Top Generals of the 20th century.

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Interesting selection. Not sure I'd have included Hurrying Heniz. Or Kitchener (though his strategic vision for WW1 was pretty much bang on). Certainly wouldn't have included Pershing, straight off the top of my head I can think of a number of much better WW1 generals, fighting generals and organisers, on both sides.

Agreed. I would go:

Patton, Zhukov, Manstein, Rommel, Foch, Slim, and Canadian General Andrew MacNaughton, who as a lieutenant-colonel revolutionized WWI artillery, and later commanded the Canadian Corps. A passable battle general, but his real skills were as an innovator and organizer.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

For WW1 artillery geezers you can add Tudor and Uniacke as well. Not to mention the French wallahs. High time people looked a bit beyond Bruchmuller. And on the subject of Canadians, I'd trust my neck to Currie over Pershing 8 days a week.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

There's been a lot of response to my post.

I'll concede the point about Beatty. Would you say that Fisher should get the spot?

As for Heinz, he pushed through Russia all the way to Moscow, even with diversions all across the Steppes, IE the Caucasus. Sure, he wasn't the innovator who came up with the plans he used, but he did use them, and rather well.

Kitchener came to South Africa, and used a demoralized and beaten British army to defeat the Boers. In WW1, he was a little less spectacular, though.

Pershing brought over the American army, and held them together long enough to release them when it mattered. He organized a supply line running across the atlantic, through England, across the Channel, and through Northern France. Secondly, WW1 was not his first go round.

He was responsible for the 'revenge attack' on Pancho Villa in Mexico, and eventually forced a decision.

As for Foch, wasn't it he who came up with the brilliant plan to leave the trenches and storm across no-mans land? In the words of Edmund Blackadder, "Isn't the plan where we all get killed?"

Steele

 

[unmerged(11008)]

Pre WWI -

Admiral Togo of Japan (Tsushima Straits)

WWI -

Von Mackensen was probably Germanys best tactical general in the war. Nobody ever hears of him because the Ludendorf/Hindenburg combo and the Western Front get all the historical ink - Mackensen's winter assault 1914-1915 vs Russia was but one of his impressive campaigns in the East.

Petain was a senile traitor in 1940, but he was one of the few who knew what they hell they were doing on the Western Front.

Admiral Sheer probably deserves a lot of credit for not dying at Jutland.

WWII -

Zhukov was very good, not the God some make him out to be (while the Russians were winning at Stalingrad, he was getting his ass whipped up North. His handling of Berlin was also clumsy).

Rokossovsky was also a very good Russian general.

Manstein - see Zhukov (kursk is hardly inspiring)

Rommel and Guderian are deserving of their accolades. What separates Guderian from De Gaulle is Guderian proved his worth on the battlefield in two highly impressives campaigns.

Kesselring defended Italy probably as best as humanly possible.

Admiral "tenacious" Tanaka was probably the only aggressive and effective Japanese admiral - his colleagues were awfully passive if you look at the IJN through the war.

General Slim should have been in Monty's place.

Dowding (fighter command 1940) got the royal screwover when he was forced out because of politics.

General Patton was the best the US had. Eisenhower was very ordinary and while Marshall was an effective orgainizer and politician, we don't how he would have stood in battle. General MacArthur started his battle career badly at the Philippines and ended it with delusions of grandeur regarding China but *everything* in-between is damn impressive.

Admiral Halsey made one crucial mistake in his otherwise brilliant career at Leyte Gulf. For my money Admirals Lee (Guadalcanal) and Turner (USMC) were better but because they didn't command carriers they get no glory.

Korea - A meatgrinder without much chance for generalship but Matthew Ridgway deserves an awful lot of credit for stablizing the US forces after the Chinese poured over the border.

I don't know enough about the Vietnam War or Israel to comment intelligently, but I'd imagine some Israeli in '67 deserves to be on this list.

 

[unmerged(8000)]

Why would you dismiss Ludendorff? He was the brians behind Tannenberg and then when sent to the west he broke the allied trenches in 1918 more successfully than anyone else? His only problem was that the attack was made 1-2 years too late and Germany hadn't the men or supplies to continue the offensive.

Even though I don't think too much of Montgomery myself, the book "The other side of the hill" in which the brilliant military thinker Liddell Hart intervied the Captured German Generals about their war time experiences has the Germans who faced Montogmery saying he was an excellent commander who planned his battles so well that he ever lost a single one, no one else can claim this accolade. They didn't think much of the British of American leadership in general though.

Also take the failed battles by Germany in the east and west with a grain of salt. The German generals when devising their plans had far less to work with than the Russians of Allies, they were also continually dicked around with by Hitler and the Politicians back home. Someone cited Kursk as a Manstein failure. Manstiens plan was to atack with the already built up strength around the salient, Hitler decreed that the attack would be delayed 4 weeks so that more armour and troops could be built up. The Russians cought wind of this and incresed their strength by a much greater factor that the Germans. The intial plan was sound while the loss of surprise and a slight inferiority in numbers on massively well prepared Russian defences made sucess almost impossible. It should be noted that the Russians Would have been cought unawares had the original plan been executed.

My picks would be:

For
WW1: Ludendorff, Brusilov (his 1916 offensive was brilliant)
WW2: Manstein, Guderian, von Rundstedt, Kesselring and Zhukov

 

[Malthus]

Originally posted by Vonsson
Even though I don't think too much of Montgomery myself, the book "The other side of the hill" in which the brilliant military thinker Liddell Hart intervied the Captured German Generals about their war time experiences has the Germans who faced Montogmery saying he was an excellent commander who planned his battles so well that he ever lost a single one, no one else can claim this accolade. They didn't think much of the British of American leadership in general though.

What about Arnhiem?

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Originally posted by Vonsson
Why would you dismiss Ludendorff?

Ludendorff was not the brains behind Tannenberg. Max Hoffman was.


Which leaves 1918, which was initially impressive and then a disaster. And Ludendorff did not play an active role in the development of either German stormtroop tactics or artillery methods. He had no strategic vision whatsoever. His main contribution involved actively undermining and subverting the German civilian government and then spending his retirement blaming it all on Jews and Socialists and pretending he didn't get his arse lashed and have a nervous breakdown when it all went sour.


"What is your strategy sir?"

"We'll break through their lines. Then we'll see."


Great general my bum. I'd go and search for my earlier posts on Ludendorff but I can't be bothered.

 

[unmerged(8000)]

In a book "The Kaiser's Battle" Ludendorff seems to be given significant credit for developing storm troopers etc... and the success of the initial break-through, the reason he was un decisive after the break through was because he lacked the required troops to effect his initial plan as far as i know.

 

[unmerged(2907)]

PJL - You're thinking of Paul von Lettow Vorbeck

There was a Colonel von Lettow Vorbeck in charge of the Danish Brigade of the SS. Any relation?

Oh yeah, and anyone putting Patton on the list wants their head examining, he was insane. If it wasn't for Eisenhower reigning him in, there would have been complete disaster under him.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Like preventing the Russians from getting to Prague first. Of course, it could've lead to a US-Commie war right after WW2... and then we might've defeated Communism fast... but that might lead to a debate on Communism and thats like banned so... I don't think Patton was that bad.

 

[unmerged(16603)]

leaders of men...

There are certainly some interesting opinions here on who and what makes a great general...
I would have to think about the first general to use 'blitzkreig' armor tactics in the field, who then went on to become a very influential figure in world war II. I June 1939 general Zhukov fought some 60,000 japenese and manchurian troops at Nomohan, effecting the first ever double encirclement. Zhukov had read the liddel-hart theories on the use of armor and utilised them well, over a month before the war began in Poland. Zhukov used massed formations very well and was a great army commander.

Then there was Marshall whose logistics made the American sleeping giant into a two front Juggernaut! Not a battle leader but in modern warfare you need a Marshall there somewhere

But sometimes small unit commanders are great too, take colonel Moore from the campaign in vietnam... I think there was a film recently about the battle of LZX-ray... but beyond that he also dramatically changed the way US small unit conducted themselves in the war. He was both an innovator AND a practitioner, and though he was never a commander of tens of thousands he was still a great commander.

But really I think one of the best has to be Giap. He showed the logistics of Marshall, the tactics of Moore and the strategy of Zhukov!
Bien diem phu for example was a huge logistical feat to first move then keep supplied his artillery through the jungle, then to combine large unit actions and small nibbling actions to drive the french further and further into an untenable position from what had been a position of strength.

just an opinion...

 

[Malthus]

I admit that Giap's victory was remarkable, but was it not a case of a good general taking advantage of a spectacular blunder (citing the fortress in a valley surrounded by hills the French did not control)?

Which brings to mind a more general issue - is it not the case that much of what makes a really good general is having opponents who are really foolish, and much of what makes a really bad general, going up against a military genius? An interesting paradox.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Vonsson
In a book "The Kaiser's Battle" Ludendorff seems to be given significant credit for developing storm troopers etc... and the success of the initial break-through, the reason he was un decisive after the break through was because he lacked the required troops to effect his initial plan as far as i know.

I remember reading a long time ago that General von Hutter (sp?) was the originator of Strosstruppen tactics, first employed by the army under his command in the capture of Riga.

Malthus:

I think your description of the French plan at Dien Bien Phu is conventional wisdom and not 100% accurate. The plan didn't account for the possibility of the NVA pulling off what was essentially a logistical miracle, transporting the heavy equipment for three divisions and a mountain of ammunition through jungle.

 

[Malthus]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
I remember reading a long time ago that General von Hutter (sp?) was the originator of Strosstruppen tactics, first employed by the army under his command in the capture of Riga.

Malthus:

I think your description of the French plan at Dien Bien Phu is conventional wisdom and not 100% accurate. The plan didn't account for the possibility of the NVA pulling off what was essentially a logistical miracle, transporting the heavy equipment for three divisions and a mountain of ammunition through jungle.

No doubt the *reason* the blunder was committed, was that the French thought that transporting heavy artillery through jungle could not be done.

Mind you, the Brits in Singapore thought that the Japanese could not move through the jungle, either.

Making assumptions of that sort seems to me a blunder. If we are allowed to label the British defence of Malaysia as blundering, why not the French at Dien Bien Phu?

Compounding that blunder, is the *continuing* assumption that resupply by air was viable, even after the surrounding hills were evidently full of Viet artillery. That was just plain willful blindness.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Malthus
No doubt the *reason* the blunder was committed, was that the French thought that transporting heavy artillery through jungle could not be done.

Mind you, the Brits in Singapore thought that the Japanese could not move through the jungle, either.

Making assumptions of that sort seems to me a blunder. If we are allowed to label the British defence of Malaysia as blundering, why not the French at Dien Bien Phu?

Compounding that blunder, is the *continuing* assumption that resupply by air was viable, even after the surrounding hills were evidently full of Viet artillery. That was just plain willful blindness.

Assumptions are made all the time in military planning, including in succesful operations. I think it's only fair to evaluate the planning using the information they had available at the time. AFAIK, the NVA move to Dien Bien Phu was absolutely unprecedented. I think it's safe to conclude a reasonable person would have discounted the possibility.

The British failures in Malaya were primarily in the areas of nerve, leadership and morale if my understanding is correct. Not really comparable to Dien Bien Phu.

As to continuing the operation, I am a little murky on the thinking that went on in the French command. I do think there was a certain amount of paralysis, a certain amount of wishful thinking (about US air support, for example). But IIRC, none of the options were terribly attractive, a marching retreat through several hundred kilometers of unfamiliar enemy territory being perhaps the best.

 

[unmerged(16603)]

Originally posted by Malthus
No doubt the *reason* the blunder was committed, was that the French thought that transporting heavy artillery through jungle could not be done.

Mind you, the Brits in Singapore thought that the Japanese could not move through the jungle, either.

Making assumptions of that sort seems to me a blunder. If we are allowed to label the British defence of Malaysia as blundering, why not the French at Dien Bien Phu?

Compounding that blunder, is the *continuing* assumption that resupply by air was viable, even after the surrounding hills were evidently full of Viet artillery. That was just plain willful blindness.

In military terms underestimating your enemy is always a blunder. But it was a reasonable assumption, and well supported at every level of command that there was no way the NVA could field as large a force in the area let alone bring in the tubes and supplys necessary for the bombardment.

But this also partly strikes me as part of the skill showed by giap, to use the assumptions of the enemy to strengthen his own position. As Hannibal also did at cannae when the Romans expected their superior infantry to carry the say and assumed that when hannibals line began to fall back they were on the verge of collapsing...

of course an interesting thing can be experienced in playing wargames... as you play often against experienced people you grow used to certain forces being used certain ways... then you play a novice and they react differently, sometimes it can throw you off and let them win a better position than they might have...
It can be the smae thing in real life, if the opposition does something unexpected, it can lead an otherwise good general to make a mistake he might not have otherwise...