kallend 2,067 #26 August 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote >Did anyone ask you? You did. Wrong I never asked Kallend who was to be included or excluded from the list. I asked the person who posted this thread. Still haven't figured out how open forums work, eh? You just have not figured out how to tell if someone is addressing you. But being the self important person you are, you assume every post is about you.Once again, for the record, I was not addressing you.Your comment was most unwelcome and its only purpose was to antagonize. Still haven't figured out how open forums work, eh?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #27 August 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >Did anyone ask you? You did. Wrong I never asked Kallend who was to be included or excluded from the list. I asked the person who posted this thread. Still haven't figured out how open forums work, eh? You just have not figured out how to tell if someone is addressing you. But being the self important person you are, you assume every post is about you.Once again, for the record, I was not addressing you.Your comment was most unwelcome and its only purpose was to antagonize. Still haven't figured out how open forums work, eh? Address the thread not me. Act as if I do not exist....please Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #28 August 12, 2009 QuoteI always liked the technique of winning without fighting. I give you Guy Gabaldon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Gabaldon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #29 August 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteI always liked the technique of winning without fighting. I give you Guy Gabaldon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Gabaldon From what I read so far on the subject, my favorite tactician of this kind is Fabius Maximus. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rlucus 0 #30 August 12, 2009 How has no one mentioned Hitler either... He was a very talented military strategist and was very good at inspiring people to follow him. I guess it comes down to whether you mean history's "greatest military commander" or history's "greatest person" who is also a military commander. Cause he fails horribly at the latter but should be mentioned in the former. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #31 August 12, 2009 QuoteHow has no one mentioned Hitler either... Because he wasn't a military commander. He was a politician. He set grand goals, but I don't think he was all that versed in military strategy. He certainly had people under him that were.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,485 #32 August 12, 2009 Not Hitler, but it'd be hard to fault Erwin Rommel as one of the modern greats. Not the greatest of all time, but he was a general who was able to be recognized by both his allies and his enemies as great, and who conducted himself honorably in a dishonorable regime. There are plenty of web pages out there with discussions as well. Most of them don't mention a lot of more modern folks. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,067 #33 August 12, 2009 QuoteNot Hitler, but it'd be hard to fault Erwin Rommel as one of the modern greats. Not the greatest of all time, but he was a general who was able to be recognized by both his allies and his enemies as great, and who conducted himself honorably in a dishonorable regime. Wendy P. Yeah, but then there was El Alamein.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #34 August 12, 2009 I'll see your Romel and rais you and Montgomery (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,067 #35 August 12, 2009 Quote I'll see your Romel and rais you and Montgomery Have you been drinking already today?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #36 August 12, 2009 seams [sic] sow (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,535 #37 August 12, 2009 QuoteHow has no one mentioned Hitler either... He was a very talented military strategist and was very good at inspiring people to follow him. I guess it comes down to whether you mean history's "greatest military commander" or history's "greatest person" who is also a military commander. Cause he fails horribly at the latter but should be mentioned in the former. Completely disagree. Hitler was totally unable to adapt his ideal plans to unfavourable reality, and was incapable of understanding the need for retreat under any circumstances, a trait which got worse and worse in the later stages of the war. Almost every-time Hitler was personally involved in deciding strategies it was disastrous for the German army - especially given his habit of court-martialling and replacing highly competent Generals and Field Marshals who refused to follow nonsensical orders.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #38 August 13, 2009 QuoteBeen reading a lot of history these days and I thought this would make for an interesting discussion. I know it's not a simple question since being a great commander involves a lot of different aspects of leadership and each leader's circumstances vary. The choices are suggestions, and I'm sure there are plenty that deserve to be on the list. Who do you choose and why? David Ben-Gurion (and his successors). To re-establish the modern state of Israel after thousands of years of exile and (a) in the face of huge hostility in the region and (b) less than five years after the Holocaust strikes me as one of the most bold, yet successful, military operations in history. This has been one of the most fought-over regions on the planet, and Ben-Gurion and his successors established control of the region at a time when the odds would certainly have appeared to be very long against them. Of course Israel couldn't have done it based on military might alone--Israel has had to rely on diplomacy as well--but Israel has seemed to be able to exercise just the right combination of diplomatic tact and military toughness to succeed in the face of very long odds. This is not to say that everything the modern state of Israel has done in its 61-year history is worthy of praise, but certainly Israel has done some pretty amazing things with its military to secure itself in the region."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #39 August 13, 2009 I’ve been reading Van Creveld’s Command in War. While the impact of technology, especially disruptive technology, is well-known (in some circles), I hadn’t previously thought about the impact as much on command and its dynamics. And every case isn’t beneficial, e.g., “the pathology of information.” Most like to think that the great military commanders of past would be triumphant today, but I’m not sure that’s true. It's a cool question to think about nonetheless. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #40 August 13, 2009 Quote I’ve been reading Van Creveld’s Command in War. While the impact of technology, especially disruptive technology, is well-known (in some circles), I hadn’t previously thought about the impact as much on command and its dynamics. And every case isn’t beneficial, e.g., “the pathology of information.” Most like to think that the great military commanders of past would be triumphant today, but I’m not sure that’s true. It's a cool question to think about nonetheless. /Marg That looks like a great read, thanks for the link. The general I thought of after reading the last sentence... Quote The book concludes that progress in command has usually been achieved less by employing more advanced technologies than by finding ways to transcend the limitations of existing ones. ...was Hannibal. Along these lines, I think he would be triumphant today as well since he was a master at transcending limitations. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #41 August 13, 2009 William Slim - the best, most modest, and least acknowledged commander of the Second World War. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #42 August 13, 2009 Quote William Slim - the best, most modest, and least acknowledged commander of the Second World War. Oooh - interesting choice! Why is he all that you described? /Marg p.s. And I'm glad to 'hear' your voice in SC again. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #43 August 14, 2009 How nice of you to say :) Ooh, where to start with Slim. First he gets command of Burma Corps and successfully extricates a coherent fighting force from the apocalyptic fiasco that was the defence of Burma in 1942. He then rebuilds the morale of a soundly beaten force, and melds British, Indian, Gurkha, and East and West African soldiers into a force that destroys the Japanese Army on the Indo-Burma border, and I believe inflicts greater losses than any other campaign against the Japanese. He manages the most operationally modern land campaign of the Second World War (if it was being described today the text would be full of words like manouevrism and airmobility) and yet does so with an appalling paucity of supplies and equipment, in the most unhealthy climate and most difficult terrain of any of the war. He was a general of immensely sound judgement, able to hold his nerve during a battle of attrition but also drive an all-arms blitzkrieg when the moment required it. Almost as an aside, he was extremely modest and rarely took credit for any of his achievements, and was able to work with difficult (to be polite) coalition colleagues like Stilwell. And his men absolutely loved him. His memoirs Defeat into Victory and Unofficial History are both classics and well deserving of a read. ...and I think that covers it! :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #44 August 14, 2009 Agreed, I may add that is was not easy to win the admiration or mutual respect of Vinegar Joe. He was loyal to his men, when it was not fashionable, it was even looked down upon. He led from the front, again, not fashionable or even considered smart at the time. He even patrolled with the BAR while in his late 60s, a 25lb Automatic weapon. He kept his men from being slaughtered, even when it meant starving. I was proud when I got temporary duty at Stillwell Hall. I hear it no longer stands... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,067 #45 August 14, 2009 Quote Defeat into Victory ...and I think that covers it! :) On the subject of defeat into victory, how about Hugh Dowding? Had his 1940 campaign been unsuccessful we'd all be speaking German now. (Although I guess some credit goes to Goring and Hitler for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #46 August 14, 2009 Quote I suppose he should have included Kenny McCormick, too! HAHAHAHHAAHH.The golden PSP. Why is Keanu Reeves not on the list? I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #47 August 14, 2009 Good question, obviously to be met with as many opinions as there are assholes on here. I agree the answer would depend on the application of the scale of a conflict. As an armor officer, of course I love GSP...particularly for the relief of Bastogne, which was simply brilliant. A result of the character of his men, but a direct reflection of his style of leadership. But having done tequila shots with him at the Marine Corps Ball of 1991, and getting to know the MAN, I tip my hat to Harvey Barnum His MOH citation could be paraphrased to read: "As a 1LT, he won the battle of Hue City. Because he's a brilliant tactician, and his balls are gigantic." He secured a ridiculously difficult Bn objective as a Lieutenant in the wake of a leadership vacuum. That's a leader. Good post though. Nice change of topic.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #48 August 14, 2009 QuoteQuote Defeat into Victory ...and I think that covers it! :) On the subject of defeat into victory, how about Hugh Dowding? Had his 1940 campaign been unsuccessful we'd all be speaking German now. (Although I guess some credit goes to Goring and Hitler for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory)I think Dowding is the great example of how superior management of resources gives victory. He didn't have much, but he put a superbly efficient system in place for husbanding his resources and was able to watch his opponent slowly wither. (That said, I'm not sure the BoB was as close as is often assumed - German intelligence for one thing was so poor they never had a sound strategy). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #49 August 14, 2009 Perfectly agree that Stilwell was a man of great personal courage and toughness. With his background, he was probably also the best bloke to deal with Chiang Kai-Shek. That said, I'm not sure of the wisdom of putting a pathological Anglophobe in charge of the US component of a British-led theatre. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,067 #50 August 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Defeat into Victory ...and I think that covers it! :) On the subject of defeat into victory, how about Hugh Dowding? Had his 1940 campaign been unsuccessful we'd all be speaking German now. (Although I guess some credit goes to Goring and Hitler for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory)I think Dowding is the great example of how superior management of resources gives victory. He didn't have much, but he put a superbly efficient system in place for husbanding his resources and was able to watch his opponent slowly wither. (That said, I'm not sure the BoB was as close as is often assumed - German intelligence for one thing was so poor they never had a sound strategy). Have to disagree on that. The strategy of bombing the airfields like Biggin and Kenley was absolutely sound. Abandoning that strategy to bomb London was based on emotion, not intelligence or lack thereof (although their intel was indeed lousy), and was a huge error.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites