weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Worst Commanders in History
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
PullerRommel
New Member
My picks for worst generals in order would have to be
-James Wilkinson; He was sent to invade Canda with 4000 men and turned back by 200 british regs.
-Ambrose Burnside; Stone Bridge Debacle-Mud March and Battle of the Crater need i say more
-Monty
-James Wilkinson; He was sent to invade Canda with 4000 men and turned back by 200 british regs.
-Ambrose Burnside; Stone Bridge Debacle-Mud March and Battle of the Crater need i say more
-Monty
Montgomery comes under a great deal of ‘revisionist’ criticism, which when benchmarked against a host of other commanders in WWII is totally unwarranted for the following reasons:
1.Largely responsible for the expulsion of Axis forces from North Africa, before the Battle of El Alamein we (Brit’s0 had few successes, after we never lost a single major battle. His ability to motivate and inspire was legendary taking a demoralized eighth army and changing it completely around in a very short space of time.
2.During the hard fought two and a half month Battle of Normandy the Allies (under Montgomery’s overal command), through a series of improvised offensives inflicted one of the biggest defeats of the war on the German army in the west.
With the exception of ‘Market Garden’ he was a meticulous planner. The following quote is taken from The German commander of the 5th Panzer Army, Hasso von Manteuffel , during the Ardennes campaign in December 44:
"The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough."[3]
1.Largely responsible for the expulsion of Axis forces from North Africa, before the Battle of El Alamein we (Brit’s0 had few successes, after we never lost a single major battle. His ability to motivate and inspire was legendary taking a demoralized eighth army and changing it completely around in a very short space of time.
2.During the hard fought two and a half month Battle of Normandy the Allies (under Montgomery’s overal command), through a series of improvised offensives inflicted one of the biggest defeats of the war on the German army in the west.
With the exception of ‘Market Garden’ he was a meticulous planner. The following quote is taken from The German commander of the 5th Panzer Army, Hasso von Manteuffel , during the Ardennes campaign in December 44:
"The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough."[3]
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
PullerRommel
New Member
For Weasel's reasons and other previously mentioned ones around 3rd page i think
There are many who disagree with you but Monty's image will be forever tanished by his on ego, self promotion and "a bridge too far".
One issue most miss with Monty is the fact the gave the 8th Army a cohesion it never had before. The victory at Al Amamain was not a walk over as suggested as the positon was well establhihed for defence (where do you get a 3 - 1 advantage from).
Again the Tunisa/North Africa campaign is underated in your analysis. The number of german troops involved was significant as were the action of the 8th army in finishing the job. the Tourch landings in North Africa were not with out problems and reverses of the king that occurred at Kasserine pass could have had significant implications had the 8th Army sat in Egypt.
Tourch started on the 8th of November 1942 While Al Amemein started on the 23rd of October. Tourch was intially opposed only by 60000 Vichy French while Al Amemien involved about 100000 Axis forces opposed by about 200000 in the 8th army. After Al Amemein the Africa corps had lost much of its equipement and was streaming back towards its base of supply.
The immeidate response of Germany was to send additional men and equipement into North Africa to create Army Group Africa. This force was finally defeated on the 23rd of May 1943 some 9 months after Al Amamein and about 275000 axis troops were taken prisoner. To suggest Torch obviated the need to AlAmamein ignores the scale of fighting that occured in Tunisa and ignores the risks assocated by mistakes made by the US forces in their first major engagement of the war and the potentail for a very serious reverse. (that is not a cristism rather it is a recognition that inexperiacne has risks)
Thanks guys for the interesting comments re Monty, including his successes and failures, his good points and those that were not so good!
As a kid I was brought up in a very pro British household and Monty was regarded by my dad as a great general. The more I read the more I am coming to the conclusion that history is usually written by the 'winning side' and early accounts almost always describe their leaders in glowing terms. Later, as the real story gradually filters out, we are often forced to revise many of our ideas and opinions.
