Military Greatest list

[HailGreen28]

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 British gave Arnold money, land, pensions, and a commission. More than the Americans did at the time. He did lead some raids, though he never commanded large formations again.

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.

I discount the Tiger because of the cost, which is an important factor in war. Even though it had the same "Fear Factor" and name recognition as say the Zero, Spitfire, or Katyusha, in that it's hard to list a weapon as "great", when its army would've been better off without it.

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

Yeah. And for sheer terror, how about Project Pluto "the flying crowbar"? :evilg:

[HailGreen28]

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.

And yet Monty's forces outnumbered the Germans' handily. At best, he was the Allies' Grant to the Axis' Lee. At worst, some give Monty credit for brilliance simply by having the bigger army, as if generals in that war could "pick sides" beforehand.

Over the wide expanses of Canadian and Norad airspace, range is indeed a factor. The bulky CF100, the imported Voodoo, and other Canadian fighters needed long legs to be effective. And really, the Avro Arrow falls inbetween the F-102 and F-106 in terms of timeline and performance. BTW - Check out a fighter that landed itself without a pilot!

The Panzer Divisions lost most of their tanks in the early stages of the Eastern Front, and remained understrength for the rest of the war. In the West, where they made good use of AT guns, superb infantry tactics, and what few tanks and SPs they had, more tanks could still have made a big difference. A nasty surprise to the Sherman crews, who expected and in fact did spend more time fighting infantry than tanks in France. Agreed that manpower's an issue, as well as fuel. With more tanks, I think fewer casualties could mitigate the manpower issue, and I don't think the Tigers were economical either, especially since it's said a lot of times they broke down en route to where they needed to be.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm late to this party, but I think the debacle of Market Garden should take Monty's name off of any list of the all-time great generals. That showed his incredible love for intricate, overly complicated battle-plans designed to show off his "genius."

Monty had his strengths and was clearly the best of a bad lot of British generals at the time. But there were dozens of American and German generals on the continent during the war that I would trust before him. His real genius was making himself a "hero" to a country that desperately needed a military hero at the time.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I haven't read the entire thread, but Shelby Foote has always argued that the only true genius of the Civil War was Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[HighOnHendrix]

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

Some have; he was even in Conan!

[HighOnHendrix]

I haven't read the entire thread' date=' but Shelby Foote has always argued that the only true genius of the Civil War was Nathan Bedford Forrest.[/quote']

I take it that was before the sheets?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I take it that was before the sheets?

Before the Klan, though he is alleged to have massacred black troops at Ft. Pillow.

Forrest is largely invented the idea of a fast, constantly moving heavily armed calvary. He really only suffered one defeat during the war and that was not until 1865...and even then he still had an army in the field. The book April 1965 makes the argument that if Forrest had taken his calvary into hiding and conducted a guerrilla war in the South, he could have kept the war going for 10 or 15 more years. There are other books that state he is the only genereal that Grant truly feared.

Add to this the fact that he had no formal training and was always given the greenest of troops to train and lead, and you can see why his reputation was the way it was.

[nonniey]

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.

I'll tell you Dreadnaught doesn't deserve the distinction more. True Dreadnaught was a revolutionary design but it was obsolete within 5 years of her commissioning. Additionally, she had a very limited war record and a short service life. Contrast that with the Warspite which, like Dreadnaught, was the most powerfull ship afloat when commissioned (along with her sister ships) no other ship in history can match Warspites war record. Warspite (and her sisters) had 30 years of continous service (which surpasses any other BB class including the Iowa Class BBs). Objectively, there really isn't any competition to Warspite being ranked as the greatest Warship in history, and certainly not by Dreadnaught.

[HailGreen28]

I'll tell you Dreadnaught doesn't deserve the distinction more. True Dreadnaught was a revolutionary design but it was obsolete within 5 years of her commissioning. Additionally, she had a very limited war record and a short service life. Contrast that with the Warspite which, like Dreadnaught, was the most powerfull ship afloat when commissioned (along with her sister ships) no other ship in history can match Warspites war record. Warspite (and her sisters) had 30 years of continous service (which surpasses any other BB class including the Iowa Class BBs). Objectively, there really isn't any competition to Warspite being ranked as the greatest Warship in history, and certainly not by Dreadnaught.

But Warspite was outmatched just a year after her commisioning by Hood. And while Warspite deserved points for her achievements and longevity, Warspite wasn't even the greatest warship of WWII, let alone all time. CV-6 (Enterprise) killed more enemy ships, aircraft, and was more important to the war than Warspite, at one point being the ONLY US carrier in the Pacific. Objectively, Warspite was a great ship, but not the greatest.

Dreadnought I'd rank ahead, because of her impact historically. Even though other countries were building similar designs, Dreadnought set the standards for her time. It's not like other countries started calling all their warships Warspites or Enterprises. And the concepts behind Dreadnought were sound.

If a World War had been going on when Dreadnought was put in service, she could have had a great battle record to talk about.

[nonniey]

But Warspite was outmatched just a year after her commisioning by Hood. And while Warspite deserved points for her achievements and longevity, Warspite wasn't even the greatest warship of WWII, let alone all time. CV-6 (Enterprise) killed more enemy ships, aircraft, and was more important to the war than Warspite, at one point being the ONLY US carrier in the Pacific. Objectively, Warspite was a great ship, but not the greatest.

Dreadnought I'd rank ahead, because of her impact historically. Even though other countries were building similar designs, Dreadnought set the standards for her time. It's not like other countries started calling all their warships Warspites or Enterprises. And the concepts behind Dreadnought were sound.

If a World War had been going on when Dreadnought was put in service, she could have had a great battle record to talk about.

You did bring up the only ship that I'd say is in the running with Warspite as the greatest warship of all time (and like Warspite, Enterprise was outclassed by other carriers during her service life and during the war) Also this was one of the reasons I seperated Battleships from Carriers - too hard to clearly say which was greater between those two ships. I give the nod to Warspite but don't have any angst about those that give the nod to Enterprise.

My reasoning- Carriers by nature were designed to sink large numbers of ships basically enmass, no surface gun ship could have a camparable opportunity, and yet Warspites kills numbers approach Carrier type numbers. Since there were other Carriers that approached Enterprises kill records that made her less than unique in that catagory. Additionally, the amount of damage Warspite took and fought through while surviving is unmatched. And finally her service life was significantly longer than Enterprises.

Oh and while I'm at it on a completely seperate note I'll trumpet my selection to LTC (found out Monday - boy am I a happy camper).

[nonniey]

Please Delete double post.

[HailGreen28]

You did bring up the only ship that I'd say is in the running with Warspite as the greatest warship of all time (and like Warspite, Enterprise was outclassed by other carriers during her service life and during the war) Also this was one of the reasons I seperated Battleships from Carriers - too hard to clearly say which was greater between those two ships. I give the nod to Warspite but don't have any angst about those that give the nod to Enterprise.

My reasoning- Carriers by nature were designed to sink large numbers of ships basically enmass, no surface gun ship could have a camparable opportunity, and yet Warspites kills numbers approach Carrier type numbers. Since there were other Carriers that approached Enterprises kill records that made her less than unique in that catagory. Additionally, the amount of damage Warspite took and fought through while surviving is unmatched. And finally her service life was significantly longer than Enterprises.

Oh and while I'm at it on a completely seperate note I'll trumpet my selection to LTC (found out Monday - boy am I a happy camper).

Congrats!

As far as "greatest", I tend to favor historical impact and making a difference in battles where a war record's concerned. Enterprise was hands down a more important ship than Warspite, even counting Warspite's service at Jutland.

Scratching my head at the "less unique" reasoning. Enterprise helped strike some of the decisive blows in the Pacific. Carriers were few and far between when she made her bones. She made her mark while sister ships like Yorktown and Hornet (though at least as good crews) were sunk. Warspite's fame is surviving where many of her sisters went down too, particularly the Med. Ships like the Japanese Kongos were comparable to Warspite, also, especially in length of service.

By your criteria, USS Laffey wins "Greatest military ship in history". Served from 1944 to 1975. Check out "the ship that would not die". She was mainly tasked with screening AAW and ASW, and shore bombardment, but is credited with 9 enemy aircraft shot down on the day she took a real beating.

Curious why you say Warspite's kill tally approaches carriers, let alone the more successful battleships. Warspite's aircraft sunk a U-boat at Norway, she killed a destroyer or two herself, and helped kill others at that time, and had some assists in the Med. How many enemy ships and planes is Warspite credited with?

[skinfan133]

After reading the pages in this thread, I have comments to make about two subjects. well three really.

First, Robert E. Lee. He was brilliant tactician. I mean that in total sincerity. Lee was able to be both inspiring, tactful, and decisive. He could adjust strategy based on the situation at hand rather effectively. His maneuvers and strategies are still taught to this day in the realm of classical land warfare, and is even relevant in some cases to modern warfare. That said, and it's painful for me to say this as a VMI cadet and son of the south, but the thing that keeps Lee from being the greatest American general is Gettysburg. The man completely fell out of step and majorly screwed up there. Picket's charge is a wonderful example of some of his mistakes during that battle. Don't get me wrong, Lee is definitely up there with the best, but isn't the best.

Secondly, the dreadnought and other battleships. These were monsters of destructive warfare. There's definitely a large amount of romantic nostalgia associated with ship to ship combat, and I've been just as guilty of others as being huge advocates for maintaining these awesome ships. In the gulf war, we were able to utilize New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Missouri quite well. entire battalions surrendered to Wisconsin from over 100 miles away because of the awesome destructive power and psychological fright these ships instill in our enemies. That said, what we are currently developing to replace our battleships for large coastal bombardment is truly frightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer the USS Zumwalt, when it is finished, will be the deadliest thing to ever set sail. I've heard that it will be able to independently target over 30 hostile elements on both land, sea and air, and strike simultaneously within 10 yards accuracy. one of these guys could take over a small country.

thirdly, a pet peeve of mine. the AK-47 is being listed as the greatest riffle of all time just because of its widespread use. just because anyone with an IQ of 30 or higher can opperate one does not make it a) efficient or the best. imo the M-14 has a much better service record than the AK-47 (I may be a bit of a homer though since the M-14 is the issued rifle here at VMI). anyway, the AK-47 bugs the hell out of me

[HighOnHendrix]

thirdly, a pet peeve of mine. the AK-47 is being listed as the greatest riffle of all time just because of its widespread use. just because anyone with an IQ of 30 or higher can opperate one does not make it a) efficient or the best. imo the M-14 has a much better service record than the AK-47 (I may be a bit of a homer though since the M-14 is the issued rifle here at VMI). anyway, the AK-47 bugs the hell out of me

The thing that makes the AK so impressive to me is its durability. Most weapons have to be maintained at a high level. Regular cleaning is a must or they will not work correctly. Case in point: the M16 when it was first introduced to the Army in Viet Nam was not issued with cleaning kits, the thought being that the rifle was so advanced that they were not needed. The rifles jammed repeatedly in combat and cleaning kits were issued (as well as changing the type of powder used in ammo and chrome plating the chamber, etc.). By contrast the AK is so resilient that you can never clean it, get it wet, dirty, sandy, drop it off a building, run a Hummer over it, whatever - it'll likely still fire. While the M16, M14, and the like are very proficient weapons, they are often more weapon than a soldier needs. The main advantage of these weapons are their accuracy at longer ranges; since most combat is not at these longer ranges, that advantage is diminished. There is also a debate concerning the stopping power of the larger caliber of the AK's 7.62mm round vs. the M16's 5.56mm.