Post by: telewinz on August 16, 2005, 01:37:06 PM
Post by: Preacherman on August 16, 2005, 03:14:42 PM
Post by: telewinz on August 17, 2005, 10:27:54 AM
When was Patton EVER an underdog?
Post by: charby on August 17, 2005, 10:42:05 AM
Post by: Moondoggie on August 17, 2005, 01:21:21 PM
It WASN'T MacArthur!!!!!
Patton also comes first to mind. He was considered an underdog in his first engagement vs. Rommel in N. Africa. Without using a reference I'm guessing it was called the 2nd Battle of Kaserene Pass...we lost the 1st one when another American General was in command.
Patton was a master of manuever and combined arms strategy. I don't think anybody else has been his equal.
Post by: Preacherman on August 17, 2005, 02:24:38 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2005, 02:51:36 PM
Post by: jefnvk on August 17, 2005, 03:14:49 PM
EDIT: Zhukov?
Post by: K Frame on August 17, 2005, 06:24:20 PM
No. In addition to what Preacherman said, Nimitz was also in command during some rather nasty losses to the Japanese during the battle for Guadalcanal.
For example, the battle of Savo Island, in which an American-Australian cruiser force was virtually obliterated.
Post by: telewinz on August 17, 2005, 10:41:59 PM
Post by: charby on August 18, 2005, 08:42:59 AM
Post by: Preacherman on August 18, 2005, 11:08:43 AM
Telewinz, respectfully, I just don't see how Nimitz qualifies. As I said, he never led troops or ships in combat - he was a theater commander. As such, he has a share in both victories and defeats, but does not qualify as the "commander" in either situation. There were always other commanders on or near the scene who were in direct tactical control, and on whose shoulders, therefore, rests the ultimate responsibility for results. Nimitz might relieve them for poor performance (e.g. Ghormley) or reward them for good performance (e.g. Halsey's fourth star), but Nimitz himself could not take the credit or the blame for what they did. The same would apply to Eisenhower in Europe.
Patton, on the other hand, never experienced a defeat while in command of troops. I still think he fits your criteria as originally stated.
Post by: K Frame on August 18, 2005, 11:47:33 AM
Guadalcanal was a CAMPAIGN, comprising numerous air, land, and naval battles that are discretely identified and recorded, over a period of six months. It was not an individual battle.
As I specifically noted, the battle of Savo Island was a serious American defeat during the Guadalcanal Campaign.
Given that you said a commander who won every battle, Nimitz is immediately disqualified as a result of the American defeat at Savo Island.
I agree, Preacherman, Nimitz doesn't qualify.
In that regard, neither does Adm. Charles Lockwood, who directed the ONLY successful submarine campaign every conducted in warfare.
As for Montgomery, don't forget that Operations Goodwood and Market Garden (his personal creation) were monumental failures.
Post by: Myself on August 18, 2005, 12:18:46 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 18, 2005, 02:05:02 PM
1. Funny name, Chester Nimitz.
2. Is there a movie called Nimitz or about Nimitz? I don't think so.
3. Wasn't he a squid anyway?
Post by: telewinz on August 18, 2005, 03:58:04 PM
Post by: K Frame on August 18, 2005, 08:12:03 PM
Citations as to who these historians are?
"Is there a movie called Nimitz or about Nimitz?"
No, there isn't. But, unlike many other great commanders, he wasn't a self-aggrandizing pompous ass, never wrote his biography, and never really spoke much about his role during the war. As far as I know, there isn't a movie about Eisenhower or Bradley, either. There was one about Halsey, starring James Cagney (The Gallant Hours), but it was but a brief 5-week slice of Halsey's early war career.
And since when does it take a Hollyweird movie to convey greatness onto a person?
"Wasn't he a squid..."
You mean US Navy? Yes, he was a Naval Academy Graduate. Again, so? Without the Navy there wouldn't have been a victory in the Pacific.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 19, 2005, 03:38:13 AM
Post by: K Frame on August 19, 2005, 04:54:07 AM
I've seen comments exactly like yours made in absolute seriousness by members of every branch about other branches.
Don't forget, the Army and Air Force after WW II tried very very hard to reduce the Navy and Marine Corps to a garbage scow and 2 lance corporals.
Had it not been for men such as John Stennis and Carl Vinson the US ability to respond to the invasion of South Korea would have been virtually non existent.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 19, 2005, 08:36:13 AM
Post by: Moondoggie on August 19, 2005, 02:08:03 PM
Lemay twisted the arm of the SecNav to get Burke's name scratched from the admiral's promotion list, but the Naval Attache to the White House let Pres Truman know what the deal was and Truman added Burke's name back onto the list before it went to the Senate for confirmation.
NIMITZ?
?? "Where is Task Force 34? The world wonders?"I retired from the Marines in '99 as an E9. I saw beltway budget battles, and let me tell you, the folks in the headsheds of all branches of the service spend a significant portion of their time/effort protecting their turf/budget. The infighting for $ is intense.
Post by: crt360 on August 19, 2005, 02:41:38 PM
Post by: K Frame on August 19, 2005, 02:52:49 PM
?? "Where is Task Force 34? The world wonders?"Doggie, not sure exactly what you mean by that...
Do you know the story behind that message?
"but still, how can one be a great military commander with a funny name like Nimitz?"
I'm sure the Carthenigians thought Publius Cornelius Scipio was a funny name, too. Until he wiped Carthage and its army pretty much off the face of the map.
Here's the SINGLE best reason why Nimitz should be considered great, fistful...
The Battle of Midway.
Despite King's insistence that American carriers should not be committed beyond Hawaii because of the Naval Staff's insistence that the Japanese were going to strike at either Hawaii or the West Coast, Nimitz rejected that assessment, choosing to believe his subordinates and the information that they had compiled.
Armed with that information, Nimitz acted decisively and sent American carriers to wait for the Japanese at Midway, and then he let his commanders in the field handle the battle.
A single decision, based on intelligence and a gut feeling, and Nimitz put into motion what is perhaps the single most important Naval victory every won by the United States.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2005, 02:42:20 AM
Anyhoo.
Post by: K Frame on August 20, 2005, 04:25:48 AM
Post by: BryanP on August 20, 2005, 05:01:10 AM
*yank*
Post by: Moondoggie on August 20, 2005, 05:34:02 AM
Nimitz was an excellent theater commander....but he didn't have the "boots on the ground" involvement of Patton who was always pretty much up front when his forces were engaged. Different styles of leadership, but both were highly effective.
Post by: K Frame on August 20, 2005, 10:37:39 AM
Halsey has taken a lot of heat over the years for the events surrounding Leyte Gulf, some of it deserved, but some of it not.
He shouldn't have assumed that the San Bernadino strait was secure, but I think his movement towards Ozawa's carrier force was actually the correct decision.
Some years ago I worked with a woman at Navy Federal Credit Union. Her husband had been a career Marine officer (Col.). The interesting part was that his father was Cmdr. Ernest Evans. You should know that name.
As for Nimitz, no, he didn't get his feet wet. Neither did Eisenhower. Nor did Ernest King.
Patton's not an apt comparison with them, though, because Patton was in command of an army group, Nimitz, Eisenhower and King were in command of entire theaters. It wasn't their job to lead troops into battle, it was their job to ensure that all operations in their theaters proceeded as planned.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2005, 01:06:54 PM
Now if his name was Bissey, like my last name - then he'd be way macho.
Post by: K Frame on August 20, 2005, 04:13:04 PM
Yourself?
Post by: Moondoggie on August 20, 2005, 05:02:29 PM
He was egocentric.
He was vain beyond description.
He had a paranoid streak a mile wide.
His only fear was of failure. Even though the fear was for himself, it served as a powerful and successful motivator for his tremendous talents as a military leader.
Post by: BryanP on August 20, 2005, 06:08:49 PM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
You know, I REALLY have to wonder what you have a fistful of, boy.
Yourself?
Well, they say you can't love someone else if you don't love yourself. And me, I've had a crush on me since I was about 12 years old ... Yourself?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 20, 2005, 09:12:20 PM
I don't know why, but I just felt like messing with all you guys. Hope you didn't mind too much. Incidentally, I don't know enough about WWII to fill a thimble, so I really have no opinion on the question at hand.
fistful