Best Allied World War II general?

Naomasa298 said:

Zhukov?

Click to expand...

I see your Zhukov and I raise you a Rokossovsky and a Konev!

Command at sea is another whole magilla. Cunningham in the Med, Halsey at Guadalcanal, Spruance at Midway ?

Click to expand...

Spruance. Halsey was indeed a bull but Spruance actually won major battles (Midway, Marianas).

Troy wienerdog said:

I see your Zhukov and I raise you a Rokossovsky and a Konev!


Spruance. Halsey was indeed a bull but Spruance actually won major battles (Midway, Marianas).

Click to expand...

Halsey's leadership during the Guadalcanal campaign was vital. And Guadalcanal was possibly the most important campaign of the Pacific war.

Zip said:

Halsey's leadership during the Guadalcanal campaign was vital. And Guadalcanal was possibly the most important campaign of the Pacific war.

Click to expand...

I'd proffer Midway was substantially more important. Which Guadalcanal actions were Halsey involved with? edit, was able to find it. Excellent, I did not know he ran the Guadalcanal campaign at that time.

chean said:

It we count Admirals I would put in a word for a much overlooked Admiral, Bertram Ramsay.

Not only did he oversee the Dunkirk evacuation - a masterpiece of naval planning on its own - he went on to act as deputy naval commander of the Torch landings and Naval Commanding Officer, Eastern Task Force for the Husky landings.

As a result when it came time to appoint a commander of the largest naval invasion ever - D-day - he was the obvious, and as it turned out the perfect, choice. Two of the largest naval operations of the war, including the largest naval invasion of all time, and he commanded them both in a fashion that made both operations legendary.

I would argue as a result that as a naval leader he was without peer in WWII.

Click to expand...

And if we count Generals of air forces then who might qualify for top spot? Spaatz? LeMay? Tedder?

It seems these discussions usually revolve around land generals rather than commanders at sea or commanders of air forces. Are land generals more deserving of praise than their counterparts? Are the contributions of land generals typically and generally more vital?

He was more of an air general but I would have to say Sir Arthur "Bomber Do It Again" Harris.

Menshevik said:

And if we count Generals of air forces then who might qualify for top spot? Spaatz? LeMay? Tedder?

It seems these discussions usually revolve around land generals rather than commanders at sea or commanders of air forces. Are land generals more deserving of praise than their counterparts? Are the contributions of land generals typically and generally more vital?

Click to expand...

Indeed, this is why I find Dowding interesting. As the British commander during the Battle of Britain he oversaw a conflict fought entirely in the air, yet after gaining victory was promptly replaced. I can't think of a single instance where a Land General won such an important victory only to be immediately relieved of command and retired completely while the war was at its height.

As far as the contributions of the generals - well as far as the western allies are concerned I can't think of a single front on which every man and bullet wasn't entirely dependant on the Navy to get them there, put them ashore, and then ensure they received all the supplies they needed, and all of this made possible only because of massive air support. I'm not knocking the work or skill of the Generals, just saying - at least as far as the Western Allies were concerned - that often they succeeded only because other men in the Navy and Air Force were performing an exceptional job as well.

As far as Generals go, I would put forward Simpson of the Ninth army. Not as flashy or such a press darling as others, but an exceptionally solid, effective General, who not only managed to do an incredibly good job but actually managed to get along with everyone else, earning praise and respect from both Bradley and Montgomery (something exceptional in itself).

redcoat said:

A good capable general, but I wouldn't class him as great.
His greatest victory was in a battle where his forces just needed to hold some key positions and the Japanese army would starve to death, which is what happened.

Operation U-Go - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily take away from Slim: did he set up that situation? To a certain extent, IIRC, in that he fell back to extend the Japanese supply lines.

However, his strategy wasn't too dissimilar to Wellington in Portugal against Massena.

Actually, Slim's real masterpiece was the Mandalay-Meiktila-Rangoon campaign (Jan-May 1945), which followed and exploited the victory at Imphal-Kohima.

Menshevik said:

And if we count Generals of air forces then who might qualify for top spot? Spaatz? LeMay? Tedder?

Click to expand...

Dowding or Park

If we are talking the best overall general, in terms of mastering the tactical, strategic and political, I'd say the award goes to Ike, Monty or Slim. However, if we are including Admirals (especially in the Pacific), I'd give it to Nimitz, Spruance and Fletcher at Midway. Up to that point, the IJN was the "French Army of Austerlitz" to the USN: astoundingly victorious throughout the Pacific. In six months, they'd beaten not only the United States Navy, but the legendary Royal Navy as well. The strategic setbacks dealt by the IJN to the USN/RN were probably the largest in their naval histories, in addition to the losses to British and American prestige in military losses to a non-Western power. Its one thing to watch a bunch of crazy Russian sailors in 1904/05 lose to Japan, its different when its the legendary Royal Navy.

Unlike many WWII victories, Midway can be claimed as a solely American victory. It was American intelligence that cracked the Japanese code. It was the American Navy (and Army Air Force) that not only crushed the First Air Fleet, but had to sacrifice many pilots in "distraction" attacks to prevent Nagumo from launching a proper strike. It was also the turning point in the Pacific War, where a string of unmitigated (except for the Coral Sea) Japanese successes were turned into many years of Japanese defeats. While the U.S. Army must take a back seat to efforts by the British and Red Armies in many respects, the American Navy more than carried its own weight in the Pacific, and dealt most of the "Decisive Blows" against the IJN. The Soviet Navy was more than not present: it was in a non-aggression pact with Japan for almost all the war. The RN and Royal Australian Navy played major roles, but were not present at Midway specifically. In one swift stroke, the balance of naval power went from the IJN to the USN in terms of the most important asset: carriers.

Certainly, the Red Army and Soviet Union can claim a lion's share of the blood-credit for defeating Nazi Germany. But the British Empire and United States can claim victory in the Pacific against the greater navy (the IJN would have utterly owned the Kriegsmarine), and what was, in 1941, the best at naval aviation in the world.

frogsofwar said:

Certainly, the Red Army and Soviet Union can claim a lion's share of the blood-credit for defeating Nazi Germany. But the British Empire and United States can claim victory in the Pacific against the greater navy (the IJN would have utterly owned the Kriegsmarine), and what was, in 1941, the best at naval aviation in the world.

Click to expand...

I don't give the British much credit against Japan. It was the United States that grabbed Japan by the throat; that went on the attack in 1942 and took the war to Japan and smashed their fleet and air forces, blockaded and bombarded their nation and dropped the Bombs. Meanwhile the Brits defended India and took back...what, Burma?

I'm guessing the Chinese tied down more Japanese resources than the British did. And that they killed more Japanese soldiers too.

redcoat said:

Dowding or Park

Click to expand...

What makes these two men stand out above their peers?

Menshevik said:

What makes these two men stand out above their peers?

Click to expand...

Dowding not only was the commander of Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, he was also the man who played a major role in the setting up of the defence.
Keith Park was the commander of 9 Group defending the South East of England which bore the heaviest fighting during the Battle of Britain, he also was commander of Malta's air defences when the Luftwaffe's attacks were finally defeated.

Slim is right up there.

I still see him get underrated even these days.

Zip said:

I don't give the British much credit against Japan. It was the United States that grabbed Japan by the throat; that went on the attack in 1942 and took the war to Japan and smashed their fleet and air forces, blockaded and bombarded their nation and dropped the Bombs. Meanwhile the Brits defended India and took back...what, Burma?

I'm guessing the Chinese tied down more Japanese resources than the British did. And that they killed more Japanese soldiers too.

Click to expand...

In regards to the allied victory over the Japanese the Americans and the Chinese were the main players. However we shouldn't denigrate or insult the efforts of the British, Australians, and New Zealanders who did a fine job in the supporting role and also had to endure the horrid experiences of being taken prisoner by the Japanese.

