Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Author Message
UCGrad1992 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,499
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 401
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #21
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 02:42 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  
(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.

C'mon man! An arrogant fool? Look, MacArthur sure as heck was neither the first nor the last general to have some ego and pride. Don't let that discount his ability to lead and govern. After he retired from the army he accepted a military advisor position in the Philippines to help organize and train their army. His family had a previous history with the Philippine people and MacArthur grew to respect them and had a great relationship with the Philippine President. Once the Japs cranked up their imperialistic ways FDR reinstated him as general. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts to try and defend the islands with limited resources. The point is that his promise to return was mainly due to his affinity for the Philippine nation and the men that died during the invasion. He also believed it was a moral obligation to liberate the Philippines since they were allies to the U.S. and the Japs were ruthless occupiers.

The governance he did in post-war Japan was incredible with rebuilding their nation and establishing a constitution and democracy all the while keeping the peace and respecting the cultural traditions of Japan.

Throw in his deployment of "island hopping" tactics that took strategic islands back from the Japs to establish air bases for air support and supplies was critical to helping defeat them. He understood the power and logistics in combining air, naval and ground forces in battle. IMO, he was one of the great generals ever for the U.S.
06-11-2014 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,191
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 148
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #22
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 03:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(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?

I would like to think the course material I took in school was fairly accurate.
06-11-2014 04:55 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: #23
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 04:52 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:42 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  
(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.
C'mon man! An arrogant fool? Look, MacArthur sure as heck was neither the first nor the last general to have some ego and pride. Don't let that discount his ability to lead and govern. After he retired from the army he accepted a military advisor position in the Philippines to help organize and train their army. His family had a previous history with the Philippine people and MacArthur grew to respect them and had a great relationship with the Philippine President. Once the Japs cranked up their imperialistic ways FDR reinstated him as general. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts to try and defend the islands with limited resources. The point is that his promise to return was mainly due to his affinity for the Philippine nation and the men that died during the invasion. He also believed it was a moral obligation to liberate the Philippines since they were allies to the U.S. and the Japs were ruthless occupiers.

The governance he did in post-war Japan was incredible with rebuilding their nation and establishing a constitution and democracy all the while keeping the peace and respecting the cultural traditions of Japan.

Throw in his deployment of "island hopping" tactics that took strategic islands back from the Japs to establish air bases for air support and supplies was critical to helping defeat them. He understood the power and logistics in combining air, naval and ground forces in battle. IMO, he was one of the great generals ever for the U.S.
MacArthur puts me in mind of George Armstrong Custer, with the exception that he didn't get all his troops killed. But both were arrogant fools who led men to their deaths for no other reason than they wanted glory, and hoped to used that for political gain. It didn't work in either case. Thank goodness for that.

Can you imagine how incompetent either would have been as President? Grant would have been a great President by comparison, and that's saying something.

(06-11-2014 04:55 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 03:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(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?
I would like to think the course material I took in school was fairly accurate.
Then the answer to your question should have been self explanatory, if you paid attention in class. If not, there are plenty of books to clue you in.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 05:09 PM by bitcruncher.)
06-11-2014 05:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,499
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 401
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #24
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 05:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  MacArthur puts me in mind of George Armstrong Custer, with the exception that he didn't get all his troops killed. But both were arrogant fools who led men to their deaths for no other reason than they wanted glory, and hoped to used that for political gain. It didn't work in either case. Thank goodness for that.

Can you imagine how incompetent either would have been as President? Grant would have been a great President by comparison, and that's saying something.

I'll give you he definitely had presidential aspirations but to link that to having men killed for this goal and on your main points I'll agree to disagree.
06-11-2014 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 60,062
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #25
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Custer was like Nebraska in the 80s. Build up hype roughing up cupcakes, then get to your bowl game and get your ass kicked by a good team.
06-11-2014 06:52 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: #26
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
That was funny, Smaug. 03-lmfao
(06-11-2014 06:33 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 05:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  MacArthur puts me in mind of George Armstrong Custer, with the exception that he didn't get all his troops killed. But both were arrogant fools who led men to their deaths for no other reason than they wanted glory, and hoped to used that for political gain. It didn't work in either case. Thank goodness for that.

Can you imagine how incompetent either would have been as President? Grant would have been a great President by comparison, and that's saying something.
I'll give you he definitely had presidential aspirations but to link that to having men killed for this goal and on your main points I'll agree to disagree.
No problem. Agreement isn't required, even if I am of the opinion that your opinion is misguided. The world will be as it will, and not as you or I would will it to be.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 07:21 PM by bitcruncher.)
06-11-2014 07:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
Kwisatz Haderach
*

Posts: 6,423
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 320
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Charlotte
Post: #27
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
I wouldn't call MacArthur a great general but he didn't get people killed for his own ego either. There were valid reasons to retake The Philippines, not the least of which were a significant number of U.S. and Filipino POW's that were on borderline starvation at the time of their liberation. All the Japanese garrisons on those other islands we "skipped" had virtually no POW's located on them.
06-11-2014 07:22 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: #28
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 04:52 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:42 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  
(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.

C'mon man! An arrogant fool? Look, MacArthur sure as heck was neither the first nor the last general to have some ego and pride. Don't let that discount his ability to lead and govern. After he retired from the army he accepted a military advisor position in the Philippines to help organize and train their army. His family had a previous history with the Philippine people and MacArthur grew to respect them and had a great relationship with the Philippine President. Once the Japs cranked up their imperialistic ways FDR reinstated him as general. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts to try and defend the islands with limited resources. The point is that his promise to return was mainly due to his affinity for the Philippine nation and the men that died during the invasion. He also believed it was a moral obligation to liberate the Philippines since they were allies to the U.S. and the Japs were ruthless occupiers.

The governance he did in post-war Japan was incredible with rebuilding their nation and establishing a constitution and democracy all the while keeping the peace and respecting the cultural traditions of Japan.

Throw in his deployment of "island hopping" tactics that took strategic islands back from the Japs to establish air bases for air support and supplies was critical to helping defeat them. He understood the power and logistics in combining air, naval and ground forces in battle. IMO, he was one of the great generals ever for the U.S.

the island hopping campaign was the brain child of Nimitz, not MacArthur. MacArthur had the army slogging through the rain forest on New Guinea to provide a base for his return.
06-12-2014 01:22 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: #29
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 03:04 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(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.

None of other generals that had been in charge prior to Grant realized that. Just like Patton in WWII Grant knew that the quickest way to win and get the war over with was to relentlessly attack. Don't give your enemy time to regroup.
06-12-2014 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ClairtonPanther Offline
people need to wake up
*

Posts: 24,000
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 629
I Root For: Pitt/Navy
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Donators
Post: #30
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Washington
Patton
Stonewall Jackson


I can't really get past a top 3.
06-12-2014 02:16 PM
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.