NationStates Jolt Archive

General George Patton: George Patton was one of the most flamboyant generals of the War, and was known for his strict discipline. Patton first commanded landings in French North Africa in 1942, and went on to command the Seventh Army in the invasion of Sicily and the Third Army in France, and played a significant role in the Battle of the Bulge, where he relieved the siege of Bastogne.

General Douglas MacArthur: Douglas MacArthur served as Supreme Commander of Allied forces in the southwest Pacific area. He led the defense of Australia, reconquest of New Guinea, and the campaigns for the Philippenes and Borneo. He received the Japanese surrender, oversaw the occupation of Japan that led to Japan becoming a democracy, and went on to commmand American troops in the Korean War before being relieved for insubordination.

Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery: Bernard Law Montgomery commanded the Eight Army in North Africa, where he decisively defeated Rommel's Afrika Korps at El Alamein. He later commanded the Eight Army in Sicily and Italy, and served as commander-in-chief of allied ground forces in the Normandy invasion. After the war, he served as Chief of the Imperial General Staff and deputy supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe.

Admiral Louis Mountbatten: Louis Mountbatten, great grandson of Queen Victoria, was chief of Combined Operations Command in 1942 and helped organize the D-Day operation. He later served as commander of troops in Southeast Asia, where he repelled the Japanese assault into India and reconquered Burma. He accepted the Japanese surrender in Singapore, became the last Viceroy of India, became First Sea Lord, was appointed chief of Britain's defense staff, and was finally assassinated by an Irish terrorist.

Marshal Giorgiy Zhukov: Zhukov was the most celebrated of Russia's commanders. Giorgiy Zhukov organized the unsuccessful defense of Ukraine and later led the succesful defense of Moscow. He went on to organize the counter-offensive at Stalingrad, pushed the Germans out of Russia, and led the successful capture of Berlin. After the war, he became commander of the Soviet zone of post-war Germany.

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel: Rommel is perhaps the best known general of World War II. Rommel was one of the early proponents of the blitzkrieg strategy, and served as a panzer commander in the conquest of Poland, the Low Countries, and France. He was most famous for his command of the Afrika Korps in North Africa. Despite being outnumbered and handicapped by lack of fuel and supplies, he drove the British out of Libya and waged a nearly-successful campaign to drive the British out of North Africa. His attack, however, ended in disaster at El Alamein due to lack of tank fuel and the Allies' overwhelming air support. Nevertheless, Rommel fought a skillful defenisve battle and defeated the Americans at the Kasserine Pass, and later oversaw the construction of the Atlantic Wall.

Field Marshal Erich von Manstein: Erich von Manstein was one of the War's greatest commanders. His first achievement was planning the blitzkrieg attack on France that accomplished in six weeks what could not be done by the entire German army during World War I. He then became one of the most able commanders in the war against Russia. Manstein overcame fierce Soviet resistance and conquered the Crimea, captured the heavily fortified city of Sevastopol, repelled Russian attempts to break the siege of Leningrad, attempted to break through to Paulus' Sixth Army at Stalingrad, defeated a much larger Soviet force at the Third Battle of Kharkov, led the largely successful southern pincer at the Battle of Kursk, inflicted heavy casualties on the Soviets at the defense of the Dneiper line, and was eventually relieved for criticizing Hitler's strategic decisions.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: Isoroku Yamamoto was commander of the Japanese navy until he was killed in 1943. Yamamoto was one of Japan's main strategic planners, and he planned the raid on Pearl Harbor, early Japanese naval strategy, and the disastrous assault on Midway, which probably would have succeeded had it not been for superior American intelligence and the incompetence of the carrier crews.

Lieutenant General Tadamichi Kuribayashi: General Kuribayashi commanded the Japanese defense of Iwo Jima. Kuribayashi rejected the suicidal tactic of banzai charges embraced by most Japanese commanders. Kuribayashi used effective modern tactics. He did not waste men attempting to defend the beaches, and fought the battle almost entirely from underground. He oversaw the honeycombing of the island with nearly 20 miles of tunnels and thousands of pillboxes, and instructed each of his men to kill ten Americans. Taking the island cost more than 6,000 American lives, and Kuribayashi commited suicide rather than be captured.

If you posted other, please tell who.

I personally believe Field Marshal Manstein was the best commander of World War II.

what about Tojo?

Air Marshall Hugh Dowding.

Pretty much every other senior commander in WWII was crap. No-one noticed though, because the general incompetence level was so high it was dazzling.

I voted for Patton, "A real warrior dies from the last bullet, of the last gunshot, of the last battle, of the last war."

what about Tojo?
He wasn't a military commander. He was the prime minister of Japan.

This guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

The guy carried a bowand arrows and a motherfucking claymore through the second world war. He also played the bagpipes while fighting.

I don't care how good the other commanders were, he was the greatest.

Erich von Mannstein gets major points for his various victories against the Soviets. But part of the situation is the fact of Soviet tactical simplicity. They had huge advantages in numbers and amount of equipment against the Germans, but rarely did they go beyond "move towards them and shoot." A tactic that can be countered by use of armored thrusts.

Montgomery gets points for being an excellent combined arms commander. But he is crippled by his reliance on fighting a set-piece battle (such as at El Alamein) and his problems when faced with changes in battle plan. Operation Market Garden is rather evidenciary of this.

Yamamoto planned Pearl Harbor, his only major success of note. He knew the consequences of the attack, and failed to convince the Japanese high command of the fact that Japan could not win against the US. He then managed to suffer the first Japanese naval defeat in hundreds of years.

Zhukov knew how to fight like a Russian. It's not fancy, and it's certainly not Alexander the Great type of stuff, but he knew he could grind down the Germans by tossing dudes at them constantly. Very bloody method, but it worked.

Captain America.

Other - Heinz Guderian.

I voted for Patton on the basis of the fact that he understood armored warfare, knew how to use it, and made no great screwups on the battlefield. He made plenty of mistakes amongst his own men, and was vital in every campaign he served in. He relied heavily on the coordinating ability of other generals, like Eisenhower, but on the battlefield he did good.

SNIP

HS its like James Bond!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill[/url]]Churchill would toss his briefcase out of the window of the commuter train he rode home every day. Passengers and conducters were shocked because they didn't know he was throwing the luggage into his own backyard as the train passed by. It saved him the trouble of carrying it all the way home from the station

pure fucking genius :D

I don't know much about WW2 except what I see on the History Channel from time to time... but this is just so badass: http://www.psywarrior.com/MacMatches.jpg

My vote goes to MacArthur. He took a huge amount of territory, isolated large numbers of enemy forces, and suffered relatively low casualties in doing so. And if Truman hadn't let personalities get in the way and let him bomb the Yalu River bridges, we wouldn't have the problem in North Korea we have today.

Patton is a close second for reasons stated by others here.

HS its like James Bond!

pure fucking genius :D

The guy was a hero.

The guy was a hero.

hopefully he will be the answer to all these WWII threads and if so the reign of terror from WWII fanatics will come to a close

HS its like James Bond!

Or Brigadier Ben Ritchie-Hook.

Patton and Zhukov each were pretty beastly.

Whichever Russian came up with the "retreat and let winter stop them" strategy.

I realise that he probably died 100 years before the war started (since the Russians had used it every time they were invaded from Europe), but it was easily the best strategy employed by any side.

I don't think very highly of Patton, to be honest. He managed to lose a lot of guys every time he went into battle, he was nasty to them, psychologically and emotionally he was questionable, and he fought in a situation where material and tactical advantages were so highly stacked on his side that I probably could've won those battles as well.

Manstein is my favourite. The Wehrmacht was arguably as powerful as it was because of its tactics and strategy more than anything else. And von Manstein was the main architect of it all. Not to forget that his attack at Kursk is being taught all around the world at military schools, and that he was also an influential figure in the creation of the Bundeswehr.

Patton and MacArthur seemed best at making themselves famous through PR.

My vote is for Zhukov, though I'm biased because I've always preferred Zerg tactics.

Looking over World War II, it comes down to a few people in my mind. Those being Patton who fought 2 major battles within a very short time span and saved men trapped in a city surrounded by German soldiers. Yamamoto for his daring attack plans that worked except twice which ultimately cost Japan the war. Chester Nimitz, Admiral Spruance, And Admiral Halsey also deserve mentions as among the top commanders of World War II.

Whichever Russian came up with the "retreat and let winter stop them" strategy.

I realise that he probably died 100 years before the war started (since the Russians had used it every time they were invaded from Europe), but it was easily the best strategy employed by any side.
That was way, way, way before World War II

Gotta be Manstein.

I don't hold the Allied commanders mentioned in the poll very highly.

Other: General Eisenhower
Only thing I have against him is that he went after the Presidency. Politics and soldiers shouldn't mix, but unfortunately with high level officers it never works that way.

Zhukov knew how to fight like a Russian. It's not fancy, and it's certainly not Alexander the Great type of stuff, but he knew he could grind down the Germans by tossing dudes at them constantly. Very bloody method, but it worked.

Haha no.

"On June 22, 1941, Zhukov signed the infamous Directive of Peoples' Commissariat of Defence No. 3, which ordered an all-out counteroffensive by Red Army forces. This manoeuver failed and unorganised Red Army units were destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Later, Zhukov explained that he was forced to sign the document by Stalin, despite of the reservations that he presented. This document was supposedly written by Vasilevsky, and Zhukov was forced to sign it. There are no documments confirming that failed counteroffensive was not Zhukov's own initiative"

Zhukov fought in WW1 as a dragoon, and led the first Mongolian army group during the war against Japan (1938-1939). He fought back, using a smaller army, defeated the Japanese force, and become a hero of the Soviet Union. In WW2, he differed from Hitler and Stalin as he listend to what his insubordonate officers had to say. He saved Leninrad, and became the first Allied General to reach Berlin.

Zhukov gets my vote.

For all of you Patton voters (or rather, fellow Americans), I really don't think he was the BEST tactition. He's easily in the top ten, but not the best. He's been made a propaganda figure because of his flammboyant personality, Patton the movie, and his aggresive nature. He's one of the best, but not THE best.

Good thing no one has voted for the British, they probably weren't the brightest, especially Montgomery.

I can't believe no one here is giving props to Guderian. The man invented modern tank warfare.

I respect the Russians and Zhukov, to be sure. But he used attrition and superior manpower along with nature (winter) to defend Russia, and those aren't particularly devious or shrewd tactics. Then again, he did what he could with what he had. I wonder what kind of commander he'd have been if he'd had a more balanced set of tools to use.

My vote goes to Rommel. I know it's a kind of glamour vote, and some think that outsmarting Montgomery wasn't exactly difficult. But Rommel's delaying actions gave the Reich a year they wouldn't have had if someone inferior had been in North Africa for the Jerries. I guess I voted elegance over bluntness, but I do so without discounting bluntness. After all, my opinion is worth, well, honestly, shite.

For all of you Patton voters (or rather, fellow Americans), I really don't think he was the BEST tactition. He's easily in the top ten, but not the best. He's been made a propaganda figure because of his flammboyant personality, Patton the movie, and his aggresive nature. He's one of the best, but not THE best.

Good thing no one has voted for the British, they probably weren't the brightest, especially Montgomery.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on the matter of tactics. When it came to tactics he knew how to get the job done with what he had. He knew the best places to attack and he did them, most of the time in violation of orders.

As for Monty, he was cautious but he was brilliant in his own way. Especially with Al Alamein (sp?)

Other: General Eisenhower
Only thing I have against him is that he went after the Presidency. Politics and soldiers shouldn't mix, but unfortunately with high level officers it never works that way.
Please tell me you're joking.
Einsenhower was more of a diplomat than a general. The most important thing he did was keep us from killing that idiot Monty.
My vote goes to von Manstein. This was the guy who won France, who would have saved the 6th Army if Hitler hadn't been an ass, and who performed brilliantly in Russia.

We still use pattons teaching today .







And so will anyone else who wants to win a mechanized war.

My grandfather served under Patton during his European Campaign

Rommel in the field. Von Manstein 'at the desk'.

He wasn't a military commander. He was the prime minister of Japan.

yes he was a general in the Imperial Japanese Army

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on the matter of tactics. When it came to tactics he knew how to get the job done with what he had. He knew the best places to attack and he did them, most of the time in violation of orders.

As for Monty, he was cautious but he was brilliant in his own way. Especially with Al Alamein (sp?)

No, I'm not saying he was bad by any standards, I just don't think he's number one. Maybe two or three.

Uh, Market Garden?

Zhukov takes gold, but Mountbatten comes in close second.

As for Monty, he was cautious but he was brilliant in his own way. Especially with Al Alamein (sp?)
Actually he failed utterly at Al Alamein. He wanted to destroy the Africa Corps. But Rommel, who was flown in hastily from his sick leave in Germany, still managed to pull out most of his troops thus escaping Montgomery's trap.

Actually he failed utterly at Al Alamein. He wanted to destroy the Africa Corps. But Rommel, who was flown in hastily from his sick leave in Germany, still managed to pull out most of his troops thus escaping Montgomery's trap.

Well that's true.

yes he was a general in the Imperial Japanese Army

But in retrospect didn't do much but run the country.

This guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

The guy carried a bow and arrows and a motherfucking claymore through the second world war. He also played the bagpipes while fighting.

I don't care how good the other commanders were, he was the greatest.

*Reads the wiki*
He played the bagpipes in the middle of an amphibious landing?! This guy deserves his VC.

Zhukov pwned the lot of them.

My vote goes to MacArthur. He took a huge amount of territory, isolated large numbers of enemy forces, and suffered relatively low casualties in doing so. And if Truman hadn't let personalities get in the way and let him bomb the Yalu River bridges, we wouldn't have the problem in North Korea we have today.

Patton is a close second for reasons stated by others here.


Yep. Truman was a pansy because he didn't want to make China Angry.

Commie.

Zhukov is overrated. He had several notable failures, and wouldn't have had nearly as much success without 1) Overwhelming manpower with a disregard for casualties 2) A second front 3) Mass influx of Allied equipment.

I just don't think the waves of manpower would have been nearly as effective facing the full dedication of the Germans. I mean, it basically took an alliance of the great world powers to bring the Nazis down. One on one, I think Nazi Germany could've taken any other nation with ease.

Zhukov is overrated. He had several notable failures, and wouldn't have had nearly as much success without 1) Overwhelming manpower with a disregard for casualties 2) A second front 3) Mass influx of Allied equipment.

I just don't think the waves of manpower would have been nearly as effective facing the full dedication of the Germans. I mean, it basically took an alliance of the great world powers to bring the Nazis down. One on one, I think Nazi Germany could've taken any other nation with ease.

Can you name his failures please?

1) That was all Stalin with the "meatgrinder" tactics.
2) I can assure you, they had more than enough men even if the Germans hit them with their entire army.
3) They didn't use THAT much other equipment. Most of it was made with pride in the USSR. Hell, I have a Soviet ushanka and satchel.

We still use pattons teaching today .
Patton didn't have any teaching. He just did what the Germans did more than four years earlier.

Do not confuse the man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscari_Massacre) with the movie.

While I think saying greatest is really too subjective, I would like to put Charles De Gualle as "Commander who could have made the largest difference, given the ability".

If he had been allowed to organize and order the French armoured divisions, and have the majority of the armour indeed in seperate armoured divisions, the war could possibly have been finished much more quickly, being known not as world war two, but the war of failed german aggression.

The panzer advances are what allowed german troops to pour in. Over time, the quickly growing french air force could have used its industry, which was really pumping out planes, to regain control in the air. With armour and air superiority, the germans could have been pushed back to the rhine, with RAF and BEF support.

I can't think of any other commander who had the ability to change the history of the war as much as that, if given enough control of the nations forces.

I can't believe no one here is giving props to Guderian. The man invented modern tank warfare.

Dude, as much as I think you're generally an ass, you are sopt on exact here. Fast Heinz (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen2.htm), who literally wrote the book (Actung - Panzer!).

Demon 666, do not give Manstien Guderian's credit for taking France!

Ultraextreme Sanity, care to give the title of a single book outlining military theory by Patton, much less one as influential as Actung - Panzer!? (And do not come back wioth War As I Knew It unless you want to be laughed out of here.)

Rommel. Unequivocally so.

Incidentally, why does Zhukov warrant an inlcusion? I daresay I could have driven back the wermacht with the resources and numbers he could martial.

Best how? I voted Zhukov, but really he was the best logistics general of WWII. If instead I was to say who the best leader of men was, I'd have to say Patton. Man could inspire a dead horse to keep marching.

For sheer bulldog stubbornness, you couldn't go past Chuikov. The best Admiral was either Yamamoto or Nimitz - I can't decide. Yamamoto had the sheer brilliance, but Nimitz was a genius at using what he had to maximum effect - and he beat Yamamoto.

Likewise, Rommel was probably the best "sabre" general of the war - feint, feint, off with your head. Montgomery, on the other hand, was the man you wanted when everything was falling apart.

Most overhyped? Definitely mister "I will play no meaningful part in this war" MacArthur. Moderately poor politician, worse general.

Rommel. Unequivocally so.

Incidentally, why does Zhukov warrant an inlcusion? I daresay I could have driven back the wermacht with the resources and numbers he could martial.

Five words: the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. Look it up. Eat your words.

All these "Zhukov haters" are annoying. "BUT HE HAD LOTZ OF MANS AND HE DROVE THEM BACK CUZ HE HAD ALL THOSE MANS!!!"

GET IT RIGHT!!! Zhukov used tactics, Stalin did not!!!

All these "Zhukov haters" are annoying. "BUT HE HAD LOTZ OF MANS AND HE DROVE THEM BACK CUZ HE HAD ALL THOSE MANS!!!"

GET IT RIGHT!!! Zhukov used tactics, Stalin did not!!!

I'll confess I am no expert where Zhukov is concerned, however I would raise this question; would Zhukov have been victorious had he been able to martial only the resources of his Nazi counterparts?

Best how? I voted Zhukov, but really he was the best logistics general of WWII.
Really? I'd have to give that to Eisenhower, espescially in light of how stretched his supply lines were, and the strange problems that one faces when leading an alliance.

For sheer bulldog stubbornness, you couldn't go past Chuikov. The best Admiral was either Yamamoto or Nimitz - I can't decide. Yamamoto had the sheer brilliance, but Nimitz was a genius at using what he had to maximum effect - and he beat Yamamoto.
I'd have to say Nimitz, he was the one who won after all.

Likewise, Rommel was probably the best "sabre" general of the war - feint, feint, off with your head. Montgomery, on the other hand, was the man you wanted when everything was falling apart.
I agree with you analysis of Rommel, but Monty had problems when things were falling apart, at least that's what I've drawn as my conclusion.

Most overhyped? Definitely mister "I will play no meaningful part in this war" MacArthur. Moderately poor politician, worse general.
Indeed.

They didn't use THAT much other equipment. Most of it was made with pride in the USSR. Hell, I have a Soviet ushanka and satchel.
Nearly all the soviet trucks were supplied by the allies, and their tanks were designed by American engineers.

Nearly all the soviet trucks were supplied by the allies, and their tanks were designed by American engineers.
The Supercobra was also a primary Soviet tankbuster, a plane built in the United States. Not only that, but most of the raw materials for the Soviet weapons factories were provided by the United States. Steel and Oil from America kept the Soviet factories churning out weapons.

Nearly all the soviet trucks were supplied by the allies, and their tanks were designed by American engineers.

The suspension for the tanks was designed by American engineers.

Nearly all the soviet trucks were supplied by the allies, and their tanks were designed by American engineers.

I am sure Mikhail Koshkin and Alexander Morozov would be surprised to hear they were from the US...

Neo Undelia and Andalucie

T-34, KV and IS - American design? Go hang. If you refer to KB and T-26, they were used up in 1941.
Primary tankbuster was Il-2, supercobra was a fighter, if I am not mistaken.

As for materials, meaningful were the deliveries of aviation gazoline, alloys needed for armor and trucks. Thanks for that, but sorry, no - we produced most of the stuff the Germans later burned ourselves.

The suspension for the tanks was designed by American engineers.

Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov was not American.

Neo Undelia and Andalucie

T-34, KV and IS - American design? Go hang. If you refer to KB and T-26, they were used up in 1941.
Primary tankbuster was Il-2, supercobra was a fighter, if I am not mistaken.

Exactly so. It'd be hard to imagine the famous Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (responsible for the T-34, T-55, T-64, T-80, and T-84) would be namned after some US engineer...

Neo Undelia and Andalucie

T-34, KV and IS - American design? Go hang. If you refer to KB and T-26, they were used up in 1941.

The continuing problem with the Soviet tank design was it's suspension, which is what made the T-26 such a miserable vehicle. The T-34 made use of the American Christy Tank Suspension system, which is what really separated it from any other tank in the field.

Primary tankbuster was Il-2, supercobra was a fighter, if I am not mistaken.
The Supercobra was a vital tankbuster for the Soviet forces during the war, because of several factors, including it's ability to handle cold weather very effectively. With over 15,000 in service with the Soviet airforce, it certainly wasn't a slouch.

As for materials, meaningful were the deliveries of aviation gazoline, alloys needed for armor and trucks. Thanks for that, but sorry, no - we produced most of the stuff the Germans later burned ourselves.
Your grammar has me somewhat confused as to what you're saying in this sentence.

Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov was not American.
But the suspension system he used was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension

But the suspension system he used was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension

Based on =/= designed by.

Based on =/= designed by.
Primarily because he just expropriated the design without Walt Christie's permission.

It's got a similar heritage to that of the Buran space shuttle.

2 Andalucie

Well, you are at odds with the world here, friend, because the rest of it thinks that it was the oblique armor and cheapness that made the T-34 so exceptional.

We had an all Christie tank all right, called BT, about 12 thousand of them. It was all scrap by the end of 1941

As for the planes, 28 thousand of Il-2 were priduced, which is an ATTACK PLANE, and not a fighter, flying at any whether, and any time of day. Supercobra was a fighter and not designed for fighting tanks, and it was used as a fighter, thank you very much for them too. But, as I said, meaningful (relative to what was produced in USSR) were the deliveries of airplane gasoline and alloys.