George Smith Patton

[kmead]

When I was perusing the History Channel site today I noted the following factoid:

Today is the anniversary of his death.

As many of you know he died a few weeks after a traffic accident between a US Army truck and his limousine. A truly ironic ending for a man who truly wished to fall on the battlefield.

Do yourself a favor, don't read the bio on the History Channel site as it is terribly written and poorly organized.

http://www.generalpatton.org/

Will lead you to the Patton Museum website at Fort Knox Kentucky. A great place to visit, as long as you're not attending basic training during the height of the summer....

Sorry his full name was George Smith Patton Jr..

[This message has been edited by kmead (edited 12-21-2000).]

[This message has been edited by kmead (edited 12-21-2000).]

[This message has been edited by kmead (edited 12-21-2000).]

[Spii]

Under Patton Leadership, this is what he did to the Germans and Italians

"During the 281 days of incessant and victorious combat, your penetrations have advanced father in less time than any other army in history. You have fought your way across 24 major rivers and innumerable lesser streams. You have liberated or conquered more than 82,000 square miles of territory, including 1500 cities and towns, and some 12,000 inhabited places. Prior to the termination of active hostilities, you had captured in battle 956,000 enemy soldiers and killed or wounded at least 500,000 others. France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia bear witness to your exploits."

[Major Tom]

I also heard he had a pretty high casualty rate as well.

[Maximus]

That's why they called him "Ol' Blood & Guts". So what did Monty do?

Sounds like my ol' log-in name.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

So what did Monty do?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Monty achieved was a "90% succesful" crossing of the Rhein river in the Arnhem, Nijmegen area.

Regards

Jim R.

[John Kettler]

Spii,

I just can't resist.

I must say that "advancing father" has long been a favorite tactic of mine. You see, he's much bigger than I am, so I prefer to have him lead the attack. That way, I can use him as a human shield.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wesreidau]

Montgomery ("that guy is over-rated") beat Rommel in the desert. We should not forget that. However, as an Englishman, I still believe that Patton was the better tactician.

As an aside, I read recently that Patton made the decision to continue production of large amounts of Shermans as opposed to accelerating production of Pershings....something to do with he didn`t want to fight tanb battles, and needed the speed of the M4 to get behind the enemy and make a mess of his supply lines and rear areas.

[Guest MantaRay]

There were a lot of factors in his decision. He also knew that numerical superiority was key too, as the Pershing wasn't very well tested, and the Sherman at least could come over in massive quanities.

Ray

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesreidau:

Montgomery ("that guy is over-rated") beat Rommel in the desert. We should not forget that. However, as an Englishman, I still believe that Patton was the better tactician.

As an aside, I read recently that Patton made the decision to continue production of large amounts of Shermans as opposed to accelerating production of Pershings....something to do with he didn`t want to fight tanb battles, and needed the speed of the M4 to get behind the enemy and make a mess of his supply lines and rear areas.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

New CM Site. In process of switching. Brought to you by Hardcore Gamers Daily

The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Guest jaja]

Patton made two mistakes:

1. The Pershing debacle. Unfortunatly, he didn't know the Pershing had a higher road speed and a signifigently higher cross-country speed (due to large tracks).

2. He delayed fitting of the 76.2mm gun to the Sherman.

Operationaly, he was fantastic. Also, look at what could have been done if he had his way. The Germans wouldn't have been able to form a solid line after Cobra. In the Ardennes he could have bagged the whole bulge.

[GeoffP]

Always bummed me out that one of my favorite historical personalities died on my B-day.

Anyone who hasn't read "War As I Knew It" should give it a look.

------------------

"Enough, Sir, no more of that, the die is cast and if there are fifty sail I will go through them"

Adm. Sir John Jervis 14-Feb, 1797

[Guest kking199]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GeoffP:

Anyone who hasn't read "War As I Knew It" should give it a look.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading it right now... I am really enjoying it, I was curious if his daily journal is available anywhere? He was quite a character!

[Yank]

quote: I also heard he had a pretty high casualty rate as well. That's only because he believed that ending the war quickly would result in less casaulties,as opposed to a long drawn out slugfest.

------------------

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. "Gomer Pyle"

[Vergeltungswaffe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesreidau:

Montgomery ("that guy is over-rated") beat Rommel in the desert. We should not forget that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Monty didn't "beat" anybody. Rommel lost in the desert due to lack of supplies and support, while Monty had the full backing of Churchill and their allies. If the two had met with anything like equal force, Rommel would have handed him his ass.

[GeoffP]

Yank-

A quote from the movie:

"General Bradley, its time to ask ourselves how many casualties we'd have if we were still CRAWLING up that God-da**ed road."

------------------

"Enough, Sir, no more of that, the die is cast and if there are fifty sail I will go through them"

Adm. Sir John Jervis 14-Feb, 1797

[Major Tom]

Neither Monty nor Patton can equal the propagandist impressions we were given. They both had their virtues and vices.

Better commanders were definitely available, but, never given the historic due they diserve. The British General Alexander lived up to his namesake. He was seen as some sort of British problem fixer.

Regarding Market Garden, I do not see it as a reason to display Montgomery's incompetence. There have been MANY commanders who have taken just as many risks, sometimes more, and were portrayed as heros purely because luck was on their side. MacArthur during the Korean war at Inchon took a greater risk than Montgomery and if defeated he would probably have lost the war, but, he was lucky enough to win and was proclaimed a hero.

Also, the defeat of Rommel at El Alemain was not quite as simple as many people state it was. The Germans were far from defeated, and were actually stronger than they have ever been in North Africa. By this time, practically all of the Africa Corps were hard veterans, and even the Italians were a pretty tough enemy. Sure, there were supply problems, but, Rommel always made due through 2 years of supply problems, why should this be seen as an excuse for his defeat now?

I wouldn't blame Patton for the Pershing not coming into action earlier than it did. They did have tanks that could take on the German vehicles. He took a gamble that numbers are more important than quality. This gamble, just like Market Garden for Monty, might not have gone completely 100% according to plan, but, what in war does?

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

LOL. Monty didn't "beat" anybody. Rommel lost in the desert due to lack of supplies and support, while Monty had the full backing of Churchill and their allies. If the two had met with anything like equal force, Rommel would have handed him his ass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha! Since when did Rommel ever need even odds to win? Bullets and fuel are another thing entirely...

As somebody else mentioned, Gen. Harold Alexander never gets his due for pulling together British forces in N. Africa and making Monty's victory possible. He was overall CinC in the desert, and if nothing else, should get credit for keeping Chuchill off Monty's back long enough for him to resupply and re-equip a whipped 8th Army --- a luxury Rommel didn't have.

Oh, and a little FYI: Monty was second choice for command of 8th Army. The #1 man had been veteran desert rat Gen. WHE 'Strafer' Gott --- who, ironically enough, was killed when his transport plane crash landed in the desert and was strafed by a German fighter.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Neither Monty nor Patton can equal the propagandist impressions we were given.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the British press was zealous in praising Montgomery and criticizing Ike, the Americans remembered Sicily, Falaise, and MARKET-GARDEN, as well as Montgomery's failure to open the port at Antwerp, causing all the Allied armies serious logistics shortages. One quote about Montgomery was "He continually seemed to want more and yet seemed to accomplish less."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

So what did Monty do?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can bring up, however, at least one positive contribution that Montgomery did make to the "Battle of the Bulge" that I am aware of. Command of the northern section was given to Montgomery, one of the reasons being that he would then be more willing to bring British reserves into the battle (he did quickly bring XXX Corps up to the Meuse River, but they provided rear-area security and were barely engaged). Montgomery's tactical ability did lead him to order, over strenuous American objections, the 82d Airborne to fall back in order to occupy better defensive positions as well as shorten and straighten the lines. When the 9th SS Panzer Division (as well as the 62nd Volksgrenadier Division) mounted an all-out attack two days later, the tactical withdrawal was proven to be the correct move.

[Lord Dreaman]

Monty was a jerk. In fighting Rommel in North Africa he always had to have 5 to 1 in supplies and weapons to beat Rommel, plus he had Enigma so he always knew where Rommel was planning to attack and what he was attacking with. Plus he always tried to hog all the glory, plus Market Garden was not a very good idea because if hadn't done it they still would have won in the same amount of time. Market Garden was another way of trying to make himself look good when in fact he wasn't. I think I would take Patton anyday over Monty.

------------------

Lord Dreaman master of Dreams

[Major Tom]

It is interesting that everyone seems to have to be either pro-monty or pro-patton. Frankly, one is a true historian if you can see the virtues and vices of them both. They both had great success and both had failure. They both took risks and had lucky and unlucky periods.

To say that one is totally worthless while the other being totally Godlike is, well, reading only a portion of history.

The attack at El Alemain was NOT 5:1, it was more like 2:1. 100 000 Axis vs. 250 000 British, 500 Axis Tanks vs. 1 000 British tanks. The British had 5:3 air superiority. Not quite 5:1 odds, not even the 3:1 odds as seen as the optimum for an attack against such a well entrenched enemy. Also, this victory was so complete that it completely destroyed Rommel's chances of regaining a position in Libya.

Many other Allied battles were won through using decryption technology. Midway, the Soloman Islands, Normandy, etc... So stating that Monty succeeded through having this information is correct, BUT, he was just one of many Allied commanders to do so. And his victories should not be deminished because of it.

Falise, well, there are many reasons why it failed. Strong German resistance, incorrect RAF and USAAC bombing (many British/Polish/Canadian bridgeheads were bombed out by our own heavy bombers), etc.. Also, Patton didn't break out of Normandy, he exploited the break out. Monty was in the field since the Normandy landings, so, his career was 'tained' by the Normandy stalemate, unlike Patton. I doubt Patton would have done much better had he landed on D-Day.

Market Garden, well, every risky plan can fail. Some succeed and the planners are called geniouses (like my previous mention of MacArthur and Inchon). When they fail, they are called incompetent. The Market Garden plan could have easily succeeded, had certain freak incidents not have happened. If the SS Panzer Korps had not been detailed to Arnheim, then the British Airborne could have easily secured the Bridge and held it until relieved. If this suceeded, then the entire German industrial region would be under allied control by the winter of 1944, and there probably would not have been a counterattack at the Bulge.

This is comparative to blaming General Wavell for losing North Africa to the Germans in 1941. All of his previous actions were ignored (defeating 250 000 well equipped Italians with only 40 000 British). Certain situations, bad timing, and odds play against commanders.

Patton was as a glory hound as Monty. They both hated each other so much, because they were both so similar. One is not better than the other, they just had differences of luck. The sad fact is, is they are both great military commanders, with ego's so large that they were entirely aware of what they were.

I do believe that Ike is to blame for much of the horrid situation and lenghtening of the war. He was indecisive, and unwilling to listen to either Patton or Monty on having one pincer movement at the breakout of Normandy to get into Germany well before the winter of 1944 (took the cautious broad front approach, which I guess could have lengthened the war). I do believe that he was the right individual for the command. He respected the need for Allied relations, it wasn't just a British OR American OR Canadian OR Polish OR French OR Belgian OR Dutch OR Czech force, it was an Allied force.

Actually, Market Garden probably really helped the American forces at the Battle of the Bulge. Many good German formations were spent out at Arnheim, and other forces lost and cut off. If Market Garden had not have happened then maybe the Germans would have had enough resources to reach Antwerp?

The Americans could have cared less about not clearing out Antwerp ASAP, its us Canadians who had to do it. The Americans felt no ill effects, as we quickly cleared it out and made Antwerp operational. The main problems of supply were before Antwerp was cleared (ie. as the breakout from Normandy was happening). The blame for this goes directly on the head of the German commander who directed that all major ports be made into fortresses. This is the reason for the poor supply, enemy initiative, not friendly incompetence.

[Flix]

What effect did the American armor acquired by the British in Africa have on the whole campaign?

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

The Americans could have cared less about not clearing out Antwerp ASAP, its us Canadians who had to do it. The Americans felt no ill effects, as we quickly cleared it out and made Antwerp operational. The main problems of supply were before Antwerp was cleared (ie. as the breakout from Normandy was happening).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I heartily agree with the general drift of your post, I can't let this statement pass unchallenged.

