three best commanders of world war two

First off General Benerard Montgomery then Patton then Rommal.

 

montgomery and patton weren't good.. they had tons of resources

 

Surely you get commanders at all levels? But I take it you are looking at Corps or Army Commanders rather than Regiment or Brigade and even lower.

 

1. Ike

2.Rommel

3.Patton

 

There is no way for sure to say who the best commanders of the war were as everyone was good and different things. There are also thousands if we look for a corps commanding upwards...

Here are mine though although these probably should be classed as my favourites rather than the best as it is down to personal opinion.

Kesselring
Rommel
Alexander

 

Monty was a "rubbish" leader. I can't think of any good decisions on his part besides the north african campaign.

 

How about increasing the Normandy Landings from 3 beaches and 3 division to 5 beaches and 5 divisions plus 3 airborne divisions landing behind enemy lines...

 

How about increasing the Normandy Landings from 3 beaches and 3 division to 5 beaches and 5 divisions plus 3 airborne divisions landing behind enemy lines...
Seems like that was a good idea to me.

 

Kesselring

Slim

Zhukov

 

http://www.pattonuncovered.com/html/montgomery.html



Monty did increase the landings but even Ike said that most of the fighting was left up to the Americans. You can even see clips of the british walking up off the beaches drinking tea and eating crumpits while our boys were having a hell of a time in Omaha.

 

1) Patton
2) Rommel
3) Alexander
...
1000) Ike

Patton because he was aggressive and understood tactics as well or better than anyone. But more so because his understanding of the use of tactical air, something he understood because he was also a pilot.

Rommel because his concern for his men, his guts to tell it like it was to Hitler, and his situation awareness.

Ike, Brad, and Patton all believed that Alexander was a superb commander and better than Monty. They spoke of him as a peer but never spoke of Monty that way.

Ike had his backbone surgically removed before the outset of the war and took a course on how to become incompetent which he aced.

 

Well I'd rather have Ike construct campaigns that would end the war by christmas than monty.

 

Kesselring, Manstein, Rommel

 

IMHO the top 3 (all at the general level, 2 of which attained Field Marshall-highest commanding level) are:

Erich_von_Manstein
Heinz_Guderian
Erwin_Rommel

In general, the strongest elements of the German army came from their commanding officer, which produced some of the finest military minds in those times.

And actually I'm very surprised that so far no one mentioned either Guderian and Manstein.

Guderian basically created the Panzer divisions that was so vital to the German's blitzkrieg tactics. As a tactical field commander of panzer division, IMO he was only matched by Rommel.

As a commander, Manstein was a master at the strategic level, that is to say, differ than either Guderian or Rommel, who are masters at the tactical level. He was the mastermind behind the invasion of France through the Ardennes and performed admirably in the Eastern campaign against the Russian, despite the tremendous odds against him.

As for the Allies commanders, no one from the British sides impressed me that much, for they did not seem to grasp the tactical change from WWI to WWII and were conservative in nature. Churchill was very impressive, and he out-performed Hilter by a large margin. However, he's not an army commander in the normal sense. As for the Americans, they were mostly untested in the European theatre as the war was already un-winable for German before D-day.

Lastly, I confess in relative ignorance of the Pacific theatre, for I don't know enough to judge Admiral Yamamoto, who was the mastermind behind Pearl Habour, which is quite a amazing victory from a tactical standpoint. Also I have not done enough studies on the Russian officers, which had numerical and technological advantage after the victory at Stalingrad so it is hard to judge from that viewpoint.

 

Hi all, i agree with Manstein, Guderian and Rommel. From Norway to the end of the war germans fought againt superior oponnents and they won more than a few battles, they didnt have best tanks soldiers or aircrafts they had best commanders.

Montgomery is very lousy commander he won against Rommel only when he had huge superiority, in Normandy he fought so lousy that Churchill had to
stop Eisenhower from replacing him and not to mention his failed operation Market Garden

 

Marshal Slim

Hermann Balck

Von Manstein

 

I must admit that I am constantly surprised at these who were best/worst threads. What I find surprising is two things:

First that people jumps into these threads comparing the commanders without wondering whether it is possible to compare them? Is it possible to establish some common criteria on which you can judge the generals and compare them? Personally I think not and I fully agree with Gnomey that this can be nothing more that a subjective listing of favourites.

Secondly on how thin and rude analysis' people generally base their judgements. Not of course that I am expecting some kind of academic excellence here but more than this:

Montgomery is very lousy commander he won against Rommel only when he had huge superiority, in Normandy he fought so lousy that Churchill had to
stop Eisenhower from replacing him and not to mention his failed operation Market Garden

 

Steen Ammentorp, We have 14yr olds to 83yr olds on this site. I appreciate what your saying but this gets the younger kids involved and interested in history. Short of setting up the little kids table, like at Thanksgiving. Try and take it easier on the youth so they are encouraged to participate.

 

Steen Ammentorp, We have 14yr olds to 83yr olds on this site. I appreciate what your saying but this gets the younger kids involved and interested in history. Short of setting up the little kids table, like at Thanksgiving. Try and take it easier on the youth so they are encouraged to participate.
It depends what kind of place you want this forum to be. If you dont want a remake of the THC, then those kinds of unsubstantiated posts arent going to help.

 

Steen Ammentorp, We have 14yr olds to 83yr olds on this site. I appreciate what your saying but this gets the younger kids involved and interested in history. Short of setting up the little kids table, like at Thanksgiving. Try and take it easier on the youth so they are encouraged to participate.

By Marko2te profile, he is over 21!!