David Hurlbert
Active member
....and why?
Who was the worst American general or battlefield tactician?
IrishWizard
Active member
May get some bashing but I think it was Ulysess S. Grant. Never really proved himself strategically. Would just attack non-stop. Was careless when it came to lives of men, but knew it had to be done. Basically a early form of what the russians did at stalingrad in WWII. Just keep sending men non-stop till the enemy can't hold anymore. He lost many many battles, but only advanced because of the numbers of men he had and how weak the CSA was in the west.
David Hurlbert
Active member
Fortunately, most poor tacticians and/or battlefield leaders seldom acquire the rank of admiral or general in the U.S. military system. Nonetheless, in our brief history, we have had our share of idiots or poor military leaders on the battlefield. As for Grant, IrishWizard you will get no bashing from me because I agree. However, when it came to massive ego, pompous behavior, and being accredited with the single greatest military defeat in U.S. history, complete with exhortations to duty, punctuated by exaggerated narcissistic personality disorder, General Douglas MacArthur had no equal.
His pompous behavior was best illustrated by his assault on the American veterans of World War I. The Great Depression's worst year about 25,000 World War I veterans, many of whom were decorated American combat heroes – walked, hitch-hiked or rode the rails to Washington, D.C. Organizing themselves into a vagrant army of sorts, they squatted with their families in along Pennsylvania Avenue and pitched an encampment of crude self-made shacks and tents on the banks of the Anacostia River in an effort to obtain their promised war bonus pensions. In June 1932, President Hoover ordered MacArthur to peacefully route the crowds. MacArthur used tanks, four troops of cavalry with drawn sabers, and infantry with fixed bayonets to meet the ragged bunch of men, women, and children with tear-gas. Following the cavalry charge, came the tear-gas attack, routing the Bonus Army from Pennsylvania Avenue and across the Eleventh Street Bridge. Disregarding orders – a common theme throughout his career – MacArthur decided to finish the job by destroying the “Bonus Army” entirely. After nightfall, the tanks and cavalry leveled the jumbled camp of tents and packing-crate shacks. It was all put to the torch. There were more than one hundred casualties in the aftermath of the battle, including two babies, suffocated by the gas attack and most of the peoples lost all their personal possessions.
Okay he had no respect for American wartime veterans, but what about his tactical skills as a military leader? In one word, terrible! How could anyone consider General Douglas MacArthur to be a brilliant tactician when he is known for leading the single greatest military defeat in U.S. history, the loss of the Philippines. It is remarkable how MacArthur escaped any reprimand, kept his command and got his fourth star on December 17th and a Congressional Medal of Honor for "gallantry and intrepidity" at Bataan where he spent part of only one day for an inspection. He was awarded the medal after he had already fled and deserted his troops. His ultimate reward was orders to leave the Philippines with his family while his soldiers were subjected to the deadly brutality of the Bataan Death March. The losses were horrific with over 31,000 Americans 80,000 Filipino troops, and 26,000 refugees on Bataan. And let’s not forget about the battle “retaking of the Philippines” in which 600,000 civilians were killed.
The Imperial forces destroyed half his air force in one assault and within weeks invaded Luzon. Forced to abandon his Corregidor headquarters in 1942, he escaped to Australia, where he made the memorable pledge that became the Allied motto in the Pacific: “I came through, and I shall return.” MacArthur had been soundly defeated, yet I am amazed how he became an instant national hero and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In addition and perhaps not coincidentally, MacArthur was given $500,000 and his staff $100,000 upon leaving the Philippines. In today's money, $500,000 is equivalent to about $5 million. The $35,000 given to him to cover expenses was invested in the stock market and made him a millionaire by war's end.
Furthermore and despite MacArthur's boasting about always bypassing enemy strongholds, he planned to invade New Britain and capture the heavily defended base at Rabaul. Only orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff prevented this potential bloodbath. Undoubtedly many other islands would have been better off bypassed. Nonetheless, some consider the war in Korea have also been a costly one. Total U.S. casualties during the war numbered approximately 136,000 killed, missing in action, and wounded. But that is just the tip of the iceberg when one considers that General Douglas Macarthur’s conduct during the initial phase of the Korean War. Many historians suggest that Macarthur’s ‘agenda’ brought USA and USSR extremely close to the brink of World War 3.
So who were the real tacticians and strategists behind winning the war in the Pacific Theater? The brilliant minds of naval leaders like Admirals William F. Halsey, Chester W. Nimitz, and Raymond A. Spruance were the real tacticians and heroes behind MacArthur’s claims to success in the Pacific Theater.
His pompous behavior was best illustrated by his assault on the American veterans of World War I. The Great Depression's worst year about 25,000 World War I veterans, many of whom were decorated American combat heroes – walked, hitch-hiked or rode the rails to Washington, D.C. Organizing themselves into a vagrant army of sorts, they squatted with their families in along Pennsylvania Avenue and pitched an encampment of crude self-made shacks and tents on the banks of the Anacostia River in an effort to obtain their promised war bonus pensions. In June 1932, President Hoover ordered MacArthur to peacefully route the crowds. MacArthur used tanks, four troops of cavalry with drawn sabers, and infantry with fixed bayonets to meet the ragged bunch of men, women, and children with tear-gas. Following the cavalry charge, came the tear-gas attack, routing the Bonus Army from Pennsylvania Avenue and across the Eleventh Street Bridge. Disregarding orders – a common theme throughout his career – MacArthur decided to finish the job by destroying the “Bonus Army” entirely. After nightfall, the tanks and cavalry leveled the jumbled camp of tents and packing-crate shacks. It was all put to the torch. There were more than one hundred casualties in the aftermath of the battle, including two babies, suffocated by the gas attack and most of the peoples lost all their personal possessions.
Okay he had no respect for American wartime veterans, but what about his tactical skills as a military leader? In one word, terrible! How could anyone consider General Douglas MacArthur to be a brilliant tactician when he is known for leading the single greatest military defeat in U.S. history, the loss of the Philippines. It is remarkable how MacArthur escaped any reprimand, kept his command and got his fourth star on December 17th and a Congressional Medal of Honor for "gallantry and intrepidity" at Bataan where he spent part of only one day for an inspection. He was awarded the medal after he had already fled and deserted his troops. His ultimate reward was orders to leave the Philippines with his family while his soldiers were subjected to the deadly brutality of the Bataan Death March. The losses were horrific with over 31,000 Americans 80,000 Filipino troops, and 26,000 refugees on Bataan. And let’s not forget about the battle “retaking of the Philippines” in which 600,000 civilians were killed.
The Imperial forces destroyed half his air force in one assault and within weeks invaded Luzon. Forced to abandon his Corregidor headquarters in 1942, he escaped to Australia, where he made the memorable pledge that became the Allied motto in the Pacific: “I came through, and I shall return.” MacArthur had been soundly defeated, yet I am amazed how he became an instant national hero and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In addition and perhaps not coincidentally, MacArthur was given $500,000 and his staff $100,000 upon leaving the Philippines. In today's money, $500,000 is equivalent to about $5 million. The $35,000 given to him to cover expenses was invested in the stock market and made him a millionaire by war's end.
Furthermore and despite MacArthur's boasting about always bypassing enemy strongholds, he planned to invade New Britain and capture the heavily defended base at Rabaul. Only orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff prevented this potential bloodbath. Undoubtedly many other islands would have been better off bypassed. Nonetheless, some consider the war in Korea have also been a costly one. Total U.S. casualties during the war numbered approximately 136,000 killed, missing in action, and wounded. But that is just the tip of the iceberg when one considers that General Douglas Macarthur’s conduct during the initial phase of the Korean War. Many historians suggest that Macarthur’s ‘agenda’ brought USA and USSR extremely close to the brink of World War 3.
So who were the real tacticians and strategists behind winning the war in the Pacific Theater? The brilliant minds of naval leaders like Admirals William F. Halsey, Chester W. Nimitz, and Raymond A. Spruance were the real tacticians and heroes behind MacArthur’s claims to success in the Pacific Theater.
