Greatest WW1-1923 Generals?

why the love for hutier; storm trooper tactics were invented by bruno von mudra in the argonne more than 18 months before the riga attack
 
why the love for hutier; storm trooper tactics were invented by bruno von mudra in the argonne more than 18 months before the riga attack

Highly respected Army commander in an Army with lots of capable professionals, he took a number of ideas from other people and pulled toguether a few good operations that came to be seen as exemplifying a "style" . Other people made mid engined GP cars before, Cooper is the name we remember it's a bit like that.
 
that led Ludendorf to remark "I'm sure there were important strategic goals behind the British offensive but I was never able to ascertain what they were."
Ludendorf has redeemed himself in my eyes. XD
(I would do the other Great Powers, and some not so great ones, but my expertise stops there. The only Italian generals I know are Cardorna and Diaz, the only Austrian on Hotzendorf, and the only Ottoman Ataturk. And I don't know much in detail about them.)
Diaz definitely counts as a great general. The battle of Piave River was amazingly conducted, especially when you realize that nearly all of that was his doing and the result of his reforms after replacing Cadorna. He then delivered the death blow to Austria-Hungary soon afterwords but was also able to recognize that attacking too soon would end badly for his army, even though the British and French were constantly pushing him to press his victory and attack.

Definitely Italy's finest and one of the finest in WW1 in general.

For Austria-Hungary, i'll say Boroevic i guess. Performed well during Russia's Galicia campaign while other generals were having quite some problems (remember this is back when Russia was actually winning offensives). Then he commanded Isonzo (should be noted that if it wasnt for him AH's command was considering abandoning Slovenia outright).

Might not have been amazing amazing, but he was competent and performed well and most importantly he won victories, and Austria was short in both competence and victories. Not one of the greatests generals in general, but maybe one of the better Austro-Hungarian marshals.
 
AdA, your 1918 vs 1940 British generals comparison is too restrictive. The original comment was that Monash was considered one of the few generals on either side in WW1 who would have been successful in WW2, that includes all nations and all years. The quality of British generals 1918 vs 1940 is another issue, which I don't disagree on.

Currie led the Canadians very well and the Australian and Canadian divisions were the main offensive weapon of the British Army in the last year of the war. That's the best testament to the quality of both forces, including the commanders. But whether Haig and Plumer had confidence in Currie, or anyone else, is incidental to whether they were a good general. Although this is an incidental point I will note that Monash had George V's confidence while Haig, Foch, Clemenceau and Churchill all travelled to Monash's HQ to congratulate him after 'the blackest day of the German army'. Although I don't know for sure I doubt that Monash and Haig were close as they were very different personalities - Haig was a religious man and a career officer, Monash was an atheist from a German Jewish emigre family and an engineer by profession. They were chalk and cheese, particularly to the early 20th century mindset.

Mackensen enjoyed victories against the Russians in 1914-15 that were considered spectacular at the time, though in hindsight we now know how poor the Russian army and most of its leadership was. There is a similar caveat in regard to his defeat of the Rumanians in 1916. It was a brilliant achievement to weld together a polyglot force into a successful army so quickly, though the Rumanian army at that time was best known for it's spectacularly colourful uniforms rather than martial prowess. Still, Mackensen could only beat who he was up against. I am surprised that the German's didn't move him to the western front or back against the Russians later. I will also add that he was defeated by the reconstituted Rumanian army later on, but I don't know what resources he had by that time.
 
Russian Civil War: Kappel and Wrangel for the Whites; Frunze and Tukhachevsky for the Reds.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Sir General Arthur William Currie of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, led the Canadians in kicking the ass of 1/4 of the German Army on the Western Front would have been a possible replacement, along with Monash, for Haig if the war lasted longer.

Not a prayer for any colonial being appointed as Haig's replacement. Not due to quality, but 1) Corps commanders jumping over Army commanders just wasn't done, old boy; and 2) still a high level of anti-colonial (no, let's say disparaging views of colonials) feeling at the highest levels in British military circles. Rawlinson probably had the best shout - also had seniority?; Horne pretty much an unknown quantity even now; Plumer & Byng also had better credentials in commanding larger formations.
 
Diaz of Italy is one of the most overlooked in my opinion- he turned the Italian army around, delivered the death knell to the Austro- Hungarien army and made sure that Italy achieved its territorial ambitions at Versailles.

The other great overlooked general is plumber of the British- whoes planning, execution and tacticts at the battle of Messines ridge was well planned, and flawless. Definatly the best general on the British army and a certain young officer working on his staff called Bernard Montgomery said " he was the best general i served under" and knowing Monty- thats a massive achievement.
 
Top