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: Why was Patton so great?

 
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: Why was Patton so great? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/6/2004 10:01:04 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

Funny, Rommel repeatedly had his arse kicked from Africa to France and he's considered a genius



What a wonder beeing outnumbered 20:1 in tanks.....

(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 31
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/6/2004 10:05:00 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
What would have happened at omaha if Rommel's ideas for forward basing and immediate counter attack where used by the still strong, ie not depleated armor?
Carantan? GOLD? Give up the Rommel bashing guys.. this guy new his tactics...

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 32
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 12:49:05 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

What would have happened at omaha if Rommel's ideas for forward basing and immediate counter attack where used by the still strong, ie not depleated armor?
Carantan? GOLD? Give up the Rommel bashing guys.. this guy new his tactics...


Rommel knew his stuff alright.

It's interesting that a few Generals at OKW detested Rommel and hated him for his successes while he commanded the Afrika Korps. Those jealous officers had Hitler's ear and persuaded Hitler NOT to send reinforcements to North Africa. We can only imagine what Rommel might have done with an extra panzer division or two.

In Normandy, Rommel advocated attacking the beaches with panzer divisions immediately upon the Allied invasion. It would indeed be interesting to see what would have happened. With the German and Allied troops so close together fighting, the Allies would not have been able to use naval support, and even air-ground attack would have to have been done carefully. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 33
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 2:29:07 AM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


However, Patton was a pure warrior - who lived, breathed, and thought war. Unlike the other Allied Generals who were often Staff Officers, Patton was a combat general in the fullest meaning of that term. He loved war.

He achieved his results with relatively inexperienced, green troops. They often peformed the impossible for him. His troops loved Patton; he in turn, loved them. . .

I highly recommend to everyone the book above on Patton by Carlo D'Este. One has to wonder how much sooner the war might have been over, and how many fewer lives might have been lost, had the Allied High Command given Patton free reign in Europe.

Cheers!



You have to be careful when you refer to 'other generals who were mostly staff officers' - I don't want to criticise what I'm not sure of so could you clarify this?

Regarding giving Patton 'free rein' in Europe I'm not sure this would have achieved much. Following the Falaise battle Allied supply lines were stretched very thin, Ike decided to focus on Monty's drive into Holland and (hopefully) Northern Germany. In hindsight one might see this as a failure but there is no reason to suppose that the Third Army could have pushed through the Siegfried Line any faster than they did historically. Once through in '45 Patton developed an obsession with Bavaria and the concept of a Nazi 'hold-out' in the region skewing the Western Allies strategy in that direction. See Charles Whiting's 'Siegfried: The Nazi's Last Stand' for a discussion of this. Given Patton's opinion on the Soviets and if he had managed to 'bounce' the Rhine and stike eastwards in late '44 one wonders whether he might have started a 'hot' war with the USSR.

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 34
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 3:11:48 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


However, Patton was a pure warrior - who lived, breathed, and thought war. Unlike the other Allied Generals who were often Staff Officers, Patton was a combat general in the fullest meaning of that term. He loved war.

He achieved his results with relatively inexperienced, green troops. They often peformed the impossible for him. His troops loved Patton; he in turn, loved them. . .

I highly recommend to everyone the book above on Patton by Carlo D'Este. One has to wonder how much sooner the war might have been over, and how many fewer lives might have been lost, had the Allied High Command given Patton free reign in Europe.

Cheers!



You have to be careful when you refer to 'other generals who were mostly staff officers' - I don't want to criticise what I'm not sure of so could you clarify this?

Regarding giving Patton 'free rein' in Europe I'm not sure this would have achieved much. Following the Falaise battle Allied supply lines were stretched very thin, Ike decided to focus on Monty's drive into Holland and (hopefully) Northern Germany. In hindsight one might see this as a failure but there is no reason to suppose that the Third Army could have pushed through the Siegfried Line any faster than they did historically. Once through in '45 Patton developed an obsession with Bavaria and the concept of a Nazi 'hold-out' in the region skewing the Western Allies strategy in that direction. See Charles Whiting's 'Siegfried: The Nazi's Last Stand' for a discussion of this. Given Patton's opinion on the Soviets and if he had managed to 'bounce' the Rhine and stike eastwards in late '44 one wonders whether he might have started a 'hot' war with the USSR.


Staff Officer: any officer who had never seen combat, or was never a front line combat officer, such as Ike. The Staff Officers all had critical roles to play, but I am looking at it from Patton's point of view. He was no desk officer, and preferred being in the thick of things. In other words, Patton was a combat general.

Ike stopped Patton, partly due to fuel. But it was primarily because all resources were going to be given to Monty for Market Garden. We all know how that turned out - it was a fiasco. . .

Had Patton been given every resource possible, he would most likely have shortened the war by at least a couple of months, and would no doubt have saved many lives on both sides by doing so.

When Patton was ordered to halt, and was told NOT to close the Falaise Gap when he wanted to, this allowed the bulk of von Kluge's veteran army to escape the Gap intact. These German soldiers than later re-grouped and the Allies had to fight them all over again. . .

As to Patton starting a war with the Soviets - that is pure speculation.

However, let us speculate for a minute:

If Patton had cooked up some pretext for a fight with the Sovets, and if Stalin had attacked because of it, then that would only have indicated what may have been an intention on his (Stalin's) mind anyway. When Hitler was attacking the west in '39-40, Stalin was more than happy to see the western democracies fall, and did not in the slightest lift a hand to help, even when Britain, all alone, was being bombed in the BoB and the Blitz, and while U-boats sank tons of shipping. . .

Soon after WW2 was over, we entered the Cold War anyway.

So Patton was right again: He said that in a few short years we would be at war with Communism.

And sure enough, we did go to war with Communism. The Cold War led to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Berlin Blocade, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the massive arms build-up, etc. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/7/2004 2:01:14 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 35
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 5:26:37 AM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline
I thought you were probably referring to Ike. His greatest skill was 'man-management', and keeping Patton and Monty from tearing each other's throats out was quite an achievement.

I don't agree with your analysis of the Falaise pocket battle (although it's one of the major 'what ifs' of WW2). http://www.historynet.com/wwii/blfalaise/ has an interesting article on the last few days of that battle from a mainly Polish pov. Doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything but it's still a worthwhile read

Regarding 'Market-Garden', with hindsight it is very easy to see that the resources channeled there were wasted. But at the time it promised a swift end to the war in the West, and we must consider that the operation very nearly succeeded.

As regards Patton starting a 'hot war' with the Soviets, thank God he didn't. Western Europe would have been speaking Russian and honouring Lenin now. Other than that Patton was wrong, he seriously misread Stalins intentions and the Russian character.

