Britain's Greatest General - National Army Museum (2 Viewers)

[johnnybach]

The point that I was making earlier is to do with the choices inflicted upon us by the National Army Museum. Why this 30 - and not others?

Who actually chose these 30?

Are they truly representative of GREAT British Generals?

What is their definition of "Greatness"?

I won't go on - because there are a lot more question I could ask about representative samples - such as how representative this lot are.

Surely we at the forum should not be restricted in assessing who were our greatest leaders of armed forces (prefer that to "Generals":salute:, than a bunch of "warriors" from a museum.

My vote goes to Daffydd - as previously stated - and if the guys with the feather-dusters in the museum don't like it - then they can go and play with their exhibits!

Have a nice one - johnnybach:salute::

 

[Rob]

The point that I was making earlier is to do with the choices inflicted upon us by the National Army Museum. Why this 30 - and not others?

Who actually chose these 30?

Are they truly representative of GREAT British Generals?

What is their definition of "Greatness"?

I won't go on - because there are a lot more question I could ask about representative samples - such as how representative this lot are.

Surely we at the forum should not be restricted in assessing who were our greatest leaders of armed forces (prefer that to "Generals":salute:, than a bunch of "warriors" from a museum.

My vote goes to Daffydd - as previously stated - and if the guys with the feather-dusters in the museum don't like it - then they can go and play with their exhibits!

Have a nice one - johnnybach:salute::

That sounds a bit odd, got something against museums??^&confuse^&grin

The fact is we are discussing a poll carried out by a World famous and very popular Museum, they have just done it I imagine as bit of fun, its not like they set out to annoy anyone. Whichever Generals they chose someone would always say 'Why not so and so'. Its not that we are constrained on here, but we are talking about THIS poll, I understand several on here have voted already.

Right I'll get back to my exhibits:wink2:

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

I think its fair to say that the enormity and difficulty that the Bocage was was ceratinly underestimated by all the commanders of all the allied countries. It was not however, as detrimental to the operations as some authors have stated though, the germans were adept to defensive actions and counter attacking.

My point was that however well the plans looked before the action one cannot simple say the failure to break out of the bocage and, to take Caen on D-Day is not an indication that Monty's plans were either flawed or that he was inept at planning. What it clearly shows is that german ground forces, whether some like it or not, were excellent troops and, the german command system at a junior level was far more jointed and able to work than comparable allied systems. This was a massive bonus in a fluid battle changing by the minute let alone hour.

I do remember reading french resistance reports prior to the invasion which stated that the Bocage was difficult terrain but, would not stop tanks from operating effectively. I also think that the massive air superioracy the allies had failed to do what was required and, this can hardly be lain at the door of Monty.

Far being a failure as has been mentioned the english and canadians tied down the best units the germans had and, I think it was about four corps and most of the armour reserves which, allowed the US to break out into open country eventually and, more easily than otherwise may have been the case (certainly, the epsom operation tied down substantial amounts of german units and armour which, was going to attack the US) and, create the destruction of a fair proportion of the german army at the Falaise gap.
Mitch

Mitch and Rob,

I don't want to pile on or anything, but in Normandy, and during the planning stages leading up to D-Day, wasn't Monty the commander on the ground, with overall responsibility for the planning of the breakout?

Mitch, your last post mentioned certain of the actions failing because the forces were hung up in the Bocage. I know that many British people did and still do vacation in Normandy. Plus there were literally thousands of photo reconaissance shots depicting the bocage. Somebody in the command structure knew about the hedgerows.

Anybody with military experience has to recognize the inherent dangers of attacking these natural fortresses. The infantry that have to take these hedgerows were going to be exposed to a crossfire focused at any entrance or other weak point, then to pre-registered mortar fire as they cross the open field to reach the dug in Nazi positions. When they finally manage to take an individual hedgerow, they will be under fire from the next hedgerow, where the retreating Nazi’s will occupy another pre-prepared defensive position and inflict more casualties. Each armored division only had a couple of the bulldozer tanks necessary to smash through the hedgerows. The Nazi’s needed only watch those tanks to know exactly where the next attack will occur. Absent a hedgecutter, any ordinary tank that rams one of these hedgerows is going to rear up and expose its belly.

How is it possible that the ground commander failed to account for the difficulties of fighting in the hedgerows? Why was it left to Sergeant Curtis Grubb Culin III, a young man from Cranford, New Jersey with no formal education or engineering experience, to come up with the hedgecutter?

Sounds to me like another monumental failure to appreciate intelligence, like the one our friend Captain Gordon pointed out with regard to Operation Market Garden.

 

[Arnhemjim]

Members of the Forum,
As I suspected, but am none the less duly impressed with, is the breath and depth of knowledge of military history resident within the forum. Discussion and exchanges to date have been informative, provocative and extremely enjoyable.
I'm not sure what the selection process and criteria were that the staff of the National Army Museum used to come up with their candidates, but like many of you, as a student of British military history I have found what I personally would call some glaring omissions. Depending on what span of time is included; I think that the following would have merited serious consideration, William the Conqueror, Alan Francis Brooke, Ralph Abercromby, Richard I, Edward I, Harold Rupert Alexander. But that is only personal opinion, besides I’m only a retired naval officer and a "Colonial" as well.
Arnhemjim

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis...

I think its fair to say that they enormity and difficulty that the Bocage was was ceratinly underestimated by all the commanders of all the allied countries. It was not however, as detrimental to the operations as some authors have stated though, the germans were adept to defensive actions and counter attacking.

My point was that however well the plans looked before the action one cannot simple say the failure to break out of the bocage and, to take Caen on D-Day is not an indication that Monty's plans were either flawed or that he was inept at planning. What it clearly shows is that german ground forces, whether some like it or not, were excellent troops and, the german command system at a junior level was far more jointed and able to work than comparable allied systems. This was a massive bonus in a fluid battle changing by the minute let alone hour.

I do remember reading french resistance reports prior to the invasion which stated that the Bocage was difficult terrain but, would not stop tanks from operating effectively. I also think that the massive air superioracy the allies had failed to do what was required and, this can hardly be lain at the door of Monty.

Far being a failure as has been mentioned the english and canadians tied down the best units the germans had and, I think it was about four corps and most of the armour reserves which, allowed the US to break out into open country eventually and, more easily than otherwise may have been the case (certainly, the epsom operation tied down substantial amounts of german units and armour which, was going to attack the US) and, create the destruction of a fair proportion of the german army at the Falaise gap.
Mitch

Mitch,

I don't for a minute deny that the British and Canadian forces tied down a large portion of excellent German troops. My problem is if all you want to do is tie down the enemy to permit your allies freedom of maneuver, why the frontal assaults which were so costly to Monty's men and armor? Why not just shell the enemy, make a show of force at a safe distance, and thereby force him to remain in place?

I do not believe Monty's revisionist account that Goodwood was always intended purely to tie the Germans down. His initial plan spoke of breaking out, and he only changed his toon after a lot of good men were dead on those fields.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hang on a min, where in the forum does it state emotion is not allowed to be shown?. Here is a general who beat the Nazi's greatest General and is a Hero of our country, why do we have to let him be maligned like this all the time with no acknowledgement of his success?. The Jack the Ripper remark maybe inane to you but was a Joke of course, but some armchair generals completely ignore his Victory over Rommel, and believe me some of us are getting sick of it.

Rob

Well my friend there isnt anything bad about emotion but when you make a post that was susposed to be a joke and then delete it makes me wonder if it was a joke. I didnt see it as a joke. It seemed more like a knee jerk reaction to a couple of opinions that you didnt agree with and then decided on your own to remove the post. If you are tired of folks beating on Montgomery please feel free to post some facts or some insight as to why. I am sorry but this guy is like many Generals who are famous, there will be detractors and there will be fans thats just the way it is so please dont get all worked up over it. Also what do you think Rommel thought about the battle beginning while he was in a hospital in Austria? Not for nothing, The 8th Army had a very good superiority of forces and supplies and did a great job in defeating the Panzer Army Afrika but they certainly took a beating as well with around 13,500 casualties to the German losses of around 32,000 plus the loss of a bunch of equipment. It was also a pretty good plan and certainly made use of all the combat multipliers such as ruse and mulitple axises of attack supported by air and field artillery. It was in my opinion his best work coordinating and controlling this battle. Maybe even his Waterloo, but Market Garden was a different story. Someone else pointed out that the General should be rated on his full body of work so again thats why I would vote for Wellington.

Dave

 

[uksubs]

Mitch,

I don't for a minute deny that the British and Canadian forces tied down a large portion of excellent German troops. My problem is if all you want to do is tie down the enemy to permit your allies freedom of maneuver, why the frontal assaults which were so costly to Monty's men and armor? Why not just shell the enemy, make a show of force at a safe distance, and thereby force him to remain in place?

I do not believe Monty's revisionist account that Goodwood was always intended purely to tie the Germans down. His initial plan spoke of breaking out, and he only changed his toon after a lot of good men were dead on those fields.

I would agree with that

 

[Louis Badolato]

Mitch and Rob,

I want you to know that I have always been a great admirer of my country's British, ANZAC and other Commonwealth allies, particularly their fighting men. They carried the free world's water alone from the fall of France until Operation Barbarossa.

I also think Monty did an excellent job in the retreat to Dunkirk and deserves more credit for that than any of his other successes. I just happen to think that like Patton, he is over rated, and like Patton in the United States, in Britain his faults and failures are often glossed over or overlooked.

Just for the record, my favorite general of WWII is Bill Slim, whom the main character of my fictional novel describes as "the best man he ever met." So please don't think for a minute my opinion of Monty in any way is meant as an insult to your Country's brave fighting tradition.

 

[Rob]

Mitch and Rob,

I want you to know that I have always been a great admirer of my country's British, ANZAC and other Commonwealth allies, particularly their fighting men. They carried the free world's water alone from the fall of France until Operation Barbarossa.

I also think Monty did an excellent job in the retreat to Dunkirk and deserves more credit for that than any of his other successes. I just happen to think that like Patton, he is over rated, and like Patton in the United States, in Britain his faults and failures are often glossed over or overlooked.

Just for the record, my favorite general of WWII is Bill Slim, whom the main character of my fictional novel describes as "the best man he ever met." So please don't think for a minute my opinion of Monty in any way is meant as an insult to your Country's brave fighting tradition.

Hey, no worries Louis mate, I am an emotional chap when it comes to our military History and I do think his achievements get overlooked because of Caen and Arnhem. A joke I made about JTR has been taken way to seriously and described as inane. Your good self,Arnhenjim etc have made strong cases for your argument, I still admire some of the things he did and love him or hate him he was inspirational to his men. Right I'm going to take a break I think as once again I've got involved in another argument.

All the best Louis

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Louis...

I don't think that the plans were too tie down the amount of german forces that were in Normandy I think that was through the manner in which the german forces fought so well against the english and canadian forces in and around the Caen area and, as an after battle thought, this could be seen as a tactical advantage which, it was.

I think the frontal assaults that you talk of were localsied in small areas of the Bocage and, yes losses were taken but, its not in reality, like the charge of the light brigade. Again, hindsight is a great thing but, 12 and 14 feet hedgerows (and several feet thick) were not uncommon and this took everyone by surprise. Next time I have a look through my books etc I will reference the reports about the Bocage from the french which, you would expect the english commanders to take note of and were rather lacking in detail. The only real full frontal assault I have seen was Charnwood.

I am pleased when things like this come up as its an excuse to show that there are two arguments and both have validity its at the end of the day how one wishes to interpret the information and the battle outcomes
Mitch

Mitch,

I don't for a minute deny that the British and Canadian forces tied down a large portion of excellent German troops. My problem is if all you want to do is tie down the enemy to permit your allies freedom of maneuver, why the frontal assaults which were so costly to Monty's men and armor? Why not just shell the enemy, make a show of force at a safe distance, and thereby force him to remain in place?

I do not believe Monty's revisionist account that Goodwood was always intended purely to tie the Germans down. His initial plan spoke of breaking out, and he only changed his toon after a lot of good men were dead on those fields.

 

[blaster]

The poll was actually for the Greatest Britain; run by the BBC and contrary to the myth that 'Churchill narrowly beat Diana' the results were actually:

(1) Churchill 456,498

(2) Brunel 398,526

(3) Diana 225,584

By my book, not even close :smile2::smile2:

Cheers

Gazza

Aloha Gazza,
Thanks for the correction but if the poll was about the greatest Briton, then the votes garnered by Churchill when compared to Brunel and Diana's are not truly reflective of the great man's achievements.

Rgds Vic

 

[maddadicus]

"The machine-gun is a much over-rated weapon" Douglas Haig.1915

Somme..420000 casualties, 3rd battle of Ypres...300000plus casualties, 100days offensive 200000 casulties, all under Haig. I cannot believe any Englishman in good conscience would proclaim this man as their "BEST". Michael

 

[Rob]

"The machine-gun is a much over-rated weapon" Douglas Haig.1915

Somme..420000 casualties, 3rd battle of Ypres...300000plus casualties, 100days offensive 200000 casulties, all under Haig. I cannot believe any Englishman in good conscience would proclaim this man as their "BEST". Michael

Well it's not easy Michael! I imagine he's there for his leadership in the final days of the war, he is hated and respected in equal measure these day. Nobody can deny his mistakes on the Somme and at Passchendaele , no question. But the idea he sat at his desk happily sending men to their deaths is not true , incompetent and a mass murderer are totally different. He had despite all perceptions adapted by the late part of the War, and whilst not our greatest general he does deserve recognition for the string of victories in the last hundred days.

But this is of course a pretty controversial view and I fully understand that.

Rob

 

[maddadicus]

Also, my vote would be Wellington......Michael

 

[Gazza]

I'm not sure what the selection process and criteria were that the staff of the National Army Museum used to come up with their candidates, but like many of you, as a student of British military history I have found what I personally would call some glaring omissions. Depending on what span of time is included; I think that the following would have merited serious consideration, William the Conqueror

I thought he was French ^&grin^&grin^&grin

Cheers

Gazza

 

[Louis Badolato]

Well it's not easy Michael! I imagine he's there for his leadership in the final days of the war, he is hated and respected in equal measure these day. Nobody can deny his mistakes on the Somme and at Passchendaele , no question. But the idea he sat at his desk happily sending men to their deaths is not true , incompetent and a mass murderer are totally different. He had despite all perceptions adapted by the late part of the War, and whilst not our greatest general he does deserve recognition for the string of victories in the last hundred days.

But this is of course a pretty controversial view and I fully understand that.

Rob

He certainly learned by the last 100 days of the war. The problem is that he was in command for several years, and showed no incliniation to change tactics until 1918. And Passchendaele wasn't a mistake - it was intentional. He was under great political pressure and needed to proclaim a victory in order to avoid being sacked. He ordered the attack over what amounted to a bog, declared victory after the first day, had all the church bells rung in England, and thereafter kept attacking despite the obscene casualties. I don't like Monty, but consider him competent, and at least concerned with the welfare of his men. If I had ever met Monty and he had proferred his hand, I would have shook it without hesitation. If I had met Haig, I would be in prison for murder.

 

[Currahee Chris]

...eight to go :tongue:

 

[Rob]

He certainly learned by the last 100 days of the war. The problem is that he was in command for several years, and showed no incliniation to change tactics until 1918. And Passchendaele wasn't a mistake - it was intentional. He was under great political pressure and needed to proclaim a victory in order to avoid being sacked. He ordered the attack over what amounted to a bog, declared victory after the first day, had all the church bells rung in England, and thereafter kept attacking despite the obscene casualties. I don't like Monty, but consider him competent, and at least concerned with the welfare of his men. If I had ever met Monty and he had proferred his hand, I would have shook it without hesitation. If I had met Haig, I would be in prison for murder.

It is indeed hard to defend his actions in that battle and it was probably his friendship with the King that kept him his job.I guess another reason he might be popular today is the enormous work he did for veterans of WW1 after the War. He started the Haig fund that becaime the Poppy fund many years after, in fact I remember as a schoolkid the Poppies we wore still had 'Haig fund' on them. I believe he was fund raising for the rest of his life on their behalf, and when he died a day of mourning was declared and he was given a state funeral at which thousands lined the streets. (actually his coffin was carried on the gun carriage that carried the unknown soldiers body and in action fired the first British round of the Great War). He was it seemed very popular with his men, but debate will rage over Haig for a long time to come.

Rob

 

[Currahee Chris]

He was it seemed very popular with his men, but debate will rage over Haig for a long time to come.

You know what Rob- for me, that has always been the ultimate litmus test of truth to these subject matters. The men and their leadership have an interesting, if strange relationship at times. Everyone can argue the pros and cons of leadership but if the men still have faith in you, nothing more need be said- they all experience it together, bleed together, cried and died together. Big difference between the "do"ers and the "read"ers.

 

[Mitch]

Chris...

That last comment is the best comment I have seen in relation to these topics.
Mitch