Worst "Commander" of WWII? - Page 7

November 15th, 2009  
Has anyone mentioned Mark Clark? The allies had a tougher time in Italy than they bargained for.
November 25th, 2009  
Originally Posted by rommels_ghost
Has anyone mentioned Mark Clark? The allies had a tougher time in Italy than they bargained for.
Yep mentioned Mark Clark a few pages back, I am not sure he would be in the running for worst commander of WW2 but I think he should be in the running for worst allied commander of WW2.
February 20th, 2010  
Again, even if this thread is dead for quite a time now, I can't help but share my 2 Cents: worst commander of WWII is hard to tell, only thing I'm sure about is that I'd go for a French one. But if I had to pick one from them, I'd probably say it's General Flavigny. He had 300 tanks plus several mobile infantry divisions under his command to attack the German bridgehead at the river Meuse. If the Germans had lost the bridgehead, Guderian and his armored divisions would have been cut off from supplies. The bridgehead was guarded by nothing more than 30 Panzer IV tanks and some infantry; there wasn't any chance those forces could withstand the French counter-attack. But Flavigny in his wisdom decided, against his explicit orders, to stretch his forces to a 20 km defensive line instead of attacking...
March 28th, 2010  
While Goering was helping the RAF with some poor decisions/indecisions Leigh Mallory was helping the Luftwaffe with his treacherous behaviour.
April 4th, 2010  
Blasphemy I know, but although there are no doubt many more unworthy candidates, Montgomery, was an egotistical, megalomaniac, who was promoted to Field Marshal purely to retain parity with Eisenhower, on the backs of Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African and Indian troops under his command in the middle east. He refused to commit English troops when he could use Commonwealth or other Allied men. He "planned" and "planned" and "planned" and would not commit to anyone else's plans except his own - and Market Garden was an unmitigated disaster that he refused to take responsibility for right up to his death - even though he bullied Churchill and Eisenhower to make it happen and take the "shine" off that upstart Patton.
April 5th, 2010  
Clockwinder......Are you trying to say that English troops were not used so much in North Africa, well if that was so I would not have lost three uncles at the battle for El Alemien and another two on HMS Hartland while trying to put American Marines ashore. Britain and the Commonwealth lost 250.000 men in North Africa. Monty planned for the battle to last for around eleven days and that is what it lasted for. Also he made his plans flexible so he could switch from one part of the front to another which he did a number of times, to stop the Germans getting to settled at one spot. The out come was he won the battle and won it well when you think that the mine fields were five miles deep and where called the devils gardens by the Germans and the Tanks and Infantry had to fight their way through this first of all before they could close with the Germans. One tank commander was slow in advancing and said to Monty it is death to go in there, well after a few well chosen words from Monty they went into the minefield on the very narrow tracks cleared by the engineers and came under the usual 88 mm gun fire.
Yes Market Garden was a disaster, but it was only by chance it was a failure, had the attack gone in a few days earlier then a SS Division that had been pulled out of the Russian front would not have been there for R&R and to re-arm and requip. Yet had the plan worked it would have speeded up the end of the war. Okay there where warning signs that the German troops where there but my Regimental Chiefs chose to ignore them so that they could get in some action before the war ended, the failure was not all down to monty and even now we still don't now just how much he was told about the extra German troops that had been seen the area
April 15th, 2010  
Originally Posted by Clockwinder
Montgomery, . He refused to commit English troops when he could use Commonwealth or other Allied men
Quite simply, a lie.
There is not a single piece of evidence to back up that claim
May 18th, 2010  
Mnay of the deserving names are already there...

Just adding one more Marshall voroshilov of red army... A disastrous winter war, then almost lost leningrad (he actually lost his nerve) but timely calling of marshall zhukov in his place saved it...
May 18th, 2010  
Originally Posted by Partisan
Adolf Hitler gets my vote, obviously politically savvy, but he had an over inflated idea of his ability as a general. Surrounded himself with sycophants and ultimately sowed the seeds of his own demise.

Also my opinion

Of all the difficulties the Germans faced in waging World War II, the greatest lay in having their own Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, as their supreme commander—their worst general. Hitler had been allowed to gain too much control, even over the military commanders. To foresee Hitler's ultimate national goals, one had only needed to read Hitler's Mein Kampf, which was widely published and read during the late 1930s and early 1940s in Germany. Undoubtedly, many of the high ranking General Staff were among the many readers, yet still allowed themselves to be overtaken by the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker
So was Mussolini, Hitler was actually quite competent with strokes of genius, he just took too many decisions on his own shoulders.

Was Hitler a military genius? No way!!!

The idea of him being militarily gifted really took hold after he took credit for the implementation of Blitzkrieg warfare and, combining that with the success of the Ardennes Offensive of 1940, defeated France in six weeks and sent English forces scurrying for the channel.

The idea of blitzkrieg warfare, however, did not originate with Hitler but more so with Generals like Guderian and the Ardennes Offensive was thought up and planned by Erich Manstein. To Hitler can only go the credit for recognizing the advantages of both and allowing them to be adopted.

Hitler's lack of military ability began to show in 1941 with the poor planning of the Barbarossa Offensive. Firstly, the terrible risk of a two front war was taken with little forethought. Secondly, there was a shortage of tanks and trucks and no provision for winter clothing or supplies. Thirdly, there was poor intelligence. Little was known about Soviet strength or weaponry nor was the draconian hold Stalin had on the country and its resources considered. Little preparation was done to rapidly convert or utilize the Soviet Railway Systems with their wide gauge tracking. The condition of Soviet roads, critical for Blitzkrieg warfare, was overestimated.

Also, Hitler insisted on dispersing his forces over the whole of the USSR with few, if any, points of thrust. Therefore, the further his troops advanced, the weaker they would become. He launched Typhoon, the attack on Moscow in October when any Wehrmacht meteorologist could have told him the fall rains would soon be coming followed by the hard frost and plunging temperatures. He went ahead anyway and, for this reason, forced his troops to fight a desperate winter campaign which destroyed much equipment, horses and men not to mention morale. On top of this disaster, he declared war on the United States without first ensuring that Japan would, in turn, attack the USSR from the east.

In 1942, he turned away from Moscow and made for Stalingrad and the Caucasus, leaving his left flank terribly exposed and manned only by troops from Italy, Hungary and Rumania. When the Soviets finally did attack, he refused to admit his error and would not withdraw the encircled 6th army.

I could go on but by the time these mistakes had been made, Germany simply could not win. The most that could be hoped for was some sort of stalemate or negotiated settlement with the USSR so that Germany could better face the western Allies but Hitler scuttled any such attempts, even forbidding Goebbels, who urged him several times to put feelers out to Stalin, from ever broaching the subject again.
May 23rd, 2010  

Topic: Re: Worst "Commander" of WWII?

Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Are you trying to say that English troops were not used so much in North Africa, well if that was so I would not have lost three uncles at the battle for El Alemien and another two on HMS Hartland while trying to put American Marines ashore.
God, I am sorry to hear that. That is an awful price for one family to pay.

My nominee for for worst commander is Adm. King. He is the one who refused to use the convoy system after the attack on Pearl Harbor in the Atlantic Ocean. Merchant ships were sailing from ports like Galveston, Tx., New Orleans, La., Pensacola, Fla., etc. carrying goods from the USA headed for northern ports such as New York and then the UK and they were being sunk in the Gulf of Mexico and as they sailed up the eastern coast of the USA. Many were sunk within sight of the US mainland! The reluctance to use the convoy system help with the high total losses for the Allies, especially in the first four months after war had been declared.
As it turns out he was a good administrator, not a good fleet admiral.

Similar Topics
Worst Pieces of Crap That Have Ever Been Issued: 1. Rifles
What 5 - 10% Lend Lease Meant to USSR in WWII
Worst Fighter Aircraft
Ward calls Steelers' loss worst ever
Worst Pieces of Crap II: Machine Guns