Worst Military Leader of all Time

Manach · 06-06-2003 10:24pm #1

We've had the best and now the rest.
Which General/Leader is truely the worst ever to lead men into battle.

Éomer of Rohan · 06-06-2003 10:56pm

Out of the ones listed, Sir Douglas Haig without shadow of a doubt. The disaster of the Somme was brought on by himself - and as a favourite literary character of mine puts it, he was "possessed of a thousand years of inbreeding for leadership qualities which proved to be those of a decade before his time."

I don't think that Xerxes can be cited for the defeat at Salamis; he was outmatched by more clever generals - ie Themistocles and Eurybiades not to mention that the conditions of the invasion of Greater Hellas were never going to be in his favour.

Mark · 07-06-2003 2:35pm

Haig gets my vote for simply atrocious play during WWI, the Somme as Eomer mentioned was the cataclysmic boil of his incompetency.

Daft Figger should have stuck to Whiskey...

orangerooster · 07-06-2003 10:43pm

The list aint bad but surley hitler should have been on it,so many bad bad mistakes,helping Italy thus delaying barbarossa,twice screwing rommel-once in North africa by saying stand and fight instead oif the tactically sound peg it and then again in France 1944 by denieng the undoubtedley superior commander he had in Rommel control of the panzers until it was to late.Squandering the nth degree of aerial technology at the time by refitting the ME262 for roles it was poorly or not suited to at all,and surely many more mistakes ive neglected to mention,so I'd say Adolf Hitler.

DapperGent · 07-06-2003 11:57pm

As has been mentioned Haig was an absolute disaster and threw away so many lives with his blunders.

Though a collective award should really go to all the senior japanese army generals during WWII. Who existed in a state of almost zealot-like stupidity after their intial victories.

Éomer of Rohan · 08-06-2003 1:12am

The list aint bad but surley hitler should have been on it,so many bad bad mistakes,helping Italy thus delaying barbarossa,twice screwing rommel-once in North africa by saying stand and fight instead oif the tactically sound peg it and then again in France 1944 by denieng the undoubtedley superior commander he had in Rommel control of the panzers until it was to late.Squandering the nth degree of aerial technology at the time by refitting the ME262 for roles it was poorly or not suited to at all,and surely many more mistakes ive neglected to mention,so I'd say Adolf Hitler.

Hitler was a politician not a military leader. His blunders were only allowed to succeed because the German military officers corp refused to stand up to him whenever he began to interfere and furthermore refused to give him unwelcome information; it took Winrich Behr, the fifth attempt by General Von Manstein to tell Hitler of the real situation on the ostfront to actually get through to high command how the situation was.

Let's not forget that some of the blame definitely goes to fat boy Goring for his incompetent management of the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, during the air bridge into the Stalingrad Kessel - which practically destroyed the 8th Air Army under the red barons nephew and finally the last ditch attempt to drive the allies out of France on the western front which broke the back of the luftwaffe altogether - destroying something like 102 fighters.

If Hitler is to blame for the German loss of WWII (despite the fact that everything was pitted against Germany - the economic strength of her enemies, their industrial production rate, their population size and their land mass) then that blame is shared by the Offices Corp - certainly by OKW/OKH and when you divide it across, there is not that much blame for each

Hairy Homer · 19-06-2003 4:29pm

Fair comments about the distinction between political and military leaders, but even so I'm nominating Mussolini as the worst military leader of all time.

The Italian Army did more to help the Allies win the war when it was fighting against them than any other single army fighting with them and it was all fat-boy Benito's fault.

I've just finished reading 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' and there's a passage in it describing how Mussolini withdrew many of his most seasoned regular troops back to Italy just before the invasion of Greece and kept his military chiefs in the dark about the attack until the last possible minute. 'Typical stereotyping of lovable bumbling Italians,' I thought 'Can't possibly be true' Then on visiting the site www.comandosupremo.com—by no means unsympathetic to the Italian military— I find that it actually might be true.

What a gob****e!!!

Mussolini's adventures in North Africa led to humiliation of the numerically superior but hopelessly under equipped Italian army, causing Hitler to send his best general over to bale them out.

His failure to capture Greece because his best soldiers were back harvesting grapes in Italy meant that the Germans again had to come to their aid, thereby delaying the invasion of the Soviet Union by six weeks which meant the Germans just failed to take Moscow before the depths of winter set in. The rest is history.

His fecking around in Yugoslavia stoked the flames of ethnic strife in that country (those countries) which we're still living with today.

His only successful conquest was against the Abyssinians, whose tribesmen he attacked with mustard gas and aircraft. Brings to mind the old rebel song:
'Come tell us how you slew
Them aul Arabs two by two.
Like the Zulus they had spears and bows and arrows.
How bravely you faced one
With your sixteen pounder gun
And ye frightened them damn natives to the marrow.'

No question. Mussolini by a street.

Mark: Just changed the lyrics to the correct version. Yes I'm pedantic. Interesting points on Mussolini btw.

Victor · 21-06-2003 1:32pm

I think Singapore was a bit of a debacle. While the Somme was atrocious, was Haig necessarily worse than his peers?

Originally posted by DapperGent
Though a collective award should really go to all the senior japanese army generals during WWII. Who existed in a state of almost zealot-like stupidity after their intial victories.

What is often missed when commenting on the Japanese was there were two separate traditions and factions - the army and the navy. Each was more interested in their own magnificence with regard to the other than doing what was in the best interest of Japan.

DapperGent · 21-06-2003 2:03pm

Yes the internicine fighting over resources was actually amusing to read about. They're in the middle of a war and are fighting over steel and oil not on the basis of strategic importance but simply to get more stuff than the other guy.

Utterly utterly nuts.

stira64 · 23-06-2003 9:06pm

why hasnt anyone mentioned general custer?

The Corinthian · 29-06-2003 7:05pm

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Fair comments about the distinction between political and military leaders, but even so I'm nominating Mussolini as the worst military leader of all time.

Mussolini was a poor strategist, although by your own admission a political rather than military leader. Additionally, also by your own admission, Italian troops were grossly ill equipped and unprepared for a war in 1940 - in fact, Mussolini and Hitler had previously agreed to postpone the war until 1943, to allow Italy to properly militarise. So when Italy did enter prematurely, she was wholly unprepared to do so.

Of course, this is not to say that Mussolini was not a military demagogue and incompetent - he was. But no more than many his political contemporaries - of the examples that you give, similar ones may be levied at Hitler. However, Hitler had the advantage of a military machine that had been rebuilt (from scratch) from even before his rise to power, while Italy was still using armaments from the First World War.

So, I just don’t see how you would see him as the worst military leader “by a street”, given objective comparisons. He was poor, but as Éomer noted, he was a political and not military leader. And there have been quite a few of those playing the role of armchair general over the years.

His only successful conquest was against the Abyssinians, whose tribesmen he attacked with mustard gas and aircraft.

Abyssinia had in fact already fought Italy to a stalemate, conceding only Eritrea, in the previous century. The main reason for this is that Italy’s colonial ambitions were hampered by the fact that the British in the Sudan were supplying the Abyssinians with arms. This was a contemporary Anglo-French policy to hamper the colonial expansion of the new nations (Germany and Italy) and ultimately was one of the numerous differences that lead to the First World War.

The natives having guns was a handicap that the British, ironically, did not have to endure themselves in their colonial adventures as the casualty figures of the battle of Omdurman would indicate: The Dervish army, approximately 52,000 men, suffered losses of 20,000 dead, 22,000 wounded, and some 5,000 taken prisoner, while the Anglo-Egyptian army, of some 23,000 men, suffered losses of 48 dead, and 382 wounded.

Although largely obsolete, the Abyssinian military in 1934 was still far better equipped than any African army that had ever faced by any of the European colonial powers. This is not an apology for the use of Mustard Gas - Churchill already did that when he said “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes” in 1919 (and Britain actually used it in Iraq during the 1930’s) – however, it does pull the moral carpet from many of the criticisms made of this campaign.

Clintons Cat · 29-06-2003 11:35pm

The Italians werent the only ones Underprepared for ww2

The Poles were still using cavalry lancers that were made obselete before ww1

the british mattilda was under armed for it armour early models carried only machine guns,mark 2 s had a underpowered 2 pounder at gun,its lend lease replacement the sherman was known by the germans tankcrews as the "tommy cooker" for its extreme likelyhood to ignite if hit.The Raf and navy still had large numbers of bi planes in service

French tanks were huge behemoths that were extreemly slow allowing them to be outmanouvered on the battlefield.Equally virtually every spare part was unique to each model of tank meaning a logistical nightmare for replacements.
Battlefield communications were equally archaic.

as for the soviets,well the less said about their preparations the better.Officer class decimated,chronic shortages of weapons,protective clothing and suplies.

The Itallians with their close co operation with the Germans during the Spanish Civil war where many of the tactics of BlitzKrieg were developed,meant they should have had more forewarrning than most of the nature of the coming conflict.

BoobeR · 29-06-2003 11:37pm

I think it has to be Haig in my books.
He has to be one of the stupidest leaders of all time.

Hairy Homer · 08-07-2003 3:26pm

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Mussolini was a poor strategist, although by your own admission a political rather than military leader.

