Britain's Greatest General - National Army Museum (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gazza
- Start date
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
Man, Monty is taking a beating!!
Here's a question for the forum membership-
Louis- you discuss the criminality of Haig's and Monty's actions. Let me ask you this- all things being equal could your champion- Bill Slim- had the tenacity or ability to NOT repeat the mistakes that you have alluded to with Haig and Monty?? I believe he may very well have been able to out G Rommel, not so sure about not repeating the mistakes of the Somme.
WW1 in particular was such a nasty, brutal conflict that I don't belive you could pluck any of the military "geniuses"- Alexander, Hannibal, Napoleon, etc, put them in the moment of the Somme and have the results be any different. To me, it was the perfect storm of human conflict- the industrial age had essentially industrialized the process of human extermination- the widespread use of the machine gun, the introduction of gas and then the variable of air power suddenly made the battlefield a 3 Dimensional arena. Then, none of the respective countries training/SOPs/etc had addressed the rapid changes that were taking place in the world and which ended up rearing their ugly heads on the battlefields. I think in some warped, bizzarro world, perhaps Haig could have outfoxed the Japanese in WW2 and we could be discussing how Slim messed up at the Somme..........
Here's a question for the forum membership-
Louis- you discuss the criminality of Haig's and Monty's actions. Let me ask you this- all things being equal could your champion- Bill Slim- had the tenacity or ability to NOT repeat the mistakes that you have alluded to with Haig and Monty?? I believe he may very well have been able to out G Rommel, not so sure about not repeating the mistakes of the Somme.
WW1 in particular was such a nasty, brutal conflict that I don't belive you could pluck any of the military "geniuses"- Alexander, Hannibal, Napoleon, etc, put them in the moment of the Somme and have the results be any different. To me, it was the perfect storm of human conflict- the industrial age had essentially industrialized the process of human extermination- the widespread use of the machine gun, the introduction of gas and then the variable of air power suddenly made the battlefield a 3 Dimensional arena. Then, none of the respective countries training/SOPs/etc had addressed the rapid changes that were taking place in the world and which ended up rearing their ugly heads on the battlefields. I think in some warped, bizzarro world, perhaps Haig could have outfoxed the Japanese in WW2 and we could be discussing how Slim messed up at the Somme..........
BLReed
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,676
They didn't count my vote for Cornwallis.:smile2:
Thanks Mitch. I see Haig is still leading. I find this surprising because of the controversy around Haig, and because I would have thought more people would be familier with Wellington or Montgomery. Very interesting. -- Al
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,368
Chris,
Anything is possible. Hence my alternate history of WWII novel. I think Bill Slim would have handed Rommell his butt in North Africa if he rather than Monty were in command at El Alamein, but we will never know for sure.
Here's an another, more historically feasible, alternative history: what if Lieutenant General Gott, the General who was really supposed to be in charge at El Alamein hadn't died in a plane crash? Monty wasn't supposed to be in charge, Lieutenant General Gott had gotten the assignment, but he died in a plane crash, giving Monty his opportunity. What if Gott had survived, and won the battle of El Alamein. Would Monty have been merely a footnote to history, a minor commander who never got the opportunity to lead in a major engagement?
As far as the "perfect storm" theory concerning Haig in WWI, my beef with Haig is that he didn't change tactics after the perfect storm hit for more than two years. Once you have tried the rolling barrage and over the top thing once, twice, three times, and each time was an unmitigated disaster, involving tens of thousands of casualties in each attempt for no appreciable gain or breakthrough, how long does it take to figure out that the tactic needs to change?
If you were the general in charge, Chris, would you have done what he did at Pascheandale, employing the same tactics over a bog? Or would you have taken up a defensive posture, and goaded the Germans to attack? Or figured out another tactic, like the stormtroop tactics the Germans learned to employ to make successful localized attacks? Or waiting until a new technology provided another means of attacking, like the flamethrower the Germans came up with, or the Tank the British and French developed? Haig just kept sending his men over the top, accepting insane casualties, and making comments like "the effect of the machine gun is overrated." That would be like a modern Iraqi general stating, during Desert Storm, that the effect of the Abrams Tank or the F15 Fighter is overrated. Its just evidence of either insanity or incompetence. The man just refused to learn for a period of years. For me, that is years too long.
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
I don't want to start up the controversy around Haig again because we all have differing views, but maybe he's at the top of the list because whatever we think of him there is no doubt the 'Lions led by Donkeys' type of attitude in which all High ranking officers were murderers, has gradually been discredited over the last decade over here and people have begun to look at things in a new light. Alan Clarke's book and 'Black Adder Goes forth' (although hilarious) contributed to the Donkeys myth, both are now not being trumpeted as they were all those years ago.
The opinion is shifting away from what we've been told we have to believe, and thats no bad thing.
Rob
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Trouble is Louis the conditions at Passchendaele were even worse than the Somme, the wet summer and destruction of the underground drainage by artillery meant that the conditions were possibly the worst a Tank has ever encountered, the mud sucked down men guns, Horses and artillery, the Tank was all but useless.
As for goading the Germans off that ridge, I would say there was absolutely no chance . If you stand on the ridge and look towards Ypres you have a superb view of everything around you, it strikes you just what an advantage they had ,they couldn't have had a better position if they'd designed it themselves, they could direct shells onto any part of that god awful Salient.. Well dug in on high ground they had to be shifted from a very strong position. The reason there could be no waiting game was apart from wanting to drive them off the ridge and go on and clear the coastal ports was of course the steady, awful, daily death rate of British Soldiers from that artillery domination the Germans had over the salient.The Brits could no longer stand the casualty figures or the effect on the men's morale, knowing that they were never really safe anywhere in that Salient.
Flame throwers, well they might have helped, but you still have to get quite close across the morass of mud,filth and shell craters that was Passchendaele.
Artillery was improving, but again time was an issue.
Underground mines were an alternative that the Brits used to great effect at Messines.
But when it came down to it, horrible as it was to say, it appeared the Germans were only going to be shifted by the Bayonet and at close quarters. One final thing, we also probably do not appreciate the HUGE PRESSURE Haig was under from a government with a Hostile Prime minister who themselves were facing pressure from a public becoming war weary. You've said before you would simply refuse to go on in the face of such losses, and that is commendable, but theres no doubt by the time Haig packed his bags, another perhaps less competent officer would be in his place. I'm not defending Haig so much as highlighting just what he faced up there on that ridge. We often talk about what he did wrong and focus on the horrendous cost of his offensive actions, but we rarely talk about is the the task he faced, the diffulculties he faced, and that the Germans weren't going anywhere without a fight. Whichever position we take this is an absolutely fascinating subject, and having stood on that (to this day) bleak bleak ridge and seen what a task the whole British Army faced, well its heartbreaking to be honest.
Rob
Last edited:
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
Excellent rebuttal Rob- dare I say you had some training as a postal barrister %^V
In all circumstances where armor was deployed in WW1, the minimal gains they achieved were recovered through infantry counter attack. Strosstruppen were effective but too few to make any major impact. Artillery, well, the belligerants pretty much chewed up all of france, killed a lot of people but artillery will never win a war.
One glaring truth has not changed since cavemen were knocking each other about with clubs. Until your grunts are standing on the other guys turf with their standard planted firmly in it, no war is won- no matter how sophisticated the technology or tactic, there absolutely must be some dogface standing on the opposing side. The quickest, though arguably effective, way to do that is to advance from point a to b as quickly as possible. This was much much easier said than done in WW1. Which, in my opinion it was the ugliest war humanity has ever been involved with and why we see individuals in the highest levels of leadership making what appear to be the most inhumane decisions ever imagined. If some other tactical advantage could have been implemented or the men simply did not believe this was the only measure available to them, there is no question in my mind there would have been mass revolts/desertions like the French eventually did.
I'm not defending the guy one way or the other, I am just throughly convinced that effective generalship in WW1 was as hopeless as trying to polish a throughbread with windex.
In all circumstances where armor was deployed in WW1, the minimal gains they achieved were recovered through infantry counter attack. Strosstruppen were effective but too few to make any major impact. Artillery, well, the belligerants pretty much chewed up all of france, killed a lot of people but artillery will never win a war.
One glaring truth has not changed since cavemen were knocking each other about with clubs. Until your grunts are standing on the other guys turf with their standard planted firmly in it, no war is won- no matter how sophisticated the technology or tactic, there absolutely must be some dogface standing on the opposing side. The quickest, though arguably effective, way to do that is to advance from point a to b as quickly as possible. This was much much easier said than done in WW1. Which, in my opinion it was the ugliest war humanity has ever been involved with and why we see individuals in the highest levels of leadership making what appear to be the most inhumane decisions ever imagined. If some other tactical advantage could have been implemented or the men simply did not believe this was the only measure available to them, there is no question in my mind there would have been mass revolts/desertions like the French eventually did.
I'm not defending the guy one way or the other, I am just throughly convinced that effective generalship in WW1 was as hopeless as trying to polish a throughbread with windex.
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Thank you my friend, but the only Bar I was called to was when it was my turn to get the drinks in!:wink2:
Rob
Excellent book. At one time, I had all of MacDonald's books. I still have the one on the Somme and wish I had kept the others. The 1914 volume was really good, as were they all. As to goading the Germans off the ridge in 1917, you are right. It was never going to happen. German strategy at the time was to hold in the west and win in the east. More to the point, after the opening 1914 offensives and the move into trenches, the Germans only mounted one major offensive in the west, at Verdun in 1916, before they were forced by time pressure (American troops pouring into France), to mount the 1918 offensives. In 1917, there was simply no reason for the Germans to come out of their trenches. The pressure was all on the Allies up until 1918. Had the Allies not attempted to win through offensives, had just sat around waiting for technical developements that might never have happened, Germany had a won war. The Allies HAD to attempt the offensives to win the war. It is the tragedy of that war that the weapons and the defense held such an advantage over the offense and it's exsisting tactics for so long a time, ensuring the hideous casualties. There was no practical solution to the trenches and the machine gun for a long time. -- Al
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
I did say when this was released and the thread started that it would come down to Haig or Monty. I am quite surprised at where Monty is but not where Haig is. People are aware very much so now, what he did for England, and what he achieved during a very vicious and historically unprecedented war.
With respect, to all, its easy to revisit what happened and say this was wrong or that was wrong or, offer alternative narratives. its also a pointless exercise to say this general would have done better or I, a civillian, think this should be done or call for the heads of those who were doing what had to be done and defeat the enemy.
I am rather proud of what the whole country did including the generals to stop the germans and, by the look those who are voting have taken the whole picture into their thoughts before voting.
Mitch
With respect, to all, its easy to revisit what happened and say this was wrong or that was wrong or, offer alternative narratives. its also a pointless exercise to say this general would have done better or I, a civillian, think this should be done or call for the heads of those who were doing what had to be done and defeat the enemy.
I am rather proud of what the whole country did including the generals to stop the germans and, by the look those who are voting have taken the whole picture into their thoughts before voting.
Mitch
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Couldn't agree more Al, I am lucky enough to have all her books and they are just superb, I love the way she weaves the narrative in with veterans own statements, it makes all her books very hard to put down. I even got to meet her at a talk/ signing where I had a good chat with her and she signed one of my books. She told me one thing that she learnt from the hundreds of veterans she interviewed, they hated the idea of being called cannon fodder just sent to the slaughter, they believed firmly in their comrades, leadership, cause and country. We can be very proud of every one of them.
Lyn Macdonald hasn't written a book since 'To the last man,Spring 1918' (that she signed for me) and I don't know if she's going to write another, it looks doubtful
Rob
She is a terrific writer and her books shouldn't be missed by anyone interested in military history, especially we WW1 readers. I really enjoyed her "Roses of No Man's Land". Great work on an often overlooked subject. -- AlCouldn't agree more Al, I am lucky enough to have all her books and they are just superb, I love the way she weaves the narrative in with veterans own statements, it makes all her books very hard to put down. I even got to meet her at a talk/ signing where I had a good chat with her and she signed one of my books. She told me one thing that she learnt from the hundreds of veterans she interviewed, they hated the idea of being called cannon fodder just sent to the slaughter, they believed firmly in their comrades, leadership, cause and country. We can be very proud of every one of them.
Lyn Macdonald hasn't written a book since 'To the last man,Spring 1918' (that she signed for me) and I don't know if she's going to write another, it looks doubtful
Rob
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,368
I think this is the fundamental difference between my thinking and yours on the subject of WWI: I don't think it mattered a **** who won the war. In fact, the Allies were such poor winners that the penalties they imposed on the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles directly led to the terrible depression in Germany that gave rise to the Nazis and WWII. If you cannot win by attacking, and attack or sit in place and conceed the war won by the other side are the only options you can see, then sitting in place and saving the lives of an entire generation of good men is the way to go.
Louis, I believe, speaking strictly in terms of WW1, that there was no way any of the Allied nations were going to just throw in the towel and concede victory to the Germans, regardless (obviously) of the cost involved. Germany was seen as the agressor by the Allies as Germany had invaded both Belgium and France. There is just no concievable way that France was going to just give up the occupied territories (having already lost Alsace-Lorraine in the settlement of the 1870 conflict) and make peace. It was a fight to the death for them. Great Britain certainly wasn't going to concede the continent to Germany, either. To say that the Allies should have just sat on the defensive is totally unrealistic and ignores the reality of the situation. Granted though, the Allies screwed up the peace but this was in large part due to the obscene price (both in manpower and money) payed to win the war. The Allies were so frightened of Germany rising again that they went overboard in trying to squash any chance of another war, thus ensuring WW2. What a tragedy the Treaty of Versailles turned out to be but it would have taken a miracle of unrivaled proportions for it not to have been. Everyone was too exhausted, vengeful, and scared to get it right. -- Al
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Yes there was no way France most of All but also Britain were going to allow Germany to waltz into other countries and sit there for years imposing their will on France and Belgium. All sides had blame in WW1 but Germany committed gross aggression and would be made to pay. It's just a shame they didn't make a better job of the treaty at the end of it, however this has no bearing on what faced the British and her empire at Passchendaele in 1917.
Rob
Rob
