Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

DrewMatrix -> Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 9:15:32 PM)

OK, some of you may apparently think Mac or Monty have some tiny redeeming feature. But if you want to discuss generals who think the only purpose of war is to feed their own ego, let's cut to the chase.

How many George McClellan Fanboys are there out there? I mean (in his opinion) he _was_ the greatest general of all time. It was just (similar to Mac) he knew all those people in Washington were conspiring to keep him from achieving the status he was born to deserve.



mogami -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 9:22:02 PM)

Hi, Maybe so but he did care about his troops. Whatever they did after he was gone they did in a large part because of how he trained them.
He only lost one battle. He was never chased off the field and he inflicted greater loss on the enemy then he ever suffered.
He just didn't live in reality when it came to what the enemy was capable of or how many of them there were.
He would have been a decent division and then Corps commander and had he been these before commanding the Army he might have done better.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 9:38:41 PM)

There is one person who will say something complimentary about "Little Mac" (McClellan)!

I would disagree with the 'never chased off the field' comment. He was so scared he spent his whole military career "avoiding" if not exactly "running". He did retreat to Malvern Hill, too.

That is not "scared" in the physical courage sense. It is "scared" in the lack of moral courage to roll the dice. What General Bonaparte called "Two O'Clock in the Morning Courage". (Hooker was good at failure of nerve in the same way, although phycically brave and willing to be where bullets were flying).



RUPD3658 -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 9:45:33 PM)

If I recall correctly Lincoln wanted to sack him for refusing to engage Lee's army but this became politically impossible after Gettysburg.

Always struck me as weird that the head of the army could run as "the peace candidate" against his boss, the sitting president.

General Sickles was the biggest egomaniac at Gettysburg and almost lost the day for the Union. Big suprize he also ended up in politics.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 9:55:32 PM)

Depends on how you define defeat. I think he lost every battle he fought as the AOP's commander. Took over a month to move McGruder (sp?) out of Yorktown when he outnumbered him over 10-1. Watched Keyes and Porter fight for their lives, did nothing to help either and then retreated after they had fought well. Crushed Lee at Malvern Hill, did nothing to exploit it. Had one of the greatest intelligence coups in history prior to Antietem and forked it up. At Antietem had Lee in a position comparable to Bennigsen at Friedland, managed to make a draw out of it. Not only failed to attack on the second day, when he had 2 whole corps that hadn't fired a shot on the first day, after he "won" he managed to pursue more slowly than Meade after Gettysburg. No matter what you gave him (time, supplies, equipment, men), it was never enough. Lee must have wept when Little Mac was replaced.

Doesn't strike me as the kind of guy you would want as a subordinate . . . ever. He's always right, your always wrong, obeys commands when it suits himself or his interpretation of the situation, etc. Fortunately for you (if you were his commander) he would probably never move fast enough to get himself into trouble. He may have been even less loyal to Lincoln that Mac was to Truman.



Tophat -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 9:59:10 PM)

But he could organize and equip an army now couldn't he? Too bad they wanted him to be a field commander as well! [:D]



mogami -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:14:59 PM)

Hi, I know I have a strange view of it. My view is the AOP could not win the war. That had to be done out west and out there the Union had a man who would do the job.
Mac was better then some for the East because while he might not crush Lee he also would not let himself be crushed.
The worst Federal defeats did not occur while he was in command.
Everyone knew Malvern Hill was a Union victory.
Antietem should have been the end of the ANV and it was not. But it was just enough of a Union victory to suit the political requirments of the time.
Make no mistake. I would replace Mac. I would replace him about the time he was replaced.
It was another 8 months before the AOP was given it's last commander. It suffered it's worse defeats in that 8 month period. After that it sometimes failed to take a position but it was never again moved out of one it had decided to hold.
Mac was not the worst thing that ever happended to the AOP or the Union in general.



RUPD3658 -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:15:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


Doesn't strike me as the kind of guy you would want as a subordinate . . . ever. He's always right, your always wrong, obeys commands when it suits himself or his interpretation of the situation, etc.


Sounds like my wife!



rtrapasso -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:15:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

There is one person who will say something complimentary about "Little Mac" (McClellan)!

I would disagree with the 'never chased off the field' comment. He was so scared he spent his whole military career "avoiding" if not exactly "running". He did retreat to Malvern Hill, too.

That is not "scared" in the physical courage sense. It is "scared" in the lack of moral courage to roll the dice. What General Bonaparte called "Two O'Clock in the Morning Courage". (Hooker was good at failure of nerve in the same way, although phycically brave and willing to be where bullets were flying).


Seems that Hooker's main fault was not having the decency to die when he got concussed at Chancellorsville. The Union others Union commanders sat around not knowing what to do since their commander wasn't dead (but wasn't giving commands). Sort of like someone whacking you over the head while playing WITP, and then continuing to play while you are unconscious, smashing your forces, and then calling you an idiot commander later.

So the Union forces got beat up and retreated. Later, lots of stories started circulating about how he was drunk, how he admitted "Bobbie Lee whipped my butt", etc. Historians have been running these stories down, and disproving all of them over the years.

I am not saying he was a GREAT commander, but i don't think he deserves the rep he ended up with.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:35:14 PM)

I believe Little Mac looked over the field at Malvern Hill in the morning, then left for Harrison's landing and never issued another order, so I don't credit him with that victory. Porter, if any one, should be given the credit. In any event, McClellan did nothing to exploit it.

Even if the ANV was destroyed by McClellan at Antietam, he still would have forked it up. It would have taken him months to march to Richmond, which, by that time, would have had another army of "200,000" men in it. Kinda odd but, if Mac had destroyed Lee, Lincoln may never have been able to fire his arse. I guess it all works out in the end.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:36:45 PM)

quote:

My view is the AOP could not win the war.


Surely they could have taken Richmond when no one was between them (The AOP being on the James) and Richmond. And they could have obliterated Lee's smaller army (rather than sit in their trencnes screaming they needed more men).

You can argue capturing Richmond and destroying Lee's army early in the war wouldn't have completely ended things. But it would have speeded them up enormously and saved lots of lives.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:38:35 PM)

quote:

Sort of like someone whacking you over the head while playing WITP, and then continuing to play while you are unconscious


Memo to self:

Do not play WITP hotseat against rtrapasso.



mogami -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:44:00 PM)

Hi, I know people looking back from 140 years with all those books and movies can see the path clearly.
I don't think there was a General alive who would have ever been able to "destroy" Lee's Army any more the Lee was ever able to destroy a Union Army. Lee routes a few Union Corps from time to time and is considered a great General.
Lee never came any closer to winning the war then Mac did.
Taking Richmond would have been a good thing but it would not have ended the war.
The South fought on with doodlely for 2 years.
It was very difficult in that period to destroy an enemy Army. The defense was at it's zenith
Yes there is little doubt Mac could have done more. For one thing he might have learned that war was a year round everyday affair now.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:46:27 PM)

quote:

For one thing he might have learned that war was a year round everyday affair now.


I (and Lincoln) would have been satisfied if he learned that war was an affair one could at least engage in on alternate Thursdays (providing the wife didn't have any pressing chores around the house)!

[:D]



mogami -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:50:28 PM)

Hi, You know, his replacements went for the gusto and lost more men in 8 months then he had lost up to that time.
He might have over rated the defense but others over rated the attack and paid for it. (Without anymore success)
Grant finally had to do what we all try to do. Cut the enemy off from it's base. No one could or did win battles in that war by "driving into" the enemy.

No commander for either side was ever able to excercise tactical control during a battle.
Lee was decent at in on the defense. Mac was expert at it on the defense.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:53:05 PM)

This is a truly amazing group. I bring up the worst general I can think of (well, not the very worst but really bad) and immediately we get an argument going.

Let me see if I can come up with a worse general.

Got It!



mogami -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 10:58:19 PM)

Hi, I have nothing what so ever good to say about Gamlein


Concenring Little Mac I can only point out that the men liked him. After the war they admitted they would not have won with him but that did not dimish their fondness for him.
I can't ignore that. I feel they must have known him better then I can or any historian or critic. Soldiers know alot more about their leaders then we give them credit for.
Who am I to dispute their real feelings.

The one thing I hold against him more then anything else was, He never realized how good the Army he trained and commanded really was.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/27/2005 11:39:44 PM)

His replacements had to go for the gusto, primarily because Lincoln could not afford anymore McClellan-like delays. Fredericksburg (Burnside) and Chancelorsville (sp?) (Hooker) were excellent plans that were waylaid by a pontoon bridge and a set of cojones, respectively. All of the Union plans in the eastern theater were designed, one way or another, to cut Lee off from his base.

Antietam is probably the exception to the rule about "driving into" the enemy. He had a 3-1 advantage in the morning, maybe 2-1 in the afternoon. I think he could have won by "driving into" the enemy at any point, instead of what he did.

I guess we can argue about what "tactical control" means. If you mean that the commanding general moved x brigade here or y division there. I agree, that didn't generally happen. If you mean they didn't formulate battle plans like McClellan's prior to Antietam, I don't. In any event McClellan wasn't normally on the battlefield to exercise control. During Seven Days he never visited the front and only communicated to Keyes and Porter to refuse their requests for reinforcements. He was absent at Malvern Hill. At Antietem he was 3 miles behind the front, sat in a house all day and never bothered to witness the action. The only control he ever exercised during a battle was to refuse to continue in the afternoon after his intitial 'piece-meal attack from the right' plan at Antietam was defeated. I assume he thought he'd have won by then, so no more plans were needed.

Any expert defense (Seven Days?, don't know any other battle he was on the defensive).
as by his corp commanders, not him.

They may have been fond of him, but they still voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln even after they had gotten the ****e kicked out them in the wilderness.



von Murrin -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 12:54:20 AM)

Little Mac is a case study in having the absolute wrong man in the wrong command. I think he was a commander of very average ability, who, when given an appointment well over his head, psyched himself into defeat after failure after lost opportunity. His ego didn't help either, especially when compared to Burnside who actually begged to be put off the same command. (He knew he didn't have what it took and didn't want command of the AOP. I truly respect that.)

McClellan would've made a fine commander of Washington; he was an excellent administrator and trainer. It's one of those sad twists of history that he was given the one instrument which he could and did use to destroy himself.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 1:17:44 AM)

Won't one of the readers of this thread go say a kind word for Gregorio de la Cuesta? (See other thread).

Frag? You have a soft heart. Surely you can think of something nice to say about that destructive idiot.



von Murrin -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 1:32:03 AM)

Well, if you want to go all the way back to times before it was normal for general officers to be products of military academies and war colleges, you can find plenty of irredeemable characters.[:D]



DrewMatrix -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 1:40:59 AM)

quote:

you can find plenty of irredeemable characters


Or you can just look at the coterie on posting at this forum.



von Murrin -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 1:44:59 AM)

Boo! Hiss![:D]



captskillet -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 1:59:57 AM)

I think Robert E Lee was the charter member of the McClellan Fanboy club, that nitwit coulda ended the War in 1862 at Sharpsburg! [8|]



Tom Hunter -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 1:27:09 PM)

There is no question that Lee was a member of the Little Mac fanclub. He said as much when he compared Mac to Grant later in the war.

Mogami its true that it was very difficult to destroy and enemy army in the American Civil War but Grant did it 3 times.

I think that is a record for an American general. Washington destroyed 2 British armies and its arguable MacArthur destroyed 2 one Japanese (in the Philipines) and one Korean. Any other contenders?



jnier -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 2:28:09 PM)

I have to agree with Mogami here...McClellan was an average general, not "worst general I can think of" type of guy. Generals who qualify for the "worst of all time" get their armies destroyed and, in the process, lose the war. McClellan preserved his army, and inflicted a fair number of casualties against a fairly competant enemy. He was no military genius, but he was not a complete incompetant either.



mogami -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 2:37:16 PM)

Hi, Exactly. The Union could have left Mac in command for the entire war and still won.
The war was not won in the East. All the AOP had to do was tie up Southern manpower.
It might win the war but not likely.

I know all about how the AOP with it's number advantage was supposed to be able to destroy the ANV. But it never really had that kind of numbers advantage.

I'm not saying he was a great general. Just that he did't hurt as much as people say.
He assumed command when the Union Army required organizing and training.
Union Cav required almost 3 years just to train up and become more or less equal to Southern Cav (rthe repeaters helped)

While Mac did not destroy Lee he kept him busy.



EUBanana -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 2:48:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

I have to agree with Mogami here...McClellan was average general, not "worst general I can think of" type of guy. Generals who qualify for the "worst of all time" get their armies destroyed and, in the process, lose the war.


I had this debate on the Guns of August forum...

My candidate for the most miserable general of all is from WW1, Hunter-Weston, who commanded at Gallipoli.
From what I understand the likes of Haig did actually care about their men though it didn't always seem that way, but Hunter-Weston seemed to revel in getting them slaughtered.



Ol_Dog -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 4:52:27 PM)

Sounds just like Rev General Polk in Braggs Army



m10bob -> RE: Skip Mac and Monty. Where are McClellan's Fanboys? (1/28/2005 5:26:03 PM)

Gen McClellan..................
Excellent commisary officer,great motivator and trainer of civilian rabble,turning them into soldiers.
Self-inflicted REMF of the first order..
IIRC,Lincoln sent him a message,along the lines of "If you are not going to use your army this week-end,may I borrow it?".
Possibly Gen McClellan was an inspiration for "The Peter Principle"....?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25