RE: Why was Patton so great? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 4:02:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Besides, no one (not the Germans or Allies) expected Patton to be able to attack from the south, since Third Army was heavily engaged fighting the German First Army.

Any army is vulnerable on its flanks. The Germans were at the Bulge, just as the Allies were in France in 1940, and Soviet troops were in 1941 Russia.

The miracle is the Patton was able to disengage Third Army from fighting, and while he had to protect himself from the German First Army, he turned Third Army 90 degrees north in freezing winter weather, and attacked the Germans in the flanks, surprising them.

Everyone, including all Allied Commanders, and most historians, as well as many top German officers, considered what Patton did was brilliant.

General Omar N. Bradley, who had no love for Patton, called his actions in the Bulge "one of the most astonishing feats of generalship of our campaign in the west".

It appears that only you, IronDuke, consider what Patton did was not very good. I guess you must be privy to information and insight that no other high level Allied or German officer or reputable historian has had access to. [&:]

Besides, the American troops that the Germans attacked in the Ardennes were themselves green and resting. So by your estimation, of what value was the German victory over them? Plus, many troops in Patton's Third Army were themselves relatively inexperienced when they attacked north into the German flanks.

Frankly, I just can't see what it is you are trying to argue or prove. . .[&:]


I haven't really gotten around to the bulge yet, so is this a pre-emptive strike? As I've said, It isn't just me. Apart from one other poster on this thread, I've quoted several reputable historians (do you really read my posts, or is your mind so set you don't need to?) Ellis in "Brute Force". Weighly in "Eisenhower's Leutenants". Bradley in his two books. D'este quotes two others in a quote I've already posted in this thread. That makes five.

I only had to open up another book to find a sixth. Charles Whiting in "The battle of the Bulge".

"Indeed, Patton with three full divisions, one of them armoured, plus overwhelming air and artillery support at his disposal, was stopped by three inferior German divisions, one of which its commander (as we have seen) didn't even wish to take beyond the German border. He wasted his men's lives because he threw them into battle hastily and without enough planning, making up his strategy from day to day. Most important was that Patton, the armoured Commander, who should have known much better attacked on a 25 mile front across countryside that favoured defending infantry on account of its many natural defensive spots. Instead of a massed armour-infantry attack on some concentrated, ole blood and guts , the supposed dashing cavalry General, slogged away like some long in the tooth hidebound first world war infantry commander."

Therefore, I've quoted from six historians to your one (and one website) so

quote:

It appears that only you, IronDuke, consider what Patton did was not very good. I guess you must be privy to information and insight that no other high level Allied or German officer or reputable historian has had access to. [&:]


is not actually true to be fair, is it?

As for:

quote:

Besides, the American troops that the Germans attacked in the Ardennes were themselves green and resting. So by your estimation, of what value was the German victory over them? Plus, many troops in Patton's Third Army were themselves relatively inexperienced when they attacked north into the German flanks.


I don't think German performance in the Ardennes was all that clever, either. I think it illustrated the days of the Wehrmacht's tactical dominance were coming to an end. as for:

quote:

Plus, many troops in Patton's Third Army were themselves relatively inexperienced when they attacked north into the German flanks


This is false. You are making some bold statements without checking them. Do you know which formations Patton used? 4th Armoured were Patton's favourite division and had been in the theatre since the beginning. The two infantry formations (26 and 80 Divisions) were described by Macdonald as experienced and fairly well rested. Do you now accept this statement is false?

Regards,
IronDuke




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 4:06:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

You just can't stay away can you[;)]


I was going to stay away.

But then I made the mistake of reading some of the posts in this thread.

Some of it is complete and utter nonsense. . .

So I am taking the time to post more information and views on Patton and Third Army for the more thoughtful reader.


This is offensive. I have to keep illustrating the errors in your posts. So to suggest we are talking nonsense and not particularly thoughtful is clearly wide of the mark.

Regards,
IronDuke




terje439 -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 4:30:04 AM)

quote:

Otherwise Hitler must have been the greatest general of all.


That had nothing to do with ppl beeing idiots, it has to do with the fact that no matter what Hitler was and was not, he was a great public speaker....




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 4:35:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Based on information from: "Patton: A Genius for War" by Carlos D'Este, pp. 504-520; and The History Net http://www.historynet.com/ah/blpattontomessina/


Patton in Sicily

When Patton and Monty landed in Sicily, Alexander assigned Monty the role of driving north to Messina in the east, while Patton was assigned the role of "watching" Monty's flank in the west.

For two weeks Patton and his Seventh Army sat idle, while Monty's British and Canadian soldiers became bogged down in tough mountain fighting against heavily entrenched German and Italian troops.

Finally, Patton had had enough.

Taking matters into his own hands, Patton flew to meet with Alexander, and persuaded him to allow Seventh Army to drive towards Palermo. In a second meeting with Monty present, Monty also agreed that Patton should drive west and then east.

Montgomery surprised Patton by suggesting that Seventh Army capture Messina. While Keyes and Bradley had raced across Sicily, Montgomery's Eighth Army had become completely bogged down in the east. Dug-in German troops continued to hold Montgomery at Catania, while his circling movement west around Etna proceeded slowly. With Seventh Army now poised, cat-like, ready to strike east, Montgomery realized that Patton was best positioned to take the city. Besides, by attacking east Patton would relieve the pressure on Eighth Army and allow him to finally punch past Catania.

On July 22 Truscott's Division entered Palermo after covering an astonishing 100 miles in just 72 hours in mountainous and winding roads.

When Patton captured Palermo, he not only acquired a forward port to receive supplies, but he also isolated and trapped 57,000 Italian soldiers in the west, who would be unable to join the fighting.

Then Patton unleashed his armour to drive east to Messina.

As the final phase of the Sicily Campaign heated up, Patton drove his officers to push as hard as they could. Troina fell on August 6. To the south, British forces captured Adrano and--finally--Catania. Fighting a brilliant rearguard action, German army units crept back from their narrowing front toward the beaches of the Straits of Messina. There, German and Italian ships waited to ferry troops and equipment across the two-mile passage to the Italian mainland.

In an effort to by-pass enemy positions and speed up his advance, Patton authorized two amphibious landings along the north coast. On the night of August 7-8 Americans swept ashore virtually unopposed behind German lines at St. Agata. At the same time, troops from Truscott's 3rd Division launched an attack on the high ridges inland and took 1,500 prisoners, bringing Seventh Army 12 miles closer to Messina. The second landing nearly proved a disaster. Truscott felt he would not have time to get his infantry up in time to support it, and wanted to postpone the attack for one day. Bradley agreed. But Patton was having none of it. Messina lay around the corner, and this wasn't the time to slow down. Early on August 11 elements of Truscott's 30th Infantry regiment went ashore at Brolo, 12 miles behind a German front. The Americans were quickly pinned down on a hill just above town. Nearly 30 hours passed before the balance of Truscott's troops could relieve them. Progress had again been made, but at a high price.

On August 13 American troops captured Randazzo. To the south, British and Canadian troops forced the Germans from the slopes of Mt. Etna. Axis forces flooded toward Messina. On the night of August 15-16 Montgomery tried an amphibious landing of his own, putting elements of his commando and armored units ashore at Scaletta, just eight miles from Messina.

Patton ordered a third "leap-frog" operation for that same night, but by then American troops were moving so fast that they had already passed the scheduled landing site by the time the ship borne force arrived. Around 10:00 p.m. on August 16 elements of Truscott's 3rd Division entered bomb-scarred Messina. Patton immediately notified Eisenhower and Alexander, and called Bradley to tell him "we would enter Messina in the morning at 1000 hours."

Patton's victorious, hell-for-leather drive on Messina restored some luster to an otherwise badly managed campaign. Rather than firmly coordinating the moves of Seventh and Eighth Armies, Alexander had vacillated, first backing down to Montgomery and then allowing, almost forcing, Patton to set his own course. Poor decisions, such as the reassignment of Highway 124 to Montgomery (and poor air cover over the Messina Straits), ultimately cost time, and allowed Axis ships and ferries to evacuate roughly 60,000 Italian soldiers, 40,000 Germans, 10,000 vehicles, and 17,000 tons of equipment from the island--all of which would soon be used against the Allies in Italy.

The race had significant, if less tangible, repercussions for Patton and American fighting men. The fast-moving Seventh Army had proved itself the equal of Eighth Army and set a new standard in mobile warfare. The Americans, Montgomery admitted after the war, had "proved themselves to be first-class troops. It took time; but they did it more quickly than we did."

Significance

Patton's drive to Palermo and then to Messina was an operation he planned and initiated. His successful drive helped to save both Alexander's and Monty's reputations. Alexander had allowed Patton's Seventh Army to sit idle for TWO weeks. Monty's army was bogged down in the mountainous terrain in the east against stiff Axis resistance.

Patton showed the correctness of his decision because both Alexander AND Monty clearly saw the need for it, and agreed to it.

Had Patton been able to drive west when he first landed, in all likelihood, he could have bagged ALL of the Axis forces on Sicily. Even starting two weeks late, Patton still got to Messina before Monty.

