Who is America's greatest General/Admiral?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kid_Kyoto**

My first thoughts were MacArthur and Nimitz because anyone who fights a land-sea war across the entire Pacific against an army of suicidal fanatics (and wins) has my respect.

Oliver Hazard Perry also gets a vote from me. Besides building a navy from scatch and kicking the British out of the Great Lakes in the War of 1812, he also had the good taste to choose Trinidad as his final resting place. Lapeyrouse Cemetery, center of town, convenient to Carnival and all the good bars. Shame they later re-interred him in New England.

**SGTPozy**

Donald Trump? He'll be the best!

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
MacArthur was a mixed bag as a general. He blew the start of the Pacific War, then redeemed himself during the rest of the campaign, of course dependent on naval support.

The Inchon landings were a massive strategic success, but MacArthur's obsession with conquering the whole Korean peninsular and kicking the "Commies" in the nuts led to a dangerous overextension of his forces that was disastrous when China came in to support the North Koreans. Let's remember that the separation of Korea now is almost exactly where it was before the war began, and a lot of people died to make it that way.

His real success was as de facto governor of Japan starting in 1945, which was of course a diplomatic/political post. Against that, his meddling in domestic US politics helped to cause his dismissal by Truman during the Korean War.

Personally I've always had a soft spot for US Grant.

The Truman administration deserves some of the blame for the Korean War - it wasn't all MacArthur's fault.

...

I didn't say it was.

I can't remember without going back to my Korean War history books if MacArthur was responsible for the general area that included Korea. He probably was, as it is next door to Japan, but of course there was a lot of penny pinching by Washington after the end of WW2, and MacArthur was not the man on the ground in Korea anyway.

**squidhills**

Kilkrazy wrote:
MacArthur was a mixed bag as a general. He blew the start of the Pacific War, then redeemed himself during the rest of the campaign, of course dependent on naval support.

The Inchon landings were a massive strategic success, but MacArthur's obsession with conquering the whole Korean peninsular and kicking the "Commies" in the nuts led to a dangerous overextension of his forces that was disastrous when China came in to support the North Koreans. Let's remember that the separation of Korea now is almost exactly where it was before the war began, and a lot of people died to make it that way.

These are all good reasons to disqualify Mac Arthur, but they don't even touch on what is, in my opinion, the best reason to discount MacArthur as a general: his actions against the Bonus Army/Bonus Marchers.

It was bad enough that he ordered cavalry (including six tanks) to charge the veterans of the First World War and their families, or that he sent infantry in with fixed bayonets and tear gas to force the marchers out and burn their possessions (in the height of the Great Depression that might be everything a family owned) causing one woman to miscarry and a twelve week old child to die, but that after being told to stop the attack by President Hoover, he ignored his orders and continued to attack the marchers.

MacArthur is the lowest of the low. Prior to fleeing the Philippines and leaving thousands of his men to die at the hands of the Japanese, the high point of his military career was a cavalry charge against unarmed veterans and their families. I don't care what a man's strategic and tactical command acumen may or may not be: if he orders a military assault against peaceful veterans of the same military he is currently serving in, he disqualifies himself from any kind of consideration as a "great" general.

**aldo**

Yeah, MacArthur's genius only goes so far to justify disobeying direct orders, openly opposing his commander in chief and basically betraying the people he was supposed to serve. If you add that he hired Willoughby... that's criminal incompetence. And then we get to his mommy's constant lobbying and harrassement of the government to get him up the stairs.

I'm voting Frederick Townsend Ward, mainly because he is an obscure wildcard, but also because after his first failure he was a genuinely good general who made an army from very little and pulled off some pretty impresive feats.
Also, he didn't serve in the American army, which makes him even better.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

squidhills wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
MacArthur was a mixed bag as a general. He blew the start of the Pacific War, then redeemed himself during the rest of the campaign, of course dependent on naval support.

The Inchon landings were a massive strategic success, but MacArthur's obsession with conquering the whole Korean peninsular and kicking the "Commies" in the nuts led to a dangerous overextension of his forces that was disastrous when China came in to support the North Koreans. Let's remember that the separation of Korea now is almost exactly where it was before the war began, and a lot of people died to make it that way.

