Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Author Message
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,396
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 152
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #11
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 12:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Eisenhower was not a great general. He was too busy playing politics to be a good general.
(06-11-2014 07:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  McArthur?
MacArthur was an arrogant fool, who lead many men to their deaths, just so he could return to the place where he barely escaped with his life. He could have avoided those deaths and still won the war without all that bloodshed. But he had to fulfill his promise to return to the Philippines, sacrificing thousands of his men to do it.

Screw MacArthur. 03-banghead

Agreed. Only a few of the Pacific Island actually needed the be captured. The rest could have been bombed and blockaded.

And bit, would would have been a better SAC Europe than Eisenhower? The position required him to play politics.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 12:54 PM by vandiver49.)
06-11-2014 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,864
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #12
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Had Patton been in charge, the war in Europe would have ended sooner. He could play politics, when it was required. But he didn't play politics when it came to battle strategy or planning. In his opinion, politics had no business on the battlefield, and I fully agree with him there. He didn't like to put up with stupid military commanders, like Montgomery, who used politics to make himself look good, instead of being an effective military commander, like Patton.
06-11-2014 02:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofM_Tiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,991
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Tigers
Location: Memphis
Post: #13
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 12:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Eisenhower was not a great general. He was too busy playing politics to be a good general.
(06-11-2014 07:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  McArthur?
MacArthur was an arrogant fool, who lead many men to their deaths, just so he could return to the place where he barely escaped with his life. He could have avoided those deaths and still won the war without all that bloodshed. But he had to fulfill his promise to return to the Philippines, sacrificing thousands of his men to do it.

Screw MacArthur. 03-banghead

Amen to that. Plus, he essentially wanted to turn Korea into WWIII.
06-11-2014 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofM_Tiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,991
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Tigers
Location: Memphis
Post: #14
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Shouldn't overlook Grant. Wasn't the greatest tactician, but he understood better than any other union general what it was going to take to beat the Confederacy, with the possible exception of Sherman.
06-11-2014 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,396
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 152
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #15
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 02:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had Patton been in charge, the war in Europe would have ended sooner. He could play politics, when it was required. But he didn't play politics when it came to battle strategy or planning. In his opinion, politics had no business on the battlefield, and I fully agree with him there. He didn't like to put up with stupid military commanders, like Montgomery, who used politics to make himself look good, instead of being an effective military commander, like Patton.

Why do you think Patton could achieved victory sooner? Regardless of his capability, Montgomery was the British Commander with which Patton would have had to liaison with. And of course Patton and Bradley couldn't stand each other. I just think that a SAC Patton would have such a high turnover rate of his general staff that Marshall would have been forced to either demote him to a field general or relieve him altogether.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 02:54 PM by vandiver49.)
06-11-2014 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
Kwisatz Haderach
*

Posts: 6,446
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 320
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Charlotte
Post: #16
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 02:53 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  Shouldn't overlook Grant. Wasn't the greatest tactician, but he understood better than any other union general what it was going to take to beat the Confederacy, with the possible exception of Sherman.

Grant was a "good" general in the exact same way Stalin way a "good" general. He knew he had more resources than his foe and feed men into the meat grinder. I suppose knowing you can win with the numbers you have if you're willing to kill as many of your own men as it takes is a type of "good" generalship.
06-11-2014 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 60,141
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #17
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox
06-11-2014 03:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
South Carolina Duke Offline
Banned

Posts: 6,014
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Palmetto State
Post: #18
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Grant died a drunk and a pauper!
06-11-2014 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 60,141
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #19
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 03:10 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Grant died a drunk and a pauper!

True, but irrelevant.
06-11-2014 03:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,864
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #20
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 02:53 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  Shouldn't overlook Grant. Wasn't the greatest tactician, but he understood better than any other union general what it was going to take to beat the Confederacy, with the possible exception of Sherman.
Grant also turned out to be one of the most corrupt Presidents in U.S. history. He was a decent general. Not a great one. Anyone willing to sacrifice his men could have won the war for the north. George Mcclellan should have won the war long before Grant was given command. But he was a coward, and refuse to attack Richmond as President Lincoln commanded. So he was forced into retirement, and Grant was promoted to command the Union Army. The north had all the industry, and the majority of the population at the time. Their victory was inevitable. It was only the incompetence of the Union Army command that prolonged the war.

Grant was totally incompetent as a politician, as were the people he chose for his cabinet. As a general, he was adequate. But that's all.

(06-11-2014 02:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had Patton been in charge, the war in Europe would have ended sooner. He could play politics, when it was required. But he didn't play politics when it came to battle strategy or planning. In his opinion, politics had no business on the battlefield, and I fully agree with him there. He didn't like to put up with stupid military commanders, like Montgomery, who used politics to make himself look good, instead of being an effective military commander, like Patton.
Why do you think Patton could achieved victory sooner? Regardless of his capability, Montgomery was the British Commander with which Patton would have had to liaison with. And of course Patton and Bradley couldn't stand each other. I just think that a SAC Patton would have such a high turnover rate of his general staff that Marshall would have been forced to either demote him to a field general or relieve him altogether.
Did you actually read the historical accounts? Or did you gain your knowledge from movies?
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 03:52 PM by bitcruncher.)
06-11-2014 03:51 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.