WWI Poll - Best of the Entente Generals-in-Chief

[Nytram01]

As it is the year of the 100th anniversary of WWI I thought I might produce a few polls on the conflict, starting as I usually do with military affairs. This poll ask, which of the main commanding generals of the Entente forces was the best? I have limited the options to generals I'm pretty certain were commander-in-cheif of their nations forces at one point.

Joseph Joffre - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Joffre
Robert Nivelle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nivelle
Phillipe Petain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Pétain
Ferdinand Foch - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Foch
John French - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_French,_1st_Earl_of_Ypres
Douglas Haig - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Haig,_1st_Earl_Haig
Nicolas Nikolaevich - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duke_Nicholas_Nikolaevich_of_Russia_(1856-1929)
Aleksei Brusilov - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksei_Brusilov
Lavr Georgievich Kornilov - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavr_Kornilov
John J. Pershing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing

 

[Kome]

Petain definitely had the best understanding of modern trench warfare of all his contemporaries.

Unfortunately that would lead to disaster in WW2 when he tried to avoid it happening again.

Foch gets honorable mention for blatantly predicting the next war and possibly being the most correct man at Versailles. Would have been nice if someone listened to him. Joffre gets honorable mention for managing to be technically correct so many times with decisions that were technically correct, but always ended up leading to disaster because the Germans were just that good.

Brusilov was impossibly great, but only before he became commander in chief. Once being c-i-c everything just went down hill. Though you could argue he was just too little, too late.

Pershing invented boots, and thats really all i can think of to his credit.

 

[TFSmith121]

Pershing saw the importance of defeating

Pershing saw the importance of defeating the German Army IN Germany; for that alone he deserves a lot of credit.

Unfortunately for Europe and the world, it didn't happen.

I won't argue he was the best (since they all faced significantly different operational situations) but he also deserves tremendous credit for everything required to raise, organize, train, and fight an expeditionary force that grew steadily from divisional size to corps, army, and army group between 1917-18, including an air force, and in addition to having to be transported across the Atlantic.

Add to the fact he was an excellent combat commander, and understood the importance of both positional and maneuver warfare in the circumstances of the Western Front and the goal of defeating the German forces in the field, and I'd say he deserves an incredible amount of credit.

He wasn't alone, of course; everyone from Wilson to Baker to Daniels to Hugh Scott, Tasker Bliss, and Peyton March deserve a lot of credit as well, including - most importantly - to rely on conscription, not volunteerism; that alone made the AEF a force capable of influencing the war.

In addition, for a man born in 1860, his understanding and willingness to integrate infantry, heavy weapons, artillery, armor, and air support, including everything from CAS to BAI to strategic bombardment AND airborne envelopment is in significant contrast to many of his peers, in all of the armies...

Finally, he deserves credit for being an outspoken advocate for aiding the British during the short of war period in 1939-40; he truly gave his all.

Given his family history, he deserves an incredible amount of sympathy, actually, simply as a human being; as does the Pershing family generally.

Gene Smith's Until the Last Trumpet Sounds is an excellent biography; well worth reading, both for the life of its primary subject and insight on both the post-Civil War "Old Army" and the RA generation that commanded in WW II.

Best,

 

[Nytram01]

Honestly I'm not sold on Pershing at all. He had the whole American-chauvanism thing going for him where he felt the Americans were inherantly superior to anyone else so wouldn't accept advice from his allies on the conduct of the war, and his tactics in the Meuse-Argonne offensive were hardly better than those the British and French had been employing years before and resulted in heavy casualties, and then there was the needless confusion he cause by ordering the AEF to recapture Sedan putting his troops in the French line of fire and causing mass confusion and disruption to command cohesion that had to be sorted out by Hunter Liggett. Really I dont see anything to in him that would set him above the rest.

 

[Tallil2long]

Honestly I'm not sold on Pershing at all. He had the whole American-chauvanism thing going for him where he felt the Americans were inherantly superior to anyone else so wouldn't accept advice from his allies on the conduct of the war, and his tactics in the Meuse-Argonne offensive were hardly better than those the British and French had been employing years before and resulted in heavy casualties, and then there was the needless confusion he cause by ordering the AEF to recapture Sedan putting his troops in the French line of fire and causing mass confusion and disruption to command cohesion that had to be sorted out by Hunter Liggett. Really I dont see anything to in him that would set him above the rest.

I should have said that virtually EVERYONE was chauvanistic in this war. But hey, what do I know?

 

[Just a Rube]

No option for Cadorna? I mean, that level of incompetence can't be achieved by accident, it clearly requires great talent.

But seriously, I'll go with Brusilov. Yes, his actual tenure as C-in-C was largely unsuccessful, but that had more to do with being made C-in-C of the Russian Army in May 1917 (after the February Revolution) than it did with any broader personal failings. Any commander in that situation was going to be unable to succeed.

His prior campaigns were golden, not just in comparison with other Russian commanders (an admittedly low bar), but in comparison to other Entente commanders at the same time. His Galician campaign was excellent (although doomed by the incompetence of his colleagues at Tannenburg), and the Brusilov offensive that he designed not only combined innovative tactics, but effectively eliminated the Austro-Hungarian Army as an effective offensive force.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

In addition, for a man born in 1860, his understanding and willingness to integrate infantry, heavy weapons, artillery, armor, and air support, including everything from CAS to BAI to strategic bombardment AND airborne envelopment is in significant contrast to many of his peers, in all of the armies...

....reminds me of someone called John Monash who was actually doing most of that BEFORE Pershing showed up.

 

[Tallil2long]

Personally, I have a hunch that, given the same length of experience, we'd find Pershing to be a better general than Haig. I'm not convinced of it, but that is my feeling.

But as it is, I don't consider it tenable to call Pershing "the best". He did a lot of good stuff, but he lacked the opportunity to author as many catastrophes, or as many laudable exploits, as the others.

We just can't know. He got stuck in too late in the game.

Petain, though: refreshingly realistic ("Firepower kills!"), effective in the offensive, tenacious on the defensive, reasonably welcoming of innovative tactics and technologies, handled the Mutinies with comsummate skill... If all the French generals had been cast in that mold, they'd have done a LOT better.

Not perfect, but Petain has my vote.

 

[Tallil2long]

....reminds me of someone called John Monash who was actually doing most of that BEFORE Pershing showed up.

Maybe that's why TFSmith wrote "MANY of his peers", rather than "ALL of his peers"?

 

[Gannt the chartist]

I suggest anyone voting for Pershing actually reads beyond the fact he was American, and that includes the opinions of the American subordinate commanders who ignored him on just about every important issue. Also there was not a US Army until 10 August 18.

Add to the list of Generals in chief Allenby & Franchet d'Esperey.

Of those listed - Haig by a long way.

Of those not listed Monash.

For longer term effect Brusilov

 

[Tallil2long]

I suggest anyone voting for Pershing actually reads beyond the fact he was American

I can only say... wow. Anyone who doesn't share your opinion of him must be an American chauvanist, right?

Having said that, I didn't vote for him either.

 

[Nytram01]

I should have said that virtually EVERYONE was chauvanistic in this war. But hey, what do I know?

Well, they might have been, but Pershing's attitude coming into this war was, as a vague summary, "these silly Europeans dont know how to fight a war, no need to bother listening to the French or British, this trench warfare is a whole load of nonesense and we'll soon sort them out." At best it was a naive mindset, at worst it was neglect.

Pershing's tactics were nothing that the French or British hadn't tried before him, and if he had been bothered to do his research before hand, and if he'd learned from British and French mistakes of the past instead of just dismissing them as inferior soldiers, he would have avoided many thousands of casualties he suffered making those same mistakes.

 

[Nytram01]

IAdd to the list of Generals in chief Allenby & Franchet d'Esperey.

I didn't count Allenby because he was not officially a General-in-Cheif. He was commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force but he was not ranked the equal of Haig and the Middle East was largely considered a side-show by the British Government.

I did not count Franchet d'Esperey largely because I dont know who he is.

Of those not listed Monash.

Monash, though commander of all Australian Corps, was part of the BEF and under the direction of Haig. Undoubtedly a great general but not one who could be considered the equal ot the commander of the BEF. In fact, when he was made Commander of the Australian Corps he was actually under the command of Henry Rawlinson and the British 4th Army.

 

[TFSmith121]

Or von Hutier, etc., true?

....reminds me of someone called John Monash who was actually doing most of that BEFORE Pershing showed up.

Monash commanded at the divisional and corps level.

Pershing commanded at every level up to Army Group and, essentially, the theater level for the US.

Different scope of work and scale of endevour, by a long shot.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Consider the size of the US Army in 1916;

Honestly I'm not sold on Pershing at all. He had the whole American-chauvanism thing going for him where he felt the Americans were inherantly superior to anyone else so wouldn't accept advice from his allies on the conduct of the war, and his tactics in the Meuse-Argonne offensive were hardly better than those the British and French had been employing years before and resulted in heavy casualties, and then there was the needless confusion he cause by ordering the AEF to recapture Sedan putting his troops in the French line of fire and causing mass confusion and disruption to command cohesion that had to be sorted out by Hunter Liggett. Really I dont see anything to in him that would set him above the rest.

Consider the size of the US Army in January, 1917;

Consider its size in November, 1918.

Consider what JJPershing was able to do with said army - and deployed overseas.

Consider what had to happen over the course of 22 months.

Cripes, even the Old Contemptibles in 1914 provided a larger deployable force than what JJPershing had available in the first quarter of 1917...and the French regular army was astronomically larger in 1914 than the RA (AUS) was...

Now consider what it took to wrestle the AEF - all umpteen million of it - into existence in time to make a difference in 1918.

Best,

 

[Thoresby]

Consider the size of the US Army in January, 1917;

Consider its size in November, 1918.

Nothing that Haig and French didn't do and under considerably more trying circumstances. That said I don't think Pershing can really be compared fairly with Haig, Foch, Nivelle etc. not that he wasn't a capable commander just that his actions weren't comparable, he should be ranked alongside Monash, Currie etc.

 

[TFSmith121]

Actually, the AEF deployed four square divisions for

...Also there was not a US Army until 10 August 18.

Actually, the AEF deployed four square divisions and a separate regiment simultaneously for the Champagne-Marne in July, 1918; this included US TO&E, so that's 63 manuever battalions. US TO&E also meant that a US WW I division's manpower was roughly twice the size of a French or British division in 1918.

As a point of comparison, at its largest point, there were 57 manuever battalions in the Canadian 1st Army in NW Europe (3 infantry divisions, with 11 each; 2 armoured divisions, with eight each; two separate armoured brigades, three each; and two corps recon battalions); even adding in the headquarters defense battalion and the airborne battalion with 6th Airborne, and it totals 59.

If you want to do it by corps headquarters, the I was activated in January, 1918; the II, III, IV, and V followed in July; the VI was in action in November, and the VII being organized.

The 1st and 2nd army headquarters were both organized and in action in 1918; 3rd Army followed after the Armistice, and crossed the Rhine.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Come on - you do realize the AEF modelled its doctrine on the French, right?

Well, they might have been, but Pershing's attitude coming into this war was, as a vague summary, "these silly Europeans dont know how to fight a war, no need to bother listening to the French or British, this trench warfare is a whole load of nonesense and we'll soon sort them out." At best it was a naive mindset, at worst it was neglect.

Pershing's tactics were nothing that the French or British hadn't tried before him, and if he had been bothered to do his research before hand, and if he'd learned from British and French mistakes of the past instead of just dismissing them as inferior soldiers, he would have avoided many thousands of casualties he suffered making those same mistakes.

And attached US regiments, brigades, and divisions to both British and French corps for field training and their introduction to action, right?

And that US corps and divisions and French corps and divisions were routinely cross-attached throughout 1918, right?

And still had a corps headquarters with the equivalent of four British divisions in strength attached to the BEF on Armistice Day, right?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

I would suggest you look at the relative sizes of the

Nothing that Haig and French didn't do and under considerably more trying circumstances. That said I don't think Pershing can really be compared fairly with Haig, Foch, Nivelle etc. not that he wasn't a capable commander just that his actions weren't comparable, he should be ranked alongside Monash, Currie etc.

I would suggest you look at the relative sizes of the British Regular Army in 1914 and the deployed BEF at its height (1916, presumably) and the US RA in 1917 and the deployed AEF in 1918.

The British had a much larger cadre to work with.

Pershing (and Scott, Bliss, and March) worked miracles.

Best,

 

[Devolved]

Why is Pershing on the list? Taking up a spot?

Anyway Pershing said Haig was the man who won the war.