What did generals actually do?

Hey guys, forgive my ignorance (Clueless_newbie ignorant question™) but what did generals like Manstein, Rommel, Patton, etc. actually do?

What did their staffs do?

Sorry for my dumb questions.

 

If you've ever played a big board game..or a strategy game with battles a part of it, then there you are...coordinators, strategists...the big picture thinkers...anything less should be for Brigadiers and Colonels...CEOs of a military company.

 

Ok. Who does all the logistics stuff? What unit takes what road when, what gas they'll need and where it will be, etc?

 

General in charge of logistics...the General gives the orders...a major general or Brigadier might then take that order and make it happen - The more coordinations with other elements, the more difficult it becomes...im sure you've seen many movies where the wrong thing turns up or not at all...or a CO doesnt know where his company is supposed to be...or two elements run into each other...thats bad logistics...

 

Each Division has its own General with a staff to handle matters like that based on which Regiment is tasked with what specific job. Yet, those Divisional movements and supply are under a Corps commander who might have anywhere from 2 to 8 Divisions under him. And that Corps is under an Army, and that Army is under an Army Group.

At each level, decisions are being made and priorities being assigned and changed as the strategic picture develops. Those priorities often conflict. The biggest conflict (on both sides) in WWII seemed to always revolve around roads. One group is trying get to point A and another group is trying to get to point B, and the same road leads to both places, or two different roads cross and result in a massive traffic jam.

 

A general is in charge of at least a 1000 men. there are three basic levels, brigade to army, army to theater and national level. (simplified) Brigade to army are involved in moving, supplying and directing their commands and are concerned with events for a couple of days span at a time. Army to theater are concerned with controlling those units below them during a span of a week to a month. National commands are concerned with long term events, raising, arming and transporting their units, coordinating with their political commands and relations with any allies. This is very simplified, it takes about 10 to 15 years to reach the level of general and with most a lot of education.

 

It's actually a very good question, with some good answers.

Another important thing that generals do (or should do) is know.

A general needs to know capabilities: what are the men, machines, and infrastructure under his command are capable of, what are their limits? What is the supply situation? How reliable is the information received, from all sources? In this respect, training exercises are vitally important.

Likewise understand the limitations and predilictions of his adversary.

Then comes the planning to utilise your strength, and exploit your adversaries weaknesses. The ability to clearly communicate intent concisely in an extremely stressful situation (something most strategy games fail to replicate) as a battle unfolds, and yet intimately trust your subordinates to understand and implement well.

In other words, a successful general needs to be a fantastic communicator, with an attention to detail bordering on the insane (supply, routes, and co-ordination all require meticulous planning), flexible (as few plans survive contact with the enemy), imaginative (to surprise the enemy), and inspiring loyalty.

And that is why Alexander will always be "the Great". Dead by 32.

 

Communication is the key to good logistics...so when logistics break down, its usually a communication break down. And that can happen in many ways...

 

Actually, the US army didn't use the Brigade system in WWII.

In the infantry, it was four Companies to a Regiment, three Regiments to a Division (the first level where a General was in charge). Then, Corps, Army, Army Group.

The nearest thing to a Brigade was a Task Force. These were temporary creations put together for a specific mission. It might be an Infantry Regiment reinforced with tanks, tank destroyers, SP guns, etc, with a Colonel in charge. At least, that would be typical - a Task Force could be any group of resources put together for a particular task.

 

but colonels are in charge of a regiment and other countries did use the brigade system

 

"Ok. Who does all the logistics stuff?"--clueless_newbie

Actually, the correct answer is: Just About Everybody! From the War Department ordering everything from 105mm shells to C-rations, to a PFC in Italy hauling ammo and food in a pack or handcart up to his platoon or squad. That's why for every rifleman in a foxhole or tanker in his tank, there were at least 10 others behind him making sure (hopefully) that he got what he needed. It isn't surprising that such a system made mistakes. What is surprising, when you think about it, is that it worked as well as it did!

However, there was a system to it. The many officers on the logistics staffs had logistics tables. These were based on how much food, ammo, gas, medical supplies, chewing gum, cigarettes, etc. a division or corps or army used up in a given day and thus could calculate how much was going to be needed. (Plus all the supplies need for all the support troops!) They even had tables as to how many casualties would be taken in various types of fighting and thus how many coffins, hospitals and replacements would be needed. For instance, how much chewing gum, toilet paper and cigarettes do you think would be needed every month by the US forces in the ETO? Oh yes, and let's not forget the mail-millions of letters going back and forth each day (research "v mail").The tonnage would have to be incredible but we got it over to them. Now once the material got over to Europe by ship, then Theater Command would allocate the right amount to each of its commands such as USAAF, Army, naval forces, etc. Taking the army as an example, Theater Command would allot so much of the total supplies to each army group, who would then divide it up and send so much to each army, which would send supplies to each of their corps, and so on down the line. If a "big push" was on then supplies would be built up and stockpiled while operations were curtailed in order to build up a surplus. When these supplies were used up then operations slowed down until more supplies could be brought up. The farther an army is from its base of supply then the less supplies are getting to the troops. Take gas, for instance, the farther our forces when inland, the more gas it took to get the gas to the forward units. (BIG PROBLEM IN THE N. AFRICAN DESERT)

What I'm trying to say here is that there was a system and a commanding general had staff and support units that took care of all of this. His job was to make sure that the part of the system under his command was doing its job. Otherwise, his unit wasn't going to do well and he would probably be relieved of command.

It really worked rather well, despite a nut case (forgot the name) who was Eisenhower's logistical officer. The only real errors we had was that we under-estimated the amount of gasoline we would need and also the number of casualties we would take.