Commanders (Gound Forces)
Biggs
have admiration for Brooke, we will never know how tactically on the
battlefield he would have performed, I know he turned down command in
the desert and hankered after the Supreme Commanders Role in overlord.
My question is who in your opinion were the best commanders for the
British, Americans, Russians and Germans.
My suggestions are as follows:-
British----Montgomery, though I am not totally convinced on this, I
have great mis-givings, perhaps I should choose Slim, Alexander was a
good politician, what about Paget who trained 21st Army Group before
the invasion and performed well in Norway? Brooke is my favourite but
because of results I choose Monty.
Americans----definitley NOT Eisenhower, it really would be a choice
between Patton, though his temperment and treatment of his soldiers at
times had a little to be desired and Macarther who again proved
himself in Korea.
Germans---- for me many to choose from Guderian, Rommel, Model,
Rundstedt and more but I would always go for Manstein he planned the
invasion of France, captured Crimea and planned Kursk though the
timing of the battle for him was wrong and really should have been
given overall command of the eastern front, from what I have read I
think the German Generals would have picked him aswell.
Russians----a few to pick here Chuikov for Stalingrad, Semyon
Timoshenko,
but it would have to be Georgy Zhukov no questions
Peter
Rich Rostrom
>My suggestions are as follows:-
>
>Americans----definitley NOT Eisenhower, it really would be a choice
>between Patton, though his temperment and treatment of his soldiers at
>times had a little to be desired and Macarther who again proved
>himself in Korea.
Eisenhower operated at a different level
from Patton, just as Brooke and Alexander did.
Eisenhower's management of the NW Europe campaign
was highly successful - and I believe it was no
accident that he had such capable and effective
subordinates as Montgomery, Bradley, Patton,
Simpson, and Hodges - and I would add J.C.H Lee,
who operated the supply system that accomplished
so much to enable combat victories.
>Russians----a few to pick here Chuikov for Stalingrad, Semyon
>Timoshenko, but it would have to be Georgy Zhukov no questions
Zhukov's reputation was deliberately inflated
after the war for internal political reasons.
His successes were always at heavy cost,
from Khalkin-Gol to Berlin.
And he had some spectacular failures:
Operation MARS may have cost the Soviets
a million casualties for no gain.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Don Phillipson
news:1181207863....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> . . . admiration for Brooke, we will never know how tactically on the
> battlefield he would have performed, I know he turned down command in
> the desert and hankered after the Supreme Commanders Role in overlord.
You may need to investigate Alan Brooke's career more
closely.
1. His performance on the battlefield in 1940 was the
reason he was chosen after Dunkirk to command the
defence of southern England against the projected
invasion.
2. It was Churchill rather than Brooke who decided
against Brooke's succeeding Wavell in the Middle
East. Brooke was then CIGS and Churchill did
not want to deal with any other general.
3. In compensation (because Brooke feared the
Middle East command might be his last chance
to command in the field) Churchill promised Brooke
command of the AEF (Normandy invasion) -- and (it
seems) did not have the courage to warn Brooke when
he later changed his mind and agreed the commander
had to be American. Brooke's diaries indicate this
was the worst blow in his career, although he later
agreed Churchill was right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Shawn Wilson
news:1181207863....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> British----Montgomery, though I am not totally convinced on this, I
> have great mis-givings, perhaps I should choose Slim, Alexander was a
> good politician, what about Paget who trained 21st Army Group before
> the invasion and performed well in Norway? Brooke is my favourite but
> because of results I choose Monty.
I know little about British genrals, but Monty was not very good. (which
is not to say he wasn't the best...)
> Americans----definitley NOT Eisenhower, it really would be a choice
> between Patton, though his temperment and treatment of his soldiers at
> times had a little to be desired and Macarther who again proved
> himself in Korea.
Neither. Patton had the usual logistical blindspot of great corps
commanders and Mac more or less single handedly lost the Phillippines by
planning for a war his troops weren't capable of winning. I will pull
Brad;ey's name from the nether regions and say him.
> Germans---- for me many to choose from Guderian, Rommel, Model,
> Rundstedt and more but I would always go for Manstein he planned the
> invasion of France, captured Crimea and planned Kursk though the
> timing of the battle for him was wrong and really should have been
> given overall command of the eastern front, from what I have read I
> think the German Generals would have picked him aswell.
Rommel shared Patton's logistical blindspot, so not him. Manstein, OK.
> Russians----a few to pick here Chuikov for Stalingrad, Semyon
> Timoshenko,
> but it would have to be Georgy Zhukov no questions
Yes, Zhukov. Sure he took massive casualties, but his tool was the Russian
army, not the German.
Doug
logistics, but I thought Mountbatten was the overall commander of British
S.E. Asia forces (SEAC?)?
"Peter" <ande...@onlinemt.com> wrote in message
news:1181233573....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Doug
a better job than MacArthur either. MacArthur wasn't responsible for the
loss of all allied forces in the Phillipines was he (I had thought
Bremereton[?] was the Army Air Force commander in the Phillipines)?
What did Bradley ever accomplish?
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46688cb1$0$507$815e...@news.qwest.net...
Louis C
> Some say Monty was the best British Commander, though I must admit I
> have admiration for Brooke, we will never know how tactically on the
> battlefield he would have performed
Brooke was a corps commander in the BEF, in 1940.
Among his subordinate units was 3rd division commanded by Montgomery.
II Corps performed extremely well during that campaign, which is how
Brooke got promoted.
LC
Walt
He was just good enough of a general to cause a lot of blood baths.
