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  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 12:33:12 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

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

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Why on earth do you keep posting things people have seen, have you no new material? The German Officer thread has now appeaered FIVE TIMES . Although I note you have mysterioiusly left out the ones from guderian, Simon and Balck I found for you .

The situation on Metz has already been dissected. If you're going to do this, I'm just going to post my dissection, which you chose to side step by opening up a bit of nonsense about Kev. We'll end up going round in circles (or even bigger circles).

We have dissected all these posts and shown them to be nonsense, do you think that people do not recognise the same material time and time again? Do you think that somehow your posts make more sense the second time around? Do you think that by posting them a second time, people will forget how they were illustrated to be wrong the first time. People will just turn off. Something doesn't become truth simply because you say it over and over again. Something simply becomes legend that way, which is where this mess all started in the first place.

Also, what is happening to you? When you started, you were Von Rom with some picture from what looked like a computer game. Progressively, over the weeks, you started posting with a picture of his helmet, then you added a couple of quotes, then you changed the quotes to some line from the Moroccan government about lions trembling, and now we have a picture of him as well.!!!!!

IronDuke


Heheh

I thought you would enjoy reading them again.

Well, since I knew you liked Patton so much I thought you would enjoy seeing him on a more regular basis

Regarding the Lorraine Campaign - you and Patton's other critics don't have a leg to stand on:

General Patton Won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was short of supplies:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had no intelligence:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had little gas:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had very little ammo:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its soldiers removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its airforce removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to fight in torrential rains:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army suffered 18,000 cases of Trench Foot:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was counterattacked by Tigers and Panthers:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to assault the most heavily fortified place in Europe:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even with all this against him, General Patton STILL Won the Lorraine Campaign



Von Rom,
Its time to call it a day. This is childish. I have never been challenged with such a silly post so bereft of serious analysis.

You give the impression you are determined to ignore the truth, yet win by shouting the loudest. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. This is so far removed from proper analysis, that I am quite frankly shocked that anyone claiming an interest in military history would even post it. It is a bleak day for this forum.

I spend hours dissesting and correcting you, and you side step my points each time, and either post the piece afresh hoping someone will think it is new, or give two or three cheap comments without addressing anything I've said.

Golf 33 has pointed out how you create straw men like Whiting, because your own arguments do not stand up. You clearly read nothing that is said to you, because you do not answer the points raised. Quite frankly, this thread deserves better, but clearly isn't going to get it. I am confident anyone reading this thread will see which of us has the better argument. They won't be fooled by discredited posts repeated ad nauseum. As experienced forum users, they will recognise evasion when they see it, and also recognise nonsense.

They will also recognise desparation, such as the time you blamed Patton's dyslexia for making him write that he felt his son in law was in Hammelburg when he didn't know he was there, or the time you told us he launched the Metz campaign incurring 50 000 casualties in order the keep the Army's morale up.

Frankly, when you are wrong, you won't admit it and come up with ridiculous reasons from the planet fantasy to explain why; When faced with unpalatable facts, you ignore them; when your posts are shown to be incorrect, you ignore the correction, and simply post the material again.

This isn't debate, but I can at least retire safe in the knowledge that having stuck with this mess for nineteen pages, I will have gotten out of you plenty of evidence for the thread readers to see, to illustrate what I am saying here is the truth.

And now, after all this, I am expected to go through another 19 pages and several hours of my life dissecting your latest batch of google offerings on German victories in 1939-41. I am expected to watch you misrepresent my position, ignore facts, ignore everything I say, present errors and refuse to publicly admit them when challenged, and watch whilst my serious historians are challenged by partisan fan sites and customer reviews from Amazon. (I also particularly enjoyed it when you quoted some Patton fan words from a re-enactment site, very scholarly). If I felt for a second you would debate properly, I'd do it, but you won't, and what's more you'll try and make it look like my fault.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. I also blame myself for your transition to this person resplendent with signed photos and quotes from the seat of Military thinking that was the WWII Moroccan government. This clearly means so much to you, I don't have the heart to continue to take it away.

So, post away your with your pages of errors, your one sided collections of quotes and thumbnail shetches of military operations. I'm off to debate Monty with a Gentlemen who gave every indication he wanted a serious discussion.

Have fun,
IronDuke

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 7/26/2004 10:35:11 PM >

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 631
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 12:59:07 AM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Heheh

I thought you would enjoy reading them again.

Well, since I knew you liked Patton so much I thought you would enjoy seeing him on a more regular basis

Regarding the Lorraine Campaign - you and Patton's other critics don't have a leg to stand on:

General Patton Won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was short of supplies:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had no intelligence:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had little gas:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had very little ammo:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its soldiers removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its airforce removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to fight in torrential rains:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army suffered 18,000 cases of Trench Foot:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was counterattacked by Tigers and Panthers:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to assault the most heavily fortified place in Europe:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even with all this against him, General Patton STILL Won the Lorraine Campaign



Von Rom,
Its time to call it a day. This is childish. I have never been challenged with such a silly post so bereft of serious analysis.

You give the impression you are determined to ignore the truth, yet win by shouting the loudest. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. This is so far removed from proper analysis, that I am quite frankly shocked that anyone claiming an interest in military history would even post it. It is a bleak day for this forum.

I spend hours dissesting and correcting you, and you side step my points each time, and either post the piece afresh hoping someone will think it is new, or give two or three cheap comments without addressing anything I've said.

Golf 33 has pointed out how you create straw men like Whiting, because your own arguments do not stand up. You clearly read nothing that is said to you, because you do not answer the points raised. Quite frankly, this thread deserves better, but clearly isn't going to get it. I am confident anyone reading this thread will see which of us has the better argument. They won't be fooled by discredited posts repeated ad nauseum. As experienced forum users, they will recognise evasion when they see it, and also recognise nonsense.

They will also recognise desparation, such as the time you blamed Patton's dyslexia for making him write that he felt his son in law was in Hammelburg when he didn't know he was there, or the time you told us he launched the Metz campaign incurring 50 000 casualties in order the keep the Army's morale up.

Frankly, when you are wrong, you won't admit it and come up with ridiculous reasons from the planet fantasy to explain why; When faced with unpalatable facts, you ignore them; when your posts are shown to be incorrect, you ignore the correction, and simply post the material again.

This isn't debate, but I can at least retire safe in the knowledge that having stuck with this mess for nineteen pages, I will have gotten out of you plenty of evidence for the thread readers to see, to illustrate what I am saying here is the truth.

And now, after all this, I am expected to go through another 19 pages and several hours of my life dissecting your latest batch of google offerings on German victories in 1939-41. I am expected to watch you misrepresent my position, ignore facts, ignore everything I say, present errors and refuse to publicly admit them when challenged, and watch whilst my serious historians are challenged by partisan fan sites and customer reviews from Amazon. (I also particularly enjoyed it when you quoted some Patton fan words from a re-enactment site, very scholarly). If I felt for a second you would debate properly, I'd do it, but you won't, and what's more you'll try and make it look like my fault.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. I also blame myself for your transition to this person resplendent with signed photos and quotes from the seat of Military thinking that was the WWII Moroccan government. This clearly means so much to you, I don't have the heart to continue to take it away.

So, post away your with your pages of errors, your one sided collections of quotes and thumbnail shetches of military operations. I'm off to debate Monty with a Gentlemen who gave every indication he wanted a serious discussion.

Have fun,
IronDuke



Heheh

Yeah, and you never skewed the discussion, eh?

Don't worry, you fellas have handed me plenty of silly posts bereft of common sense. . .

There was NO discussion about Patton with you - your ONLY goal was to tear him down - and usually against the facts.

Heheh

And that info about the Lorraine Campaign - it's ALL TRUE!

The whole time it has mainly been me defending Patton - against 4 or 5 people at a time. . .

Are 5:1 odds not good enough for you?

It seems that even though there are a few here who would seek to tear down and destroy Patton's reputation, they simply can't face the truth that Patton not only won ALL his campaigns; that Patton not only captured more prisoners, covered more ground, and liberated more cities, towns and villages, than ANY other army in WW2, but Patton is absolutely GUARANTEED a place in military history.

Those are ALL facts.

ALL of the Allied leaders and German leaders acknowledged Patton's expertise in war and battle.

Those are ALL facts.

Patton's supremacy and mastery of Combined Arms is legendary and is exemplified by its expertise in battle.

Those are ALL facts.

The few here may try to destroy Patton's reputation, but the verdict of history, the facts, the public, the veterans of Patton's Armies, the German Generals, the Allied Leaders, and many, many historians, all acknowledge how wrong you are, and how right Patton's tactics and strategies were. . .

Unfortunately, we will NEVER, ever see his like again. . . no. . . not ever. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 11:15:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 632
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 2:54:57 AM   
Golf33

 

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

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

But I would NEVER mock someone's prayer or belief in a Higher Being, which seems to be so casually done here. . .

Especially, when those prayers are done by soldiers who are about to go into battle. . .

I'm not mocking Patton's belief - which, incidentally, is not demonstrated by 250 000 cards with a printed piece of PR on them - I just find it funny that anyone would take such an obvious stunt seriously. Is there any evidence that the soldiers actually liked this stuff?

Giving a man a piece of paper with a prayer on it, and ordering him to read it, does not constitute a genuine prayer on the part of that man.

Regards
33

_____________________________

Steve Golf33 Long

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 633
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 3:02:55 AM   
Golf33

 

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

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

snip

IronDuke


Good discussion, well argued, and I've learned a good deal - plus some excellent recommendations for places to improve my knowledge.

I look forward to reading your dissection of Montgomery - I tend to be a fan of his and look forward to a discussion of the evidence either way! If you do decide to produce a discussion of 'blitzkrieg', I'll be reading that with interest as well.

Regards
33

_____________________________

Steve Golf33 Long

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 634
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 3:22:25 AM   
Error in 0


Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Heheh

I thought you would enjoy reading them again.

Well, since I knew you liked Patton so much I thought you would enjoy seeing him on a more regular basis

Regarding the Lorraine Campaign - you and Patton's other critics don't have a leg to stand on:

General Patton Won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was short of supplies:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had no intelligence:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had little gas:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had very little ammo:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its soldiers removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its airforce removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to fight in torrential rains:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army suffered 18,000 cases of Trench Foot:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was counterattacked by Tigers and Panthers:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to assault the most heavily fortified place in Europe:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even with all this against him, General Patton STILL Won the Lorraine Campaign



Von Rom,
Its time to call it a day. This is childish. I have never been challenged with such a silly post so bereft of serious analysis.

