Greateset American General and Why?

[ChrisM]

I ahve to gow with Stonewall Jackson. As a motivator and tactician he accomplished so much with so little. He gave the army of Northern Virginia the offensive lena that carried them from 1862-1863. i am a big Lee fan as well, but I don't think he was flawed as an offensive general - he needed to keep that Army together and in that he failed.

Patton is on the list as well - as is McArthur. I am a big admirer of Vinegar jor stillwell and i think Pershing is underrated.

Crazy Horse is there is you exapnd the defintion and David Pertaeus amy be re-defining American military doctrien for teh new century.

I'm tired of reading about Nazis - who do you think ranks at the head of the class for American mlitary leaders?

[Blackcloud6]

George Marshall because the way he strategically lead the US through WWII.

[Vinnie]

I feel people underrate Marshall. His leadership set the base for ultimate victory not only against the Nazi but also against the Soviets.

[Dave68124]

Ridgeway and Puller would go on my list including some of the others already named sans MacArthur. Personally, Mac goes in the same category as Grant. A decent General, who was only decent when he had the resources to throw at a problem. Other than that, I think MacArthur was a complete failure from the Battle of Bataan to the Chinese invading Korea. He was always playing checkers when the other guy was playing chess. Inchon was probably the only battle he fought that required any strategic moves on his part.

[Blackcloud6]

I think MacArthur was a complete failure from the Battle of Bataan to the Chinese invading Korea. He was always playing checkers when the other guy was playing chess. Inchon was probably the only battle he fought that required any strategic moves on his part.

MacArthur's SW Pacific campaigns were brilliant and to forerunner of todays modern joint operations.

[Dave68124]

MacArthur's SW Pacific campaigns were brilliant and to forerunner of todays modern joint operations.

Agree to disagree, but Nimitz was brilliant. Mac came in 3rd in a two person race in my opinion when it comes to Pacific campaigns. He had resources to win those battles and used brute force in order to do so - Battle of the Phillipines leaps to mind. What a cluster fu*k that was - almost up there with the Battle of Hurtgen Forest if you ask me - a battle that was fought for all of the wrong reasons.

[aiabx]

Agree to disagree, but Nimitz was brilliant.

Nimitz was an admiral, not a general.

Personally, I think Grant is underrated. Not as flamboyant and exciting as Patton, but exactly the right leader at the right time to take down Lee, who was no dummy himself.

[Dave68124]

Nimitz was an admiral, not a general.

And MacArthur was a dilitant too. So is the subject matter now, Dilitant Generals of History?

[freightshaker]

George Washington: No American general has had such a poor hand dealt to him and still come out triumphant.

Otherwise... Ridgeway and Gavin.

[Vinnie]

There is a problem inherent in the question. Are we to include political Generals who's actions shaped the future or merely military commanders? Patton, great field commander but no sommuch an army one. Eisenhower, a second rate military brain but maybe the sharpest political one. Washington, decent but not outstanding military commander but inspirational leader. Nimitz an admiral in a field where the navy was the senior service due to the terrain. All these guys have a right to be called "the greatest".