>>64748569
He had good facial hair.

File: American_troops_moving_up(...).jpg (536 KB, 1595x2216)

536 KB JPG

> Was he a good general?
As a tactician? No, I don't think so. He was intently focused on maneuver warfare being decisive just like many pre-war British, French, and German commanders despite the fact that by the time the US gets into the war there is no large-scale maneuvering on the Western Front because the technology and tactics to overcome the defensive advantage of entrenchment,artillery, automatic weapons and interior lines hasn't matured. In 1917 Pershing doesn't do much to foster any alternative thinking or solutions to this stalemate, he perpetuates the very-much-now-disproven belief that esprit-de-corps can overcome tactical disadvantage. Most of the education of the American Expeditionary Forces in the tactics and strategy of then-modern warfare comes from the more junior American officers being schooled by experienced French and British instructors rather than a top-down initiative.

>>64748708
Weren't tanks already in wide circulation by then? He wasn't necessarily wrong about maneuver warfare being back on the menu, it just wasn't particularly relevant to his particular mission.

File: September_29_1918_America(...).jpg (1.23 MB, 3508x2577)

1.23 MB JPG

>>64748722
Those tanks were far too slow and mechanically unreliable for maneuver warfare. The faster medium tanks like the Whippet or the FT did not see combat until spring 1918.

>>64748722
Your best chance at maneuver was cavalry supported by aeroplanes like we saw in Palestine.