Who was the most accomplished General of WWII

arnhem44

I've often wondered who was the most accomplished general of WWII,many were great leaders of men but still had to answer to superiors in alot of cases which would of in effect of held them back, for example generals of the German and Russian Armies ,others were glory seekers making names for themselves in the war,there seems to be so many from the whole conflict is it possible to pick one?

DublinDes

DublinDes

Morlar

I would have thought the most popular choices would be Rommel or Patton or Bradley. To be honest I would know more about select majors (& lower ranked men) & battles or campaigns than any particular general's progress from the beginning to the end of the war so it's hard to give a useful answer.

Riamfada

Serious answers Des, please.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Hooch

In terms of accomplishment during and after the war i'd say Omar Bradley. (Last 5 star general of US Army)

marcsignal

An often overlooked General, imo was 'General Winter' in Russia.

It did more damage to the Wehrmacht an terms of loss of equipment, men, and morale than any of it's human adversarial contemporaries.

Delancey

The best general I would have to say was Zhukov ,

The most outstanding military leader I think was CINCPAC Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz

surripere

Having to choose but one, I'd say Manstein.

dresden8

This guy did some amazing stuff on the Eastern Front but he's not very well known.

http://hosted.wargamer.com/Panzer/balck.html

Fratton Fred

There was a lad from Rathmines called Cunningham who played a pretty big role. Control of the Med was vital to get victory in Africa and then invade Italy.

FiSe

Adolf Galland?

Tricky question impossible to answer.
The same question like what was the best tank of WWII, what was the best aircraft of WWII, what was the best ship of WWII, who was the best pilot of WWII.....

Jarren

Hans Guderian

For outflanking the Maginot Line

Erwin Rommel

For the North African campaign

Karl Donitz

For submarine warfare

The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril

By Winston Churchill

Black And Proud

surripere wrote: »

Having to choose but one, I'd say Manstein.

He was masterful in what he did. I'd second your choice

Voltex

Black And Proud wrote: »

He was masterful in what he did. I'd second your choice

Agreed
As a stratagest..he was excellent
Rundsted is one id personally admire

kowloon

British General William Slim is often cited as a particularly effective and popular general. His role was a bit obscure though seeing as he was posted in Burma for a lot of the war.

Paul91

Winston Churchill - as he mobilised the UK and commonwealth to eventually win the war

Jako8

I'll say Zhukov.

T "real deal" J

Eric Von Manstein was the most gifted of German generals. Post Stalingrad encirclement at Kharkov probably the greatest achievement of the war.

Could someone please outline examples of Zhukov's tactical astuteness? Admittedly moscow counteroffensive excellent timing (moreso general russian awareness of extreme conditions and German preparatory failing).
Operation Uranus was daring but was more of a group plan by stavka. I'm sure Zhukov was at the forefront.
Subsequent battles executed from a position of overwhelming material and manpower superiority?
not to take anything away from this guy he was a bulldog...but a few examples would be great. thanks

jam_mac_jam

Jako8 wrote: »

I'll say Zhukov.

yep, me too.

Mjollnir

jarecki1976 wrote: »

Hans Guderian

For outflanking the Maginot Line

Erwin Rommel

For the North African campaign

Karl Donitz

For submarine warfare

The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril

By Winston Churchill

Not to put too fine a point on it, but really, how difficult and/or important an achievement was it, really, to outflank, or actually just make irrelevant, the Maginot Line?

citizen_p

Wilhelm Mohnke

Morlar

Mjollnir wrote: »

Not to put too fine a point on it, but really, how difficult and/or important an achievement was it, really, to outflank, or actually just make irrelevant, the Maginot Line?

I think the french thought it was pretty important. Not to be pedantic but everything is simple in hindsight, at the time it was not as simple as 'deciding' to go through the ardennes/belgium, the counter moves were quite complicated and involved diversionary forces lined up and put in place to hold the defenders at their soon to be redundant positions. It was not just a move but a complete deception on the french despite their air power etc. Also even though they were effectively bypassed that still left a motivated and large army behind the german lines which were in vast massive fortifications (Metz etc) which had to be dealt with. Having the imagination and foresight and faith/ability to get through in numbers is no mean feat.

Militarily it was (in hindsight) as we all know a monumental mistake (literally) to put that much faith in it but I would argue that defeating it was not as simple as you might think looking at it 70 odd yrs later on a map.

meathstevie

Kurt Student. First ever large scale airborne operations.

Seriously tarnished his record in Crete.

Sephiroth_dude

Rommel.

T "real deal" J

T real deal J wrote: »

Eric Von Manstein was the most gifted of German generals. Post Stalingrad encirclement at Kharkov probably the greatest achievement of the war.

A close second is the Manstein plan. He devised the strategy where the germans went through the Ardennes forest and completely took the french by surprise, enabling a full outflanking and encirlement of the french army. The results were sensational at the time, the world was gobsmacked!

Tony EH

marcsignal wrote: »

An often overlooked General, imo was 'General Winter' in Russia.

It did more damage to the Wehrmacht an terms of loss of equipment, men, and morale than any of it's human adversarial contemporaries.

Unfortunately, it didn't discriminate between friendly and enemy forces though. The Soviets suffered from "General Winter" too.


Tony

Tony EH

Zhukov for the Allies.

Manstein for the Germans in attack and Heinrici for them in defence.

Yamamoto for the Japanese Navy.




Tony

Lockstep

marcsignal wrote: »

An often overlooked General, imo was 'General Winter' in Russia.

It did more damage to the Wehrmacht an terms of loss of equipment, men, and morale than any of it's human adversarial contemporaries.

Extremely true.

Zhukov. Rommel was devestatingly efficient as well.

Selah_Nova

Howya's,
Probably a bit late in the day but Id say Tomoyuki Yamashi-ta who took Singapore. He out flanked the british army by landing behind their main defense line, then, armed not with tanks but with that most deadly of weapons, the bicycle, they cycled down the Malay Penninsula and despite being outnumbered about 3 to 1, he and his three divisional commanders pulled one of the greatest bluffs of the whole war and took the surrender of 'fortress Singapore' from the prick who burnned Mallow and Cork during the war of Independence.
Yamashi-ta surrendered in Sep 45 in the Phillipines, theres some wild speculation about all the gold the Japs had plundered and hid there but thats another story. Guess who's there to see him surrender? that non-vindictive black and tan prick, who probably played no small part in seeing 'The Tiger of Malaya' hang for war crimes he did not order.

Angry Troll

marcsignal wrote: »

An often overlooked General, imo was 'General Winter' in Russia.

It did more damage to the Wehrmacht an terms of loss of equipment, men, and morale than any of it's human adversarial contemporaries.

that may well be true, him and general mud, also eastern front, as well as general american industrial capacity...surely no human russian or western allied general anyway...everybody would have won with that sort of numerical superiority and especially that superiority in material, fuel and everything else...

Morlar

Angry Troll wrote: »

...everybody would have won with that sort of numerical superiority and especially that superiority in material, fuel and everything else...

The early years of the Barbarossa always remind me of Zap Brannigan from the Futurama cartoon;

How did I defeat the killbots, simple, I sent wave after wave of my own men knowing full well that eventually the killbots would reach there kill limit and shut down.

The russians throwing men at a german wall, many of whom in the earlier stages were unarmed or carrying a handful of rounds. There was even a macarbe joke about the russian sent out with 10 bullets only to come home with 11.

Riddle101

'The Desert Fox' Erwin Rommel. The man was a huge force in Africa and as well as that he actually managed to break through the one part of the Maginot line as well, I believe.

BullyBeef

On the face of it a good question but I find it to difficult to make a balanced comparison on men who for various reasons at times were either in favour ,under equipped or self promoting with the pres etc.
So many campaigns & calculations like a force of 800,000 against 500,000 one on more home ground another invading with supply logistics etc. So here’s some I find as notable if only to myself.
Kesselring, H Alexander, Eisenhower, Yamamoto. Mannerhein[Finish], Chuikov , R O'Connor , Erich von Manstein,. WinWrite ,Heinz Guerin [father of Blitzkrieg] & Robert "Roy" Elliott Urquhart.

Riddle101

Riddle101 wrote: »

'The Desert Fox' Erwin Rommel. The man was a huge force in Africa and as well as that he actually managed to break through the one part of the Maginot line as well, I believe.

Edit- Reading more about Erwin Rommel today has made me even more convinced he's the most accomplished. Trully a man of honor so much so that even Hitler had so much respect for him that they allowed him to go out on his own terms by Cyanide pill.

rich1874

If you're looking at tactical ingenuity then you could only really look at German commanders like Rommel and Guderian who really innovated modern dynamical warfare and also British commanders like Richard O Connor who did great work with very limited resources. Although i'm sure there were good American and Russian generals, the fact that at their peak they had so many resources to work with should exclude them somewhat.

Prefab Sprouter

I have to be honest and say that IMHO, Erwin Rommel was one of the most overrated Commanders of the War. Tactically brilliant, his methods in the Battle of France were rightlyfully lauded. But on a strategic level he was much poorer. if you read Von Mellenthin's memoirs he lists at least 3 situations where Rommels HQ had no idea where he was (leading from the front is a fine trait for a Battalion Commander, not a Commander of a Theater) and were forced to make decisions because he could not be contacted. He treated his Italian Allies with Disdain and never tried to co-operate at any level with his Italian Superiors or indeed Kesselring. Contrast this with someone like Eisenhower who succeeded in commanding a multi-national force successfully and his record comes up short.

He was a general who ignored logistics, always preferring to attack than wait for supplies. His advance into Egypt was rash and ill-thought out, considering that the plan was for the capture of Tobruk, then the reduction of Malta, then the advance into Egypt. But Rommel would not wait and without waiting for any consultations, he decided to commit the Afrika Korps to the advance and present his superiors with a "fait accompli". So I would disagree with the Assessment of Rommel as a great Commander. Energetic? sure. Lucky? Yup! Tactically aware? yes indeed. Good Army Commander? Not really no.

I would also say that the Allies built up the reputation of the "Desert Fox" to conceal the inadequacies of their own Commanders. It suited the British to go on about the Brilliance of this man, when their own Commanders were clearly not up to the task.

tfitzgerald

zhukov did not worry about his men he would have sent them against the germans no matter what imho the best has to be patton, There is one other Finnish general who gave the russians a bad time but i cant think of his name now

Tony EH

Prefab Sprouter wrote: »

I have to be honest and say that IMHO, Erwin Rommel was one of the most overrated Commanders of the War. Tactically brilliant, his methods in the Battle of France were rightlyfully lauded. But on a strategic level he was much poorer. if you read Von Mellenthin's memoirs he lists at least 3 situations where Rommels HQ had no idea where he was (leading from the front is a fine trait for a Battalion Commander, not a Commander of a Theater) and were forced to make decisions because he could not be contacted. He treated his Italian Allies with Disdain and never tried to co-operate at any level with his Italian Superiors or indeed Kesselring. Contrast this with someone like Eisenhower who succeeded in commanding a multi-national force successfully and his record comes up short.

He was a general who ignored logistics, always preferring to attack than wait for supplies. His advance into Egypt was rash and ill-thought out, considering that the plan was for the capture of Tobruk, then the reduction of Malta, then the advance into Egypt. But Rommel would not wait and without waiting for any consultations, he decided to commit the Afrika Korps to the advance and present his superiors with a "fait accompli". So I would disagree with the Assessment of Rommel as a great Commander. Energetic? sure. Lucky? Yup! Tactically aware? yes indeed. Good Army Commander? Not really no.

I would also say that the Allies built up the reputation of the "Desert Fox" to conceal the inadequacies of their own Commanders. It suited the British to go on about the Brilliance of this man, when their own Commanders were clearly not up to the task.

Bang on.

Rommel was a good Corps commander and was great at thinking on his feet, but I feel he lacked the ability to handle anything above.

Irving's book "The Trail of the Fox" does much to dispell the myth of Rommel and IMO, is required reading on the subject.

knird evol

tfitzgerald wrote: »

, There is one other Finnish general who gave the russians a bad time but i cant think of his name now

Manerheim

Tony EH wrote: »

Bang on.

Rommel was a good Corps commander

I think Hoth improved to the point of surpassing Rommel and Guderian by late in the eastern campaign

Prefab Sprouter

knird evol wrote: »

Manerheim



I think Hoth improved to the point of surpassing Rommel and Guderian by late in the eastern campaign

Agreed - Hoth was an extremely able Commander and often overlooked when compiling these lists. I'd put Hermann Balck up along with him as well as Gotthard Heinrici. Both individuals had experience of commanding divisions, Corps and Armies during the war.

Manach

DeGaulle
1 - He was a early proponent of tank warfare
2 - Politically, he organised a defeated nation into making a contribution to the war effort plus he faced down both Churchill and Roosevelt to win concessions for France.

Morlar

I'd agree with the merits of most of the posts on here but De Gaulle as candidate for 'Greatest Generals of WW2' would be an extremely hard sell as far as I am concerned.

Accounts have him as arrogant, obnoxious & impossible to work with. Also I would consider that he wrote the french colonials (african troops who fought for france) out of history by overseeing their removal from the victory parade*. There was also controversy over them being denied their pensions for decades too despite having fought and died in large numbers for france, and this pensions episode happened at a time when he was in political power. Being an early proponent of tank warfare does not qualify one as a Great General of WW2. It just puts him on a relatively equal footing against his opponents. I think as a figurehead he served a use but that would be about as high as I would rank him.

* actually i have been reading up on this part of the story and apparently it was at british and american request

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/04/paris_liberatio.php

However it was not all rosy for them post war either;

For France’s West African Tirailleurs Senegalais, however, there was little to celebrate.

Despite forming 65% of Free French Forces and dying in large numbers for France, they were to have no heroes’ welcome in Paris.

After the liberation of the French capital many were simply stripped of their uniforms and sent home. To make matters even worse, in 1959 their pensions were frozen.

Fratton Fred

I know Roosevelt couldn't stand him and Churchill only had him around as he recognised what a useful figurehead he could be.

Other than some good speaches and a lot of flag waving, I'm not sure what else De Gaulle did during the war.

Fratton Fred

I know Roosevelt couldn't stand him and Churchill only had him around as he recognised what a useful figurehead he could be. I don't think he actually faced down anyone, it was more a case of keeping him happy as the Allies were worried about losing France completely. Various colonies had already gone over to the Vichy government and with no French leader I think there was a real fear they could lose more.

Other than some good speaches and a lot of flag waving, I'm not sure what else De Gaulle did during the war.

Manach

Re: DeGaulle.
This is based on a book (De Gaulle by Julian Jackson) I read about him several years back so the details are a bit sketchy.

When he left France in 1940 after the Fall, it was himself and his staff. No other general had so little to work with. That four years latter a Free French army under DeClerc(?) in 1944 liberated Paris suggested he was politically astute to garner support from both US and UK.
As well he had strong organisational ties to the French Resistance. He managed to unite disperate elements of French society (inc. communist elements ) into a common cause. How effect the French Resistance was is another debate.

Tony EH

...and how much of a "common cause" they had is debatable too. The Gaullists, non-Gaullists, Nationalists and Communists of Resistance fought for many different reasons and their "twains" rarely met.

Also, it was the obvious fact that when the end of the occupation was in sight, that helped the different sides put away (most of) their differences and fight together (somewhat) in the actions to help the Allied armies push the Germans out of France. It had less to do with De Gaulle, than the "writing on the wall".

Prefab Sprouter

I'd see De Gaulle as more of a Rallying Point or figurehead for the Free French then anything else. He didnt exactly get time to do anything per se on the Battlefield.