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 36
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 6:34:45 AM   
ShermanM4


Posts: 298
Joined: 7/14/2003
Status: offline
Hey Gentlemen,
being an American I am inclined to support Patton. Let us not forget, he was a great general, but he was not the greatest General. While Bradley's men were getting chewed up in the Hurtgen, and Hodges men were fighting building to building through the city of Aachen, Patton was sending regiment after regiment to its grave in a place called Metz. There was a series of fortresses the French had contructed around the city of Metz in the very last decade of the 19th century. It took Patton well over a month to crack these fifty year old fortresses and it did come at a cost of many American soldiers in the 3rd army. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the battle to quote an actual casualty list, or I wonder why he simply did not besiege them and just walk right around them. The fact is he had his shortcomings to. He perfromed admirably upon his first action at Averanches in Normany all the way to the Bulge in Belgium and beyond. I do not think General Montgommery should recieve so much criticism for what happened during Operation Market Garden. I think this was an uncharacteristically bold plan for him and it had the right objective. Perhaps, there were flaws all up and down the operation, and yes it nearly did succeed. I think we should focus on the fact that he dared to try it. He simply lost that time and that really does not matter. After all, the Allies still won the war did they not?

EricguitarJames, I have to agree with you. It would not have been wise to ever give Patton free reign in Europe.

_____________________________


"Perserverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."

~General George Washington


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 37
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 7:44:27 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
In Normandy, Rommel advocated attacking the beaches with panzer divisions immediately upon the Allied invasion. It would indeed be interesting to see what would have happened. With the German and Allied troops so close together fighting, the Allies would not have been able to use naval support, and even air-ground attack would have to have been done carefully
quote:


Well now.. I see only air and sea interdiction as saving the day that and 500 k men waiting to come to France from England...
On the beaches this would be true.. but those supplu lines around Beuex and carantan would have been pummulled... and does anyone think if dday was in trouble all those big bombers wouldn't have had new targets? I realize several hundred friendly fire kia resulted from carpet bombing.. but this would be my choice as Ike.. that and unleash third army had Rommel's tanks met the allies at the waters edge.... Remember for all practicle purposses there was no geran air power in france...

Rommell did what good tactical officers do.. made the best he could with what he had...

(in reply to ShermanM4)
Post #: 38
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 3:42:52 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

I thought you were probably referring to Ike. His greatest skill was 'man-management', and keeping Patton and Monty from tearing each other's throats out was quite an achievement.

I don't agree with your analysis of the Falaise pocket battle (although it's one of the major 'what ifs' of WW2). http://www.historynet.com/wwii/blfalaise/ has an interesting article on the last few days of that battle from a mainly Polish pov. Doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything but it's still a worthwhile read

Regarding 'Market-Garden', with hindsight it is very easy to see that the resources channeled there were wasted. But at the time it promised a swift end to the war in the West, and we must consider that the operation very nearly succeeded.

As regards Patton starting a 'hot war' with the Soviets, thank God he didn't. Western Europe would have been speaking Russian and honouring Lenin now. Other than that Patton was wrong, he seriously misread Stalins intentions and the Russian character.


As I mentioned, I am looking at things from Patton's point of view, having read several books about his life. Ike was indispensable for the role he played. But he was not a combat general as was Patton. Both were suited for the role they played.

Falaise Pocket: I am not sure how much clearer I can make this: Patton was ordered to halt. While the Canadian First Army (and the Polish 1st Armoured Division was a part of it) tried admirably to close the Gap, the Germans were fighting desperately to break out. Without Patton's aggressive drive to help close the Gap from the south, von Kluge managed to extricate more than 75,000 veteran soldiers from encirclement. The Allies would later have to re-fight these same soldiers again. This was all due to Allied High Command cautiousness.

Operation Market Garden: Patton had achieved a pattern of success. The Germans were withdrawing, and speed was of the essence. As most people know, Market Garden was hastily thrown together by a general (Monty) who was not known for planning these types of operations. The end result was the decimation of several elite airborne divisions.

Soviets and Stalin: Patton misread Stalin's intentions? How so? When Hitler attacked the west in 1939, Stalin gleefully watched as German armies over-ran all of western Europe. What did Stalin do? Did he help France or Britain? No sir. When he wasn't invading the Baltic States, Poland and Finland, Stalin was happily killing thousands of his own officers and sending millions of his own people to the Gulags.

And let us not forget the Katyn Massacre: Stalin's order of March 1940 to execute by shooting some 25,700 Poles (many of them officers), including those found at three sites, was disclosed with the collapse of Soviet Power. This particular Second World War slaughter of Poles is often referred to as the "Katyn Massacre" or the "Katyn Forest Massacre".

Poor "Uncle Joe". Truly a misunderstood megalomaniac.

After WW2, Stalin occupied Eastern Europe. Then Stalin fomented Communist insurgency in post WW2 Greece. Stalin then armed North Korea to the teeth, and we had a little three-year war there when North Korea attacked the south to begin the Korean War. Soviet and Chinese Communists started the Vietnam War. The Soviets sought to place offensive nuclear missiles into Cuba in 1962, which almost led to nuclear war. Stalin and later leaders interned millons of their own people in the Gulags. . .

Yup, Patton sure misread Stalin. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/7/2004 2:14:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 39
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 4:25:52 PM   
Firefly

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 8/29/2003
From: Airstrip One
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

After WW2, Stalin occupied Eastern Europe. Then Stalin fomented Communist insurgency in post WW2 Greece.


You really ought to learn the difference between history and propaganda. The Russians provided no support to the Greek Communists, which is why they lost the civil war, British and American support for the monarchists ensured that. The USA later engineered a military coup in Greece to overthrow a democratically elected conservative government.

< Message edited by Firefly -- 7/7/2004 2:28:26 PM >

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 40
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 4:29:32 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShermanM4

Hey Gentlemen,
being an American I am inclined to support Patton. Let us not forget, he was a great general, but he was not the greatest General. While Bradley's men were getting chewed up in the Hurtgen, and Hodges men were fighting building to building through the city of Aachen, Patton was sending regiment after regiment to its grave in a place called Metz. There was a series of fortresses the French had contructed around the city of Metz in the very last decade of the 19th century. It took Patton well over a month to crack these fifty year old fortresses and it did come at a cost of many American soldiers in the 3rd army. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the battle to quote an actual casualty list, or I wonder why he simply did not besiege them and just walk right around them. The fact is he had his shortcomings to. He perfromed admirably upon his first action at Averanches in Normany all the way to the Bulge in Belgium and beyond. I do not think General Montgommery should recieve so much criticism for what happened during Operation Market Garden. I think this was an uncharacteristically bold plan for him and it had the right objective. Perhaps, there were flaws all up and down the operation, and yes it nearly did succeed. I think we should focus on the fact that he dared to try it. He simply lost that time and that really does not matter. After all, the Allies still won the war did they not?

EricguitarJames, I have to agree with you. It would not have been wise to ever give Patton free reign in Europe.


Regarding Metz:

It was Patton's original intention to by-pass the Metz fortifications.

