RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/13/2008 9:49:55 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

MacArthur, this guy ordered to shoot the vets in washington, right?

His victories were won by superial material, superial numbers and superial trained soldiers. These soldiers got orders from their officers. MacArthurs input was quite limited.
He will be remembered for his infamous retreat at bataan but also for the gamble at Inchon and his madness about the use of nuclear weapons against china.

a difficult person, cause his ego was larger as his military or political influence.
But i love the movie about him, cause the actor was great.

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to morvwilson)

Post #: 31

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/13/2008 10:33:56 PM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

I don't believe you will find many Marine vets (or Marine enthusiasts) who hold a high opinion of this man. Strategically, his stubborn insistence on holding forward bases in the Phillippines as a bulwark cost many many lives. Tactically, he can be held almost criminally negligent in not alerting the air bases in the Phillippines after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Thus, our planes were destroyed on the ground, and ultimately an entire Marine regiment (the 4th) was needlessly sacrificed.

It COULD be said that a pawn was given up to buy us time to rearm and take the offensive, but this POV offends modern sensibilities.

His blatant insubordination during the Korean War has already been mentioned.

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 32

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/13/2008 11:28:38 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"MacArthur provided the troops to hold the beaches, he just didn't have a realistic appreciation of his army's combat ability. It was still in training and at the long end of a supply chain from the US. I wouldn't blame him for failure to train or equip his army (he was in the process of both), but for attempting something for which his army was not capable and simultaneously destroying its fallback plan. "

MacArthur spent the latter part of the '30's as the commander in chief of rhe Philippine Army. In this, he was solely repsonsible for the state of preparation (or lack thereof) of said army. His glowing reports to Washington about the size of his army, the status of its preparations, and the effectiveness of that army could easily be labelled as fraudulent. During this period, he preferred to spend his time socializing in Manila rather than actually overseeing the training of the Philippine Army.

Had his reports on the status of the PA been anywhere near accurate, Washington would never have agreed to his "defend at the beaches" stategy and would have ordered him into the Bataan Bastion - with the supplies correctly established in place. The hardships that the troops in the PI suffered can be directly attributed to his poor leadership. Never was a Medal of Honor given to such an unworthy recipient.

We cannot place the blame for the destruction on the PAF on his hands. The air units had been warned, and had been up in the air but happened to be caught on the ground refueling. Had the Japanese attacks not been delayed by bad weather, the USAFFE air units would not have been on the ground at the time the Japanese bombers arrived.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 33

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/14/2008 12:43:49 AM

jnier

Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier
Great commanders win battles and wars.

Then explain Gen Washington ?

He won the war by loosing and retreating from every engagement

As much as I personally like Washington (was just at Washington's Crossing a few months ago), his performance at Brooklyn Heights and the Brandywine pretty much disqualifies him from being one of "the greatest military commanders of all time." Washington was really good, but he did not have exceptional tactical abilities (although he had his moments, like Trenton & Princeton). He had great leaderships skillls and a wonderful gift for understanding the bigger strategic picture, which makes him very, very good, but not one of the greatest ever, IMHO.

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 34

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/14/2008 1:30:52 AM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the Revolutionary war all Washington had to do was survive.

Little simplistic don�t you think ?

Hardly a small task considering the political environment of the day, not to mention the small insignificant fact he was facing one of the most deadly forces of the day with a bunch untrained farmers armed with their personal hunting arms.

Anyway don�t take my post out of context, it was in reply to

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier
Great commanders win battles and wars.

Which we know is BS, Gen Washington proves that wrong and indeed was one the greatest commanders

_____________________________

(in reply to morvwilson)

Post #: 35

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/14/2008 2:34:46 AM

jnier

Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the Revolutionary war all Washington had to do was survive.

Little simplistic don�t you think ?

Hardly a small task considering the political environment of the day, not to mention the small insignificant fact he was facing one of the most deadly forces of the day with a bunch untrained farmers armed with their personal hunting arms.

Anyway don�t take my post out of context, it was in reply to

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier
Great commanders win battles and wars.

