RE: English Generals

RE: English Generals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

shunwick -> RE: English Generals (2/14/2007 5:08:36 PM)
I'd just like to add one point that is often overlooked. The modern staff system is based on the premise that genius arrives only rarely and if you are lucky enough to have a bona fide genius then it doesn't mean that there is a war for him to demonstrate his skills. The modern system requires only that generals are not wholly incompetent. It is a bonus if the current crop is just better than average. Best wishes,

mst007 -> RE: English Generals (2/15/2007 12:13:33 AM)
Just read this entire 5-page thread with interest. Very entertaining and thought-provoking. Its off-topic I know, but I must tip my hat to Dowding, CinC of RAF Fighter Command, without whom, it could be argued that we`d all be speaking German in Blighty and the world would be a very different place. Also, suits the generic picture of the underdog brits coming good. Sorry he isn`t a General, and its not a land war. As for the latter we were generally exceptionally good at defeating tribes of natives all over the world, although admittedly they were only usually armed with assorted fresh fruit and the odd stick.

ezzler -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 1:16:53 AM)
Arnehm was a big victory for Monty? He never lost a battle ? Are you reading his Autobiography because he never lost a battle there...

Sardonic -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 2:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ezz Arnehm was a big victory for Monty? He never lost a battle ? Are you reading his Autobiography because he never lost a battle there... Nope. Not meeting all your objectives is NOT a defeat. It just isnt VICTORY. If you define 'losing' as, any case where you dont meet all your objectives, I fear you would add a GREAT many Generals to the 'loser' list, start with Haig.

Arkady -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 4:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mark Trowbridge Just read this entire 5-page thread with interest. Very entertaining and thought-provoking. Its off-topic I know, but I must tip my hat to Dowding, CinC of RAF Fighter Command, without whom, it could be argued that we`d all be speaking German in Blighty and the world would be a very different place. Also, suits the generic picture of the underdog brits coming good. Sorry he isn`t a General, and its not a land war. As for the latter we were generally exceptionally good at defeating tribes of natives all over the world, although admittedly they were only usually armed with assorted fresh fruit and the odd stick. ...and when natives got rifles and guns they defeat regular british troops and British rather deployed loyal native forces against them...see Maori Wars [:)] My opinion about "knowledge" of British generals is that most of the wars was fought before world media coverage. First wars with regular newspapers correspondents was ACW and Crimean War and you can clearly see that some basic facts from those wars are widely known even by ordinary people. From previous wars you know only overall commanders but starting those wars you know even brigadier generals and famous colonels.

ezzler -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 5:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic quote: ORIGINAL: ezz Arnehm was a big victory for Monty? He never lost a battle ? Are you reading his Autobiography because he never lost a battle there... Nope. Not meeting all your objectives is NOT a defeat. It just isnt VICTORY. If you define 'losing' as, any case where you dont meet all your objectives, I fear you would add a GREAT many Generals to the 'loser' list, start with Haig. Without wanting to escalate to a full blown 'what is victory?' debate.. The Goal of Market Garden was to win the war.... and in this it failed. The Rhine was not crossed and the Ruhr was not occupied. In some instances I am sure you are right and not meeting all objectives still constitutes a victory or at least a draw , but Market-Garden ? Surely a defeat as the Object of the battle was not met and the objectives that were met counted for little. { Anzio could be a great success if only 1st day objectives are included.. Custer's aim was to find and destroy his enemy. Do we consider that he achieved 50% of his objectives so it was a partial success ? } And I'm not just dumping on Monty. He was good at what he did but he did lose a battle.

a white rabbit -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 5:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joisey Britain does NOT get to take credit for AMERICAN generalship, certainly not since the American Revolution and arguably even before that. Don't they teach history in California anymore? ..of course we don't, defend India or defend the US, in that year, .... ..personally i'd take the tea.. ..and the idea of Commonwealth.......

Sardonic -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 5:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ezz quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic quote: ORIGINAL: ezz Arnehm was a big victory for Monty? He never lost a battle ? Are you reading his Autobiography because he never lost a battle there... Nope. Not meeting all your objectives is NOT a defeat. It just isnt VICTORY. If you define 'losing' as, any case where you dont meet all your objectives, I fear you would add a GREAT many Generals to the 'loser' list, start with Haig. Without wanting to escalate to a full blown 'what is victory?' debate.. The Goal of Market Garden was to win the war.... and in this it failed. The Rhine was not crossed and the Ruhr was not occupied. In some instances I am sure you are right and not meeting all objectives still constitutes a victory or at least a draw , but Market-Garden ? Surely a defeat as the Object of the battle was not met and the objectives that were met counted for little. { Anzio could be a great success if only 1st day objectives are included.. Custer's aim was to find and destroy his enemy. Do we consider that he achieved 50% of his objectives so it was a partial success ? } And I'm not just dumping on Monty. He was good at what he did but he did lose a battle. I cant read the mind of a dead man. So I will suggest that Monty said all that to get what he needed in SUPPLIES from Ike. Otherwise, he would NOT have gotten them. This then intrudes upon politics. For me to consider, Arnhem a lost battle, I would have to say not obtaining the bridge at Nimjagen would have made it a lost battle.

morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 6:32:33 PM)
Lets try this again. I don't think that Monty was a bad general, just over rated. He won in North Africa but had three to one odds and his opponent was out of gas. (RN & RAF on Malta saw to that!) He won on Sicily, yes. Then how come Patton beat him to Messina even though he had only about one quarter of the distance to go? Monty refused to use Allied control of the sea to launch amphib. assaults to bypass strong points like Patton did. Monty moved too slow! He planned the Normandy invasion, yes, but failed to take Caen on D+1 as his own plan called for. He was also very slow in taking Antwerp which caused problems with logistics for the entire front. Market Garden was a FAILURE. I have a hard time seeing the loss of an airborn division and final objective (mostly due to Monty's ego) any other way. Lets remember Mony's own intel guys told him that a panzer division was in the area refitting and he chose to ignore them and dropped the british para's ten miles from thier objective!

Trower44 -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 6:49:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson Lets try this again. I don't think that Monty was a bad general, just over rated. Agreed. quote: He won in North Africa but had three to one odds and his opponent was out of gas. (RN & RAF on Malta saw to that!) I think you'll find the odds were more like 3:2 quote: He won on Sicily, yes. Then how come Patton beat him to Messina even though he had only about one quarter of the distance to go? Monty refused to use Allied control of the sea to launch amphib. assaults to bypass strong points like Patton did. Monty moved too slow! This is a gross over-simplification of what actually happened although I agree with the main thrust of the argument. quote: He planned the Normandy invasion, yes, but failed to take Caen on D+1 as his own plan called for. He was also very slow in taking Antwerp which caused problems with logistics for the entire front. He planned the invasion AND was in charge of ALL Allied troops during the Normandy campaign. You should bear in mind that Paris was taken on schedule so carping about the failure to achieve one D-Day objective when the campaign was a great success smacks of bias. As for Antwerp, he did task 1st Canadian Army with the capture of the port and the Scheldt estuary but with scarce resources being diverted to the 'Market Garden' operation they were unable to achieve it. quote: Market Garden was a FAILURE. I have a hard time seeing the loss of an airborn division and final objective (mostly due to Monty's ego) any other way. Lets remember Mony's own intel guys told him that a panzer division was in the area refitting and he chose to ignore them and dropped the british para's ten miles from thier objective! This is hogwash. It was not Montgomery's ego that caused the plan to ultimately fail, indeed the plan itself was not Montgomery's but Browning's! The whole of the Allied command believed that the Germans were beaten and M-G offered an opportunity to hammer home the last nail in the Wehrmacht's coffin. If we blame Monty then we have to also blame Ike! Anyway, William Buckingham has written an excellent book on the subject (Arnhem '44) where he deals with the gestation of the plan in some depth.[:)]

Sardonic -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 9:08:25 PM)
Like I said originally: I am not a Monty booster, however quoting Liddel Hart - 'He never lost a battle' I prefer the Auk. A General that is pretty much ignored by history.

