Name some of the Best/Worst military Commanders.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ensis Ferrae**

I forgot to mention one of the most badass of WW2 commanders.... "Mad Jack" Churchill (not related to Sir Winston)

This guy is credited with the most recent confirmed kill by longbow. And he "never" went to battle without his bagpipes, longbow, and Claybeg (a basket hilted claymore, though a bit shorter than a claymore)

I would also throw some names into the bad category:

the French nobility who led them against Henry V's English at Agincourt (all of them.... though not because of the outcome, but because they were too concerned with glory and the pissing contest that usually ensues when rivals meet, instead of the actual task at hand)

**purplefood**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I forgot to mention one of the most badass of WW2 commanders.... "Mad Jack" Churchill (not related to Sir Winston)

This guy is credited with the most recent confirmed kill by longbow. And he "never" went to battle without his bagpipes, longbow, and Claybeg (a basket hilted claymore, though a bit shorter than a claymore)

Was he a commander?

**Lux_Lucis**

purplefood wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I forgot to mention one of the most badass of WW2 commanders.... "Mad Jack" Churchill (not related to Sir Winston)

This guy is credited with the most recent confirmed kill by longbow. And he "never" went to battle without his bagpipes, longbow, and Claybeg (a basket hilted claymore, though a bit shorter than a claymore)

Was he a commander?

I love Mad Jack.

Lieutenant Colonel.

He also complained about the US entering the war, he reckoned we could have had another ten years out of it without their help. He enjoyed his job.

**purplefood**

Lux_Lucis wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I forgot to mention one of the most badass of WW2 commanders.... "Mad Jack" Churchill (not related to Sir Winston)

This guy is credited with the most recent confirmed kill by longbow. And he "never" went to battle without his bagpipes, longbow, and Claybeg (a basket hilted claymore, though a bit shorter than a claymore)

Was he a commander?

I love Mad Jack.

Lieutenant Colonel.

He also complained about the US entering the war, he reckoned we could have had another ten years out of it without their help. He enjoyed his job.

For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

**Ensis Ferrae**

purplefood wrote:
For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

Is Major a higher rank than Lieutenant Colonel in the British military system??

In either case, according to wikipedia, he was the commander of "Number 2 Commando"

**halonachos**

General Custer.

**Lux_Lucis**

Nope. Major then Lieutenant Colonel.

**Ensis Ferrae**

halonachos wrote:General Custer.

for best or worst???... Can I put him in the list for "best dressed" ??

**purplefood**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
purplefood wrote:
For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

Is Major a higher rank than Lieutenant Colonel in the British military system??

In either case, according to wikipedia, he was the commander of "Number 2 Commando"

No Lt. Col is a rank above Major...
Though as commander of Number 2 Commando his rank is commensurate with his responsibilities...

**kenshin620**

halonachos wrote:General Custer.

My History Professor told me he wasnt a bad guy, just that his Sub Commanders didnt follow his plan.

Plus I remember the scene from the Last Samurai about facing defeat with honor and all

(wait we are talking about Custer from Custer's Last stand right?)

Speaking of Samurai..

The entire friggin Sengoku period in Japan is filled to the brim with awesome generals trying to outsmart each other. From the ambitious (possibly evil depending on your outlook) Oda Nobunaga, to Takeda Shingen with his 24 Generals(though not all at the same time) and his rival Uesugi Kenshin, to the eventual end with Tokugawa Ieyasu

**AustonT**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
purplefood wrote:
For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

Is Major a higher rank than Lieutenant Colonel in the British military system??

In either case, according to wikipedia, he was the commander of "Number 2 Commando"

NATO equivalency aside the US rank system is based upon the British Army and Navy. No surprises except maybe that the modern British rank of Brigadier dropped General off at some point.

**Lux_Lucis**

AustonT wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
purplefood wrote:
For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

Is Major a higher rank than Lieutenant Colonel in the British military system??