A fair point and one that I acknowledged at the start of my post.

If I may quote from one of my favourite movies, and this speech is based on a real one that the true-life character gave many times:

'An army is a team. It eats, sleeps, breathes and fights as a team. All this individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff ... in the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real battles than they do about fornicating'
From Patton: Lust for Glory a biopic of the famous US general

Or as I would paraphrase it: military success comes down to bringing superior force to bear on the enemy at the point where he is most vulnerable, and the means to achieve that comes down basically to the management and proper use of resources at your disposal. If you get that wrong, all the heroism, skill with weapons, tactical nous and fighting spirit of your troops count for nothing.

So, I just don’t see how you would see him as the worst military leader “by a street”, given objective comparisons. He was poor, but as Éomer noted, he was a political and not military leader. And there have been quite a few of those playing the role of armchair general over the years.

OK a central part of this debate is where you draw the dividing line between the merits of the military man at point of contact and the miltary/industrial strategy and organisation that sets the initial conditions under which they must operate.

It is the latter that hampered Italy's efforts so badly, it would seem to me, and given the nature of the Fascist state, with is emphasis on the cult of the leader, given that it was Mussolini who instigated so much of Italy's expansionist foreign policy, that it was he who raised the expectations of a Second Roman Empire, and that it was he who was the driving force behind the Corporate State which failed so badly to convert the talents of those well able to design Ferarris and Lamborghinis into a plentiful supply of modern equipment, I would still nominate him for the title.

Some may think that logistics managment is far too prosaic a discipline for military geniuses to bother with. I would fundamentally disagree. Indeed I would venture that it is the most important role in any army. Napoleon suggested as much when he said 'An army marches on its stomach'

Take Britain's most succesful general of the war, Montgomery. He was much derided by the Americans for his caution and lack of daring. But that went along with a meticulous attention to detail, elaborate planning and ruthless execution. The one time he went against his better instincts and gambled on a quick victory during Operation Market Garden (the attack on Arnhem) it ended in disaster.

The rest of the time he was victorious.

The natives having guns was a handicap that the British, ironically, did not have to endure themselves in their colonial adventures as the casualty figures of the battle of Omdurman would indicate: The Dervish army, approximately 52,000 men, suffered losses of 20,000 dead, 22,000 wounded, and some 5,000 taken prisoner, while the Anglo-Egyptian army, of some 23,000 men, suffered losses of 48 dead, and 382 wounded.

Hilaire Belloc put it most succintly:
Whatever happens we have got
The Maxim Gun and they have not

Speaking as the great grandson of a cavalry man who actually fought in that war in the Sudan (and who used to brag to my father as a child that 'We were coming back up the Nile while Kitchener was going down') this only reinforces my point.

Schoolboy histories of the battle of Omdurman emphasise the last ever cavalry charge made by the British Army when the 21st Lancers (I think) went in to finish off the 'Fuzzy Wuzzies'.

It has also been immortalised by such jingoistic films as 'The Four Feathers' endlessly remade and a version of which was shown on telly last week, which contrasts the dashing heroism of the British Army 'Good old Surreys!' with the cruelty and venality of the natives.

In reality, by the time the Lancers got on their horses the Sudanese had already been cut to pieces by superior European technology. It was the Maxim gun that won it for them. And the credit should go in the first place to the logistics guys who got those weapons into the middle of the desert in the first place. I mean. How hard is it to fire one of those things from a safe distance?

Churchill already did that when he said “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes” in 1919 (and Britain actually used it in Iraq during the 1930’s) – however, it does pull the moral carpet from many of the criticisms made of this campaign.

No arguments from me there. Churchill was muck. If he hadn't been fighting an even bigger bastard his reputation would be nothing today.

klong · 15-07-2003 12:28pm

My "other" vote goes to Sir Redvers Buller, a british army commander in the Boer War (see Guinness Book of Military Blunders for this)

loismustdie · 23-07-2003 1:42pm

i'd vote for haig from the list and other than that i'd nearly have to say de valera because of his behaviour during the independence movement but i suppose he's not really a military leader

PeterODonnell · 08-08-2003 2:56am

Another, and more unknown candidate, would be the Swedish general Cronstedt, who surrendered the extremely well garrisoned and provisioned fortress of Sveaborg to the invading Russians in 1809, causing Sweden to lose Finland to Russia.

Turnip · 20-08-2003 9:43am

Robert Emmet.

Lord Chelmsford for losing to the Zulus at Isandhlwana.

Turnip · 20-08-2003 10:02am

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
the british mattilda was under armed for it armour early models carried only machine guns,mark 2 s had a underpowered 2 pounder at gun,

I read somewhere that Rommel was impressed by the Matildas. His division was in serious danger at Arras when they attacked and he had to order his 88mm AA guns to fire on them.

French tanks were huge behemoths that were extreemly slow allowing them to be outmanouvered on the battlefield.Equally virtually every spare part was unique to each model of tank meaning a logistical nightmare for replacements.
Battlefield communications were equally archaic.

I thought the main problem with the french tanks was that they were spread out between units while the germans concentrated theirs in whole divisions.

as for the soviets,well the less said about their preparations the better.Officer class decimated,chronic shortages of weapons,protective clothing and suplies.

Who was in charge of the Russians during the disastrous invasion of Finland?

bloggs · 02-09-2003 3:37pm

Why isn't GW Bush in this list? Oh it's Worst not Dumbest

shock · 03-09-2003 6:21pm

Definitly Haig. Some of the others on the list were not so much stupid as had extremely bad circumstances. But Haig was definitly just a bad leader.

The Corinthian · 03-09-2003 6:37pm

Claudius Glaber. Spartican revolt. Over confident and inexperienced.

ykt0di9url7bc3 · 06-09-2003 7:50pm

Haig was a tit true but Foch was much worse...he still got promoted to Field Marshal..."such are the quirks of war"....

Vader · 08-09-2003 8:06pm

I dont see why cornwallis is there, he was one of the all time greats

Éomer of Rohan · 08-09-2003 9:56pm

You mean one of the all-time greats despite losing the 13 colonies of the USA?

shock · 10-09-2003 2:28pm

Cornwallis just didnt know how to fight the Americans, he was used to straight forward, two armies lining up and charging fights. but the americans used ambushes and gurrilla tactics he just couldnt handle.

The Corinthian · 10-09-2003 2:37pm

Originally posted by shock
Cornwallis just didnt know how to fight the Americans, he was used to straight forward, two armies lining up and charging fights. but the americans used ambushes and gurrilla tactics he just couldnt handle.

Pretty ironic, given current events :rolleyes:

Vader · 12-09-2003 8:45pm

its more than that, Cornwallis was in a foreign land and had to fight a war on three fronts. 1) The pitch battles 2) Naval Battles
3) and of course gurrilla warfare.
But most of the defeats werent his fault they were often the results of bizzare coincidence and the incompedance of his sobordinates- a common problem in classical armies where officers are always aristocrats
Gurrilla warfare wasnt as a big a thing as The Patriot makes it out to be! The militias were sh1te.
If you look at Cornwallis' record in europe, India, Ireland and the french and indian war you'll see he was a very successful and compident general

Capt'n Midnight · 12-09-2003 9:21pm

Submarine Vs. Cavalry

I thought the incident involving a Turkish cavalary charge against a British submarins would show up a commander as being foolish but now IMHO I'd say the Cavalry won considering the circumstances.

...Nasmith's ensuing patrol, ... so successful that it earned him the Victoria Cross. .... and he was only prevented from destroying a paddle steamer he drove onto the beach by the timely arrival of a troop of Turkish cavalry, with whom the submarine's crew exchanged small-arms fire before withdrawing.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/daring_dardanelles.html

shock · 15-09-2003 5:13pm

Speaking of cornwallis' subordinates who was the guy in charge of his northern army who decided to march it throung a swamp cause he was out for glory?

16-09-2003 1:33pm

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
The Italians werent the only ones Underprepared for ww2

The Poles were still using cavalry lancers that were made obselete before ww1

the british mattilda was under armed for it armour early models carried only machine guns,mark 2 s had a underpowered 2 pounder at gun,its lend lease replacement the sherman was known by the germans tankcrews as the "tommy cooker" for its extreme likelyhood to ignite if hit.The Raf and navy still had large numbers of bi planes in service

French tanks were huge behemoths that were extreemly slow allowing them to be outmanouvered on the battlefield.Equally virtually every spare part was unique to each model of tank meaning a logistical nightmare for replacements.
Battlefield communications were equally archaic.

as for the soviets,well the less said about their preparations the better.Officer class decimated,chronic shortages of weapons,protective clothing and suplies.

The Itallians with their close co operation with the Germans during the Spanish Civil war where many of the tactics of BlitzKrieg were developed,meant they should have had more forewarrning than most of the nature of the coming conflict.

Just to note that the Germans were also unprepared for the war. Their plans cautiously estimated 1943 as the time at which the military would be ready for war.

The navy needed time to build up a force to compete with Britains' Home naval force, which was considered the best in the world. German naval commanders wanted to build up a destroyer,& submarine force capable of commanding the north seas above denmark to prevent a blockade of Iron Ore. (the German submarine production lines were never capable of keeping up with losses during the war)

The luftwaffe while increased dramatically in numbers & pilots, was lacking long & medium range bombers. their tactics were based around the support of the wehrmacht in general operations rather than tactical bombing.

The wehrmacht were missing required equipment such as uniforms, water canisters, and even baking equipment (for logistic units). Only roughly 40% of the wehrmacht was motorised. The rest using horse drawn carts, and such.

The Panzer divisions were comprised of mostly light tanks. Germany only started investing research on heavy and medium tanks, after the fall of France. When you think of Blitzkrieg with unstoppable tanks, you're not imagining the actual tanks they used in 1939, you're thinking of 1944.

While the majority of german troops were better trained than their allied counterparts, most german commanders wanted further training before war could be started. they considered German troops to be the best, however, due to the numbers recruited prior to the outbrak of war, troops weren't up to normal standards, nevermind a war footing.

The german industry while so much better than france was still in the process of being updated. Also Hitler hadn't spent enough time converting the occupied lands of austria and czech, to military production, completely in time for the war.

I call Hitler as the worst. Not for the decisions during the war, which we all know of (the declaration of war on the US being the one of the worst, with Russia being the worst), but rather for starting the war before the German military and industry was ready.

Vader · 16-09-2003 9:41pm

hitler really had no other option. By 1943 all europe would be praising mother Russia! Stalin now there was a crack pot. He slaughtered his top generals because they were too good

17-09-2003 8:55am

hitler really had no other option

I dunno. Its all subjective really, but i would have considered 1941 a good time to launch the invasion of Poland. His military would have been alot better, the industries of the current occupied countries would have been producing in tandum with the rest of germany, and the world would still be using outdated tactics.

By 1943 all europe would be praising mother Russia! Stalin now there was a crack pot

Russia is a strange one. I don't think Europe would have been praising Russia, since first the invasion of Finland made many countries uneasy. Also there was a cerain lack of trust when it came to Stalin that Europe knew about. I'd actually would have said that there would have been war, but with Russia facing Britain, or Japan in Asia, and Germany choosing the best time to go to war...

Vader · 17-09-2003 6:56pm

I don't think Europe would have been praising Russia

what i meant is rhat they'd all have been conquered by then!

18-09-2003 9:01am

what i meant is rhat they'd all have been conquered by then

I'm sorry but i must admit i'm not following.

Do you mean that Russia would have conquered Europe by then? Hardly. If it had run that way, then Russia would have been facing a possible alliance between Germany, Britain and other western nations. Superior Firepower by far. Remember that Germany nearly did beat the Russians, and would have if they hadn't so much resources tied up fighting on their western fronts...

If i've mistaken your comment, i'm sorry...

K2 · 21-09-2003 12:17am

I don't know as much about ww1 as I would about ww2 but recently read a book called Forgotten Voices, detailing extracts from interviews of men and women from boths sides in ww1. It did mention that Haig was pressurised into the battle at the Somme by the French who were getting hammered in Verdun. Haig reckoned, correctly, his casualties would be hugh but was eventually talked into it. Anybody know any more about this?

Oh, and for the record, I do think he was pretty poor as a general, but then it would appear that most of the officers were not trained or prepared to fight such a war. The days of drawing sabres and calvery charges were past but nobody told them.

Vader · 21-09-2003 1:29pm

klaz quote:
I'm sorry but i must admit i'm not following.

yea I see that. While germany was building up its forces for the war, so were the russians. The germans were further advanced than the russians in 1939 but by 1943 when Hitlers planned revamp of the army would have been finnished the russians would have been further advanced. If russia could have finnished its own upgrade of its army without being interupted by war, by 1945 it would have a huge, well equiped and technologically advanced army.

As for germany teaming up with britain and france in such a case, you could also argue that russia could team up with japan and divide asia and the pacific between them. They might then invade australia, eastern europe and africa. If america remains neutral and concentrates on defending s. america and builing up its defences to the east then you'd have 1984!

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts.....

Éomer of Rohan · 21-09-2003 9:26pm

I'm sorry but I do not see that Russia could possibly have conquered Europe in the absence of a second world war.

Deep operations was a 'heretical cult' (Antony Beevor) so far as Stalin was concerned - a side result of his extermination of his generals. I mean a victorious Russian army with Voroshilov in charge? I think not. That left Russian tactics in first world war mode and only the need to defend Russia brought about a change in Stalin's tactics.

Also, let's consider that if Russia had invaded Europe, there were many other powers to contend with; Hitler's Germany was only one - the British too were undergoing an upgrade, with Spitfires and Hurricanes having just hit the production lines. Given another four years under the imminent threat of war, the British would have been more advanced than either Russia or Germany - and France may have completed the Maginot line meaning that if Germany had somehow been defeated (as the French and British may have let happen), a revamped French army may have fought much better than against the German invasion through the Ardennes - and with supply lines stretching from the Baltic over land since the sea lanes would easily have been dominated by the British Royal Navy, the Russians would have had no chance - a fact evidence by the drive to Berlin against a beaten German Army with no armoured reserves following Kursk.

The best example of the above is the 'corridor' created by the remnants of 12th Army to allow 9th Army to escape to the West - many Russian units were wiped out before the Russians could bring enough force to bear and if petrol had held out, then all the German 9th Army might have escaped

Moreover, with Russia attacking the Western powers, Japan would have sought to fight the USA and so the USA would have entered the war and been trying to develop the nuclear bomb regardless of events in Europe - and with the destruction of the German plans, the Russians would have been hamstrung by the world's first nuclear power if the bombs had been deployed against Leningrad and Moscow as they were against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Tito · 08-10-2003 9:52am

The worst military leader of all time was Maggie Thatcher in case anyone didnt notice she thought she was an army general.Just ask people from Wales/miner strike Argentina/War and Ireland/hunger strike.What can I say the most inhumane women in history worse than Hitler or Mussolini.

Vader · 08-10-2003 7:15pm

most inhumane yes, worst military leader no. She won in the Argentina/War

spanner · 05-11-2003 6:39pm

i would agree with hilter and haig and been the worst two promient 20th century military leaders.

someone said that hilter was a political leader and not a military leader however he did act in both capicaties so i think he would qualify.

germany had a brillant military machine at the out break of war with brillant generals, shame about the leader though.

i think if hilter had let military matters more up to his generals who were well capable of the job and did not interfere i think the end outcome would be different. his intervention in the russian conflict was detramintal to the german war effort

i wont start speculating on if this had happened then this would not of and so on.

Éomer of Rohan · 05-11-2003 10:59pm

Germany did not have the vastly superior military machine that people suppose.

First of all, co-ordination with air power was pivotal in major battles of World War II and the Stuka Ju-87 was not up to the task of a major bombardment in which the enemy had any fighters of it's own. Similarly the Heinekel III did not have the best range and was dating. The Ju-88 was a formidable bomber but the fighters that escorted it were substandard to those the British were building. The Mosq IV and the Lancaster were far better than what the Germans had.

In armour, the German guns could not puncture the armour of the heavier soviet tanks (t-34, KV - 2, IS - 2) and the T - 34 was a better all round tank than anything the Germans had. The dated Matildas were known to take quite a hammering too.

In terms of strategy, Monty had Rommel ass-whipped in the desert from Cairo all the way to El - Alamein. Admittedly, the Germans were better tacticians than the Soviets but Zhukov was no pansy and was willing to break men in order to see a command followed. Chuikov was a commander on this model too and I would take Chuikov or Zhukov any day over any German strategist up to and including von Manstein.

On a naval front, again Britain was miles ahead of the Germans - smaller more maneuverable ships, better usage of the aircraft carriers and their swordfish aeroplanes.

The second German invaded Russia, whether they had invaded Greece or not, they were buggered. And it all would have become clear had they read good literature; Leo Tolstoy "How much land does a man need?"

spanner · 06-11-2003 2:37pm

all the points you say are fair and true but if look at how the germans revolutionised tank warfare by forming them up into mass pansier divisions and combining them with their air force with spectacular results. the mere fact that they swepted through western europe decimating their enemies in the process shows how sucessful this policy(blitzkreig) really.

i would agree that the russian t-34 tanks were better than the german tiger tanks but russia failed to deploy their tanks to make them an effective elment that could win a battle like the germans of did. the british Matildas were effectively useless heaps of metal that might take a bit of a beating but they had a useless gun turrent and the speed was terrible.

as you said in north africa monty did beat rommel but i dont think its fair to say that monty beat rommel tatically because the fact of the matter is that monty had a huge supply of arms coming in from america whos industrial might was thrown behind the british war effort and rommel could bearly get any resources from germany due to most of it going to the russian front and if he did it had to pass threw a powerful mediterran blockade. i think rommel is one of the best military commanders of our time and the circumstances were out of his control. if he managed to get resources i think the outcome of the north africa campain would be alot different.

navally germany had never been a match for britain because the british have always seen their security in their navy(winston curchills two power standard) and always had a superior strength than any other european country. but germany did inflict some key defeats on the british navy making them lose there feeling of inviciblaty on the high seas with the sinking of the hood, the pride of the british navy and the submarine war in which the germans praticed a war of attrition on the british mercant shipping. however as the war progressed the full might of the british navy got the better hand and some key techological advances meant that britain got the upper hand in the submarine war. however ever since then britain lost its role as the main naval super power.

i think that the prove in the pudding of the german war machine is how it managed to conduct a war on so many fronts and againist the strongest alliance the world could produce(russia,america and britain) for such a long period of time and if their missile project had been further along whose to say what
the outcome might of been.

Éomer of Rohan · 06-11-2003 3:45pm

Quoted from Spanner
as you said in north africa monty did beat rommel but i dont think its fair to say that monty beat rommel tatically because the fact of the matter is that monty had a huge supply of arms coming in from america whos industrial might was thrown behind the british war effort and rommel could bearly get any resources from germany due to most of it going to the russian front and if he did it had to pass threw a powerful mediterran blockade. i think rommel is one of the best military commanders of our time and the circumstances were out of his control. if he managed to get resources i think the outcome of the north africa campain would be alot different.

A Mediterranean blockade? Do you forget the German conquest of Greece, Cyprus and the absolute battering that Malta took?

Quoted from Spanner
however ever since then britain lost its role as the main naval super power.

This is irrelevent; at no time could Germany have won the war once convoy shipping began; the losses to the German U-boat fleet were unsustainable and the sinking of the Bismark effectively marked the end of Germany's attempt to grab the seas.

Quoted from Spanner
but if look at how the germans revolutionised tank warfare by forming them up into mass pansier divisions and combining them with their air force with spectacular results. the mere fact that they swepted through western europe decimating their enemies in the process shows how sucessful this policy(blitzkreig) really.

Wrong. The enemies that Germany excelled against were outdated years before the advent of blitzkreig (which was a Russian idea by the way) - for example the Polish and the French armies still utilised the ancient stationary gun-emplacements-and-fortress battle lines which were entirely undermined when paratroopers came on the scene - and paratroopers were not restricted to the German army either. All I have to say is Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn.

Quoted from Spanner
i would agree that the russian t-34 tanks were better than the german tiger tanks but russia failed to deploy their tanks to make them an effective elment that could win a battle like the germans of did

Stalin's coups prevented 'deep operations' coming to the fore in the Russian tactical rulebook (because Stalin's crony Voroshilov oh he of Finnish War infamy was not in favour of it) and despite the fact that Stalin had executed plenty of the young blood of his army in 1938, they still were pulled around by Zhukov and annihilated the 4th Panzer Army and 6th Army at Stalingrad plus defeated an overstrength Leibstandarte division later in the Winter of '43.

Quoted from Spanner
i think that the prove in the pudding of the german war machine is how it managed to conduct a war on so many fronts and againist the strongest alliance the world could produce(russia,america and britain) for such a long period of time and if their missile project had been further along whose to say what

No you said that if Hitler had left decisions to his generals, then the war could have been won; this is not the case; the German officer corp were severely anti-bolshevist and wanted to destroy Russia also - they would have invaded, with or without the Balkan campaign and if they had made the invasion of Russia without the Balkan campaign, then Russia might have been worse hit but Britain would have been in a much better position in North Africa and the Mediterranean - and the landings at Dieppe may have ended up landing in Taranto given the deployment of German troops!

From 1942 Hitler had lost the war. Germany versus Britain and Russia alone would have lost the war simply because Russia was too big for 4 million men to conquer and Britain's empire would have held out.

spanner · 06-11-2003 4:35pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
A Mediterranean blockade? Do you forget the German conquest of Greece, Cyprus and the absolute battering that Malta took?

there might not have been a water tight naval blockade but by the stage when rommel and monty were fighting in north africa british naval power was by far superior in the med. even though malta took a beating it stilled remained in british hands. britain always retained gilbraltar and fortified it up to the hilt so that germany could not move its alantic navy into mediterran or a large amount of its submarines in. this meant that german occupation of greece and cyprus were useless in terms of there naval impact in the key year of 1943

This is irrelevent; at no time could Germany have won the war once convoy shipping began; the losses to the German U-boat fleet were unsustainable and the sinking of the Bismark effectively marked the end of Germany's attempt to grab the seas.

i think it is relevent because the germans did sucessfully disrupt british maratime and if hilter had maybe placed more emphesis on building up his submarine corp and surface vessels britain would have been hurting a lot more at sea.

Wrong. The enemies that Germany excelled against were outdated years before the advent of blitzkreig (which was a Russian idea by the way) - for example the Polish and the French armies still utilised the ancient stationary gun-emplacements-and-fortress battle lines which were entirely undermined when paratroopers came on the scene - and paratroopers were not restricted to the German army either. All I have to say is Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn.`

yes Operation Uranus and Operation Little Saturn were a sucess in the way they encircled the german 6th army but with the italian 8th army what chance did they stand of breaking out or of hoth breaking in.

Stalin's coups prevented 'deep operations' coming to the fore in the Russian tactical rulebook (because Stalin's crony Voroshilov oh he of Finnish War infamy was not in favour of it) and despite the fact that Stalin had executed plenty of the young blood of his army in 1938, they still were pulled around by Zhukov and annihilated the 4th Panzer Army and 6th Army at Stalingrad plus defeated an overstrength Leibstandarte division later in the Winter of '43.
Zhukov was definately a great military leader but part of the reason why the germans lost the battle of stalingrad was the fact that hilter intervened directly in the battle not allowing a tatical retreat which General Friedrich Paulus favoured. so the germans had to fight street to street urban warfare which they were not used to and with the fanactial attitude of the russians because the city bore the name of their leader the battle was eventually won.

No you said that if Hitler had left decisions to his generals, then the war could have been won; this is not the case; the German officer corp were severely anti-bolshevist and wanted to destroy Russia also - they would have invaded, with or without the Balkan campaign and if they had made the invasion of Russia without the Balkan campaign, then Russia might have been worse hit but Britain would have been in a much better position in North Africa and the Mediterranean - and the landings at Dieppe may have ended up landing in Taranto given the deployment of German troops!

i think you misunderstand me, i do not mean that decision like were they were going to evade would be left up to the generals, what i meant was operational decisions during the battle were hilter intervened and made a mess. this was evendent in the battle of stalingrad.the Caucasuses oil fields seemed to be at Hitler's mercy. Then he changed his mind and ordered part of the forces that were to occupy them to the siege of Stalingrad instead. By diverting them to this ultimately futile attack Hitler wrecked the Caucasus campaign, which had a good chance of success. the battle of stalingrad was the verdun of the second world war and should never have been entered into the way it was by germany.

From 1942 Hitler had lost the war. Germany versus Britain and Russia alone would have lost the war simply because Russia was too big for 4 million men to conquer and Britain's empire would have held out.

i would disagree with this. i think germany had a lot of luck on the eastern front. hilter thought that he could have a quick campain in russia and his forces where not able to deal with the russian winter which played a major part in their down fall. i will not say that if the germans had not invaded russia they would have won because the invasion was inveitable. if hilter had devouted more resources to the submarine war germany would have tightened the noose on britain effectively strangling it.

Éomer of Rohan · 06-11-2003 10:23pm

Please re-edit the post and fix your bold type then I can get back to you without having to remember what is mine and not.

spooiirt!! · 11-11-2003 10:46am

eomer, im sorry, but ive had enough of youre insulting the german army. my grandfather and his brothers fought in the war ( im german by the way), and all of them tell stories of how they took out something like 6 shermans a day in their stug 3. if the german army was so crap, they wouldnt have held out against the WORLD for three years.

Éomer of Rohan · 11-11-2003 7:38pm

Quoted from Spoiirt
eomer, im sorry, but ive had enough of youre insulting the german army. my grandfather and his brothers fought in the war ( im german by the way), and all of them tell stories of how they took out something like 6 shermans a day in their stug 3. if the german army was so crap, they wouldnt have held out against the WORLD for three years

Don't bother being sorry - back up such generalising nonsense.

spooiirt!! · 12-11-2003 10:39am

generalizing nonsense? everything everyone else says is nonsense to you isnt it?

spooiirt!! · 12-11-2003 11:27am

actually i take that back. i just saw that you are a socialist, so its quite understandable you being biased against a fascist army.

12-11-2003 2:33pm

guys, can we lay back on the insults and get back to the thread?

In regards to the German Army being outmatched, in my opinion thats incorrect. They were perhaps outmatched on a technological level, since Hitler failed to invest in research once the war began, however, what made the German Army superior was the level of co-operation that the armed forces had. Essentially, it was the joint attacks of the Stuka's and Panzer divisions that enabled germany to defeat so many opponents. The level of training beyond that of the elite divisions was below average, but the belief in Racial superiority gave them an added advantage against de-moralised troops.

Russia could have been beaten, had Germany waited until their troops had been supplied correctly. It was Hitlers failure to see a winter war, that buggered them up. Even at the end of the battle of stalingrad, German forces were dealing more damage to russian divisions. Regardless of the number superiority of Russian troops, German divisions were generally better trained and they had the pride of previous conquests behind them. Russian troops on the other hand, were badly lead (on a unit, & regiment level), incredibly bad morale, terrible amount of supplies etc. It was only once Normandy was invaded that Russia was given enough freedom to re-supply & train troops.

Hitler in my eyes is still the worst military leader of all time.

Worst Military Leader of all Time

Worst Military Leader of all Time 45 votes

Comments