The best WWII general?

I like Ike. In my opinion i think Dwight Eisenhower is the best general in WWII. He led Operations TORCH and OVERLORD. Those were two of the biggest invasion and campaigns in the second World War. He later became president for two terms and help keep peace during the cold war.

The problem with saying Eisenhower was a great general is the fact that he was so high up he dealt little with the actual planning of the invasions and focused more on the logistical side of it. Patton, Bradley, and Montgomery had far more a hand in planning on the tactical level, while Eisenhower planned on the strategic level. Granted, he was the one who made the final decision on whether to scrap a plan or not, and it was his idea to assault normandy, but he really didn't plan the tactics on how to take it, he just went up to his Generals and said "we're going to make an assault on Normandy, now you guys need to draw something up."

Had Eisenhower not been given the rank of Supreme Allied Commander I believe he would've also made a superb General.

The best British was Monty.

It was Monty's half-baked idea to try and seize Arnhem. Lets not forget that debacle. I am in the Slim camp.

The greatest America was Patton,

Bradley was intrumental in the planning of Operation Cobra, as well as closing the Ruhr pocket.
Another thing to remember about Patton, he ended up taking orders from two of his former subordinates (Eisenhower and Bradley)

Since EA has mentioned Slim , how about Wingate ?
Outstanding tactics and strategy , unorthadox and unconventional , but inspired and effective

Hmm. Wingate had good PR, but how effective he was is open to debate as I understand it. I think Slim regarded the chindits as something of a mixed blessing.

To be fair to Monty, he was not a bad general (which by British WWII standards make him pretty good). For the big set pieces he was probably the equal of anyone, and IIRC the breakout from Normandy is generally acknowledge to have been handled very skillfully. And he had the cojones to accept huge losses where necessary in the context of the overall plan. On exploitation though, he was pretty average at best, and as was pointed out Arnhem was not his finest hour (he also failed to secure the banks of the Scheldt immediately after the fall of Antwerp which was plain strategic incompetence.)

And also he REALLY annoyed the Americans, which is OK on an internet forum but not OK as senior British commander in an allied force. Bradley in particular cut him more slack than he deserved.

Monty was probably the best British general in the European theatre but not a patch on Slim IMHO.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

First of all, there isn`t enough reliable data about operation mars. It is still just speculations. Educated guesses, at best.
Second, it wasn`t a spectular failure because it tied down german troops, which were much needed elsewhere.

Sheer numbers don`t mean anything. The scene from the film enemy at the gates where the first man gets the rifle and those after him bullets is not fictional. Many times soviets were forced to fight that way. German soldiers were experienced and battle hardened veterans, superbly equiped (just not for the winter :) and serving under excellent commanders. If you have one note worth 100 euros, and I have 5 notes worth 20 euros we still have the same amount of money.
.......

Educated guess? even Zhukov admitted in his writings that Operation Mars was a disaster. And it wasn't supposed to be just a holding movement. Zhukov's ham fisted approach of throwing divisions one after the other into a meat grinder isn't confined to this one operation.

I think I would have to go for von Manstein. Not just a great tactician, but a very cool head to go along with it. He managed near miracles on the battlefield under great stress, and whilst continually hamstrung by Hitler's absurd orders. Zhukov never had to cope with such interference from Stalin.

Manstein also outwitted Zhukov at Korsun to get his troops out of another desperate scrape.

Originally Posted by sarmation

This led to the decisive Battle of Halhin Gol. Zhukov requested major reinforcements and on August 15, 1939 he ordered what seemed at first to be a conventional frontal attack. However, he had held back two tank brigades, which in a daring and successful manouvere he ordered to advance around both flanks of the battle. Supported by motorized artillery and infantry, the two mobile battle groups encircled the 6th Japanese army and captured their vulnerable supply areas. Within a few days the Japanese troops were defeated.

For this operation Zhukov was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. Outside of the Soviet Union, however, this battle remained little-known as by this time World War II had begun. Zhukov's pioneering use of mobile armour went unheeded by the West, and in consequence the German Blitzkrieg against France in 1940 came as a great surprise."

Perhaps so, but where did Zhukov learn such tactics? From the Germans. He was acquainted with many of the top German leaders, since they helped to train him and other Soviet commanders under the secret treaty during the inter-war period. Zhukov's knowledge of the men he faced also helped him in his later battles against the Wehrmacht.

