My favorite commanders (1 Viewer)

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

Wow some really interesting picks here! I was wondering if anyone would mention Raglan. I just finished a book on the Charge of the Light Brigade and must say it was enlightening. Hicks is also an interesting pick No mention of China Gordon surprised me though and I am curious about the reasoning for Chelmsford aside from the obvious mistake of splitting his forces and underestimation of the ability of the Zulus. So I guess we should elaborate or at least give some reasons for our picks.

I will try and do just that in a while.

Also Chris I appreciate the compliment I like to think I was fair and reasonable with my troops. I too have known and served with several officers form each of your categories one of which were I to see him in a cross walk it would be all over except for the cheering!

More soon

Dave

 

[damian]

I just chose commanders who have been in charge of famous disasters. Fir some reason it is the disasters that seem to fascinate me the most.
I really do believe Chelmsford must bear the responsibity for Islandwana. Hicks also completely underestimaetd the Madhi and was wiped out so losing control of the Sudan and precipitating the whole Gordon affair. Percival has been discussed. I find it interesting that he was apparently one of the brightest in his class at Sandhusrt but could not make a decision. Elphinstone was responsibel for teh first Afghan War disaster were everyone was wiped out. He waited around till ealry winter and then with supplies running low asked teh Afghan hill people for safe passage back to India. Custer I think is self explanatory. As far as Haig goes, I realize there is a move to rehabilitate his repuation, but if you are in any doubt get out of the train at Glasgow and look at the names on the mausoleum in the centre of town and all your doubtrs about him will disappear.

Regards
Damian

 

[OzDigger]

Hey Oz-

not trying to be confrontational - I guess I just don't follow you when you mention "of their men together with their relative military ability."Who's relative ability?? The troops or the commanders??

Comparing a "favorite" versus an "effective" military leader can create two lists- we all root for the "good guy" to win but more often than not, it's the SOB who pushes his troops into the jaws of death without much regard for anyone or anything. There is a mantra in the US Army- Mission First and that superseeds everything. That is the guiding principle behind every order that is issued. You just hope you aren't the poor guy who is being led into the meat grinder at the end of the day.

There were two types of officers I served under when I was in- the kind I would dive on the grenade for (which Dave- you would have probably been one of those) and the one I would have thrown a grenade at. The "Dive ons" were fantastic people who I really worked hard to impress but, nontheless, they had some kind of flaw along the way which would tend to hold them back- probably compassion. The "Thrown ats" were the guys I was constantly fighting with, getting written up with, etc. Still, they were the ones who got the promotions.

It's a hard call- effective versus favorite. Good talking to you fellas!!

Hi Chris, I was refering to the commanders military ability.

As for the remainder of your post, I must confess, I'm not sure how to respond. I have only had limited contact with Americans and the only American soldiers I have spoken to are on this and other forums.

To most Australians your use of the term "effective" would equate to a reckless waste of mens lives and would not be tolerated by Australian soldiers or Australian citizens. Any military objective is of course important, but we prefer to get the job done with a minimum of fuss and loss.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I'm not as interested in personalities as some are but here's my favourites:

-Takeda Shingen
-Issac Brock
-Arthur Currie
-Von Manstein

 

[Currahee Chris]

Hi Chris, I was refering to the commanders military ability.

To most Australians your use of the term "effective" would equate to a reckless waste of mens lives and would not be tolerated by Australian soldiers or Australian citizens. Any military objective is of course important, but we prefer to get the job done with a minimum of fuss and loss.

Here is another way to put it- first of all, I don't know of any action in the 20th Century where American men's lives were just thrown away for no objective reason. Looking back at a few missions or operations in hindsight, there were some that turned ugly but no one ever went into a mission and said- well, lets get all the guys killed and achieve the objective. I am quite sure that the American people would feel the same as well- there is a lot of backlash here in the States with Iraq and the same thing existed during Viet Nam.

To illustrate it another way- Do you recall the scene in Saving Private Ryan when Miller and the SFC were discussing the one trooper- I think his name was Veccio or something- anyway- Miller (Tom Hanks) goes into some dialogue regarding how he can rationalize sending troops to their deaths- he then discusses the fact that losing one Veccio can save the lives of 5, 10 or 100 other soldiers coming his way. That is more of the effective model of American military leadership- again- another example from that movie- when they charge the MG nest- they could have went right around it and been all the better but instead, they attacked- Mission First- the Mission is to win the war. Did Miller strike anyone as cold blooded and heartless for the decision to charge that nest? I don't think so- but he did lose one of his men but then again- how many lives did he save in the process????

Mission First also helps to maintain an aggresive fighting spirit in the men.

