RE: General Douglas MacArthur

RE: General Douglas MacArthur (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

morganbj -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 4:48:46 PM)
The British had a general named Montgomery? Really. What did he ever do? Was he a general contractor, or a real general, as in "Army General?" Just curious. (A shamefully obvious attempt to pick a fight with an Anglophile of any nationality or an actual Brit. These "my general is better than your general" arguments are always so entertaining, comparing, as they are wont do, dissimilar fruits. That's apples-to-oranges for you Texans out there. Alas, my fight-picking will probably fail, as it should.)

Ambassador -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 5:20:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them. Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference. But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc. He was the Gen', he gets the blame.

Javakamp -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 6:06:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them. Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference. But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc. He was the Gen', he gets the blame. I think the Allied High Command were victims of their own success in Market Garden. After the breakout from Normandy pretty much everything they tried worked their way. They expected the same thing in Holland, and it bit them in the rear.

Terminus -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 6:20:20 PM)
Possibly. However, Monty was not a Great Captain, even though he saw himself as one, and I can guarantee you that he was quite willing to expend his men ruthlessly to achieve his objective. So his "caring nature" was probably a result of pro-Monty propaganda.

Long Lance -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 6:33:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them. Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference. But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc. He was the Gen', he gets the blame. Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops. Anyway, the result is the same.

Long Lance -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 6:34:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Javakamp quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them. Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference. But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc. He was the Gen', he gets the blame. I think the Allied High Command were victims of their own success in Market Garden. After the breakout from Normandy pretty much everything they tried worked their way. They expected the same thing in Holland, and it bit them in the rear. Agreed

anarchyintheuk -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 6:34:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Javakamp quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them. Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference. But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc. He was the Gen', he gets the blame. I think the Allied High Command were victims of their own success in Market Garden. After the breakout from Normandy pretty much everything they tried worked their way. They expected the same thing in Holland, and it bit them in the rear. Market Garden: Strategy to end the war in the west? A bid for assets, logistics and lead role for his army group? Or both?

anarchyintheuk -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 7:07:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Personally I always try to get him killed [:D] Me too. Dugout Doug is at the top of my overrated, undercapable, general rodent's rectum list. Which still makes him better than Eisenhower, Bradley, Gerow, Clark, Patch, Hodges, Devers and most every other US army commander. [:D] What was wrong with Eisenhower? Sorry, missed it the first time. Off the top of my head: failing to emphasize the capture of Tunis/Bizerte as the goal of Torch and pushing Anderson east quickly enough to get to there before the weather changed/Germans reinforced, although most properly Alexander's fault (Ike was still in charge of AFHQ until 1/44) failing to hustle Monty to get to Salerno, along w/ others failing to oversee the closing of the Falaise Gap, failing to take command quickly enough after the breakout, ordering Market Garden instead of clearing the Scheldt estuary, failing to control Bradley while he butchered 1st Army in the Hurtgen Forest (sorry, no idea how to do umlauts), along w/ others getting caught w/ his pants down at the Bulge, failing to take advantage of the Bulge by pushing it back instead of trying to cut it off and alllowing Monty to waste vast amounts of resources and time overproducing Plunder/Varsity instead of just getting across the damn river. Never had a problem w/ some of his other supposed shortcomings, such as the the broad front strategy in the eto and not wanting to get to Berlin.

niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 7:53:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thegreatwent Mdiehl and T agreeing? Why is the room suddenly cold? Should I be scared?[:D] I don't know. Are you in hell and seeing icicles? [:D]

Ambassador -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 7:55:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops. Anyway, the result is the same. Sure. And he never sent the 9th Armoured Bde in a frontal attack, against dozens of AT guns, including a lot of 88. Where they lost 75% of their tanks and half their complement. Which he did in full knowledge. Sure, he never deliberately sacrificed his men. No general ever did that. But he certainly did not hesitate to send his men to near-certain death, against unfavorable odds, in order to get a possible advantage. What's the definition of "sacrifice" again ? Perhaps you should review your earlier statement, don't you ?[;)] He was a glory-seeker. An egotistical maniac. A bad planner. As someone said, the best WWI general fighting in WWII.

niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 7:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Anyone who thinks Eisenhauer was a mediocre general hasn't read much about him. He had a keen grasp of the most important aspects of any military problem. And yeah, he was a consummate politician too. He had to be, given some of the people, especially Montgomery and Patton, whose egos he had to constantly stroke in order to get them to execute orders. What I would agree with, without question, is that being politically skilled is an important quality in a high ranking general and Eisenhower had that for sure. It's what the general uses their political skill to accomplish that determines whether its good or bad. Being politically adept is a good thing.

niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 8:00:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them. I agree that the para's were not intended as cannon fodder, whether he accurately assessed the risk vs success, and how much ego might have played into the weighting of those would be a different argument.

Terminus -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 8:18:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops. Anyway, the result is the same. Sure. And he never sent the 9th Armoured Bde in a frontal attack, against dozens of AT guns, including a lot of 88. Where they lost 75% of their tanks and half their complement. Which he did in full knowledge. He sent them in expecting the brigade to be completely destroyed. 100% casualties.

witpqs -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 8:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops. Anyway, the result is the same. Sure. And he never sent the 9th Armoured Bde in a frontal attack, against dozens of AT guns, including a lot of 88. Where they lost 75% of their tanks and half their complement. Which he did in full knowledge. He sent them in expecting the brigade to be completely destroyed. 100% casualties. Amazing. What was the reason, the advantage sought?

Terminus -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 8:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: ORIGINAL: Long Lance Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops. Anyway, the result is the same. Sure. And he never sent the 9th Armoured Bde in a frontal attack, against dozens of AT guns, including a lot of 88. Where they lost 75% of their tanks and half their complement. Which he did in full knowledge. He sent them in expecting the brigade to be completely destroyed. 100% casualties. Amazing. What was the reason, the advantage sought? The action in question was Tel Al Aqaqir, and the mission was to break through an enemy PAK front which had been holding back the whole advance. Why Montgomery chose a brigade equipped entirely with light Valentine tanks, sent in without meaningful artillery and infantry support, is a mystery. Sending tanks to break through an anti-tank gun line, not to mention poorly-armoured Valentines, is about the worst you can do.

Mynok -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 8:57:39 PM)
Valentines? Didn't they have a 2lb'er gun that didn't have an HE round?

Terminus -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 9:23:56 PM)
Well, so did all other British tanks at the time.

Yamato hugger -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 9:32:22 PM)
My guess is he was showing higher ups WHY he needed better tanks. Seriously.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 9:34:01 PM)
For what I know he actually send there 9th Bde AND entire 1st Armd Div... It wasn't Montgomery's fault that armoured division came late. quote: Well, so did all other British tanks at the time. Most of cruiser tanks [edit: at the time] were 6pdr versions. Only Valentines and few Crusaders II had 2pdrs.

Chris21wen -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 9:44:37 PM)
Ah! hind site. What a wonderful thing it is[8D]

Terminus -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 9:50:02 PM)
Wrong on both counts. 9th Armoured Brigade was specifically ordered to make a frontal charge against the German PAK-front, and General Freyberg, who briefed Brigadier Currie (the 9th's commander) specifically said that Montgomery would be willing to accept the complete destruction of the brigade. 1st Armoured Division was to be held back for the follow-up phase, exploiting the 9th's breakthrough. Montgomery committed a cardinal sin of mobile warfare (akin to cavalry charging headlong at machineguns), and the 9th Armoured Brigade paid for his arrogance. As for six-pounder tanks, they were coming into service, true, but the vast majority of non-2pdr tanks were Grants and Shermans.

tocaff -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 10:04:16 PM)
Which American Civil War General said that having command of an army required that you be willing to destroy the very thing that you loved?

String -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 10:27:12 PM)
Well this one was derailed pretty fast.

rockmedic109 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 10:27:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Which American Civil War General said that having command of an army required that you be willing to destroy the very thing that you loved? � Robert E Lee

niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 10:47:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Which American Civil War General said that having command of an army required that you be willing to destroy the very thing that you loved? � Yes, but there is being willing to sacrifice the thing you love and then there is willy-nilly impaling yourself on your enemies bayonet because it seemed the thing to do at the time.

Mynok -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 11:04:54 PM)
Well....Lee did some willy-nilly impaling for sure.

USSAmerica -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 11:20:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Well....Lee did some willy-nilly impaling for sure. Sure, but he had several successes using these tactics early in the war, when the Union troops more easily broke and ran. By the time Lee learned that it wouldn't work anymore, the size of the battles had grown exponentially. (And he had to face a Union general with more men at his disposal, who didn't mind using the same tactics) [X(]

Mynok -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 11:37:36 PM)
W.N.I. was pretty much the standard tactic of the time.

thegreatwent -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/23/2008 11:51:52 PM)
True, forming line abreast and advancing at the route step towards cannons would have been a terrible thing to be a part of. Not sure I could have done it probably would have stained my shorts[X(]

niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 12:08:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Well....Lee did some willy-nilly impaling for sure. As did Burnside and Hooker. Perhaps the difference between the two ultimately is luck.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875