Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 2:17:17 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

World War II

Here again all the military brilliance was with the Germans, their innovative and daring generals led them to victory after victory, but in the end they were halted by overwhelming numbers (particularly on the eastern front).



A few comments on WW2 Arpig - it's fair to see we see it differently.

If I were a German politician or militarist then I'd hope to fuck that the huge investment and training put in to the army (they'd been preparing for this since before Hitler's time when they flouted the Treaty of Versailles and began preparing - that's a good old 13 years of gearing up for war) could take care of Norway/Denmark/Holland/Poland etc.

Then to France: the French suffered unbelievable hardship in WW1 and Petain (hero of Verdun) took the decision that he couldn't put France through that again (rightly or wrongly). So the French simply weren't up for the fight.

Then to Britain: Britain had demilitarised since WW1 rather than geared up for a fight. Moreover our resources were poured into the Navy as that's where our interests lay. Yet their air force which had been preparing for over a decade couldn't take care of our improvised rag-tag outfit. Within a matter of a couple of years we were out-producing German planes.

Then to the Soviet Union: perhaps numbers played a part but equally important was the Russians' stomach for the fight. This time - unlike WW1 - they were game for it and had ruthless commanders with the motto being: "go forward and you may survive; take a step back and you will be shot by your own". The Russians drew them right in with supply lines stretched etc and countered.

Then to the United States: when the Germans came up against a well trained professional army with the resources at their disposal the Germans were found wanting.

As I said - they were nothing special - and there's no use crying about being up against a team after you've gone charging round creating uproar.

Edited to add: one general in particular - Rommel - was caught out good and proper. British espionage had convinced him that the invasion would not be at Normandy so when the day came he was sat at home in Germany somewhere and his best fighting units were sat in reserve and couldn't get to the front line before the damage was done. Not as good as they thought they were.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 8/31/2009 2:32:25 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 3:30:04 AM   
airborne92


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline 		I have been reading through this thread and have seen one glaring error committed by each peron posting so far. That error is not taking into account the very nature of war itself. The nature of war dictates that without the talented generals who are capable leading the forces under their command, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their troops, no matter how much superiority you have you will lose.

There have also been several factual inaccuracies passed off as truths.

In the Gulf War, Franks did not develop the plan to use a wide flanking maneuver. That was Schwartzkopf. Franks was in charge of VII Corps from Germany, Schwartzkopf was the head of CENTCOM and thus the overall military commander in the Gulf War.

In WW2, Montgomery was the most incompetant general of the era. He was only able to beat Rommel once he had a superiority of men and material 8 times that of what Rommel had. He was never able to take Caen before the actual breakout from Normandy took place, even though he had more than enough troops present to do the job. He was the architect of Operation Market Garden, which he was told by numerous Allied generals was doomed to fail. Over 8000 Britsh paratroopers alone paid for his arrogance with their lives, and that doesn't take into account the other British, American, or Polish losses during that Operation. There was one Japanese commander prior to Pearl Harbor that not only understood the American industrial might, but actually warned his country about it. That was Admiral Yamamoto. He had studied and served in the US during the 1920s, and he had seen not only the industrial might of the US, but he had seen the character of the American people. He fully understood the implications of what he was asked to do, and warned his superiors of the consequences of the operation. Bradley was not anywhere as good of a commander as people are giving him credit for. He was more like Eisenhower, a great organizer, but as an actual military commander he was mediocre at best. The Germans had most of the best commanders, a far better trained military, better equipment (though there are exceptions to this part), but the German leadership (i.e. - Hitler) put the Germans on a path that was unwinnable.

In WW1, the French and British Armies both were retreating during the Battle of the Marne. The only reason that the Germans were unsuccessful was due to the American 3rd Infantry Division which had been placed between the the British and French Armies. It is also the reason 3rd Infantry Division earned its nickname, the Rock of the Marne.

As for Grant and Sherman, you must consider that from a purely miltary standpoint they were actually quite talented. They were fighting a civil war within this country. Now you can debate whether is was a civil war or as it is still refered to in the southern states today, the War of Northern Aggression, but the fact remains that civil wars are some of the most brutal conflicts man can be involved in. Both Grant and Sherman understood military strategy and used it to their full advantage. Did they make mistakes? Yes. Were their methods brutal? Yes. They also knew how to end the war quicker, and used proven methods from history.

As for the OP conclusions that God favors the side with the bigger battalions instead of the best shots, I think that some British riflemen want to have a discussion with you about that. The French had the larger battalions, but didn't use rifled muskets as the British and other European nations did, and the French lost the Napoleonic Wars. The British riflemen were trained to take out the enemy command structure (officers, NCOs, standard bearers, and buglers) with great effect.

The overall conclusion I have from your discussions is that the outcome of any war is based on more than who has the largest force. It is based on the mentality of each side, the terrain in which the conflict is going to be fought, the equipment used, the commanders of each force, and the type of conflict being fought. There is no simple equation to determine the winner of a conflict. Each category has its own unique qualities, that can change the equation based on the overall circumstances being looked at.

< Message edited by airborne92 -- 8/31/2009 3:31:08 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 3:32:11 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Arpig, I dont agree about Wellington.

quote:

The big hero on the winning side was Wellington, but if you study his campaigns, in India, the Peninsula, and in the Lowlands it becomes apparent that his only strategy was to find a good defencive position that the enemy was forced to attack. In the actual battles themselves he was little different. He would stake out his position, form his lines and wait for his opponent to attack him. Beat off the attacks with heavy losses on both sides and force the opponent to withdraw. Very rarely did he attack, and only then when he had worn his opponent down using his defencive strategy. Granted he was very skilled at positioning himself such that his enemy had no choice but to attack him on his terms, but that was his one trick.


His main skill was in organising the logistics, prior to embarking on a campaign. While its true he did sit back and wait at Waterloo, he also picked the land well, having spent time in the area as a child. If you look at Vitoria in Spain or Assaye in India, he took the initiative and attacked in both cases, in the later he did this when outnumbered by five to one.


(in reply to Leiren)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 4:46:37 AM   
daintydimples


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/6/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Arpig, I dont agree about Wellington.

quote:

The big hero on the winning side was Wellington, but if you study his campaigns, in India, the Peninsula, and in the Lowlands it becomes apparent that his only strategy was to find a good defencive position that the enemy was forced to attack. In the actual battles themselves he was little different. He would stake out his position, form his lines and wait for his opponent to attack him. Beat off the attacks with heavy losses on both sides and force the opponent to withdraw. Very rarely did he attack, and only then when he had worn his opponent down using his defencive strategy. Granted he was very skilled at positioning himself such that his enemy had no choice but to attack him on his terms, but that was his one trick.


His main skill was in organising the logistics, prior to embarking on a campaign. While its true he did sit back and wait at Waterloo, he also picked the land well, having spent time in the area as a child. If you look at Vitoria in Spain or Assaye in India, he took the initiative and attacked in both cases, in the later he did this when outnumbered by five to one.




I agree.

Brilliant use of geography is not a "trick" IMO. After all, geography killed us in Vietnam.


_____________________________

Some soften by the forced reflection that comes from loss; others harden. Which are you?




(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 5:02:29 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Oh, Arpig---

I might have an exception for you.

What about Henry V against the French? Surely numbers say he should have been crushed. Instead, he not only won the war, but became King over additional territory and married the French princess.

What I know of this is only from Shakespeare, though. Anyone up on the actual history?


(in reply to daintydimples)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 5:54:19 AM   
airborne92


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Oh, Arpig---

I might have an exception for you.

What about Henry V against the French? Surely numbers say he should have been crushed. Instead, he not only won the war, but became King over additional territory and married the French princess.

What I know of this is only from Shakespeare, though. Anyone up on the actual history?




You are refering to the Battle of Agincourt during the Hundred Years War. In this battle the French, who had a far superior army, lost not only the battle but vast majority of their knights. The flower of the French nobility was wiped out by Henry's use of terrain, the perfect use of a smaller force, and a little luck for the English with the weather the night prior to the battle creating a muddy field that the French knights turned into a morass.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 6:03:01 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		If you liked Agincourt you'll love Crecy.

(in reply to airborne92)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 6:30:15 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Another exception--Pericles vs. Persia?

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 6:37:30 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		Arpig you've touched on this allready but one of the reasons that a side with great generals loses id that while tactically magnificent overall strategem is woefully incompetent. In your list of great generals you had Von Manstein. I agree one of the most gifted generals who has ever lived but one general does not win a war. The German high comman was to begin with superb but as the nazi party increased it's hold it became far far less effective. Most wars are lost due to a dearth of strategy in the losing sides highest echelons which effectively cancels out tactical brilliance. The waffen S.S. are a perfect example of this. For the most part the most skilled and dedicated soldiers in history who in nearly every battle they were involved in either won or inflicted huge losses on their enemy. Nearly always they came off the best tactically but their skill was squandered as their command did not have an effective strategy for them once the initial gamble of Barbarossa failed.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 7:13:38 AM   
airborne92


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Arpig you've touched on this allready but one of the reasons that a side with great generals loses id that while tactically magnificent overall strategem is woefully incompetent. In your list of great generals you had Von Manstein. I agree one of the most gifted generals who has ever lived but one general does not win a war. The German high comman was to begin with superb but as the nazi party increased it's hold it became far far less effective. Most wars are lost due to a dearth of strategy in the losing sides highest echelons which effectively cancels out tactical brilliance. The waffen S.S. are a perfect example of this. For the most part the most skilled and dedicated soldiers in history who in nearly every battle they were involved in either won or inflicted huge losses on their enemy. Nearly always they came off the best tactically but their skill was squandered as their command did not have an effective strategy for them once the initial gamble of Barbarossa failed.


Yes, von Manstein was a gifted general, but the Germans had far more than just von Manstein. They had Guderian, Rommel, von Runstedt, Hoth, and von Kleist among many others to numerous to mention. Even their staff officers were more than a match for most Allied generals of the time. I have even read the memoirs of German Colonels that were extremely gifted battlefield commanders.

The SS, while dedicated and skilled soldiers, were extremely brutal in their methods. More so than Grant or Sherman were during the US Civil War. SS troops were given no quarter on the Russian front, a lot of times being executed out of hand if they were captured. Most surving SS troops at the end of the war tried to surrender to the British or Americans. Most that did were turned over to the Russians and never heard from again.

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 7:19:12 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		Oh absolutely Airborne I laways think Von Kleist is criminally underated. My point is that generals win battles not wars. For a war to be won the ultimate leaders have to have excellent strategy.
Again I agree about the S.S. I was only pointing out that their skill was wasted because the strategy they were used for was not competent.

(in reply to airborne92)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 7:27:24 AM   
airborne92


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline 		The strategy that they were used for, at least in the initial stages of Barbarossa, was set out by the likes of Hitler and Himmler. If they had done things differently when they invaded Russia they might just have defeated the Soviet Union.

The basic point being, and this has been proved throughout history, is that when the military strategy is controlled by the civilian leadership of the country it is doomed to lose any war it is involved in. It is always best when fighting a war to let the military commanders do their job. Give them the support, materials and manpower they need, but let them run the show.

(in reply to Starbuck09)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 7:28:54 AM   
Starbuck09


Posts: 724
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline 		Yes I agree completely Airborne.

(in reply to airborne92)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 7:55:43 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

In WW1, the French and British Armies both were retreating during the Battle of the Marne. The only reason that the Germans were unsuccessful was due to the American 3rd Infantry Division which had been placed between the the British and French Armies. It is also the reason 3rd Infantry Division earned its nickname, the Rock of the Marne.



We're talking of different battles. The Battle of the Marne I mentioned was in 1914.

quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

The overall conclusion I have from your discussions is that the outcome of any war is based on more than who has the largest force. It is based on the mentality of each side, the terrain in which the conflict is going to be fought, the equipment used, the commanders of each force, and the type of conflict being fought. There is no simple equation to determine the winner of a conflict. Each category has its own unique qualities, that can change the equation based on the overall circumstances being looked at.



From a military perspective perhaps but there are economic social and diplomatic matters which in part decide the outcome of the war.

Not to mention whether or not the army is well fed/well clothed/has plenty of beer and cigarettes/access to women. When you're up to your knees in shit and rats and someone's trying to take your head off your shoulders on a regular basis then a fuck/some rum/a feed is well up there on the list of priortities - far outweighing any grandoise notions of 'freedom'.

As an aside - French and American soldiers fought a pitched battle in WW1 when the Americans turned up with shit loads of money and the French weren't happy because it gave them an 'unfair' advantage in getting the local women. Similarly British soldiers weren't happy with the Aussies and Canadians who were paid more than their British counterparts - hence the British referred to colonial soldiers as 'fuckin' five bobbers'.

Also: were the combatants more inclined to take prisoners the war may have ended earlier. Commanders instructed their men that if they took prisoners they would have to feed them out of their rations - with obvious consequences. Food was very important for morale and discipline. When the Germans broke through they wasted precious time looting British supplies (which prompted Ludendorff to claim the German army had descended into a band of thieves) because they were far better than what the Germans were getting and there's a well-worn quote from a German general (can't remember which one) stating that he knew the war was over as soon as he saw the food rations that the British had.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 8/31/2009 8:06:11 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to airborne92)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 8:03:29 AM   
airborne92


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

From a military perspective perhaps but there are economic social and diplomatic matters which in part decide the outcome of the war.

Not to mention whether or not the army is well fed/well clothed/has plenty of beer and cigarettes/access to women. When you're up to your knees in shit and rats and someone's trying to take your head off your shoulders on a regular basis then a fuck/some rum/a feed is well up there on the list of priortities - far outweighing any grandoise notions of 'freedom'.


You are correct that there are other things which contribute to the outcome of a war, and the things you mentioned need to be addressed by the civilian government. However, if those things are not handled correctly it will have a seriously negative impact on the military side of things.

As for making sure that soldiers are well fed, boozed up, and well fucked by women while fighting shows you have no understanding of what things truly are important to troops actually fighting. What they need are food, ammunition, water, medical supplies, and proper uniforms for the climate, season and terrain. The main priority of a soldier when he or she is involved in a fight is just trying to survive. The booze and women (or men for the females) are only a concern after the fight is over, not during.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 8:10:06 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

well fed, boozed up, and well fucked by women while fighting shows you have no understanding of what things truly are important to troops actually fighting.



Then you should read the memoirs of soldiers from WW1.

As said above: French and American soldiers fought pitched battles because the Americans had more money to get the local women (it was pretty important to them).

See the above post for the other comments around food/beer/women.



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to airborne92)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 8:20:05 AM   
airborne92


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline 		You may want to reconsider how you wrote your posts. They way they are written right now says that while actually fighting the troops were only concerned with getting drunk and laid. If you truly believe that, then my point that you have no understanding of what you are talking about stands as a fact.

Those things are a concern of the troops only when they are not fighting for their survival. While in a combat zone, but not actually fighting, they do concern themselves with those things, but never when actually fighting.

< Message edited by airborne92 -- 8/31/2009 8:21:36 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 8:39:35 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

You may want to reconsider how you wrote your posts. They way they are written right now says that while actually fighting the troops were only concerned with getting drunk and laid. If you truly believe that, then my point that you have no understanding of what you are talking about stands as a fact.

Those things are a concern of the troops only when they are not fighting for their survival. While in a combat zone, but not actually fighting, they do concern themselves with those things, but never when actually fighting.



Yes because it's obvious I meant that the French and the Americans were engaged in a scrap with the Germans but put their guns down to fight one another over women.

Perhaps you missed the edited version of my post; otherwise you may need to reconsider your methods of comprehension.

In terms of drink here's a few snippets for you:

1) Sergeant Harry Finch of the Royal Sussex Regiment advanced into no man's land on the eve of the Passchendale offensive in 1917. He was struck by the the fact that most of the men in the section fell asleep as they lay waiting to attack - in part through exhaustion; in part through the rum ration.

2) A soldier wrote in the Aussie trench paper:

You say we're mad when we strike the beer
But if you'd stood in shivering fear
With the boys who bring the wounded back
Cross no man's land where there ain't no track
You'd read no psalms to the men that fight
You'd take the drink to forget the sight
Of torn out limbs and sightless eyes
Or the passing of a pal that dies

3) Ernst Junger (famous for something after the war - can't remember what) repeatedly refers to orgies of drunkenness:

We drank heavily until we treatd the whole world as no more than a laughable phantom that circled round our table.......All the devastation of every kind that surrounded one was seen in the light of humour and in a state of bliss however fleeting it might be and was finally lost altogether in light hearted independence of time.....One broke through time....and rejoiced in an hour or two in a boundless world.
 
Incidentally Ernst Junger relished the war and was comparatively fearless.

I could give you snippets from memoirs for women and food too but I think the above answers the question. Drink/women/food/clothing were extremely important for the morale of the soldiers.



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to airborne92)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 8/31/2009 8:52:56 AM   
airborne92


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline 		What you are refering to was not common place. All miltaries have looters and such. Also, using captured equipment and supplies is discouraged, at least in the American military, but it does happen, especially when you are not resupplied on a regular basis.

To say that soldiers, regardless of nationality, don't think about geting drunk and laid when they come off the line is ludicrious. However, while up on the line it is not a priority. Other things matter more to soldiers than just getting drunk and laid.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? - 9/2/2009 6:10:54 AM   
Ianneil


Posts: 2
Joined: 7/27/2009
Status: offline 		To a point I was reacting to an inference that if good generals always loose ergo bad generals always win.

I did read a comment on Grant that he had an exceptional ability to manage overwhelming forces. Then another comment on Rommel that he was excellent managing a force like the Afrika Corp of about 6 divisions?? But when it came to a large army group his flair became bogged down.

But then also I wonder that as the victors write the history do they pump up the image & ability of their defeated enemy to make their victory seem all the greater??????...........









(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why do the good generals always end uplosing? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078