As always, the pleasure is mine Oz- love you Australian guys- you are great people!!

STANDS ALONE!!
CC

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Here is another way to put it- first of all, I don't know of any action in the 20th Century where American men's lives were just thrown away for no objective reason.

Well it's not so much a question of having an "objective reason" - even Haig at the Somme or Paschendale had an objective in mind as he threw thousands of men needlessly to their doom. It's more a question of whether commanders, after receiving information their plan is not working as intended, are still willing to stupidly push on in the name of the original plan/mission and tolerate casualties far in excess of the operational importance of the intended objective.

One instance that springs to mind with Americans is when the U.S. entered WWI and ignored the lessons learned by the other allies about this new kind of warfare, instead they kept sending waves of men charging gung-ho across open fields only to get mowed down by enemy fire. That's part of the reason the U.S. managed to accumulate casualties greater than Canada's or Australia’s even though we had been in the war from the beginning and had been the spearhead of many dangerous operations, including the final offensive that broke the back of the German army.

Another example is the Hurtgen forest in WWII when U.S. commanders kept feeding whole divisions into the meat grinder to meet "the mission" of ending the war by Christmas even though they were receiving ample intelligence that their assaults were failing horribly. The U.S. executed its first soldier for desertion in WWII because he refused to be sent into the Hurtgen forest bloodbath.

Regardless, this syndrome is not an American one but has been demonstrated by every country throughout history. I think the perception that the U.S. may suffer from it originates partly out of the Civil War slaughterhouse and also Patton's image that he beat his troops if they didn't meet his timetable of advance.

 

[OzDigger]

Here is another way to put it- first of all, I don't know of any action in the 20th Century where American men's lives were just thrown away for no objective reason. Looking back at a few missions or operations in hindsight, there were some that turned ugly but no one ever went into a mission and said- well, lets get all the guys killed and achieve the objective. I am quite sure that the American people would feel the same as well- there is a lot of backlash here in the States with Iraq and the same thing existed during Viet Nam.

To illustrate it another way- Do you recall the scene in Saving Private Ryan when Miller and the SFC were discussing the one trooper- I think his name was Veccio or something- anyway- Miller (Tom Hanks) goes into some dialogue regarding how he can rationalize sending troops to their deaths- he then discusses the fact that losing one Veccio can save the lives of 5, 10 or 100 other soldiers coming his way. That is more of the effective model of American military leadership- again- another example from that movie- when they charge the MG nest- they could have went right around it and been all the better but instead, they attacked- Mission First- the Mission is to win the war. Did Miller strike anyone as cold blooded and heartless for the decision to charge that nest? I don't think so- but he did lose one of his men but then again- how many lives did he save in the process????

Mission First also helps to maintain an aggresive fighting spirit in the men.

As always, the pleasure is mine Oz- love you Australian guys- you are great people!!

STANDS ALONE!!
CC

Hi Chris, well that's a relief, for a while there I thought that your officers must be in continual Custer/Patton mode to get a promotion

 

[mitch292]

One instance that springs to mind with Americans is when the U.S. entered WWI and ignored the lessons learned by the other allies about this new kind of warfare, instead they kept sending waves of men charging gung-ho across open fields only to get mowed down by enemy fire. That's part of the reason the U.S. managed to accumulate casualties greater than Canada's or Australia’s even though we had been in the war from the beginning and had been the spearhead of many dangerous operations, including the final offensive that broke the back of the German army.

I do not know much about WWI at all but I am pretty sure that the U.S. generals like Pershing did not want to fight like the british and other countries had been fighting but develop a new way to win the war instead of trench warfare. Then the british generals suggested that the only way to win was to fight like they had been fighting, so we did. Though you can not trust me 100%, i think i heard that on the military channel.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Well as I understand it by 1918 even the British generals had adopted the sophisticated style of WWI warfare developed by the Canadians based on meticulous reconnaissance and planning, counter-battery fire, creeping barrage, platoon-level movement, tank support etc.

But when the Americans arrived in Europe they saw the somewhat demoralized state of the armies that had been fighting for four long years and so somewhat arrogantly figured their fresh troops, high morale and superior numbers alone would be enough to quickly win the war. So they ignored those hard-earned lessons and threw their eager but inexperienced divisions into the meat-grinder using human wave tactics little better than that of 1914.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Canadian Samurai,

I am not a hawk by any means, and when my country screwed up militarily I am willing to own up to it, but your post flys in the face of everything I have read about American participation in WWI. In fact it was just the opposite according to every piece of literature I have encountered on WWI. Douglas Haig learned nothing from the years of murdering his own troops, and wanted to have the American troops split up and put under British and French command to be exposed to the same "over the top" tactics that he had never learned to abandon, despite hundreds of thousands of casualties for virtually no gains. Black Jack Piershing refused, and after several months of training adopted a set of advance and fire tactics modelled more on the German Stormtrooper tactics which had been employed with moderate success against British and French forces. Using these tactics, the American troops took the El Gatteau and the rest of the Belleau Woods in three weeks, something British and French Troops had been unable to accomplish in over 2 years. It is the British and French Command structures in WWI that refused to learn from their mistakes. If Haig wasn't a good friend of the King, and didn't have the luck of having a clever underling invent the Tank, he certainly would have been remembered as one of the two or three worst commanders in the history of warfare. And Foche and Petain would also have made the top ten.

 

[sirsydney]

From everything I ha read, it was the Commonwealth Forces--Canadian and Austrialian especially--who had the superior leadership and tactics. Maybe it was because of a more democratic tradition in those countries or maybe not but they did have a lower casualty rate and a high rate of success in the later stages of WW1. When the American's were not attached to British or French armies they did very well, but under European leadership it was the same old war in the trenches.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Canadian Samurai,

I am not a hawk by any means, and when my country screwed up militarily I am willing to own up to it, but your post flys in the face of everything I have read about American participation in WWI. In fact it was just the opposite according to every piece of literature I have encountered on WWI. Douglas Haig learned nothing from the years of murdering his own troops, and wanted to have the American troops split up and put under British and French command to be exposed to the same "over the top" tactics that he had never learned to abandon, despite hundreds of thousands of casualties for virtually no gains. Black Jack Piershing refused, and after several months of training adopted a set of advance and fire tactics modelled more on the German Stormtrooper tactics which had been employed with moderate success against British and French forces. Using these tactics, the American troops took the El Gatteau and the rest of the Belleau Woods in three weeks, something British and French Troops had been unable to accomplish in over 2 years. It is the British and French Command structures in WWI that refused to learn from their mistakes. If Haig wasn't a good friend of the King, and didn't have the luck of having a clever underling invent the Tank, he certainly would have been remembered as one of the two or three worst commanders in the history of warfare. And Foche and Petain would also have made the top ten.

With all respect I think you might have been reading a bit of revisionist history ala Stephen Ambrose.

This quote about the American Expeditionary Force comes from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_in_World_War_I): “The high casualty rate sustained at a time when Allied casualty rates were lighter can be attributed to Pershing's insistence on doing things his way and not incorporating the latest field tested tactics that were proving successful to other Allied commanders on the ground”. I know Wikipedia is not a particularly great source, however that’s what I could dig up quickly. I do not own many books on US involvement in WW1, but I have read a lot from the library and watched some television shows (apparently not the one Mitch saw!) that consistently regard the American expeditionary force as quite tactically deficient and that they won many of their battles by force of numbers alone. The individual U.S. soldiers should be commended for their impressive aggressiveness and élan, however its commanders should have been a bit smarter with the lives of their men.

Early on Pershing’s conception of stormtrooper tactics was a bit primitive: snipe at the enemy with your rifles to pin him down, then charge right at him, and finally hopefully bayonet him to death. Like I said, more or less 1914 human wave tactics minus hiding in the trench beforehand. American casualty rates in Belleau Woods and Argonne were scarcely better than the British in the Somme, in spite of the fact the German army was in retreat and a shadow of its former strength during those battles. The Americans could have and should have followed the tactics practiced by the Canadians which made them the best shock army in the world at that time.

And from my comments above you'll know I agree that Haig was a complete idiot who should have been sacked in favour of someone more competent like Currie. But Haig was certainly not the only British, French or Commonwealth general! Lower ranking generals were getting the picture hence the stunning combined Brit/Canadian/Australian/French success of the Amiens and subsequent offensives. And even Haig didn’t do a bad job coordinating the hundred days offensive which ended the war; he was also becoming more cautious with his troop’s lives near the end so I wouldn’t say he learned absolutely nothing. Surely you do not think America was single-handedly winning the victories of the last 100 days, or even that it carried the majority of the weight of these final offensives? I think that credit would go to Canada, as the French would say "Les cent jours du Canada" (Canada's Hundred Days).

 

[Louis Badolato]

With all due respect Canadian Samurai, as you said, wikapedia and TV shows are not exactly the best sources on the subject. My information comes from a book called 'Stormtroop Tactics" by a United States Marine officer/historian named Gudmussen. I certainly don't think that the United States won the war single handedly, and had the Germans not been bled white by the time we got in the game our casualty rates would certainly have been much higher. But in point of fact, they were not terribly high, as opposed to those of Great Britain and France, who left an entire generation in the mud of Flanders. I was discussing the memorials in every Village in Britain with Kevin (Panda1gen) and while we have some memorials, they are for far fewer casualties. Quite frankly, all of the tactics the Allied forces were using in WWI had been tested by American forces . . . during the Civil War. Had the europeans paid any attention to the combined armed tactics developed by Lee's Confederates, the British and French might have saved a few hundred thousand lives. And if you don't believe me, ask Rommel, the highly successful young Lt. (later Field Marshall) who wrote the book on Storm Troop tactics for the German Army -- he came to the United States to study Lee's stormtroop tactics from the first modern war. Ask Tim Tyler, the proprietor of Troops of Time, and a hard core Civil War historian . . . he explained this all to me a few weeks ago.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Very interesting piece of information Louis. Thank you for that. Then I think perhaps the American Expeditionary Force commanders could have read more of their own history. Also the pinnacle of WW1 tactics was not simply stormtrooper attacks but also dealing with the effective use of artillery (sounding location, counter-battery), aerial recon, tanks, coordinated assaults (not just Pickett's charge), machine guns etc. which were not that much of a factor in Civil war times. So one cannot say the tactics are easily transferable.

 

[damian]

I thought the German army was stabbed in the back

Just kidding
Regards
Damian

 

[damian]

Just an observation but it seems we all become very passionate about our own particular country'e involvement and about how it was somehow better than any other country's tactics or plans or style of command. For example the endless argument over who was better, Monty or Patton etc. I suspect that we all allow our prejudices to colour things a bit. Often we all feel the urgent need to defend our own country's reputation quite vehemently. The point is that it was an allied victory. It was at the end of the day teamwork. Perhaps we should all be a little bit more disapassionate about things. If our ancestors could put aside petty arguments in favour of the big picture then we armchair generals should do the same.

Just a thought
Regards
Damian

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Actually Damian we're proudly carrying on EXACTLY THE SAME petty arguments they did back in the day! Even as they were winning they were squabbling about how best to do it and then how to divide the spoils!

But regardless, you're absolutely right. I held myself back from the Monty/Patton arguments because it was plain to see how nationality so easily clouded judgments... and now I find that I've stumbled into the same quagmire. Chris and Louis being American are biased one way and being Canadian I'm biased the other. Which raises the point, is it possible at all for us or anyone else for that matter to discuss history without bias? Probably not. So does that mean we shouldn't bother having these discussions? Perhaps!

Maybe we should start every one of our replies with: "I'm from so-and-so country and therefore I'm biased, however..."

Oh well, gentlemen it was interesting while it lasted. Adieu!

 

[Rob]

Just an observation but it seems we all become very passionate about our own particular country'e involvement and about how it was somehow better than any other country's tactics or plans or style of command. For example the endless argument over who was better, Monty or Patton etc. I suspect that we all allow our prejudices to colour things a bit. Often we all feel the urgent need to defend our own country's reputation quite vehemently. The point is that it was an allied victory. It was at the end of the day teamwork. Perhaps we should all be a little bit more disapassionate about things. If our ancestors could put aside petty arguments in favour of the big picture then we armchair generals should do the same.

Just a thought
Regards
Damian

This is a very good point indeed i could not agree more.I freely admit to often being guilty of defending my country (and Monty most particular)vehemently.But all i ask for is balance.In the great Monty V Patton debate i think they were both great Generals and both had faults and made mistakes.They both did wonderful things,Patton drove across France in one of the greatest advances in History and Monty drove the legandary Rommel out of North Africa.So both are winners in my book.Also just because i admire what Monty did doesn't mean i think everyone else was no good!.

Heres my little list for what its worth:

Churchill
Monty
Patton
Rommel
Sherman
Nelson
Napoleon
Wellington
Julius Ceaser
Guderian
Lee

Rob

 

[Canadian Samurai]

But all i ask for is balance.

Exactly. Chris made a statement and as a budding academic I felt the need to challenge it to somehow help set the world right. You guys all know the feeling. Normally in these historical debates I can at least pretend no bias but of course any discussion of WW1 tactics has to involve Canadians so there goes my impartiality cap right out the window.

Frankly as others have said we're all just wasting our time debating the past here while the real world is headed on a path to disaster. On the other hand it helps us to appreciate the history behind all the WW1 figures by various manufacturers that are on the market (or soon to arrive), and our hobby is our healthy escape from the real world, so the more fun we have in our hobby the more useful we can be in the real world, no?

 

[Canadian Samurai]

So both are winners in my book.

There are no losers in war only winners!