These are all good reasons to disqualify Mac Arthur, but they don't even touch on what is, in my opinion, the best reason to discount MacArthur as a general: his actions against the Bonus Army/Bonus Marchers.

It was bad enough that he ordered cavalry (including six tanks) to charge the veterans of the First World War and their families, or that he sent infantry in with fixed bayonets and tear gas to force the marchers out and burn their possessions (in the height of the Great Depression that might be everything a family owned) causing one woman to miscarry and a twelve week old child to die, but that after being told to stop the attack by President Hoover, he ignored his orders and continued to attack the marchers.

MacArthur is the lowest of the low. Prior to fleeing the Philippines and leaving thousands of his men to die at the hands of the Japanese, the high point of his military career was a cavalry charge against unarmed veterans and their families. I don't care what a man's strategic and tactical command acumen may or may not be: if he orders a military assault against peaceful veterans of the same military he is currently serving in, he disqualifies himself from any kind of consideration as a "great" general.

I appreciate he was a man of his time, but Sherman's desire, expressed quite openly, to wipe out the Sioux Nation, would be treated as a war crime and genocide in this day and age...

It's unfair to hold MacArthur to one standard, and then turn a blind eye to the actions of other US generals.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

aldo wrote:
Yeah, MacArthur's genius only goes so far to justify disobeying direct orders, openly opposing his commander in chief and basically betraying the people he was supposed to serve. If you add that he hired Willoughby... that's criminal incompetence. And then we get to his mommy's constant lobbying and harrassement of the government to get him up the stairs.

I'm voting Frederick Townsend Ward, mainly because he is an obscure wildcard, but also because after his first failure he was a genuinely good general who made an army from very little and pulled off some pretty impresive feats.
Also, he didn't serve in the American army, which makes him even better.

What about Robert E Lee?

He betrayed the Union, was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, and yet, he has been rehabilitated so much so, he has numerous high schools and buildings named after him...

I voted for MacArthur, but I'm the first to admit that he was fatally flawed in many respects, but to give MacArthur's reputation a hard time, but ignore the open treason of Lee and Stonewall Jackson, is a strange argument IMO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
MacArthur was a mixed bag as a general. He blew the start of the Pacific War, then redeemed himself during the rest of the campaign, of course dependent on naval support.

The Inchon landings were a massive strategic success, but MacArthur's obsession with conquering the whole Korean peninsular and kicking the "Commies" in the nuts led to a dangerous overextension of his forces that was disastrous when China came in to support the North Koreans. Let's remember that the separation of Korea now is almost exactly where it was before the war began, and a lot of people died to make it that way.

His real success was as de facto governor of Japan starting in 1945, which was of course a diplomatic/political post. Against that, his meddling in domestic US politics helped to cause his dismissal by Truman during the Korean War.

Personally I've always had a soft spot for US Grant.

The Truman administration deserves some of the blame for the Korean War - it wasn't all MacArthur's fault.

...

I didn't say it was.

I can't remember without going back to my Korean War history books if MacArthur was responsible for the general area that included Korea. He probably was, as it is next door to Japan, but of course there was a lot of penny pinching by Washington after the end of WW2, and MacArthur was not the man on the ground in Korea anyway.

Apologies for not being more clearer. What I meant to say was that after Inchon, when the UN forces pushed all the way to the Chinese border, Truman should have had a clearer plan for the outcome of the war.

MacArthur is partially to blame for the Chinese intervention, but the Truman administration is equally culpable.

**aldo**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

aldo wrote:
Yeah, MacArthur's genius only goes so far to justify disobeying direct orders, openly opposing his commander in chief and basically betraying the people he was supposed to serve. If you add that he hired Willoughby... that's criminal incompetence. And then we get to his mommy's constant lobbying and harrassement of the government to get him up the stairs.

I'm voting Frederick Townsend Ward, mainly because he is an obscure wildcard, but also because after his first failure he was a genuinely good general who made an army from very little and pulled off some pretty impresive feats.
Also, he didn't serve in the American army, which makes him even better.

What about Robert E Lee?

He betrayed the Union, was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, and yet, he has been rehabilitated so much so, he has numerous high schools and buildings named after him...

I voted for MacArthur, but I'm the first to admit that he was fatally flawed in many respects, but to give MacArthur's reputation a hard time, but ignore the open treason of Lee and Stonewall Jackson, is a strange argument IMO.

Who?

[some keyboard mashing and wikipediaing after]
They were fighting for a (flawed and horrible) idea of national sorveingty. Which means people associate them with reasonably decent or at elast understandable purposes.
MacArthur fought for... well... MacArthur, which means he isn't given the same leeway.
That's my guess, I've never really cared about the American Civil War (enough problems with the Spanish one

) so I didn't even know who these two were.

He wasn't the worst US general, but he certainly wasn't the best nor the one I'd like to have if I was the president.

**squidhills**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I appreciate he was a man of his time, but Sherman's desire, expressed quite openly, to wipe out the Sioux Nation, would be treated as a war crime and genocide in this day and age...

It's unfair to hold MacArthur to one standard, and then turn a blind eye to the actions of other US generals.

I didn't feel compelled to call Sherman out on his genocidal tendencies because he wasn't on the list of generals you wanted us to vote on. Put Sherman on the list and watch me kvetch.

As for Lee, he gets a pass only because prior to the Civil War, many Americans (especially in the South) saw themselves as citizens of their state first, and the US second. The Civil War was the event that reversed that outlook, making us citizens of the United States first, and of our respective states second. Basically, it solidified the supremacy of the federal government. Given that Lee considered himself a Virginian, he felt his loyalty was to his state. When his state left the US, he did too. Had Virginia not left the Union, it is very likely Lee would have served in the Union army and fought against the Confederacy.

**Iron_Captain**

Best admiral? That'd probably be George Dewey.
Nimitz was also one of the greatest admirals ever.

Best general? That is a whole lot more difficult. The US has had plenty of really good generals, but never any truly great ones that left a mark like Napoleon, Rommel or Suvorov.

MacArthur did well in WW2, overall he was a very competent commander with some brilliant actions, but he also had some pretty big failures. And about his performance in the Korean War, it is best not to talk. Still, I feel that overall he was easily one of the US' best military leaders, since unlike most other American military leaders, MacArthur's victories were often won while being outnumbered and outgunned where usually it was the Americans who outnumbered and outgunned their opponents.

Washington was a very competent general, but he was often outmaneuvered by his opponents. Very competent, but not great.

Grant was another very competent leader, but he was called 'the Butcher' for a reason. His victories were only ever won at great cost despite usually having more soldiers, better organisation and better weapons than his opponent.

Which brings me to Lee. I feel that Lee is by far the best American general, mostly because of the fact he did really well despite his forces being at a massive disadvantage compared to the Union armies. Every general can win a battle when he outnumbers and outguns his enemy. But it takes a great general to win when all the odds are stacked against you. Of course, Lee lost. And that prevents him from being one of the best generals in the world. But under the circumstances, he did very well, which does make him in my opinion the best American general.

And that brings me to Crazy Horse. Crazy Horse's victory at Little Bighorn was brilliant. But apart from that he never achieved much, and given how truly massive his disadvantage was against the US armies, I can't blame him for that. Nonetheless, it makes it difficult to really provide a good assessment of Crazy Horse.

Stonewall Jackson is again a leader who was very competent, but not great. He did very well in a lot of battles, but fared poorly in others. He does win the award for being the most awesome American general though, even if it is just for his nickname.

Patton fought like a German Panzergeneral. Compared to most of them however, he is rather unremarkable. Despite that, he is probably easily the best US armoured commander in history. And of course his speeches are absolutely legendary.

For Eisenhower I will go with Montgomery's words: "Nice chap, no general". He was a great administrator, very good at diplomacy, but he lacked battlefield experience.

All generals in the list were very competent, yet all of them feel like they have a flaw or controversy that prevents them from being truly great. That makes the choice hard. I think that Lee was the best, because he produced pretty good results when faced with very competent opponents who outnumbered and outgunned him by a significant degree. Had the Confederate armies been less disadvantaged, I feel that Lee's leadership could have very well made the decisive difference in the outcome American civil war, which would have made him one of the truly greats.

These are just my opinions though. I am by no means a specialist on military history, much less American military history.

**Ahtman**

General Electric

**LordofHats**

I think part of it is that being considered a "Great" General, is kind of a PR contest. Mikhail Tukhachevsky was a brilliant military mind, and by all accounts would have been a good general in managing a war, but his PR sucks. A lot of US generals have so-so PR. Grant was a great general, but the the US barely gives thought to his brilliantly managed victory at VIcksburg because we're obsessed with Gettysburg even though Gettysburg resulted in little more than a return to the stalemate in the East while Vicksburg opened the opportunity for Grant to tear the guts out of the South (which Sherman did rather spectacularly). We don't remember him for that. We remember him for employing the "We have Reserves" strategy to grind down the Army of Northern Virginia, something the geography of the land and the nature of valley battles forced him into.

As to Lee, I wouldn't say losing disqualifies someone from being a great general. Hannibal lost the Second Punic War, and the Battle of Zama, but his victory at Cannae is one of the most famous in history, and his strategic understanding of how to defeat Rome was superb. Zhang Fei was a stunning General from China in the Three Kingdoms Era, and he is remembered but his significance as a military leader is overshadowed by less talented men like Zhou Yun and and Guan Yu, while Zhang Fei is most famous for being a violent drunk who was killed by his own men after abusing them one to many times. Yet the Kingdom of Shu likely wouldn't have survived without him (the Kingdom actually started to buckle militarily the moment he died).

Benedict Arnold was easily on of the most talented men in the Continental Army, but he's a traitor so we remember him for that, not his victory on the Hudson or significant contribution at Saratoga.

**BigWaaagh**

I like Ike!

Besides the obvious military gravitas, the fact that he called out the Military/Industrial Complex as POTUS seals the deal for my vote!

**sebster**

curran12 wrote:
No Nimitz?

Yep. The technical achievement of the US navy in WWII are often dismissed as people just talk about US production might. But Nimitz effectively massively expanded the navy, and decisively won a war against a Japanese navy that was no minor opponent. And he won that war through a combination of attritional operations (sub operations) and decisive engagements.

I think he's ignored because he did all this by just quietly doing the job. Public attention always goes to showboaters like Patton. Patton was a skilled general, but nothing like his reputation.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

sebster wrote:
curran12 wrote:
No Nimitz?

Yep. The technical achievement of the US navy in WWII are often dismissed as people just talk about US production might. But Nimitz effectively massively expanded the navy, and decisively won a war against a Japanese navy that was no minor opponent. And he won that war through a combination of attritional operations (sub operations) and decisive engagements.

I think he's ignored because he did all this by just quietly doing the job. Public attention always goes to showboaters like Patton. Patton was a skilled general, but nothing like his reputation.

Nimitz did blunder badly at Iwo Jima, so I suppose that's a black mark on his reputation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigWaaagh wrote:
I like Ike!

Besides the obvious military gravitas, the fact that he called out the Military/Industrial Complex as POTUS seals the deal for my vote!

Agreed, - he deserves immense credit for that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
I think part of it is that being considered a "Great" General, is kind of a PR contest. Mikhail Tukhachevsky was a brilliant military mind, and by all accounts would have been a good general in managing a war, but his PR sucks. A lot of US generals have so-so PR. Grant was a great general, but the the US barely gives thought to his brilliantly managed victory at VIcksburg because we're obsessed with Gettysburg even though Gettysburg resulted in little more than a return to the stalemate in the East while Vicksburg opened the opportunity for Grant to tear the guts out of the South (which Sherman did rather spectacularly). We don't remember him for that. We remember him for employing the "We have Reserves" strategy to grind down the Army of Northern Virginia, something the geography of the land and the nature of valley battles forced him into.

As to Lee, I wouldn't say losing disqualifies someone from being a great general. Hannibal lost the Second Punic War, and the Battle of Zama, but his victory at Cannae is one of the most famous in history, and his strategic understanding of how to defeat Rome was superb. Zhang Fei was a stunning General from China in the Three Kingdoms Era, and he is remembered but his significance as a military leader is overshadowed by less talented men like Zhou Yun and and Guan Yu, while Zhang Fei is most famous for being a violent drunk who was killed by his own men after abusing them one to many times. Yet the Kingdom of Shu likely wouldn't have survived without him (the Kingdom actually started to buckle militarily the moment he died).

Benedict Arnold was easily on of the most talented men in the Continental Army, but he's a traitor so we remember him for that, not his victory on the Hudson or significant contribution at Saratoga.

I think Grant suffers as well because of his poor record as President.

But if Hannibal from the A-Team is always quoting you, you've done something right

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
General Electric

No match for General Motors

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Captain wrote:
Best admiral? That'd probably be George Dewey.
Nimitz was also one of the greatest admirals ever.

Best general? That is a whole lot more difficult. The US has had plenty of really good generals, but never any truly great ones that left a mark like Napoleon, Rommel or Suvorov.

MacArthur did well in WW2, overall he was a very competent commander with some brilliant actions, but he also had some pretty big failures. And about his performance in the Korean War, it is best not to talk. Still, I feel that overall he was easily one of the US' best military leaders, since unlike most other American military leaders, MacArthur's victories were often won while being outnumbered and outgunned where usually it was the Americans who outnumbered and outgunned their opponents.

Washington was a very competent general, but he was often outmaneuvered by his opponents. Very competent, but not great.

Grant was another very competent leader, but he was called 'the Butcher' for a reason. His victories were only ever won at great cost despite usually having more soldiers, better organisation and better weapons than his opponent.

Which brings me to Lee. I feel that Lee is by far the best American general, mostly because of the fact he did really well despite his forces being at a massive disadvantage compared to the Union armies. Every general can win a battle when he outnumbers and outguns his enemy. But it takes a great general to win when all the odds are stacked against you. Of course, Lee lost. And that prevents him from being one of the best generals in the world. But under the circumstances, he did very well, which does make him in my opinion the best American general.

And that brings me to Crazy Horse. Crazy Horse's victory at Little Bighorn was brilliant. But apart from that he never achieved much, and given how truly massive his disadvantage was against the US armies, I can't blame him for that. Nonetheless, it makes it difficult to really provide a good assessment of Crazy Horse.

Stonewall Jackson is again a leader who was very competent, but not great. He did very well in a lot of battles, but fared poorly in others. He does win the award for being the most awesome American general though, even if it is just for his nickname.

Patton fought like a German Panzergeneral. Compared to most of them however, he is rather unremarkable. Despite that, he is probably easily the best US armoured commander in history. And of course his speeches are absolutely legendary.

For Eisenhower I will go with Montgomery's words: "Nice chap, no general". He was a great administrator, very good at diplomacy, but he lacked battlefield experience.

All generals in the list were very competent, yet all of them feel like they have a flaw or controversy that prevents them from being truly great. That makes the choice hard. I think that Lee was the best, because he produced pretty good results when faced with very competent opponents who outnumbered and outgunned him by a significant degree. Had the Confederate armies been less disadvantaged, I feel that Lee's leadership could have very well made the decisive difference in the outcome American civil war, which would have made him one of the truly greats.

These are just my opinions though. I am by no means a specialist on military history, much less American military history.

Come on, tell us what you really mean: you don't like Patton because he wanted to invade Russia!

**LordofHats**

To be fair, no one liked Patton because he wanted to invade Russia (there's a reason Eisenhower went to lengths to drum him out of the military as the war winded down)

**tneva82**

I'm going for Arthur for the reason how he handled Japanese after the war. Not often being defeated and having other country assume as much control as USA had in Japan results in so little resentment. Japanese actually liked him! Likely in part thanks to him they managed to rebuild as fast as they did. Good example of doing the job properly and not just bomb and leave target in ruins.

**Frazzled**

MCArthur was a douche bag who would have been husled out of the Army in 1942 after the Phillipines debacle had his family not had powerful friends. He nmight have been one of the worst WWII generals we had.

Philippines:
Didn't protect his air assets-BOOM.
Sucked at the Philippines defense
Plan for invading Philippines was all ego. Thousands wounded on Philippines and Pellilieu FOR NOTHING.
Pellilieu worthless rock FOR NOTHING.

Inchon was good. Everything after was horrific. I think he was the first general sacked by a President since Hooker and McClellan. Thats eight levels of bad.

**Monkey Tamer**

Frazzled wrote:
MCArthur was a douche bag who would have been husled out of the Army in 1942 after the Phillipines debacle had his family not had powerful friends. He nmight have been one of the worst WWII generals we had.

Philippines:
Didn't protect his air assets-BOOM.
Sucked at the Philippines defense
Plan for invading Philippines was all ego. Thousands wounded on Philippines and Pellilieu FOR NOTHING.
Pellilieu worthless rock FOR NOTHING.

Inchon was good. Everything after was horrific. I think he was the first general sacked by a President since Hooker and McClellan. Thats eight levels of bad.

The only reason he had a command to begin with was his family. That guy was a legend in his own mind. Eisenhower was at least humble and seemed to recognize his lack of experience, which is a better quality than having a raging ego maniac in command.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Monkey Tamer wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
MCArthur was a douche bag who would have been husled out of the Army in 1942 after the Phillipines debacle had his family not had powerful friends. He nmight have been one of the worst WWII generals we had.

Philippines:
Didn't protect his air assets-BOOM.
Sucked at the Philippines defense
Plan for invading Philippines was all ego. Thousands wounded on Philippines and Pellilieu FOR NOTHING.
Pellilieu worthless rock FOR NOTHING.

Inchon was good. Everything after was horrific. I think he was the first general sacked by a President since Hooker and McClellan. Thats eight levels of bad.

The only reason he had a command to begin with was his family. That guy was a legend in his own mind. Eisenhower was at least humble and seemed to recognize his lack of experience, which is a better quality than having a raging ego maniac in command.

People forget that in WW1, MacArthur was highly respected by the Doughboys and won decorations for bravery.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
MCArthur was a douche bag who would have been husled out of the Army in 1942 after the Phillipines debacle had his family not had powerful friends. He nmight have been one of the worst WWII generals we had.

Philippines:
Didn't protect his air assets-BOOM.
Sucked at the Philippines defense
Plan for invading Philippines was all ego. Thousands wounded on Philippines and Pellilieu FOR NOTHING.
Pellilieu worthless rock FOR NOTHING.

Inchon was good. Everything after was horrific. I think he was the first general sacked by a President since Hooker and McClellan. Thats eight levels of bad.

William Manchester's biography of MacArthur is a book I'd recommend to you. That and his Churchill biography.

Very well written, very well balanced books.

**Frazzled**

I read it. Doesn't change anything. Egomaniac with a penchant for getting caught with his pants down by the enemy and wasting thousands of lives.
Contrast him with Sherman, Abrams, Thomas etc.

Navy I'd have to add Spruance to the list-commanding admiral at Midway and the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazzled wrote:
I read it. Doesn't change anything. Egomaniac with a penchant for getting caught with his pants down by the enemy and wasting thousands of lives.
Contrast him with Sherman, Abrams, Thomas etc.

Navy I'd have to add Spruance to the list-commanding admiral at Midway and the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

Sherman was made to look an idiot by Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull. True, he wasn't the only US commander to have rings run round him by the Sioux nation, but MacArthur is hardly unique in being an American General caught with his pants down.

Washington suffered a similar fate at Brandywine.

Patton nearly messed up at Sicily, Terry Allen and the 1st infantry division saving the day.

Eisenhower messed up big time during the aftermath of Operation Torch when De Gaulle and Free French court intrigue made a monkey out of him.

Lee was let down by JEB Stuart at Gettysburg, but Lee shouldn't have ordered Pickett's charge towards little round top...

and so on and so on...

**feeder**

America's greatest Admiral is Francois J. P. de Grasse. His actions at the Battle of Chesapeake Bay meant there could be a nation called the US of A.

**Frazzled**

Sherman never lost a major battle or campaign. Crazy Horse was killed by Union soldiers and the Lokotah, and Dokotah were crushed utterly, so not getting your statement (additionally Sherman was Commanding General, not a field general-are you thinking of Sheridan?).

McArthur had forces under his command effectively crushed twice. What exactly is his claim to fame?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazzled wrote:
Sherman never lost a major battle or campaign. Crazy Horse was killed by Union soldiers and the Lokotah, and Dokotah were crushed utterly, so not getting your statement (additionally Sherman was Commanding General, not a field general-are you thinking of Sheridan?).

McArthur had forces under his command effectively crushed twice. What exactly is his claim to fame?

His claim to fame is his masterstroke at Inchon.

His measured and statesmen like post-war reconstruction of Japan.

His bravery and leadership during World War 1

His modernisation of West Point

His successful pacific campaign, which produced the most gain for the fewest casualties in any theater of World War 2.

And best of all, he had Scottish ancestry

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
America's greatest Admiral is Francois J. P. de Grasse. His actions at the Battle of Chesapeake Bay meant there could be a nation called the US of A.

What about that Canadian guy who's actions during the same war meant there could be a Canada?

**Frazzled**

The Pacific wasn't his campaign. It was the Navy's.
There was absolutely no need to invade the Philippines or Pelilieu. In fact none of his actions in WWII furthered the war aims (except of Japan's I guess). He should have been cashiered out of the army wholesales after the first Phillipines debacle.

Yes Inchon was excellent (because of the marines and the Navy not him) thereafter he almost had his entire command wiped out like Custer on steroids because of his incredible stupidity.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazzled wrote:
The Pacific wasn't his campaign. It was the Navy's.
There was absolutely no need to invade the Philippines or Pelilieu. In fact none of his actions in WWII furthered the war aims (except of Japan's I guess). He should have been cashiered out of the army wholesales after the first Phillipines debacle.

Yes Inchon was excellent (because of the marines and the Navy not him) thereafter he almost had his entire command wiped out like Custer on steroids because of his incredible stupidity.

My last post for the night (work tomorrow

)

But the army was there in great strength (it saved Australia by stopping Japan at New Guinea) plus his campiagns at New Britain, Hollandia etc etc

turfed the Japanese military out of strategic areas.

The Navy didn't have to invade Iwo Jima, and to not liberate the Phillipines would have been a stain on American honour after all that was said about it by FDR.

**feeder**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

feeder wrote:
America's greatest Admiral is Francois J. P. de Grasse. His actions at the Battle of Chesapeake Bay meant there could be a nation called the US of A.

What about that Canadian guy who's actions during the same war meant there could be a Canada?

There were no Canadians at that time, only loyal British colonists. We dutifully waited until Mother England said we could leave home before we moved out, unlike our motorcycle-jacket-wearing, switchblade-wielding, smoking-behind the-schoolhouse older brother USofA.

**sebster**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Nimitz did blunder badly at Iwo Jima, so I suppose that's a black mark on his reputation.

Huh? Iwo Jima was carnage, but that was largely due to the natural defensive advantages and well organised Japanese defence. Not that any of it can be laid at the feet of Nimitz anyway, he was a theatre commander, he wasn't personally leading the attack on Iwo Jima. Nimitz part in Iwo Jima was in identifying it as a necessary target (he was correct), and then ensuring adequate forces and supplies were available for the assault (which he did just fine).

Perhaps you're thinking of Peleliu, where Nimitz subordinate rightfully called off the attack as pointless, only to have Nimitz override and push on with the attack, possibly just to appease MacArthur, but also because he wrongfully assessed the importance of the island in pushing on to Okinawa. That was a screw up.

But that's war, especially at the higher end of command. You make a lot of judgement calls, and when you get it right everyone says it was obvious in hindsight, and when you get it wrong everyone says it was an obvious blunder (in hindsight). Ultimately you ran a campaign with as many complexities as the US Pacific campaign and you make only one big screw up, you've done an incredible job.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But the army was there in great strength (it saved Australia by stopping Japan at New Guinea) plus his campiagns at New Britain, Hollandia etc etc

Umm, the Australians stopped the Japanese in New Guinea. The Americans turned up once the Japanese were already in retreat.

And the great strength you're talking about was 13,000 Japanese troops. Which Japan wasn't able to keep in anything near adequate supply. The idea that 13,000 under supplied troops could have then pushed on to advance on Australia is pretty silly.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The Pacific wasn't his campaign. It was the Navy's.
There was absolutely no need to invade the Philippines or Pelilieu. In fact none of his actions in WWII furthered the war aims (except of Japan's I guess). He should have been cashiered out of the army wholesales after the first Phillipines debacle.

Yes Inchon was excellent (because of the marines and the Navy not him) thereafter he almost had his entire command wiped out like Custer on steroids because of his incredible stupidity.

My last post for the night (work tomorrow )

But the army was there in great strength (it saved Australia by stopping Japan at New Guinea) plus his campiagns at New Britain, Hollandia etc etc

turfed the Japanese military out of strategic areas.

The Navy didn't have to invade Iwo Jima, and to not liberate the Phillipines would have been a stain on American honour after all that was said about it by FDR.

Iwo Jima provided fighter bases for escorting P51s, as well as emergency landing areas. None of the places you mentioned impacted the timeline to B29s bombing Japan.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

sebster wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Nimitz did blunder badly at Iwo Jima, so I suppose that's a black mark on his reputation.

Huh? Iwo Jima was carnage, but that was largely due to the natural defensive advantages and well organised Japanese defence. Not that any of it can be laid at the feet of Nimitz anyway, he was a theatre commander, he wasn't personally leading the attack on Iwo Jima. Nimitz part in Iwo Jima was in identifying it as a necessary target (he was correct), and then ensuring adequate forces and supplies were available for the assault (which he did just fine).

Perhaps you're thinking of Peleliu, where Nimitz subordinate rightfully called off the attack as pointless, only to have Nimitz override and push on with the attack, possibly just to appease MacArthur, but also because he wrongfully assessed the importance of the island in pushing on to Okinawa. That was a screw up.

But that's war, especially at the higher end of command. You make a lot of judgement calls, and when you get it right everyone says it was obvious in hindsight, and when you get it wrong everyone says it was an obvious blunder (in hindsight). Ultimately you ran a campaign with as many complexities as the US Pacific campaign and you make only one big screw up, you've done an incredible job.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But the army was there in great strength (it saved Australia by stopping Japan at New Guinea) plus his campiagns at New Britain, Hollandia etc etc

Umm, the Australians stopped the Japanese in New Guinea. The Americans turned up once the Japanese were already in retreat.

And the great strength you're talking about was 13,000 Japanese troops. Which Japan wasn't able to keep in anything near adequate supply. The idea that 13,000 under supplied troops could have then pushed on to advance on Australia is pretty silly.

Reasons cited for invading Iwo Jima were its use as an air base for American bombers, but not long after, that reason was made redundant by further advances in places like China. So a lot of good men died for nothing, which is Nimitz's fault for the overall direction of the campaign.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The Pacific wasn't his campaign. It was the Navy's.
There was absolutely no need to invade the Philippines or Pelilieu. In fact none of his actions in WWII furthered the war aims (except of Japan's I guess). He should have been cashiered out of the army wholesales after the first Phillipines debacle.

Yes Inchon was excellent (because of the marines and the Navy not him) thereafter he almost had his entire command wiped out like Custer on steroids because of his incredible stupidity.

My last post for the night (work tomorrow )

But the army was there in great strength (it saved Australia by stopping Japan at New Guinea) plus his campiagns at New Britain, Hollandia etc etc

turfed the Japanese military out of strategic areas.

The Navy didn't have to invade Iwo Jima, and to not liberate the Phillipines would have been a stain on American honour after all that was said about it by FDR.

Iwo Jima provided fighter bases for escorting P51s, as well as emergency landing areas. None of the places you mentioned impacted the timeline to B29s bombing Japan.

My response to Sebster applies to your comment as well.