Alternate Commanders

Arising from CalBear's comment about a larger BEF giving John French more of a chance to poorly command them, what other campaigns, wars, battles could have benefitted from a different commander, assuming one was available of course?

One for me was Derek Reffell commanding the RN task force in the Falklands instead of Woodward. Reffell had far more suitable experience in the decade leading up to the Falklands in aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare, as opposed to Woodward being a submariner and surface ship commander.

The major one I can think of off the top of my head has to be Arthur Percival commanding the Commonwealth forces during the Malayan campaign of World War 2. Granted he was working with limited resources and half the troops he should of had so therefore a pre-planned strategy that was almost doomed to fail, been dropped into the position only six or seven months before the attack on Pearl Harbor announced the start of the Pacific War so his predecessor Lionel Bond has to take his share of the blame as well, and seemingly not had the best of subordinates but he also seems to have practically gone out of his way to not succeed as well.

So who should the alternate be? Is there anyone better available?

Alternative to Percival

Auchinlek could have been available in the same time frame, and with comparable standing to Percival. Instead of taking over the North African command, send him to Singapore.

The BEF could have benefitted from having James Grierson in command instead of John French. Grierson proved himself an excellent commander in the 1912 Army Maneuvres where he defeated Douglas Haig with an inferior force. He also was described as having a superb knowledge of the French and German armies which surely would have been an asset in the campaign.

Harold Alexander as commander of First Army after Torch instead of Anderson. Not sure if he was well used as a Monty's superior in late '42 early '43. He could still have been made Army Group Commander later.

Anyone other than Mark Clark in Italy.

Captain Jack said:

The BEF could have benefitted from having James Grierson in command instead of John French. Grierson proved himself an excellent commander in the 1912 Army Maneuvres where he defeated Douglas Haig with an inferior force. He also was described as having a superb knowledge of the French and German armies which surely would have been an asset in the campaign.

Click to expand...

Yes, good call from what I've read.

Brusilov with a broader command in 1916-1917.

Mackensen/Seeckt as a command combination, rather than Hindenberg/Ludendorff.

Anyone instead of Paulus for 6th Army.

Devolved said:

Anyone other than Mark Clark in Italy.

Click to expand...

I've often wondered how Patton would have done had he been in command in Italy. Rather than having the open plains of France in which to live out his fantasy of being a modern version of Joachim Murat, he would have had to deal with the frustration of fighting an enemy on near-perfect defensive terrain and with little room to maneuver. He would not have been a happy man.

Anaxagoras said:

I've often wondered how Patton would have done had he been in command in Italy. Rather than having the open plains of France in which to live out his fantasy of being a modern version of Joachim Murat, he would have had to deal with the frustration of fighting an enemy on near-perfect defensive terrain and with little room to maneuver. He would not have been a happy man.

Click to expand...

>
>
>
He didn't seem a brilliant commander in his operations at Metz. Not a happy man.

Someone other than Rennenkampf and Samsonov in command of the Russian First and Second Armies respectively in 1914. Even if the whole train station fight story is apocryphal they were still terrible commanders.

Captain Jack said:

Someone other than Rennenkampf and Samsonov in command of the Russian First and Second Armies respectively in 1914. Even if the whole train station fight story is apocryphal they were still terrible commanders.

Click to expand...

Even having someone above these two would do the trick, coordinating their actions. Indeed Army Group level of command may have worked wonders if only 1 side had it, if both sides have it then they most probably cancel each other out.

Riain said:

Arising from CalBear's comment about a larger BEF giving John French more of a chance to poorly command them, what other campaigns, wars, battles could have benefitted from a different commander, assuming one was available of course?

One for me was Derek Reffell commanding the RN task force in the Falklands instead of Woodward. Reffell had far more suitable experience in the decade leading up to the Falklands in aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare, as opposed to Woodward being a submariner and surface ship commander.

Click to expand...

Replace Burnside with someone else at the Battle of Fredericksburg.

