Who do you think were the best WW2 commanders. For me on the British side Brian Horrocks was a brilliant commander, and very underated. Monty was to set in his own ways, always wanting his "Set peace Battles".
Also General Sim in charge of the 14th Army was brilliant.
German Commanders, well, Rommel for a start, then Manstein, Guderian, Model, and Student, but also Paul Hausser.
American, to me Patton was the best.
Russia, Zhukov, Koniev, and Chuikov.
Japan, Yammamoto.
Do you have any favourites.
Scott

I think the Russian & German generals were far ahead of their Allied counterparts, particularly when considering the huge sizes of the formations fighting on the Eastern Front.

Scott, I think you mentioned all the ones I would have said. Great minds think alike!

For America I have always like Patton. He was a true SOB, but he gained ground and killed the enemy.

On the German side I think either Rommel or Guderian were the tops. Ever wonder what it would have been like to turn Rommel loose in Russia during the first stages fo the invasion?

Yammamoto was so close to really hurting the US Pacific fleet. His Midway plan might have worked if we hadn't broken thier code.

Zhukov had to one heck of a leader to keep his forces from falling apart during the German offensives. They were being so beat up, but still held on and turned the tide.

Another great leader was Adolf Galland. He had one fo the worst jobs in Germany and still lead his forces during hard times. General of fighter forces defending teh Reich. Hitler never did like defense and was always sticking his nose in the fighters business.

There were also some rotten leaders, but I am keeping thsoe to myself. Don't want to start any problems.

Patton would not make my top 10. He was a great tactican, but knew nothing about strategy. Omar and Ike were what made the American Army in Europe go. Of course to me the geratest General was George C. Marshall. He ran the entire war effort for the United States and that included trying to rein in Dougie in the Pacific and work with Earnest King in keeping the Pacific under control as well as Eisenhower and Churchill in keeping the Europe side stabilized (not to mention helping Roosevelt fend off the Soviet Union). He was so important that Roosevelt would not let him run Overloard which as senior general he was entited to.

I would have to go with Rommel on the German side...he understood the strategic implications of all that he did as well as the tactics. Model probably runs a close second. Zukov for the Russians I agree with and Yammamoto (though an Admiral) was also a brilliant stratagist

I think Patton was obvoisly the best and most successful American commander. He knew how to use tanks to their fullest and always foresaw the Germans' next move (he predicted the Battle of the Bulge).

I don't know much about British commanders, but I know that Monty wasn't that great, in my opinion. He was too defensive, and, as SFraser said, too set in his own ways.

I don't know much about Russia, either, but from what I've read, Zhokov was the best.

As for the japanese, I think Yamamoto was best. He had the advantage of knowing how the Americans though, since he studied at Harvard.

And, finally, the Desert Fox is Germany's best. He was very much like Patton.

One that hasn't been mentioned yet is Nimitz. I think his command of the US Pacific Fleet from just after Pearl Harbor to the final victory was masterful. While I believe the ultimate outcome was never really in doubt I think it could have been a lot longer and harder without Nimitz. The best thing about him is he did it without being a prima donna like MacArthur.

I guess a lot comes down to what you call a "commander." To me it has to be somebody with true strategic thinking. I wouldn't label either Patton or Rommel in that regard. On the western Allied side I'd go with Ike. I also believe that Monty is unjustly blasted by some. Monty thad wo strategic considerations that he had to keep in mind at all times. One that the British were just about at the bottom of the manpower barrel and he had to do his best to keep casualties as low as possible. This may be one reason his men loved him. The other was that the British government required that the British be an equal partner with the Americans to the best of his ability. Politically he couldn't be allowed to have the Americans have all the spotlight. He may have gone too far in this direction, but he did what he thought needed to be done.

I'm ashamed to say I don't know enough about the other German and Russian commanders to make a educated statement on them.

As far as Yammamoto I blow hot and cold on him. His plan for Pearl Harbor, and the first six months of the war was pure genius. His plan for Midway was a joke. With the forces he had available he could have sailed straight to Midway with his entire fleet and dared the USN to do something about it. I understand his strategic objective of needing to destroy the USN, but his plan was way to complicated to do that. He also didn't do so hot in the Solomons wasn't much better.

On the American side in the Pacific ~
Halsey, Spruance, Vandergrift, McCampbell and Thatch.

DUHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't read the topic title. The early posts did nothing but talk about generals so I forgot Admirals. Yes Definitley Nimitz, Halsey and Spruance.

I disagee about not including Romel. Everyone thinks of him and the Afrika Korps. He designed the West wall for the defence of NOrthern France, given more time he would have made it impenetratable. He got severly wounded during Normandy and then the bomb plot a month later. Who knows what he would have done in defending the French territory and crossing into Germany. I doubt Patton would have had the success he did have of racing up to the Rhine prior to Ardennes.

Nimitz and Hallsey were good, but they made mistakes that cost a lot of lives, especially the cock-up at Tarrawa. Patch was a good commander in the Pacific, before he went to France.
Ike was good but he was a "Desk-General", he was never in the at the sharp end like Patton was, and thats why Patton's soldiers idolized him.
Another Japanese Commander that was good was Nagumo, his planning and strategy was brilliant.
For the Waffen SS I'd say that Steiner was brilliant, and very underated. Same as Sepp Dietrich.
I agree that if Rommel was let loose in Russia, I think that the Russian campaign would have been won. Like wise if Manstien was sent to North Africa.
Another British commander was General O'Connor, to take half a million Italian prisoners with 30,000 men was brilliant. Same as Brigadier Jock Campbell, he was brilliant, and a get stuck in General.
Scott

I think to ask who the "top WW2 commanders" were is a bit of a loose question. What do you mean by commander? After all, even a company commander is a commander.

I think if we're looking at star-rank officers, we still need to look further up the ladder than say divisional commanders or even corps commanders. Otherwise there are just too many. For instance Gavin was probably the best paratroop general of his generation, but can't really be called one of the great commanders of WW2.

Both Rommel & Patton while being great leaders never commanded the numbers that made strategy necessary. Same goes for Steiner. And Sepp Dietrich was just lucky; even the Germans acknowledged that he could barely read a map.

So for the Germans, I'd still give it to "Schnell Heinz" Guderian.

Zhukov for the USSR, not for his great strategy & tactics, but for the sheer strength of presence it took to channel an army of that size and make it so effective.

Has to be Monty for the Brits. To say he was too defensive is incorrect; his forte was the set-piece battle, the opposite of Patton, who lived and died a cavalryman.

I'm not sure any one American or Japanese commander stood up as a commander of the stature of the above mentioned (maybe McArthur), though they had many others who were brilliant at a smaller unit level (like Gavin and Patton).

I don't know too much about naval warfare, so I'll avoid the temptation to just mention the famous.