Greateset American General and Why?

[ChrisM]

I ahve to gow with Stonewall Jackson. As a motivator and tactician he accomplished so much with so little. He gave the army of Northern Virginia the offensive lena that carried them from 1862-1863. i am a big Lee fan as well, but I don't think he was flawed as an offensive general - he needed to keep that Army together and in that he failed.

Patton is on the list as well - as is McArthur. I am a big admirer of Vinegar jor stillwell and i think Pershing is underrated.

Crazy Horse is there is you exapnd the defintion and David Pertaeus amy be re-defining American military doctrien for teh new century.

I'm tired of reading about Nazis - who do you think ranks at the head of the class for American mlitary leaders?

 

[Blackcloud6]

George Marshall because the way he strategically lead the US through WWII.

 

[Vinnie]

I feel people underrate Marshall. His leadership set the base for ultimate victory not only against the Nazi but also against the Soviets.

 

[Dave68124]

Ridgeway and Puller would go on my list including some of the others already named sans MacArthur. Personally, Mac goes in the same category as Grant. A decent General, who was only decent when he had the resources to throw at a problem. Other than that, I think MacArthur was a complete failure from the Battle of Bataan to the Chinese invading Korea. He was always playing checkers when the other guy was playing chess. Inchon was probably the only battle he fought that required any strategic moves on his part.

 

[Blackcloud6]

I think MacArthur was a complete failure from the Battle of Bataan to the Chinese invading Korea. He was always playing checkers when the other guy was playing chess. Inchon was probably the only battle he fought that required any strategic moves on his part.

MacArthur's SW Pacific campaigns were brilliant and to forerunner of todays modern joint operations.

 

[Dave68124]

MacArthur's SW Pacific campaigns were brilliant and to forerunner of todays modern joint operations.

Agree to disagree, but Nimitz was brilliant. Mac came in 3rd in a two person race in my opinion when it comes to Pacific campaigns. He had resources to win those battles and used brute force in order to do so - Battle of the Phillipines leaps to mind. What a cluster fu*k that was - almost up there with the Battle of Hurtgen Forest if you ask me - a battle that was fought for all of the wrong reasons.

 

[aiabx]

Agree to disagree, but Nimitz was brilliant.

Nimitz was an admiral, not a general.:bite:

Personally, I think Grant is underrated. Not as flamboyant and exciting as Patton, but exactly the right leader at the right time to take down Lee, who was no dummy himself.

 

[Dave68124]

Nimitz was an admiral, not a general.:bite:

And MacArthur was a dilitant too. So is the subject matter now, Dilitant Generals of History?

 

[freightshaker]

George Washington: No American general has had such a poor hand dealt to him and still come out triumphant.

Otherwise... Ridgeway and Gavin.

 

[Vinnie]

There is a problem inherent in the question. Are we to include political Generals who's actions shaped the future or merely military commanders? Patton, great field commander but no sommuch an army one. Eisenhower, a second rate military brain but maybe the sharpest political one. Washington, decent but not outstanding military commander but inspirational leader. Nimitz an admiral in a field where the navy was the senior service due to the terrain. All these guys have a right to be called "the greatest".

 

[Manilianus]

I'm tired of reading about Nazis

You know, Hitler was also tired of Nazis :angry:


Maybe Gavin, or Patton? I'm classical philologist at heart and education, and always thought that leaders should order "Follow me!", not "Advance!" I often hear people criticizing Patton (or Montgomery) for being below average/simply average generals who won their battles only because they had better army and enemy was poorer supplied etc. One British 8th Army veteran officer said [loose quotation], "military historians and people who never commanded tend to forget - or do not realize it - that real warfare is not chess; even odds are not what's most important, and there were plenty of generals that had better army and lost battles with weaker enemy, not necessarily because they were "worse" commanders."

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

William Stoppel because he plays ASL

 

[ChrisM]

And MacArthur was a dilitant too. So is the subject matter now, Dilitant Generals of History?

Dave - i know where you are coming from, and I agree that homma totally out generalled him in 1942 in the Phillipines. Mac's re-conquest of the Phillipines also bogged down and could have beene executed mcuh better. But he is on my lsit because he did pick his spots very carefully (strategically) and he minimized American casualties in rolling the Japanese back up the SW Pacific. i give him a lot fo credit for conserving lives while winning a war.