However, Patton's offensive came to a screeching halt on September 1, 1944 as Third Army simply ran out of gasoline on the Meuse river just outside of Metz, France. A great deal of supplies had been sent to Monty for Operation Market Garden.

The time needed to resupply was just enough to give the Germans the time they needed to further fortify the fortress of Metz. The weather had also turned very bad, with over 18,000 soldiers in Third Army getting "Trench Foot". So disease was almost as bad as the actual fighting. In addition, the poor weather bogged down tanks and vehicles in the mud-clogged roads.

In October and November, Third Army was mired in a near-stalemate with the Germans, inflicting heavy casualties on one another. By November 23, however, Metz had finally fallen to the Americans, the first time the city had fallen since the Franco-Prussian War.

Had Patton been properly supplied he would have taken Metz before the Germans had time to "fortify" it.

Heheh. . . .

The one thing the Germans feared most was Patton running loose in Europe. Fortunately for the Germans, cautious Allied Commanders ensured that the "brakes" were repeatedly applied to Patton and Third Army.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/7/2004 2:54:01 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ShermanM4)
Post #: 41
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 4:39:22 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Firefly

You really ought to learn the difference between history and propaganda. The Russians provided no support to the Greek Communists, which is why they lost the civil war, British and American support for the monarchists ensured that. The USA later engineered a military coup in Greece to overthrow a democratically elected conservative government.


To think that Stalin provided no support for, or did not approve of, Greek Communists, is to live in La, La Land. . .

Here's a little history:

Between 1945 and 1950, Europe was the focal point for the Cold War, and in particular, the city of Berlin with the Berlin Airlift. What went on in Berlin seemed to confirm all the fears held by the west about Communism and the rule of Joseph Stalin.

By the end of the Second World War, Russia had put what was effectively a barrier around herself. To the west, the promises made in the war meetings by Stalin had been broken. There were no free elections and communist governments were imposed on all east European nations except Yugoslavia. To him there had been free elections in eastern Europe.........as long as the communists won.

Poland : in this country, non-communist leaders had been killed. There was already great anger in Poland for the Russians as they had stayed outside of Warsaw during the uprising of 1944 and failed to help those in the city when they could easily have done so. In 1947, there was a sham of an election in which the communists won 400 out of 450 seats. These communists were hand-picked people loyal to Moscow.

Hungary : the most popular political party was the Small Farmers Party - a comment on the size of their farms! In the election held in this country, the communists got 17% of the votes while the SFP won with a large majority. The communists filled all the important political positions in Budapest while the SFP leaders left politics. Clearly, they felt that if they had stayed in politics, then their lives would have been at risk - or their families as well.

Rumania : there was an election in November 1946. The communists won.

Bulgaria : non-communist leaders were killed and in October 1946, the communists won a massive victory.

Yugoslavia : this country was to become a problem for Stalin. The people of Yugoslavia had no wish to replace the Nazis with the rule of Stalin. They were lead by Tito - a wartime guerilla leader who was idolised in his country. In the November 1946 election, Tito and his Peoples Party won 96% of the votes. With such support, not even Stalin felt confident enough to overthrow Tito. Yugoslavia also had an extensive coastline in the Mediterranean Sea and America would not have tolerated Russia having instant access to the Mediterranean. With Yugoslavia communist but independent of Moscow's domination, Stalin's southern naval fleet was still effectively trapped in the Black Sea and any movement to the Mediterranean could be easily detected in Turkey. In 1946, Stalin could not afford to provoke America as the latter still had atomic supremacy.

Greece : in this country, the majority of the people were pro-monarchy (70%) and an attempted takeover of Greece by the communists lasted for four years (1946 to 1949) but ultimately failed. This problem in Greece was to lead to Harry Truman's famous "Truman Doctrine".

Stalin's grip on eastern Europe was all but total. His secret police was thorough in its search for opponents and the control Stalin had in this region lead to Winston Churchill's famous comment at a speech in Fulton:

"From Stettin in the north to Trieste in the south, an iron curtain has descended over Europe."

_____________________________


(in reply to Firefly)
Post #: 42
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 4:42:13 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
THE GREEK CIVIL WAR

Greek Civil War (December 1944-January 1945 and 1946-49), two-stage conflict during which Greek communists unsuccessfully tried to gain control of Greece.

The first stage of the civil war began only months before Nazi Germany's occupation of Greece ended in October 1944. The German occupation had been resisted by two principal Greek guerrilla forces, the communist-controlled EAM-ELAS (Ethnikón Apeleftherotikón Métopon-Ethnikós Laïkós Apeleftherotikós Strátos; "National Liberation Front-National Popular Liberation Army") and the EDES (Ellínikos Dímokratikos Ethnikós Strátos; "Greek Democratic National Army"), which occasionally cooperated in action. After eliminating all of its political and guerrilla rivals except the EDES in early 1944, EAM-ELAS set up a provisional government in the Greek mountains that by implication disowned both the Greek king and his government-in-exile. Upon the German troops' withdrawal from Greece in October, the communists and royalist Greek guerrillas were brought together under British auspices in an uneasy coalition government in Athens. But this government disintegrated a few weeks later when the communist members of the coalition refused to disband their guerrilla force. A bitter civil war broke out in Athens on December 3, which the British military forces managed to suppress with great difficulty, after EAM-ELAS had overrun virtually all of Greece except Athens and Salonika.

The communists accepted defeat and the disbandment of their forces at a conference in February 1945, and a general election was held in Greece in March 1946. The communists and their followers abstained from the voting, however, and a royalist majority was returned. A plebiscite was then held in September 1946 which restored the Greek king to the throne. During 1946 a full-scale guerrilla war was reopened by the communists, who had gone underground. The commitment of defending Greece became too much for Great Britain, and it was taken on by the U.S. government, with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine. Massive military and economic aid from the United States was much needed, for by the end of 1947 the communists had proclaimed a provisional government in the northern mountains.

This second communist rebellion lasted until 1949, when the U.S.-supplied and strengthened Greek army managed to clear the rebel centres from the mountainous Greek interior. On Oct. 16, 1949, the Greek communist broadcasting station announced the end of open hostilities, and many of the remaining communist fighters fled the country into neighbouring Albania. It is estimated that more than 50,000 combatants died in the conflict, and more than 500,000 Greeks were temporarily displaced from their homes by the fighting. The internecine strife and fierce brutality that characterized the civil war left a lasting legacy of bitterness between segments of the Greek population.

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 43
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 5:50:25 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Firefly

You really ought to learn the difference between history and propaganda. The Russians provided no support to the Greek Communists, which is why they lost the civil war.


Here is a bit more information for you.

You do know about using "proxies" to further one's agenda, don't you?

Stalin secretly used other Communist states, such as Poland, Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia to further his agenda in Greece.

The Soviet Union acted with great caution throughout the period of the Greek Civil War, avoiding direct material assistance to the Greek Democratic Army, which it tried instead - under its own sponsorship - to foist on the 'fraternal parties' and 'friendly states', while seeking to keep this top secret.