Cheers
As a kid I was brought up in a very pro British household and Monty was regarded by my dad as a great general. The more I read the more I am coming to the conclusion that history is usually written by the 'winning side' and early accounts almost always describe their leaders in glowing terms. Later, as the real story gradually filters out, we are often forced to revise many of our ideas and opinions.
Cheers
PullerRommel
New Member
Yep, Very true history is written by the winners. And i actually stumbled upon some 5-1 figures at El Alamien in a couple books ive read
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Clinton still gets my vote for one of the worst.
BTW, Weasel; the impeachment was not about adultery and rape, it was about 200 million in illegal campaign contributions form foriegn governments. The Left-wing media (90% of the outlets, and less than 50% of the ratings) worked overtime to cover all his crooked deals up.
During those hearings, he tossed a bunch of Cruise missles around, to divert attention form his shortcomings ( a time-honored tactic for tin-horn dictators) and accomplished nothing.
His record includes such disasters as Mogadishu, Waco, Oklahoma City, innefetive semi-interventions in the Balkans, Haiti and elsewhere.
As comander in chief, all he did was make corruption look cute.
BTW, Weasel; the impeachment was not about adultery and rape, it was about 200 million in illegal campaign contributions form foriegn governments. The Left-wing media (90% of the outlets, and less than 50% of the ratings) worked overtime to cover all his crooked deals up.
During those hearings, he tossed a bunch of Cruise missles around, to divert attention form his shortcomings ( a time-honored tactic for tin-horn dictators) and accomplished nothing.
His record includes such disasters as Mogadishu, Waco, Oklahoma City, innefetive semi-interventions in the Balkans, Haiti and elsewhere.
As comander in chief, all he did was make corruption look cute.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
The 8th Army was capable but poorly trained when Mongomery was appointed. its performance in the 12 months prior to taht is pretty good evidence of that.
Despite the contemp with which you respond the tank ratio was 2 to 1 in the allies favour. By the way that include "Honey" tanks (Stuarts) which were at best armoured patrol vehicles. My comment was it was no walk over given the suitabiliyt of the position for defence. that is why rommel got bounced in the first battle of Al Amemein.
Really ...
You would appear to be a student of the Douglas Porch school of the history of theater. The pursuit was slowed down by heavy rains on the 6th of November and the fact that the Allies were at the end of and ever extending supply line of considerable distance. it is true the pursuit could have been pursued with greater vigor but even Rommel in his own letters found this approach denied him the abiliyt to inflict damage on the 8th army during his withdrawl as it did not over reach itself.
The battle of Kasserine Pass was forght by Rommel on the 19th of Febraury 1943 (quite some time after Al Alamein). The two German division directly involved were the 21st and 10th Panzer divisions with MK IV and Tiger tanks. These tanks had been provide after Al Alamein and the 21st Panzer division was a reconstitued body. The 10th was new to the theater as was much of the Panzer Army having been shipped in after Al alamein and Tourch.
Even Rommels execution of this attack was not as good as it could have been due to command realtionships with Von Antrim and the outcome could have bene much worse for the allied forces (See Knight's Cross by David Fraser). His decision to withdraw was forced upon due in part to the approach of the 8th Army left him overextended and the mareth line at risk. If they had stayed put as you suggested ther would have less to stop the additional 200000 add axis troops and frash armour persisting.
So....
the Italains perfomred very badly in the beginning of the desert war but to write off all their formations because of that is unfair. Rommel was very dismissible of Italian formations but thsoe at alalamein fought quite well but were lartely left to ther own devices in the retreat.
Given most of the 275000 arrived after the event that really is a bit much.
See above.