LeatherNeckRVA
Active member
MacArthur was a WW1 veteran and was doing his duty. He had retired from military service before WW2 and lived in the phillipines to help govern the country, he had neither the troops or the supplies to hold the phillipines and his landing at Leyte is considered miraculous. He also made several brilliant landing behind the 38th parallel in Korea with Inchon being the most noteable. Calling MacArthur a poor strategist should be sacrilege as far as I'm concerned, his actions towards the bonus army have no impact on his abilities as a tactician. And you shouldn't skip over his highly decorated performance in WW1 where he was designated the youngest divisional commander in the field. I'm not really going anywhere with this other than I like MacArthur......alot.
David Hurlbert
Active member
LeatherNeckRVA, like all the opinions expressed in these posts, I have no less respect for yours because we disagree over MacArthur. Furthermore, you have every right to like the man as I do to dislike him. However and in your words, “his [implying MacArthur’s Plan] landing at Leyte is considered miraculous.” I totally agree with you in that this was a brilliant plan. Unfortunately, you gave the credit for this plan to the wrong person. Based on the fact that naval reconnaissance revealed very limited Japanese activity in the Philippines, Admiral Halsey proposed this plan to land directly on Leyte in October. This plan actually led to a change in strategy and was quickly approved by the U.S. Chiefs of Staff, who were at that time attending a Quebec Conference. Strategically, Admiral Halsey’s plan was brilliant, because it would force the Japanese to split their forces in the Philippines and practically force the Japanese Combined Fleet to come out in the open to meet the threat. So as I previously noted, “The brilliant minds of naval leaders like Admirals William F. Halsey, Chester W. Nimitz, and Raymond A. Spruance were the real tacticians and heroes behind MacArthur’s claims to success in the Pacific Theater.”
LeatherNeckRVA
Active member
point taken
Mark Conley
Active member
dh76513 said:
Now...this was the same Admiral that based on inadequate intelligence, withdrew his main battle fleet from the shore landing force in order to annialate the decoy Japanese fleet while two other japanese task forces snaked their way to the landing sites.
One got nailed big time in the strait. the other was more successful and made it to the landing areas, and was totally in reality unopposed (Battleships and cruisers against destroyers and jeep carriers? Meat on the table for the Japanese)
I believe if it hadn't been for the courage and sacrifice of the ships of Taffy 1, Taffy 2, and Taffy 3, these landings would have had a much different outcome. And Halsey would have been remembered alright..for a great ship slaughter (his own, not theirs).
Guys, even the greatest make mistakes...please remember that.
David Hurlbert
Active member
Mark, I agree with you and the point that everyone makes mistakes is a very well established truth, but this truth was neither accepted nor understood by MacArthur. Unlike us and the many other leaders in the Pacific Theater, however, General MacArthur took credit for all the victories while blaming others for all the losses. And this is just one more reason why I think he was not a good leader.
Mark Conley
Active member
roger that... 
David Hurlbert
Active member
“I am not young enough to know everything.” Oscar Wilde (1854 – 1900).
bush musketeer
Active member
maccauthur
macarthur is still hated at least in my little area of the world. mainly due to how he handled things in ww2. due to inaccurate intelligence he had no bloody idea of what the coditions were like to fight in because like some english generals in ww1 he never got any where near the battlefeild.(the battalion that recruited from my area sent 600men to PNG only 21 were left fit for duty after buna) so that might have sumthing to do with why they hate him still. He basically tried to take the credit for what better commanders acheived. macarthur in a report to washington on the 6th sept 1942 wrote"the australians have proved themselves unable to match the enemy in jungle fighting. aggressive leadership is lacking". but neglecty to talk about the letter he had recieved from general blamey stating that "American troops here at present can't be classified as attack troops and are definatly not equal to australian millitiaand from the moment they met oppisition they sat down and have hardley gone a yard"
quite interesting that he forgot to add that bit ithink. He blaimed the aussies for any failures and tried to take all the credit for himself.
a quote from a recent biographer about new guinea including the battle of buna" Macaurthur, in short, never saw the battlefeild. Six days later the feild commander wrote bluntly that the c-in-c hadn't visited the front once 'to see at first hand the difficulties our troops were up against', and later he wrote bitterley that 'the great hero went home without seeing BUNA before, during or after the fighting but printed press articles from G.H.Q. to say that he was leading troops in the battle.... macarthur just stayed over at port moresby for 40 minutes and walked the floor. i know this to be a fact.'
