Cubbies Phan Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 OK, as Modern Era I mean anything within the past 300 years. I pick Ulysses S. Grant. Why? Gen. Grant was probably the fore-father of modern American Military Doctrine. Gen. Grant had the mentality of to win a war, you must attack the enemy head on and do it quickly. The objective, of course, being to totally destroy the enemy army. Some misleading myths about Grant's generalship was that he tended to send his troops into a meat grinder. However, the facts and figures refute this myth by showing that his casualty rate was far less than Lee's casualty rate and Lee was on the defensive. A lower casualty rate on the attack? Yes. See what I mean. And one is supposed to attack with at least a 4:1 odds. Says something about the quick and decisive attack, doesn't it? Grant's total strategy was to cut-off and destroy the Confederate Army. Taking cities didn't really mean a whole hellava lot. Other Federal Generals at the time had a conservative approach to fighting the Civil War and that's why the Union took a beating early on in the War. Those Generals tended to base their strategies on manueverist tactics where they would just move their troops around and not to engage the enemy unless absolutely necessary. Well how can you win a war like that? You can't. Grant's style of leadership worked its way to American Military Doctrine. Spanish-American War, WWI, and WWII. Gen . Patton was the prime example of Grant's mentality. Good ol' "Ol' Blood & Guts", attack the enemy, wade into the enemy, spill his guts, etc, etc.. Taking a German city didn't mean jack-****. Destroying a German Division meant something. In Vietnam, the Army actually had big plans on how to fight and win the war, however the politicians got in the way with that one. So who's y'all's pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 I pick General D. Forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 I like General Motors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: I pick General D. Forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Cubbis Phan, you are rapidly wearing out your welcome. If you have some sort of freakish learning disorder, I apologize, but could you please post these things to the General Forum? Some of your analyses are quite interesting, but I don't see the point in responding to them while they are here in the wrong damn place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 300 years? That is easy - Napoleon. I think the man himself said he would be remembered exclusively because he had participated in around 50 major battles, almost all of which he won. About right. He lost two big ones badly - Leipzig and Waterloo, both at 3:2 odds against him. A few other big ones were close or minor losses - Aspern-Esseling and Eylau, maybe another I'm forgetting (perhaps Beresina, though not so large). A couple of the victories were expensive but definitely wins - Wagram and Borodino, perhaps a few other similar results in smaller battles. He pretty much ran the table on the rest, scores of them. Operationally, the 1814 in France, 1806 in Germany, and 1805 in Austria campaigns, are among the most stunning examples of multiplied impact from operational maneuver on record. His logistics were not great (especially in Russia and Spain) and he made three or four big strategic errors, starting with being too inclined to fight everybody - LOL. He also redesigned and recruited the armies involved, recovering from massive lost campaigns in a matter of months, several times. He invented the army corps, modern combined arms, perfected the role of reserve shock formations, mass artillery in grand tactics, etc. "Yes, but he was a dangerous criminal madman. You can tell, because he conquered Europe." And we can then all present as certificates of our reasonableness, innocence, and sanity, the fact that each of us has not conquered Europe. Old joke, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlapanzer Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Back up the moving van BTW: I think the U.S. wins war when it wages it more like W.T. Sherman. Anybody from Georgia want to argue that it the general forum --------- "It's good to be at the top of the food chain" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts