|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Feb 13, 2017 1:36:22 GMT
Pretty comprehensive list. Nice one, Dave.
Have to give McLellam some props as an organizing genius and training. Lousy field commander and too vain to admit his shortcomings.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 13, 2017 3:47:46 GMT
David I believe McClellan deserves special attention for his complete failure to take advantage of having a copy of Lee's orders and disposition of his forces. The debacle of Antietam proved his inability to be a leader in battle. In a weird McClellan committed several of the same errors Custer committed at the Little Big Horn such as not calling a council of his officers, not sharing his plans with his officers, belittling his officers in front of others, mismanaging his units. Custer was so focused on preventing the Indians to escape he got "tunnel vision" lost his situational awareness I believe. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 13, 2017 11:24:58 GMT
I must admit my knowledge of US Generals from this period is very poor, but my knowledge of Generals from most countries in pretty bad, except for the WW2 Generals, so I only really know the US Generals who have a tank named after them, after all they must have done something right to gain this accolade.
Lee, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Stuart and Scott can join the list along with Pershing, Patton and Abrams.
Has anyone ever noticed how the British named their tanks with the letter C? It’s true, just check them out;
Crusader Covenanter Cavalier Centaur Churchill Cromwell Comet Centurion Challenger
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 13, 2017 14:55:22 GMT
Yan If you think the armor names were interesting just look at the Destroyer classes of the RN. A through M plus other classes ID by name for example Hunt class. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Feb 13, 2017 15:14:44 GMT
I must admit my knowledge of US Generals from this period is very poor, but my knowledge of Generals from most countries in pretty bad, except for the WW2 Generals, so I only really know the US Generals who have a tank named after them, after all they must have done something right to gain this accolade. Lee, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Stuart and Scott can join the list along with Pershing, Patton and Abrams. Has anyone ever noticed how the British named their tanks with the letter C? It’s true, just check them out; Crusader Covenanter Cavalier Centaur Churchill Cromwell Comet Centurion Challenger Matilda?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 13, 2017 15:23:33 GMT
Yes David there was two marks of Matilda tank, and nine marks of Valentine. Another thing to note is that all the tanks which begin with the letter C are classed as Cruiser tanks (there you go Dave,just like the Royal Navy), well except the Churchill which was an Infantry tank along with the Valentine and Matilda.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 13, 2017 22:48:36 GMT
Ah Dave, but not complete. There was also the Town, Battle, Tribal, and Weapons Classes in the RN .during the WWII era. There was also several examples of the ship not following the letter designation Hardy and Kempenfelt were in the V and W Classes respectively.
The letter classes went all the way to Z, then started again with Ca, then the Ch-Co, Cr (all one class.
Generally the letter designated eight ships being built to the same design that were intended to operate as a flotilla of eight on active service. One of those was given flag modifications and designated the flotilla leader. Many of those eight ship letter classes represented repeats of the preceding design, For instance there was virtually no difference between the J-K-N Classes and again no difference between the L and M classes.
The Hunts were named for hunts, and the Captains for captains, just the same way the Type 23's are named for Dukes.
Did I miss the Scott tank Ian?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 14, 2017 14:09:34 GMT
Chuck, I am glad you brought that up because as it was the a name given to the M8 GMC, it is seldom used but you can find it on certain web sites. Wikipedia: In November 1944, the Ordnance Department gave the M8 the name General Scott, after American general Winfield Scott.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 14, 2017 14:18:14 GMT
I must admit though, I am drawn to Sherman, probably because of his dislike for Journalists. He resented the way they written information about what his army was up to, he mentioned that all the confederates had to do was read the papers to know what his army was up to.
I love this line;
If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.
I also dislike the tabloid newspapers, they have people working for them who hound people and go to any lengths to catch celebrities just enjoying themselves or picking their noses outside a café, they even tapped people’s phones to gather info on them, no wonder they are referred to as the gutter press.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 14, 2017 16:07:56 GMT
Ian Sherman's dislike of journalists was certainly enhanced by Whitelaw Reid's account* of the Battle of Shiloh. Reid's article was the basis of the false charge that Grant's army was taken by surprise, with Union soldiers being bayoneting in bed by Johnston's Confederates. Grant being relieved after the battle by Halleck was partially the result of this false article and remember that Sherman was attached to his hip. The Federals had been skirmishing with the Rebs for several days prior to the attack on Sunday, April 6, 1862.
Technology, the telegraph, enabled reporters to get their articles to editors before the army could censor or control the release of details. Sherman's natural dislike---hatred even---of reporters was increased as reports of his army and its actions certainly provided valuable information to the Confederates.
I would imagine if you were to speak with our own veterans that they would all be pleased if there were no correspondents or reporters embedded in their units. ANY and ALL information is potenitally an assest to the enemy and reporters report regardless of the sensativity of the material. Journaists are not military and may not realize the damage they could and do cause to our troops. This not an excuse for bad behavior just and explanation of their actions Regards Dave
*https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SDU18620521.2.6
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 14, 2017 16:47:59 GMT
Then there is that pesky old First Amendment to consider, which enshrines Freedom of the Press in our founding documents.
Part of your last paragraph is not true Dave. They don't all do that. Eisenhower briefed reporters on the location of the D Day landings well before the event, as were others briefed on similar events throughout the war, and no word leaked.
The public has the right to know, and that right cannot be abridged, by the unprofessional acts of a few.
That is another one of those things we signed up for in 1789.
