Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Replacement for General MacArthur?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Replacement for General MacArthur? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/22/2016 11:56:21 AM   
jakla1027

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 7/7/2010
From: Idaho
Status: offline
I'm just wondering a hypothetical question. Who would have replaced General MacArthur in 1942 in the southwest Pacific Command? Assuming MacArthur was killed, wounded, or just relieved of command in March 1942 following the philippines evacuation. Thus in your opinions would have replaced him in command of the South West Pacific theater? Please don't use retrospect, just put yourself in that moment in time and look at who at that time (March 1942) would have been eligible to take command of that theater. (ie no Eisenhower)

My personal opinion? I believe that they might have combined the southwest Pacific and south Pacific theaters into one command, and under Roosevelt's personal insistence, recalled & appointed Admiral Leahy in command.

So who do you guys think would have replaced General MacArthur?

< Message edited by jakla1027 -- 1/22/2016 1:09:17 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/22/2016 12:16:52 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
There is only one substitute for MacArthur, namely general John "Canoerebel" Doe. Unfortunately, the Project Manhattan failed to deliver the general to the theatre of operations.

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 2
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/22/2016 12:52:19 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jakla1027

I'm just wondering a hypothetical question. Who would have replaced General MacArthur in 1942 in the southwest
Pacific Command? Assuming MacArthur was killed, wounded, or just relieved of command in March 1942 following
the philippines evacuation. Thus in your opinions would have replaced him in command of the South West Pacific
theater? Please don't use retrospect, just put yourself in that moment in time and look at who at that time
(March 1942) would have been eligible to take command of that theater. (ie no Eisenhower)

Good question. That said, Eisenhower was only a colonel at the time so I don't suppose he was selectable. Besides,
he did a terrific job in the War Plans Dept. together with Brig.Gen Gerow. General Brett was involved in Australia
from the beginning - arrived with the Pensacola convoy, if I remember correctly - he could be a natural.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jakla1027My personal opinion? I believe that they might have combined the southwest Pacific and
south Pacific theaters into one command, and under Roosevelt's personal insistence, recalled & appointed Admiral
Leahy in command.

That would be a very large command. Besides, the Navy was in a rather defensive mode at the time so I'm afraid that
wouldn't have been a good choice for Australia. If a Navy man it should be (USAFFE, that is) I would have chosen
Admiral Hart. He had the seniority, too.

Fred


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 3
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/22/2016 6:01:49 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Brett sounds right. Don't know if Marshall would have liked entrusting a theatre command to an 'air' guy tho.

Depending on how early in '42 it was, it might have been Stilwell.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 4
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/22/2016 6:16:31 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
No way the Australians would have entrusted their forces in early 1942 to a naval command whose focus was no where near Australia.  Considering that until well into 1943 the great bulk of forces involved in the area were Australian, the question of combining SWPac and SoPac is quite moot.

Alfred

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 5
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/22/2016 6:20:04 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Stillwell. He was slated for high command and was one of Marshall's favorites. He did not want China but took it as a favor to Marshall-even though both suspected it would be a career killer.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/22/2016 9:48:15 PM   
jakla1027

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 7/7/2010
From: Idaho
Status: offline
Yeah I'd agree with Admiral Hart, however my only concern would be the repercussions of his "questionable" service in the Philippines after Dec 8th. He was almost thrown into the same bag as Admiral Kimmel and General Short. (Which is BS in my opinion) Heart did a great job with what he had, so I could see him getting the job.

I think Stillwell would be a great choice! He probably would have been able to work well with the Australians, easier to work with them than the Chinese were to work with. But this begs the question, who would have gone to China in Stillwell's place? Lol

Brett I don't think would have keep the job. He was just a seat warmer to begin with. To many objections from both Marshall and King to have him stay in command.

Anybody else think Leahy? I could see him getting the job based heavily on Roosevelt's urging. (Roosevelt's urging is what got Admiral Ghormley the South Pacific Command after all) However, his age and the fact he was retired and serving as ambassador to Vichy France could be prime factors of not getting good the job.

Plus I agree now, I doubt they would have combined the South West and South Pacific commands. If they didn't combined them for McArthur, they probably wouldn't have combined them for anyone else.

< Message edited by jakla1027 -- 1/22/2016 11:05:48 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 7
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/23/2016 1:14:47 PM   
packerpete

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
I read somewhere that ADM Hart had health problems and that was why he never got another combat command.

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 8
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/23/2016 1:44:30 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
Hart was smart enough to take the initiative when he had to and he took orders from above, like it or not. Other than him, Maybe Halsey. He had experience with OZ and the SW Pac area....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to packerpete)
Post #: 9
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/23/2016 2:04:12 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Halsey took over SOPAC when Ghormley proved to be too passive, and he proved to be the right man for the job - willing to risk his last assets to support the Marines on Guadalcanal. He is the one that decided to fly off Enterprise's air group to Henderson field when she was damaged at Santa Cruz. He was the one that ordered Scott/Callahan to take on Japanese BBs in the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and then stripped his carrier of her BB escort to set up the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. That took guts.

But Halsey chafed at being kept in a Command HQ when he wanted to be at sea. I'm not sure if SOPAC HQ was folded into Pacific Ocean Areas which released Halsey or if they just put him in charge of TF 58 and put someone else in SOPAC HQ.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 10
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/23/2016 3:50:12 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: packerpete

I read somewhere that ADM Hart had health problems and that was why he never got another combat command.


I believe that was more like an excuse to get him out of the ABDA confusion and its British and Dutch hegemony.
But, he was 62, was he not?

Earlier I criticized Hart for being too passive regarding the Navy's role in the lack of support to the Philippines
(except with submarines) but has since understood this wasn't really his decision, but the US leadership at home.
It was all a part of the ABDA game and the British craving for everything allied to be used for the support of
Singapore/Malaya.

Thinking about it, it was almost immoral the way the US leadership staked everything on hiring in civilian ships
to supply the Philippines, while unwilling to use any naval resources to secure these because it was too risky.

Fred

< Message edited by Leandros -- 1/23/2016 5:41:17 PM >


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to packerpete)
Post #: 11
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 12:51:42 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Halsey took over SOPAC when Ghormley proved to be too passive, and he proved to be the right man for the job - willing to risk his last assets to support the Marines on Guadalcanal. He is the one that decided to fly off Enterprise's air group to Henderson field when she was damaged at Santa Cruz. He was the one that ordered Scott/Callahan to take on Japanese BBs in the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and then stripped his carrier of her BB escort to set up the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. That took guts.

But Halsey chafed at being kept in a Command HQ when he wanted to be at sea. I'm not sure if SOPAC HQ was folded into Pacific Ocean Areas which released Halsey or if they just put him in charge of TF 58 and put someone else in SOPAC HQ.


The command was active until the end of the war (from Wikipedia):

Commanders, South Pacific Area

Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley (19 June–18 October 1942)
Vice Adm./Adm. William Halsey, Jr. (18 October 1942–15 June 1944)
Vice Adm. John H. Newton (15 June 1944–13 March 1945)
Vice Admiral William L. Calhoun (13 March–2 September 1945)



_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 12
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 8:50:11 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
According to David Horner in High Command (page 180), Lt Gen Brett (promoted to lieutenant general on 7 January 1942) was OC US Army forces Australia in February. He, and the Australian & New Zealand general staffs jointly recommended the appointment of a single supreme commander - who should be an American - of the "ANZAC area". That recommendation was accepted by the war cabinets in Oz & NZ on or shortly after 26 February, and transmitted to Washington (and London) on 3 March 1942. The Australian government added to the recommendation that it would welcome Brett's appointment as supreme commander.

McArthur arrived in Melbourne on 21 March, and was senior to Brett. Brett had also been identified too closely with the conservative side of Australian politics, and the (Labor) PM Curtin had no hesitation in conveying to Washington that MacArthur was preferred.

The answer to your query is probably Brett initially, perhaps as acting commander, but as a recently minted 3-star, an an airman, you would expect that someone else would be appointed by mid-year. Stillwell (although then only just promoted to a 3-star) was a possibility - initially selected by Marshall to plan the Torch landings, some would say Roosevelt sent him to the CBI to get him out of the way due to his well known Republican views. The South West Pacific was probably far enough for that. However, he arrived in India on 25 February 42, before the 26 February recommendation referred to above. CBI was not a true theatre command though; Marshall might have been able to move him to SWPAC mid year, if McArthur had been sent into retirement.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 13
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 10:12:32 AM   
jakla1027

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 7/7/2010
From: Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

According to David Horner in High Command (page 180), Lt Gen Brett (promoted to lieutenant general on 7 January 1942) was OC US Army forces Australia in February. He, and the Australian & New Zealand general staffs jointly recommended the appointment of a single supreme commander - who should be an American - of the "ANZAC area". That recommendation was accepted by the war cabinets in Oz & NZ on or shortly after 26 February, and transmitted to Washington (and London) on 3 March 1942. The Australian government added to the recommendation that it would welcome Brett's appointment as supreme commander.

