Best Battlefield Commander of World War II ... Period!! - Page 4




View Poll Results :Who was the very best Battlefield Commander of World War II??
Field Marshall Carl Mannerheim (Finland) 5 8.33%
Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery (United Kingdom) 2 3.33%
Field Marshall Philippe Leclerc (France) 0 0%
General Nikolai Fedorovich Vatutin (USSR) 1 1.67%
Field Marshal Ivan Konev (USSR) 0 0%
Field Marshall Georgii K Zhukov (USSR) 12 20.00%
General George S Patton (USA) 6 10.00%
General Mitsuru Ushijima (Japan) 0 0%
General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Japan) 1 1.67%
Lieutenant-General Masaharu Honma (Japan) 0 0%
General Tomoyuki Yamashita (Japan) 2 3.33%
Field Marshall Hermann Hoth (Germany) 0 0%
Field Marshall Fedor von Bock (Germany) 0 0%
Field Marshall Walther Model (Germay) 1 1.67%
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel (Germany) 9 15.00%
General Heinz Guderian (Germany) 8 13.33%
Field Marshall Erich von Manstein (Germany) 5 8.33%
General Dwight D Eisenhower (USA) 4 6.67%
General Omar Bradley (USA) 1 1.67%
General Douglas MacArthur (USA) 3 5.00%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
May 11th, 2005  
Dean
 
 
Now, there is a method to my madness.... I think. My memory is somewhat foggy on this one so tell me if I'm wrong. Wasn't Yamamoto the supreme commander of the Pacific theater, controlling both naval and land forces?
Now, thou seeth the reason for my past musings!

Dean
May 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Nope, the Japanese Navy and Army were very seperate and fought amongst themselves to a great extent. It was one of their greater weaknesses.
May 11th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
I definately disagree with Zukov as the best general. His tactic of double envelopment combined with a frontal assault worked, but at such a rediculously high cost he would have been quickly tossed in any modern democratic government. Remeber that the high losses where not just in the desperate battles for stalingrad and lenningrad where they could be rationalized, but they continued all the way until the end of the war with especially extreme losses in and around Berlin even when at that point the war was decided.

I decided to go with Ike, traditionally I've gone with manstein but recently I've been rediscovering how important for the war Ike was. Like everyone else I like Rommel but I think he's been mythicised in American storytelling as the "noble nazi" and, like Patton, has been portrayed as a slightly better man than he was.
--
May 11th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
I definately disagree with Zukov as the best general. His tactic of double envelopment combined with a frontal assault worked, but at such a rediculously high cost he would have been quickly tossed in any modern democratic government. Remeber that the high losses where not just in the desperate battles for stalingrad and lenningrad where they could be rationalized, but they continued all the way until the end of the war with especially extreme losses in and around Berlin even when at that point the war was decided.

I decided to go with Ike, traditionally I've gone with manstein but recently I've been rediscovering how important for the war Ike was. Like everyone else I like Rommel but I think he's been mythicised in American storytelling as the "noble nazi" and, like Patton, has been portrayed as a slightly better man than he was.
You make some good arguments regarding Zhukov, Patton and Rommel but I'm not quite sure why you chose Ike. I'd be interested to hear why you make him the best commander. I always saw Ike as a very good administrator but never an operational commander or someone with flashes of brilliance. I think to truly be aware of the situation and the strengths/weaknesses of your men/equipment a good stint at the front is essential. Unless you experience first-hand the conditions your men are fighting under, you can never truly understand what they're capable of when you're back at HQ dishing out orders.
May 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
I definately disagree with Zukov as the best general. His tactic of double envelopment combined with a frontal assault worked, but at such a rediculously high cost he would have been quickly tossed in any modern democratic government. Remeber that the high losses where not just in the desperate battles for stalingrad and lenningrad where they could be rationalized, but they continued all the way until the end of the war with especially extreme losses in and around Berlin even when at that point the war was decided.
That's because at Berlin he was competing with Konev for the honor of taking the Nazi capital. Stalin set that up and used both men's ambition. Not a one of them gave a bowl of borscht about Ivan in the field.
May 12th, 2005  
melkor the first
 

Topic: Best Battlefield Commander


Since Ike took control of the Allied Ground Forces after the liberation of France,he can't be described as just an administrator but he didn't micromanage his subordinate generals to a great degree. I voted for Gen Yamashita because I believe that he turned in 2 of the best performances of the war particularly since the Japanese Army was not the brilliant tactical weapon that the Wehrmacht was at various times. Yamashita manuevered brilliantly and was rewarded with virtual exile within his army and(in my opinion) an unjustified execution after the war. General Rommel is better remembered as a victim of his own regime but Yamashita served his forces just as well and was worse served. On the battlefield he proved his worth against superior forces.
May 12th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 

Topic: Re: Best Battlefield Commander


Quote:
Originally Posted by melkor the first
Since Ike took control of the Allied Ground Forces after the liberation of France,he can't be described as just an administrator but he didn't micromanage his subordinate generals to a great degree.
In his role as Supreme Allied Commander that's what he was more or less doing, administrating them. In WW2 he wasn't a battlefield commander. Not his fault of course but true nonetheless. With the logistical and material superiority he enjoyed, Ike didn't need to be a great strategist to defeat the portion of the Wehrmacht that lay in front of him. Although he did exactly what he was there to do and did it competently, nothing he did IMO qualifies him to be considered as the greatest commander of WW2. Remember too that some historians blame him, along with Monty, for the failure to capture Antwerp in September 1944, an act that some believe may have shortened the war.
May 13th, 2005  
melkor the first
 

Topic: Ike and Doppelganger


I agree with you on the whole about Ike and about Antwerp and also question if enough thought had gone into capturing Cherbourg. Best JWC
June 19th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farseer
Very hard to choose between four brilliant commanders:
-Mannerheim, only leader eligible to stop Russians in 1939-40 and 1944
-Rommel, definitely best tactician of war, could change any situation into victory.
-Manstein, brilliant strategist in Eastern front
-Guderian, mainly remembered as outstanding theorist but also able field commander.

Well, with small home ground support I have to give my vote to Mannerheim at this poll.
Good choices! You overrate Rommel a bit, underrate Guderian as a field commander and I wouldn't agree that Mannerheim was the only leader eligible to stop the Russians though he was an excellent commander agreed.
I tend to agree with you on the Rommel comments there was a statement made about him in a book on Tobruk (Oddly enough called Tobruk The Birth of a Legend by Frank Harrison) that went:

Erwin Rommel, fearless, inspiational, chivalrous; but also stubborn, reckless and demanding - was a Desert Wolf not Fox. He deserved better of his nation.
July 6th, 2005  
John Patrick Mason
 
Ike's greatest battlefield achievement was atleast keeping a semblance o control over his subordinates. For all his skills as a diplomat, his error to not reinforce either Monty to the North or the American Armies further south was a disaster for post war Europe. The greatest task was to build a bridgehead in Normandy and the sheer bravery of young men, American, Canadian and British backed by air and sea power and of course luck enabled this to be so. Ike as supreme commander has to take credit, but he was almost like a politician in military uniform rather than a 'Great battlefeld general'