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


Blackhorse -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 1:52:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Well, it’s not quite fair to compare apples and oranges. A Supreme Commander has way different imperatives than a Division, Corps or Army Commander. I note that nobody mentioned the best US combat commander in several decades (imho), Joe Collins.


And "Lightning Joe" makes two appearances in WitP-AE. First, as a division commander; then, commanding a Corps returning from the ETO to participate in the invasion of Japan.





borner -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 3:52:58 AM)

OK, who was more over-rated. Mac or Monty? and both is not an acceptable answer




Mynok -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 3:54:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


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.


Bad luck? Sending 3 corps to their deaths? Lee got very little from his massive charges too. Most of his great victories were prescient strategic maneuvering.

W.N.I. was standard practice until after WWII unfortunately for so many young men.




Terminus -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 5:19:18 AM)


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?


This is true, and Tel Al Aqaqir had to be broken to crack the stalemate that the greater Alamein battle had become, but sending tanks charging against the very weapons built to destroy them? No. Just no.




niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 5:44:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


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?


This is true, and Tel Al Aqaqir had to be broken to crack the stalemate that the greater Alamein battle had become, but sending tanks charging against the very weapons built to destroy them? No. Just no.

Why am i getting an image of T hitting Monty on the nose with a rolled up newspaper? [&:]




ilovestrategy -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 5:57:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

quote:

First and foremost, he caved in to Churchill way to many times in agreeing to let Monty have his way.

Monty was one of the best assets the German army had in France and the Low Countries in 1944.



Actually Monty was the best WWI General in WWII.



Damn you! The wife thinks I'm crazy for laughing in front of my monitor! [:D]




Ambassador -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 7:23:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

OK, who was more over-rated. Mac or Monty? and both is not an acceptable answer

That's an easy one. Mac for sure, as Monty is not rated (never was in the PTO).[:D]


Or at least, I hope he's not in the DB.[:-]



Oh, you meant IRL ? I would put MacArthur for sure, if only because he abandonned his troops in the Philippines, presidential order or not. And if only because he caused more unnecessary deaths (invasion of the philippines). And if only because he was a lying bastard about the real situation.
Well, many reasons to say that if Monty was bad, Mac was worse. It's a real luck both were not fighting in the same TO.[&o]




Terminus -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 8:34:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


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?


This is true, and Tel Al Aqaqir had to be broken to crack the stalemate that the greater Alamein battle had become, but sending tanks charging against the very weapons built to destroy them? No. Just no.

Why am i getting an image of T hitting Monty on the nose with a rolled up newspaper? [&:]


I don't know... Why?




Wirraway_Ace -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 3:41:26 PM)

I have always struggled with MacArthur.   My overall sense is that Mac behaved more as a Philippean statesman than a U.S. senior general officer during WWII.  I attribute his "failure" to order a bomber strike in the opening hours of the war to his hope that the PI could somehow remain neutral.  Although the fall of the PI was inevitable in retrospect, the forces under his command appeared to perform favorably when compared with the contemporary British effort in the Malaya.  His machinations over the next three years follow his chosen role as a PI statesman.

I thought is performance in post-war Japan one of the key successes in the 20th Century--although, here again as a statesman, not a combat general.

In Korea, he outmanuevered the North Koreans but was ultimately defeated by an implacable enemy--Truman.  Or his ego was finally defeated by the Consitution...your choice.

As a senior combat commander, I would give the nod to Monty (re Borner's question)--better planner on average and much better connection with his soldiers.  As far as the overall impact on the war effort (including the decisive post-war phase), I would give clear advantage to Mac.




BrucePowers -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 4:54:29 PM)

I think MacArthur was worse than Montgomery. MacArthur should have been sacked as Short and Kimmel were. His failings were worse than theirs.




Yamato hugger -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 5:16:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

I think MacArthur was worse than Montgomery. MacArthur should have been sacked as Short and Kimmel were. His failings were worse than theirs.


His daddy was a medal of honor winner though, no?

Dugout Doug was emperor of the Philippines (at least in his mind). He was the greatest leader since - well, probably God (again, in his mind). Just ask Harry Truman.




witpqs -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 5:52:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


In Korea, he outmanuevered the North Koreans but was ultimately defeated by an implacable enemy--Truman. Or his ego was finally defeated by the Consitution...your choice.


Definitely disagree here. He did outmaneuver the North Koreans, true. Credit due him for that. But he then was grossly negligent and ignored concrete intelligence of Chinese Communist movements south, including open combat with American forces. The results were calamitous.

Truman defended the constitution from MacArthur.




Wirraway_Ace -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 7:39:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


In Korea, he outmanuevered the North Koreans but was ultimately defeated by an implacable enemy--Truman. Or his ego was finally defeated by the Consitution...your choice.


Definitely disagree here. He did outmaneuver the North Koreans, true. Credit due him for that. But he then was grossly negligent and ignored concrete intelligence of Chinese Communist movements south, including open combat with American forces. The results were calamitous.

Truman defended the constitution from MacArthur.


I agree with you completely; my skill at writing with irony was lacking...




witpqs -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 7:44:17 PM)

Sorry I missed that! [8D]




anarchyintheuk -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/24/2008 7:46:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


In Korea, he outmanuevered the North Koreans but was ultimately defeated by an implacable enemy--Truman. Or his ego was finally defeated by the Consitution...your choice.


Definitely disagree here. He did outmaneuver the North Koreans, true. Credit due him for that. But he then was grossly negligent and ignored concrete intelligence of Chinese Communist movements south, including open combat with American forces. The results were calamitous.

Truman defended the constitution from MacArthur.


I agree with you completely; my skill at writing with irony was lacking...



An appropriate irony smiley hasn't really been developed yet.




JeffroK -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 12:21:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


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.


T, your facts are a bit off.

OOB for 9th Armd Bde for 2nd Alamein was

9 BRITISH ARMOURED BDE
3 Hussars 9 Grant, 12 Sherman, 16 Crusader
Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry 14 Grant, 10 Sherman, 13 Crusader
Warwickshire Yeomanry 14 Grant, 13 Sherman, 17 Crusader
14 Foresters (Mot Inf)

Not a Valentine in sight.

I think many are getting mixed up with the mad rush of the 23rd Armd Bde during the Ruweisat Ridge fighting (Under Auchenleck) in their Valentines straight off the boat.




JeffroK -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 12:22:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


In Korea, he outmanuevered the North Koreans but was ultimately defeated by an implacable enemy--Truman. Or his ego was finally defeated by the Consitution...your choice.


Definitely disagree here. He did outmaneuver the North Koreans, true. Credit due him for that. But he then was grossly negligent and ignored concrete intelligence of Chinese Communist movements south, including open combat with American forces. The results were calamitous.

Truman defended the constitution from MacArthur.


Dougout Doug sounds like the Brits in the Desert, sweep away the supporting act and get bashed by the pro's.




JeffroK -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 12:31:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

I have always struggled with MacArthur.   My overall sense is that Mac behaved more as a Philippean statesman than a U.S. senior general officer during WWII.  I attribute his "failure" to order a bomber strike in the opening hours of the war to his hope that the PI could somehow remain neutral.  Although the fall of the PI was inevitable in retrospect, the forces under his command appeared to perform favorably when compared with the contemporary British effort in the Malaya.  His machinations over the next three years follow his chosen role as a PI statesman.

I thought is performance in post-war Japan one of the key successes in the 20th Century--although, here again as a statesman, not a combat general.

In Korea, he outmanuevered the North Koreans but was ultimately defeated by an implacable enemy--Truman.  Or his ego was finally defeated by the Consitution...your choice.

As a senior combat commander, I would give the nod to Monty (re Borner's question)--better planner on average and much better connection with his soldiers.  As far as the overall impact on the war effort (including the decisive post-war phase), I would give clear advantage to Mac.


I mostly agree with your comments, BUT[:D]

The japanese pushed to Manila just as fast as they got to Singapore, relativly speaking. The ability to move the Phillipines Army into a remote area such as the Bataan Peninsula wasnt available to the British. The japanese pushed to the head of the Bataan peninsula in abot a week from the Lingayen Gulf landings.

In Korea, DD beat the Nth Koreans, after a near run thing, but was comprehensivly thrashed by the Chinese which saw him "panic" and seek a nuclear solution.




JeffroK -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 12:34:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

I think MacArthur was worse than Montgomery. MacArthur should have been sacked as Short and Kimmel were. His failings were worse than theirs.


His daddy was a medal of honor winner though, no?

Dugout Doug was emperor of the Philippines (at least in his mind). He was the greatest leader since - well, probably God (again, in his mind). Just ask Harry Truman.


And Dougout Doug got the MoH for his spectacular campaign in the Phillipines. IMHO he belittled this decoration by accepting it.




niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 12:44:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

I have always struggled with MacArthur.   My overall sense is that Mac behaved more as a Philippean statesman than a U.S. senior general officer during WWII.  I attribute his "failure" to order a bomber strike in the opening hours of the war to his hope that the PI could somehow remain neutral.  Although the fall of the PI was inevitable in retrospect, the forces under his command appeared to perform favorably when compared with the contemporary British effort in the Malaya.  His machinations over the next three years follow his chosen role as a PI statesman.

I thought is performance in post-war Japan one of the key successes in the 20th Century--although, here again as a statesman, not a combat general.

In Korea, he outmanuevered the North Koreans but was ultimately defeated by an implacable enemy--Truman.  Or his ego was finally defeated by the Consitution...your choice.

As a senior combat commander, I would give the nod to Monty (re Borner's question)--better planner on average and much better connection with his soldiers.  As far as the overall impact on the war effort (including the decisive post-war phase), I would give clear advantage to Mac.

I agree with a number of posts here, but this was one of the ones that summed up the man the best. I think rather than statesman though, I would use the term colonial administrator. Mac surely was born to the wrong country in the wrong century. He would have made an excellent 19th century colonial governor or general. The man was a pretty good administrator, as evidenced by the progress of the Philippines toward independence or Japan's post war progress toward an independent democracy. IMHO The world would certainly be a better place had there been a whole lot more MacArthurs guiding post colonial nations to independence.

He definitely had a huge ego and it probably was his greatest failing. It led him to commit troops to unnecessary risk and led him to rely too much on his own judgment instead of those around him. However, there is no doubt that in regard to the Philippines and later to Japan that Mac cared deeply about the emergence of both countries as stable, prosperous and independent nations. Maybe he cared because in his own mind he saw himself more as king, but there is no doubt that he worked tirelessly to accomplish these goals.

As strategist and tactician I would rate him as average. There were better, there were worse; he had successes and he had failures.

Truman was right for firing him. Mac's ego clearly had gotten the better of him; a general that won't follow orders of his civilian commander must be shown the door.




niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 12:47:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

I have always struggled with MacArthur.   My overall sense is that Mac behaved more as a Philippean statesman than a U.S. senior general officer during WWII.  I attribute his "failure" to order a bomber strike in the opening hours of the war to his hope that the PI could somehow remain neutral.  Although the fall of the PI was inevitable in retrospect, the forces under his command appeared to perform favorably when compared with the contemporary British effort in the Malaya.  His machinations over the next three years follow his chosen role as a PI statesman.

I thought is performance in post-war Japan one of the key successes in the 20th Century--although, here again as a statesman, not a combat general.

In Korea, he outmanuevered the North Koreans but was ultimately defeated by an implacable enemy--Truman.  Or his ego was finally defeated by the Consitution...your choice.

As a senior combat commander, I would give the nod to Monty (re Borner's question)--better planner on average and much better connection with his soldiers.  As far as the overall impact on the war effort (including the decisive post-war phase), I would give clear advantage to Mac.


I mostly agree with your comments, BUT[:D]

The japanese pushed to Manila just as fast as they got to Singapore, relativly speaking. The ability to move the Phillipines Army into a remote area such as the Bataan Peninsula wasnt available to the British. The japanese pushed to the head of the Bataan peninsula in abot a week from the Lingayen Gulf landings.