Unfortunately, this delay allowed over 100,000 Axis troops and 10,000 vehicles to escape across the Straits of Messina, and would later be in position to fight Allied troops in Italy.

"Both the Tunisian and Sicily campaigns highlighted Patton’s skill at rapidly moving his forces and logistics to sustain them in order to engage and defeat the enemy. In his book Crusade in Europe, Eisenhower praises Patton’s mobility: "Speed requires training, fitness, confidence, morale, suitable transport, and skillful leadership. Patton employed these tactics relentlessly, and thus not only minimized casualties but shook the whole Italian Government so forcibly that Mussolini toppled from his position in late July."35 Also in a letter to Marshall, Eisenhower praised Patton’s "native shrewdness about logistics…and as a truly aggressive commander with brains."36 Patton’s combat and logistics units plus his staff elements constantly improved their abilities to fight and sustain their formations in the tactical environment. Now with the invasion of Europe quickly approaching, the logistics lessons learned from the Tunisian and Sicilian operations would be put to good use—as well as Patton and his Third Army."

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/decker.html


[:D]

What you do is take everything from D'Este that you like and ignore the rest. When you actually make your own conclusions, things take rather a leap for the worst.

You make it clear here that far from being a leap of strategic brilliance on Patton's part, it was Monty who suggested Patton take Messina at the second meeting. This was indeed the case. However, because his "brilliant" scenic drive had left American units scattered all over western sicily, it took a couple of days for Patton to sort himself out and attack.

Your mention of Truscott is interesting. D'este calls it brilliant because of the distance covered, not because the Americans actually fought anyone. As I've said, Patton could drive tanks, so there is no dispute here. This was just a scenic drive, though, not a breakthrough or battle.

You also fail (strangely) to mention that Patton was so paranoid about Messina that he refused to believe Montgomery would be happy to see him there first. If anything comes out of the section in D'Este's book, it's that Montgomery did not see Patton as a rival, but that Patton had great hang ups with Monty.

This paragraph illustrates your tactics best of all.

quote:

Patton ordered a third "leap-frog" operation for that same night, but by then American troops were moving so fast that they had already passed the scheduled landing site by the time the ship borne force arrived. Around 10:00 p.m. on August 16 elements of Truscott's 3rd Division entered bomb-scarred Messina. Patton immediately notified Eisenhower and Alexander, and called Bradley to tell him "we would enter Messina in the morning at 1000 hours."


Unfortunately for you, I too have D'Este's book. D'Este does not say that American troops were moving so fast they overran the site, he says the site was already overrun when Patton ordered the assault, but after earlier tongue lashings from Patton, when the order was confirmed they went ahead, and an American General met the troops on the beach.

I will quote the passage to allow other thread readers to discern whether my version or yours is correct.

"Several days later Patton had formed another task force of the 45th Division to land on the beaches east of Cape Milazzo. Again, Truscott protested to Keys, this time for the simple reason that the 3d Division had already advanced beyond the landing site."

Do you retract this section of your analysis?

Also, this section was interesting:

quote:

Patton immediately notified Eisenhower and Alexander, and called Bradley to tell him "we would enter Messina in the morning at 1000 hours.


What you have neglected to add is that Bradley wanted to enter Messina straight away to capture Germans. Patton ordered the halt to ensure that he would be able to have a victory parade the following day. Military considerations were ignored as George went after the glory. Bradley's men sat in the hills around Messina waiting for Patton to turn up.

If you are going to paraphrase the work of historians to support your opinion, you have to either do it fairly, or ensure you paraphgrase a work no one else has read [;)].

Your conclusions were startling.

quote:

Patton showed the correctness of his decision because both Alexander AND Monty clearly saw the need for it, and agreed to it.


D'este does not say either man felt a need for this operation. Alexander agreed to it because he was conscious the Americans were growing restless. He realised that he could let Patton have his head provided he left sufficient forces in place to guard Monty's left flank. Indeed, (something else you fail to mention - strangely) Alexander ordered the entire operation stopped, but Patton's Chief of Staff requested confirmation of the order that when received was too late to stop the Americans who were well on their way. So, if Alexander tried to stop it, why on earth did he see the correctness of it? The only person who saw his operation as the nonsense it really was was Bradley who wanted to drive on Messina outflanking the defensive positions that were holding the British up. You seem reluctant to credit Bradley. On the one hand you say Palermo-Messina was the way to go, and yet dismiss the one American General who saw that the only real option was an immediate attack upon Messina to bag the Island's defenders.

Do you retract this conclusion?

You also run two meetings together to make it sound as if Patton's intention was to drive west and then east. Patton had completed the Palermo operation when Montgomery suggested he should attack Messina.
Indeedm Monty made this suggestion at the second meeting which was actually held in Palermo!

As for

quote:

Had Patton been able to drive west when he first landed, in all likelihood, he could have bagged ALL of the Axis forces on Sicily. Even starting two weeks late, Patton still got to Messina before Monty.


Not if he had (in this wonderplan you credit him with) gone after Palermo first. That was in completely the oppositie direction to Messina.

Regards,
IronDuke




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 4:49:29 AM)

Here are more views by a wide variety of writers about the decision to stop Patton from closing the Falaise Gap:

The Falaise Pocket

World War II Allied Encriclement of the German Armies. Failure or Success of the Allied Leadership and Planning?

Authors: DeLauder, Braden P.; MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF COLL QUANTICO VA

Abstract: By August 1944, the Allies had broken out of the Normandy beachhead and were rapidly exploiting a breakthrough in the German lines. In early August, Hitler ordered a heavy single pronged attack to the west to cut off the US forces to the south. Bradley recognized this as an opportunity to encircle the German Army in France. By turning Patton's Third Army, in the south, north towards Argentan, Bradley formed the lower jaw of a pincer movement while Montgomery ordered Crerar's First Canadian Army south to push towards Falaise to form the upper jaw. Connecting the Allied armies between Falaise and Argentan would completely surround the German army. To the north, Montgomery's forces struggled to push south against the German defensive line. Patton's Third Army, in concert with the XIX Tactical Air Command, was making extremely rapid progress. bate on the 12th of August, Bradley stopped Patton's forces from moving north of Argentan. The decision to stop Third Army's movement north allowed many German personnel to escape from the Falaise pocket. The failure of the Allied forces to close the Falaise Gap was the result of lack of communication directly linked to the type of personalities of the commanders.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/05/0593/A059304.html

In August 1944 Lt. Gen. Omar N. Bradley, commanding the 12th U.S. Army Group, abruptly halted the advance of the XV Corps of Lt. Gen. George S. Patton's Third Army. He thus prevented its movement northward through Argentan toward a juncture with Canadian forces coming south from Caen toward Falaise. As a consequence, the Allies failed to close the Argentan-Falaise pocket. The virtually surrounded German forces in Normandy, escaping through the Argentan-Falaise gap, avoided complete encirclement and almost certain destruction.

Why General Bradley made his decision and whether he was correct are questions that have stirred discussion ever since World War II.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_17.htm


When Patton died, an “official history” was indeed agreed upon and corroborated by Bradley, Eisenhower and Montgomery. They blamed each other for various aspects, but in the main part lied about the true cause of each’s largest disasters: Market Garden, Caen, Hurtgen, the Battle of the Bulge, the failure to capture Berlin, the failure to keep all of the armies supplied, the failure to take Prague, the failure to close off the Falaise Gap and seal the fate of the 11 divisions trapped there; each had an “official” cause, an “official” whipping boy. Documents from each of these episodes were fudged while others were removed, destroyed and tampered with; and the generals corroborated each others stories in their memoirs.

The reason why the generals cooperated so well on this issue was because each of them had made mistakes. Each had committed an atrocious disaster which they felt had to be kept from public knowledge. Only one general, Patton, had never lost thousands of men on a hopelessly mismanaged mission, and thus only he was above corruption. If a spiteful general were to bring up the Battle of Metz, the Third’s most bloody battle, Patton could counter that there were 3 dead Germans to 1 dead American, even in that desperate battle. And the Battle for Metz would never be investigated because investigation would only uncover the damning evidence of SHAEF’s decision to starve the Third Army, and Com Z’s negligence and wastefulness in keeping the armies supplied.

http://www.pattonuncovered.com/html/chapter.html


Yet the deepest problem with A Soldier's Life is that it really is not a soldier's life. One could make the argument that on key occasions—the approach to Brest, the closing of the Falaise Gap, the crossing of the Seine River, the August race to the Siegfried Line, the initial desire to go much deeper to the rear of the Bulge, and the decision to stop before Prague—thousands of lives might have been saved had superiors ceded to Patton's judgment. Such controversial and monumental decisions affected an entire theater; yet they warrant only a few pages in Hirshson's account and are overshadowed by stories of Patton's purported liaisons, insensitive language, and blinkered class biases. In lieu of in-depth military analysis, we get a few extended quotations from Chester Wilmot, B.H. Liddell Hart, and S.L.A. Marshall—none of whom is known for consistency, fairness, or sympathy to Patton.

http://victorhanson.com/Curiosities/Patton.html

Unlike the Falaise Gap in the West, where a too-cautious Bradley again did need heed Patton's calls to allow him to drive ahead and seal the trap shut, the Soviet commanders did not make the same mistake. No one got out of the Minsk pocket. The swamps and forests of Belorussia became a huge killing zone as Red Army forces and their partisan auxiliaries took their overdue but thorough revenge.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:MpbkUDi6pb4J:washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040604-105429-7659r.htm+patton+falaise+gap&hl=en&lr=lang_en

D'Este's portrayal of some of the other leading figures in World War II is most revealing. Contrary to his popular designation as "the GI General" (thanks to the work of Ernie Pyle), General Omar Bradley, who would later win five stars and a rank as General of the Army, is shown to be quite mercurial and a martinet. Contrary to what was shown in Patton, Bradley despised Patton, and sought to undercut him at every turn. When Bradley and Patton were allies, it was mostly out of convenience--at times when Bradley did not know Patton well enough to dislike him, or when Bradley and Patton had a mutual interest in opposing the actions of Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery. While Patton was feared as a tough boss, it was actually Bradley who sacked more commanders under his authority, while Patton was in favor of letting his commanders have more of a chance to prove themselves. And Bradley is severely criticized for his indecision and timidity as a commander, particularly in his performance at the Battle of the Falaise Gap--a battle where Patton's genius for warfare and boldness in command would have likely served the Allies better.

