Preview or how to kill 17 Shermans with one Panther

[Magpie_Oz]

No they had their tanks along ok the Italian 10th army was fairly well equipped.

The big thing was they fought using a "fortress" mentality that worked well against the Ethiopians but wouldn't cut it against a modern army.

The British counter offensive quickly surrounded these forts, which were poorly placed and not mutually supportive, and the defenders had little option but to surrender.

Also the Italians did not realise that they heavily outnumbered the Allies, over 2 to 1.

The Battle for Bardia for example saw an Australian Division of 16k utterly defeat the garrison of 45k. It was a hard fought battle but the poor quality of Italian leadership meant the the defence was not coordinated and could be torn apart in a series of determined assaults on isolated positions.

[Fetchez la Vache]

That's true, they had a few ad hoc amoured units, but they were effectively nullified in the first few days of the British counter-attack. After that it was game over for the infantry divisions. As you say they were poorly led at the top.

[Magpie_Oz]

Follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass

You will see that the Italians significantly outnumbered the allies in all respects including armour, the only real disadvantage they had was that their Infantry did not have the mobility of the Allies and so ended up being tied to static forts, which meant that the armour became tied to them too.

[dieseltaylor]

Ghurka VC's per head might be an interesting source of comparisons - if one takes VC' s as a measure of good soldiering.

Individuals are important but leadership makes a huge differnce when talking of divisional effectiveness. Cota, Freyberg etc.

[Blackcat]

Ghurka VC's per head might be an interesting source of comparisons - if one takes VC' s as a measure of good soldiering.

Individuals are important but leadership makes a huge differnce when talking of divisional effectiveness. Cota, Freyberg etc.

Freyberg? Undoubtedly a very brave man, but surely not an outstanding general. As a senior staff officer planning set-pece attacks he did well but as a general in command he was somewhat ineffectual.

Befre I get buried under the comments of outraged Kiwis, Freyberg was born in, died n and was bureied in England.

[dieseltaylor]

Corps not so hot divisional fine. Somewhere or other I have come acroos good things about him. Just to have locate them.

Like his motto : )

New Zeal and Honour

[Magpie_Oz]

Individuals are important but leadership makes a huge differnce when talking of divisional effectiveness. Cota, Freyberg etc.

Leadership is the main differentiating factor right down to section level.

[RogCBrand]

And even if a General isn't a brilliant tactician, if he is greatly loved by his men and seen as a brave soldier that they'd be willing to follow anywhere, doesn't that help make his men fight harder?

Of course, the best thing would be for a brilliant and brave commander, who can inspire his men, plan the best way to make use of them, etc.

But being an inspiration to the men under you has to count for a lot!

[Magpie_Oz]

And even if a General isn't a brilliant tactician, if he is greatly loved by his men and seen as a brave soldier that they'd be willing to follow anywhere, doesn't that help make his men fight harder?

Of course, the best thing would be for a brilliant and brave commander, who can inspire his men, plan the best way to make use of them, etc.

But being an inspiration to the men under you has to count for a lot!

No. Being loved by your men is not that much of a factor, the troops don't want to see their efforts and their mates die and have all that pissed away by an incompetent leader

"Well we lost again but hey that General is a GREAT bloke" ........

Victory is the easiest way to win the hearts of your men.

Having said that Freyburg did command the respect of his men and was renowned as a caring General.

I don't agree that his performance as a commander should be called into question however. The Battle for Crete was a loss for the allies as the ANZAC's et al were spread too thin, rather than any bad judgement on Freyburg's part. The assault on Cassino too was a hard ask and it was the second assault of 4 that were required for victory.

[RogCBrand]

No. Being loved by your men is not that much of a factor, the troops don't want to see their efforts and their mates die and have all that pissed away by an incompetent leader

"Well we lost again but hey that General is a GREAT bloke" ........

Victory is the easiest way to win the hearts of your men.

Having said that Freyburg did command the respect of his men and was renowned as a caring General.

I don't agree that his performance as a commander should be called into question however. The Battle for Crete was a loss for the allies as the ANZAC's et al were spread too thin, rather than any bad judgement on Freyburg's part. The assault on Cassino too was a hard ask and it was the second assault of 4 that were required for victory.

I was thinking of many accounts I've read in military history- American Civil War, World War 2, etc., where a general wasn't very skilled, yet his men loved him and fought hard for him- having men who are willing to give extra can make up for some lack of leadership. That's not an ideal situation and in many cases I'm sure it wouldn't be enough, but in some it just might be. Morale is always a factor in any battle.

[Magpie_Oz]

I cannot think of one leader who was successful when his short comings were compensated by the blood of his subordinates.

Morale is not about how popular your leader is it extends mainly from the level of confidence you have in a leader and the degree of success, amongst a whole range of other things.

[womble]

I cannot think of one leader who was successful when his short comings were compensated by the blood of his subordinates.

Morale is not about how popular your leader is it extends mainly from the level of confidence you have in a leader and the degree of success, amongst a whole range of other things.

I think soldiers love a general in whom they have the confidence that they won't be uselessly wasted. Inspiring that confidence can come from previous success, as well as being seen as caring for the more parochial, non-combat welfare of the troops at the pointy end, and being seen to be willing to get the shiny general's boots down in the muck.

[RogCBrand]

One example I'd have is Joan of Arc. Her real asset was inspiring the troops to fight hard.

General McLellan, in the American Civil War did very poorly, yet retained a great deal of respect and love from his men- and though he failed on the battlefield, he still managed to create a well organized Army that Grant would later inherit.

I know that I'll work harder for a boss that I like, even if he's a bit incompetent and I have to make up for that, than for a competent boss who treats me like dirt, and I've often read quotes of soldiers that felt something similar about their officers.

As I said, it's even better to have the best of both brilliance and being loved by the men, as you can then put them to best use, keep casualties as low as possible while also getting the very best out of them. But, if you're not the most competent general, then it will make a difference if your men love you or hate you.

I think the Italians in World War 2 are a great example. They surrendered to the British in droves because they were poorly led, but also poorly treated. If a general makes some bad decisions, the day can still be saved by his subordinate- and history is full of officers promoted, not because they made the right choices but because those below them performed above and beyond. But if the leader is loathed by his men and things start to go south, then they don't have as much incentive to bother putting up much of a fight, and so you can see mass surrenders.

No where do I say being a not so great general, but being loved by your men is going to assure victory in battle, nor that it's one of the most important aspects of how a fighting force acts, but in some cases I believe it can have an effect.

[Blackcat]

Two quick case studies Weliington and Haig.

I don't think anyone would argue that Wellington was loved by his men or loved them. He was however greatly respected, because he was careful with their lives (he had to be) and was technically very competent.

Haig, since vilified as an incompetent butcher, had a massive turnout for his funeral - mainly from ex-servicemen. Its possible that they turned out in their thousands because they wanted to make sure he was really dead, but I suspect that the majority wanted to pay tribute to the man who led them to victory.

In both cases their men fought as hard as they could and, mostly, delivered what was asked of them and was physically achieveable.

[Noltyboy]

I dont think Haig can realy be compared with his early successors. He had to create and use a force with over a million men and weapons that had never been used before. There had never been anything like the total war situation that he found himself. He was the supreme commander of Empire forces for 3 years despite the fact that Loyd George hated him, if he was so poor why was he not replaced? Plus he was still technically subordinate to Foch and the french hence the need to rush attacks on the Somme etc to relieve pressure on the french. Of all the long term fighters in the War the British (and Empire) Armies where the only one that didnt have Major problems with "discipline" such as the french mutiney.

[Magpie_Oz]

Ok well Joan of Arc is not a successful General but she was an inspirational religious figure who did win a number of engagements by the surprise of moving swiftly from cautious defence to audacious attack.

I don't see McCellan as successful either, yes he did raise and train an army quite well but he was unable to use what he had created despite his popularity and the resolve of his troops.

Wellington had a deep affinity for his men and in fact the usually reserved Wellington publicly wept for the loss of his men at one stage.

Haig is a funny one. I agree that he did have to preside of a major technological revolution on a scale not seen before and he did successfully integrate them into his army but I also agree that he was wholly unable to adapt his tactics to the extent required for these new technologies.

Haig's saving grace was the fact that he had a superb subordinate in Lt-General Monash who was the General who finally managed to crack the dead lock of the trenches and lead the Allies to a crushing victory over the Germans. To his credit Haig had the ability to recognise the merit of Monash's new ideas and to put them into practice.

Although popular in the wake of victory, (Thank God that is over !) several accounts by his contemporaries were less than complementary.

[Blackcat]

Magpie Oz,

No, I can't accept that Monash had such a very large impact on his own. He didn't arrive in France till 1917. So by that time lots of lessons had been learned the hard way. He was a very good general, but he "didn't crack the dead-lock of the trenches". That was an effort beyond any single man and Monash wasn't even an army commader, only a corps commander (so there was another level between him and Haig).

[Magpie_Oz]

A few quotes:

Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery later wrote: "I would name Sir John Monash as the best general on the western front in Europe"

The battle of Hamel of 4 July—'all over in ninety-three minutes…the perfection of teamwork', Monash wrote—proved his point. The Americans participated, and Monash had to withstand, by extraordinary force of personality, a last-minute attempt by General Pershing to withdraw them. Military historians have acclaimed it as 'the first modern battle', 'the perfect battle'. 'A war-winning combination had been found: a corps commander of genius, the Australian infantry, the Tank Corps, the Royal Artillery and the RAF'.

The shape of the world today would have been very different had John Monash, a child of German migrants, not volunteered to fight against his parents' homeland. If he hadn't volunteered, Germany might not have lost World War 1. Even if Germany had lost, it probably wouldn’t have developed its Blitzkrieg War strategy that almost won it World War 2.

After the success at Hamel, Mawson submitted plans to use a similar approach to break the stalemate at Amiens. On August 8, an allied force put Monash's plans into actions. In the previous four years, the only major breakthrough on the Western Front had been by the Germans on March 21, 1918, when they attacked and defeated the British Third and Fifth armies. With Monash's plan, it took less than 150 minutes for the allies to do what hadn't been done in the previous four years.

Monash planned the attack on the German defences in the Battle of the Hindenburg Line between 16 September and 5 October 1918. The Allies eventually breached the Hindenburg Line by the 5th of October, and the war was essentially over. On 5 October, Prinz Max von Baden, on behalf of the German Government, asked for an immediate armistice on land, water and in the air.

[Barkhorn1x]

I don't see McCellan as successful either, yes he did raise and train an army quite well but he was unable to use what he had created despite his popularity and the resolve of his troops.

I agree. There was an event that took place after the hard fought battle in the Wilderness in 1864 - Grant's first battle in the east - that sums it up nicely. The leading column of the II Corps came upon a key north/south crossroads and the troops thought that they would turn north as they always did after a big fight to regroup/reorganize and the cycle would repeat itself yet again. But the officer at the crossroads pointed south and the troops realized at that moment that there would be no retreat this time and even tho' there were some horrific battles down the road, the war would finally end as they had commander who had the strategic vision - and will - to make it happen.

[Blackcat]

"If he hadn't volunteered, Germany might not have lost World War 1."

OK, if you want to believe that one superhero beat the germans in WWI, I can't argue against you.

[Magpie_Oz]

"If he hadn't volunteered, Germany might not have lost World War 1."

OK, if you want to believe that one superhero beat the germans in WWI, I can't argue against you.

Ok a bit unfair to take all of the quotes, not mine they are the works of others, and pick out the one sentence that contains the greatest hyperbole.

But the fact remains that Monash had a huge impact on his own and was instrumental in the Allied victory on WW1, and rightly so should be considered as the commander who engineered the victory. That does not make him a superhero, merely a superb commander.

[JonS]

Ok a bit unfair to take all of the quotes, not mine they are the works of others, and pick out the one sentence that contains the greatest hyperbole.

Yes, we realise that's what you did.

[sburke]

A few quotes:

Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery later wrote: "I would name Sir John Monash as the best general on the western front in Europe"

All of that may be true, but I would have left off the Monty quote. I never use as my reference on a resume anyone that folks are gonna look at and say "well how the heck would that guy know?" :-P

[LongLeftFlank]

For "folks" I assume we should read "Americans"?

[sburke]

For "folks" I assume we should read "Americans"?

And the honest British, probably the Germans and maybe even a few of the allied commanders (not Americans) serving under him. >:-D Yeah I know I am probably biased, but I don't think that is purely about being American. I have some of the same regard for Patton, but at least Patton understand the role of speed in modern combat.