Carl,

No need to go researching for me, I was just curious. I was just wondering why we hear of air commanders of every nation save for the USSR.

No problem, its also something I always wondered about from time to time. Trouble is, I always forget to try to look it up.

My vote goes for Gotthard Heinrici. He did a good job at saving as many troops as possible while accomplishing what he was supposed to do.

Heinrici is a good General and good choice. What do you think about Von Manstein? and Von Rundstedt?

Von Manstein = Great Strategist and should have been Chief of Staff OKW.

Von Rundstedt = to this day, I cannot find anything that he did which puts him in the status of 'great general'.

------------------
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

Erich Von Manstein Von Lewinski, will always get two thumbs up from me, he was as classic a general as the Germans had.

Gerd Von Rundstedt, was another classical German General. It would be hard for me to accurately say what he has done, its been too long since I read what I had on him but, he is often forgotten when he shouldnt be. If I remember to, I will let you know what I have on him providing that info isnt in storage.

Anyone know how you get promoted?

"Promotions and awards" depend on how many postings you make. Keep posting and you will see the changes.

Well I dont know about all the others but I believe that General Patton was by far the greatest general in the war. Although he was not the greatest of strategists he was not stupid. He was also very ruthless and uncaring to the point that our own government had to go and get him after he disobeyed a direct order not to invade Russia and went on the move. His likes have not yet been matched by any general today.

Georgy K. Zhukov, no questions asked

Yeah, you are right, the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that died under his command can't ask any questions!

In my humble opinion, the best commander is not the one who wins, but the one who does the most with the least resources, in that case, you have to hand it to Rommel, always outnumbered, always punishing to the enemy, but chivalrous to the end.

I agree there, Zhukov was no general, he was a butcher that had the luck of vast personnel reserves. Give him same amount of troops that the germans used in attack and he would do a lousy job.

Rommel was not only a good general, he also was hard but fair for his troops and those of the enemy. What he accomplished in NA with the limited resources, troops and those sorry excuses for soldiers called italians was incredible.




------------------
*** We shall not retreat, nor shall we surrender. If we cannot stay here alive, we shall stay here dead***

General George Washington was the best general ever

how did u get all those metals? you must be busy

This thread is too good to let die. I have been readign a little more about von Manstein recently. He came up with the 'sickle cut' plan to destroy France and was one of the main reasons for Russia's terrible losses early in the war.

Also, Zhukov was very capable, especially against the Japanese in 1939. Although I don't think I'd like to be a soldier under his command!!

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

Im in agreement with you. I too think EvMvL, was probably the Germans best General. Also agree with you is saying that I dont think I would wanna be in Zhukovs command either, but then again, look who he had to serve under....

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Yes, I would agree. He is a very good strategist. He exceled at the Field Marshal level. I wonder how he would have performed at the divisional level? Some have considered Rommel an excellent tactician but a poor strategist. What to you think?

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I don't think Rommel had enough of a chance to prove himself as a strategist.

__________________
"Front leaning rest position"
"Move"
"In cadence, exercise....1, 2, 3" (My favorite thing to hear at 5 in the morning.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is another great Soviet General I am thinking of but just cannot remember his name at this time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan Konev, perhaps?
Chuikov was another; he showed a lot of guts in the defense of Stalingrad.
I don't know if I'd put Budenny on the list - I think he was more of a party hack.
But I have to agree with you on Zhukov. He did a great job of adapting to different circumstances... 'cutting his coat according to his cloth.'
Much of the catastrophic Soviet losses early in Barbarossa could have been avoided if Stalin had listened to Zhukov. Zhukov was given command for the defense of Leningrad when the situation was almost hopeless, and he managed to hold it together. Later, when things were going better for the Soviets, he adapted an orgainization of forces and an offensive philosophy that worked within the limitations of the Red Army. Mastermind of the Stalingrad counteroffensive and the Kursk defense - two major blows against the Wehrmacht.
Probably the most admirable thing about Zhukov, though, was that he wasn't afraid to stand up to Stalin. He probably saved the life of Konev, and others, by intervening with Stalin on their behalf. Zhukov's accomplishments would have been impressive enough with supportive - or even just sane - political leadership. That he was able to run a war and manage Stalin at the same time, was pretty amazing.

