World War II Army Commanders.

A.Mookerjee

Banned Member
My favorite World War II army commanders are Marshal Georgy Zhukov, and Heinz Guderian. Marshal Zhukov used General Guderian's tactics against Army Group South, after the German debacle at Stalingrad, if I am not mistaken, without the German army believing in such a possibility. The motorized Panzer Grenadier formations practiced the theory espoused by General Guderian.
 

PullerRommel

New Member
Im guessing you want us to mention ours? So mine would be Erwin Rommel of course. As well as Hube and Eberbach. They commanded Panzer divisions with great skill even in hopeless situations like Normandy. (Which i think would be the opposite if Rommel got his way there)
 

Cooch

Active Member
Pardon me if I do not join the Rommel fan club.

While some of his victories in Nth Africa were spectacular, he had a tendency to throw troops about with little recon in the hope that he could catch his enemies off balance. When he ran into commanders such as Morshead and Montgomery who used classic tactics and refused to be flustered , he was defeated. Morsehead particularly was not impressed with Rommel's grasp of the strategic arts, and noted that R's willingness to throw forces into unknown situations and without full support caused him to lose more men than necessary.
The classic assessment of R was that he believed in two things "Attack, and counter-attack, and he over-did both." R's charisma made him popular with the other-ranks, but there is evidence that he did not really care for them and was not particularly well-regarded by those officers serving immediately under him.

Rommel's reputation survived Normandy in the main because it was never tested and the alternative was defeated.

The cynic in me suspects that R's reputation amongst the allies owed a lot to the quality of his German troops, and a similar amount to the Allied need at the time to come up with an excuse for a string of defeats that did not involve admitting culpability at a governmental level. It is far easier to blame your commander for inferior tactics and replace him, than it is to blame your entire government for inadequate strategy and supplies.

But no doubt some will disagree.

Peter
 

merocaine

New Member
While some of his victories in Nth Africa were spectacular, he had a tendency to throw troops about with little recon in the hope that he could catch his enemies off balance.
Was it Tamerlane that said "it is better to be there with 10 troops than to be absent with 10000"

Thats a valid critisim of Rommel, but I think you will find that across the board the German Commanders were much more callous in how they used there men.
The entire German war was punctuated by spectacular gambles, in which there soldiers paid a high cost.

The cynic in me suspects that R's reputation amongst the allies owed a lot to the quality of his German troops, and a similar amount to the Allied need at the time to come up with an excuse for a string of defeats that did not involve admitting culpability at a governmental level. It is far easier to blame your commander for inferior tactics and replace him, than it is to blame your entire government for inadequate strategy and supplies.
The same could be said for Rommel, Except that Rommell was a favorite of Hitler, the situation with lack of men and supplies and strategic drift was much more acute with Rommel.
Where with the British the situation improved radically, the German situation steadily deteriorated relative to the allies.
At the end of the day its logistics that win long campaigns, a battle the Germans lost.
 

Cooch

Active Member
There is no doubt that most German commanders were less concerned with the lives of their men that would be considered appropriate in most western countries now. In this respect, Rommel was probably no better or worse than his contemporaries. However I mention it in the context of the modern admiration directed at him by persons who would probably be less than thrilled with this attitude of his were it known.
I would suggest that good commanders are prepared to accept losses when necessary to achieve worthwhile results. Eggs, omelettes and all that.
Getting your men killed for little result or because you prefer gambling to doing the appropriate recce and planning are another matter.

I think that the best assessment of Rommel is that he was lucky and aggressive , which enabled him to achieve success against under-prepared or less-well-led opposition. His failure against a better class of leadership argues that he does not deserve the accolade of "brilliant".

Respectfully......... Peter
 

Chrom

New Member
I think that the best assessment of Rommel is that he was lucky and aggressive , which enabled him to achieve success against under-prepared or less-well-led opposition. His failure against a better class of leadership argues that he does not deserve the accolade of "brilliant".

Respectfully......... Peter
Something like it, but remember no commander is acting in vacuum, and most 2nd tier commanders are bound to quite tight restrictions from above. This also including Rommel. So however brilliant or not he was - i doubt he could do that much on his own. His superiors, his insufficient forces, his stupid officers - all that could bring even most brilliant general on his kines.
 

A.Mookerjee

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Was it Tamerlane that said "it is better to be there with 10 troops than to be absent with 10000"

Thats a valid critisim of Rommel, but I think you will find that across the board the German Commanders were much more callous in how they used there men.
The entire German war was punctuated by spectacular gambles, in which there soldiers paid a high cost.



The same could be said for Rommel, Except that Rommell was a favorite of Hitler, the situation with lack of men and supplies and strategic drift was much more acute with Rommel.
Where with the British the situation improved radically, the German situation steadily deteriorated relative to the allies.
At the end of the day its logistics that win long campaigns, a battle the Germans lost.
Timurlaine, is indeed a profound thinker, when he thought, during his lifetime. But Rommel was a favorite of the German Army, not only of Hitler. I believe, he held a rank when he graduated from being a student cadet. All his superior officers were convinced of his promise. He was not trained to be a 'Panzer General'. He learned his trade, while he served. Perhaps, before his service with Tank Formations, he had not perceived with his senses, how Tank Formations operated. Did he ever help in operating a Tank? I am not sure. I am sure General Patton did not. I may be wrong.
 

Cooch

Active Member
It's a while since I did the reading, but my recollection is that by the time he was in command in Nth Africa, Rommel was not terribly well regarded by many senior German military officers.
It appears that he was regarded as something of a glory hound who was not above "stealing" equipment allocated to other formations...... which is supposedly one of the reasons that he was so spectacularly successful in the invasion of France. Recall also that his aggressive action in the early stages of the Nth Africa campaign was against orders and that this tends to get you a reputation as a loose cannon.

* Rommel was jumpy, wanted to do everything at once, then lost interest. Rommel was my superior in command in Normandy. I cannot say Rommel wasn't a good general. When successful, he was good; during reverses, he became depressed.
o Sepp Dietrich, to Leon Goldensohn (28 February 1946)

* He was the best leader of fast-moving troops but only up to army level. Above that level it was too much for him. Rommel was given too much responsibility. He was a good commander for a corps of army but he was too moody, too changeable. One moment he would be enthusiastic, next moment depressed.
o Albert Kesselring, to Leon Goldensohn (4 February 1946)
 

merocaine

New Member
It's a while since I did the reading, but my recollection is that by the time he was in command in Nth Africa, Rommel was not terribly well regarded by many senior German military officers.
It appears that he was regarded as something of a glory hound who was not above "stealing" equipment allocated to other formations...... which is supposedly one of the reasons that he was so spectacularly successful in the invasion of France. Recall also that his aggressive action in the early stages of the Nth Africa campaign was against orders and that this tends to get you a reputation as a loose cannon.

Quote:
* Rommel was jumpy, wanted to do everything at once, then lost interest. Rommel was my superior in command in Normandy. I cannot say Rommel wasn't a good general. When successful, he was good; during reverses, he became depressed.
o Sepp Dietrich, to Leon Goldensohn (28 February 1946)

* He was the best leader of fast-moving troops but only up to army level. Above that level it was too much for him. Rommel was given too much responsibility. He was a good commander for a corps of army but he was too moody, too changeable. One moment he would be enthusiastic, next moment depressed.
o Albert Kesselring, to Leon Goldensohn (4 February 1946)
Thats quite interesting, I had read that he was prone to mood swings.
Although you have to take with a pinch of salt what the Generals would say after the war. Esp those two, loyal to the end and in in Kesselrings case beyond, Rommel did die a traitor after all.
I'm not saying that invalidates there professional judgement though.
I'd be interested to know what Montys judgement was though if anyone knows?
 

Cooch

Active Member
If I may be excused for pasting...

(9) Brian Horrocks fought in the British Army during the Desert War. In his autobiography he compared the merits of Bernard Montgomery and Erwin Rommel.

One of the most fascinating studies of the last war was the contrast between these two great commanders, Montgomery and Rommel, each in his own way an outstanding general, yet utterly and absolutely different in almost every respect. Rommel was probably the best armoured corps commander produced by either side. Utterly fearless, full of drive and initiative, he was always up in front where the battle was fiercest. If his opponent made a mistake, Rommel was on to it like a flash, and he never hesitated to take personal command of a regiment or battalion if he thought fit. On one occasion he was found lifting mines with his own hands. His popularity with the soldiers was immense, but a great many officers resented his interference with their commands.

All this reads like the copybook general but, in point of fact, this is not the best way to control a swift-moving, modern battle. Very often at a critical moment no one could find Rommel, because he was conducting personally some battalion attack. He tended to become so involved in some minor action that he failed to appreciate the general picture of the battlefield.

Monty was not such a dashing, romantic figure as his opponent; nor would you find him leading a forlorn hope in person, for the simple reason that if he was in command forlorn hopes did not occur. He had an extraordinary capacity for putting his finger straight on the essentials of any problem, and of being able to explain them simply and clearly. He planned all his battles most carefully - and then put them out of his mind every night. I believe he was awakened in the night only half a dozen times during the whole war.

Their handling of the battle of Alam Haifa makes the contrast clear. Having made the best possible plan to win the battle, yet at the same time to husband his resources, Monty dismissed Alam Haifa entirely from his mind and concentrated on the next one.

While Rommel was leading his troops in person against strongly-held defensive positions on the Alam Halfa ridge, Montgomery was planning the battle of Alamein. That was the difference between the two.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmontgomery.htm
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
George Patton
Well - why General George Patton, personally I think that he was over rated, willing to take un-neccesary risks with high costs in human life to his men, plus with his part in it, he is responsible for that piece of crap that littered the battlefields in Europe because he wanted something with road speed.
 

Water-Man

New Member
Are you a defense professional of forums? Or a professional because you're an analyst? Are you a military veteran? Or have you gotten 'carried away' with the military title this forum has given you because you post alot? Your opinion is just that. Your opinion!
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Are you a defense professional of forums? Or a professional because you're an analyst? Are you a military veteran? Or have you gotten 'carried away' with the military title this forum has given you because you post alot? Your opinion is just that. Your opinion!
Please stay off the ad hominems. If you wish to make a case as to why Patton is a great commander, please do so. The idea with a forum like this is to discuss which is based on you participating with your reasoning & knowledge and not to provide a venue for attack on fellow posters because they want you to elaborate on your one-liner or just because you disagree.

/GD
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
cat herder??
In order to drive discussion on this forum forward, if one has an opinion on something like a particular commander, piece of kit or tactic, one also needs to provide information as to why a member has that particular opinion.

One word, or one line comments are insufficient, and also in violation of the forum rules, specifically #2.

Other members, as well as another Supermod have tried to point that out and received a somewhat disrespectful response (forum rule #7).

Consider yourself Warned, follow the forum rules and contribute to the discussions here, or additional measures will be taken.

1st Warning

-Preceptor
 
Last edited:

iRule

New Member
My favourites are Erwin Rommel , Erich von Manstein from Germans .

Rommel rocked with DAK in Africa , Monty wouldn't be defeated him if there was not infinitive supply .

Erich von Manstein , I think the best general in WW2 . If Manstein was not in WW2 , Germany wouldn't be able to do anything that they want in Russia .

Zhukov is good and merciless and he learnt how to use tanks organized from Germans , I meant Blitzkrieg Strategy , but he used it wonderful . Because he had lots of infantries and tanks .

From USA , Patton rocks ! Never seen such as funny , righteous , militarist and disciplined commander in US Army :)

I have no favourite from England .
 
Top