Best WWII General

HavingCrack

Von Runstedt

Does anyone else feel this thread is far too dominated by German generals?? What about any of the American generals in the Pacific theatres?

Prefab Sprouter

HavingCrack wrote: »

Does anyone else feel this thread is far too dominated by German generals?? What about any of the American generals in the Pacific theatres?

I assume that Admirals are included in this as well, Havingcrack. I'd put Nimitz down as an effective general/Admiral

BlaasForRafa

Prefab Sprouter wrote: »

Rommel might have been a thorn in the side of the British, but he was even worse for the Italians. Rommel was quite disdainful of the Italian army and whilst he managed to save the remains of his own army at Alamein it was at the expense of his Italian Allies. Contrast the behaviour of Eisenhower, another General who had to lead a coalition of Armies from different nations, with that of Rommel.

Aside from perhaps the Ariete division the Italians in the desert war performed fairly poorly. Rommel routinely had to assign scarce german units to Italian ones so as to stiffen their resolve (ie stop them from breaking). Don't forget that the main reason Rommel and the DAK were there in the first place was because of the abysmal Italian performance against the british in 1940

BlaasForRafa

Prefab Sprouter wrote: »

I assume that Admirals are included in this as well, Havingcrack. I'd put Nimitz down as an effective general/Admiral

Admiral Spruance as well. For the victory at midway alone he should be considered an outstanding leader as well as the island hopping advance on japan later in the war.

I think its understandable that theres more of a focus on the european theatre of the war because thats what most of us are probably familiar with.

Tony EH

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Aside from perhaps the Ariete division the Italians in the desert war performed fairly poorly. Rommel routinely had to assign scarce german units to Italian ones so as to stiffen their resolve (ie stop them from breaking). Don't forget that the main reason Rommel and the DAK were there in the first place was because of the abysmal Italian performance against the british in 1940

The Italian performance during the war has been unfairly maligned, imho, by most Nations. But, as far as I can tell, the German opinion of their Italian allies was that while the average combat soldier performed his duty well enough, he was severely handicapped by poor leadership at higher levels and bad equipment.

The primary source for the disparaging view that is held of the Italian army during WWII, comes from the British, who used an Italian defeat to bolster the morale of their own troops during the North African campaign in 1941.

Morlar

Tony EH wrote: »

The Italian performance during the war has been unfairly maligned, imho, by most Nations. But, as far as I can tell, the German opinion of their Italian allies was that while the average combat soldier performed his duty well enough, he was severely handicapped by poor leadership at higher levels and bad equipment.

I would go along with that. I know for example that Major Hans Von Luck (one of Rommels most trusted) in his memoirs paid tribute to their bravery and abilities.

He did make note of what he called the 'mediteranean mentality' which differed from the German outlook, whereby in a hopeless case the Italians would not sacrifice themselves in the same way that many Germans did. They would instead surrender or flee. However he basically made the point that they had the right outlook and that surrender rather than sacrifice was usually the more sensible option. Throughout his post-war book he makes several mentions of how their poor military reputation was not deserved by the common Italian soldier.