Prosperity Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 you can't top Alexander the Great for best general... don't even know how you would try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 you can't top Alexander the Great for best general... don't even know how you would tryHannibalNobody did more with less One word.......Cannae If Hannibal wins Zama.......its not even close Also Lets just all agree on CV Enterprise......no other CV comes close (Midway, Doolittle Raid, Survives the Whole War) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Attack Aircraft - Apache Thank you. I was reading through waiting for someone give some props to the Apache. You haven't seen awesome until you've seen the Apache at night blowing **** the hell up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Well, Alexander the Great, Hannibal and Pyhrrus are all at a level beyond people like General Patton. And Hannibal's army was much much much bigger than Alexander's but they weren't nearly as well trained. Though Hannibal himself said he was the third best commander ever and #1 was none other than Alexander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Lieutenant General Chesty Puller, USMC Fleet Admiral Nimitz, USN Battle: Battle of the Bulge Wooden Ship: USS Constitution Battleship: USS Missouri Carrier: USS Enterprise (original carrier) Bomber: B-17 Fighter: Spitfire Attack Aircraft: AH1-Super Cobra Tank: M103A2 AFV: M3 GMC Rifle: M-14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Nothing? How about the JSII which outclassed the Tiger in everyway (even the King Tiger). While the Iosif Stalin tanks had the massive 122 mm gun and armor on par with the Tiger, it was slower and less mobile than the Tiger. Another key disadvantage was that its gun used separate shell and powder charge ammunition. This made it difficult and slow to reload; this also meant that only 28 rounds of ammunition could be stored aboard the tank, versus 84 rounds in the Tiger. The IS series was a crude attempt to replicate the Tiger. While it was a good tank, it did not outclass the Tiger. Nobody's mentioned:Greatest Spy Plane - SR-71 ---- BAD ASS I was thinking of it when I filled out my list, but there's no spot for spy plane. Definitely one of the greatest designs of all time for anything. That plane was literally decades ahead of its time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Well, Alexander the Great, Hannibal and Pyhrrus are all at a level beyond people like General Patton.. Yah, that's a logical comparison to make. One was a general in the mechanized era in a Democracy. The others were absolute rulers in the era of sticks and stones. You can have your favorite - that is fine, but don't insult the collective intelligence by making sweeping dumb statements. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 It's too bad we can't rate tailgate threads. And for fans of the M1A1 Abrams, they used to make them in my hometown. They still recondition the tanks still in service there. When I was a kid we used go to a park that is adjacent to the plant and watch them run the tanks through the obstacle course out back of the plant. I also had family and friends of family who worked there and got to go to an open house. Very cool. Even had the pleasure of riding in one; they wouldn't let me drive, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 It's too bad we can't rate tailgate threads. Well, the BCS does rank military history - maybe they can help: http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=273610&highlight=BCS+vietnam ps - if we did rate threads, the linked thread would get a VERY high rating. One of my all-time favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Yah, that's a logical comparison to make. One was a general in the mechanized era in a Democracy. The others were absolute rulers in the era of sticks and stones.You can have your favorite - that is fine, but don't insult the collective intelligence by making sweeping dumb statements. .... I think Patton was a great General. Controversial but great. And I'm not saying they didn't have advantages, the world was a different place way back when but sorry, regardless of era, the ability to conquer entire continents is just ridiculous. Especially when you are moving by foot. And yes, the differences in the eras are huge but if you just compare what they did in their respective generation, the amount of territory gained/victories is mind boggling. And I am once again, in no way saying Patton wasn't an outstanding General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Well, the BCS does rank military history - maybe they can help:http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=273610&highlight=BCS+vietnam ps - if we did rate threads, the linked thread would get a VERY high rating. One of my all-time favorites. Damn shame I missed that one; I was spending a lot of time in the Stadium. And regarding the playoff bracket on post #3 over there: Britain should be subbed in for France, who would just forfeit without question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I think Patton was a great General. Controversial but great. And I'm not saying they didn't have advantages, the world was a different place way back when but sorry, regardless of era, the ability to conquer entire continents is just ridiculous. Especially when you are moving by foot.And yes, the differences in the eras are huge but if you just compare what they did in their respective generation, the amount of territory gained/victories is mind boggling. And I am once again, in no way saying Patton wasn't an outstanding General. I took your statement to reflect the fact that Patton was a tactician rather than a strategist; Patton was subordinate to Ike, whereas Hanibal and Alexander had many generals subordinate to themselves. Is that where you were going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I took your statement to reflect the fact that Patton was a tactician rather than a strategist; Patton was subordinate to Ike, whereas Hanibal and Alexander had many generals subordinate to themselves. Is that where you were going? That has alot to do with it. Hannibal did so much with piss poor armies and overcame unbelievable odds and Alexander, well, undefeated with a highly trained, but still small army. But Patton was an excellent tactician, but he didn't have the responsibilities that Alexander and Hannibal had. Actually at one point, according to Bradley, Patton was only seen as 6th in command among the Generals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I agree completely...the USS Enterprise is truly badass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 .....Hannibal's army was much much much bigger than Alexander's but they weren't nearly as well trained. Though Hannibal himself said he was the third best commander ever and #1 was none other than Alexander.But Hannibal was often outnumbered by his opponent (2 to 1 at Cannae) AND they had better quality troops AND had the advantage of home turfAlexander had the best trained army at the time....Hannibal had levies from Gaul Hannibal had the advantage of Light Cavaly but that was in how they were utilized (his Africans were good but not as good as the Heavy Roman Infantry) Hannibal > Alexander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 But Hannibal was often outnumbered by his opponent (2 to 1 at Cannae) AND they had better quality troops AND had the advantage of home turfAlexander had the best trained army at the time....Hannibal had levies from Gaul Hannibal had the advantage of Light Cavaly but that was in how they were utilized (his Africans were good but not as good as the Heavy Roman Infantry) Hannibal > Alexander Yeah but Alexander also went up against armies far far far larger and had to stave off mutiny etc. Nevertheless, both are arguably the greatest commander ever. Problems can arise from having highly trained, high ego troops. But Hannibal himself said he was #3 but it's open to debate. And Hannibal's armies were better trained then everyone thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 yeah well, Alexander won. That should be a big deal right? Hannibal gets Dan Marino status... Alexander the Great gets Joe Montana/Tom Brady status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 General: George S. Patton Jr. Admiral: Horatio Nelson Battle: The Battle of Saratoga (for the U.S.) & The Battle of the Bulge Wooden Ship: HMS Victory Battleship: Battleship Bismarck Carrier: U.S.S. Enterprise (WWII) Bomber: B-52 Strato Fortress Fighter: P-51 Mustang Attack Aircraft (ie Fighter Bombers): A-10 Warthog Tank: (tie) M4 Sherman & Soviet T-34 AFV (armoured Fighting Vehicle or Personnel Carrier): Can't Decide? Rifle: Mauser 98 (Bolt Action), M1 Garand (Semi-Auto), & AK-47 (Full Auto) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 M4 Sherman It often took 4 or 5 Sherman losses to achieve one the loss of one Panther or Tiger. Allied troops sardonically dubbed the Sherman the Ronson, because it fit the Ronson ad slogan of the time: "Lights first every time." It was not a very good tank, but force of numbers allowed it to help turn the tide of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 The German Leopard and British Challenger 2 tanks are also sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 General: Ike - Kept all the other generals in line, especially Patton (who needed to be kept on a leash at all times). The problem with Ike was he was too busy trying to appease Montgomery & the Russians. Patton was the superior commander to Mongomery yet Ike always sent supplies to Montgomery when it would have been better to send them to Patton. If it hadn't been for Ike Patton would have ended the war sooner & would have easily beat the Russians to Berlin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 (Reading first page) Rifle - I've heard a lot of really great things about the M-3 Grease Gun as a really rugged design. (I knew some WW2 reenacters who said that among reenacters it's more highly prized than even the Tommy gun, because it's still US military issue. (Supposedly, it's still used as a bailout weapon for some tank crews, and by the Marines for shipboard security on some ships. Or at least, it was, 10-15 years ago.) And I've heard nothing but praises for the M1, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 That has alot to do with it. Hannibal did so much with piss poor armies and overcame unbelievable odds and Alexander, well, undefeated with a highly trained, but still small army. But Patton was an excellent tactician, but he didn't have the responsibilities that Alexander and Hannibal had.Actually at one point, according to Bradley, Patton was only seen as 6th in command among the Generals. The problem is despite what the movie Patton shows Bradley actually hated Patton. We can argue all day about who was the greatest general of all time. But there is no argument when it comes to the greatest general of WWII & that would be Patton by a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 General - Alexander Admiral- Yi Sun-sin Battle - Tours Wooden Ship - Constitution Battleship - Dreadnought Carrier - CV-6 Bomber - B-29 Fighter - the first Fokker monoplane Attack Aircraft (ie Fighter Bombers) - Shturmovik Tank - T-34 AFV (armoured Fighting Vehicle or Personnel Carrier) - none deserving Rifle - AK-47 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 The problem is despite what the movie Patton shows Bradley actually hated Patton. We can argue all day about who was the greatest general of all time. But there is no argument when it comes to the greatest general of WWII & that would be Patton by a long shot. Agreed, though Eisenhower in the grand scheme had some better off-battlefield qualities. But Patton I agree is arguably the best strategift of modern times. And especially armored warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.