Most able commander on German side

I heard various opinions, and would like to hear some more. Who was the best all around strategist on German side? This encompasses exploiting opportunities, understanding supply, thinking one step ahead, best use of combined forces, etc.

 

I have a few:

Gerd Von Rundstedt, Erwin Rommel, Erich Von Manstein, Fedor Von Bock. Low hand: Michael Wittman.

But Germany had MANY good, excellent Strategists, but they all used it for the wrong thing.

 

i agree, but i would add Kesselring. his defence of italy was a masterpiece of tactic and strategy.

by contrast, IMHO Doenitz is the most overrated commander. let's never forget that he had the huge advantage that hitler didn't not infterfere with his plans, doenitz could do whatever he wanted (not like the poor commanders on the eastern front!!). Nevertheless he failed completely.

Anyway, good commanders were the most valuable asset of germany. Generally speaking this comes from prussian tradition (directly or indirectly). in fact that was something that hitler didn't like, hitler preferred generals more loyal to the nazi party.

 

Completly agree with Kreuz!

Well, i been always facinated by the low- mid range ranks of the German army. As well as average soldiers as well. Their understandig of tactics and combat down to the lowest ranks is simply outmatching any othe force of that time...

 

I must say there trully are too many to choose from.

I must go with Manstein, Halder, Kluge, Rundstedt, Von Bock to name a few.

But as Sturm correctly pointed out its a shame they were used for accomplishing evil.

 

I think it is a matter of perspective, point of view really. Those great war talents of german generals would've never archived thouse victories they did if they was't belivin' that they were fighting for the right reasons.

Look at that picture! Unanimity is realy powerfull. When at Olimpic Games of 1936 in Berlin Germans would stand up for their "Heil" most of the forengers would find themself figting not to do the same, so powerfull it was.

Human race is still very young, comparing... I would say we still have not crossed puberty, still learning on our mistakes. I'm just afraid we are not done yet making them.... the big ones.

 

Agreed.....

 

I definitely would not put Rommel on the list for this category. Manstein and Kesslering were not bad. Both were masters of the art of defense. Rommel certainly was no strategist of any worth. His desert campaign while often tactically brilliant was essentially a strategic disaster. His later planning for the Atlantic Wall could also be characterized as largely a failure as it did virtually nothing to stop or contain the Allies when they did finally invade.
Looking at the later in a very general way, the Allies came ashore spent about 90 days building up their forces while engaging the Wehrmacht in a static battle of attrition. This culminated in an Allied breakout and the encirclement of the bulk of the German forces in Normandy, and for that matter, France.
In his earlier North African campaign Rommel's handling of logistics was nothing short of pathetic. His strategy was largely based on defeating the British on a local level and that he really never had a sound overall plan for operations that would lead to a successful conclusion of that campaign. The best that might be said on a strategic level was that Rommel based on his initial successes had some vague objective of taking the Suez Canal and Alexandria but did no concrete planning towards that end.

I really cannot give Wittman much credit tactically either. It seems to me the guy was prone to attacking rashly with inferior forces and little integration of some overall plan into his local operations. Just looking at his brief operations in Normandy at Villers Brocage he briefly overran the town, shot up a British column, then lost every vehicle in his command, and proved unable to hold the town. In his last action he brashly charged a un-reconned and unknown Canadian position across open ground once again losing his entire command along with his life in the process. That does not strike me as tactically sound thinking. Now, the Eastern Front is a whole other ballgame than the West and it is likely that what Wittmann learned there he applied in the West, as it seems so many other German commanders did who served in the East extensively, only to prove disasterous there.

 

I heard of 3 versions on Wittmanns death none of wich could be properly confirmed. 3 different units claimed the score. 2 by ground units 1 by ground support aircraft. I'm personally leaning towards aircraft version. At that time in war allies had total domination in the air and any German tank in the open, espessialy such a slow one as Tiger 1 would be like a "siting duck". Can't realy do much about it. They ( Germans ) got a short break during winter 1944/45 "Battle of the Bulge" when coz of the weather conditions allies was limited in use of their airforce.

On topic I'm surprised no one named Heinz Guderian yet.

 

I agree that Rommel wasnt a great overall strategist; He could win the battle, but not the war. Given his supplies in Africa were very limited, which wasnt really his fault, I think he accomplished some very impressive victories.

I would say, from what I know, Von Manstein was probably the best. He seemed to have a fairly consistent method for winning battles, even with the odds against him like the third battle of kharkov where he managed to recapture the city from an army almost twice the size of his.

That being said, I think Rommel would have done an excellent job commanding troops in the field with somebody like Manstein in charge of overall strategy.

 

my points:

- Rommel: maybe T.A. is right, i'm not so competent to dispute this. just let me say that judging Rommel for his france defences is unfair. let's say that he was not so motivated to stop the allies in france.....

- Guderian: here i am, i name him! certailny for his success in france.

- Kesselring: i think that stopping the allies in italy for 2 years is more than just "not bad"

On topic I'm surprised no one opposed my "allegations" on Doenitz

 

Who's Guderian? Was he Italian?

 

Generals like: Erich von Manstein, and Gotthard Heinrici; come to mind. As well, so does GFM Ewald von Kleist.

 

It depends on the goal allowed. Hitler and Company did not allow for what I would refer to as any real strategy. As always, the politicians think they are better at planning wars than the professionals. Rommel was a good tank tactician, but limited by his lack of good intel. He was also an aggressive fighter and not suited for large scale defensive positions.

Von Manstein and Kessering were about as good as they had, but they were as ham stringed as the rest.

 

I was just thinking of those three before I read your post C. Evens.

 

Hi Richard, two great minds think alike ;-)) Now move to the United States so we can count you as one of the good guys. ;-))

 

Well from what I remember the general consensus of the German officer corps was that Manstein was best strategist. As for the most able commander, that's such an open question because it all depends on what unit level your talking about. How can u compare a small unit, company commander like Wittmann with an army group commander like Manstein...totally different. I'd say both were the best at what they did.

 

With most of the top brass being already named here. To analyze top Generals down the line we must acknowledge SS-Standartenführer Sylvester Stadler, who earned respect as a tactically good officer aswell as brave. His actions at Kharkov then the battle of Kursk earned him the honor of his men as well the high command.

 

Gen. Leon Degrelle,,Belgian Waffen SS.

 

Felix Steiner , his defence of Narva with III SS Panzer Korps when analysed was remarkable, plus the gutsiest tactical decision of the War made by Paul Hausser at Kharkov as Commander of I SS Panzer Korps,

Paul