Who was the worst American general or battlefield tactician?

Mcdowell never took the intiative in any campaign without being forced to by NCA.
Click to expand...

The same thing could be said for Joseph E. Johnston (CSA). This was particularly true at Vicksburg. There were other Generals on both sides that never took the initiative but could not be considered the worst. I still think that the all-time worst American General HAS to be Burnside. In every major attack that he was responsible for the only thing he accomplished as a large number of KIA/wounded Union troops after a long period of time (Antietam, Fredericksburg, and the Crater).
After the Crater Grant basically took his command away and sent him on leave (from which he was never recalled).
 
How can you say MacArthur was one of the worst US generals? Thats crazy. He was outnumbered in the Pacific with troops, ships, planes, and supplies up until late 43. The overrated Ike and Monty were sucking up all the supplies in the European war leaving a couple left over units for MacArthur to use. If he was so horrible, why did he get to recieve the Jap surrender aboard the Missouri? Maybe it has to do with the fact that he led the outnumbered and outgunned us military forces in the early years of war to victory against a superior enemy time and time again. Regardless of what people think about him in Korea, his talents as a General were unsurpassed in the Pacific.

Ps.. I wouldn't pin all the blame on him for the Chinese intervention in Korea. The Chinese were willingly supplying the N. Koreans. MacArthur authorized the bombing of the bridges to cut off the N. Korean forces who were trying to retreat across them into China. (A textbook tactic) If Truman didn't want this to happen, he should have told Mac earlier than he did. By the time Truman grabbed his nuts, the bridges had already been destroyed. China was coming whether the bridges were destroyed or not. Mao was itching to get into Korea. Mac knew the Russians were providing air support for the commies, he took the initiative. Can you blame him?
 
Patton didn't want to side with the Nazis and fight the Russians. That statement is rather false. He did however want to fight the Russians after the Nazis fell. He was very smart and knew what was coming in following decades. Do you blame him? Christ man, everybody forgets that the "poor, peaceful Russians" signed an alliance with the nazis in 39. And don't insult peoples intelligence by calling it a non-aggression pact, it was this only on paper. They both agreed to conquer and divvy up Poland. If thats not an alliance, then what is? (Dont forget Russia also invaded Finland) I dont blame Patton one bit for wanting to fight the Russians.

Also, how in the hell can you put MacArthur in the "worst generals category?" He was a brilliant leader. Sure he had his faults. But everybody does. He wasn't perfect, but he definatly was good.

But for my opinion, the worst american general would have to have been Gen. Burnside of the Union army. Do a google search on him. He got more union troops slaughtered than any other general in US history. And if memory serves me right, he never even won a battle. He was inept in every leadership category.
 
BigBert96 said:
Patton didn't want to side with the Nazis and fight the Russians. That statement is rather false. He did however want to fight the Russians after the Nazis fell. He was very smart and knew what was coming in following decades. Do you blame him? Christ man, everybody forgets that the "poor, peaceful Russians" signed an alliance with the nazis in 39. And don't insult peoples intelligence by calling it a non-aggression pact, it was this only on paper. They both agreed to conquer and divvy up Poland. If thats not an alliance, then what is? (Dont forget Russia also invaded Finland) I dont blame Patton one bit for wanting to fight the Russians.

Also, how in the h**l can you put MacArthur in the "worst generals category?" He was a brilliant leader. Sure he had his faults. But everybody does. He wasn't perfect, but he definatly was good.

But for my opinion, the worst american general would have to have been Gen. Burnside of the Union army. Do a google search on him. He got more union troops slaughtered than any other general in US history. And if memory serves me right, he never even won a battle. He was inept in every leadership category.
Click to expand...

There was a reason russia signed the pact with germany. Stalin planed to stab hitler in the back. the chance came when Hitler attacked france, but france fell too fast for russia to mobilize
 
BigBert96 said:
But for my opinion, the worst american general would have to have been Gen. Burnside of the Union army. Do a google search on him. He got more union troops slaughtered than any other general in US history. And if memory serves me right, he never even won a battle. He was inept in every leadership category.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, your memory does not serve you in this instance. Burnside did indeed command a successful campaign to take control of the North Carolina Sounds. You can read about it in the book "Burnside" by William Marvel or in the September issue of "America's Civil War" In spite of this, I agree that Burnside is the worst commander in U.S. Military History. His plans of attack at Fredericksburg the crater were sound but he had a total lack of the ability to react to changing circumstances as those two battles showed.
 
Thanks for the input claymore, I guess burnside did win one! He still sucked overall. :lol: But my original post was based more on Patton and why he wanted to fight the Russians. Fact still remains that Patton was right.
 
Burnside?

It would seem that if Burnside remained a Brigade commander he may have had greater success throughout the war. His early success, 61/62 might be attributed to the fact that he was in command of a smaller number of forces engaged. It wasn't until his promotion that he began to fail miserably as his responsibilities increased.
Patrick
 
If I may submit another name, George Armstrong Custer.


and a comment on the topic. I think bad generalship has a tendency to be a self correcting problem, one way or another. Unfortunately for the rank and file this doesn't happen nearly fast enough.
 
The first name that came to my mind was: Custer! However, I had to go all the way to the end of the link before I found anybody else of the same opinion - so I might be wrong.

He did a couple of good jobs during the civil War.
 
I really don't have a choice for the worst Gen. in the united states; however, I have seen Ike's name on the list. I don't know about that Just look at who he had working for him. To start with Bomber Command (UK) and the 8th air corps. Then lets move onto the ground forces first Monty (UK), Bradley, Patton, and Clark. Anyone that can juggle all of these egos and forge them into a coherent fighting force must be doing something right.

My choice for worst General In the united states would have to be one of the many out of the civil war.
 
Re: Burnside?

Patrick said:
It would seem that if Burnside remained a Brigade commander he may have had greater success throughout the war. His early success, 61/62 might be attributed to the fact that he was in command of a smaller number of forces engaged. It wasn't until his promotion that he began to fail miserably as his responsibilities increased.
Patrick
Click to expand...

I think that Burnside's greatest weakness was not in controlling large groups or forces but in responding to changes in battle conditions. What I mean by this is that he did not have the capability (at least not that he showed) to change tactics midstream when the situation dictated it. Two examples come to mind of this- the bridge at Antietam, where he spent hours trying to cross a bridge against heavy fire instead of fording the creek a little further upstream (where a crossing was very possible). The other example would of course be Fredericksburg, he waited for more than 2 days to attack when the pontoons had not been delivered on time, and insisted on proceeding with the set plan even though most of his staff objected. The result in both cases was many needless deaths to Union soldiers.
 
Burnside was intelligent enough to realize that weakness, though. He refused command of the Army of the Potomac before his superiors forced him into the position. Burnside would have been more successful at the Crater if he had disobeyed Meade's order to use untrained white troops instead of the specially trained black troops to lead the assault.

I think the worst was Major General Sickle. In Gettysburg, he moved his III Corp to Peach Orchard causing a battle that decimated the III Corp and losses in other units which came to relieve him.
 
Not US but I think General. Bernard Law Montgomery was the worst, Market Garden was a disater.

(Hey it says I can't have anymore Milbucks because I've fill the amount of alloted posts, What does that mean?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top