Bah, being a good general has nothing to do with handling crazy superiors, its what you do and how you prove your men on the battlefield. Zhukov might be a hero the Russian people, but it was criminal how Russian generals, and especially Zhukov used their vast resources against the Germans.

If Rommel, Von Manstein, Von Manteuffel, Kesselring, etc., had only HALF of the resources that Zhukov had, they wouldve held out indefinetly where the were stationed, wasteful, suicidal, butchering wave attacks were inexcusable. The USA had almost the same amount of men in service as the Red Army, just a few million less. Did a Western Nation like them hurl wave after terrible wave of men at the Germans? No! And for how long America in was in the war they achieved far more then what the Soviets did with their massed infatry attacks.

Youve got to remember what the German generals were fighitng with by the time 1943 rolled around. The kill ratio on the Ostfront was 15 Russian dead to a single German soldier, and the Wehrmacht at this stage in thewar was practically immobile compared to when they were at September of '39.

__________________
'The "glorious" fight of the so-called partisans was nothing more then a mean, common murder.'
- Kurt Meyer, after his loyal comrade Heinz Schrott was killed by perfidious French partisans while wounded in a street.

I agree, Chuikov was a great General, and probably would have been greater than Zhukov, had stalin allowed it. Chuikov was also well liked by his men, and as proved, was a very tough fighting General. Chuikov was always getting the short end of the stick, and always the tougher assignments. Whats great about Zhukov, is the fact that HE never lost a battle. Had they not had a maniac like stalin in overall command, I think Zhukovs reputation would be less harsh.

The Germans problems were that Hitler wanted to squander much needed forces and materials at all those stupid Festung Cities, and in stupid battles that didnd need to be fought and only became a war of attrition, which they coul not afford.

Another problem the Germans had, was that not enough of the senior FMs and generals, had the guts to stand up to Hitler, like Manstein did. Thats why he was forced into taking a sick leave, when Germany needed him the most.

Rommel was never really given a chance to do more than what he was able to do with next to nothing.

They should have put Manstein in command of OKW, with Gen Heinrici at his side. Neither of them gave in to Hitler and his whims. I also think von Manteuffel and von Rundstedt, could have made up a good reserve team, but definately, Manstein should have been in charge.

Had Rommel not been forced into suicide, he and Walther Model, Paul Hausser and Felix Steiner, could have been the nucleus, for the greatest commanding generals of the Wehrmacht-ever.

Had these men been in charge, or had enough freedon to react to things as they saw fit, they too would have had all the best men in the correct positions of command. What a heck of a tougher war, that could have been.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

I always wondered that if Rommel had never be forced to sucide and been able to command again if he would have taken part in the Adennes offensive and if he did what the outcome of that would be?

It would have been very interesting, but we will never know plus I've heard stories about him being transfered to the eastern front when he was fully recovered.

Its hard to say who was the best commander on land, but I would stay that Gurdarien was one of the top.

On seas I would say its a tie between Doneitz and Nimitz. (I also think Yamoto was pretty good.)

I can't really make a good decision about the air war because I don't know enough about it. Maybe Goring (laughing)if I really thought he was that good maybe I should change my pick on land to Hilter lol.

__________________
"Front leaning rest position"
"Move"
"In cadence, exercise....1, 2, 3" (My favorite thing to hear at 5 in the morning.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibson:
If Rommel, Von Manstein, Von Manteuffel, Kesselring, etc., had only HALF of the resources that Zhukov had, they wouldve held out indefinetly where the were stationed, wasteful, suicidal, butchering wave attacks were inexcusable. The USA had almost the same amount of men in service as the Red Army, just a few million less. Did a Western Nation like them hurl wave after terrible wave of men at the Germans? No! And for how long America in was in the war they achieved far more then what the Soviets did with their massed infatry attacks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congratulations. You've mastered "Stereotypes of Military History 101." Until recently, all Western accounts of the Soviets vs. Germans war were based on the German accounts, and further colored by a cold war anti-Russian bias. If you want a more balanced view, try reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Even if you do want to stick with your stereotypes, the idea that the US contributed more than the Soviets to the defeat of Nazi Germany is... well, I'll borrow your 'Bah!' for that one.