nonsuch Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 This may have been raised before but I can't find it in the back pages. Shouldn't this game show generals who commanded in the field at the appropriate level? And shouldn't they become available at the correct times. Rommel and Manstein did not command armies in 1939 and neither did Montogomery. If Eisenhower is represented why not Brooke? (surely the best British general of the war) Finally, how did Mark Clark get to be rated "7" the same as Rundstedt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Clark 7??? Never even thought about that...I would give him 4-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Life isn't fair how about Montgomery, Bernard Law; he should be 4 points.... Hero of what? Africa, Rommel had shot his bolt, hero of Normandy, sat on his hands and said I don't have enough troops, I know, hero of Arnhem. Bernards greatest achievement was Dunkirk. Clark maybe 6 points, Blood and Guts Patton 9 points however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 nonsuch Good Points, hate to fall back on my hated track I keep using but we did talk about this several times and every time we all agreed Mark Clark should receive a 5 or so -- he was certainly no Kesselring or Rundstedt. In the past threads there were almost as much bad feelings vented towards Montgomery's high rating. Those threads are scattered around. The best of them was started by our very own Rambo and is probably around 20 or 25 pages back by this time. It's unfortunate Joe Stilwell was the only American General who spoke Chinese. If it hadn't been for that Marshall would have appointed him to a key position in Europe, which is where he really wanted him. Maybe he'd have had Clark's job. In Clark's defense it has to be admitted he fought in a thankless and difficult sideshow and that he did a fine job at Salerno. On the negative side he made a lot of mistakes in the mountains and, when the finally breakthrough did come, chose to have his photo taken in Rome instead of cutting off the German's left flank before it could withdraw to it's new line of prepared mountain defenses. Kesselring was both baffled and overjoyed with this second chance. Ironically Clark's Rome adventure came on June 5, 1944 and he had less than a day of glory. What bugs me about Clark isn't that he was a bad general in a high office, but that by all acounts he was a very skillful general who consistently did things far below his real competency level. If he were a baseball player they'd have called him a hotdog, if he were an actor he'd have been a ham. In other words, a man who betrayed his own talents looking for the limelight. [ April 01, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 I agree Monty is not even worthy of inclusion and is not rated correctly. On the other hand, if Patton had gotten his way, he would have landed at the Pas de Calais, and ruined his career permanently. Still, as long as his boss had a good grip on the leash, Patton was one dangerous Army commander. Clarke is underated, but he was stuck in Italy where no one was able to shine much. Rommel was also a Patton, he was dangerous, but a lot of his fame was being at the right place at the right time, not personal briliance. Ike was the real Allied brains in Europe, he was able to get De Gaulle to speak to Churchill after all, that takes genius. I also think to many ignore mentioning Kesselring. He often had left overs to fight with, and still had to perform. [ April 01, 2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts