morvwilson
Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
A sense of perspective and reality on the American names? 
From the american point of view, many of the names so far listed strike me as strange.
Pershing? Arrived in France and promptly set about making the same mistakes everyone else had made, refusing to believe his allies (who had moved on theior techniques) had anything to teach him.
Patton? A man who was dynamite with an open road and a map in his hand, but who was somewhat less dangerous when asked to fight. His drive on the Bulge was not that impressive given it took him five days, he failed to really concentrate and his push was through a collection of Volks outfits if memory serves. He then arrives at Bastogne and has to fight for a further fortnight to clear the area. His campaign in Lorraine is a poor one, his raid on Hammelburg borderline criminal. Too many have been seduced by the pearl handled pistols and the soundbites. He was a Divisional or Corp Commander promoted one step too far.
Many of the American names were also subordinates. Longstreet and Jackson were at the sort of level that O'Connor or Dempsey were for the British and I think a lack of familiarity with that level of British command may be costing the British some names.
Of American Land Commanders, only Lee springs to mind as an operational Napoleonite, but a man who ultimately blundered. Grant reminds me of Montgomery in that he understood his limitations, those of his men, and knew what he had to do to win. That in many ways is the key question. Napoleon ultimately lost and by 1809-10 was perhaps largely shot (see his performances at Waterloo and Borodino). Grant ultimately won. Great Generals do not necessarily have to win, but one might argue that a Great Commander takes what he has, what he thinks he can do, and applies it to best effect. In which case, Monty and Grant have few peers.
I'm not familiar with the revolution (or First Civil War, however you want to phrase it ) but my British list would entail the undefeated Wellington, who beat a succession of French Marshals before facing the great one himself and prevailing. I'd include Montgomery, because for all his personal faults, his strategy was probably the correct one, and it was a strategy he was ideally suited for. Slim would have to be included, and from the earlier period Marlborough and Wolfe.
I'd be tempted to include Cromwell because he understood the basic principles of war, not least that hard training and Command and control are exceptionally important. He also led from the front.
Of the English Kings, Henry V stands out, Edward I, Edward III who beat both the scots at Halidon Hill and the French at Crecy and Alfred the Great.
Part of the issue of finding more was that Britain has always been a sea power who generally paid others to take the risks on land. Our land fighting between 1815 and 1914, for example, was generally against natives of one description or another with the exception of the Crimea. This was a period of heavy fighting in America and Europe but we just don't get involved as much. After 1588, we generally produce excellent Admirals with just a few land Commanders where required.
For the US, I think Lee. He was the the closest thing to Napoleon (a frenchman who on his day was arguably the World's greatest Captain, only Hannibal I think could rank alongside). You produce a good crop of Corp and Divisional Commanders (Longstreet, Hancock, Jackson, Collins and others) but the American style of fighting has generally been very direct. I think this will produce fighters at Division and Corp level who will stand out, but fewer great operational minds in the Manstein or Napoleonic sense. Patton stands out because he liked to maneuver (whether he was good or not is a separate issue), not because he was typical of the American style of war. In this sense (and the British have been the same in the 20th century) you need less a man who is an inspired General and more an attentive Manager with an eye for detail.
Regards,
IronDuke
Now to the american generals.
Firstly, no I do not think you have to be american to be a good general, that just happened to be the pool of names I dipped into. There have been many good generals from many countries, even some from England!
Pershing, when he first arrived in France first had to fight his allies in order to keep an american army intact at all! Both the French and British Commanders wanted to feed the American troops in peicmeal through out the line as replacements and not have a seperate american army at all. Pershing did manage to get training for his troops in trench warfare. But, some lessons can only be learned on the job. Pershing did make some mistakes but he learned from them and did not repeat them as the British and French high command did.
As to Patton, lets face it he was a strange duck! I do not think I would like to sit down to dinner with the guy but he did turn in results. As I recall, he did turn on the southern flank of the Bulge a lot quicker the Monty.
As to your comparison between Monty and Grant, that is a very hard thing to support. Sepperate wars, time and situations. Grant won on logistics plane and simple. Both Lee and Grant knew how to maneuver but Lee could not replace manpower.
Lee as and Napoleonic figure, thats funny! He was a West Point graduate and in those days do you know what that made him? an engineer! There was not all that much instruction on actual war fighting in those days at West point. Lee's own troops at first called him "the king of spades" for his fondness of entrenching. It was MacClellan that thought he looked Napoleonic. Take a look at some of his old photos. He even did the same poses!
As for the style of fighting, you are right. The american style is very direct because that is the way you end wars quickly and have less blood shed. This style of fighting, in my opinion, got its start during the American Civil War with Grant and Sherman.
|
Printable Version
RE: English Generals - 
England has been a sea power from around the rennaisance period on. England controled the sea by controling certain points that allowed them to control the trade routes during time of war. From England, they can control shipping in and out of the North sea, From Gibralter and at one time the Suez Canal, the Med. etc. All the army had to do was to hold the bases for the navy. This is why the army never really learned how to fight a war on a contental scale. They did not have to. When things turned bad, the navy would bail them out. Carunna in 1807, Galipoli during WWI, Dunkirk, Crete and Narvik during WWII. This is the basis for my point that English generals tended to be overrated. They tended to be more concerned about not loosing rather than winning. (Same problem Grant had with his staff once he moved east to face Lee during the American Civil War) 
I don't think we should go there. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread