waterj2:
Ralph D. Sawyer, huh? I think I will give him a try. Thanks for the info.
Peace
Just to put in my two cents, i was just wondering: were YOU ever in command of the 8th Army? did YOU ever have to face Rommell? were YOU ever even in Africa? do you even know how a tank works, let alone the crazy ass tactics involved in maneuvering them verses much more heavily armored and gunned Panzers?
No?
Then what the hell kind of right do you have judging Monty, ya bloody arm chair general?
just thought i’d have a word,
later
Upham
“Remember, the world is only just becoming literate” -Aldous Huxley
Sorry if i seemed rather flaming in the last post, maybe i shouldnt drink and post…
“Remember, the world is only just becoming literate” -Aldous Huxley
Upham: I don’t know if that was directed at me, but I will assume it was.
were YOU ever in command of the 8th Army?
Obviously not. I’ll assume the next two questions were also rhetorical.
do you even know how a tank works, let alone the crazy ass tactics involved in maneuvering them verses much more heavily armored and gunned Panzers?
As a matter of fact, I have a basic understanding of how a tank works, but that’s not what you were asking. I have a much better understanding of the tactics involved. But, hey, Monty NEVER FAUGHT WITH TANKS AGAINST ROMMEL. Against Rommel, he massed great amounts of artillery and infantry, and basically blasted them out of their hole. When the 8th Army did come into contact with Panzers in Normandy, it fared rather well- but I never mentioned that, I only talked about the assault on Cain, which was defended by a regiment of the 21st panzer (it was the panzer grenadier, and contained almost no serviceable tanks). Again, did he actually succeed? Yes. Was it worth the cost? Apparently I’m not qualified to say. Lastly: the Ardennes. Germans break through, Americans defend much better than can be expected, but our still over run. Airborne divisions are rushed in (on truck) and the advance is stopped. Monty claims credit for nothing he did. I think it’s clear how he got to be so overrated.
No?
You’re right, I didn’t demonstrate how to beat out tigers/panthers with dinky sherman 5s. Fine, I’ll tell you. Luck. You shoot phosperous at a tank, an hope that the crew thinks it’s on fire. You hope to god it gets stuck in the mud,or runs out of gas, or was poorly made. But you won’t beat out a tiger or panther with a 75 mm gun. So, what do you do? Move. Fast. Run around it, confuse it, but at all costs don’t stop.
Let’s face it, germany had far superior tank and anti tank systems. The panzerfaust dominated (the western front- because he did not have to worry about over seas transportation, Stalin could make heavy tanks, somethng Marshall could not afford to do), as did the tigers/panthers…when they had fuel and ammo, which was not terribly often. And let’s face it, shear numbers can be dscouraging. The US produced 75000 tanks in 1944, Germany produced 23000. Not a happy ratio.
Then what the hell kind of right do you have judging Monty, ya bloody arm chair general?
Arm chair general? You do me too much justice. But I have the right of time; Monty was, quite literally, apointed to his post by the government of the PEOPLE. It was my relatives as well as yours that died in those assaults, my familly’s money as well as yours that was spent on those wasted divisions. I may judge. I do judge.
~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”
Hey man, sorry about that, I tend to get kinda defensive, and now, after reading your apology, I feel the need to apologize myself, cuz I was kinda harsh in my reply.
Everybody’s happy now! Yay! 
~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”
Okay, a couple of thoughts:
First, the most assinine argument against a theory is to question the experience and knowledge of the theorist. That is argumentum ad hominem at its worst and has no place in rational debate. We measure a theory by the evidence it has to support it, and the logic upon which it is based, not the experience of the person theorizing. Stuff that silly nonsense back into the sock from which it was pulled.
Second: A theory needs to be backed by evidence and logic, not rhetoric and gossip. Anecdotal evidence is generally suspect (the story changes based on the teller) and statistically insignificant (even assuming it is true, is one example better than twenty examples that show the opposite?). So far, very little evidence has been discussed here. If you want to pick on either MacArthur or Montgomery, you have to discuss in detail the various campaigns they were involved in, noting the results and their involvement in creating those results. If you are going to criticize the results, explain exactly how they could have been changed and support your assertion with evidence that shows the alternatives would have worked.
Asserting that MacArthur’s ‘genius’ was overblown because he sat underground during the war while others won it for him doesn’t support your assertion. First, one of the best things about a leader is who he choses to help him and how he manages his resources, including subordinates; if you don’t think so, think about our Presidents. Second, it doesn’t do anything to show that his involvement as a whole during the Second World War’s Pacific island campaign was not of much value. Let’s get some REAL evidence, or let’s admit all we are doing is ‘griping’.
Are we talking about battlefield generals, like Patton and Bradley, or commanders-in-chief, like MacArthur and Eisenhower? Seems there’s been a lot of mixed debate over whether MacArthur’s strategy was right, or whether Montgomery’s tactics were.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
Tomndebb: I have a book at home, The Great Raid on Cabanatuan, sorry, I forget the author’s name, that implies McArthur was in fact called Dugout Doug by his troops on the Phillipines. The same book also notes he was decorated seven times in WW1, hardly the mark of a coward.
Granted, MacArthur choked on the first day of the war (Robert E. Lee and Napoleon also made bonehead errors at times; we all do except for those perfect assholes who do nothing but criticize others). However, The Great Raid on Cabanatuan – will try to post the author’s name tomorrow as it is a great book about the Rangers’ raid on the notorious Japanese prison camp – notes MacArthur’s campaigns totalled only about 27,000 American casualities while resulting in the isolation or destruction of many more Japanese troops. I would say that this is the mark of a great commander. I don’t wish to disparage Nimitiz or our other brilliant Naval commanders, but that campaign was MacArthur’s responsibility, regardless of who had the original idea.
Somehow, Daniel, I get the feeling you would imply Robert E. Lee was an average commander simply because he had Hill, Jackson, Longstreet, JEB Stuart and Mosby under his command. I agree that MacArthur was an egomaniac who was difficult to work with, but the historical record does not support charges of incompetence or cowardice.
Name one great land battle MacArthur won? Inchon.
Armed, dangerous …
and off my medication.
I wasn’t going to say this since it’s OT, but this is a pet peeve of mine. A little WW2 armored combat history 101:
Not all German tanks were Panthers or Tigers. IIRC, more Panzer Mark IV’s (in it’s different variations) were produced than the sum of Panthers and Tigers. Granted, the average Mark IV was superior to the average Sherman. But even the massive Tiger was not so invincible if hit from behind, in the treads, or on top, as it’s armor was mostly on the front and sides. Modern tanks (such as the Abrams) are still relatively vulnerable in the rear or top.
British, French, and Soviet tanks of the 1939-42 period were usually superior or equal to their German counterparts. It was the German tactics that produced the early victories. Intelligent tank commanders did not fight other tanks if they had a choice, as AT guns, arty, and air attack were much more effective. Tanks early in WW2 were most effective at attacking, overrunning, and encircling frontline infantry and seizing undefended objectives. A tank vs. tank battle was something of a crap shoot, and tanks (and their crews) were too valuable to lose in that manner.
When the Germans started mounting true AT guns on tanks, especially the superb high velocity 88mm guns on Tigers, it changed the nature of armored tactics. However, realize that since there were no turret stabilizers in those days, tanks stopped (or at least slowed considerably) to fire the main gun accurately, and thus a defensive stationary tank with equal range still had a great advantage (if he knew saw the enemy and had time to react).
Back to something a little closer to the OP, there is a reason that Rommel is often mentioned as being overrated.
A. For most of the war he was a relatively low ranking general, and yet he’s probably the only German general most Americans (and probably Brits) have heard of, and therefore the greatest. “Rundstedt? Guderian? Hoth? Manstein? Who were they?” Germans scoffed at that notion.
B. While he was an excellent tactician (sp?), he did not do so well at handling logistics (by his own admission, they bored him). Granted, in North Africa he did not receive the supplies and reinforcements he desperately needed.
Both MacArthur and Montgomery had a flair for self-promotion that make them look overrated. By who? Themselves.
Oh, regarding the early victories…
I neglected to mention the German organizational tactic of the Panzer Army, which divided the tanks into their own divisions rather than tying them to the infantry. Obviously 30 tanks shooting at two tanks + 100 men is something a tank commander would take advantage of.
Folks, the thread here is “who do YOU think is the most overated…” Now, I’ve got no prob with you Macarthur & Monty apologists knocking my choices; you have made some good points (except those that say I’m not ageneral or know how to drive a tank, so I can’t judge them;-- None of us have ever been Prsident either, but that doesn’t stop us from voting or complaining about the Pres… BUT, who is then YOUR nominee?
Okay, I’ll jump in here now. The debate so far has focused on the two most obvious candidates who both seem to have been known more for their egos than their skills. Yet they were both great generals with great personal weaknesses.
So here is my candidate, a truly great general who I believe was truly the most overated…
Eisenhower.
Eisenhower was installed to lead the invasion of Europe by the chiefs of staff because he was the most organized company man available. Even headed, admired by troups for not being a complete jerk like many generals, which is to say, he kept his ego in check. He headed the invasion which had been organized and planned before he was given the job to take it across the channel. He handled the job well and was willing to take responsibility for failure which thankfully didn’t happen, and deserves every bit of credit that he got for that part of the invasion.
Then what happened? His troops are rolling up the German army all across France and he falls asleep. He thought the war was won and was on vacation far from the front when the Germans struck back at the Bulge, nearly cutting his army in half and almost regainig a line to the sea.
Could of happened to anybody, under the circumstances. But it did happen to him, and he could have been paying attention.
I believe Ike was more of a politican than a General. His main job was to keep Monty & Patton from actaully killing each other (my money’s on Patton). I relly have read very liitle which rated him highly as a “general”, so it is hard to say he is “overated”. A military genius, he wasn’t, I’ll admit, but he had Bradley (the most UNDERrated general?) and Patton for that.
I never questioned anyone’s “right” to judge the competence of any general- I merely question the competence of the self-proclaimed judges!
Or, to use a sports cliche, "Opinions are like…(Um)… sphincters. Everybody has one, and they’re good for… (well, you know what).
You have every right to say “MacArthur was a moron,” but unless you have some expertise with which to back up that statement, there’s no reason that I (or anybody else) should care what you think. For that matter, you’re entitled to the opinion that 2 + 2 = 5, but you don’t have a right to be taken seriously.
To use another sports analogy, sometimes a coach or manager can make all the right moves, and STILL fail miserably. Was Gene Mauch an idiot? Hardly- he knew more about baseball than any manager who ever lived, and he offered intelligent, compelling reasons for every decision he made down the stretch in 1964. And yet, in the end, his decisions proved disastrous, and the Phillies lost the pennant to the Cardinals.
Again, as Tom Clancy likes to note, the most disastrous decisions of history have usually been made by brilliant men; idiots are rarely in a position to make the kind of crucial decisions that could lead to disaster.
In my limited experience, complaints against Douglas MacArthur never hinge on strategy. They always come down to his personality (to a lesser degree, the same is true of Montgomery). Obviously, MacArthur was not a sweet, lovable guy, and neither was Montgomery. Both were egomaniacs- but then, what do you expect? Humble guys who aren’t sure of themselves don’t, typically, try to become generals!
Now, regarding the label of “Dugout Doug,” I grant you, I have known veterans of the Pacific theater in WW2 who used that epithet. I’ve also known vets who thought MacArthur was the most brilliant, inspirational leader they ever served with. So, since there are numerous men in the know on BOTH sides of the issue, I call it a wash. If anything, I tend to believe the pro-MacArthur crowd. Why? Because even the men who admired him most NEVER pretended to LIKE him! Many times, I’ve heard an elderly vet go on and on about what an honor and privilege it was to serve under MacArthur. These spiels were invariably followed by a pause, and (almost as an aside), “He was one arrogant son of a bitch, though.”
Brilliant tacticians aren’t always likeable blokes. I loathe everything that Bobby Knight stands for, but I’d be a fool to deny his genius.
Now, if I HAD to name an overrated general (not a WW2 general), I’d have to nominate Robert E. Lee. But that’s a looooong story. SUffice it to say, I think that (quite apart from his failures in any individual battle), he was very foolish to squander as many men and as many resources as he did. Once it became clear that the Civil was was becoming a war of attrition, Lee was very foolish to pursue the high-cost, high-risk strategies he chose.
Greatest General: Shaka Zulu
“I shot the sherrif, I shot the deputy too. No, it wasn’t in self defense. They both looked at me cockeyed so I capped 'em. Then I shot the mayor, then the firechief, decapitated the librarian, impaled the dog catcher, used a spoon to remove the groundskeepers eyes and sent the leader of the local KKK in full KKK uniform to downtown Manhattan. Then I made sweet love to the sexy 18 yr old intern, and it was all good.”
Shaka Zulu is one of MY top nominees for most UNDERRATED general. But that’s another thread, HMM, sounds interesting. I have a self proclaimed limit of one active thread (that I start). Someone game for this one?
tomndebb: On page 22 of William B. Breuer’s “The Great Raid on Cabanatuan,” he states that many soldiers resented MacArthur’s departure from the Phillipines. He quotes this humerous poem by an unknown GI:
In Australia’s fresh clime,
he took out the time
to send us a message of cheer.
My heart, he began,
Goes out to Bataan,
But the rest of me’s
Staying right here.
Breuer is somewhat fast and loose with his footnotes, but he seems to cite Sidney L. Huff’s My Fifteen Years with General MacArthur as a source.
Breuer gives 27,684 casualities for MacArthur’s island campaigns.
I recommend “The Great Raid on Cabantuan” to my fellow dopers. It is a very readable account of how the Rangers liberated the inmates of a notorious POW camp on Jan. 30, 1945. It tells how Margaret Utinsky and Claire Phillips formed spy rings in the Phillipines to help the POWs and gather intelligence on the Japanese. Both women won the Medal of Freedom. I wish those feminists who think Hillary Clinton is so tough and brave would read this book so they can see what brave women are really like.
Sorry for straying from your original purpose, daniel, but I have gotten sick of hearing idiots like the writers of MASH criticize MacArthur. I view him as one of the most fascinating Americans of the 20th Century. His mistakes and triumphs were both bigger than life.
Most overrated commander: Vice Admiral Tom Phillips of the UK Navy. He is the bloke who sent Repulse and Prince of Wales on a mission without adequate air cover, losing both battleshipos. This, after the superiority of planes over uncovered ships had already been demonstrated!
If you want a general, try Percival, the Brit who was responsible for defending Singapore.
Armed, dangerous …
and off my medication.
I agree your Brit admiral & general are both losers, but since I have never heard anything much about them, they can’t be very overrated. Doug still could be a competant general, but one who was WAY overrated.
OK, I’ll admit my dad’s anti-Doug bias is making me lean on ol’“dug-out” a bit, but hell my dad DID know him, and even ran messages to-fro for him.