Depends on what you consider to be best
King Tiger limited because of:
- Fuel economy
- Track size
- Reliability issues
Not mobile, limited to highways, and as you mentioned, never produced in sufficient numbers to make a difference
There is nothing funnier than average men critiquing great men.
If I remember right I think we whipped the Naziís and Japaneseís asses back during WWII and we should have jerked a knot in Stalinís butt while we were over there. Never underestimate the desire of an American soldier to winÖNEVER.
Patrick,i think you have been living in a bubble.The major land battles of the european theatre occurred on the eastern front.When you say we whipped the germans ass I am assuming by we you mean the russians,australians ,brits ,canadians, and all the other members of the british commonwealth as well as the Americans.We certainly didnt whip them even though we severly outnumbered themThey were better than we were, we just had to many resources for them in the end
Bon Im sure your father was a fine soldier and i commend him for his devotion to his CO.Many Americans feel the same way about McArthur but Im sure Wainwright didnt see it that way
True enough, not everey major land battle in Europe was fought on the Western Front, but how many of those battles on the Eastern Front would have been won without Lend Lease? It was the US Merchant Marine and the industrial base of the US that kept the Sovs in the war. It was also not Zhukov and Koniev who won the war for the Sovs, but Generals January and February. In retrospect had the Wehrmacht beaten the Sovs at Kharkov , Stalingrad and Kursk that wouldn't have been a bad thing, it would have helped weaken the USSR after the war. The south Pacific effort was similar, without Bull Halsey and the US Navy, how long would the Australian and NZ Navies have stood up to Yamamoto and company?
To get a little historical perspective maybe you should read some of mark Boatners books He is an emminent US historian , Professor at West Point and WW2 vet In Australia McArthur disparaged his own troops and was very critical of the Australians ( amongst the finest troops in the world). he clashed with many Australian generals but managed to engineer Blameys appointment as Aust GOC Mc Arthur expected to direct the main effort against the japs but King and Nimitz saw to it that the pacific theatre was primarily a navy show. King and Nimitz also disliked Mc Arthur
To McArthurs credit he is acclaimed for a particulariy brillant peice of generalship. His leapfrogging strategy carried out by Halsey, isolated the powerful jap garrison in Rabal and new britan with miminal casualities
As a civil administrator in Japan after WW2 McArthur excelled and gained universal acclaim
In Korea he had both success and massive failure His amphibious attack at Inchon was a masterpeice of military excellence but he then made serious mistakes. the first was to order another landing at Wonsan the second was his inability to grasp the concept of limited war and the third was his diasterous inability to anticipate the chinse reaction to his threat to their border at Yalu river this led to a humiliating and costly defeat. He finally got the hook for insubordination.
Like most things the truth about ' great Men" is always a little different from the publicity
and McArthurs publicity machine was unparelled
I spent parts of the last 2 yrs reading Addm Samuel Elliot Morrison's History of US Naval Operations IN WWII. Even though Adm Morrison was Navy, he is full of praise for Gen MacArthur, interservice rivalries not withstanding. without Mac, Chesty Puller, Bull, Howlin Mad Smith, and others lots of folks would be singing Kimigayo instead of Waltzin Matilda or God Save the Queen at rugby matches.
"True enough, not everey major land battle in Europe was fought on the Western Front"
this is a strange statement Bob , by far the biggest and most numerous battles of WW2 were fought on the eastern front.I think the Russians would have a very different take on history to you
My point is that without the US Navy,and land forces, there would have been NO allied victory in the Pacific. The Royal Navies of Australia, NZ and Holland were no match for the IJN across the Pac, niether were their respective armies. Mac and Bull and the others saved the bacon of these and other allied nations. For this alone, mac et al deserve to be forgiven whatever foibles they may have had.
Had the Sovs been beaten at Stalingrad, Kursk and Kharkov, the Nazis would still have lost the war, but a bonus for the US and the world would have been a weakened USSR with a corresponding lack of ability to stir the pot in places like Kenya, or to be competetive in the cold war.