little skirmish going on further east. 2 guys named Konev and Zhukov respectively may have disputed Patton's claim to that title.

He certainly wasn't the greatest leader in the whole effort, unless you are counting just the Western Allies of course. Also remember by the time Patton got there Germany was already defeated for all intents and purposes.
The eastern front was the Germans biggest headache. No doubt.

Zhukov was outstanding in a strategic capacity on the Russian front.

I have read a liitle about Konev. Please tell me why he was an outstanding commander.

I would be interested to know if the Germans on the eastern front were in awe of a particular Russian commander.

MacArthur and Slim should be on the list.

I do believe that Patton was supportive of Montgomery in the idea of the western allies taking Berlin instead of leaving it to the Russians. History shows that Eisenhower rejected it.
Firstly, Zhukov was a good strategist but far from the genius he is considered by many in the West. He had some serious flaws namely a reliance on brute force and an inability to switch tactics or to recognize when a particular plan wasn't working. Perhaps he did so knowing that he could throw superior numbers at the Germans and know that he could replenish his losses whereas the Germans could not. I firmly believe that had Zhukov been a Western or German Marshall he'd have been dismissed in disgrace after the disaster that was Operation Mars.

Konev was quite similar to Zhukov as it happens. A good strategist with an appreciation and understanding of mobile warfare and combine arms tactics. He was in charge of the 2nd largest Soviet Army (2nd Ukrainian Front) after Zhukov's and operationally, there was little to distinguish between them in capability or tactics. Indeed both Zhukov and Konev were fiercely competitive of each other and both constantly vied for Stalin's favour. There was a race of some sorts to be the first to reach Berlin which Zhukov won.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/berlin_03.shtml

Neither Zhukov or Konev, good as they were, should be compared in any way to someone like Erich von Manstein.

Patton was good enough to be a German Panzer Army commander. That's the biggest compliment I can pay him.
Thanks for the good info Doppleganger.

That a bloody big compliment you gave Patton.

I think you and I agree the German Commanders (not all) were the best ww2 produced.

OK, so who is your choice for best Allied Commander or have you already done so? Zhukov? Don't forget MacArthur (he should be on the list).

If Monty was on the German side (heaven forbid!) how do you think he would have fitted into the German command structure. Planning??? Do you think they would have used him?? I don't think Hitler could have stomached him!
Had Patton been German I'd have given him command of 1st Panzergruppe (later 1st Panzerarmee) instead of Paul von Kleist, of whom Patton was certainly a better Panzer commander. Von Kleist was the German Field Marshall who infamously sacked Guderian in 1940 because the latter's Panzer Group was moving too fast into France. You may know that 4 Panzer Armies drove into the Soviet Union as part of Operation Barbarossa.

I voted earlier on this thread. Of the 5 choices I had put Mannerheim 1st, Patton 2nd and Zhukov 3rd.

Monty was a solid strategist and there was some in the German ranks of whom Monty was undoubtedly better (not all the German commanders were of the standard of Manstein or Guderian). Monty was from the old school and was too cautious by far. He would have made a terrible Armored Division Commander. I doubt he would have stood up to Hitler and like most of the German Commanders he would have been a sycophant.
December 16th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Thanks for that Doppleganger.

I am not sure who were the best and worst German Commanders. Hopner was pretty good when the Germans were approaching Moscow. Model wasn't bad either. Well, we have all heard about Rommel (Must have this for another topic!).

I agree with you about Monty.
December 16th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
von Bock was pretty good. Model was a solid and adaptable defender but questionable on attack. Paulus is a tad under-rated because of losing at Stalingrad, but his need to follow stupid orders is certainly questionable. Hmmm ... here's how I would rate the Top German Commanders (very subjective, I know):

1.) Guderian
2.) Manstein
3.) Dietrich
4.) Rommel
5.) von Bock

Any one of those could have beat the crap out of any allied commander on a level playing field, or even outnumbered (within reason). I swear I have the feeling I forgot somebody big. Can't think of it right now.
December 18th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
von Bock was pretty good. Model was a solid and adaptable defender but questionable on attack. Paulus is a tad under-rated because of losing at Stalingrad, but his need to follow stupid orders is certainly questionable. Hmmm ... here's how I would rate the Top German Commanders (very subjective, I know):

1.) Guderian
2.) Manstein
3.) Dietrich
4.) Rommel
5.) von Bock

Any one of those could have beat the crap out of any allied commander on a level playing field, or even outnumbered (within reason). I swear I have the feeling I forgot somebody big. Can't think of it right now.
I don't think Paulus was a great commander. He only got command of 6th Armee because the original commander, Walter von Reichenau, died in a plane crash in 1942. He is underrated though and did the right thing in not retreating from Stalingrad as his undersupplied and exhausted troops would have been cut to ribbons had he done so. It turns out that although 6th Armee never should have been anywhere near the centre of Stalingrad, it turned out not to be as disasterous as once thought. The Stalingrad debacle happened mainly because the flanks of 6th Armee were not secured properly.

Model was an able commander as you said but some others you could have included are Hermann Hoth, Albert Kesselring, Hasso von Manteuffel, Erich Hoeppner. I think you've rated Dietrech a bit too highly though and he's certainly not 3rd on my list.
December 18th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Hoth was the one I was forgetting. Easily one of the best. The underlying point is, if you were to try to sort the overall Best of the Best of Army Commanders of WW2, no Allied Commander could break the top 5 in overall skill. Patton might break into the top ten on some people's lists. Mongomery wouldn't make it into the top ten, though I could see him being close.

I'm not greatly impressed with Zhukov, but he could easily make the top 20 -- he pulled of some pretty brilliant moves at times. I just don't like his one-track-mind, and "don't care how many die in the process" thing. Also, what he lacked in skill, he made up for in persistence and numbers -- just like every other well known Allied Commander.

I like Dietrich as a commander, but of course it is always arguable. Some people might rate Manstein over Guderian too. Some people rate Nimitz over Yamamoto, etc.

For Paulus, my main point was that even a "mediocre" German Field Marshall like him was actually pretty damn good. He gets a bad reputation for getting trapped at Stalingrad -- aka just following orders and doing what he was told. He demonstrated considerable skill in the battle. I don't know if his forces were in any position to avoid being outflanked in the middle of the winter, but that was his big blunder anyways.
December 18th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Hitler thought highly of Manstein, particularly after the shock of the Stalingrad defeat, but this should be on another topic gentlemen.

Who was the best German Commander?

Have a great Christmas guys.
December 18th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Hoth was the one I was forgetting. Easily one of the best. The underlying point is, if you were to try to sort the overall Best of the Best of Army Commanders of WW2, no Allied Commander could break the top 5 in overall skill. Patton might break into the top ten on some people's lists. Mongomery wouldn't make it into the top ten, though I could see him being close.

For Paulus, my main point was that even a "mediocre" German Field Marshall like him was actually pretty damn good. He gets a bad reputation for getting trapped at Stalingrad -- aka just following orders and doing what he was told. He demonstrated considerable skill in the battle. I don't know if his forces were in any position to avoid being outflanked in the middle of the winter, but that was his big blunder anyways.
Yeah Hoth is often overlooked, and yet he had command of a full Panzerarmee for most of the war in the East. He performed very well and showed great skill in commanding panzer formations. He almost matched Guderian's achievements in 1941 and throughout 1942 and 1943 skillfully deployed his panzer formations and showed great tactical adroit in doing so.

It wasn't Paulus's fault that 6th Armee ended up where it was. You can put that blame squarely at the feet of Hitler. It's a shame that he has been labelled as this weak-willed coward who was afraid to defy Hitler. Truth is, he knew his formations were in no condition to withdraw in the middle of winter from defensible positions. 6th Armee tied up 61 Soviet formations for almost 3 months and with hindsight that wasn't all that bad. Paulus's flanks collapsed because the Romanian 3rd and 4th Armies holding them did not have either the armor, AT guns or dug-in defensible positions. The Red Army knew this and proceed to hurl massed Tank Armies at both flanks, smashing them in the process. Thus Stalingrad was encircled and 6th Armee trapped.