World War II Army Commanders.

[stigmata]

I think Patton was a good field marshal, not because he was an exeptional strategist or tactician, but because he induced "fighting spirit" and provided a moral boost.

Doesnt sound as fancy but i do believe its of at least equal value.

 

[iRule]

I think Patton was a good field marshal, not because he was an exeptional strategist or tactician, but because he induced "fighting spirit" and provided a moral boost.

Doesnt sound as fancy but i do believe its of at least equal value.

I completely agree with you , Patton's best property was his discipline and his fighting spirit .

 

[Scott]

Patton was my favorite too. Results is another reason to admire him. I can't help but wonder what might have happened if he had been politically correct.

 

[Cooch]

With respect, I will continue to argue that for a commander to be classified as truly "great', then he must be able to satisfy a number of criteria. not just one or two.

- Competent at a tactical level, working to anorther's plan
- Competent at a strategic level, including being able to plan and carry out a campaign of his own.
- Both flexible, and yet - when required - able to hold to his plan in face of distractions and feints.
- Competent at both offensive and defensive warfare.
- Competent in the use of varied arms and unit types.
- Competent over a variety of types of warfare and terrain.
- Competent in the estimation of enemy capabilities, and those of his own forces - knowing when boldness against superior forces is justified, and when it is stupidity.
- Competent in the management of the political aspects that have such a great capacity to affect your ability to fight successfully.

While it's not inappropriate to have favourites, it's worth remembering that some of those nominated did not command successfully at the highest level, and did not demonstrate mastery of many different forms of warfare.

Regards.......... Peter