Matrix Games Forums

I would say Manstein. What do you think?

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
I would say Manstein. What do you think?

Manstein. Or perhaps Kesselring.

If you want to include Admirals, I would give a vote to Karl Doenitz. His U-Boats nearly put Britain out of the war, and had Hitler given the Navy more support, could have done so.

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
I would say Manstein. What do you think?

In my Humble Opinion i think Guderian the
Master of the Panzer.

Ok, if it must be a general (or field marshal), then I gotta pick Erwin (of course)Rommel. I'm surprised he wasn't the first choice after Manstein.

Originally posted by KG Erwin:
Ok, if it must be a general (or field marshal), then I gotta pick Erwin (of course)Rommel. I'm surprised he wasn't the first choice after Manstein.

If you want to get a different view of Rommel there is a book written back in the 80's by a Wolf H, with a title something like Rommel's War in the Desert. His view is that Rommel wasn't that good, the British were just that much worse. He points out where Rommel just plain screwed up situations like the initial assault on Tobruk where the 8th mg battalion (all the German infantry available at the time) was bled dry in useless attacks.
thanks, John.

Every general made his mistakes sometimes. The best one is who makes less mistakes than his opponent. Usualy such generals win the wars. Except situations when odds are too bad. In case of Romel, I think, he had not many alternatives. He had to decisively win every time. The first mistake was lethal. Britains could loose and win only once to defeat him IMHO.

Well its hard judging the commanders. Manstein undoubtely had some bad displays and maybe not proved the best judgement over the years. Still I find him beeing the general proving the best operational capability. Also best all-round capability. That is something that is agreed by many of his collegues in the OKH.

I´dont see the greatness in Rommel, him beeing a third reich product, "the general in the sun" - a propaganda number. Although understanding the importance of mobility he often failed to comprehend the situations as mentioned in an other reply. His return to europe and the blunder deploying the panzer divisions at the coast being a tragic end to his career. He is worth the reputation of beeing a good soldier but Im convinced that other generals could have repeated his africa-achievement.

But history are written by the victors. Rommel thus providing a necessary myth explaining the failure of the british in africa. And when the third reich also wanted Rommel as a hero this of course is the man that the kids of today hear of regarding the german generals.


Of course their are many others that have to be put forward. Guderian always proved able with a clear sense, brilliant in tactical manners.

As I see it only two generals can "compete" with Manstein.

The first one is Walter Model that showed unbelivable skill in defence mounting reserves out of nothing. Clearly underestimated, better in defence and offense his ability to stabilize the front after Bagration is remarkable.

The other one - Kesselring is hard to rate. A general starting in the airforce that always were fighting the odds. Had an extremly good sense of what his troops could do or not and a master in exploiting oppourtunities.

I also find defensive-specialist Heinrici interesting. Not in the same class as the above but a respectable defensive-specialist. Seeluw Heights says it all.

Do not forget old Rundstedt!
Or what about Dietl, the Gebirgsjäger, who defended Narvik with 6000 men against 30000 Allies, or Mölders, the General of Fighterplanes or his successor Galland, what about all the Army staff generals?
The problem is that we do know so little about all the generals that fought in the war. Maybe there was an exorbitant Corps commander we never heard of.

What did Churchill say about Rommel during war in Africa? "Rommel, Rommel, Rommel! What else matters besides defeating him?". That's translated from finnish, so it's not propably accurate quote.

Yes, Rommel was a brilliant general, but more that that, he was a real gentleman who treated his enemies with respect. And he cared for his troops. He usually led the battle close to the front-lines, not from a distand command-post far away.

He was successfull during the assault on France. He insisted that SS-troops committing atrocities on civilians should be punished, but of course, his demands were ignored.

When he arrived in Africa, axis forces (mostly italians) were losing big time. He changed the tide of that battle. That was not a small feat (we all know the quality of italian army in WW2).

And he didn't like Hitler. He was involved (indirectly) in Hitlers assassination. That's why he was forced to kill himself.

Sure, there might be generals that were better at waging war, but none was better as a human being as Rommel was. And for that, he get's my respect. I don't know that was he the "best" german general, but he was greatest german general.

Heinrici.....Not to sure of the spelling.

good point nemesis. The morals of many genrals can surely be questioned, Manstein and Model for certain. Altough not convinced nazis(Model agreeing on some points) their troops under their command often showed a great brutality to POWS and civilians.

Rommels manners deserves all respect. As well as others like Hoepner.

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
Altough not convinced nazis(Model agreeing on some points).

Model was considered a "Nazi General", that's one of the reasons he was used as "The Führers fireman", taking command of critical sectors. That's why Hitler trusted him more than Manstein. Such was his conviction in the Nazi cause that he slit his wrists upon the surrender of his army in the Ruhr pocket.

Kuniworth said:

I´dont see the greatness in Rommel, him beeing a third reich product, "the general in the sun" - a propaganda number.
Although understanding the importance of mobility he often failed to comprehend the situations as mentioned in an other reply. His return to europe and the blunder deploying the panzer divisions at the coast being a tragic end to his career. He is worth the reputation of beeing a good soldier but Im convinced that other generals could have repeated his africa-achievement.

But history are written by the victors. Rommel thus providing a necessary myth explaining the failure of the british in
africa. And when the third reich also wanted Rommel as a hero this of course is the man that the kids of today hear of regarding the german generals.

Actualy, the reality is quite different as you picture it in your post.

Rommel is not a ThirdReich product.

He is a product of skill, intelligence and combat experience in difficult terrain in World War I. Check his revolutionary ideas in his own words in "Rommel: Infantry Attacks".

He was a pretty good scholar on military matters. Check "The Rommel Papers", where he discusses the "next and the following war" and (Sir?) Basil Liddle-Hart's ideas.

Remember that he started the war as a staff officer in the OKW-Ost. Only after begging big time, he is given fighting command. Then, after being so successful, he is taken as a marketing icon by the reich propaganda machine.

The point were he fails to understand the situation is when the DAK is outneumbered, overextended, low on supplies, the 8th Army is fresh and Rommel himself is ill.

The Tobruk "blunder" is actualy a victory for the Commonwealth troops. Yes, they defeated a good Rommel gambit. It could easily had gone the other way around. This is the problem with a gambit, when you loose, it looks bad. The idea was, on the other hand, brilliant.

Also, he took the demoralized Afrikan troops and made them a combat-ready unit. Even the Italians fought pretty well under Rommels command.

Then, remembre how well he played against American troops in Tunisia: New enemy, new terrain, new tactics, new weapons... and he did just great.

The "blunder" of not deploying the Panzer units by the beach... This is a very bad and uninformed thing to say. Rommel wanted everyhing by the coast. He learnt the effects of beign under enemy air supperiority. He was the only German General to suffer it. All the other generals had no trouble in the Eastern front. So, he knew how dfficult it is to move heavy units under enemy air atacks.

He also took a completely forgotten front and transformed in the Western Wall. Yes, the bunkerization of the Normandy area, the 88s positioned as AT units, the very existence of a Panzer reserve closer to the coast than actualy planned by the OKH... is all his. He took the static divisions and made them train, build bunkers, Rommel Asparagus, beach obstacles...

Also, I see pretty unlikely for any other unit commander to be so successful in Afrika as Rommel.

Please, check your fonts before sayig those things. I recommend you the book "Rommel as military commander" by Ronald Lewin. Check

the book here


Anyway, Rommel was a Tactical genious. He only commanded a small amount of troops but yet he surpassed anyone's wildest expectations.

On the other hand, he never had enoguh troops, battelfront, supplies... to proove how good he was in the operational sense. General von Manstein had the opportunity. And von Manstein prooved that he was good. Darn good.

Also, Patton, Mr. Attack, was a good General. Really good. He knew and understood about war. And he had the means to be a succesfull General.

And do not forget the Soviet General (what was his name?) tha fighted with the Chinesse in the east and then was calles to the West. He was the major force in the German defeat.

And, of course, Adolf Galland and Keith Park, on the Flying side of the war. And Yamamoto, Raeder and Husley at Sea (actualy, they are Admirals, but they were great anyway).

So, best General? I have several favourites, namely von Manstein, Rommel, Patton, the Soviet General (what-is-his-name?)

My 5 cents...

Originally posted by Sinner from the Prairy:
Kuniworth said:
Also, Patton, Mr. Attack, was a good General. Really good. He knew and understood about war. And he had the means to be a succesfull General.

Actually, I'm not that impressed by Patton. He did a good job with overwhelming strenght (and this can not always be said of other allied Generals, notably Montgomery) but never had the chance to prove what he could do against tall odds, the way Rommel, Manstein or Kesselring could. Maybe he was truly as great as them, we will never know.

And do not forget the Soviet General (what was his name?) tha fighted with the Chinesse in the east and then was calles to the West. He was the major force in the German defeat.

Zhukov. And again, I don't find him THAT impressive either. His battle with the Japs at Khalkin Ghol was just a matter of brute force and excessive losses. In the Moscow counter-offensive he really did shine, but so did Hitler, and nobody would call him one of the great generals of the war. Stalingrad was the obvious thing to do, and he did very little of this sucess (Had they been Soviet Generals in his place, Manstein, Rundstedt or even Bock would have been able to cut off Army Group A in the Caucasus and acomplish a complete debacle for Germany.)

And, of course, Adolf Galland and Keith Park, on the Flying side of the war.

Hugh Dowding ranks high in my book of fly-boys. Britain and the west owns him more than any other land-, sea- or air commander, since without his Fighter Command, the war would have been lost in 1940 (And very nearly was anyway).

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
[not impressed by Patton]

Ok, I don't want to start a war over this, but 4 points.

1) "overwhelming strength" is in many ways a myth for the Western front. There's a SPWAW or ASL scenario that spoke to this. Sure, Patton most of the time had more men than the enemy he was facing, but the odds weren't 8-1 or 6-1 or even 4-1. The fluidity of the fighting in France often meant the Germans were fighting the lead elements, and did not face the full strength of those Allied armies, and armies rapidly on the move have a hard time getting replacements and supplies to catch up.

2) During the Cobra breakout, Patton had his army attacking in 3 different directions simultaneously.

3) In the race across France, he moved his army faster than we've ever been able to do until Desert Storm.

4) The most impressive thing to the pundits and military historians was his actions in response to the Bulge. He shifted the entire 3rd Army 90 degrees and had it on the move in 72 hours. Just 3 days later, meeting the Germans defending the south side of the bulge, the 3rd Army began its counteroffensive.

He pushed that army at a frenetic pace in horrible weather, and he inspired his officers, not something many generals can do. One tanker officer on 26 December took a backroad and in a wild, madcap race through enemy territory, met up with Airborne engineers from Bastogne with 5 Shermans with him and more coming behind. That tanker's name was "Abrams".

General Omar Bradley called Patton's spinning of his army 90 degrees and rapid advance on Bastogne "one of the most astonishing feats of generalship of our campaign in the west".

I wouldn't have ever wanted to work with him, and his own daughter said what many believed, that Patton's death at the end of the war was a good thing, because Patton wasn't cut out for civilian life. He was there when we needed him, and we all should be thankful that he was.

But was he a great general in war? Damn straight. You guys want to talk about Rommel and Manstein and the others and that's fine, but ask me who the most impressive leaders of men were in WWII, and Patton's at the top of my list.

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Ed; Patton may well be among the best generals. But we were discussing german leaders in this forum. Both Patton and Zhukov would be amongst my candidates to the best commander of the war.

Secondly to the person that questioned my remarks on Rommel. I never said Rommel prefered a mobile force in the defence of France, please read my comment again. I dont know if my english is bad but I really dont like to be misinterpreted.

As mentioned before, Rommel was a good soldier earning much of his reputation. But could his achievement be done by other german leaders. Well I think so, others dont.

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
I would say Manstein. What do you think?

The general that did the most to further german goals was Montgomery. His brilliant
command of Goodwood and Market Garden managed
to foil allied plans of advance and hamper
interallied cooperation. 4 1/2 stars.

Loki of the Aesir.
hehe

Jokes aside i'd agree with Ed on the best
allied leader. Patton was a true soldier who disliked politics and just wanted to command.
(Read his biography)
As opposed to good old monty the whinging brown-nose.

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Lokioftheaesir ]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Sure, Patton most of the time had more men than the enemy he was facing, but the odds weren't 8-1 or 6-1 or even 4-1.]

Manstein, Kesselring and Rommel won victories with odds like that AGAINST them. That's why Patton can never be their equal. Again, I'm not saying that he couldn't have done as well, only that he never had to, and so we will never know.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
But was he a great general in war? Damn straight. You guys want to talk about Rommel and Manstein and the others and that's fine, but ask me who the most impressive leaders of men were in WWII, and Patton's at the top of my list.
[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

He was without any doubt one of the finest, if not the finest western general. But his actual record cannot compare with those German generals, not by any fault of his, but because he never had to rise to such a desperate situation they were in.

Could Patton have stemmed the Ardennes offensive if the Germans had had an 6:1 or greater numerical advantage, the way the Soviets had when Manstein thwarted them at Kharkov in -43? Now, THAT'S impressive.

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
Could Patton have stemmed the Ardennes offensive if the Germans had had an 6:1 or greater numerical advantage, the way the Soviets had when Manstein thwarted them at Kharkov in -43? Now, THAT'S impressive.

Actually it didn't take Patton to thwart the German thrust in the Ardennes. The 106th div has been vilified in the years since, but they did face odds over 6-1 and held on to their forward position until the reinforcements that they were promised obviously were not coming. The German timetable was totally blown by the time that they had fought their way past the forward positions.

Both Kasserine and the Ardennes are thrown up as American defeats, primarily because forward infantry units were overrun and annihilated. However they both can be characterised just like the mobile defense by the Germans in Russia in 43 and 44, where mobile troops behind the lines act as a firebrigade to stop the penetration by the enemy. In both cases the enemy assault was stopped and the Germans called off the assault.
thanks, John.