Worst Commanders in History
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
Do commander-n-cheifs qualify?
I would hope so!
Who did you have in mind?
As far as a reduction in rounds goes for command tanks;
In Panther tanks; 64 rounds rather than 79
Tiger tanks; 66 rounds rather than 92, and 750 fewer rounds for the MGs.
The Panther conversion seems very efficient, but it looks as if all they did was put a FuG7 or FuG8 radio in the turret, in assition to the FuG5 that was already in the hull over the gearbox.
I would assume that the T-34 conversion would be less efficient, because the radios were less powerful and somewhat bulky compaired to German ones.
I would hope so!
Who did you have in mind?
As far as a reduction in rounds goes for command tanks;
In Panther tanks; 64 rounds rather than 79
Tiger tanks; 66 rounds rather than 92, and 750 fewer rounds for the MGs.
The Panther conversion seems very efficient, but it looks as if all they did was put a FuG7 or FuG8 radio in the turret, in assition to the FuG5 that was already in the hull over the gearbox.
I would assume that the T-34 conversion would be less efficient, because the radios were less powerful and somewhat bulky compaired to German ones.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Except Singapore... :shudderIf it hasn't been mentioned, I'd put the name Rudolfo Graziani into the hat.
To quote Churchill: "Never in modern history has so many surrendered to so few".
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Truth is History is Littered with imbeciles commanding troops. Anybody who has been in military service has very little problem believing this. Truth is many Militaries are littered with morons who were promoted for all the wrong reasons. The Arab Militaries are a case in point, where'as the number 1 requirement for command is family connections and Political reliability. Look at the moronic sycophants that ran Saddam's services, and , Egypt under Nasser.Don't come down too heavy on them
Truth is:
some of us wouldn't have done any better
Many commanders operate under tense situations and must achieve
"almost impossible" objectives in record time
Under this situation ,mistakes might occur
Generally such totalitarian states produce morons, even tho the western militaries will produce the odd one. Germany in WW-ll was different because they had a Officer corp of a very high standard already when Hitler took power, and Hitler was to smart to interfere. At least until they tried to kill him in July 1944.
Stalin had complete idiots running the show when Germany first struck, as well as being a military idiot himself. He was, however, smart enough to realize that if he didn't make competent commanders then he himself was as good as dead. And thus the Soviets marched to a great victory.
The threat of a bullet in the head for failure also no doubt turned some mediocre commanders into good ones.
In WW2 the totalitarian states held a monopoly in good Generals. It is almost impossible to find an allied General who showed the same imagination tactically or stratigicly as Chuikov, Zhukov, or Manstien, or Guderian or Rommel, or a host of others.
I would say Mac Aurther was an exception to this rule, and perhaps Patton too, althought the two did show a tendency towards dictitoral behaviour!
The North Koreans also gave a good account of themselves, and the Vietnamise managed to defeat two western powers in succession, a feat which still boggles the mind.
Perhaps there are other reasons why the Arab armies performed so badly(crap air forces and being sucker punched by the Israelies in the 6 day war did'ent help), I would'ent put it down to them being totalitarian.
I would say Mac Aurther was an exception to this rule, and perhaps Patton too, althought the two did show a tendency towards dictitoral behaviour!
The North Koreans also gave a good account of themselves, and the Vietnamise managed to defeat two western powers in succession, a feat which still boggles the mind.
Perhaps there are other reasons why the Arab armies performed so badly(crap air forces and being sucker punched by the Israelies in the 6 day war did'ent help), I would'ent put it down to them being totalitarian.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Soory but absolute boll*x. I suggest you study your WWII military history in more depth and look at both strategic and tactical levels of competency.
Allied commanders such as Slim and Nimitz in the Far East, and Gavin in the West were exceptional and innovative commanders who began on a back foot and achieved both strategic and tactical victories in extreme conditions. Western democracies have traditionally produced better ‘free-thinking’ commanders who are less constrained by the rigidity of centrally controlled dictatorships, which often stifled innovation during times of crisis. Early in WWII German commanders were given a free reign, as soon as they began to suffer defeats Hitler lost confidence and centrally controlled decision making resulting in a series of catastrophic errors. Compare that with the West, when the UK was on its knees Churchill encouraged innovation amongst his commanders, hence the creation of SAS, Commando, Airborne and Chindit units who could operate independently and take the war to the enemy in occupied countries from France, North Africa through to Burma without the burden of centralized command and control.
Allied commanders such as Slim and Nimitz in the Far East, and Gavin in the West were exceptional and innovative commanders who began on a back foot and achieved both strategic and tactical victories in extreme conditions. Western democracies have traditionally produced better ‘free-thinking’ commanders who are less constrained by the rigidity of centrally controlled dictatorships, which often stifled innovation during times of crisis. Early in WWII German commanders were given a free reign, as soon as they began to suffer defeats Hitler lost confidence and centrally controlled decision making resulting in a series of catastrophic errors. Compare that with the West, when the UK was on its knees Churchill encouraged innovation amongst his commanders, hence the creation of SAS, Commando, Airborne and Chindit units who could operate independently and take the war to the enemy in occupied countries from France, North Africa through to Burma without the burden of centralized command and control.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Weasal1962 my 'boll*x' comment was aimed at Merocaines reference to Totalitarian States monoply on good generals. You and I must have responded at the same time, your response beating mine.
Nimitz's carrier and island hopping campaigns against the Japanese utilising Navy / Marine ship based units were for the day pretty inivative.
Nimitz's carrier and island hopping campaigns against the Japanese utilising Navy / Marine ship based units were for the day pretty inivative.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
North Africa was a side show lead to stalemate in Italy. Give the weight of numbers in the Brithish and American favor it was a forgone conclusion, given basic competence. That doesent demenstrate tactical and stragicaic imagination.Soory but absolute boll*x. I suggest you study your WWII military history in more depth and look at both strategic and tactical levels of competency.
Gavin yes a competent commander, and probobly one of the most balanced, and he achived good things with overwhelming men and materical.. Thats one General you've mentioned. The truth is German cometence has been blown out of all preportion to compenste for Allied mishandling in the last year of the war.
I was'ent talking about Admerials, of whom good ones the Americans had an aboundence.
Riksavage, perhaps you should read Max Hastings 'Armageddon' if you martial honour can handle it....
Read it, you should also consider John Keegans 'Six Armies at Normandy' and Anthony Beavors Berlin & Stalingrad. All highly informative observations of commanders and their troops in battle.
I still stand by my comments that totalitarian dictatorships DO NOT produce better leaders.
I still stand by my comments that totalitarian dictatorships DO NOT produce better leaders.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
I've read them. I like Beavor, Keegans a bit to flowery for my taste.Read it, you should also consider John Keegans 'Six Armies at Normandy' and Anthony Beavors Berlin & Stalingrad. All highly informative observations of commanders and their troops in battle.
? Thats just an assertion.I still stand by my comments that totalitarian dictatorships DO NOT produce better leaders.
Looking at the situation objectivly, I can only say that the Dictorships produced Generals who show more imagination in applying the manuver warfare.
They certainly did'ent produce better leaders, but Generals who could fight a modern war, they produced in spades.
Once the western Allies broke out of normandy they showed no signs they had learned the lessons of the previous 4 years of war in europe.
What would you call them? Democratic? Or perhaps you could picture yourself saying something negative about Nasser on the Cairo streets in 1967 and not visiting a jail cell.Perhaps there are other reasons why the Arab armies performed so badly(crap air forces and being sucker punched by the Israelies in the 6 day war did'ent help), I would'ent put it down to them being totalitarian.
If anything Nasser was the ultimate Arab Totalitarian in that he saw himself the absolute ruler of all the Arab nation.Totalitarianism
1, Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly :
2, A political doctrine advocating the principle of absolute rule:
Please read my posts before commenting. I mentioned the Soviets and the Germans. And they did not have a monopoly by any means although I would say they created combined arms/armored warfare as we know it . All the parties involved had their own remarkble men, tho I'd have to say overall we Yanks had the most. When you look at Land, sea, and air, we Yanks had the best overall.In WW2 the totalitarian states held a monopoly in good Generals. It is almost impossible to find an allied General who showed the same imagination tactically or stratigicly as Chuikov, Zhukov, or Manstien, or Guderian or Rommel, or a host of others.