Honorverse Top Ten Tacticians, Strategists

pokermind wrote:Hmm, ACW north had the factories and population the south had the better generals. General US Grant won by attrition earning the name Butcher Grant.

Not really.

Hutch wrote:As for "Butcher" Grant, he (along with his colleague Sherman), understoond that to meet the Grand Strategy,he must destroy the Confederate Armies, so he made them his targets, not the cities and towns. I commend to you his strategic acumen following Ft. Donelson, at Vicksburg, and yes, his campaign against Lee (his attacks were predicated on other forces performing (which they didn't) and allowing Lee to be bled dry, and his movement to Petersburg should have ended the war 9 months early expect for blundering by the Corps commanders.

Not just Grant's "other forces" (with the exception of Sherman). Meade's army was, repeatedly, just a little bit too late to get around Lee's right flank, so the armies sidestepped all the way down to Petersburg. If any one of those moves had succeeded, Grant would have cut Lee off from Richmond, and then Lee would have been the one launching frontal assaults on entrenched troops.

namelessfly wrote:Aside from ignoring the fact that it was Obama who initiated this conflict at the behest of the Eurpeans so as to secure access to Natural gas and oil at cheaper prices by inciting the coup, your daughter is not considering Putin's true motivations which are demographic and industrial.

The idea that either Obama or the Europeans picked a fight with Russia is just bizarre. Obama wanted Russian support on several issues, including Syria and Iran. And to get cheaper prices for oil and gas? How was that supposed to work?

Bill Woods wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Aside from ignoring the fact that it was Obama who initiated this conflict at the behest of the Eurpeans so as to secure access to Natural gas and oil at cheaper prices by inciting the coup, your daughter is not considering Putin's true motivations which are demographic and industrial.

The idea that either Obama or the Europeans picked a fight with Russia is just bizarre. Obama wanted Russian support on several issues, including Syria and Iran. And to get cheaper prices for oil and gas? How was that supposed to work?

The fact that the US incited the conflict in Ukraine is not debatable. Tenshini who is no US conservative is the one who made me aware of the intercept of Victoria Nuland's cell phone call. Google this imbecile. She was absolutely unapologetic about her role in provoking this conflict.

Look at a map of existing and potential oil and gas pipelines along with potential fossil reserves in the various countries whose name ends with "Stan.". Given control of Ukraine, Russia controls European access to alternative supplies.

As for Obama wanting Russian cooperation Syria and Iran, this is an absolutely valid point. This is why it was absolutely insane for Obama to provoke this fecal storm.

Bill Woods wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Aside from ignoring the fact that it was Obama who initiated this conflict at the behest of the Eurpeans so as to secure access to Natural gas and oil at cheaper prices by inciting the coup, your daughter is not considering Putin's true motivations which are demographic and industrial.

The idea that either Obama or the Europeans picked a fight with Russia is just bizarre. Obama wanted Russian support on several issues, including Syria and Iran. And to get cheaper prices for oil and gas? How was that supposed to work?

Poorly. However, one might wonder whether it is actually the administration, or the administration being led by the nose by the national insecurity apparatus. And taking us back on topic, that list of leading tacticians really does deserve the addition of the Mesan who planned Oyster Bay, whoever he she or it is.

cthia,

You needn't worry. I was not that kid.
I am a Jew. I never believed in Santa Claus.
We have a different world-view from that.

Thank you for expanding the Particular to the General.

I beg your pardon for misreading your name as "ethia."

Howard

cthia wrote:Howard,
Truly, I am worried about you. As soon as I read this I thought of you as the little kid just finding out that there really is no Santa Claus. I was that kid.

Because the true reality check, one that I am unsure if you have reasoned, (since you're just now stumbling over your reality check, is...

In every book of fiction there is also only one character.

namelessfly wrote:After her FUBAR at BoM, Theodosia Kuzak has no place on the list.

Why is Overstregen not on the list.

Tekerov belongs on the list, but it was Abby Hearnes who used the Recon drones to provide FTL tactical data thus giving us Apollo lite. Okay, I am hoping that getting her a place in the Honorverse Tacticians Hall of Fame will inspire Weber to write another shower scene where her "curvy figure" can be lathered, scrubbed and rinsed, repeatedly.

Kuzak is an interesting case. She seems to have this informed ability as a great commander but we don't actually see much (or any of it) on-screen. I don't remember hearing much of anything about her battle prowess during the First Havenite War and once the Alliance captured Trevor's Star she was essentially anchored there as a protective force.

Because of that she didn't get to do any offensive forays like Hamish and Honor. The Peeps never attacked Trevor's Star while she was the system defense commander and so we never get to see how she would've handled an assault on the system.

The only time we get to see her in action is during the BoM and she is put between a rock and a hard place there by a Havenite ops plan specifically designed to hammer any forces coming through from Trevor's Star. It's stated in the text that she made the correct decisions in response to the tactical situation as she knew it. Now, it was a flawed view but that's all that the commander on the spot has to base their decisions on. Honor mentions that if she had been the first through the Junction the same thing would've happened to her.

Not Theodosia Kuzak, whose Third Fleet had sailed straight into the jaws of death. Who'd done everything right, yet tripped the guillotine which would have destroyed Eighth Fleet, just as surely as it had destroyed the Third, if Honor had been in her place.

I feel that we can't include Kuzak on either of the lists not because she may not be qualified but that we simply don't have enough "data" on her to really figure out where she belongs.

It's a blatantly BS argument to say that 8th would have been destroyed if it was in the position of 3rd. 8th would have taken damage, but they would have obliterated both RHN fleets. It is what the characters think internally, but it is simply objectively wrong.

First, 8th would have started firing at 2nd from effective Apollo range. Which is a LOT farther then 3rd's effective range. So 2nd can't really effectively return fire and is still outside of effective range of Sphinx.

Second, the damage per missile of 8th is vastly higher. Remember when just 3 Apollo SDs were killing a 5th fleet SD every salvo? An entire fleet of Apollo SDs would have crushed 5th. Literally, 6 salvos, would have destroyed or mission killed pretty much every single ship in 5th. It would take a bit longer to kill 2nd, but by the time 5th drops in all the missiles needed would have already been fired, so all of 8th fires on 5th.

I am reminded of exactly a century ago, and how World War 1 started. A runaway national security apparatus of Serbia provided adequate support to Gavril Princip and his fellows. And perhaps that is about to happen again.

My late Grandfather, who ended the war as an officer in the K.u.K. army, notes that people knew, as soon as the assassination occurred, that there would be a war.

namelessfly wrote:Aside from ignoring the fact that it was Obama who initiated this conflict at the behest of the Eurpeans so as to secure access to Natural gas and oil at cheaper prices by inciting the coup, your daughter is not considering Putin's true motivations which are demographic and industrial.

Bill Woods wrote:The idea that either Obama or the Europeans picked a fight with Russia is just bizarre. Obama wanted Russian support on several issues, including Syria and Iran. And to get cheaper prices for oil and gas? How was that supposed to work?

namelessfly wrote: The fact that the US incited the conflict in Ukraine is not debatable. Tenshini who is no US conservative is the one who made me aware of the intercept of Victoria Nuland's cell phone call. Google this imbecile. She was absolutely unapologetic about her role in provoking this conflict.

Look at a map of existing and potential oil and gas pipelines along with potential fossil reserves in the various countries whose name ends with "Stan.". Given control of Ukraine, Russia controls European access to alternative supplies.

As for Obama wanting Russian cooperation Syria and Iran, this is an absolutely valid point. This is why it was absolutely insane for Obama to provoke this fecal storm.

Thank you for bringing us back on topic.

If 'tactics' includes ground tactics, which did after all win Hearns her Marine heroism medal, one might propose that Cachat deserves to be well up on the list.

kzt wrote:It's a blatantly BS argument to say that 8th would have been destroyed if it was in the position of 3rd. 8th would have taken damage, but they would have obliterated both RHN fleets. It is what the characters think internally, but it is simply objectively wrong.

First, 8th would have started firing at 2nd from effective Apollo range. Which is a LOT farther then 3rd's effective range. So 2nd can't really effectively return fire and is still outside of effective range of Sphinx.

Second, the damage per missile of 8th is vastly higher. Remember when just 3 Apollo SDs were killing a 5th fleet SD every salvo? An entire fleet of Apollo SDs would have crushed 5th. Literally, 6 salvos, would have destroyed or mission killed pretty much every single ship in 5th. It would take a bit longer to kill 2nd, but by the time 5th drops in all the missiles needed would have already been fired, so all of 8th fires on 5th.

See response in POLITICS

phillies wrote:I am reminded of exactly a century ago, and how World War 1 started. A runaway national security apparatus of Serbia provided adequate support to Gavril Princip and his fellows. And perhaps that is about to happen again.

My late Grandfather, who ended the war as an officer in the K.u.K. army, notes that people knew, as soon as the assassination occurred, that there would be a war.

namelessfly wrote:Aside from ignoring the fact that it was Obama who initiated this conflict at the behest of the Eurpeans so as to secure access to Natural gas and oil at cheaper prices by inciting the coup, your daughter is not considering Putin's true motivations which are demographic and industrial.

Bill Woods wrote:The idea that either Obama or the Europeans picked a fight with Russia is just bizarre. Obama wanted Russian support on several issues, including Syria and Iran. And to get cheaper prices for oil and gas? How was that supposed to work?

namelessfly wrote: The fact that the US incited the conflict in Ukraine is not debatable. Tenshini who is no US conservative is the one who made me aware of the intercept of Victoria Nuland's cell phone call. Google this imbecile. She was absolutely unapologetic about her role in provoking this conflict.

Look at a map of existing and potential oil and gas pipelines along with potential fossil reserves in the various countries whose name ends with "Stan.". Given control of Ukraine, Russia controls European access to alternative supplies.

As for Obama wanting Russian cooperation Syria and Iran, this is an absolutely valid point. This is why it was absolutely insane for Obama to provoke this fecal storm.