PiggDogg Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Monty definitely does not go on the worst list. However, he surely did bungle Market-Garden. Now if Patton had commanded the 21st Army Group or the Brit 2nd Army there ... Makes one wonder that maybe not "A Bridge Too Far". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brujay Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 I kept scrolling and scrolling, looking for somebody to mention Monty. Herr Oberst hid it on the head. Monty was not the "worst" commander of the war (nobody on the winning side can be the worst), but he was one of the most overpromoted. Even during the war the Brits had a joke about Field Marshall Montgomery: What's a Montgomery martini? 13 to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cafard Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Well well well, Too bad i have to vote for my country in this... i'd qualify french generals in charge for the "brilliant" campaign of '40... Hmmm, maybe i'll even give a "special congratulation" to the first one to say that "Germans can't cross the Maginot line". Indeed, technically speaking, they did not 'cross' it... -- Cafard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 IMHO thanks to the efforts of the men involved Market Garden was very close to being a sucess despite a ton of bad luck as well as some bad planning. If it had suceeded it would have been hailed as one of the most brilliant and daring plans ever devised. I've also seen MacArthur getting some stick for his failings. I'm not sure about his WW2 record, but he did go on to organise one of the most outstandingly successful operations in military history - the landings at Inchon. At a stroke it ruined all the gains previously made by the North Koreans and was a complete suprise. He can't have been all that bad either. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Okay Hitler is the easy one. And the fact that Goering was allowed to stay in command was Hitler's fault. In fact most everything that went wrong for Germany was Hitler's fault. That being said I am going to have to go with my personal vendetta and vote Monty though as the worst friggen commander of the war. For one simple reason, he gets all this celebration for doing nothing! Give me like five times my enemies number and I would probably rack up a pretty impressive score also. Not to mention that the enemy can barely move due to lack of fuel. Oh and exactly how many times must one commander attack Caen. Hmm pre-assault bombardment followed by a general advance. No that didn't work so lets try something new. I know how about a pre-assault bombardment with a general advance. Yeah that is the ticket. Really if this guy did not have the manpower/economic base to work from then we would all be laughing at his ridiculous losses and complete lack of ability. Some people just get lucky (Monty) and other do not (anyone that was assigned to Monty). That is my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferdinand Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cafard: Too bad i have to vote for my country in this... i'd qualify french generals in charge for the "brilliant" campaign of '40... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The one who is usually singled out is the general Gamelin, I think. Now, doesn't this thread belong to the general forum ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetch Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Okay, about MacArthur not scrambling his bombers in the Phillipines -- I'm not 100% sure about this but I seem to recall reading in grad school that the B17s were scrambled to protect them as soon as they got word of the attack on Pearl. Unfortunately, the Japanese planes struck the airfields there many hours later. By that time, the US bombers had already returned and landed and people were starting to relax a little bit. I could be wrong and I don't have access to my sources here, but that's the way I remember it. ps - MacArthur still sucked. Vetch -------------- They're ivory. Only a New Orleans pimp would carry pearl handled revolvers. Patton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kburns24: Yes, Zhukov may have won many battles, but at what cost? Yes, battles were won and Germany was defeat. Great. He is my pick because of the utter waste he displayed at throwing men and material at the German war effort on the East Front. A great military mind puts into consideration all aspects of a battle. One being, victory at what cost? Zhukov knew that he had millions of men to pull from and he was reckless in his tactics when employing them. I suppose you'll be defending trench warfare and its effectiveness in WWI also? Another great waste.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What utter f@cking idiocy! :mad: I suppose it would have been better if the Soviets decided to not pay the cost that they did and fold. Yes, that would have been a jolly lot nicer. Hell, let's just send all our Jews and Slavs and just about everyone else to get killed in concentration camps. Its a lot better then fighting for your life and having a fightin' chance, after all. Let's just lie down and take it in the nads, like the rest of Europe! Now tell me, Mr. burns, if you were a general and had your country with its military undergo such reforms and purges that your army required major refurnishing, your doctrine was dated, and just to stop the German advance somewhat you had to send it poorly equipt troops which were basically conscript farmers. Why, I suppose a military genius would take all this into consideration and say "To hell with this, Im surrendering!" Evil evil stupid Zhukov! How DARE he keep on fighting without taking into consideration the cost in lives?! Sure, those lives would have been lost anyway thanks to the Nazi stance on "none-Aryans", but common, what kind of an idiot was this Zhukov guy? Oh, and Roberto, I appreciate you taking the stance up on this, but some of your info is also wrong. "Zhukov used his assets: lots of warm bodies, lots of good, easy to produce tanks, lots of lend lease materiale, and a culture that had a cheap opinion of human life. The Russians bled the Germans white. There was no other way for the Russians to win. If Zhukov had to send 10 Russian to kill one German and had to lose 5 of those Russians to kill the German, his country was willing to pay the price." The Russians never had an advantage of 10 to 1, overall. The population of Russia when compared with Germany's was only 2 to 1. Now, it is true that Germans sent some troops to other fronts. However, the major superiority was achieved through Russian operation skill, where they would break through German lines en masse after a successful concentration of forces at an enemy weakpoint. Its rather foolish to think that during the whole war Soviets wasted 5 to 1 men when compared with the Nazis. "In fact, the Western allies did basically did the same thing as the Russians except with finesse: overwhelm the Germans. The Western allies simply saved the high butcher bill by having and using effectively a whole lot of artillery and a whole lot of infantry killing Sherman tanks." Ah-huh. Finnesse, is it? I guess the Soviets didnt have this finesse because unlike the other major Allies (Brits and the US), they didnt have an ocean seperating them from Germany. That way, they couldnt hide behind it, in Britain's case warding off an ocasional Air attack, build up their industry and train their soldiers. In the Soviet case, Nazi's were Blitzing through Russia and they had to use whatever they had to stop them. There was no time for "finesse" as you say, because "finesse" takes a jolly lot of time to develop. The other Allies lost so little because they didnt have their civilians brutaly murdered and their country pillaged while still having to try and stop the Germans from reaching your industry before you could have some hope of doing something with it. Do you even realise that the Soviets used a helluva lot more Arty and tanks then the other Allies? Do you really think it was "finesse" that saved the other Allies and not the fact that the majority of the German army was strugling against the Soviets? Right, Ive said all that was needed at the moment. Sorry about the cursing and the sometime harsh use of language on my part. I just despise foolish misconceptions. Oh, and by the way, I AM Russian and I WAS a former communist, and damn proud of it, too. So there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Commissar -Sorry you are a former communist and proud of it - I agreed with every point you had up to there; however, we need not debate communism to agree that kburns24 is an idiot. Zhukov, like any good commander, assessed the resources at his disposal and used them as best he could. I note with amusement the comment about the artillery -- the Russians were well known for their unearthly artillery barrages preceding ANY major attack (another reason I hope CM2 has a shell hole terrain set). The Soviets always had more tubes than the Germans, and use them. As far as finesse goes, I guess the actions in the Huertgen forest, teh Vosges, and Market Garden were examples of the Western Allies' "finesse". How about Patton's repeated assault of fortifications in southern France that could (and should) have been bypassed (the name escapes me, but an entire section of on of Ambrose' books discusses it)? I do think the Western Allies generally showed a greater ability to take ground with a lower rate of losses than the Soviets, but to say Zhukov was one of the worst generals of the war is sheer idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 I couldn't ressist commenting about Mac. The reason so many Luzon survivors would like to shoot him to this day was that he forward deployed everything. They could have held out much longer if he had picked one area to toughly defend. Instead they fell back into a defensive perimiter that could be defended, but without any food or ammo, so they had to surrender. I saw a Luzon vet go ballistic in a grocery store when some other older man mentioned how great Mac was compared to the military heros now days. "He left us there to starve!" the man kept yelling. He did much better in Korea, but it ended with disaster for him. His head got big and he thought he could mess with Chinas border. Ooops. He gave the Chinease the reason they were looking for to help the North Koreans directly. He definitely is not the worst WWII general, but he should get honorable mention as one of the U.S.A.'s biggest SNAFU artist. After all his army was the biggest U.S. surrender in its history. I have a question about the B-17's. Where was the fighter cover? Why did Mac not have fighters to protect his B-17's? I also read that he scrambled his B-17's, but they were bombed when they had to land for fuel. Why no fighter cap? Was he one of those military commanders who underestimated air power? Also Mac is loved by Republicans and called the "Republican General." Who was the "Democratic General?" Personally I like my generals to be less political than Mac was. But I can see the need for such commanders when you are fighting with allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Commissar -Sorry you are a former communist and proud of it - <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Before everyone else along with the kitchen sink jump on me about that statement, let me clarify that I am proud of once being a member of the Soviet Union, which Westerners refered to as communists even though it was really more of a dictatorship. I do not believe in communism, which is impossible to achieve for reasons I care not discuss, but I am not ashamed to mention that I was indeed someone the West would have refered to as communist - something other people make haste to clarify that they are not. If that made any sence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darsalon Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 To add another one into the mix - Marshall Budenny who managed to suffer the single worst defeat (in terms of losses) of the entire war at Kiev in '41. Something like 500,000 it is reckoned? Don't know the full ins and outs of the whole thing but it probably didn't help with Stalin refusing to yield ground at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niten Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Darsalon just beat me to Marshall Budienny, who commanded the Soviet forces at the time of Barbarossa. A perfect example of how the Stalin purgues managed to remove from the top ranks the most competent Russian officers and replaced them by politically sound staff who could not differentiate between the front and rear ends of a KV-I. What is interesting, though, is to notice how Stalin finally changed his approach when faced with necessity and promoted the likes of Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Koniev, while most of Hitler's competent generals ended up in retirement (Von Manstein being the most conspicuous case, but also Guderian or Heinrici, who was recalled to defend Berlin), or dead (Rommel) and the political cronies stayed at the top (Model anyone?) Oh, and Goering should be way at the top of the list. Not only for his mismanagement of the Luftwafe for the full war (most famous phrase of the war: Goering to Hitler: "I will eat my hat if a single Allied bomb falls over