Ranking WW2 generals

[unmerged(5384)]

This is how (more or less) I'd rank on a scale of 0-10 (0 moron, 10 genius) some of the more prominent WW2 generals. Please feel free to disagree with me:

German
Manstein 8.5
Guderian 8
Rommel 8
Kesselring 7.5
Hoth 7
Hoepner 6.5
Rundstedt 7.5
Bock 6.5
Heinrici 7.5

Allied
Patton 7.5
Bradley 7
Montgomery 6
Auchinleck 6
Alan Brooke 6.5
O'Connor 7
Slim 7.5
Zhukov 7
Chuikov 7.5
Konev 7

 

[JtheMad]

Finnish
Mannerheim 10.0

(What? Who's biassed?)

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by JtheMad
Finnish
Mannerheim 10.0

(What? Who's biassed?)

Hi.
OK, Mannerheim gets somewhere between 7 and 7.5 IMO. His defense was very impressive, but he was also helped by the difficult terrain, the weakness of the Red Army in 1939-40, and of course the skill and courage of the Finnish troops.

 

[JtheMad]

Originally posted by Chimera


Hi.
OK, Mannerheim gets somewhere between 7 and 7.5 IMO. His defense was very impressive, but he was also helped by the difficult terrain, the weakness of the Red Army in 1939-40, and of course the skill and courage of the Finnish troops.

Ah, but he also fought in the Russo-Japanese war as a officer in the Russian imperial army (52nd Njezhin Dragoon Regiment) and then was transferred in Poland, where he acted as the commander of the 13th Uhlan Regiment of Vladimir, then as the leader of the separate Cavalry Brigade of the Guard.

During the initial years of the First World War Mannerheim was commander of the Cavalry Brigade (1914-1915) and of the 12th Cavalry Division (1915-1917) in Poland and Galicia, and later commander of Cavalry Corps (1917).

And then in the Finnish war of independence, when P.E.Svinhufvud, the speaker of the Independence Senate, appointed him Commander-in-Chief of the army of the Finnish Republic (16 January -29 May, 1918). He led the so-called "white army" to victory in late January in the war fought against the Russian occupation army and the attempted socialistic coup.

And of course, as the Commander-in-Chief during The Second World War.
Also helped by other competent generals as Nenonen, General of Artillery and Talvela and Heinrichs, Generals of Infantry.

And the Red Army wasn't so weak in 1944 anymore, was it?

 

[Agelastus]

Rating Montgomery and Auchinleck as the same seems rather perverse.......

I agree with von Manstein as the best German general, but I'd elevate Kesselring to second place. His defence of Italy was masterly.

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by JtheMad

And the Red Army wasn't so weak in 1944 anymore, was it?

Thanks for the info on Mannerheim. I didn't know all that. In 1939-40, the Red Army got a bloody nose in Finland but I thought their 1944 offensive against Finland did rather well. And it caused Finland to sue for peace quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong on the 1944 bit please.

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Rating Montgomery and Auchinleck as the same seems rather perverse.......

I agree with von Manstein as the best German general, but I'd elevate Kesselring to second place. His defence of Italy was masterly.

I think Auchinleck fought well in 1941-2 given the relatively slender resources he had at the time, and he did have some rather incompetent generals (Ritchie was one if I recall) under him. Also, given the unimpressive equipment at his disposal, would've been very hard to defeat DAK at the time. First Alamein resulted in Rommel's rebuff and was due to Auchinleck's defense. Rommel himself called Auk a very good commander.

Now, at the risk of incurring your wrath I'm not all that impressed with Monty as he took over 8th Army at a time when supplies were just becoming plentiful, the RAF had wrested the lead from the Luftwaffe, large numbers of Grant and Sherman tanks had become available, and the DAK's supply across the Med was increasingly erratic. I see him more as "the man at the right place at the right time". El Alamein was merely using a "wall of steel" to batter Rommel's thin and mostly Italian forces to bits. And his performance in Normandy was hardly inspiring, and this with total air, naval and artillery superiority. Plus his tendency to make post-battle statements like "That's the way I intended it to be" reeks of too much self-righteousness.

Kesselring's defense in Italy was indeed masterful, but he did have pretty large forces (between 20-26 divisions)and excellent terrain to use (which nullified much of the air and armored Allied superiority), nor was the Allied numerical superiority really crushing as it became later on the Russian front.

 

[Arkestra]

There seems to be a crucial ommission from the German list - Mark Clark.

 

[JtheMad]

Originally posted by Chimera


Thanks for the info on Mannerheim. I didn't know all that. In 1939-40, the Red Army got a bloody nose in Finland but I thought their 1944 offensive against Finland did rather well. And it caused Finland to sue for peace quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong on the 1944 bit please.

Ok, here:

"Stalin had decided to solve the question of Finland and then continue towards Berlin. The offensive began on 9th June 1944, and took Finnish army by surprise. The artillery bombardment was one of the heaviest in the WWII.

The main direction of Soviet assault was in Carelian Isthmus, where the Soviet 30th Guards Corps and other elite troops were deployed. The 10th Division lines broke at Valkeasaari (Beloostrov) on 10th June. Finnish forces redeployed themselves to so called VT-line, and the Armoured Division was sent to help. This was in vain, as the Armoured Division and 3rd Division were unable to stop Soviets in battle of Kuuterselkä.

After that the retreat to VKT-line was very fast, taking only about a week. On 20th June the newly arrived 20th Brigade from Eastern Carelia as reinforcement took charge of the defense of Viborg. The Brigade lost the town the same day in a debacle, which caused the brigade commander to be court-martialed later.

After the retreat to VKT-line was complete, the Finnish forces began to make serious resistance. Lots of reinforcements were hurled in, like 6th Division from Lapland and several divisions from Eastern Carelia. The decisive battle was fought in the ending days of June and earliest days of July. It was the largest battle ever fought in the Nordic countries of Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Finns had massed a massive artillery there, and sometimes it blew Russians apart when they were only preparing to launch the first wave.

Also new anti-tank weapons were provided by Germany, which proved to be effective. Hitler also sent a flight group, Gefechtverband Kuhlmey, composed of Fw-190's and Stuka's to help. Also
German 303th Assault Gun Brigade was at Ihantala. The Russian plan had called them to be by the Kymi River at this time, but
they were still more than 120 km from it. Russians admitted their failure, and began to move troops to the Belorussian front, so that Allies do not get first to Berlin."

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by Arkestra
There seems to be a crucial ommission from the German list - Mark Clark.

I think you mean the Allied list. OK IMO Clark gets between 5 and 6. In a sentence, competent but too vainglorious, letting the German army escape so he could seize Rome.

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by JtheMad


The Russian plan had called them to be by the Kymi River at this time, but they were still more than 120 km from it. Russians admitted their failure, and began to move troops to the Belorussian front, so that Allies do not get first to Berlin."

Thanks again. You REALLY are an expert on the Finnish military battles. Was Mannerheim in charge of the battles in June-July 1944? I agree that Finnish infantry was among the best in the war, but you guys are lucky to have such dense forests to help in defense. Can you imagine having flat, rolling terrain like Poland?

 

[Jools]

Originally posted by Chimera


Thanks again. You REALLY are an expert on the Finnish military battles. Was Mannerheim in charge of the battles in June-July 1944? I agree that Finnish infantry was among the best in the war, but you guys are lucky to have such dense forests to help in defense. Can you imagine having flat, rolling terrain like Poland?

The flat rolling terain was only in the West, the East was full of forests, swamps, rivers etc... Too bad the Russians took it.

Aren't you forgeting some french generals?

Obviously De Gaulle and Leclerc should figure there somewhere...

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Chimera
I think you mean the Allied list. OK IMO Clark gets between 5 and 6. In a sentence, competent but too vainglorious, letting the German army escape so he could seize Rome.

No, he meant the German list. There's a large body of anti-Clarke opinion around the globe. In many respects I agree with it, as he was a vainglorious fool. Rate him a one.

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by Jools


Aren't you forgeting some french generals?

Obviously De Gaulle and Leclerc should figure there somewhere...