Czechoslovakia as a state did not join in the 'international assistance' to the Greek Democratic Army until after the Czechoslovak Communist takeover of February 1948. From September 1948 to the summer of 1949 the Czechoslovak Communist regime, on instructions from Moscow, coordinated its supplies to the insurgents directly with Polish, Hungarian and Romanian activity. As part of 'Operation G' (Akce R [Recko]), Czechoslovakia gave the Greek insurgents materiel and other goods to the sum, in 1948/49 values, of about 750,000,000 Czechoslovak crowns (roughly US$ 15,000,000).

In addition, the Greek communists obtained support from Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, although this was rather limited and failed to give them the upper hand in the conflict.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/7/2004 3:51:33 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Firefly)
Post #: 44
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 6:40:43 PM   
EMO

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 6/30/2004
Status: offline
Montgomery was a good planner and adept at set piece battles but manuver and tactical elan were not his forte. His slow, methodical method of warfare put him at a disadvantage against an agressive enemy like Rommel. Montgomery won at Alamein because of a massive supply advantage over the Germans; He had enough artillery shells to blast holes through the German minefields and a great superiority in armor. Even with these advantages, Alamein turned into a slugging match won only by British courage and overwhelming numbers of troops and supplies. If Rommel had half of the materiel advantage of the Allies, he would have motored into Cairo long before Montgomery arrived. In Europe, Eisenhower understood Montgomery's style of generalship and planned around it: he used Montgomery to tie up German forces in the north with his set piece battle strategies and Patton to spearhead the drive into Germany.

(in reply to Rooster)
Post #: 45
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 8:58:05 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EMO

Montgomery was a good planner and adept at set piece battles but manuver and tactical elan were not his forte. His slow, methodical method of warfare put him at a disadvantage against an agressive enemy like Rommel. Montgomery won at Alamein because of a massive supply advantage over the Germans; He had enough artillery shells to blast holes through the German minefields and a great superiority in armor. Even with these advantages, Alamein turned into a slugging match won only by British courage and overwhelming numbers of troops and supplies. If Rommel had half of the materiel advantage of the Allies, he would have motored into Cairo long before Montgomery arrived. In Europe, Eisenhower understood Montgomery's style of generalship and planned around it: he used Montgomery to tie up German forces in the north with his set piece battle strategies and Patton to spearhead the drive into Germany.


Very well said

Ike's job was trying to find the right commander for the right job.

Often times, however, there were mis-matches. Patton should never have been used as an administrator of conquered territory.

It would be interesting to speculate, with all other things remaining the same, what would have happened in Operation Market Garden, if Patton and part of Third Army had been used as the relieving ground force.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/7/2004 7:01:01 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EMO)
Post #: 46
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 9:44:28 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

IronDuke
I don't think Patton had enough substance when you got beyond all the aggression and noise. His great sweep through Sicily was strategically pointless, and since there were only 57 US dead incurred during it, largely a pleasant stroll. The breakout looks impressive, but was largely an exercise in traffic management (which Patton did excel at), as was the headlong charge through France.


quote:

Von Rom

Patton's sweep through Sicily was strategically pointless?

There were only 57 American dead?

It was a pleasant stroll?

Here is some info:

Sicily

9 July-17 August 1943

On the night of 9-10 July 1943, an Allied armada of 2,590 vessels launched one of the largest combined operations of World War II: the invasion of Sicily. Over the next thirty-eight days, half a million Allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen grappled with their German and Italian counterparts for control of this rocky outwork of Hitler's "Fortress Europe."

With the exception of those units which had taken part in the Tunisia Campaign, especially the 1st and 9th Infantry Divisions, few American formations employed in Sicily began the campaign with any combat experience, and their abilities were still unknown. But the American troops had done well. After landing on a hostile shore, they had repelled several counterattacks, forced the enemy to withdraw, and relentlessly pursued him over sun-baked hills until the island was theirs. In thirty-eight days the Americans and their British colleagues had killed or wounded approximately 29,000 enemy soldiers and captured over 140,000 more. In contrast, American losses totaled 2,237 killed and 6,544 wounded and captured. The British suffered 12,843 casualties, including 2,721 dead.

Patton in particular, without orders, drove to Palermo, thereby cutting off 53,000 Italian soldiers, and then headed east. Had the Allied planners listened to Patton in the beginning, he probably could have bagged all the Germans and Italians on Sicily. But because of Allied cautiousness, tens of thousands of Axis troops escaped, who would later fight Allied troops in Italy.

One has to consider how many more casualties the Americans might have taken, and how many MORE Axis troops might have escaped to Italy, had Patton followed orders and covered Monty's flank, instead of pushing to Palermo and then Messina.

A full examination of the Sicily Campaign can be found here:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/72-16/72-16.htm


I think this is merely a smoke screen. Patton's drive did cut off 57000 Italians who subsequently surrendered. these were mostly Militia, Policemen and reservists. The Italian XII Corp (the main combat formation in the area) eluded him, however. It should also be nopted that Italian elan and combat effectiveness at this point was not as high as it had been earlier in the war.

You neatly quote above:

quote:

In contrast, American losses totaled 2,237 killed


of which 57 were incurred by Patton's forces in this mad dash to Palermo (or you dispute this figure?). Clearly, wherever the fighting was on Sicily, it wasn't very near Patton. As for my claiming the drive was strategically pointless, it wasn't my opinion it was in fact the opinion of General Omar Bradley who said Patton's drive was "meaningless in a strategic sense".

quote:

IronDuke

As for Bastogne, my understanding was that Patton already had plans prepared for the change of his axis of advance before he told Eisenhower he'd only need 48 hours. I understand his chief of Staff had become suspicious the Germans were up to something and prepared them in advance. His actual drive into the German flank wasn't especially impressive. If memory serves, he drove on a fairly broad front against a weak German front line, that contained a number of Volksgrenadier units. He also took a few days to do it, I think it is famous, but does not display any particular tactical or operational genius.


quote:

Everyone outside of Third Army thought what Patton wanted to do was impossible. So it seems your assessment of Patton's achievement is far, far less than that of almost every other Allied Commander. Most historians who have studied this period, consider Patton's achievment to be brilliant. Patton achieved his victory in the worst winter weather to hit that area in a hundred years.


I don't doubt Patton's logistical achievement in switching his forces northwards (I commentated in my post on the brilliance of his traffic management in Normandy, I'm aware of what he could do in this field) my remarks were based on what he did when he got there. Professor Weighly this time:

"Patton forsook the advantages of a concentration...in favour of yet another broad front effort to go forward everywhere. In the end, Patton accepted Eisenhower's adjurations to attack on a large scale that undermined all ideas of going like hell. He substituted breadth for depth...[and] so wide was the front that, far from advancing in column of regiments, the divisions were hard put to keep their regiments in touch with each other's flanks. The outcome was another slugging match in which the breadth of the front dissipated American strength enough to compensate considerably for German weakness."