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/002773.html

Questionable leadership and strategy were abundant during these operations, but never was the courage and bravery of the Canadian soldier questioned. Problems were not limited to the Canadians though. The German counterattack at Mortain can only be considered a monumental failure. Bradley stopping Patton at Argentan was the classic error committed in the Normandy campaign. In protecting the strong, fresh American army which could have been in Falaise a day or two after they reached Argentan, Bradley lost a chance for a quick conclusion to the campaign.

http://www.nwha.org/news_2Q2003/news_page5.html

George S. Patton was a disaster as a proconsul in postwar Bavaria. Yet Eisenhower and Bradley — nicer, steadier, and more judicious men both — failed to close the Falaise Gap, unwisely restrained Patton at the Seine River and near the German border, and employed orthodoxy, not creativity, at the Battle of the Bulge. Thank God that both of them, and not Patton, later became fixtures of American government; but weep for the thousands of GIs dead because they, and not Patton, ruled the American battlefield in Europe.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hansonprint011102.html

Yenne also briefly addresses the controversial decision to halt Patton’s columns at Falaise and wait for the Canadian First Army to close the encirclement of the bulk of the German Seventh Army that COBRA and the eventual British-Canadian breakout produced. Eventually, Bradley was ready to change his mind just as the Canadian forces broke through to close the gap. Ostensibly, the decision was made in order to avoid fratricide between the two converging Allied armies. Had Patton been allowed to continue, the Falaise Gap would have probably been closed in hours rather than days. As it was, tens of thousands of German troops escaped during the delay.

http://members.aol.com/TFGrantel/books/cobra.html


But by that time, what could have been a great encirclement echoing some of the pivotal battles on the Eastern Front had become something less-a victory, but one qualified by the number of German forces that had been able to flee through the gap. The fact that enemy forces did escape outraged American commanders, from the even-tempered Eisenhower and Bradley to the mercurial Patton. They saw it as yet another example of bad generalship by Montgomery, who pressured the pocket's western end, squeezing the Germans out eastward like a tube of toothpaste, rather than capping the open gap. Patton, ever aggressive, pleaded with Bradley for clearance to cut across the narrow gap, in front of retreating German forces, from Argentan north to Falaise. But Bradley wisely demurred, recognizing that the outnumbered Americans might be "trampled" by the German divisions racing for the gap. "I much preferred," Bradley recollected subsequently, "a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise."

http://www.ehistory.com/wwii/books/d-day1944/0035.cfm

Featherston, a journalist with the Durham, N.C., Herald-Sun , reviews the controversy over Gen. Omar Bradley's failure to close the gap, a measure that would have encircled large German formations in France and shortened the war. Two German armies escaped through the so-called Falaise Gap but, as the author points out, the Allies took 50,000 prisoners and counted 10,000 enemy dead.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:aldkXZT02O0J:www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891416625%3Fv%3Dglance+failure+to+close+the+falaise+gap&hl=en&lr=lang_en

Blumenson points out that, though Bradley created the opportunity to destroy much of the German armored force west of the Seine, he marched to the Army Group boundary and waited. In the meantime, the Canadians found the going hard and could not close the gap between themselves and the Americans. Instead of requesting a boundary change and attacking to close the gap, Bradley shifted part of XV Corps, which had reached the boundary south of Argentan, east toward the Seine. Thus, on August 17, at the moment of crisis, U.S. side forces were not positioned to close the gap, and the Canadians still had not reached the boundary. Without spelling it out, Blumenson arrays the facts and demonstrates clearly that the Allies missed an opportunity. In the end, confusion on both sides, an uncharacteristic lack of supervision by Montgomery, Bradley's movement toward the Seine and determined efforts by the Germans produced the first phase of what the Germans called the Miracle in the West.

http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/(reviews)/20014?OpenDocument

The Germans now tried to stop the allies’ advance. Against his generals’ advice, Hitler ordered 11 of his best divisions to attack the allies. Patton then went in one huge sweep behind all of the German armies, encircling them between two cities, known as Falaise and Argentan. Patton’s Third Army was at Falaise, and Montgomery’s 21st Army Group was north of Argentan.

In one of the most stupid decisions of the war, Patton was ordered to halt at Falaise and wait for Montgomery to close the gap between the two cities. It took Montgomery 2 weeks to close the gap, during which most of the German divisions escaped. Had Patton been allowed to close the gap, the war would have ended in August 1944. There would have never been an “East Germany” and a Communist dominated Eastern Europe. Thousands of Jewish lives would also have been saved.

http://www.barbaraboland.com/_wsn/page3.html


Operations Tractable and Cobra's pursuit are splendid examples of Allied armor at its operational best and strategic worst. Despite inspiring accomplishments by individual divisions and corps, the dynamic maneuver and total victory offered by Patton's U.S. Third Army were to be rejected by the conservative Bradley.

http://stonebooks.com/archives/010916.shtml




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 4:52:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

You just can't stay away can you[;)]


I was going to stay away.

But then I made the mistake of reading some of the posts in this thread.

Some of it is complete and utter nonsense. . .

So I am taking the time to post more information and views on Patton and Third Army for the more thoughtful reader.


This is offensive. I have to keep illustrating the errors in your posts. So to suggest we are talking nonsense and not particularly thoughtful is clearly wide of the mark.

Regards,
IronDuke


And I stand by that statement.

You nitpick on tiny things, yet the bigger picture seems to elude you.




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 4:58:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Based on information from: "Patton: A Genius for War" by Carlos D'Este, pp. 504-520; and The History Net http://www.historynet.com/ah/blpattontomessina/


Patton in Sicily

When Patton and Monty landed in Sicily, Alexander assigned Monty the role of driving north to Messina in the east, while Patton was assigned the role of "watching" Monty's flank in the west.

For two weeks Patton and his Seventh Army sat idle, while Monty's British and Canadian soldiers became bogged down in tough mountain fighting against heavily entrenched German and Italian troops.

Finally, Patton had had enough.

Taking matters into his own hands, Patton flew to meet with Alexander, and persuaded him to allow Seventh Army to drive towards Palermo. In a second meeting with Monty present, Monty also agreed that Patton should drive west and then east.

Montgomery surprised Patton by suggesting that Seventh Army capture Messina. While Keyes and Bradley had raced across Sicily, Montgomery's Eighth Army had become completely bogged down in the east. Dug-in German troops continued to hold Montgomery at Catania, while his circling movement west around Etna proceeded slowly. With Seventh Army now poised, cat-like, ready to strike east, Montgomery realized that Patton was best positioned to take the city. Besides, by attacking east Patton would relieve the pressure on Eighth Army and allow him to finally punch past Catania.

On July 22 Truscott's Division entered Palermo after covering an astonishing 100 miles in just 72 hours in mountainous and winding roads.

When Patton captured Palermo, he not only acquired a forward port to receive supplies, but he also isolated and trapped 57,000 Italian soldiers in the west, who would be unable to join the fighting.

Then Patton unleashed his armour to drive east to Messina.

As the final phase of the Sicily Campaign heated up, Patton drove his officers to push as hard as they could. Troina fell on August 6. To the south, British forces captured Adrano and--finally--Catania. Fighting a brilliant rearguard action, German army units crept back from their narrowing front toward the beaches of the Straits of Messina. There, German and Italian ships waited to ferry troops and equipment across the two-mile passage to the Italian mainland.

In an effort to by-pass enemy positions and speed up his advance, Patton authorized two amphibious landings along the north coast. On the night of August 7-8 Americans swept ashore virtually unopposed behind German lines at St. Agata. At the same time, troops from Truscott's 3rd Division launched an attack on the high ridges inland and took 1,500 prisoners, bringing Seventh Army 12 miles closer to Messina. The second landing nearly proved a disaster. Truscott felt he would not have time to get his infantry up in time to support it, and wanted to postpone the attack for one day. Bradley agreed. But Patton was having none of it. Messina lay around the corner, and this wasn't the time to slow down. Early on August 11 elements of Truscott's 30th Infantry regiment went ashore at Brolo, 12 miles behind a German front. The Americans were quickly pinned down on a hill just above town. Nearly 30 hours passed before the balance of Truscott's troops could relieve them. Progress had again been made, but at a high price.

On August 13 American troops captured Randazzo. To the south, British and Canadian troops forced the Germans from the slopes of Mt. Etna. Axis forces flooded toward Messina. On the night of August 15-16 Montgomery tried an amphibious landing of his own, putting elements of his commando and armored units ashore at Scaletta, just eight miles from Messina.

Patton ordered a third "leap-frog" operation for that same night, but by then American troops were moving so fast that they had already passed the scheduled landing site by the time the ship borne force arrived. Around 10:00 p.m. on August 16 elements of Truscott's 3rd Division entered bomb-scarred Messina. Patton immediately notified Eisenhower and Alexander, and called Bradley to tell him "we would enter Messina in the morning at 1000 hours."

Patton's victorious, hell-for-leather drive on Messina restored some luster to an otherwise badly managed campaign. Rather than firmly coordinating the moves of Seventh and Eighth Armies, Alexander had vacillated, first backing down to Montgomery and then allowing, almost forcing, Patton to set his own course. Poor decisions, such as the reassignment of Highway 124 to Montgomery (and poor air cover over the Messina Straits), ultimately cost time, and allowed Axis ships and ferries to evacuate roughly 60,000 Italian soldiers, 40,000 Germans, 10,000 vehicles, and 17,000 tons of equipment from the island--all of which would soon be used against the Allies in Italy.

The race had significant, if less tangible, repercussions for Patton and American fighting men. The fast-moving Seventh Army had proved itself the equal of Eighth Army and set a new standard in mobile warfare. The Americans, Montgomery admitted after the war, had "proved themselves to be first-class troops. It took time; but they did it more quickly than we did."

Significance

Patton's drive to Palermo and then to Messina was an operation he planned and initiated. His successful drive helped to save both Alexander's and Monty's reputations. Alexander had allowed Patton's Seventh Army to sit idle for TWO weeks. Monty's army was bogged down in the mountainous terrain in the east against stiff Axis resistance.

Patton showed the correctness of his decision because both Alexander AND Monty clearly saw the need for it, and agreed to it.

Had Patton been able to drive west when he first landed, in all likelihood, he could have bagged ALL of the Axis forces on Sicily. Even starting two weeks late, Patton still got to Messina before Monty.

Unfortunately, this delay allowed over 100,000 Axis troops and 10,000 vehicles to escape across the Straits of Messina, and would later be in position to fight Allied troops in Italy.

"Both the Tunisian and Sicily campaigns highlighted Patton’s skill at rapidly moving his forces and logistics to sustain them in order to engage and defeat the enemy. In his book Crusade in Europe, Eisenhower praises Patton’s mobility: "Speed requires training, fitness, confidence, morale, suitable transport, and skillful leadership. Patton employed these tactics relentlessly, and thus not only minimized casualties but shook the whole Italian Government so forcibly that Mussolini toppled from his position in late July."35 Also in a letter to Marshall, Eisenhower praised Patton’s "native shrewdness about logistics…and as a truly aggressive commander with brains."36 Patton’s combat and logistics units plus his staff elements constantly improved their abilities to fight and sustain their formations in the tactical environment. Now with the invasion of Europe quickly approaching, the logistics lessons learned from the Tunisian and Sicilian operations would be put to good use—as well as Patton and his Third Army."

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/decker.html


[:D]

What you do is take everything from D'Este that you like and ignore the rest. When you actually make your own conclusions, things take rather a leap for the worst.

You make it clear here that far from being a leap of strategic brilliance on Patton's part, it was Monty who suggested Patton take Messina at the second meeting. This was indeed the case. However, because his "brilliant" scenic drive had left American units scattered all over western sicily, it took a couple of days for Patton to sort himself out and attack.

Your mention of Truscott is interesting. D'este calls it brilliant because of the distance covered, not because the Americans actually fought anyone. As I've said, Patton could drive tanks, so there is no dispute here. This was just a scenic drive, though, not a breakthrough or battle.

You also fail (strangely) to mention that Patton was so paranoid about Messina that he refused to believe Montgomery would be happy to see him there first. If anything comes out of the section in D'Este's book, it's that Montgomery did not see Patton as a rival, but that Patton had great hang ups with Monty.

This paragraph illustrates your tactics best of all.

quote:

Patton ordered a third "leap-frog" operation for that same night, but by then American troops were moving so fast that they had already passed the scheduled landing site by the time the ship borne force arrived. Around 10:00 p.m. on August 16 elements of Truscott's 3rd Division entered bomb-scarred Messina. Patton immediately notified Eisenhower and Alexander, and called Bradley to tell him "we would enter Messina in the morning at 1000 hours."


Unfortunately for you, I too have D'Este's book. D'Este does not say that American troops were moving so fast they overran the site, he says the site was already overrun when Patton ordered the assault, but after earlier tongue lashings from Patton, when the order was confirmed they went ahead, and an American General met the troops on the beach.

I will quote the passage to allow other thread readers to discern whether my version or yours is correct.

"Several days later Patton had formed another task force of the 45th Division to land on the beaches east of Cape Milazzo. Again, Truscott protested to Keys, this time for the simple reason that the 3d Division had already advanced beyond the landing site."

Do you retract this section of your analysis?

Also, this section was interesting:

quote:

Patton immediately notified Eisenhower and Alexander, and called Bradley to tell him "we would enter Messina in the morning at 1000 hours.


What you have neglected to add is that Bradley wanted to enter Messina straight away to capture Germans. Patton ordered the halt to ensure that he would be able to have a victory parade the following day. Military considerations were ignored as George went after the glory. Bradley's men sat in the hills around Messina waiting for Patton to turn up.

If you are going to paraphrase the work of historians to support your opinion, you have to either do it fairly, or ensure you paraphgrase a work no one else has read [;)].

Your conclusions were startling.

quote:

Patton showed the correctness of his decision because both Alexander AND Monty clearly saw the need for it, and agreed to it.


D'este does not say either man felt a need for this operation. Alexander agreed to it because he was conscious the Americans were growing restless. He realised that he could let Patton have his head provided he left sufficient forces in place to guard Monty's left flank. Indeed, (something else you fail to mention - strangely) Alexander ordered the entire operation stopped, but Patton's Chief of Staff requested confirmation of the order that when received was too late to stop the Americans who were well on their way. So, if Alexander tried to stop it, why on earth did he see the correctness of it? The only person who saw his operation as the nonsense it really was was Bradley who wanted to drive on Messina outflanking the defensive positions that were holding the British up. You seem reluctant to credit Bradley. On the one hand you say Palermo-Messina was the way to go, and yet dismiss the one American General who saw that the only real option was an immediate attack upon Messina to bag the Island's defenders.

Do you retract this conclusion?

You also run two meetings together to make it sound as if Patton's intention was to drive west and then east. Patton had completed the Palermo operation when Montgomery suggested he should attack Messina.
Indeedm Monty made this suggestion at the second meeting which was actually held in Palermo!

As for

quote:

Had Patton been able to drive west when he first landed, in all likelihood, he could have bagged ALL of the Axis forces on Sicily. Even starting two weeks late, Patton still got to Messina before Monty.


Not if he had (in this wonderplan you credit him with) gone after Palermo first. That was in completely the oppositie direction to Messina.

Regards,
IronDuke



Here you go again - you can't seem to see the forest because of the trees. [8|]

All you seem to concentrate on is nitpicking minor details.

Try to grasp the BIG picture. . .

Yes, I could have written out ALL 20 pages of the chapter in D'Este's book, but my summary above was just that - A SUMMARY of events in Sicily. And that summary is essentially correct as to the main facts.




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:03:09 AM)

quote:

What you are arguing is inconsequential.

You simply cannot see the forest for the trees [8|]

I used that site for an overview of facts related to the Falaise Gap.


What I demonstrated was that the facts were not correct. How is that inconsequential?


quote:

What is IMPORTANT is the failure to close the Falaise Gap. Can't you SEE that?

Patton was ORDERED NOT to close the Gap. Can't you grasp this bit of information?


You are pre-occupied with the Falaise gap in a way no Military Commander at the time (including Patton) actually was. As I have demonstrated, Patton wanted to go for the Seine. He saw Falaise as small beer compared to the bigger picture. Why bag 75000 Germans at Falaise when you can capture the Seine bridges and bag twice that number? Who is actually failing to grasp the bigger picture here??????[8|]

quote:

Slight errors in who reported to who, or if a few dates are off, really doesn't matter. Can't you grasp the BIGGER picture?


It is important, because if the writer can not get their facts right, how can we have confidence in their conclusions? Do you actually trust a history source that doesn't know basic facts?


quote:

Patton, in his own diaries, written at the time, also says so, as well as many historians.


