Matrix Games Forums

While things are slow, I'll spice things up with a discussion on Generals of WW 1.

The one who stands out as THE most brilliant general (and IMHO won the war for the allies) is Sir John Monash.

I cant say that he won the war for the Allies but General Aleksei Brusilov is probably the one that stand above the others. He recaptured 15,000 square miles or Russian territory causing 765,000 casualties including 450,000 P.O.W. All this was done despite the fact that he was starved of men and munitions that were being sent to the main offensive that never started because of profesional jelousy and/or professional incomptenance.

His offensive was close to knocking the Austro - Hungarians out of the war in 1916. By the time he was finally reinforced winter had started to set in which was followed by a rapidly collapsing home front that saw the establishment of the first soldier commities. The follow on spring 1917 offensive was never launced because of the general fear that the troops would refuse.

Hmmmm.
August Vin Mackesen goes for the best in my opinion, Bruislov Bleed Russia white and could have co-ordinated his attack with Romania , which would have knocked out Austria. Monash?
Undoubtably the finest British still Max Hoffman was probably the best Strategic mind of the war.And for final note Conrad was beyond brillant....he just made superior plans unablee to be carried out by inferior troops of a combined empire.

ORIGINAL: CSS

Hmmmm.
August Vin Mackesen goes for the best in my opinion, Bruislov Bleed Russia white and could have co-ordinated his attack with Romania , which would have knocked out Austria.

And for final note Conrad was beyond brillant....he just made superior plans unablee to be carried out by inferior troops of a combined empire.

The nicest thing I have heard about the Romanian army at this point was that they were inept in the attack. I also cant agree that Brusilov bleed Russia white, he was never given enough troops to do so.

As far as Conrad, if you make briliant plans and your army cant carry them out because you have inferior troops; you cant be all that brilliant to make plans they cant carry out. IMO

ORIGINAL: CSS


Undoubtably the finest British still Max Hoffman was probably the best Strategic mind of the war.And for final note Conrad was beyond brillant....he just made superior plans unablee to be carried out by inferior troops of a combined empire.

Sorry but IMHO there were no brilliant British army officers above flag rank period.

The concept of a brilliant plan is one that takes into account the troops being used, their strengths and weaknesses.

ORIGINAL: CSS

Hmmmm.
August Vin Mackesen goes for the best in my opinion, Bruislov Bleed Russia white and could have co-ordinated his attack with Romania , which would have knocked out Austria. Monash?
Undoubtably the finest British still Max Hoffman was probably the best Strategic mind of the war.And for final note Conrad was beyond brillant....he just made superior plans unablee to be carried out by inferior troops of a combined empire.

Yes, and conrad came up with his plans, and asked Germany for some troops to impliment them with....

ORIGINAL: Telsor1

Yes, and conrad came up with his plans, and asked Germany for some troops to impliment them with....

Then considering how Moltke the Younger was so vague with the Austrians during staff meetings, and especially as the crisis came to a head (1914) he was living in a fantasy world if he thought the Germans would have troops to spare. Moltke the Younger told Conrad that it would be anywhere from 4 to 6 months before France was defeated and the Army turned east to help. I'm sorry but it is not smart at all.

Austria-Hungary didn't have many good high-ranking officers in WW1, IMO, Conrad von Hötzendorf was one of the best. (In 1914, the whole Austrian army was only a shadow of its former glory)

The German duo Hindenburg & Ludendorff were brilliant and innovative officers, and Alexei Brusilov comes to my mind as the best Russian general of the war. Good French generals? Not many. Good British generals? Don't know about that, but Monash was a brilliant ANZAC general.

ORIGINAL: Raverdave


Sorry but IMHO there were no brilliant British army officers above flag rank period.

Haig!

Haig? Haig? HAIG??

OMG I think Haig had the plan like the 12 battles on the Izano river in Italy lets do exactly what we have done 11 times prviosly and it will suprise the hell out of jerry!
IMO Haig should have been shot for mass murder of his own men....and I am German I cant imagine an Englishman thinking Haig was good. Three times as many British were killed in WWI than WWII Thank to Sir Douglass.

Nothing better than the mention of Douglas Haig in a WW1 discussion to get the old juices flowing[;)]

Seriously though, that three times as many British soldiers died in WW1 compared to WW2 cannot be put down to Haig. In WW1 the British Army took on the main body of the enemy, this they did not in WW2 (it was the Soviets who had that dubious honour and look how many casualties they suffered!). In WW1 technology dictated that it was the defence that was dominant right through until 1918. The Germans could sit back and defend because they were in occupation of most of Belgium and much of northern and eastern France. It was not politically viable for the Entente powers to 'sit back', they had to attack and suffered accordingly. It would not have mattered who was in charge on the Western Front.

I suppose I should clarify my position on Haig. In no way was he a military genius (they were very thin on the ground in WW1) but he is much maligned and imho unfairly. Like most of his contemporaries he struggled to come to terms with a form of warfare that no-one had envisaged. Not for nothing did it become known as 'The War to End All Wars'. But come 1918 technology and the war itself had progressed so that the stalemate was broken and the British Army excelled, combining aircraft, artillery, tanks and infantry in a series of battles taking on and defeating the main body of the enemy for the first (and probably only) time in its history. The man in command? Douglas Haig!

I wont go into to depth about my feelings about Haig, I dont want to end up a bitter old man, but I found it hard not to spit on his grave.

Haig was a moron who continued to believe that massed assaults would win the day[8|]. He had little or no imagination and if I had half the chance I would dig him up so that I could hang him. He bleed the Britsh army white.

Not just the British, the Anzacs copped a hiding, and were never used to their best advantage

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

...to believe that massed assaults would win the day.

Hi!

What did win the day?

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

...to believe that massed assaults would win the day.

Hi!

What did win the day?

Ray (alias Lava)

Good question! I would ask those who have derided Haig in the above posts what alternatives were available?

I know I am about to commit herisy here, but please bear with me.

Firepower kills and more firepower kills better. The Germans had a grasp on this before the war and the German infantry manual of the time stressed this. It, (the manual), also called for infantry tactics (grunts on grunts) that are not that far from what is used today. That is the standard manual, not the Pioneeres or later Storm Troops developments that further refined the standard German infantry manual.

The Germans also developed weapons more suited for the battlefield in the way of Field Artillery and Howitsers and then other specialty weapons. And then put them to use in sucessful ways that the Allies were flat footed to stop and/or draw tactical lessons from.

The allies won the war barely on the battlefield, they won it overwhelmingly through the blockade and starvation of Germany.

I appologise to leave this thought hanging but I need to go and will return later to pick it up and carry on this wonderful discussion.[:)]

I wouldn't regard that as being heresy (well maybe a bit[;)]). The blockade bit hard on the German population and the collapse of the Russian Empire came that bit too late for the exploitation of the Ukrainian grain fields. I'd argue though that in 1918 the German army was decisively defeated and whilst still able to retreat in reasonable order they were leeching prisoners at a very high rate - collapse was a real possibility in the weeks leading up to the Armistace.

Regarding German Army equipment, it was certainly superior overall to that of the Entente powers (apart from the Lee-Enfield rifle and the French 75mm howitzer). Once entrenched they were able to make superb use of their advantages and it was only 1918 when the French and in particular the British were able to achieve technological and doctrinal supremacy. I say this because although the Germans were able to break the stalemate in 1918 by their use of Stormtroop units and specialist equipment it was the British who developed the use of combined arms to the highest level, enabling them to smash through German prepared defences (e.g. The Hindenburg Line) that had resisted all previous attempts to overcome them.