HRM JeffRoi

While I believe there are some operations of a large enough scale to be modelled by a CM-like system (not all of them late war--Masher for example) I agree with them who say it would be better modeled by something that works on a smaller scale. Something on the scale of individual soldiers, more or less, wherein the scope of your command would be squad leader to platoon leader more or less, largest scale being company commander would be ideal. I've played Vietnam-era scenarios in TacOps, and I don't think it was the most interesting or illuminating for that conflict. Not all the potential scenarios are boring--I think any scenario involving a hot LZ would be interesting, and scenarios such as leading seal team to assassinate a local politico,or leading a NVA sapper team on an attack on a U.S. firebase would be particularly challenging. But scenarios like the marines at Khe Sanh or VC enduring Arc Light attacks at Cu CHi would be dull and depressing. A game system very similar to CM could be effective, and as far as the 3d goes, I bet a lot of the jungle could be treated as solid masses of vegetation and if the texture mapping were clever if it would look great too. Hrm. by the time such a beast could be developed computers might be able to model every blade of grass in Southeast Asia effectively. A WWI game could have an "attack senselessly until everyone except for the General, his wife, and their pet tortoise Allan are killed" feature.

$0.02 on Monty: I agree that Monty is NOT one of the worst. I am very much of the camp that he wasn't one of the best, and that relieving Auchinleck was a big mistake. The second battle of el-Alamein was not a pushover, but it is worth noting that Monty built up until he had *twice* the force that Auchinleck requested to press the attack. It's been a while since I read this stuff but I remember a lot of British historians being pro-Monty and Americans being anti-Monty, which echoed each nation's military philosophy and sentiment during the war. As far as the Dutch intelligence and infiltration goes, I agree there was reason to discount intelligence of German troop strength, but I don't buy that ignoring reports of the road not being suitable for passing a tank corps was justifiable in the slightest. The "damn Dutch" are still bewildered that any fool would have tried to bring armor up that road on such a tight schedule, and *any* Dutch in England right up to Queen Beatrice herself would have no doubt advised Monty thus. I strongly disagree that the potential payoff for Market-Garden made it worth it--had it succeeded, the price in lives was still too high in my book--not only that, but the lives of elite paratrooper units. Colossal waste. I believe that MOnty's primary motive in Market-Garden was potential personal glory, and he callously threw human lives at that goal on the chance that *if* it succeeded--his reputation would be guaranteed. If he failed, which arguably should have seemed even at the time the most likely outcome--the tremendous risk of men and materiel would hamper the war effort. I have to admit that while I've looked at the maps and stats and strategic assessments and stuff, my disgust over Market-Garden is more a result to talking to children and grandchildren of British soldiers who were there than any objective assessment. The anti-Monty sentiment was very intense among British veterans of Market-Garden, surprisingly the anti-Monty sentiment was more stronger and more consistent than anti-Westmoreland sentiment among American Vietnam vets. (This needs to be qualified, however--I a) didn't talk to any of the British vets directly, and talked directly to a large number of American Vietnam vets). All in all, I agree that Monty doesn't belong on the worst list, but the idea of his being on the best, or underrated list, makes me want to vomit. BTW I still feel it's tough to top Graziani as the biggest moron. I stand by him, even with such outstanding nominees as Goering and the Fuehrer himself. Thanks to whoever started this thread, this sort of bickering is always fun. I believe that there is very little in history that wouldn't benefit from being bickered over--assumptions need to constantly be tested and reevaluated.

Addendum, again off-topic: An interesting article on Yoshikawa, certainly the best known and most productive Pearl Harbor spy. http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/1997/05973_text.htm

I may be mistaken but wasn't Mrs. Mori Japanese (as opposed to Japanese-American)? Definitely like to know.

I remember the monthly installment mag as being really good, but I haven't looked at it since about the early 1980s. There is a good amount of detail, and major battles are covered well, with maps, photos, &c., and many less well-known incidents, such as Katyn Wood, are covered with a high degree of detail. All in all, I can't think of anything I've run across since then that does an equally good job of covering *everything*. BTW I agree that Keegan is very good and very readable. The one caveat is that he is also very British. .