You give the impression you are determined to ignore the truth, yet win by shouting the loudest. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. This is so far removed from proper analysis, that I am quite frankly shocked that anyone claiming an interest in military history would even post it. It is a bleak day for this forum.

I spend hours dissesting and correcting you, and you side step my points each time, and either post the piece afresh hoping someone will think it is new, or give two or three cheap comments without addressing anything I've said.

Golf 33 has pointed out how you create straw men like Whiting, because your own arguments do not stand up. You clearly read nothing that is said to you, because you do not answer the points raised. Quite frankly, this thread deserves better, but clearly isn't going to get it. I am confident anyone reading this thread will see which of us has the better argument. They won't be fooled by discredited posts repeated ad nauseum. As experienced forum users, they will recognise evasion when they see it, and also recognise nonsense.

They will also recognise desparation, such as the time you blamed Patton's dyslexia for making him write that he felt his son in law was in Hammelburg when he didn't know he was there, or the time you told us he launched the Metz campaign incurring 50 000 casualties in order the keep the Army's morale up.

Frankly, when you are wrong, you won't admit it and come up with ridiculous reasons from the planet fantasy to explain why; When faced with unpalatable facts, you ignore them; when your posts are shown to be incorrect, you ignore the correction, and simply post the material again.

This isn't debate, but I can at least retire safe in the knowledge that having stuck with this mess for nineteen pages, I will have gotten out of you plenty of evidence for the thread readers to see, to illustrate what I am saying here is the truth.

And now, after all this, I am expected to go through another 19 pages and several hours of my life dissecting your latest batch of google offerings on German victories in 1939-41. I am expected to watch you misrepresent my position, ignore facts, ignore everything I say, present errors and refuse to publicly admit them when challenged, and watch whilst my serious historians are challenged by partisan fan sites and customer reviews from Amazon. (I also particularly enjoyed it when you quoted some Patton fan words from a re-enactment site, very scholarly). If I felt for a second you would debate properly, I'd do it, but you won't, and what's more you'll try and make it look like my fault.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. I also blame myself for your transition to this person resplendent with signed photos and quotes from the seat of Military thinking that was the WWII Moroccan government. This clearly means so much to you, I don't have the heart to continue to take it away.

So, post away your with your pages of errors, your one sided collections of quotes and thumbnail shetches of military operations. I'm off to debate Monty with a Gentlemen who gave every indication he wanted a serious discussion.

Have fun,
IronDuke



Heheh

Yeah, and you never skewed the discussion, eh?

Don't worry, you fellas have handed me plenty of silly posts bereft of common sense. . .

There was NO discussion about Patton with you - your ONLY goal was to tear him down - and usually against the facts.

Heheh

And that info about the Lorraine Campaign - it's ALL TRUE!

The whole time it has mainly been me defending Patton - against 4 or 5 people at a time. . .

Are 5:1 odds not good enough for you?

It seems that even though there are a few here who would seek to tear down and destroy Patton's reputation, they simply can't face the truth that Patton not only won ALL his campaigns; that Patton not only captured more prisoners, covered more ground, and liberated more cities, towns and villages, than ANY other army in WW2, but Patton is absolutely GUARANTEED a place in military history.

Those are ALL facts.

ALL of the Allied leaders and German leaders acknowledged Patton's expertise in war and battle.

Those are ALL facts.

Patton's supremacy and mastery of Combined Arms is legendary and is exemplified by its expertise in battle.

Those are ALL facts.

The few here may try to destroy Patton's reputation, but the verdict of history, the facts, the public, the veterans of Patton's Armies, the German Generals, the Allied Leaders, and many, many historians, all acknowledge how wrong you are, and how right Patton's tactics and strategies were. . .

Unfortunately, we will NEVER, ever see his like again. . . no. . . not ever. . .

'

Prior to this discussion I had heard many good things about Patton, and I was under the impression that he was a decent commander. However, I now fear this is the impression fanatics like you try to give, and I am absolute SURE you have made more damage of Pattons reputation than any of his so-called enemies (ironduke etc) could ever hope to accomplish. I thank you for this, vonRom.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 635
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 3:24:56 AM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

But I would NEVER mock someone's prayer or belief in a Higher Being, which seems to be so casually done here. . .

Especially, when those prayers are done by soldiers who are about to go into battle. . .

I'm not mocking Patton's belief - which, incidentally, is not demonstrated by 250 000 cards with a printed piece of PR on them - I just find it funny that anyone would take such an obvious stunt seriously. Is there any evidence that the soldiers actually liked this stuff?

Giving a man a piece of paper with a prayer on it, and ordering him to read it, does not constitute a genuine prayer on the part of that man.

Regards
33


You saying what you did shows how little people really know about Patton, and that's why I laugh when I read things like this.

Although it may be hard for you to believe, Patton WAS a very deeply religious man.

All the cuss words, rough exterior, etc was for the men. . . He knew he had to toughen men up for battle.

And Patton cared deeply about his men. . . men who were about to go into battle and face death. . .

He handed out 250,000 prayer cards so that 250,000 men would be praying the same prayer collectively. Yes, Patton REALLY believed in Prayer and in Divine Intervention.

And. . . the skies DID clear. . . at the Bulge. . .

Did his men believe in it?

Well, the next time you are on the eve of battle - facing death - I think you will be able to answer your own question.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 1:26:18 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Golf33)
Post #: 636
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 3:39:32 AM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Heheh

I thought you would enjoy reading them again.

Well, since I knew you liked Patton so much I thought you would enjoy seeing him on a more regular basis

Regarding the Lorraine Campaign - you and Patton's other critics don't have a leg to stand on:

General Patton Won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was short of supplies:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had no intelligence:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had little gas:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had very little ammo:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its soldiers removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its airforce removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to fight in torrential rains:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army suffered 18,000 cases of Trench Foot:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was counterattacked by Tigers and Panthers:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to assault the most heavily fortified place in Europe:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even with all this against him, General Patton STILL Won the Lorraine Campaign



Von Rom,
Its time to call it a day. This is childish. I have never been challenged with such a silly post so bereft of serious analysis.

You give the impression you are determined to ignore the truth, yet win by shouting the loudest. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. This is so far removed from proper analysis, that I am quite frankly shocked that anyone claiming an interest in military history would even post it. It is a bleak day for this forum.

I spend hours dissesting and correcting you, and you side step my points each time, and either post the piece afresh hoping someone will think it is new, or give two or three cheap comments without addressing anything I've said.

Golf 33 has pointed out how you create straw men like Whiting, because your own arguments do not stand up. You clearly read nothing that is said to you, because you do not answer the points raised. Quite frankly, this thread deserves better, but clearly isn't going to get it. I am confident anyone reading this thread will see which of us has the better argument. They won't be fooled by discredited posts repeated ad nauseum. As experienced forum users, they will recognise evasion when they see it, and also recognise nonsense.

They will also recognise desparation, such as the time you blamed Patton's dyslexia for making him write that he felt his son in law was in Hammelburg when he didn't know he was there, or the time you told us he launched the Metz campaign incurring 50 000 casualties in order the keep the Army's morale up.

Frankly, when you are wrong, you won't admit it and come up with ridiculous reasons from the planet fantasy to explain why; When faced with unpalatable facts, you ignore them; when your posts are shown to be incorrect, you ignore the correction, and simply post the material again.

This isn't debate, but I can at least retire safe in the knowledge that having stuck with this mess for nineteen pages, I will have gotten out of you plenty of evidence for the thread readers to see, to illustrate what I am saying here is the truth.

And now, after all this, I am expected to go through another 19 pages and several hours of my life dissecting your latest batch of google offerings on German victories in 1939-41. I am expected to watch you misrepresent my position, ignore facts, ignore everything I say, present errors and refuse to publicly admit them when challenged, and watch whilst my serious historians are challenged by partisan fan sites and customer reviews from Amazon. (I also particularly enjoyed it when you quoted some Patton fan words from a re-enactment site, very scholarly). If I felt for a second you would debate properly, I'd do it, but you won't, and what's more you'll try and make it look like my fault.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. I also blame myself for your transition to this person resplendent with signed photos and quotes from the seat of Military thinking that was the WWII Moroccan government. This clearly means so much to you, I don't have the heart to continue to take it away.

So, post away your with your pages of errors, your one sided collections of quotes and thumbnail shetches of military operations. I'm off to debate Monty with a Gentlemen who gave every indication he wanted a serious discussion.

Have fun,
IronDuke



Heheh

Yeah, and you never skewed the discussion, eh?

Don't worry, you fellas have handed me plenty of silly posts bereft of common sense. . .

There was NO discussion about Patton with you - your ONLY goal was to tear him down - and usually against the facts.

Heheh

And that info about the Lorraine Campaign - it's ALL TRUE!

The whole time it has mainly been me defending Patton - against 4 or 5 people at a time. . .

Are 5:1 odds not good enough for you?

It seems that even though there are a few here who would seek to tear down and destroy Patton's reputation, they simply can't face the truth that Patton not only won ALL his campaigns; that Patton not only captured more prisoners, covered more ground, and liberated more cities, towns and villages, than ANY other army in WW2, but Patton is absolutely GUARANTEED a place in military history.

Those are ALL facts.

ALL of the Allied leaders and German leaders acknowledged Patton's expertise in war and battle.

Those are ALL facts.

Patton's supremacy and mastery of Combined Arms is legendary and is exemplified by its expertise in battle.

Those are ALL facts.

The few here may try to destroy Patton's reputation, but the verdict of history, the facts, the public, the veterans of Patton's Armies, the German Generals, the Allied Leaders, and many, many historians, all acknowledge how wrong you are, and how right Patton's tactics and strategies were. . .

Unfortunately, we will NEVER, ever see his like again. . . no. . . not ever. . .

'

Prior to this discussion I had heard many good things about Patton, and I was under the impression that he was a decent commander. However, I now fear this is the impression fanatics like you try to give, and I am absolute SURE you have made more damage of Pattons reputation than any of his so-called enemies (ironduke etc) could ever hope to accomplish. I thank you for this, vonRom.



Fanatical?



Heheh

So, those who seek to destroy are being good little citizens, are they?

While those who seek to defend are just fanatics?

Heheh

Yeah, I am sure it's not fanatical for a handful of people who try, even against any evidence to the contrary, to destroy a man's (Patton's) reputation.

I stood here all alone defending Patton against MANY people whose sole object was to destroy and tarnish his name and military deeds.

And all I've said IS true. . .

If you're thanking me, then you, too, were hoping to see Patton's reputation destroyed.

Sorry to disappoint you. . .

Now scurry along. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 5:18:33 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Error in 0)
Post #: 637
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 3:58:07 AM   
Error in 0


Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline
Hi VonRom
Yes, I have been standing on the side line watching for most of the time. You misunderstand me, I have never agreed with you. But it has been typical for your style to believe that if anyone has ANYTHING negative to say about Patton, it is a personal venegance against him. I believe that is a fanatical stand. You have tried to make it clear that you know alot about Patton. If I am in doubt wether Patton deserves all the hero-legends he has gotten or not, you had every opportunity to convince me of that. But you must argue better that just repeating quotes from obscure web-sites, trying to convince people by saying 'it is fact!' (why scould I believe you and not acclaimed historians?), and avoid getting personal. I think Patton deserves a better defence of his name and reputation.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 638
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 4:01:12 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

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

After the frustrating experience I've had in this thread trying to get a straight debate, you will never know how much your comments are a lift to me. You wonder (in situations like this) whether anyone is noticing what you are saying when it is consistently ignored, and then wonder if it is missed when it is followed by the same stuff repeated over and over again as if it is an answer, without a thought for analysis, or any of the other things I thought good debate should have. Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated.

Golf,
I've started up the Monty thread, I seem to remember reading in the HTTR forum (I have HTTR and AA)that the engine was going to Normandy after the Aegean expansion, so I'm sure we can broaden the discussion to discuss the campaign as a whole if you're doing a little prep ahead of all that and have some opinions. One of the scenarios I've designed for Battlefields is Operation Epsom, but the campaign as a whole has always been a favourite (not least because the Wife's late Grandfather came ashore at D + 45 mins on Gold beach - Jig Green West.)

Cheers,
IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 639
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 4:11:43 AM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Hi VonRom
Yes, I have been standing on the side line watching for most of the time. You misunderstand me, I have never agreed with you. But it has been typical for your style to believe that if anyone has ANYTHING negative to say about Patton, it is a personal venegance against him. I believe that is a fanatical stand. You have tried to make it clear that you know alot about Patton. If I am in doubt wether Patton deserves all the hero-legends he has gotten or not, you had every opportunity to convince me of that. But you must argue better that just repeating quotes from obscure web-sites, trying to convince people by saying 'it is fact!' (why scould I believe you and not acclaimed historians?), and avoid getting personal. I think Patton deserves a better defence of his name and reputation.


Well, what a surprise.

You never agreed with me about Patton.

Who woulda guessed?

Well, my friend, the next time you are in a debate and are facing 5 to 1 odds most of the time, I will look forward to seeing how many of the dozens of posts that are thrown at you, you are capable of answering, let alone doing any research for.

That is if you can stand the heat. . .

Understand?

I like debate and discussion, too.

But what went on here is nothing of the sort.

The plain fact is that those who jumped into this discussion were out to destroy Patton's reputation. Absolutely NOTHING I said, wrote, produced, or evidence I had, was going to do anything to change their personal agendas.

Make no mistake about it - what went on here was NOT a discussion, and it never was a discussion.

Understand?

When I posted articles, when I repeated posts, etc, it was all done to basically survive the sheer number of posts that were being thrown at me. Plus, it was only one of the few ways I could get out Patton's views on things, or what others' thought of him.

This is what others' were doing to me to drive me out of this thread and discussion.

They were trying to drown me out by the sheer number of posts they could produce. I only retaliated.

I realized early on that this was NOT a discussion about Patton. It had the superficial appearance of being one. However, it was instead a lynch mob, and they were out for blood.

Absolutely NO evidence I could produce would change certain peoples' minds. Show them a roomful of positive evidence, and they'll dig for that grain of negative evidence. And if they can't find that negative grain of sand, then they'll just twist whatever they need to, to make it suit their purpose.

Understand?

If you can't see that, then all your time spent in this thread has been for not. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 2:47:37 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Error in 0)
Post #: 640
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 4:13:23 AM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Golf, Jallatryne,

After the frustrating experience I've had in this thread trying to get a straight debate, you will never know how much your comments are a lift to me. You wonder (in situations like this) whether anyone is noticing what you are saying when it is consistently ignored, and then wonder if it is missed when it is followed by the same stuff repeated over and over again as if it is an answer, without a thought for analysis, or any of the other things I thought good debate should have. Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated.

Golf,
I've started up the Monty thread, I seem to remember reading in the HTTR forum (I have HTTR and AA)that the engine was going to Normandy after the Aegean expansion, so I'm sure we can broaden the discussion to discuss the campaign as a whole if you're doing a little prep ahead of all that and have some opinions. One of the scenarios I've designed for Battlefields is Operation Epsom, but the campaign as a whole has always been a favourite (not least because the Wife's late Grandfather came ashore at D + 45 mins on Gold beach - Jig Green West.)

Cheers,
IronDuke



Please. . .

This is embarrassing. . .

Hopefully, you won't be out to destroy Monty's good name, as you were trying to do with Patton. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 2:15:13 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 641
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 4:44:56 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
I am also done with this thread. . .

It has been a very enlightening experience, in more ways than one.

Yes, this whole exercise has been a real eye-opener. . .

I now know why General Patton wanted to be buried in Europe among the fallen soldiers of his beloved Third Army. . .

Adieu...

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 4:19:55 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 642
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 1:27:22 PM   
EricGuitarJames

 

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

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Hopefully, you won't be out to destroy Monty's good name, as you were trying to do with Patton. . .


Despite bailing out in utter frustration it's been an experience reading through this.

Von Rom, if you read this, nobody has tried to destroy Patton's 'good name'. Everyone believes that Patton was a good general but some doubt he qualifies for greatness, it's a question of degrees and perspective that's all. I feel that your 'love' for Patton borders on the religious and this zeal seems to blind you to what the likes of Iron Duke, Kevinugly and Golf actually say.

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 643
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 3:59:22 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom wrote (of me)

quote:

Yet, you feel you must step in for him, even though the Lorraine campaign was between him and I.

I don't blame you though, his argument was sinking fast.


I don't see how you can say that since you haven't addressed the conclusions of the study that I posted. I will summarise (rather than reprint) these conclusions.

1) Patton failed to practice economy of force in both the September assault on Nancy by XII corps and the November assault on Metz by XX Corps.

2) Patton 'parceled out' his armour in small 'penny packets' rather than concentrating them for a decisive push as the German commanders in Lorraine feared he would.

3) By taking logistical shortcuts to maintain the advance in late August in neglecting the need for ammunition in favour of petrol he contributed heavily to his own logistics problems in the Lorraine campaign. This from a man quoted as saying - "Gentlemen, the officer who doesn't know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless."

Von Rom, you should either address these conclusions directly and in detail or you should fold. We are not dealing with the fictions of 'what if', we are dealing with what actually happened - Pattons command decisions. I will check in regularly to see whether you have taken the time to deal with this.


Kevinugly:

You don't have a leg to stand on even when it comes to the Lorraine Campaign. Not one.

You and Patton's other critics can't even fault Patton at Metz. . .

Why?

Read on:

General Patton Won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was short of supplies:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had no intelligence:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had little gas:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had very little ammo:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its soldiers removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its airforce removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to fight in torrential rains:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army suffered 18,000 cases of Trench Foot:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was counterattacked by Tigers and Panthers:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to assault the most heavily fortified place in Europe:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even with all this against him, General Patton STILL Won the Lorraine Campaign


Are you going to fold?



Still doesn't deal with the points made. It's not about 'winning' or 'losing' but with the proper application of force. Patton made a hash of the Lorraine campaign and thousands of brave American soldiers needlessly lost their lives because of his incompetance and arrogance.

quote:

GENERAL PATTON NEVER LOST A CAMPAIGN


ID has already posted a list of WW2 commanders who also never lost a campaign but if you want to rate Patton alongside a dolt like Mark Clark then be my guest.

I'd also point out that Pattons hero was Hannibal, a commander who never actually won a campaign, was decisively beaten by Scipio at Zama and ended his life by commiting suicide whilst on the run from the Romans. Nevertheless, he is still held up as a military genius. Another great commander is Robert E. Lee yet he was defeated in several campaigns before ignominiously surrendering at Appomattox. Yet by your standard, these commanders would be held up as total failures! I hope this illustrates how absurd your position is.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 644
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 5:54:02 PM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Hopefully, you won't be out to destroy Monty's good name, as you were trying to do with Patton. . .


Despite bailing out in utter frustration it's been an experience reading through this.

Von Rom, if you read this, nobody has tried to destroy Patton's 'good name'. Everyone believes that Patton was a good general but some doubt he qualifies for greatness, it's a question of degrees and perspective that's all. I feel that your 'love' for Patton borders on the religious and this zeal seems to blind you to what the likes of Iron Duke, Kevinugly and Golf actually say.


Heheh

Not out to destroy Patton's name?

Heheh

A question of degrees?

Heheh

That's right - attack MY character now.

Heheh

I was the only person willing to stand up to the Patton bashing. And that is ALL it was.

I know Patton wasn't wasn't perfect; he had flaws.

He knew that himself - but all he wanted to do was fight. And he proved he could fight.

History and his achievements bear witness to his acts far better than I ever can.

However, NOTHING Patton did - was good enough - especially for the Patton bashers in this thread.

Get it?

I make no apologies for standing up for his good name.

Example:

People bash Patton over his attacking Metz. Why, they exclaim would he attack Metz?

The simple answer is - that Metz was the KEY to the entire Moselle Front, because of its road and rail networks. The heavy rains in Lorraine in the fall, plus the fields, trees and hills all dictated the fact that those roads were absolutely vital for any movement through Lorraine.

Yet, I'll bet not a single Patton basher knew that.

Even with half of Third Army and half of his airforce removed, even with little gas and few supplies, and even with the beavy rains, Patton STILL won at Lorraine.

Even though almost eveything was done to try to ensure Patton's defeat in Lorraine, he still achieved victory.

Yet, the Patton bashers simply turn up their noses and say, "yes, yes", but what of the "degree" of victory. . .

They say, "True, Patton took Nancy; true he took Metz; true his troops fought in appalling conditions; true the 4th armoured division fought off several panzer counterattacks of Tiger and Panther tanks; but what we really want to know is - how many engineers does it really take to set-up a pontoon bridge? What we really want to know is how many bullets did the German soldier in the Metz fortress really have?"

Get it?

No evidence is good enough for the Patton bashers.

In fact, they are so determined to destroy Patton's name, that it really borders on the pathological.

Even many of the most recent comments by people are simply appalling, especially about Patton's prayer to his troops.

Simply appalling.

I would have to say that the SAME people here who bash Patton are really a congregation of over-zealous Patton bashers, chanting the same slogans; chanting the same character assassinations, and are the true religious fanatics. Did you know that religious fanatics travelled in packs? It's true - they hunt down and kill the unbelieving - the lone voice who won't submit.

And afterwards? They all pat themselves on the back for a job well done - for silencing another independent voice. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 4:30:39 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 645
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 6:13:57 PM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom wrote (of me)

quote:

Yet, you feel you must step in for him, even though the Lorraine campaign was between him and I.

I don't blame you though, his argument was sinking fast.


I don't see how you can say that since you haven't addressed the conclusions of the study that I posted. I will summarise (rather than reprint) these conclusions.

1) Patton failed to practice economy of force in both the September assault on Nancy by XII corps and the November assault on Metz by XX Corps.

2) Patton 'parceled out' his armour in small 'penny packets' rather than concentrating them for a decisive push as the German commanders in Lorraine feared he would.

3) By taking logistical shortcuts to maintain the advance in late August in neglecting the need for ammunition in favour of petrol he contributed heavily to his own logistics problems in the Lorraine campaign. This from a man quoted as saying - "Gentlemen, the officer who doesn't know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless."

Von Rom, you should either address these conclusions directly and in detail or you should fold. We are not dealing with the fictions of 'what if', we are dealing with what actually happened - Pattons command decisions. I will check in regularly to see whether you have taken the time to deal with this.


Kevinugly:

You don't have a leg to stand on even when it comes to the Lorraine Campaign. Not one.

You and Patton's other critics can't even fault Patton at Metz. . .

Why?

Read on:

General Patton Won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was short of supplies:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had no intelligence:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had little gas:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had very little ammo:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its soldiers removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its airforce removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to fight in torrential rains:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army suffered 18,000 cases of Trench Foot:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was counterattacked by Tigers and Panthers:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to assault the most heavily fortified place in Europe:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even with all this against him, General Patton STILL Won the Lorraine Campaign


Are you going to fold?



Still doesn't deal with the points made. It's not about 'winning' or 'losing' but with the proper application of force. Patton made a hash of the Lorraine campaign and thousands of brave American soldiers needlessly lost their lives because of his incompetance and arrogance.

quote:

GENERAL PATTON NEVER LOST A CAMPAIGN


ID has already posted a list of WW2 commanders who also never lost a campaign but if you want to rate Patton alongside a dolt like Mark Clark then be my guest.

I'd also point out that Pattons hero was Hannibal, a commander who never actually won a campaign, was decisively beaten by Scipio at Zama and ended his life by commiting suicide whilst on the run from the Romans. Nevertheless, he is still held up as a military genius. Another great commander is Robert E. Lee yet he was defeated in several campaigns before ignominiously surrendering at Appomattox. Yet by your standard, these commanders would be held up as total failures! I hope this illustrates how absurd your position is.



quote:

It's not about 'winning' or 'losing' but with the proper application of force. Patton made a hash of the Lorraine campaign and thousands of brave American soldiers needlessly lost their lives because of his incompetance and arrogance.



Well, well Kevinugly. . .

You rise and make another appearance.

Thoughtful as ever in your analysis.

I am so glad you are not a Patton basher - and are sticking to just the facts

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 646
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 7:51:16 PM   
riverbravo


Posts: 1320
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


No evidence is good enough for the Patton bashers.

In fact, they are so determined to destroy Patton's name, that it really borders on the pathological.

Even many of the most recent comments by people are simply appalling, especially about Patton's prayer to his troops.

Simply appalling.

I would have to say that the SAME people here who bash Patton are really a congregation of over-zealous Patton bashers, chanting the same slogans; chanting the same character assassinations, and are the true religious fanatics. Did you know that religious fanatics travelled in packs? It's true - they hunt down and kill the unbelieving - the lone voice who won't submit.

And afterwards? They all pat themselves on the back for a job well done - for silencing another independent voice. . .


Wow...Pretty heavy one man crusade for patton you got going on there Von Rom!

Have you designed youre own tank uniforms too

Patton will/is a "hall of fame" General,at least he will be in the US.

Patton did some great things but he also had his own demons.I would say fanatacism would be one of them.His own fanatacism and "its my way or the hi-way" attitude knocked hiself out of the battle.Did he think he was above the standard for the code by wich military commanders must abide by?

Another demon of Patton's was his unquenchable thirst for glory.Well,how noble of him to want to be buried with his boys."His boys" the boys that died for good ole "blood and guts".Im sure they were more than happy to pay the price so patton could get his name spread around.

Patton was a great general,I prefer him to Monty,his nemisis,so to speak.You could also argue that patton did more damage than good buy having to be disciplined and "sit out" for a while.A lot of good it does to have youre top armor commander doing PR work and making apoligy speeches.

Perhaps Patton should have looked to his one time subordinate for inspiration and how to conduct himself.....Bradley.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 647
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 8:25:53 PM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


No evidence is good enough for the Patton bashers.

In fact, they are so determined to destroy Patton's name, that it really borders on the pathological.

Even many of the most recent comments by people are simply appalling, especially about Patton's prayer to his troops.

Simply appalling.

I would have to say that the SAME people here who bash Patton are really a congregation of over-zealous Patton bashers, chanting the same slogans; chanting the same character assassinations, and are the true religious fanatics. Did you know that religious fanatics travelled in packs? It's true - they hunt down and kill the unbelieving - the lone voice who won't submit.

And afterwards? They all pat themselves on the back for a job well done - for silencing another independent voice. . .


Wow...Pretty heavy one man crusade for patton you got going on there Von Rom!

Have you designed youre own tank uniforms too

Patton will/is a "hall of fame" General,at least he will be in the US.

Patton did some great things but he also had his own demons.I would say fanatacism would be one of them.His own fanatacism and "its my way or the hi-way" attitude knocked hiself out of the battle.Did he think he was above the standard for the code by wich military commanders must abide by?

Another demon of Patton's was his unquenchable thirst for glory.Well,how noble of him to want to be buried with his boys."His boys" the boys that died for good ole "blood and guts".Im sure they were more than happy to pay the price so patton could get his name spread around.

Patton was a great general,I prefer him to Monty,his nemisis,so to speak.You could also argue that patton did more damage than good buy having to be disciplined and "sit out" for a while.A lot of good it does to have youre top armor commander doing PR work and making apoligy speeches.

Perhaps Patton should have looked to his one time subordinate for inspiration and how to conduct himself.....Bradley.


Well, riverbravo, welcome:

Well, with all the Patton bashing, someone has to give voice to other views.

It seems to be the same handful of people who bash Patton.

quote:

Patton did some great things but he also had his own demons.I would say fanatacism would be one of them.His own fanatacism and "its my way or the hi-way" attitude knocked hiself out of the battle.Did he think he was above the standard for the code by wich military commanders must abide by?


Give me ONE example.

quote:

Another demon of Patton's was his unquenchable thirst for glory.Well,how noble of him to want to be buried with his boys."His boys" the boys that died for good ole "blood and guts".Im sure they were more than happy to pay the price so patton could get his name spread around



Give me ONE example.

quote:

Patton was a great general,I prefer him to Monty,his nemisis,so to speak


Agreed.

quote:

You could also argue that patton did more damage than good buy having to be disciplined and "sit out" for a while.A lot of good it does to have youre top armor commander doing PR work and making apoligy speeches.


I guess you mean the slapping incidents.

As Patton said: "What is a little slap, compared to men dying in battle?"

When Bradley first got the report of it, he considered it so inconsequential that he filed it away.

It was not until THREE MONTHS later that a reporter by the name of Drew Pearson, got hold of this info, and decided to embark on a campaign to drag Patton's name through the mud.

D'Este, in "Patton: A Genius For War" mentions that "there is certainly sufficient evidence to conclude that there were a handful of anti-Patton journalists who sought (and on September 22, 1945, found) a means to either demean (or, better yet, destroy) Patton. . ." (p.766).

It seems that some journalists and some papers in the US were out to destroy Patton even for the slightest things he did.

People should ask themselves:

Why were a handful of newspapers and journalists out to destroy Patton? Who owned those newspapers and why would they allow journalists to attack Patton, even with little or no evidence to support those attacks?

Even the Germans couldn't understand why the Allies' BEST general was removed from command because of a slapping.

D'Este (on page 545) mentions that the Germans were perplexed "over what the fuss was all about. In the German army it was not unusual for a soldier accused of malingering or cowardice to be summarily shot without recourse or trial. Why, they wondered, when success in battle was far more important than personal deportment, would the Americans even consider jeopardizing their own effort by punishing their most 'thrustful' leader?"

While I don't agree with the slapping, it has to be placed in perspective of war. As Patton, himself, mentioned, he was only trying to restore in that man some measure of self respect. The soldier himself, believed that he deserved that slapping and did NOT believe Patton owed him an apology.

What is not shown in the movie "Patton" is that Third Army would not allow Patton to apologize to them. When Patton went to make the apology, his soldiers cheered him so loudly, his words could not be heard. They shouted: "No General. No, No, No. . ."

Patton then broke down and wept.

Although, his superiors punished Patton; it was in fact the Allied war effort that was punished by having Patton sit out of the war for nine months, rather than in leading armies.

Patton would have been quite effective at Anzio if he had been there commanding the breakout.

Yet, what the Germans couldn't do to Patton - stop him - the Allied High Command, and handful of reporters, did do.

quote:

Perhaps Patton should have looked to his one time subordinate for inspiration and how to conduct himself.....Bradley


Bradley was a good, solid general; Patton was a prima donna; a show off.

But behind that bluster was action - and Patton proved by his actions he was a fighter.

Bradley, on the other hand, was a bit too timid, especially at Falaise. Later, he admitted not closing the Gap was a mistake.

Patton knew that in battle timidity cost men their lives. Many of the soldiers who escaped from Falaise would later turn up to fight in the Bulge and at Lorriane.

Interestingly, by the time the Lorraine Campaign rolled around, Bradley was coming around to Patton's views and argued with Ike to allow 1st and 3rd armies to punch through the German lines and push for Germany.

Ike refused.

Bradley also sided with Patton in the Bulge against Ike and Monty.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 7:18:25 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 648
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 9:26:59 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

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

I would have to say that the SAME people here who bash Patton are really a congregation of over-zealous Patton bashers, chanting the same slogans; chanting the same character assassinations, and are the true religious fanatics. Did you know that religious fanatics travelled in packs? It's true - they hunt down and kill the unbelieving - the lone voice who won't submit.


RiverBravo:
Our side of the argument don't quote prayers, carry signed photos, pictures of helmets and hallowed poetic words from the Morrocans. I appreciate your input, but this thread got mystical a page or so ago when it was pointed out Patton decorated his chaplain when the weather turned during the Bulge. It's not a place of rationality anymore.

quote:

And afterwards? They all pat themselves on the back for a job well done - for silencing another independent voice. . .


We do not share a definition of independent as this person. This is an opinion. Please judge for yourself, Friend. That said, I can appreciate there's an awful lot here, and I wouldn't relish the job of looking through it.

quote:

It seems to be the same handful of people who bash Patton.


It's an ever increasing band, although there's only one who defends him. It kinda suggests people's reading of the evidence brings them down against him at times. I'd be interested to hear which of the evidence presented you've found most compelling (as opposed to what you already believed when you arrived here).


quote:

Patton did some great things but he also had his own demons.I would say fanatacism would be one of them.His own fanatacism and "its my way or the hi-way" attitude knocked hiself out of the battle.Did he think he was above the standard for the code by wich military commanders must abide by?


quote:

Von Rom: Give me ONE example.


RiverBravo I'd cite:
Hammelburg. 304 Americans sent on a dangerous mission behind enemy lines because Patton believed (or suspected) that a family relative was incarcerated there. The Task force was cut to pieces. No other Military Leader during WWII used his nation's troops for a mission driven out of self interest like this. It clearly demonstrates he felt he was above the standard other Commanders abided by. (Actually, that might not strictly be true, some AXIS Leaders did use troops for their own ends, so I'll qualify it. No other Allied General did.)


quote:

Riverbravo: Another demon of Patton's was his unquenchable thirst for glory.Well,how noble of him to want to be buried with his boys."His boys" the boys that died for good ole "blood and guts".Im sure they were more than happy to pay the price so patton could get his name spread around


quote:

Von Rom: Give me ONE example.


RiverBravo: I'd cite Metz. D'Este illustrates how as the height of the attacks, with casualties mounting, Patton was urging people on because he wanted to present the city to Marshall during his forthcoming visit to 3rd Army. Launching attacks in order to present the head of the army with a present sounds like glory hunting to me.

If you want a second example, try Palermo. Strategically pointless drive to catch the headlines. To be fair to Patton, he wasn't the only offender. Monty had his moments, and neither Patton nor Monty ever did anything like Clark did in Rome, so it has to be placed in perspective. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing either, provided you never lose sight of military objectivity when chasing the glory. I'm afraid I felt the above examples show Patton did.

Regards,
Ironduke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 649
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 9:29:39 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

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

Another demon of Patton's was his unquenchable thirst for glory.Well,how noble of him to want to be buried with his boys."His boys" the boys that died for good ole "blood and guts".Im sure they were more than happy to pay the price so patton could get his name spread around.


Riverbravo,
I seem to remember somewhere reading that the men of third army twisted this and used to say "Our Blood, his guts". Know anything about this? I've been searching for the reference, but not traced it yet.
I think I know where I read it, but it'll take a little time to find because it isn't the sort of thing that gets into the index. It's interesting because it suggests a certain cynicism.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 650
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 9:42:44 PM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

I would have to say that the SAME people here who bash Patton are really a congregation of over-zealous Patton bashers, chanting the same slogans; chanting the same character assassinations, and are the true religious fanatics. Did you know that religious fanatics travelled in packs? It's true - they hunt down and kill the unbelieving - the lone voice who won't submit.


RiverBravo:
Our side of the argument don't quote prayers, carry signed photos, pictures of helmets and hallowed poetic words from the Morrocans. I appreciate your input, but this thread got mystical a page or so ago when it was pointed out Patton decorated his chaplain when the weather turned during the Bulge. It's not a place of rationality anymore.

quote:

And afterwards? They all pat themselves on the back for a job well done - for silencing another independent voice. . .


We do not share a definition of independent as this person. This is an opinion. Please judge for yourself, Friend. That said, I can appreciate there's an awful lot here, and I wouldn't relish the job of looking through it.

quote:

It seems to be the same handful of people who bash Patton.


It's an ever increasing band, although there's only one who defends him. It kinda suggests people's reading of the evidence brings them down against him at times. I'd be interested to hear which of the evidence presented you've found most compelling (as opposed to what you already believed when you arrived here).


quote:

Patton did some great things but he also had his own demons.I would say fanatacism would be one of them.His own fanatacism and "its my way or the hi-way" attitude knocked hiself out of the battle.Did he think he was above the standard for the code by wich military commanders must abide by?


quote:

Von Rom: Give me ONE example.


RiverBravo I'd cite:
Hammelburg. 304 Americans sent on a dangerous mission behind enemy lines because Patton believed (or suspected) that a family relative was incarcerated there. The Task force was cut to pieces. No other Military Leader during WWII used his nation's troops for a mission driven out of self interest like this. It clearly demonstrates he felt he was above the standard other Commanders abided by. (Actually, that might not strictly be true, some AXIS Leaders did use troops for their own ends, so I'll qualify it. No other Allied General did.)


quote:

Riverbravo: Another demon of Patton's was his unquenchable thirst for glory.Well,how noble of him to want to be buried with his boys."His boys" the boys that died for good ole "blood and guts".Im sure they were more than happy to pay the price so patton could get his name spread around


quote:

Von Rom: Give me ONE example.


RiverBravo: I'd cite Metz. D'Este illustrates how as the height of the attacks, with casualties mounting, Patton was urging people on because he wanted to present the city to Marshall during his forthcoming visit to 3rd Army. Launching attacks in order to present the head of the army with a present sounds like glory hunting to me.

If you want a second example, try Palermo. Strategically pointless drive to catch the headlines. To be fair to Patton, he wasn't the only offender. Monty had his moments, and neither Patton nor Monty ever did anything like Clark did in Rome, so it has to be placed in perspective. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing either, provided you never lose sight of military objectivity when chasing the glory. I'm afraid I felt the above examples show Patton did.

Regards,
Ironduke



Ironduke:

Not enough action in your Monty thread?

Or is it too boring with all the fanboys agreeing on bashing Monty?

It seems the same handful of people who bashed Patton are now bashing Monty. . .

It is true that "religious fanatics" travel in packs, seeking whom they may devour. . .

I posted Patton's picture so your "Congregation of Patton Bashers" could see on a daily basis who you were bashing. And that you could see how respected Patton was by the Moroccan Gov't.

Heheh

I didn't think that you or any of your fanboys would have a clue as to why I posted Patton's picture in my signature.

As to displaying Patton's picture in my signature:

It's an old legal stratagem: Display a victim's picture in front of the victim's accusers. . .


As usual, your analysis is so one-sided as to be laughable. . .

But please don't let the facts get in the way of your over-zealous opinions. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 7:59:12 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 651
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 10:22:56 PM   
riverbravo


Posts: 1320
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline
Do you think Patton really would have driven so hard to palermo if he didnt think it would gain some fame and kick a bit of dirt on Monty?

Friendly rivalry is one thing but other peoples lives are at stake.

The slapping incident....yes..Did he not have the sense to just walk away.Have an underling punish the coward,put him in a mess unit...whatever...Just slap some sense into him,that'll do it.Was he so caught up in himself and thought everyone feared him so much that somebody wouldnt tell?He mite have had his boys scared of him but the people he crossed outside of his unit were probably waiting for a shot.Once again his hot-head gets him trouble.You cant blame the crap-diggers for digging things up that are true.

The chaplain thing,well....whatever he choses to do.He is in command.IMO,bad move,a strike against him for a borderline loon call on that one.Was the chaplain a relative?

I had heard something about him using troops for some kind of personal deal with family.I dont know specifics and will have to look into it.If in fact true thats way outta line.

Also,the signed card thing,that seems a bit like the german fighter aces anf their cards....once again ...glory seeking.

Patton wanted to fight and wanted glory ....fine,no problem with that but glory finds you,you dont seek it.

The blood and guts thing.Another of pattons nicknames that was twisted by the troops to a more fitting slogan to better show his glorious ways.

Patton overall was a good General and the only one that really scared the Germans.Unfortunatly Pattons legacy will be tarnished by the things he did on and off the battlefield and things that were completely his doing.All the bad press Patton got he called down on himself.

Like all good Generals, a controversial figure to say the least.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 652
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 10:54:23 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

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


Ironduke:

Not enough action in your Monty thread?

Or is it too boring with all the fanboys agreeing on bashing Monty?

It seems the same handful of people who bashed Patton are now bashing Monty. . .

It is true that "religious fanatics" travel in packs, seeking whom they may devour. . .

I posted Patton's picture so your "Congregation of Patton Bashers" could see on a daily basis who you were bashing. And that you could see how respected Patton was by the Moroccan Gov't.


This is paranoia, I don't know anything about this so will refrain from comment. I would say why didn't you tell us the Morroccan Government liked him, I would have refrained from posting over 19 pages had I know this.

quote:

Heheh

I didn't think that you or any of your fanboys would have a clue as to why I posted Patton's picture in my signature.

As to displaying Patton's picture in my signature:

It's an old legal stratagem: Display a victim's picture in front of the victim's accusers. . .


As usual, your analysis is so one-sided as to be laughable. . .

But please don't let the facts get in the way of your over-zealous opinions. . .


It's also an old legal strategm to ignore uncomfortable arguments you can't answer by saying "This argument is so silly, I can't be bothered to answer." I've answered all of your posts, even where they were quite clearly nonsense. It's another strategm to claim the other side have no facts, when that is all they have presented. If the Hammelburg raid did not take place, tell the world. If I am proved wrong, I will apologise publicly. Otherwise, this is dodging the issue. The sign of a bankrupt argument, unfortunately.

IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 653
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 10:59:48 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

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

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

Do you think Patton really would have driven so hard to palermo if he didnt think it would gain some fame and kick a bit of dirt on Monty?

Friendly rivalry is one thing but other peoples lives are at stake.

The slapping incident....yes..Did he not have the sense to just walk away.Have an underling punish the coward,put him in a mess unit...whatever...Just slap some sense into him,that'll do it.Was he so caught up in himself and thought everyone feared him so much that somebody wouldnt tell?He mite have had his boys scared of him but the people he crossed outside of his unit were probably waiting for a shot.Once again his hot-head gets him trouble.You cant blame the crap-diggers for digging things up that are true.

The chaplain thing,well....whatever he choses to do.He is in command.IMO,bad move,a strike against him for a borderline loon call on that one.Was the chaplain a relative?

I had heard something about him using troops for some kind of personal deal with family.I dont know specifics and will have to look into it.If in fact true thats way outta line.

Also,the signed card thing,that seems a bit like the german fighter aces anf their cards....once again ...glory seeking.

Patton wanted to fight and wanted glory ....fine,no problem with that but glory finds you,you dont seek it.

The blood and guts thing.Another of pattons nicknames that was twisted by the troops to a more fitting slogan to better show his glorious ways.

Patton overall was a good General and the only one that really scared the Germans.Unfortunatly Pattons legacy will be tarnished by the things he did on and off the battlefield and things that were completely his doing.All the bad press Patton got he called down on himself.

Like all good Generals, a controversial figure to say the least.


It's usually referred to as the Hammelburg incident. Towards the bottom of page 19 of this thread, I have written about the incident. Most of what I have written is quoted from history books, which I have referenced, so you can see little of it is opinion (or rather, it is historian's opinion, not mine).
You can see which authorities it all comes from and make your own judgement.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 654
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/27/2004 11:36:41 PM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline
Gentlemen

I am calling a truce to the fighting here. If I find any more name calling or insults being posted people will not be happy with my next move. Keep it civil or else.

David

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 655
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/28/2004 12:26:15 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Well, well Kevinugly. . .

You rise and make another appearance.

Thoughtful as ever in your analysis.

I am so glad you are not a Patton basher - and are sticking to just the facts


Sarcasm

Sticking to the facts is all I do. And I'm STILL waiting for your analysis.

Here, I'll help you though -

From - http://www.qmfound.com/pol.htm

"While Patton was racing through France consuming an average of 350,000 gallons of gasoline each day, the famous Red Ball Express was organized to meet his growing demands as well as those of the First Army. Essentially a nonstop convoy of trucks connecting supply depots in Normandy to the armies in the field, the Red Ball at its peak used 6,000 trucks to complete its missions. As Patton advanced deeper, the demands placed upon the Red Ball grew faster than it was able to supply. Using 300,000 gallons of fuel each day itself, the Express pointed out what was becoming grossly obvious to tactical commanders, the Allies were running out of gas. On 28 August, Patton's army was forced to ease up when its fuel allocation fell 100,000 gallons short. Even though gasoline was in abundance in Normandy, the Red Ball could not transport it in sufficient quantities to the Third's forward units. On 31 August, after receiving no fuel at all, Patton's spearheads came to a halt.

During the next week, as Patton idled in park, General Dwight D. Eisenhower gave logistics priority and fuel allocations to units farther north. By the time normal fuel allocations resumed in the Third Army, the opportunity to sweep through Lorraine freely had passed by Patton.

Concurrently with his fuel problems, Patton experienced two other situations which began to jab at his side during this first part of September. First, as the Third Army became more stationary, it began to use its larger caliber artillery weapons, causing an ammunition shortage. There was no way to build up ammunition stockage because all available trucks were transporting fuel. As the Lorraine campaign continued, shortages would also be felt in clothing, rations, tires and antifreeze for the quickly approaching winter months.

Massing Forces

Secondly, as Patton's armies waited for the supply train to catch up, the Germans were massing forces throughout Lorraine. Hitler ordered soldiers into the area at once and their numbers would increase greatly. Even though still outnumbered by Patton's forces and superior firepower (estimated at 20 to 1 in tanks), these German forces, made up of many sick, deaf and garrison soldiers, would contest every inch of ground. This resistance caused the Third Army to fight considerably harder than they were accustomed during the first months of the campaign. Patton's two Corps, the XX and the XII, made up of four to six infantry divisions and two or three armor divisions, would be responsible for most fighting during the next bloody months in France.

In 1944, an armor division was relatively small compared to today. With 11,000 men and 263 tanks, it had three tank battalions, three battalions of armored infantry and three battalions of self- propelled artillery. Tactical doctrine of the day said that the armor division was primarily a weapon of exploitation to be used after the infantry achieved initial penetration into enemy defenses. This doctrine suited Patton to a tee, as he employed the mobile, quick-moving M-4 Sherman tank with its multipurpose 75mm gun. Patton's success, largely due to his understanding and use of heavy armored vehicles, made him the chief concern of the German armies of the time.

On 25 September, Patton was ordered to halt and to hold his ground until the logistical tail could restock itself before continuing. Patton, not being one to sit around and wait, established outposts, while maintaining active reserve contingency forces, and began to restock his own logistical base from within. Strict gasoline rationing and using mortars instead of large caliber weapon rounds lessened the initial two concerns of the Third Army. How do you resupply a heavy armor division in combat? Here's how Patton did it.

Quartermasters Important

First, Patton ordered stringent accountability of all supplies. The Quartermasters, due in large part to the severity of the crisis, were elevated in importance. Patton relied upon them for guidance and expertise. In addition to rationing supplies, he ordered that a supply base of reserves be stored within the Third Army for when they became fully operational again. His intelligence officers provided data on German movements in the area, and Patton wanted to be ready to move out at full speed when told to do so. No stopping the Third Army now, Patton must have thought. He did not realize then that he would basically be stationary until 8 Nov 44.

While better managing his own supplies, Patton also used other means of collecting additional assets from the local areas. Supplies and equipment from captured German forces were put to great use replenishing the Allied stocks. Once it was even reported that an artillery barrage from the XX Corps zone came from captured German 105mm howitzers, Russian-made 76.2mm guns, French 155mm howitzers (also captured from the Germans), and German 88mm antitank guns. During one period in October, 80 percent of artillery ammunition used by XX Corps was captured from German units.

Another key factor in resupplying Patton's Third Army was his use of what we now call "host nation support" from the French. As he was chasing the Germans through France, Patton became very familiar with the extensive French railroad network. Fortunately, it was left virtually undamaged by the Germans as they retreated through the country. Working with French civilians, the Third Army operated these railroads themselves, at times bringing supplies farther forward than ever before. In addition to the railroads, French factories provided relief for the Allies in such areas as repairing tank engines, building tank escape hatches and track extenders (which increased the tanks' mobility in the muddy terrain), supplying thousands of gallons of alcohol instead of the scarce Prestone antifreeze, reopening coal mines and dry-cleaning plants, and turning the rubber manufacturing plants over to Patton for the production of much-needed fan belts and tires.

Panzer Divisions

By the time November rolled around and the Third Army was able to start moving again, they had replenished their depleted stocks and had built a substantial reserve. With many of his logistical nightmares behind him for the moment, Patton could concentrate on the tactical campaign at hand and the difficulties that he was experiencing with the feared German panzer divisions. Even though greatly outnumbered, the Germans took advantage of Patton's weaknesses in neglecting to practice economy of force and were able to wage several counterattacks into the Allied forces. Patton believed that he should spread out his Third Army over a vast front so that he would be strong in all areas. This philosophy backfired on him, however, because the forces were spread too thin and were not particularly strong anywhere. As a result of this error, heavy doctrine changed after the war from fighting dispersed to marching dispersed but fighting concentrated and tight. Patton's Third Army suffered many casualties for not realizing this sooner against the German armies.

The campaign through Lorraine. France, in World War II truly demonstrated that logistics is the key to battle. Patton was an aggressive and powerful commander, but logistics controlled his ability to maneuver. At the beginning of the campaign, when he raced through France gambling with tactics and doctrine wherever he went, he achieved great successes. However, by September he realized that eventually in logistics you must repay and restock the hands that are feeding you. His neglect of fuel and ammunition shortages cost the entire army until finally he was forced to stop and regroup. His reliance on the Red Ball Express was too great. Not until he realized that it was consuming more than it was delivering did Patton turn to the more reliable means of rail transport and local requisitioning for resupply.

Patton's Third Army during the Lorraine campaign could not declare complete victory. In just over three months, the Third Army suffered 50,000 casualties and lost enormous amounts of equipment. The real victory of Lorraine was the soldier's ability to maintain the fight and the logisticians' ability to resupply the force. Fighting seemingly insurmountable odds and harsh weather conditions, Quartermasters of the day came through by using ingenuity, expertise, sheer hard work and determination.

Fight for Today

Look at the past, look towards the future, fight for today. Logisticians must be able to adapt and overcome, whatever odds may be in their way. The battle must continue for us all to win. Patton summed it up this way:

"You know that I have never asked one of you to go where I have feared to tread. I have been criticized for this, but there are many General Pattons and there is only one Third Army. I can be expended, but the Third Army must and will be victorious."

Leaders come and go, but the Army and the battle will continue. Will you be ready to support?

At the time this article was published, CPT Daniel G. Grassi was the Military Editor of the Quartermaster Professional Bulletin. He has a bachelor of arts degree in history from Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina. He is also a graduate of the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Quartermaster Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, Subsistence Officer Course, Contracting Officers Representative Course and the Installation Logistics Management Course. His previous assignments include Fire Direction Officer, Battery Executive Officer, Assistant Brigade S4, Troop Issue Subsistence Officer, Retail Services Officer, Battalion S1 and Commander, Uniform Company, 262d Quartermaster Battalion, Fort Lee, Virginia."

There is more to this article although the all the salient points are here.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to David Heath)
Post #: 656
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/28/2004 12:55:36 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

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

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

Well, well Kevinugly. . .

You rise and make another appearance.

Thoughtful as ever in your analysis.

I am so glad you are not a Patton basher - and are sticking to just the facts


Sarcasm

Sticking to the facts is all I do. And I'm STILL waiting for your analysis.

Here, I'll help you though -

From - http://www.qmfound.com/pol.htm

"While Patton was racing through France consuming an average of 350,000 gallons of gasoline each day, the famous Red Ball Express was organized to meet his growing demands as well as those of the First Army. Essentially a nonstop convoy of trucks connecting supply depots in Normandy to the armies in the field, the Red Ball at its peak used 6,000 trucks to complete its missions. As Patton advanced deeper, the demands placed upon the Red Ball grew faster than it was able to supply. Using 300,000 gallons of fuel each day itself, the Express pointed out what was becoming grossly obvious to tactical commanders, the Allies were running out of gas. On 28 August, Patton's army was forced to ease up when its fuel allocation fell 100,000 gallons short. Even though gasoline was in abundance in Normandy, the Red Ball could not transport it in sufficient quantities to the Third's forward units. On 31 August, after receiving no fuel at all, Patton's spearheads came to a halt.

During the next week, as Patton idled in park, General Dwight D. Eisenhower gave logistics priority and fuel allocations to units farther north. By the time normal fuel allocations resumed in the Third Army, the opportunity to sweep through Lorraine freely had passed by Patton.

Concurrently with his fuel problems, Patton experienced two other situations which began to jab at his side during this first part of September. First, as the Third Army became more stationary, it began to use its larger caliber artillery weapons, causing an ammunition shortage. There was no way to build up ammunition stockage because all available trucks were transporting fuel. As the Lorraine campaign continued, shortages would also be felt in clothing, rations, tires and antifreeze for the quickly approaching winter months.

Massing Forces

Secondly, as Patton's armies waited for the supply train to catch up, the Germans were massing forces throughout Lorraine. Hitler ordered soldiers into the area at once and their numbers would increase greatly. Even though still outnumbered by Patton's forces and superior firepower (estimated at 20 to 1 in tanks), these German forces, made up of many sick, deaf and garrison soldiers, would contest every inch of ground. This resistance caused the Third Army to fight considerably harder than they were accustomed during the first months of the campaign. Patton's two Corps, the XX and the XII, made up of four to six infantry divisions and two or three armor divisions, would be responsible for most fighting during the next bloody months in France.

In 1944, an armor division was relatively small compared to today. With 11,000 men and 263 tanks, it had three tank battalions, three battalions of armored infantry and three battalions of self- propelled artillery. Tactical doctrine of the day said that the armor division was primarily a weapon of exploitation to be used after the infantry achieved initial penetration into enemy defenses. This doctrine suited Patton to a tee, as he employed the mobile, quick-moving M-4 Sherman tank with its multipurpose 75mm gun. Patton's success, largely due to his understanding and use of heavy armored vehicles, made him the chief concern of the German armies of the time.

On 25 September, Patton was ordered to halt and to hold his ground until the logistical tail could restock itself before continuing. Patton, not being one to sit around and wait, established outposts, while maintaining active reserve contingency forces, and began to restock his own logistical base from within. Strict gasoline rationing and using mortars instead of large caliber weapon rounds lessened the initial two concerns of the Third Army. How do you resupply a heavy armor division in combat? Here's how Patton did it.

Quartermasters Important

First, Patton ordered stringent accountability of all supplies. The Quartermasters, due in large part to the severity of the crisis, were elevated in importance. Patton relied upon them for guidance and expertise. In addition to rationing supplies, he ordered that a supply base of reserves be stored within the Third Army for when they became fully operational again. His intelligence officers provided data on German movements in the area, and Patton wanted to be ready to move out at full speed when told to do so. No stopping the Third Army now, Patton must have thought. He did not realize then that he would basically be stationary until 8 Nov 44.

While better managing his own supplies, Patton also used other means of collecting additional assets from the local areas. Supplies and equipment from captured German forces were put to great use replenishing the Allied stocks. Once it was even reported that an artillery barrage from the XX Corps zone came from captured German 105mm howitzers, Russian-made 76.2mm guns, French 155mm howitzers (also captured from the Germans), and German 88mm antitank guns. During one period in October, 80 percent of artillery ammunition used by XX Corps was captured from German units.

Another key factor in resupplying Patton's Third Army was his use of what we now call "host nation support" from the French. As he was chasing the Germans through France, Patton became very familiar with the extensive French railroad network. Fortunately, it was left virtually undamaged by the Germans as they retreated through the country. Working with French civilians, the Third Army operated these railroads themselves, at times bringing supplies farther forward than ever before. In addition to the railroads, French factories provided relief for the Allies in such areas as repairing tank engines, building tank escape hatches and track extenders (which increased the tanks' mobility in the muddy terrain), supplying thousands of gallons of alcohol instead of the scarce Prestone antifreeze, reopening coal mines and dry-cleaning plants, and turning the rubber manufacturing plants over to Patton for the production of much-needed fan belts and tires.

Panzer Divisions

By the time November rolled around and the Third Army was able to start moving again, they had replenished their depleted stocks and had built a substantial reserve. With many of his logistical nightmares behind him for the moment, Patton could concentrate on the tactical campaign at hand and the difficulties that he was experiencing with the feared German panzer divisions. Even though greatly outnumbered, the Germans took advantage of Patton's weaknesses in neglecting to practice economy of force and were able to wage several counterattacks into the Allied forces. Patton believed that he should spread out his Third Army over a vast front so that he would be strong in all areas. This philosophy backfired on him, however, because the forces were spread too thin and were not particularly strong anywhere. As a result of this error, heavy doctrine changed after the war from fighting dispersed to marching dispersed but fighting concentrated and tight. Patton's Third Army suffered many casualties for not realizing this sooner against the German armies.

The campaign through Lorraine. France, in World War II truly demonstrated that logistics is the key to battle. Patton was an aggressive and powerful commander, but logistics controlled his ability to maneuver. At the beginning of the campaign, when he raced through France gambling with tactics and doctrine wherever he went, he achieved great successes. However, by September he realized that eventually in logistics you must repay and restock the hands that are feeding you. His neglect of fuel and ammunition shortages cost the entire army until finally he was forced to stop and regroup. His reliance on the Red Ball Express was too great. Not until he realized that it was consuming more than it was delivering did Patton turn to the more reliable means of rail transport and local requisitioning for resupply.

Patton's Third Army during the Lorraine campaign could not declare complete victory. In just over three months, the Third Army suffered 50,000 casualties and lost enormous amounts of equipment. The real victory of Lorraine was the soldier's ability to maintain the fight and the logisticians' ability to resupply the force. Fighting seemingly insurmountable odds and harsh weather conditions, Quartermasters of the day came through by using ingenuity, expertise, sheer hard work and determination.

Fight for Today

Look at the past, look towards the future, fight for today. Logisticians must be able to adapt and overcome, whatever odds may be in their way. The battle must continue for us all to win. Patton summed it up this way:

"You know that I have never asked one of you to go where I have feared to tread. I have been criticized for this, but there are many General Pattons and there is only one Third Army. I can be expended, but the Third Army must and will be victorious."

Leaders come and go, but the Army and the battle will continue. Will you be ready to support?

At the time this article was published, CPT Daniel G. Grassi was the Military Editor of the Quartermaster Professional Bulletin. He has a bachelor of arts degree in history from Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina. He is also a graduate of the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Quartermaster Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, Subsistence Officer Course, Contracting Officers Representative Course and the Installation Logistics Management Course. His previous assignments include Fire Direction Officer, Battery Executive Officer, Assistant Brigade S4, Troop Issue Subsistence Officer, Retail Services Officer, Battalion S1 and Commander, Uniform Company, 262d Quartermaster Battalion, Fort Lee, Virginia."

There is more to this article although the all the salient points are here.


I'm impressed, never seen this site before. If I say so myself, I mentioned some of these points in my post but he's clear that the final attacks on Metz in November were badly handled and that the logistical constraints were a thing of the past. Couple that with the Queen orders which did not require Patton to fight, and it's a grim campaign indeed.

That said, the Author says little of the period between 5/9/44 and 25/9/44, when despite fighting with logistical issues, Patton sucked in enough of the German reserves to blunt the counterattack they were attempting to mount (which eventually went in around Arracourt and was stopped by 4th Armoured.) I broadly agree with the author. When handling a set piece battle, Patton had big problems. I made the same criticism of his deployments in the drive on Bastogne, spreading three divisions across 25 miles rather than concentrating for a decisive breakthrough and assault.

This also emphasises the logistical problems facing the Allies which I tried to get across in my last major posting. Was it Rommel who said the battle is decided before it begins by the quartermaster?

Thanks for the article,
Ironduke

(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 657
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/28/2004 12:58:38 AM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

Do you think Patton really would have driven so hard to palermo if he didnt think it would gain some fame and kick a bit of dirt on Monty?

Friendly rivalry is one thing but other peoples lives are at stake.

The slapping incident....yes..Did he not have the sense to just walk away.Have an underling punish the coward,put him in a mess unit...whatever...Just slap some sense into him,that'll do it.Was he so caught up in himself and thought everyone feared him so much that somebody wouldnt tell?He mite have had his boys scared of him but the people he crossed outside of his unit were probably waiting for a shot.Once again his hot-head gets him trouble.You cant blame the crap-diggers for digging things up that are true.

The chaplain thing,well....whatever he choses to do.He is in command.IMO,bad move,a strike against him for a borderline loon call on that one.Was the chaplain a relative?

I had heard something about him using troops for some kind of personal deal with family.I dont know specifics and will have to look into it.If in fact true thats way outta line.

Also,the signed card thing,that seems a bit like the german fighter aces anf their cards....once again ...glory seeking.

Patton wanted to fight and wanted glory ....fine,no problem with that but glory finds you,you dont seek it.

The blood and guts thing.Another of pattons nicknames that was twisted by the troops to a more fitting slogan to better show his glorious ways.

Patton overall was a good General and the only one that really scared the Germans.Unfortunatly Pattons legacy will be tarnished by the things he did on and off the battlefield and things that were completely his doing.All the bad press Patton got he called down on himself.

Like all good Generals, a controversial figure to say the least.


riverbravo:

There are a few things I will discuss:

1) Palermo:

Patton's original intention was to land at Palermo, capture it as a base for supplies, and then push to Messina, capture it, and bag ALL the Axis forces on Sicily.

Unfortunately, Monty got his way, and opted for a frontal attack in the south against entrenched Axis forces in the mountains, with Third Army sitting idle on his flank.

After two weeks of this Patton had had enough. He flew to see Alexander, and persuaded him to allow Third Army to seize Palermo and then drive to Messina. In a second meeting Monty himself agreed with Patton's strategy, because 8th Army had become bogged down in bitter mountain fighting, and he felt Patton's drive would help draw off some Axis forces from his front.

So, even with an imposed two week delay, Patton drove to Palermo, bagged 57,000 Axis troops, then conducted three amphibious operations to by-pass entrenched German defenders, and still captured Messina ahead of Monty.

However, that two week delay meant that 100,000 Axis troops and 10,000 vehicles escaped to Italy to wind up fighting Allied soldiers again in Italy and in the Lorraine Campaign.

Alexander simply bungled the Sicily Campaign by adhering to Monty's plan; imposing inactivity on Patton's Third Army; and in not having planes bomb the ferries that were taking the Axis troops to Italy.


2) The Slapping Incident:

I have already dealt with this. All I will add is this:

Before the slapping incident Patton had just come from the battlefield where he saw many dead men. Then, while at the hospital he had met many soldiers who were terribly maimed, wounded and disfigured in battle.

Then he came to a soldier who was sitting on the edge of a bed crying. That is when Patton's outrage at the man's actions caused him to slap the soldier's helmet with his glove. He did not want that man in the same room as all those wounded and dying men.

What is not known about, and was not publized at the time, was that the man Patton slapped was AWOL from his unit. Being AWOL in time of war was grounds for court martial, prison or execution. Interesting how that never made it into the papers, eh?

Well, whenever you feel outraged over Patton's action, just remember the last time you lost your cool, and then later regretted it.

People make mistakes. . .

But all of this needs to be placed into the perspective of the larger war. Thousands of men were being killed EVERY DAY, and yet a few reporters wanted the Allies' BEST general to be removed from command just when the Allies needed him the most (at Anzio and D-day).

Cheers!

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 11:15:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 658
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/28/2004 1:11:50 AM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:


Ironduke:

Not enough action in your Monty thread?

Or is it too boring with all the fanboys agreeing on bashing Monty?

It seems the same handful of people who bashed Patton are now bashing Monty. . .

It is true that "religious fanatics" travel in packs, seeking whom they may devour. . .

I posted Patton's picture so your "Congregation of Patton Bashers" could see on a daily basis who you were bashing. And that you could see how respected Patton was by the Moroccan Gov't.


This is paranoia, I don't know anything about this so will refrain from comment. I would say why didn't you tell us the Morroccan Government liked him, I would have refrained from posting over 19 pages had I know this.

quote:

Heheh

I didn't think that you or any of your fanboys would have a clue as to why I posted Patton's picture in my signature.

As to displaying Patton's picture in my signature:

It's an old legal stratagem: Display a victim's picture in front of the victim's accusers. . .


As usual, your analysis is so one-sided as to be laughable. . .

But please don't let the facts get in the way of your over-zealous opinions. . .


It's also an old legal strategm to ignore uncomfortable arguments you can't answer by saying "This argument is so silly, I can't be bothered to answer." I've answered all of your posts, even where they were quite clearly nonsense. It's another strategm to claim the other side have no facts, when that is all they have presented. If the Hammelburg raid did not take place, tell the world. If I am proved wrong, I will apologise publicly. Otherwise, this is dodging the issue. The sign of a bankrupt argument, unfortunately.

IronDuke


Heheh

Yet, the hysteria from some who have continually called me names and attacked my character.

Heheh

Yes, I have read some of your answers to my posts.

Many of them were not worth answering. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 659
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/28/2004 1:28:35 AM   
Von Rom


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

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

Well, well Kevinugly. . .

You rise and make another appearance.

Thoughtful as ever in your analysis.

I am so glad you are not a Patton basher - and are sticking to just the facts


Sarcasm

Sticking to the facts is all I do. And I'm STILL waiting for your analysis.

Here, I'll help you though -

From - http://www.qmfound.com/pol.htm

"While Patton was racing through France consuming an average of 350,000 gallons of gasoline each day, the famous Red Ball Express was organized to meet his growing demands as well as those of the First Army. Essentially a nonstop convoy of trucks connecting supply depots in Normandy to the armies in the field, the Red Ball at its peak used 6,000 trucks to complete its missions. As Patton advanced deeper, the demands placed upon the Red Ball grew faster than it was able to supply. Using 300,000 gallons of fuel each day itself, the Express pointed out what was becoming grossly obvious to tactical commanders, the Allies were running out of gas. On 28 August, Patton's army was forced to ease up when its fuel allocation fell 100,000 gallons short. Even though gasoline was in abundance in Normandy, the Red Ball could not transport it in sufficient quantities to the Third's forward units. On 31 August, after receiving no fuel at all, Patton's spearheads came to a halt.

During the next week, as Patton idled in park, General Dwight D. Eisenhower gave logistics priority and fuel allocations to units farther north. By the time normal fuel allocations resumed in the Third Army, the opportunity to sweep through Lorraine freely had passed by Patton.

Concurrently with his fuel problems, Patton experienced two other situations which began to jab at his side during this first part of September. First, as the Third Army became more stationary, it began to use its larger caliber artillery weapons, causing an ammunition shortage. There was no way to build up ammunition stockage because all available trucks were transporting fuel. As the Lorraine campaign continued, shortages would also be felt in clothing, rations, tires and antifreeze for the quickly approaching winter months.

Massing Forces

Secondly, as Patton's armies waited for the supply train to catch up, the Germans were massing forces throughout Lorraine. Hitler ordered soldiers into the area at once and their numbers would increase greatly. Even though still outnumbered by Patton's forces and superior firepower (estimated at 20 to 1 in tanks), these German forces, made up of many sick, deaf and garrison soldiers, would contest every inch of ground. This resistance caused the Third Army to fight considerably harder than they were accustomed during the first months of the campaign. Patton's two Corps, the XX and the XII, made up of four to six infantry divisions and two or three armor divisions, would be responsible for most fighting during the next bloody months in France.

In 1944, an armor division was relatively small compared to today. With 11,000 men and 263 tanks, it had three tank battalions, three battalions of armored infantry and three battalions of self- propelled artillery. Tactical doctrine of the day said that the armor division was primarily a weapon of exploitation to be used after the infantry achieved initial penetration into enemy defenses. This doctrine suited Patton to a tee, as he employed the mobile, quick-moving M-4 Sherman tank with its multipurpose 75mm gun. Patton's success, largely due to his understanding and use of heavy armored vehicles, made him the chief concern of the German armies of the time.

On 25 September, Patton was ordered to halt and to hold his ground until the logistical tail could restock itself before continuing. Patton, not being one to sit around and wait, established outposts, while maintaining active reserve contingency forces, and began to restock his own logistical base from within. Strict gasoline rationing and using mortars instead of large caliber weapon rounds lessened the initial two concerns of the Third Army. How do you resupply a heavy armor division in combat? Here's how Patton did it.

Quartermasters Important

First, Patton ordered stringent accountability of all supplies. The Quartermasters, due in large part to the severity of the crisis, were elevated in importance. Patton relied upon them for guidance and expertise. In addition to rationing supplies, he ordered that a supply base of reserves be stored within the Third Army for when they became fully operational again. His intelligence officers provided data on German movements in the area, and Patton wanted to be ready to move out at full speed when told to do so. No stopping the Third Army now, Patton must have thought. He did not realize then that he would basically be stationary until 8 Nov 44.

While better managing his own supplies, Patton also used other means of collecting additional assets from the local areas. Supplies and equipment from captured German forces were put to great use replenishing the Allied stocks. Once it was even reported that an artillery barrage from the XX Corps zone came from captured German 105mm howitzers, Russian-made 76.2mm guns, French 155mm howitzers (also captured from the Germans), and German 88mm antitank guns. During one period in October, 80 percent of artillery ammunition used by XX Corps was captured from German units.

Another key factor in resupplying Patton's Third Army was his use of what we now call "host nation support" from the French. As he was chasing the Germans through France, Patton became very familiar with the extensive French railroad network. Fortunately, it was left virtually undamaged by the Germans as they retreated through the country. Working with French civilians, the Third Army operated these railroads themselves, at times bringing supplies farther forward than ever before. In addition to the railroads, French factories provided relief for the Allies in such areas as repairing tank engines, building tank escape hatches and track extenders (which increased the tanks' mobility in the muddy terrain), supplying thousands of gallons of alcohol instead of the scarce Prestone antifreeze, reopening coal mines and dry-cleaning plants, and turning the rubber manufacturing plants over to Patton for the production of much-needed fan belts and tires.

Panzer Divisions

By the time November rolled around and the Third Army was able to start moving again, they had replenished their depleted stocks and had built a substantial reserve. With many of his logistical nightmares behind him for the moment, Patton could concentrate on the tactical campaign at hand and the difficulties that he was experiencing with the feared German panzer divisions. Even though greatly outnumbered, the Germans took advantage of Patton's weaknesses in neglecting to practice economy of force and were able to wage several counterattacks into the Allied forces. Patton believed that he should spread out his Third Army over a vast front so that he would be strong in all areas. This philosophy backfired on him, however, because the forces were spread too thin and were not particularly strong anywhere. As a result of this error, heavy doctrine changed after the war from fighting dispersed to marching dispersed but fighting concentrated and tight. Patton's Third Army suffered many casualties for not realizing this sooner against the German armies.

The campaign through Lorraine. France, in World War II truly demonstrated that logistics is the key to battle. Patton was an aggressive and powerful commander, but logistics controlled his ability to maneuver. At the beginning of the campaign, when he raced through France gambling with tactics and doctrine wherever he went, he achieved great successes. However, by September he realized that eventually in logistics you must repay and restock the hands that are feeding you. His neglect of fuel and ammunition shortages cost the entire army until finally he was forced to stop and regroup. His reliance on the Red Ball Express was too great. Not until he realized that it was consuming more than it was delivering did Patton turn to the more reliable means of rail transport and local requisitioning for resupply.

Patton's Third Army during the Lorraine campaign could not declare complete victory. In just over three months, the Third Army suffered 50,000 casualties and lost enormous amounts of equipment. The real victory of Lorraine was the soldier's ability to maintain the fight and the logisticians' ability to resupply the force. Fighting seemingly insurmountable odds and harsh weather conditions, Quartermasters of the day came through by using ingenuity, expertise, sheer hard work and determination.

Fight for Today

Look at the past, look towards the future, fight for today. Logisticians must be able to adapt and overcome, whatever odds may be in their way. The battle must continue for us all to win. Patton summed it up this way:

"You know that I have never asked one of you to go where I have feared to tread. I have been criticized for this, but there are many General Pattons and there is only one Third Army. I can be expended, but the Third Army must and will be victorious."

Leaders come and go, but the Army and the battle will continue. Will you be ready to support?

At the time this article was published, CPT Daniel G. Grassi was the Military Editor of the Quartermaster Professional Bulletin. He has a bachelor of arts degree in history from Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina. He is also a graduate of the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Quartermaster Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, Subsistence Officer Course, Contracting Officers Representative Course and the Installation Logistics Management Course. His previous assignments include Fire Direction Officer, Battery Executive Officer, Assistant Brigade S4, Troop Issue Subsistence Officer, Retail Services Officer, Battalion S1 and Commander, Uniform Company, 262d Quartermaster Battalion, Fort Lee, Virginia."

There is more to this article although the all the salient points are here.


Facts?

Please. . .

I see it's still three to one against me. . .

Heheh

So, you posted an article.

I have posted articles and they were totally ignored.

Now, you declare that I must respond to the article YOU post?

For example:

Ironduke said Patton was poor in Combined Arms, and I posted two well researched articles proving Patton was a master at Combined Arms. Those articles were ignored.

Ete, etc. . .

However, I will respond to this article ONCE you extract the relevant points from it that you wish me to discuss.

Plus, I will NOT be responding to half a dozen people at once. There is absolutely no way I can do that and still provide reasonable information.

So extract the info you wish me to consider, and I will look at it.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/27/2004 11:32:25 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Why was Patton so great? Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   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

1.609