Worst Commanders in History

[Big-E]

Who sticks out in your mind as the worst commander?

One that comes to mind is Daniel Sickles. His III corps was decimated at Gettysburg because he disobeyed a direct order. His disobedience cost the lives of most of his command and his leg which is on display at the National Museum of Health and Medicine. :rotfl

 

[Waylander]

You have his leg in a museum?
I mean isn't this a little bit...ammh...weird?

 

[eckherl]

General Montgomery gets my vote -OPERATION MARKET GARDEN: dropped American, British and Polish paratroopers right smack dab in the middle of the remants of a SS panzer battle group after British intel knew they were there.

 

[merocaine]

well I always thought it was a bridge to far....

Monty was so bad, he lack an instint for moblie warfare though.

Its a tough choice there's so many to choose from.

I'd give my vote to King Charles the 2nd, a disaster in military and political terms , He lead the royalist cause to defeat in england, the Irish confederation to defeat in Ireland, and usured in the first modern dictator in europe.
His mistakes are still with us today. He was a tragady for the british Isles.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

Off the top of my head, Monty gets my vote. While an overall look of his, in addition to other Allied commanders', campaign in WWII would show that he did well, there were many instances that showed him to be impatient and demanding in his dealings with units under his command. In many cases, he was stubborn, arrogant, and so was unwilling to change his plans with review of other Allied commanders. Once he thought of a plan, he would stick with it, despite any obstacles that may arise.

For example, as mentioned above, Operation: Market Garden. There were many disasters that were caused due to Montgomery. Some examples are:

1) Monty's unwillingness to adjust his plans when the German 15th Army and another large armored group were within 10 kms of the Allied drop zones and 2) Logistical plans for supplies and reinforcements weren't given enough time to be set up for such a large operation that was to take place.

While there were more factors that led to Market Garden's failure, Monty, as one of the few military leaders that had a role in planning the operation, acted stupid and arrogant when a little bit of caution could have saved hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands of lives in the European and African theatres.

 

[riksavage]

Charles 1

Merocaine I think you were referring to King Charles 1 not King Charles 2. Charles 1 ended up fighting Oliver Cromwell’s new model army, who were one of the first uniformly, trained and equipped armies in Europe. The British ‘red-coat’ came about because Cromwell wanted his troops dressed in an easily recognisable tunic; red dye was the cheapest available at the time. His campaign in Ireland was a stroke of genius rather than because of incompetent Loyalist generals.

Charles 2 began the building of the modern Royal Navy, which in turn, through successive monarchs led to the creation through trade and force to the British Empire.

 

[merocaine]

your dead right charles I! my bad, Cromwell and King Charles I actions in Ireland destoryed what hope there was for a compomise between the Catholic Confedracy and prodestant parliment. The scars are still there even today.

Cromwell left after 9 months, it was his subordinates who pacified most of the country. It was laying siege to towns and castles, proper application of overwhelming force, rather than genius.... But Cromwell was a fine commander in narrow military terms, Though any man who would make himself a dictator leaves a lot to be desired.

People like Charles and Cromwell destroyed any hope of prodestant/catholic compromise in the British Isles, without a King Like Charles I who knows how things would have panned out, perhaps Ireland would still have an English Monarch as head of state? England would be catholic, and Scotland independent! The dynamics of the relationship between England and the home nations were set in those years, without Charles who knows what would have happened.

 

[LancerMc]

I would think IJN Admiral Nagumo as one of the worst commanders. He failed to strike the decisive blow at Pearl Harbor, and lead the Japanese forces during their disastrous defeat at Midway.

 

[FutureTank]

His intelligence was poor, which is surely not a sign of the officer being 'bad'.
Exactly how does one categorise 'bad' in command function? After all, individuals do not get to be in command positions because they are bad at it.

Nor can failure be used as a measure if incompetencey. Many a good commanders have expereinced failure through no fault of their own. Consider the officer responsible for defence of US airspace over NY in September 2001. He is probably the one locked up for threatening to shoot every FBI agent on site and then start with the CIA.

It seems to me that military incompetence is failure to proceed with purpose towards acheiving objectives while leading appropriately motivated troops not lacking in equipment and using appropriate doctrine to defeat the enemy.

Husband Edward Kimmel comes to mind. Although exanorated in 1999, the fact remains that almost everyone suspected there would be war with Japan, and it was his job to ensure the fleet was prepared to defend itself at all times and in all eventualities, including a surprise attack. While denied intelligence by Washington, he had his own intelligence assets, and certainly had the means for ensuring adequate defence of the fleet base.

In the USSR there were several senior generals that did nothing in June 1941 despite having the intelligence of immenent German attack, and were all shot for inaction.

Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival must rate as one of the worst for surrendering Singapore.

Mack, although not an incompetent officer certainly made one of the worst decisions in military history that led to his surrender at Ulm.

Cheers
Greg

 

[eckherl]

His intelligence was poor, which is surely not a sign of the officer being 'bad'.
Exactly how does one categorise 'bad' in command function? After all, individuals do not get to be in command positions because they are bad at it.

Nor can failure be used as a measure if incompetencey. Many a good commanders have expereinced failure through no fault of their own. Consider the officer responsible for defence of US airspace over NY in September 2001. He is probably the one locked up for threatening to shoot every FBI agent on site and then start with the CIA.

It seems to me that military incompetence is failure to proceed with purpose towards acheiving objectives while leading appropriately motivated troops not lacking in equipment and using appropriate doctrine to defeat the enemy.

Husband Edward Kimmel comes to mind. Although exanorated in 1999, the fact remains that almost everyone suspected there would be war with Japan, and it was his job to ensure the fleet was prepared to defend itself at all times and in all eventualities, including a surprise attack. While denied intelligence by Washington, he had his own intelligence assets, and certainly had the means for ensuring adequate defence of the fleet base.

In the USSR there were several senior generals that did nothing in June 1941 despite having the intelligence of immenent German attack, and were all shot for inaction.

Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival must rate as one of the worst for surrendering Singapore.

Mack, although not an incompetent officer certainly made one of the worst decisions in military history that led to his surrender at Ulm.

Cheers
Greg

Thats not true in regards to the Senior Russian staff, Stalin was warned on a few occasions and didn`t do anything about it, Generals were shot because they did not stem the German attack. And that has been a proven fact.

 

[FutureTank]

Red Army commanders on 22 June 1941

Hmmm...proven by whom?

Front, Army and Corps commanders in Red Army had their own means of gathering intelligence. In fact that is how much of Stalin's intelligence was confirmed.

Some commanders did take action. Most of the Odessa Military District troops were alerted and managed to take up their assigned positions. Many other formation commanders took independent actions, in some cases by ordering a surprise training exercise which did not countermand Stalin, and was within their authority. True purpose had to be hidden from the troops, so many went to the front carrying firing targets!

The Air forces were in the worst shape because they had been expressly ordered not to engage German aircraft whcih had been conducting limited overflights of the Soviet territory for days prior.

Of course others did nothing. Popov in the Western District continued to issue idiotic orders to his staff officer that made it to the front line although he was unaware of neither the position of the formations he was issuing orders to, not the enemy advances.

Cheers
Greg

 

[eckherl]

Hmmm...proven by whom?

Front, Army and Corps commanders in Red Army had their own means of gathering intelligence. In fact that is how much of Stalin's intelligence was confirmed.

Some commanders did take action. Most of the Odessa Military District troops were alerted and managed to take up their assigned positions. Many other formation commanders took independent actions, in some cases by ordering a surprise training exercise which did not countermand Stalin, and was within their authority. True purpose had to be hidden from the troops, so many went to the front carrying firing targets!

The Air forces were in the worst shape because they had been expressly ordered not to engage German aircraft whcih had been conducting limited overflights of the Soviet territory for days prior.

Of course others did nothing. Popov in the Western District continued to issue idiotic orders to his staff officer that made it to the front line although he was unaware of neither the position of the formations he was issuing orders to, not the enemy advances.

Cheers
Greg

It wasn`t just the issue of Russia having incompetent Senior generals, hell Stalin purged out the best of them years prior to this. In the early nineties with the opening of the Soviet archives it was very apparent that Stalin was warned of German troop build ups at a massive scale and completely ignored and brushed it off.

 

[FutureTank]

Purging generals: the American expereince

It wasn`t just the issue of Russia having incompetent Senior generals, hell Stalin purged out the best of them years prior to this. .

Why does everyone assume that only the competent generals were purged? Its not even logical. If I was Stalin, I would purge generals who are political threat to me, not those that are proficient in tactics and strategy but pose no political threat. It so happens that most professional soldiers have an aversion to politics. Consider how many generals in America go into politics. Consider also what happened to Powell. Was he not 'purged'? Did his military record had anything to do with it?
Now let's see, Patton never made it into politics, and nether did MacArthur. Eisenhower was the first general in the recent times to get into politics, but one can hardly fault him for winning. Bradley and Marshall were also good soldiers, but were not inclined to go into politics.

In the early nineties with the opening of the Soviet archives it was very apparent that Stalin was warned of German troop build ups at a massive scale and completely ignored and brushed it off.

Yes, Stalin did, but ALL RKKA commanders. You need to read more widely. How did you think the RKKA managed to survive 6 months of retreats and then conduct a successful winter counter-offencive? Do you have any concept of what level of leadership it took to achieve that? And don't tell me the Russians threw lives away by the thousands. It may be what Germans wrote, but ultimatelly throwing lives away does not win battles (see Korea/Vietnam).

Cheers
Greg

 

[eckherl]

Why does everyone assume that only the competent generals were purged? Its not even logical. If I was Stalin, I would purge generals who are political threat to me, not those that are proficient in tactics and strategy but pose no political threat. It so happens that most professional soldiers have an aversion to politics. Consider how many generals in America go into politics. Consider also what happened to Powell. Was he not 'purged'? Did his military record had anything to do with it?
Now let's see, Patton never made it into politics, and nether did MacArthur. Eisenhower was the first general in the recent times to get into politics, but one can hardly fault him for winning. Bradley and Marshall were also good soldiers, but were not inclined to go into politics.


Yes, Stalin did, but ALL RKKA commanders. You need to read more widely. How did you think the RKKA managed to survive 6 months of retreats and then conduct a successful winter counter-offencive? Do you have any concept of what level of leadership it took to achieve that? And don't tell me the Russians threw lives away by the thousands. It may be what Germans wrote, but ultimatelly throwing lives away does not win battles (see Korea/Vietnam).

Cheers
Greg

Alot of those soldiers that he purged out were very competant general officers, the ones left were nothing more that lackeys to him, exception being Zhukov. The only thing that led to Moscows survival was the introduction of Siberian troops to the front, led by whom? Zhukov. They did in fact throw away thousands of lives due to incompetant commanders. And yes Stalin was very paranoid in regards to Zhukov and viewed him as a threat but needed him, soldiers generally do not make good politicians and at least Powell understood that. I do not rely everything on German books, but what I have studied in college and what the military taught me so that I could give good proper training seminars to Officers and NCO`s. A little ironic but some of the Iraqi officers that I helped train was defeated by my countries military. Some things inregards to Russia are a bunch of false bunk, but some of it is true.

 

[FutureTank]

I'm sorry to tell you that what you were taught is also 'bunk' as you say.
The purge was society-wide. Some people deserved (in Stalin's eyes) it due to hidden loyalties from the days of Lenin and Trotzky. Some just got caught in the net because somone wanted their appartment of job. Some because Stalin felt they deserved it for reasons of his own. Looking at the purge from the narrow perspective of elimination of military officers is like looking at the electromagnetic spectrum by studying the development of black and white television.
To the subject of military officers now. Not all were from the Army. Not all were from the European theatre. Not all were at higher echelon.
Do you know personalities and careers of each one? Sure Zhukov spent the whole war with a decree of execution hanging over him. But does this mean Stalin retained him because of his military ability? Many officers were not killed, but sent to GuLag camps. My grandfather was a lieutenant in an artillery unit. He was a political kimisar! He had joined the party as a young and sincere communist in 1919 and served right through the Civil War in the cavalry before joining the Army. And yet he was imprisoned because as he found out after the war, one of his neighbours wanted his appartment! He had a major for a wood-chopping partner in Siberia. The major was a military sergeon, and inventor of some procedure. He was sent because he personally knew Lenin! It didn't matter that he didn't like Lenin as a person! THE CAMP WAS FULL OF PEOPLE. Only a small part was made up of the military. Some were still there from the Civil War. Three officers of the Imperial Guard Hussars provided entertainment!
Nope, the purge was not targeting the best or smartest in the RKKA command structure. It just targeted.
The basis for what you were taught is from Tuchachevsky. Tuchachevsky is credited with being a proponent of the mobile theory. He was popular. However he was mostly popular in the Special Bielorussian Military District. HE WAS KILLED BECAUSE HE WAS CLOSE TO GERMANS. This is not because he was a traitor, but because Stalin remebered how Lenin came to power with a wagon load of German money.
Zhukov was also popular for his victory over the Japanese. However it was far from a brilliant victory. The Japanese were just not on the same page in terms of tactics and strategy.
It may be that initially the Soviet commanders did not use their troops appropriately. Early days are always difficult. I suggest you read up on the first time US troops went into action in WW1 with the ANZAC Corps in France.
As a military professional surely you must realise that sending troops to their death again and again does not win battles.
Consider another logical point. Why would a beaten army attack, and why would officers send their troops to their death if such action would end their own commands. The simple truth is that there was much confusion, and many attacked based on poor intelligence and lack of understanding at higher echelons of command. Regardless, and attacking army is not a beaten one, and the RKKA did make a strategic fighting withdrawal along a very long front.
The Siberian divisions did play a part, but there were not THAT many of them.
Then there are the many other commanders that played significant roles other then Zhukov. I don't think EVERYTHING can be credited to one officer.

Unfortunatelly the US Army is not always as truthfull as they may claim, even about those M-1 tanks you have on your ID. That however is another story and thread.

Cheers
Greg

 

[FutureTank]

A little ironic but some of the Iraqi officers that I helped train was defeated by my countries military. Some things inregards to Russia are a bunch of false bunk, but some of it is true.

Not bucking for early promotion by extra messages, but felt this was on subject but to be kept separate.

Has anyone assessed Iraqi commanders during 2003 war?
It seems to me the performance of Iraq's military was not in accordance with Soviet doctrine, and neither was their use of the systems they purchased (which by the way included West European systems also).

I also note that the requisite for holding a high echelon command in the Iraqi Army required loyalty to Party and Saddam personally rather then military skill. While loyalty to party was also required in the Soviet Union, the vast majority of its officers and NCOs were in the service because they wanted to be. Ironically there was less influence of the party in the forces because performance was usually assessed on technical ability. Besides there was a long history of conflict between the party and the military in USSR.

Has anyone made a study of appointments in the US military based on party membership? When I was in Washington at a fairly prominent gathering, a majority of the officers there were very hopefull of the Republican victory the next day. That was November 8, 2000.

I posted somewhere in a thread on what makes a great commander a number of criteria. It seems I forgot to add party loyalty

Cheers
Greg

 

[eckherl]

I'm sorry to tell you that what you were taught is also 'bunk' as you say.
The purge was society-wide. Some people deserved (in Stalin's eyes) it due to hidden loyalties from the days of Lenin and Trotzky. Some just got caught in the net because somone wanted their appartment of job. Some because Stalin felt they deserved it for reasons of his own. Looking at the purge from the narrow perspective of elimination of military officers is like looking at the electromagnetic spectrum by studying the development of black and white television.
To the subject of military officers now. Not all were from the Army. Not all were from the European theatre. Not all were at higher echelon.
Do you know personalities and careers of each one? Sure Zhukov spent the whole war with a decree of execution hanging over him. But does this mean Stalin retained him because of his military ability? Many officers were not killed, but sent to GuLag camps. My grandfather was a lieutenant in an artillery unit. He was a political kimisar! He had joined the party as a young and sincere communist in 1919 and served right through the Civil War in the cavalry before joining the Army. And yet he was imprisoned because as he found out after the war, one of his neighbours wanted his appartment! He had a major for a wood-chopping partner in Siberia. The major was a military sergeon, and inventor of some procedure. He was sent because he personally knew Lenin! It didn't matter that he didn't like Lenin as a person! THE CAMP WAS FULL OF PEOPLE. Only a small part was made up of the military. Some were still there from the Civil War. Three officers of the Imperial Guard Hussars provided entertainment!
Nope, the purge was not targeting the best or smartest in the RKKA command structure. It just targeted.
The basis for what you were taught is from Tuchachevsky. Tuchachevsky is credited with being a proponent of the mobile theory. He was popular. However he was mostly popular in the Special Bielorussian Military District. HE WAS KILLED BECAUSE HE WAS CLOSE TO GERMANS. This is not because he was a traitor, but because Stalin remebered how Lenin came to power with a wagon load of German money.
Zhukov was also popular for his victory over the Japanese. However it was far from a brilliant victory. The Japanese were just not on the same page in terms of tactics and strategy.
It may be that initially the Soviet commanders did not use their troops appropriately. Early days are always difficult. I suggest you read up on the first time US troops went into action in WW1 with the ANZAC Corps in France.
As a military professional surely you must realise that sending troops to their death again and again does not win battles.
Consider another logical point. Why would a beaten army attack, and why would officers send their troops to their death if such action would end their own commands. The simple truth is that there was much confusion, and many attacked based on poor intelligence and lack of understanding at higher echelons of command. Regardless, and attacking army is not a beaten one, and the RKKA did make a strategic fighting withdrawal along a very long front.
The Siberian divisions did play a part, but there were not THAT many of them.
Then there are the many other commanders that played significant roles other then Zhukov. I don't think EVERYTHING can be credited to one officer.

