WORST Generals of WWII?

[Andreas]

Just shows how little you know then.

All the best

Andreas

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Mekhlis still takes the first spot. The Cattle Reporter is spot on. Had he been on Crete, he would have had his officers lined up, shot and replaced with privates who had read 'Das Kapital. ' He would have his radios destroyed as counter-revolutionary instruments, except for the one which he had used to send fawning messages of to Stalin, and only released carrier pigeons on missions that could fly a star-pattern to demonstrate their allegiance to the cause of the workers. He would have spent his time collectivising the peasants, and this would have created a pro-German partisan force.

Then, with paratroopers dropping around him and the invasion fleet approaching, he would collect his men in political meetings, lecturing them on why fascism can not win, and employ them to destroy church icons while the paras stand around scratching their heads. Finally he would flee on a submarine leaving everybody else behind, denounce the new officers as traitors and have their families deported to Siberia.

All the best

Andreas

Succinctly put. Kip? Stop using Andreas' username.

[von Churov]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Just shows how little you know then.

All the best

Andreas

Maybe!

But I know that they had all the requirements for WORST general met in May '40.

At least most of them.

Fighting the opponent who was outnumbered, out gunned, and out almost everything, from defence positions...and loosing.

Just like in CM giving the deffender 1700 points opposed to atackers 1000.

And still loosing as defender.

Wow!

You have to be talented for something like that.

Few are those who can achieve that.

In CM you just have to click GO! to win such a battle. SO it's AI is the more advance opponent than the French generals of the time could have been.

Of course, they met Germans and their new approach, (somebody mentioned blitzkrieg, Sorry Michael) and Manstein in his moments of being inspired...but still, they could perform much better. MUCH MUCH better.

So...settle the score...

All the best to you to.

[Andreas]

What score? You clearly do not have any clue what you are talking about. Parroting rubbish purveyed by Fox News on French military performance is not good enough.

de Gaulle, Juin, Koenig, Leclerc. All solid to outstanding generals, with de Gaulle also capable of developing modern doctrine and providing some superb leadership from exile.

Clearly they had bad generals, but so did everybody else. To say that all or most of the French generals could qualify for worst is just stupid and shows your ignorance.

All the best

Andreas

[von Churov]

So, you named four of them?

Out of forty?

Out of hundred?

Its still a mainority.

So it the majority is on the other side...

Majority means MOST OF

[Andreas]

You are an idiot. Sorry, make that a clueless idiot. This anti-French tripe was not particularly funny when it first appeared, it is absolutely not funny now. It is mostly delivered by people like you who have not got an effing clue what they are talking about. That is really the only excuse that one can accept in those circumstances.

Since you obviously can not comment on any French generals (you even managed to stupidly put Foch into WW2), you are probably not quite qualified to make any judgements. But of course that won't stop you, because you are another one of those cases that merge their utter ignorance with the unstoppable desire to tell the world about their great opinions, which stops them from shutting up even when they are making total fools of themselves.

Have fun.

All the best

Andreas

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

But of course that won't stop you, because you are another one of those cases that merge their utter ignorance with the unstoppable desire to tell the world about their great opinions, which stops them from shutting up even when they are making total fools of themselves.

Well put. Now, how about YOU shut up and concentrate on making a total fool of yourself in our game of CMBB.

[WineCape]

Andreas, it's not worth it mate.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by WineCape:

Andreas, it's not worth it mate.

Are you refering to our PBEM game??? Mind your OWN business, Sir! :mad:

[von Churov]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You are an idiot. Sorry, make that a clueless idiot. This anti-French tripe was not particularly funny when it first appeared, it is absolutely not funny now. It is mostly delivered by people like you who have not got an effing clue what they are talking about. That is really the only excuse that one can accept in those circumstances.

Since you obviously can not comment on any French generals (you even managed to stupidly put Foch into WW2), you are probably not quite qualified to make any judgements. But of course that won't stop you, because you are another one of those cases that merge their utter ignorance with the unstoppable desire to tell the world about their great opinions, which stops them from shutting up even when they are making total fools of themselves.

Have fun.

All the best

Andreas

Sorry, was Fosh in charge of defining French defence docrine post WWI, therefore planting the seed of French defeat in May '40?

In some cases you don't have to be present (or alive)...you know. Your deeds have to.

He was dead, but his deeds were what brought (among other things) France to defeat.

Have fun too, my friend.

P.S. Don't call me names, PLEASE.

I know that some parts of history hurt...but we are supposed to be polite anyway.

[von Churov]

One more thing.

I AM NOT AN ANTI-FRENCH!

It's only you seeing it that way.

I don't pose to know everything, or to be an expert.

Moreover, I might be an ignorant...

But that doesn't change the fact that Franch Generals in '40 were absolutely incompetent. At least MOST of them.

And that they lost a war in few weeks, against all odds.

It takes no expert to see that.

Figures tell everything.

And you may go mad as much as you want, you can hate me as much as you want, and you can call me the names if that makes you happy, and whatever...But you can't change the facts.

And I'll stay polite. Despite of you.

Greetings Mister!

With love,

von Churov

[roqf77]

well to jump, im sure someone will post something significantly more substantial. but i had been led to believe that the french capituation in 1940 was more down to politics. vichy france which happily collaberated with the nazi's, used there political power to undermine them where they can.(p.s i admit freely here i am no authority, nor have i spent hours looking it up. sorry to offend anyone)

[juan_gigante]

Perhaps I'm a bit behind the times, but I'd like to speak up for "Dug-Out Doug". That nickname is actually woefully inaccurate. Douglas MacArthur spent large amounts of time at the front, in combat. He repeatedly (against the advice of much of his command staff) put his own life in danger so he could examine the current state of his fighting units. This was a habit of his from WWI (where he went over the top with his men) on.

And while I'll admit that sacrificing the initiative immediately after Pearl Harbor was a bad, bad decision, his defensive campaign in retreating into Bataan / Corregidor (sp?) was impressive. And even though early in the retaking of the many South Pacific islands he took his lumps, he soon adopted an strategy of bypassing and isolating Japanese strongholds and starving them out, saving the lives of many American soldiers. Was he a glory-hound politician? Yes. But did he still get the job done? Yes.

[The_Enigma]

ok so it seems Freyberg was probably not fully to blame the loss, but what about ignoring the intel from what ive read he did do that quite a bit there?

about the BOB to my understanding the air defence was split up into several sections, each of which had command of the wings stationed there.

Since the luftwaffe where mainly trying to force the raf back from the SE does this mean that the squadrons which would have been stationed to the west and SW where not involved in that battle so ... was the luftwaffe facing off agaisnt the majoirty of the raf or just a portion (25% ish)? (i know there was sqaudrons in north and in scotland and several of these if not all where brought into relieve battered and worn out ones)

Sorry, was Fosh in charge of defining French defence docrine post WWI, therefore planting the seed of French defeat in May '40?

In some cases you don't have to be present (or alive)...you know. Your deeds have to.

He was dead, but his deeds were what brought (among other things) France to defeat.

Have fun too, my friend.

the french doctrine for the beginning of ww2 was pretty sound when you look at the reasons they decided to use em.

build a massive impreginable defencive wall along your border to compenstate for the lack of manpower after the first world war.

from things ive read, they lacked the manpower to stop an invasion in the field and didnt have the indusitrial strength to contuine the war since the majorty of there industrial strength was still being built up after being ravanged during the pior war.

there doctrine suited there needs.

[ August 03, 2005, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

[von Churov]

Originally posted by roqf77:

well to jump, im sure someone will post something significantly more substantial. but i had been led to believe that the french capituation in 1940 was more down to politics.

No.

They have been UTTERLY defeated in the battlefield.

So it was not a political capitulation.

It was a complete military capitulation first of all.

The Germans didn't want to waste any more bullets, so they established a puppet government.

That's it.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

ok so it seems Freyberg was probably not fully to blame the loss, but what about ignoring the intel from what ive read he did do that quite a bit there?

about the BOB to my understanding the air defence was split up into several sections, each of which had command of the wings stationed there.