As a runner up to Manstein I'd probably go for Rommel, for his sheer daring. Right after the battle of Dunkirk, he proposed launching an immediate suprise invasion of Britain, even before the battle of France had been concluded. The German General Staff turned him down, but such an invasion would probably have been Germany's best hope of victory against Britain. The British Army lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk, and had very little with which it could have opposed a landing at that point.

Btw, Manstein held command of various Armygroups in Russia. So he can certainly be considered up there with Zhukov in terms of command of forces. But being Germany he could never have tactical decisions and stay on par in numbers, that was simply impossible.

Originally Posted by English assassin

If war is the continuation of politics by other means then my vote goes to Mannerheim after all. Not for the Winter war. That was well conducted no doubt but ultimately IMHO turned more on the fighting qualities of the Finnish soldier, and, after all, the Soviets did eventually get what they wanted. Instead he gets my vote for the continued survival of Finland as a country outside the USSR/Warsaw pact. How many other countries went to war against Stalin and acheived that (none).

The Soviets only occupied European territory where it would protect them against any future invasions from the west. Hence the band of countries neighbouring Germany acting as a buffer. Greece had Communists who were eager for Stalin's support, but it was a strategically unimportant area so Stalin left them to be mopped up by the British.

George Catlett Marshall, by a distance. Facilitated the victory for all allied nations, won the peace.

Originally Posted by screwtype

Perhaps so, but where did Zhukov learn such tactics? From the Germans. He was acquainted with many of the top German leaders, since they helped to train him and other Soviet commanders under the secret treaty during the inter-war period. Zhukov's knowledge of the men he faced also helped him in his later battles against the Wehrmacht.

The main influence was probably Tukhachevksy, the founder of "Deep Operations", which itself was developed from the experience of the wars against the Whites and the Poles.

As a runner up to Manstein I'd probably go for Rommel, for his sheer daring. Right after the battle of Dunkirk, he proposed launching an immediate suprise invasion of Britain, even before the battle of France had been concluded. The German General Staff turned him down, but such an invasion would probably have been Germany's best hope of victory against Britain. The British Army lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk, and had very little with which it could have opposed a landing at that point

You see, to my mind this illustrates why Rommel is overrated. Possibly he put forward the idea knowing it would inevitably be turned down, just to create a bit of derring do PR for himself, but the idea you could throw (and sustain) any significant forces across the channel, without preparation, in the teeth of the whole RAF and Royal Navy, as if the whole thing was no more than a minor river crossing, is madness.

Daring is good but it does have to be realistic.

Originally Posted by orangat

Educated guess? even Zhukov admitted in his writings that Operation Mars was a disaster. And it wasn't supposed to be just a holding movement. Zhukov's ham fisted approach of throwing divisions one after the other into a meat grinder isn't confined to this one operation.

I said "speculations" and "educated guesses about casulties. It was a disaster, I agree, but we don`t know for sure how many casulties there were.

Originally Posted by screwtype

Perhaps so, but where did Zhukov learn such tactics? From the Germans. He was acquainted with many of the top German leaders, since they helped to train him and other Soviet commanders under the secret treaty during the inter-war period. Zhukov's knowledge of the men he faced also helped him in his later battles against the Wehrmacht.

Nobody is born educated, we all learn things from other people. It is a how we implement those things we learne that counts. If french generals had taken notice of the battle, France probably would not have been conquered so easily.

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I said "speculations" and "educated guesses about casulties. It was a disaster, I agree, but we don`t know for sure how many casulties there were.

The fact that operation Uranus was so well documented and for posterity and propaganda and only 'speculations' and 'educated guesses' for the casualties for the equally large operation Mars suggests a huge coverup of the disaster.

Its hard to compare the performance of all the generals mentioned since some are field commanders like Patton and Rommel while some are strategists like Eisenhower and Zhukov(?).

The greatest generals imo can do it all, like the famous generals of antiquity.

I'll cast a pro forma vote for von Manstein on the strength of his repeated success under adverse conditions, but I really want to relate a couple of stories about Freyberg and Wingate who were mentioned here earlier.

Orde Wingate was one of history's great oddballs. I'm borrowing here from an article by Charles Berges originally published in Military History Quarterly:

Wingate was posted to Palestine in 1936 as an intelligence officer. "He was entranced by the land and the people, finding the Jews far more intelligent and stimulating than his brother officers (he rarely missed an opportunity to tell them so)." He quickly became a committed Zionist at a time when the British army and police were generally pro-Arab. "He soon was on warm terms with the Zionist leadership, men such as David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weitzmann (who called Wingate 'my favorite madman')."

In 1937, responding to Arab sabotage of the Iraq-to-Palestine oil pipeline, Wingate organized and led an ambush by members of the Haganah against the saboteurs. Berges writes of the aftermath of the operation:

...the then teenaged Moshe Dayan described the settlers' elation at their successful first fight. Amid the excited talk and jubilation, Wingate sat in a corner, stark naked, munching onions, combing his body hair with a toothbrush, and writing a report.

Too much information? Sorry...

Freyberg was a great favorite of Churchill, who wrote (in The Second World War):

One day in the 1920's when I was staying at a country house with Bernard Freyberg I asked him to show me his wounds. He stripped himself and I counted twenty-seven separate scars and gashes. To these he was to add in the Second World War another three. But of course, as he explained, "You nearly always get two wounds for every bullet or splinter, because mostly they have to go out as well as go in."

Originally Posted by English assassin

You see, to my mind this illustrates why Rommel is overrated. Possibly he put forward the idea knowing it would inevitably be turned down, just to create a bit of derring do PR for himself, but the idea you could throw (and sustain) any significant forces across the channel, without preparation, in the teeth of the whole RAF and Royal Navy, as if the whole thing was no more than a minor river crossing, is madness.

Daring is good but it does have to be realistic.

What about paratroops? .

I read somewhere that immediately after Dunkirk there were only forty machineguns in the whole of Britain. With such a critical equipment shortage, the Germans probably wouldn't have needed a large force to take over the country, or at least disrupt its communications badly enough to allow a larger invasion to go ahead.

And after all, if the Brits could get 300,000 soldiers across the Channel in a few days at Dunkirk, I don't see why the Germans, assuming the capture of a port, couldn't have done something similar with a hastily thrown together flotilla.

Also I believe what Rommel was getting at with the idea of immediately invading England after the fall of France was to drop the morale of the Brits immensely. Albeit it would be damn risky, but a small-scale invasion could had considerably dropped the british morale.

Originally Posted by screwtype

What about paratroops? .

I read somewhere that immediately after Dunkirk there were only forty machineguns in the whole of Britain. With such a critical equipment shortage, the Germans probably wouldn't have needed a large force to take over the country, or at least disrupt its communications badly enough to allow a larger invasion to go ahead.

And after all, if the Brits could get 300,000 soldiers across the Channel in a few days at Dunkirk, I don't see why the Germans, assuming the capture of a port, couldn't have done something similar with a hastily thrown together flotilla.

How do you plan to resupply the invasion troops? This isn't RTW, where you ferry the troops across then leave them to campaign for the rest for the game. You'll have to supply them with food, ammunition, equipment, fuel, replacements, etc. Note that the RAF was largely intact (to the irritation of the French), and the Home Fleet was at Scapa Flow waiting for the call to steam south. Note also that the Luftwaffe had already been seen to be unsuccessful at attacking ships at sea or even in harbour (wrong kind of planes), while the Kriegsmarine got the jitters whenever its ships were ordered out to sea. God help any u-boat captains who were ordered to intercept the Home Fleet (they were intended for use against unguarded merchantmen).

Wargames of Sealion have always come to the same conclusion, that whatever troops managed to get ashore would be lost as their supply routes were destroyed by the RAF and RN.

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Wargames of Sealion have always come to the same conclusion, that whatever troops managed to get ashore would be lost as their supply routes were destroyed by the RAF and RN.

Yes Pannonian but that assumes there's some sort of organized opposition to resist the invaders, which there would have been by the time Sealion became a possibility. According to what I've read, there was very little available at the time of Dunkirk to resist a suprise attack.

When there is little or no equipment with which to resist the invaders, I think it would be a whole different ball game. You wouldn't need to get a really large force across the channel, and the supply problems would therefore be diminished.

So I don't think the idea is quite as fanciful as you and Assassin have suggested. It might have at least been worth a try.

Maybe a hypothetic tactics to launch an succesfull invasion could have been to deploy the first Wave from Air against the Channel shorebatteries .Then lay minefield on the Channel.Crossfire from both shores could have been very effective against Royal NavyThis was the tactics Finns and Germans closed down the Gulf Of Finland So that the Red Flag Navy couldnt Operate almost at all in the Baltic Sea.The crossfire from Both sides of Shore batteries from both side of Channel minefields and Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe could may have succeeded.If the Luftwaffe would have concentrated on Attacking British airfields and radar Network.That would have allowed them Air superiority could have allowed large Airborne Assaults supporting the Invasion.

Originally Posted by screwtype

Yes Pannonian but that assumes there's some sort of organized opposition to resist the invaders, which there would have been by the time Sealion became a possibility. According to what I've read, there was very little available at the time of Dunkirk to resist a suprise attack.

When there is little or no equipment with which to resist the invaders, I think it would be a whole different ball game. You wouldn't need to get a really large force across the channel, and the supply problems would therefore be diminished.

So I don't think the idea is quite as fanciful as you and Assassin have suggested. It might have at least been worth a try.

The inventory of the defences at Dover show that there was more equipment than the defenders knew what to do with, with those at the sharp end cadging whatever they could without necessarily informing the authorities. At one point I think there was around a company defending the fort with a regiment's worth of guns of assorted makes. I daresay the returnees from Dunkirk could have organised a brigade or two at short notice to make use of these weapons.

Then there are the numerous coastal defences. Southern and south-eastern England was possibly the most heavily fortified area in the world, with lines of defence dating back to Napoleonic days based on the idea of putting very big guns in very thick forts (the Dover guns were used to shell the French coast). In depth. In the 1930s they added anti-tank ditches as well, some of them wide enough to be used as canals. To bypass these defences, you'll have to flank to the north, which takes you into the North Sea and the mercies of the Home Fleet, or west, where you'll have little luck getting panzers through the marshes.

Such were the defences at the time of Dunkirk.

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Maybe a hypothetic tactics to launch an succesfull invasion could have been to deploy the first Wave from Air against the Channel shorebatteries .

The RAF may have had something to say about that. Also, depending on the timing, the airfields of northern France may not yet be usable for the Luftwaffe, meaning they'll have to deploy from Belgium or even further east.

Then lay minefield on the Channel.

Who's going to lay the minefield? Are the RN going to leave them alone while they do this?

Crossfire from both shores could have been very effective against Royal Navy

The English shore was controlled by the British, so there is no crossfire. Also, there were destroyers at every base capable of sinking minelayers, with cruisers on hand should anything heavier appear. And if the Kriegsmarine appear in their full glory, the Home Fleet will welcome them to the high seas.

This was the tactics Finns and Germans closed down the Gulf Of Finland So that the Red Flag Navy couldnt Operate almost at all in the Baltic Sea.The crossfire from Both sides of Shore batteries from both side of Channel minefields and Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe could may have succeeded.If the Luftwaffe would have concentrated on Attacking British airfields and radar Network.That would have allowed them Air superiority could have allowed large Airborne Assaults supporting the Invasion.

The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force has a rather firmer control of the Channel than the Red Navy and Air Force had of the Gulf.

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The RAF may have had something to say about that. Also, depending on the timing, the airfields of northern France may not yet be usable for the Luftwaffe, meaning they'll have to deploy from Belgium or even further east.

Who's going to lay the minefield? Are the RN going to leave them alone while they do this?

The English shore was controlled by the British, so there is no crossfire. Also, there were destroyers at every base capable of sinking minelayers, with cruisers on hand should anything heavier appear. And if the Kriegsmarine appear in their full glory, the Home Fleet will welcome them to the high seas.

The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force has a rather firmer control of the Channel than the Red Navy and Air Force had of the Gulf.

You are right but maybe i was little vague like i have a bad custom to be. I think the Airborne Operation could only have been succesfull in the Critical part of Battle of Britain in the time before Germans made the stupid decision to turn their attention against British cities.
About the Minefields.You would be suprised how fast a naval minefield is done A task force of of mine layers could have build the field in one night.
If the Minefied Operation would have been succesfull then it would have taken acces from the main British Navy in the Channel.Also allowing free movement of German transports in the Channel The remaining destroyers the Luwtwaffe could have handled quite easily.
We have to remember that prior to the invasion of Cretes Germany had large amount of Elite Fallschrim Jäegers to take out Key locations by airdrops like Shorebatteries.
Ofcourse this plan would have been very risky.And also this is just speculation,but somebody come up with better plan?

