NationStates Jolt Archive

Sure everyone gets a kick out of making a thread about the Best Soldier/General but now for the reall issue who was the worst?

Comeon you know the guy that talked the talk but couldnt walk the walk?
The Guy that hid behind his men and passed the buck?
The Guy who spent more time encrypting Coded messages with randomness that the enemy could decode it before the intended recievers could!

Ill say Mark Clark Mr leave my Pants on the Beach!
Also Known as Greed
Also Known as Ill Kill your men because your nations small!
http://www.psywarrior.com/markclark.jpg
Yes thats right Kiddies MR Arse Hat himself

I can't tell you the worst general, but the Japanese Pacific war plan is a good example of bad thinking: "While the vast bulk of our armed forces are bogged down in a land war in Asia, we will launch a surprise attack on the world's most powerful nation with an economy 100 times greater than our own. Then we will negotiate and get the Phillipines and maybe Hawaii."

I can't tell you the worst general, but the Japanese Pacific war plan is a good example of bad thinking: "While the vast bulk of our armed forces are bogged down in a land war in Asia, we will launch a surprise attack on the world's most powerful nation with an economy 100 times greater than our own. Then we will negotiate and get the Phillipines and maybe Hawaii."
Wow someone replied!...

True but you wanted the resources and America was holding out.

Japans overall control was poor

Japans overall control was poor

Ha! Local commanders in Manchuria would attack Russia on their own accord, no need to ask Tokyo for permission. Didn't do too well either, as I recall.

NM, thought it was WW1

I can't tell you the worst general, but the Japanese Pacific war plan is a good example of bad thinking: "While the vast bulk of our armed forces are bogged down in a land war in Asia, we will launch a surprise attack on the world's most powerful nation with an economy 100 times greater than our own. Then we will negotiate and get the Phillipines and maybe Hawaii."

The US was not the most powerful nation at the time, and was still suffering the effects of the depression to an extent. Don't project today on yesterday.

I can't give you a particular General, but the entire Italian army were rubbish during the entire war. 'Let's routed by the retreating french army'

'Let's not be able to beat a load of people who only have spears and sharp sticks, while we use posionous gas, Airplanes (made of tin), rifles, tanks...'

Well, the dutch army sucked too, I mean, fighting for 5 days and surrendering...Even Belgium hold out longer!

As generals went, Heinrich Himmler sucked. He was given command of Army Group Vistula by Hitler towards the end of the Second World War to try and and "sort out" the fact the Germans were losing quite badly after Stalingrad and the Russians were advancing.

Of course, what eventually happened is history, but it does go to show that men who started off in life as chicken farmers shouldn't be put in charge of armies...

The US was not the most powerful nation at the time, and was still suffering the effects of the depression to an extent. Don't project today on yesterday.

Huh? So what was the most powerful nation at the time?

A couple of years after Pearl Harbour the U.S. was pumping out aircraft carriers at the rate of one a week. That seems pretty darn powerful.

Any Italian would work. Or Rommel, overrated and a coward.

The USA was the most powerful nation even in 1939. There's no point arguing that.



By the time World War II began to rear it's ugly head (formally in 1939 in Poland, informally in China in 1937), America had been in the grips of the Great Depression for a decade, give or take. The net effect of the Depression was to introduce a lot of 'slack' into the U.S. economy. Many U.S. workers were either unemployed (10 million in 1939) or underemployed, and our industrial base as a whole had far more capacity than was needed at the time. In economic terms, our 'Capacity Utilization' (CapU), was pretty darn low. To an outside culture, particularly a militaristic one such as Japan's, America certainly might have appeared to be 'soft' and unprepared for a major war. Further, Japan's successes in fighting far larger opponents (Russia in the early 1900's, and China in the 1930's) and the fact that Japan's own economy was practically 'superheating' (mostly as the result of unhealthy levels of military spending -- 28% of national income in 1937) probably filled the Japanese with a misplaced sense of economic and military superiority over their large overseas foe. However, a dispassionate observer would also note a few important facts. America, even in the midst of seemingly interminable economic doldrums, still had:

* Nearly twice the population of Japan.
* Seventeen time's Japan's national income.
* Five times more steel production.
* Seven times more coal production.
* Eighty (80) times the automobile production.

Furthermore, America had some hidden advantages that didn't show up directly in production figures. For one, U.S. factories were, on average, more modern and automated than those in Europe or in Japan. Additionally, American managerial practice at that time was the best in the world. Taken in combination, the per capita productivity of the American worker was the highest in the world. Furthermore, the United States was more than willing to utilize American women in the war effort: a tremendous advantage for us, and a concept which the Axis Powers seem not to have grasped until very late in the conflict. The net effect of all these factors meant that even in the depths of the Depression, American war-making potential was still around seven times larger than Japan's, and had the 'slack' been taken out in 1939, it was closer to nine or ten times as great. In fact, accroding to Kennedy ( Paul Kennedy, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers"), a breakdown of total global warmaking potential in 1937 looks something like this:

Country ---- % of Total Warmaking Potential
United States ---- 41.7%
Germany ---- 14.4%
USSR ---- 14.0%
UK ---- 10.2%
France ---- 4.2%
Japan ---- 3.5%
Italy ---- 2.5%
Seven Powers (total) ---- (90.5%)


Merchant Ship Production (in tons)
Year - United States | Japan
1939 - 376,419 | 320,466
1940 - 528,697 | 293,612
1941 - 1,031,974 | 210,373
1942 - 5,479,766 | 260,059
1943 - 11,448,360 | 769,085
1944 - 9,288,156 | 1,699,203
1945 - 5,839,858| 599,563
---------------------------------
Total - 33,993,230| 4,152,361


Aircraft Production
Year - United States | Japan
1939 - 5,856 | 4,467
1940 - 12,804 | 4,768
1941 - 26,277 | 5,088
1942 - 47,836 | 8,861
1943 - 85,898 | 16,693
1944 - 96,318 | 28,180
1945 - 49,761 | 8,263
------------------------------
Total - 324,750 | 76,320

(C)combinedfleet.com

Also consider that Germany, just like Japan, "overheated" their industry. Everything they built was mainly financed with loans. The only two options were either a) war, or b)going bankrupt.

Huh? So what was the most powerful nation at the time?

A couple of years after Pearl Harbour the U.S. was pumping out aircraft carriers at the rate of one a week. That seems pretty darn powerful.

I think Britain were still powerful, as were Germany... But USA, were the most powerful...

As generals went, Heinrich Himmler sucked. He was given command of Army Group Vistula by Hitler towards the end of the Second World War to try and and "sort out" the fact the Germans were losing quite badly after Stalingrad and the Russians were advancing.

Of course, what eventually happened is history, but it does go to show that men who started off in life as chicken farmers shouldn't be put in charge of armies...
Ah yes Army Group Vistula Fast Heinz Brain Child that was passed onto Himmler who already was 'overworked'.

Too bad that when it got named the Vistula had been in Russian hands for weeks...

Actually, the Japanese battle plan was solid, luck just wasn't on their side.

They needed the large portion of their land forces in Asia to secure needed resources. Pearl Harbor was supposed to take out America's THREE Pacific Fleet carriers, which coupled with Japan's superiority in aircraft performance at that time, was supposed to give Japan the aerial supremacy necessary to facilitate later invasions in the Pacific.

That the carriers were not at Pearl on that day was probably the only reason that Hawaii was not eventually invaded...if not conquered.

It wasn't until after Midway, and being forced into a defensive campaign due to a lack of large carriers that they couldn't replace, that Japan began to fall behind the U.S. as the U.S. industrial capacity began to produce at a rate that allowed for both the "Europe First" and the Pacific Theater to be replenished with war stocks, and began to give the U.S. the edge in ships and planes in the Pacific.

Had I been Japan, I would have invaded Hawaii on Dec. 7th. The millitary infastructure, particularly ground based planes, was in shambles...

...there was never going to be a better opportunity, and it might have forced concessions by the U.S. in Japan's favor, or at least forced the U.S. to fight defensively to defend the west coast.

Oh...right, topic. Worst general?

Hmmmm...I'd have to say Hitler. Every time he tried to take control of a situation, either strategically or tactically, he failed miserably.

Oh...right, topic. Worst general?

Hmmmm...I'd have to say Hitler. Every time he tried to take control of a situation, either strategically or tactically, he failed miserably.
At the start, Hitler's plans were invincible. Blitzkreig was an amazing success.

However, this inflatered his ego, and led to him being beaten... He was no general...

The Italian general who led the Italians troops into Egypt. And had to retreat after advancing 50 km losing 11 divisions in the process.

There is the scenario "what if the carriers would have been in Pearl", but even then the US industry would have closed the gap quickly. There's even a scenario that starts with the thought that the US lost all carriers at Midway and the Japanese lost none, same result in the end.

Also, a Japanese invasion of Pearl would have been a problem at that time and wouldn't have changed much in the end. I think the end for them would have come even quicker. With the historical Pearl the US only got bombed, an invasion would have fully unleashed them into the Pacific first and not after taking Europe. I don't think that the west coast was ever really in danger. Invasion, not possible, the coast is huge, a bridgehead wouldn't last long. Then the extremly long supply lines. It would break down after maybe a few weeks.

Japan not only lacked carriers, it also lacked pilots. If you take what Sakai writes in "Samurai!", it was clear that they'd fail. When Sakai became a pilot, some 1,500 men tried to get on the academy with him. From those some 75 were taken and from those some 25 passed the academy. Japan lost at Midway not only the carriers (those could be rebuilt), but also the best of their navy pilots. Sakai wrote that the men who followed them were worse pilots than those who were with him at the academy and didn't pass.

That, the inferiority of the Zero compared to airplanes like Hellcats or corsairs and the new tactics applied by the USN and USMC in air broke the IJNAF.


In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity! Not only that, but with her newer, better aircraft designs, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed not only a substantial numeric, but also a critical qualitative advantage as well, starting in late 1943. All this is not to say that losing the Battle of Midway would not have been a serious blow to American fortunes! For instance, the war would almost certainly have been protracted if the U.S. had been unable to mount some sort of a credible counter-stroke in the Solomons during the latter half of 1942. Without carrier-based air power of some sort there would not have been much hope of doing so, meaning that we would most likely have lost the Solomons. However, the long-term implications are clear: the United States could afford to make good losses that the Japanese simply could not. Furthermore, this comparison does not reflect the fact that the United States actually slowed down it's carrier building program in late 1944, as it became increasingly evident that there was less need for them. Had the U.S. lost at Midway, it seems likely that those additional carriers (3 Midway-class and 6 more Essex-Class CVs, plus the Saipan-class CVLs) would have been brought on line more quickly. In a macro-economic sense, then, the Battle of Midway was really a non-event. There was no need for the U.S. to seek a single, decisive battle which would 'Doom Japan' -- Japan was doomed by it's very decision to make war.

The final evidence of this economic mismatch lies in the development of the Atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project required an enormous commitment on the part of the United States. And as Paul Kennedy states, "...it was the United States alone which at this time had the productive and technological resources not only to wage two large-scale conventional wars but also to invest the scientists, raw materials, and money (about $2 billion) in the development of a new weapon which might or might not work." In other words, our economy was so dominant that we knew we could afford to fund one of the greatest scientific endeavors in history largely from the 'leftovers' of our war effort! Whatever one may think morally or strategically about the usage of nuclear weapons against Japan, it is clear that their very development was a demonstration of unprecedented economic strength.(C) combinedfleet.com

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

At the start, Hitler's plans were invincible. Blitzkreig was an amazing success.

However, this inflatered his ego, and led to him being beaten... He was no general...
Id kind of like to agree with you on this but he didnt counter his yes men.

My Fav is Eastern Front

Guderian suggests a Panzer Reserve Hitler says sure but instantly splits it up
or
The Defensive line intended to halt the Russians if the Primery line is swamped this second line could hold then counter.
Hitler said sure but i want it 2 miles from the front line instead of the 16 or so.

Result when 1st line is overun the second is also-Inspirational.

Mon Qui Pim what is your opinion and who did you think in WWI?

At the start, Hitler's plans were invincible. Blitzkreig was an amazing success.

However, this inflatered his ego, and led to him being beaten... He was no general...

Then why did he always try to act like one?

Alright, I have another one then. I don't remember his name offhand, but the British General in charge of the defense of Singapore in 1940-41 was pretty stupid to assume that the Japanese could never march down the Malaysian peninsula.