After the war Douglas Southall Freeman, a biograhper off lee asked Eichelberger, just when did general macarthur move his head quarters to buna?' Eichelberger doged the question, and subsuquently the general said to him, 'Bob, those were great days when you and i were fighting at BUNA, wern't they?' and laughed. Eichelberger interpreted this as a warning not to disclose that he (macarthur) never went to BUNA.
In Brisbane macarthur had told phillip lafollette that he would never follow the examples of those world war 1 commanders who had clung to their chateaux in the rear areas while 'flinging millions of men to there slaughter in the stupidity of trench warfare'. yet in PNG he did something very close to that!"
taken from William manchester's "American Caesar, Douglas macarthur, 1880-1964. pp.326-327
he was an arrogant barstard .
macarthur is still hated at least in my little area of the world. mainly due to how he handled things in ww2. due to inaccurate intelligence he had no bloody idea of what the coditions were like to fight in because like some english generals in ww1 he never got any where near the battlefeild.(the battalion that recruited from my area sent 600men to PNG only 21 were left fit for duty after buna) so that might have sumthing to do with why they hate him still. He basically tried to take the credit for what better commanders acheived. macarthur in a report to washington on the 6th sept 1942 wrote"the australians have proved themselves unable to match the enemy in jungle fighting. aggressive leadership is lacking". but neglecty to talk about the letter he had recieved from general blamey stating that "American troops here at present can't be classified as attack troops and are definatly not equal to australian millitiaand from the moment they met oppisition they sat down and have hardley gone a yard"
quite interesting that he forgot to add that bit ithink. He blaimed the aussies for any failures and tried to take all the credit for himself.
a quote from a recent biographer about new guinea including the battle of buna" Macaurthur, in short, never saw the battlefeild. Six days later the feild commander wrote bluntly that the c-in-c hadn't visited the front once 'to see at first hand the difficulties our troops were up against', and later he wrote bitterley that 'the great hero went home without seeing BUNA before, during or after the fighting but printed press articles from G.H.Q. to say that he was leading troops in the battle.... macarthur just stayed over at port moresby for 40 minutes and walked the floor. i know this to be a fact.'
After the war Douglas Southall Freeman, a biograhper off lee asked Eichelberger, just when did general macarthur move his head quarters to buna?' Eichelberger doged the question, and subsuquently the general said to him, 'Bob, those were great days when you and i were fighting at BUNA, wern't they?' and laughed. Eichelberger interpreted this as a warning not to disclose that he (macarthur) never went to BUNA.
In Brisbane macarthur had told phillip lafollette that he would never follow the examples of those world war 1 commanders who had clung to their chateaux in the rear areas while 'flinging millions of men to there slaughter in the stupidity of trench warfare'. yet in PNG he did something very close to that!"
taken from William manchester's "American Caesar, Douglas macarthur, 1880-1964. pp.326-327
he was an arrogant barstard .
It looks like it's pretty unanimous on MacArthur.
He deserves to spend eternity in the lowest circle of Dante's Inferno just for leaving his men swinging in the wind in the Phillipines, thanks to his cowardice and ineptitude.
But, to top it off, all those men who are honored in the new Korean War Memorial have MacArthur to thank. The Chinese made it pretty clear that MacArthur better give some berth to the Yalu River, but MacArthur ignored them and his superiors. Then, to paraphrase Custer, "Where did all these Chinese come from?"
The best I can say about MacArthur was that he wasn't that bad a tactician, however, he was a terrible strategist. He was narcissistic, arrogant, morally bankrupt and exhibited a supreme lack of judgement.
MacArthur was a mama's boy who was lucky to have a politically connected mother in Washington, DC. After she died, and he screwed up (again) in Korea, he was finally sacked (since Mama wasn't around to bail him out for the umpteenth time).
He deserves to spend eternity in the lowest circle of Dante's Inferno just for leaving his men swinging in the wind in the Phillipines, thanks to his cowardice and ineptitude.
But, to top it off, all those men who are honored in the new Korean War Memorial have MacArthur to thank. The Chinese made it pretty clear that MacArthur better give some berth to the Yalu River, but MacArthur ignored them and his superiors. Then, to paraphrase Custer, "Where did all these Chinese come from?"
The best I can say about MacArthur was that he wasn't that bad a tactician, however, he was a terrible strategist. He was narcissistic, arrogant, morally bankrupt and exhibited a supreme lack of judgement.
MacArthur was a mama's boy who was lucky to have a politically connected mother in Washington, DC. After she died, and he screwed up (again) in Korea, he was finally sacked (since Mama wasn't around to bail him out for the umpteenth time).
Young Winston
Banned
Certainly Australia owes alot to the US during WW2.
Unfortunately plenty of Australian soldiers who fought bravely and doggedly through the jungles of New Guinea (an absolute hell on earth!) did not think much of MacArthur's criticisms of them as being to slow. Particularly at Buna while the US forces were "island hopping".
Look MacArthur was still a great General but he didn't want to take any blame for things that went wrong. He was a great egotist.
My worst US military leader was I think General Clark at Anzio. Initially very indecisive.The US forces may have reached Rome much faster but poor leadership resulted in the them having to battle a very tough German defense costing thousands of lives.
Unfortunately plenty of Australian soldiers who fought bravely and doggedly through the jungles of New Guinea (an absolute hell on earth!) did not think much of MacArthur's criticisms of them as being to slow. Particularly at Buna while the US forces were "island hopping".
Look MacArthur was still a great General but he didn't want to take any blame for things that went wrong. He was a great egotist.
My worst US military leader was I think General Clark at Anzio. Initially very indecisive.The US forces may have reached Rome much faster but poor leadership resulted in the them having to battle a very tough German defense costing thousands of lives.
GuyontheRight
Active member
Maj. General Lloyd R Fredendall, the II Corps Commander in the early stages of the North African campaign.
David Hurlbert
Active member
GuyontheRight,
While I agree that General Fredendall was certainly badly defeated at Kasserine Pass, we must at least acknowledge that he was on a “new” battlefield where combined armed tactics with an unmatched military machine were to be utilized in a manner the American forces were yet to experience much less study.
Aussiejohn,
I do agree that his tactical blunder of allowing the Germans to retreat in Italy is hard to forget, but I think he was forgiven when he was promoted to commander of the 15th Army Group and later accepted the surrender of those German forces in Italy. As an assistant to Eisenhower during the North African campaign, I do think he was very he was instrumental in the African Vichy surrender. He was given command of the US 5th Army in and about 8 or 9 months later spearheaded the invasion and subsequent campaigns.
I know I many poor American commanders, but I do not think neither of these gentlemen should make the list – or at least be on the top 10 list.
While I agree that General Fredendall was certainly badly defeated at Kasserine Pass, we must at least acknowledge that he was on a “new” battlefield where combined armed tactics with an unmatched military machine were to be utilized in a manner the American forces were yet to experience much less study.
Aussiejohn,
I do agree that his tactical blunder of allowing the Germans to retreat in Italy is hard to forget, but I think he was forgiven when he was promoted to commander of the 15th Army Group and later accepted the surrender of those German forces in Italy. As an assistant to Eisenhower during the North African campaign, I do think he was very he was instrumental in the African Vichy surrender. He was given command of the US 5th Army in and about 8 or 9 months later spearheaded the invasion and subsequent campaigns.
