| 22 JUN 2006 at 3:55pm |
Jarhead0331Colonel
Posts : 8733
Joined: 24 MAY 2006
Location: 0, Texas
Status : Offline | I love your disclaimers...good thread too...I won't Berate you because you were wise enough to not include any Marines on your list...
Anyway, I would add Brevet Major-General George Custer, who in the words of the great military historian, Tom Cruise:
"...wasn't a good general. He was arrogant and foolhardy, and he got massacred because he took a single battalion against two thousand angry Indians."
If Tom Cruise said it, its got to be the truth...come on, the guy talks to aliens...
"And They shall know no fear, for they are fear incarnate"
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 3:57pm |
airboyCommander
Posts : 2754
Joined: 24 AUG 2004
Location: 0
Status : Online | McArthur performed brilliantly in Korea. The Inchon landings and the ability to hold onto a port at the tip of South Korea were all excellent.
Jackson - I will leave that one to others.
Eisenhower - Probably the best example of a supurb combination political & military general. Leading a coalition force is extraordinarly hard. Eisehower once again demonstrated his excellent strategic thinking in bringing a resolution to the Korean conflict & his focus on developing mobility & logistics in the US armed forces while he was head of the joint chiefs after the war & later as President.
Let me put it this way, just who would you name that was better in long run strategic planning & intengrating mobility & logistics doctrines than Eisenhower? Only 1 major strategic error while he was in charge (Market-Garden) that also had major political ramifications? If only we could have cloned Ike & used him as head of the joint chiefs forever!
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 4:11pm |
elcidce91General
Posts : 9131
Joined: 29 JUL 2004
Location: US
Status : Offline | I think you should make this field commanders because part of being a General is putting up with the political BS and keeping armies together like Eisenhower did. I would remove him from your list and add others.
General Braxton Bragg. He almost single handedly gave Tennessee to the Union, and allowed Sherman to March to the Sea faster than a more skilled General would have.
US Grant should be near the tops of the list. Grant was determined to wage a war of attrition against the Confederates irregardless of his losses. The attacks at Cold Harbor are a good example of this. Instead of relying on skillful maneuver, he pushed bad positions and his men paid for it time and time again. The Crater at Petersburg and the Bloody Angle are good examples of this. Id rank him as mediocre at best and probably the most over rated.
Joe McClellan. Need I say more.
As much as I like Patton Id say there were many other commanders that had larger and more profound effects on the US military. Omar Bradley comes to mind. Patton was a brilliant commander but his lack of tact limited his ability to be a more effective general basically taking himself out of some commands he should have had like at DDay.
Run away!!
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 4:20pm |
keithroseCommander
Posts : 1937
Joined: 22 AUG 2003
Status : Offline | Don't know if Mark Clark qualifies as overrated as I doubt he was ever rated by anyone. However, his blunder in putting personal glory before military necessity during WW2 in Italy surely deserves a (dis)honourable mention.
Regards
keith
Regards
Keith
[i]I started out with nothing & I've still got most of it.[/i]
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 4:23pm |
billgCenturion
Posts : 490
Joined: 13 FEB 2008
Location: 0
Status : Offline | Jackson is such a complex and unusual character, I'm not sure how I would rate him in such a category. However, two things presented for reconsideration:
1. Most military historians rate his Valley Campaign as "brilliant" vice simply "effective."
2. Attack and Die? Maybe not. This comes out of Murffin's A Gleam of Bayonets. The night after Antietam Lee began to plan an attack on one of the Federal flanks using a massive grand battery to obliterate opposition thru artillery fire alone. Jackson found the likely artillery commander and asked point blank whether such a plan would work. The young officer replied that he could fight those guns better than anyone in the Confederate army. Jackson then noted that was not the question he asked but rather, would he succeed. The artillery commander sheepishly replied that in his professional opinion such a plan would not work, and then explained why. Jackson smiled and then patted the young man on the shoulder saying, "That's fine, now please go in this tent and tell General Lee exactly what you told me."
Lee called off the attack and a second day of Antietam never happened.