I'm going to ignore this. You use the phrase "many historians" time and again without actually naming any [:D]. I keep naming them. I would suggest reading Carlos D'Este's "Decision in Normandy", or Max Hasting's "Overlord" or Robin Neillands "The battle for Normandy". D'este is clear. Bradley's (not Montgomery not SHAEF) opinion that the advance should stop was not necessarily wrong given what was known at the time. Neither D'Este nor Hastings in what are two of the best histories of the Campaign, criticise Bradley unduly for it. D'Este mentions that Haislip (the Corp Commander whose troops were at Argentan in the forefront of Patton's advance) was reluctant to go on because he felt he would be unduly exposed. This is very revealing.

quote:

Again, you write a great deal, but you do not deal with central issues!

It's like wanting to use bricks to build a house, but instead you focus on hammering a few nails into a board.. . .

YOU say Patton could not have closed the Gap.

But patton and others felt otherwise.


This is rambling. I'm saying Patton could have closed the gap, but would quite possibly have suffered heavily doing so, and many Germans would have leaked out anyway. Bradley decided it wasn't worth the risk, and no historians other than Rohmer (D'este's opinion of who'm I've quoted) have really criticised him for it. Your reading is too narrow to recognise this, however.


quote:

As to the 352 VGD:

Who cares?

What is the point of going on and on about the 352nd GVD?

Many troops in Patton's Third Army were inexperienced. So what?

He caught the German's napping and hit them in an exposed flank.


It matters because it illustrates the sweeping and incorrect statements you make. If you are wrong (I presume this is a begruding admittance you are wrong) about the 352, why am I supposed to believe without evidence anything else you say? It was important in this context because their inexperience didn't prevent them giving Patton's offensive a sticky time. They should not have been capable of holding him up. That they did was in part down to Patton's basic lack of ability when leading troops into prepared positions where the enemy were not already on the run. You say Patton achieved miracles. I say that is just the legend, not the fact. Patton had prepared plans because his chief intelligence Officer (not Patton) had decided the Germans were preparing an attack in the north. The ninety degree turn was therefore not quite as exiting as you would have us believe.

He then launches an offensive with a poor operational plan, and takes longer to get there than might otherwise have been the case.

MacDonald is indeed clear that only one of the German formations oppositie him was actually ready for his attack. So why did they manage to hold him up? 352 was a poor formation even by late war German standards.

quote:

Can't you see the bigger picture of what EVERYONE ELSE can see in what Patton accomplished at the Bulge??


Simply saying everyone else can see it, is not the same as proving everyone else can see it. I have cited at least three historians concerning Patton's attack at the bulge. Why do you refuse to tell us which sources back you up. I freely cite mine so you can check them. History is about going past the legends, past the myths and common perceptions, and getting at the truth. Read past the George Patton websites and you will see the situation was far more complicated and less complimentary than the legend would have us believe.

Regards,
IronDuke




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:07:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

What you are arguing is inconsequential.

You simply cannot see the forest for the trees [8|]

I used that site for an overview of facts related to the Falaise Gap.


What I demonstrated was that the facts were not correct. How is that inconsequential?


quote:

What is IMPORTANT is the failure to close the Falaise Gap. Can't you SEE that?

Patton was ORDERED NOT to close the Gap. Can't you grasp this bit of information?


You are pre-occupied with the Falaise gap in a way no Military Commander at the time (including Patton) actually was. As I have demonstrated, Patton wanted to go for the Seine. He saw Falaise as small beer compared to the bigger picture. Why bag 75000 Germans at Falaise when you can capture the Seine bridges and bag twice that number? Who is actually failing to grasp the bigger picture here??????[8|]

quote:

Slight errors in who reported to who, or if a few dates are off, really doesn't matter. Can't you grasp the BIGGER picture?


It is important, because if the writer can not get their facts right, how can we have confidence in their conclusions? Do you actually trust a history source that doesn't know basic facts?


quote:

Patton, in his own diaries, written at the time, also says so, as well as many historians.


I'm going to ignore this. You use the phrase "many historians" time and again without actually naming any [:D]. I keep naming them. I would suggest reading Carlos D'Este's "Decision in Normandy", or Max Hasting's "Overlord" or Robin Neillands "The battle for Normandy". D'este is clear. Bradley's (not Montgomery not SHAEF) opinion that the advance should stop was not necessarily wrong given what was known at the time. Neither D'Este nor Hastings in what are two of the best histories of the Campaign, criticise Bradley unduly for it. D'Este mentions that Haislip (the Corp Commander whose troops were at Argentan in the forefront of Patton's advance) was reluctant to go on because he felt he would be unduly exposed. This is very revealing.

quote:

Again, you write a great deal, but you do not deal with central issues!

It's like wanting to use bricks to build a house, but instead you focus on hammering a few nails into a board.. . .

YOU say Patton could not have closed the Gap.

But patton and others felt otherwise.


This is rambling. I'm saying Patton could have closed the gap, but would quite possibly have suffered heavily doing so, and many Germans would have leaked out anyway. Bradley decided it wasn't worth the risk, and no historians other than Rohmer (D'este's opinion of who'm I've quoted) have really criticised him for it. Your reading is too narrow to recognise this, however.


quote:

As to the 352 VGD:

Who cares?

What is the point of going on and on about the 352nd GVD?

Many troops in Patton's Third Army were inexperienced. So what?

He caught the German's napping and hit them in an exposed flank.


It matters because it illustrates the sweeping and incorrect statements you make. If you are wrong (I presume this is a begruding admittance you are wrong) about the 352, why am I supposed to believe without evidence anything else you say? It was important in this context because their inexperience didn't prevent them giving Patton's offensive a sticky time. They should not have been capable of holding him up. That they did was in part down to Patton's basic lack of ability when leading troops into prepared positions where the enemy were not already on the run. You say Patton achieved miracles. I say that is just the legend, not the fact. Patton had prepared plans because his chief intelligence Officer (not Patton) had decided the Germans were preparing an attack in the north. The ninety degree turn was therefore not quite as exiting as you would have us believe.

He then launches an offensive with a poor operational plan, and takes longer to get there than might otherwise have been the case.

MacDonald is indeed clear that only one of the German formations oppositie him was actually ready for his attack. So why did they manage to hold him up? 352 was a poor formation even by late war German standards.

quote:

Can't you see the bigger picture of what EVERYONE ELSE can see in what Patton accomplished at the Bulge??


Simply saying everyone else can see it, is not the same as proving everyone else can see it. I have cited at least three historians concerning Patton's attack at the bulge. Why do you refuse to tell us which sources back you up. I freely cite mine so you can check them. History is about going past the legends, past the myths and common perceptions, and getting at the truth. Read past the George Patton websites and you will see the situation was far more complicated and less complimentary than the legend would have us believe.

Regards,
IronDuke



So. . .

What is it that you are trying to say?




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:10:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

You just can't stay away can you[;)]


I was going to stay away.

But then I made the mistake of reading some of the posts in this thread.

Some of it is complete and utter nonsense. . .

So I am taking the time to post more information and views on Patton and Third Army for the more thoughtful reader.


This is offensive. I have to keep illustrating the errors in your posts. So to suggest we are talking nonsense and not particularly thoughtful is clearly wide of the mark.

Regards,
IronDuke


And I stand by that statement.

You nitpick on tiny things, yet the bigger picture seems to elude you.


Everything I've said has been about the bigger picture. I corrected your version of events concerning the 352 because you were suggesting it held Patton up because it was a veteran unit. I corrected your description of the Falaise operation because you were seeking to use it to illustrate George's brilliance.
I corrected your description of the Sicily operation because once again you were seeking to illustrate Patton's abilities.

You seem to think that just because Patton reached Messina, it must have been brilliant operation. Monty reached Messina just a few hours after Patton, after fighting through those tough defences in the east. Why is his operation not brilliant too?

regards,
IronDuke




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:16:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Besides, no one (not the Germans or Allies) expected Patton to be able to attack from the south, since Third Army was heavily engaged fighting the German First Army.

Any army is vulnerable on its flanks. The Germans were at the Bulge, just as the Allies were in France in 1940, and Soviet troops were in 1941 Russia.

The miracle is the Patton was able to disengage Third Army from fighting, and while he had to protect himself from the German First Army, he turned Third Army 90 degrees north in freezing winter weather, and attacked the Germans in the flanks, surprising them.

Everyone, including all Allied Commanders, and most historians, as well as many top German officers, considered what Patton did was brilliant.

General Omar N. Bradley, who had no love for Patton, called his actions in the Bulge "one of the most astonishing feats of generalship of our campaign in the west".

It appears that only you, IronDuke, consider what Patton did was not very good. I guess you must be privy to information and insight that no other high level Allied or German officer or reputable historian has had access to. [&:]

Besides, the American troops that the Germans attacked in the Ardennes were themselves green and resting. So by your estimation, of what value was the German victory over them? Plus, many troops in Patton's Third Army were themselves relatively inexperienced when they attacked north into the German flanks.

Frankly, I just can't see what it is you are trying to argue or prove. . .[&:]


I haven't really gotten around to the bulge yet, so is this a pre-emptive strike? As I've said, It isn't just me. Apart from one other poster on this thread, I've quoted several reputable historians (do you really read my posts, or is your mind so set you don't need to?) Ellis in "Brute Force". Weighly in "Eisenhower's Leutenants". Bradley in his two books. D'este quotes two others in a quote I've already posted in this thread. That makes five.

I only had to open up another book to find a sixth. Charles Whiting in "The battle of the Bulge".

"Indeed, Patton with three full divisions, one of them armoured, plus overwhelming air and artillery support at his disposal, was stopped by three inferior German divisions, one of which its commander (as we have seen) didn't even wish to take beyond the German border. He wasted his men's lives because he threw them into battle hastily and without enough planning, making up his strategy from day to day. Most important was that Patton, the armoured Commander, who should have known much better attacked on a 25 mile front across countryside that favoured defending infantry on account of its many natural defensive spots. Instead of a massed armour-infantry attack on some concentrated, ole blood and guts , the supposed dashing cavalry General, slogged away like some long in the tooth hidebound first world war infantry commander."

Therefore, I've quoted from six historians to your one (and one website) so

quote:

It appears that only you, IronDuke, consider what Patton did was not very good. I guess you must be privy to information and insight that no other high level Allied or German officer or reputable historian has had access to. [&:]


is not actually true to be fair, is it?

As for:

quote:

Besides, the American troops that the Germans attacked in the Ardennes were themselves green and resting. So by your estimation, of what value was the German victory over them? Plus, many troops in Patton's Third Army were themselves relatively inexperienced when they attacked north into the German flanks.


I don't think German performance in the Ardennes was all that clever, either. I think it illustrated the days of the Wehrmacht's tactical dominance were coming to an end. as for:

quote:

Plus, many troops in Patton's Third Army were themselves relatively inexperienced when they attacked north into the German flanks


This is false. You are making some bold statements without checking them. Do you know which formations Patton used? 4th Armoured were Patton's favourite division and had been in the theatre since the beginning. The two infantry formations (26 and 80 Divisions) were described by Macdonald as experienced and fairly well rested. Do you now accept this statement is false?

Regards,
IronDuke



So?

Guess who won at the Bulge - Patton

Guess who everyone praises - Patton

Guess who accomplished what no else before had accomplished - Patton

Here is just one of the comments by a German Officer about Patton who actually fought in the Ardennes:

HASSO VON MANTEUFFEL (1897 - 1978) - von Manteuffel became the Commander-in-Chief of 5th Panzer Army and received the rank of General of the Panzer Troops. In December of 1944, Hasso Von Manteuffel was the commander of 5th Panzer Army, which was ordered to drive across the Meuse to Brussels and Antwerp, protecting the flank of 6th Panzer Army. During the Battle of the Bulge, 5th Panzer Army won tremendous victories and almost succeeded in breaking the Allied lines of defence. On December 16, 1970 Manteuffel praised his old adversary, Gen. George S. Patton. In part: "...General Patton was a master of lightning warfare and the best commander in this reference. Evidence of his excellent command and control of an army are the campaign in Sicily, the break-out in Brittany 1944 and during the Battle of the Bulge Dec. 1944..."




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:24:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

What you are arguing is inconsequential.

You simply cannot see the forest for the trees [8|]

I used that site for an overview of facts related to the Falaise Gap.


What I demonstrated was that the facts were not correct. How is that inconsequential?


quote:

What is IMPORTANT is the failure to close the Falaise Gap. Can't you SEE that?

Patton was ORDERED NOT to close the Gap. Can't you grasp this bit of information?


You are pre-occupied with the Falaise gap in a way no Military Commander at the time (including Patton) actually was. As I have demonstrated, Patton wanted to go for the Seine. He saw Falaise as small beer compared to the bigger picture. Why bag 75000 Germans at Falaise when you can capture the Seine bridges and bag twice that number? Who is actually failing to grasp the bigger picture here??????[8|]

quote:

Slight errors in who reported to who, or if a few dates are off, really doesn't matter. Can't you grasp the BIGGER picture?


It is important, because if the writer can not get their facts right, how can we have confidence in their conclusions? Do you actually trust a history source that doesn't know basic facts?


quote:

Patton, in his own diaries, written at the time, also says so, as well as many historians.


I'm going to ignore this. You use the phrase "many historians" time and again without actually naming any [:D]. I keep naming them. I would suggest reading Carlos D'Este's "Decision in Normandy", or Max Hasting's "Overlord" or Robin Neillands "The battle for Normandy". D'este is clear. Bradley's (not Montgomery not SHAEF) opinion that the advance should stop was not necessarily wrong given what was known at the time. Neither D'Este nor Hastings in what are two of the best histories of the Campaign, criticise Bradley unduly for it. D'Este mentions that Haislip (the Corp Commander whose troops were at Argentan in the forefront of Patton's advance) was reluctant to go on because he felt he would be unduly exposed. This is very revealing.

quote:

Again, you write a great deal, but you do not deal with central issues!

It's like wanting to use bricks to build a house, but instead you focus on hammering a few nails into a board.. . .

YOU say Patton could not have closed the Gap.

But patton and others felt otherwise.


This is rambling. I'm saying Patton could have closed the gap, but would quite possibly have suffered heavily doing so, and many Germans would have leaked out anyway. Bradley decided it wasn't worth the risk, and no historians other than Rohmer (D'este's opinion of who'm I've quoted) have really criticised him for it. Your reading is too narrow to recognise this, however.


quote:

As to the 352 VGD:

Who cares?

What is the point of going on and on about the 352nd GVD?

Many troops in Patton's Third Army were inexperienced. So what?

He caught the German's napping and hit them in an exposed flank.


It matters because it illustrates the sweeping and incorrect statements you make. If you are wrong (I presume this is a begruding admittance you are wrong) about the 352, why am I supposed to believe without evidence anything else you say? It was important in this context because their inexperience didn't prevent them giving Patton's offensive a sticky time. They should not have been capable of holding him up. That they did was in part down to Patton's basic lack of ability when leading troops into prepared positions where the enemy were not already on the run. You say Patton achieved miracles. I say that is just the legend, not the fact. Patton had prepared plans because his chief intelligence Officer (not Patton) had decided the Germans were preparing an attack in the north. The ninety degree turn was therefore not quite as exiting as you would have us believe.

He then launches an offensive with a poor operational plan, and takes longer to get there than might otherwise have been the case.

MacDonald is indeed clear that only one of the German formations oppositie him was actually ready for his attack. So why did they manage to hold him up? 352 was a poor formation even by late war German standards.

quote:

Can't you see the bigger picture of what EVERYONE ELSE can see in what Patton accomplished at the Bulge??


Simply saying everyone else can see it, is not the same as proving everyone else can see it. I have cited at least three historians concerning Patton's attack at the bulge. Why do you refuse to tell us which sources back you up. I freely cite mine so you can check them. History is about going past the legends, past the myths and common perceptions, and getting at the truth. Read past the George Patton websites and you will see the situation was far more complicated and less complimentary than the legend would have us believe.

Regards,
IronDuke



So. . .

What is it that you are trying to say?


I am saying specifically,

1. You do not know enough about the Falaise operation to draw conclusions, and what facts you have drawn from Rohmer and various websites are sometimes wrong anyway. You have not read the key historical works, and instead focus on summaries presented from websites, which only touch the surface of what D'Este said was a very complicated situation. I see no detailed analysis of why Bradley ordered the halt, whether Patton could have managed it, and what Patton, Bradley and others were actually thinking at the time. You just keep saying "Patton could have closed the gap, he must have been brilliant, everyone agrees with me."

2. You are less concerned with historical fact and more with the bigger picture. I disagree, because detailed historical analysis can not draw the bigger picture if it's facts are incorrect. How can it? An example is Patton's bulge drive. You say it was brilliant because he wheeled ninety degrees in double quick time and freed Bastogne. You accuse me of nitpicking because I point out his Intelligence Officer convinced him something was about to happen (no sign of Patton's brilliance here) and prepared the plans, and his attack was poorly handled because he attacked across a broad front into three ill prepared and often poor German units, and reached Bastogne slowly. If my "nitpicking" facts are correct, it cases a whole different light on this episode. This nitpicking is, therefore, all about the bigger picture. It seeks to free us of the legends you are posting and tell us what that bigger picture is.

3. When you are wrong (vis a vis the 352) you are not particularly gracious when admitting it. This is disappointing because it's why threads go downhill. If someone corrects me on fact, I apologise.

Regards,
ironDuke




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:24:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

You just can't stay away can you[;)]


I was going to stay away.

But then I made the mistake of reading some of the posts in this thread.

Some of it is complete and utter nonsense. . .

So I am taking the time to post more information and views on Patton and Third Army for the more thoughtful reader.


This is offensive. I have to keep illustrating the errors in your posts. So to suggest we are talking nonsense and not particularly thoughtful is clearly wide of the mark.

Regards,
IronDuke


And I stand by that statement.

You nitpick on tiny things, yet the bigger picture seems to elude you.


Everything I've said has been about the bigger picture. I corrected your version of events concerning the 352 because you were suggesting it held Patton up because it was a veteran unit. I corrected your description of the Falaise operation because you were seeking to use it to illustrate George's brilliance.
I corrected your description of the Sicily operation because once again you were seeking to illustrate Patton's abilities.

You seem to think that just because Patton reached Messina, it must have been brilliant operation. Monty reached Messina just a few hours after Patton, after fighting through those tough defences in the east. Why is his operation not brilliant too?

regards,
IronDuke


Regarding the 352nd:

GuitarJames first stated that the 352nd VGD was essentially a home guard unit.

I then went on to show that it was more than that - that it was made up of several disbanded infantry units. Some of those infantry units were veterans.

But I repeat - who cares??

The 352nd was caught when the Third Army drove north. The Germans NEVER expected Patton to attack, especially in that terrible weather. That was their big blunder and Patton's brilliance in that he was able to do it.




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:27:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

What you are arguing is inconsequential.

You simply cannot see the forest for the trees [8|]

I used that site for an overview of facts related to the Falaise Gap.


What I demonstrated was that the facts were not correct. How is that inconsequential?


quote:

What is IMPORTANT is the failure to close the Falaise Gap. Can't you SEE that?

Patton was ORDERED NOT to close the Gap. Can't you grasp this bit of information?


You are pre-occupied with the Falaise gap in a way no Military Commander at the time (including Patton) actually was. As I have demonstrated, Patton wanted to go for the Seine. He saw Falaise as small beer compared to the bigger picture. Why bag 75000 Germans at Falaise when you can capture the Seine bridges and bag twice that number? Who is actually failing to grasp the bigger picture here??????[8|]

quote:

Slight errors in who reported to who, or if a few dates are off, really doesn't matter. Can't you grasp the BIGGER picture?


It is important, because if the writer can not get their facts right, how can we have confidence in their conclusions? Do you actually trust a history source that doesn't know basic facts?


quote:

Patton, in his own diaries, written at the time, also says so, as well as many historians.


I'm going to ignore this. You use the phrase "many historians" time and again without actually naming any [:D]. I keep naming them. I would suggest reading Carlos D'Este's "Decision in Normandy", or Max Hasting's "Overlord" or Robin Neillands "The battle for Normandy". D'este is clear. Bradley's (not Montgomery not SHAEF) opinion that the advance should stop was not necessarily wrong given what was known at the time. Neither D'Este nor Hastings in what are two of the best histories of the Campaign, criticise Bradley unduly for it. D'Este mentions that Haislip (the Corp Commander whose troops were at Argentan in the forefront of Patton's advance) was reluctant to go on because he felt he would be unduly exposed. This is very revealing.

quote:

Again, you write a great deal, but you do not deal with central issues!

It's like wanting to use bricks to build a house, but instead you focus on hammering a few nails into a board.. . .

YOU say Patton could not have closed the Gap.

But patton and others felt otherwise.


This is rambling. I'm saying Patton could have closed the gap, but would quite possibly have suffered heavily doing so, and many Germans would have leaked out anyway. Bradley decided it wasn't worth the risk, and no historians other than Rohmer (D'este's opinion of who'm I've quoted) have really criticised him for it. Your reading is too narrow to recognise this, however.


quote:

As to the 352 VGD:

Who cares?

What is the point of going on and on about the 352nd GVD?

Many troops in Patton's Third Army were inexperienced. So what?

He caught the German's napping and hit them in an exposed flank.


It matters because it illustrates the sweeping and incorrect statements you make. If you are wrong (I presume this is a begruding admittance you are wrong) about the 352, why am I supposed to believe without evidence anything else you say? It was important in this context because their inexperience didn't prevent them giving Patton's offensive a sticky time. They should not have been capable of holding him up. That they did was in part down to Patton's basic lack of ability when leading troops into prepared positions where the enemy were not already on the run. You say Patton achieved miracles. I say that is just the legend, not the fact. Patton had prepared plans because his chief intelligence Officer (not Patton) had decided the Germans were preparing an attack in the north. The ninety degree turn was therefore not quite as exiting as you would have us believe.

He then launches an offensive with a poor operational plan, and takes longer to get there than might otherwise have been the case.

MacDonald is indeed clear that only one of the German formations oppositie him was actually ready for his attack. So why did they manage to hold him up? 352 was a poor formation even by late war German standards.

quote:

Can't you see the bigger picture of what EVERYONE ELSE can see in what Patton accomplished at the Bulge??


Simply saying everyone else can see it, is not the same as proving everyone else can see it. I have cited at least three historians concerning Patton's attack at the bulge. Why do you refuse to tell us which sources back you up. I freely cite mine so you can check them. History is about going past the legends, past the myths and common perceptions, and getting at the truth. Read past the George Patton websites and you will see the situation was far more complicated and less complimentary than the legend would have us believe.

Regards,
IronDuke



So. . .

What is it that you are trying to say?


I am saying specifically,

1. You do not know enough about the Falaise operation to draw conclusions, and what facts you have drawn from Rohmer and various websites are sometimes wrong anyway. You have not read the key historical works, and instead focus on summaries presented from websites, which only touch the surface of what D'Este said was a very complicated situation. I see no detailed analysis of why Bradley ordered the halt, whether Patton could have managed it, and what Patton, Bradley and others were actually thinking at the time. You just keep saying "Patton could have closed the gap, he must have been brilliant, everyone agrees with me."

2. You are less concerned with historical fact and more with the bigger picture. I disagree, because detailed historical analysis can not draw the bigger picture if it's facts are incorrect. How can it? An example is Patton's bulge drive. You say it was brilliant because he wheeled ninety degrees in double quick time and freed Bastogne. You accuse me of nitpicking because I point out his Intelligence Officer convinced him something was about to happen (no sign of Patton's brilliance here) and prepared the plans, and his attack was poorly handled because he attacked across a broad front into three ill prepared and often poor German units, and reached Bastogne slowly. If my "nitpicking" facts are correct, it cases a whole different light on this episode. This nitpicking is, therefore, all about the bigger picture. It seeks to free us of the legends you are posting and tell us what that bigger picture is.

3. When you are wrong (vis a vis the 352) you are not particularly gracious when admitting it. This is disappointing because it's why threads go downhill. If someone corrects me on fact, I apologise.

Regards,
ironDuke



The essential facts are the facts.

Bradley dropped the ball.

Patton could have taken Falaise and bagged an additional 75,000 German soldiers.

Many apologists for Bradley, et al certainly make excuses for this mistake.

But the facts are still the facts.




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:29:38 AM)

Here are more views by a wide variety of writers about the decision to stop Patton from closing the Falaise Gap:

The Falaise Pocket

World War II Allied Encriclement of the German Armies. Failure or Success of the Allied Leadership and Planning?

Authors: DeLauder, Braden P.; MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF COLL QUANTICO VA

Abstract: By August 1944, the Allies had broken out of the Normandy beachhead and were rapidly exploiting a breakthrough in the German lines. In early August, Hitler ordered a heavy single pronged attack to the west to cut off the US forces to the south. Bradley recognized this as an opportunity to encircle the German Army in France. By turning Patton's Third Army, in the south, north towards Argentan, Bradley formed the lower jaw of a pincer movement while Montgomery ordered Crerar's First Canadian Army south to push towards Falaise to form the upper jaw. Connecting the Allied armies between Falaise and Argentan would completely surround the German army. To the north, Montgomery's forces struggled to push south against the German defensive line. Patton's Third Army, in concert with the XIX Tactical Air Command, was making extremely rapid progress. bate on the 12th of August, Bradley stopped Patton's forces from moving north of Argentan. The decision to stop Third Army's movement north allowed many German personnel to escape from the Falaise pocket. The failure of the Allied forces to close the Falaise Gap was the result of lack of communication directly linked to the type of personalities of the commanders.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/05/0593/A059304.html

In August 1944 Lt. Gen. Omar N. Bradley, commanding the 12th U.S. Army Group, abruptly halted the advance of the XV Corps of Lt. Gen. George S. Patton's Third Army. He thus prevented its movement northward through Argentan toward a juncture with Canadian forces coming south from Caen toward Falaise. As a consequence, the Allies failed to close the Argentan-Falaise pocket. The virtually surrounded German forces in Normandy, escaping through the Argentan-Falaise gap, avoided complete encirclement and almost certain destruction.

Why General Bradley made his decision and whether he was correct are questions that have stirred discussion ever since World War II.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_17.htm


When Patton died, an “official history” was indeed agreed upon and corroborated by Bradley, Eisenhower and Montgomery. They blamed each other for various aspects, but in the main part lied about the true cause of each’s largest disasters: Market Garden, Caen, Hurtgen, the Battle of the Bulge, the failure to capture Berlin, the failure to keep all of the armies supplied, the failure to take Prague, the failure to close off the Falaise Gap and seal the fate of the 11 divisions trapped there; each had an “official” cause, an “official” whipping boy. Documents from each of these episodes were fudged while others were removed, destroyed and tampered with; and the generals corroborated each others stories in their memoirs.

