Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,666,340 times
Reputation: 10256
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
I'll stick up for Bragg. The man had good strategic sense and was aggressive. His Kentucky campaign was the most dangerous Rebel gambit of the war.
Bragg's biggest mistakes were in not shooting Polk, Hardee, Hindman and DH Hill. And Longstreet, he should'a shot him too.
Longstreet's an interesting case. He was at times the finest corps commander of the war---his performences at Antietam and 2nd Bull Run were outstanding and the second day at Gettysburg his corps did arguably the finest single day's fighting by any corps in the entire war. His hammer blow at Chickamauga was superb as was his flank attack in the Wilderness.
And yet.
After Chickamauga Longstreet fell right in with the insubordinate and treasonous clique in the Army of Tennessee. His failure to hold Lookout Valley was a blunder to equal anything done by Burnside. His irresponsible behavior led to his being sent to east Tennessee where he was whipped by Burnside of all people. Not to mention that his troops would have come in handy at Chattanooga. Longstreet is as culpable as anyone in the fall of Chattanooga and one must wonder how things would've turned out had he given Bragg his wholehearted efforts rather than engaging in backbiting and intrique.
Yeah, ole Pete was a funny case.
I agree with your take on Bragg, Tom. At first glance, he seems to be the perfect choice for worst, until you read up on the losers he was dealing with. At that point, I can only wonder how long the Army of Tennessee would have lasted without Claiborne.
I agree with your take on Bragg, Tom. At first glance, he seems to be the perfect choice for worst, until you read up on the losers he was dealing with. At that point, I can only wonder how long the Army of Tennessee would have lasted without Claiborne.
Well Southbound, Cleburne was Hardee's protege and he got involved in the destructive army politics too. It was probably for that reason that a belatedly wise Jefferson Davis never promoted Cleburne to corps command. And then there was the Black thing.
But Cleburne was probably THE division commander of the war, his fight against Joe Hooker at Ringgold Gap was one of the most skilled actions of the war.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,666,340 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
Well Southbound, Cleburne was Hardee's protege and he got involved in the destructive army politics too. It was probably for that reason that a belatedly wise Jefferson Davis never promoted Cleburne to corps command. And then there was the Black thing.
But Cleburne was probably THE division commander of the war, his fight against Joe Hooker at Ringgold Gap was one of the most skilled actions of the war.
I recall reading an item about Field Marshall Montgomery's 1957 visit to
Dwight Eisenhower's Gettysburg farm. While showing Montgomery around the Gettysburg Battlefield they came to the site of Pickett's charge. Eisenhower reportedly told Montgomery that he would have fired any subordinate that had ordered that charge. It was, of course, a reflection on General Lee and Southerners weren't happy with the remark. Upon hearing the details of the disastrous charge, Montgomery was said to have exclaimed with one word: "monstrous." However, Montgomery was probably trying to forget his own Operation Market Garden (Arnhem) disaster. He had the reputation of being one of the most difficult and exasperating generals of WWII. Few were more vainglorious and egocentric as Montgomery.
What about the Australian Thomas Blamey? I've no opinion but opinions of the informed seem very polarised; some saying he was capable and other saying he was a total bungler.
One must keep in mind that Montgomery took part in and was appalled by the butchery of the Western Front in The Great War, an experience no Americans had. I think his methods were informed by those experiences and he sought to hold losses down by fighting conservative battles and trying to gain every advantage before fighting. Note also that Montgomery was very aware that the British, unlike the Americans and Russians, were unable to replace their losses and as the war went on the British army was shrinking.
Now as to whether his methods actually held losses down in the long run is another story but I do have sympathy for his approach.
Pershing is criticized by some Great War historians for failure to learn from the mistakes made earlier in the war and a failure to use the new tactics and methods developed by 1918. That he was unimaginative and caused much higher American losses than needed.
In his book "Battle Tactics on the Western Front" Paddy Griffith expalins the British search for methods that would break the trench deadlock. There were formidable problems to be overcome and the British almost overcame them in 1917.
Of course the German Spring Offensive of 1918 showed the use of new tactics could work well but the Germans lacked the logistical power to make good on their gains. But late summer 1918 the British had it all in place---new infantry and artillery tactics, tanks, air support for the infantry and the logistics to go with it. Thus victory.
I didn't say Pershing was a great leader. I just say that he was far less incompetent that the rest.
You're right that the British began searching for tactics, but it came after far too many Tommies had died.
One must keep in mind that Montgomery took part in and was appalled by the butchery of the Western Front in The Great War, an experience no Americans had. I think his methods were informed by those experiences and he sought to hold losses down by fighting conservative battles and trying to gain every advantage before fighting. Note also that Montgomery was very aware that the British, unlike the Americans and Russians, were unable to replace their losses and as the war went on the British army was shrinking.
Now as to whether his methods actually held losses down in the long run is another story but I do have sympathy for his approach.
I think you make an excellent point. As a result, Montgomery tended to amass huge material advantage before launching an attack.
At the same time, I would offer up Market-Garden as an example of Montgomery's incompetent as a commander, chiefly because he uncharacteristically came up with an audacious plan, but failed to foresee all the ways it could go wrong, particularly the failure of logistics management after the siezure of the Nijmegen bridge.
What do you think about General Abizaid ? He led the losing cause for 4 years
in Iraq. When confronted by Sen. McCain at senate hearings after 4 yrs. he
said the outlook was "grim." Good generals make things happen when its "grim"
as evidenced when Patreaus turned it around in 6 months.
What do you think about General Abizaid ? He led the losing cause for 4 years
in Iraq. When confronted by Sen. McCain at senate hearings after 4 yrs. he
said the outlook was "grim." Good generals make things happen when its "grim"
as evidenced when Patreaus turned it around in 6 months.
A good point. However, I would offer that the sorry performance in Iraq after the occupation should at least be attributed partially to Donald Rumsfeld, rather than simply blame the generals. Despite the obvious need to switch tactics from conventional warfare to asymmetrical warfare (Largely based on the UK's successful experience in Malaysia during the 1950s), Rumsfeld actively prevented doctrinal change, leading to years of chaos. With a new Defense Secretary, fresh thinking and approaches were suddenly considered and implemented, most notably applied in General Petraeus's surge. The result? A completely different situation in Iraq from a year ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