Unfortunatelly the US Army is not always as truthfull as they may claim, even about those M-1 tanks you have on your ID. That however is another story and thread.
Cheers
Greg

We were not talking about Stalins great purges of Russia, we were talking in regards to his generals and the fact that he knew of Germans intentions, and as far as my military goes they are liars? where did that come in at on this topic, and what is so bad about the M1 tank, your country just recieved them. If you have something to say about the M1 then take it to another topic and let`s discuss it seeings how you may be a expert on it.

 

[Big-E]

Why does everyone assume that only the competent generals were purged? Its not even logical. If I was Stalin, I would purge generals who are political threat to me, not those that are proficient in tactics and strategy but pose no political threat. It so happens that most professional soldiers have an aversion to politics. Consider how many generals in America go into politics. Consider also what happened to Powell. Was he not 'purged'? Did his military record had anything to do with it?
Now let's see, Patton never made it into politics, and nether did MacArthur. Eisenhower was the first general in the recent times to get into politics, but one can hardly fault him for winning. Bradley and Marshall were also good soldiers, but were not inclined to go into politics.

Everyone assumes that competent generals were purged because it is a fact of success. We know that all political threats to Stalin were neutralized and anyone who was a victorious general was a threat. Zhukov was a highly successful commander and was "purged" as you put it after the war by Stalin. So in actuality it is "logical" that Stalin would do so.

Regarding American generals I would disagree in the way you view it. Was Powell actually "purged" or did he quit from disgust with an administration that he saw as "untruthful"? I think Powell's military record did have something to do with his decision to leave, his instilled military values saw his CINC going off the deep end and taking his country with it. He wanted no part, can we blame him? It makes one think he saw the current conudrum that far back and maybe even beyond.

Your examples of American generals entering politics are not illustrating any points as I see it. You say most professional soldiers have an aversion for politics but so does most of America, I think you will find American military ranks on par with average Americans. There have been many professional military running for rather high offices in just the last 20 years much less going back to WWII era politicians. Don't forget Senate and Congressional races and failed presidential bids.

Yes, Stalin did, but ALL RKKA commanders. You need to read more widely. How did you think the RKKA managed to survive 6 months of retreats and then conduct a successful winter counter-offencive? Do you have any concept of what level of leadership it took to achieve that? And don't tell me the Russians threw lives away by the thousands. It may be what Germans wrote, but ultimatelly throwing lives away does not win battles (see Korea/Vietnam).

Is the Soviet leadership responsible for Hitler's bad decisions and inclimate weather??? Was the Soviet military command responsible for the civilians who worked endlessly east of the Urals to produce the T-34 in large numbers? Did the Soviet military command value life like those in their western counterparts by throwing wave after wave of human attacks like it was WWI all over again? There is a reason less emphasis is placed on the Soviet command and for good reason. History has a way of actually being intepretted correctly.

 

[radiosilence]

Regarding American generals I would disagree in the way you view it. Was Powell actually "purged" or did he quit from disgust with an administration that he saw as "untruthful"? I think Powell's military record did have something to do with his decision to leave, his instilled military values saw his CINC going off the deep end and taking his country with it. He wanted no part, can we blame him? It makes one think he saw the current conudrum that far back and maybe even beyond.

Powell was "purged"!! here is an excerpt from Powell's biography ...

ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2004, eight days after the president he served was elected to a second term, Secretary of State Colin Powell received a telephone call from the White House at his State Department office. The caller was not President Bush but Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and he got right to the point.

"The president would like to make a change," Card said, using a time-honored formulation that avoided the words "resign" or "fire."

link

 

[Big-E]

Powell was "purged"!! here is an excerpt from Powell's biography ...



link

If you had read on you would have seen:

He had made clear to him during the summer of 2004 that he did not intend to stay into a second term.

Powell had no intention of staying, he quit. If you want to believe the political semantics of the Bush administration's attempt to save face then be my guest... I won't be so gullible.