Poll: WWII Military Leaders

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Germany possessed arguably the best military leaders of the Second World War, or at least those most highly trained in mobile armoured combat. Whilst each nation involved can claim mavericks and visionaries, Germany had probably the highest concentration of these, spread across the whole range of officers from Commanders like Wittmann to Field Marshal Rommel himself. The main problem Germany had, of course, was that all of these seasoned, experienced and tactically brilliant officers had their ideas and strategies overruled by an Austrian Private...

 

[SckizoBoy]

Germany possessed arguably the best military leaders of the Second World War, or at least those most highly trained in mobile armoured combat. Whilst each nation involved can claim mavericks and visionaries, Germany had probably the highest concentration of these, spread across the whole range of officers from Commanders like Wittmann to Field Marshal Rommell himself. The main problem Germany had, of course, was that all of these seasoned, experienced and tactically brilliant officers had their ideas and strategies overruled by an Austrian Private...

Corporal, actually, not that it makes much of a difference.

And I see your Michael Wittmann, and raise you Kurt Knispel! Granted, the Czech wasn't as highly awarded, but almost 200 tank-kills... yeesh, and all before the age of 23, plus he doesn't half look like a hobo in a lot of photos.

 

[Drakulea]

Germany? Pah. Everybody knows Romania had the best military leaders.

Why, during the Siege of Odessa in 1941 no less than four skillfully led frontal attacks failed to take the city until it was evacuated, resulting in Romanian losses of 20,000 dead and more than 70,000 wounded and missing... *crickets*

Ok, how about the Crimean Campaign, where German troops supported by Romanian ones suffered heavy casualties as they tried to break through the Perekop Isthmus in a slow and bloody 8-month grind... *damn, this isn't working*

Oh, yeah? Well how about Stalingrad where the Romanian 3rd and 4th Armies securing the northern and southern flanks,respectively, of the Stalingrad salient, suffering from a serious lack of field and anti-tank artillery, held off a massive Soviet counteroffensive of more than 1 million men and 900 tanks for one day ... *Jeez, this is bad*

Right, so as I said, Nazi Germany had the best military commanders. *hah, can't believe I wiggled out of that one!*

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Germany possessed arguably the best military leaders of the Second World War, or at least those most highly trained in mobile armoured combat. Whilst each nation involved can claim mavericks and visionaries, Germany had probably the highest concentration of these, spread across the whole range of officers from Commanders like Wittmann to Field Marshal Rommell himself. The main problem Germany had, of course, was that all of these seasoned, experienced and tactically brilliant officers had their ideas and strategies overruled by an Austrian Private...

Corporal, actually, not that it makes much of a difference.

And I see your Michael Wittmann, and raise you Kurt Knispel! Granted, the Czech wasn't as highly awarded, but almost 200 tank-kills... yeesh, and all before the age of 23, plus he doesn't half look like a hobo in a lot of photos.

That's a good raise, although I would perhaps argue that Wittmann's single-handed destruction of a column of some 30 British armoured units is still a real stand-out play. But that's the point really, isn't it. The fact that the German army had so many exceptional officers across the board is surely the strongest case for them having the most talented military of the conflict?

 

[SckizoBoy]

That's a good raise, although I would perhaps argue that Wittmann's single-handed destruction of a column of some 30 British armoured units is still a real stand-out play. But that's the point really, isn't it. The fact that the German army had so many exceptional officers across the board is surely the strongest case for them having the most talented military of the conflict?

Actually, I find it both a blessing and a curse in that the Germans (from an operation perspective) concentrated almost entirely on frontline combat troops, and not the support necessary to replace or relieve them.

Prime example: Luftwaffe and aerial aces. I can guarantee you that you won't find a single airforce that had pilots with 150+ confirmed kills. Every pilot with 200+ kills (confirmed and otherwise) were with the Luftwaffe. The highest American ace had just shy of 100 IIRC, while the top RAF pilot had about 60. The reason was that their superiors recognised this skill and brought them back to train up the new generation of pilots. This is illustrated by the fact that at the beginning of the war, the Germans had the best of everything (in terms of human skill) but towards the end, when pilots such as Hans-Joachim Marseille were long dead, they had a massive reliance on those few premier aces who were still alive, but so burned out by hour after hour in action that they could hardly overcome 100hr newbies during Big Week. The rest were just rubbish because their training was not completed by those who knew the practical side of aerial combat.

Sure, I massively respect Erich Hartmann for engaging 830 times in aerial combat (or something like that) and claiming 352 kills (hell, I sign my blog as his nickname), but that formula that the Germans used would never have worked for more than a couple of years (as indeed was proven). And he retired from the new Luftwaffe in 1970 (or thereabouts) a very jaded man.

So it's a case of: do you want a small number of total hard-ass bitches that always become fewer; or a lot of competent guys who train other competent guys. You'll find that every top ace for every service is German: tanks; fighters; fighter-bombers; submarines; surface raiders etc. But most of these aces were dead by 1943. *sigh*

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

So it's a case of: do you want a small number of total hard-ass bitches that always become fewer; or a lot of competent guys who train other competent guys. You'll find that every top ace for every service is German: tanks; fighters; fighter-bombers; submarines; surface raiders etc. But most of these aces were dead by 1943. *sigh*

And that was exactly the philosophy behind Blitzkrieg. The Germans put so little preparation into infrastructure, and kept all their top soldiers on the lines because the intent was to roll over the enemy as quickly as possible and be able to then replace the battle-hardened vets with a greener peace-keeping occupation force. The allies realised that if they were to be able to win at all it would be a long slog up a long road and so therefore pulled it's experienced personnel back into training roles as soon as possible.

And whilst it may seem that we had the right strategy in the end, the German war effort was plagued with situations where they had us by the wedding tackle but a certain Austrian then had another bright idea and let us off the hook (the decision by Hitler to change the target of the Luftwaffe to British cities instead of RAF bases just when RAF command reckoned they could only hold out for two to three more weeks at most, his insistance that the Fifth Panzer Army should not move without his express orders neutralising their effectiveness on D-Day, the list goes on). If Hitler had left the running of the German military to his generals I have little doubt that Germany would have won the war.

 

[SckizoBoy]

And whilst it may seem that we had the right strategy in the end, the German war effort was plagued with situations where they had us by the wedding tackle but a certain Austrian then had another bright idea and let us off the hook (the decision by Hitler to change the target of the Luftwaffe to British cities instead of RAF bases just when RAF command reckoned they could only hold out for two to three more weeks at most, his insistance that the Fifth Panzer Army should not move without his express orders neutralising their effectiveness on D-Day, the list goes on). If Hitler had left the running of the German military to his generals I have little doubt that Germany would have won the war.

Of all the meddlers that lived, he meddled the most...

However, that is a big leap you've taken there. I agree to the point that Germany could have won, but not sure about would... Unfortunately, the General Staff (or rather the principles adhered to be the General Staff) of von Moltke the Elder's days were done away with leading into WWI, so by the time of WWII, the plans were great, but the contingencies were rubbish (on a strategic level at least, though tactically, some commanders really knew how to retreat and punch at the same time). Such is the way of Prussian/German warmongering, manoeuvre warfare has always been their forte, hence why D-Day was doomed to failure (for the Germans), they sucked at static warfare/linear defence.

Even so, I do agree that had they used the Auftragstaktik line of thought, things would've turned out quite differently.

On a side note, I find it ironic that bombing tactics that the Germans used during the Battle of Britain, the RAF replicated for the counter-bombing in France/Low Countries afterwards... with the same result (i.e. bombing side lost). Trafford Leigh-Mallory, no disrespect, mate, but you were an idiot!

 

[John the Gamer]

snip

[snip](...)
Prime example: Luftwaffe and aerial aces. I can guarantee you that you won't find a single airforce that had pilots with 150+ confirmed kills. Every pilot with 200+ kills (confirmed and otherwise) were with the Luftwaffe. (...)[snip]

Yep. right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

Only the Lufwaffe got over the 100 kill marker. Damn. Some of them even lived after the war (The two top ones (for day and night) lived on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann (+1993) (highest-scoring fighter ace in the history of aerial warfare)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz-Wolfgang_Schnaufer (+1950) (highest scoring night fighter ace in the history of aerial warfare)

 

[A Weakgeek]

Possibly Hitler; he had the most success, until he invaded Russia. The shit hit the fan after that.

I thought Hitler sucked. Since at the end of the war he took the power away from his officers and started his own desperate attempts.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Yep. right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

Only the Lufwaffe got over the 100 kill marker. Damn. Some of them even lived after the war (The two top ones (for day and night) lived on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann (+1993) (highest-scoring fighter ace in the history of aerial warfare)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz-Wolfgang_Schnaufer (+1950) (highest scoring night fighter ace in the history of aerial warfare)

Actually, there was a Japanese pilot who scored 120-ish, but a lot of them were shared IIRC, and about 40 were unconfirmed.