Since the luftwaffe where mainly trying to force the raf back from the SE does this mean that the squadrons which would have been stationed to the west and SW where not involved in that battle so ... was the luftwaffe facing off agaisnt the majoirty of the raf or just a portion (25% ish)? (i know there was sqaudrons in north and in scotland and several of these if not all where brought into relieve battered and worn out ones)

It was divided into groups, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

11 Group covered SE England, 10 group SW England, 12 group the Midlands and 13 group from Catterick northwards.

11 Group was at the front of the action, but 12 and 10 group squadrons were frequently in action against the Luftwaffe.

[The_Enigma]

ah right nice one

so 11th wasnt left alone top take the flak (well bombs and bullets in this case )while the others waited for a plane to fly over there sector

[Sunray]

A number of you have mentioned in passing Lt Gen AE Percival who was C-in-C British Forces Malaya 1941-1942. I believe he comes very high on the list and deserves a bit of airtime. He presided over what was/is still considered to be one of the British Army's worst defeats EVER(imho comparable to Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown to a certain G Washington and friends in 1781). At the end of a 70 day campaign, well fought by a Japanese army only marginally larger than the British forces arrayed against them, Percival's poor and hesitant command resulted in the fall of the Malayan penninsular and Singapore and the the passing into ghastly Japanese captivity of around 130,000 Indian British and Australian troops. To be sure Percival had a number of problems not all of his making such as the incredibly flawed British central strategy that "Fortress Singapore" would be attacked from the sea. Needless to say the Japanese did not oblige and attacked from the "impassable" jungles of mainland Malaya. What made the whole affair even more shaming was that British casualties were under 10,000. Many of Percival's soldiers had to surrender without being getting into action at all because Percival had spread them out all over the place. Compare Stalingrad where although 91,000 Germans were taken prisoner, 110,000 were killed in the fighting.

Quite apart from the military defeat Percival's failure had significant political implications as it marked the beginning of the end of the European colonial empires. Within two decades of the fall of Singapore all of them(British, French, Dutch)were gone.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

ah right nice one

so 11th wasnt left alone top take the flak (well bombs and bullets in this case )while the others waited for a plane to fly over there sector

No, not at all. In some ways 12 Group had the edge - they got sufficient warning of attack to allow them to get up above the Luftwaffe, and their bases were sufficiently far north that bombers were only escorted for a short while due to the 109's limited range.

If you can find it, Kent Aviation Historical Research Society has produced a good book on the airfields of Kent "Kent Airfields in the Battle of Britain" which is very detailed.

A vastly superior read, though, is Patrick Bishop's "Fighter Boys" which should be on everyone's shelf.

Park and Dowding should IMO be in the running for Best Generals/Commanders of WW2.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WineCape:

Andreas, it's not worth it mate.

Are you refering to our PBEM game??? Mind your OWN business, Sir! :mad: </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Park and Dowding should IMO be in the running for Best Generals/Commanders of WW2.

In recognition of this, Dowding was sacked following the BoB. Institutional in-fighting at its finest.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by WineCape:

Andreas, it's not worth it mate.

Stop being so reasonable.

But you are right.

All the best

Andreas

Ps. Come back next week when I do my John D. Salt impression.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:

Park and Dowding should IMO be in the running for Best Generals/Commanders of WW2.

In recognition of this, Dowding was sacked following the BoB. Institutional in-fighting at its finest. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You have your turn

Errrrrr, not AFAICT.

As to the situation regarding armoured vehicles, I should remind the general audience about the fact that the only AFV you have left, out of that horde of SPG's and T-34's that you originally had, is one measly SU-85. And I seriously doubt if it could kill even Führer's dog if Zhukov's life depended on that.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by von Churov:

But that doesn't change the fact that Franch Generals in '40 were absolutely incompetent. At least MOST of them.

What do you know about most of French generals in comparison to most of German generals?

How many of them do you know well enough to draw such dramatic conclusions as you are doing???

Can you deduct that the defeat of France was due to the OVERALL incompetence of the MAJORITY of French generals in comparison to the MAJORITY of their German colleagues, instead of the incompetence of the French high command and overall strategy in comparison to the German high command and overall strategy?

I could claim that in 1939-40 the vast majority of German generals were just as incompetent as the French generals were. There were some bright exceptions, of course - but the war wasn't won because of the operational competence or insight of the majority of generalship.

P.S. The French suck, and I hate all of them, except for those who don't think that Finnish cuisine sucks big hairy donkey balls.