In either case, according to wikipedia, he was the commander of "Number 2 Commando"

NATO equivalency aside the US rank system is based upon the British Army and Navy. No surprises except maybe that the modern British rank of Brigadier dropped General off at some point.

However, you'll find the ranks in different positions, e.g. in the British Army the OC of a company is a Major, in the US it's a captain.

**Jumpin Jesus**

I dont know who this commander/officer was. (and maybe this dosent quite fit in but this is the best I could come up with.) I just know he existed from a vietnam war story my grandpa told me. So my grandpa was out on operation and they were near a riverbank. They were sent out to fight some VC but they were only a reactionary force. They are close enough to see the enemy but they commander, who was up in a chopper told them to stay put until the attacking force (they were on armored boats on the river and roughly the size of a platoon) could get there. So a bit later the boats come roaring around the river bend and the VC open up on the boats with rockets and machine guns. The attacking force was butchered in the water. Then the commander tries to get the reactionary force to attack the enemy, who already know whats going on. It ended in heavy casualties. He either got court martialed or sent somewhere else. But anyways it was a pretty bad call on his part.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jumpin Jesus wrote:I dont know who this commander/officer was. (and maybe this dosent quite fit in but this is the best I could come up with.) I just know he existed from a vietnam war story my grandpa told me. So my grandpa was out on operation and they were near a riverbank. They were sent out to fight some VC but they were only a reactionary force. They are close enough to see the enemy but they commander, who was up in a chopper told them to stay put until the attacking force (they were on armored boats on the river and roughly the size of a platoon) could get there. So a bit later the boats come roaring around the river bend and the VC open up on the boats with rockets and machine guns. The attacking force was butchered in the water. Then the commander tries to get the reactionary force to attack the enemy, who already know whats going on. It ended in heavy casualties. He either got court martialed or sent somewhere else. But anyways it was a pretty bad call on his part.

Assuming this story is true, that commander would be pretty bad... However, I will also add the caveat that we didn't have all the greatest officer corps during the Vietnam era... My father in law hates christmas because some other officer or another dropped a full salvo of field artillery on a friendly position, on christmas day during his tour in Nam (radios and other technology being what it was at the time, this can be somewhat more understandable but still terrible all around).

I think that the one exception that I can think of during Vietnam is the dude who led "Custer's unit" in Nam, and ended up the subject of "We Were Soldiers"

**AustonT**

LTG Hal Moore

**Barksdale**

Nathan Bedford Forrest.

He is the grandfrather mobile warfare. His mounted infantry were one of the most elite outfits in the whole of the Confederate States.

**Lux_Lucis**

Heinz Guderian - wrote Achtung - Panzer!, a seminal piece on motorised warfare that greatly influenced German development of blitzkrieg, as well as being a very good field commander in his own right.
However, mention must also go to J.F.C. Fuller for his earlier development of those tactics and his influence on Guderian, although he didn't develop them as fully and wasn't successful in getting them implemented through out the British Army. Also he was a fascist...

**Jumpin Jesus**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jumpin Jesus wrote:I dont know who this commander/officer was. (and maybe this dosent quite fit in but this is the best I could come up with.) I just know he existed from a vietnam war story my grandpa told me. So my grandpa was out on operation and they were near a riverbank. They were sent out to fight some VC but they were only a reactionary force. They are close enough to see the enemy but they commander, who was up in a chopper told them to stay put until the attacking force (they were on armored boats on the river and roughly the size of a platoon) could get there. So a bit later the boats come roaring around the river bend and the VC open up on the boats with rockets and machine guns. The attacking force was butchered in the water. Then the commander tries to get the reactionary force to attack the enemy, who already know whats going on. It ended in heavy casualties. He either got court martialed or sent somewhere else. But anyways it was a pretty bad call on his part.

Assuming this story is true, that commander would be pretty bad... However, I will also add the caveat that we didn't have all the greatest officer corps during the Vietnam era... My father in law hates christmas because some other officer or another dropped a full salvo of field artillery on a friendly position, on christmas day during his tour in Nam (radios and other technology being what it was at the time, this can be somewhat more understandable but still terrible all around).

I think that the one exception that I can think of during Vietnam is the dude who led "Custer's unit" in Nam, and ended up the subject of "We Were Soldiers"

I trust my grandpa so I assume what he tells me is not a lie. Plus the things he tells me are not too over the top anyways.

And my grandpa said he had just about everything dropped on him that the army had. Vietnam was just a weird war in general.

**LordofHats**

Lux_Lucis wrote:Heinz Guderian - wrote Achtung - Panzer!, a seminal piece on motorised warfare that greatly influenced German development of blitzkrieg, as well as being a very good field commander in his own right.

Mikhail Tukhachevsky, the forgotten father of the Red Army, not only developed most of the same theories (independently), he did it before Guderian (who largely did not develop the theories attributed to him, he just put them together), at a much younger age (he was in his late 30's) and did it better, integrating mobile armored combat into a functional and balanced military system that ultimately crushed the Germans. He's the forgotten genius of military theory in the 20th century. Probably one of the most brilliant military men to ever live. He was articulating strategic and operational concepts that were decades ahead of his time. EDIT: I have a buddy who called him "Patton with Einsteins IQ."

Guderian on the other hand is somewhat overrated and given a lot more credit than he deserves. EDIT EDIT: It's even been theorized hat Guderian took Tukhachevsky's theories into account in his own, as the conspiracy that had Tukhachevsky purged involved leaking classified Soviet documents that discussed his ideas to Reinhard Heydrich.

**Insurgency Walker**

I think in Guderians case he really needed to be useful to the allies after the war, and was in a good spot to "write" some history. Hans von Luck was a good commander, if your looking for 1940's Germans, and Rommel as mentioned. Benedict Arnold should get honorable mention on the good leader side for both his success and failures in our revolutionary war. Paul "Pappy" Gun was one of the most interesting officers of the Pacific WWII era and deserves mention. Where has Alexander the great been mentioned? Custer? Custer did not inspire greatness, or aptitude in his command. Custer was a bad leader. I'd vote Robert E Lee, and or Gen Sherman. (I feel I live far enough north of Georgia to survive that last one). If you are looking for a good leader of late 19th century North America that is.

**Doctadeth**

Rommel for the best - He was one of the greatest tacticians of the time with armoured warfare. He respected the POW status, rather then killing POWs. He also respected the enemy (especially the Diggers). My favourite quote from him *if I had to take hell, I would use Australians to take it, and New Zealanders to hold it*.

Lord Horatio Nelson - Not only held off a force of larger numbers and tonnage of spanish ships, but also pretty much redefined naval warfare until reliable self-powered ships came along.

Worst - General Douglas MacArthur. Pretty much screwed over the entirety of south-east asia during WW2 by withdrawing from the japanese despite the fact that the Australian forces operated best in that terrain. Also allowed the japanese to destroy the only Australian town ever bombed during the war. (darwin).

**Insurgency Walker**

Doctadeth wrote:Rommel for the best - He was one of the greatest tacticians of the time with armoured warfare. He respected the POW status, rather then killing POWs. He also respected the enemy (especially the Diggers). My favourite quote from him *if I had to take hell, I would use Australians to take it, and New Zealanders to hold it*.
.

Ah.....actually well.....Rommel I believe personally shot a French POW officer not long into the invasion of France. Rommel did believe that warfare should be conducted honorably when possible, had field hospitals treat all wounded equally, that sort of thing. Rommel was once so far behind British lines that he popped into a field hospital and visited the troops, wanting to meet the wounded Australians in particular. He told the hospital staff that they were now behind the German lines but that medical supply delivery would not be interrupted. Apearently the remainder of the Afrika corp failed to catch up with him that day.

My Favorite quote is probably "get that tank moving, or I am coming down. Rommel." A note in a bottle dropped from a storch.

**LordofHats**

The incident with the Australian triage center was actually the result of bad maps. Rommel and his command staff accidentally wandered into enemy lines and upon realizing this, he prompty bluffed his way out of capture. They didn't know the triage center was Commonwealth, and approached it only to find out where they really were.

He actually did that twice in the war (three times if we want to include the time his Storch was shot down).

**Kilkrazy**

Rommel was very bad at logistics, though.

**LordofHats**

The whole of the Germany military was bad at logistics. It was something officers tended to think of as lesser work, and they tended to delegate the task to their staff in its entirety. Real men belonged on the front lines

This resulted in an officer corp that at large was incapable of grasping basic logistical situations, but ironically produced some of the most talented, and overworked, logistical officers of the war.

**AustonT**

Doctadeth wrote:

Worst - General Douglas MacArthur. Pretty much screwed over the entirety of south-east asia during WW2 by withdrawing from the japanese despite the fact that the Australian forces operated best in that terrain. Also allowed the japanese to destroy the only Australian town ever bombed during the war. (darwin).

MacArthur was on Corregidor when Darwin was bombed. Right where he started. Go on about how he was responsible for defending Darwin from 2000 miles away in the Philippines. I don't suppose that (Austrailian) MG David Blake was responsible for "allowing" the Japanese to bomb Darwin. Oh wait...I guess he was.

**LordofHats**

Yeah. There's a lot of reasons to say MacArthur wasn't a very good military commander, but I don't think that's one of them.

**Kilkrazy**

The First Duke of Marlborough was a great tactician, a master logistician, an excellent strategist, a supreme diplomat and, apparently, a superb lover.

Beat that!

**Lux_Lucis**

Lieutenant-Colonel John Frost of the Paras. Led a few successful raids before Operation market Garden where he and his 750 or so Paras held Arnhem for four days against the II SS Panzer Corps. He was supposed to have had 9000 men and held it for two.
Also he apparently walked right through the middle of a firefight because running would have been 'improper' for an officer in front of his men.

**Joey**

Makarov wrote:One of the worst military commanders ever:

Holy fething gak. He do so much wrong it would be hard to list it all.Hitler was not a good military commander or strategist.
IMHO he could have won the war against the Soviets (the main conflict of WW2 was the Eastern front of Europe), but thankfully due to his stupidity on so many levels he failed.
The problem was that the Soviet Union was equipping its army with new technology and intended to attack Germany within a year. With its size in manpower and industry, it was necessary for Germany to attack Russia before it was ready. Looking at the losses for the Russians, the strategy almost worked.

He just had good generals working for him in the German army, but eventually he started asking them to do the impossible.
Here are some reasons:
-One of the many things Hitler did wrong when he invaded the Soviet Union. Was to kill of the locals that liked him. He was initially seen as a liberator by the Ukrainians, Cossack, and other groups that the Soviet controlled (and tried to kill off). He could have easily raised a more than a million troops from these areas. They were willing to work and fight for the Reich (many did), but Hitler being Hitler tried to kill them off too. Thus creating a hostile environment that gave birth to many anti Nazi partisan movements, thus more anti partisan units were need. Not to mention all the more men and material he needed for his "final solution" no that he wanted to kill them off.
-Hitler did not disclose information about the new T-34 tank, which outnumbered and outgunned all of Germany's tanks.
-Also, Hitler decided upon plans to focus on other cities instead of Moscow, the nerve center that connected the eastern and western portions of the country.

And a metric crap ton more.

He was also entirely responsable for Germany's swift victory over France, and their heady advances into Russia. He just went insane once things got pear-shaped.
Losing a war when you're outnumbered 5-1 economically and militarily does not make you a bad commander per se

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doctadeth wrote:Rommel for the best - He was one of the greatest tacticians of the time with armoured warfare. He respected the POW status, rather then killing POWs.

Germany respected the Geneva Convention with regard to Western troops. Rommel was not alone in not executing POWs, but he was regarded as a "gentleman" it's true.