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 4:34pm |
billgCenturion
Posts : 490
Joined: 13 FEB 2008
Location: 0
Status : Offline | ORIGINAL: elcidce91
US Grant should be near the tops of the list. Grant was determined to wage a war of attrition against the Confederates irregardless of his losses. The attacks at Cold Harbor are a good example of this. Instead of relying on skillful maneuver, he pushed bad positions and his men paid for it time and time again. The Crater at Petersburg and the Bloody Angle are good examples of this. Id rank him as mediocre at best and probably the most over rated.
Actually, many historians are now pointing to Lee as the both the originator and master of attrition warfare in this campaign, with a deliberate goal of inflicting so many casualties that the 1864 elections might be influenced. Grant actually attempted time and time again to outflank the Confederate right (thus always keeping an LOC with Union naval forces), but Lee seemed to be two days ahead of him and was able to place the ANV directly in front of the AOP before Grant's flanking maneuver was complete. This forced a head-on assault, not because Grant desired it in most cases, but because Lee gave him little choice. Thus we have Cold Harbor, but let us not forget that Grant to his credit did not whimper away after such atrocities while his 1805-Ulm-strategy of the Indirect Approach at Vicksburg was Gawd Awful brilliant.
And before anyone asks, was born and raised in South Carolina, attended Wade Hampton Academy and had an ancestor who toted a musket in the 19th South Carolina Volunteer Infantry .
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 4:38pm |
AndyfromVACommander
Posts : 2139
Joined: 13 DEC 2002
Status : Online | It's hard for me to say that a general is bad if he ultimately wins. McArthur was a character, but he won. Same thing with Jackson, Eisenhower and Grant.
Lee performed well in many battles but failed in the most important one, Gettysburg. Therefore, he's my most overrated American general.
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 4:49pm |
Jarhead0331Colonel
Posts : 8733
Joined: 24 MAY 2006
Location: 0, Texas
Status : Offline | ORIGINAL: AndyfromVA
It's hard for me to say that a general is bad if he ultimately wins. McArthur was a character, but he won. Same thing with Jackson, Eisenhower and Grant.
Lee performed well in many battles but failed in the most important one, Gettysburg. Therefore, he's my most overrated American general.
Spoken like a true Virginian...[8|]
"And They shall know no fear, for they are fear incarnate"
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 4:54pm |
elcidce91General
Posts : 9131
Joined: 29 JUL 2004
Location: US
Status : Offline | I dont buy your claim that Lee was relying on and initiating Attrition warfare and Grant was being forced to attack. I think it was a case of Grant being out "generaled" and Lee taking the iniative. Lee fought where he wanted to which was necessary for his defensive strategy employed after the summer campaign of 1863. He dictated to Grant where the battles were fought on his advantageous terms.
Lees campaign in the Summer of 1863 was an attempt to influence the Euros to side with the South. At that point I dont think Lincoln was popular enough to be reelected based on the progress of the war. Taking the fight up north was a gamble that in the end worked out for the Union.
A night attack into prepared defensive postions shows grossly poor judgement on Grants part at Cold Harbor in my opinion. I believe in his memoirs admits this. I dont remember the exact quote but he wrote something about regretted ordering the attack. Also as a testament to his leadership skills the Grant Presidency was a mess as you know.
I did get the dates messed up. Good Catch.
Run away!!
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 5:14pm |
BesilariusCommander
Posts : 1543
Joined: 14 NOV 2003
Status : Offline | This is a difficult subject because everyone has some failure as they learn their jobs. By the changing nature of warfare, combat generals are always behind the learning curve, they have to recognize it first.
Macarthur. He was pompous, self-aggrandizing, and willing to rewrite history to look better. He also had the lowest casualties overall of any american theater commander during the war while advancing the greatest distance.
Jackson. I am a Longstreet fan myself. Jackson's Valley Campaign is one for the ages. His willingness to maneuver at Chancellorsville, and find the enemy flank is superb. However, it took Joe Hooker's nerves to give Lee and Jackson the chance. I am not so sure we would think so well of Stonewall if he had been facing experienced leaders in the early days. (Longstreet was in my thinking the heavy hitter. Second Manassas, 2nd day of Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and his attack in the Wilderness are four of the most effective attacks made in the Civil War. For one man to do all this shows great ability.)
Eisenhower. Ike never commanded troops in combat. He was not supposed to. He was like a football coach running the play of the offense and defense. With only minor bumps, he won.
Who do you believe could have done it better?
Who could have done it cheaper?
Who else could have kept both George Marshall and Winston Churchill happy? (This was a major part of being SHAEF.)
"When I must choose an officer to perform an act that requires a good brain, everything else being equal, I choose the one with the biggest nose." - Napoleon
"If you'll believe that, you'll believe anything." - the Duke of Wellington
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 5:17pm |
BismarckColonel
Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin
Status : Offline | The Citadel taught you Lee's second trip north was in 1864?
Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University 
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 5:20pm |
BismarckColonel
Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin
Status : Offline | If you only eate Grant on his campaign in the East, you're overlppking most of his career. He maneuvered well and relatively cheaply in the West.
As for Cold Harbor, think Malvern Hill. Also, it's George MccCellan and very few people rate him well. He could make a fine army but couldn't use it.
Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 5:42pm |
marvingardCommander
Posts : 2826
Joined: 13 APR 2007
Location: 0
Status : Offline | As much as I like Patton Id say there were many other commanders that had larger and more profound effects on the US military. Omar Bradley comes to mind. Patton was a brilliant commander but his lack of tact limited his ability to be a more effective general basically taking himself out of some commands he should have had like at DDay.
Yep... as much as I loved the balls-to-the-wall of Patton, he proved no better than other U.S. commanders against determined and fortified resistance. Also, his poor grasp of logistics would be shameful in any other commander.
I completely agree with Eisenhower. His total lack of strategic insight (or a lack of asserting it) prolonged the advance of the Western Front. Consider Tunisia, the Scheldt, Market Garden and his unwillingness to shore up his supply situations in the Fall of '44.
Grant is undoubtedly one of the most overrated commanders. An ability to learn from his mistakes and cold determination are undoubtedly his best qualities, and one uncommon among commanders (unusually). But he displayed questionable operational skill during his stint in West Tennessee, the Vicksburg Campaign and ultimately the Forty Days. Essentially he won his with brute and determination and little more. The Grant I know is the one Lee gave cause to cry at the Wilderness. []
Another one is Old Rough and Ready Zee Taylor. His army was so star-studded with future heroes and his PR work superb, we tend to forget that his victory at Buena Vista amounted to an unnecessary political risk, and that Monterrey was but a series of bloody and pointless assaults.
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 5:43pm |
USNA93Centurion
Posts : 265
Joined: 6 APR 2006
Status : Offline | Well - Wesley Clark - is pretty damned over rated as his opinion still seems to carry some weight around the local news, and I'm not sure what he accomplished that any 2nd LT couldn't have done as well or better...
Jackson - other than the valley campaign and 2nd Manassas and Chancelorsville - well, those pretty mean he lived up to his rep...
Grant - He who won the war in the West and East?? Yea, real over rated...
Ike? - name one of his contemporaries who could have managed the Brits and US, their egos and politics?? Generalship is much more than tactics and operations - it is strategy, politics, and logistics...
Most US generals of WWII deserve the reputation that they have - neither Patton, MacArthur, Bradley, Clark - or any others are thought of as gods and infallable - we all realize their strengths and weaknesses - ( we have the benefit of hindsite ) so we see them for who they are - none are overrated or underrated - we have them all just about right...
Same for the US Admirals of WWII -
And going back - the generalsl of 1812, Mexican-American war like Scott, Jackson, ect... these gentlemen deserve the rep they have -
It is only those generals who have served in the last 20 years or so ( Like Clark in Kosovo ) who we really don't have the benefit of hindsite and deep scholarly study to really understand their impact and choices on the events that made them.
Finally, to critisize any generals choices at the time, after 50 - 200 years of study and evaluation are disingenous. Only when a general made a wrong choice when all the available information at the time told them to make a differnt choice should we downgrade them. For those generals who made tough choices at a time when all the information available to them pointed to the wrong choice, or were inconclusive - we should really put ourselves in thier shoes, it that time, with that level of knowledge about warfare, ectt... and ask ourselves if we would have made a differnt choice...
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 5:47pm |
bboyer66Colonel
Posts : 4709
Joined: 17 APR 2006
Location: US, Pittsburgh PA
Status : Offline | Grant at the beginning of his Eastern Campaign used smash mouth tactics early on, but realised he could not keep up such tactics (and losses) and in the end outmaneuvered Lee ( Petersburg and Appamatox campaign). His campaign in Vicksburg is still studied ( maybe not at the Citadel), and is arguably the most brilliant campaign of the war considering the obstacles he faced in the deep South. Lets not forget his Chattanooga campaign as well. Just my opinion oh and my overrated
list #1. Yamamoto 2. Rommel 3. Schwartzopf
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 5:47pm |
cbclimberCenturion
Posts : 153
Joined: 7 MAR 2006
Status : Online | Remember...I said overrated, not neccessarily bad. But, regarding my choices...
For MacAuther read...
[b]MacArthur and Defeat in the Philippines[/b] by Richard Connaughton
(Mac really really really should have been sacked considering how much warning he had prior to the japanese attack...that and his financial dealings during the war were really criminal.)
For Jackson read...
[b]Stonewall in the Valley [/b] by Robert Tanner
(One must ask if Jackson made the best use of his subordinates. I say no...just my opinion. As far as the Valley Campaign, it could have easily turned on him...he was aggresive, imaginative, but above all, he was lucky in the valley. There is a line between respect and hate...he had a lot of terrific commanders who hated him. Had he not been killed its a good bet that it would have caught up with him, as it did Bragg...again my opinion)
As for Ike, he had never been a field commander and it showed in late 44 ([i]I agree with Monty on this[/i]). A decisive blow needed to take place. But they desperately wanted to see what the airborne arm could do...they found out. A southern attack would have been easier to exploit and support, which is exactly what they needed to get to Berlin.
Finally, as for overrated marine commanders ([i]every branch has them sorry[/i]), I can think of a few. But, Vendergrift comes to mind here. He could manage subordinates ([i]the 1st marine had an odd but talented group[/i]) very well and administer his division. But he was not very imaginative in his conduct on Guadalcanal. He was slow to realize that the Japanese only needed to interdict Henderson, not physically sieze it...fortunately for him the Japanese were slower on the uptake. He just did not coordinate his attacks well on the island. He was promoted, but everyone knew the bloom was off the rose where he was concerned. I won't mention those responsible for the Tarawa planning debacle...too easy!
Someone mention Bragg in the thread...I don't think he was considered overrated...his failures as a field commander are well documented.
Suprised no one has mentioned Bill Halsey. An almost non-entity by the end of the war...the technology had passed him by and his staff did his thinking for him.
More 20/20...gotta love it!
"Benteen—Come on—Big village—Be quick—Bring packs".....G.A. Custer
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 6:13pm |
billgCenturion
Posts : 490
Joined: 13 FEB 2008
Location: 0
Status : Offline | ORIGINAL: elcidce91
I dont buy your claim that Lee was relying on and initiating Attrition warfare and Grant was being forced to attack. I think it was a case of Grant being out "generaled" and Lee taking the iniative. Lee fought where he wanted to which was necessary for his defensive strategy employed after the summer campaign of 1864. He dictated to Grant where the battles were fought on his advantageous terms.
I think you might have mixed up your dates, but regardless its not my claim. This comes from James McPherson's celebrated Battle Cry of Freedom, pp 734-735, and actually, you are agreeing with him (quote):
"Grant's purpose was not a war of attrition - though numerous historians have mislabeled it thus. From the outset he tried to maneuver Lee into open-field combat, where Union superiority in numbers and firepower could cripple the enemy. It was Lee who turned it into a war of attrition by skillfully matching Grant's moves and confronting him with an entrenched defense at every turn. Although it galled Lee to yield the initiative to an opponent, his defensive strategy exacted two enemy casualties for every one of his own. This was a rate of attrition that might stun northern voters into denying Lincoln re-election and ending the war."
McPherson then goes thru Cold Harbor ending with Meade's somber letter to his wife, "I think Grant has had his eyes opened, and is willing to admit now that Virginia and Lee's army is not Tennessee and Bragg's army."
The way I read this is that the author is noting Lee's superior generalship over Grant. Nevertheless, Grant was brilliant at Vicksburg, an absolute disaster as a president and in the end likely over rated IMHO. He, however, was not the bumbling butcher many of your and my kinfolk might like to believe.
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 6:40pm |
bluenosedvikingCenturion
Posts : 150
Joined: 13 MAR 2006
Status : Online | Bill,
In what way was Grant brilliant at Vicksburg? I'm looking at the forces available to him and am, quite frankly, perplexed.
Kurt
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 6:56pm |
cbclimberCenturion
Posts : 153
Joined: 7 MAR 2006
Status : Online | Someone mentioned Custer earlier and I think you have it wrong. George was not overrated, he was underrated. Perhaps no cavalry commander (equal to N.B. Forrest) was as courageous in battle as Custer...He personally led his attacks from the front ([i]point man general[/i]). His meteoric rise in the Union army was no accident, nor was it political. By wars end he was considered the preeminent combat calvalry commander in the army. He battled unsuccessfully agains the Grant administration to stop the exploitation of the indians and their territory. Nevertheless, Custer developed the tactics needed to defeat the indians and was in most cases very successful ([i]thats why he got the command for the 1876 campaign[/i]).He used the same tactics of dividing and encirling indian camps as he had done in the past. The Indians, fresh from victory against Crooks (unknown to Custer) column had gained the confidence to fight him. That being said, a lot has been written about his failure to manage his subordinates wisely. Yes he got himself and a large portion of his command killed at the Little Big Horn. But, his actions on that day were not negligent...he just did what had been succesfull in the past. The indians had never before or since had that many warriors at one location. Any unit, indian or otherwise that is, fresh from recent victory is always going to be a tough customer. George found that out the hard way in June of 1876. Had Reno attacked the camp full throttle as ordered, the battle may have been either better or worse. Probably the most written about battle of all time...LOTS of what ifs. Custer has been labeled a glory hound and to some extent that is true...but more than that, Custer and his brother Tom were addicted to battle...."in case of war, break glass" kind of guys.
20-20 and all...All spelling mistakes are mine alone...
"Benteen—Come on—Big village—Be quick—Bring packs".....G.A. Custer
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 7:17pm |
bboyer66Colonel
Posts : 4709
Joined: 17 APR 2006
Location: US, Pittsburgh PA
Status : Offline | Besides the fact he had only around 28000 men effective with an opposing Army of a number greater then himself plus Joe Johnston with 15000 more troops in the area, plus fighting in the worse terrain the South had to offer. "In the battles from Port Gibson to Vicksburg Grant lost 9,855 men, of whom 1,223 were killed. In these engagements he had made 37,000 prisoners; and the Confederates had lost, besides, 10,000 killed and wounded, with a vast number of stragglers". Maybe now you wont be so perplexed.
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 7:29pm |
bluenosedvikingCenturion
Posts : 150
Joined: 13 MAR 2006
Status : Online | bboyer66
According to the West Point Military Series Atlas for the American Civil War Grant had 36000 in the immediate area and 62000 in Memphis under Hurlbut, his XVI Corps commander. Is that in error?
Kurt
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 7:54pm |
bboyer66Colonel
Posts : 4709
Joined: 17 APR 2006
Location: US, Pittsburgh PA
Status : Offline | Yes there were troops in Memphis, sitting around doing nothing, I do believe they were under Hallecks control not Grant. Please read about the campaign in Shelby Footes Civil War ( Arguably the best history, due to the fact he shows how the Western Theater was as important as the Eastern), numbers of troops in an atlas really dont say much about the difficulties Grant faced.
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 8:01pm |
gdpsnakeCenturion
Posts : 30
Joined: 15 APR 2006
Status : Offline | As to Ike,
He was the Supreme Commander in Europe and as such, was a political general and not a military general. His primary job was to keep the Allied effort moving forward and he did that the best anyone could have considering the compromises required.
The British demanded time and time again for allied efforts to support their Mediterranean, Near and Far East imperialism and colony maintenance. Let's face it, we invaded in North Africa for what? It was a waste of time as the Africa Korps was already a sidenote and there was little possibility they would have offerered any real threat to interests in Egypt.
And Let's not forget Italy - why?! Italy/Sicily was a waste of time. Italy was certainly not making a big splash in terms of Axis power commitment and if left alone, would most likely have turned sides after a European offensive or simply had a 'revolution' in their government. I believe Mussolini held on thanks to German support and propaganda and if the Germans were heavily involved in France, that support would have been much less. Some would say we tied down German divisions in Italy but how many and how much considering what the Allies invested?
Why not France in 43? Mainly, the lack of landing craft is cited in most cases but suppose the use of all the resources were not wasted in those other places and focused in early 43. I think the Allies were ready and the Germans less so considering the scrambling on the Eastern Front.
In any case, Ike had to maintain the momentum fighting the varied interests of America, Britain, their commonwealth allies (not British puppets mind you), France (Free and Vichy), Poles and a slew of others.
A magnificent juggling act of compromise and strategic goal planning. Perhaps his biggest failure was giving into the Market Garden offensive but this was one where he was 'bullied' into something he personally (as did many) doubted but had 'gotten his way on other compromises' and so needed to agree to a British thrust.
We all know the political situation best magnified as the Patton versus Montgomery rivalry (which in reality was US versus UK). The UK had been fighting since '39 and the US was the relative newcomer and was slow to do even that. There was a large pro German movement in America in the early years and isolationism was the biggest issue in America broken only by Pearl Harbor and U-boat antics in the North Atlantic. Many historians will still speculate on whether actions by Roosevelt and Churchill like loading civil passenger liners with munitions weren't arranged to get U-boat aggression in the news to force America to act. This is also speculated to be a tactic used to get America into WW1. And we've all heard that Pearl Harbor may have been 'more a certainly and less acted upon' than should have been.
Yet, I digress. Ike's job was to be the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and that's a wholly political appointment. His job was politics and he did very well keeping the squabbling down and the Allies focused on victory. He didn't really have supreme command and cound not dictate the strategic goals as a general in true command might desire. After all, Hitler was only 'one side' and he kept his Theater Commanders from acting 'in the best interests of the Army - like stopping the panzers short in France, not releasing the reserves on D-Day, allowing a retreat at Stalingrad...the list goes on.
Eisenhower had to deal with Roosevelt, Churchill, DeGaul, Petain, and numerous smaller power leaders each with their own agenda. Oops, I forgot Stalin and while Russians weren't 'under Ike' they certainly made their desires known and 'gummed up' Allied focus at conferences like Yalta.
snake
|
| 22 JUN 2006 at 8:24pm |
endfire79Commander
Posts : 1315
Joined: 25 JAN 2005
Status : Offline | ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
Let's face it, we invaded in North Africa for what? It was a waste of time as the Africa Korps was already a sidenote and there was little possibility they would have offerered any real threat to interests in Egypt.
And Let's not forget Italy - why?! Italy/Sicily was a waste of time..
I disagree on a few points.
1) Dieppe already showed that much more preparation was needed before storming Fortress Europe en masse.
2) A 2nd front had to opened at some point, as the bulk of the German forces were concentrated on the Eastern Front. Dieppe showed invading France would be folly at the time.
3) As long as the Axis was in the Mediterranean, the Suez & the Middle East would be at risk.
4) The Americans learned that they could beat the German 'ubermensch' during the lessons of North Africa.
5) Italy was unfavorable terrain for the Allies, however it did tie down German divisions there. The allies had the advantage of choosing when/where they would attack in Europe, the Germans did not, as they were eventually forced to defend and use up resources on all fronts, and after Kursk and Sicily, they could not take the initiative in the war.
[i]
...just another night at the Mos Eisley Cantina. ~[b]Gusington[/b]
[/i]
[i]
[/i]
|
