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 24th, 2017, 10:44 AM   #61

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,182

Quote:
Originally Posted by yakmatt View Post
Gerat comment, but Ike was supposed to be a numbers man and the allies weren't going to go far until they had a seaport to pour in their overwhelming lot of oil gas ammo and supplies. He should ordered Montgomery to focus on clearing the Scheldt Estuary so that Antwerp could be opened. As it happened his mistake opened the front to a counterattack. His opposition to Patton wanting to cut off the bulge shows a lack of tactical understanding. His falling back on the numbers game lead to unnecessary casualties.
But one must remember that in the situation that lead into Market Garden, the Allies had been advancing at great speed and encountering little real resistance. With that, there isn't that much that would indicate that the Germans could stop a single concentrated effort, which would also mean that if the Germans were in THAT bad a shape, the Allied logistical issues wouldn't limit them that much. In that, there wasn't much reason to think that at least the more limited objectives of a bridge on the Rhine in Market Garden were not attainable. And if that wins the war quicker... what general wouldn't at least consider it?

We know today that different orders should have been given, but a shift from Market Garden to the Scheldt Estuary at the time would have come off as saying, "the Germans have fully recovered from the beating they took in Normandy and the war is going to go on until early 1945 at the absolute earliest. We need to stop and go onto the defensive in Lorraine and the Vosages and focus on clearing the Scheldt Estuary and look toward our next great offensive in early 1945." To the British, who were facing bankruptcy toward the end of the war, this wouldn't sit well, especially in the sense that no one had seen definitive signs that the Germans had recovered. There was increased resistance in in Lorraine and the Vosages, but one could place that on Allied logistical issues and the the fact that area had static fortifications and defensive terrain that would favor the Germans regardless of the condition of their army...

In that sense the Allies probably NEEDED the setbacks in Market Garden and for Patton around Metz in order to understand that the Germans had recovered from the defeat in Normandy, but even with these "setbacks," it isn't as though the Germans inflicted such a defeat on the Allies that they were forced to retreat back to Normandy. XXX Corps was able to keep forces in the corridor they attacked through in Market Garden and Patton was never forced to back away from Metz.

And as for the "open front to counter-attack," I assume you mean the Ardennes? A biography by Eisenhower's grandson that I've been reading seems to give the indication that the Ardennes was left weak deliberately by Eisenhower and Bradley to entice the Germans to counter attack there, though likely with the expectation that what the Germans would launch there wouldn't be much more than spoiling attacks, which could then be used to trap the Germans when they did attack, and that the only estimation on Eisenhower's part would be the size of the offensive that the Germans launched in December 1944. But at the same time, one should also understand that while the Ardennes was "vulnerable," the German army didn't want to strike there. Both Model and Rundstedt favored smaller and more localized attacks, either to pinch off the bulge that XXX Corps had formed during Market Garden or the area around Aachen and restore the the West Wall as a continuous line that the Allies would need to assault head on. They didn't want the headlong rush into the Ardennes and then to Antwerp, which they knew they had neither the fuel or men to do successfully.

And as for "holding Patton back," I'd imagine a lot of that was a lot of concern over friendly fire as Allied units came together, similar what had had happened with the Falaise pocket in Normandy.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Remove Ads
Old July 25th, 2017, 07:58 AM   #62
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,864

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
I don't see why Arnold is so spectacular. He never served at a particularly high level of command.
Arnold had spectacular successes, such as Saratoga and the naval (!) battle of Valcur Island. I realize Washington is a great hero and Arnold a traitor, but Arnold has a much better military record.

Washington lost New York and Philadelphia. He lost several battles. He led successful raids at Trenton and Princeton.

The war was won because of huge victories at Saratoga and Yorktown that Washington didn't have that much to do with. Also, the British needed to make peace with France and Spain at war with them.
betgo is online now  
Old July 25th, 2017, 08:14 AM   #63
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 87

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
And as for "holding Patton back," I'd imagine a lot of that was a lot of concern over friendly fire as Allied units came together, similar what had had happened with the Falaise pocket in Normandy.
Bradley was more concerned that the Germans would simply roll right over Patton and flatten him if he blocked their escape from Normandy. He put it best in his preferring “a hard shoulder at Argentan to a broken neck at Falaise” quip.
Given the Germans were moving units back inside the pocket to help the mob escape it was a reasonable decision.
mkenny is offline  
Old July 25th, 2017, 09:03 AM   #64
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,596

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.

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.
macon is offline  
Old July 25th, 2017, 09:12 AM   #65

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,672
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
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.

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.
If you don't like the thread, don't post in it, but this is just blatant trolling.
Viperlord is offline  
Old July 25th, 2017, 09:17 AM   #66

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,001

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
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.

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 Slovenia is and has always been weak and insignificant nation that has spent much of its history dominated by more powerful nations or peoples and on its own has produced next to nothing of historical note.

Have any more stones to throw in that glass house?

Last edited by Scaeva; July 25th, 2017 at 09:21 AM.
Scaeva is online now  
Old July 25th, 2017, 09:22 AM   #67
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,596

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
If you don't like the thread, don't post in it, but this is just blatant trolling.
What's wrong with a note that American is not a synonym for USA? If you don't have a reasonable comment please don't troll.
macon is offline  
Old July 25th, 2017, 09:25 AM   #68

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,152

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
What's wrong with a note that American is not a synonym for USA? If you don't have a reasonable comment please don't troll.
Very wise advice. I suggest you take note of it yourself.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old July 25th, 2017, 09:25 AM   #69

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,672
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
What's wrong with a note that American is not a synonym for USA? If you don't have a reasonable comment please don't troll.
If you expect anyone to start using "USian," instead of American, you're in for a rude surprise.
Viperlord is offline  
Old July 25th, 2017, 09:31 AM   #70
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,596

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
...and Slovenia is and has always been weak and insignificant nation that has spent much of its history dominated by more powerful nations or peoples and on its own has produced next to nothing of historical note.

Have any more stones to throw in that glass house?
Our little nation is quite old, we produce more books per capita than most of world (Iceland is in front of us and maybe Brits), in sports we are superpower again on a per capita level. Check number of medals on Olympic games per million people. Slovenia is a super power in winter olympics without per capita. We have had our share of European inventors and important men in the past.

Seriously: when you Americans fought against each other it was pathetic. It has not been comparable to wars in other parts of world, your civil war has been a second class war in all categories. Your armies have been badly trained and led militias with no spirit and commitment. European armies would eat your Grants and Lees in no time because they have been much better led and trained.

When you have pushed out of USA you have been always having much more of everything: equipment and men so it is not much to compare and to evaluate abilities. Many people could have been generals with USA's material superiority.
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 10:28 AM
Greatest General in American History? red4tribe American History 352 March 2nd, 2013 03:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.