In Korea, DD beat the Nth Koreans, after a near run thing, but was comprehensivly thrashed by the Chinese which saw him "panic" and seek a nuclear solution.

I don't think the Malaya, Manilla comparison is a fair one. Yes, IJ put more pressure on the conquest of Singapore, but Singapore should have been a very defensible position. Bataan held partly because it was remote and IJ wasn't in as big a hurry to take it, but it also held because under Mac's command a great deal of preparation had gone into its defense.




JeffroK -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 1:03:28 AM)


From Niceguy

[/quote]
I don't think the Malaya, Manilla comparison is a fair one. Yes, IJ put more pressure on the conquest of Singapore, but Singapore should have been a very defensible position. Bataan held partly because it was remote and IJ wasn't in as big a hurry to take it, but it also held because under Mac's command a great deal of preparation had gone into its defense.
[/quote]

I cant see, in the official history, that much effort had been spent in preparing the Bataan Pen. Certainly supplies were not concentrated there in sufficient numbers. I can only see 1 reference to barbed wire (In front of 3 Rgt/51 Div) with the "rest of the line unprotected by obstacles other than the natural jungle".

There were plans for defensive positions but the first draft was submitted in Jan 42.




witpqs -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 1:47:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

There were plans for defensive positions but the first draft was submitted in Jan 42.


Ouch!




JeffroK -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 2:10:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


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?


This is true, and Tel Al Aqaqir had to be broken to crack the stalemate that the greater Alamein battle had become, but sending tanks charging against the very weapons built to destroy them? No. Just no.


From the New Zealand Official History

In this dawn attack by 3 Hussars and the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry there were many acts of gallantry shown by the tank commanders and crews in a determination to carry out Montgomery's orders and Freyberg's plans both in the letter and the spirit. In a later examination of the ground, the two regiments were credited with overpowering some thirty-five anti-tank guns, mainly Italian 47-millimetre and German 50-millimetre and a few of larger calibre, thus making a dent, if not a complete breach, in the enemy's gun line that only needed immediate exploitation.

The third regiment of 9 Armoured Brigade, the Warwickshire Yeomanry, fought an independent battle a mile or more to the south of the other two. On reaching the forward infantry of 152 Brigade with 38 ‘runners’ of the 44 with which it had started out, the regiment advanced on more of a south-westerly bearing than it should have done, possibly because of enemy opposition which the Valentines of 50 Royal Tanks had engaged in that direction or, according to one account, mistaking a rise to the south of Tell el Aqqaqir as its objective instead of the Tell itself. Just beyond the
infantry line, the Warwicks ran head on into a concentration of anti-tank guns backed by enemy tanks. Although numerous guns were shot up or overrun, enemy fire took a heavy toll of the regiment's tanks, forcing the survivors to fall back on to a line hastily set up by the two remaining six-pounders of D Troop of 31 Battery and C Company of the Foresters.

Casualties in the supercharge operation so far had not been unduly heavy except in 9 Armoured Brigade. An evening check on 2 November gave the brigade about 24 ‘runners’ in sufficient order to be used immediately out of the 94 tanks which crossed the start line. Casualties in men came to 163 in the tank regiments, 66 of the motorised infantry, and 22 among the attached cavalry squadrons, anti-tank troops and engineers. The tank losses in 2 and 8 Armoured Brigades were 33 all told from enemy action, mechanical breakdown, and other causes, and casualties in men in the two brigades also totalled 33.


Sadly war causes the death of brave men, but the loss of about 200 men (dead or dead & wounded) to break the Alamein line would be a cheap price to pay





Menser -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/25/2008 4:41:10 AM)

Original : AnarchyintheUK


O
quote:

ff 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.



Can't agree with you on the Hurtgen ........ Bradly's 9th Army was supposed to do a RIF(Reconnisance  in force) to see if the Sigfried line could be bypassed in that area but was unable in the terrain to bring in enough Heavy vehicles and artillery(i.e Tanks, Spguns et. al.) and supply  ... and noone knew or expected Gen. Model to be conducting Divisional combat exercises in preparation for the Battle of the Bulge at the time in that area .....9th army was committed on course of disaster from the outset, culminating in one of the longest, bloodiest and very costly battle the Americans had ever fought up to that point in the war.




anarchyintheuk -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/27/2008 4:02:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Menser

Original : AnarchyintheUK


O
quote:

ff 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.



Can't agree with you on the Hurtgen ........ Bradly's 9th Army was supposed to do a RIF(Reconnisance  in force) to see if the Sigfried line could be bypassed in that area but was unable in the terrain to bring in enough Heavy vehicles and artillery(i.e Tanks, Spguns et. al.) and supply  ... and noone knew or expected Gen. Model to be conducting Divisional combat exercises in preparation for the Battle of the Bulge at the time in that area .....9th army was committed on course of disaster from the outset, culminating in one of the longest, bloodiest and very costly battle the Americans had ever fought up to that point in the war.



Don't know if you meant agree or argue. If you meant agree, I would say that allowing Bradley to turn a rif into a pointless 5 month campaign would be the definition of failing to control a subordinate.





HansBolter -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/27/2008 4:09:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


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?


This is true, and Tel Al Aqaqir had to be broken to crack the stalemate that the greater Alamein battle had become, but sending tanks charging against the very weapons built to destroy them? No. Just no.



I'm NOT trying to pick a fight here Term, but actually the Germans had great success smashing Russian PAK fronts with Tigers.

So, while in theory, on the surface, it makes little sense to use tanks to smash a concentration of antitank weapons, much is dependent on the actual circumstances. Now if the Germans had tried it with Pz IIIs, they might have been viewed as being just as insane and incompetent as Monty for trying to smash a PAK front with LIGHT tanks.




wild_Willie2 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/27/2008 5:38:15 PM)

I never understood why the US forces fought in the Hürtgen Forest ANYWAY...

They could have easily moved around the forest using their mechanised forces, simply to break the Sigfried line in a less formidable position...




Terminus -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/27/2008 6:06:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


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?


This is true, and Tel Al Aqaqir had to be broken to crack the stalemate that the greater Alamein battle had become, but sending tanks charging against the very weapons built to destroy them? No. Just no.



I'm NOT trying to pick a fight here Term, but actually the Germans had great success smashing Russian PAK fronts with Tigers.

So, while in theory, on the surface, it makes little sense to use tanks to smash a concentration of antitank weapons, much is dependent on the actual circumstances. Now if the Germans had tried it with Pz IIIs, they might have been viewed as being just as insane and incompetent as Monty for trying to smash a PAK front with LIGHT tanks.


Well, it DOES help if your tanks are immune to enemy anti-tank guns, but that's the exception rather than the rule.




niceguy2005 -> RE: General Douglas MacArthur (10/27/2008 6:07:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:


From Niceguy
I don't think the Malaya, Manilla comparison is a fair one. Yes, IJ put more pressure on the conquest of Singapore, but Singapore should have been a very defensible position. Bataan held partly because it was remote and IJ wasn't in as big a hurry to take it, but it also held because under Mac's command a great deal of preparation had gone into its defense.


I cant see, in the official history, that much effort had been spent in preparing the Bataan Pen. Certainly supplies were not concentrated there in sufficient numbers. I can only see 1 reference to barbed wire (In front of 3 Rgt/51 Div) with the "rest of the line unprotected by obstacles other than the natural jungle".

There were plans for defensive positions but the first draft was submitted in Jan 42.

Jeff, I've always found your posts insightful and accurate and look forward to many more. Do you have a reference to the Jan 42 plans, or better yet just more information about them? I had always read and heard that the plans to retreat to Bataan had been in the works for some time - which I found interesting because Mac is not a retreat kind of guy. How detailed those plans were I'm not certain, but it had always been my impression that they were fairly detailed, representing troop deployment, logistics plans, etc. Any chance the 1/42 plan was a revision of the earlier plan to reflect the new realities?




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.21875