Best Generals of WW1 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918



Message

Raverdave -> Best Generals of WW1 (9/23/2004 5:40:29 AM)

While things are slow, I'll spice things up with a discussion on Generals of WW 1.

The one who stands out as THE most brilliant general (and IMHO won the war for the allies) is Sir John Monash.



Dirtdog20 -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (9/23/2004 6:15:11 AM)

I cant say that he won the war for the Allies but General Aleksei Brusilov is probably the one that stand above the others. He recaptured 15,000 square miles or Russian territory causing 765,000 casualties including 450,000 P.O.W. All this was done despite the fact that he was starved of men and munitions that were being sent to the main offensive that never started because of profesional jelousy and/or professional incomptenance.

His offensive was close to knocking the Austro - Hungarians out of the war in 1916. By the time he was finally reinforced winter had started to set in which was followed by a rapidly collapsing home front that saw the establishment of the first soldier commities. The follow on spring 1917 offensive was never launced because of the general fear that the troops would refuse.



CSSS -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (9/23/2004 7:52:12 AM)

Hmmmm.
August Vin Mackesen goes for the best in my opinion, Bruislov Bleed Russia white and could have co-ordinated his attack with Romania , which would have knocked out Austria. Monash?
Undoubtably the finest British still Max Hoffman was probably the best Strategic mind of the war.And for final note Conrad was beyond brillant....he just made superior plans unablee to be carried out by inferior troops of a combined empire.



Dirtdog20 -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (9/25/2004 2:49:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CSS

Hmmmm.
August Vin Mackesen goes for the best in my opinion, Bruislov Bleed Russia white and could have co-ordinated his attack with Romania , which would have knocked out Austria.

And for final note Conrad was beyond brillant....he just made superior plans unablee to be carried out by inferior troops of a combined empire.


The nicest thing I have heard about the Romanian army at this point was that they were inept in the attack. I also cant agree that Brusilov bleed Russia white, he was never given enough troops to do so.

As far as Conrad, if you make briliant plans and your army cant carry them out because you have inferior troops; you cant be all that brilliant to make plans they cant carry out. IMO



Raverdave -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (9/26/2004 11:42:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CSS


Undoubtably the finest British still Max Hoffman was probably the best Strategic mind of the war.And for final note Conrad was beyond brillant....he just made superior plans unablee to be carried out by inferior troops of a combined empire.




Sorry but IMHO there were no brilliant British army officers above flag rank period.



DoomedMantis -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (9/26/2004 12:29:24 PM)

The concept of a brilliant plan is one that takes into account the troops being used, their strengths and weaknesses.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CSS

Hmmmm.
August Vin Mackesen goes for the best in my opinion, Bruislov Bleed Russia white and could have co-ordinated his attack with Romania , which would have knocked out Austria. Monash?
Undoubtably the finest British still Max Hoffman was probably the best Strategic mind of the war.And for final note Conrad was beyond brillant....he just made superior plans unablee to be carried out by inferior troops of a combined empire.



Telsor1 -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (9/30/2004 11:54:05 PM)

Yes, and conrad came up with his plans, and asked Germany for some troops to impliment them with....



Dirtdog20 -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/4/2004 2:58:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telsor1

Yes, and conrad came up with his plans, and asked Germany for some troops to impliment them with....


Then considering how Moltke the Younger was so vague with the Austrians during staff meetings, and especially as the crisis came to a head (1914) he was living in a fantasy world if he thought the Germans would have troops to spare. Moltke the Younger told Conrad that it would be anywhere from 4 to 6 months before France was defeated and the Army turned east to help. I'm sorry but it is not smart at all.



PJJ -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/4/2004 12:52:35 PM)

Austria-Hungary didn't have many good high-ranking officers in WW1, IMO, Conrad von Hötzendorf was one of the best. (In 1914, the whole Austrian army was only a shadow of its former glory)

The German duo Hindenburg & Ludendorff were brilliant and innovative officers, and Alexei Brusilov comes to my mind as the best Russian general of the war. Good French generals? Not many. Good British generals? Don't know about that, but Monash was a brilliant ANZAC general.



Kevinugly -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/5/2004 3:58:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave


Sorry but IMHO there were no brilliant British army officers above flag rank period.


Haig!



CSSS -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 2:16:28 AM)

Haig? Haig? HAIG??

OMG I think Haig had the plan like the 12 battles on the Izano river in Italy lets do exactly what we have done 11 times prviosly and it will suprise the hell out of jerry!
IMO Haig should have been shot for mass murder of his own men....and I am German I cant imagine an Englishman thinking Haig was good. Three times as many British were killed in WWI than WWII Thank to Sir Douglass.



Kevinugly -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 2:29:49 AM)

Nothing better than the mention of Douglas Haig in a WW1 discussion to get the old juices flowing[;)]

Seriously though, that three times as many British soldiers died in WW1 compared to WW2 cannot be put down to Haig. In WW1 the British Army took on the main body of the enemy, this they did not in WW2 (it was the Soviets who had that dubious honour and look how many casualties they suffered!). In WW1 technology dictated that it was the defence that was dominant right through until 1918. The Germans could sit back and defend because they were in occupation of most of Belgium and much of northern and eastern France. It was not politically viable for the Entente powers to 'sit back', they had to attack and suffered accordingly. It would not have mattered who was in charge on the Western Front.



Kevinugly -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 4:20:34 AM)

I suppose I should clarify my position on Haig. In no way was he a military genius (they were very thin on the ground in WW1) but he is much maligned and imho unfairly. Like most of his contemporaries he struggled to come to terms with a form of warfare that no-one had envisaged. Not for nothing did it become known as 'The War to End All Wars'. But come 1918 technology and the war itself had progressed so that the stalemate was broken and the British Army excelled, combining aircraft, artillery, tanks and infantry in a series of battles taking on and defeating the main body of the enemy for the first (and probably only) time in its history. The man in command? Douglas Haig!



DoomedMantis -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 8:48:17 AM)

I wont go into to depth about my feelings about Haig, I dont want to end up a bitter old man, but I found it hard not to spit on his grave.



Raverdave -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 9:22:05 AM)

Haig was a moron who continued to believe that massed assaults would win the day[8|]. He had little or no imagination and if I had half the chance I would dig him up so that I could hang him. He bleed the Britsh army white.



DoomedMantis -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 10:43:49 AM)

Not just the British, the Anzacs copped a hiding, and were never used to their best advantage



*Lava* -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 11:22:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

...to believe that massed assaults would win the day.


Hi!

What did win the day?

Ray (alias Lava)



Kevinugly -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 3:31:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

...to believe that massed assaults would win the day.


Hi!

What did win the day?

Ray (alias Lava)


Good question! I would ask those who have derided Haig in the above posts what alternatives were available?



Dirtdog20 -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/7/2004 10:03:21 PM)

I know I am about to commit herisy here, but please bear with me.

Firepower kills and more firepower kills better. The Germans had a grasp on this before the war and the German infantry manual of the time stressed this. It, (the manual), also called for infantry tactics (grunts on grunts) that are not that far from what is used today. That is the standard manual, not the Pioneeres or later Storm Troops developments that further refined the standard German infantry manual.

The Germans also developed weapons more suited for the battlefield in the way of Field Artillery and Howitsers and then other specialty weapons. And then put them to use in sucessful ways that the Allies were flat footed to stop and/or draw tactical lessons from.

The allies won the war barely on the battlefield, they won it overwhelmingly through the blockade and starvation of Germany.

I appologise to leave this thought hanging but I need to go and will return later to pick it up and carry on this wonderful discussion.[:)]



Kevinugly -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/8/2004 1:20:32 AM)

I wouldn't regard that as being heresy (well maybe a bit[;)]). The blockade bit hard on the German population and the collapse of the Russian Empire came that bit too late for the exploitation of the Ukrainian grain fields. I'd argue though that in 1918 the German army was decisively defeated and whilst still able to retreat in reasonable order they were leeching prisoners at a very high rate - collapse was a real possibility in the weeks leading up to the Armistace.

Regarding German Army equipment, it was certainly superior overall to that of the Entente powers (apart from the Lee-Enfield rifle and the French 75mm howitzer). Once entrenched they were able to make superb use of their advantages and it was only 1918 when the French and in particular the British were able to achieve technological and doctrinal supremacy. I say this because although the Germans were able to break the stalemate in 1918 by their use of Stormtroop units and specialist equipment it was the British who developed the use of combined arms to the highest level, enabling them to smash through German prepared defences (e.g. The Hindenburg Line) that had resisted all previous attempts to overcome them.



CSSS -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/8/2004 2:53:12 AM)

Dont buy too easliy into the static war myth of WWI . First it was NEVER static on the eastern front. The Germans only attacked on the western front twice before the 1918 offensives.Once very fluid, and at Verdun the intentionally fought attrition when they could have had a break through. IN 1918 they again went on the offensive and dispelled the static front by making HUGE adavances in thier five big pushes. If the americans had not been there from at least a morale boosting point , despite minimal psyhical involvement at the time of these offensive, they allies would have probably succumbed. But knowing Two million allies, well fed , well supplied, (mostly) were there training behind the front and on the way, the allies morale resolve held and the germans exhausted them selves.Kevin ugly you DO know how to get some good dbate going.!!!



Kevinugly -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/8/2004 4:37:57 AM)

Thank you CSS, I do my best[;)]. Western Front and Eastern Front were very different, quality of troops was much more variable in the East, neither side really settled into a defensive mindset in the way that the Germans did in the West.

1918. You raise some interesting points, I would agree on the morale boosting presence (an ever growing one too) of the American troops, I think the French and the British both saw victory as being within their grasp, although they saw 1919 or 1920 as being the likely year. Whether the Entente would have succumbed is debatable, in my opinion a peace settlement of some kind would have been drawn up to stave off growing unrest in the civilian populations of the combatant nations. But thats pure speculation[:)]

The German offensives of 1918 did achieve fleeting success but they were never able to sustain the momentum in any of them. Additionally, like many other battles in that war, as the attackers they sustained very high casualties. Innovative battle tactics and surprise meant they could achieve localised successes but in the end they weren't able to achieve the necessary combination of arms to secure the strategic success they desperately needed. Imho the German offensives of 1918 were not that different from any other offensive that tried to break the stalemate - trenches, barbed wire, machine-guns and artillery were too strong to be overcome by flesh and blood alone. What was decisive in the end was combining tanks, aircraft, artillery and infantry in as perfect a union that then technology allowed. This was achieved by the British under Haig. Was he solely responsible? Of course not. Does he deserve credit? I believe he does. Could it have been done before 1918? I have to say no because it required tanks, guns, munitions and aircraft in both quantity and quality and they simply were not available before that time.

Okay, I've stuck my head over the parapet far enough and for long enough ........ do I hear ...... INCOMING [:D][8D]



Raverdave -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/8/2004 5:03:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

...to believe that massed assaults would win the day.


Hi!

What did win the day?

Ray (alias Lava)


Good question! I would ask those who have derided Haig in the above posts what alternatives were available?


1/Good tactics and use of the weapons available at the time.

2/Combind tactics with Tanks supporting Infantry/Infantry supporting tanks.

3/Good briefing of ALL the troops from the Pvt up on the objectives of the attack and what role he is to play. This includes making a huge mud map of the terrain over which the offensive is to be conducted and showing the objectives and enemy troops postions. Walking all the troops through the plan and getting them to commit to memory where and what their objectives are.

4/ Improving communications.

5/ Allowing officers below flag rank (and NCOs) to make on the spot decisions to to over come unforseen events.

6/ Reserve troops to follow up and exploit the break throughs.

All of the above and more was achieved by the greatest General that came out of WW1. Sir John Monash and in 1918 he put the runs of the board to prove it.



Kevinugly -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/8/2004 5:34:05 AM)

And all applied under Haig in 1918 as I have already shown. But the criticisms of Haig deal largely in the period before 1918, care to justify them further?



DoomedMantis -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/8/2004 10:03:34 AM)

Did Haig come up with the ideas?

Did not Haig resist them until Monash did them anyway and proved he was right?



*Lava* -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/8/2004 11:09:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Did Haig come up with the ideas?

Did not Haig resist them until Monash did them anyway and proved he was right?


Hi!

And.. when where tanks used in large numbers?

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)



Telsor1 -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/8/2004 11:35:55 AM)

[what won the day...]
quote:


1/Good tactics and use of the weapons available at the time.


Good tactics...In 1916, massed artillery and infantry assualts were good tactics...pretty much everyone thought so.

quote:


2/Combind tactics with Tanks supporting Infantry/Infantry supporting tanks.


Tanks? The first tanks were used September 1916..and they didn't impress. are you suggesting that all the previous attacks should have been postponed waiting for a weapon that was pure speculation? sounds like hitler with his 'wonder weapons' in late ww2.

As for combined tactics..how were they meant to come up with these...it was a *totally* new paradigm in warfare..I think it only fair that a few false starts were made in tactics.

That said, tanks of 1918, while useful were hardly the revolutionary, battlefield dominating machines of WW2.

quote:


3/Good briefing of ALL the troops from the Pvt up on the objectives of the attack and what role he is to play. This includes making a huge mud map of the terrain over which the offensive is to be conducted and showing the objectives and enemy troops postions. Walking all the troops through the plan and getting them to commit to memory where and what their objectives are.


It really would need to be a huge mud map in order to have several hundred thousand troops look at it long enough to commit the entire plan to memory.

Troops were told some things...head to that hill. expect fire from the right...there will be artillery barrage 50 yards in front of you.

quote:


4/ Improving communications.


*HOW?*

They tried...( it was a major focus )

They buried phone lines 6 feet down..they broke. ( even with several backups ).
Radios just weren't common/reliable/sturdy enough to be near the front at a tactical level.
Runners...apart from the suffering high casualties and therefore being unreliable, they weren't exactly fast when you remember the mud/rough ground, zigzag of trenches, etc etc etc.
Pidgeons...died of shock from the noise.

Simply put, once the offensive started, the front might as well have been another planet. It took *hours* for word to get back.

Indeed, Colonel von Lossberg, Germany's defensive 'expert' found that at the Somme it took 8-10 hours for a message to get from the front to divisional headquarters and vice versa. ( source "The first world war" by John Keegan )

A battalion report from the 11th East Lancs on the first day at the Somme.
7:20am, troops entered no mans land
7:42am, reported by runner [NB not telephone] intense first of all descriptions
7:50am, sent Lt Macalpine to establish telephone communications...he returned to tell em all communication was cut..it was not restored all day.
8.22am no communication from my waves
9am "saw no sign of 3rd or 4th waves
10.01am no report from my waves
11.25am, no information from my waves
11.50am, no reports from my waves except reports from wounded men.
3.10pm [neighboring unit] not in touch with their waves
3.50pm urgently require more men

In other words, at BATTALION level, they had no idea what was happening, in spite of best efforts!

( addendum: At 8am the following morning, 11th east lancs battalion had 30 men of all ranks fit for action..the battalion commander was not one of them..he was killed while trying to find out what was happening to his men ).

quote:


5/ Allowing officers below flag rank (and NCOs) to make on the spot decisions to to over come unforseen events.


The reason that wasn't allowed was due to the lack of communications...the *only* way to co-ordinate units, and especially artillery were to pre-plan it. Without that co-ordination, it would have all been a worse debacle than it was.

quote:


6/ Reserve troops to follow up and exploit the break throughs.


There were plenty of reserves prepared for this at the start of every attack...who do you think went on on day 2, 3, 4 etc etc.

quote:


All of the above and more was achieved by the greatest General that came out of WW1. Sir John Monash and in 1918 he put the runs of the board to prove it.


No, he really didn't. he was a very good commander ( for the time), but no, he didn't. In most cases, he couldn't have. Even when he did, it was so late in the war that everyone else was doing it too.



Kevinugly -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/9/2004 4:23:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

Did Haig come up with the ideas?

Did not Haig resist them until Monash did them anyway and proved he was right?


Your first point I dealt with earlier[:)]

Regarding the second, that all depends on who you read[8D]

I've just started reading 'Haig's Command: A Reassessment' by Denis Winter which is very scathing about Haig (if the cover 'blurb' and the opening chapter are anything to go by) and which should be interesting. I find the whole historiography of Haig quite fascinating.



Raverdave -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/9/2004 4:24:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telsor1




No, he really didn't. he was a very good commander ( for the time), but no, he didn't. In most cases, he couldn't have. Even when he did, it was so late in the war that everyone else was doing it too.


Er....but he DID and no one esle was doing it with the same success that he (Monash) was getting. Have a read up on the Battle of Hamel 4th of July 1918.



Raverdave -> RE: Best Generals of WW1 (10/9/2004 4:30:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava



Hi!

And.. when where tanks used in large numbers?

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)


During the Battle of Hamel 4th of July 1918.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.875