WW2 generals question.

[venomballistics]

Very few of the WWII generals on either side have spotless careers. Most screwed up in some way, either making poor decisions from the available intel, or making poor decisions because of their ego.

When it comes to doing the best with what they had, Rommel has to be at, or near, the top of the list.

Exactly.
The desert fox might have been the enemy, but he was a warrior due significant respect.

 

[AR_Black]

I'm re reading "Citizen Soldiers" by Steven Ambrose. Published about the same time as "The Greatest Generation" it's a much, much better book.

Thanks for the recommendation. I just downloaded from Audible and will listen during my road trip this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NYlakesider]

As the OP let me say, this thread morphed from most feared to a decent discussion of the major players in the war. As a person interested in military history I enjoyed reading the responses

I will say in my understanding of the war I would not say Monty was the most feared.(Possibly only in his mind)

As others have said lots of mistakes made by all the major protagonists of the war.

FWIW this group is rather diverse and it was interesting reading the assorted views.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Not gonna say Montgomery was a bad general...a lot of national pride is involved. But basically...he wouldn't make a move until he was all but guaranteed a victory...and even then he would make excuses if things didn't go as advertised. Upon the D-Day landings his troops were to take the village of Caen...immediately. He kept making excuses he was "pivoting on Caen" for something like a month. A real politician that one.

 

[OLDSTER]

My vote for the most talented and effective general of WWII is the Russian Georgy Zhukov.

 

[Greyman50]

Well, Mac wanted to nuke the Chinese. Think for a minute, while we were in Korea the Brits were dealing with commies in Maylasia, Ping and his crew. By chance we had nuked the Chinese Korea would have been over in a " flash", no more commie pushing by China and most likely Russia. No Vietnam and all that.Brits threw Ping and the commies out as the Brits could completely control the sea and they used SAS very well along with concentrated pin point bombing.

 

[Gamecock]

My vote for the most talented and effective general of WWII is the Russian Georgy Zhukov.

He was certainly the most accomplished.

 

[WR Moore]

There's a really interesting read on the early war in North Africa. "Brazen Chariots" by Major Robert Crisp, probably still available from Ballantine. Considerable discussion on what was termed the Benghazi Stakes. Another part dealt with how mystified the Brits were by German anti-tank guns-right up until they captured their first 88 mm gun. There was also one on the many and varied-some slightly weird- special units the Brits developed, can't recall the title.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

"The Phantom Major", "Popski's Private Army", "Long Range Desert Group" are good books about the British Special Ops units.
Montgomery should have kept in mind the Elder Von Moltke's dictum that "No plan of operations survives first contact with the enemy." At the same time Montgomery insisted on rigorous training, his 3rd Division was one of the few that acquitted itself well during the Western Offensive in 1940. The friction and tension in his relationship with Eisenhower came about because having spent his war on the Western Front he felt that Eisenhower-who stayed stateside during WWI-shoukld be more deferential to him.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

"The Phantom Major", "Popski's Private Army", "Long Range Desert Group" are good books about the British Special Ops units.
Montgomery should have kept in mind the Elder Von Moltke's dictum that "No plan of operations survives first contact with the enemy." At the same time Montgomery insisted on rigorous training, his 3rd Division was one of the few that acquitted itself well during the Western Offensive in 1940. The friction and tension in his relationship with Eisenhower came about because having spent his war on the Western Front he felt that Eisenhower-who stayed stateside during WWI-should have been more deferential to him.

 

[Narragansett]

Peter O'toole in " The Night of The Generals "

 

[Kevin J.]

Eisenhower was quoted as saying the four most effective pieces of equipment that won the war were the Higgins boat, the C-47 aircraft, the 2.5 ton truck and the Liberty ship. They were not weapons in and of themselves…but the logistical tools that took the weapons to the fight. Without them the war would have been much more difficult to win.

While none of these were perfect…they were good enough and were manufactured in the numbers needed…well…they never had enough at all times in the worldwide sense…to get the job done.

But it was Patton who said in January 1945 "In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."

