Who was the best commander? State your case and present your favorite. I'll start the show with casting my vote for Eisenhower, he had the hard task of getting a group of folks with competing agendas to work together and focused on beating Germany.
For field commanders, one of my favorites is Omar Bradley. If you're looking at military leaders in general during the Second World war, I like Ray Spruance.
Slim seems like a good one from what I have read, but ya haven't given any reasons to hang a discussion on.
Its comparatively easy to say for WW 1, equally tough to name for One or Two, because of the vastness of WW 2. It would have been better, if I go by country, or by operation/theater-wise. Okay .... let me try my best ... ** Eisenhower : done his best to keep the multinational army intact,till '45, where a few commanders had a tend to seek personal glory. Thank God, it never ever been strongly interrupt the operational-integrity. ** Bill Slim, Horrocks , being field commanders, had done their best during their immense crisis of logistics and support. ** Rommel, though he had not completed full term due to P20, one of the finest military genius, who fought a gentlemans' war. ** Manstein[saved his force after the disaster of Leningrad] and Guderian as shear genius. ** Dowding for RAF fighter command. ** Nimitz for marine crops . ** Monty and Bradley for their capability of planing under immense pressure from the both fronts, ie. criticism of public and media as their home-front and their original battle front. ** Zhukov for the main Russian offensive. ** Yamamoto had done his best in the Pacific. As per and as far as my knowledge goes, they were the key-players of the theater. I always go for a soldier, his bravery and courage. History never see a favorite, instead, it follows its own course. Patriotism and History are like oil and water. ''........... Love been high and Hate been low ....... ''
Goodness, what is there NOT to like about Slim? Came from a modest background, proved his personal bravery on numerous occasions during the First World War. Extensive training and success in the interwar years, even with the glacial speed of promotion at that time. The low point during his command of BurCorps probably reflected more on the state of the Commonwealth forces equipment and manoueverability than on Slim himself - but his later performance suggests to me that he accurately assessed the shortcomings of his forces and learned from the experience. The arguments with Irwin - which, frankly, could have ended his career right there and then through no fault of his own - and the events that followed in the Arakan peninsular meant that when Slim returned to a command position, he was faced with a situation that could hardly have been worse. But it was at this point, when he took over 14th army, that I really think Slim deserves the title of best Allied commander of the Second World War. He totally reformed the way the Commonwealth forces operated, matching equipment and training to overcome the logistical challenges facing his troops in the extremely difficult terrain in which - almost against - they were fighting. He revolutionised the use of air drops for supply and showed a very firm grasp of the importance of all arms co- operation. He understood the Japanese were very skilled at filtering through static lines, encircling and cutting them off and he developed a highly successful method of counteracting their methods - Slim's army operated a modular, hedgehog type defence, supplied by air and basically impossible to effectively cut off - a profound shift in doctrine and operational procedure that he, himself, simply invented, implemented and oversaw with incredible success. This development stopped the Japanese dead in their tracks - literally turning the enemy's strength against him - sumo style. He pioneered the concept of 'Air -Mobility' - later used by American forces in Vietnam - witness the shift of two entire divisions from the Arakan to rapidly bolster the sagging defences at Imphal. As for the final campaign to liberate Burma - I cannot think of a single Allied general whose grasp of the huge operational strategic and tactical challenges facing Slim - extended supply lines, terrible terrain, a suicidally determined enemy, time constraints imposed by the severity of the forthcoming monsoon and the need to take a major port in order to continue his advance at all - was as effective as Slim's, nor can I think of any general, Allied or Axis, given the standard of equipment, the diverse nationalities of his troops, the pressure placed on his shoulders, who could have succeeded as brilliantly as Slim. The man was a bloody genius. His troops loved him - his manner was real and down to earth - unlike the stage show posturing of MacArthur, Patton or Montgomery - they saw him as one of them - and crucially, so did he. Reasons enough, jrj?
Yes and thanks a lot. that is why I posted this thread, because my American view is limited and I learn about the good guys that fought for the other countries from those who have a different perspective.
It seems to me that Slim was a commander whose tactics and strategy are worth study, and has a good grasp of modern industrial warfare. Thanks for your presentation of his case.
