Patton and Air Cav....

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Patton and Air Cav....

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Patton and Air Cav....

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Patton and Air Cav.... - 10/30/2000 6:43:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

Hey long time no post. I have a hypothetical question for you all. Hope I get one or two answers. Would Patton(arguably the US's best Cav general) have been able to adapt to Airmobility? I have always wondered how much more horrible WW2 would have been had it been fought in the late 50's early 60's. Thanks to any respondents.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 10/30/2000 7:26:00 AM

troopie

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline

Can't answer your first question. As for your Second. WW2 would have been much more horrible if fought in the late 50's early 60's. Imagine every soldier with an automatic weapon. Helicopter gunships destroying vehicles, tactical and strategic nukes. It would have been much shorter, but much, much bloodier. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 2

- 10/30/2000 8:20:00 AM

Desert Fox

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline

Well, late 50s/early 60s would not involve any air cavalry doctrine. That really was not developed until Vietnam. Gunships also were few and far between in the late 50s to early 60s. As for Patton, well, he was a tanker. He would have been driving armor, not directing helicopter assaults. Something else to remember about this hypothetical situation is that the technology of the 50s and 60s (nukes, automatics, etc.) were a direct result of WW2. So, if WW2 had happened in the 50s and 60s, its likely that none of these things would have been in service.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 3

- 10/30/2000 9:28:00 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

I don't know if the War could have been any worse than it was. Weaponry probably wouldn't have been that far advanced since war itself drove the development of carrier warfare and the bomb. Any opinions?

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 4

- 10/30/2000 9:38:00 AM

Randy

Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/22/2000
From: Torrance, Calif. USA
Status: offline

Hi, I think Patton was innovative enough to have appreciated Air Cav. Remember, Patton was commissioned in the Cavalry, and tanks were still a couple of years away. He saw the possibilities of armor, so I think he would have seen the same for choppers. To answer your second question, thats a hard one. With no major war between 1918-1950 would the tecnology have advanced so much? Without the war, there would have been no real need for the military technology to move so far so fast. Maybe in 1950 they would be fighting with 1930s technology. Sometimes it seems that military technology powers the civilian world. Look at aviation, communications, and medicine w/o a war. I hope this helps. Good questions-food for thought. Semper Fi Randy

_____________________________

Semper Fi
Randy

The United States Marines: America's 911 Force-The Tip of the Spear

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 5

- 10/30/2000 11:00:00 PM

Grimm

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/10/2000
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Status: offline

I agree with the above statements. Look at where the US was in 1938 compared to 1945 as far as technology advances. In 1938, the navy was fairly modern but the army was still using light tanks and tanketts and the (small) army air force was still largely made up of biplanes. (The B-17 was available but in limited numbers and low production.

_____________________________

Its what you do
and not what you say
If you're not part of the future
then get out of the way

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 6

- 11/1/2000 2:38:00 AM

jsaurman

Posts: 129
Joined: 6/28/2000
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I think Patton would have seen all air assets (air spotters, gunships, air mobile cavalry) as a valuable adjunct to his main armor force. He probably would have looked on it like HIS mentor, Pershing, saw tanks: useful in special situations, but no replacement for conventional forces and tactics. JIM

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 7

- 11/1/2000 3:01:00 AM

hhsohn

Posts: 60
Joined: 7/21/2000
From: Walnut, California, USA
Status: offline

Patton probably would not have wholely embraced the concept. He advocated mobilization, but AirCav isn't very mobile once on the ground. It's really a light infantry with gunship support. Since AirCav's actually an extension of paratroopers, he probably would've treated it as a task force for special circumstances.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 8