McArthur arrived in Melbourne on 21 March, and was senior to Brett. Brett had also been identified too closely with the conservative side of Australian politics, and the (Labor) PM Curtin had no hesitation in conveying to Washington that MacArthur was preferred.

The answer to your query is probably Brett initially, perhaps as acting commander, but as a recently minted 3-star, an an airman, you would expect that someone else would be appointed by mid-year. Stillwell (although then only just promoted to a 3-star) was a possibility - initially selected by Marshall to plan the Torch landings, some would say Roosevelt sent him to the CBI to get him out of the way due to his well known Republican views. The South West Pacific was probably far enough for that. However, he arrived in India on 25 February 42, before the 26 February recommendation referred to above. CBI was not a true theatre command though; Marshall might have been able to move him to SWPAC mid year, if McArthur had been sent into retirement.


Very good info! thanks for sharing

In terms of rank, what would you guys think about Wilson Brown getting the job? Yes he's a Navy man, but did lead a CV task force in OZ waters in early 1942. He was senior to Nimitz in rank I believe at the time (Feb. 1942). I just don't know if he would have got the backing of the Army leaders in Oz and Washington. Also was of equivalent rank to McArthur.

While looking at the game Editor at eligible leaders of SWPAC in May 1942 a U.S. Army Major General, Charles F. Thompson appears. Does anyone have any info on this guy. I've been looking online and cant find much, think he was a grad of the 1904 West point class....if its the same guy. Other than that I can't find any info on him.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 14
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 10:44:06 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
Straight from the Arlington website:

quote:

PRESIDENT AT RITE FOR FORMER CHIEF
Attends Arlington Funeral of Major General C. F. Thompson, Who Led 3rd Division

WASHINGTON, June 18, 1954 – President Eisenhower attended a funeral service at Arlington National Cemetery today for one of his former commanding officers, Major General Charles F. Thompson, who died Tuesday at the age of 71.

The President was accompanied by Mrs. Eisenhower at the graveside ceremony.

General Eisenhower served as Chief of Staff under General Thompson when the latter commanded the Army’s Third Division at Fort Lewis, Washington, in 1940-41. The division moved in 1941 to Couth Carolina for maneuvers that first brought the President to prominence. H was a Lieutenant Colonel at that time.

At today’s service, General and Mrs. Eisenhower expressed their sympathy to General Thompson’s widow.

General Thompson, a native of North Dakota, was graduated from West Point in 1904. During World War I he served with the First Army Intelligence Unit and later in the same capacity with the Second Army.

In 1921 he was Chief of Press Relations for Military Intelligence. He was commanding general of the Military District of Washington in 1944-45, and then retired from the Army. He had made his home in Washington.

One of General Thompson’s appointments during World War I was adjutant of the Eighty-Second Division. He participated in the St. Mihiel offensive. He won the Distinguished Service Medal and the Medal of the French Legion of Honor.

On August 11, 1941, General Thompson was assigned to command of the First Army Corps at Columbia, South Carolina. In the subsequent maneuvers he commanded that Corps in exercised against the Second Corps. The maneuvers lasted until the end of November.



Thompson was also commander US Forces Fiji from 10/42 to 1944. It might be added that he, as a corps commander, was involved in the mass purging of peace-time National Guard officers that followed the 1941 maneuvers.

I don't think he was under consideration for any sort of active command; perhaps he himself was also purged in the efficiency reviews after the maneuvers.

I think the minimalist change is to put Brett in charge of CBI, and Stillwell at SWPAC. Another possibility is Walter Krueger.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 1/24/2016 12:10:39 PM >


_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 15
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 12:50:26 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Halsey took over SOPAC when Ghormley proved to be too passive, and he proved to be the right man for the job - willing to risk his last assets to support the Marines on Guadalcanal. He is the one that decided to fly off Enterprise's air group to Henderson field when she was damaged at Santa Cruz. He was the one that ordered Scott/Callahan to take on Japanese BBs in the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and then stripped his carrier of her BB escort to set up the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. That took guts.

