(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.