Still, I don't see anyone topping Bubi's kill count in a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time (if ever). And both the 300+ aces survived the war, but I'm drawn to Erich Hartmann, because his son was born and died while he was in captivity. 10 yrs, he was subjected to treatment in the gulags, 'seduced' (attempt only, never succeeded) to the Communist party, and he was still only 23 when the war ended.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Of all the meddlers that lived, he meddled the most...

However, that is a big leap you've taken there. I agree to the point that Germany could have won, but not sure about would... Unfortunately, the General Staff (or rather the principles adhered to be the General Staff) of von Moltke the Elder's days were done away with leading into WWI, so by the time of WWII, the plans were great, but the contingencies were rubbish (on a strategic level at least, though tactically, some commanders really knew how to retreat and punch at the same time). Such is the way of Prussian/German warmongering, manoeuvre warfare has always been their forte, hence why D-Day was doomed to failure (for the Germans), they sucked at static warfare/linear defence.

Even so, I do agree that had they used the Auftragstaktik line of thought, things would've turned out quite differently.

On a side note, I find it ironic that bombing tactics that the Germans used during the Battle of Britain, the RAF replicated for the counter-bombing in France/Low Countries afterwards... with the same result (i.e. bombing side lost). Trafford Leigh-Mallory, no disrespect, mate, but you were an idiot!

I don't think it's that great a leap. Had the Germans wiped out the RAF in 1940, a successful invasion of Britain would have almost certainly followed, most likely keeping America out of the war (due to the vastly overwhelming support of isolationism held in America before Pearl Harbour) and ensuring that the Allies never set foot on Nazi occupied European soil at all. With Europe secure any attempt at opening the Eastern Front would have been much more likely to succeed, although without the fear of a two-pronged allied assault there is some doubt as to whether the Eastern Front would have happened at all.

 

[BoTTeNBReKeR]

Churchill was the best leader. Those who say Russia and Germany need to realise that Russias idea was to throw people at the problem until they one, they lost millions of soldiers because of this. Germany, maybe at the start but Hitler went mad and started ordering troops that didnt exist. So these two dont count.

"EDIT: *peeved* NO POLITICIANS... sorry... I'd rather responses detailed those with some justification of (repeated) strategic/operational/tactical acumen beyond vague grand strategic decisions (I'm looking at you Churchill! You may have been John's biographer, but you'll never be John!)."

I'd still vote Germany. Their high command had their head up their ass, but generals like Rommel were simply masterminds.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I don't think it's that great a leap. Had the Germans wiped out the RAF in 1940, a successful invasion of Britain would have almost certainly followed, most likely keeping America out of the war (due to the vastly overwhelming support of isolationism held in America before Pearl Harbour) and ensuring that the Allies never set foot on Nazi occupied European soil at all. With Europe secure any attempt at opening the Eastern Front would have been much more likely to succeed, although without the fear of a two-pronged allied assault there is some doubt as to whether the Eastern Front would have happened at all.

That's quite an 'isolated' incident, but I understand where you're coming from.

Still, I think you underestimate the military presence in the home counties. Sure, in a straight-up fight, they'd lose, but it wouldn't really have been a straight up fight. If the RAF was under threat of giving aerial supremacy to der Luftwaffe, they would've retreated north of the Thames, which was out of range for most of the German fighter escorts. So while the Germans had superiority, it would be, by no means, assured. And the Home Fleet is still kicking about, which includes the battleships: Nelson; Rodney; King George V; Hood; Prince of Wales (still conducting sea tests, but I'm counting it); Repulse; and Duke of York. Against them, the Germans have: Bismarck; Tirpitz; Scharnhorst; and Gneisenau, the latter two of which only have 11inch main armament (the worst armed of the British ships was Repulse with 6x15in, while all the others were 10x14in or 9x16in - sorry, Hood had 8x15in). Desperate times call for desperate measures, and in a naval engagement the RN will win. Why? The Germans (at that time) had no aircraft carriers (except the Graf Zeppelin which, idiotically, didn't have any naval-adapted aerial complement), or any effective torpedo-bombers. Aerial cover is advantage with the Brits, because while their fighters are holding off the German light bombers (staging from East Anglia), the aircraft carriers Glorious, Furious, Formidable, Illustrious & Ark Royal can give the German ships a torrid time.

The Germans would've had to deal with the RN to successfully invade the British Isles, and engagement would've had to have been north east of Dover at the most southerly, as the Brits would never have engaged otherwise, and docking in Felixstowe would've been easy for them to sortie at minimal notice. And a battleship fight in such a location would've been advantage Britain all the way.

So nnnnnnn... still... *shrug*

BTW I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion...

EDIT:

Also Rommel wasnt that great. Easy to suceed when you have superiour weapons in greater number and you are defending what you had already taken. He still got his ass kicked.

Ah-HA! You're kidding me, right?! All the stats regarding Axis numbers in North Africa are inclusive of German and Italian combatants. The Italians were reluctant at best and their tanks were... well, scrapheaps to say the least. Case in point: Second Battle of El Alamein, as an Allied commander, only an idiot could've lost. Brits: 1052 tanks (IIRC), Germans: 523 tanks, of which only fewer than two hundred were Afrika Korps. Plus, Rommel wasn't even present at the time... And of the German tanks, 30 or so Mk II's and the rest were Mk III's with a small handful of Mk IV's, so the stock German tank was just on a par with a Grant. Thanks to Hitler's genius ploy of doubling the number of Panzer divisions, each one only had one tank regiment. Afrika Korps never had more than sixty percent of its paper strength in reality. Operationally, they were lucky to have fifty percent.

(Sorry, didn't mean to sound that belligerent.)

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

That's quite an 'isolated' incident, but I understand where you're coming from.

Still, I think you underestimate the military presence in the home counties. Sure, in a straight-up fight, they'd lose, but it wouldn't really have been a straight up fight. If the RAF was under threat of giving aerial supremacy to der Luftwaffe, they would've retreated north of the Thames, which was out of range for most of the German fighter escorts. So while the Germans had superiority, it would be, by no means, assured. And the Home Fleet is still kicking about, which includes the battleships: Nelson; Rodney; King George V; Hood; Prince of Wales (still conducting sea tests, but I'm counting it); Repulse; and Duke of York. Against them, the Germans have: Bismarck; Tirpitz; Scharnhorst; and Gneisenau, the latter two of which only have 11inch main armament (the worst armed of the British ships was Repulse with 6x15in, while all the others were 10x14in or 9x16in - sorry, Hood had 8x15in). Desperate times call for desperate measures, and in a naval engagement the RN will win. Why? The Germans (at that time) had no aircraft carriers (except the Graf Zeppelin which, idiotically, didn't have any naval-adapted aerial complement), or any effective torpedo-bombers. Aerial cover is advantage with the Brits, because while their fighters are holding off the German light bombers (staging from East Anglia), the aircraft carriers Glorious, Furious, Formidable, Illustrious & Ark Royal can give the German ships a torrid time.

The Germans would've had to deal with the RN to successfully invade the British Isles, and engagement would've had to have been north east of Dover at the most southerly, as the Brits would never have engaged otherwise, and docking in Felixstowe would've been easy for them to sortie at minimal notice. And a battleship fight in such a location would've been advantage Britain all the way.

So nnnnnnn... still... *shrug*

BTW I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion...

Glad to hear it.

To address your point about our naval superiority, however, it is my belief that the Royal Navy would have been (more or less) powerless to prevent an invasion. Consider for a moment the route the German invasion fleet would have taken - the Channel. Now, for the Mediterranean fleet to harrass the landing would require them to run through the wolfpacks in the Atlantic, which would have wasted valuable time and inflicted casualties on any battle group sent north. I would also imagine that the Royal Navy would be loath to send the Grand Fleet south from Scapa Flow, as this would expose the rear of the Grand Fleet to the Bismark and her fleet anchored off Bergen. Also any fleet sent into the Channel would come under constant attack from the as-now unopposed Luftwaffe. Add to these deterrents the natural bottleneck that is the Channel (which the Germans intended to close off at both ends with minefields), and the Royal Navy would in all likelyhood be decimated before it could so much as glimpse a single German landing craft.

How far the German assault would have progressed, and what resistance could have been offered by wartime provisions such as the GHQ line, is still a great unknown, but as soon as the Germans had both ends of the Channel closed off by minefields then the arrival of German troops and materiel would have been almost constant.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Glad to hear it.

To address your point about our naval superiority, however, it is my belief that the Royal Navy would have been (more or less) powerless to prevent an invasion. Consider for a moment the route the German invasion fleet would have taken - the Channel. Now, for the Mediterranean fleet to harrass the landing would require them to run through the wolfpacks in the Atlantic, which would have wasted valuable time and inflicted casualties on any battle group sent north. I would also imagine that the Royal Navy would be loath to send the Grand Fleet south from Scapa Flow, as this would expose the rear of the Grand Fleet to the Bismark and her fleet anchored off Bergen. Also any fleet sent into the Channel would come under constant attack from the as-now unopposed Luftwaffe. Add to these deterrents the natural bottleneck that is the Channel (which the Germans intended to close off at both ends with minefields), and the Royal Navy would in all likelyhood be decimated before it could so much as glimpse a single German landing craft.