Berlin"), but also for always being the "yes man" of Hitler ("Me202s should be used as fighter- bombers") and for keeping his "private army" by maintaining all paratroopers and land Luftwafe units separate from any other chain of command. Having separate SS and army commands was pretty bad, but adding a third one was ridiculous ... Niten, newly arrived to this forum [ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Niten ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Before everyone else along with the kitchen sink jump on me about that statement, let me clarify that I am proud of once being a member of the Soviet Union, which Westerners refered to as communists even though it was really more of a dictatorship. I do not believe in communism, which is impossible to achieve for reasons I care not discuss, but I am not ashamed to mention that I was indeed someone the West would have refered to as communist - something other people make haste to clarify that they are not. If that made any sence... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually that did make sense. I have never believed that all or even a good majority of the people living in the former Soviet Union were avid supporters of communism. I have always thought that many joined the party for purely personal reasons (get a better job, advancement, house, power, etc., etc.) and have often wondered if I would have joined for the same reasons (answer -- probably so; my family's needs come before my political ideology). I think there were many in the former Soviet Union who despised communism but saw no way to supplant it at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 This goes into pretty good detail about the Japanese invasion of the Phillipines. I guess the US planes were outnumbered about 5-1. There is some controversy over why so many planes were caught on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Worst German commanders in acending order: Hausser (Kiss my a** Manstein! I am committing my SS Panzer Corps to city fight) Kluge (Gee I think the Kursk offensive is a dandy idea) Paulus (Operational reserve? What operational reserve?) Sepp Dietrich (thug/chauffer to SS Army commander in three easy steps) Himmler (chinless psychotic dweeb whimpering in his command train) Hitler (psychotic corporal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niten Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Himmler? Although my description of the man could not be posted here as it would go against the "no- profanity" rules of this boar, he s, in my view, not a canddate for worst commander in WWII, for the simple reason that he lacked relevance in most of the key strategic decissions (i.e., they were Hitler's and he just said "Ja, Her Fuhrer!!"). That's actually the main differece between him and the Reichsmarshall, as Goering was supreme commander of tho whole Air Forces .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Perdido Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brujay: What's a Montgomery martini? 13 to 1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not to be a cocktail grog (pun brutally intended), but the "Montgomery" (supposedly a favorite of Ernest Hemingway) is 15 to 1. What were the odds at El Alemein, anyhow? Agua Perdido Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 As for worst military commander, I would have to say Hitler. He was brilliant as a politician but horrible as a military commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darsalon: To add another one into the mix - Marshall Budenny who managed to suffer the single worst defeat (in terms of losses) of the entire war at Kiev in '41. Something like 500,000 it is reckoned? Don't know the full ins and outs of the whole thing but it probably didn't help with Stalin refusing to yield ground at that time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Budenny wasn't a terrible general, really. He wasn't really a modern general, and his heyday was definitely 1919-1921. The problem definitely wasn't that he was some staff officer who'd been overpromoted; he'd been a Marshal for years, and was one of the only full Marshals to survive the purges. I'm also not sure any Soviet general could have performed much better under the circumstances immediately after Barbarossa. As for worst generals, I might go with McNair. I hate to be so callous, but it was probably good for the Army that the AAF dropped a short on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 I'd like to nominate the Kiwi Officer (I forget his rank - Colonel or Brigadier) who declined to make a counter attack at Maleme Airfield on Crete. I forget he idiot's name, but I can dig it up if required!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Before everyone else along with the kitchen sink jump on me about that statement, let me clarify that I am proud of once being a member of the Soviet Union, which Westerners refered to as communists even though it was really more of a dictatorship. I do not believe in communism, which is impossible to Originally posted by The Commissar: [QB]...I am proud of once being a member of the Soviet Union, which Westerners refered to as communists even though it was really more of a dictatorship. I do not believe in communism, which is impossible to achieve for reasons I care not discuss, but I am not ashamed to mention that I was indeed someone the West would have refered to as communist -...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I live in the west, and I understand you fully... Maybe I was helped by a gfriend from the former East Germany. Not all people in the former west learn about communism in the TV, some actually read History/Philosophy books about it, a few, but again, some Back to Zhukov... it's not one of my favorites, (maybe I lack some knowledge on is tactics), but I specially like that propaganda photo where he is "flying" in a withe horse... what was the name of the photograph ? Michael Dorosh... Thanks, yes it's a very good candidate for the list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 I agree - Hitler - for the same reasons that have already been stated. And except for one big mistake he would have probably won - taking on two fronts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Niten: Himmler? ....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Himmler commanded Army Group Vistula at the end of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 Originally written by Agua <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What were the odds at El Alemein, anyhow?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Numerically about 2:1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts