Worst Commanders in History

[FutureTank]

examples of truly highly capable field commanders ....failing to stand their ground despite clearly recognising the dubiousness of the order at hand.

Yes, and this is why only Davout is ever named as a trully great Marshal of France during Napoleonic Era. He was the only one to have the balls to stand up to Napoleon, and Napoleon appreciated that as much as his flare for organizational capacity, and his tactical skill. St Cyr was probably also deserving of this praise, and Oudinot should have been.

It is fascinating to think that Napoleon marched across Europe with one of the worst sets of subordinated he himself selected!

 

[Big-E]

However I belive somewhat controversially that Chengis Khan was in fact THE worst commander in history.

Do tell...

 

[eckherl]

@Future Tank

My Chechny tank figures come from the U.S military, if anyone wants to challenge this not a problem, other people here can weigh in on the numbers
if they like.

As far as Russian tank figure numbers go in regards to the T-34/85, isn`t this pretty much public knowledge now? If anyone else would like to give me their opinion thats fine also.

And yes, you can take out a helicopter with modern FCS on modern tanks, you do have restrictions though, It has to be stationary or creeping along at a slow pace and with in a realistic range.

As far as the Waffen SS goes, to everyone who is reading this post. I do not place any glory in what the SS stood for, I never said that they were super troopers, just that they had a couple of competant commanders.

As far as the Mongol leadership goes - the floor is all yours.

 

[Big-E]

And yes, you can take out a helicopter with modern FCS on modern tanks, you do have restrictions though, It has to be stationary or creeping along at a slow pace and with in a realistic range.

How sensetive or HE rounds? The skin of a helo is paper thin compared to the velocity of a 120mm HE round. I wonder if it would just punch a hole in it before it detonated?

 

[eckherl]

How sensetive or HE rounds? The skin of a helo is paper thin compared to the velocity of a 120mm HE round. I wonder if it would just punch a hole in it before it detonated?

Germany likes using KE penetrators, I would imagine due to the muzzle velocity and speed to target factors,if I am wrong please weigh in Waylander.

U.S likes using Heat rounds, we have designed a multi purpose Heat round that has a proxi fuse just for Helicopters, when the round gets with in 15 feet of the helicopter it will go off due to it picking up the percussion of the rotor blades. The round actually has two settings, air and ground that you would select.

Yes you do run the chance of the round going straight thru the helicopter, but if you look at everthing that is crammed into them, especially attack helicopters, there is a good chance that you will hit something inside of them, Hydraulic lines, electronics.

 

[Waylander]

Modern HE rounds are programmable so you can control before the shot if the round explodes very easily directly after contact with a structure or penetrates a structure before exploding.
But normally you use KE or HEAT for anti-helicopter fire.
A KE with its 5 kg tungsten penetrator and nearly mach 5 hitting a helicopter should normally be a mission kill at minimum. Alone the impact shock is a problem for helicopters near to the ground and trees.

Edit: Your too fast Eckherl, too fast...

 

[rrrtx]

worst commanders

I'm torn between cheif executives like LBJ and Bush who interfered politically with lower level decisions by field commanders in Vietnam and Iraq respectivley and WW1 generals (collectively I think) for their failure to adapt tactics quickly enough to prevent the horrific casualties caused by advances in defensive technology at the time.

 

[merocaine]

I'm torn between cheif executives like LBJ and Bush who interfered politically with lower level decisions by field commanders in Vietnam and Iraq

A question, has the US president always been the Head of the Armed forces?
and does the President have the power to make war without congress?

I was reading the other day that after the Gulf of Tonkin reselution was repealed empowering the president to make war, Nixon claimed his power to make war derived from his possition as head of State, is this still the case?

 

[Big-E]

A question, has the US president always been the Head of the Armed forces?
and does the President have the power to make war without congress?

I was reading the other day that after the Gulf of Tonkin reselution was repealed empowering the president to make war, Nixon claimed his power to make war derived from his possition as head of State, is this still the case?

He has always been CINC. He is not supposed to declare war, congress has that power. However since the Tonkin resolution we have undeclared wars that get a vote by congress that says.... we will fund this without declaring war.

 

[rrrtx]

There is the seemingly endless debate about the War Powers Act. I'm no expert on the topic. I know basically that the President is limited in his ability to commit forces without Congressional approval - hence the importance of passing a resolution to use use force in Iraq.

I don't really know the details of the restrictions however. It would seem you are better off getting a declaration of war out of the Congress but good luck with that. It's been a while since they agreed to do that.

My concern is more about the political interference in minute military decisions. LBJ was notorious for this during the Vietnam War - especially with regard to the bombing campaigns over the north.

 

[LancerMc]

If I remember my political theory classes, the President is allowed to send in troops for a period of 90 days before the President has to request permission from Congress to continue the action.

The Presidents ability to wage war without Congress has significantly changed since the founders. President Bush and Johnson have not been the only presidents that have tried to sway not only Congress but the public to gain control in a conflict or war.

The next American president will have the most powers any president has ever had in controlling American involvment in wars.

 

[rrrtx]

But from a practical standpoint it helps if the President's party control's both houses of Congress, just as the Republican's did for Bush.

In the next Presidential election you may see any number of combinations - Democratic president with both houses going Democratic, Republican prez with split house, etc.

A President whose party control the full house is the only scenario where they would have any freedom to engage in military operations such as Iraq.

 

[FutureTank]

My Chechny tank figures come from the U.S military, if anyone wants to challenge this not a problem, other people here can weigh in on the numbers if they like..

I await patiently, however documented results of the Russian Army strudy are available online for anyone who reads Russian.

As far as Russian tank figure numbers go in regards to the T-34/85, isn`t this pretty much public knowledge now? If anyone else would like to give me their opinion thats fine also..

Neither will my patience be exausted waiting for figures from other kind souls

And yes, you can take out a helicopter with modern FCS on modern tanks, you do have restrictions though, It has to be stationary or creeping along at a slow pace and with in a realistic range..

I wish you join the Brigades and regiments thread because Waylender is addamant that they can also, and I lack familiarity with tank FCS he has in mind. In fact I have a problem with the whole notion of tanks doing helo overwatch, but hey, we live in interesting times

As far as the Waffen SS goes, to everyone who is reading this post. I do not place any glory in what the SS stood for, I never said that they were super troopers, just that they had a couple of competant commanders..

Ah, well this is another story. No doubt that after they were done stomping up and down parade grounds and got a taste of combat, some of them realised they had better learn what real soldiers do, and undoubtedly some turned out to be quite good at it. The funny thing about war is that one never knows about people when the shooting starts. Trained soldiers sometimes fail at first combat while individuals who had never even considered a military career start to exhibit traits of a gifted leader and previously unsuspected skills in tactics.
However, the question one needs to ask is: did the fact that these individuals served in Wafen SS made them in any way superior to officer in Wehrmacht? My argument is that when all is considered, Wehrmacht troops, oficers, NCOs and privates, conducted themselves with no less proficiency then Waffen SS. What is more, they were in majority, and were more often in combats such as pure leg infantry missions which Waffen SS rarely performed.

As far as the Mongol leadership goes - the floor is all yours.

Actually given your trade, you can probably say a lot more on the subject, but I will oblige below

 

[FutureTank]

WW1 generals (collectively I think) for their failure to adapt tactics quickly enough to prevent the horrific casualties caused by advances in defensive technology at the time.

I might point out that until 'peacefull penetration' there were no better tactic to adapt for the Allies. This was the only tactic designed to overcome advances in German defensive trench systems.

 

[FutureTank]

The Presidents ability to wage war

Wasn't Washing ton the last President to wage war?
residents, and other political personalities only send others to fight. They are not military commanders, but political leaders.

 

[Big-E]

Wasn't Washing ton the last President to wage war?

What about the Mexican War... Spanish War... WWI ... WWII?

 

[FutureTank]

Do tell...

Mongols made a major contribution to the development of Europe as the dominant region in the World by bringing gunpowder to the battlefield.

However Mongols under Ghengis failed to capitalize on this technology. Not only that, but they failed to develop the technology, and so did the Chinese.

Gunpowder was known to the Chinese for some time, and to Mongols also (several centuries I belive). And yet it was the Europeans who within two centuries would be blasting the gates down in China, and in 1900s would march through the Forbidden City.

Failure to appreciate and innovate technoology which clearly offered advantage to the Mongols would eventually collapse their empire, and that of the Manchus who inherited it, and end Imperial China for ever. It would see the Chinese dignity trashed as the Japanes, once in awe of the Middle Kingdom, invade China and occupy parts of it for over a decade, and Russians, once 'barbarians' would liberate China from the Japanese.

Sometimes perception of a good commander are short-sighted by immediate decisions and events rather then their consequences. Ghengis Khan failed not only to change his tactics, or adopt new technology, but also instilled this attitude in his followers. In a short time Mongols would be fractured, and their territories shrunk by more adventurous newcomers such as the Ottomans.

Lesson, a great commander also leaves a great legacy.

 

[Big-E]

Mongols made a major contribution to the development of Europe as the dominant region in the World by bringing gunpowder to the battlefield.

However Mongols under Ghengis failed to capitalize on this technology. Not only that, but they failed to develop the technology, and so did the Chinese.

Gunpowder was known to the Chinese for some time, and to Mongols also (several centuries I belive). And yet it was the Europeans who within two centuries would be blasting the gates down in China, and in 1900s would march through the Forbidden City.

Failure to appreciate and innovate technoology which clearly offered advantage to the Mongols would eventually collapse their empire, and that of the Manchus who inherited it, and end Imperial China for ever. It would see the Chinese dignity trashed as the Japanes, once in awe of the Middle Kingdom, invade China and occupy parts of it for over a decade, and Russians, once 'barbarians' would liberate China from the Japanese.

Sometimes perception of a good commander are short-sighted by immediate decisions and events rather then their consequences. Ghengis Khan failed not only to change his tactics, or adopt new technology, but also instilled this attitude in his followers. In a short time Mongols would be fractured, and their territories shrunk by more adventurous newcomers such as the Ottomans.

Lesson, a great commander also leaves a great legacy.

To place the blame on Ghengis for not using gunpowder is a few centuries premature. It wasn't until the development of the arquebus in the 15th century that firearms played any signifigant role in warfare. The Mongols and gunpowder seige weapons would never have come about with their horse archery tactics. I think your about an age to short to blame this as the downfall of the Mongol empire. The blame should go to the Han Chinese for corrupting the Khanate with their beuracracy and civilization.

 

[FutureTank]

What about the Mexican War... Spanish War... WWI ... WWII?

To wage war in the literal sense of fighting in battle...
Grant was in it, but before he became a president.

 

[Big-E]

To wage war in the literal sense of fighting in battle...
Grant was in it, but before he became a president.

What about Bush1?