re: Who is the GOAT of all U.S generals?

George Washington.

He was a general, president and overseeing a revolution. I don’t know how the man slept at night.

quote:

---

battle honed tactics

---

Whole lotta meh regarding the Soviet’s battlefield tactics when you read things like a Soviet general responding to the question of what they would do if they encountered a minefield. He said “we simply advance as if it’s not even there.”

They had a shitload of men, and were willing to spend them all. That doesn’t make them geniuses.

quote:

---

Whole lotta meh regarding the Soviet’s battlefield tactics when you read things like a Soviet general responding to the question of what they would do if they encountered a minefield. He said “we simply advance as if it’s not even there.” They had a shitload of men, and were willing to spend them all. That doesn’t make them geniuses.

---

Not quite. Context is important here. When the conversation happened, the Allies were getting bogged down with mine fields, and the main forces would get bombarded with artillery while the mine fields were cleared.

Zhukov’s point was they suffered the same amount of casualties if they went through the minefield than if the stopped and waited for it to be cleared.

quote:

---

Cool.

So..."his leadership [of] the 1st Marines at Peleilu was nothing short of criminal" is complete bullshite.

Appreciate the assist.

---

I'd have to agree with Vader that it was pretty criminal. Frontal attacks for four straight days, leading to the loss of almost 60% of your command, doesn't look good no matter how you slice it. Sure, it is true that Rupertus was ordering Puller to keep up the pressure, but it was Puller's decision to attack the way the 1st Marine Regiment attacked: which was suicidally.

That all being said, Puller certainly learned from the big mistakes he made on Peleliu and led much better in Korea some six years later. However, it is most definitely true that Puller sucked hard donkey balls while in command of combat troops on Peleliu.

quote:

---

I'm surprised Washington wasn't mentioned in the first 3 responses

---

From a tactical standpoint, Washington was nothing amazing. His greatest quality was leadership.

One of my favorite stories about him was from the end of the war when unpaid officers were threatening to march on Philly. He met with them to talk them down.

The story is that as he stepped forward to speak, he patted around to find his glasses. He then told the crowd, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." Battle-hardened men wept in pride for him and shame for themselves.

Anyone mentioning Grant, Lee, Eisenhower, MacArthur, or even Washington have lost your minds IF the purpose is to find the greatest tactician. They were great at organizing armies but on the battlefield tactics just weren’t their strong points with the exceptions of Lee and MacArthur at times but certainly not consistently. Most of Lee’s successes were do to other Generals under his command like Jackson or Stuart. Patton was absolutely the better tactician than Eisenhower or Bradley. Sherman was the much better tactician than Grant and the Navy/Marines did much more of the heavy lifting for MacArthur in the Pacific during WW2. Korea? Was a much better campaign for MacArthur but even then his replacement had to clean up his mess.

quote:

---

Rip Torn

---

You do bring up a great point. The argument needs to be divided into tactical, operational and strategic lines of effort. Someone can be a great tactical leader but a horrible strategic leader. Different skill sets.

quote:

---

There you go. Anyone worth listening to recognizes that MajGen Rupertus owns nearly all of the blame for what happened to 1st MARDIV at Peleliu.

---

"I was just following orders," is not a valid excuse or argument in regards to Puller's conduct of command on the island of Peleliu in September 1944. Rupertus ordered Puller to attack, yet it was Puller's decision to attack via frontal assaults against fortified Japanese positions. There's a reason why he didn't lead troops into combat again in World War II.

Just because you lose tactically in battles occasionally doesn’t mean you aren’t a good tactician overall. Napoleon being a prime example of that, his decision to invade Russia was a mistake and his losses towards the end of his career weren’t great either but overall he is probably one of the greatest tacticians of all time. Whether you like it or not, his scorched earth policy towards the South and Atlanta specifically were very successful. In battle, the ends justify the means. At no point did I claim he was a genius but comparatively speaking with Grant he was the slightly better overall tactician. Grant would have never used his methods