Who was better: Patton or Rommel

[bstarr]

Cant really come up with any brits or US candidates

George Marshall, although his roll was more administrative than an active combat roll.

[bstarr]

actually the US had a some outstanding commanders, they were just a little behind the europeans in experience. Bradley was quite good, and PAtton was pretty good as well. I've never been a fan of Ike, though. And if it wasn't for Inchon several years (And a different war) later, I would say MacArthur was a complete flop.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

actually the US had a some outstanding commanders, they were just a little behind the europeans in experience. Bradley was quite good, and PAtton was pretty good as well. I've never been a fan of Ike, though. And if it wasn't for Inchon several years (And a different war) later, I would say MacArthur was a complete flop.

Ike was never a 'field commander' the way Patton was but he was probably the best candidate to be the top man at SHAEF due to his political skills. I have serious problems with Bradley though over his performance (or lack of it!) at the Battle of the Bulge. From my reading he just folded up! I'd agree about the lack of experience of the American commanders though, it makes it difficult to pass judgement on generals who only fought a few major engagements.

[bstarr]

You can go east (far east) and find some very capable american generals, especially at the regiment to division level in the marines. Reckon the better leaders were sent to fight the japs, or they just had more experience in that theater?

[Error in 0]

Zhukov was probably the best commander in Sovjet. At least he did a tremendous job in defending Leningrad. Later, in 1945 (Just in time before the war ended) he launched one of the best planned attacks in WW2 against the japanese in Manchuria. It would be unfair not to mention his name when considering great generals, I think.

JT

[bstarr]

true, zhukov was very good - five years of active service and only one serious defeat (operation Mars)

[bstarr]

I'm of the opinion that many "popular" generals suffer from their own popularity in history. You can't be a "intellectual" napoleonic buff without critisizing Napoleon. Ditto for R.E.Lee in the Civil war, Patton and most of the "favorite" german generals in WWII. And heaven forbid you claim to be impressed with Westmoreland to a 'Nam buff. All leaders have their faults - they are, after all, human. However, there is often a reason that these leaders were held in high regard in their own time (except Westmoreland [;)] ) Hindsight gives us a gret opportunity to tear apart the accompishments of history's greats, but modern historians should keep in mind that these leaders didn't have "20/20 hindsight".

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

ORIGINAL: bstarr

actually the US had a some outstanding commanders, they were just a little behind the europeans in experience. Bradley was quite good, and PAtton was pretty good as well. I've never been a fan of Ike, though. And if it wasn't for Inchon several years (And a different war) later, I would say MacArthur was a complete flop.

Ike was never a 'field commander' the way Patton was but he was probably the best candidate to be the top man at SHAEF due to his political skills. I have serious problems with Bradley though over his performance (or lack of it!) at the Battle of the Bulge. From my reading he just folded up! I'd agree about the lack of experience of the American commanders though, it makes it difficult to pass judgement on generals who only fought a few major engagements.

Also, in assessing American commanders we should remember that they were late-comers to the European War (1942 in North Africa and 1944 in France), and that the American soldier was a "Citizen Soldier" with NO experience.

Patton repeatedly took over inexperienced units and had to whip them into shape: in North Africa he had just eleven days to whip a green and demoralized American army into shape, after being defeated at kasserine, and then led them to victory against the 10th Panzer at El Guettar; in Sicily the Seventh Army was green and went up against the veteran Hermann Goering Division and then later captured Messina; and Third Army was wholly green and inexperienced, and Patton had to train them, and then lead them in some of the most spectacular maneuvers of the war in the breakout at St Lo.

We should also not over-look one very important tangible when assessing military commanders. That tangible is the ability of the commander to infuse a "spirit" into the soldiers or army under his command; when the sheer presence of that commander can have an electrifying result on troops in battle.

Caesar and Napoleon had "it". It was said that the mere presence of Napoleon on the battlefield was worth 10,000 soldiers.

Caesar, by his mere presence among the troops in battle led them to greater effort.

There is no question that both Rommel and Patton had "it".

Patton fully understood that an army was a living thing; that it has a "soul" or a "spirit" that has to be tapped into and wielded together. Many comments by soldiers who fought under Patton repeatedly mentioned the "electrifying" effect he had upon them. There seemed to be an infusion of "something" that made them want to give their best, even when dog tired.

At the Bulge Allied commanders felt a counterattack would take 30 days to carry out, and yet Patton did it in three days. There is a reason.

Patton knew his men. He infused in them a fighting spirit. They also knew that under him, they could accomplish anything.

[bstarr]

ditto, by god, ditto. [:)]

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

At the Bulge Allied commanders felt a counterattack would take 30 days to carry out, and yet Patton did it in three days. There is a reason.

Well, he started the counterattack in three days. I don't recall off the top of my head whether the 30-day estimate was for start or complete.

Regards
33

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Golf33

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

At the Bulge Allied commanders felt a counterattack would take 30 days to carry out, and yet Patton did it in three days. There is a reason.

Well, he started the counterattack in three days. I don't recall off the top of my head whether the 30-day estimate was for start or complete.

Regards
33

If I remember correctly, most Allied commanders felt it would take 30 days before they would be able to launch a counterattack.

That's why they were all startled and amused when Patton said he could do it in three days. Some of them even laughed at him.

At this time the Ardennes was in the midst of one of the worst winter storms in decades.

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Zhukov was probably the best commander in Sovjet. At least he did a tremendous job in defending Leningrad. Later, in 1945 (Just in time before the war ended) he launched one of the best planned attacks in WW2 against the japanese in Manchuria. It would be unfair not to mention his name when considering great generals, I think.

JT

Another can of worms. Zhukov was one of the best front commanders there is, but his victories were achieved more through sheer determination and will than tactical superiority. Just look at the losses. Had he used the same tactics with a different army, it had been wiped out before even the first success.

Not saying he completely lacked skills, they learned plenty in the first 6 months of war and were quick to learn how to exploit weaknesses in the German armor, but still..

[Tombstone]

I totally agree about Zhukov. He's got solid strategy and an iron will. This was necessary for Russia, and it worked. But is he the best general the Soviet's had? I don't think so. Chiukov stands out some among the rifle army commanders, and I think for the tank armies it's gotta be Lelyushenko (maybe Katukov if we can determine that his ass-whooping at Kursk wasn't his fault).

I think Rommel is pretty awesome, but I have a really big problem with a commander that gets a lot of fame fighting a campaign that was clearly doomed from the outset. North Africa was idiocy considering his supply situation. He's got the balls of a giant, but logistics can't be overlooked like that.

I think that Patton is slightly weaker in the operational game playing that Rommel seems to be so good/lucky at, but logistically and leadership-wise Patton owns Rommel.

Manstien feels like the best General the germans had, he did a lot of crazy shit and he had the fundamentals down. It woulda sucked to have had him in charge of the resources that were thrown away during Wacht am Rhein in Europe. We're lucky he got his ass fired.

I don't know of many British generals (aside from Monty, and screw him), but I'm sure there is talent there.

Tomo

[Jane Doe]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

Another can of worms. Zhukov was one of the best front commanders there is, but his victories were achieved more through sheer determination and will than tactical superiority. Just look at the losses. Had he used the same tactics with a different army, it had been wiped out before even the first success.

Not saying he completely lacked skills, they learned plenty in the first 6 months of war and were quick to learn how to exploit weaknesses in the German armor, but still..

Indeed the can has been opened...

Zhukov was a front, a sector and overall commander. He designed and planned at the operational and strategic level. While he did have a say in tactical decisions during the first phase of a battle or in special occasions, it was not his duty to decide the tactics to employ. I think the blame of the mediocre tactical performance of the red army should be placed more on the relative incompetence of the regimental and divisional commanders and it's true a good bunch of the red army commanders just plainly sucked. But Zhukov wasn't one of them.

Another thing which contributed to high losses is the structure of the red army. I don't know about you, but it would make me a little nervous to plan something with a gun pointed directly to my neck. It's this sort of details that contribute to a lack of initiative from the leaders. They didn't want to be the one to make the crucial mistake. They always push their troops forward no matter what because their heads are on the line.

I don't think it could be considered as the ultimate argument, but more often then not, soviets lost more men in operations BECAUSE Zhukov wasn't commanding.

my dime

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


We should also not over-look one very important tangible when assessing military commanders. That tangible is the ability of the commander to infuse a "spirit" into the soldiers or army under his command; when the sheer presence of that commander can have an electrifying result on troops in battle.

Caesar and Napoleon had "it". It was said that the mere presence of Napoleon on the battlefield was worth 10,000 soldiers.

Caesar, by his mere presence among the troops in battle led them to greater effort.

There is no question that both Rommel and Patton had "it".

Patton fully understood that an army was a living thing; that it has a "soul" or a "spirit" that has to be tapped into and wielded together. Many comments by soldiers who fought under Patton repeatedly mentioned the "electrifying" effect he had upon them. There seemed to be an infusion of "something" that made them want to give their best, even when dog tired.

Snipping to avoid going over old territory[;)]

I'd largely agree here, Patton and Rommel could certainly inspire their troops. The great commanders do have that intangible 'something' although in itself it does not make them great. Speak to almost anyone who served under Montgomery, particularly in the Desert, and they'll say how inspiring he was, how his 'quiet confidence' quickly raised morale and made the troops feel that Rommel could be beaten. Yet Montgomery doesn't make the grade of 'greatness' in my opinion.

Form Belisarius post

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Zhukov was probably the best commander in Sovjet. At least he did a tremendous job in defending Leningrad. Later, in 1945 (Just in time before the war ended) he launched one of the best planned attacks in WW2 against the japanese in Manchuria. It would be unfair not to mention his name when considering great generals, I think.

JT


Another can of worms. Zhukov was one of the best front commanders there is, but his victories were achieved more through sheer determination and will than tactical superiority. Just look at the losses. Had he used the same tactics with a different army, it had been wiped out before even the first success.

It does make Zhukov difficult to assess. Neither he nor Konev performed well in the final Soviet offensives of the war where Red Army casualties could have been far fewer but they had such overwhelming superiority in all departments that it really didn't matter.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Form Belisarius post

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Zhukov was probably the best commander in Sovjet. At least he did a tremendous job in defending Leningrad. Later, in 1945 (Just in time before the war ended) he launched one of the best planned attacks in WW2 against the japanese in Manchuria. It would be unfair not to mention his name when considering great generals, I think.

JT


Another can of worms. Zhukov was one of the best front commanders there is, but his victories were achieved more through sheer determination and will than tactical superiority. Just look at the losses. Had he used the same tactics with a different army, it had been wiped out before even the first success.

It does make Zhukov difficult to assess. Neither he nor Konev performed well in the final Soviet offensives of the war where Red Army casualties could have been far fewer but they had such overwhelming superiority in all departments that it really didn't matter.

Was the mancurian campaign not a well performed campain?

The drive in Germany was motivated by grabbing most of Europe before the allies, not by performing great tactical manouvres that future generations could read and brag about..[:)] Unlike the allies the sovjets could afford such choices.

JT

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

From WW2 I suppose it would be Manstein certainly but also William Slim, commander of the 'Forgotten' 14th Army in India and Burma. He showed himself to be an absolute master of all aspects of modern warfare, especially considering his troops were always last in line when it came down to logistical support. The more I read about the campaign in SE Asia, the more I admire his command skills and the fortitude of those soldiers who served under him. It's difficult to assess generals like Konev, Zhukov and Chuikov since Red Army doctrine tended to be profligate with the lives of soldiers. Whilst American commanders on land were a pretty poor bunch (which is why Patton stands out so much imho) their admirals were on the whole much better. Chester Nimitz seems to stand out particularly but I would say that I'm currently reading up on the Pacific Campaign so I may well change my opinions there. In the air I think Coningham stands out for the work he did forging close army-airforce co-operation but here I only really know the British perspective so there may well be others whom I haven't the necessary knowledge to pass judgement on.

William Slim, commander of the 'Forgotten' 14th Army in India and Burma. He showed himself to be an absolute master of all aspects of modern warfare, especially considering his troops were always last in line when it came down to logistical support. The more I read about the campaign in SE Asia, the more I admire his command skills and the fortitude of those soldiers who served under him.

I have no doubt that Slim was a good commander.

But to suggest he was a better balanced commander than Patton may be asking too much.

Slim was the commander in one theatre in Burma, and was largely on the defensive, and in command of an infantry army. In March 1942, Slim was given command of all Allied troops in Burma. Outnumbered by the Japanese Army Slim was forced to withdraw to India two months later.

During the summer of 1943 Slim attempted to recapture Akyab but the offensive ended in failure. After Lord Mountbatten arrived to become head of the Southeast Asia Command Slim became commander of the 14th Army. In March 1944 he successfully defended Assam against the Japanese Army.

General William Slim and his troops captured Meiktila on 4th March. Lashio followed three days later. On 3rd May 1945, Operation Dracula, an attempt to capture Rangoon began.

Patton, on the other hand, not only built the US armoured force from scratch (writing all its manuals, tactics, etc), but he also had to master infantry tactics as well.

Patton took over untrained and green troops in numerous campaigns (Morocco, Tunesia, Sicily, France, the Bulge); he was a master of amphibious warfare; he trained, inspired, and led numerous armies (7th and 3rd armies, combining infantry and armoured forces); he achieved both sweeping armoured tactics (in France) as well as infantry assault techniques (Mosselle); he was the master of logistic maneuver (the 3-day sweep to the Bulge); and he planned operations not only in amphibious warfare (Morocco), but also planned tactics and grand strategy on land (Operation Cobra was actually planned by Patton).

Patton was also master of Combined Arms. In France, at the head of the green Third Army, he worked in cooperation with Third Army's Tactical Air Command, which flew 12,000 sorties in August alone, covering its flanks and flying missions ahead of Third Army's reconaissance groups.

These recon groups developed up-to-the-minute intel on German activity and gave Patton better updated intel than even Bradley had, who was far from the action.

Patton also developed mobile combat groups, which included mobile artillery and armour, and which broke through pockets of resistance, with their actual goal of conducting encirclement operations.

In all of Patton's battles, he had one of the lowest casualty rates of any commander. Even in the three month campaign in Lorraine, Third Army sustained 32,000 casualties vs 180,000 German casualties.

As for Zhukov: Yes he was a good commander. However, when you have millions of soldiers' lives to use, than eventually you'll take your objectives. Subtlety of maneuver, and careful use of troops lives, were not the forte of Russian commanders.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


We should also not over-look one very important tangible when assessing military commanders. That tangible is the ability of the commander to infuse a "spirit" into the soldiers or army under his command; when the sheer presence of that commander can have an electrifying result on troops in battle.

Caesar and Napoleon had "it". It was said that the mere presence of Napoleon on the battlefield was worth 10,000 soldiers.

Caesar, by his mere presence among the troops in battle led them to greater effort.

There is no question that both Rommel and Patton had "it".

Patton fully understood that an army was a living thing; that it has a "soul" or a "spirit" that has to be tapped into and wielded together. Many comments by soldiers who fought under Patton repeatedly mentioned the "electrifying" effect he had upon them. There seemed to be an infusion of "something" that made them want to give their best, even when dog tired.

I'd largely agree here, Patton and Rommel could certainly inspire their troops. The great commanders do have that intangible 'something' although in itself it does not make them great. Speak to almost anyone who served under Montgomery, particularly in the Desert, and they'll say how inspiring he was, how his 'quiet confidence' quickly raised morale and made the troops feel that Rommel could be beaten. Yet Montgomery doesn't make the grade of 'greatness' in my opinion.

It should be remembered that Patton's ability to inspire was very evident in EVERY army and unit he commanded, and in EVERY campaign he fought in.

Yet, this ability to inspire was just one small facet of his numerous abilities.

Monty was good in North Africa (with overwhelming material and men), yet, look at the results in France.

[Kevinugly]

Well I don't think Monty 'failed' in France but again that's old territory for us. Regarding Slim though (and all generals really) one has to put his achievements into their proper perspective. Indeed he was on the defensive and very good he proved to be too. He was also a master of improvisation, utilising and commandeering vehicles, boats and supplies where he was often left short due to the India/Burma theatre being considered of low priority by Allied High Command. In many respects he and his army had to learn jungle warfare from scratch, fighting an army far better suited to the conditions than they. His own account of the campaign 'Defeat into Victory' is a fine book and well worth a read, not list for his candour in admitting his own errors and the credit he gives to his staff for their own work.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Well I don't think Monty 'failed' in France but again that's old territory for us. Regarding Slim though (and all generals really) one has to put his achievements into their proper perspective. Indeed he was on the defensive and very good he proved to be too. He was also a master of improvisation, utilising and commandeering vehicles, boats and supplies where he was often left short due to the India/Burma theatre being considered of low priority by Allied High Command. In many respects he and his army had to learn jungle warfare from scratch, fighting an army far better suited to the conditions than they. His own account of the campaign 'Defeat into Victory' is a fine book and well worth a read, not list for his candour in admitting his own errors and the credit he gives to his staff for their own work.

As I mentioned, Slim was good in what he did. I won't take anything away from him. But to suggest he was a better balanced commander than Patton is way off the mark, IMO.

Slim was essentially an infantry commander and he fought in one jungle theatre (Burma).

Patton proved that he could lead diverse armies in many different campaigns, and in a wide variety of terrain - from desert in Tunesia to summer terrain in France, from rain-filled weather at Mosselle to vicious winter storms at the Bulge.

Patton had to coordinate armour, infantry, air and artillery in a variety of campaigns.