Further notes on Kimmel and Pearl Harbor: Based on what I've read I believe that Kimmel was scapegoated. There were several problems with U.S. preparedness, most notably that the base had a very predictable routine for comings and goings. While it is true that Billy Mitchell predicted the attack years earlier (or at least described it as a plausible threat), I believe that it is important to remember that at the time, there was little tangible evidence that carrier-based aviation could be as devastating as it proved to be at Pearl Harbor, and the possibilities were not apparent to all. While the paranoia about sabotage that resulted in the land-based aircraft largely being sitting ducks at the time seems moronic now, many at the time believed that carrier-based aviation didn't pose much of a threat. Even the Japanese under Yamamoto, an advocate of carrier airpower, didn't anticipate the kind of success they achieved at Pearl Harbor. So I believe that this misunderstanding of the technology has to be taken into acccount when trying to compare Kimmell and the rest of the Pearl Harbor guys to someone like GRaziani, who had little to mitigate his ineptitude. THE FOLLOWING RANT IS A BIT OFF-TOPIC: It is worth noting that through the first half of 1941 (approximately, I'd have to look it up to be sure) ship movements were reported in the local paper, making it extremely easy for spies to track ship movements and dispositions. BTW to my knowledge there is not a single documented case of a Japanese-American either spying for Japan or conducting sabotage, yet *ALL* the Japanese-Americans on the west coast were moved to 'internment' camps. Concentration camps. Many of the JA draftees, for example those serving in the 442nd, were fighting for the United States while their families were in concentration camps. A bit off-topic but this is something that I believe needs to be more widely known.

It's worth mentioning the difference in scale of the various commands makes it hard to compare. Hitler, as a leader of a nation, had many more opportunities to screw up. This aside, I still stick with Graziani. Somewhere back in the thread, JasonC recounted his bungling. I support this selection on the grounds that he lost an entire army in a very short time while possessing vast numerical superiority. So on the basis of magnitude of screwing up, and also win/lost percentage (OK, so it isn't a sport, but..) Some argue that the italians were poorly equipped, but even so--other poorly-equipped armies have fared much better against better-equipped enemies (the Vietnam war is a great example of this). Back to the Monty bashing: while I agree that he might not be the worst, and did have some successes, anyone who supports Market-Garden is a fool, and anyone who thinks it was feasible to bring the tanks up that single road has most likely never seen the Dutch countryside (and not done their homework). Once, when flying to London, the passenger next to me noticed I was reading a book about Market-Garden. He got all choked up, and shaking. His father had been an officer at Arnhem. To his knowledge, the general opinion of officers who had been at Arnhem was bitter incredulity that Monty would throw so many lives away on a suicide mission on the unrealistic chance that it might succeed, and thus bolster Monty's career and ego. Unfortunately, the articles I read about El Alamein, I read about 15 years ago, and while I have them somewhere, I'm not sure I can find them any time soon. However, there were about three different sources that criticized Monty for not pressing the attack after he relieved Achinleck, saying that Monty's buildup gave Rommel wiggle room, thus allowing him to preserve what was left of his battered Afrika Corps and retreat across the desert. That said, there was an upside to replacing Auchinleck with Monty: apparently Auchinleck was a introverted, not particularly charismatic, and replacing him with the colorful Monty had a big upside propaganda-wise. And with the buildup, the Allies would not lose the battle. The real turning point in NOrth Africa, however, was (in my opinion) the first battle of El Alamein, not the second. BTW I also agree that Zhukov shouldn't be on this list at all. PS I particularly liked the comment "except for one big mistake, Hitler might have won." Whoa. What a mistake that was.

New York, NY, USA

My vote defintely goes to Graziani, although if you roll in political and economic decisions, Hitler is tough to beat. I'm damn glad that someone mentioned Montgomery. Too bad impatient Churchill replaced Auchinleck with Monty, the war in North Africa would most likely have been over sooner had someone pressed the attack after the first battle of El Alamein. Monty gets my vote for worst Allied commander.