- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is the GOAT of all U.S generals?
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:34 am to tide06
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:34 am to tide06
quote:
Didn't the Germans largely fail to extract much if any useable petroleum from the Caucasus/Baku oil fields due to the soviets effective sabotage efforts when they fell to the Nazi's?
Yes. Maikop was the really the only significant one they acquired, and Soviet sabotage efforts meant it took way too long get new wells going and the amount of oil extracted never made it back to Germany; it was consumed locally.
quote:
Without allied gas supplies it is a very valid question if the Soviets could've operated their field armies for a few years until their petroleum supplies came back online assuming they were unable to take the middle east.
The Baku fields supplied Soviets with all the oil they could need for their ground forces. High octane, high-quality aviation gasoline was an entirely different issue.
quote:
Petroleum supply was the determining factor for post D-Day allied planning in France
For sure. Establishing fuel stockpiles in France was the critical path in Allied logistics; thankfully, Operation Dragoon opened the port at Marseille and helped alleviate the port issue in Northern France.
quote:
I still say millions of Americans would've died to push them back to Ukraine, but logistics is a very interesting factor.
Most likely. It would have taken some time to get them to use up the stockpiles of Lend Lease they had accumulated over the years. US airpower would have played a significant role, I'd think.
1
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:36 am to Truama_dawg
In my mind, titles aside, Washington is the greatest leader of men in battle and war in American history.
Truly astonishing what he did.
Truly astonishing what he did.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:39 am to Sam Quint
quote:
Agreed. His leadership the 1st Marines at Peleilu was nothing short of criminal.
quote:
he was a colonel on Peleliu
I was only replying to someone who mentioned Chesty Puller, who did not achieve the rank of general during the war. In fact he would not get his first star until the Korean War. So, yes he was a colonel at Peleliu, which is the normal rank to command a regiment, which he did at Peleliu, specifically the 1st Marine Regiment. And he proved to be a disaster for the regiment.
After Puller repeatedly ordered the 1st Marines to conduct numerous disastrous frontal assaults of dug in Japanese positions, the 1st Marines were virtually destroyed as a cohesive combat unit, having suffered almost 60% casualties in a matter of days.
The 1st Marines were replaced on Peleliu by an Army regiment from the 81st Infantry Division and sent back to Pavuvu To be rebuilt.
As for Puller, he would not command troops in combat again in the Pacific campaign. He was sent back to the states to take over a training command.,
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:47 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
He did make mistakes. Attacking Lee’s entrenched infantry repeatedly at Cold Harbor is a prime example.
I don't regard Cold Harbor as a mistake. Grant went on to say that he regretted the final assault he ordered made on the Confederate works, but that's only because the assault failed. However, there were tactical as well as strategic advantages to be gained had the assault succeeded. Just look at how Grant saw it the day before the assault went forward:
They had the Confederate army just 10 miles northeast of Richmond, entrenched in front of the Chickahominy River, with nothing but an open road into Richmond if the Union army broke through. Not only that, the Army of the Potomac had recently been reinforced by Baldy Smith's 18th Corps. Attacking Lee's lines at Cold Harbor made all the tactical sense in the world due to the high reward factor if it succeeded.
However, much has been mythologized about that June 3, 1864, assault at Cold Harbor - much of it having to do with Ken Burns's great (but flawed) documentary series of the Civil War. One of those myths is that the Union army suffered 7,000 casualties in just thirty minutes. That shite ain't true, mainly because the assault did not go off like it was planned. It was piecemeal and unenthusiastic as only one or two divisions advanced with any kind of gusto. The rest of the army staid put as it was just plain exhausted after 30 days of non-stop movement and combat. The Army of the Potomac lost about 6,500 men total that day, but only about 2,000 of those were in the initial morning assault.
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 10:49 am
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:48 am to DakIsNoLB
quote:
That would have been an interesting angle to that conflict. The Soviet Army no longer having the backing of Lend Lease. They didn't have a problem producing heavy weapons (tanks, planes, artillery) with the caveat of how much of that depended on rare earth metals, but they did not have the same capacity in producing trucks, trains, food, clothing, and avgas. The US may still have come out on top, but even the drawbacks mentioned would not have blunted the Soviet war machine right away. My guess is there would have been really terrible fighting for 6 months to a year.
The importance of Lend Lease to the Soviets, though downplayed by modern history revisionists, cannot be overstated. Simply put, the Russians could not produce enough food, fuel (specifically aviation), rubber, trucks, communication equipment, and numerous other items to support the Red Army. Without lend lease the Red Army would have been a foot-borne, barefoot, starving mob. Their armor would be abandoned because there would be no trucks to bring up fuel for them. And what trucks they did have would have no tires. Their artillery would be left behind, again because of lack of transport. The Soviet Air Force would be grounded due to lack of aviation fuel. Meanwhile, back in the Urals, there would be thousands of brand new T-34s, 152mm howitzers, PPSH, and a myriad of other armaments piling up outside various factories with no way to get them to the front.
In other words, the Soviets would have collapsed if not for lend lease.
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 10:56 am
Posted on 9/28/23 at 10:58 am to DakIsNoLB
quote:
The Baku fields supplied Soviets with all the oil they could need for their ground forces. High octane, high-quality aviation gasoline was an entirely different issue.
I’d imagine the 8th Air Force would’ve gone to town on the oil fields and the introduction of the Superfortress with long range fighter escorts would’ve meant there wasn’t much the Soviets could’ve done to stop our interdiction efforts.
I do wonder how effectively the allied armies could’ve scaled their petroleum supplies to upscale their numbers in the field to match the Soviets, but with the war against Japan over and the full might of the US Navy being brought to bear without having to maintain the ridiculous supply chains in the pacific I imagine Ike and Marshall would’ve figured it out sooner or later.
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 11:08 am
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:03 am to Truama_dawg
I don't understand how REL is listed by some, he lost biggly. A big part of a general's job is keeping his men out of unwinnable situations.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:07 am to RollTide1987
quote:
I don't regard Cold Harbor as a mistake.
All of Grants Corp and division commanders did. They all but tore their hair out begging him to call off his attacks.
The confederates thought it was madness.
quote:
They had the Confederate army just 10 miles northeast of Richmond, entrenched in front of the Chickahominy River,
Entrenched being the key word there with short supply lines as an added bonus.
If you want to argue day one wasn’t a mistake in that he was trying to force the lines BEFORE they could fully assemble their army and dig in, fair.
But once Lee was dug in Grant should’ve gone elsewhere as the odds for success were very poor.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:16 am to Rabby
quote:
According to their own writings then and later, they were starving and largely being fed by our supplies which were delivered by our ships. Also, much of their equipment was failing. They were driving a lot of our Studebakers and other donated vehicles without spare parts and their battle tanks were not reliable for any serious distances and the railways were slow to recover. If we had gone to battle, they would not have been very effective until they could squeeze resources from their newly taken countries and reestablished their manufacturing capabilities.
Having said this, the Russian Army is famous for pushing on through terrible adversity.
All of this. Some 2/3rds of Red Army wheeled vehicles were US-made. Their elite Guards armor that led the attack into Berlin drove Sherman E-8's, and greatly preferred them to their own T-34 unreliable death traps (15% crew survival rate when hit, Sherman was almost the opposite). The Soviets could not make high octane fuel, and imported all of it from us. Their air forces would have been significantly degraded as high octane fuel ran out. I could go on.
First few days would have been ugly, but after the first breakthrough, it would have looked like the early months of Barbarossa.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:17 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Everybody will say Patton but the answer is Eisenhower.
For me it will always be Eisenhower.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:18 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The importance of Lend Lease to the Soviets, though downplayed by modern history revisionists, cannot be overstated.
quote:
In other words, the Soviets would have collapsed if not for lend lease.
I know this well, and I agree, but we are talking about facing off after the fall of Berlin. I don't think they would collapse immediately when Lend Lease would stop in this hypothetical conflict, and what they did have would have to be bled out of those stockpiles to start seeing the effects them relying solely on their own domestic production. I don't know how long that would have taken.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:20 am to tide06
quote:
I’d imagine the 8th Air Force would’ve gone to town on the oil fields and the introduction of the Superfortress with long range fighter escorts would’ve meant there wasn’t much the Soviets could’ve done to stop our interdiction efforts.
I do wonder how effectively the allied armies could’ve scaled their petroleum supplies to upscale their numbers in the field to match the Soviets, but with the war against Japan over and the full might of the US Navy being brought to bear without having to maintain the ridiculous supply chains in the pacific I imagine Ike and Marshall would’ve figured it out sooner or later.
More good points. The Soviet AF was a tactical force, with little to no high altitude capability. They would have been hard pressed to put up the same fight against B-29 formations that the Luftwaffe did. The favored fighter for many of their aces was the US P-39, and they wouldn't be getting any more of those, or their spares.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:28 am to tide06
quote:
So you praise one commander for burning out the civilian population of an entire valley using total war tactics then castigate another for Ft Pillow, interesting.
Without question. At the end, the Union had generals who were forward looking in Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. They understood time was not on their side, every year that passed without victory opened windows for defeat, and the means of production are legitimate military targets in modern warfare. Paraphrasing Sherman here, but he said the only merciful act you can do in war is to end it.
Applying that here:
Sheridan ended theaters of the war and hastened the end of the war - merciful and strategic.
Forrest butchered captured soldiers, which is perhaps merciful if compared to being sent to Andersonville. That type of butchery often has the opposite affect intended - not merciful, not strategic.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:28 am to Boston911
quote:
This discussion wouldn’t be complete without a mention of Chesty Puller
Was wondering how long it’d take for him to get a mention.
Although Army generals get more notoriety because they’re typically in charge of more forces, USMC is so small-unit minded. But damn are we fricking tenacious. “Hey, 1/1, you see those mfs over there, go fricking kill them all.”
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:28 am to Truama_dawg
Lee
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:29 am to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
Eisenhower had a lot of personalities he had to manage, especially in the lead up to the Invasion of France. Patton and Montgomery has massive egos.
Yeah, but Patton could at least back his up.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:31 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Tactical? Nathan Bedford Forrest
One of the most criminally underrated generals in US/military history. As is Patrick Cleburne.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:34 am to grizzlylongcut
Haven’t seen a mention yet of Henry Knox.
In terms of feats that required incomprehensible leadership, Knox taking cannons from Ticonderoga and across New England in the dead of winter to end the siege of Boston is at the top of my list. I truly do not understand how they did that. The number of water bodies they would have had to forge with 60 ton cannons, going up and and over mountains. What type of footware did they have. My feet would be so cold.
Knox really is an all time great American.
In terms of feats that required incomprehensible leadership, Knox taking cannons from Ticonderoga and across New England in the dead of winter to end the siege of Boston is at the top of my list. I truly do not understand how they did that. The number of water bodies they would have had to forge with 60 ton cannons, going up and and over mountains. What type of footware did they have. My feet would be so cold.
Knox really is an all time great American.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:54 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I was only replying to someone who mentioned Chesty Puller, who did not achieve the rank of general during the war. In fact he would not get his first star until the Korean War. So, yes he was a colonel at Peleliu, which is the normal rank to command a regiment, which he did at Peleliu, specifically the 1st Marine Regiment. And he proved to be a disaster for the regiment. After Puller repeatedly ordered the 1st Marines to conduct numerous disastrous frontal assaults of dug in Japanese positions, the 1st Marines were virtually destroyed as a cohesive combat unit, having suffered almost 60% casualties in a matter of days. The 1st Marines were replaced on Peleliu by an Army regiment from the 81st Infantry Division and sent back to Pavuvu To be rebuilt. As for Puller, he would not command troops in combat again in the Pacific campaign. He was sent back to the states to take over a training command.,
sorry, i misunderstood your post. my "history enthusiast" side often has to do battle with my "inundated by Marine Corps propaganda" side. i assumed you were being sarcastic and in support of Puller. criticizing him is slightly worse than criticizing the good Lord in the Marines, so that possibility didnt even register.
i am in agreement with you. Peleliu was certainly not peak Chesty.
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 11:55 am
Posted on 9/28/23 at 12:06 pm to Sam Quint
quote:
i am in agreement with you. Peleliu was certainly not peak Chesty.
He was given a chance for redemption when he was sent command the his old 1st Marines during the Korean War. He did far better this time, leading them during the Inchon landings and the Chosen Reservoir. It was in Korea where he was promoted to Brigadier General and given his first divisional command, namely the 1st Marine Division, albeit temporary.
Considering his stellar leadership of 1/7 Marines at Guadalcanal, where he first rose to fame to the American public, and his command of the 1st Marines in Korea, particularly at Chosen, his terrible leadership of the 1st Marines at Peleliu seems a bit out of character for him.
Page 13 of 17
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News