Which we know is BS, Gen Washington proves that wrong and indeed was one the greatest commanders

Don't want to get too far OT...but how do you explain Brooklyn Heights & Brandywine? Or Fort Necessity? A great tactician simply would not have made such obvious errors. Washington was very, very good, but "the greatest" would not have made these kinds of tactical mistakes repeatedly.

< Message edited by jnier -- 5/14/2008 2:58:43 AM >

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 36

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/14/2008 3:40:13 AM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

Don't want to get too far OT...but how do you explain Brooklyn Heights & Brandywine? Or Fort Necessity? A great tactician simply would not have made such obvious errors. Washington was very, very good, but "the greatest" would not have made these kinds of tactical mistakes repeatedly.

We differ in opinion

PS: No one is stating �greatest

_____________________________

(in reply to jnier)

Post #: 37

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/14/2008 6:14:33 AM

morvwilson

Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the Revolutionary war all Washington had to do was survive.

Little simplistic don�t you think ?

I agree with you, in that the goal was simple, survive. But achieving that goal ....

Nevermind the battles, just look at the logistical problems of the day.

< Message edited by morvwilson -- 5/14/2008 6:18:52 AM >

_____________________________

http://www.outskirtspress.com/Feud_MichaelWilson

Courage is not measured by the presence of fear, but by what a person does when they are scared!

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 38

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/14/2008 9:02:28 PM

andym

Posts: 1117
Joined: 7/12/2006
From: Kings Lynn UK
Status: offline

Maybe because Gen McArthur was always seen with a corncob pipe clamped in his gob,in this day and age of political Correctness and other such "Schumachers"he has fallen out of favour?

_____________________________

Press to Test...............Release to Detonate!

(in reply to morvwilson)

Post #: 39

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/14/2008 9:35:19 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"MacArthur provided the troops to hold the beaches, he just didn't have a realistic appreciation of his army's combat ability. It was still in training and at the long end of a supply chain from the US. I wouldn't blame him for failure to train or equip his army (he was in the process of both), but for attempting something for which his army was not capable and simultaneously destroying its fallback plan. "

MacArthur spent the latter part of the '30's as the commander in chief of rhe Philippine Army. In this, he was solely repsonsible for the state of preparation (or lack thereof) of said army. His glowing reports to Washington about the size of his army, the status of its preparations, and the effectiveness of that� army could easily be labelled as fraudulent. During this period, he preferred to spend his time socializing in Manila rather than actually overseeing the training of the Philippine Army.

Had his reports on the status of the PA been anywhere near accurate, Washington would never have agreed to his "defend at the beaches" stategy and would have ordered him into the Bataan Bastion - with the supplies correctly established in place. The hardships that the troops in the PI suffered can be directly attributed to his poor leadership. Never was a Medal of Honor given to such an unworthy recipient.

We cannot place the blame�for the destruction on the PAF on his hands. The air units had been warned, and had been up in the air but happened to be caught on the ground refueling. Had the Japanese attacks not been delayed by bad weather, the USAFFE air units would not have been on the ground at the time the Japanese bombers arrived.

The Phillipine Scouts constituted the Phillipine Army until 1941. They were well trained and moderately equipped. The legislative expansion of the Phillipine Army may have started in 1936 but it was mostly construction of facilities and training upto a reserve level at best until 1941. Not until MacArthur gave tWashington an alternative to writing off the PI did Washington start to prioritize their reinforcement. Few thought they would be invaded prior to Spring or Summer of 42. Given that time, his plan might have been effective. Washington had its own share of the blame for taking part of the delusion. Nobody was comfortable just writting off the PI. As you said, MacArthur put the cart in front of the horse, he should have waited until his army could complete the task given it.

< Message edited by anarchyintheuk -- 5/14/2008 9:40:44 PM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 40

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/15/2008 9:38:50 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"The Phillipine Scouts constituted the Phillipine Army until 1941."

This is a misleading statement. The Phillipine Scouts were the heart of the PA, but they did not even constitute the majority of the army MacArthur claimed to have. In 1935, MacArthur was sent to the PI as "military advisor" to President Quezon. He was authorized to conscript and train a large new army as well as prepare the country's defenses. MacArthur resigned his commission in the US Army on Dec 31, 1937 and was then named commander in chief of the PA.

He was supposed to train about 150,000 men per year starting in 1936 but the actual numbers dropped every year. Apparently, only a tiny portion of those conscripts even finished their training. According to Alan Schom, The Eagle and the Rising Sun, the Phillipine Army consisted of 468 officers and 3697 men, though MacArthur reported to the Phillinpine government that it had 6000 officers and 135,000 enlisted men.

This is where I speak of his defrauding the Phillipine and US gov'ts. If he had actually taken his commission (to build a Phillipine Army capable of defending the country) to heart, he would have had at least a couple of hundred thousand effective men instead of a few thousand. If he had factually reported the state of the Phillipine Army then Washington would never have authorized his proposed change from the Bataan bastion defense.

The problem with the truth of your statement is that it is MacArthur's fault that it proved to be true. The multiple PA divisions were an undisciplined mob, with only Mac to blame. He had siz years before the balloon went up to create an army and failed miserably. He then compounded his mistakes by thinking that he had a real army and using a strategy that was untenable in reality, condemning his troops to a cruel siege with extremely short rations...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 41

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/15/2008 3:43:47 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Which we know is BS, Gen Washington proves that wrong and indeed was one the greatest commanders

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge
We differ in opinion

PS: No one is stating �greatest

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 42

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/15/2008 8:45:16 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"The Phillipine Scouts constituted the Phillipine Army until 1941."

This is a misleading statement. The Phillipine Scouts were the heart of the PA, but they did not even constitute the majority of the army MacArthur claimed to have. In 1935, MacArthur was sent to the PI as "military advisor" to President Quezon. He was authorized to conscript and train a large new army as well as prepare the country's defenses. MacArthur resigned his commission in the US Army on Dec 31, 1937 and was then named commander in chief of the PA.

He was supposed to train about 150,000 men per year starting in 1936 but the actual numbers dropped every year. Apparently, only a tiny portion of those conscripts even finished their training. According to Alan Schom, The Eagle and the Rising Sun, the Phillipine Army consisted of 468 officers and 3697 men, though MacArthur reported to the Phillinpine government that it had 6000 officers and 135,000 enlisted men.

Assuming he was given the funds for the program. Just because you legislate something, doesn't mean its been funded. 150k per year is a fantasy. This source shows a training program of 40k a year beginning in 1937. Doubtful even those numbers were ever reached.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/5-2/5-2_1.htm#p8

According to the source above, the PA was supposed to be approx. 10k strong with 400k reserves by 1946. Schom's figure doesn't have a date to it, but it is probably reporting the full-time PA army, not the reserves. Either that or MacArthur managed to mobilize 10 divisions w/ only 4k in manpower. As far as numbers MacArthur reported to the Phillipine government, they sound about right on paper (assuming the date is 1941, no date is given). Whether they mobilized in that number is another matter.

quote:

This is where I speak of his defrauding the Phillipine and US gov'ts. If he had actually taken his commission (to build a Phillipine Army capable of defending the country) to heart, he would have had at least a couple of hundred thousand effective men instead of a few thousand. If he had factually reported the state of the Phillipine Army then Washington would never have authorized his proposed change from the Bataan bastion defense.

A 'couple of hundred thousand effective men'? Effective, to me, means trained and equipped. MacArthur either lied about the state of their training to Washington or was delusional concerning it. Probably both. Granted, their training was insufficient, but were the means and the funds available? MacArthur's misrepresentations aside, how realistic was it for the Phillipines to have trained men (even when they're reservists) and equipment in a number approaching the size of the US Army by 1941? The only source of equipment for the PA was the US. If the US Army didn't have 200k-300k equipped men in 1941, the PA sure wasn't going to have them. A fact known to Washington and one which they were trying to remedy.

quote:

The problem with the truth of your statement is that it is MacArthur's fault that it proved to be true. The multiple PA divisions were an undisciplined mob, with only Mac to blame. He had siz years before the balloon went up to create an army and failed miserably.

True, with mitigating circumstances listed above. With regards to failing to create an army that could deal with the IJA, the PA performed no worse than its peers, the British Army in Malaya and Burma and the Dutch Army in the East Indies.

quote:

He then compounded his mistakes by thinking that he had a real army and using a strategy that was untenable in reality, condemning his troops to a cruel siege with extremely short rations...

I agree. I essentially stated that back on #24.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 43

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/16/2008 6:40:37 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

I don't think that we are in disagreement, for the most part. It is true that funding for the PA was reduced as the war approached (Quezon was afraid of upsetting the Japanese), but the training that the conscripts received was far below any reasonable standards. Instead of arguing against the cutbacks and doing the best with what he had, MacArthur spent his time socializing in Manila (and accepting a hefty payment from the PI gov't).

400,000 reserves by 1946 does seem to agree with my comment about a couple of hundred thousand "effective" troops (okay, so maybe "trained" would be a better description, since their equipment was substandard) by 1942, given the annual numbers that your source quotes...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 44

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/16/2008 9:50:35 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I don't think that we are in disagreement, for the most part.

Ditto, enjoyed the discussion.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 45

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/25/2008 6:40:52 PM

skyhawk1

Posts: 10
Joined: 5/21/2008
Status: offline

I once saw an excellent TV Programme called "AMERICAN CAESAR" - MacArthur was the subject and it was reasonably 'warts & all'.

My Grandfather fought in New Guinea - he crossed the Kokoda Track 3 times on foot after being wounded once and dropped by malaria once - he went on to fight in the Buno - Gona Campaign and landed in Balikpapan.   He was 7th Division 2nd AIF (Australian Imperial Force) and had fought in North Africa, Syria Jeruselum and various other AO's for 2 years before being sent to New Guinea to relieve the untrained, ill-equipped Militia (who were the first people who actually stopped the Jap -- ANYWHERE!).   When The 2nd AIF relieved the Militia they then fought all the way across the New Guinea Highlands (via an airborne assault on Nadzab) to the North/East Coast (Buna, Gona etc) where they saw a piece of Generalship that astounded them.

MacArthur INSISTED that US Army units be involved in certain parts of the battle despite the fact that they were, TOTALLY untrained (many had NEVER fired their rifles), totally under-equipped (they had to borrow weapons from the Aussies- which is a real turn-up) and their Commanders refused (r) refused to heed advice given by the vastly experienced Australian Commanders.........the end result was a very costly (and embarassing debacle) that only came good with "Allied" help.

The Aussies were really pissed off when ordered (with the full agreement of Tubby Blamey) to land at Balikpapan - it was unnecessary as it had already been totally isolated and had absolutely NO STRATEGIC VALUE WHATSOEVER!   They were also pissed off to have been denied the chance to participate in the Philipines Campaign - seeong as they were fighting anyway they would have preferred to fight where it really mattered.

I can't speak for all Australians but I CAN speak for my Grandfather and EVERY other Aussie Digger who served under MacArthur that I know and they ALL HATED HIM as a Glory-hunting, egotistical, xenophobic, narsocist!!!

btw......Blamey was also disliked with a passion by those same troops - he was seen as MacArtur's lackey.   There were other reasons also but they are outside the scope of this 'discussion'.

The Military are the SERVANTS of the Civilian Government and that is as it should be.   Speaking out against those in authority is OK, even commendable, BUT there comes a time for "YES SIR!" and MacArthur obviously wasn't capable of seeing that.   If you doubt that then just look at EVERY country that;s ruled by their Military and you'll see what I mean.   Burma's Military Junta's absolute refusal to allow humanitarian Aid into the country recently illustrates the point elaquently I believe.

nb ... no one will ever convince me that INCHON wasn't the luckiest military action ever but I suppose a lucky General beats a good General sometimes eh?

_____________________________

SteveD (RAN '69 - '92)
aka .. skyhawk1
"We joined to DO a job - Not GET one!"

(in reply to morvwilson)

Post #: 46

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/26/2008 12:47:46 AM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: skyhawk1

no one will ever convince me that INCHON wasn't the luckiest military action ever but�I suppose a lucky General beats a good General sometimes eh?

Good point there. From what I've read, the Navy people were well aware that they'd been lucky, and refused any further major amphibious ops during the Korean war. (They reasoned the North Koreans would be more prepared in the future.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to skyhawk1)

Post #: 47

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/29/2008 4:07:31 AM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

I'm a fan of MacAuthur but have always wonder'd why U.S. Airpower in the P.I. was destroyed on the ground after having the information that Pearl was attacked. Can anyone shed any light on this for me.

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 48

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/29/2008 4:16:47 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

They were largely destroyed on the ground on Dec 8th(Manila time) because they flew morning CAP, and recon to bomb Formosa. Formosa was clouded in at the time so no air attack was ordered for the morning, but the B-17's were arming up for airfield attack later that day. Meanwhile, the Fighters landed from morning CAP to re-fuel and re-arm - just at the time when the Japs from Formosa arrived. They were pretty much caught out of position and helpless.

If you had an Ouija board, they would have known that the Japs were arriving and that was the wrong time to be on the ground, but USAFFE was caught unprepared and the rest is history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I'm a fan of MacAuthur but have always wonder'd why U.S. Airpower in the P.I. was destroyed on the ground after having the information that Pearl was attacked. Can anyone shed any light on this for me.

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 49

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/29/2008 3:25:14 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

They were largely destroyed on the ground on Dec 8th(Manila time) because they flew morning CAP, and recon to bomb Formosa. Formosa was clouded in at the time so no air attack was ordered for the morning, but the B-17's were arming up for airfield attack later that day. Meanwhile, the Fighters landed from morning CAP to re-fuel and re-arm - just at the time when the Japs from Formosa arrived. They were pretty much caught out of position and helpless.

If you had an Ouija board, they would have known that the Japs were arriving and that was the wrong time to be on the ground, but USAFFE was caught unprepared and the rest is history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I'm a fan of MacAuthur but have always wonder'd why U.S. Airpower in the P.I. was destroyed on the ground after having the information that Pearl was attacked. Can anyone shed any light on this for me.

Yes, but that's not the full story. His air commander pleaded with his chief of staff to be allowed to launch a bombing raid on Formosa and was stonewalled by the chief of staff who never let him talk to Mac. The COS was auspiciously keeping Mac sequestered from his subordinates because MAC was hiding in his office suffereing a near emotional breakdown. It was only after he recomposed himself and reemerged from hiding that orders went out for action that inevitably came too late. That delay in taking decisive action will forever damn him.

Wasn't it Arliegh Burke who said the difference between a good and bad commander is about 10 seconds? Mac wasted far more than 10 seconds before he took action.

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 50

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 5/29/2008 9:49:58 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Thanks guys, any recommended reading on The General that deals almost entirely on WW2 in the Pacific?

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 51

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 6/1/2008 7:59:09 AM

darken92

Posts: 92
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: skyhawk1
I can't speak for all Australians but I CAN speak for my Grandfather and EVERY other Aussie Digger who served under MacArthur that I know and they ALL HATED HIM as a Glory-hunting, egotistical, xenophobic, narsocist!!!

btw......Blamey was also disliked with a passion by those same troops - he was seen as MacArtur's lackey.�� There were other reasons also but they are outside the scope of this 'discussion'.

As an Australian I have to agree with these statements. A lot of our men died because of McArthur and Blamey. They were more politician then Generals. I could never think well of either for what they did.

Of course that is not to say others could do better and I am sure if I was of another nationality I may feel different. I would suspect you would be hard pressed to find an Aussie who like either well.

(in reply to skyhawk1)

Post #: 52

RE: Douglas MacArthur Discussion - 6/1/2008 9:39:33 AM

skyhawk1

Posts: 10
Joined: 5/21/2008
Status: offline

Suggested reading as requested;

The Odd Couple. Blamey and MaCarthur at War by Jack Gallaway (University of Queenland Press)

and;

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/locations/macintv.htm

_____________________________

SteveD (RAN '69 - '92)
aka .. skyhawk1
"We joined to DO a job - Not GET one!"

(in reply to darken92)

Post #: 53