There is a proper way to do these things, and it is first a matter of thoroughly vetting a reporter for his journalistic integrity. That way you make sure you do not let a self serving scum bag like Geraldo Rivera anywhere near your command post. By journalistic integrity I mean people like Cronkite, Pyle, and Murrow.
Speaking of Rivera, do you recall what unit he was imbedded with at the time, and who was in command. I do, and the CG was another self serving scumbag, who could not keep his mouth shut, as proven on another occasion.
Throwing the baby out with the bath water is never a good solution, but it was one you eluded to in your final paragraph.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 14, 2017 20:32:04 GMT
QC You mentioned that I had been in error with my paragraph: "I would imagine if you were to speak with our own veterans that they would all be pleased if there were no correspondents or reporters embedded in their units. ANY and ALL information is potentially an asset to the enemy and reporters report regardless of the sensitivity of the material. Journalists are not military and may not realize the damage they could and do cause to our troops. This not an excuse for bad behavior just and explanation of their actions "
I appreciate my mistakes being pointed out as it allows me to address the matter quickly. If I presented the idea that reporters were not to be allowed to be with service men and their units in combat and peace then I have misspoke. I know how much we owe to journalists in covering all activities in a free country. I also support the 1st Amendment as well as the other 26 and agree we owe much to Pyle, Cronkite and Murrow for their bravery and honesty in reporting about our service men and women.
I have spoken with many veterans of Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan who had either poor experiences with reporters or found themselves protecting the press as well as fighting. These were the members of the 4th Estate I was referring to in my post. Several of the Afghanistan vets were very leery of indigenous press members.
I would like to add a another correspondent who was well received and respected by the troops and that is Robert J. Casey. His book Torpedo Junction written in 1942 was a sensational account of a unidentified US Heavy Cruiser---USS Salt Lake City (CA 25)--- from Pearl Harbor through Midway. The book is available on Amazon and if you have not read it I suggest you might as it is very well written and depicts a sailor's life at sea and in war.
As to Geraldo Rivera, I lost all respect for his credibility after the opening of Al Capone's safe. I would imagine he will not attend any 101st Airborne reunions in the foreseeable future but could be wrong? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 14, 2017 21:28:45 GMT
I believe it is a fundamental error to group ALL together, regardless of what category they fall into.
That said, the Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact. Reasonable limitations, and censorship should be placed on the press, if the situation calls for the same.
The press, a free press is both powerful in its own right, and essential to a free and vibrant democracy. Cronkite changed his mind on the Vietnam War publicly, and that was the turning point in the Johnson administration, who after that sought only how to get out. Time ran out on them, and it took Nixon some years to extract our forces, but he knew going in that out was where he had to come. Woodward and Bernstein, under the severe supervision of Ben Bradley, took Nixon down with a free press, when they uncovered corruption of such great magnitude it threatened the very existence of the Republic. It did not matter, nor will it be remembered for a very long time, the good Nixon did. He violated his oath to the Constitution, which "but for" would have never been uncovered.
On the other hand there was an imbedded reporter on Lexington at Coral Sea, who learned just enough to deduce that we were reading the IJN operational codes. He published it in his paper, and later wrote a wartime book that revealed it. The government could not do a thing to him in the way of punishment, for mention of the punishment would have caused more of a breech of operational security, than the article and book did. Good thing the IJN let their subscription to the Chicago Tribune run out. In that particular instance the cure that should have been applied (like the hangman's rope) was deemed worse than the disease itself.
The bottom line is that the first amendment must be respected in regard to a free press, but at the same time the military does not necessarily have to surrender the keys to the candy store.
I lost all respect for Geraldo Rivera when he slithered down the birth canal, and have had no cause to change my mind thereafter.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Feb 14, 2017 23:18:20 GMT
Dave,
Another problem with inbeds is that if a soldier is being filmed and he knows the folks back home are going to see it, he may be a little bolder and as a result become a casualty.
Be Well Dan
PS...Just to keep on thread Gen Pat Cleburne was one of my favorites
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 15, 2017 1:46:43 GMT
Dan I understand your point regarding the camera and a soldier posing for his folks being very dangerous. Sounds like you have seen such occurrences in you tour in Nam? I honestly believe that had Cleburne not made his January 1864 proposal of enlisting slaves to fight with the promise of freedom he could have been the commander of the Army of Tennessee. He was head and shoulders above any other general in the West and may have be selected to replace Ole Joe Johnston instead of "Old Woodenhead" Hood but Jefferson Davis was so angry that he had Cleburne's proposal suppressed. In his efforts to defeat Schofield before he reached the safety of Union lines in Nashville Hood committed his men to a vainglorious death and defeat at Franklin. One of the most famous and incorrect belief regarding Hood was that he was a drug addict whose addled brain caused the defeat at Franklin. I have listed a source below* that refutes that canard. Another false charge was that Hood was angry because his army allowed Schofield's forces escape his hoped for attack at Spring Hill. I have listed a very good source^ that refutes that charge. I have also read that Hood's failure at Franklin was not in allowing his cavalry under Forrest (QC's favorite) to cut the Federals off from Nashville and using the hammer and anvil action to defeat the Yankees. I am unsure as to this being correct or not as I know little of cavalry actions but Forrest was defeated by Wilson so I am leery of this theory. I personally believe Hood was an aggressive fighter who was a "hey diddle right up the middle" commander who could not perceive any other strategy. He bled the Army of Tennessee white with his choices sealing the deal with a foolish attack against Thomas's strong Nashville fortifications. Regards Dave * www.historynet.com/john-bell-hood-pain-and-prescriptions.htm^ www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2013/12/31/the-top-13-controversies-at-franklin-part-3/
|
|