Good American Commanders (1 Viewer)

[VanguardFC007]

I thought this quote from President John F. Kennedy might fit well in this thread:

"For those to whom much is given; much is required. When at some future date, the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state, our success or failure in whatever office we hold will be measured by the answers to four questions. First: Were we truly men of courage? Second: Were we truly men of judgment? Third: Were we truly men of integrity? And finally: Were we truly men of dedication?"

 

[Spitfrnd]

It is interesting to me that we have gotten this far into a thread of this title and no one has yet mentioned Washington. Certainly he made his mistakes but I don't think it is much of a stretch to say but for him, we would have been a colony as long as Canada. To me, he passes the Kennedy test rather well, while some of the other commanders previously noted have some difficulty with the second or third questions.

 

[VanguardFC007]

That speech was given by Kennedy when George Marshall passed away in October of 1959. So it goes without saying that Marshall would fit as an answer to all four.

Marshall more than any other man was indispensable to the US war effort in World War Two. As the head military mind it was his job to balance two competing fronts. He actually had the chance to be placed in charge of SHAEF over Eisenhower but Marshall had the good sense to stay stateside and lead.

 

[Bama Boy]

I happen to be a big fan of Robert E. Lee, and consider him perhaps the greatest "Napoleonic" style General who ever lived. That being said, the one truly big mistake he ever made absolutely cost the Confederacy the war. His mistake was believing his men were better than the men they faced, and so significantly better that they could accomplish an impossible task - Pickett's Charge. That irrationale faith in forces composed of mere human beings like the men across the field was combined with the equally irrationale belief that abandoning the field of battle and maneuvering to a position where the Union forces would have to attack him, would somehow destroy this invincibility. As a result he killed the flower of his army, and gave Lincoln the victory he needed to bolster his re-election. Blaming Longstreet (who espoused the correct strategy) for this is in my eyes being a Lee appologist. Blaming Stuart (who did screw up by circumnavigating the Union forces and failing to act as Lee's eyes) is equally incorrect, as had Lee made the correct decision and disengaged Stuart's failings would have been irrelevant. The Confederate defeat at Gettysburg must fall on Lee's shoulders. Once he gave the (frankly incredibly stupid) order that launched Pickett's Charge, he cost the Confederacy its one chance at winning the war. That one order undid all of the victories he had accomplished throughout the entire war in one fateful day.

It is hard for me to discuss or believe in, an action that never took place. So to say that Longsteet's strategy was the right strategy is hard to know, in my view. I do agree that General Lee could have/should have changed his direction. But again, he had been right so many times before, and was right more times after that.

I also do not agree that this was the one chance that the Confederacy had to win the war. If Gettysburg would have resulted in a Confederate victory, would things have been different, of course. But to think that would have been the last, win all battle, is something that I would not think would be true.

I really believe that the war was being lost every single day. Everyday that the Confederacy lost a man that could not be replaced, the was got closer to a decision. Probably to me, and if we look at history, nothing seem to doom the Confederacy more than the day that Stonewall Jackson was killed. They never replaced him and the Army Of Northern Virginia lost the offensive arm that had brought them victory.

 

[jazzeum]

I'll have to slightly disagree with Louis about the importance of Gettysburg to Lincoln's re-election in 1864. Although important at the time, by the fall of 1864, more than a year later, the war was going very badly for the Union, with no apparent end in sight.

Lincoln was convinced he was going to lose and had begun to make preparations for that eventuality.

What changed things was the capture of Atlanta, which guaranteed his election and was the beginning of the end as Sherman began his march up the Carolinas with Thomas taking care of matters in his rear and Grant finally starting to push down south on Lee.

 

[VanguardFC007]

The more I read of Master of War, the more I question how good Grant and Sherman really were. Its a bit hard to throw out years of teaching after reading just one book, but it does make me curious.

 

[Peter Reuss]

It's interesting to ponder what would have happened if Lee had commanded the Union forces. The reality is that at the outbreak of war, Leee didn't exactly inspire much confidence even on the Southern side (remember the Granny Lee comments).

Lee was excellent at facing a superior (though often timid) force, taking risks, and gaining victory. Would he have quickly gained victory if he had the superior force? If he had faced generals as timid as the Union ones...yes. How would he have fared with a superior Union force against a competent Confederate foe? History will never know, though the South could do much better than Pope, Hooker, Burnside, and McClellan.

 

[UKReb]

It is hard for me to discuss or believe in, an action that never took place. So to say that Longsteet's strategy was the right strategy is hard to know, in my view. I do agree that General Lee could have/should have changed his direction. But again, he had been right so many times before, and was right more times after that.

I also do not agree that this was the one chance that the Confederacy had to win the war. If Gettysburg would have resulted in a Confederate victory, would things have been different, of course. But to think that would have been the last, win all battle, is something that I would not think would be true.

I really believe that the war was being lost every single day. Everyday that the Confederacy lost a man that could not be replaced, the was got closer to a decision. Probably to me, and if we look at history, nothing seem to doom the Confederacy more than the day that Stonewall Jackson was killed. They never replaced him and the Army Of Northern Virginia lost the offensive arm that had brought them victory.

I believe Peter and myself had a similar conversation on this subject a couple of years ago but I think it's worth repeating as it's very relevant to this topic

Gettysburg has been described as The Confederate Highwater mark, but most students of the war realise that was not the case. The very best chance the Confederacy had was the late summer of 1862 when Lee first crossed the Potomac, Braggs army was in Kentucky in an effort to impose Rebel rule and other Reb forces under Van Dorn & Sterling Price were pushing forward in Mississippi, but all too swiftly all of these efforts were stopped dead with Confederate defeats in Antietam, Perryville, Iuka and Corinth, an offensive across such a broad front was more of a high tide than Gettysburg. Gettysburg was in fact a mere splash in an ever reducing pond that was fast being emptied by the Confederate mismanagement of it's western theatre of operations. And there was nothing Lee could do to stop the rot even if he had had Jackson by his side, his outstanding victories in the East only achieved to keep Confederates hopes of independence alive for a few more months as he was never able to completely destroy the Army of the Potomac.

Gettysburg has gone down in history as the great "What if?" but even if Lee had carried the day (and no way would his army have been able to threaten Washington let alone capture it) it was already far too late for the Confederacy to gain it's Independence, because the war by July 1863 was already lost courtesy of Johnston, Bragg, Pemberton and Beauregard all overseed by Davis who never got to grips with them or the Western Confederate strategy.


Reb

 

[jazzeum]

War is not won, contrary to our notions of bravery and so forth, but by industrial might. The North could draw upon untold economic resources that the South could only dream of.

Another example: as soon as the USA entered WW II, it was all over. Neither the Germans nor Japanese could ever summon forth the economic might the Allies had at their disposal. In Operation Goodwood, the British lost scores of tanks but they had scores more ready to take their place. Meanwhile the Germans could not replace neither men nor materiel.

War is won by logistics.

 

[VanguardFC007]

War is won by logistics.

Not always. The Roman's were very well supplied but they built a wall instead of going after Scotland. I guess they watched Braveheart the night before

 

[Spitfrnd]

War is not won, contrary to our notions of bravery and so forth, but by industrial might. The North could draw upon untold economic resources that the South could only dream of.

Another example: as soon as the USA entered WW II, it was all over. Neither the Germans nor Japanese could ever summon forth the economic might the Allies had at their disposal. In Operation Goodwood, the British lost scores of tanks but they had scores more ready to take their place. Meanwhile the Germans could not replace neither men nor materiel.

War is won by logistics.

I don't think that is completely true, nor has it been through history. The Allies could have lost WWII if a few key battles had gone the other way, as they nearly lost WWI. We lost Vietnam and only managed a shaky draw in Korea despite our relative industrial might. Athens and Sparta and the relatively small Greek City states twice defeated the mighty Persian Empire. Sparta led its allies to win the Peloponnesian War despite the logistical supremacy of Athens and its allies. Rome both lost with logistics in its favor and won when they were not. The same is true for Alexander and the French in the Napoleonic Wars. And then there is Genghis Khan.

There is no question that a logistical advantage is a significant factor in the outcome but it usually takes more than that to actually win. At the end of the day, it does frequently come down to those "notions" of bravery and the will to win and the skill of the commanders.

 

[Whistlinghen]

Louis,
My comments were purely World War 2 related on Macarthur. I also would argue had Patton and MacArthur been allowed to go after who they believe the true enemy was, the world may be a different place.

As for the World War 1 veterans, I thought that was only MacArthur, I don't recall Patton's involvement, but i could be wrong.

Those times were different warfare and it is hard to judge WW2 tactics today. I still say Patton knew full well what he was doing and believed the tactics to be the only effective means, his battlefield strategy was pretty good no matter what your personal beliefs are.

Back to MacArthur in the Korean war, I am not so sure his move necessarily matters much, the Chinese had their own agenda regardless of our moves.


Tom

This goes back to one of the great divides in historical analysis,logistics vs. courage (for want of a better term). Despite having been reared in a family that revered MacArthur (my grandfather, an army major, even resembled him), I tend towards the logistical school (and MacArthur's action against the Bonus Army was a disgrace). I'm not an expert on Patton, but from what I've heard, his victory on Sicily was largely against Montgomery-their rivalry actually allowed the German/Italian force to escape and fight again. Turning on the Russians at the end of WWII is another battle that gets refought, but many forget how the Russians vastly outnumbered the West. As for MacArthur, his disobedience could have drawn us into a war with both Russia and China with incredible devastation. The "what if" game is great fun though! If we'd lost the AWI, the results wouldn't have been as simple as hockey being the national sport. There would have been no French Revolution, thus no Lousiana Purchase... a real "butterfly effect". Cheers, Emily

 

[Spitfrnd]

This goes back to one of the great divides in historical analysis,logistics vs. courage (for want of a better term). Despite having been reared in a family that revered MacArthur (my grandfather, an army major, even resembled him), I tend towards the logistical school (and MacArthur's action against the Bonus Army was a disgrace). I'm not an expert on Patton, but from what I've heard, his victory on Sicily was largely against Montgomery-their rivalry actually allowed the German/Italian force to escape and fight again. Turning on the Russians at the end of WWII is another battle that gets refought, but many forget how the Russians vastly outnumbered the West. As for MacArthur, his disobedience could have drawn us into a war with both Russia and China with incredible devastation. The "what if" game is great fun though! If we'd lost the AWI, the results wouldn't have been as simple as hockey being the national sport. There would have been no French Revolution, thus no Lousiana Purchase... a real "butterfly effect". Cheers, Emily

Yes the alternate history analysis can become rather mindboggling. I am not so sure their would have been no French revolution or Napoleon without American independence? The pressure for that change in France was rather strong without the American example. Unfortunately we have no computer "bright enough" to run those scenarios properly so we will just have to continue our musings.

 

[VanguardFC007]

After putting in some research I have to come back and question Sherman and possibly Grant's spots on the list. Sherman is widely held in high esteem because of his March to the Sea. But in retrospect that march didnt accomplish much other than turning the populace of the Deep South even further against the North and making Reconstruction more difficult. The real goal for Sherman shouldve been the elimination of Hood's Army of Tennessee. In this regard Sherman totally failed. If General George Thomas doesnt expertly execute the Battle of Nashville as he did, Hood retakes Tennessee and is then free to move through the North and into Virginia to assist Lee against Grant. Sherman even grudgingly acknowledges that without Thomas' success, he (Sherman) doesnt succeed.

Grant I question because of his tactics. Yes, Grant realized the key to winning was the destruction of the Southern Armies. But on numerous occasions Grant was a hindrance to his own cause. At Shiloh Grant didnt take the time to encamp his Army correctly and so A.S. Johnston was able to launch the stunning attack that he did. The death of Johnston and the arrival of a Union Army under Buell saved Grant. Without Buell's forces, Grant would have been pushed into the river. Later in the East Grant went through his butcher phase. His tactics didnt show much creativity beyond throwing his forces at Lee. Sure he killed men Lee could not replace but he did so at the cost of the veterans of the Army of the Potomac.

Grant and Sherman also got the curse of many a 19th century general, politics. They bickered amongst each other and did their darndest to discredit their peers, in particular George Thomas. Grant on numerous occasions tried to have Thomas relieved for being slow, especially around the time of Nashville. While Thomas was refitting the "rotten leftovers" of Sherman's army to be useful in operations, Grant was constantly trying to get him to move. It should be noted that Grant himself was tied up and not moving his own army against Lee.

 

[DCN1898]

I think that Sherman had the correct plan to defeat the southern will to fight. He was masterful in his march through Georgia and the Carolinas avoiding pitched battles with the exception of Kennesaw and Atlanta. I think that Hoods attack on Nashville was doomed from the start. George Thomas could mount a sound defense as he showed at Chicamauga and Hood army was too small even if he had won at Nashville to hold it long against the North's superior numbers.
I think that Grant's greatness was in coordinating all of the federal armies to press the war and not let the South shift troops, again as they did at Chicamauga.
i put my vote in for great American general for John A. Logan of Illinois. He started the war as a pro southern democrat and rose to command in the western armies. As a congressman after the war he sponsored the bill that established Memorial Day.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I think that Sherman had the correct plan to defeat the southern will to fight. He was masterful in his march through Georgia and the Carolinas avoiding pitched battles with the exception of Kennesaw and Atlanta. .....

Just so you know, not all of us consider that plan so "correct" but I will defer raising the reasons why in the interests of peace and harmony.

 

[Currahee Chris]

War is not won, contrary to our notions of bravery and so forth, but by industrial might. Another example: as soon as the USA entered WW II, it was all over. Neither the Germans nor Japanese could ever summon forth the economic might the Allies had at their disposal. In Operation Goodwood, the British lost scores of tanks but they had scores more ready to take their place. Meanwhile the Germans could not replace neither men nor materiel.

War is won by logistics.

Hmmmm... Interesting- can't say I agree 100% but certainly won't downplay the impact logistics has. At the end of the day though, I just cannot see wars aren't won with boots on the ground- your trigger pullers gotta make the plays. There were various stages throughout WW2 (ETO) where we could still have fumbled and lost the game. The 101st stand at Bastogne is a key example. They break, who knows where it ends up.

 

[Currahee Chris]

It is interesting to me that we have gotten this far into a thread of this title and no one has yet mentioned Washington. Certainly he made his mistakes but I don't think it is much of a stretch to say but for him, we would have been a colony as long as Canada. To me, he passes the Kennedy test rather well, while some of the other commanders previously noted have some difficulty with the second or third questions.

Agreed- I think ole George was the best we ever had.

 

[Currahee Chris]

For my money, the best general this country produced in the 20th century was Norman Schwartkopf. His planning and execution of Operation Desert Storm was flawless.

For WWII, I am big fan of James Gavin, who was possible the finest commander of airborne forces of all time.

For overall infantry commanders, I think hands down the best was Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson (who, strangely enough, was an artillery instructor).

For "Napoleonic" style commanders, Robert E. Lee was far and away the best this country ever produced . . . do you ever wonder how a battle of Lee versus Wellington as commanders would have turned out?

For best general in a supporting role, I would give a three way tie to Jackson (Lee), William Tecumsah Sherman (Grant) and Omar Bradley (Ike).

I would vote for General Maurice Rose as the best commander of an Armored Division in WWII (3rd Spearhead Armored Division).

This country has produced some absolutely fantastic air commanders, such as Clair Chenault (A.V.G.), and Jimmy Doolittle.

I think Blackjack Pershing deserves an Honorable Mention for having the good sense to tell the french to go spit when they wanted the American Expeditionary Force to be split up and put into the trenches piecemeal under French command, and for how quickly his forces figured out the tactics it took several years and millions of casualties for the British and French commanders to adopt.

Pretty good list bud, hard to argue it. Stormin' Norman, well, he was solid though had some very negative views on the Rangers (of which he was one) which I think didn't win him any fans from those guys. I think part of what helped there was that he had massive political support and clearly clearly defined mission parameters.

Re General Gavin- certainly a hard charger if there ever was one. One thing to be careful of though is that airborne troopers are nothing more than grunts who enter the fray from above- saying such and such is an excellent airborne general is like saying perhaps Gen Roosevelt was the best LCVP commander we ever had. Airborne forces are infantry divisions that insert into a combat zone via the air. Their mission is still the same as any other- groundpounder- find and destroy the enemy and his warfighting capability.

Cheers
CC

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Pretty good list bud, hard to argue it. Stormin' Norman, well, he was solid though had some very negative views on the Rangers (of which he was one) which I think didn't win him any fans from those guys. I think part of what helped there was that he had massive political support and clearly clearly defined mission parameters.

Re General Gavin- certainly a hard charger if there ever was one. One thing to be careful of though is that airborne troopers are nothing more than grunts who enter the fray from above- saying such and such is an excellent airborne general is like saying perhaps Gen Roosevelt was the best LCVP commander we ever had. Airborne forces are infantry divisions that insert into a combat zone via the air. Their mission is still the same as any other- groundpounder- find and destroy the enemy and his warfighting capability.

Cheers
CC

Chris, gotta agree on Stormin' Norman, my father fought in Just Cause, Desert Shield, and Desert Storm, my father BTW was a Ranger, and served with the 82nd and isn't very fond of Norman! That said, I don't think it's right to say the airborne is just the same as any other unit, the airborne is elite, and airborne unit is the best light infantry one can insert onto the field of engagement. Also, a paratrooper can be caught off without support for hours, and be on his own, with his only friend being his rifle! Remember, before some officer said eveyrone else should be able to wear a beret it was only what units that could wear a beret....AIRBORNE!!! But, what can I say, I'm biased as a proud son of a paratrooper!

Respects, and All the Best!
Vick