peterx | 18 Jul 2016 3:55 p.m. PST |
Who were the worst generals of France, Britain, Russia, Italy, Germany and Japan? Give an explanation please as to why you consider them the worst. OK, go! |
torokchar | 18 Jul 2016 4:17 p.m. PST |
Germans and Japanese – they LOST. |
Winston Smith | 18 Jul 2016 5:55 p.m. PST |
At what level of command? Army? Corps? And let's not leave out American. |
leidang | 18 Jul 2016 6:21 p.m. PST |
General Malaise was pretty bad for the French. |
zippyfusenet | 18 Jul 2016 6:41 p.m. PST |
Klimenti Voroshilov was past his prime in the Second World War. He failed in command of the Red Army during the Winter War, and again on the Leningrad Front during Barbarossa. Heinrich Himmler commanded Army Group Vistula to it's final collapse. It must be said of both men that they remained resolute in defeat. Friedrich Paulus allowed his Sixth Army to be trapped in Stalingrad, then obeyed Hitler's orders and passed up every opportunity to break out and save any part of his army. He disappointed Hitler by surrendering with the last of his men, then turned his coat and actively served the Russians for the rest of the war. Perhaps he was finally right to do that, but he had been very wrong up to that point. |
Mooseworks8 | 18 Jul 2016 7:31 p.m. PST |
I'm adding the USA: Lloyd Fredendall "..Fredendall, who was arrogant, opinionated, and perhaps less than stable ;.." -Kasserine Pass Battles I remember reading somewhere that he referred to his infantry as "foot boys" and his artillery as "pop sticks." I'm sure that is an incorrect quote on the exact terms he used but it still shows his down the nose attitude he had towards the common soldier.
|
Grelber | 18 Jul 2016 7:33 p.m. PST |
Lt. Gen. Visconti Prasca turned down additional troops because more divisions would mean the army in Albania would need to be commanded by a full general, and he would be replaced. Grelber |
vtsaogames | 18 Jul 2016 7:54 p.m. PST |
Percival was utterly defeated by a force he outnumbered 3 to 1. What more can be said? |
Rapier Miniatures | 19 Jul 2016 1:50 a.m. PST |
Rommel, lost North Africa, failed to stop the invasion. |
Mike Target | 19 Jul 2016 2:28 a.m. PST |
I've often wondered about Rommel- He seems to get a lot of fanboys gushing over him but his campaigns read like a list of how not to fight a war- is it just that most of his opponents were mediocre at best that he looks better by comparrison? As soon as he went up against someone who had a vague idea of what they were doing he went to pieces so fast people got hit by the shrapnel… |
langobard | 19 Jul 2016 3:34 a.m. PST |
Another vote for Percival for worst of the British. I guess Gamelin has to be up there for the French. Fredeanall is the normal pick for the US, though I wonder what would be said for Hodges? After all, he planned and executed the Hurtgen disaster. Not sure where I stand on a lot of the Germans. Paulus has been mentioned a few times, but the truth is he was a chief of staff who was appointed as a commander because Hitler trusted him to follow his orders. Which he more or less did (overlooking the fact he wasn't supposed to surrender and was supposed to commit suicide). I think a lot of the blame does have to go to Hitler as he assumed more and more operational command that he should have delegated to his generals. |
Retiarius9 | 19 Jul 2016 3:51 a.m. PST |
|
langobard | 19 Jul 2016 4:39 a.m. PST |
Monty is a tough one. On the one hand he was good at not being prodded by Churchill and ensuring that he followed his own plans, and that (along with overwhelming supplies of just about everything) was enough in North Africa. On the other hand, he probably shouldn't have been promoted to Army Group command, and frankly, in a war of alliance, he was a lousy ally. Toss in his ego and it can be difficult to support Monty, but it cannot be denied that he did well at a time that the Brits in particular needed SOMEONE to do SOMETHING well. |
Rapier Miniatures | 19 Jul 2016 5:03 a.m. PST |
I am sorry but Monty, what planet do you come from. He was a pain and an Ego, bit so was Patton. And D Day was Montys plan, after the clearing of Paris, the drive to Belgium etc, there were no fixed plans, because they didn't know what condition the allies would be in at that point. So if Monty was a bad general for 44, so was Hodges, Patton, Eisenhower and Bradley, along with a whole host more. |
mkenny | 19 Jul 2016 5:04 a.m. PST |
Monty is a tough one. On the one hand he was good at not being prodded by Churchill and ensuring that he followed his own plans, and that (along with overwhelming supplies of just about everything) was enough in North Africa. Monty could only dream (for example)of the force ratio enjoyed by Bradley during COBRA. On the other hand, he probably shouldn't have been promoted to Army Group command, and frankly, in a war of alliance, he was a lousy ally. So how do you explain his multi-nation 8th Army in Italy? Truth is only one Ally had an issue with Monty and that was because he did not know his place and had the temerity to believe he was better than his critics. |
Frederick | 19 Jul 2016 5:29 a.m. PST |
Von Paulus was a good choice for the Germans – strict adherence to orders and failure to take initiative cost them the 6th Army For the Italians hard to beat Graziani – advanced like a snail, failed to position his troops in supporting positions, got beat like a drum by O'Connor For the Americans Mark Clark was a brilliant staff officer but a disappointing commander in Italy I am not a big Montgomery fan but he was well aware of the political and logistical challenges facing him and despite being happy to fight to the last Australian and Canadian he did pretty well overall considering how things turned out |
redbanner4145 | 19 Jul 2016 5:36 a.m. PST |
The Japanese general who engineered the invasion of India in 44. Basically his whole army starved to death. |
Mike Target | 19 Jul 2016 5:40 a.m. PST |
Monty doesnt deserve to be in any worst generals list- ok so he was no Alexander or Marlborough , but he was pretty reliable in the whole winning battles department. It usually his Ego that gets him into trouble but I would question whether you can have a succesful general that isnt filled with self confidence (regardless of whether its displayed as a quiet self assuredness or cocksure strutting bully or anything in between) …show me a general not supremely confident in his abilities (no matter how mediocre) and I'll show you a general about to lose a battle… |
Mike Target | 19 Jul 2016 5:46 a.m. PST |
For the USA Id have to say Fellers- Ok so he wasnt a general at the time, becoming one later….but how on earth do you give away ALL of your allies secrets causing the deaths of thousands and get promoted? I mean, c'mon! |
Winston Smith | 19 Jul 2016 6:53 a.m. PST |
I would much rather have Monty than MacArthur. Putting down a general because he has a big ego is denying one of the top job requirements. What good is a general with low self confidence? Would you like a brain surgeon who didn't know it all? A test pilot? A quarterback? Humility is highly overrated. It cracks me up when people praise Lee for being "humble". Sure he was. Right. Uh huh. Having said that, it's pretty obvious that many generals did not deserve high self esteem. Victory makes all the difference, and Monty won. |
Bellbottom | 19 Jul 2016 8:14 a.m. PST |
Not only that, but it was Monty's actions that put the cork in the 'bulge' |
Big Red | 19 Jul 2016 8:27 a.m. PST |
Monty was a great boss and a difficult subordinate. He was told to be sparing of casualties and he was. Mark Clark gets bad marks for his "Race to Rome" but the Italian Front was the only Allied theater in WWII where German to Allied casualty ratio was in favor of the Allies. Considering the terrain and the emphasis that SHAEF placed on other theaters, that was no mean feat. A big ego and a touch of sociopathy is not usually a handicap for high command. |
Weasel | 19 Jul 2016 8:44 a.m. PST |
I'd argue that if Monty is the worst you got, then it's pretty clear why the allies won the war :-) |
GOTHIC LINE MINIATURES | 19 Jul 2016 9:23 a.m. PST |
A good Irish friend just mentioned on a conversation 2 weeks ago on vacations that the good British Generals were in fact Irish!!! LOL !!! |
vtsaogames | 19 Jul 2016 9:33 a.m. PST |
Monty was a pain, but putting him in the same class with Percival is just wrong. Percival and his army army were captured by an attacking force that he outnumbered 3-1. Monty shattered a defending force he outnumbered 2-1 (Alamein). I think there's a big difference there. Whatever Monty's foibles, he produced a series of victories. His one defeat was a failure to capture all of his objectives, not a surrender of his entire force. As pointed out, Patton was a pain and so was MacArthur. |
Norman D Landings | 19 Jul 2016 9:57 a.m. PST |
Freyburg – promoted above his competence level, lousy win/loss ratio, benefited shamelessly from Churchill's patronage, was flat-out told everything the enemy was planning, and completely ignored the intel, took unwarranted personal risks, took a hard choice on Monte Cassino… and turned out to be wrong. |
langobard | 19 Jul 2016 6:38 p.m. PST |
So how do you explain his multi-nation 8th Army in Italy? Truth is only one Ally had an issue with Monty and that was because he did not know his place and had the temerity to believe he was better than his critics. The 8th Army was multinational well before Italy. Monty got on well with the Australian, New Zealand and Indian troops, but badly with the French. In Europe he didn't get on with the Canadians, Poles or uppity Americans who couldn't recognise his genius. The truth is that a LOT of allies had a difficult time with Monty, not just the Americans… |
langobard | 19 Jul 2016 6:53 p.m. PST |
And then there is the fact that Monty's relationship with his own air force was, at best, a strained one, at worst, a lot of the RAF heirachy wanted him sacked. He shouldn't be on the list of worst generals, and I admire a LOT of what he did, but I repeat, it was a war of alliance and he wasn't a very good ally. |
Winston Smith | 19 Jul 2016 7:24 p.m. PST |
Monty WON. That excuses a lot. |
Fred Cartwright | 19 Jul 2016 7:46 p.m. PST |
The truth is that a LOT of allies had a difficult time with Monty, not just the Americans… Actually the Americans who served under him got on with him quite well. Even the ones who were temporarily placed under his command for the Bulge battles and who were more than a little peeved at being switched to his command had no complaints of their treatment by him. It was the American brass he didn't get on with or they with him. He was critical of Ike, with some justification as Ike was no military genius and his running of the whole show from supreme commander land forces, SHAEF and all the political stuff was too much for one man. There was a great rivalry between him and Bradley. Bradley is an interesting character. Well liked by his men – the GI General, but he was no stellar performer either. His handling of the American side of the Normandy breakout was lacklustre. It took him a long time to get into position when the bulk and the best of the German troops were facing Monty, although it did give Monty time to destroy most of the German armour. I think a fair summation is that Monty, Ike, Bradley, Patton et al were all competent enough. Given that the Allies got the big decisions right in terms of strategy, industrial output etc all they had to do was avoid screwing up too badly. Even a major like allowing the Germans to hoodwink them over the Ardennes offensive mattered little as they had all the resources they needed to handle it. Even if the Germans had taken Bastogne and the Meuse bridges they would never have reached Antwerp. |
TacticalPainter01 | 19 Jul 2016 10:53 p.m. PST |
Monty fought a conservative, measured and careful war that saw the British army a viable force in being at final victory. In terms of generalship that's a pretty good result. The German High Command fought a rash, poorly conceived and strategically flawed war on the Eastern Front. They were beaten. Badly. Post-war they wrote their own self aggrandising history, focussing on some operational success, mainly in 1941. Even those successes failed to deliver any strategic victory. They blamed a dead man for all the mistakes. Very convenient. And we are debating Monty here? For real? |
Rapier Miniatures | 20 Jul 2016 4:28 a.m. PST |
Actually Montys issues with the RAF were with one man, Leigh-Mallory, who didn't believe D Day could succeed, and who earlier thought that Parks fought the Battle of Britain badly and got him removed… |
lou passejaire | 20 Jul 2016 8:24 a.m. PST |
De Lattre , for the late war French … |
Plasticviking3 | 20 Jul 2016 1:04 p.m. PST |
You have never heard of the worst generals. |
raylev3 | 20 Jul 2016 3:01 p.m. PST |
I'd say that Rommel was one of the most over rated generals of the war. |
TacticalPainter01 | 20 Jul 2016 6:32 p.m. PST |
Rommel came from the same school as most German Generals and suffered from the same problem. They had a flair for combat at a tactical and operational level but a debilitating blindness at the strategic level. All Rommel's tactical and operational flair in the desert amounted to absolutely nothing if it didn't achieve the strategic result of driving the British out of North Africa. In that sense he was no different to Manstein in Russia (or any number of other German Generals for that matter), who couldn't see how his operational successes meant little without strategic success. Kursk being a pivotal moment in the war that showed how completely bankrupt the German High Command were when it came to a strategic solution to the war in the East. Of course if their memoirs are to be believed it was just one operational victory after another….. all the way back to Berlin. |
Winston Smith | 21 Jul 2016 11:27 a.m. PST |
For most nations in a long war, the "worst" generals are usually the ones they start the war with. That's why the war drags on so long. Then it's a race to see who can find and promote the best ones so they can end and win the war. I admit this is a generalization and not always the case. |
Mike Target | 22 Jul 2016 4:21 a.m. PST |
Pretty true-even as late as the middle of '42 the British high command were looking at the bench, which only had Gott and Monty left sat on it and still managed to pick Gott to bat next, despite him telling them that he was beaten, and no tricks left up his sleeve…imagine if the Germans hadn't shot him on the way out to the crease …Monty would have been trying to turn the tide somewhere near Bhagdad at the back end of '43… |