Jump to content

The Donkeys- Worst commanders of WWII (and other periods)


Recommended Posts

Ok, I will start, here is my list based on reading various sources:

US:

Fredendall- Probably the worst, a moral and physical coward, vastly over-rated, and in retrospect probably one of the very worst examples of pre-war US Generals.

Hodges- Over his head, and went to pieces during the Bulge- only survived as a commander because Bradley was his former subordinate.  He only knew the head on attack, and did not care for casualties.

MacArthur- Over-rated, over there, and he should have been left to be a prisoner of the Japanese.   Maybe they would have done us a favor and shot him. 

Mark Clark- This man should never have been allowed to command anything more than a tub of rubber duckies.  He threw people under the bus for his mistakes, did not care about his troops due to his ego issues, and was a disaster as a commander.  He might have made a good palace syncophant, but that is about all.  Fragging would have done good for him.  He butchered the 36th Infantry division just so he could move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Rome.  Note I had a great uncle who went in on Rapido with a company, and came out with less than a squad, he was never the same after that.

This is just a start.  The US suffered from really poor generalship during WWII, and it has just gotten worse since then.  Especially as generals never seem to get relieved these days despite desperately needing to be relieved.  Read Thomas Rick's; The Generals.  

British:

Hmmmm, should I start the fight?  Nah, I will leave it to the Brits.

French: 

As a general rule, pretty poor, and too darn old.  

Russian

I'll think about it, but I also think Zhukov needs a second look as a decent commander with what he had to work with.  It is not hard to accept casualties when you are sure that Stalin will have you shot for failure.  The same goes for many Russian generals.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 372
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Someone here some years ago mentioned that George Marshall may have ben good at his job, but his proteges, including Bradley, were much weaker and less competent.  This lead to things like the Hurtgen Forest battles, a useless meat grinder.

Those individuals aside, the US armed forces in WW2 was not reluctant to sack poorly performing general officers or those who their superioors thought were poor performers.

Edited by R011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanji Iwabuchi. Going against Yamashita's orders to retreat to consolidate forces and instead fought a hopeless defense and participated in Manila massacre out of vengeful spite.

Kiyonao Ichiki. Rashfully attacked Henderson Field without the rest of his regiment. There are contributing factors to the wasteful battle of Tenaru but he himself didn't seem to have any concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R011 said:

Someone here some years ago mentioned that George Marshall may have ben good at his job, but his proteges, including Bradley, were much weaker and less competent.  This lead to things like the Hurtgen Forest battles, a useless meat grinder.

Those individuals aside, the US armed forces in WW2 was not reluctant to sack poorly performing general officers or those who their superioors thought were poor performers.

Thomas Ricks details this in his book The Generals, and details a robust system of relief of non performing generals, but Bradley and Hodges were examples of where the system failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive never liked Trafford Leigh Mallory. I would not say he was actually incompetent. But he was certainly scheming, backstabbing and overly opinionated. It was his efforts, ably assisted from Douglas Bader, that sold the lie of the 'Big Wing', and ended up with Dowding being relieved, and the Commander of 11 Group, Keith Park, being reassigned to the middle east. Which fortunately resulted in his saving Malta, entirely fortuitously, but really no thanks to Leigh Mallory.

He also has a substantial falling out with the USAAF over several issues. Ive read there was some arguments about the range of RAF fighters, which he doesnt seem to have done much to fix, which might have resulted in the USAAF taking lower casualties. We certain had aircrews and aircraft coming out of our ears by that point. I dont know enough about that to comment if there is truth in that.. But I was reading about operation Crossbow, the actions against the V1 sites. The USAAF had shown commendable foresight in constructing replicas of the sites in Florida and launching attacks on them, figuring out how best to destroy them. They figured out low level attacks from fighter bombers were the best way. Mallory didnt agree, and tried to get medium and heavy bombers to launch the attacks, which proved relatively ineffective. Just as the USAAF had predicted.

I wont say his greatest war service was to wrap himself around the Alps in 1944, but it is notable how much more cohesive and fluid the allied airforces were from that point on. Its interesting to note there is some suggestion that the crash was actually a result of Mallory insisting the flight go ahead, against the advice of the aircrew. Something of a pattern forming there one might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like to read Ken Estes's and Rich's opinion on this. IIRC, Mark Clark did well on pre-war maneuvers and in devising the U.S. division making system. He was in a theater that in my opinion, the U.S. should not have involved itself in, so perhaps it could be said he was average?

D. MacArthur-- I suspect it was the air commanders more at fault here than him, although the final outcome would have been the same. After the Philippine disaster, he did, imo, well with what he had and in the strategy of what he did. In this he was fortunate to have generals Eichelberger and Kenney. I thought he did well at Inchon also. 

I've heard mixed stories of John C. H. Lee Services , head of Supply in W.W.2, especially after the invasion of France. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a good case for saying McArthur is the guy that resulted in a prolonged war, by demanding the advance continue to the Chinese border, which precipitated the Chinese involvement in the Korean war. Then after having screwed that up, he went to the press lobbying for the use of Atomic weapons, which is why the President canned him. He didnt have a good reputation with Commonwealth forces, and he was something of an Anglophobe. I dont remember every reading anything like that about Ridgeway.

What about Westmoreland? Its an exaggeration to say he is the man that lost the vietnam war. OTOH, he was the commander who arguably made it most likely. There was a very good podcast about him that suggested he was a pretty good Division commander, but nobody could understand how he came to be an Army commander. In that role he was seemingly completely out of his depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ive never liked Trafford Leigh Mallory. I would not say he was actually incompetent. But he was certainly scheming, backstabbing and overly opinionated. It was his efforts, ably assisted from Douglas Bader, that sold the lie of the 'Big Wing', and ended up with Dowding being relieved, and the Commander of 11 Group, Keith Park, being reassigned to the middle east. Which fortunately resulted in his saving Malta, entirely fortuitously, but really no thanks to Leigh Mallory.

He also has a substantial falling out with the USAAF over several issues. Ive read there was some arguments about the range of RAF fighters, which he doesnt seem to have done much to fix, which might have resulted in the USAAF taking lower casualties. We certain had aircrews and aircraft coming out of our ears by that point. I dont know enough about that to comment if there is truth in that.. But I was reading about operation Crossbow, the actions against the V1 sites. The USAAF had shown commendable foresight in constructing replicas of the sites in Florida and launching attacks on them, figuring out how best to destroy them. They figured out low level attacks from fighter bombers were the best way. Mallory didnt agree, and tried to get medium and heavy bombers to launch the attacks, which proved relatively ineffective. Just as the USAAF had predicted.

I wont say his greatest war service was to wrap himself around the Alps in 1944, but it is notable how much more cohesive and fluid the allied airforces were from that point on. Its interesting to note there is some suggestion that the crash was actually a result of Mallory insisting the flight go ahead, against the advice of the aircrew. Something of a pattern forming there one might think.

I'll give Bader some slack.  He was just a fairly junior Squadron Leader at the time and we don't expect them to make policy.  If the story about Leigh Mallory's crash is true, it may have been good for the war but was kinda tough on the poor bastards who died in the crash with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a good case for saying McArthur is the guy that resulted in a prolonged war, by demanding the advance continue to the Chinese border, which precipitated the Chinese involvement in the Korean war. Then after having screwed that up, he went to the press lobbying for the use of Atomic weapons, which is why the President canned him. He didnt have a good reputation with Commonwealth forces, and he was something of an Anglophobe. I dont remember every reading anything like that about Ridgeway.

What about Westmoreland? Its an exaggeration to say he is the man that lost the vietnam war. OTOH, he was the commander who arguably made it most likely. There was a very good podcast about him that suggested he was a pretty good Division commander, but nobody could understand how he came to be an Army commander. In that role he was seemingly completely out of his depth.

OMG Stuart!  You can write a book on the horrible US commanders in Vietnam.  Harkins, Westmoreland, etc.  Most would have been decent if unspectacular generals in a European style conflict, but were hopeless in Vietnam (or Korea for that matter)  Look at Edward Almond, not only a racist of the highest order, but a synchophant of the Big Mac, and stupid to boot.   US generals are as a general rule (pun intended) to be barely competent, and utter careerists.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, futon said:

Sanji Iwabuchi. Going against Yamashita's orders to retreat to consolidate forces and instead fought a hopeless defense and participated in Manila massacre out of vengeful spite.

Kiyonao Ichiki. Rashfully attacked Henderson Field without the rest of his regiment. There are contributing factors to the wasteful battle of Tenaru but he himself didn't seem to have any concern.

Interesting.  Any others?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, R011 said:

I'll give Bader some slack.  He was just a fairly junior Squadron Leader at the time and we don't expect them to make policy.  If the story about Leigh Mallory's crash is true, it may have been good for the war but was kinda tough on the poor bastards who died in the crash with him.

Not least his poor bloody wife...

Bader seems to have had more authority than his apparent from his rank, hence the Duxford big wing. He seems to have been a very willing tool in Leigh mallorys attacks on Dowding.

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/blog/baders-big-wing-controversy-duxford-1940/

No disrespect to Douglas Bader, whom was an exceptionally driven, very brave man. He was also a bit of a prick.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Murph said:

OMG Stuart!  You can write a book on the horrible US commanders in Vietnam.  Harkins, Westmoreland, etc.  Most would have been decent if unspectacular generals in a European style conflict, but were hopeless in Vietnam (or Korea for that matter)  Look at Edward Almond, not only a racist of the highest order, but a synchophant of the Big Mac, and stupid to boot.   US generals are as a general rule (pun intended) to be barely competent, and utter careerists.  

're Westmoreland, I remember General Montgomery excoriating Westmoreland to photographer Don McCullen. I'd love to have known how Montgomery would have run it.  :D

ive also read some curious things about Creighton Abrams, that he was abrasive towards SF. There is certainly one book I read on the Easter offensive, where he seems to have been very dismissive and disrespectful to a USMC Colonel who was attributed to asking for the Marine Alert force to be landed. He doesn't seem to have been a triservice man.

That said a lot of Veterans believe Abrams was a far better General than Westmoreland, and that if he had been in command from the start, America would have had a shot at winning, or at least getting out quicker. I've also heard he did exceptionally well  as head of the army in reforming reserve forces, and putting the US Army on track to sort itself out in the 1980s. He deserved a tank naming after him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

're Westmoreland, I remember General Montgomery excoriating Westmoreland to photographer Don McCullen. I'd love to have known how Montgomery would have run it.  :D

ive also read some curious things about Creighton Abrams, that he was abrasive towards SF. There is certainly one book I read on the Easter offensive, where he seems to have been very dismissive and disrespectful to a USMC Colonel who was attributed to asking for the Marine Alert force to be landed. He doesn't seem to have been a triservice man.

That said a lot of Veterans believe Abrams was a far better General than Westmoreland, and that if he had been in command from the start, America would have had a shot at winning, or at least getting out quicker. I've also heard he did exceptionally well  as head of the army in reforming reserve forces, and putting the US Army on track to sort itself out in the 1980s. He deserved a tank naming after him.

Abrams was a good commander, and he did the US Army a great service after Vietnam in saving the Army which was a hollow shell.  I went in in December 1982 and remember those days.  My father thinks Abrams was a better commander in Vietnam than Westmoreland, but Westy also was a humane general, and once away from Vietnam was actually a very compassionate commander.  Most generals of the time had no use and no idea how to really deploy Special Forces, and most were of the "blow it to hell and you win" school of thought which would have worked against the Soviets, but not the NVA/VC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not least his poor bloody wife...

Bader seems to have had more authority than his apparent from his rank, hence the Duxford big wing. He seems to have been a very willing tool in Leigh mallorys attacks on Dowding.

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/blog/baders-big-wing-controversy-duxford-1940/

No disrespect to Douglas Bader, whom was an exceptionally driven, very brave man. He was also a bit of a prick.

 

There were dozens of fighter pilot OF4 and OF5 level officers in Fighter Command.  Some of them would inevitably be struck by the Good Idea fairy.  Any of them would be willing tools for a general officer who supported their Good Idea(tm).  One of the responsibilities of a god general officer is to listen to his subordinates and separate the Good Ideas(tm) from actual good ideas.  I don't know how good an idea LM thought the big wing was and how much was just a excuse to replace Downing with himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ive never liked Trafford Leigh Mallory. I would not say he was actually incompetent. But he was certainly scheming, backstabbing and overly opinionated. It was his efforts, ably assisted from Douglas Bader, that sold the lie of the 'Big Wing', and ended up with Dowding being relieved, and the Commander of 11 Group, Keith Park, being reassigned to the middle east. Which fortunately resulted in his saving Malta, entirely fortuitously, but really no thanks to Leigh Mallory.

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/battle-of-britain-big-wing-was-the-big-wing-a-bad-idea  Nota lie per se, more like just not the right tool ( a pun in there if i look hard enough) for the job.

Edited by R E lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 2:23 PM, Murph said:

Fredendall- Probably the worst, a moral and physical coward, vastly over-rated, and in retrospect probably one of the very worst examples of pre-war US Generals.

Hodges- Over his head, and went to pieces during the Bulge- only survived as a commander because Bradley was his former subordinate.  He only knew the head on attack, and did not care for casualties.

It is difficult to defend Fredendall, although Christopher Rein tried to put things into perspective in the summer 2018 issue of Army History.

Bradley was never subordinate to Hodges. Hodges was an Infantryman and never was able to think outside that box.

Quote

MacArthur- Over-rated, over there, and he should have been left to be a prisoner of the Japanese.   Maybe they would have done us a favor and shot him. 

Mark Clark- This man should never have been allowed to command anything more than a tub of rubber duckies.  He threw people under the bus for his mistakes, did not care about his troops due to his ego issues, and was a disaster as a commander.  He might have made a good palace syncophant, but that is about all.  Fragging would have done good for him.  He butchered the 36th Infantry division just so he could move his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Rome.  Note I had a great uncle who went in on Rapido with a company, and came out with less than a squad, he was never the same after that.

MacArthur is a problem, mostly because his personality was so odious.

Clark was a highly competent, skillful organizer and staff officer but was inordinately obsessed with promotion and recognition. He nearly went to pieces at Salerno and left John Lucas out to dry at Anzio, before pursuing the "glory" of capturing Rome. He is probably the one who was truly his own worst enemy.

Quote

This is just a start.  The US suffered from really poor generalship during WWII, and it has just gotten worse since then.  Especially as generals never seem to get relieved these days despite desperately needing to be relieved.  Read Thomas Rick's; The Generals.  

Who else were these "really poor generals"? Overall, army and corps-level leadership was quite good if not always exceptional. Divisional leadership was more uneven but never was a huge problem. AFAICT only the 90th Infantry Division really suffered from bad leadership and that was for a period of just seven weeks or so.

Ricks' thesis was that since the good generalship of World War II, fostered by Marshall, Army generalship descended into careerism that fostered mediocrity, preventing skillful generals from achieving high rank. Not that bad generalship in World War II got worse postwar. Mark Milley may eventually be the exception that proves that rule but otherwise none of the twenty Chairmen have been memorable and neither have any of the Army Chiefs of Staff.

Edited by RichTO90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taavetti "Pappa" Laatikainen: was put in command of operation to liberate Vyborg in August 1941 - perhaps the greatest military victory of Finnish forces, ever - but in stead of overseeing the maps he spent most of his time overseeing bottles of alcohol while his staff was doing the actual work. In 1944 he was placed to Karelian Isthmus again to command IV Army Corps which was defending the priority sector. Laatikainen did not believe Red Army was planning an offensive, and ignored repeated calls to improve both primary line, and secondary defence line (the "VT line"). In fateful day of June 10th, he was tight asleep, and his subordinates had learned to not to dare wake the General up and bother the him with trifle issues, such as Soviet grand offensive having just began. The Corps was near routed and lost much of its artillery and AT guns in chaotic retreat to VT line, which turned out to be completely unprepared (after all, it was not going to be needed...) and was in turn broken in few hours.

Edited by Yama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Murph said:

Thomas Ricks details this in his book The Generals, and details a robust system of relief of non performing generals, but Bradley and Hodges were examples of where the system failed.

Ricks work is sketchy, IMO. I don't think his logic from relief to quality works- its too dependent on the whims of the higher commander.

For a partial counterpoint, see "Zero Defects", https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p124201coll1/id/488/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...