 

[GaryS]

I have the Long Range Desert Group book. Which is not to be confused with the Special Air Service. Two different British units although they worked together on occasion.

There is a movie "Sea of Sand" on YouTube which was based on the book. Pretty good depictions of desert special operations early in WW2.

"The Phantom Major", "Popski's Private Army", "Long Range Desert Group" are good books about the British Special Ops units.
Montgomery should have kept in mind the Elder Von Moltke's dictum that "No plan of operations survives first contact with the enemy." At the same time Montgomery insisted on rigorous training, his 3rd Division was one of the few that acquitted itself well during the Western Offensive in 1940. The friction and tension in his relationship with Eisenhower came about because having spent his war on the Western Front he felt that Eisenhower-who stayed stateside during WWI-should have been more deferential to him.

 

[cmj8591]

Heinz Guderian

Without question the best tactician of WW2. When everyone was planing for the next WW1, with static lines and large frontal attacks, he was coming up with the concept of combined arms which gave birth to Blitzkrieg. Patton studied him more than any other German general and built of off a lot of his concepts. He took the German Army, with only about 30% of the needed supplies and drove them to within striking distance of Moscow. Had Hitler trusted him and listened, he probably would have taken Russia. The winners get to write history so he got relegated to the dust bin.

 

[UncleEd]

He may not have been the most feared,
but it seems General Screwup was everywhere.

 

[WR Moore]

There was a thick book on Operation Barbarosa (invasion of Russia). Prominently mentioned is that the attack had originally been scheduled much earlier in the year. However, staunch ally Benito decided to "help" by invading another country (Greece or Yugoslavia?, memory isn't what it used to be) and making a mess of it. Barbarosa was delayed while troops, material and time intended to be used in Russia had to go settle things down elsewhere.

General Winter is always gonna get his licks in, but if things had gone off on schedule, history might be very different. At least in some details.

 

[john17427]

Eisenhower was in a tough position but had the ability to handle it.

Ike has been known as a nice guy…like everyone's grandpa. But he was as ambitious and decisive as anyone. Richard Nixon…no stranger to making decisions himself…said Eisenhower was the most cold-hearted man he ever saw when it came to making a decision.

There's no doubt that the massive weight of responsibility and the difficult personalities and events that Ike had to manage, had to leave him with a complete understanding of his own capability to make hard decisions and own the consequences. Many people have had a life experience that gives them a glimpse of what they're capable of. Few, however, get as much of that experience as Ike did. I have to think that being President was a bit of a cake walk after Supreme Commander.

 

[Greyman50]

There's a really interesting read on the early war in North Africa. "Brazen Chariots" by Major Robert Crisp, probably still available from Ballantine. Considerable discussion on what was termed the Benghazi Stakes. Another part dealt with how mystified the Brits were by German anti-tank guns-right up until they captured their first 88 mm gun. There was also one on the many and varied-some slightly weird- special units the Brits developed, can't recall the title.

Read " Brazen Chariots" in the 60s, cant remember the Brit author but he wrote " The Blue Nile" and several other excellent books on the Brits in N. Africa. Brazen Chariots author rode in lend lease M-3 " Stuarts".

 

[snowman]

I'm not qualified to offer an informed opinion re: the best or most feared general(s), but I have been listening to a lot of videos about the war produced by historians(especially Mark Felton), including the series "War Factories" mentioned earlier. It appears that a very large majority of them agree that the outcome, though influenced by a number of factors, was determined by only one: the overwhelming numbers of men and weapons produced by and continuously available to the Allies made it impossible for the Axis to prevail, regardless of any advantage(s) the latter otherwise may have held(including better generals/officers/etc.). They possibly may have been able to have held out longer under different circumstances, but didn't really have any reasonable chance of winning. This makes sense to me when one looks at some of the numbers.

I thought of what would happen in a soccer or football game if one side fielded 5-10 times the number of players as their opponent. Many of them could be inferior in talent, etc. , but they would still win simply by their vast numerical superiority.

Regards,
Andy