Trower44 -> RE: English Generals (2/16/2007 9:52:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic I prefer the Auk. A General that is pretty much ignored by history. I have issues with Auchinleck. Although 1st Alamein was his victory he badly botched an excellent opportunity to crush Rommel's overstretched and undersupplied forces in the sharp exchanges that followed. However, it's Gazala that really blots his record. He insisted on the appointment of Neil Ritchie as commander of 8th Army despite his lack of experience and genuine reluctance to take the post. The feeling amongst the experienced corps commanders was that Ritchie was not up to the job and that he was, in effect, Auchinleck's 'puppet'. Now Auchinleck could easily have remedied the situation but instead chose to let the undercurrent of dissension continue. Thus, at Gazala when strong leadership was required a series of golden opportunities to score an emphatic victory went begging as Ritchie and his (nominal) subordinates argued over which course of action should be taken. As we know, Gazala was one of Rommel's most spectacular victories and the ensuing fall of Tobruk threatened to undermine Churchill's war leadership.[:)]

Sardonic -> RE: English Generals (2/17/2007 1:19:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trower44 quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic I prefer the Auk. A General that is pretty much ignored by history. I have issues with Auchinleck. Although 1st Alamein was his victory he badly botched an excellent opportunity to crush Rommel's overstretched and undersupplied forces in the sharp exchanges that followed. However, it's Gazala that really blots his record. He insisted on the appointment of Neil Ritchie as commander of 8th Army despite his lack of experience and genuine reluctance to take the post. The feeling amongst the experienced corps commanders was that Ritchie was not up to the job and that he was, in effect, Auchinleck's 'puppet'. Now Auchinleck could easily have remedied the situation but instead chose to let the undercurrent of dissension continue. Thus, at Gazala when strong leadership was required a series of golden opportunities to score an emphatic victory went begging as Ritchie and his (nominal) subordinates argued over which course of action should be taken. As we know, Gazala was one of Rommel's most spectacular victories and the ensuing fall of Tobruk threatened to undermine Churchill's war leadership.[:)] True enough. However The Auk was a professional soldier, and he was NOT the field commander for the eighth army. He was a theater commander. Of a very extended theater. To assume operational control of the eighth violated his sence of propiety. So yes he appointed Ritchie. Considering his choices at the time, he had little choice. Even so, he realized eventually that Ritchie could not take it, and assumed control anyway. But only after Gazala was lost. But it grated upon him, that he was doing this. But showing a firm hand when it was needed, he stopped Rommel cold. And of course was sacked by Churchill. But Monty used The Auk's plan anyway.

IronDuke_slith -> RE: English Generals (2/17/2007 2:19:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson Lets try this again. I don't think that Monty was a bad general, just over rated. He won in North Africa but had three to one odds and his opponent was out of gas. (RN & RAF on Malta saw to that!) He won on Sicily, yes. Then how come Patton beat him to Messina even though he had only about one quarter of the distance to go? I thought he beat him by an hour or so. Patton also launched one amphibious attack that took a beach in his rear area. He so insisted on driving forward whatever the cost or sense, he lost perspective. The commanding officer of the unit launching the attack met them on the beach. quote: Monty refused to use Allied control of the sea to launch amphib. assaults to bypass strong points like Patton did. Monty moved too slow! He planned the Normandy invasion, yes, but failed to take Caen on D+1 as his own plan called for. He was also very slow in taking Antwerp which caused problems with logistics for the entire front. Despite negligible resistance, the troops on Utah never got close to their objectives either. I don't think anyone did. In the defence of the units trying to take Caen coming off Sword, the best German unit in the area was in the way. quote: Market Garden was a FAILURE. I have a hard time seeing the loss of an airborn division and final objective (mostly due to Monty's ego) any other way. Lets remember Mony's own intel guys told him that a panzer division was in the area refitting and he chose to ignore them and dropped the british para's ten miles from thier objective! Market Garden was a failure, but Monty's failure was less planning it (it came out of 2nd Army HQ) but in not getting a grip of the plan's inadequacies before it was launched. It may be that the week he had was not long enough, maybe he subconsciously didn't want to be too heavily involved in such a risky operation, but his failure was not to exercise the usual caution that earmarked his operations, and which, rather ironically, is caution that usually gets him all the bad press. Regards, IronDuke

freeboy -> RE: English Generals (2/17/2007 2:33:37 AM)
Monty used gas and supplies that third army could have used to penetrate into the Grman interior... is this in doubt? So perhaps one cannot blame Monty for thinking the highly of himself. certainly one can look at Ike askew. Always these Brit Generaal threads end up talking about Monty, really, give it up. Anyone remember when BiN, SSG, came out? What a Sh###storm that game created by critiquing Monty! U would think he won the war without any help from all those really competent commanders. My vote for best Brit General? Pass, no favorite

IronDuke_slith -> RE: English Generals (2/17/2007 2:52:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy Monty used gas and supplies that third army could have used to penetrate into the Grman interior... is this in doubt? No, it isn't in doubt, a study calculated Patton could have used the supplies to get across the German border and be annihilated. Monty may just have saved 3rd Army by insisting he get the logistics instead. quote: So perhaps one cannot blame Monty for thinking the highly of himself. certainly one can look at Ike askew. Always these Brit Generaal threads end up talking about Monty, really, give it up. Anyone remember when BiN, SSG, came out? What a Sh###storm that game created by critiquing Monty! U would think he won the war without any help from all those really competent commanders. The more I study the second world war, the more I conclude that Generals are products of the Army that nurtured them. Monty's caution was essentially based on the knowledge that one major defeat could finish the Commonwealth war effort. Those that insist he was a poor general because he couldn't "do Guderian" miss the point that had he stuck his head out too far and had it bitten off, the game was essentially up because Britain couldn't sustain heavy losses in NW Europe. As it was, he was folding units by wars end to keep other Divisions in the fight. Had he managed an operational breakthrough that was lost to a German counterstroke, the entire campaign might have had to be reorganised. He also had a healthy respect for German combat capability, an understanding of what the British Army was capable of, and an understanding that what he was doing would be good enough to win. quote: My vote for best Brit General? Pass, no favorite Slim was the most able, but Montgomery was the right choice for NW Europe 1944/45.

Kevin E. Duguay -> RE: English Generals (2/17/2007 4:52:37 AM)
CROMWEL!! And a fun fact! King Richard the Lion Heart was the only English King that did not speak english. He only spoke French![X(]

freeboy -> RE: English Generals (2/17/2007 5:27:52 AM)
Actuallu many English "kings" did not speak "English" We must define both English and King to get anything like concensus. I am sure William, Norman, french was speaking french. Remember the little kings from the retreat of the Romans to those we actually have some type of reliable written commentary , many did not speak english, Gallic? other?

a white rabbit -> RE: English Generals (2/17/2007 8:37:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mark Trowbridge Just read this entire 5-page thread with interest. Very entertaining and thought-provoking. Its off-topic I know, but I must tip my hat to Dowding, CinC of RAF Fighter Command, without whom, it could be argued that we`d all be speaking German in Blighty and the world would be a very different place. Also, suits the generic picture of the underdog brits coming good. Sorry he isn`t a General, and its not a land war. As for the latter we were generally exceptionally good at defeating tribes of natives all over the world, although admittedly they were only usually armed with assorted fresh fruit and the odd stick. ....studied the wars in India recently ? ..we won cos by and large we persuaded them it was a good idea to be with us, result :we get hammered at cricket now (altho sometimes we kick ass..), and the Queen is still head of the Commonwealth.. ..take a serious look at the pink bits, there's no way the UK had the man-power to run that without local help...

Kevin E. Duguay -> RE: English Generals (2/19/2007 11:14:38 AM)
CROMWELL!!!!!

Major Destruction -> RE: English Generals (2/24/2007 7:08:44 PM)
Does Prince Rupert deserve a mention? The British king thought highly enough of him to give him as a prize (and also as a means of getting him out of the Army for fear of taking the crown) the largest piece of real estate ever given to one man. That should be enough of an acolade. He certainly would not win any popularity contests. He could be described as a man of intense loyalties but few friends, proud, reserved and morose, uncompromising, unpolitical, undiplomatic, single-minded in his chosen craft of war, (no, I am not describing Montgomery but it sounds similar). Considered as the equal of Newton or Wren, he was a scientist, alchemist, artist, architect and lady's man. A Bohemian prince, son of Frederick the V and Elizabeth, a Scottish princess, his geneology can be traced back to Attila, Charlemagne and William the Silent. In 1642 at the age of 22, he was named General of Horse and was to serve the Stuart family's cause for many years, eventually rising to Admiral of the Fleet and First Sea Lord. He turned his talents to commerce while in his early forties and before he turned 50, he and his company were sole proprietors of all the lands that drained into the Hudson Bay. The town of Prince Rupert in British Columbia is named for him. As a side question, and apart from Rupert and Alexander; how many generals have had a town or city named for them?

sven -> RE: English Generals (2/24/2007 7:21:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Major Destruction As a side question, and apart from Rupert and Alexander; how many generals have had a town or city named for them? Wellington, Custer, Washington, Greene, Lafayette, Hamilton, Churchill, Houston, Jackson, Knox....you were asking?

EUBanana -> RE: English Generals (2/25/2007 3:27:09 AM)
if you're talking about strictly English generals... well, a few names picked more or less at random ...does William the Conqueror count? [:D] Thomas Fairfax (did most of the heavy lifting when beating up Cavaliers in the early civil war) Cromwell Robert Clive? He must have had some nous if he bagged India from under the noses of the Frogs/Portuguese Wellington Herbert Plumer Edmund Allenby maybe Kitchener? He crushed an insurgency, and pretty quickly too, a rare skill it would appear. [8D] William Slim

EUBanana -> RE: English Generals (2/25/2007 4:00:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson The British simply have not won a land war waged on a contental scale since the 100 years war. What about World War 1? (with the French and a few Yanks and Belgians, but the BEF was responsible for over 50% of the advance in 1918, and the bits the US did well at was where they borrowed the British Tank Corps...).

morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (2/25/2007 6:47:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson The British simply have not won a land war waged on a contental scale since the 100 years war. What about World War 1? (with the French and a few Yanks and Belgians, but the BEF was responsible for over 50% of the advance in 1918, and the bits the US did well at was where they borrowed the British Tank Corps...). Great Britian was not alone in WWI, as you yourself say. In a single year the US sent over 3 million men. I don't think that I would regard that number as a "Few". You may also want ot review the American offensive that was spearheaded by the Marines.

morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (2/25/2007 6:51:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay And a fun fact! King Richard the Lion Heart was the only English King that did not speak english. He only spoke French![X(] Very true! In fact French was considered the language of the ruling class as late as the time of Edward IV. Another interesting tidbit is that most frenchmen at this time did not speak french. Practically every county had a different language. It was not until 4-500 years ago that English was even used as a written language. If you were educated and needed to write something down you used latin or french.

Trower44 -> RE: English Generals (2/25/2007 10:28:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson It was not until 4-500 years ago that English was even used as a written language. If you were educated and needed to write something down you used latin or french. That's not quite true. English began to be codified at the start of the seventeenth century and replaced Latin and French as the language of court and official documents. However, documents written and intended for use more locally (church records, local courts, etc.) were written in the vernacular for centuries and can be read by most speakers of Modern English with a little practice.[:)]

Trower44 -> RE: English Generals (2/25/2007 10:37:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson Great Britian was not alone in WWI, as you yourself say. In a single year the US sent over 3 million men. I don't think that I would regard that number as a "Few". You may also want ot review the American offensive that was spearheaded by the Marines. 'Only' 1.3 million US servicemen actually made it to the front. In terms of the men deployed by the other Allied powers fighting on the Western Front this was little more than a drop in the ocean. They did indeed fight bravely against the retreating Germans although the failure to apply the lessons learned by the Allies in the previous four years resulted in much higher casualties than would otherwise have been incurred.[:)]

EUBanana -> RE: English Generals (2/25/2007 6:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: morvwilson The British simply have not won a land war waged on a contental scale since the 100 years war. What about World War 1? (with the French and a few Yanks and Belgians, but the BEF was responsible for over 50% of the advance in 1918, and the bits the US did well at was where they borrowed the British Tank Corps...). Great Britian was not alone in WWI, as you yourself say. In a single year the US sent over 3 million men. I don't think that I would regard that number as a "Few". You may also want ot review the American offensive that was spearheaded by the Marines. Already have done, fact was the Argonne Forest was just one offensive as part of the greater Hundred Days Offensive at the end of the war. It remains true that the BEF did the lions share of the work in 1918.

sean82uk -> RE: English Generals (3/3/2007 11:07:18 PM)
Marlborough Wellington Henry V Edward the Black Prince Edward III Edward I Cromwell Robert Clive Moore Wolfe Not too bad a list I would say, it competes with other continental countries quite well.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.96875