Best commander

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#21

What happened was probably the classic case of unfinished business.

What happened came about as a result of the situation Germany had been left in at the end of WW1. Arguably, from a British point of view, that came about as a result of the treaties we had made with France in an effort to maintain the balance of power in Europe and the arms race which accompanied such treaties. Obviously, the factors leading to WW1 were varied and complex. After the slaughter of that war, many in Britain wanted to make peace permanent. As a result, Britain was ill prepared to become entangled in another European war and even less prepared for it to go global.

As the war progressed, the majority of British Imperial troops and units, mainly consisted of citizen soldiers who, unlike those troops of their enemies war machines, had not been preparing for war, but had had it thrust upon them. Whether or not one considers it a shame I don’t know, but it is history and it is the history which has shaped the world in which we now live.

#22

Thanks for that.

I’ve misused ‘island hopping’ in the sense of what Mac did, i.e. hopping over various strong points and isolating them, rather than a sequential advance through every island in the chain.

Far too many to choose from, on too many sides in too many nations, and I’d be lucky if I’d even heard of about point one per cent of them.

#23

Anyone have a top Wehrmacht commander?

#24

I put up Patton. He’s irragant sometimes but he got it done and he had some good sayings.

#25

Manstein, Gurderian, and Rommel? I dunno, I see a lot of people online tend to downgrade Rommel and insinuate that his image as “The Desert Fox” was largely built by the British that were unable to defeat him initially despite more supplies and numbers…

Manstein largely helped build the Heer, but he also is guilty of having no spine when it comes to Hitler. In fact, many think he was the candidate that would have had the best chance of succeeding Hitler after a coup. And he waffled ineffectually as the Soviets closed the vice at Stalingrad even though he didn’t share Hitler’s delusions…

Guderian seems to be the candidate for the best commander based on his completeness as a commander and influence on Schwerpunkt…

#26

For the germans I’d say it depends on the level of command. Rommel was imho the best Division or Corps and thus frontline commander of the Wehrmacht, but inferior to several others when it came to the higher abstraction levels and staff work.
And though Manstein sometimes lacked the spine in regards to Hitler, I think when it comes to army or army group level, I’d rate him very high there.

#27

Think this sums up Manstein pretty well… His operational plan for France showed a keen operational mind and a brilliant one.
He seemed comfortable on the defence or attack when many of the other Commanders are generally regarded as one or the other [Kesselring, Heinrici and Model on the defence - Guderian, Rommel on the attack etc].

This coupled with the range and size of formations he commanded with effect would rank him as high as any.
Hard to find any one better.

Guderian was the master Panzer commander and was at his best when handling aggressive operations, but would have been a nightmare to command, would have been interesting to see how he performed later in the war.
He was only in action as a field commander for about eight months, just one of many crack commanders sacked by Hitler.

Think Rommel would be up there with the best of the Panzer leaders if he had been let loose in Barbarossa.

#28

If Rommel was such a good leader then why did he lose the African campaign and get sacked by Hitler. Obvioulsy Montgomery was the Man!

#29

That was the original statement.

Rommel lost in Africa because Allied air power in the Mediterranean Sea sunk so many of his transport ships with all of his war material. While Rommel had to fight with a few devisions, gathered up and made into the Afrika Korps, the British had a whole army to fight with, as well as Indian and ANZAC devisions. Rommel had to fight with a trickle of materials and constantly had fuel and spare parts shortages. The 8th army had an easier job of resupply because they held on to the Suez Canal and had port cities near the front. Rommel’s reenforcements had to cross a few hundered miles of deasert. Though Rommel had some of the best troops in the war, the sheer numbers of the 8th army crushed them. An example of that is the Russian tactic of human waves. Hope this helped, but any more info would really help.

I do agree that Monty was The Man, but he had the logistics to help him win. :cool:

#30

His supplies were nil… not even Rommmel can win with no petrol.

#31

I’m not sure if I can really narrow it down to one.

I’d have to say Vassili Chuikov. He managed to pull the Soviets together at Stalingrad and defeat Friedrich von Paulus’ ‘undefeated’ Sixth Army. Of course, the battle was 100% Maj. Konings free. :wink:

Another cool thing is that he was the first Allied officer to learn of Hitler’s death because he commanded the Red Army at Berlin.

#32

I won’t claim he’s the greatest, but Rommel would certainly make the list of the Top 5. He was severely outnumbered with worn out equipment, no reinforcements, and absolutely no air force. There wasn’t much he could’ve done, but he held out for an extremely respectable amount of time.

Could Patton have held out longer? Could he have broken the British? We’ll never know…

#33

Thankfully, for an Anglo-American conflict wouldn’t do the world a mass of good.

#34

Indeed…of the most over rated generals of WW2 :wink:

#35

What do you think Rommel’s specific weaknesses were?

I’ve heard some think the British hyped him to deflect criticism for their early incompetence. I don’t know. He did do a lot with less of everything and had a track record of success that went beyond the desert stemming from the “Ghost Division” and he tended to be right, especially regarding the defenses of Normandy…

I’d like to ask what others would think would have happened had Rommel been present at Normandy during the landings?

#36

If he would’ve utilized his Panzer divisions early on then the landings would’ve been much different. But of course, Operation Bodyguard worked perfectly and the German High Command (including Rommel, eventually) thought Pas-de-Calais would be the site.

If I recall correctly, Rommel wanted tanks in small groups so they could mobilize quickly and stop the invasion on the beaches, but other generals wanted larger groups of Panzers to counter-attack after the invasion. They chose the latter and failed.

#37

no doubt whats in Rommel head was accurate,. having most armors to be at the beach to repel instantly for allied landing force,.

however, given the actual situation by then,… those armors could be minced by the might of bombardment force supporting the landing,… Fritz witt, commander of 12th ss was killed by the naval barrage,…

indeed,. there were no true solution for German condition back then,.

#38

And ironically both the Ariforce and Naval guns were extremely inaccurate and did little damage to anything…

#39

man,. i was wondering,… this the first time heard such a statement,. airforce and naval guns did a little ?

I hope you did read abit about war on air over europe,…

#40

I’m talking about the hours leading up to D-Day, not the air war as a whole