Best ground force General of WW II (SD Vote)

Please choose your top three ground force generals of World War II

  • Zhukov - Soviet Union

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • Patton - United States

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Rommel - Germany

    Votes: 13 46.4%
  • Montgomery - Great Britain

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Zhu De - China

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • Model - Germany

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • McArthur - United States

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Feder von Bock - Germany

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • Eisenhower - United States

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Bradley - United States

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
Without naming the circumstances in which they find themselves, and the forces they lead, it is bullshit to try to compare these generals.

I wouldn't imagine Zhu de would be much good at all if he suddenly find himself in command of a panzer army fighting Zhukov before Moscow. I also don't think Patton ever proved himself to any degree against any truly strategically and tactically stronger opponent as Model had.

Different generals have different strengths and weaknesses. A general exceptional in one tactical or strategic circumstances may be second rate in another. Some generals may not be truly outstanding in any pure tactical or strategic sense, but possess the ability to synthesize the strengths of his subordinate to the extent that as a team, he and his subordinates are nearly beatable, where as separately he and his subordinates may appear second rate.

Other generals may not be tactically outstanding in the conventional sense, but possess a innovative vision of how to use his forces that is ahead of his contemporaries, and as a result enjoy a fabulous run while he was ahead, but unable to sustain it when his contemparies catches up.
 
Last edited:

Lezt

Junior Member
Without naming the circumstances in which they find themselves, and the forces they lead, it is bullshit to try to compare these generals.

I wouldn't imagine Zhu de would be much good at all if he suddenly find himself in command of a panzer army fighting Zhukov before Moscow. I also don't think Patton ever proved himself to any degree against any truly strategically and tactically stronger opponent as Model had.

Different generals have different strengths and weaknesses. A general exceptional in one tactical or strategic circumstances may be second rate in another. Some generals may not be truly outstanding in any pure tactical or strategic sense, but possess the ability to synthesize the strengths of his subordinate to the extent that as a team, he and his subordinates are nearly beatable, where as separately he and his subordinates may appear second rate.

Other generals may not be tactically outstanding in the conventional sense, but possess a innovative vision of how to use his forces that is ahead of his contemporaries, and as a result enjoy a fabulous run while he was ahead, but unable to sustain it when his contemparies catches up.
I think General is a fairly loose term

You have field marshals like Manstein and Montgomery who lead army groups in the field

Then you have chief of staff generals like.. Eisenhower who didn't fight a battle but organized a war..

Then you have a whole bunch of major general, lieutenant generals, brigadier general.. commanding anything from a brigade, to divisions, to corps, to armies...

So it is a very hard comparison. like, Rommel is likely better than Model to control divisions, but Model is probably better with army groups. While Patton it would seem, is good with a division or corp sized unit.
 

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
Patton never had to control corps or divisions when the enemy had overwhelming advantage in the air, as well as degree of mechanization on the ground.
 

alexycyap

Just Hatched
Registered Member
I think Tomoyuki Yamashita should be on that list. He led a small army into Malaya and defeated the British led army more than four times the size of his army. He earned the title of Tiger Of Malaya after capturing Singapore in 1942.
Later in 1944, he led the defense of Luzon, Philippines against McArthur's far superior invasion force. Even when hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered, he managed to keep fighting in northern Luzon until after the surrender of Japan.
IMHO Yamashita may have been a nasty war criminal, but nevertheless a great WWII general.
 
I think Tomoyuki Yamashita should be on that list. He led a small army into Malaya and defeated the British led army more than four times the size of his army. He earned the title of Tiger Of Malaya after capturing Singapore in 1942.
Later in 1944, he led the defense of Luzon, Philippines against McArthur's far superior invasion force. Even when hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered, he managed to keep fighting in northern Luzon until after the surrender of Japan.
IMHO Yamashita may have been a nasty war criminal, but nevertheless a great WWII general.
He was the worst war criminal, so no, he shouldn't be in the league ... Genghis Khan would be much better because there was any rules in his time
 

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think Tomoyuki Yamashita should be on that list. He led a small army into Malaya and defeated the British led army more than four times the size of his army. He earned the title of Tiger Of Malaya after capturing Singapore in 1942.
Later in 1944, he led the defense of Luzon, Philippines against McArthur's far superior invasion force. Even when hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered, he managed to keep fighting in northern Luzon until after the surrender of Japan.
IMHO Yamashita may have been a nasty war criminal, but nevertheless a great WWII general.
Actually, Just about every Japanese army on the offensive committed atrocities. But yamashita was the only Japanese general to go on the record apologizing for Japanese war crimes while Japan was winning. He surrendered in the end instead of committing suicide because he felt others would have to take the blame that were committed in his area of responsibility if he had killed himself.

I have to say yamashita was less objectionable of Japanese generals in terms of humanity.
 
Last edited:

Dook

New Member
Registered Member
These guys are glorified when they shouldn't be. They all made incredible mistakes and cost more lives than they saved. Their men meant little to them and they saw them as the means to their glory.

Patton hated enlisted men and thought he was superior to them. He treated them horribly and moved them from battle to battle without rest. He would stop alongside the roadway and yell at his men for ridiculous uniform violations even though the men had just ended a battle and were walking to the next one without any rest.

McArthur had 9 hours to prepare for a Japanese attack but still, somehow, he did nothing despite numerous attempts by other officers who wanted to attack nearby Japanese bases. McArthur allowed his aircraft to be destroyed on the ground. He also received $500,000 from the Philippines President and then abandoned 50,000 to 80,000 US and Philippines troops who had to surrender to the Japanese and then end up in the Bataan Death March. How do you surrender 60,000 troops? That's an army. After WW2 McArthur also did not give any tanks or artillery to South Korea which likely caused the Korean War because the North knew they had the advantage.

Eisenhower chose to invade Normandy, where the Germans had significant defenses, instead of Brittany where there were NO defenses whatsoever. He did this because he was in a hurry. Invading Calais was impossible but Normandy was a bit easier, so, his thinking was that he was doing the troops a favor.

Bradley is known as the soldiers general but Bradley was in charge of the D-Day landings at Omaha Beach. While the invasion was ongoing Bradley knew that Omaha Beach was a slaughter and he knew that other beaches were completely open yet he still sent landing craft to Omaha. Two to five thousand troops died on Omaha, many of them could have walked ashore easily at the other beaches.

Halsey sailed his fleet into typhoons, twice. Two destroyers were sunk with all hands lost. When he was assigned to escort and support the invasion of Leyte Gulf he took off in pursuit of a fake Japanese message.

Just after D-Day the US troops got stuck fighting through the hedgrows in France. The Army generals got the idea to bomb the entire area with B-17's. The Army generals told the Army Air Corp general to bring the bombers in and drop the bombs going from the South to North. The Air Corp general disobeyed that order and told his bombers to drop from West to East. He thought they were so accurate that they could do it without hitting the US positions. They dropped their bombers on US positions and killed around 200 US soldiers.

Another US Army General prevented the M4 Sherman tank from getting a bigger gun even though tank crews were complaining that the 75mm was not powerful enough against the newer German tanks. The British had already increased the guns on their M4's to 17 pounders. He interfered because he wanted an entirely new tank with a better gun but it wasn't produced in time for the war. This guy cost a lot of tank crews their lives.

The only reason the Soviets and Americans won WW2 was because of homeland weapons production and the individual soldiers, not because any of these generals made good decisions.
 
Top