Re: Worst Generals of WW II
- From: "CraniumX" <CraniumX@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:13:10 -0500
georgeh:
On Dec 15, 11:40 am, "T. Fink" <f...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:sorry
Prisoner at War wrote:
You know, everybody in the Army can recall and chuckle over some
Hürtgenwald.soldiers who were so bad, they were actually funny.
Any generals or colonels like that? Maybe not funny, but really
remarkable for messing things up. Combat or logistics.
Which allied General was responsible for the battle in the
history
No, no, we cannot go there. Eisenhower was unwilling to allow
to
say that he had not won every battle with the German.
GFH
Yes That was perhaps one of the worse plans from Allied High Command.
Their is no doubt that many lost their lives for nothing there.
The Hürtgenwald was a nightmare for the offender and ideal for the
defender. While German casualties were high they did succeed in delaying
American forces and drawing the US attention from what was really
brewing in the Ardennes. The US did capture key targets but at a price.
Their are several good books on the subject and some stories from both
sides that depicted the intense fighting there. The fact remains we are
unwilling to go there because no one ever wants to talk about mistakes
we made, rather we want to talk about mistakes made by others. All in
all we were very fortunate things did not turn out different.
I have to agree on some aforementions that Many Generals acted and used
what they had instead of resigning. Their are a few who were forced to
resign or resigned on their own when they confronted their leaders and
were told to make due. For the Germans it was to hold to the last man.
For the Russians it was attack till no one is left. For the US it was an
Army that was young and learning to walk. The Brits had too much tea
time on their hands and the Japanese were too rapped up in stringent
codes of the samurai. The Italians had great fighters but politics and
poor weapons always seem to make them look worse than they were. 1940's
French Army had too many old school thinkers, The Poles did well with
what they had but lacked forward thinking training and arms that could
have unhinged the Germans.
For many Armys it was inadequate training, arms and poor strategic
planning. Many of the so-called minor countries in fact had some of the
bravest men with all the guts and prowess of any other soldier and then
some. Every country had its share of mistakes in planning and executing
from the strategic to the tactical. Montgomery while not my favorite
used an aged old method that ensured he would never have to retreat. He
bidded his time and built up his logisitics and passed up on those
moments of daring and espre de corps to overwhelm rommel with good
tactics and a strong logistical support.
Caen you have the 1st SS and 12th SS Panzer Divisions and portions of 4
other Panzer Divisions including Von Lucks Group from the 21st Panzer
Division. All but the 12th SS HJ were seasoned Divisions, most badly
mauled but still somewhat intact with capable leadership. Much of what I
have read from many accounts the SS Divisions fought extremely hard with
whatever they had.
The Candians and Brits had their hands full. So 30 days was not bad
considering the Germans were hell bent on stopping them. The fact that
much of HJ had boys of 15 -17 yrs old is amazing.
My vote goes to Corporal Hitler for doing such a splendid job of killing
his own Army and putting some really great idiots in charge like
Himmler. How to piss away an Army in a week :).
"Ïn every Battle no plan ever survives first contact"
.
- References:
- Re: Worst Generals of WW II
- From: georgeh
- Re: Worst Generals of WW II
- Prev by Date: Re: GE Propaganda Movie "Kampf Um Norwegen"
- Next by Date: Re: Worst Generals of WW II
- Previous by thread: Re: Worst Generals of WW II
- Next by thread: Re: Worst Generals of WW II
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