Walt
Don Phillipson
news:qD4ai.11528$4Y....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> I thought Mountbatten was the overall commander of British
> S.E. Asia forces (SEAC?)?
No, SEAC was an allied command (not only British)
i.e. Mountbatten commanded American as well as
British and other units in his territory: see Stilwell's
diaries etc.
ThePro
<snip UK & USA stuff>
>
> Germans---- for me many to choose from Guderian, Rommel, Model,
> Rundstedt and more but I would always go for Manstein he planned the
> invasion of France, captured Crimea and planned Kursk though the
> timing of the battle for him was wrong and really should have been
> given overall command of the eastern front, from what I have read I
> think the German Generals would have picked him aswell.
My choice is Rommel: look at the situation in Africa when he took
charge and what he did with the limited resources at his disposition.
At Al-Alamein, all that Monty could do is wait until he had a crushing
advantage in tanks, guns, fuel, ammo, etc. to attack because of
Rommel's superior tactics.
Pierrot Robert
Chicoutimi, Canada
Bill Shatzer
> No one could have held the Phillipines in '42'. I doubt anyone could've done
> a better job than MacArthur either.
I'd tend to agree that the Phillipines were going to be lost in any
event, no matter who was in command. But MacArthur throughly botched the
job - from letting his air force be caught on the ground to the
throughly mismanaged and poorly planned withdrawal to Bataan - and any
number of commanders could have done a better job.
> MacArthur wasn't responsible for the
> loss of all allied forces in the Phillipines was he (I had thought
> Bremereton[?] was the Army Air Force commander in the Phillipines)?
Bereton was overruled by MacArthur - or perhaps by Sutherland. It isn't
entirely clear whether Sutherland was conveying MacArthur's orders or
acting on his own initiative.
> What did Bradley ever accomplish?
Quite a bit. And generally competently as well.
Cheers,
Timo A. Nieminen
> At Al-Alamein, all that Monty could do is wait until he had a crushing
> advantage in tanks, guns, fuel, ammo, etc. to attack because of
> Rommel's superior tactics.
A sign of Good Generalship, surely, that he did wait?
--
Timo
Shawn Wilson
> No one could have held the Phillipines in '42'. I doubt anyone could've
> done a better job than MacArthur either.
Bull... At a minimum a minimally competent general would not have planned
for a forward battle his troops weren't capable of winning, and would have
simply followed War Plan Orange and turtled up at Corregidor with all the
supplies in the Phillippines, rather than having the Japanese capture all
his suppplies and making almost no attempt to stockpile supplies once the
decision was reached to retreat to Corregidor after all.
MacArthur wasn't responsible for the
> loss of all allied forces in the Phillipines was he (I had thought
> Bremereton[?] was the Army Air Force commander in the Phillipines)?
Like hell he wasn't. He was CinC. NO ONE outranked him in the Phillipines.
He was in charge of everything.
BernardZ
> after the war for internal political reasons.
Unlikely as almost all post-ww2 Russian leaders had an interest in
deflating Zhukov's image as they tended to see him as a potential
threat.
> His successes were always at heavy cost,
> from Khalkin-Gol to Berlin.
This would probably be true of most Russian generals.
Andrew Clark
> Montgomery reminds me of General Lee of the Army of Northern Virginia.
> He was just good enough of a general to cause a lot of blood baths.
Attention to detail was one of Montgomery's strengths. Providing cleansing
facilities for the troops was not overlooked, naturally.
David...@comcast.net
> I would add J.C.H Lee,
> who operated the supply system that accomplished
> so much to enable combat victories.
As I recall "Jesus Christ Himself" Lee was fairly corrupt and just
tolerated by Ike. I would credit the success of the Allied supply
system world wide to a culture of industrial organization generated by
the great public works projects in the U.S. in the 1930s (TVA, Grand
Coulee) rather than one inciteful general.
David Wilma
www.HistoryLink.org the online encyclopedia of Washington State History
Padraigh ProAmerica
units never lost ground and suffered amazingly low casualty rates.
Germany- tough choice. Many were good; one wonders what they might have
been capable of with proper support.
England Anyone but Montgomery. He was egotistical, had little tolerance
for dissent, and had a habit of screwing up major opeations (i.e.,
HUSKY- by forcing Patton into a subordinate role, he caused the opeation
to last longer than it should have; COBRA- his meddling in the American
breakout from Normansy resulted in unwaranted 'friendly fire'
casualties; and need we get into the details of the disaster of
MARKET-GARDEN?)
Equal rights for all..special rights for none.
ThePro
Sure, but he did not have Rommel's tactical sense or grasp, he was a
good "resource manager" with attention to details, but IMHO this makes
good generals, not great.
Pierrot Robert
David Thornley
ThePro <pierrot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Sure, but he did not have Rommel's tactical sense or grasp, he was a
>good "resource manager" with attention to details, but IMHO this makes
>good generals, not great.
>
details. He had good tactical sense, but didn't do all that well
at running a whole army, which requires a good many other talents.
Rommel managed to lose the Crusader battle after Cruewell had pretty
much won it for him, and it was his idea to charge into Egypt without
doing anything about clearing his rear (such as invading Malta).
More so than most German generals, he was good at winning battles,
but not good at setting them up or fighting the right ones.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> Rommel managed to lose the Crusader battle after Cruewell had pretty
> much won it for him, and it was his idea to charge into Egypt without
> doing anything about clearing his rear (such as invading Malta).
Rommel, I believe, requested several times that Malta be taken to clear
his supply lines.
Oberkommando der Wehrmacht and, ultimately, Hitler were simply unwilling
to devote the resources which that task would have required.
Cheers,