Worst Military Leaders of All Time

Discussion in 'Historical Events Coffee House' started by 1Historygenius, Feb 22, 2012.

Page 3 of 3

  1. 1Historygenius Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    511
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    United States
    D*** I keep forgetting. I have to control this.
    1Historygenius, Mar 24, 2012
    #41
    slydessertfox likes this.

  2. StephenColbert27 Active Member

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    758
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Middle of a Corn Field somewhere in Illinois
    I'm still going with George B. McClellan. By the way, I recently found out that he already thought he was massively outnumbered before Pinkerton turned in his report. Pinkerton was simply telling his boss what he wanted to hear.
    StephenColbert27, Mar 24, 2012
    #42
    slydessertfox likes this.

  3. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    Mclellan was cautious, but when it came to actually fighting, he was bad but not the worst. I think if Mexico had anyone other than Santa Anna, they could have won.
    slydessertfox, Mar 24, 2012
    #43

  4. 1Historygenius Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    511
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    United States
    Santa Anna will be one of the worst, that is true. He did not even need to attack the Alamo. It was just some small outpost with at least 250 or less guys in it. Then he attacks after the 13 day siege loosing heavy casualties when he could have waited a day later for his heavy artillery to arrive and tear it apart and then at San Jacinto he has his men take its afternoon siesta without guards to protect the camp and they are completely overrun.
    1Historygenius, Mar 25, 2012
    #44
    StephenColbert27 and slydessertfox like this.

  5. Leutenant_Germany Active Member

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Message Count:
    156
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Munich, Bavaria,Germany
    Field Marshal Paulus- he was the man that lost stalingrad, there was multiple times the Romanian commander on his flank told him that they could not hold off a russian attack but he ignored and poured more men into the city. not to mention he ordered the destruction of the city which helped the russian defenders. just an all around moron
    Leutenant_Germany, Mar 25, 2012
    #45

  6. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    Well what if Stalin would reveal his true form: 40 meter giant and started to punch jerrys around? What if arguments are not getting you anywhere.

    Capturing Moscow was no easy task: Germans had to fight their way there, surround it and take objectives hundreds of kilometers behind it. With resources they had it was simply impossible, unless they would commit elemets of other army groups.

    Hitler was never going to take Moscow in attack, he would starve it to death like Leningrad and would not accept surrender nor would he attack the city, simply to kill off as much people as possible. Siege means long waiting time, sometimes years and winter is at the door step allowing Russians to attack with their superb winter equipment resulting in same results as what happened in reality in winter '41. Moscow was not in direct danger allowing Russians to organize with in and outside the city.

    Also don't double post, we have edit button. Read forum rules.


    Germans have had assumed that Soviet army had no resources to attack, so I don't think blaming Paulus is right in this case. I mean he worked with the info he got from up top.
    D3adtrap, Mar 25, 2012
    #46

  7. bender Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    norway
    bender, Mar 25, 2012
    #47
    Vassilli1942 likes this.

  8. 1Historygenius Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    511
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    United States
    So do you think in this attack someone could have done better than Percival? The Japanese bombarded Singapore into submission and by then the British and Commonwealth troops were low on ammo. Britain sent two warships (including the battleship Prince of Wales which had fought the Bismarck) to attack Japanese shipping, but they were destroyed in 2 hours by Japanese bombers.
    1Historygenius, Mar 25, 2012
    #48

  9. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    Haha, yes the golden age of facial hair.
    I will give you that, most likely anyone that was in command of Singapore would of ended up surrendering. Also the 350 tanks that were in Malaya were moved to the Russian front as a show of faith between the USSR and Britain before the battle, so when Japan attacked with 200 light tanks the British had no tanks to fight back with.
    Vassilli1942, Mar 29, 2012
    #49
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page