Best divisional commanders

Well I'm not saying he didn't make his own share of mistakes, but he was succesful at taking the islands, and what I really put him on the list for was his effect on his troops moral. he was always a general to personally lead his troops in combat, and often made tours of the perimeters. He made the best of the other visiting leaders, and could easily convince others to give him supplies and such. I recently read a biography of him entitled Guadalcanal General in which it really gets the point across. I remember best this time as it states, that after the initial landings, the marines were making very slow proccess through the jungles, expecting a Jap behind every tree. After a long argument with his battalion CO's and such peoples, he grabbed his G-2 and jumped in a jeep and drove up the road about 2 miles, and came right back, expieriencing no fire, giving his soldiers confideb=nce, and shutting up his subordanant officers. That account isn't word for word from the text, and some details may be off, but he often commanded like that. As you stated with the new CP, he didn't order it, and was rarely there. And the position was extremely important for his perimeter. He really did a great job, for the intelligence, and supplies he had to work with. The only maps available at the time were an 18th century captured british sea chart, and locals accounts from Australia which was at best worrysome. Like one stated, that Mt. Austin was "a little hill about a mile inland." He only had about 1/8th of his supplies as well.

 

You can say that leading from the front is a good way of commanding troops because it is inspiring, and of course it is. But, for example, Rommel also did this and he frequently lost overview of the battle because he was simply too close to it to see the greater picture. He also had trouble directing and organizing the logistical aspects of his armies because he was always at the front instead of in the rear, with his CP, directing the rear echelon which keeps the front running.

As Sun Tzu argues, if you're too close to the front you're likely to be captured; your vanguard general should therefore be loyal to your orders as they are issued from further to the rear. He should not outrun his flanks or attack on his own, but if anything goes wrong you can't afford to be there and risk being captured.

On the other hand, you would be able to react to the changing situation as a good general should. Therefore I'm not entirely sure about whether leading from the front is good or bad.

 

It's probably both, given the nature of war. Much depends on how much you do it, and to what extent. Rommel and Vandegrift's positions were very much different. Rommel was fighting a mobile war in the desert, while Vandegrift was waging a defensive struggle on a jungle island. I would argue that Vandegrift, to a large extent, *had* to lead from the front, given the extent and nature of his difficulties: Lack of supplies and reinforcements, being abandoned by the US Navy, tropical diseases, terrible living conditions, and a fanatical enemy who refused to give up. Had General Vandegrift not done everything in his power to show his Marines that he was in this with them, their morale might well have collapsed.

 

Of course in his case the organization of the rear areas is no necessity as there are no rear areas; there is no supply train or reinforcement coming in from the rear, and since the enemy is right there in front of you and attacking, it's hardly needed to get a larger plan going. Just stick to it.

In Vandergrift's case I'd agree with the policy.

 

Absolutely. Even in his command post, Vandegrift came under fire more than once. What areas might actually be designated as rear echelon were largely devoted to medical purposes.

 

In fact his command post was bombarded nearly every night, and especially when BB01, the Kongo bombarded them, with her primary armament, a shell tore right through the cp on the ridge, and decimated it. Also in that bombardment all the fuel not in planes already from the Henderson was destroyed, as well as 50% of the cactus airforce.

 

No one ever accused Vandegrift of cowardice, and rightly so.

 

I wanted served under Heinz Guderian.

 

I'll go with James Gavin. He was a brilliant commander, even going to the front to see the ground and discover what the situation was in an area he was operating in.

 

Then I'll go with James Casselbury - on his choice of best divisional commander. :lol:

 

Why, thank you, Roel! It's nice to be appreciated. 8)

 

I would like to put forward Orde Wingate.

 

People I would most want to command my division?

Gamelin or Daladier (Who was a WW1 Officer) because neither of them wanted to lose a single soldier, granted that is why France lost but someone that cares wether or not I live or die is prefferable to a brilliant nut job like Patton in my opinion.

The best divisional commander?

I would say the best goes to Erick Von Manstien, whos brilliance caused Germany's victory over France.

If it weren't for him the Germans would have gone full force into Belgium and faced the mighty French Army, and probably based on the two battles fought between France and Germany there (Girouds army destroyed 100 tanks and lost 5 and Prioux's forces destroyed 160 and lost 105) would not have had their fast victory over the allies.

The Manstien Plan gives Erick Von Manstien rank #1 in divisional commanders.

 

What he commanded, or the strategy he invented, was actually to be enforced by three army groups. How does that make Von Manstein a good divisional commander? The difference in scale is such that the command of a division is something entirely different from the command of an army or larger unit.

Also, I hate to go into too much detail, but you keep misspelling Von Manstein. It's with "ei", not with "ie". I'm sorry but I felt I had to point it out, this means nothing against your arguments though.

GP: Orde Wingate was a controversial figure, known for his rash actions and uncontrollable outbursts of temper. I think having him command the tough Chindits is just perfect, but never would I want to be part of those troops if only because he would lead me.

 

Sorry about the Manstein spelling.

His strategy was based on three armies, but he happened to have been a division commander when he made his strategy and marched into Hitler's office with it, he got promoted because his strategy caused Germany's early victory.

I still would have preffered Gamelin or Daladier to be my commander (Who were division commanders in WW1) because they cared about will their soldiers live or die, unfortunately they took that to an extreme and invented the Phony War.

 

But he did do a lot of good and this is about best Commander to take such few peolple, albeit in the jungle and cause so much trouble He has to be in with a shout.

I myself wouldn't like to be there but when he formed a plan it useually worked and that has to be good.

 

Felix Steiner was by the way first divisonal commander of the SS Wiking Division. 3rd SS Panzer Corps was actually not more than one Division and some foreign batallions.

 

Dr. Franz Bäke !

Everybody who served under his command ( the ones that I was able to talk with ) was very impressed by him ! A leader like Friederich der Große !

:smok:

Jan-Hendrik

 

I don't know about commanding a division (he only commanded a division for 2 months before the war ended) but he was certainly an exceptional leader of a panzer regiment.

Read Panzer Aces by Franz Kuroswski if you haven't already.

 

Sorry , comrade , but I don´t give any coin for Kurowski , I rather prefer by Bäke him self or people that served under his command

He was commander of PzDiv "FHH2" in Hungary in 1945 , decorated with Ritterkreuz & Eichenlaub !

Jan-Hendrik