In short, Patton took on an overextended, hopelessly outnumbered and weak German front line and attacked everywhere at once. This man, lauded as the Western Allies finest Tank Commander, spread his forces out and gave away the armoured Commander's greatest advantage, the point of concentration. The ability to overwhelm by concentrating your troops at the decisive point and breaking into the enemy's rear.

In the end it took five days to reach Bastogne, another week to push the Germans away from the southern perimeter and another two weeks to drive through to Houffalize. All this with the benefit of massive superiority in firepower and complete command of the air.

So much for the Bulge.

As for Normandy, D'Este himself admits that Patton's mad dash in the breakout dissipated his strength as American forces struck out in all directions, when the key battle lay east and north and what was left of the German forces in Normandy. Likewise, in the race across France, can you give me any major Pincer movements, any major battles against any real rearguards that Patton caught and then fought. The Germans remained one step ahead and the liberation of France became a procession.


quote:

IronDuke
I suspect Patton would have fared a lot worse in more even circumstances.


quote:

Von Rom

Well, this is your opinion.

However, Patton had faced the German soldier (on defense) in North Africa, Sicily and Europe, who were led by Rommel, Kesselring, and von Kluge, among others, and had bested them all.


This is very superficial. It's like saying Ali would have beat Sugar Ray Leonard, ignoring the fact that one was a heavyweight and the other a Welter/middle weight. You could substitute the word Montgomery in the above sentence and not be wrong. As we've seen, Patton's intervention in Sicily was pointless, the race across France a drive through countryside devoid of Germans. If he was not bested, it was largely because no one tried, and after Normandy the Germans didn't have the resources to best anyone anyway. To merely say that Patton was great because he always won suggests that it was possible for him to lose. I don't believe it was. A military genius does not win, he wins well. It is that which is lacking from Patton's record.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 47
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 10:00:40 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Von Rom
Little or nothing standing in Patton's way?

Third Army liberated something like 10,000 towns and cities, freed 89,000 square miles, and killed or captured 1,443,000 enemy soldiers. Any good reference book will have these figures.


It is not difficult to liberate towns and cities if there is no one defending them. The Russian winter offensive of 1941 liberated a thousand villages. I suspect they had to liberate more of them by force than Patton ever did.

The Germans seem to have suffered around 8 000 000 casualties of one description or another in the NW Europe campaign. Seeing as most of the German army fled westwards to surrender to the Americans at the end and over 3 500 000 Germans were disarmed and taken prisoner after the war was actually over, I don't think these figures are as impressive as you would claim.

quote:

As to the German victories in the opening weeks of Barbarossa: there were MANY German armies achieving these numbers against ill-prepared, ill-equipped and low morale Soviet troops, and not just ONE army, as in Patton's case.


Even accepting your figures, 6 500 000 Germans were captured by other armies, so this can't be true, either. Also, exactly how you would characterise the Wehrmacht of the last year of the war. Certainly ill-equipped and of quesitonable morale in many places.

quote:

The British and Canadians did do their part. But it was Patton's tactics and sheer aggressiveness that pushed the Germans back. Patton moved Third Army 600 miles in just a few weeks, completely by-passing many German divisions. . .


Where is this pushing back? Your words suggest Patton fought the Germans all the way back to the Siegfried line. Where are the major battles? The truth is Patton didn't force anyone back, he pursued the Germans (failing to catch them) across France. This illustrates where we agree. Patton could drive tanks and men very well, he merely had problems when it came to fighting with them.

quote:

However, Allied commanders interferred with Patton, by ordering him to stop, thereby enabling von Kluge to extricate most of his army from the Falaise Gap. These same German troops would later re-group, and inflict even more casualties on the Allied armies. .

Many historians agree that NOT closing the Falaise Gap when Patton wanted to, was a costly mistake.


It wasn't Allied Commanders, it was just Bradley. I also don't think Patton was necessarily all that interested in closing the gap. His first instinct was to drive for the Rhine and trap even more German forces (as was Monty's instinct), the so called long hook, rather than the short hook that eventually developed around Falaise. However, Patton was not alone in seeing the possibilities, it was just that after walking out of Normandy through 1st Army's positions, he was the only one able to physically do anything about it.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 48
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/7/2004 10:07:26 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

In Normandy, Rommel advocated attacking the beaches with panzer divisions immediately upon the Allied invasion. It would indeed be interesting to see what would have happened. With the German and Allied troops so close together fighting, the Allies would not have been able to use naval support, and even air-ground attack would have to have been done carefully. . .


I don't agree. Rommel's strategy was the correct one, but Allied Command of the air meant the Germans would have suffered from Naval gunfire whatever the circumstances. They suffered heavily from it throughout the campaign. 21st Panzer provides an interesting case study for the problems the Germans would have encountered had extra divisions been placed near the front. It didn't strike for the beaches until 15.00 on D-day, despite being alerted to the invasions by about 02.30. Rommel did have a good grasp of what the battle for France would be like, but lets not give him superhuman qualities. Normandy was not a Field Marshall's battle. It was a tactical battle on the ground more in the realm of the Battalion and Regimental Commander. Rommel could exert little influence on events.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 49
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 12:13:28 AM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline
I'll say one thing for Patton, he's probably one of the few Allied commanders still discussed with passion!

Much has been made of Patton's relief of Bastogne vis-a-vis Monty's inability/unwillingness to act. If one looks at the map of the battle area one can see that Bastogne lies much nearer the southern 'shoulder' than the northern flank. So firstly, Patton was closer. More importantly though is the state of Allied intelligence at the time. Von Der Heydte's paratroopers (together with Skorzeny's commandos) caused absolute chaos behind Allied lines, not so much by what they actually did (which was very little) but because what was feared they were going to do. This panic reached all the way to the top of the command chain - Bradley 'lost it' and Eisenhower was virtually a prisoner of his own bodyguards. Additionally, the northern sector was where 6th SS Panzer Army was attacking. With the information available, for Montgomery to lauch an attempt to relieve the 101st would have been utterly irresponsible. Instead, he ensured that the Meuse bridges, correctly identified as Dietrich's objective, were secure. This is to take nothing away from Patton's generalship in this case.

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 50
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 12:46:38 AM   
mavraam


Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline
My 2 cents on all of this:

1) Patton's 3rd Army succeeded brilliantly every oportunity it was given while under his command. In N. Africa, in Sicily, in the breakout in France, in the relief at Bastogne. One can only draw the conclusion that he was a great general and probably the best Allied general of the war in regards to the use of tanks.

2) Montgomery was a mediocre tactician but was still a great leader who inspired his men to fight hard. Great General? Probably not. Great leader? I think you can make a case there.

3) Rommell was right about Normandy. He believed that if a beach head was established, the war was over. He was very successful given the supplies he had in every engagement. According to his son, he thought the Germans should have surrendered if the Allies ever broke out of the beach head. This would have possibly saved E.Germany from being E.Germany. And saved 100,000's of lives. I think he was a great General.

IMHO

_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 51
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 1:10:06 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
IronDuke:

I'm not going to refute every point you have made above because, with all due respect, I can't believe you actually believe a lot of what you have written.

If you dislike Patton, and are determined to cut him off at the knees, then nothing I write, or anything you read, will deter you in your beliefs.

However, I will touch on a few points:

1) You mention that Patton's drive in Sicily was strategically pointless. Yet, you also claim such a drive isolated 53,000 Italians (whom the Allies did not have to fight). The fact that Patton gained so much ground and lost only 57 men when he captured Palermo, is not only testimony to his "correct" thinking, but also shows how wrong the Allied Command was, to have Patton watch Monty's flank (who incurred 12,000 casualties slugging it out on mountainous roads). Patton believed in out-flanking his opponent and pocketing the enemy forces.

Had Patton been allowed to implement his original strategy, he would in all likelihood, have bagged almost all the Axis forces on Sicily. As it stood, the Axis escaped Sicily with over 100,000 men and 10,000 vehicles. The Allies had to face these same Axis troops again when they fought in Italy.

2) Your statement about Patton not caring about the Gap in the Falaise Pocket is pure fantasy. He was outraged over Bradley ordering him to stop. As a result 75,0000 Germans escaped to fight the Allies again.

Here are more details about the Falaise Pocket:

http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/normandy/cobra_falaise/falaise.htm

3) You mention that Patton did not fight any battles worth mentioning. Patton believed in outflanking the enemy. Only a poor commander wastes his men in frontal assaults. Patton performed flanking maneuvers to pocket the enemy, much as the Germans did in the early years of WW2.

You say that Patton met only poor quality German troops, and therefore, his victories were of dubious quality. If that is so, then of what value were the early German victories in Belgium and France and in Barbarossa? German panzer armies out-flanked and surprised poorly led Allied forces in France, and "defeated" Russian armies who simply gave themselves up by the bushel-full in wide, sweeping pockets.

4) Your poor assessment of Patton is contradicted by almost all major historians. Even Bradley, who despised Patton, had nothing but praise for the magnificent job and accomplishments he did in Europe, especially at the Bulge.

5) When Patton swung his forces across France, he trapped over 130,000 Germans in the Falaise Pocket. Even though many Germans escaped, those trapped in the Pocket led to the largest capitulation of German forces since Stalingrad.

I could go on and on. . .

But I feel to do so would be an exercise in futility.

From what you have written, it is quite obvious that you have either not read much about Patton. Or, if you have, you have completely turned a blind eye to what you have read. That is your perogative. Clearly, you have already formulated an opinion about Patton, and have made up your mind, despite the facts at our desposal.

For those who don't know much about the period or about Patton, I would urge you read about him and his exploits in WW2. It makes for fascinating reading, and people can then make up their own minds.

Cheers!

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/7/2004 11:22:54 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 52
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 2:45:44 AM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


It would be interesting to speculate, with all other things remaining the same, what would have happened in Operation Market Garden, if Patton and part of Third Army had been used as the relieving ground force.


We discussed this over at the HTTR section here. Imho, there could have been two results:-

1) Patton would have broken through to Arnhem, bounced the Rhine and charged into NW Germany.

2) Patton would have broken through to Arnhem, bounced the Rhine and found himself cut off from his supplies. A major catastrophe. Supply lines at that time had become so stretched that only XXX Corps had enough to mount a major offensive, the other two corps in the 2nd Army were stretched severely in their attempts to maintain the flanks of the thrust. Given Patton's noted disregard for his own flanks he would have focussed his attention fully on the ultimate objective - Glory or Bust.

It would make for an interesting wargame though

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 53
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 3:18:35 AM   
Golf33

 

Posts: 1962
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EMO

In Europe, Eisenhower understood Montgomery's style of generalship and planned around it: he used Montgomery to tie up German forces in the north with his set piece battle strategies and Patton to spearhead the drive into Germany.

No, the plan to tie German reserves down on the left prior to breaking out on the right was Montgomery's plan, not Eisenhower's. In fact Eisenhower's injunctions to 'attack everywhere, all the time' suggest that he didn't even understand the plan terribly well, the penny only dropping fully after Cobra started to show some success.

Regards
33

_____________________________

Steve Golf33 Long

(in reply to EMO)
Post #: 54
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 3:26:52 AM   
Golf33

 

Posts: 1962
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

2) Your statement about Patton not caring about the Gap in the Falaise Pocket is pure fantasy. He was outraged over Bradley ordering him to stop. As a result 75,0000 Germans escaped to fight the Allies again.

5) When Patton swung his forces across France, he trapped over 130,000 Germans in the Falaise Pocket. Even though many Germans escaped, those trapped in the Pocket led to the largest capitulation of German forces since Stalingrad.


How can you give credit to Patton when he was essentially just carrying out orders? It wasn't his idea to flank around the bocage, it was Montgomery's. Interesting how when it's the escape of 75 000 men, it's all Monty's fault, but when it's the capture of 130 000, it's all Patton's credit...

I haven't read enough on Patton to make a thorough assessment of his quality, though what I have read about the Bulge suggests that while he anticipated well and his staff performed marvels in changing the axis of Third Army, his subsequent performance was very much below-par. His "attack day and night" orders led to his armour taking an inordinate amount of casualties against a poorly-trained and poorly-supplied enemy (Seventh Army) when a more methodical method, like using tanks during the day when they are not horribly vulnerable, would have got him to Bastogne at best a day or so later and would have preserved the lives of his men.

Regards
33

_____________________________

Steve Golf33 Long

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 55
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 4:30:18 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

IronDuke:

I'm not going to refute every point you have made above because, with all due respect, I can't believe you actually believe a lot of what you have written.


I know the feeling, I got it reading your comments about Patton . With all due respect, this is easy to say, but I equally struggled with some of the broad sweeping comments you made regarding Patton and the role of 3rd Army. I found it hard to believe some of the figures you used were used seriously, however, we're heading towards personal comments with this line of argument, so I'd rather move on as I am not comfortable with the personal stuff, and this is a first class forum that deserves better.

quote:

If you dislike Patton, and are determined to cut him off at the knees, then nothing I write, or anything you read, will deter you in your beliefs.


If you like Patton, and are determined to hoist him onto a pedestal, then nothing I write, or anything you read, will deter you in your belief.

quote:

However, I will touch on a few points:

1) You mention that Patton's drive in Sicily was strategically pointless. Yet, you also claim such a drive isolated 53,000 Italians (whom the Allies did not have to fight). The fact that Patton gained so much ground and lost only 57 men when he captured Palermo, is not only testimony to his "correct" thinking, but also shows how wrong the Allied Command was, to have Patton watch Monty's flank (who incurred 12,000 casualties slugging it out on mountainous roads). Patton believed in out-flanking his opponent and pocketing the enemy forces.

Had Patton been allowed to implement his original strategy, he would in all likelihood, have bagged almost all the Axis forces on Sicily. As it stood, the Axis escaped Sicily with over 100,000 men and 10,000 vehicles. The Allies had to face these same Axis troops again when they fought in Italy.


With all due respect, I'm not entirely convinced you know the detail of the Sicilian campaign, your analysis gives Patton's victory far too much strategic significance, and credits the operation to his strategic sense. This cannot be sustained.

Statement by statement.

quote:

You mention that Patton's drive in Sicily was strategically pointless.


Absolutely, look at the map, from his position on Monty's left flank the strategic move was north and north east hookng around Mount Etna. Palermo is north west, and large American units were also sent due west along the southern coast of Sicily towards Marsala. This is in the opposite direction to the strategically correct direction. However the operation was arrived at, whatever the reason it was launched, it was absolutely strategically pointless.

quote:

Yet, you also claim such a drive isolated 53,000 Italians (whom the Allies did not have to fight).


The Allies would not have had to fight them anyway. Bradley had suggested announcing that no Italians would be taken prisoner, and that anyone who deserted was free to go home. Italians were surrendering in droves. Large units were dissolving and large bands of Italian soldiers were wandering the Island looking for Allied troops to surrender to. D'Este, Patton's biographer who'm you are regularly quoting , makes it clear the Italians in the western half of the Island posed no military threat, and in many cases were being ordered to withdraw anyway. (He also wrote a book on the Battle for Sicily).

It is clear that Patton seems to have understood (from a diary entry dated 19 July) that his most strategically effective mission would have been to support the British with more offensive action aimed against the northern coast or the right flank of the Etna line. What pro-Patton people have to explain is why, in this knowledge, he still prefers to force Alexander to let him drive on Palermo, something which was nothing more than a prestige target. Bradley was dismayed, because he well understood the campaign in Sicily. He well understood the 53000 (or 57000, I don't know which of us is right) Italians in the western half of the Island represented no military threat, but the Germans in the north eastern part of the Island certainly did.

quote:

The fact that Patton gained so much ground and lost only 57 men when he captured Palermo


You are making a virtue out of necessity. That ground was strategically pointless. He went up against 57000 Italians and lost 57 men. That says more about the nature of the fighting than I ever could. What is the point of all that ground? Strategically, what was he going to do with it when he captured it? All that happened was that 57000 future POWs became POWs a few days earlier than might otherwise have been the case. It looked good on the front cover of the magazines but did not shorten the war in Sicily for one minute. Indeed, it lengthened it.

You might argue that 57 men were lost who didn't need to be because (in some cases) they forced men ready to surrender to fight.

quote:

...is not only testimony to his "correct" thinking, but also shows how wrong the Allied Command was, to have Patton watch Monty's flank (who incurred 12,000 casualties slugging it out on mountainous roads). Patton believed in out-flanking his opponent and pocketing the enemy forces.


Where is your source for this, because D'Este's biography (chapter 33 deals with Sicily) makes no claim as far as I can see for Patton having some grand strategic notion regarding the campaign. It (like most observers, me included) felt that Alexander's campaign in sicily was very poor, but that it was Bradley, not Patton, who recognised what needed to be done. Alexander had no trust in American ground forces after what he had witnessed in Africa (rightly or wrongly, that's a separate argument) Patton is itching to move, so dreams up a scheme whereby he secures Palermo by reinforcing a recce in force. Palermo was the second most prestigious target on the Island after Messina, but at this point in the campaign, strategically pointless. Off Patton goes and in one of his feats of agressive mobile advance in the face of negligible enemy resistance (something I've conceded he had no equal at in the Allied command), secures everything. Maxwell Taylor, head of 82nd Airborne described the action in western Siciliy as "a pleasure march". Truscott, who commanded 3rd US Division that performed exceptionally well during the advance said "It is my belief that the glamour of the big city (Palermo) was the chief thing that attracted General Patton."

You claim this operation was an example of Patton's "correct thinking" and an operation that cut off 53000 Italians who no longer would be able to fight and yet Patton's senior Corp Commander thought the operation insane and strategically criminal, Patton's senior Divisional Commander thought the operation driven by a desire for glory, not any strategic consideration, and another of his divisional commanders (a very good one - Taylor) descibed the operation as a pleasure march.

you later say:

quote:

it is quite obvious that you have either not read much about Patton. Or, if you have, you have completely turned a blind eye to what you have read.


The above is what I have read. A strategic analysis (an amateur one) backed however by Senior American Commanders. My apologies if I am overdoing a point here, but the quote above upset me more than everything else put together. If you disagree with Taylor, Truscott and Bradley, please describe why.

quote:

2) Your statement about Patton not caring about the Gap in the Falaise Pocket is pure fantasy. He was outraged over Bradley ordering him to stop. As a result 75,0000 Germans escaped to fight the Allies again.


This one runs the above statement a close second. I had a look through the thread and found these comments of mine concerning the breakout.

quote:

Bradley stopped him because he felt that the pocket could not have been closed by the forces at Patton's disposal. He was nervous that the Americans would be spread so thin, that ad hoc German battlegroups would break through and hurt him in the process. I think he was wrong, and agree Patton should have been allowed to close the gap, but I think the battle was won, and Allied Commanders were relaxing a little having done the hard work.


I'm not sure how you interpreted this in the way you did. I did say later:

quote:

His first instinct was to drive for the Rhine and trap even more German forces (as was Monty's instinct), the so called long hook, rather than the short hook that eventually developed around Falaise.


I made an error here in using the word Rhine when I meant Seine. However, that doesn't affect your criticism.

However, let me quote from the biography you keep recommending we all read about General Patton and his life and times. A genius for War by Carlos D'Este. Let me refer you to page 642. The bits in square brackets are my comments.

"Neither Patton nor Montgomery had any great enthusiasm for Bradley's so called short hook [the attack to close the Falaise gap]. From the outset both clearly preferred the long envelopment, a drive to the Seine by the third Army, the Canadian First Army and the British second Army to establish blocking forces to prevent the mass escape of Army Group B from Normandy."

In other words, Patton was not interested in Falaise as he felt he could get more Germans if he headed for the Seine. Bradley wanted Falaise, and then lost his nerve as Patton reached the vicinity of Argentan ready to strike for Falaise and close the gap. Patton wanted to close the gap having arrived at Argentan, as he had been denied his favoured option, and Falaise was the only one available. He would rather have been driving for the Seine, however.

If you need any more convincing, let me quote the good General himself who told a war correspondent in September 1944 that the Falaise pocket was improvisation on Bradley's part: "I thought we were going east [toward the Seine] he told me to move north [towards Falaise]".

That is essentially what frustrates me when you say:

quote:

From what you have written, it is quite obvious that you have either not read much about Patton. Or, if you have, you have completely turned a blind eye to what you have read. That is your perogative. Clearly, you have already formulated an opinion about Patton, and have made up your mind, despite the facts at our desposal.


