May 17, 201016 yr I personally think Omar Bradley is one of the greatest American generals. He was a great strategist that used a lot of heavy air power, which I think is critical. I also think Mathew Ridgeway deserves to be mentioned with the greatest. What he did in Korea was incredible.
May 17, 201016 yr I'll take the most decorated Marine in the history of the Marine Corps, Lewis "Chesty" Puller...
May 17, 201016 yr I'll take the most decorated Marine in the history of the Marine Corps, Lewis "Chesty" Puller... Sorry I beat you to him!
May 17, 201016 yr Author I personally think Omar Bradley is one of the greatest American generals. He was a great strategist that used a lot of heavy air power, which I think is critical. I also think Mathew Ridgeway deserves to be mentioned with the greatest. What he did in Korea was incredible. Two great callouts!!!!!
May 18, 201016 yr No love for Black Jack Pershing? Oh I am quite fond of Pershing. He is an interesting figure in my mind because despite his successfull lobbying to make sure that American troops would not simply be used as replacements by the British and the French he also did not take their tactical advice when launching offensives. By the time the U.S. joined the war the British and French(to a lesser extent) had learned many lessons regarding the conduct of offensives on the Western Front. The proscribed method was to become bite and hold tactics. Advance under a creeping barrage behind tanks and take what you could, then hold on to it without overextending yourself. When the Germans would shift reinforcements to the area the offensive would cease and then the same method would be used somewhere that had been denuded of troops in order to reinforce the area in peril. These suggestions were not heeded and as such American losses, at first, where much higher than they needed to be. I give him credit for learning his lesson, but being too stubborn to accept the advice of Haig, Fuller and company cost American lives. Now I am fond of his conduct during his suppression of the insurrectos in the Philippines. Although I would wager I am alone on that one.
May 18, 201016 yr I'll give a shout out to Nathanael Greene and Daniel Morgan. Both ended up as Generals in Washington's Continental Army and both played key roles in helping America win its independence, particularly when the war shifted south. Washington sent Greene south to oppose Cornwallis. Morgan lead the Americans to a key victory at the Battle of Cowpens...you should look it up on wikipedia. From the article... In developing his tactics at Cowpens, as historian John Buchanan wrote, Morgan may have been "the only general in the American Revolution, on either side, to produce a significant original tactical thought.”
May 18, 201016 yr I can't help but note some similarities between the Americans and the fight for independence and the Southern Confederacy. Right or wrong, many in the south were fighting for independence and freedom. They viewed the north as an invading army that threatened their homes and their freedom, and was overextending its right to exercise authority over them, much like the revolution. Both sides were fighting an opponent with superior numbers and resources. The Americans won the war not by crushing the British army, but by dragging the war out and wearing down the British resolve to do what was necessary to win. America lost many of the battles, but won the war. IMO, that was the Confederacy's best chance to win the Civil War...to fight a defensive campaign, make the cost too high for the north and erode support for the cause. The Union was attempting to put down the rebellion, thus they had to come to Rebels. The Confederacy could have maneuvered with the advantage of fighting on its home ground, ground they knew better, and made the fight on ground of its choosing. Many of the battles were won simply by the army that held the advantageous position. Washington was exerting a lot of pressure on its commanders to pursue and engages the Rebels. Lee could have used that ot his advantage, picked a good spot and forced them to attack on his terms. How many battles like Fredericksburg would it have taken to erode support for the war in the north? One big difference in the two is that the Union had a direct supply line, while the British were an ocean away from home. I'm not sure the South could have won at all, but I believe their best chance was a defensive campaign. Pick the ground and make the enemey pay a steep price for every engagement. There are a lot of "what ifs" in the Civil War though...both sides made mistakes, IMO. The difference was that the north could afford them. The South needed to be almost perfect in its decisions.
May 21, 201016 yr Author Link took me to a site needing sign on and password....could you give us a breakdown on what the West Point view is.
May 21, 201016 yr A bit more in depth obviously, but posts are not that far off, I was surprised by the amount of eisenhower suggestions. Stonewall Jackson gets a lot of credit.
May 21, 201016 yr Here's one typical post I Think the ten best Generals of all time go as follows: 1. George Washington,quite possibly the best leader the U.S. Army has ever seen. 2. George Patton, enough said. 3. Francis Marion, the original Special Forces. 4. Dwight D. Eisenhower,great leader and brilliant tactician. 5. Robert E. Lee,Confederacy's best General. 6. James M. Gavin, a true soldiers General. 7. Omar Bradley,one of the best leaders in the ETO 8. Stonewall Jackson,probably should be ranked higher, an outstanding combat leader. 9. Ulysses S. Grant, say what youWord Filter Violationwill about his tactics butWord Filter Violationhe was an outstanding leader and inspired loyalty and courage in his men 10.Word Filter ViolationNorman Schwarzkopf,Stormin NormanWord Filter Violationis the best General theWord Filter Violationmodern Army(post-Vietnam) has seen.Word Filter Violation
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.