Overrated generals

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Phoenix Rising RE:Overrated generals 5/5/2002 12:20:46 AM

I'm afraid I'm not very well versed in military history; modern American high-school education generally neglects the subject, especially if it could be interpreted to mean that America did something right. Nevertheless, I will say that my textbook placed plenty of heat on MacArthur. He certainly isn't the worst general to go down in U.S. history, but I'd say he's a long way from being considered one of the greats, either. Patton got very little mention, overshadowed by Eisenhower. The man I think got the least credit for his ability was Rommel; I think my textbook just called him an "expert" and let it go at that. The one I think that was most overrated was Grant. He did manage to beat Lee, but attrition warfare doesn't take a lot of planning, just a lot of testosterone (and whiskey). I've always wished that I had more time to study the subject; my university has a well-respected military history program. Maybe I'll be able to in the future, and I'll come back and we can make a real discussion of this. --Phoenix Rising

Quote Reply

Fred RE:Overrated generals 5/5/2002 4:17:20 AM

Grant was the first union general to succed on a regular basis. I personally think Sherman was a brilliant commander although mentionning his name in Atlanta will not get you many free drinks. I think Patton was a master of mobile warfare. Macarther was an ass. He manged to offend the Australians almost as much as the Japanese did. His loops of envelopment were just a large scale copy of the Marines Island hopping campaign. He was clever at Inchon but Harry Truman just managed to get out of the scene before he started a nuclear war. America has produced it's share of clever officers. I always find it curious when people compare Shwartzkopf of desert storm to Patton. The Persian Gulf was a high tech slaughter of a tin pot Dictators army. Hussein was not the same order of opposition as the German army which patton rather handily kicked. For the British Bryan Horrocks of 30 Corps was brilliant. Montgomery is dplored as a plodder but he did kick Rommels ass out of Africa. In war there is no second place for losers. Montgomery was a British version of Macarther in terms of the tender feelings he engenderred with allies. Ikes greatest gift as a general was coordinating the allies. As a tactician he was no great shakes. His decision to gon DDay however took huge cojones given the weather situation. He desrves lots of credit for that. Generals ply a trade that is marked in human blood therefore they tend to evoke strong feelings in terms of how people view them.

Quote Reply

RPL RE:Overrated generals 5/5/2002 12:41:09 PM

I'd take issue with Gen. Horrocks. Their are still bitter feelings regarding his handling of XXX Corps during the Arnhem campaign. With regards to Rommel and Montgomery, both developed their startegies during the carnage of WWI. Neither one wanted to see their troops slaughtered to take and retake an objective. Rommel's solution was to be audacious, and take a risk that would limit his casualties the first time out. Montgomery's answer was to build up an overwhelming force, which would allow him to steam-roll the opposition. Either way, there would be fewer casualies for his side. That being said, I don't have a very high regard for Field Marshal Montgomery. Among the English Generals, I admire Slim, Gott, and Auchinlek. For the US, after Patton, I admire Eichelberger (the guy who did MacArthur's fighting for him), Ridgway, Holland M. Smith, and Gavin. I always had an affinity for the Marine Corps, so I'd name Puller, Edson, Carlson, O.P. Smith, and Vandergrift as highly rated Generals. The Civil War Generals and German Generals have been picked over in depth, so I'll leave it there.

Quote Reply

RPL RE:Overrated generals 5/5/2002 3:51:27 PM

I misspoke im my last post. Holland M. Smith was a Marine. I do admire him, and would include him on the list. The Army General I meant to type was General "Vinegar" Joe Stilwell.

Quote Reply

Derby RE:Overrated generals 5/5/2002 3:55:14 PM

Grant really was better than the Union generals that preceded him; he may not have been any more tactically gifted, but he had more persistence than the whole lot of them rolled together. Also, he fought really well in the West before he was put in charge of the Army of the Potomac. Lee just outmatched him, and made Grant look worse than he really was. Probably Grant is overrated, simply because he looks so good in comparison to the other Army of the Potomac commanders; overall, I say he was a mediocre general but not a bad one.

Quote Reply

Jeff from Michigan RE:Overrated generals - To Phoenix 5/5/2002 8:20:25 PM

I disagree about your assessment about Grant. He dealt with the material he had at hand. A very politicized army (Butler in Fort Monroe), an army used to losing, Corp commanders that didn't obey orders well and a foe who fought well. Remember the principles of war. You don't have to be great in all of them. What Grant had was Objective and will. He didn't back off. He kept the pressure on. He made sure that Lee would not slip away on another campaign in the north and maybe cause the peaceniks the win the election. Once the election was over he took a free hand emptied the Washington garrison, took Butler's army and put the into the field. He used mass and manuever to keep Lee pinned. Meanwhile his left hook Sherman rolled up the rest of the South. War ain't necessarily elegant. Sometimes you got to slug it out. Grant deserves a higher assessment then you give him.

Quote Reply

Fred RE:Overrated generals - To Phoenix 5/5/2002 9:22:43 PM

Thats a very interesting comment on Grant.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Overrated generals 5/5/2002 11:27:10 PM

There's plenty to criticize about McArthur, although, in his defense, he was no worse than average. He got a lot right than many others never understood, at all. But, he was far from our best. Grant saved the Union. That's enough of a recommedation for me. Lee was more brilliant, but Grant won the war. You'd do well to compare Grant to the various other Union army commanders. Not the division or corps leaders, but the folks who commanded armies. It's not really useful to compare Patton and Eisenhower. They operated at different levels. Patton was always subordinate to someone else. Eisenhower commanded armies. Saying that, I'd say Patton was our most brilliant field general in WW2. I have doubts whether he could have done Eisenhower's job, but I doubt Eisenhower could have matched him in the field. Indeed, I strongly believe the war was prolonged for failure to use Patton more. For all Montgomery's record, generally, he royally screwed up Market Garden and prolonged the war as a result. The airborne elements performed brilliantly. The ground elements did not. This was a combination of poor performance and some questionable planning by Montgomery. Rommel gets plenty of credit among the professionals. You just can't rely on general histories, especially not high school texts, for that sort of thing.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Overrated generals 5/5/2002 11:36:19 PM

Very good, to put the development of the new style mechanized, mobile warfare in context of WW1. That was what EVERYBODY had in mind, entering WW2. It sometimes gets lost that, essentially, the Germans reinvented modern warfare with the Blitz, which, in turn, was the implementation of the ideas of Liddel Hart and Fuller, both British. Everyone else had to play catch-up, and redesign their armies and, even more important, their understanding of how to use them, on the fly. "Rommel's solution was to be audacious, and take a risk that would limit his casualties the first time out." Which was, basically, Patton's philosophy. Use aggressive, manuever warfare to place yourself someplace the defender wasn't prepared to meet you. If you had to attack a prepared position, try not to do it frontally. And, if you attacked, hit hard and fast, before the enemy was prepared. The downside risk was that if you were caught, in turn, by suprize, you were especially exposed and could be defeated in detail. But, notably, neither general had that happen much at all. "Montgomery's answer was to build up an overwhelming force, which would allow him to steam-roll the opposition" He was still very reluctant to get into real stand-up, slug-fests. He had a special brief to minimize British casualties. And, of course, even WW1 era generals understood the principle of gaining a heavy advantage in force at the point of attack. (The WW1 group just couldn't quite figure out how to do so on the Western Front.)

Quote Reply

Colonel Ron RE:Overrated generals 5/12/2002 6:05:46 PM

Interesting comments. Let's define "greatness" as the ability to effectively coordinate the activities of the various combat branches (arms) and services (land, air, naval & marine), the combat support functions and the combat service support functions to achieve a goal while operating within the rules of engagement (both of which are politically defined). Too complex? Gives some idea of how difficult it is to be a truly outstanding flag officer. I, for one, am glad that I never had to try to succeed at those lofty levels. Curious that there is no mention of Rommel's peers (e.g., Guderian or Manstein), or of George Zukhov (probably the best of the WWII lot -- a truly magnificent senior officer and leader). And while we're at it, any discussion of great generallship MUST include Sun Tzu (who defines a general that wins his battles as merely "good", reserving "greatness" for the general who can achieve his objective(s) without having to resort to combat). Now there is food for thought!

Quote Reply

Canadian Grunt to Colonel Ron RE:Overrated generals 5/28/2002 7:24:28 AM

I Disagree with your definition of greatness, in regards to generals. i would think those you have mentioned would be minimal requirments for a commander of an army,But also have the ability to chose his staff who are experts "one of the top in thier professions"in a particular field IE Arty, combat support, logistics.ETC..to put this team of experts together and mold them in to a high performance team. My opinon of greatness is a gen or any officer of command "together" with his staff of carefully chosen people. That can come-up with comprehensive and creative solutions over and over again.examples...the first use of gas warefare in WWI,the invention of the Creeping barage in WWI,the first use of TANKS WWI.here are solutions that have effected warefare for how many years, now the above may not of been as effective as they are today,but the shock to the enemy was there thus limiting the amount of friendly cas,and taking objectives. Anyone and i repeat anyone can command huge armys on a map move them around, have huge battles of attrition,with massive amounts of lives lost on both sides. but a great general "including his staff" can fight and win a war with few friendly cas,while crushing the enemy. this we've seen in the gulf war, some battles in the Korean war, many of the first battles in WWII,plus i'm sure there are hundreds more... On top of all this a Great Gen must be crismatic,Great speaker,and a great Leader from the front,and be able to read people and situtions. and most important must be extremly confident in his abilities almost to the piont of aragance but not.

Quote Reply

John RE:Overrated generals 5/28/2002 11:29:44 AM

I think that's a bit idealistic. Surely all a great general has to do is win as comprehensively as possible, with the minimum losses to his own side. That's why I think Colin Powell did such a good job in the Gulf, holding off until he had built up force levels to a degree that success was practically assured. Don't rate Rommel at all, won battles, but never won campaigns, because he didn't pay attention to logistics

Quote Reply

Canadian Grunt RE:Overrated generals 5/29/2002 10:23:58 AM

That depends on what end of the chain of command your on. But i'd like to know that an Army,or corp,right down to brig that the CO has done his home work, his staff is the best there is and my life is not being wasted on some whim. At this level they should have learned and have what it takes to command. Like so many WWI and WWII battles,something about charging a machine gun postion over 200 meters of broken terrain "because thats what the other 3 companys did" is not my idea of a great leader/Gen.... but just take a look at todays Gen that have been in the spot light do you think they fit into my Idealistic thinking...you mentioned Powell, Rommel did pay attention to logistics it was Hilter that refused him the support he needed.

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:Overrated generals 5/30/2002 12:59:55 AM

Canadian Grunt makes a good point about generals, like politicians, relying a lot more on their support staff than that staff is ever given credit for. I second CG's point that Rommel was given the short end of the stick (and the boondocks theatre of the war) by the German High Command, and could have been a very interesting foil for Patton had the two actually been going head to head. Powell did not achieve "as comprehensive a victory as possible," or we would not be stuck with the debate of whether or not to commit vast resources to deposing Saddam right now. However, in his defense, that decision at the time was not his to make. I appreciate the seldom-mentioned point that a general has to be more than a strategist, he has to be an inspirational leader. Rommel maintained some of the highest morale in an undersupplied army ever, or so I'm told. Lee did this as well; even when the shoes on their feet had long since broken and they were emptying their last stores of ammunition, the ANV was still determined to fight as long as Lee wanted them to. This is the thing I think has been truly lacking in America since WWII. We don't seem to produce the kind of people who can inspire the nation the way we used to. It's all about economics and statistics and logistics. I think America has come down with a complex of "if you can't put a dollar figure on it, it ain't important." Oration is apparently a lost art among American leaders, both military and political. --Phoenix Rising

Quote Reply

To phoenix Inspiring military leaders 5/31/2002 1:00:06 AM

I am sure their are some very inspring leaders amongst the ranks of the American officer corps. I think sometimes the press creates this image as well as posterity. If a war is controversial like Vietnam then I think it is harder for people to generate enthusiasm. The only General who comes to mind for Vietnam was Westmoreland. I think it can fair to say that he is not rated so well. Then you have Shwarzkov from the Gulf. I think he was lauded by the press but the war was very brief relatively speaking. I also got a little nauteous when people compared him to Patton. Pattons oppositon and his weapons weren't quite up to the level of superiority that the allies had in the Gulf. I often why Americans don't mention William Sherman more. His tactics were a true understanding of what the nature of war was going to be. I am also a great admirer of Joshua Chamberlain. Lee is made to seem bigger than life. Arrogance was I think his undoing at Gettysburg. Grant although some say unimaginative won a key victory at Vicksburg and ground the army of West Virginia into the dust. Montgomery is also underrated. He defeated Rommel. I think to one can look further back then World War 1. Oliver Cromwell was brilliant for example.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

	News As History - December 4, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us