I know I many poor American commanders, but I do not think neither of these gentlemen should make the list – or at least be on the top 10 list.
Mark Conley
Active member
i have to agree with both individuals listed above..they really werent the cause of the problems or losses under their leadership.
for Clark, it was pure bad luck. The germans simply got there firstest with the mostest.
For Fredendall its worse: given big tanks with limited firing patterns, unseasoned men, and a bad battle area to start with, and you have the recipe for a disaster. It was the americans first foray in tank and desert warfare agaunst a skilled opponent. That, and the general didnt have that much experience with tank warfare: not many americans, with the exception of Patton, even considered the tank as a player until after WWII started.
I think the selection of a few more field stinkers is in order: you got to remember the rule of 20-80
its 20 percent of the force that does 80 percent of the brillant things...
for Clark, it was pure bad luck. The germans simply got there firstest with the mostest.
For Fredendall its worse: given big tanks with limited firing patterns, unseasoned men, and a bad battle area to start with, and you have the recipe for a disaster. It was the americans first foray in tank and desert warfare agaunst a skilled opponent. That, and the general didnt have that much experience with tank warfare: not many americans, with the exception of Patton, even considered the tank as a player until after WWII started.
I think the selection of a few more field stinkers is in order: you got to remember the rule of 20-80
its 20 percent of the force that does 80 percent of the brillant things...
Claymore
Active member
Wow, I cannot believe that nobody has mentioned Ambrose Burnside!
Grant got a vote or two but not Burnside? Look at his record, he has a bridge named after him at Antietam because he didn't have the sense to look for a way to ford the creek and instead spent precious hours trying to get over the bridge. He got thousands of Federal troops killed or wounded at Fredericksburg by not updating his strategy to account for the current conditions (not to mention waiting on the field for 2 days for the pontoon bridges). And then, just when you thought it was safe, he was responsible for another turkey-shoot at the "Crater". There is a reason why this man is largely considered to be the worst general in American history.
I do not agree about Grant. His attacks on Fort Donelson and his Vicksburg campaigns were very well executed. He was also one of the first generals to recognize how to beat the South - not by taking cities but by destroying armies. You can't argue with his record, he destroyed nearly every army he fought against.
Grant got a vote or two but not Burnside? Look at his record, he has a bridge named after him at Antietam because he didn't have the sense to look for a way to ford the creek and instead spent precious hours trying to get over the bridge. He got thousands of Federal troops killed or wounded at Fredericksburg by not updating his strategy to account for the current conditions (not to mention waiting on the field for 2 days for the pontoon bridges). And then, just when you thought it was safe, he was responsible for another turkey-shoot at the "Crater". There is a reason why this man is largely considered to be the worst general in American history.
I do not agree about Grant. His attacks on Fort Donelson and his Vicksburg campaigns were very well executed. He was also one of the first generals to recognize how to beat the South - not by taking cities but by destroying armies. You can't argue with his record, he destroyed nearly every army he fought against.
godofthunder9010
Active member
The post I put in here prior to the Database Crash ... well, my statement was that most of the Potomic Army commanders prior to Grant would have a strong case for being the worst US commander ever.
GuyontheRight
Active member
Grant got a vote or two but not Burnside? Look at his record, he has a bridge named after him at Antietam because he didn't have the sense to look for a way to ford the creek and instead spent precious hours trying to get over the bridge. He got thousands of Federal troops killed or wounded at Fredericksburg by not updating his strategy to account for the current conditions (not to mention waiting on the field for 2 days for the pontoon bridges). And then, just when you thought it was safe, he was responsible for another turkey-shoot at the "Crater". There is a reason why this man is largely considered to be the worst general in American history.
Yea, Bursnside should of used the Fresh Black troops he had availible for the assult on the lines outside of Petersburg.
Yea, Bursnside should of used the Fresh Black troops he had availible for the assult on the lines outside of Petersburg.
IrishWizard
Active member
Can't believe I forgot to mention him. Yeah, Burnsides is definitely in the top 3 for worst American generals. But see, I like the Confederates more than the Union so =)