Don't be childish. My comments did not suggest he won the war just question the critism levelled. He has his faults. So did Rommel who was as much of a media hog and had the same size ego. Rommel died and is now a legend both because of his daring and the way he died. Monty lived, makde mistakes and performed creibibly, shot his mouth off and is not the subject of a lot of deserved, and undeserved ridicule. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Despite your patronising rant at me I have done my reaserch.
weasel1962
New Member
Deleted
Last edited:
Similar to the kind of research that plucks 3 to 1 out of thin air. You are misrepresent me, but no matter. The point you make is the mongmery was the one of the worst commanders. I have never said he was one of the greatest but he was not one of the worst.
What was achieved between August and the beinning of the second battle in october was to turn a disprited and fragmented command (after being practically beaten) into an effective one.
My comment was a 2 to 1 adavantage to the allies, so knock your self out with flying me on that one. Don't bother about the aircarft the allies had almost total superiority.
The first battle was defensive and the Allied forces were in a very stong position (as would the axis be wheen it was ther turn). The allied offensive capability as a combined unit in the period proceeding the sendon battle of alAlamein could at best be described as very poor. Gazala was a very poor outcome mainly due to tactics and coordination and poorly planned counter attacks. If you want to look at a very poor commnder have a look at Ritchie.
What was achieved between August and the beinning of the second battle in october was to turn a disprited and fragmented command (after being practically beaten) into an effective one.
I bow to your knowledge but again you misquite me I did not in any way suggest all the tanks were Stuarts. however I would not get excited about Valentines either.
My comment was a 2 to 1 adavantage to the allies, so knock your self out with flying me on that one. Don't bother about the aircarft the allies had almost total superiority.
Yes, he did not have time to do otherwise and does not deserve the credit. I did mention ego and media hunger ..... but does that make him one of the worst commanders in history.
Again I did note "the pursuit could have been pursued with greater vigor". Further rommel wa able to work the slow follow up into his plans. however even even Rommel noted the fact that the 8th army did not overextend itself denied him the ability to inflict damage. I don't argue that the speed of the pursuit was acceptable in hind sight but I doubt DAK could have been surrounded from the AlAlamein position. Again it does not make Montgomery one of the worst commnders in history.
See above.
That is not what I said, my coment was that Kassirine occured because of inexperaince. I also said that "that is not a cristism rather it is a recognition that inexperiacne has risks". it is also something that was rectified. In no way does this suggest the UK won the war nor have I suggested it. What I am saying is Mongomery for all his faults does not deserve to be labled one of the worst commanders in history.
Depending on whose figures you take Rommel last half his effective force at Al Alemein. It make statements like the entire DAK command questionable (yea and I recognise this include Italians). Again depending on what figure you use and who is included the force at Al Alamein was in the order of 100000.
What. Who said I was comapring them. I was stating that Mongomery for all his faults does not deserve to be labled one of the worst commanders in history. Their methods were entirely different where Montogomery could be described as pedestrain Rommel showed great elan and took risk. It paid off in hansome style but he was helped by the inadequacy of many of those opposing him and the tactical approach the Commonwealth Army opposing him in the desert. The only area where both are the same is they were both media hogs and had signficant ego's.
Whatever.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Not that Alexsa needs anyone to stick up for him but I have never found his posts to be rubbish, pardon the interjection but thats just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Some books ignore the Italians. But as I'm sure Monty, Auchinleck, Wavell et al would have told you, that is a grave mistake, & one they never made.
Pretty well when they had competent leadership. Their disastrous showing against Wavell was due to the incompetence of their leadership* & their inadequate equipment (Mussolini preferred the appearance of military strength to reality), not any lack of courage by the troops. By 1942, they'd gained enough experience to to go some way towards making up for the poor training most units had, & the worst officers had been weeded out, one way or another.
Ever heard of shades of grey? It isn't a question of deciding between "Monty was the greatest", & "Monty was a walking disaster". Let's try to establish, by reasoned debate, where on the spectrum of which they are the end points Monty belongs, shall we?
*As much Mussolini as the commanders on the spot. Graziani expressed misgivings about his ability to fight the British, given their much higher level of mechanisation & superior tanks, but Mussolini ordered an attack.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited: