What do you think of General George S. Patton?

So who would be your top 10 generals and admirals of World War 2? Put them in order if you can (it’s quite tough). If you could also make a top 5, that would be appreciated. This list also includes all naval, army, and air force commanders regardless of rank.

Personally my picks would be (in no particular order, I just can’t decide):

Erwin Rommel

Jisaburo Ozawa

Takeo Kurita

Walther Model

Erich Von Manstein

William “Bull” Halsey

Raymond Spurance

Tamechi Hara

Chester Nimitz

Georgy Zhukov

Writing this out, there is not enough space for all the generals I want to put, such as Bernard Montgomery, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ernest King, and many Soviet generals.

@CWO-Marc said in WW2 Generals’ November birthdays:

Along similar lines: General Joseph E. Johnston, who had surrendered his forces to General William Tecumseh Sherman in the last days of the Civil War, died just a few weeks after Sherman. He had attended Sherman’s funeral and had kept his hat off during the proceedings (despite the cold and rainy weather) as a sign of respect to his former adversary; he caught a cold as a result, and it developed into pneumonia.
True Marc. I also remembered that they, too, were born in the same month. Was February, actually, but 13 years apart. Funny.

1980’s however was a strange time for both sides and NATO and USSR were losing allies left and right and neither side wanted to engage in conflict so both sides tried to downsize their military while also trying to scare the other side.

Thank you Tall Paul.

Brad Meltzer’s show Decoded on the History Channel had an episode devoted to this topic. Its a good episode, if any of you get a chance watch it.

would it not be better keeping producing Panzer III and IV and keep on developing new Support Tanks etc like Hummel, Nashorn, Wirbelwind, kugelblitz etc.?…It would have been far better to satisfy the needs of the troops instead of longing for bigger tanks.
The Panzer IV was maybe not equal to all the counterparts of the allied tanks but further development of panzer III and IV´s and increasing production of it would be better in the long run!..E series might have been better and easier in production but it is not guaranteed that it would satisfy the need!
I dare even to say that a 5cm gun for panzer III series and a 7,5-cm-KwK 40 L/43 for the Panzer IV´s would have made a big diffrence!
In the end the Panzer IV was the backbone of all Panzerdivisions to the end of the war…

@legion3:

Naturally though, I voted for the USSR,  :wink: the opportunity to knock them out of the war or at least to take and hold Moscow, a major road, rail and communication hub with no equal in the Soviet Union, was available in the early fall of 41 had the Germans not been diverted and thus delayed in the turn south into the Ukraine. Another Hitler directive.

I take a few issues with this, It is VERY common to overestimate the value of moscow. Because moscow was such a hub, it would be very easy to link the railroads behind moscow, they are not that far apart. The russians built ALOT of railroad in WW2, and this would have been a very small challenge for them. They could probably have made Gorky their new capitol. losing moscow would not have been the end of russia by far.

As long as the russian army is alive and well supplied, russians would win this showdown. What the hitler directive did was to divert the panzers south, to help with the capture of kiev, What this move did was to encircle 700 000 russian soliders and to hasten the capture of Kryvbas and Krivoy Rog, which where the main prodcution of russian steel, dealing another devestating blow to the russian economy. This move severy reduced the resuplyment of the red army and encircled alot of the russian prewar division. This means that the 700k soliders they encircled was among the best equipped and best trained russian divisions. I could very easily argue that if the germans had gone for moscow instead, then these divisions and the increased russian production could have made the summeroffensive of 42 impossible, and the russian winter counterattacks in the winter of 41/42 that much more devestating. It was already devestating because of the of the 18 siberian divisions (guessing about 500K soliders). If you double the number of trained soliders, then the germans would probably have been lucky to even hold moscow, and if they tried, a stalingrad situation might have developed.

@Audacity:

Very interesting.  Can you direct us to published material about this?

I certainly can. My best source is “THE SS, Hitlers Instrument of Terror” by Gordon Williams. It was actually Himmlers idea to incorporate Muslims into SS units as an experiment. They used their new power to quickly murder “religious infidels” including Jews and were eventually given only police authority because of their lack of obediance to SS order. They had their own special collar tabs but were never issued an SS Honour cuff on the sleeve. Himmler had these units engaged in the Balkans, around Greece and a few other minor battles. They were actually fought VERY poorly and were taken off the front lines. For the rest of the war, the units that weren’t disbanded were used for anit-partisan activities and were “attached” to another SS unit but did not have the title SS.

It was a brief experiment that elated Himmler. Hitler has little to do with it as far as I know.

PS – thanks for all the Karma while I’ve been out sick for the last month. You guys rock.