Not really a tactical blunder, but a significant strategic one that could have been compensated for. It ended up losing Singapore for the British, leaving no major British or other allied operating areas in the region, aside from India and Australia...both of which came under increasing threat from the Japanese as a result of the defeat at Singapore.

I believe his name was Percival? :confused:

There is the scenario "what if the carriers would have been in Pearl", but even then the US industry would have closed the gap quickly. There's even a scenario that starts with the thought that the US lost all carriers at Midway and the Japanese lost none, same result in the end.

Also, a Japanese invasion of Pearl would have been a problem at that time and wouldn't have changed much in the end. I think the end for them would have come even quicker. With the historical Pearl the US only got bombed, an invasion would have fully unleashed them into the Pacific first and not after taking Europe. I don't think that the west coast was ever really in danger. Invasion, not possible, the coast is huge, a bridgehead wouldn't last long. Then the extremly long supply lines. It would break down after maybe a few weeks.

Japan not only lacked carriers, it also lacked pilots. If you take what Sakai writes in "Samurai!", it was clear that they'd fail. When Sakai became a pilot, some 1,500 men tried to get on the academy with him. From those some 75 were taken and from those some 25 passed the academy. Japan lost at Midway not only the carriers (those could be rebuilt), but also the best of their navy pilots. Sakai wrote that the men who followed them were worse pilots than those who were with him at the academy and didn't pass.

That, the inferiority of the Zero compared to airplanes like Hellcats or corsairs and the new tactics applied by the USN and USMC in air broke the IJNAF.


(C) combinedfleet.com

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Japan almost caused a nuclear Meltdown in america... That could have won them the war...

Id kind of like to agree with you on this but he didnt counter his yes men.

My Fav is Eastern Front

Guderian suggests a Panzer Reserve Hitler says sure but instantly splits it up
or
The Defensive line intended to halt the Russians if the Primery line is swamped this second line could hold then counter.
Hitler said sure but i want it 2 miles from the front line instead of the 16 or so.

Result when 1st line is overun the second is also-Inspirational.

Mon Qui Pim what is your opinion and who did you think in WWI?
There was also the lack of new heavier tank developement. There were not enough panzer IV's. At the start of the French campaign they were less then 10% of the entire tankforce. The majority was made up of panzer I's to III's. And those just plainly sucked. But the succes of the superior blitzkrieg doctrin covered up their shortcomings. Which resultet in the officials leaning back and feeling good about themselves not making new tank development a priority.

Not really a tactical blunder, but a significant strategic one that could have been compensated for. It ended up losing Singapore for the British, leaving no major British or other allied operating areas in the region, aside from India and Australia...both of which came under increasing threat from the Japanese as a result of the defeat at Singapore.

I believe his name was Percival? :confused:
Burma?
Whats more worrying is the japs ability to melt in and out of the junlge bypassing British strongpoints and then back on the roads.

I thought Burma was Dutch??

I thought Burma was Dutch??
No it was British. Indonesia was Dutch. The Dutch-Indies. Nederlands-Indië.

There was also the lack of new heavier tank developement. There were not enough panzer IV's. At the start of the French campaign they were less then 10% of the entire tankforce. The majority was made up of panzer I's to III's. And those just plainly sucked. But the succes of the superior blitzkrieg doctrin covered up their shortcomings. Which resultet in the officials leaning back and feeling good about themselves not making new tank development a priority.
Yes what about the Panzer II?
The Czech 38(t)(t stands for Country of origin apparently) was the most available tank i think

One of the main problems Germany had was its inability to stick to a few designs for Tanks instead they went for Technological improvements without the ability to cope with the design shift.
38(t)1414
MArder?
Over 2000 Panzer I were built
Panzer II
98 Panzer III Poland
350 Panzer III at start of French campaign
6000 total
Panzer IV 8000+
PanzerV 3900
Tiger?
TigerII 500
Example Maus 188Tons of slow.

Apparently America produced 88410 Tanks by 1945 from virtually zilch in 1941.

hmm Maths equals OWND
Apparently America produced enough goods to supply 2000 Divisions!?

But seriously worst General/s?

No it was British. Indonesia was Dutch. The Dutch-Indies. Nederlands-Indië.

But Burma, while much larger than the other islands, is part of the Indonesian Archipelago...

I'm not disputing you, I'm just wondering how that particular colonial division occured.

I gave a general, two if you count Hitler... :p

But Burma, while much larger than the other islands, is part of the Indonesian Archipelago...

I'm not disputing you, I'm just wondering how that particular colonial division occured.

I gave a general, two if you count Hitler... :p
Burma an Island? :confused:

But Burma, while much larger than the other islands, is part of the Indonesian Archipelago...

I'm not disputing you, I'm just wondering how that particular colonial division occured.

I gave a general, two if you count Hitler... :p
Burma is a country. Next to Thay land.

It is!
Im non to impressed by American Tactics(or lack of) in the Pacific

But seriously worst General/s?

De Gaulle?

De Gaulle?
I can accept that why?

Montgomery.
Operation Market Garden.
Need I say more?

I can accept that why?

Because he sabotaged allied operations in north africa in an attempt to increase his power base amongst overseas french. So it goes beyond incompetence to malfeasence.

Thats politics.

Montgomery.
Operation Market Garden.
Need I say more?

Actually the idea for market garden was good. The execution was lousy. Basically the allies weren't strong enough to pull it off.

Had it worked though, the war in europe would have been over before xmas.

Actually the idea for market garden was good. The execution was lousy. Basically the allies weren't strong enough to pull it off.

Landing lightly armed paratroopers on top of a battlehardend tank division can do that.

Actually the idea for market garden was good. The execution was lousy. Basically the allies weren't strong enough to pull it off.

Had it worked though, the war in europe would have been over before xmas.

It might have if they hadn't gone a bridge too far (like the film).
Montgomery should have known that his troops were not strong enough, so it wasn't a very good decision. I still think the other plan would have been better.

Landing lightly armed paratroopers on top of a battlehardend tank division can do that.

Yah, a bridge to far and all that, and a foul up with intellegence coupled with an inability to bring heavier forces forward in time.

Doesn't mean the concept wasn't good. FUBAR in the execution is all.

These things happen, fog of war &c.

Yah, a bridge to far and all that, and a foul up with intellegence coupled with an inability to bring heavier forces forward in time.

Doesn't mean the concept wasn't good. FUBAR in the execution is all.

These things happen, fog of war &c.

Yeah, but it eneded Montgomery's career. Who was the American general that replaced him?

Maj. Gen. Klopper also sucked.

Yeah, but it eneded Montgomery's career. Who was the American general that replaced him?

No-one. He stayed in command of 21st Army group. Bradley was always theater commander as of D-Day.

In fact, his big career fuck up was after the bulge, when he made disparaging remarks about the US command. (After having assumed temporary control during the crisis).

In fact, his big career fuck up was after the bulge, when he made disparaging remarks about the US command. (After having assumed temporary control during the crisis).

Never make comments about ANY command. Montgomery was a fool. With a large ego.

Never make comments about ANY command. Montgomery was a fool. With a large ego.

+ he was a closet homosexual.

+ he was a closet homosexual.

Aren't they all...

Aren't they all...

Apparently not MacArthur. At one point he had a teenage eurasian mistress trapped in a hotel in DC for his personal "use".

Still morals were different in those days.

Apparently not MacArthur. At one point he had a teenage eurasian mistress trapped in a hotel in DC for his personal "use".

Still morals were different in those days.

She might have been cleaning or something. :p

She might have been cleaning or something. :p

"Another sponge bath, my dear general?" :eek:

She might have been cleaning or something. :p

Yeah, cleaning, that was it.

Any other Generals with mistrisses then?

Sure everyone gets a kick out of making a thread about the Best Soldier/General but now for the reall issue who was the worst?

Comeon you know the guy that talked the talk but couldnt walk the walk?
The Guy that hid behind his men and passed the buck?
The Guy who spent more time encrypting Coded messages with randomness that the enemy could decode it before the intended recievers could!

Ill say Mark Clark Mr leave my Pants on the Beach!
Also Known as Greed
Also Known as Ill Kill your men because your nations small!
http://www.psywarrior.com/markclark.jpg
Yes thats right Kiddies MR Arse Hat himself

I agree. Mr. Photo Op. Mr. Rapido River.

Any other Generals with mistrisses then?

Dwight D. Eisenhower. He had a fling with one of his Irish assistants/ drivers/ secretary/ logistics officer.

Not to mention Mark Clark, fuckup of the Korean War.

The month Clark took command, Chinese and North Korean prisoners at Koje Island rioted and took Brigatier General Francis T. Dodd captive. Clark noted “I hadn’t bothered to ask anyone in Washington about POWs, because my experience had been with old fashioned wars . . . . Never had I experienced a situation in which prisoners remained combatants and carried out orders smuggled out to them from the enemy High Command.”

Yeah, I never thought that prisoners might want to break out of POW camp.

Not to mention Mark Clark, fuckup of the Korean War.

The month Clark took command, Chinese and North Korean prisoners at Koje Island rioted and took Brigatier General Francis T. Dodd captive. Clark noted “I hadn’t bothered to ask anyone in Washington about POWs, because my experience had been with old fashioned wars . . . . Never had I experienced a situation in which prisoners remained combatants and carried out orders smuggled out to them from the enemy High Command.”

Yeah, I never thought that prisoners might want to break out of POW camp.

What an idiot. Even in old fasioned wars that happened.

Yeah, I never thought that prisoners might want to break out of POW camp.

How dare they? :eek:

How dare they? :eek:

Heck, they even train American soldiers that you have an obligation to try to escape. I guess Clark missed that class (it's in the Code of Conduct).

Apparently not MacArthur. At one point he had a teenage eurasian mistress trapped in a hotel in DC for his personal "use".

Still morals were different in those days.

"Trapped?" "Use?" I dunno, but I think sexual slavery was sort of frowned upon in the 1950's.

Anyone know the answer to this one? Was it considered aceptable for a middle aged man to trap a teenager and "use" her in the 1950's in the U.S.?

Anyone know the answer to this one? Was it considered aceptable for a middle aged man to trap a teenager and "use" her in the 1950's in the U.S.?

He was a general. That might have helped him get away with it.

"Trapped?" "Use?" I dunno, but I think sexual slavery was sort of frowned upon in the 1950's.

Anyone know the answer to this one? Was it considered aceptable for a middle aged man to trap a teenager and "use" her in the 1950's in the U.S.?

It was in the thirties, when he was Chief of Staff. Before World War II.

He had her in a hotel room, I forget which hotel, and he did not permit her to leave. The only clothes he would by her were negliges and shit. She had no outdoor clothes by all accounts.

When he got bored, he shipped her back overseas. (I think there was going to be an impending scandal).

Manchester's Book, american caeser covers this episode.

Heck, they even train American soldiers that you have an obligation to try to escape. I guess Clark missed that class (it's in the Code of Conduct).

Every soldier has the duty to escape ;)

Every soldier has the duty to escape ;)

Not according to "bridge over the river kwai".

Every soldier has the duty to escape ;)

Even if he/she doesn't want to?

Even if he/she doesn't want to?
Well, someone has to stay behind and amuse the guards with tales of how they didn't know everyone else was tunneling out under the wire.

Well, someone has to stay behind and amuse the guards with tales of how they didn't know everyone else was tunneling out under the wire.

And it ends with the fun game that goes against the Geneva Convention: "Shoot the lying POW."

Any Italian would work. Or Rommel, overrated and a coward.

Coward? We speaking of the same Rommel who during WW1 led a bayonet assault with 200 men against 9000 italians fortified on a mountain, and managed to take them all as POWs?

Rommel was, time and again, perhaps too daring. He is a bit overrated, compared to ppl like Guderian and von Mannstein, probably because he was killed related to the assasination attempt on Hitler, making him a perfect warhero both the Germans and the allies could respect after the war. Still, he is definately not a "bad" general by any measure.

Coward? We speaking of the same Rommel who during WW1 led a bayonet assault with 200 men against 9000 italians fortified on a mountain, and managed to take them all as POWs?

Rommel was, time and again, perhaps too daring. He is a bit overrated, compared to ppl like Guderian and von Mannstein, probably because he was killed related to the assasination attempt on Hitler, making him a perfect warhero both the Germans and the allies could respect after the war. Still, he is definately not a "bad" general by any measure.


then again...he was facing italians...

Landing lightly armed paratroopers on top of a battlehardend tank division can do that.
Turns out when Divisions are getting refitted in the area unknowningly to some this is a unfortunate surprise.....

then again...he was facing italians...
Please re-think that argument. The Italian Army of WWI was quite a remarkable bunch. Nothing like the poor bastards of WWII.

My favorites of "worst generals"?

Well, I'll include some other wars, too.


Quintilius Varus (Roman)
for suggesting that his legionnaires could take a walk through the lush Teutoburg Forest, 9 BC
Charles Warren (British, Boer Wars)
for showing exceptional incompetence during the Spion Kop operation, 1900
Frederick Stopford (British, WWI)
for his extraordinarily stupid performance on Galipoli, 1915
General Arthur Percival (British, WWII)
for absolute stupidity concerning Singapore, 1942
Bernard Montogomery (British, WWII)
for sacrificing countless soldiers just to outclass Patton in Operation Market Garden, 1944
Friedrich Paulus (German, WWII)
for sacrificing countless soldiers because of his oath to the Fuehrer at the "Cauldron of Stalingrad", 1942/43

I could go on for eternity, but I'm way too tired. And... just because most of these dimwits on that list are British, I do not dislike the UK... it just has a tendency of spawning some of the greatest fools in military history. ;)

Yeah, but it eneded Montgomery's career. Who was the American general that replaced him?

Wasn't Montgomery the twit that was always competing with Patton? I'm pretty sure it is. Now, my great (however many times) uncle may not have been the most stable cookie, but he was a damn fine general and his men loved him. Yes, I'm talking about Patton. I am related to him. I would have loved to have met him. Fortunately, a few years ago on Veterans' Day, I got to meet some men that served under Patton. Their stories were hiliarious.

Dwight D. Eisenhower. He had a fling with one of his Irish assistants/ drivers/ secretary/ logistics officer.

Kay Sommersby?

"Trapped?" "Use?" I dunno, but I think sexual slavery was sort of frowned upon in the 1950's.

Anyone know the answer to this one? Was it considered aceptable for a middle aged man to trap a teenager and "use" her in the 1950's in the U.S.?

He was married and it was in the 1930's (ie. before the infamous Bataan and Corregidor battles that made his 'reputation')

Actually the idea for market garden was good. The execution was lousy. Basically the allies weren't strong enough to pull it off.

Had it worked though, the war in europe would have been over before xmas.

Patton should have been in charge of Market Garden.

"To Hell with Monty" - Patton after hearing of the disaster.

The Italian general who led the Italians troops into Egypt. And had to retreat after advancing 50 km losing 11 divisions in the process.

Rodolfo "Butcher" Graziani... made his reputation slaughtering native tribes in Africa... the Italian forces really didn't have much motivation but under the right circumstances they could do well - The 22nd Armoured Brigade vs the Ariete in Operation Crusader.

Patton should have been in charge of Market Garden.

"To Hell with Monty" - Patton after hearing of the disaster.

Patton was a good boy. He read his Ultra intercepts.

Monty didn't. He thought they were rubbish.

A failure in command structure I suppose.

Then why did he always try to act like one?

Alright, I have another one then. I don't remember his name offhand, but the British General in charge of the defense of Singapore in 1940-41 was pretty stupid to assume that the Japanese could never march down the Malaysian peninsula.

Not really a tactical blunder, but a significant strategic one that could have been compensated for. It ended up losing Singapore for the British, leaving no major British or other allied operating areas in the region, aside from India and Australia...both of which came under increasing threat from the Japanese as a result of the defeat at Singapore.

I believe his name was Percival? :confused:

Sir Arthur Perceival - nicknamed the Rabbit because of his big teeth. Really stupid blunder underestimating the capabilities of your enemy because he might be a squinty eyed untermensch whose planes are made of cardboard. An intel officer tried to brief them about the Japanese abilities and some staff officer's like, "these do not necessarily represent the opinions of the High Command (so disregard them)". Then they also had the bad luck to lose their top secret war plans aboard the SS Automedon, captured by Bernard Rogge en route to Singapore (Rogge got one of three special Samurai swords - Rommel and IIRC Goering got the other two). And Tiger Yamashita ate Rabbit Perceival whole.

Ironically, Perceival was an officer in the 18th (Eastern) Division in WW1 - the same division w/c would go into captivity under his command at Singapore.

I can't tell you the worst general, but the Japanese Pacific war plan is a good example of bad thinking: "While the vast bulk of our armed forces are bogged down in a land war in Asia, we will launch a surprise attack on the world's most powerful nation with an economy 100 times greater than our own. Then we will negotiate and get the Phillipines and maybe Hawaii."

Believe it or not, the plan was based on/predicted by an American naval analyst, Hector Bywater, who wrote a 'technothriller' called The Great Pacific War in the 30's. Yamamoto studied it and made some modifications to it. Actually the first objective was just the Philippines, while the main battle fleet fought a second Tsushima near the Jap sub and airplane bases in the Carolines and Marianas. Then Taranto came along and the opportunity to smash the Pacific fleet in the harbor.

Both sides underestimated each other - America and Britain underestimated Japan's military skill and Japan underestimated America's economic power and resolve.

Please re-think that argument. The Italian Army of WWI was quite a remarkable bunch. Nothing like the poor bastards of WWII.

My favorites of "worst generals"?

Well, I'll include some other wars, too.


Quintilius Varus (Roman)
for suggesting that his legionnaires could take a walk through the lush Teutoburg Forest, 9 BC
Charles Warren (British, Boer Wars)
for showing exceptional incompetence during the Spion Kop operation, 1900
Frederick Stopford (British, WWI)
for his extraordinarily stupid performance on Galipoli, 1915
General Arthur Percival (British, WWII)
for absolute stupidity concerning Singapore, 1942
Bernard Montogomery (British, WWII)
for sacrificing countless soldiers just to outclass Patton in Operation Market Garden, 1944
Friedrich Paulus (German, WWII)
for sacrificing countless soldiers because of his oath to the Fuehrer at the "Cauldron of Stalingrad", 1942/43

I could go on for eternity, but I'm way too tired. And... just because most of these dimwits on that list are British, I do not dislike the UK... it just has a tendency of spawning some of the greatest fools in military history. ;)

Don't forget Frederick Thesiger, Lord Chelmsford, Vicky's ambitious favorite who underestimated Zulu military skill and led to the slaughter of a British battalion at Isandhlwana.

Patton was a good boy. He read his Ultra intercepts.

Monty didn't. He thought they were rubbish.

A failure in command structure I suppose.

Monty was just the tonic the 8th Army needed after being beaten so many times by Rommel. His style of fighting was basically wait till I have overwhelming strength and then maybe I'll go. That's what's curious about Market-Garden, it's so... un-Monty-like. There were those who said he was trying to out-Patton Patton.

Monty was just the tonic the 8th Army needed after being beaten so many times by Rommel. His style of fighting was basically wait till I have overwhelming strength and then maybe I'll go. That's what's curious about Market-Garden, it's so... un-Monty-like. There were those who said he was trying to out-Patton Patton.

:D They didn't call Patton "Old Blood and Guts" for nuthin!

An excerpt from remarks Patton made to units of the US Third Army pre-D-Day.

DON'T FORGET, you don't know I'm here. No word of the fact is to be mentioned in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell became of me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be in England. Let the first b_stards to find out be the godd_mn Germans. Someday I want them to raise up on their hind legs and howl, "Ach, it's
the godd_mn Third Army and that son-of-a-b_tch Patton again."

Burma is a country. Next to Thay land.

*smacks own forehead*

I was reading Burma, but I was thinking Borneo.

Well, Burma bordered India, so while it was an Allied base of operations, you could stretch the point that I mentioned it, since I mentioned India. Yeah...we'll go with that. :p

That, and I believe that after Singapore, the Japanese began offensive operations against the western areas of SE Asia, so while it was an allied operating area, it was also fighting defensively for a good portion of the war.

Isn't Burma called Myanmar now? :confused:

:D They didn't call Patton "Old Blood and Guts" for nuthin!

An excerpt from remarks Patton made to units of the US Third Army pre-D-Day.

I can almost imagine George C. Scott doing it hehe! Though IIRC he always preferred 'Blood and Brains' because that's what does the job. He was also an excellent fencer and designed the finest US Cavalry sword.

Doesn't do for cautious Monty to try and out-Patton Patton. Those were Monty's worst moments (as opposed to finest hour): from Market-Garden to his near 'mutiny' during the Ardennes offensive. Too much hubris that man.

*smacks own forehead*

I was reading Burma, but I was thinking Borneo.

Well, Burma bordered India, so while it was an Allied base of operations, you could stretch the point that I mentioned it, since I mentioned India. Yeah...we'll go with that. :p

That, and I believe that after Singapore, the Japanese began offensive operations against the western areas of SE Asia, so while it was an allied operating area, it was also fighting defensively for a good portion of the war.

Isn't Burma called Myanmar now? :confused:

They actually forced the Allies (for all intents and purposes) out of Burma to the Indian border till Mountbatten, Slim, Stillwell et al retook the area. Nonetheless it was a 'sideshow' of the war after the early disasters so the British 14th Army called themselves the 'Forgotten Army'

Yup. Burma = Myanmar, Siam = Thailand

Well, you'd have to consider Montgomery on account of Operation Market Garden alone, though early on his work against Rommel was inspired.

Then there's whoever ordered the senseless suicide of Peleliu (sp?) in the Pacific -- hundreds of US Marines dead for a strategically worthless island.

EDIT: Other wars...

How's about the commander of the Persians at Thermopylae? Once you see that you're losing men 10-to-1, don't you retreat before it becomes 100-to-one? I can't remember the Persian general's name, but that fella didn't know a vastly superior military position when he saw one.

Pickett's charge comes to mind. Especially because it was more than one charge. If I remember my Ken Burns, it was something like nine actual charges. Yikes.

Custer. Arrogant. 'Nuff said. Blondy-headed Nazi prick got what he deserved.

Gallipoli. Let's invade up a peninsula whilst underestimating our foe! Oy.

Westmoreland (et. al) in Vietnam. That whole war was a great big batch of you've-gotta-be-kidding. Let's see -- can't tell friend from foe, most of their transit is underground or through jungle impassable to current US army modes, and the pretexts for even being there were flimsy when the FRENCH were fighting.

That's all I've got right off the top of my head. I'd mention more, but I don't think my colossal mistakes in games of Axis & Allies, Risk or Starcraft count....

A lot of it boils down to either under-estimating the enemy or inadequate intelligence - though strangely enough it's both in many famous situations. Perhaps its hubris - security in one's own strength sometimes leads to decision-makers ignoring key pieces of info or their subordinates withholding that information so they don't 'rock the boat'.

That's all I've got right off the top of my head. I'd mention more, but I don't think my colossal mistakes in games of Axis & Allies, Risk or Starcraft count....

Oooo....you sent un-upgraded Zerglings at a line of Bunker supported Siege Tanks, didn't you? :p

Oooo....you sent un-upgraded Zerglings at a line of Bunker supported Siege Tanks, didn't you? :p

More than once until I figured it out, yes. I don't know why I like games like Starcraft so much, given that I'm not a very good multitasker and I'm more prone to a defensive set up that looks good over one that makes sense. That's why I rarely play online -- those kids are vicious!

Another error (far less well known than "never get involved in a land war in Asia") is that just because the Protoss auto-cannons can hit both air and land targets does NOT make them impregnable, even in two-deep staggered setups. Think Maginot Line, and the image will come clear to you.

Sure everyone gets a kick out of making a thread about the Best Soldier/General but now for the reall issue who was the worst?

Comeon you know the guy that talked the talk but couldnt walk the walk?
The Guy that hid behind his men and passed the buck?
The Guy who spent more time encrypting Coded messages with randomness that the enemy could decode it before the intended recievers could!

Ill say Mark Clark Mr leave my Pants on the Beach!
Also Known as Greed
Also Known as Ill Kill your men because your nations small!
http://www.psywarrior.com/markclark.jpg
Yes thats right Kiddies MR Arse Hat himself


Hey, I like Mark Clark. If it hadn't been for him my grandfather wouldn't have won his second Iron Cross to replace the first one he was stripped of for insubordination. Meaning I wouldn't be able to brag that my grandfather fought @ Monte Cassino. Mark Clark was the imbecile behind that pointless offensive, which only served to give Germany 16 heros when it would have been thankful for only one. Oh yeah, my grandfather was stripped of the second Iron Cross too, but the war ended before the Nazis could take back the actual medal. He ended up selling it to an American officer, I beleive...could've been a Brit though.

