Well – here you really caught my soft spot, because I haven't much left for Clark and his Rome adventure in 1944. In my opinion he was the most self-centred general wanting PR for himself, way ahead of MacArthur, Patton & Montgomery.Shrek wrote: For example, Clark's 1944 decision to move directly towards Rome in order to liberate it, rather than in a more northern direction, which could have trapped a large part of Kesselring's forces. A prime example of not exploiting the tactical successes at Cassino and Anzio. Taking Rome was of course a victory, and it might even have been the correct thing to do if Italy had still been part of the Axis in 1944, but as it was, the advantage of piercing the German line in two places was not followed through.
So what do I do? Sticking to my arguments saying that he wasn't a bad commander?
Luckily you have left me a little opening here, since I have no trouble with agreeing to this. Clark was not a very good commander, a mere average general (at best - if you don't tell anybody ). Still – I'm not sure whether it qualifies him to be the worst commander nor a very bad commander. Though he almost lost his head at Salerno; the crossing of Rapido doesn't give him much credit either and then Rome. Let's just say that I have an open mind when we are talking about Clark as a bad commander.Shrek wrote: These are both examples of victorious commanders who, in my opinion, qualify as not very good commanders because they failed to exploit the opportunities offered by their tactical victories.
Should I point out that we have practically only talked about Allied generals when we have talked about bad generals.Klaus Yurk wrote:Slightly off-topic (yikes, my own topic) this is one of the reasons I always find it somewhat annoying when some Allied commanders are listed as among the best.
Well – a bit cheap I think. First of all it is a sign of good generalship to bring yourself in a position were you have all these advantages. Secondly it also requires a good general control all these elements. Besides I don't think that anyone would disagree with you that the Germans had many good and excellent generals. Although IMHO not among the best, but that is another thread.Klaus Yurk wrote: They had so many advantages that victory should have been relatively easy. They normally outnumbered the Germans, they often knew their plans, had huge materiel logistics advantage (if the supplies were not where they were needed, somebody was haording, or it was a snafu of some sort...as opposed to the Germans where the supplies often simply did not exist), and had, especially in the West, TOTAL air superiority. We all know how important that has proven. I'm no military man, but even I SHOULD WIN given those advantages.
Would either of them have been able to plan and execute Overlord? I doubt it.Klaus Yurk wrote: It seems to me that to win, when you should win, is not a great feat. If the Allies had even one Mannstein or Guderian in charge....how fast would they have been in Berlin?
I simply can't think of anybody. Actually very few US army generals were relived of command in the Pacific. Maybe it was a USAAF general?Klaus Yurk wrote: I'm still curious about the US Army general in early fighting the the Pacific (42 or 43) who was replaced by an admiral? Halsey, perhaps? It just seems to me that I heard that once, although it was probably on the History Channel and we know how reliable they are I might also have had one too many Heineken's at the time.
Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II