Author Topic: How would you compare the men/tallent of the recent unpleasantries with WWII  (Read 2075 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JBMauser

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Would Lee have been an Eisenhauer?  He had no love of politics,he was a soldier Ike was a politician.  He had more in common with Tommy Franks in the Iraq war than Ike.  Stonewall Jackson, with Romel?? talented, effective and of great value to the command??  Grant to Patton?? single minded, ego always present.  A man who was whole when in service/uniform.   Who was the General who told the Germans "nuts" at Bastone, Jubal Early?? He might of said that in a more genteel fashion.   Many of you know the personalities of the main players in the War, can you make contemporay comparrisons??  JB
 

Offline Shorty

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
I think that any army has a corp of potential great leaders.  It takes a war to bring them out, and it takes a war of adequate duration to show which ARE the great ones.  The War between the states and WWII were of similar duration, BUT I think there is a difference.  The Generals of the Civil War (both sides) generally were persisting in tactics learned in Mexico, disregading the change in armaments (bloody).  WWII generals, I think were more inclined to adopt and use the latest weapons, and defend against them.  Like Patton said, you don't win a war by dying for your country.  Lee, at Gettysburg, and Grant at Cold Harbor exemplify.

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
On the other hand, one has to consider the bone headed charge Hood ordered at Franklin.

I too think most great generals are obscure until a war.....they remain relatively unknown to the population. 

One thing the generals have to deal with today is instant reporting of the news to all places around the world........Patton, god love him, was to politically incorrect during his time, and certainly would be a target for the liberal media today.  Todays leaders have to be more savy with interviews from the media, and the politics that surrounds it.......

No doubt we've got some good ones.......but they need a war to become famous.....
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Offline no guns here

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Gender: Male
You don't get famous by running a nation-building campaign and getting your men dead by IED's... you may be a great tactician and a great leader but the way you get famous is through epic battles.  Midway, Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Marianas Turkey Shoot Battle of Britain etc...

Technically, modern American officers and NCO's of all services are the best educated, best led, best equipped and best trained force the world has ever seen BAR NONE.  Could improvements be made, yep, not a doubt.  Personally I think some of our equipment is crap.  Our officers are well schooled at all stages of their careers, our Generals aren't promoted by buying their rank but through accomplishment and our NCO's in general are outstanding.  Our NCO's have the education and experience and responsibility equivelant to or exceeding most field grade officers just 30-40 years ago.

off the soap box...
ngh
"I feared for my life!"

Offline JBMauser

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
I guess I am trying to look at CW gernerals as WWII gernerals are viewed.  Patton did not like Montgomery because he was to cautious or perhaps to concerned with Losses.  Maybe forged by a sensitivity to WWI loses of 20 years earlier.  Many Generals in the war of Northern aggression served in the Mexican campaign.  Can other comparrisons be made? 

No guns here... I agree with your comments but I think that war in 186X and to some degree WWII communication and instant info was not there.  Generals deployed and planned with a real "Fog of War"  In the Civil war you could not see the front lines for the smoke alone...  plans were set in motion like a primitive wind up game and when released they played out.  There were no last minute updates so insight and bravao  held more weight than today.  I think that is a true statement.    Was Sherman a Patton??  JB

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
 Was Sherman a Patton??  JB

No.  Patton did not engage in war against helpless civilians.
Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7475
Was Sherman a Patton??  JB

No.  Patton did not engage in war against helpless civilians.
He did not have to the Air Corp did.

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
"Patton did not engage in war against helpless civilians."
"He did not have to the Air Corp did."

Well, if you feel there is a equal moral equivalency between looking helpless people - young/ old, men/women, mothers with babies in arm, the sick/infirm - straight in the eye as you shoot, beat, burn their homes and steal their food or poison them with dropping bombs (or artillery shells) from a distance of more than two miles, I guess you're right.

I don't quite see it that way.  Sherman sure showed the Nazis how to wage total war tho.
Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
first Sherman was not a Patton , Sherman burned his way to the sea in a effort to limit the materials the South could wage war with ! Patton tried and in fact did out run the Germans to cut their supplies off ! many walked away from the battlefield without ammo or gas not to mention food !
the air core waged war ! they did a good job ! we won ! it seems now days we don't wish to hurt anyone that is not shooting on the battlefield ! Nobel to be sure , but it has been the most ineffective course we have taken IMHO !
Regan bombed Libya and they have been quiet for years ! If you bomb the cities where war material is made and it stops coming to the battle field ya just might win and not loose as many men ! in WW1 , WW2 if you worked , saved , or got bonds to help the war effort you helped win the war ! why do we not consider these helpers important to their war effort and eliminate them ? No we don't allow our military leaders to lead anymore how could we compare ?
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
Saying the Air Corp waged war, not atrocities, was my point.

Actually, Sherman was largely waging psychological war well before its time.  He knew full well the South had neither military strength nor materials in the regions he would "heroically" pass through, nor was there any real military value to most of what he destroyed.  Homes and food are mostly valuable to those who remain and struggle to survive.  Many failed to survive, especially the very young and very old.  Many of those who did live soon looked like starvation victims in German concentration camps.

At the time of his "bold" march of destruction, the South's total military strength was spent and Sherman knew it. So did Grant, that's why he gave his permission for what was, on paper, a very dangerous move.   It need not have been but it was a march of personal anger and vengeance as much as anything else.  As Sherman himself put it to Grant before he started, "We will make them howl."

Sherman's major motivation was to make the home situation so desperate for the poor, hungry folks in  his path that individual southern soldiers would desert and return home to try and feed and shelter their families.  Thus, by taking what they wished and burning the rest, they devasted the powerless populaces of Georgia, South and North Carolina as would the Nazis, Russians and Japanese in the territories they would over run later. 

There was nothing heroic, brave or honorable about Sherman's march and it engendered a hundred years of pure hatred in living memory. 

Periods work as well as exclamation points for most statements if you don't get too excited.
Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: How would you compare the men/tallent of the recent unpleasantries with WWII
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2007, 10:17:21 AM »
I figured psychological war had been waged since the first warrior painted his face . ( naw the period just doesn't feel the same )
anyway  Japan or Germany have not been a problem since the wars . the others have been ! If a war is worth fighting it should be worth the effort to win out right ! And the main goal should be to reduce the other side to a point they will not be able to wage war for a long time ! if every time we were attacked we bombed the %$#&^% out of who ever had a part in it i bet they would stop .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
Re: How would you compare the men/tallent of the recent unpleasantries with WWII
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2007, 10:50:19 AM »
Shoot, I have to wonder if you have really read this thread and understand that Bob R. and I have been addressing more modern wars vs, the Civil War, aka War of Northern Aggression.

Anyway, you will surely approve of the way the northern section of the US dealt with the southern section during and for years after the unpleasantness of 1861-65.
Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: How would you compare the men/tallent of the recent unpleasantries with WWII
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2007, 01:13:55 AM »
and i am sure you realize that in the war of northern aggression , WW2 WW1 there was a formal surrender but until that total war was waged ! Korea , Viet Nam , and the gulf 2 no formal surrender was agreed to ! IE: police action , no set goal , just a changing opened end cluster %#&^%   ! Make no mistake i feel we have the finest military in the world , the best we have had , we just don't have political leaders that seem to use them to the best end ! I hear people say we can't be bullies , we can't use more than the threat has to which i say BS we are the 800 lb gorilla in the world ! if we feel the need to protect the world then use what we got ! why did it change maybe MacArthur and his ideas in Korea opened the door !
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
Re: How would you compare the men/tallent of the recent unpleasantries with WWII
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2007, 12:06:45 PM »
"Make no mistake i feel we have the finest military in the world , the best we have had , we just don't have political leaders that seem to use them to the best end !"

I doubt that anyone here would dispute that.  But, Teddy Roosevelt is dead and modern liberals seem to have a major impact on policy.  !!!!
Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: How would you compare the men/tallent of the recent unpleasantries with WWII
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2007, 10:32:56 AM »
SHAME AIN"T IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7475
"Patton did not engage in war against helpless civilians."
"He did not have to the Air Corp did."

Well, if you feel there is a equal moral equivalency between looking helpless people - young/ old, men/women, mothers with babies in arm, the sick/infirm - straight in the eye as you shoot, beat, burn their homes and steal their food or poison them with dropping bombs (or artillery shells) from a distance of more than two miles, I guess you're right.

I don't quite see it that way.  Sherman sure showed the Nazis how to wage total war tho.
Dresden was considered a non-military city, no military value. It, and all the non-military civilians in it were burned in the fire bomb raid.

The fire bombing of Tokyo was the most devastating bombing of WWII far exceeding the destruction and death toll of the atom bombs.
If you reports of the effects, swimming pools were filled with the scalded bodies of women and children who had gone there to escape the fire.
Shooting women and children is waging war, God did this in the Bible as it is the ONLY WAY to actually ELIMINATE any chance of an enemy striking again.(If you read the Bible God often destroyed three generations to eliminate the enemy)
This is what is wrong with "wars" today, there are survivors to breed hatred and strike again.
A child born in hate will NEVER overcome it.

Read how the US dealt with resistance in Germany after WWII, they did not warn them, they shelled them into non-existance.
Bob

Offline torpedoman

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2574
  • Gender: Male
The big problem with today's war is that they have forgotten how to fight a war. It requires boots on the ground and a lot of them you must take and hold territory you must eliminate all resistance and yes civilians will get killed (they are all civilians in iraq) The taking of the same town 3-4 times is not the way to get it done. take it, hold it ,search it ,round up all the men and have their family i.d. them those that are left are outsiders. Not a fool proof plan but better than we have now. We destroyed japan and germany and in the process killed a lot of women and children doing it but we rebuilt them and now they are world powers and trading pardners but before you can engage in nation building you have to destroy what is there.
the nation that forgets it defenders will itself be forgotten