Youngest Allied Generals and Field Marshals

Discussions on the Allies and the Neutral States in general and the countries that does not have sections of their own.
Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Post by Jon G. » 29 Mar 2004 12:11

Just adding a bit of off-topic trivia to the MacArthur diatribe...
ChristopherPerrien wrote: ...
Why did Macathur accept a multi-million dollar (current$) payment in 1942 from the dis-posed Phillipine government for an UNSUCCESSFUL defence?
He did find the time to call his stockbroker and invest several hundred thousand dollars in bluechip stock. This investment made him a multi-millionaire before war's end. Just a different set of priorities?

'I didn't sack him because he was a dumb son of a bitch. I sacked him because he didn't follow orders'

Harry S Truman, on why he sacked MacArthur.

Now, youngest Allied general? Hmm, who would be the oldest? Petaín? But maybe he doesn't really count.
Top
User avatar
genstab
Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 22:50
Location: The Big City on Lake Erie

two nitpicking observations

Post by genstab » 29 Mar 2004 19:39

to Col. Steelfist- Rotmistrov was a Chief Marshal of Tank Forces, an inferior rank to Marshal of the Soviet Union. It ranked with Soviet General of the Army (equivalent to US/British full General. The great authority is website marshals.narod.ru

general comment on MacArthur- if he was guilty of the charge mentioned then it would be treason as he had been called to active duty with the U.S. Army in June 1941 with the rank of Lieutenant General; I believe he was promoted to General in December- hopefully before the Japanese attack
Best regards,
Genstab
Last edited by genstab on 22 Jun 2004 20:25, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 29 Mar 2004 20:54

General "Pete" Quesada (1904-93). Promoted Brig Gen in USAAF in 1942. Commanded the 9th US Tac Air Force in support of the Overlord operation.
Top
Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 29 Mar 2004 21:04

UK

WW2 - might be Major-General 'Pip' Roberts, GOC 11th Armoured Division, promoted Brigadier 1942 (age 36), Major General 1943 (age 37). 1906-1996

WW1 (googling) - Brigadier Bradford, VC, MC, Brigadier General at 25
Top
User avatar
Mauser K98k
Member
Posts: 766
Joined: 30 Aug 2003 03:29
Location: Colorado

Post by Mauser K98k » 30 Mar 2004 04:25

MacArthur's biggest blunder was not invoking "WPO-3 (The Orange Plan)" soon enough, which would have moved tons of food, medicine and supplies into the Bataan Peninsula, where it could have fed the US and Filipino troops for years. He put it off, thinking it was 'defeatist'. He expected to stop the Japanese on the invasion beaches.
Top
User avatar
Jeremy Chan
Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: 25 Aug 2003 10:32
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Jeremy Chan » 01 Apr 2004 08:14

genstab wrote:to Col. Steelfist- Rotmistrov was a Chief Marshal of Tank Forces, an inferior rank to Marshal of the Soviet Union. It ranked with General of the Army. The great authority is website marshals.narod.ru

Best regards,
Genstab
In that case, what was the function of that rank? Did it mean he was overall C-in-C of all armoured units in the Red Army?
Andreas wrote:UK

WW2 - might be Major-General 'Pip' Roberts, GOC 11th Armoured Division, promoted Brigadier 1942 (age 36), Major General 1943 (age 37). 1906-1996

WW1 (googling) - Brigadier Bradford, VC, MC, Brigadier General at 25
I didn't know that the rank of Brigadier General (crossed baton and sabre?) existed in the British army. Did the rank exist along with Brigadier? Why was it phased out?
Thanks anyway, guys
Top
User avatar
genstab
Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 22:50
Location: The Big City on Lake Erie

comments

Post by genstab » 01 Apr 2004 14:58

Col. Steelfist- Yes, a Chief Marshal of a branch of service was the senior one for that branch. There may be one or two Marshals of that branch of service under him depending on the size and function of the branch (the Armored Forces Marshals were combat leaders whereas I believe the Marshals of Artillery weren't but I'm no Red Army expert). Maybe someone can enlighten us further.

Andreas- the British Army had a Brigadier (non-General) rank in World War I; between the wars they had a Brigadier General rank that replaced it but by the time of World War II it reverted to a non-General Brigadier rank. Why I don't know. Again perhaps one of our British friends knows the rationale behind it.

Best regards,
Genstab
Top
Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 02 Apr 2004 10:31

Genstab
Thanks a lot for that correction. Ranks are not my forte - I always assumed that Brigadier was a general rank. Interesting to know that I was wrong.

Cheers

Andreas
Top
Mikko H.
Financial supporter
Posts: 1663
Joined: 07 May 2003 10:19
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Mikko H. » 03 May 2004 14:14

Andreas- the British Army had a Brigadier (non-General) rank in World War I; between the wars they had a Brigadier General rank that replaced it but by the time of World War II it reverted to a non-General Brigadier rank. Why I don't know. Again perhaps one of our British friends knows the rationale behind it.
Sorry, but this is incorrect. The British used the rank of Brigadier-General during the WWI, and it was replaced by Brigadier in early 1920's, I think.

The reason for this change was reportedly to make the Royal Navy Commodores fully equal to the Brigadier-Generals. While Army Brigadier-General was a general and had the perks of a general, Navy Commodore wasn't an admiral and didn't have admiral's perks. Thus Commodores and Brigadier-Generals were made equal by 'demoting' the Brigadier-Generals to Brigadiers.
Rotmistrov was a Chief Marshal of Tank Forces, an inferior rank to Marshal of the Soviet Union. It ranked with General of the Army. The great authority is website marshals.narod.ru
Sorry, but again this is incorrect. The very web-site you quote indicates that Chief Marshal was a rank equal to Marshal of the SU. An 'ordinary' Marshal was equal to Army General. (Yes, pretty weird system, and Army Generals weren't happy with it, but still that was the way it was!)
Last edited by Mikko H. on 15 Jun 2004 09:17, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar
Garou
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 10 Jun 2004 17:32
Location: Earth

Post by Garou » 14 Jun 2004 10:01

Sorry, but this is incorrect. The British used the rank of Brigadier-General during the WWI, and it was replaced by Brigadier in early 1920's, I think.

The reason for this change was reportedly to make the Royal Navy Captains fully equal to the Brigadier-Generals. While Army Brigadier-General was a general and had the perks of a general, Navy Captain wasn't an admiral and didn't have admiral's perks. Thus Captains and Brigadier-Generals were made equal by 'demoting' the Brigadier-Generals to Brigadiers.

Hello, this is my first post here. I always wondered about the Brigadier General / Brigiadier rank debate. However I had always just assumed that army Brigadiers were equal with Royal Navy Commodores and army Colonels with navy Captains.

Regards
Garou
Top
Mikko H.
Financial supporter
Posts: 1663
Joined: 07 May 2003 10:19
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Mikko H. » 15 Jun 2004 09:16

Oops! Thanks for noticing my mistake! I meant to say Commodore instead of Captain! I will edit my mail accordingly.
Top
User avatar
genstab
Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 22:50
Location: The Big City on Lake Erie

Soviet Chief Marshals

Post by genstab » 22 Jun 2004 20:57

Mikko H. wrote:
Andreas- the British Army had a Brigadier (non-General) rank in World War I; between the wars they had a Brigadier General rank that replaced it but by the time of World War II it reverted to a non-General Brigadier rank. Why I don't know. Again perhaps one of our British friends knows the rationale behind it.
Sorry, but this is incorrect. The British used the rank of Brigadier-General during the WWI, and it was replaced by Brigadier in early 1920's, I think.

The reason for this change was reportedly to make the Royal Navy Commodores fully equal to the Brigadier-Generals. While Army Brigadier-General was a general and had the perks of a general, Navy Commodore wasn't an admiral and didn't have admiral's perks. Thus Commodores and Brigadier-Generals were made equal by 'demoting' the Brigadier-Generals to Brigadiers.
Rotmistrov was a Chief Marshal of Tank Forces, an inferior rank to Marshal of the Soviet Union. It ranked with General of the Army. The great authority is website marshals.narod.ru
Sorry, but again this is incorrect. The very web-site you quote indicates that Chief Marshal was a rank equal to Marshal of the SU. An 'ordinary' Marshal was equal to Army General. (Yes, pretty weird system, and Army Generals weren't happy with it, but still that was the way it was!)
Genstab: I just rechecked narod.ru- you were right on Marshals of a Branch bein gequivalent to an General of theArmy but all I could find on the equivalency of a Chief Marshal of a Branch was this: "neither Chief Marshals nor Marshals of branches were promoted to the rank of MSU".
Unless you can find another quote from that site I can only conclude that a Chief Marshal of a Branch was NOT equivalent to a Marshal of the Soviet Union. It's academic now as the site also said both ranks have been disestablished; above General of the Army is only Marshal ofthe Russian Republic (the living former Marshals of the Soviet Union) and it is unclear whether any more will be appointed.
Top
User avatar
genstab
Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 22:50
Location: The Big City on Lake Erie

Marshals of the Russian Republic

Post by genstab » 22 Jun 2004 21:14

Correcting my previous post- I shouldn't have said that living Marshals of the Soviet Union had their rank changed to Marshals of the Russian Republic- the site narod.ru stated the only one appointed was Sergeev in November 1997.
Best regards,
Genstab
Top
Goldfish
Member
Posts: 410
Joined: 31 May 2004 13:51
Location: Atlanta, USA

Post by Goldfish » 05 Jul 2004 14:50

Wasn't Lord Louis Mountbatten regarded as rather young for the command when he was appointed head of South-East Asia Command?
Top
User avatar
genstab
Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 15 Jul 2003 22:50
Location: The Big City on Lake Erie

Mountbatten

Post by genstab » 31 Jul 2004 13:07

Yes he was- but he was part of the royal family. In my humble opinion he was pushed far beyond his capabilities because of who he was.

Best regards,
Genstab
Top

Return to “The Allies and the Neutral States in general”