How far the German assault would have progressed, and what resistance could have been offered by wartime provisions such as the GHQ line, is still a great unknown, but as soon as the Germans had both ends of the Channel closed off by minefields then the arrival of German troops and materiel would have been almost constant.

Damn! You got me there, I forgot that the RN was divided between the Med & Grand Fleets. Still, Bismarck would've been in Kiel at the time (commissioned August 1940), and now that I think on it, Tirpitz was only commissioned a year later, so the Germans only have three genuine heavy vessels at this time.

It'd be a risk, but as I mentioned earlier, desperate times call for desperate measures, and the recall of the Mediterranean Fleet would be under serious contemplation. Get them to, oh, I don't know, Liverpool or Bristol (not sure if the dockyard there was large enough), and hope their destroyer escort's up to the task and maybe... As for Scapa Flow, sortieing from there would still be contemplated unless the Brits were sure of active aid from the Americans (don't think they'd be too happy with about a dozen fleet vessels plus escorts turning up in New York, otherwise), and 12/13Groups (small, but effectively unused during the Battle of Britain) can provide air cover if they hug the coast.

Sort of like the Channel Dash (OpCerberus, which was a success, I might add) only call it the North Sea Dash (OpHades! *smirk*).

Off topic slightly, but you've never really heard of the exploits of the RN's sub-fleet have you? (I only ask, because I haven't. *hrk*)

 

[Shock and Awe]

Either the US or Germany, but I lean toward the US for having a far superior Strategic Model, though Germany arguably had a better model for individual Theaters. The US had people like Patton, Bradley, MacArthur, Nimitz, Hap Arnold, and James Doolittle. Hitler really made the expertise of his Generals go to waste with his idiotic plans in the later war.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Damn! You got me there, I forgot that the RN was divided between the Med & Grand Fleets. Still, Bismarck would've been in Kiel at the time (commissioned August 1940), and now that I think on it, Tirpitz was only commissioned a year later, so the Germans only have three genuine heavy vessels at this time.

It'd be a risk, but as I mentioned earlier, desperate times call for desperate measures, and the recall of the Mediterranean Fleet would be under serious contemplation. Get them to, oh, I don't know, Liverpool or Bristol (not sure if the dockyard there was large enough), and hope their destroyer escort's up to the task and maybe... As for Scapa Flow, sortieing from there would still be contemplated unless the Brits were sure of active aid from the Americans (don't think they'd be too happy with about a dozen fleet vessels plus escorts turning up in New York, otherwise), and 12/13Groups (small, but effectively unused during the Battle of Britain) can provide air cover if they hug the coast.

Sort of like the Channel Dash (OpCerberus, which was a success, I might add) only call it the North Sea Dash (OpHades! *smirk*).

Off topic slightly, but you've never really heard of the exploits of the RN's sub-fleet have you? (I only ask, because I haven't. *hrk*)

Not really, no. The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are the doomed HMS M1 (although she sank in peacetime after WW1, so doesn't really impact on our conversation) and the raids on Tirpitz and Scharnhorst by the 'X' series minisubs. Maybe military minds back then didn't see cloak-and-dagger sub warfare as very 'British'?

 

[BoTTeNBReKeR]

Churchill was the best leader. Those who say Russia and Germany need to realise that Russias idea was to throw people at the problem until they one, they lost millions of soldiers because of this. Germany, maybe at the start but Hitler went mad and started ordering troops that didnt exist. So these two dont count.

"EDIT: *peeved* NO POLITICIANS... sorry... I'd rather responses detailed those with some justification of (repeated) strategic/operational/tactical acumen beyond vague grand strategic decisions (I'm looking at you Churchill! You may have been John's biographer, but you'll never be John!)."

I'd still vote Germany. Their high command had their head up their ass, but generals like Rommel were simply masterminds.

See i would disagree. Churchill made so many hard choices that insured we had the upper hand. Like letting Coventry get bombed flat so the Germans wouldnt know we had cracked the Enigma code and knew what they were saying/doing. That in itself helped the people on the ground to win their battles.

Also Rommel wasnt that great. Easy to suceed when you have superiour weapons in greater number and you are defending what you had already taken. He still got his ass kicked.

You realise the only reason "he got his ass kicked" was because Hitler did not give him the tools he was asking for? One of the reasons why Rommel lost the North African campaign is because he was outnumbered and Hitler did not think it was necessary to deploy more panzer III's to the front.

The United Kingdom did do good in the war, but let's face it, the only thing that saved them from being completely crushed by the Germans was because they were on an island and received major support from the US.