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

You are right but maybe i was little vague like i have a bad custom to be. I think the Airborne Operation could only have been succesfull in the Critical part of Battle of Britain in the time before Germans made the stupid decision to turn their attention against British cities.

That was quite some time after Dunkirk, by which time the British army and the Luftwaffe had had the opportunity to reorganise. Either the Luftwaffe is in no state to dispute the air over the Channel, or the British army is ready to defend the country.

About the Minefields.You would be suprised how fast a naval minefield is done A task force of of mine layers could have build the field in one night.

I thought the Channel was pretty heavily patrolled by the British throughout the war.

If the Minefied Operation would have been succesfull then it would have taken acces from the main British Navy in the Channel.Also allowing free movement of German transports in the Channel The remaining destroyers the Luwtwaffe could have handled quite easily.

How would the transport cross the Channel while it was inaccessible to the RN? Block off the eastern end to prevent the Home Fleet from sailing through? There were plenty of destroyers on the other side, and indeed everywhere. One thing the British were not short of was warships. Also, if Britain was threatened, the RN would have been willing to lose every last ship if required to stop the invasion. CF. Churchill's comment about the loss of the Hood, and Cunningham's comment about the Crete evacuation.

We have to remember that prior to the invasion of Cretes Germany had large amount of Elite Fallschrim Jäegers to take out Key locations by airdrops like Shorebatteries.

The German paras were saved by the capture of an airfield and the defenders failure to counterattack. I don't think this would have been an issue in an invasion of Britain.

Ofcourse this plan would have been very risky.And also this is just speculation,but somebody come up with better plan?

The German High Command thought the invasion of Britain would amount to suicide. Every study since shows them to be right in this assessment.

Originally Posted by strike for the south

Robert E Lee Patton. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Yeah...

Originally Posted by Papewaio

My countrymens bias is for Bernard Freyberg and I choose him not for his victories but for his defeat on Crete. Where with a force that was lacking in heavy weapons, radios and a sorely dented command structure after the loss of Greece he managed to do some serious damage to the elite German paratroopers. In fact the damage done was so extreme that despite winning Crete with the largest airdrop to that point in history the Germans never tried that style of attack again. For some reason the New Zealanders and the German Paratroopers went head to head in a few battles.

Pape,

I have a book called "Military blunders" and the defence of Crete is an example for bad troops.

I can read it if you like!

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The German paras were saved by the capture of an airfield and the defenders failure to counterattack. I don't think this would have been an issue in an invasion of Britain.

Eben Email... Just up that to a hundred such cases and you would have the situation across southern England.

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Eben Email... Just up that to a hundred such cases and you would have the situation across southern England.

How would they be dropped in southern England? The RAF was intact and fully ready for any attempted invasion. So you're asking heavily laden bombers to cross the Channel when they were expected, with the defenders aware of any concentrations of aircraft and where they were heading, with a large, skilled defending air force armed with extremely effective and modern fighters awaiting them? And as I've said, the Luftwaffe was still reorganising after the lighting Frecnh campaign. Either you're launching an immediate mass combined fighter and transport attack where any losses will not be recovered as you're still based largely in the east, or you reorganise on the ground and give the RAF and British army time to prepare as well. Also, pilots downed over France will fall into German hands, but England and the surrounding seas are British territory.

I think Belgian neutrality was still nominally being respected by the allies at the time of Eben Emael, meaning they could not respond in time. Everywhere surrounding Britain would be regarded as fair game for the British, so they'll have complete freedom of movement and deployment. Anything not clearly identified as friendly in the seas and air around southern England was liable to be attacked, no matter where or who they were.

Also, how are you planning to disembark your main invasion force? All major ports were prepared for destruction should they be capture by the enemy. And how are you planning to transport your main invasion force? Sealion grabbed all the barges they could find, discovered they weren't seaworthy, and there were fewer skilled crew than there were barges. The capriciousness of the Channel is well known (one of the Mulberyy harbours was destroyed by storms a fortnight after its construction despite being firmly anchored and protected by moles of ships). The proposed river barges were discovered to be vulnerable to anything other than an utterly calm sea. Even a passing destroyer could cause enough turbulence to sink them without needing to fire a shot.

Maybe we should start a new thread about this?This has nothing to do with best General of WWII anymore.