Worst Commanders in History

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I just wanted to address the portion about "inadequate equipment" of the Italians. That is a common misperception arising from the comments made by Rommel.
There was an interesting Italian version of the film El Alamein made a few decades ago.

The write up on the film was quite pointed in declaring that from the Italians perspective, Rommels retreat and abandonment of the Italians was a latent act of teutonic cowardice.

Recorded history is always a victim of the authors perspective....
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
Actually, both Mussolini and Graziani were right. Italy did have the capacity to wage war (but didn't know how to use it). Graziani was right (in that he knew he didn't know how to fight). Mechanisation was an excuse. The British captured 7000 trucks from the Italians during Ops Compass. Just think if Rommel had those trucks and artillery together with the loads of captured fuel and spaghetti when he started out.

I think that Monty is irrelevant in a debate of the greatest or worst commanders. Its just the Monty fans trying to make him out as a great commander that gets under my skin.
So why argue for him being one of the worst?

7000 "other motor vehicles" (not all trucks), plus those the Italians managed to keep, was nowhere near enough to transport & supply the forces Graziani deployed in anything other than near-static operations. He'd probably have been more effective if he'd left most of his infantry in garrison in the rear, guarding the ports where his supplies came in. Or even in Italy. Wouldn't have needed to transport their food, water & distilling plants, tents, & the troops themselves, leaving the transport free for supporting mobile units. The Italian artillery was also handicapped by immobility, because there weren't enough vehicles to tow the guns around & carry their ammo. Leadership failure. Officers thinking in WW1 terms. Consider Nibeiwa - same thing. How the hell did Maletti let himself be surprised like that?.

The Italian army in 1940 was pretty poor, with the rot coming from the top. But it seems to have lacked little in personal courage (Maletti is said to have died coming out of his dugout shooting, & many of his artillerymen died shooting point-blank at Matildas, watching their shot bounce off, but staying with their guns), & by mid-1942, it was vastly improved in tactics, leadership (as I said, the worst officers had gone, or learned), & to some extent in equipment. Snide remarks about the Italians at Alamein are unjustified.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Again apologies because that's the perception arising from the post.
No problems

On numbers. Depending on which text you read most agree with a two to one advantage with the German positions maned by roughly 100,000 troops. I have no doubt you can provide the strength of the individual units but there is a disparity between references. Strawson (El Alamein – desert victory) indicated there were 200000 allied men in fighting formations opposing 100000 German in fighting formations. The same figure is quoted by Moorehead (the desert war), Fraser (Knights cross) and Porch (Hilters Mediterranean Gamble) in their respective books. Some of the differences appear occur if rear echelon troops are included. Using these reference In so far as material was concerned the allied force had a two to superiority almost all respect except that in the air they had almost complete domination.

Deepening on the reference the casualty figure for the Axis forces for El alamain and the retreat differ. A figure of around 50000 killed, captured or wounded (noting a proportion of the latter returned to service) is pretty common. Again I suspect you have some accurate figure on this but porch (no fan of the British) indicated that at the end of the El Alamein battel the allied held 30000 axis captives suggesting a figure of 50000 lost may be realistic. Despite this even if over 60000 made it back to the Mareth line this is still only a small proportion of the 275000 captured in North Africa and was without much of its equipment. The men and material captured in 1943 had largely been injected into the theatre of war after the reverse.

In so far as Montgomery’s contribution is concerned I will rely on Pouch in this regards as he is not fond of the British so can be expected to take a more hardened view of his contributions. However, he actually agrees with the view that Montgomery did add cohesion to what was a fragmented force (as Porch would state run by the desert trade unions run by the Guards, Greenjackets and Calvary). The notion of using small forces (boxes and jock columns) was thrown out and the army fought as in division from that time forward. Again I am not stating Montgomery was the greatest general on earth but he was by no means the worst. While the Germans were very much a professional fighting army where as the 8th Army was made up largely of civilian conscripts. Oddly enough the only purely volunteer force in the groups was the ANZAC contribution. The references I have quoted all indicate the style adopted by Montgomery was based on this feature of his force and he was careful to never overextend himself and hence could not suffer a serious reverse. His tactic were based on the nature of the forces he had. Be even so many critisised the slow follow up (inlcuding Alexander).

Montgomery was a clumsily and ill conceived show man but, according to Pourch, Stawson and Moorhead actually cared for his troops and would not needlessly throw their lives away. That does not make him a bad general either.

If you want a bad English General look at Gough on the Western Front in WW1.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Oddly enough the only purely volunteer force in the groups was the ANZAC contribution

Sorry must correct myself. The Free French contribution to the allied forces in the desert must also be recognised as a purely volunteer force..
 

PullerRommel

New Member
I dont know exactly but i think the 361st Africa Regiment was volunteers. They were all French Foreign Legionnaires of German origin. I might be mistake i cant find my book
 

Dr Freud

New Member
since worst commanders in history isnt worth remembering - thus noone writes about them, i guess its impossible to point out THE worst.
Their opponents skills also play equal role in determining how well they can command to victory.

so, with this, i will choose both the loser and winner.
30 years war
and my short straw goes to..Gallas(also known as the army destroyer), and winner...Johan Baner.

Peter Englund, currently the greatest historican in sweden, wrote:

His(Johan Baner) great opponent, the imperial field marshal Gallas was also
a notorious drunk, but the difference between the two was that while Baner
could usually do his job exellent when drunk, Gallas was incompetent even when perfectly sober. infact, some even said Baner was at his very best when
he was drunk.
For the fact is that Baner, even with all his bad characteristics, was a perfect, close to genious field marshal.
 

IvyGradGirl

New Member
Gen. George Armstrong Custer.

From Wikipedia:

According to Grinnell's account, based on the testimony of the Cheyenne warriors who survived the fight,[20] at least part of Custer's command attempted to ford the river at the north end of the camp but were driven off by stiff resistance from the Indians and were pursued by hundreds of warriors onto a ridge north of the encampment. There, Custer was prevented from digging in by Crazy Horse, whose warriors had outflanked him and were now to his north, at the crest of the ridge.[21] Traditional white accounts attribute to Gall the attack that drove Custer up onto the ridge, but Indian witnesses have disputed that account.[22] For a time, Custer's men were deployed by company, in standard cavalry fighting formation--the skirmish line, with every fourth man holding the horses. This arrangement, however, robbed Custer of a quarter of his firepower, and as the fight intensified, many soldiers took to holding their own horses or hobbling them, further reducing their effective fire. When Crazy Horse and White Bull mounted the charge that broke through the center of Custer's lines, pandemonium broke out among the men of Calhoun's command,[23] though Keogh's men seem to have fought and died where they stood. Many of the panicking soldiers threw down their weapons[24] and either rode or ran towards the knoll where Custer, the other officers, and about 40 men were making a stand. Along the way, the Indians rode them down, counting coup by whacking the fleeing troopers with their quirts or lances.[25]
Initially, Custer had 208 officers and men under his command, with an additional 142 under Reno and just over a hundred under Benteen. The Indians fielded over 1800 warriors,[26] although historically, the numbers do seem to have been exaggerated to explain Custer's defeat, and again, to exculpate him from his numerous errors before and during the battle. As the troopers were cut down, moreover, the Indians stripped the dead of their firearms and ammunition, with the result that the return fire from the cavalry steadily decreased, while the fire from the Indians steadily increased. With Custer and the survivors shooting the remaining horses to use them as breastworks and making a final stand on the knoll at the north end of the ridge, the Indians closed in for the final attack and killed all in Custer's command. As a result, the Battle of the Little Bighorn has come to be popularly known as "Custer's Last Stand".

When the cavalry's main column did arrive three days later, they found most of the soldiers' corpses stripped, scalped, and mutilated.[27] Custer’s body had two bullet holes, one in the left temple and one just above the heart.[28] Following the recovery of Custer's body, he was given a funeral with full military honors, and was buried on the battlefield, and later reinterred in the West Point Cemetery on October 10, 1877. The site of the battle was designated a National Cemetery in 1876.
The assessment of Custer's actions during the Indian Wars has undergone substantial reconsideration in modern times[citation needed]. For many critics, Custer was the personification of the U.S. Government's ill-treatment of the Native American tribes, while others see him as a scapegoat for the Grant Indian policy, which he personally opposed.[citation needed] His testimony on behalf of the abuses sustained by the reservation Indians nearly cost him his command by the Grant administration. Custer once wrote that if he were an Indian, he would rather fight for his freedom alongside the hostile warriors "than be confined to the limits of a reservation".[citation needed]
Many criticized Custer's actions during the battle of the Little Bighorn, claiming his actions were impulsive and foolish,[citation needed] while others praised him as a fallen hero who was betrayed by the incompetence of his subordinate officers.[citation needed] The controversy over who is to blame for the disaster at Little Bighorn continues to this day. Critics at the time through the present have asserted at least three military blunders. First, Custer refused the support offered by General Terry on 21 June of an additional battalion. At the same time, he left behind at the steamer Far West on the Yellowstone a battery of Gatling guns, knowing he was facing superior numbers. Finally, on the day of the battle, he divided his 600-man command in the face of superior numbers. Certainly reducing the size of his force by at least a sixth, and rejecting the firepower offered by the Gatling guns played into the events of 25 June to the disadvantage of the 7th cavalry.[29]

IGG
 

Cinncinatus

New Member
probably sir douglas haig

Montgomery's probably up there, but another one few people recognize is Earl Sir Douglas Haig. During the Great War he wanted to show the Germans the discipline and order of the British Empire, so he told his troops to advance in formation, marching speed into German machine gun fire and artillery shelling. He also declared that the tank could never replace the cavalry charge and as such ordered many cavalry charges into enemy lines. Of course, while his men were dying by the thousands or generally suffering in the trenches, he was in a cozy pavilion drinking tea 15 miles from the trench line. In fact, he was so ignorant of what was happening that when he visited the trenches and saw no-man's land, he remarked, "My god, did we really send our boys into that!" During his command, hundreds of thousands of British soldiers died.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
A hell of alot of stereotyping here. Douglas Haig did NOT specify, battalion, company, platoon and section tactics on the ground, that was the preserve of the Battalion Commanders, anyone who thinks he was able to influence the decision making right down to the that level needs to do their research. He set objectives and let the Corp Commanders determine how they were to be achieved, they in turn would have put pressure on their Brigadiers and so on and so forth down the chain of command. WWI was a unprecedented clash of arms which destroyed the myth that elan alone would carry the day. The advent of smokeless powder, breach loading artillery, cordite, barbed wire, concrete and the machine gun changed warfare forever. Lessons were learnt on all sides, and if you look at the tactics used in 1914 and compare them with what was undertaken in 1918 there is a huge leap forward.

What you have to remember is that in WWI communications were pretty damn poor, once the command to advance was given it became near impossible to change tactics or switch units at short notice - the fog of war was total. They had to rely on telephone cables and runners to communicate even the most basic tactical decisions. If communications technology had advanced at the same pace as the ability to kill one another, then the tactics of WWI we love to ridicule would have been a lot different - hindsight is a wonderful thing! Another myth is senior officers sat back drinking in their country houses whilst the poor foot soldier died in droves, more Generals, Brigadiers, Colonels died in WWI on the front line than during any war prior or since the Great War.

Moving on to the WWII, one thing Montgomery excelled at was logistical planning, without his expertise General Eisenhower grudgingly admits D-DAY could have been a disaster. He may have been a pain in the arse to work with, but he was a logistical genius who had the total loyalty of his Commonwealth troops. It really p*sses me off when you hear all the criticism about Monty and his slowness after the D-DAY landings. What people fail to take into account is the British and Canadians faced ALL Germany's Tigers, Panthers and elite Panzer Divisions for the critical weeks following the landings. Patton's 3rd Army didn't engage their first Tiger/Panther for many weeks (six?)after landing. Thank god for the Firefly and Typhoon.
 
Last edited:

Cinncinatus

New Member
You're probably right in most aspects, and I do recognize that WWI was a completely new war for everyone with all the new technology, Haig should have realized two or three years into the war (when he had major command) that this was a technologically new war and that traditional infantry tactics were obsolete. Also, while I'm sure Haig did entrust basic command to his Corps Commanders and below in rank, a good commander would at least review with his subordinates what they were going to do. Or, if there were simply too many minor officers to review with each one, he should at least have the minor officers file reports of their plans to the higher officers and so on, or some plan like that. And while I do agree communications were probably horrible, a good commander would learn after one charge that close formations, cavalry charges, etc. were bad. You wouldn't need to have great communications to figure that out.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
General's at the outbreak of WWI were not prepared for the carnage that followed. Prior to 1914 there were only a few engagements, which gave an indication of what was about to happen: US Civil War (importance of the railway and need for total war involving the destruction of not just the field armies but the economy of the enemy), Boar War (smokeless powder, Krupp artillery, civilian/military merged as one) and Russo-Sino War (trench warfare, machine guns and heavy artillery).

Most WWI field commanders, following the cessation of mobile warfare in early 1914 (Mons, Marne), relied on artillery as the critical factor in ensuring a breakthrough. Once the 1905 drafted Schlieffen plan failed Germany switched to a largely defensive posture and invested a great deal more energy, time and money on building layer after layer of mutually supporting concrete fortification lines complete with deep bunker systems. The Allies from 1915 onwards went on the attack, they had little choice, the French had to drive the Germans off their soil, the British as the junior partner on land followed their strategy. Consequently Allied trench systems were far less sophisticated because they were always considered to be temporary - front line trench today, communication/reserve trench tomorrow. The need to breach and destroy the German lines meant that artillery was considered to be an absolute must. Unfortunately both France and Britain lacked sufficient heavy artillery, they relied on field artillery designed for mobile warfare (French 75's and Brit 25pdrs). These were great in close support, but totally useless in dealing with complex well prepared linear positions protected by razor wire and concrete machine gun posts. It wasn't until 1916 that the Allies started to deploy heavy howitzers in numbers on a par with the enemy. Even though at the Somme there was a huge bombardment prior to kick-off, there simply was not enough shells to maintain a creeping barrage going a head of the first waves of troops along the entire front, hence the shocking death toll once the Germans left there deep protective positions. Later in the war the Generals learnt not to waste valuable shells on softening up bombardments, but instead focused on suprise infantry attacks supported by creeping barrages.

Rightly or wrongly most post war commentators tend to focus on casualties vs. ground taken, however because WWI became a conflict based on siege warfare (Western Front in particular) the onus switched (in the Generals minds, not the politicians) to bleeding ones enemy dry rather than achieving a decisive breakthrough. Germany's attack at Verdun was just that, aimed at sucking in French reinforcements. Unfortunately it had the reverse affect and caused similar horrendous casualties on the German side. The Somme was considered a catastrophe in the West, but it also had a deep impact on the Germans, because they realised that the Allies had at their disposal a pool of manpower, which they simply couldn't match. The German offensives of 1918 was a make or break campaign (more men died in 1918 than years 1914-1917), once it ground to halt they basically collapsed, they had nothing left. The subsequent Allied counter-attacks broke the German's will to fight compounded by the fact that the country was starving to death thanks to the Naval blockade.

Criticism of Haig was driven by pacifists and appeasers in the 1920's and 30's riding on the backs of the poetry and anti-war literature which became extremely popular, he basically became a scape goat for liberal elite. However if you take the time to read about his life in more detail you will see he was not the heartless bastard people love to paint him as.
 

USNlover

New Member
well, what about King Edward the II you know the Braveheart gay guy. well he destoryed the English army and let Wallece capture York and didnt do anything about it. he was stupid person. About Montgomrey he was just arroganut person with a HUGE ego :sniper :dance2

:sniper :hippie
 

riksavage

Banned Member
well, what about King Edward the II you know the Braveheart gay guy. well he destoryed the English army and let Wallece capture York and didnt do anything about it. he was stupid person. About Montgomrey he was just arroganut person with a HUGE ego :sniper :dance2

:sniper :hippie
Do you mean Edward Longshanks - The Hammer of the Scots?

Overview of his involvement in Scotland during the period you are making reference to:

Edward's involvement in Scotland had far reaching effects. The country had developed a feudal kingdom similar to England in the Lowlands the Celtic tribal culture dispersed to the Highlands. After the death of the Scottish king, Alexander III, Edward negotiated a treaty whereby Margaret, Maid of Norway and legitimate heir to the Scottish crown, would be brought to England to marry his oldest son, the future Edward II. Margaret, however, died in 1290 en route to England, leaving a disputed succession in Scotland; Edward claimed the right to intercede as feudal lord of the Scottish kings through their Anglo-Norman roots. Edward arbitrated between thirteen different claimants and chose John Baliol. Baliol did homage to Edward as his lord, but the Scots resisted Edward's demands for military service. In 1296, Edward invaded Scotland and soundly defeated the Scots under Baliol. Baliol was forced to abdicate and the Scottish barons did homage to Edward as their king. William Wallace incited a rebellion in 1297, defeated the English army at Stirling, and harassed England's northern counties. The next year, Edward defeated Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk but encountered continued resistance until Wallace's capture and execution in 1304. Edward's campaigns in Scotland were ruthless and aroused in the Scots a hatred of England that would endure for generations.

I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies? Edward Longshanks was a pretty impressive individual with a stong track record campaigning in France. He was not present at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (the bridge being a critical factor in the victory, missed out in the movie). He subsequently gave Wallace a kicking at Falkirk. He also challanged Wallace to single combat, Wallace declined.
 

Twickiwi

New Member
Has anyone mentioned Stalin?

Refused to believe his own intelligence that Barbarosa was about to happen despite also being warned by Britain.

Executed general staff base on merit.

His obsession with Leningrad and Stalingrad turned them into bloodbaths, he squandered his overwhelming personel and materiel advantages.

Refused to allow an ordered withdrawl toward Moscow and nearly lost the city as a result.

His drive to take Berlin no matter what cost caused huge losses and collateral damage to the civilian population.

He used the USSRs shocking loss of life (that he was responsible for exacerbating) as a moral club to browbeat Roosevelt into allowing the 1945 land grab.

If the guy wasn't one of the greatest mass murderers in history he would be remembered as the guy whose incompetence prolonged WWII.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Korean War.

Not sure who should take the fall here, but I can understand why it's called the forgotten war.

Prior to North Korea's invasion of the South in 1950, some military genius in the US Asian Command decided that the South Korean's, thanks to their rather belligerent leader at the time, were far more likely to invade the North than visa, versa. To mitigate this threat it was decided to restrict the ROK military capabilities by NOT allowing them to have any tanks, anti-tank guns, heavy artillery and fighter/bomber aircraft. In essence restrict them to militia status. The CIA in 1949 reported that the North Korean army had no tanks and only 35 thousand men at arms. Imagine their surprise when in 1950 150.000 North Korean's crossed the 38th parallel accompanied by 138 T34's supported by Russian / Chinese supplied heaver artillery. To make matters worse the American reinforcements sent from Japan where ill prepared, poorly trained and had only light tanks in support. One Company Commander lost 12 of his 17 tanks in one day trying to take on the T34's to zero enemy losses.:(
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
General's at the outbreak of WWI were not prepared for the carnage that followed. Prior to 1914 there were only a few engagements, which gave an indication of what was about to happen: US Civil War (importance of the railway and need for total war involving the destruction of not just the field armies but the economy of the enemy), Boar War (smokeless powder, Krupp artillery, civilian/military merged as one) and Russo-Sino War (trench warfare, machine guns and heavy artillery).

Most WWI field commanders, following the cessation of mobile warfare in early 1914 (Mons, Marne), relied on artillery as the critical factor in ensuring a breakthrough. Once the 1905 drafted Schlieffen plan failed Germany switched to a largely defensive posture and invested a great deal more energy, time and money on building layer after layer of mutually supporting concrete fortification lines complete with deep bunker systems. The Allies from 1915 onwards went on the attack, they had little choice, the French had to drive the Germans off their soil, the British as the junior partner on land followed their strategy. Consequently Allied trench systems were far less sophisticated because they were always considered to be temporary - front line trench today, communication/reserve trench tomorrow. The need to breach and destroy the German lines meant that artillery was considered to be an absolute must. Unfortunately both France and Britain lacked sufficient heavy artillery, they relied on field artillery designed for mobile warfare (French 75's and Brit 25pdrs). These were great in close support, but totally useless in dealing with complex well prepared linear positions protected by razor wire and concrete machine gun posts. It wasn't until 1916 that the Allies started to deploy heavy howitzers in numbers on a par with the enemy. Even though at the Somme there was a huge bombardment prior to kick-off, there simply was not enough shells to maintain a creeping barrage going a head of the first waves of troops along the entire front, hence the shocking death toll once the Germans left there deep protective positions. Later in the war the Generals learnt not to waste valuable shells on softening up bombardments, but instead focused on suprise infantry attacks supported by creeping barrages.

Rightly or wrongly most post war commentators tend to focus on casualties vs. ground taken, however because WWI became a conflict based on siege warfare (Western Front in particular) the onus switched (in the Generals minds, not the politicians) to bleeding ones enemy dry rather than achieving a decisive breakthrough. Germany's attack at Verdun was just that, aimed at sucking in French reinforcements. Unfortunately it had the reverse affect and caused similar horrendous casualties on the German side. The Somme was considered a catastrophe in the West, but it also had a deep impact on the Germans, because they realised that the Allies had at their disposal a pool of manpower, which they simply couldn't match. The German offensives of 1918 was a make or break campaign (more men died in 1918 than years 1914-1917), once it ground to halt they basically collapsed, they had nothing left. The subsequent Allied counter-attacks broke the German's will to fight compounded by the fact that the country was starving to death thanks to the Naval blockade.

Criticism of Haig was driven by pacifists and appeasers in the 1920's and 30's riding on the backs of the poetry and anti-war literature which became extremely popular, he basically became a scape goat for liberal elite. However if you take the time to read about his life in more detail you will see he was not the heartless bastard people love to paint him as.
Rick, great couple of posts. I absoloutly agree ion your assesment in Haig, he was jusged poorly by history IMHO.

I just have one point of contention. The vast majority of major offensives on the western front (all in fact bar Verdun) had specific strategic objectives beyond inflicting casualties. The Somme offensive was intended to relieve the pressure on the french at Verdun, which it succeeded in doing. Ypres intended to secure the channel ports, improving the British logistical situation, in which it failed. The Micheal offensive intended to split the allies, it failed. Attrition was more of an underlying strategy rather than an express strategic objective.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
General Westmoreland: Its not his handling specifically but the counterinsurgency doctrine the US applied in Vietnam in general that was fundamentally flawed IMO, but still the buck stops with him. Too bad he couldn't take a page out of David Petraeus' book.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
General Westmoreland: Its not his handling specifically but the counterinsurgency doctrine the US applied in Vietnam in general that was fundamentally flawed IMO, but still the buck stops with him. Too bad he couldn't take a page out of David Petraeus' book.
Unfortunately Westmoreland like 'Storming Norman' in GWI had a dislike for Special Forces. They believed that overwhelming force and firepower is the way forward, not surgical strikes by well trained SF units based on intelligence. This approach is fine in a conventional scenario, but fatally flawed in an asymmetrical environment.

Storming Norman's hatred 'apparently' stems from an encounter he had on a range when he was a middle ranking officer. He arrived with his troops to find a group of SEAL's live firing, they refused to leave or give their names and subsequently told him and his men to f*ck-off and complain to what was then the forerunner of SOCOM.

Hence in GWI US SF units were sidelined with most of the behind the lines Scud Hunting left to the coalition partners SF teams.
 
Top