Military Greatest list

[Ryman of the North]

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.

wow so much homerism in this thread LOL

1- Hannibal was overrated I would rank alexander and scipio africanus ahead of him easily. the trip over the alps was showy but not necesary. Odd that nobody ranked Von Clausewitz.

2- Patton was very good but Monty was better he did more with less.

3-I cannot believe nobody mentioned Iskander Bey or Benedict arnold, arnold may have been one of the greatest american generals ever.

4- the BAR was in use for almost as long as the ak 47 and having used both, Id take the Bar (I am 6-5 and 300 pounds though)

5- the Avro Arrow was so far ahead of its time that it would probably still be in active service.

6-the warspite was a great call.

7-the lancaster bomber outclassed everything at the time.

8-the tiger tank

9-

[nonniey]

Good choice- I was thinking about that one myself. By far the most impressive ship ever constructed... had the Germans had any kind of Navy to support her, she would have wreaked some serious damage

The only reason I didn't pick it is that the British sunk her almost immediately

Quote In reference to the Bismark. Bismark is the most overrated of any Battleship. It had serious design flaws that could have enabled the most obsolete Battleships and possiby even heavy cruisers to defeat her. The most serious flaw was her fire control center was unarmored and a hit in that location would virtually disarm her (which actually occurred early in the fight with the Rodney and KGV) . Her stern and bow construction were weak which could (and did in the case of Bismarks stern) lead to those sections breaking off which could cripple or even sink the ship. But the list is about greatest Battleships and as noted Bismark was dispatched during her first war cruise so she didn't develop much of a War Record. I'd rank several Battleships ahead of her. So no, IMO Bismark is a poor choice for this list.

[nonniey]

(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.

The Grease Gun is no longer in service it went out with the M60 Tank. BTW It was a piece of crap. It was metal stamp construction which does make it rugged but it has a hard time hitting the ground if that is the target. I was issued one a long time ago in my first go around in the Army.

[Harwich Hog]

General - Lord Marlborough

As Winston Churchill once said "He never fought a battle that he did not win, nor besieged a fortress that he did not take. He quitted war invincible".

Admiral - Lord Nelson

Battle - Tours (good call)

Effectively halted the spread of Islam into Western Europe in the 8th century.

Wooden Ship - HMS Victory

Battleship - HMS Prince of Wales

Carrier - HMS Illustrious

See Battle of Taranto. I hate to say it, but without this operation Pearl Harbour probably would never have happened.

Bomber - Lancaster

Fighter - Hurricane

The unpublicised hero of the Battle of Britain.

Attack Aircraft (ie Fighter Bombers) - Focke Wulf

Tank - T-34

AFV (armoured Fighting Vehicle or Personnel Carrier) - I don't know enough about AFVs.

Rifle - AK-47

I'll maybe post a less bias version after some research

[HighOnHendrix]

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.

I have read that Eisenhower held Patton back because he didn't want to spend the lives of the troops on taking Berlin first. There was definitely a lot of in-fighting going on between several of the generals in the European theater; I haven't read/watched shows on it enough to know all the details, though.

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.

Actually, I believe he was a tactician more than a strategist; Eisenhower and Marshall were the strategists.

The Grease Gun is no longer in service it went out with the M60 Tank. BTW It was a piece of crap. It was metal stamp construction which does make it rugged but it has a hard time hitting the ground if that is the target. I was issued one a long time ago in my first go around in the Army.

My grandfather used them in Korea. He said they were fun to shoot, but you couldn't hit a damn thing because the recoil had you pointing the muzzle at the sky after a few rounds. I believe his favorite over there was the M1 Carbine, as opposed to the M1 Garand.

[nonniey]

General - Lord Marlborough

As Winston Churchill once said "He never fought a battle that he did not win, nor besieged a fortress that he did not take. He quitted war invincible".

Admiral - Lord Nelson

Battle - Tours (good call)

Effectively halted the spread of Islam into Western Europe in the 8th century.

Wooden Ship - HMS Victory

Battleship - HMS Prince of Wales

Carrier - HMS Illustrious

See Battle of Taranto. I hate to say it, but without this operation Pearl Harbour probably would never have happened.

Bomber - Lancaster

Fighter - Hurricane

The unpublicised hero of the Battle of Britain.

Attack Aircraft (ie Fighter Bombers) - Focke Wulf

Tank - T-34

AFV (armoured Fighting Vehicle or Personnel Carrier) - I don't know enough about AFVs.

Rifle - AK-47

I'll maybe post a less bias version after some research

OK a British Bias - But Prince of Wales??? Very few British Battleships had a less Illustrious career. If your going British, look up HMS Warspite which in fact is likely the greatest Warship in history.

[National Defense]

Greatest General, by far, is Robert E Lee.

achieved the most while constantly at a disadvantage in men, materials, reserves, etc. Able to both design a set strategy, and also to quickly react to changing conditions, his record is clear. Just think what he could have accomplished if he had stayed with the Union, instead of going to VA.

[Thiebear]

integration of women.

[Henry]

Greatest General, by far, is Robert E Lee.

achieved the most while constantly at a disadvantage in men, materials, reserves, etc. Able to both design a set strategy, and also to quickly react to changing conditions, his record is clear. Just think what he could have accomplished if he had stayed with the Union, instead of going to VA.

I think Lee was an excellent general.

However, some of the other generals mentioned were able to destroy much larger, better equipped opposing armies, not just drive them off. Lee held the Union at bay for several years, but he was never able to effectively end the Union's ability to wage war in his theatre. And his attempts to accomplish that ended in abject failure.

Not a knock on Lee. He WAS out-numbered and out-gunned. But so have other generals been that still won the day.

[Henry]

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.

It was said that one Tiger could take out three Shermans, but the problem was the US always had four.

The Sherman had several advantages. They were far more reliable and much easier to build, and subsequently repair. Half the Shermans that got knocked out of action could be put back into the field within two weeks. The Sherman itself wasn't a great tank, but the industry that built it and kept it running was FAR superior than anything any nation had ever seen.

Still, straight up I'd put the Tiger on my list.

[zoony]

It was said that one Tiger could take out three Shermans, but the problem was the US always had four.

The Sherman had several advantages. They were far more reliable and much easier to build, and subsequently repair. Half the Shermans that got knocked out of action could be put back into the field within two weeks. The Sherman itself wasn't a great tank, but the industry that built it and kept it running was FAR superior than anything any nation had ever seen.

Still, straight up I'd put the Tiger on my list.

The main reason for the Shermans, I remember reading, was their relatively small size that allowed them to be loaded onto landing ships. 20 Shermans could be loaded where only 5 or 6 large tanks might have been (or something similar, can't recall specifics)

Still, I consider it one of the real tragedies of WWII, and a serious error on the part of American Military Planners. Sending our young men into combat and certain death in such an inferior piece of equipment simply because they could fit more of them on a boat; inexcusable.

The United States had the technology at the time to build the best tanks of the war. They didn't

[Enzo]

I've heard alot about how great Alexander & Hannibal were but I think that time has made them probably greater than they really were. People also forget that Alexander could go miles & never have to fight anybody & Hannibal in the end was loser. Then you take Patton basically his army had to fight for every single yard of territory. You can make an argument for Alexander being the greatest general but as far as Hannibal goes no because his military was never consider the most powerful from era. The most powerful military from his era was the Romes. Alexander at his best probably wouldn't have been able to defeat Rome's military. To0 bad Patton isn't alive then we could ask him who was the better general between Alexander & Hannibal. Didn't Patton claim that he served under both in previous lives.

[HailGreen28]

wow so much homerism in this thread LOL

1- Hannibal was overrated I would rank alexander and scipio africanus ahead of him easily. the trip over the alps was showy but not necesary. Odd that nobody ranked Von Clausewitz.

2- Patton was very good but Monty was better he did more with less.

3-I cannot believe nobody mentioned Iskander Bey or Benedict arnold, arnold may have been one of the greatest american generals ever.

4- the BAR was in use for almost as long as the ak 47 and having used both, Id take the Bar (I am 6-5 and 300 pounds though)

5- the Avro Arrow was so far ahead of its time that it would probably still be in active service.

6-the warspite was a great call.

7-the lancaster bomber outclassed everything at the time.

8-the tiger tank

9-

Monty? More with less? :hysterical: Man couldn't win without overwhelming numerical and material advantage. Great morale booster, but from "Operation Lightfoot" to "Operation Market Garden", his troops tended to win DESPITE his tactics, not because of them. We would have closed the Falaise Gap, and for what it's worth reached the Elbe faster without that stick in the mud.

Arnold. Nice mention. Maybe the best general the US had at the time At least the Brits appreciated him. :doh:

The BAR wasn't really as groundbreaking as maybe it should have been. Plenty of militaries, including the US, were still wedded to the idea of bolt-action "deer rifles" as the standard battle rifle.

Shame that Warspite wasn't preserved like Victory. There's a great WWI AND WWII monument right there. Tell me Dreadnought doesn't deserve the distinction more, though. Serves the Brits right, that the "Grand Old Lady" beached herself rather than submit willingly to the scrap yard.

Lancaster was great, but matched by the Liberator in all but maxbomb capacity, and later outclassed by the Superfortress. Points for versatility though.

The German army would've been so much better off building more Panzer Mk IVs than Tigers.

Avro Arrow had too short a range. Still a shame it wasn't developed more and built. You could say the same of the US' YF-71 later.

[Baculus]

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.

I was always partial to Russian General Zhukov. The fact that he could survive the Stalin purges and kick the crap out of the Germans (including in the largest tank battle of the war) has to be taken into consideration.

Patton and Zhukov once met as allies, and a battle between them would have been epic (in the truest sense of the word).

[Baculus]

I've heard alot about how great Alexander & Hannibal were but I think that time has made them probably greater than they really were. People also forget that Alexander could go miles & never have to fight anybody & Hannibal in the end was loser. Then you take Patton basically his army had to fight for every single yard of territory. You can make an argument for Alexander being the greatest general but as far as Hannibal goes no because his military was never consider the most powerful from era. The most powerful military from his era was the Romes. Alexander at his best probably wouldn't have been able to defeat Rome's military. To0 bad Patton isn't alive then we could ask him who was the better general between Alexander & Hannibal. Didn't Patton claim that he served under both in previous lives.

I can agree with some of this. Even though the Persians were numerous in number, they were basically scrubs and few of them, except for Greek mercenaries, could stand up to the heavier armed Greeks.

Just as a historical note, Rome did not have the well-develop legion system at the time of Alexander. They were basically a volunteer Hellenized force and they would have had their asses handed to them if they had to fight Alexander and his forces. Now, fast forward two centuries later, and yes, Alexander would have had a tough time against, say, Marius and his legions.

I said this in another thread (I think): Alexander never fought anyone as skilled as the Roman legions.

In regard to Alexander, he does have an influence on modern tactics. Look at his use of the Companion cavalry. This is a similar tactic to the mobile armored philosophy of the modern age: Hit quick flanks, exploit weak points, use breakthroughs to hit the rear echelon. This is what Alexander did, and I would not be surprised if Rommel had him in mind when he was developing his tactics.

I agree with your last statement: It would be incredible to ask Patton on his thoughts.

[twist]

I've heard alot about how great Alexander & Hannibal were but I think that time has made them probably greater than they really were. People also forget that Alexander could go miles & never have to fight anybody & Hannibal in the end was loser. Then you take Patton basically his army had to fight for every single yard of territory. You can make an argument for Alexander being the greatest general but as far as Hannibal goes no because his military was never consider the most powerful from era. The most powerful military from his era was the Romes. Alexander at his best probably wouldn't have been able to defeat Rome's military. To0 bad Patton isn't alive then we could ask him who was the better general between Alexander & Hannibal. Didn't Patton claim that he served under both in previous lives.

Everyone always forgets Genghis Khan.

[HighOnHendrix]

It was said that one Tiger could take out three Shermans, but the problem was the US always had four.

The Sherman had several advantages. They were far more reliable and much easier to build, and subsequently repair. Half the Shermans that got knocked out of action could be put back into the field within two weeks. The Sherman itself wasn't a great tank, but the industry that built it and kept it running was FAR superior than anything any nation had ever seen.

Still, straight up I'd put the Tiger on my list.

I agree with everything you said, you're spot on.

Arnold. Nice mention. Maybe the best general the US had at the time At least the Brits appreciated him. :doh:

Except they didn't. They didn't trust him not to stab them in the backs the way he did us and shunned him after his usefulness to them was past.

The German army would've been so much better off building more Panzer Mk IVs than Tigers.

Yep. Tigers were just too complex and expensive to produce in large enough numbers to compete against the hordes of Allied armor. Had Nazi

Germany had access to more resources and raw materials, the technical superiority of many of their weapons systems may have changed the outcome of the war in their favor. Examples: Tiger, Me 262, Ho 229, He 162, Hs 132, Ar 234, Sturmgewehr 45, MG42, and their famous 88mm. To name just a few.

Avro Arrow had too short a range. Still a shame it wasn't developed more and built. You could say the same of the US' YF-71 later.

I think you mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 I'll add the XB-70 to that train of thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie

Everyone always forgets Genghis Khan.

Throw Atilla in there with him. I didn't bring up Khan myself because much of his eventual empire was consolidated after his death, unlike say, Alexander.

[Ryman of the North]

Its odd, I have a degree in history and I have noted that several americans really did not like Monty.

some great quotes

-Throughout his career, he enraged his superiors and colleagues, partly because he would not allow convention to disrupt military effectiveness, partly because of a contempt for authority and an unwillingness to be in a situation where he was not in control, Walter Bedell Smith once said to him "You may be great to serve under, difficult to serve alongside, but you sure are hell to serve over!".

-Eisenhower commented in his memoirs: "I doubt if Montgomery ever came to realise how resentful some American commanders were. They believed he had belittled them — and they were not slow to voice reciprocal scorn and contempt".

-Alan Brooke said of Montgomery

A difficult mixture to handle, a brilliant commander in action and trainer of men, but liable to commit untold errors in lack of tact, lack of appreciation of other people's outlook. It is most distressing that the Americans do not like him and it will always be a difficult matter to have him fighting in close proximity to them

"Montgomery was not a dashing general, and deliberately methodical, usually not willing to sacrifice military effectiveness for other people's agenda. The realities of the wartime Britain must also be remembered. It had seen severe early defeats, an economy almost crippled, shortages caused by constant German U-boat attacks, and dwindling supplies of manpower to fight on fronts ranging from the Far East to the Mediterranean. There simply were no more big armies to commit wholesale in Normandy or elsewhere. Montgomery thus carefully husbanded the troops he had left."

as for the Arrow it was designed as an interceptor and thusly didnt need long range.

I would argue against building more mark IV because they didnt have the manpower to effectively crew them.

[zoony]

Monty's ineffectiveness as a battlefield commander is very well documented. Having a degree in history, I'm surprised you haven't read the numerous accounts.

There was a reason Patton called him the tent-pitcher. He wouldn't attack. He would lob artillery and bomb and lob more artillery, but still wouldn't attack with infantry. German troops said after the war just how bad he was.

Monty was the only thing the British had that even resembled a General who could go toe-to-toe with the Germans. And that, and no other reason, is why he was included in the AEF. It was a political appointment. However, that should not be confused with a great general.

Honestly, this is the first I've ever read of anyone calling him a competent commander, much less the greatest of all time.

[boofMcboof]

Everyone always forgets Genghis Khan.

Deaf ears man. Most people here never even heard of Subutai.

[Zguy28]

Admiral - Halsey

Your conclusions were all wrong, Zoony...Halsey acted stupidly.

[Ryman of the North]

Monty's ineffectiveness as a battlefield commander is very well documented. Having a degree in history, I'm surprised you haven't read the numerous accounts

(((You mean the numerous accounts written by american generals and historians that are in fact not very respected as sources? because yes I have read many of those often when reading history one must consider the source, after all if left to american historians you wouldnt even know that Arnold was one of the greatest american generals in history..)))

There was a reason Patton called him the tent-pitcher. He wouldn't attack. He would lob artillery and bomb and lob more artillery, but still wouldn't attack with infantry. German troops said after the war just how bad he was.

((((What Monty did was prevent his own side from losing huge casualties, he would often wait and soften defences rather than throw men away uselessly, this did make him unpopular with the americans who preferred to just throw men into the meat grinder in order to hasten victories. if I was a front line solider I know who I would rather follow.))))

Monty was the only thing the British had that even resembled a General who could go toe-to-toe with the Germans. And that, and no other reason, is why he was included in the AEF. It was a political appointment. However, that should not be confused with a great general.

((( While Monty could and did go toe to toe with the germans the rest of that statemnet? You couldnt be farther from the truth and the amerocentric view is yet another reason why a lot of american historians are not well respected, there were in fact several British generals who were very good, one could easily argue that Monty not being put in charge despite his sucsess in north africa was politically motivated, if anything his acerbic nature prevented him from getting the cherry jobs.))))

Honestly, this is the first I've ever read of anyone calling him a competent commander, much less the greatest of all time.

You don't read much non american written history then as even the quotes I included show that Monty was very respected as a general.

[Ryman of the North]

and yes Genghis deserves a place on the list, perhaps as greatest conqueror.

[GibbsFactor]

Deaf ears man. Most people here never even heard of Subutai.

Fat **** that rode on his leader's coat tails?

[Prosperity]

and yes Genghis deserves a place on the list, perhaps as greatest conqueror.

no doubt... he was probably up there with Alexander. People credit a lot of his victories to just the mere fact that armies of that era weren't use to his type of army (nomadic horse archers) but fact is that the Chinese and Persians had to deal with nomadic tribes that used that sort of fighting style all the time... it wasn't like they were surprised by his equipment and style it was just that Genghis' armies just had much better ways to communicate and organize and were tactically superior than any nomadic army (or any army ever) was before. I remember reading how when the mongols reached Europe that it wasn't that the mongols had any troops that could stand toe to toe with armored knights, but they never had to, they just out smarted them. Supposedly they had to develop long distance communication using banners since there homeland was so sparse that only really long distance communication could really organize a battle.

for me it is either Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, and both happened to have conquer some of the most difficult places to conquer ever. Example: Afghanistan and Iran are the most difficult places in the world to invade and yet they were two people that managed to do it successfully.

Actually, I'd say Genghis khan is the best, he conquered China for ****'s sake... as well as the richest parts of the Muslim world, and some of Europe, all of Russia, and well everything in Asia except India and Japan... if you want to judge someone by just results (the most objective thing to do I think) then you have to go with Genghis Khan.