Choose one!

Another poll for the most reliable commanders. Imagine, you are the supreme commander of an army, doesn't matter which one. Whom would you choose if you had to:
1. make a decisive offnesive
2. defend the last line

 

Offense= Patton
Defense= Kesselring

I choose Patton for offense because of his courage, he was willing to go outside his supply lines and attack the enemy any time of the day.

Kesselring, well, we all know the casualties he inflicted on the Allies in Italy.

 

Offense = Rommel

Goes to show you what a charasmatic leader can do with the right equipment and a well trained Korps.

Defense = Wavell

Wavell defeated Rommel three times at Alamaine (spelling?)

Then Churchill replaced him with Monty, the rest is history.

 

Offense = Patton, for his hard-driving, unremitting and unforgiving way of leading his men, and his ever-present search for personal glory which caused him to cross every possible boundary.

Defense = Heinrici. The absolute master of defense of WW2, there was no army or assault that this man could not stop with a sizeable force, and slow down considerably with any force.

 

Despite Kesselring having their defensive advantage in Italy, German battle casualties were 72% higher than those suffered by the Allies.

Would it not be fair to say that the Field Marshal's performance should not be measured by the number of casualties inflicted, rather by his demonstrated ability to conduct a series well orchestrated retreats?

 

Then Model would still be better. He managed to turn several routs into orderly retreats and form up new lines. He was Hitler's fire brigade for a reason.

 

True, but than wouldn't General Lord Gort commander of the BEF in France be considered the best defence leader considering the number of soldiers saved at Dunkirk after their retreat from the German forces?

That high really? I did not know that. Well, maybe my opinion was a little hasty. Well, I'll say Zhukov for his defence at Moscow, although I disagree with some of his tactics like making soldiers walk thru a minefield to clear it.

 

Heinrici was a better defender in every respect.
He halted the Soviet drive to Berlin for a full week, outnumbered six to one and with highly inferior troops. His army was the only one that didn't withdraw during Zhukov's counteroffensive in December 1941, and he continued to make his troops hold out to the last with minimal losses throughout the war.

 

I would have chosen Zhukov in the defense. He managed to turn a disastrous situation in the defensive into a major victory by going into the attack. He managed to do that both at Moscow during Fall 1941 and Stalingrad during Fall 1942. He has proven his worth both as an organiser and as a strategist.

 

Why thanks! I want to thank my family and of course God....wait a minute, you're not talking about me are you? Damn!

Wasn't that Chukiov (I belive that is how its spelled) commander of the Russian 62nd Army?

 

offense-Romel
defence-Model

 

In defense I would choose Zhukov, he was in charge of soviet armies at Moscow(where his troops were numerically inferior to the germans), Stalingrad and Kursk.
In all these three battles he not only managed to stop german offensives, but launched decisive assaults himself.

In attack, I think japanese general Yamashita was very good, he conquered south east asia, with numerically wastly inferior troops, and he did this in only a months.(In it's most optimistic plans, japanese staff always tought they would need at least 6 months).

 

In south east asia the troops were unprepared, untrained and suffering from foreign climate. They were also unwanted by the local population, which doesn't do much good for your morale.

Heinrici was just a better defender. Zhukov was a solid strategist and grand-scale organizr, but he was not the guy I'd give control of my last men and line.

 

It would be interesting to know more about finnish generals that managed to stop some soviet assaults.
Or about the greek generals that turned italian invasion of their country to a disaster for Mussolini.

 

Nice of you to volunteer old boy. Look forward to your research material.

 

Indeed, throughout WW2 and the winter war before it the Finnish portrayed an amazing skill at defence. Mannerheim's command certainly contributed to that.

 

Mannerheim was incrediable at his defense of Finland. A force of only 300,000 men managed to stop a force 3 times this much, until of course, the Russians learned and brought up some modern equipment. The Russian forces at the beginning of the winter war had all obsolete equipment and none of the troops were issued winter uniforms.

BTW, about 8,000 Swedish volunteers helped fight for Finland during the war, and the Swedish government supplied a huge number of weapons such as 84,000 AA guns, many rifles, and I believe 25 planes. What I wanted to know was if anyone have any battle accounts/records of the Swedish troops that fought in Swedan.

 

According official documents there were about 11000 volunteers from other countries fighting along Finnish soldiers in winter war 1939-40...

Number of volunteers 13.3.1940 (last day of winter war)

Sweden: 8462 (33 KIA, 185 wounded)
Norway: 693 (2 KIA)
Denmark: 944 (5 KIA)
Finns from USA: 364 (3 KIA, 5 wounded)
East Karelians from Russia: 350
Hungary: 346
Estonia: 56
Belgium: 51
Germany: 18
Holland: 17
England: 13
Italy: 7
Poland: 6
Switzerland: 6
Latvia: 4
Luxemburg: 3
Lithuania: 2
Austria: 2
France: 2
Spain: 2
Yugoslavia: 2
Romania: 1
Czechoslovakia: 1
Portugal: 1


There were also large number of men that had enlisted as volunteers, but winter war was over before they reached Finland. For example:

Hungary: 25000
Italy: 5000
England: 8500

 

Wow, unbelievable. How did you get access to official documents?

 

I've got one very good book about Finlands history at WW2. (I'm from Finland).