Tuesday Favorites….military strategist and tactician

[CDGator]

@CDGator kicked this ant pile then stood back to watch

 

[B52G8rAC]

We annihilated Iraq in 1990 with superior airpower without the widespread slaughter of civilians, so I'm not sure going back to the days of Le May is something needed for decisive victory either.

The world has changed, even if you have not.

Did we win? The world has not changed; still sinful and evil without Christ. He is Risen!

 

[B52G8rAC]

B-52, you’re a great American but like Belichick after Tom Brady left, Lee was far less effective after the loss of Stonewall Jackson. Jackson was superior to Lee and deserves top 10. Lee made his mark during a series of campaigns against inferior sad sack Union commanders. Too many times, Lee’s orders were ambiguous, vague and / or verbal.
JFC Fuller— a Brit general & military historian— book “Grant & Lee” is a very detailed study on this.

I don't disagree. If Stonewall Jackson had lived, the outcome of the war would have been different. If only longer and more distructive. But he died. I think Lee was hamstrung by the actual love he had for his men.

 

[gatorev12]

No, it really hasn't, we just think it has.

I guess it depends on what each person considers change.

I think a big difference between now and 70 years ago (let alone 700) is that information travels much quicker. Wars aren't hidden, neither are the uglier parts of it.

 

[Theologator]

James Van Fleet was a great battlefield commander. He was not skilled in the art of military politics however, and he was passed over for promotions in favor of others because he didn't believe in self-promotion.
View attachment 68445
Here he is as UF football coach, and held a dual role as professor of military science at UF.
View attachment 68446
The last of the Van Fleet clan passed away in the early 2000s and a couple of antique dealers bought the estate. In their Winter Haven shop I found the plaque (signed by JVF) given by Gator Boosters, Inc to his last survivor--a niece--to commemorate his service to the University. It formerly hung in the "Will to Win" area at Florida Field and was given to the niece when a larger portrait was installed there. I bought it and donated it to UF ROTC in 2017. They were happy to have it back home at UF. James Van Fleet was a life-long Gator fan, retired for many years to a ranch north of Polk City and lived to be 100 yrs old.
View attachment 68447 View attachment 68448

My grandfather was his CPA when he lived in Bartow. I gather his language was very colorful.

 

[gatorev12]

Did we win?

Yes.
Quite obviously so.

Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait, the stated goal of the war.

 

[B52G8rAC]

Yes.
Quite obviously so.

Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait, the stated goal of the war.

Oh, I thought you meant the last dust up in Iraq.

 

[gatorev12]

Oh, I thought you meant the last dust up in Iraq.

I said 1990 in the post to clarify.

Airpower matters a great deal; but the (first) Gulf War undercuts your argument that Le May-style carpet bombing is needed for total victory.

 

[B52G8rAC]

I said 1990 in the post to clarify.

Airpower matters a great deal; but the (first) Gulf War undercuts your argument that Le May-style carpet bombing is needed for total victory.

I don't think I ever said that. My point is that in a real war, you know a fight for national existance, target selection and weapons employment are not constrained by politics. Shock and awe don't win wars. The continuous application of all the force available against the enemy's will and capability to wage war does. Carpet bombing has actually never been a thing BTW. It is a term made up by the author of Catch 22. Even the fire bombing of Japanese cities was an effort to eliminate the means of production for war material.

 

[gatorev12]

Even the fire bombing of Japanese cities was an effort to eliminate the means of production for war material.

Uh huh. Denialism is strong, I see.

 

[AlexDaGator]

Hannibal is a classic example of "both" from antiquity; same with Alexander the Great.

In more modern times, it's been a bit more rare to have a brilliant tactician be an elite strategist. Mostly because the era of professional militaries have divided the two and there's less movement been the tactical to strategic during wartime itself.

The Civil War was the last big conflict where there was significant overlap between both (and several examples on each side where one could make that argument); but for a 20th Century example, I've always stuck by Giap as being the "best" example of both. And he's also a rare commodity in having been part of significant conflict across three decades of his career.

I was a Hannibal fanboy back in the day, but even though he won all his battles in Italy, he lost the war. Why? Because he was incapable of taking a defended city (like Rome). His army was great in the field, but he lacked the capacity for siege warfare. That's gotta count against him.

Also, the battles he won in Italy were against the Roman "B" team. The best leaders and legions were out in the hinterlands defending the Empire's far-flung borders. The brilliance of crossing the Alps was avoiding those guys and striking into the soft underbelly of the Roman Empire.

Then, he lost to Scipio. One of the keys to Hannibal's success was his excellent Numidian (Berber) light cavalry. Some of these guys switched sides to ally with the Romans and that was fundamental to Roman victory. Not keeping all those guys on his side was a pretty big strategic failure by Hannibal.

Also, like Alexander inherited a great army and tactics from Philip, Hannibal inherited his army and tactics from Hamilcar.

I'd give Hannibal high marks for tactics, but not as much for strategy.

I think Hannibal got the Rommel treatment. The Brits were getting killed by Rommel so they made him into something greater than he was to help account for their failures, and then to aggrandize themselves (especially Monty) when they were finally able to beat him. I think the Romans talked Hannibal up because he beat them so badly and then used his reputation to elevate Scipio.

Also, Hannibal was almost certainly not Black. Carthage was a Phoenician colony. The Carthaginians were descendants of the Phoenicians and Hannibal would have been from an aristocratic Phoenician family line. There could have been some intermixing with the native North Africans like the Numidians but ehhhh......



Alex.

 

[AlexDaGator]

A favorite of mine has been Terrible Terry Allen
View attachment 68432

Interesting choice. Did not expect to see his name here. I'm a fan.

There is some controversy whether he got fired or not. Clearly he didn't get along with Omar Bradley. He did a fantastic job with the Timberwolves--building, training, and then fighting. Can't judge him on strategy though.


Alex.

 

[AlexDaGator]

Joseph "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell
View attachment 68436

Good on tactics, but he was an utter failure in terms of strategy. He despised Chiang Kai-Shek (who he called peanut head). He failed to see the danger in Mao. Losing China to the Reds may have been the greatest strategic blunder of WWII.

Alex.

 

[AlexDaGator]

Good post...

I was thinking about it before posting. Hannibal will always be my "old time" favorite... I think I first started reading about him in 3rd or 4th Grade. The "modern" pick was the one I was struggling with because of that tactical/operational/strategic split you mentioned, but I think you nailed it with Giap... prior to reading you post that, von Manstein was my modern pick, but was struggling with it for the reason you stated.

Also, I don't care what anyone says, Grant still gets hosed in this department and is highly underrated.

Agreed on Grant.

As discussed previously, the saying is "History is written by the Victors" but the exception is the American Civil War. The history was written by Southerners (especially Virginians). The history is getting better and I think eventually people will come to accept that Grant is waaaay underrated and Lee is waaay overrated.

Alex.

 

[gatorev12]

I was a Hannibal fanboy back in the day, but even though he won all his battles in Italy, he lost the war. Why? Because he was incapable of taking a defended city (like Rome). His army was great in the field, but he lacked the capacity for siege warfare. That's gotta count against him.

Then, he lost to Scipio. One of the keys to Hannibal's success was his excellent Numidian (Berber) light cavalry. Some of these guys switched sides to ally with the Romans and that was fundamental to Roman victory. Not keeping all those guys on his side was a pretty big strategic failure by Hannibal.

Also, like Alexander inherited a great army and tactics from Philip, Hannibal inherited his army and tactics from Hamilcar.

I'd give Hannibal high marks for tactics, but not as much for strategy.

Also, Hannibal was almost certainly not Black. Carthage was a Phoenician colony. The Carthaginians were descendants of the Phoenicians and Hannibal would have been from an aristocratic Phoenician family line. There could have been some intermixing with the native North Africans like the Numidians but ehhhh......



Alex.

To your point, the longer one is responsible for making decisions, the greater the odds for poor (if not fatal) mistakes.

You're right that Hannibal made some poor strategic moves; but then again, so have most of history’s other great strategists.

Basically, we're all human and that should factor in too.

Now, you'll have to excuse me while I go watch our Gators and I'll expect nothing less than flawless perfection from the players, coaches, and refs while doing so.

 

[AlexDaGator]

James Van Fleet was a great battlefield commander. He was not skilled in the art of military politics however, and he was passed over for promotions in favor of others because he didn't believe in self-promotion.
View attachment 68445
Here he is as UF football coach, and held a dual role as professor of military science at UF.
View attachment 68446
The last of the Van Fleet clan passed away in the early 2000s and a couple of antique dealers bought the estate. In their Winter Haven shop I found the plaque (signed by JVF) given by Gator Boosters, Inc to his last survivor--a niece--to commemorate his service to the University. It formerly hung in the "Will to Win" area at Florida Field and was given to the niece when a larger portrait was installed there. I bought it and donated it to UF ROTC in 2017. They were happy to have it back home at UF. James Van Fleet was a life-long Gator fan, retired for many years to a ranch north of Polk City and lived to be 100 yrs old.
View attachment 68447 View attachment 68448

The story I heard was that George C. Marshall confused Van Fleet with another office with a similar name who may have been an alcoholic or something. Accordingly, he didn't promote Van Fleet the way he did his classmates for much of WWII. Finally somebody told him he had Van Fleet mixed up with somebody else and he gave Van Fleet the opportunity. Van Fleet shined when he had the chance but by then WWII was nearly over. He helped save Greece from the communists in the years immediately after WWII and was outstanding in the Korean War.

And...he had the highest winning percentage of any UF football coach until Spurrier.

And...my uncle was friends with his son back in the day.



Alex.

 

[AlexDaGator]

Strategist: Robert E. Lee. No one else is even close. Tactician: Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. However, I do think George Patton understood the genesis of modern mechanized war and applied those concepts as well as anyone on in the 20th century. (Is Van Fleet Hall still the ROTC building?)

Lee was a better tactician than he was a strategist. His strategy was all wrong for winning the Civil War.

Patton was excellent in his armored tactics and he built a great army. His problem was his ego. He loses points for his stupid and costly seige of Metz (and I won't mention his harebrained scheme to liberate his son-in-law from the Germans). Patton was our best tactician of WWII but he needed somebody to reign him in sometimes.

Alex.

 

[AlexDaGator]

George Thomas deserves mention here too. He saved the Union Army from annihilation at Chickmauga when his commander Rosecrans panicked. He was another who did not self-promote and has not received the acclaim he deserves. He sometimes refused promotions when he felt he was not a good fit for the command offered. Too bad Burnside (and many others) did not do the same.

Another unexpected name. Yes, Thomas is very underrated.

Alex.

 

[Nalt]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Geronimo...

 

[AlexDaGator]

Hannibal is a classic example of "both" from antiquity; same with Alexander the Great.

In more modern times, it's been a bit more rare to have a brilliant tactician be an elite strategist. Mostly because the era of professional militaries have divided the two and there's less movement been the tactical to strategic during wartime itself.

The Civil War was the last big conflict where there was significant overlap between both (and several examples on each side where one could make that argument); but for a 20th Century example, I've always stuck by Giap as being the "best" example of both. And he's also a rare commodity in having been part of significant conflict across three decades of his career.

Interesting call with Giap.

The fought the Japanese, the French, and the Americans and came out on top. Strong resume.

How does he make your list and the Taliban (who likewise utilized insurgency to defeat the US) do not?


Alex.