WW1 officer,WW2 general made good?

[armourersergeant]

Of all the officers who served in WW1 and went on to become WW2 generals who was the best and who tried not to repeat the 'mistakes' made by their seniors on the first war?

I rate Allanbrooke but he was not really tested apart from Dunkirk era and i also think that Monty is very over rated.

Your suggestions as it is loosly based on WW1 appreciated.

Arm.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

How about Bill Slim?

Ian

[armourersergeant]

where did Slim serve in WW1?

Arm.

[Terry_Reeves]

Arm

Royal Warwickshire Regiment, Gallipoli (wounded), France, Mesopotamia (wounded and MC).

Terry Reeves

[Charles Fair]

Bill Slim would get my vote.

Monty (Lt-Col & GSO1 of the 47th (London) Division in late 1918) certainly learnt a thing or two. He was certainly aware of the importance of giving the troops the sense that he cared about them and would not squander their lives needlessly. I have the impression that in this regard he was similar to Plumer. He was also well aware of the power of the 1940's media, and that it could be manipulated to this end. Think of the films of Monty standing on the bonnet of a Jeep speaking to men gathered around him, wearing non-regulation uniform and handing out cigarettes. Could you imagine Haig addressing troops in such an informal way?

For Monty as a tactician see "Firepower - British Army Weapons & Theories of War 1904-45" by Shelford Bidwell and Dominic Graham (1982). P. 245 says in relation to Alamein

"His resources were greater than any available to his predecessors, and his immediate tactical problem, of breaking through a position whose flanks were secured, was different from anything they had had to face. He turned back to the methods of 1918, not because he was a reactionary, but because he was a realist. In his own way he was just as opposed to victory through effusion of blood as Gott. [Lt-Gen Gott chosen to command 8th Army, but killed when his aircraft was shot down, thus Monty got the job.] When he chose what to many appeared to be the tactics of attrition he saw to it that the attrition was efficient. Where Gott hoped to avoid casualties by manoeuvre Montgomery used fire-power to batter down his opponent and reduce his ability to inflict injury on his troops."

Gary Sheffield has done some interesting comparative stuff on WW1 and WW2 generalship. I've heard him speak on this a couple of times, and I think he has an essay on this in a volume of essays which is called something life "The Great World War 1914-45" edited by John Bourne & Peter Liddle.

How about:

Field Marshall Sir Thomas Blamey, Australias highest ranking soldier and Monash's chief of staff in WW1?

Patton?

[brownag]

William Slim would get my vote too. Check out his own book 'Unofficial History' for his selected military memoirs from the First World War until he took over in Burma in 1941. Then he covers the period up until 1945 in 'Defeat into Victory'.

Cheers

Adam

[Andrew P]

How about:

Field Marshall Sir Thomas Blamey, Australias highest ranking soldier and Monash's chief of staff in WW1?

While Blamey did good service in WW1 on staff duties and even when he commanded a battalion for a short time, in WW2 he seemed to spend more time getting rid of talented generals & other officers who were a threat to him by posting them to backwaters.

He was not well respected among the troops.

General Gordon Bennett in WW1 commanded the 3rd AIF Brigade and in WW2 had command of the ill-fated 8th Division which was captured across Singapore, Malaya and the islands.

Bennett had difficulty working with Gen Percival which led to various breakdowns between the two, however when Singapore fell Bennett managed to escape and get back to Australia and bring back information that changed the training of troops in jungle warfare to counter the Japanese. However Bennett was vilified for having escaped when his troops on the whole were left as prisoners of war.

Among those villifying Bennett was Blamey. Blamey must have conviently forgotten that at the fall of Greece he himself did the same thing. He took a plane out making sure that his son who was on the staff was also on board, leaving many others to be captured by the Germans.

Bennett had the added handicap that his 8th division was never together as a fighting force. Some units had been in Malaya, others in Singapore while others were sent across the islands at Java, Ambon & rabaul to name but a few.

General Stan Savige was an officer in the 24th Battalion AIF in WW1 and later served with great distinction in Dunsterforce and he also had command of several different divisions in WW2.

[Dolphin]

I think that Marshall Georgi Zhukov (10th Novogorod Dragoons in the Great War) did pretty well in WWII. He didn't make many of the the mistakes of his Czarist predecessors.

[Tim Birch]

My list would include Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.

Tim

[Guest Hussar]

How about Mark Clark?

In the First World War he fought on the Western Front in France and was seriously wounded by shrapnel while leading his company of the 11th Regiment 5th Division.

In April 1941 Clark became a brigadier general and the following year went to Britain with General Dwight D. Eisenhower where he helped him plan Operation Torch

On 13th October 1942, Clark became the US Army's youngest ever three-star general.

In December 1942 Clark took command of the 5th Army. On 9th September 1943, Clark and his troops made an amphibious assault on Italy. Landing in Salerno, near Naples, he encountered serious resistance but with the help of General Bernard Montgomery and the 8th Army the beachhead was made safe by the 15th September.

Clark replaced General Harold Alexander as head of the 15th Army Group in December 1944, and the following March became America's youngest full general.

[Neil Burns]

Hi Hussar,

Some people feel Mark Clark really erred at Anzio. After the landing he delayed and allowed himself to be trapped at Anzio which many felt caused the US casualties. He also seemed much more fixed on Rome than the German Army. Many feel that his relationship with Eisenhower had a lot to do with his remaining in command after his poor showing at Anzio. This theory that Eisenhower shielded some US officers who he was close to seems, to me , to be pretty accurate.

Most of this comes from my father who was a World War II vet who had little regard for Mark Clark.

I'm sure I'm about to find out he has his supporters though!

Take care,

Neil

[Simon Furnell]

Don't forget Mcarthur and Patton.

Monty,is a possibilty,along with Rommel as well.

Zhukov obviously learned a lot,as you say,from the mistakes made by the Russian Army,during WW1 and may be the favourite.

Let me know the odds,and i will have 50p,each way.

Until i started researching WW1,i didn't realise so many of the stars of WW2,so to speak,had served during WW1.

The big thing?

Alot of them served during the latter stages of the war,when all arms was a growing concept.

Tank attacks,aerial bombing and co-ordination with artillery,all became more refined during the second world war,and beyond.

All the best.

Simon.

[brownag]

One of Mark Clark's most prized possessions was a roadsign of 'Rome' which he had taken back to America after the war and put in his back garden. He was too fixated on being the liberator of Rome to concentrate on his job of beating the German Army in the field. His blinkered view led to the dragging on of the Italian campaign in often attrocious conditions for many more months than it should have done and the loss of countless lives because of that.

[Guest Hussar]

Neil and brownag,

I appreciate your perceptions on Clarks drive for Rome but wonder wether it was 'his' fixation or wether he was being pushed by those above to go for broke and claim Rome for the US. As you know, after Salerno, the Germans withdrew to the Gustav Line, the most prominent feature of which was Monte Cassino. Frustrated at the inability to take Cassino, Clark, rightly or wrongly, looked for a way round. He chose to concentrate on Valmontone and push north through the Apennines. Unable to break through he was forced to wait until Cassino fell and a road was opened.

Neil, I believe it was actually General John Lucas who led the Anzio assault and ballssed up as he was replaced straight after by Truscott, who led 6th Army into Rome. After the fall of Cassino, Clark led his 5th army to Anzio and then onto Rome, taking it 17 days after the fall of Cassino.

Anyway, to get back to the thread, how has no-one yet mentioned Lt.General Bernard Freyburg VC, DSO(x4) ? Wounded 9 times in WW1 and the youngest ever Brigadier-General in the British Army

[Muerrisch]

My father reckoned that Monty [by the way, it's 'Monty', beloved enough to have a soubriquet, compared with the others, 'Zhukov', 'Rommel' etc] kept him and many others alive and winning in Africa.

Marlborough, Wellington, Haig, Montgomery .... who is going to rise to my bait ........

[paul guthrie]

It's very hard to quarrel with Eisenhower and Marshall at or near the top though neither saw combat and Ike never left the USA. I think marshall thought his work as a staff officer really prepared him for WW2. A sad case is Hugh A. Drum who as Chief of Staff to Pershing in Pershing's capacity as Commander 1st Army as a 37 year old Colonel had the power to break Generals and used it. He was still young enough to be very effective in 1941, thought he should get job that went to Marshall. When Marshall offered him the China job Stillwell got he declined, then reconsidered but Marshall refused. He retired.

You have to know what Pershing you are discussing, at one point he commanded AEF, 1st Army and had also commanded AEF and Services of Supply, way too much in both instances.

His papers were lost and my friend Edward Coffman of my town found them while doing his PhD work in the '50s. He went on to write the best ever book- this is accepted by about everyone- on US in WW1. The War To End All Wars, in print University Press of Kentucky, paperback is better than hardback. If you check your Stand To! for about 99 or 2000 you will see my interview with him. He is retired from U of Wisconsin one of our very good public univeristies, having lunch with him and a man who is child of one of our 4th Division men from WW1.

[Neil Burns]

Hi Hussar,

You are correct about Lukas my apologies.

I'll stick to my guns on the Rome issue though

Although way off topic is it possible the entire Italian campaign was a mistake?

I agree with Paul's assessment of The War to End All Wars and his assessment of Marshall. Eisenhower I'm a little ambivalent towards. Patton seems to have grasped the mobile warfare concept and could MacArthur's Island Hopping really just be the bypassing strong-points concept of World War I?

Take care,

Neil

[paul guthrie]

Glad you agree about Mac's book. Let me explain why it will always be the best. Everyone is dead now but when he did his research an amazing amount of these men were alive including Fox Connor who was Pershing's G2 or one of them Gs. He interviewed MacArthur who did not give interviews. His PhD thesis had been on Chief of Staff Peyton March who did a hell of a job bringing the Army into 20th Century and keeping Pershing and Secretary of War Newton Baker from killing each other, he told Coffman he was the best CoS US ever had. ALive were company commanders, ship captains, air aces, everything. This could not happen again, he wrote about WW1 when next to no significant historians here were doing so and is therfore a national treasure, America owes Mac Coffman. And he lives two miles from me, I walk by his house every morning, what luck!

[Guest Hussar]

LB, where should we start about dear old 'Monty'?

Dieppe?

Having planned the Dieppe Raid, he was transferred elsewhere just before the Canadians were slaughtered while carrying it out.

North Africa?

Montgomery arrived in Africa just when massive shipments of American equipment were about to shift the balance of power in his favour. Montgomery stayed on the defensive until he had a better than 2 to 1 advantage over the Germans in infantry, artillery and tanks. Then he fought the Battle of El Alamein, a brutal meatgrinder right out of the First World War. When it was over, Axis and British losses were about equal - but his army could stand it, being twice as big to start with.

Europe?

Failing to close the Falaise Gap and going "a bridge too far" at Arnhem.

[munce]

I'm not sure that any general could have done any better than Monty did at El ALamein. Given the absolute necessity of winning the battle, I think he took absolutely the right decision in waiting as long as he did until victory was a certainty. Failure simply wasn't an option, and he did what was necessary to secure success. I'm not versed enough in the tactical situation to comment on whether he could have used more sophisticated tactics which might have resulted in a quicker or cleaner victory, but with a narrow front and no chance of turning the enemy's flank, I can't really imagine what else he could have done. He made all the right decisions and won the battle -- isn't that the mark of good generalship? The fact is that the decisions he took beforehand ensured that he didn't need to use clever tactics in order to win, as the battle was essestially won before it started.

The rest of his war I'm not so sure on, I think there he was certainly guilty of letting non-military factors get in the way of winning battles, something which he resisted with success at ALamein. Just my humble opinion of course, I'm really no expert on the subject.

[Frank_East]

General George Marshall has to be a good contender,Great War AEF staff

officer,did a lot of the planning for the AEFon the Western Front.

Then Roosevelt's right hand man as US Army Chief of Staff he worked up the US military machine to maximum effectiveness.He was Roosevelt' (and WSC's apparently) first choice as Overlord commander but Roosevelt felt he would be more effective within the US as his Chief of Staff.

He never fought a battle ,so he never lost one but made a massive contribution to winning the peace with his Marshall Plan for post war Europe.Had he been involved as a commander on the battlefield then a different view may have prevailed.

As for our British candidates,Bill Slim as 14th Army Commander in Burma,the forgotten army, certainly takes the eye.Had a little advantage in that as a former common soldier he knew how to get common men achieve the uncommon.I cannot think of anything unsavoury to say about him.He was never called home.You might say the same about Monty but apart from having to win at Alamein (and he would not be bullied by WSC to commence until he was confident about smashing Rommel) he did not have real adversity.

The other candidate would have been General Richard O'Conner,unknown to many but had the hard luck to taken prisoner by the Italians in the Western Desert long before Monty turned up on the scene.O'Conner had developed a good reputation in dealing with the Italians in the Western Desert with little resources.It was said that WSC preferred him to Monty.O'Conner spent two years as a Italian POW until he escaped but returned to help out his friend Monty commanding three divisions in Normandy.As it was O'Conner remained a subordinate of Monty's. Fate robbed him of the chance to be assessed at a much higher level.

Just think about it .Would the leadership, offensive planning and performance of the British Army be any different in the Great War had Haig been captured during the retreat from Mons.

Regards

Frank East

[Tim Birch]

Frank

I certainly support your choice of O'Connor, probably the greatest of the Desert Generals who achieved great success with a fraction of the forces available to Monty.

Do you know anything of his great War service?

Tim

[Frank_East]

Tim,

Richard O'Connor's whole career is outlined quite informatively in the collection held by the Liddell Hart Centre.

There is also a publication entitled The Forgotten Victor by J C M Baynes.I think this book possibilily refers to his World War 2 service.

Incidently O'Conner wrote a paper entitled "Luck" and its influence on his military career.I have not read it but I would think it embraces what would have been had he not been captured and spent two years as a POW.

He must have known Hubert Gough possibly from the Great War as Gough wrote to him on the occasion of his award of a knighthood in March 1941 I think it was.

Regards

Frank East

[Tim Birch]

According to Correlli Barnett in his book "The Desert Generals" the capture of O'Connor deprived history of what might have been one of the greatest tactical contests of WW2 between two brilliant Generals, Rommel and O'Connor.

Tim

[Charles Fair]

This subject sounds like an interesting and logical extension to John Bourne's ongoing project which is studying the careers of all the British generals of WW1. (I think he has about 1,200 on the database - I believe all officers who reached the rank of A/Major-Gen.)

As a leading tacticain of armoured warfare between the wars, Percy Hobart, GOC 79th Armoured Div has to be on the list. I believe he was degummed for being outspoken in the early part of WW2, but was recalled in 1943. I would argue that his role in ultimate victory in NW Europe 1944/45 was critical - after all without the ingenuity of the 'funnies' the situation on Gold, Juno and Sword beaches at the end of D-Day might well have been like that at Omaha.

I would also suggest an honourable mention for Maj-Gen JFC Fuller. Although I dont think he served in WW2, his staff college lectures in the 1920s drew heavily on the lessons of WW1 and influenced many of the generals and staff officers of WW2.

We dont seem to have mentioned many Germans other than Rommel. How about Guderian and von Manstein?