But Halsey chafed at being kept in a Command HQ when he wanted to be at sea. I'm not sure if SOPAC HQ was folded into Pacific Ocean Areas which released Halsey or if they just put him in charge of TF 58 and put someone else in SOPAC HQ.


The command was active until the end of the war (from Wikipedia):

Commanders, South Pacific Area

Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley (19 June–18 October 1942)
Vice Adm./Adm. William Halsey, Jr. (18 October 1942–15 June 1944)
Vice Adm. John H. Newton (15 June 1944–13 March 1945)
Vice Admiral William L. Calhoun (13 March–2 September 1945)


Well so much for my misconception that SOPAC was folded after the Guadalcanal Campaign! I just don't recall hearing anything about the HQ after 1942. I thought Halsey was involved in the strike on Truk? Will have to do some reading on that.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 16
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 1:45:17 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jakla1027


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

According to David Horner in High Command (page 180), Lt Gen Brett (promoted to lieutenant general on 7 January 1942) was OC US Army forces Australia in February. He, and the Australian & New Zealand general staffs jointly recommended the appointment of a single supreme commander - who should be an American - of the "ANZAC area". That recommendation was accepted by the war cabinets in Oz & NZ on or shortly after 26 February, and transmitted to Washington (and London) on 3 March 1942. The Australian government added to the recommendation that it would welcome Brett's appointment as supreme commander.

McArthur arrived in Melbourne on 21 March, and was senior to Brett. Brett had also been identified too closely with the conservative side of Australian politics, and the (Labor) PM Curtin had no hesitation in conveying to Washington that MacArthur was preferred.

The answer to your query is probably Brett initially, perhaps as acting commander, but as a recently minted 3-star, an an airman, you would expect that someone else would be appointed by mid-year. Stillwell (although then only just promoted to a 3-star) was a possibility - initially selected by Marshall to plan the Torch landings, some would say Roosevelt sent him to the CBI to get him out of the way due to his well known Republican views. The South West Pacific was probably far enough for that. However, he arrived in India on 25 February 42, before the 26 February recommendation referred to above. CBI was not a true theatre command though; Marshall might have been able to move him to SWPAC mid year, if McArthur had been sent into retirement.


Very good info! thanks for sharing

In terms of rank, what would you guys think about Wilson Brown getting the job? Yes he's a Navy man, but did lead a CV task force in OZ waters in early 1942. He was senior to Nimitz in rank I believe at the time (Feb. 1942). I just don't know if he would have got the backing of the Army leaders in Oz and Washington. Also was of equivalent rank to McArthur.

While looking at the game Editor at eligible leaders of SWPAC in May 1942 a U.S. Army Major General, Charles F. Thompson appears. Does anyone have any info on this guy. I've been looking online and cant find much, think he was a grad of the 1904 West point class....if its the same guy. Other than that I can't find any info on him.


No, Marshall and King had a solid but delicate relationship. No way Marshall would have allowed a navy man to be in charge of that theater and no way Kind would have pushed for it.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 17
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 2:46:52 PM   
Major Shane


Posts: 195
Joined: 7/19/2007
Status: offline
I would nominate then LTG Walter Krueger. Kruger was promoted to LTG in May 41. He commanded 3rd US Army in the Louisiana Maneuvers. He had been a Division G3 and Chief of Staff in WW I. He was a graduate of the Naval War College. His ego was the opposite of Mac's and I think his resume would have impressed the Aussies.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 18
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 4:25:55 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m_shane_perkins

I would nominate then LTG Walter Krueger. Kruger was promoted to LTG in May 41. He commanded 3rd US Army in the Louisiana Maneuvers. He had been a Division G3 and Chief of Staff in WW I. He was a graduate of the Naval War College. His ego was the opposite of Mac's and I think his resume would have impressed the Aussies.


I'm not sure a resumee would have done anything to impress the Aussies...... MacArthur, on the other hand,
impressed the Aussies with his stubborn resistance against the Japanese in the Philippines, his political pondus
and his clear attitude that his "heart" was in the South-West (Asiatic) Pacific. If he had not been available, which
is the question here, no one I know of could have replaced him in his ability of generating resources for "his"
command.

I'm not sure if it would have made much difference, though, now that we know that the Japanese had no intentions of
actually invading Australia. But, I'm pretty sure the balance of the US involvement would have moved eastwards.

