Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:58:30 PM EST
Wow... Just wow... Just imagine the lives lost by his cowardice.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 9:02:38 PM EST
he was very good at building up the size and discipline of the AOTP. He was very good at garrison, so good, that he was reluctant to actually use his army..he didn't want to lose guys. Also, he had his eye on the presidency, and knew if the war dragged on without victory he could beat lincoln.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 9:04:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hurk31:
he was very good at building up the size and discipline of the AOTP. He was very good at garrison, so good, that he was reluctant to actually use his army..he didn't want to lose guys. Also, he had his eye on the presidency, and knew if the war dragged on without victory he could beat lincoln.
View Quote


Lincoln should have fired him after Richmond, and not brought him back. Then the Union could have nearly ended the war in Maryland.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 9:07:03 PM EST
Strangely enough, Robert E Lee considered McClellan his most difficult adversary ever... who knows why.. I guess since he didn't fight Lee thought he was hard to predict. Antietam being the biggest battle McClellan and Lee had against one another.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 9:09:44 PM EST
My personal opinion is that McClellan was very popular with the troops and Lincoln didn't really have a good alternative for awhile..
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 9:12:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2013 9:13:22 PM EST by Bullet_]
McClellan was an excellent garrison commander and great at building up an Army. He was horrible in the field.

Very, very few are great at all the of the things needed to run and fight a military.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 9:13:52 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
McClellan was an excellent garrison commander and great at building up an Army. He was horrible in the field.

Very, very few are great at all the of the things needed to run and fight a military.
View Quote


Rommel was a better division commander than army commander.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 9:29:05 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:


Rommel was a better division commander than army commander.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
McClellan was an excellent garrison commander and great at building up an Army. He was horrible in the field.

Very, very few are great at all the of the things needed to run and fight a military.


Rommel was a better division commander than army commander.


Agreed. He went to far trying to take all Africa and his defense of the western coast was a joke.

----------------------------------------------------

In McClellan case, if he had been willing to just keep bullheadedly rushing Lee like Grant did, McClellan probably would have won and then become President.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 9:58:00 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:


Agreed. He went to far trying to take all Africa and his defense of the western coast was a joke.

----------------------------------------------------

In McClellan case, if he had been willing to just keep bullheadedly rushing Lee like Grant did, McClellan probably would have won and then become President.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
McClellan was an excellent garrison commander and great at building up an Army. He was horrible in the field.

Very, very few are great at all the of the things needed to run and fight a military.


Rommel was a better division commander than army commander.


Agreed. He went to far trying to take all Africa and his defense of the western coast was a joke.

----------------------------------------------------

In McClellan case, if he had been willing to just keep bullheadedly rushing Lee like Grant did, McClellan probably would have won and then become President.



Rommel barely had 6 months before D Day to prepare for the invasion and was unable to get the number of troops he felt necessary in the right places.Had the 2 SS Panzer divisions been placed close enough to immediately counterattack immediately, the landings may have gone considerably differently.

Furthermore,you are assigning strategic failures to him.He could only do what he was ordered,with what he was given. Had Mussolini not so badly fumbled the Balkans and North Africa I honestly believe Rommel would be in history books just the same but for his exploits in Russia.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 10:09:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By outofbattery:
Rommel barely had 6 months before D Day to prepare for the invasion and was unable to get the number of troops he felt necessary in the right places.Had the 2 SS Panzer divisions been placed close enough to immediately counterattack immediately, the landings may have gone considerably differently.

Furthermore,you are assigning strategic failures to him.He could only do what he was ordered,with what he was given. Had Mussolini not so badly fumbled the Balkans and North Africa I honestly believe Rommel would be in history books just the same but for his exploits in Russia.
View Quote


OT: if Rommel had used all that bunker concrete for improved roads and mobile bridges, the Allied invasion never would have gotten of the beaches.
Every attempt to establish a beachhead would have gotten bottled up and hammered on the sand.
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 10:56:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
McClellan was an excellent garrison commander and great at building up an Army. He was horrible in the field.

Very, very few are great at all the of the things needed to run and fight a military.
View Quote
+1

He turned the AOTP into a good fighting force. He just sucked at using them in the field. And he hated losing men. Tried to avoid it too much.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 3:03:19 AM EST
I'm about a third of the way though Atkinson's latest and wondering if anyone else sees parallels between McClellan and Montgomery? Both seemed to be better suited to building and motivating an Army than employing one, more comfortable with the set piece battle than one of maneuver.
Top Top