Will Kürlich Kerl said:

Replace Burnside with someone else at the Battle of Fredericksburg.

Click to expand...

Considering the strength of the Confederate position and the respective orders of battle, there is no general in the world who could have beaten Lee at Fredericksburg. It is a battle that should never have been fought.

Now, replacing Hooker with someone else at the Battle of Chancellorsville...

Captain Jack said:

The BEF could have benefitted from having James Grierson in command instead of John French. Grierson proved himself an excellent commander in the 1912 Army Maneuvres where he defeated Douglas Haig with an inferior force. He also was described as having a superb knowledge of the French and German armies which surely would have been an asset in the campaign.

Click to expand...

>
>
>
Didn't he have a heart attack before the fighting started in 1914? Had he been the BEF commander, they'd have quickly had no general and someone else would have moved up just as everything got serious.

Churchill's Generals

I have been reading "Churchill's Generals", the collection of short form essays on various WW2 British Generals edited by John Keegan. One of the take aways I've seen, is that timing was crucial for several of them. Wavell & Auchinlek along with other capable men, had the misfortune of being tasked with pulling rabbits out of hats, and when they couldn't, they were sacked. Churchill needed quick results as much for polictical purpose as for military, and he had no patience for those who couldn't deliver what he needed at that moment.

If timing had been different, what would the results have been from that new POD?

Reader347 said:

>
>
>
Didn't he have a heart attack before the fighting started in 1914? Had he been the BEF commander, they'd have quickly had no general and someone else would have moved up just as everything got serious.

Click to expand...

Yup. He had an aortic aneurysm on the 17th outside of Amiens. I was predicating it on the aneurysm being avoided which would be an extremely easy thing to change.

Riain said:

Arising from CalBear's comment about a larger BEF giving John French more of a chance to poorly command them...

Click to expand...

Smith-Dorrien instead? He drove French frantic by taking the fight to the enemy instead of just retreating; I've always had the impression, however, that he knew what he was doing and French didn't.

Driftless said:

Wavell & Auchinlek along with other capable men, had the misfortune of being tasked with pulling rabbits out of hats, and when they couldn't, they were sacked.

Click to expand...

Wavell seems to be something of a mixed character of great highs and equally great lows. He ran a number of campaigns over a couple of years exceedingly well but then he also allowed the Italians breathing space after the initial successes to concentrate on East Africa, didn't see the German-Italian counter-attack coming, likewise underestimated the Japanese when he was shuffled off to India and then helping balls up the organisation of things in Burma and Malaya by interfering with the commanders under him. So he achieved much with little in the way of supplies early on but then didn't follow through on it. I'll have to dig out the link but I've seen it argued that he would have been much better off as Chief of the Imperial General Staff instead of Gort, he was in the running along with Gort and someone else who I forget at the moment for the position just before the war, then giving way for Brooke. He would of probably changed the commanders of the British Expeditionary Force as well but I can't remember what was suggested.

Hopefully that would mean that whoever was Commander-in-Chief Middle East Command in his stead would either refuse the request to send troops to Greece or at least delay/rejig things enough that what units are sent don't interfere with O'Connor conquering all of Libya. But then you get into whether the Germans would have still sent the Afrika Korps by leaning on the French to open the Tunisian ports to them which is getting a bit off-topic for the thread.

How about Gott. If he takes over the 8th Army (instead of dying in a plane crash) we might see a more aggressive pursuit after El Alamein. Also that leaves Monty floating free to be dispatched somewhere else. The new commander in chief for the Burma theatre perhaps? Or for another Desert What if O'Connor avoids capture in 1941. The british forces in Libya will likely still get chewed up but Rommel might have a harder time against a general who knows the desert.

Don't really know enough about the chap to say. That's the trouble, whilst I know most of the 'big' names trying to keep track of everyone and what their ranks were and where they were at various times is something of a bugger. This requires some more reading. Whilst doing that can anyone suggest a decent site that has details such as promotion dates and when they held various posts for the different British generals?