Vinnie: yeah: i am talking pretty much just from the miltiatry poitn of view: winning battles and campaigns. That's why washington doesn't make my list - wya too mnay losses to qualify - but a great political general. i know its hard (impossible) to separate the politics out when judging a genegral's greatness - but where better than a war game forum to try?

I'm not sure about Puller. Weren't most of his accomplishments at the colonel's rank? I would think Vandegrift be a better choice? He wins Gualdacanal and invades bougainville - and then became Commandant of teh Corps.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Agree to disagree, but Nimitz was brilliant. Mac came in 3rd in a two person race in my opinion when it comes to Pacific campaigns. He had resources to win those battles and used brute force in order to do so - Battle of the Phillipines leaps to mind. What a cluster fu*k that was - almost up there with the Battle of Hurtgen Forest if you ask me - a battle that was fought for all of the wrong reasons.

Well then you disagree with the US Army Command and General Staff College that (at least up to 2005) taught MacArthur's SW Pacific campaign as a very good example of Joint Operational Art.

Why would you say that the Battle of the Philippines was fought for the wrong reasons?

 

[Blackcloud6]

and I agree that homma totally out generalled him in 1942 in the Phillipines.

Some would say the Homma did not do very good considering how long MacArthur's forces held out considering they were out of strategic lines of communications to the United States and the Japanese had air and naval superiority. The delay down the Bataan peninsula could be consider a text book delay in the face of a superior enemy. It just came to no fruition because the UD highest command decided not to come to the rescue. (Not saying that they could nor should have). But the delay in the conquest of the Philippines hurt the Japanese strategic timetable and bought time for the US to rebound for a counteroffensive almost immediately in summer of 1942 (The Solomons Campaign, which was originally under the command of MacArthur)

 

[Blackcloud6]

What about George Washington? He probably won the hardest fight in all of American military history.

 

[Blackcloud6]

but Nimitz was brilliant.

Well, I might consider his island hopping campaign a waste of time of man power as many of the islands could have been bypassed and isolated. The USMC, brave, but questionable use of only the frontal attack killed a lot of highly trained and experienced assault infantry. And Nimitz really was only following a modified version of one of the rainbow plans anyhow.

 

[Dave68124]

Why would you say that the Battle of the Philippines was fought for the wrong reasons?

It wasn't a strategic battle that we "had" to fight in order to defeat Japan. It was fought for "political" reasons. We could have very easily bypassed the Philippines and won the war in the same exact amount of time. By that time of the war, our subs and Navy had isolated the Philippines so going after Japan's raw materials was likely not worth the risk of losing the number of men we did. My grandfather was a Japanese POW and served on Corregidor - while he was already in Japan by the time of the invasion - I get the importance of recapturing the Philippines, I just think it was a battle fought for the wrong reasons.

 

[Dave68124]

Well, I might consider his island hopping campaign a waste of time of man power as many of the islands could have been bypassed and isolated. The USMC, brave, but questionable use of only the frontal attack killed a lot of highly trained and experienced assault infantry. And Nimitz really was only following a modified version of one of the rainbow plans anyhow.

Curious, but what islands could have been bypassed?

 

[Blackcloud6]

Curious, but what islands could have been bypassed?

Well since you said in the post before: "By that time of the war, our subs and Navy had isolated the Philippines so going after Japan's raw materials was likely not worth the risk of losing the number of men we did. " I might be tempted to say all of the islands in the Central Pacific could have been bypassed. All we needed to do was build the big navy to isolate Japan. Thus once Noumea was established and the Solomons captured to secure Noumea we could have fought a Naval war of attrition and once superiority was achieved then a war of isolation and bombardment of the home islands. Then when when the nukes came along and Japan had no surrender, immolate them in nuclear fires until they quit.

But a more direct answer, the Gilberts and the Marshalls could have been bypassed. The main thrust to the Marianas could have come out of the solomons/New Guinea. But the two thrust approach against Japan had as much to do with US service rivalries as it did with strategy. In the actual camapign, which one was the Main Effort? The Central Pacific or South West Pacific? It is hard to say.