Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


View Poll Results: Who was the greatest general in American military history?
George Washington 13 22.03%
Nathaniel Greene 3 5.08%
Winfield Scott 13 22.03%
Zachary Taylor 1 1.69%
Ulysses S. Grant 22 37.29%
Robert E. Lee 16 27.12%
William T. Sherman 3 5.08%
John J. Pershing 2 3.39%
Douglas MacArthur 5 8.47%
George C. Marshall 10 16.95%
Dwight D. Eisenhower 13 22.03%
Omar Bradley 4 6.78%
George S. Patton 4 6.78%
Matthew Ridgway 6 10.17%
Other 3 5.08%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 28th, 2017, 10:59 AM   #111

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,640
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
There is another argument about obscurity of your civil war.
The sheer volume of literature on the American Civil War refutes this new nonsensical line of argument, as you can't even attempt to defend your previous nonsense. This is nationalist trolling. Get it out of this thread.

Quote:
When a part of 19th century superpowers (UK, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, France) would have declared a secession, they would simply send in few divisions of regular army and have put down a secessionist movement.
As the US was not yet a superpower on the world stage and wouldn't be for a long time to come, and it was also a democracy with considerably less centralized power than the mentioned examples, the reasons for the differences here seem blatantly obvious. The US was not a superpower, did not have a very powerful central government at the time, and didn't have a large standing army, for the simple reason that there no major land threats near the US that would politically justify maintaining a very large standing army at the time.

Quote:
First year of a war was one joke of a battle called first Bull Run (btw, why did not Beauregard just walk on Washington afterwards or sent some cavalry to kill off flying unionists, 10.000 slaughtered northerners and war would have ended before it's start).
The demoralization of the Union army post First Manassas is probably somewhat exaggerated, and a substantial portion of that army had not been heavily engaged and was quite capable of further resistance if pressed. The Confederate army was also nearly as disorganized by their victory; the troops on both sides were very green.
Viperlord is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:03 AM   #112

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,640
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
Thanks for this list, there is one major problem with it: captured soldiers are included into casualties and I specified wia, kia and mia because these categories are a product of an intensity of a fight while lots of prisoners are a product of their low fighting quality, bad morale and/or bad decisions of their commanders. They don't say much about a difficulty of a battle and of commitment of troops.

I'm sure that my thesis stays and at least half of your claims falls from your list.
Captured are included in the casualty counts of all major European battles from the period as well. Your argument is blatantly hypocritical and nonsensical. Nobody excludes captured from the casualty lists, and your stated rationale also isn't exactly convincing; a high amount of captured troops is one indicator of a successful attack, which doesn't necessarily make the defeated troops bad soldiers. The better part of an entire division of the Confederate Second Corps was captured in the Bloody Angle at Spotsylvania by a Union surprise attack, and those were veteran troops counted among some of the best in the Confederate army.
Viperlord is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:15 AM   #113
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,384

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
Captured are included in the casualty counts of all major European battles from the period as well. Your argument is blatantly hypocritical and nonsensical. Nobody excludes captured from the casualty lists, and your stated rationale also isn't exactly convincing; a high amount of captured troops is one indicator of a successful attack, which doesn't necessarily make the defeated troops bad soldiers. The better part of an entire division of the Confederate Second Corps was captured in the Bloody Angle at Spotsylvania by a Union surprise attack, and those were veteran troops counted among some of the best in the Confederate army.
Captured can be from all possible reasons I mentioned. They don't clearly indicate an intensity of a battle. Other three categories do. 5% is a very low threshold if compared to all battles from all periods.
macon is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:17 AM   #114
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,384

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
The sheer volume of literature on the American Civil War refutes this new nonsensical line of argument, as you can't even attempt to defend your previous nonsense. This is nationalist trolling. Get it out of this thread.


As the US was not yet a superpower on the world stage and wouldn't be for a long time to come, and it was also a democracy with considerably less centralized power than the mentioned examples, the reasons for the differences here seem blatantly obvious. The US was not a superpower, did not have a very powerful central government at the time, and didn't have a large standing army, for the simple reason that there no major land threats near the US that would politically justify maintaining a very large standing army at the time.



The demoralization of the Union army post First Manassas is probably somewhat exaggerated, and a substantial portion of that army had not been heavily engaged and was quite capable of further resistance if pressed. The Confederate army was also nearly as disorganized by their victory; the troops on both sides were very green.
I claimed that your civil war was a second rate war in a second rate state. Thank you for helping prove my starting claim. Nationalist trolling? I have nothing personal against USA, I'm an admirer of your state, culture, sports, technology, way of life. I'm sure that it is superior to our in more aspects than otherwise.

Last edited by macon; July 28th, 2017 at 11:20 AM.
macon is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:17 AM   #115

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
You need to check that out because the offensive in France was planned long before an Allied soldier set foot on French Soil. Do some digging on the infamous 'Phase Lines' and see what was the target date for the Rhine being reached and the month penciled in for final victory. Suffice to say actual victory came before the 'planned' victory.
But that still points to Germans being beaten in the war as a whole, not necessarily who had the planning or the final say in the planning.

By that same argument, Monty wasn't responsible for the Overlord Plan because there were planning groups in Britain that were working on it well before Monty even got there... which would make no sense to me. Yes, there were other planning groups, but the final plans that were put forth for Overlord WERE Monty's and on the whole were successful.

I'd hold the same with regard to Eisenhower and the broad front.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
Which is why I asked you to link or reference Bradleys' objections. I am well aware that Bradley took exception to supplies going to Monty when he believed he deserved the lions share but that had nothing to do with Arnhem. Bradley was just trying his usual way of getting 'one-up' on Monty. Your claim Bradley had no ego is patently absurd and his melt-down with Ike over the transfer of Hodges to Monty's command says all there is about Bradley's inflated opinion about his own Generalship. Remember it was Ike who believed Bradley was not up to the job but Bradley blamed Monty.
I never said Bradley didn't have an ego. I said he wasn't known for it.

And Bradley's concerns had EVERYTHING to do with Arnhem and Monty's version of the narrow front plan... unless you're going to argue that Monty was arguing that Bradley got everything and that Market Garden only needed the left overs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
21 AG was not short of supplies at this time. It could manage with the channel ports. It was the USA who miscalculated badly on the supply situation. It was running out of replacement tanks and had a severe ammo shortage. 350 M4 were transfered back to the USA from British stocks and complete 25 pdr batteries as well. It was the US 'failure' (see the much touted 'failure to take Caen on D-day' to get the meaning of failure in this context) to take Cherbourg or Brest to timetable that caused them problems. That and the decision to abandon the slow methodical occupation of France for the final push over the Rhine in early 1945. In effect they abandoned the 'broad front' in order to make a 'single thrust' into central France and the low countries.
The British army group wasn't short of supplies because they took the French channel ports. The Germans wrecked those ports and forced lengthy sieges to take them. And many of the ports were held until the end of the war. The first major supply port that the Allies took in tact was Antwerp, which they couldn't use until the Scheldt Estuary was cleared. The British retained their supplies because of the fact that once Eisenhower agreed to Market Garden, the British got priority and that then lead to the arguments.

And it's that priority that Bradley didn't like and that priority that Monty, if he were in Ike's shoes would have to contend with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
Perhaps if the USA has stuck to 'Ike's Plan' and constructed the prefabricated port in Quiberon Bay (Look up Operation Chastity) they would not have been so badly supplied?
Perhaps if Eisenhower gave the priority to Bradley rather than Monty there wouldn't have been a problem for the Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
As I noted earlier 21 AG was able to supply itself. It was the USA that was struggling, But anyway the point is all the rubbish about the dastardly Brits trying to grab the credit from the US is jingoistic claptrap. The US only became the dominant part of the Allied ground Armies in action in Europe in late 1944. Up till then the Commonwealth had far more men in the field and had seen far more action.
So... it's claptrap because the British had more troops in the field through 1943... ?

Excuse me, but the plans for the narrow front were in late 1944 when the Americans had more troops in the field. They had more troops in the field by the time of Cobra and the pursuit of the Germans from Normandy to Germany. Yet the British plan for the narrow thrust put 1st Army under Monty and gave them priority over Bradley despite the fact that it wasn't 1943 anymore. That isn't claptrap. That's trying to pretend that nothing had changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
I believe you had no idea about the depth of Bradley's duplicity until I pointed it out. Fact is he was just as vain as everyone else. The sins you heap on Monty's head apply just as much to Bradley.
All the more reason to praise Eisenhower for keeping the both of them in line. Bradley having faults does not make Monty perfect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
I will point out once again I am making no pitch for Monty to assume command. What you seem to have lost sight of is my first post in this thread was to chide those heaping all the blame on big bad Monty.
And I will repeat my point that the point was refer to Eisenhower's strengths at the head of the coalition. Not heap blame on Monty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
I just said perhaps he was not as bad as the claims.
No one has actually tried to claim he was as bad as the claims. Merely tried to point to the fact that Monty's own personality was not suited to the sort of diplomacy that made Eisenhower the better Supreme Commander...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
Perhaps you could comment on why Bradley chickened out of the July 18 date for the start of COBRA and left Monty to battle it out on his own only for Bradley to attack the shattered Germans a few days later. I would say that looks very much like someone who is after stealing all the credit.
The events that relate to the Cobra operation do not prove the actions that relate to the arguments over the narrow thrust into Germany.

To say so would be to try and equate that the Battle of Gettysburg was directly what allowed for the surrender of Confederate troops at Vicksburg the next day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
Why not try and see it from the view of someone not 100% certain everything that went wrong was Monty's fault?

How about castigating Bradley for behaving like a spoilt child and perhaps removing him from command for his sins?
Trying to see it that way wouldn't change the fact that Eisenhower was still the one necessary for keeping things from complete failure.

You could prove that Monty was completely innocent of causing any of the troubles that were part of the inter-Allied disputes. Great... but until you prove that Monty also was capable of solving problems created by Bradley, you've only solved HALF the problem. And THAT is what makes Eisenhower the better commander.

As if Monty was innocent, but unable to stop this childish and petulant Bradley from causing trouble to the point that the Allies fall apart... you STILL have a problem without someone who can convince Bradley to "let it go."
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:19 AM   #116

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,640
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
Captured can be from all possible reasons I mentioned. They don't clearly indicate an intensity of a battle. Other three categories do. 5% is a very low threshold if compared to all battles from all periods.
As has already been pointed out, the casualty rate for pretty much all major Civil War engagements was well over 5%, far over that in most battles where major parts of both armies were engaged. A disproportionate part of these were not captured, as most Civil War engagements were slugging matches unless surprise was achieved. The presence of some captured in the casualty lists does not distinguished American battles from European ones or prove they weren't intense. You've demonstrated exactly nothing.
Viperlord is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:29 AM   #117

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,640
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
I claimed that your civil war was a second rate war in a second rate state. Thank you for helping prove my starting claim. Nationalist trolling? I have nothing personal against USA, I'm an admirer of your state, culture, sports, technology, way of life. I'm sure that it is superior to our in more aspects than otherwise.
To recap, what I actually said was that the USA's political structure was different from the examples you claimed and that the USA at the time didn't have a reason to maintain a large standing army, which is not the same as saying the USA was "second-rate' or, more to the point, what you've ACTUALLY said throughout the thread instead of your current revisionism.

Quote:
Your armies have been badly trained and led militias with no spirit and commitment.


Quote:
It has not been comparable to wars in other parts of world, your civil war has been a second class war in all categories
Quote:
Seriously: when you Americans fought against each other it was pathetic
Quote:
OP says American so where are Simon Bolivar and other guys from Americas? Some of them would maybe even deserve a mention because USA's are not worth mentioning.
Note here that you're claiming USA generals aren't even worth mentioning in contrast to powers that were far more "second-rate" at the time than we were.


Quote:
Your "revolution" is even more pathetic than your civil war. Useless skirmishes of few hundreds to few thousands who were unable to hold a line for longer than a time to eat a breakfast with max few hundreds casualties insult a holy word battle.

Washington was qualified to hold a position of a stable boy in a glorious Austrian empire of his time.
And this was just pure trolling. Which, if you cast your mind very far back, you might recall taking a vacation for just that reason, so your claim that it was anything but rings utterly hollow. You entered the thread to insult Americans and get a rise out of them. That's all this is. You have not been able to defend any of the invective-laden points you raised above.
Viperlord is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:33 AM   #118
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,384

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
As has already been pointed out, the casualty rate for pretty much all major Civil War engagements was well over 5%, far over that in most battles where major parts of both armies were engaged. A disproportionate part of these were not captured, as most Civil War engagements were slugging matches unless surprise was achieved. The presence of some captured in the casualty lists does not distinguished American battles from European ones or prove they weren't intense. You've demonstrated exactly nothing.
I demonstrated that European battles have been more decisive, troops better trained and committed, casualties higher and some battles have even decided something: whole armies were forced to surrender or ceased to be a fighting force. There were always elites of fanatics willing to fight until enormous casualties: even half and more and able to stop a vastly superior forces while defending a position or forcing a breakthrough at a key time and place.

Last edited by macon; July 28th, 2017 at 11:40 AM.
macon is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:35 AM   #119

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,640
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny

How about castigating Bradley for behaving like a spoilt child and perhaps removing him from command for his sins?
Sheer hypocrisy coming from someone insisting that Montgomery had no personal flaws worth mentioning.

https://argunners.com/when-eisenhowe...to-montgomery/
Viperlord is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:36 AM   #120
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,384

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
[/I]And this was just pure trolling. Which, if you cast your mind very far back, you might recall taking a vacation for just that reason, so your claim that it was anything but rings utterly hollow. You entered the thread to insult Americans and get a rise out of them. That's all this is. You have not been able to defend any of the invective-laden points you raised above.
This was a joke. I know that you regard your founding fathers high but by European standards of their time they were much much smaller.

Ok, I admit my mistake: Washington was NOT qualified to hold a position of a stable boy in a glorious Austrian empire of his time.

Last edited by macon; July 28th, 2017 at 11:40 AM.
macon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
american, general



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greatest Medieval General? Haardrada Medieval and Byzantine History 71 July 22nd, 2017 09:28 AM
Greatest General in American History? red4tribe American History 352 March 2nd, 2013 02:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.