The thing was that they didn't win, so what makes them better? Present your case, don't be afraid to make your point, after all you have a unique perspective and I am interested in seeing it.
It has to be Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita. His defeat of the British forces in Malaya has to be one of the greatest feats of military bluff in history. He was still fighting in the Philippines at the wars end. Like Admiral Yamamoto he knew Japan could not win an extended war. He took the blame for atrocities that were generally committed under the the orders of Lieutenant-Colonel Masanobu Tsuji who was Chief of Operations and Planning. For this he was hanged
I think it has to be Lieutenant-General Tomoyuki Yamashita. His defeat of the British forces in Malaya and Singapore has to be the greatest military bluff in history. He went on to lead Japanese forces in the Philippines and was still fighting at wars end. He took responsibility for atrocities carried out by Lieutenant-Colonel Masanobu Tsuji who was Chief of Operations and Planning for the Malaya campaign. Also for the renegade Marines who held out in Manila after Yamashita had declared it an open city. For these occurrences he was hanged.
The German's produced Manstein, Model, Guderian and Rommel. Hitler sacked his most able Generals for disagreeing with him on both strategy and tactics. These Generals were not allowed to fight the war as they suggested. There is a more interesting Question here. That's is what impact external controls have on the military's ability to fight wars ? For example Churchill's interference in strategy; the US press building up some Generals history has shown to be inferior . The issue of who was the best can never be reasonably resolved because to agree that would mean comparing like with like in numbers, training, political control, weapons etc. No such equilibrium exists. At best we can say who achieved more with the resources they were given.
You make an interesting point, I know that it has been stated on another thread that national bias would be the cause of an unfair evaluation, and that situations differed. I started this thread though to see just where things are and to get folks opinion and hopefully learn of different commanders than those made popular for different reasons.
Zhukov is a good one. It was the due to him that the Japanese chose the southern route instead of trying to make a grab for Siberia IMHO, and with the Japanese going south, Zhukov was able to go fight Germans.
I am pleased to see Patton's name absent in most posts, he rivalled Douglas Haig in the "who cares about the men, just keep throwing them at the enemy until the enemy runs out of 'em" philosophy. I think Rommel too was overrated as he had a very naive grasp of logistics. Logistics is the most important consideration in any battle and Market Garden's main failure was from the same type of naive understanding displayed by Rommel in many offensives, though Erwin was lucky.
Ya thew rocks at the popularized commanders, yet ya didn't give your idea of who was good. Patton at one time was my hero, yet I came to realize that ole blood and guts wasn't what Hollywood made him out to be. I will say this for him though, I admired his statement "War is not about dying for your country, it is about making the other s.o.b. die for his country." If suicide bombers listened to that basic of war, then they would not volunteer to die for their cause. I digress. You state that logistics is important, so who do you think best displayed the proper handling of logistics?
Most Generals understood the basic concepts of supply but some choose to ignore that, certainly Romell was one of them. I don't have any particular favorite over another, I certainly think the Germans would have been more successful with some of their great Generals running the Kriegsmaschine over Hitler but then without him we probably would not have had the war in the first place. It is really difficult to compare because many of their circumstances were different and certainly in Germany's case were answering to a 'higher power'. For instance how would Rommel have fared had he been in charge of the 6th Army and 4th Panzer at Stalingrad instead of Paulus?
It seems that a lot of folks hold that view, and I have seen speculative fiction that has tried to explore those questions of how so and so would handle such and such, yet there are some indicators of how they would react because there are certain situations that are common. Tank commanders and Calvary commanders have similar tactics, where as infantry tactics are different, sometimes the challenge of terrain requires a specialist in that terrain, yet there are commanders who are able to overcome their ignorance of terrain and achieve victories. It is pretty much common consensus that Hitler wasn't a strategist or scientist, if he had been able to grasp that fact then things would definitely turned out different. Yet there are some commanders that proved able to achieve victories when most would have failed, or if they failed they did so in such a memorable fashion that they need to be discussed. That is what I am trying to do with this thread, because war ain't a game played on a board or computer, it involves people that got their chance to prove to the world what they are made of, some achieved fame and glory, some died, some became the definition of a certain mistake or atrocity. Who were these men and how do those that study WWII think of them.
