Worst American Generals?

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Rather obscure and didn't command battles, but Leslie McNair belongs on the list-he's policy on tanks as infantry support weapons and not using them to fight other tanks meant that heavy tanks weren't developed until the M-26 Pershing after his death and as a result American Shermans were greatly outgunned by German Panthers and Tigers.

Heh. This makes me grin a little; I live a few blocks from Ft. McNair, in DC.

[Gatopescado]

I'm no expert, but I don't think the Indians get the credit they deserve for wiping out Custer's command. Sure, Custer acted rather rashly, and flew headlong into a larger force, but he was basicly using tactics that had largly worked pretty well up to that point.

The difference at Little Bighorn was that the Indians were ready, knew he was coming, and determined to put up a fight. They fought well, and they won the battle.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

I've read assertions that Custer thought the warriors were away from the camp, and he was eager to get in there and kill defenseless women and children before the warriors returned.

No, they didn't plan on killing the defenseless women and children (at least not most of them). The plan was to ride in on a surprise attack and capture as many women and children as possible. Then these captives would essentially act as a "human shield". The Indian warriors would be limited in their ability to shoot at the soldiers because their own family members would be alongside them.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

No, they didn't plan on killing the defenseless women and children (at least not most of them). The plan was to ride in on a surprise attack and capture as many women and children as possible. Then these captives would essentially act as a "human shield". The Indian warriors would be limited in their ability to shoot at the soldiers because their own family members would be alongside them.

Okay, but imaging Custer saying "Kill defenseless women and children? Oh no, I'm not going to kill them. I'm going to use them as human shields!" makes him sound like a Bond villain instead of a war hero. :P

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Okay, but imaging Custer saying "Kill defenseless women and children? Oh no, I'm not going to kill them. I'm going to use them as human shields!" makes him sound like a Bond villain instead of a war hero. :P

Yes, I'm not saying Custer was winning any humanitarian awards for this scheme. But my point was he had a plan. It didn't work obviously but it's wrong to think that Custer just blundered himself into a massacre.

A trivia sidetrack: Custer was a pioneer aviator. During the Civil War, the two armies experimented with using balloons for aerial reconnaissance. Custer was one of the officers who volunteered to go up in a balloon to look over Confederate positions.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

A trivia sidetrack: Custer was a pioneer aviator. During the Civil War, the two armies experimented with using balloons for aerial reconnaissance. Custer was one of the officers who volunteered to go up in a balloon to look over Confederate positions.

Nitpick: I think the correct term is "aeronaut".

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Nitpick: I think the correct term is "aeronaut".

Aeronaut may be more precise but aviator isn't wrong. An aviator is somebody flying in any type of aircraft. An aeronaut is somebody flying specifically in a light-than-air aircraft.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

I'd vote for a more modern miscreant-General Westmoreland (Vietnam). Westmoreland seemed to be a total technocrat-he figured that the more men and materiel he could throw at his enemy, the more assured of victory he would be.
In this he was a good fit with such mindless droids as Robert MacNamara.
Of course, this lead to disasters like Khe Sanh-where millions of $$ and hundreds of lives were sacrificed to hold a "strong point" that was neither strategic nor of any importance. He also neglected intelligence, and failed completely to notice the obvious enemy buildup that culminated in the Tet Offensive. As an ex-artillery officer, he probably thought that Vietnam was like WWII-only the NVA would not fight the way he wanted them to-he seemed puzzled why they fought on their own terms, rather than on his.

Westmoreland was a good and decent man who, by all accounts, was a product of his environment. He gladly would have "won" the war if it had been possible, but he was hamstrung for a lot of reasons and probably couldn't have succeeded anyway simply because that war was singularly unsuited for the post-World War II US military.

I'd say Paul Harkins, his predecessor, was much worse. Not only was he completely out of his depth, he was a shameless liar to boot, and his lies made things much worse. David Halberstam absolutely and rightly savaged Harkins in The Best and the Brightest, and while he wasn't too big a fan of Westmoreland either he didn't give him nearly as much venom.

Also, depending upon what makes a General "bad", there have been numerous generals busted down to a much lower rank for crimes committed while commanding non-combat forces, like Thomas Fiscus.

[Two Many Cats]

Has anyone mentioned Benedict Arnold yet? I mean, he was the only out and out traitor.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Two Many Cats

Has anyone mentioned Benedict Arnold yet? I mean, he was the only out and out traitor.

Not the only one. I already mentioned Charles Lee and there was also James Wilkinson.

[Slithy Tove]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Yes, I'm not saying Custer was winning any humanitarian awards for this scheme. But my point was he had a plan. It didn't work obviously but it's wrong to think that Custer just blundered himself into a massacre.

A trivia sidetrack: Custer was a pioneer aviator. During the Civil War, the two armies experimented with using balloons for aerial reconnaissance. Custer was one of the officers who volunteered to go up in a balloon to look over Confederate positions.

Which may explained his last missive towards the end of the Battle of Little Bighorn "Reno: bring up the balloon!"

