Worst Military Leaders In History (war, bomb, Britain, generals)

[TonyT]

Since we have a list of top military leaders, why not one for the worst? On the land, the sea, or in the air, who do you think was so inept or unsuited for the task at hand that they deserve a nomination for being one of the worst military leaders in history?

I will start off with my first nominee: General Luigi Capello, Commander of the Italian Second Army.

It's 1917. The Italian Army has the Austro-Hungarian Army on the ropes. What little territory the Austrians still hold in Northern Italy is in serious danger. The Austrian Army itself is on the verge of collapse. Hoping to keep their Austrian allies in the war so as not to jeopardize plans for an offensive on the Western Front in 1918, the Germans decide to send troops in support of the Austrians. They would launch a joint offensive against the Italians in hopes of driving them back and relieving pressure on the Austrian positions.

The Italians knew that an offensive was in the works. They knew that the Germans would be taking part. They even knew where the likely point of attack would be. Unfortunately, they grossly underestimated how large the offensive was going to be. Even more unfortunate for the Italians was the presence of one General Capello.

Disregarding his superior officer's order to deploy his troops in a defensive position, Capello instead set up an offensive position. His belief was that the Austrian-German attack would be so weak that it wouldn't even be able to penetrate the Italian front line. Therefore, his best defense would be to immediately counterattack.

On October 24, 1917 at 2 AM, the Austrian-German attack began with an intense artillery bombardment of the Italian trenches. The trenches were completely demolished. The Austrian-German forces began to advance through dense fog and from behind a curtain of poison gas, quickly overrunning Capello's lines. Italian command and control was targeted by Austrian artillery, cutting off communication between Italian troops and their generals. Counterattacks by the Italians were completely futile. General Cappello's grand strategy of taking up an offensive posture was a failure, his entire 2nd Army was destroyed, and the Italians were completely routed.

The Battle of Caporetto as it was called was a massive defeat for the Italians. 280,000 Italian troops were taken prisoner. 40,000 were killed and wounded. They lost 3,150 artillery pieces, which was two thirds of the total artillery the Italian Army had. Also lost were 1,700 mortars and 3,000 machine guns. In fact, the loss at Caporetto was so great, that to this day, Italians use the phrase "It was a Caporetto" to describe something that is or was a complete disaster.

So, there is my long winded reason for picking General Luigi Capello. Who's your choice?

[GregW]

Montgomery

[cpg35223]

Pretty much any Allied general on the Western Front during World War I, with the shining exception of Pershing.

Yes, there were far too many men jammed along far too little front. But the disinclination to even consider alternative tactics to the slaughter was simply criminal. I believe the British lost 60,000 men in ONE HOUR in the First Battle of the Somme. You would have thought that Haig and the other ninnies would have said, "Okay, there's got to be a better way than this."

As far as American generals go, I would say George McClellan has to be the most incompetent major general of any American war. He not one, but two chances to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia. In the Peninsular Campaign, his originally brilliant masterstroke bogged down due to excessive planning and buildup. Even then, a greatly outnumbered Confederate force bluffed McClellan from retreating--even when he had Richmond in sight.

Then, of course, there was McClellan's fumble at Antietam. Not only did the Union outnumber the Confederates by 2:1, not only had Lee split his forces into three separate groups, but McClellan had Lee's battle plans! Yet the best McClellan could do was fight Lee to a stalemate. A competent general would have utterly annihilated Lee's army, ending the Civil War three years earlier.

[banger]

U.S. General Mark Clark. Horrible at Anzio, worse in Korea !!!

[Irishtom29]

Pershing is criticized by some Great War historians for failure to learn from the mistakes made earlier in the war and a failure to use the new tactics and methods developed by 1918. That he was unimaginative and caused much higher American losses than needed.

In his book "Battle Tactics on the Western Front" Paddy Griffith expalins the British search for methods that would break the trench deadlock. There were formidable problems to be overcome and the British almost overcame them in 1917.

Of course the German Spring Offensive of 1918 showed the use of new tactics could work well but the Germans lacked the logistical power to make good on their gains. But late summer 1918 the British had it all in place---new infantry and artillery tactics, tanks, air support for the infantry and the logistics to go with it. Thus victory.

[Yeledaf]

Field Marshall Sir Alexander Haig. He turned Britain into a permanent second-rate power with his unconscionable slaughter of English troops as, time after time -- at the Somme, at Paesschendale, and in the other Flanders "offensives" -- he hurled lines of tommies to sturggle through the mud, with inadequate artillery support, against firmly entrenched German machine-gunners.

[southbound_295]

Of all of the military idiots & nincompoops, the US Civil War has to be the gold standard.

Although McClellan is tempting, I'd have to say Burnside is the worst of all time.

There's the usual reasons to nominate him........... Fredericksburg & the Mud March, but he didn't stop with the eastern theater. In the official records there are repeated telegrams from Charles Dana asking where's Burnside?, leading up to Chickamauga & more puzzling about Burnside's whereabouts after the battle.

Burnside was given an Army & told to shore-up East TN & meet up with Rosecrans & the Army of the Cumberland.

Burnside managed to get holed-up in Knoxville & was a no show, while Longstreet, who had been sent to Bragg showed up. That meant that the Army of the Cumberland was signficantly out-numbered at Chickamauga.

This meant that Washington had to send Hooker & the 11th & 12th Corps to help the Army of the Cumberland as well as Grant & Sherman. After Missionary Ridge, men had to be sent up to help Burnside.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

Of all of the military idiots & nincompoops, the US Civil War has to be the gold standard.

Although McClellan is tempting, I'd have to say Burnside is the worst of all time.

There's the usual reasons to nomiinate him........... Fredericksburg & the Mud March, but he didn't stop with the eastern theater.
In the official records there are repeated telegrams from Charles Dana asking where's Burnside?, leading up to Chickamauga & more puzzling about Burnside's whereabouts after the battle.

Burnside was given an Army & told to shore-up East TN & meet up with Rosecrans & the Army of the Cumberland.

Burnsde managed to get holed-up in Knoxville & was a no show, while Longstreet, who had been sent to Bragg showed up. That meant that the Army of the Cumberland was signficantly out-numbered at Chickamauga.

This meant that Washington had to send Hooker & the 11th & 12th Corps to help the Army of the Cumberland as well as Grant & Sherman. After Missionary Ridge, men had to be sent up to help Burnside.

Yo, Reb. Here's an interesting take on Civl War bunglers. (Braxton Bragg was no prize package, either!):

Worst Generals of the Civil War

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Yo, Reb. Here's an interesting take on Civl War bunglers. (Braxton Bragg was no prize package, either!):

Worst Generals of the Civil War

You assume me to be a Reb? Try reading my location.

Bragg made some bone-headed moves, but how well would you do with Polk, Hardee, etc.? Was anyone else successful with the Army of Tennessee? Hood destroyed it.

I can think of a lot of candidates, but stop & think about how long the war would have lasted, had Rosecrans' assistance showed up, & the Union won. Also include in the battllefield deaths all of the POW deaths.

This had nothing to do with the sides. It's just a matter of how much damaged can be attributed to him.

[Irishtom29]

I'll stick up for Bragg. The man had good strategic sense and was aggressive. His Kentucky campaign was the most dangerous Rebel gambit of the war.

Bragg's biggest mistakes were in not shooting Polk, Hardee, Hindman and DH Hill. And Longstreet, he should'a shot him too.

Longstreet's an interesting case. He was at times the finest corps commander of the war---his performences at Antietam and 2nd Bull Run were outstanding and the second day at Gettysburg his corps did arguably the finest single day's fighting by any corps in the entire war. His hammer blow at Chickamauga was superb as was his flank attack in the Wilderness.

And yet.

After Chickamauga Longstreet fell right in with the insubordinate and treasonous clique in the Army of Tennessee. His failure to hold Lookout Valley was a blunder to equal anything done by Burnside. His irresponsible behavior led to his being sent to east Tennessee where he was whipped by Burnside of all people. Not to mention that his troops would have come in handy at Chattanooga. Longstreet is as culpable as anyone in the fall of Chattanooga and one must wonder how things would've turned out had he given Bragg his wholehearted efforts rather than engaging in backbiting and intrique.

Yeah, ole Pete was a funny case.