ITT: Overrated and shitty military commanders

>>17780670 (OP)

>tfw you inherit 75% of the officer corps and your own military's most elite units at the start of a civil war as well as the latest in military developments from germany and italy and still spend 5 years jobbing against a ragtag collection of worker/peasant militias and giuris that view your civil war as a package holiday on the mediterranean interrupted sporadically by shellfire

>>17780670 (OP)
Purely out of interest, what do Americans have against Montgomery? Did he touch you in a private place or something?

Explain why Monty was bad without acting as Pattons mouthpiece.

>>17780678
>>17780679
Not that anon but even bong military historians like Correlli Barnett called out Monty for being an out-of-his-depth military diva

>>17780682
Litterally who?

>>17780686
He wasn't an anonymous poster on 4chan that's for sure

>>17780682
>Correlli Barnett
>ONE GUY NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF SAID IT! THAT MAKES IT INCONTROVERTIBLY TRUE!!!!!!!!
You can take the pedo out of the wiki . . .

>>17780689
>Barnett worked as historical consultant and writer for the BBC television series The Great War (1963–64).
Doesn't exactly sound like an unhinged crank

>>17780692
>HE CONSULTED ON A TV SHOW ONCE!
But you can't take the wiki out of the pedo.

>>17780695
Unironically what did the bongistani defending a bongoid general that wrote love letters to a 14 year old boy mean by this

>>17780701
That you haven't at any point attempted to explain what Barnett said about Montgomery, or why his analysis is justified. You just posted "This guy wrote a book and was vaguely connected to a TV show from 60 years ago, therefore his opinion (that I have only vaguely alluded to) is objective truth and beyond question!". Just like the diddling wiki-pedo you are.

>>17780704
one bridge too far

>>17780670 (OP)
>from all the bad English generals he picked Montgomery

>>17780708
>He drew up a plan that didn't work (because American Airborne dropped the ball, twice)
>WORST GENERAL EVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>This is what Americans actually believe.

>>17780710
>draw up retarded plan that runs on the assumption that every single element occurs exactly as the plan says it would
>oh shit, it turns out there are armoured divisions where the plan said they shouldn't be
>does this mean the plan is wrong?
>...
>no it just means that we failed the plan

>>17780713
>plan that is so retarded that every other general said it was genius and signed off on it

>>17780713
>it's retarded to expect your subordinates to actually follow the plan and not run off doing their own thing instead

>>17780713
It wasn't the presence of Bittrich's SS Panzer division at Arnhem that caused Market Garden to fail. It certainly wasn't good news for the British Airborne units in Arnhem, but they were holding their ground well for as long as the plan called them to.

The problem was that the American 82nd and 101st Airborne screwed the pooch. With the 101st doing generally pretty well, but getting slowed down enough on their approach to the bridge at Son that the 3-4 krauts guarding it were able to blow it - slowing down the advance of XXX Corp enough that it mattered (especially for the British and Polish forces at the end of the chain).

The real fuckups of the operation were the American 82nd Airborne though. Who just decided to all but completely ignore their main objective at Nijmegen in favour of taking the Groesbeek Heights . . . to allow them to spot potential German counterattacks that . . . weren't of any relevance to their objective. When they eventually remembered that they were there to take bridges rather than hills (lol) their attack at the Nijmegen bridge was slow and incompetent enough (due to failures of communication) that it failed completely, with several units assigned to the attack just sitting still for five hours straight, miles from the bridge, after the attack started, for . . . no reason.

Or would you prefer it if I just gave you some random authors name followed by a 'what he said'?

>>17780677
all part of the plan thoughbeit

>>17780677
The civil war only lasted 3 years though

>>17780670 (OP)
Nobody overrates Montgomery.
He is widely recognised as someone who could win only when he had numbers and intel on his side

>>17781659
>he could only win when he made sure he could win
Fascinating.

>>17781662
A good general can get a win against the odds.

>>17781671
>Germany has piss poor generals confirmed

>>17781674
Obsessed retard lol

>>17781676
>A good general can win against the odds
>Germany couldn't win against the odds
>Ergo Germany didn't have good generals

>>17781694
Modern armies have dozens of Generals coordinate under an administrative high command sitting in an office somewhere far away from any soldier.
Germany had brilliant officers but in an industrial war logistics, production, manpower, technology and intelligence beat any strategic or tactical moves. This wasnt Alexander marching his army through Persia and winning against a superior enemy with his wits. Germanys achievements during the war were impressive because they were the underdog but there really wasnt that much they could have done after Barbarossa came to a standstill and America just outproduced them and Japan combined by multitudes.
Touch grass dude.

>>17780670 (OP)
Pyrrhus

>>17781718
>Germany had brilliant officers
>couldn't win against the odds
Cope.

>>17780670 (OP)
>writes love letters to a 14 year old Swiss boy
Gay or just a bit zesty?

>>17781671
No, retard. A good general makes sure he doesn't fight unless the odds are in his favour. Your hero worship of Nazis who would personally put your dysgenic ass in the camps doesn't impress or upset anybody.

>>17781850
Montgomery was famously the supreme commander of Great Britain who controlled every aspect of the war effort.

>>17781853
Lolwut? No he wasn't.

>>17781853
What point do you think you were making there? Also, this >>17781885

>>17781885
>>17781887
Are you really this dense? The prerequisite resources Montgomery used for his operations were made available independently of him. Him being able to fight "unless the odds are in his favor" was not a result of his own strategic work, it was a circumstance enabled by a much wider industrial and political network that acted independently of him.
He didnt create the basis to be able to act with a strategic superiority like Napoleon or Alexander would have, because he wasnt a supreme commander with full control of the war effort, he didnt create British intelligence, he didnt create British industry, he didnt hold together the nation politically, and as such these circumstances say nothing about his ability as a general.

>>17781900
>he didnt create British intelligence, he didnt create British industry, he didnt hold together the nation politically
No shit retard. He was a general - not a politician, not an industrialist, not an Intelligence Officer. How closely related were your parents?

>>17781900
>Anon is only just now finding out that generals work with the men, supplies and orders they are given

>>17781904
Thats the point, God you are stupid

>>17781907
In pre industrial societies the line between General and King was much more blurred. Alexander or Frederick II had full control of their not just their armies, but also the states that supplied them. Their successes and failures directly reflect on their capabilities as leaders.
Montgomery as well as Patton and Eisenhower were working with a strategic superiority that they didnt directly create themselves so how is that impressive? I mean they would have had to be really stupid if they actually lost to the Germans or Italians after 1943.

On the other hand Rommel was able to get multiple wins in North Africa despite being disadvantaged in every way, which positively reflects on his capabilities as a general.

>>17781552
Does anyone consider macarthur good?

>>17781908
So . . . . you're angry that a general is being judged as a general, rather than as some kind of bizarre, superhuman, transcendent, national gestalt? Oh, and you're also angry that I'm judging him as a general when you think I should be judging him as a GENERAL (which is completely different). Yeah, you come from a long line of blood related parents.

>western front
lmao kiddie shit

>>17781928
The guy who was ordering his men to fight to the last bullet and the last man while speeding away to escape in his private plane and then years later had his personal photographer follow him around doing staged beach landings?

>>17781933
I didnt bring up >>17781662 and >>17781850 fuckface.
Montgomery only fighting when it suited him is completely irrelevant because this circumstance has nothing to do with him. It would be relevant if he was an absolutist despot king-general who built up the British war machine and thus would have directly created the circumstances under which he fought.

>>17781659
Intel is one thing. A general does have considerable influence over that. But numbers disadvantages are often an unavoidable consequence of demographic realities beyond a general's control. So being able to win even when outnumbered is pretty important. And I don't think you could say that a general was especially capable if he couldn't do that considering how many people throughout history could.

>>17781941
By the same token then the Nazi Panzer Uber Elite Trooper Meister Kommander you worship was a piece of shit who wa a product of some guy turning a lever in a factory outside Poopenchesten, Saxony.

>>17781943
ok buddy

>>17781970
I mean, they lost. They lost so hard half of them swallowed cyanide as their country was litterally raped in two by their victorious opponents.

>>17781941
>He was a good general
>BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM A GOOD GENERAL!!!!!!
>I GET REALLY BUTTHURT WHEN SOMEONE POINTS OUT THAT THE GOOD GENERAL WAS A GOOD GENERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go back to sucking Hitler's cock, that seems to be more your speed.

>>17782023
>all caps seething
Troon

>>17781928
Retard neocons who cry about muh holodomors but still think it’s okay to nuke China.

>>17782028
Wow, so you're like single digit IQ, actually dumber than an animal, then - you can't tell when the all caps greentext is meant to represent you. When you look in a mirror are you aware that you're seeing your own reflection? Or do you get angry when the guy you can see in the glass doesn't do what you tell him to?

>>17782028
>trannies out of nowhere
Seek urgent psychological help.

>>17782040
uhoh meltie

>>17782052
I accept your concession.

>>17781928
He turned out to be the exact right guy to administrate Japan's occupation despite his many personal and professional "eccentricities," which was an outstanding success for US interests by all measures.

I mean imagine if this retard got put in charge of Japan.

>>17781928
He was the best emperor Japan ever had

>>17781671
A good general doesn't put himself in a position where the odds are against him, retard.

>>17781718
Anon you literally just said good generals can win despite the odds. Germanys generals didn't win despite the odds. Therefore you admit that Germany had shitty generals>>17781718

>>17782299
Germany beat the odds consistently in the early war, it just didn't last.

>>17781850
bunker buster trvth nvke

>>17781934
dangerously based ostfront enjoyer.

>>17780742
The American army is unreliable for 20th century GBP, the American special forces are not so but in the case of D-day + 6 gorillion they paratroops get less reliable. Man I really do wish we just let the huns swarm the brits, at least the BM would have been nicer to visit, even if I had to Dankeschon and Sieg Heil to enter, probably less closed off areas.

>>17780670 (OP)

>>17780679
Never had a successful offensive operation. El Alamein was planned and built up by Auchinleck.

>>17781928
Ironically the Japs. This is what Yamashita said about him
>One thing that became especially clear as the interview went on was the almost hypnotic impression which General MacArthur’s colorful personality had made on the Japanese military. So steadily and relentlessly had the General pushed his leap-frog drive from the shores of Australia to the Philippines that the Japanese, so Yamashita confessed, had come to regard him as virtually unbeatable. With them it was no longer a question of whether MacArthur would hit, but only when. No longer did they hope to stop the colorful American, but only slow him down. Oddly enough nothing of this feeling extended towards Admiral Nimitz or the other heroes of the Navy’s Central Pacific drive, although they had certainly contributed every bit as much as General MacArthur to the desperate plight in which Japan’s newly-acquired Empire had found itself.
>No small share of the credit for this strange hypnotic power which General MacArthur exercised over the Japanese mind (as the occupation was later to demonstrate even more dramatically) was due to his aloof, almost imperial manner. The second day of our conversation I walked in on my distinguished prisoners reading some American magazines which the G.I. guards had obligingly loaned them. One was a copy of Life, opened to a full-page picture of General Eisenhower wearing his familiar grin.
>“What do you think of him, General?” I asked Yamashita.
>“You know,” he replied, “a general shouldn’t smile. I don’t quite understand this fellow Eisenhower. How can a man be a successful general who smiles all the time? Take MacArthur: there’s a man for you. Always stern and imposing. Why, now that Roosevelt is dead, he’ll undoubtedly be your next president, won’t he?”

>>17782759
>Oddly enough nothing of this feeling extended towards Admiral Nimitz or the other heroes of the Navy’s Central Pacific drive, although they had certainly contributed every bit as much as General MacArthur to the desperate plight in which Japan’s newly-acquired Empire had found itself.
nimitzsisters...

>>17782744
He earned it with Sedan and trying to avert the Barbarossa disasters.

>>17781928
Me.

>>17782736
Was it true in your imagination?

>>17780677
they were outnumbered 3 to 1 and the republicans received soviet assistance

>>17780689
>>17780678
>fumbled Market Garden
>fumbled North Africa
>>17780704
What would you need to see in terms of a solid case to admit Montogomery was overrated?

>>17781674
>>17781694
>>17781742
Germany's Generals won multiple battles and campaigns with much fiercer odds than what the British ever faced.
Where is England's Poland? Where is England's Battle of France?
Where is England's Gothic Line?
Where was England's Crete?
Where was England's Yugoslavia?
Their Hurtgen forest?

They have none.

>>17780670 (OP)
is this the guy from Canada who was trying to make peace in Rwanda and Croatia?

>>17783165
The problem with this wehraboo perspective is that you're comparing Britain, a naval power, to Germany, a army power. It's a dishonest comparison and you would call out the dishonesty if the perspective was reversed; we compared German naval and aerial technology, tactics, logistics, doctrine, battle performance etc and then make the conclusion that Germany was the inferior power.

Anyway, lets retort for arguments sake.
>Where is England's Poland?
Operation Compass, where a small Commonwealth force defeated several Italian armies, and the Italians were arguably on the same tier as Poland if not higher, despite all normie memes about Italy in ww2.

>Where is England's Battle of France?
True, but Britain never gambled her entire existence on an unlikely manouver that miraculously succeeded despite all odds. In comparison, we can ask ourselves; "Where is Englands Barbarossa/Case Blue?" to which the answer is there wasnt any for the exact same reason.

>Where was England's Yugoslavia?
Best comparison would be Iraq

Now lets ask: Where is Germanys
Burma Campaign
East Africa
Taranto
Bletchley Park
SOE
Tube Alloys project
ASDIC, RADAR, VHF
Military deception: Operation Mincemeat / Operation Fortitude

>>17783165
>>17782759
>Germans win brilliant victories in battle but it's not enough
>America wins because of Macarthur aesthetics
the game was rigged from the start

>>17780670 (OP)
>as decided by the most qualified of paradox faggots

>>17781552
>>17781928
MacArthur is one of the most genius generals in the history of the US Army, can't believe I share /his/ with people capable of such ignorance
>>17781936
Staged in what way? It's not like he landed on empty beaches - he displayed heroism similar to the age old conquerors who actually physically lead their army in battle which was very uncharacteristic for a starred general in the 40s

Sure he was good at propaganda to make himself look heroic - which he actually was. If that sort of boasting isn't your thing then fine whatever, but calling his landings staged because you can't cope with people idolizing themselves is fucking pathetic

>>17781552
>>17782095
>>17781928
Watching MacArthur's growth as a person from pre-war through to the post-war really is something to appreciate.

>>17780670 (OP)
Most people think he is shit except for coping Brits. Where did you get this idea that he is defended?

>>17783160
>fumbled Market Garden
see above
>fumbled North Africa
Oh? Really? Bernard 'Rommel Killer' Montgomery fumbled North Africa? Are you sure you're not confusing him for his predecessor Auchinleck? Or are you just equal parts braindead and butthurt?

>What would you need to see in terms of a solid case to admit Montogomery was overrated?
How about literally anything that supported that argument. I'm not even going to ask you to prove your claim, just anything that doesn't make you look retarded.

>>17784456
>objective assessment of WWII
>wehraboo
yeah, Angolems are seething.
England sucks at war, simple as.
>naval power
cope
>army power
Do you mean a "land power"? you fucking monkey
>dishonest to compare British troops to German troops
its not, arent even arguing against me, you are arguing that Britian has a justifiable reason for sucking ass against Germany LOL.
We know, smaller balls than Germanics and Meds, smaller secondarysexual characteristics (because Angols are overgrown children like asiatics), of course Angolems were buckbroken by the Norse so they developed an autistic fixation with the sea.
Yes, the Germans are inferior at Sea to the Anglos, is this a Wehraboo perspective?
>we compared German naval power
but we arent, German naval power sucks. They punched up considering their position, but their navy was very weak compared to Britain.
>naval and aerial
>technology
>tactics
>logistics
>doctrine
>battle performance
Germany did it better
Here's why Germany lost:
Germany had no ships and very little resources to make ships and aircraft.
When has England ever punched up at sea against Germany?
Germany has done so to England.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Berlin_(Atlantic)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait

>>17786038
>Wehraboo uses angry seething
>It's not very effective

>>17784456
>Britain, a naval power, to Germany, a army power
lol

>>17784456
>operation compass
Why did it take twice as long as the taking of Poland while being over a much smaller tract of land? FYI the British were motorized while the Germans in Poland were primarily on foot.
>Britain never gambled her entire existence
Yeah they did, and they lost, thats why they dont exist anymore lmfao.
>unlikely maneuver that succeeded against all odds
yes because Germans do it better.
>where is England's Barbarossa
where is it?
Barbarossa was a wildly successful offensive.
Barbarossa not achieving its most ambitious goals does not detract from the fact that over its duration it took out more than the ENTIRETY of the Standing Red Army at the time and 100% of the Western Districts.
So where is Britain's Barbarossa?
>Iraq
Iraq is on par with Yugoslavia?
Care to explain how?
>Burma
Literal who, Germany never had numbers that bad LMAO.
>East Africa
Germany never had the good fortune to fight someone they surrounded on all sides and completely cut off from all assistance.
>Taranto
who?
This was like 100 people lmao.
>Code breaking
>SOE
what does this have to do with soldiers?
>Tube alloy project
started by two German born jews LOOOOOOOL

nothing you mentioned had the same scale, success, or David vs Goliath element that Germany had throughout the entirety of the war.

England is simply not an impressive country nor are they an impressive people.
And we know why, they have smaller sexual characteristics than other Europeans, smaller brains than other (Northern) Europeans, smaller bodies than other Europeans generally, they are more timid, unassuming, and less courageous, they are more morally depraved and given very often to delusion and bouts of insanity, case in point - modern England.

>>17785930
Montgomery was given the very easy task of defeating Rommel and Rommel still ran circle around him.
North Africa should have been concluded in three months tops.
It took almost three years.
>how about literally anthing
No, I asked what would you need to see.
I have already given what falls under "literally anything" narrow your criteria to something specific, you dishonest hack.
>>17786070
What's actually wrong with the three examples I gave of the German navy overperforming given their disadvantages?

>Ludendorff
Overrated? Yes
Shitty? No, he was an old ass man fighting with an 1814 mindset in 1915
But he wasnt a complete moron and won tactical victories

>>17780742
Yeah, monty get flat for market garden(justified honestly he trusted a Yankee) but USArmy don't get enough flak for it

>>17783165
>Poland
Nigger, Germans have every advantage in that campaign, like everything in their favour plus help of big bad red army
Same for yugoslavia

>>17786096
So the Wehraboo goes from unironically worshipping Rommel to discounting him as 'easily to defeat' as soon as that works for him. You're not interested in a discussion, you're just a basic AF troll. Thanks for making that clear.

>He ShOuLd HaVe WoN iN tHrEe MoNtHs!!!!!11111
and if he had won in three months you'd be saying he should have won in three weeks. If he'd won in three weeks you'd be saying he should have won in three days. If he'd won in three days you'd say he should have won in three hours. If he'd won in three hours you'd be saying that the entire North African front was irrelevant and combat only happened there because he was determined to force a fight for the sake of his ego.

>>17786119
>Germano-Soviet alliance invades Poland
>What should have been a """""3 day special military operation""""" drags on for weeks because the Kraut and the Ivan are just unable to win despite the handicaps the Poles were working with
>Even after Germano-Soviet 'victory' in Poland the Poles keep fighting, both at home with the Polish Resistance and abroad with the Polish army/air-force/navy in exile.
>Germany never able to ignore Poland and has to keep an outsized occupation force in the area

>>17781907
>General and King was much more blurred. Alexander or Frederick II had full control of their not just their armies, but also the states that supplied them.
No shit anon, they were literally kings of their countries. Both of their military machines were also inherited from their father's who did all heavy lifting building them

>>17784456
Operation compass actually looks more impressive by numbers. In September campaign Germans outnumbered poles in any meaningless category and had red army help, not mention geographic advantage.

>>17786038
>Germany did it better
>Still lose
Must be shitty generals to blame then

>>17786086
>Why did it take twice as long as the taking of Poland while being over a much smaller tract of land?
You may look at map and compare distances and geography so you don't look like retard in first reply

>>17781928
MacArthur's career zigzags so much that anyone with any kind of opinion of him is going to be wrong for one reason or another

>>17780672
These guys we're borderline incompetent.

Konev, Rokossovsky, Eisenhower were the only good Allied generals in World War II

>>17786162
Shitty Generals, and a Commander in Chief who insisted on sticking his retarded views into everything in ways that just fucked everything up even further.

>>17782876
Guderain Jr., please.

>>17786107
>*loses his nerves like a hysterical woman in late Sept 1918*

>>17782951
Maybe, but then you also have to take into account that the Republican side was nothing short of a shitshow and a convoluted mess full of different parties fighting for their own agenda and without clear long-term planning or an established central command. Being outnumbered means absolutely nothing if you can't even use the advantage properly. Also, Nationalist troops were of far more quality than Republican ones.

>>17782951
The government usually doesnt stand a chance against the military in any civil war.
The military is always the one element of the state that could threaten the government, so the government does everything to infiltrate the military.

Why do you think this LGBT horseshit is being so aggressively pushed into western military values.
Because it doesnt matter if the common person is fed up with globohomo destroying society, but if the military is fed up, the government has a problem.

>>17787407
Literally because his wife's son died too lmao

>>17780677
I think his only serious fuck up during the war was trying to bum rush Madrid instead of surrounding and besieging it. The war could have theoretically ended in 1937 if he did, but between the initial defenses being stronger than anticipated and the Republicans receiving reinforcements, (because they didn't encircle the city in time) the war was allowed to become a massive shitshow instead of a swift victory.

>>17780672
Grant and Sherman are overrated. Meade and Hooker are underrated. On the other side though, Stonewall definitely earned his rating, but the jealous king of all overrated generals Lee had him killed.

>>17780670 (OP)
he would've been a great commander in ww1, unfortunately he wasn't in ww1 and was just an ok general. Market Garden was pretty retarded though, trying to bum rush a whole corps up one highway knowing that a single fuckup at any of the drops would lead to a disaster. He does get bonus points for raping the somehow even more overrated and obvious homosexual Rommel though.

>>17782095
Mark Clark is also a much shittier general than McArthur. He should've been shot for occupying an undefended Rome for his own ego instead of attempting to cut off the Axis retreat.

>>17787683
>you have to take into account that the Republican side had skill issues
?

>Nationalist troops were of far more quality than Republican ones
And these "quality" military personnel made Franco commander-in-chief, despite him only commanding the army of Africa and not in a position to orchestrate a coup for himself or intimidate political enemies. If we're talking about the competence of Franco this is evidence in his favor. He understood war and was energetic and loyal to their cause, they chose him to make the final call on difficult decisions that might split the other generals, which he did during the course of the war allowing him to rise to more than a figurehead.

>>17787693
Many army officers and the navy were Republican and Franco dealt with them swiftly and decisively. Also just because someone has an advantage does not mean they are less competent.

After initial maneuvers, with Franco showing foresight and rushing to seize key objectives while avoiding pointless offensives, Spanish civil war turned into a war of attrition like the great war, with tanks and aircraft not up to the level of Germany in 1939 and 1940 due to technology and lack thereof they were slow to break the deadlock. All the while the Republicans had regular shipments of arms and supplies and instructors. The Nationalists thus had to dig in and gradually build up their own forces, requiring far more than just the professionals they began with for the final offensive.

>>17786162
or maybe they were up against 80% of the planet.
that may have been a critical factor in their defeat, not necessarily their martial acumen.
>>17786165
Poland was larger than the entirety of Compass' operational sector.

>>17788266
It's still a crying shame that my nigga Cleburne still gets 0 recognition.

>>17780670 (OP)
Montgomery was the man who planned Operation Overlord, btw.

>>17788266
Lee is kind of underrated when you consider no other general began their career at 53 and had more than a streak of successful punch-ups.
Caesar began in his 20s, Napoleon in his 20s, Alexander in his teens, Hannibal in his teens, Jackson in his 30s, Sherman and Grant in their 30s.

>>17780670 (OP)
He actually sucks at being an admiral, never won a battle he commanded.
His strategy in Midway violate basic military principle violate basic military principles such as concentration of force and clear, uncomplicated plans