You claim to have read D'Este but do not realise when he agrees with me. You instead decide that I do not know the facts and if I do, have chosen to ignore them. I keep quoting facts and quoting authorities to back them up (I'm keeping score, I have two American Divisional Generals, a US Army Chief of Staff, D'Este and Weighley so far.)

quote:

3) You mention that Patton did not fight any battles worth mentioning. Patton believed in outflanking the enemy. Only a poor commander wastes his men in frontal assaults. Patton performed flanking maneuvers to pocket the enemy, much as the Germans did in the early years of WW2.


Can you show me a General who didn't believe in outflanking the enemy???? Even Monty often attempted it. Why is it cause for celebration in Patton? At the Bulge he launched a frontal attack across a long front dissipating his strength. In Sicily, who'm did he outflank? In Normandy, he first went into Brittany rather than towards the German Field Army in the west (although Normandy is difficult to assess as Bradley had a hand in most of his manouevres). Metz has already been cited as a costly frontal assault. Can you give us specific operations in which you believe Patton showed operational ability (together with reasons why) as the basis for further discussion.

quote:

You say that Patton met only poor quality German troops, and therefore, his victories were of dubious quality. If that is so, then of what value were the early German victories in Belgium and France and in Barbarossa? German panzer armies out-flanked and surprised poorly led Allied forces in France, and "defeated" Russian armies who simply gave themselves up by the bushel-full in wide, sweeping pockets.


The Germans were indeed superior in the west. My contention, though, is that they did better against such mediocrity than Patton ever managed. They also did not have the superiority in numbers and material that the Allies had in the latter part of the war to aid them.

quote:

4) Your poor assessment of Patton is contradicted by almost all major historians.


Please name them. I've so far cited evidence from two, Weighly and even D'Este. A third, John Ellis, was even more damning in "Brute Force". Max Hastings in "Overlord" believed Patton could drive tanks like no other, but when 3rd Army met determined resistance, it performed no better than any other Allied units. I could go through everything I have on Normandy looking for more if you wish. I have D'Este's study, and the recent one from Neillands.

quote:

Even Bradley, who despised Patton, had nothing but praise for the magnificent job and accomplishments he did in Europe, especially at the Bulge.


If this is the case, who said:

of the Palermo operation:

"...there was little to be gained in the west. Certainly, there was no glory in the capture of hills, docile peasants and spiritless soldiers."

Of the Breakout:

"George walked out of Normandy."

D'este describes Bradley's thoughts on the Palermo operation as believing the entire venture was insane. He charts very well the growing distrust with Bradley seeing Patton putting glory ahead of everything else whilst Bradley's men fought and died. Bradley should not be cited in General Patton's defence. Indeed, he once described a plan of Montgomery's he considered unrealistic as "Pattonesqe".

quote:

5) When Patton swung his forces across France, he trapped over 130,000 Germans in the Falaise Pocket. Even though many Germans escaped, those trapped in the Pocket led to the largest capitulation of German forces since Stalingrad.


We've covered this in detail already, but I think to suggest this is somewaht superficial. It takes no account of the Normandy campaign, Patton's actions after breaking out, the insanity of Mortain, nor the controversey over the short or long hook. It's like saying Monty is a genius because the Allied Armies reached Paris when he predicted they would. Did beneath the surface and it's a whole different story.

quote:

I could go on and on. . .

But I feel to do so would be an exercise in futility.


Not if you cite specific examples, accompanied by quotes from recognised authorities. Quoting web pages doesn't cut it.

quote:

From what you have written, it is quite obvious that you have either not read much about Patton. Or, if you have, you have completely turned a blind eye to what you have read. That is your perogative. Clearly, you have already formulated an opinion about Patton, and have made up your mind, despite the facts at our desposal.


I will stand by what I have written and allow others to decide which of us holds an opinion in despite of the facts.

quote:

For those who don't know much about the period or about Patton, I would urge you read about him and his exploits in WW2. It makes for fascinating reading, and people can then make up their own minds.


Agreed, but read well.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 56
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 4:33:00 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


It would be interesting to speculate, with all other things remaining the same, what would have happened in Operation Market Garden, if Patton and part of Third Army had been used as the relieving ground force.


We discussed this over at the HTTR section here. Imho, there could have been two results:-

1) Patton would have broken through to Arnhem, bounced the Rhine and charged into NW Germany.

2) Patton would have broken through to Arnhem, bounced the Rhine and found himself cut off from his supplies. A major catastrophe. Supply lines at that time had become so stretched that only XXX Corps had enough to mount a major offensive, the other two corps in the 2nd Army were stretched severely in their attempts to maintain the flanks of the thrust. Given Patton's noted disregard for his own flanks he would have focussed his attention fully on the ultimate objective - Glory or Bust.

It would make for an interesting wargame though


It certainly would. I don't personally think Patton would have done much better. He liked to manouevre, you don't do that off one road. Your point about disregard for flanks is well made. Patton usually didn't worry about them.

Regards,
Ironduke

(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 57
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 3:47:31 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
The biggest France 44 error, imo, where trying to go slow up the coast after Cobra.. why not let Pattons third bad all of France by making the huge end run? he was stopped repeatedly by superiors and needed supplies.. No need for a market garden if no german army left in france.... Aug Sept where the key in my eyes.. and hundreds of thgousands of allied , and untold german military and civilians suffered as a result of these choices.

< Message edited by freeboy -- 7/9/2004 5:31:34 AM >

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 58
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 5:13:59 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Iron Duke:

My apologies. Nothing should be taken personally We are only having a discussion.

In your post above you have clarified what you have read.

As I mentioned previously, you entered this discussion with your mind already made up about Patton. It is not my job to convince you otherwise.

Before I read anything about Patton, I was fairly lukewarm about him and his accompishments. Having read several books about him, I have since formulated a very favourable impression of him and what he did.

Patton, like MacArthur, had a lot of enemies in higher command and elsewhere, who took every opportunity to downplay their accomplishments no matter what they did. To some, a glass is half empty; to others it is half full.

If I disliked any leader in history, I could easily make them look like incompetent fools. This can be done by anyone. It's called having an agenda.

Patton had many critics. But this does not diminish what he accomplished.

Bradley, who despised Patton, criticized him at every turn (even though many historians are unkind to Bradley's tactics in Europe). However, Patton was the ONLY Allied commander the Germans feared. I think this speaks volumes.

You have written a lot in your post above, but there are still many inaccuracies in what has been written. However, I'm not going to bother to correct them.

You don't think much of Patton, that is your right. But your opinion of him still does not diminish what he accomplished.

Cheers!

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/8/2004 3:56:06 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 59
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/8/2004 5:52:29 PM   
mavraam


Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline
I wonder if Deep Breakfast had any idea what he started when he posted this!

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Why was Patton so great? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

1.578