Actually British and Indian defence of India and capture of Burma between 1943-1945 that kept Assam airfields operational that sustained HUMP airbridge link to Nationalist Chinese over Himalayas and later opened up Burma Route and kept Nationalist China at war against Japan (which diverted %55 or %60 of Japanese Imperial Army in occupational duties , offensive operations and guerilla fight at China and Manchuria , if these Japanese armies were released to fight say in Phillipinnes , New Guinea or Cental Pacific , US Army no way could approach Japanese home islands without suffering excessive casaulties ) Without Burma Road and HUMP airbridge that compansated it , Chang Hai Cheng would make somekind of peace arrangement with Japanese on their own terms (he said so during Cairo Conferance in 1943 plainly) and all Japanese Armies in China would be realeased to fight elsewhere. China-Burma-India Theater was vital in an indirect way for campaign against Japan.

redcoat said:

Dowding not only was the commander of Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, he was also the man who played a major role in the setting up of the defence.
Keith Park was the commander of 9 Group defending the South East of England which bore the heaviest fighting during the Battle of Britain, he also was commander of Malta's air defences when the Luftwaffe's attacks were finally defeated.

Click to expand...

Dowding is under- mentioned as a great Captain. He wasn't sexy like Galland with a bunch of fighter kills. In fact, how many kills did Dowding have from the first world war?

But he developed the system that probably saved Britain.

merdiolu said:

Actually British and Indian defence of India and capture of Burma between 1943-1945 that kept Assam airfields operational that sustained HUMP airbridge link to Nationalist Chinese over Himalayas and later opened up Burma Route and kept Nationalist China at war against Japan (which diverted %55 or %60 of Japanese Imperial Army in occupational duties , offensive operations and guerilla fight at China and Manchuria , if these Japanese armies were released to fight say in Phillipinnes , New Guinea or Cental Pacific , US Army no way could approach Japanese home islands without suffering excessive casaulties ) Without Burma Road and HUMP airbridge that compansated it , Chang Hai Cheng would make somekind of peace arrangement with Japanese on their own terms (he said so during Cairo Conferance in 1943 plainly) and all Japanese Armies in China would be realeased to fight elsewhere. China-Burma-India Theater was vital in an indirect way for campaign against Japan.

Click to expand...

Was going to say: didn't British operations keep the supply road open to Chaing Kai Shek?

If the Chinese were the "Russia of the Asia War" in terms of manpower sacrifices...wasn't the invasion of India the largest Jap invasion in history? 500,000 men? Wasn't Kohima called "Stalingrad of Asia" for the fierceness of fighting and high casualty rate on both sides?

The Brits held their own weight in the Asia war, with Slim commanding the largest single Army formation of the war (over a million men in one administrative XIV army, IIRC).

merdiolu said:

Actually British and Indian defence of India and capture of Burma between 1943-1945 that kept Assam airfields operational that sustained HUMP airbridge link to Nationalist Chinese over Himalayas and later opened up Burma Route and kept Nationalist China at war against Japan (which diverted %55 or %60 of Japanese Imperial Army in occupational duties , offensive operations and guerilla fight at China and Manchuria , if these Japanese armies were released to fight say in Phillipinnes , New Guinea or Cental Pacific , US Army no way could approach Japanese home islands without suffering excessive casaulties ) Without Burma Road and HUMP airbridge that compansated it , Chang Hai Cheng would make somekind of peace arrangement with Japanese on their own terms (he said so during Cairo Conferance in 1943 plainly) and all Japanese Armies in China would be realeased to fight elsewhere. China-Burma-India Theater was vital in an indirect way for campaign against Japan.

Click to expand...

Would be an interesting argument had Japan had the naval forces to supply them, but from Midway forward the Japanese Navy was in freefall to it's demise. Britain's success in Imphal owes a huge debt of gratitude to the destruction of shipping by the US Navy.