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Slithy Tove

Which may explained his last missive towards the end of the Battle of Little Bighorn "Reno: bring up the balloon!"

Imagine the scene if he had gotten that balloon.

"Okay, men, hold our perimeter. The balloon will be fully inflated and ready to fly in a few minutes."
"Thank god that balloon arrived in time, Colonel Custer, our situation was looking pretty desperate."
"Thank god indeed, Sergeant."
"I have to admit I've never seen one of these balloons before. Really amazing vehicles. It's hard to believe something that small is going to hold all of us that are still left."
"Uhhhh....that's right, Sergeant....it's going to hold all of us....so just keep working now..."

[Cicero]

As an aside, I'd like to start a similar thread about British/ Empire Generals but I'd probably need to start it in the Pit given the tensions that surround the topic.

[notquitekarpov]

Not the worst, but maybe the most overrated, would be Patton in my view.

At the rank of General, to have no concept at all of logistics, no concept of what was possible to ask of men and what was not is pretty indefensible. This was proven in the Bulge. He was an excellent Divisional commander, a reasonable Corp commander (but only in pursuit mode), but promoted above his ability.

Tactically excellent, in everything else hopeless.

[Cicero]

Patton was certainly divisive- even within his command many men were "apprehensive" about him. Certainly he wasn't a disaster but I don't think he ever fought a battle when he wasn't better supplied than his opponent.

BTW as a balance, I think I'll start a thread about "Best American generals" as well. I will not be surprised if some of the names we see here are repeated. Well , I don't expect Fredenall to get a run.

[Slithy Tove]

Checking my sources, it seems it was Benteen, not Reno who was the adressee of Custer's note, and it was "bring packs," not "balloon."

But that's one of history's great misreadings: the note actualy read "Benteen, big village. Bring facts." You see, Custer didn't come to fight the Indians. No, he came to stage an intervention. "This living out in the open, chasing after bison and sleeping rough is terrible. Your lives are no better than a homeless person panhandling (yes, I know it's the Commanches who are on the panhandle, but I won't let you divert this discussion. Not this time. You're hurting yourselves and it's killing those of us who love you. Yes, you're killing us. And scalping us."

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Patton was certainly divisive- even within his command many men were "apprehensive" about him. Certainly he wasn't a disaster but I don't think he ever fought a battle when he wasn't better supplied than his opponent.

Logistics are part of the job, and he was (with few exceptions) better equipped because he knew that.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Two Many Cats

Has anyone mentioned Benedict Arnold yet? I mean, he was the only out and out traitor.

As well as a brave and highly successful commander, personally slighted by much lesser figures.

Excellent general, ultimately a poor human being.

[ralph124c]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

Westmoreland was a good and decent man who, by all accounts, was a product of his environment. He gladly would have "won" the war if it had been possible, but he was hamstrung for a lot of reasons and probably couldn't have succeeded anyway simply because that war was singularly unsuited for the post-World War II US military.

I'd say Paul Harkins, his predecessor, was much worse. Not only was he completely out of his depth, he was a shameless liar to boot, and his lies made things much worse. David Halberstam absolutely and rightly savaged Harkins in The Best and the Brightest, and while he wasn't too big a fan of Westmoreland either he didn't give him nearly as much venom.

Also, depending upon what makes a General "bad", there have been numerous generals busted down to a much lower rank for crimes committed while commanding non-combat forces, like Thomas Fiscus.

Well, you are correct that Westmoreland was an intelligent man-he was a West Point graduate, had served with distinction in WWII. But his strategy at Khe Sanh puzzles me-he seems to have copied the French (Dien Bien Phu)-except that massive airpower meant that Khe Sanh could never had fallen. But exactly what did it accomplish? Westmoreland's plans had been vetted and approved by Lyndon Johnson-who fancied himself as something of a grand strategist.
Both he and Westmoreland seemed baffled that the NVA didn't come out to get slaughtered.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Cicero

As an aside, I'd like to start a similar thread about British/ Empire Generals but I'd probably need to start it in the Pit given the tensions that surround the topic.

We did an overall "worst military leader in history" thread. Much fun was had by all.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...ighlight=worst

For reference, "top ten" (or "bottom ten") were:

Luigi Cadorna - the "winner" - voted worst military leader of all time
Arthur Percival
Francisco Solano López
Charles le Temeraire
William George Keith Elphinstone
Abdel Hakim Amer
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
Zhao Kuo
Charles Alexander of Lorraine
John Bell Hood

Two Brits made the list, and one American.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Originally Posted by dropzone

Not being a traitor to my country, I'm going with silenus. Sherman got the job done, the treasonous bastards in Georgia be damned.

Indeed. being butthurt at the relatively light damage the South suffered for outright rebellion is silliness. Sherman got the job done and did it well.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Oh, and I'd suggest General Horatio Gates as worst American General. a poor commander, sleaze and credit stealer all in one!

[jtgain]

I go with McClellan. Given the largest American army ever assembled up until that time, kept overestimating the strength of his enemy to lose at Seven Days. Then he even discovers the CSA's plans at Antietam, has a 2 to 1 advantage and blunders his way into a bloody draw and allows Lee to retreat. Also arrogant and pompous; thought he was better than Lincoln.

[RickJay]

I think it pretty much inevitable that the "winner" of this will end up being a Civil War general just because you had so many generals, with Americans on both sides, who became generals in a short period of time and who had so much opportunity to engage in discrete battles against reasonably equivalent opponents. There was never in American history so much opportunity to really, really screw up.

McLellan is an outstanding example, a man who looked and sounded every bit the new Napoleon and beleived it himself, but who turned out to be a rather gigantic coward. But that said, McLellan at least did some things okay. There were other generals who were stunningly, fantastically inept, like Gideon Pillow, who was so inept that Grant, upon hearing Pillow was the opposing commander, assumed (Grant knew Pillow from the Mexican War) that he could just go charging up to Fort Donelson and Pillow would find a way to screw it up. As it turned out, Grant was absolutely correct. Ambrose Burnside was horrifically incompetent, Butler was a psychopathic idiot, and J.B. Hood, who made the bottom 10 of the SDMB list for a reason, was a man of tremendous bravery balanced by exactly the sort of characteristics one would expect of a guy nicknamed "Ol' Wooden Head."

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by RickJay

McLellan is an outstanding example, a man who looked and sounded every bit the new Napoleon and beleived it himself, but who turned out to be a rather gigantic coward. But that said, McLellan at least did some things okay. There were other generals who were stunningly, fantastically inept, like Gideon Pillow, who was so inept that Grant, upon hearing Pillow was the opposing commander, assumed (Grant knew Pillow from the Mexican War) that he could just go charging up to Fort Donelson and Pillow would find a way to screw it up. As it turned out, Grant was absolutely correct.

Shouldn't there be some sliding scale? For example, Pillow was inept, but that's why he was put in command of a small, western army. McClellan was the main guy commanding the largest army in the world to that time.

If we are talking about the best/worst business manager of all time, do we compare Bill Gates' abilities with the manager of the Nome, Alaska McDonalds?

[Namkcalb]

Originally Posted by Two Many Cats

Has anyone mentioned Benedict Arnold yet? I mean, he was the only out and out traitor.

But could he legitimately be called American?

Does Ollie North deserve a mention in this thread?

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Namkcalb

Does Ollie North deserve a mention in this thread?

Depends on whether you want him promoted to general or not.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Shouldn't there be some sliding scale? For example, Pillow was inept, but that's why he was put in command of a small, western army. McClellan was the main guy commanding the largest army in the world to that time.

If we are talking about the best/worst business manager of all time, do we compare Bill Gates' abilities with the manager of the Nome, Alaska McDonalds?

If we're talking about generals in command in the field, we are by definition talking about people with a very substantial level of command. The military equivalent to the manager of the Nome McDonald's isn't Pillow, it's a lieutenant you've never heard of. The fact that we're discussing generals is itself the cutoff to avoid drastic errors in scale.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by RickJay

If we're talking about generals in command in the field, we are by definition talking about people with a very substantial level of command. The military equivalent to the manager of the Nome McDonald's isn't Pillow, it's a lieutenant you've never heard of. The fact that we're discussing generals is itself the cutoff to avoid drastic errors in scale.

True. But you still can't compare Pillow and Lee. Or Butler and Grant.

They were generals, but I would still contend that you get drastic errors in scale by putting minor generals in with major generals.

[Llama Llogophile]

Originally Posted by jtgain

True. But you still can't compare Pillow and Lee. Or Butler and Grant.

They were generals, but I would still contend that you get drastic errors in scale by putting minor generals in with major generals.

I agree that Pillow wasn't very good at war,
A prick, a fop, a prude and frankly something of a boor.
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He was the very model of a modern Minor-General!

[easyk83]

Not the worst, but maybe the most overrated, would be Patton in my view.

At the rank of General, to have no concept at all of logistics, no concept of what was possible to ask of men and what was not is pretty indefensible. This was proven in the Bulge. He was an excellent Divisional commander, a reasonable Corp commander (but only in pursuit mode), but promoted above his ability.

Tactically excellent, in everything else hopeless.

While Patton had his shortcomings, a committment to an impractical tank/tank destroyer doctrine and his handling of the finest American British Commander of the war(John S. Wood), logistics was not among them. The man had a tremendous ability to organize and supply his units on the fly. Look at his counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge, for instance. Patton disengaged across his front and shifted his axis of advance 90 degrees to attack the enemy flank more than a hundred miles North, this was the Sistine Chapel of logistics.

Patton's real problems were A) Eisenhower favored the British front. B) Patton was a bit of an old dog and was too slow to adapt to tactical realities, namely the need for heavier tanks with more armor and stopping power. C) He lacked the courage to stand up to his subordinates after he was sacked following the Sicily Campaign. When the OOG(Original Overrated General) Omar Bradley balked at the idea of promoting a tank guy and insisted that corps commands should be given to infantry guys we wound up with the John S. Wood fiasco.