Worst allied generals of WWII

Saladan

Who in your opinion was the worst allied General from each Nation during the second world war?
Ex: I think the XXXX was the worst British/Soviet/American/French general.
And I mean worst as in lack of skill, victories, loss of life.
 

Nytram01

maverick said:
Montgomery for most overrated...He was a good organizer, but his victory at El Alamein was mostly accidental...not to mention the out of character Operation Market Garden
Click to expand...

Can I ask why Montgomery is the most overated?

The vast, and I mean vast, majority of people who say anything about him only have bad things to say. Monty-Bashing is an international sport of which millions and millions of people take part. Monty defenders are in the minority and those who try to see the middle ground between Monty's detracters and supporters are an endangered species.

How can he be the most overated when 70% of people who talk about him make him out to be a total incompitant?
 

aktarian

Soviets had quite a lot of incompetent generals in important positions in 1941. Lev Mekhlius which almost singlehandedly lost Crimea for Soviets. Budenny would rank along him as well.
 

Uber_Amoeba

The Soviet Union had no end of imcompetents. Mekhlis, Kulik, Pavlov, Shaposhnikov (not that the last one can really be blamed)... The list goes on.

Also, describing Zhukov's strategy as 'using men as bullets' does a disservice to the man. He was a master of Double Encirclement operations, and though he was no genius, neither were Generals Lee or Grant. He knew strategy, tactics, and logistics, and his relentless philosphy led more than once to the complete annihilation of his enemy. What more can one ask?
 

Trotsky

gtrof said:
Who is [Lloyd Fredendall] and what did he do?
Click to expand...
He commanded US Second Corps during the invasion of North Africa, and got ass whipped by Erwin Rommel at Kasserine Pass. He built himself a comfy bunker some 70 miles behind the line and just hunkered down there.
 
Leo euler

Leo euler

I don't know enough about all that was going on to say he was the worst, but I read that Kulik sucked pretty hard. The reason was that he was an artillery type from the last war, and Stalin's pal (so incompetence was not punished until much later than it should have been). So basically, he had the mindset of someone from WWI; artillery, at that.

By the way, if Stalin counts as a general, I would say he is the worst by far.

What about the Chinese? I'm unfamiliar with how well the various generals there did.
 

gtrof

Trotsky said:
He commanded US Second Corps during the invasion of North Africa, and got ass whipped by Erwin Rommel at Kasserine Pass. He built himself a comfy bunker some 70 miles behind the line and just hunkered down there.
Click to expand...

A guy before Patton? Well he was screwed from the get go :) Thanks for the recap, I remember him now.
 

Kursk

Uber_Amoeba said:
Also, describing Zhukov's strategy as 'using men as bullets' does a disservice to the man. He was a master of Double Encirclement operations, and though he was no genius, neither were Generals Lee or Grant. He knew strategy, tactics, and logistics, and his relentless philosphy led more than once to the complete annihilation of his enemy. What more can one ask?
Click to expand...

I'd likewise say that, though apparently brutal and heartless, Zhukov managed to keep a higher percentage of his men alive in the push to Berlin than Konev or any of the other major generals, despite being at the forefront. So he was a cold bastard, but he didn't casually or incompetently waste men like some of the poorer generals in the war did.

I've always felt that Patton was overrated. He got results, but he had no concept of the big picture--dude just wanted war, war, war. Which can be good for a lower-level commander, I suppose, but heaven help you if you let such a person influence policy.

Overall, I think the German generals get too much credit as brilliant strategists. Blitzkrieg was well-executed, but it took many of them far too long to adapt once the war with the Soviet Union stopped being blitzkrieg and turned into an attritional slogging match.
 

Grimm Reaper

67th Tigers, probably because no analysis of Patton would leave anyone considering him the worst general of the war or even in the bottom fifty.

Gamelin, on the other hand, who had superior firepower and tanks, vastly superior numbers and all the advantages of the defender, would be a very prime candidate for worst general.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Grimm Reaper said:
67th Tigers, probably because no analysis of Patton would leave anyone considering him the worst general of the war or even in the bottom fifty.

Gamelin, on the other hand, who had superior firepower and tanks, vastly superior numbers and all the advantages of the defender, would be a very prime candidate for worst general.
Click to expand...

Patton enjoys a very high reputation, yes, but it's difficult to justify it with reference to his actual performance. Unfortunately he was stuck in the unmoded Liddel-Hart/ Blitzkrieg doctrine which was so harmful to the early British campaigns (i.e. before they reverted to their 1918 doctrines, which the Germans had fully adopted in the interwar period).

Montgomery's "Colossal Cracks" and Bradley's doctrines are OTOH truly combined arms air-land tactics which wouldn't look out of place in Desert Storm.

Gamelin, I'm sure some defence can be made, but I won't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top