Fred


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Major Shane)
Post #: 19
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 9:44:54 PM   
Major Shane


Posts: 195
Joined: 7/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros


quote:

ORIGINAL: m_shane_perkins

I would nominate then LTG Walter Krueger. Kruger was promoted to LTG in May 41. He commanded 3rd US Army in the Louisiana Maneuvers. He had been a Division G3 and Chief of Staff in WW I. He was a graduate of the Naval War College. His ego was the opposite of Mac's and I think his resume would have impressed the Aussies.


I'm not sure a resumee would have done anything to impress the Aussies...... MacArthur, on the other hand,
impressed the Aussies with his stubborn resistance against the Japanese in the Philippines, his political pondus
and his clear attitude that his "heart" was in the South-West (Asiatic) Pacific. If he had not been available, which
is the question here, no one I know of could have replaced him in his ability of generating resources for "his"
command.

I'm not sure if it would have made much difference, though, now that we know that the Japanese had no intentions of
actually invading Australia. But, I'm pretty sure the balance of the US involvement would have moved eastwards.

Fred


Fred, you make some great points. I was just saying that of the available American generals in early '42 that Krueger would have made an ideal choice. He was clearly qualified for high level command. He didn't have the political problems that others had. His attendance at the Naval War College would opened doors between the Army and Navy. He had served in the Philippines as a junior officer, so I think his heart would have been there too.


This type of discussion is one of the things that makes this forum great.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 20
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/24/2016 10:34:34 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Stillwell. He was slated for high command and was one of Marshall's favorites. He did not want China but took it as a favor to Marshall-even though both suspected it would be a career killer.


I just got Barbara Tuchman's Stillwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45.

Ridgeway still needed ageing with the 82nd.

_____________________________



(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 21
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/25/2016 4:05:59 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
Jake Devers could have been a smokey. He handed the armoured corps over to Patton in mid January '42, and moved up to the role of expanding the force to 16 divisions. He didn't shy away from telling his superiors (i.e. McNair) that his ideas about tank warfare doctrine were wrong, that the Sherman needed to be upgunned, etc. He was pushing for independent heavy tank battalions with T26s in 1944. McNair got rid of him in the end by sending him to England to train the divisions assembling there, and he later swapped seats with Eisenhower and was ground commander "NATUSO", ie the troops training for Dragoon - and after McNair's death Marshall appointed him to Army Group command. His professional specialty was more attuned to the European theatre, but that mightn't have stopped McNair. One thing would be likely out of that - as the US divisions arrived down here, he and Eichelberger would have put a program in place to cure all the training deficiencies that McNair's system produced.

Edit "NATOUSA"

< Message edited by Ian R -- 1/25/2016 5:10:29 AM >


_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 22
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/25/2016 9:39:13 AM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m_shane_perkins
Fred, you make some great points.

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m_shane_perkinsI was just saying that of the available American generals in early '42 that Krueger
would have made an ideal choice. He was clearly qualified for high level command. He didn't have the political
problems that others had. His attendance at the Naval War College would opened doors between the Army and Navy. He
had served in the Philippines as a junior officer, so I think his heart would have been there too.

No problems with that. I don't know much about Krueger but most higher US Army officers did a stint in the Philippines
through their careers. Eisenhower, too. As a matter of fact, he served directly under MacArthur for a period before
the war broke out.

Another potential candidate would have to be the OIC of the US Army forces (Philippine Department) at the Philippines
before MacArthur got the job and the Philippine armed forces were integrated with the US, major-general Grunert.
Actually, he recommended himself for the job, but so did MacArthur.

Fred



_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Major Shane)
Post #: 23
RE: Replacement for General MacArthur? - 1/25/2016 1:07:50 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Stillwell. He was slated for high command and was one of Marshall's favorites. He did not want China but took it as a favor to Marshall-even though both suspected it would be a career killer.


I just got Barbara Tuchman's Stillwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45.

Ridgeway still needed ageing with the 82nd.



A brilliant book that I have read and re-read from one of my favorite historians. (self taught) However, over 40 years old and written in a different political atmosphere. Not slamming the book but I highly recommend you read "Forgotten Ally" at the same time. A recent study of Chaing Kai Shek and the KMT war with Japan that puts the Nationalists in a different and much more balanced perspective. Not a perfect book either but well worth the time to read.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Replacement for General MacArthur? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750