Top Generals of the 20th century.

[Sire Philippe]

Originally posted by Imperialist
Madner, that information is based on technical specifications and experience, not theory. If DuGaulle knew how to implement the theory, he was never given an opportunity to do so.

Disagree.
De Gaulle was "general de brigade", but he tooks command of 4th DCR (armoured division) in 1940 campaign.
Although not really in a very good strategic situation (don't need to tell it ), he was able to make some strikes on panzer's raid.

As the other french's DCR only succeeded to be crushed in detail (sometimes spit, or displayed on 20km - not a really good formation for mobile units), De Gaulle's division made an impressive demonstration, with the battle of Montcornet for instance : panzers were not able to stop the attack, french first-strike units go very near of Guderian'HQ, and it needs an intensive action of Luftwaffe to crush the action.
In fact, it was only a very little thing.

Later, fall of may and start of June, De Gaulle was ordered to destroy german forces around of Abbeville (a bridgehead over the Somme).
Although a real defeat (great problem of coordination in attack, power of german's 88'guns), 4th DCR was in action.

So, if we can't compare theory and practice, Guderian and De Gaulle, we can't say that De Gaulle never done anything of his thoughts too.
With a little enlighted French High Command in 30's, theories of De Gaulle would have had a better fate.

Despite this, I'm agree to not take De Gaulle in the list.
As French, the greatest commander of 20th century was Foch : not really a great operative commander, nor strategic thinker, but a coalition leader - a very rare and precious form of officer.

 

[The Hanoverian]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Smith-Dorrien super lucky? Super unlucky I'd have said. Subject to a massive personal vendetta by his immediate superior, then relieved of his post for wanting to do the right thing (which was then done by his successor anyway), then shipped off to Africa where he gets taken ill immediately and nearly dies thus bringing his career to an abrupt halt, then killed in a car crash.


Admittedly, more lucky than Jimmy Grierson, by virtue of not dying of a heart attack on the way to take up his command.

Sorry TC, I was thinking super-lucky in terms of being one of only five officers to escape from Isandlwana

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Oh right.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by grumbler
Halsey got the fifth star, and Spruance got to be the only member of the US armed forces ever given the privelege of retiring at full pay. Spruance thought it was far better than a fifth star - after all, there were lots of 5-stars around, but he was unique (and the privelege was worth a lot more, since no pay raise went with the fifth star)!

Don't 5-star officers also 'retire' at full pay? I know that Eisenhower had to resign his rank before he was inaugurated, because 5-star officers aren't ever really considered retired. And then, after he served his terms, an act of Congress restored him to his original status. Sure, they weren't officially retired, but noone was going to send 70-year old Eisenhower or MacArthur into the field.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peo

Manstein the best at manouver warfare there has ever been.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I couldn't let this one pass. The best at maneuver warfare there has ever been? So Napoleon, Alexander, and and Hannibal are just so - so? Manstein may make it on a list for the 20th century but certainly not all time.

The question is inherently tough. Its hard to compare an Eisenhower, who was a behind the scenes planner, organizer, and peacemaker, to a Rommel who was an on the front divisonal and Army commander. Both were certainly very good at their jobs and both certainly rank near the top of the class of WWII but how do you actually compare them.

Also, there is the matter of intelligence. The intelligence at Midway so tilted the battle in Spruance's favor that it is hard to gauge his true effectiveness. Now don't go all nuts. The guy was a great naval commander at one of the four greatest naval battles in history but how much does knowing the enemy's battle plan before they do it help make you look good. It certainly can't hurt, just ask the Oakland Raiders.

One last thing is the thinking of the time. I think most people consider Haig something of a butcher but how much was he a product of his time? Grant was considered a butcher but has certainly undergone a revival in the last few years due to some new thought. In Zukhov's case is it a bad general that doesn't care about losses? If you have the men to lose is it bad tactics to throw them in waves agianst the enemy? It may smack of callousness but does it make for bad generalship?

This makes the job of comparison tough, very tough. That being said .... here's my list.


Eisenhower - not sure who else could have made the Anglo-US alliance function as it did.

Patton - Sure was no finese player or great tactician but I am not sure this makes a bad general. He got an awful lot accomplished in his time.