The availability of Antwerp as a supply port near the front was one of the highest priorities of all the Allied armies north of the Vosges. It had a capacity equal to all the other ports available at the time, and its proximity to the front would have obviated most of the necessity of the Red Ball Express, which was tearing up the roads of France trying to get supplies to the front.

The delay in opening Antwerp was not due to any lack of speed in the capture of the city itself, but to the presence of German forces along the northern bank of the long Scheldt estuary leading from the North Sea into the port. If instead of Market-Garden, Montgomery had launched an operation to prevent the Germans reinforcing their positions there and clearing the estuary as quickly as could have been done, supplies would have begun flowing at least a month earlier. With those supplies in hand, the Allies might not have been stalled on the borders of the Reich, which allowed the Germans breathing space to organize their defenses and prepare their attack in the Bulge.

Michael

[Lord Dreaman]

While I agree Patton was a gloryhog sometimes. He was superior to Monty because he took what he had and he did what he did best is kick German Ass. While Monty was buttkissing up to Eisenhower and building up his forces, Patton was kicking ass. Many people think Monty was great and he was in terms of politics but he sucked as a general. When an opportunity came he didn't take advantage of it. He couldn't think on his feet, he was too slow for modern war, he always prevented other people from doing their jobs because he was a gloryhog and a stuckup. He thought he was superior to Eisenhower. In terms of Market Garden I agree with Michael, they wasted a lot of men,weapons,fuel and supplies in Market Garden and accomplished nothing. It seems like Monty and Patton were opposites. On one hand you have Patton who ate the Germans for Breakfast, was always advancing rapidly and hated politics. In fact Patton was always running out of fuel because he was always pushing foward and killing Germans. Then you have Monty who took his time, advanced slowly, except in cases where he could show of or take credit, loved politics because he was always sucking up and buttkissing and he had most of the fuel.

------------------

Lord Dreaman master of Dreams

[von Lucke]

Amazing how mention of Patton always leads to someone throwing out Monty's record (and vice-versa).

Both generals were the perfect archetypes of their respective countries perceived fighting styles: Patton brash and hard-charging, eager to get into the thick of it and proove that Americans could kick ass with the best of 'em. Monty calculating and reserved, trying to marshall forces that had already seen 4 long, hard years of war, while keeping losses to a minimum and still achieve victory --- hell, he knew it was over in '44, why take more losses then he had to?

Both were equally loved and vilified by the men who served under them. Hey, the Allies won the war (that includes you Candians too!), so can't we all just get along?

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

It is interesting that everyone seems to have to be either pro-monty or pro-patton. Frankly, one is a true historian if you can see the virtues and vices of them both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? In my post, which you answer, I didn't say anything about Patton. I related some of the actions "held against" Montgomery at the time, and then related a positive item about him. Please go back and read my post again, because I'm confused by your allegation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

The Americans could have cared less about not clearing out Antwerp ASAP, its us Canadians who had to do it. The Americans felt no ill effects, as we quickly cleared it out and made Antwerp operational. The main problems of supply were before Antwerp was cleared (ie. as the breakout from Normandy was happening).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like Michael, I'm surprised at this statement because it doesn't agree with my reading. I am interested in the source of this information, so if you can locate the reference I'd appreciate it. Since I read as a hobby, I tend to read in areas where I'm interested, and so sometimes miss other areas. I don't mind being educated when I'm off-base.

[Walter]

I have to disagree with Major Tom on this supply issue as well. My sources say that virtually all unloading of supplies was still taking place on the Normandy beaches, that the American artillery was rationing shells in late August, and that Eisenhower's approval of Market Garden by Monty, taking Dempsey's troops away from their position, delayed the opening of Antwerp.

However, on the matter of vices and virtues, he's absolutely correct, Patton and Monty had their flaws and their strengths. Anyone who concentrates on only one of those aspects (and somehow it's always the flaws of Patton vs. the strengths of Monty or vice versa), is missing a great deal.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps