son of witless wrote:
George S. Patton was a great field general. However, he could not ever be a Commander in Chief because he had no political skills. Eisenhower was a good Commander in Chief because the job required that. Keeping FDR, Churchill, Patton, and Montgomery on the same page took a special kind of diplomat. As far as I know, Eisenhower never had a major field command so he is lacking there.
The only American General I can think of that had both field skills and headquarters skills are Ulysses S. Grant. Other Union generals were as great in the field. Sherman and Sheridan were like Patton. Tell them to destroy the enemy and they did it. However, only Grant had the political skills to deal with the DC bureaucracy and the powerful incompetent officers in the Union Army who couldn't be fired.
Grant was the only general who Abraham Lincoln 100 % trusted. When the backstabbers came to Lincoln to get Grant fired for his drinking, Lincoln said, find out what kind of Whiskey he drinks and I will send some to my other generals. When they kept complaining, Lincoln said, I can't spare this man, he fights.
George S. Patton was a great field general. Howeve... (
show quote)
Now they are modern and woke, and could care less about crushing the enemy.