My vote goes to De Gaulle. He was a politician in generals clothing, a vain man with thoughts only for himself. Someone else already mentioned his sabotage of the Allied offensive in North Africa. As a Canadian, I have even more reason to hate him (His "Vive le Quebec libre!" line sparked off 40 years of seperatist BS we deal with to this day) I hope to piss on his grave someday.

I think there were some real moron Genrals on both sides in WWII, but nobody bothered to record their idiocy for posterity, hence we're probably missing the worst of em. IN Germany, Russia, Italy and Japan they just would've been shot and their names excised from the records.

Although General MacArthur wasn't the worst by a long shot, he completely botched his defense of the Philippines, and in the process set back any chance of Allied Offensive Operations in the area. Still, he's remembered for his immense charisma...

...and the fact that he wanted to nuke and invade China during the Korean War and therefore got relieved of his command. :p

More than once until I figured it out, yes. I don't know why I like games like Starcraft so much, given that I'm not a very good multitasker and I'm more prone to a defensive set up that looks good over one that makes sense. That's why I rarely play online -- those kids are vicious!

Another error (far less well known than "never get involved in a land war in Asia") is that just because the Protoss auto-cannons can hit both air and land targets does NOT make them impregnable, even in two-deep staggered setups. Think Maginot Line, and the image will come clear to you.

I tend to not like Photon Cannons for the low firing rate, more than for any other reason...

...God, I really want to make a Starcraft tactics thread now, so I can stop hijacking this one. :D

Rodolfo "Butcher" Graziani... made his reputation slaughtering native tribes in Africa... the Italian forces really didn't have much motivation but under the right circumstances they could do well - The 22nd Armoured Brigade vs the Ariete in Operation Crusader.
Sure when its Div vs Brig!

-Snip-
Then they also had the bad luck to lose their top secret war plans aboard the SS Automedon, captured by Bernard Rogge en route to Singapore (Rogge got one of three special Samurai swords - Rommel and IIRC Goering got the other two). And Tiger Yamashita ate Rabbit Perceival whole.

Ironically, Perceival was an officer in the 18th (Eastern) Division in WW1 - the same division w/c would go into captivity under his command at Singapore.
I imagine he(Rogge) was a Unterseeboot Captain?..

So the Japs do eat prisoners! :eek:
Wheres the Irony?.....

Worthy of a BUMP?

The worst general would be Soviet front man George Marshall.

The worst general would be Soviet front man George Marshall.

Enjoy your odd opinion, capitalist pig.

Marshall Georgi Zhukov is the greatest General on the Soviet side. His tactics and skills proved the deciding factors in both the Battle of Kursk and the Battle of Moscow as well as countless others.

My Father was named after him and we celebrate him as the greatest general of World War II in Russia (Ukraine too).

Enjoy your odd opinion, capitalist pig.

Marshall Georgi Zhukov is the greatest General on the Soviet side. His tactics and skills proved the deciding factors in both the Battle of Kursk and the Battle of Moscow as well as countless others.

My Father was named after him and we celebrate him as the greatest general of World War II in Russia (Ukraine too).
Sure he may be Russias best General in your opinion but in reality Suicide Battalions and blowing villages up with Artillary is not Tactics!

Kursk he did nothing special deep lines and unproven tanks

Russian Tank losses 400 German 100 or something like that...
figures somewhere....

General Mark "Look at Me" Clark(e). Nothing's more important than a photo opportunity.

The US was not the most powerful nation at the time, and was still suffering the effects of the depression to an extent. Don't project today on yesterday.
Depends on you measure it. The U.S. certainly had the most manufacturing capacity and the largest population base at the time. It was already in transition to wartime support at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack.

General Mark "Look at Me" Clark(e). Nothing's more important than a photo opportunity.
I googled and its without the e
more pics of the Arse that he is
http://www.authenticmilitaria.com/periodphotos/images/American/mark_clark.jpg
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/04_clark_mark.gif
http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1943/1101431004_400.jpg

Also wasnt he the one that went for Rome instead of cutting off a German army in Italy(obviously)?

I googled and its without the e
more pics of the Arse that he is
http://www.authenticmilitaria.com/periodphotos/images/American/mark_clark.jpg
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/04_clark_mark.gif
http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1943/1101431004_400.jpg

Also wasnt he the one that went for Rome instead of cutting off a German army in Italy(obviously)?

Bingo.

Bingo.
Not only that but he couldnt understand the idea of Freyberg and New Zealand wishing to preserve New Zealands Male population.
Freyberg when taking Command of Second New Zealand Expeditionary Force(2NZEF) asked one thing of the Government;
That if at any time he or the Government felt at anytime that New Zealand was taking to much weight in an assault we got just stop.-We never did

It was a dirrect reaction to WWI where Faulty British Theory cost between 42% and 58% casulties in New zealands forces.

Clarks thinking was i guess just do it!
God we spent more time than America in Both World Wars and its not like we had an endless supply of men to call apon.

Not only that but he couldnt understand the idea of Freyberg and New Zealand wishing to preserve New Zealands Male population.
Freyberg when taking Command of Second New Zealand Expeditionary Force(2NZEF) asked one thing of the Government;
That if at any time he or the Government felt at anytime that New Zealand was taking to much weight in an assault we got just stop.-We never did

It was a dirrect reaction to WWI where Faulty British Theory cost between 42% and 58% casulties in New zealands forces.

Clarks thinking was i guess just do it!
God we spent more time than America in Both World Wars and its not like we had an endless supply of men to call apon.

Yeah, I have to respect the Kiwis. In WWI Australia had the second most dead per head of popluation, NZ had the highest.

Yeah, I have to respect the Kiwis. In WWI Australia had the second most dead per head of popluation, NZ had the highest.
Yeah and in WWII at Alaimein Australia fired something like 4 to 10 more Artillary shells than any othe Division-A lot of Deaf ears.
Also the 2 Aussie Battalions held off 12 or so attacks from 2 Panzer Divs without support till relieved.

You also would have had an Equally high percentage in WWII if you hadnt had pulled your Divs(understandably someone needed to guard Home) back to the Pacific war.

Most of the Pacific/Asian was Garrison duty for us(both nations)
Bar Solomons and Papua.

I would say that the worst general of WWII was general Weygand, the commander in chief of the French army in 1940.

Yep.

Up to the very end, he refused to even acknowledge the possibilities of a blitzkrieg-like tactic, keeping the French army a step behind in the arms race prior to the war, and making them be humiliated once it began.

The worst General definitely is this one:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/zs/tesb/veers01.jpg

The worst General definitely is this one:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/zs/tesb/veers01.jpg
Your going to Hell!

I would say that the worst general of WWII was general Weygand, the commander in chief of the French army in 1940.

Yep.

Up to the very end, he refused to even acknowledge the possibilities of a blitzkrieg-like tactic, keeping the French army a step behind in the arms race prior to the war, and making them be humiliated once it began.

Wrong general, the general you are referring to (The French C-in-C until June 1940, when Weygand took over) was General Gamelin. Weygand's, ill-fated Weygand Line actually would have stopped the Blitzkreig, but there weren't enough troops to man the line between the Somme and Channel, so it fell quite fast. His theories on created "nests" of resistance, some infantry coupled with AT guns holding out in villages and road crossings even after being surrounded, were exactly what France needed, but there was a desperate shortage of AT guns and men, especially after the cream of the Army was cutoff in Lille and Belgium.

And Gamelin wasn't so bad at dealing with Blitzkrieg either, he had his troops attack the base of the Panzer "neck" that stuck out from the main enemy line, also the exact response to a Panzer breakthrough. Unfortunately because of a lack of proper communications (Gamelin's entire HQ had no telephones) and a faulty command system (it had to go from him, to C-in-C Northwest, then Army Commander, and so forth, further each command was responsible to multiple ones) meant that when such attacks were made they were not supported properly. The only two major ones made with the right stuff were blunted, which were De Gualles charge, which failed because his Armoured Division (Yes, the French had armored divisions, just like the Germans, and they had had them for some time) had not been completely formed and was missing many tanks and trained tankmen, and the British attack at Arras, which came critically close to breaking the German thrust, saved by Rommel ordering his flak battalion (88mm's) to fire on the British tanks.

Although General MacArthur wasn't the worst by a long shot, he completely botched his defense of the Philippines, and in the process set back any chance of Allied Offensive Operations in the area. Still, he's remembered for his immense charisma...

...and the fact that he wanted to nuke and invade China during the Korean War and therefore got relieved of his command. :p

Botched? There wasn't much to work with. Unless you are referring to his colossal mistake to not order the US Army Air Forces in the Far East not to go on alert, thereby leaving thier planes tightly packed and to be virtually wiped out when the Japanese came, despite knowing of the Pearl Harbor catastrophe a day earlier. But other than that, his retreat to Bataan was exactly what he should have done, he could not defend Manila with just a single US Division and only one Filipino Division worth anything, after the destruction of the USAAF Far East, he was out of options except hope the Navy could blast through to him.

Actually the idea for market garden was good. The execution was lousy. Basically the allies weren't strong enough to pull it off.

Had it worked though, the war in europe would have been over before xmas.

The Allies were strong enough, the problem was the roads weren't. There was only a single road for the XXX Corps to get to Arnhem on, and considering the huge amount of time Monty spent on considering Logistics, it's amazing that he ever considered Market Garden.

He knew the significance of having only one road to advance on that could support his armor, he knew that taking the Scheldt and opening Antwerp would greatly decrease the logistical strain on the Allied Forces. As a commander, though appearing dash, his battles are almost always set piece battles, massing enough armor and artillery to outnumber the enemy by a comfortable margin, then advancing on a slow and steadied pace to maximize enemy damage and minimize risk to his own forces. All of his battles, from Alamein to the Rhine Crossing all follow this pattern. So it is highly out of place for him to undertake Market Garden, which is dropping troops wholly unprepared to take on even a squadron of tanks, so deep into enemy territory while a much greater objective waited in the Scheldt. It seems almost obvious he was doing this solely for his own ego, given that he had spent 2 months beating his head against the Germans at Caen, only to be outdone by Bradley and Patton's breakout in the western end (and probably mad over the fact that he really does deserve a lot of credit for the ease at which they did so). His nation was beginning to take a place far behind the US in the Western Allies, and would soon have only about 1 British soldier for every 3 American in Western Europe, he probably feared being eclipsed.

Had I been Japan, I would have invaded Hawaii on Dec. 7th. The millitary infastructure, particularly ground based planes, was in shambles...

...there was never going to be a better opportunity, and it might have forced concessions by the U.S. in Japan's favor, or at least forced the U.S. to fight defensively to defend the west coast.

Oh...right, topic. Worst general?

Hmmmm...I'd have to say Hitler. Every time he tried to take control of a situation, either strategically or tactically, he failed miserably.

Then you in fact might make this list. First, where are you going to get the troops and ships to go to Hawaii, all eleven endeployed divisions are committed to vital objectives in the Western Pacific, Malaya, Philippines, New Guinea, island seizures, Dutch East Indies. Taking away enough troops to attack Hawaii means at least 3-4 divisions, which means you're giving up at least two objectives.

Now, Japan lacks the shipping to move 3-4 divisions all the way across the Pacific, not to mention the troops are going to lose a lot of their edge on the troopships. The only base you have that can launch this force is on mainland Japan, so you're going to risk nearly a third of your available force to sail all the way across the Pacific, with no sure chance of success. Ok, now you face more problems. First, while the air forces are severely wrecked, and the Navy also, the Army and Marine forces are now on full alert, and Hawaii had incredibly formidable defences. While not as so as later in the (arond Midway for instance), they certainly are enough (At least three divisions worth of troops) to either beat back your initial invasion or hold it on the beach.

Now you have upwards of 50,000 Japanese troops stuck on Hawaii. The Japanese Strike Force is desperately needed to support Japanese attacks in the western pacific, has no fuel to launch enough sorties to keep any kind of air superioity over the USAAF, and there is always the threat of the American Carriers returning. So the Strike Force, unable to remain because of logisitical constraints, must now turn around, leaving the 50,000 without any support at all, while US troops are pouring in from the mainland, along with fighter and bomber aircraft.

Now, I'm going to stretch things a lot and say the Japanese take Hawaii. Ok, good. But now you have to supply it for the inevitable American counterattack. The Japanese did not even have enough shipping to keep their seizures in actual 1942, how will they ever supply a base so far away. The US has bases close by, with a string of bases on Midway, the Aluetians, and islands to the south to interfere with your shipping. So you have basically just hastened the defeat of Japan, by depriving it of needed troops at a desperate time, risking a large amount of shpping tonnage that Japan doesn't have, and allowing the Americans an early upper hand.