Sardaukar Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 I start with Col. Pine-Coffin. One could not have better name...and he was really good paratrooper commander too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pine-Coffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanhoe Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Arleigh Albert Burke. Colorado farm boy, Naval Academy graduate, master tactician. Advanced the role of destroyer squadrons in surface warfare. Apparently good at planning as well; Mitscher kept pulling him back on shore to serve as Mitscher's Chief of Staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted June 16 Author Share Posted June 16 In naval things, I'd add C.W. Nimitz. I think in naval warfare, not many can rival him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted June 16 Author Share Posted June 16 (edited) Bill Slim, one of the most underappreciated British commanders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Slim,_1st_Viscount_Slim A hardened field soldier who had learned his trade on the Western Front and in the Indian Army, Slim combined troop-leading and training skills with personal and moral courage as well as charm, a sound grasp of soldiering, and a solid appreciation of Asian warfare and the excellence of the Japanese Army. He had experienced the catastrophe of the 1942 retreat from Burma and the abortive attack on the Arakan. His honesty and character made him the obvious choice to reshape the Fourteenth Army, a force built on the Indian Army but including the ever-dependable Gurkha Rifles of Nepal, unproven infantry battalions from East and West Africa, and infantry battalions and supporting arms from the British Army. Edited June 16 by Sardaukar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Captain Tameichi Hara in the book "Japanese Destroyer Captain." Supposedly played a large part in Japanese surface torpedo tactics. Rear Admiral Edward Ellsberg. U.S.N. W.W.2 salvage expert. Wrote three interesting books about the subject. British admiral Andrew Cunningham. Perhaps the naval equivalent of British General Bill Slim. U.S. General George Marshall, Jr. The superb commander of the U.S. Army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 8 hours ago, Ivanhoe said: Arleigh Albert Burke. Colorado farm boy, Naval Academy graduate, master tactician. Advanced the role of destroyer squadrons in surface warfare. Apparently good at planning as well; Mitscher kept pulling him back on shore to serve as Mitscher's Chief of Staff. And as CNO, put a hold on the stockpiling of nukes by the USAF beyond any reasonable need or overkill. Supported Hyman Rickover in developing a nuclear power plant, but also fostered Polaris, which changed the strategic equation for ever, and kept it outside of Rickover's reach, in the process inventing modern project management methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 What about Mcarthur? He always seemed liked the most dispensable US 5 star to me. Is it just the affect of reading too many popular/navy centric histories of the pacific war or was he really as bad as he comes across? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Certainly an interesting personality. Bad start in the Philippines, rough but better going in the SWPA. The amphibious fleet from 42 looked like the Kriegsmarine's effort from 41 to invade Crete. Tugs and schooners. Very bold move. Then preferred to bypass and isolate strongholds on New Guinea. His record in Korea looks very poor though. Dividend command, let the Norks escape, ignored strong signs of Chinese intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 1 minute ago, Markus Becker said: Certainly an interesting personality. Bad start in the Philippines, rough but better going in the SWPA. The amphibious fleet from 42 looked like the Kriegsmarine's effort from 41 to invade Crete. Tugs and schooners. Very bold move. Then preferred to bypass and isolate strongholds on New Guinea. His record in Korea looks very poor though. Dividend command, let the Norks escape, ignored strong signs of Chinese intervention. Inchon, however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Inchon was a bold move and therefore had the element of surprise in its favor, but could have ended diastrously without first capturing that island with causeway that guarded the harbor entrance, and allowed the heavy tanks to roll into the harbor area in support of the armored amphibious tractors that struggled mightily to get out of the water. Either way, I don't think it was Big Mac's genius that made Inchon possible, but the USMC staff work that planned the whole operation when the Corps was hit hard from the postwar demobilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim the Tank Nut Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 I'm pretty sure Inchon wouldn't have happened without MacArthur. He said at the meeting that he "had more faith in the Navy than the Navy did". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 IMO, Erwin Rommel and Raizō Tanaka were more highly thought of by their enemies than by the army and navy they were a part of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanhoe Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 6 hours ago, Ssnake said: Either way, I don't think it was Big Mac's genius that made Inchon possible, but the USMC staff work that planned the whole operation when the Corps was hit hard from the postwar demobilization. Which military FOGOs, if any, actively fought excessive demob? Seems like a majority of the US military's pain and suffering has originated with overly enthusiastic demob. IMHO we should be naming tanks, ship classes etc. after any such FOGOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 WTF is FOGO? FWIW, IDK - YMMV... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 17 minutes ago, Ssnake said: WTF is FOGO? FWIW, IDK - YMMV... FOGO, Fear of Going Out (disorder) ; FOGO, Food Organics & Garden Organics (waste; Australia) Obviously, the second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 10 hours ago, Rick said: IMO, Erwin Rommel and Raizō Tanaka were more highly thought of by their enemies than by the army and navy they were a part of. Rommel was a brilliant Divisional general. He about found his level as a Corp commander, but he kept hitting the same problem over and over again, logistics. He wasnt strong on logistics, and thats despite being truly capable in most other respects. That he was operating in a theatre where logistic supply was a critical problem, and largely out of his hands, should be remembered however. It wasnt his fault the Italians werent up to keeping the Mediterranean open to Italian shipping. I wouldnt hold Normandy against him either. He said they either put tanks on the beach, or they were going to lose them in the move up to the beach. And of course he was right. It wasn his fault Von Rundstedt wasnt big on listening. Overrated, yes. But considerably better than the postwar hatchet jobs would have people believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, RETAC21 said: FOGO, Fear of Going Out (disorder) ; FOGO, Food Organics & Garden Organics (waste; Australia) Obviously, the second TY, my FOMO is alleviated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Rommel was a brilliant Divisional general. He about found his level as a Corp commander, but he kept hitting the same problem over and over again, logistics. He wasnt strong on logistics, and thats despite being truly capable in most other respects. That he was operating in a theatre where logistic supply was a critical problem, and largely out of his hands, should be remembered however. It wasnt his fault the Italians werent up to keeping the Mediterranean open to Italian shipping. I wouldnt hold Normandy against him either. He said they either put tanks on the beach, or they were going to lose them in the move up to the beach. And of course he was right. It wasn his fault Von Rundstedt wasnt big on listening. Overrated, yes. But considerably better than the postwar hatchet jobs would have people believe. He was? he did as well as his peers, and managed to get caught by the Arras counterattack with the only divisional command he had. As for Corps, he was insubordinate to his superiors and that made coordinating a campaign a impossibility - it may be argued that these superiors were men of lower calibre, but it could also be said that of all the German commanders, Rommel was probably the less appropiate to send to an Italian-led campaign. To a large measure, Rommel was "enabled" by his enemies as much as by his subordinates and never hesitated to take credit for himself as needed, when confronted with competence (Tobruk, Alamein, Normandy) he was average and the Rommel factor suddenly disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 33 minutes ago, RETAC21 said: He was? he did as well as his peers, and managed to get caught by the Arras counterattack with the only divisional command he had. As for Corps, he was insubordinate to his superiors and that made coordinating a campaign a impossibility - it may be argued that these superiors were men of lower calibre, but it could also be said that of all the German commanders, Rommel was probably the less appropiate to send to an Italian-led campaign. To a large measure, Rommel was "enabled" by his enemies as much as by his subordinates and never hesitated to take credit for himself as needed, when confronted with competence (Tobruk, Alamein, Normandy) he was average and the Rommel factor suddenly disappeared. This was the Arras counterattack that ultimately failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike1158 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 The 88mm doorknocker proved to be heard very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Here a FAMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Isoroku Yamamoto. From what little I know, was more successful pre-war than during the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FALightFighter Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 8 hours ago, Ssnake said: WTF is FOGO? FWIW, IDK - YMMV... Flag Officer/General Officer. The ranks above Colonel (Army/Marine/Air Force) and Captain (Navy). It could be just GOs (General Officer), but that would leave out the various flavors of Navy admirals. Since officers at this rank have a flag, they are known as Flag Officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FALightFighter Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 12 hours ago, Ivanhoe said: Which military FOGOs, if any, actively fought excessive demob? Seems like a majority of the US military's pain and suffering has originated with overly enthusiastic demob. IMHO we should be naming tanks, ship classes etc. after any such FOGOs. First, I'm not sure that any did. Second, I'm not sure that they should have. The tradition in our Constitutional republic has been to expand the Army for the war, then to massively demobilize and retain a tiny cadre of regulars. That model may have inhibited the MICC that Eisenhower warned of, the overmilitarization of foreign policy that we see today, and the rise of the perpetual wars that overmilitarization has engendered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now