Who was the worst American general or battlefield tactician? - Page 6




 
--
 
November 9th, 2004  
Patrick
 

Topic: Burnside?


It would seem that if Burnside remained a Brigade commander he may have had greater success throughout the war. His early success, 61/62 might be attributed to the fact that he was in command of a smaller number of forces engaged. It wasn't until his promotion that he began to fail miserably as his responsibilities increased.
Patrick
November 9th, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
Some people are not cut out to command the masses I guess
November 30th, 2004  
blight45
 
If I may submit another name, George Armstrong Custer.


and a comment on the topic. I think bad generalship has a tendency to be a self correcting problem, one way or another. Unfortunately for the rank and file this doesn't happen nearly fast enough.
--
November 30th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blight45
George Armstrong Custer.

I can agree with Custer. I think arrogance killed him. But who was worse ?

Custer? Or William Judd Fetterman?
December 3rd, 2004  
leandros
 
The first name that came to my mind was: Custer! However, I had to go all the way to the end of the link before I found anybody else of the same opinion - so I might be wrong.

He did a couple of good jobs during the civil War.
December 4th, 2004  
swordrapier
 
I really don't have a choice for the worst Gen. in the united states; however, I have seen Ike's name on the list. I don't know about that Just look at who he had working for him. To start with Bomber Command (UK) and the 8th air corps. Then lets move onto the ground forces first Monty (UK), Bradley, Patton, and Clark. Anyone that can juggle all of these egos and forge them into a coherent fighting force must be doing something right.

My choice for worst General In the united states would have to be one of the many out of the civil war.
January 14th, 2005  
Claymore
 
 

Topic: Re: Burnside?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
It would seem that if Burnside remained a Brigade commander he may have had greater success throughout the war. His early success, 61/62 might be attributed to the fact that he was in command of a smaller number of forces engaged. It wasn't until his promotion that he began to fail miserably as his responsibilities increased.
Patrick
I think that Burnside's greatest weakness was not in controlling large groups or forces but in responding to changes in battle conditions. What I mean by this is that he did not have the capability (at least not that he showed) to change tactics midstream when the situation dictated it. Two examples come to mind of this- the bridge at Antietam, where he spent hours trying to cross a bridge against heavy fire instead of fording the creek a little further upstream (where a crossing was very possible). The other example would of course be Fredericksburg, he waited for more than 2 days to attack when the pontoons had not been delivered on time, and insisted on proceeding with the set plan even though most of his staff objected. The result in both cases was many needless deaths to Union soldiers.
January 16th, 2005  
Sauvastika
 
Burnside was intelligent enough to realize that weakness, though. He refused command of the Army of the Potomac before his superiors forced him into the position. Burnside would have been more successful at the Crater if he had disobeyed Meade's order to use untrained white troops instead of the specially trained black troops to lead the assault.

I think the worst was Major General Sickle. In Gettysburg, he moved his III Corp to Peach Orchard causing a battle that decimated the III Corp and losses in other units which came to relieve him.
January 22nd, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Not US but I think General. Bernard Law Montgomery was the worst, Market Garden was a disater.

(Hey it says I can't have anymore Milbucks because I've fill the amount of alloted posts, What does that mean?)
January 22nd, 2005  
Chinaman
 
most useless is macarthur, he just had more men and more material and equipment agnist the japs