Manstein - The 1940 plan in France was masterful. It was a brilliant piece of operational maneuver and planning.

Schwarzkopf - Did any of you have any idea that he was going to do a big left hook? Just because he massively outnumbered the enemy and held complete air superiority doesn't make his plan a bad one or his leadership less efficient.

Guderian - This one was close with Rommel. Guderian I think holds the upper ecehlon in operational warfare with tank formations. If he wasn't so hard to get along with he may have done better.

Smuts / Botha - Take your pick. The Voerbeck guy certainly did well but for twentieth century guerilla warfare I'll take the Boers against the British any day.


These are in no particular order. I tried to cover the gamut of operational, strategic, tactical, planning and small unit. It isn't a perfect list and I'm sure there will be comments. But that's what a message board is for isn't it?

 

[Sire Philippe]

Originally posted by shrike00
[BManstein - The 1940 plan in France was masterful. It was a brilliant piece of operational maneuver and planning.
[/B]

I'm near to be agree with you, except for this point. The 1940 plan was very, very riskful, and only great luck and total weakness of french high command made this manoeuver possible. I think it's not a great exemple to illustrate Manstein capability.

Planning and execution of the operation were greatly differents, and with real commander, with strategic reserves, panzer raid could have been easily broken or at least disturbed.

But this don't weaken Manstein's operational skillful.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Indeed. The German Blitzkrieg operation in 1940 was a far closer run thing than is normally realised and without the complete incompetance of people like Gamelin it might well have ended up falling flat on its face. Again, not a reflection on Manstein's personal excellence or otherwise, but worth noting.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

I disagree ....

This probably isn't the right forum for this since it is slightly off topic ... but I respectfully disagree.

First of all, I think the plan wouild have suceeded even had the dash across France run into problems. The invasion of Holland was almost completely unexpected as was the use of Airborne units in Holland and Belgium. These combined movements turned the Belgian flank and thus the entire allied flank. The units in Belgioum were retreating before the dash had even really started. Now I don't think it would have been quite so fast but it had the makings of a much better executed Schifflen plan then the first WW.

Also, just because there was great risk does not make a plan unwise or poor, nor does it matter if it was a near run thing. The plan was attacked before it was adopted primarily for the same reasons you mention, it left the left flank hanging in the air for 200 miles. This was carefully analyzed and it was decided that the plan should go on. Did that make it risky? Yes. But I don't think it makes it poor. All warfare is some sort of gamble and a desperate attempt to match your strenghs to his weaknesses. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Manstein's plan was bold, daring and executed almost to perfection. I think you would be hard pressed to find a more astounding victory in modern times. No one in their right minds thought it would acheive what it did. I'm not even sure the Germans thought it would be that successful.

Also, to answer a point about bad opposing generalship. It is true that the French didn't help themselves any in their defense. However, this can't be held against Manstein. Just because Hooker (or whoever it was) was a nut case does that make Lee's victory at Chancerlorville less impressive? If the Romans hadn't marched right into Hannibal's trap they would have won. Should he then be lowered form the list of admirable generals. The Persians had no answer for the heavy Macedonian hoplite. Maybe Alexander should have given them up to make sure there was a more even playing field.

I am being to harsh and I apologize. All I am saying is that a good general takes advantage of his enemies' short-comings and screw ups. He doesn't apologize for them.

I had Manstein in as a planner if it matters. I still think he's a great choice.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

Like Shrike said, there is the inteligence factor, the Germans knew what the French would do. (They had to read the newspaiper)
I also agree that the plan might have failed but I don't see a disaster for the German army if it does.

About Schwarzkopf, no comment IMO that fight was not in the same catagory

I recently read that Haig was not the stuborn, close minded butcher he was later potrayed. According to that article the BEF improved his tactics to such an extant that the Germans couldn't stop they advance, and that only the weather saved them in Flandern '17. Not only that but they had to abandon they plan to make a counteroffensive on the weakend French.

 

[Sire Philippe]

Re: I disagree ....

Originally posted by shrike00
This probably isn't the right forum for this since it is slightly off topic ... but I respectfully disagree.

You're right for a part : this is not because the opponent was really incompetent (as Roman commanders at Cannae, French in 1940) that this reduces Manstein qualities. But I stay in my opinion that part of Gamelin's uncapability and luck was a part much more important that any operative skillful. In reverse of your idea, this is not because a victory gave some impressive results that commanders were genious : see Hindenburg/Lüddendorf at Tannenberg.

In other part, I'm not sure that a Shlieffen-variant pla, would have led to so great victory. But we can't be sure : allies were ready for this attack, positions were almost prepared. And a breakthrough, falling on the mass of allied troups, would have only maybe repulse troups behind the Somme (final objective of the 1939'plan).
But I dislike to speak of this kind of fictive history with only thoughts.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

The battle for France in Juni was to close that the troops lost at Dunkirch wouldn't have make a difference.
BTW, I just had this situation in HOI, I managed to stop Germany at the French border in the '39 scenario )

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Madner, common views of Douglas Haig are often little more than caricature (as are most popular perceptions regarding the Battle of the Somme). 3rd Ypres was probably his worst moment though, frankly. If you are interested I'd encourage you to check out some of the books in the reading list thread I started elsewhere in this forum. He was certainly no more of a "butcher" than any other of the senior Great War commanders.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by shrike00
Schwarzkopf - Did any of you have any idea that he was going to do a big left hook? Just because he massively outnumbered the enemy and held complete air superiority doesn't make his plan a bad one or his leadership less efficient.

Hard to compare I would say. Every other person on your list has been tested against a credible foe. Schwarzkopf has not. That's what makes it so hard to judge the comparative competancy of modern commanders, because they only fight when the odds ensure total and complete victory with minimal casualties. Now if he had taken on the Soviets with that level of ease, I would be impressed.

In the same manner, we do not consider those colonial commanders who took out African tribesmen with Maxim guns to be among the greatest commanders of all time, no matter how great their victory.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Desert Storm

Neil ...

You speak with the benefit of hindsight. At the time the general consensus was not so sure. Iraq at the time had modern equipment and training, if not so modern as the US. It also was considered the 4th largest army in the world and it had recent wartime experience.

The Iraqi's, and I think most of the world, expected a major thrust into Kuwait with amphibious landings to turn the flank. When Schwarzkopf launched his gigantic left hook it caught them completely by surprise.

Again you can't take their competence into account just like you can't use the stupidity of the French in 1940 against Manstein. What if the Iraqi's hadn't folded so quickly? There was a potential risk with the Coalition forces leaving their left flank completely in the open. If the Iraqi's had held then the main elements of the US wing would have impacted the Rebublican Guards well behind the prepared defensive lines. Even had the Iraqi's held in Kuwait they would have been trapped and forced to surrender.

I understand that this is my most controversial listing but it has to have some justification. Schwarzkopf used maneuver instead of the brute force he possesed to save as many lives as possible. I'm not sure that light casualties mean it wasn't a great victory. The Americans suffered thirteen casualties at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. The English suffered over 2,000 including their commander, Pakenham. So was that a good victory?

Also, I'm not sure your colonial analogy applies. I can't think of any major colonial victories. I could be wrong. I can think of Omdurman but that was really more of a feat of engineering by building a supply railroad. There is also Arthur Wellesly's campaigns in India but I'm not familiar with how decisive they were. In fact colonial wars seem to be know more for their Islanawaha's and Little Big Horn's than their great victories.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

There were loads of colonial victories. Which is why they are a lot less interesting (and noteworthy) than colonial defeats.

 

[Ape]

Originally posted by shrike00

Eisenhower - not sure who else could have made the Anglo-US alliance function as it did.

Harold Alexander?

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Re: Desert Storm

Originally posted by shrike00
You speak with the benefit of hindsight. At the time the general consensus was not so sure. Iraq at the time had modern equipment and training, if not so modern as the US. It also was considered the 4th largest army in the world and it had recent wartime experience.

Up against the most lavishly equiped and trained army in the world, backed by the world's most sophisticated and powerful airforce. Hindsight or no, the US knew that they were gonna hand Saddam his ass in the Gulf War, and they never had any doubt about it.

The Iraqi's, and I think most of the world, expected a major thrust into Kuwait with amphibious landings to turn the flank. When Schwarzkopf launched his gigantic left hook it caught them completely by surprise.

While I applaud his surprise, it's not exactly military rocket science there.

Again you can't take their competence into account just like you can't use the stupidity of the French in 1940 against Manstein.

But I can do both. And I will. Nevertheless, had Manstein not succeeded as he did, the French had a real chance of winning. The Iraqis did not. Manstein faced a far more credible opponent then Stormin' Norman.

What if the Iraqi's hadn't folded so quickly? There was a potential risk with the Coalition forces leaving their left flank completely in the open. If the Iraqi's had held then the main elements of the US wing would have impacted the Rebublican Guards well behind the prepared defensive lines. Even had the Iraqi's held in Kuwait they would have been trapped and forced to surrender.

Either that, or the US would have had to simply bomb the holy hell out of the Iraqis, and send in the armor. I would really like to see how well those defensive lines hold up to a couple of B-52 strikes.

I understand that this is my most controversial listing but it has to have some justification. Schwarzkopf used maneuver instead of the brute force he possesed to save as many lives as possible. I'm not sure that light casualties mean it wasn't a great victory.

It was well done, but I hesitate to call it great. I never said that light casualties immediately disqualify a victory from greatness. Heck, that's a best case scenario! However, a one-sided slaughter of a profoundly weaker foe does.

Schwatzkopf commanded his men well in GWI. However, I think that a Rommel or a Patton would eat his lunch, provided the tech gap were not there.

Also, I'm not sure your colonial analogy applies. I can't think of any major colonial victories. I could be wrong. I can think of Omdurman but that was really more of a feat of engineering by building a supply railroad. There is also Arthur Wellesly's campaigns in India but I'm not familiar with how decisive they were. In fact colonial wars seem to be know more for their Islanawaha's and Little Big Horn's than their great victories.

That's because one-sided slaughter of a technologically inferior foe isn't very interesting. Therefore, you hear a lot more about Little Big Horn and Vietnam than you do Wounded Knee or any of the many razzia that took place in Africa. Either way, the one thing they have in common is that a more numerous but technologically inferior foe was utterly defeated by the use of inventions that the enemy could not match. Whether that invention is the Maxim gun or the stealth bomber makes little difference. In practice, GWI resembles a good old fashioned colonial ass-kicking more than a modern war. It's just now the invaders can attack anywhere, thanks to the magic of the aeroplane and missile.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

GWI and Colonial Wars .....

You have points there is no doubt. Like I said it was a controversial pick. I don't agree with you that a failure on Manstein's part would have resulted in disaster for the Germans. Even without the mad dash across France, the right hook going through Belgium, Holland, and finally France was rolling up the Allies nicely. There simply was no answer for the German blitzkrieg at that point. I think your argument is technically flawed in this case. The French may have not been technologically behind the Germans in 1940 but they were a lifetime behind them operationally.

I also am not sure that technological superiority changes the greatness or importance of a battle and therefore the battle's victor. At the battle of Lepanto, certainly one of the 4 great naval battles in history, the christian's ships and armament were clearly superior to the Turks. Yet no one says that that makes the battle less important. Please don't hear me saying that the GWI was of some huge importance. Clearly since we are were we are now it left somehting undone. I am trying to use this as an illustration as to why technoloical superiority isn't necessarily a disqualifier to the greatness of a leader.


@Top Cat

I realize there are tons of colonial victories. I was commenting that there were no great ones. Can you?

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Omdurman, Ulundi, Rorke's Drift.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Colonial Wars ...

Top Cat ....

If you recall I listed Omdurman as a potential great colonial victory. However, I would argue that it is more notable for its engineering feat of building a railroad across the desert. It is however arguable that this is a great colonial victory.

I can't agree at all with Rorke's Drift, especailly when it follows so closely on the heels of one of the great disasters of colonial fighting, Islandawaha. Rorke's Drift is notable because a few men held out against incredible odds. I'm not sure it qualifies as a victory much less a great one. Its a fantastic story and an incredible tail of heroism, but I don't think it qulaifies as a great victory.

I'm not familiar with Ulundi ...could you shed some light?