OK OK so my list generation was a spur of the moment thing... De Gaulle only fought briefly (and unsuccessfully) in 1940 but for his accepting and trying to preach the value of massing armor I'll give him a 6.5 at least as military strategist. As a politician, I'd say about 7.5. Don't know enough about the Free French performance in major battles to bestow my hallowed judgement on De Lattre, Leclerc etc. Why don't you give them a shot? Oh, Weygand gets at least a 6 for his hedgehog defense plan of June 1940, which was later adopted by NATO.

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


No, he meant the German list. There's a large body of anti-Clarke opinion around the globe. In many respects I agree with it, as he was a vainglorious fool. Rate him a one.

I didn't know Clark has such bitter critics. Where and how badly did he screw up exactly? As for being vainglorious, leaders such as Rommel, Patton, Monty, Halsey all suffered from it, and they did pretty well overall, so it's not necessarily bad IMO.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Chimera
I didn't know Clark has such bitter critics. Where and how badly did he screw up exactly? As for being vainglorious, leaders such as Rommel, Patton, Monty, Halsey all suffered from it, and they did pretty well overall, so it's not necessarily bad IMO.

No, it's not. But they didn't let it overcome their military sense entirely (well, Halsey and Montgomery both did at least once, but they didn't make a career out of it.) Consider the aftermath of the Anzio breakout, when Clarke ordered his troops to turn north to liberate Rome, so he would have the publicity of the first Axis capital to be taken/major European capital liberated. That allowed a German army to escape encirclement, and let Kesselring establish a new line.

That's just one example...........there are others.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Agelastus
when Clarke ordered his troops to turn north to liberate Rome, so he would have the publicity of the first Axis capital to be taken/major European capital liberated. That allowed a German army to escape encirclement, and let Kesselring establish a new line.

That's just one example...........there are others.

A group of survivors from a Texas regiment at San Piedro asked for, and IIRC got a court of inquiry to examine Clark's handling of the assault. Naturally, nothing resulted from their charges of gross incompetence.

Clark should score a -10 on the scale. A complete bollox of a General.

....and then there's McArthur

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Zhukov not being higher.

I'd drop Bradley a little, he did make some incredible mistakes in the Normandy campaign. Including a timetable which was hopelessly optimistic, not realizing that French hedges were much bigger than British or American ones, and falling for the old WW1 assumption that artillery would reduce the Omaha defences.

Monty is a difficult case. If you cut off his career in Africa, then he might be around a 9. He was average in France, and hopelessly reckless in Holland.

O'Connor might warrant a higher number, though we'll never know what he might have achieved had he taken an alternate route and not been captured.

I think Rommel is universally overrated. Not that he wasn't very good, but his opposition was average for most of the campaign, and the limited numbers, fluid front were ideal for his style of warfare. Had he served on the Russian front would anyone know his name?

Agelastas, at least The Auch didn't lose India

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


No, it's not. But they didn't let it overcome their military sense entirely (well, Halsey and Montgomery both did at least once, but they didn't make a career out of it.) Consider the aftermath of the Anzio breakout, when Clarke ordered his troops to turn north to liberate Rome, so he would have the publicity of the first Axis capital to be taken/major European capital liberated. That allowed a German army to escape encirclement, and let Kesselring establish a new line.

That's just one example...........there are others.

OK, I'm familiar with the "rush for Rome" but I can't seem to recall any other major slip-ups. Still rather harsh if you think poor man merits only a ONE. BTW Agelastus, been meaning to ask, since your knowledge of history strikes me as both mighty and diverse, are you a professional or academic of some sort or do you just love history for its own sake? Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Chimera
BTW Agelastus, been meaning to ask, since your knowledge of history strikes me as both mighty and diverse, are you a professional or academic of some sort or do you just love history for its own sake? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Well, I am a history graduate (BA First Class) from one of the top five history departments in my country (or it was then!) I also seem to "love" history..........certainly, I like to know where we came from, and the connections where you can trace the roots of events back centuries................

I see Sean9898 has chimed in to support me!

Monty's real blot is "Market Garden"-his Normandy performance wasn't too bad at all.............and it was an American who lost the plot again at the end of the Falaise battle.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Agelastus
and it was an American who lost the plot again at the end of the Falaise battle.

We could spend the next three weeks on this. Lets just agree to disagree, after all if a certain General had managed to take Caen when he claimed he could, the issue would never have arose

Pretty average in Sicily too, from planning to execution.