Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Who was the best general of WWII?

Discussion in 'Leaders of World War 2' started by Patton phpbb3, Mar 24, 2007.

  1. Patton phpbb3

    Patton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    I would like y'all's opinions on this, my brothers and I have huge debates on this all the time.

    It has to be a GENERAL not an ADMIRAL.

    Top 5 competitors are;

    1. Erwin Rommel

    2. Georgi Zhukov

    3. George S. Patton

    4. Bernard Montgomery

    5. Douglas MacArthur
     
  2. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    Rommel, the Master in Blitzkrieg :cool:

    second i would take is Patton, the only allied general that knew what Blitzkrieg was and gave the germans a taste of it + he crossed the Rhine river a lot faster and with less troops then Monty did
     
  3. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    I'd rank your five as:
    1. Zhukov - Ruthless, determined, and ultimately successful at running some of the largest operations of the war.
    2. Mac Arthur - brilliance equally matched with egomania and laziness. A good "idea man", fortunately with the staff to pull it off.
    3. Patton - his "blood and guts" public persona and eccentricities make him the anti-American lightning rod of WWII and causes people to lose sight of how good he really was. Should have been the US 12th AG commander. Damn those slapping incidents.
    4. Montgomery - Good, solid, dependable and reliable. He realized it was more important not to lose than it was to win. His suboridinates were not of uniform quality and were not always able to execute his bolder ideas.
    5. Rommel - I'm a believer that he was at his best in a corps command and was out of hsi depth at higher levels, although he never really had a chance real army group command. While he realized that supplies (gasoline) and the open flank dominated desert warfare, you reall have to after the fall of Tobruk.
     
  4. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    1.Rommel-already given
    2.Patton- already given
    3.Kesselring-played a prefect defense of N. Italy
    4.Montgomery
    5.Guderian- Pushed all the way to Moscow never lost a battle but might of lost the war by not taking Moscow.
     
  5. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Okay Revere, now you've opened up the flood gates. :lol:
    Now we can ask: where is von Manstein, Model or Kesserling? Are we only talking about Army Group commanders or any general?
    Revere, who is your top Soviet general?
     
  6. Patton phpbb3

    Patton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    ANY general, the list was just my families most debated. Anyone is welcome to add more generals to the discussion.
     
  7. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Slim, Gavin, Ridgway, Model, Von Manstein, Von Rundstedt (though he was unable to stick with the times), Von Manteuffel, Bittrich.

    Of the ones you mentioned, I think Patton is probably the best, but none of them are particular favourites of mine...
     
  8. ujis

    ujis New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    1 Rommel.
    2 Guderain
    3 kesselring
    4 patton
    5 monty
     
  9. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    I have this thing against Monty. He always, always, had to wait until he had more men, more guns, tanks and planes then the enemy had and then trade them one for one. Perfect example was El Alamein. There was no tactic, just trading one for one and knowing that you will win the battle.

    Absolutly hillarious was the Rhine crousing. Monty waited, deployed several paratrooper divisions, had a great numeral advantage while Patton just sended a couple men, no resistance, fine, send in the rest. :grin:

    Point is, Monty seemed to be the one that doesn't want to take a risk but does show off for winning a battle everybody in his place could have won without breaking a sweat. So i wouldn't pick him as the best general of WW2.
    (And now i'm hated by every England lover on this forum)
     
  10. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    lol I was just wanting to be different I would probably have Zhukov :) I did have Kesselring on the list.
     
  11. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't know if we can allow different thinking here!
     
  12. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    sorry master *falls to knees and commits huri-kuri
     
  13. ujis

    ujis New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    i completly agree on this point. most generals did there job with what they had and no complaining.. monty is always asking for more troops equipment en tanks.
     
  14. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Most generals were always asking for more. What made Monty different was that he just wouldn't do anything untl he got what he asked for, and would then insist that his every battle went exactly to his paln. He apparently never realized that one attribute of a good general is the ability to adapt to changing conditions. he was actually fairly good at it, he just didn't want to admit it.
     
  15. ujis

    ujis New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    also monty made up the daring market garden plan.. although Ike told him that he first had to conquer antwerpen.. monty didn't en eventuelly ike gave his approvel to the failed operation.
     
  16. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Ike was pretty honest about agreeing with Montgomery that they needed to try and deal a knock out blow to the Germans while they were down. Unfortunately, the Germans were already recovering and the obvious weaknesses of the plan were overlooked as the Western Allies suffered from their own mild case of "victory disease".
    A better strategy may have been to put all resources into clearing the Scheldt (Antwerp had been already captured intact at almost no cost around Septemeber 3, 1944). This would have greatly improved the supply situation, which was the major factor in the slow advance of the allies in the fall of 1944. With a better supply situation, which would have also allowed more troops to be landed earlier, Patton could have advanced into the Saarland, which the Germans would have had to defend, possibly making the Ardennes offensive impossible.
    Unfortunately the poor supply situation, and defeats in Market-Garden, the Hurtgen Forest, and wasted efforts at Brest, etc. resulted in stagnation and gave the Germans a chance for recovery.
     
  17. Patton phpbb3

    Patton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, you can always say this or this would have happened, but it didn't. The actual way it happened is how we should look at it. Making up hypothetical situations does no one any good. All history is for is the learning of lessons. If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. When you make a mistake, you learn from it, you remember your mistake at a later situation and don't make it again.
     
  18. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Patton,

    What you say is true, but part of earning a lesson is to know what you should do next time a similar situation arises, not just, "Well we know this one thing didn't work last time".

    Besides it's so much fun to speculate when you can never be proven wrong! :wink:
     
  19. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    I like Roel's picks, especially Slim, who did so much in Burma with so little.
     
  20. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, Slim is consistently overlooked although he may have been the best British general of WWII.
    No tidy things up and wait for reinforcements and more supplies mentality there.
     

Share This Page