OK Who is the Worst General of WWI and why? (Full Version)

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



Message

CSSS -> OK Who is the Worst General of WWI and why? (11/16/2004 2:00:49 AM)

For me althouh this war gives a great amount of truly bad generals to choose as bad. The singlemost important one would have to be British- Hamilton in the Galipolli campaign. If General Hamilton had been initially aggesive and had charged inland , the odds where very heavy that Turkey could hve been knocked out.

A result of this is that a supply line via warm water to Russia could have been opened Romania and Bulgaria, and Greece would have probably joined the Entente, Austria could have been over extended and the whole war could have swung in the Entente favor a year and half earlier.

On the German side it would be a Definately Von Moltke the younger. As when the British agreed to neutrality if Germany would repect Belgiums neutrality, he should have taken whatever was nessesary to keep Brtian and her resources out of the war.By not going through Belgium. The Blocaked cost around 800,00 German civilians to die of starvation, ironically the same amount killed by allied bombing in the second wourld war!

Behind him would be Von Falkennhine whos Strategy of attrition at Verdun when it could have been a great victory was in the annals of military wafare simply ludicrus!

Ok lets see your bad boys and the reasons why!



Kevinugly -> RE: OK Who is the Worst General of WWI and why? (11/16/2004 4:17:02 AM)

I'd go for Robert Nivelle. Not only was his 1917 offensive a miserable failure but he was so out of touch with the condition of his troops that they mutinied.



Wuotan -> RE: OK Who is the Worst General of WWI and why? (11/16/2004 1:21:19 PM)

I vote for Joffre... didnīt he say that there would be no need to give new uniforms with camouflage-ability to the french troops because he "would finnish the boches till the end of 1914"? His opinions caused for sure many casualities among his tropps... but many "old soldiers" where overextended with a war like WWI. Didnīt the english/french planners for the Galipolli-Operation sent theyr soldiers without maps or even intelligence-reports to that theater?! No beating against the allies; the germans suffered very high losses in 1914, too with "ancient" tactics. No ideas about the russians; for sure they were
not half as bad as the german propaganda saw them...

Greetings!



Telsor1 -> RE: OK Who is the Worst General of WWI and why? (11/16/2004 3:13:32 PM)

Churchill.

He had enough influence as First Sea Lord that he could be said to have commanded the Gallipoli campaign in it's entirety...The major problem with the land campaign is that the Turks were thoroughly tipped off that they were coming. Remember that there was an attempt several months beforehand to 'force' the straights with battleships a couple of months earlier which tipped the Turks off to the allies interest in the area.

Remember, that landing was fairly close to successful...The ANZACS advance was stopped one ridgeline short of what they needed to get to due to the prompt action of Kemal bringing his men forward. Had he not led the way ( division commander marching at the head of his lead battalion to make them move faster ), and had the ANZACs known it was the last high ridge ( they had no maps! ), then it could have been very different.


For further evidence of his talents, witness the battle of the Falklands..he sent 2 battlecruisers to the other end of the atlantic to take out the German pacific squadron. They succeeded, but the risk of taking 2 major combatants away from the North sea at a stage when things were relatively close there was far out of proportion with the gains. Even a win can be a bad move.



EUBanana -> RE: OK Who is the Worst General of WWI and why? (11/16/2004 6:42:32 PM)

I dunno, the Grand Fleet massively outgunned the High Seas Fleet, and battlecruisers in effect were a waste of space anyway, I dont think their loss was much of an issue.

I dug out some stuff on Hunter-Weston finally.

quote:


Nicknamed 'Hunter-Bunter', Hunter-Weston was a classic example of the British "donkey" general — he was also referred to as "The Butcher of Helles" for his utter disregard for the welfare of his troops and his incompetent battle plans. Hunter-Weston was an advocate of the broad frontal assault made in daylight. When his plan of attack for the Second Battle of Krithia failed on the first day, he proceeded to repeat the plan on the second and third days. He claimed he was "blooding the pups" when he made the inexperienced 156th Brigade of the British 52nd (Lowland) Division attack without artillery support during the Battle of Gully Ravine. Half the brigade became casualties of which over a third were killed.


That's not merely ignorance, of which just about every general was guilty of up till 1915.



Kevinugly -> RE: OK Who is the Worst General of WWI and why? (11/16/2004 7:08:14 PM)

Regarding Churchill, as EUBanana has already pointed out, the Grand Fleet so outmatched the High Seas Fleet that dispatching a couple of old, near obsolete, battlecruisers to the Falklands was no real weakening of their superiority. In any case, it was precisely the kind of mission that they were designed for.

Certainly the Gallipoli fiasco was a blot on his already checkered career and quite rightly he took responsibility for it and atoned (in his mind anyway) for it by taking a commission on the Western Front. On the credit side though, he was largely responsible for the development of the Tank. As with so much of his career, for every glorious success there is a matching hideous failure. Quite how he survived, politically at least, to become Britain's inspiration in her darkest hour is a wonder in itself.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.078125