NationStates Jolt Archive

In you opinion who do you think the best generals in American history are.

In no particular order: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, George Patton, Douglas MacArthur, George Washington, Andrew Jackson.

Patton and lee

Can't technically say Lee ... he was CSA and, thus, not a General in the US Army.

I think I'd have to go with McArthur and Washington ... though I definately give props to Stormin' Norman!

He said americas history not army and even still he was a general pre civil war

I would say(in no order) Patton, Ike(Eisenhower), Stormin' Norman(I cant spell his last name, he was the CinC of allied forces during Gulf War 1)
Billy Mitchel from the USAF side of things, along with Carl Spaatz. Chesty Puller from the Corps.

right i consider lee and other prestigous confederate officers american. They just were not federals. I like Lee , Longstreet, Jackson, Patton and of course George Washington.

Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, George Patton, and Ike

Patton is obviously the best. He didn't take any shit from anyone. He took on the German's best tactical general and beat his pants off.

'Nuff said.

Patton is obviously the best. He didn't take any sh*t from anyone. He took on the German's best tactical general and beat his pants off.

'Nuff said.

in no order,

Patton (WW2), Franks (Iraqi Freedom), Abrams (Vietnam), Bradley(WW2), Forrest(CSA, Civil War), Lee (CSA, Civil War), Jackson (CSA, Civil War), Grant, (USA, Civil War), Sherman (USA, Civil War), Pershing (WW1), Washington (Independance), Westmoreland (Vietnam), Ike (WW2), MacArther (WW2 and Korea), and Taylor (Mexican-American War)

I threw in Confederate generals as well, regardless of their rank (or if they served) in the US Army. These men were born Americans and all confederates, dead and alive, were pardoned for their treason.

and Tango Urilla, Lee was never a General in the US Army. He resigned his commision as a Colonel to command the Army of Northern Virginia.

Louis Le Bègue de Presle du Portail
Marquis de Laffayete
Du Buysson des Aix
Baron von Steuben

Von even though they aren't american but i will agree that they were needed
to train the continentals how to fight.

Jackson, Lee, Grant, MacArthur and Patton definitely. Possibly also Sherman. Also why has no-one mentioned Washington? I understood him to be a brilliant tactician, as well as leader.
But I can't agree with Norman Schwarzkopf. Sure it was extremely well-co-ordinated attack, but the force was over-whelming to a ridiculous degree. There wasn't as much generalling (excuse the langauge!) as there was fronting the cameras while thousands of others with networks co-ordinated and synchronised attacks. What was the strategy? Soften them up with overwheming air-superiority and them roll over them with heavily armoured tanks and vehicles with helicopter support. I'd say anyone could have come up with that strategy. Remember most of the Iraqi troops on the front line were all poorly-trained and poorly-equipped conscripts who were forced there with the threat of their families being killed. They didn't want to fight and surrended as soon as they could.
US intel would have known this. So there was no real need for the constant bombardment.
I'd argue that an excellent general would have ended the 'war' (it was hardly that really) with minimal loss of life on both sides.

And as an aside, historically thru all nations (in no particular order): Nelson, Napoleon, Wellington, Julius Caesar, Gengkis Khan, Alexander the Great (here for his ability to lead more than his tactical ability), Hannibal, Barbarossa, The Japanese general (Arimato?) who co-ordinated the attacks on Pearl Harbour, Rommel, Montgomery, Georgi Zhukov, Shaka, I can't think of any others at the moment.
The best in History (ridiculous statement I know) would prob be Julius Caesar for me.

Patton is obviously the best. He didn't take any shit from anyone. He took on the German's best tactical general and beat his pants off.

'Nuff said.
I'll second that.

I think you mean Isokaru Yamamoto who planned the attack at Pearl Harbour but yeah I agree with your choices. I did mention Washington but yeah also who do you all think are some of the best generals/admirals in the world.

The best in History (ridiculous statement I know) would prob be Julius Caesar for me.
I can't agree with Ceasar. Cause he mostly did what Schwarzkopf did. His troops in Gaul, the wars that made him famouse, where usualy superior in numbers. Had the better training and weapons. Hardly a great accomplishment.
The best commander in modern history for me, allthough not a general, was IMO SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann.

Hmm. I'd go with Lee and Lee myself for slots in the top five. Grant may very well have been one the best, he came up with a stratagy which worked well with the superiority he had, although it wasn't flashy it worked. Streeter could get a top five slot too, at least top 10. Pershing is worthy of a high ranking. Patton's a contender, but overall I wouldn't put him in the top 10, his faults keep him out for me. Have to really think about who I want for the top five - do air force generals count?

I don't see how you guys are counting George Washington as a good general...

For my money
US Army
1. Eisenhower - Smoothed out coordination between the Allies during the Mediterranean and European campaigns, while simaltenously leading the assault against Hitler's Germany.
2. Stonewall Jackson - I am no rebel supporter, and I think Lee was only a marginal general who faced incompetent fools, but Jackson's abilities are outstanding even to a yankee like me. His marches across the Shenendoah were simply spectacular.
3. Bradley - The soldier's general, commanded the Army Group that the Third Army (Patton's) was attached too. He was a great general who managed to do so while also minimizing casualties, Patton was great and charismatic, but he didn't minimize casualties

US Air Force
1. Carl Spaatz - Hands down the best US Air Force (actually Army Air Corps) General of it's history, he also knew the best way to use the Strategic Bomber resources available, attacking infrastructure targets, rather then Arnold's campaign for carpet bombing.
2. Curtis LeMay - Made good his objectives even with no resources and poor support (the ill-fated bombing campaign from China), and shined (if that word can be applied) in his command of the strategic campaign against Japan from Tianian and Guam.

US Navy
1. Nimitz - Calm and collected, he spearheaded the campaign against Japan (His and Macarthur's campaigns were split). He gambled force when necessary (Midway), and acheived spectacular results, by the time he was through with Japan their Navy was reduced to a pittance of ships.
2. Ernest King - He made sure the Navy was not neglected, and kept both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets at the strengths they needed to acheive their objectives.
3. David Farragut - Able commander and charismatic, also gave us a long remembered phrase, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"
4. Alfred Mahan - His book, The Influence of Sea Power on History shaped the naval theories that dominated the age of the two world wars, the tactics and strategies used by all navies from 1890 on up are traced back to Mahan, I included him for this reason.

Likewise, I don't see how you guys are counting Eisenhower as a good general...

I don't see how you guys are counting George Washington as a good general...

I agree, he wasn't all that great as a tactician or strategist, but as a general, he kept his army together and in good order against odds that should have destroyed it. His value lay in his ability to inspire unity and purpose in the US Army.

Not all of Caesar's accomplishments were due to superior force. In the final battle with Vercingetorix, most of Gaul had risen up against the Romans. Also his battles with the Goths for example, as well as his battles with Pompey and the Egyptians were hardly overwhelming Roman force vs untrained rabble.
Also all of Caesar's battles were invasions - so they were on the backfoot in terms of fighting against someone who knew the land and didn't have to travel for weeks to get there. Remember intel back then wouldn't have been that great.
As I said, it's asinine to say who's the best general in History. I was basing it more on what he accomplished - conquered most of the known world, formalised the roman army and set up an Empire that didn't completely disappear for another 12 centuries. Which is why I don't consider Alexander as better. Even though he did more in less time, his empire collapsed when he died.

Likewise, I don't see how you guys are counting Eisenhower as a good general...

In addition to that, Eisenhower was a coldhearted murderer.

I agree, he wasn't all that great as a tactician or strategist, but as a general, he kept his army together and in good order against odds that should have destroyed it. His value lay in his ability to inspire unity and purpose in the US Army.I want a little more than that for a great general. Of course, the lack of that is what keeps Patton of my top 10 list. While Eisenhower was an excelllent general, he didn't have that spark which makes great generals. Just my opinion though.

Thanks for reminding me of Jackson, I forgot about him.

I agree, he wasn't all that great as a tactician or strategist, but as a general, he kept his army together and in good order against odds that should have destroyed it. His value lay in his ability to inspire unity and purpose in the US Army.

Yes that's why I rate him as a great general. A great (as opposed to good) general isn't just a good tactician (which Washington was hardly a slouch in) but the ability to inspire and lead, even against overwhelming odds. On paper, the British should have wiped the floor with the American rebels, but didn't. I think most of this came down to the troops faith in Washington.

Also his battles with the Goths for example.
What Goths? The Goths didn't migrate to the continent untill decades after Ceasars death.

I can't agree with Ceasar. Cause he mostly did what Schwarzkopf did. His troops in Gaul, the wars that made him famouse, where usualy superior in numbers. Had the better training and weapons. Hardly a great accomplishment.
The best commander in modern history for me, allthough not a general, was IMO SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann.

He certainly had an impressive kill number, and he went out gloriously (Againt 5 Canadian tanks), but one of his most famed encounters (against British 22nd Armoured Brigade), really has a lot to do with a horrible imbalance in the quality of tanks. But he is still the best panzer commander, but like Rommel, he may not have been suited for higher command.

Did you know, for example, that Eisenhower was such an epitome of mediocrity that, only a few years before his appointment as Supreme Commander he had served as aide-de-camp, with the rank of major, to General Douglas MacArthur?

war sucks. The best generals are the ones that fight the least, not the most.

Did you know, for example, that Eisenhower was such an epitome of mediocrity that, only a few years before his appointment as Supreme Commander he had served as aide-de-camp, with the rank of major, to General Douglas MacArthur?

Considering the size of the US Army, that is not a mediocre assignment, especially considering he had never seen combat. After MacArthur had left service, but before the outbreak of war, he said that if anyone should command the US Army in a general war, it should be Eisenhower, Marshall felt the same way, and assigned him command of Torch, it was upwards from there.

Sorry, I just meant the Germanic tribes he fought on crossing the Rhine. Damn Asterix for confusing my History!

Considering the size of the US Army, that is not a mediocre assignment, especially considering he had never seen combat. After MacArthur had left service, but before the outbreak of war, he said that if anyone should command the US Army in a general war, it should be Eisenhower, Marshall felt the same way, and assigned him command of Torch, it was upwards from there.

MacArthur said that? :eek:

Marshall, I'm not surprised about, though. He, too, was extremely mediocre and was, like Eisenhower- and later Colin Powell- a politician in uniform.

I disagree with those who said Patton, specifically if they are referring to the success of operation torch. I believe that you will find it was the Royal navy, and the British forces, under the command of Montgomery, that actually won the African campaign. When Patton turned up, Rommel had very little fuel left, not enough troops to amount a full offensive, and no way to get reinforcements. All of which had nothing to do with Patton. So, when Patton turns up, and takes the credit for it, you can forgive me when it sickens me that you don't give proper respects to the BRITISH who died years before you shown the slightest interest.

Of course, this is not the topic to be voicing such complaints, so I shall make my post relevant.

I believe that your best military leaders come from the naval field. Nimitz certainly has my respect, and recieves my nomination. the reasons given above are also my own. Eliminating the Japanese navy is no mean feat.

MacArthur said that? :eek:

Marshall, I'm not surprised about, though. He, too, was extremely mediocre and was, like Eisenhower- and later Colin Powell- a politician in uniform.

Yes, MacArthur held him in high regard, the source of this particular quote is either The Second World War or Six Armies in Normandy both by John Keegan, since I've recently re-read both, I'm not entirely sure which says this.

He certainly had an impressive kill number, and he went out gloriously (Againt 5 Canadian tanks), but one of his most famed encounters (against British 22nd Armoured Brigade), really has a lot to do with a horrible imbalance in the quality of tanks. But he is still the best panzer commander, but like Rommel, he may not have been suited for higher command.
Well, he made most of his kills on the eastern front. In his run in with the Brits he took out 27 tanks and other tracked vehicles in 5 minutes. And that was after he took out several other British tanks that same day. He stumbled upon them when he was heading back to HQ beeing low on fuel and ammo.
I dunno if he would have been suited for higher command or not. He was offered a position as an instructer. But he turned it down cause he wanted to stay with his men.
And what do you mean with Rommel beeing unsuited for higher command? :confused:

Yes, MacArthur held him in high regard, the source of this particular quote is either The Second World War or Six Armies in Normandy both by John Keegan, since I've recently re-read both, I'm not entirely sure which says this.

I thought Churchill wrote The Second World War? Or, are there two books with that title? :confused:

I disagree with those who said Patton, specifically if they are referring to the success of operation torch. I believe that you will find it was the Royal navy, and the British forces, under the command of Montgomery, that actually won the African campaign. When Patton turned up, Rommel had very little fuel left, not enough troops to amount a full offensive, and no way to get reinforcements. All of which had nothing to do with Patton. So, when Patton turns up, and takes the credit for it, you can forgive me when it sickens me that you don't give proper respects to the BRITISH who died years before you shown the slightest interest.

I don't think anyone thinks Patton is great for defeating the Germans in North Africa, that goes to the British Eigth Army, and some Torch elements, the fame Patton won from the North African campaign was he revitalized the US Army forces operating in North Africa after getting thrashed in their first encounters with the Germans, and led them in several successful defensive and offensive operations that gave them back their honor.

I also don't think Patton can really be said to be the one of the best US Generals of history, he was good, but rather reckless and foolhardy, and besides his rough and tough exterior, he really didn't present himself to the day to day hardships and horrors of war, preferring to live in a romantic world of war.

Yes, MacArthur held him in high regard, the source of this particular quote is either The Second World War or Six Armies in Normandy both by John Keegan, since I've recently re-read both, I'm not entirely sure which says this.

Then again, I'm not really a WWII buff. I'm more of a Vietnam War buff.

I thought Churchill wrote The Second World War? Or, are there two books with that title? :confused:

Churchill's book(s) are the Second World War Series, Keegan's book is The Second World War, it is only one rather large book, whereas Churchill has a six volume set (I would recommend it to anyone, but you should start off with something more akin to Shirer or Keegan before delving into it).

Well, if that is the way you all percieve it here, I apologize. My sole experience of the "pattonite" so far has been the whole "We kicked Rommel outta Africa on our own." if this is not the view you have, then my comments were not directed at you.

Sorry, I just meant the Germanic tribes he fought on crossing the Rhine. Damn Asterix for confusing my History!
Well, he did defeat the Sugambri. the largests and most powerfull tribe along the Rhine at the time. He invited their leaders and noble men for a peace conference to negotiate about the borders. And once they came he took them hostage and forced their people into submission. Or the tribe of the Triboki(sp). He attacked their villages when their warriors where away. And defeated them. Or Ariovist, the leader of a group of Suebi. 120,000 people. Of which 15,000 (give or take) warriors. And Ceasar with roughly 30,000 troops. Not counting auxilary forces. He exterminated them. And then he wrote the senate he killed some 400,000 enemies. I still say Ceasar doesn't count as greatest general of all times. :p

Churchill's book(s) are the Second World War Series, Keegan's book is The Second World War, it is only one rather large book, whereas Churchill has a six volume set (I would recommend it to anyone, but you should start off with something more akin to Shirer or Keegan before delving into it).

Thanks. So, you're a history fan, too, eh? ;)

bump

If you don't mind, I'll think I'll start a new thread about the WORLD'S best Generals, otherwise we'll keep going off topic, ok?

Well, he made most of his kills on the eastern front. In his run in with the Brits he took out 27 tanks and other tracked vehicles in 5 minutes. And that was after he took out several other British tanks that same day. He stumbled upon them when he was heading back to HQ beeing low on fuel and ammo.
I dunno if he would have been suited for higher command or not. He was offered a position as an instructer. But he turned it down cause he wanted to stay with his men.
And what do you mean with Rommel beeing unsuited for higher command? :confused:

The run in is the destruction of the 22nd Armoured Brigade that I was reffering too. He definitely belonged in the field in my opinion (btw, you wouldn't happen to know where he is buried, I know they found and ID'ed his remains in France).

As for Rommel, he was an excellent Divisional Commander, his race to Abbeville was something to be admired by all the world, he could perhaps claim to be the best Divisional commander of WW2. But as he continued up the chain of command, it become more and more clear that he was not suited to independent command.
He often outran his supply lines in the Desert War, something fatal for any Army out there, but he did knowing the Regia Marina could not resupply him, and he made no move besides loud complaining to alleviate this situation. In battle, he showed he had skill to lead, and he knew when to retreat, something Hitler did not know.
But after the Desert Campaign, he again showed that he was not capable of independent command, he was correct in his estimation that the German armour should be concentrated on the beaches, but he also made extraordinary demands on the French railway network, which under the attacks of RAF Bomber Command, and the USAAF 8th and 9th Air Forces, could not keep up with demand. He also failed to ever make a unified and working command system without him present, notice the disasters that befell his forces whenever he left.

Thanks. So, you're a history fan, too, eh? ;)

Most definitely

Patton's drive across europe was the swiftest and most influential campaign in military history. No one else came close in covering the ground in that time
patton never lost a battle and would've had the germans at the falaise pocket if not for Bradley and G.b. montgomery

Patton's drive across europe was the swiftest and most influential campaign in military history.

It was also one of the most unopposed, and Barborossa was a more influential advance, though the breakout from Cobra was faster afaik.

No one else came close in covering the ground in that time

The German attack on Yugoslavia was over in barely a week.

patton never lost a battle and would've had the germans at the falaise pocket if not for Bradley and G.b. montgomery

What!? Please explain, he brokeout into Brittanny, and he wanted to continue his advance up to Brest, Bradley made him turn the bulk of his forces to close the Falaise Pocket at Trun. Montgomery had put the units in place at the other end of the gap (the 1st British and 1st Canadian Armies, of which the Polish Armoured Division was formed of, which met up with 3rd Army units at Trun), so how could the Third Army have possibly gotten to Falaise any faster, it would never have been closed had Patton continued to Brest.

I disagree with those who said Patton, specifically if they are referring to the success of operation torch. I believe that you will find it was the Royal navy, and the British forces, under the command of Montgomery, that actually won the African campaign. When Patton turned up, Rommel had very little fuel left, not enough troops to amount a full offensive, and no way to get reinforcements. All of which had nothing to do with Patton. So, when Patton turns up, and takes the credit for it, you can forgive me when it sickens me that you don't give proper respects to the BRITISH who died years before you shown the slightest interest.

Of course, this is not the topic to be voicing such complaints, so I shall make my post relevant.

I believe that your best military leaders come from the naval field. Nimitz certainly has my respect, and recieves my nomination. the reasons given above are also my own. Eliminating the Japanese navy is no mean feat.


It wasn't Patton facing Rommel against the Afrika Korps but his drive across the rhine and the chase across france that made him the best.

Thanks. So, you're a history fan, too, eh? ;)

I've also noticed in past threads you have read some or all of Mr. Anthony Sutton's books, I have been recommended these books, but I have a rather small budget at the moment, is there any particular one you owuld recommend to start with?

I've also noticed in past threads you have read some or all of Mr. Anthony Sutton's books, I have been recommended these books, but I have a rather small budget at the moment, is there any particular one you owuld recommend to start with?

Well, since you're a WWII buff, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler would be a great place to start. You can probably find it pretty cheap in barnesandnoble.com's used and out of print section, or amazon.com

It was also one of the most unopposed, and Barborossa was a more influential advance, though the breakout from Cobra was faster afaik.



The German attack on Yugoslavia was over in barely a week.



What!? Please explain, he brokeout into Brittanny, and he wanted to continue his advance up to Brest, Bradley made him turn the bulk of his forces to close the Falaise Pocket at Trun. Montgomery had put the units in place at the other end of the gap (the 1st British and 1st Canadian Armies, of which the Polish Armoured Division was formed of, which met up with 3rd Army units at Trun), so how could the Third Army have possibly gotten to Falaise any faster, it would never have been closed had Patton continued to Brest.


no Bradley Eisenhower and Montgomer orderd patton to turn haislip's formation from an easterly orientation at le mans to the north. if the canadian attack from the south advanced the two troops (canadians and haislips troops0 would've gave them 15 miles in between to close the gap and trap the germans.

bump

In you opinion who do you think the best generals in American history are.
Robert E Lee.

no Bradley Eisenhower and Montgomer orderd patton to turn haislip's formation from an easterly orientation at le mans to the north. if the canadian attack from the south advanced the two troops (canadians and haislips troops0 would've gave them 15 miles in between to close the gap and trap the germans.

Ok, except Patton was south of the Falaise Gap, the Canadians were North (undertaking Operation Totalize), the Canadians could not attack from the South, all German units were south of them, so they can only attack to the south.

Are you suggesting Patton's Army should have linked up with the Canadians instead of the US First Army to close the gap?

Ok, except Patton was south of the Falaise Gap, the Canadians were North (undertaking Operation Totalize), the Canadians could not attack from the South, all German units were south of them, so they can only attack to the south.

Are you suggesting Patton's Army should have linked up with the Canadians instead of the US First Army to close the gap?

not haislips troops

not haislips troops

Argentan is almost directly north of the XV Corps position at Le Mans, so yes, Haislip was South, at the most southeast of the Falaise Pocket and Gap.

Without a doubt, Patton.

On the best American generals, I like Lee, Sherman, Grant, Abrahms, Bradley, Ike, Nimitz, Patton, McArthur. I think Ike is vastly underrated.. I would like anybody to try and organize and mold a coherent strategy and then day-to-day tactical and logistical operations with an ally that thinks is smarter than you while fighting off a former boss who is lobbying to shift your resources and manpower to the Pacific, deal with a distant "ally" who is ideologically a worse enemy than the Germans, curve the egos of prima-donnas like Patton and Monty, and actually deliver results (crush the Germans in the West instead of waiting for the Soviets to wear them off) with minimal deviations and substantial savings from what was estimated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (90 divisions instead of the 200 expected to be used in Europe).

I think the main reason Patton is considered elite is the counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge and the relief of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. I understand this was one of the fastest movements ever in warfare, but I don't really know much more about it. Haven't read any specific volume on the subject, just WWII accounts and histories.

As for WWII best commander, I like the names said, but c'mon, Von Manstein was the coolest. Staff to Von Rundstedt, planner of the 1940 France invasion, conqueror of Crimea and Sevatopol, commander of Army Group Don, and the only man who dared to win at poker vs. Hitler. I know his case vs. other historians case on Stalingrad, and frankly, I'm inclined to think that he could have saved Von Paulus had the Fuhrer not interferred. He also stabilized the front after the disastrous defeat, but many credit it to "Hitler's fireman" (Model). Besides, he was the only Field Marshall asked by the Western allies to help in the reconstruction of Western Germany.

I think that Caesar is not really the best general of antique history (frankly I like more Alexandros, Scipio and Hannibal), but he is a unique blend of politician and military commander that has been found in very few men, like Napoleon. He overstated his triumphs in Gaul, which started with political aims (strenghtening the military power and political influence of the Populist camp in Rome for an impending face-off with the Aristocratic Optimates). He always had numerical superiority at the battlefield, even in the Alesia campaigns (Romans always underestimated the size of gallic and german auxilias...), but boasted propaganda in order to magnify his image before the Forums. He really shone latter when he defeated Pompey, but I think he should be remembered more as a politician with strong military leadership than as a military commander. Of course, we will never know how better politician he could be due to his assasination and the coming of his nephew, who IMO is THE ultimate politician in history.

On the best American generals, I like Lee, Sherman, Grant, Abrahms, Bradley, Ike, Nimitz, Patton, McArthur. I think Ike is vastly underrated.. I would like anybody to try and organize and mold a coherent strategy and then day-to-day tactical and logistical operations with an ally that thinks is smarter than you while fighting off a former boss who is lobbying to shift your resources and manpower to the Pacific, deal with a distant "ally" who is ideologically a worse enemy than the Germans, curve the egos of prima-donnas like Patton and Monty, and actually deliver results (crush the Germans in the West instead of waiting for the Soviets to wear them off) with minimal deviations and substantial savings from what was estimated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (90 divisions instead of the 200 expected to be used in Europe).

Agreed on all points, except the very last, where did you get this 200 divisions expectation? The limit of 90 divisions wasn't just Europe, it was the size of the US Army that the US set for itself, it never created any more divisions after that, preferring a massive Air Force and Navy, and providing equipment for allies (they produced enough equipment and supplies to equip 2000 divisions, this source is most definitely The Second World War by John Keegan). Eisenhower did not have 90 Army divisions anyway, since a lot went to the Pacific.

I think the main reason Patton is considered elite is the counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge and the relief of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. I understand this was one of the fastest movements ever in warfare, but I don't really know much more about it. Haven't read any specific volume on the subject, just WWII accounts and histories.

He also charged through the Axis forces on Sicily, but to be fair, he didn't hit heavy enemy positions until after he took Palermo. And he was right on which offensive the Allies should go with, a strike across the Rhine into the Ruhr, in hindsight, is a better option than Monty's Market Garden Plan. Market Garden was ambitious, and success would have eclipsed Patton, but it had too much going against it, and it didn't even cover all the rivers before Germany.

As for WWII best commander, I like the names said, but c'mon, Von Manstein was the coolest. Staff to Von Rundstedt, planner of the 1940 France invasion, conqueror of Crimea and Sevatopol, commander of Army Group Don, and the only man who dared to win at poker vs. Hitler. I know his case vs. other historians case on Stalingrad, and frankly, I'm inclined to think that he could have saved Von Paulus had the Fuhrer not interferred. He also stabilized the front after the disastrous defeat, but many credit it to "Hitler's fireman" (Model). Besides, he was the only Field Marshall asked by the Western allies to help in the reconstruction of Western Germany.

Manstein was the cheif architect of Fall Gelb, surprising since his superiors did everything they could to stop his plan from ever reaching Hitler's ear.

I agree with you about Augustus being the ultimate polictician. He was the greatest stateman ever. He wasn't much of a general, yet was still able to expand the Roman empire vastly. This was due to his political skills, which of course included the best trained/equiped army in the world at that time.

Agreed on all points, except the very last, where did you get this 200 divisions expectation? The limit of 90 divisions wasn't just Europe, it was the size of the US Army that the US set for itself, it never created any more divisions after that, preferring a massive Air Force and Navy, and providing equipment for allies (they produced enough equipment and supplies to equip 2000 divisions, this source is most definitely The Second World War by John Keegan). Eisenhower did not have 90 Army divisions anyway, since a lot went to the Pacific.

From Peter Paret's edition of "Makers of Modern Strategy", essay on WWII Allied Strategy, discussing 1942 and 1943 US strategy. Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated 200 and something (211?) to defeat Germany (not the Axis) in their "the Krauts go down first" strategic approach.

I understand 90 something was final Allied strenght in Europe in 1945. US, UK, Free France, all others divisions (BH Liddel Hart's "Strategy" book? 90 is the # I can't confirm, but will definitively check).

Manstein was the cheif architect of Fall Gelb, surprising since his superiors did everything they could to stop his plan from ever reaching Hitler's ear.

Yep, but he had a dinner with the Fuhrer the day before he moved into a shitty new assigment. He presented his plan to Hitler, who loved the idea.

I understand the German Staff was thinking of using the old pre-WWI plan invasion plan of France (Von Schieffeling? spelling).

MacArthur

I agree with you about Augustus being the ultimate polictician. He was the greatest stateman ever. He wasn't much of a general, yet was still able to expand the Roman empire vastly. This was due to his political skills, which of course included the best trained/equiped army in the world at that time.

Yep, the ultimate Stateman too. He gave Rome 250 more years of life. Octavian relied on many generals, since he sucked at military matters - Aggripa, Germanicus, Tiberius. But he paid the legions, destroyed his enemies, double-played everybody, and constructed a fearsome administrative machine while mantaining the useless republican institutions.

Yep, but he had a dinner with the Fuhrer the day before he moved into a shitty new assigment. He presented his plan to Hitler, who loved the idea.

I understand the German Staff was thinking of using the old pre-WWI plan invasion plan of France (Von Schieffeling? spelling).

Yes, the original German plan to smash into France (Case Yellow), called for the main German thrust to be centered in Belgium (rather than the Ardennes and Muese as Mansteins plan called for). The World War I version was the Schlieffen Plan, thought of by the German Cheif of the General Staff von Schlieffen. It didn't work in WWI, and had little hope of working.

In WW2 it had even less chance of working, since the British and French were expecting just such an attack, and when germany invaded Belgium they thrust their most powerful and mobile forces into Belgium, which were quickly encircled by Mansteins plan.

Bleh, this is not military history, it's american military history.

<--- disapointed

Best american general. Crazy horse
Best general, maybe Alexander or hannibal.

hannibal.

That's my son's name. Named for the Carthaginian General, not the Cannibal. :D

I've studied Hannibal with great extent and I would say he's #1 as far as historical/world goes.

The run in is the destruction of the 22nd Armoured Brigade that I was reffering too. He definitely belonged in the field in my opinion (btw, you wouldn't happen to know where he is buried, I know they found and ID'ed his remains in France).
According to Achtung Panzer! (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm) Wittmann and his crew are buried at the German Military Cemetery of "De La Cambe" in Normandy.