The reason why the generals cooperated so well on this issue was because each of them had made mistakes. Each had committed an atrocious disaster which they felt had to be kept from public knowledge. Only one general, Patton, had never lost thousands of men on a hopelessly mismanaged mission, and thus only he was above corruption. If a spiteful general were to bring up the Battle of Metz, the Third’s most bloody battle, Patton could counter that there were 3 dead Germans to 1 dead American, even in that desperate battle. And the Battle for Metz would never be investigated because investigation would only uncover the damning evidence of SHAEF’s decision to starve the Third Army, and Com Z’s negligence and wastefulness in keeping the armies supplied.

http://www.pattonuncovered.com/html/chapter.html


Yet the deepest problem with A Soldier's Life is that it really is not a soldier's life. One could make the argument that on key occasions—the approach to Brest, the closing of the Falaise Gap, the crossing of the Seine River, the August race to the Siegfried Line, the initial desire to go much deeper to the rear of the Bulge, and the decision to stop before Prague—thousands of lives might have been saved had superiors ceded to Patton's judgment. Such controversial and monumental decisions affected an entire theater; yet they warrant only a few pages in Hirshson's account and are overshadowed by stories of Patton's purported liaisons, insensitive language, and blinkered class biases. In lieu of in-depth military analysis, we get a few extended quotations from Chester Wilmot, B.H. Liddell Hart, and S.L.A. Marshall—none of whom is known for consistency, fairness, or sympathy to Patton.

http://victorhanson.com/Curiosities/Patton.html

Unlike the Falaise Gap in the West, where a too-cautious Bradley again did need heed Patton's calls to allow him to drive ahead and seal the trap shut, the Soviet commanders did not make the same mistake. No one got out of the Minsk pocket. The swamps and forests of Belorussia became a huge killing zone as Red Army forces and their partisan auxiliaries took their overdue but thorough revenge.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:MpbkUDi6pb4J:washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040604-105429-7659r.htm+patton+falaise+gap&hl=en&lr=lang_en

D'Este's portrayal of some of the other leading figures in World War II is most revealing. Contrary to his popular designation as "the GI General" (thanks to the work of Ernie Pyle), General Omar Bradley, who would later win five stars and a rank as General of the Army, is shown to be quite mercurial and a martinet. Contrary to what was shown in Patton, Bradley despised Patton, and sought to undercut him at every turn. When Bradley and Patton were allies, it was mostly out of convenience--at times when Bradley did not know Patton well enough to dislike him, or when Bradley and Patton had a mutual interest in opposing the actions of Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery. While Patton was feared as a tough boss, it was actually Bradley who sacked more commanders under his authority, while Patton was in favor of letting his commanders have more of a chance to prove themselves. And Bradley is severely criticized for his indecision and timidity as a commander, particularly in his performance at the Battle of the Falaise Gap--a battle where Patton's genius for warfare and boldness in command would have likely served the Allies better.

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/002773.html

Questionable leadership and strategy were abundant during these operations, but never was the courage and bravery of the Canadian soldier questioned. Problems were not limited to the Canadians though. The German counterattack at Mortain can only be considered a monumental failure. Bradley stopping Patton at Argentan was the classic error committed in the Normandy campaign. In protecting the strong, fresh American army which could have been in Falaise a day or two after they reached Argentan, Bradley lost a chance for a quick conclusion to the campaign.

http://www.nwha.org/news_2Q2003/news_page5.html

George S. Patton was a disaster as a proconsul in postwar Bavaria. Yet Eisenhower and Bradley — nicer, steadier, and more judicious men both — failed to close the Falaise Gap, unwisely restrained Patton at the Seine River and near the German border, and employed orthodoxy, not creativity, at the Battle of the Bulge. Thank God that both of them, and not Patton, later became fixtures of American government; but weep for the thousands of GIs dead because they, and not Patton, ruled the American battlefield in Europe.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hansonprint011102.html

Yenne also briefly addresses the controversial decision to halt Patton’s columns at Falaise and wait for the Canadian First Army to close the encirclement of the bulk of the German Seventh Army that COBRA and the eventual British-Canadian breakout produced. Eventually, Bradley was ready to change his mind just as the Canadian forces broke through to close the gap. Ostensibly, the decision was made in order to avoid fratricide between the two converging Allied armies. Had Patton been allowed to continue, the Falaise Gap would have probably been closed in hours rather than days. As it was, tens of thousands of German troops escaped during the delay.

http://members.aol.com/TFGrantel/books/cobra.html


But by that time, what could have been a great encirclement echoing some of the pivotal battles on the Eastern Front had become something less-a victory, but one qualified by the number of German forces that had been able to flee through the gap. The fact that enemy forces did escape outraged American commanders, from the even-tempered Eisenhower and Bradley to the mercurial Patton. They saw it as yet another example of bad generalship by Montgomery, who pressured the pocket's western end, squeezing the Germans out eastward like a tube of toothpaste, rather than capping the open gap. Patton, ever aggressive, pleaded with Bradley for clearance to cut across the narrow gap, in front of retreating German forces, from Argentan north to Falaise. But Bradley wisely demurred, recognizing that the outnumbered Americans might be "trampled" by the German divisions racing for the gap. "I much preferred," Bradley recollected subsequently, "a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise."

http://www.ehistory.com/wwii/books/d-day1944/0035.cfm

Featherston, a journalist with the Durham, N.C., Herald-Sun , reviews the controversy over Gen. Omar Bradley's failure to close the gap, a measure that would have encircled large German formations in France and shortened the war. Two German armies escaped through the so-called Falaise Gap but, as the author points out, the Allies took 50,000 prisoners and counted 10,000 enemy dead.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:aldkXZT02O0J:www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891416625%3Fv%3Dglance+failure+to+close+the+falaise+gap&hl=en&lr=lang_en

Blumenson points out that, though Bradley created the opportunity to destroy much of the German armored force west of the Seine, he marched to the Army Group boundary and waited. In the meantime, the Canadians found the going hard and could not close the gap between themselves and the Americans. Instead of requesting a boundary change and attacking to close the gap, Bradley shifted part of XV Corps, which had reached the boundary south of Argentan, east toward the Seine. Thus, on August 17, at the moment of crisis, U.S. side forces were not positioned to close the gap, and the Canadians still had not reached the boundary. Without spelling it out, Blumenson arrays the facts and demonstrates clearly that the Allies missed an opportunity. In the end, confusion on both sides, an uncharacteristic lack of supervision by Montgomery, Bradley's movement toward the Seine and determined efforts by the Germans produced the first phase of what the Germans called the Miracle in the West.

http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/(reviews)/20014?OpenDocument

The Germans now tried to stop the allies’ advance. Against his generals’ advice, Hitler ordered 11 of his best divisions to attack the allies. Patton then went in one huge sweep behind all of the German armies, encircling them between two cities, known as Falaise and Argentan. Patton’s Third Army was at Falaise, and Montgomery’s 21st Army Group was north of Argentan.

In one of the most stupid decisions of the war, Patton was ordered to halt at Falaise and wait for Montgomery to close the gap between the two cities. It took Montgomery 2 weeks to close the gap, during which most of the German divisions escaped. Had Patton been allowed to close the gap, the war would have ended in August 1944. There would have never been an “East Germany” and a Communist dominated Eastern Europe. Thousands of Jewish lives would also have been saved.

http://www.barbaraboland.com/_wsn/page3.html


Operations Tractable and Cobra's pursuit are splendid examples of Allied armor at its operational best and strategic worst. Despite inspiring accomplishments by individual divisions and corps, the dynamic maneuver and total victory offered by Patton's U.S. Third Army were to be rejected by the conservative Bradley.

http://stonebooks.com/archives/010916.shtml




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:33:56 AM)

quote:

Guess who won at the Bulge - Patton

Guess who everyone praises - Patton

Guess who accomplished what no else before had accomplished - Patton




I think we are running out of steam when posting gets to this.

quote:

Guess who won at the Bulge - Patton.
This illustrates you do not really know the operation. Patton commanded only a portion of the troops at the bulge. I thought the argument was about Patton's abilities. Monty and Bradley both won a lot of battles, that doesn't make them good commanders.
If you are suggesting Patton was brilliant because he won, then reasoned debate is at an end, and we should probably call it a day. Many Allied Commanders won with very mediocre performances because of their overwhelming superiority in material. I thought you were attempting to show Patton was something special.

quote:

Guess who everyone praises - Patton
There you go with "everyone" again. I've so far quoted three historians who have analysed the operation and beg to differ.

quote:

Guess who accomplished what no else before had accomplished - Patton
Taking five days to drive through three weak, understrength and poorly trained German divisions with a poorly planned assault. You are in fact, right, many other Commanders would have done better.

We should perhaps agree to disagree, or let someone else have a go.
Regards,
IronDuke

Regards,
IronDuke




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:39:54 AM)

quote:

We should perhaps agree to disagree, or let someone else have a go.


Fair enough.

I think we are digging a hole going nowhere.

You hold your beliefs and I will hold mine.

No hard feelings [:)]

Cheers!




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:43:09 AM)

Last one, I'm off to bed, I couldn't leave, though, without quoting this from one of the websites you're quoting:

quote:

Patton, ever aggressive, pleaded with Bradley for clearance to cut across the narrow gap, in front of retreating German forces, from Argentan north to Falaise. But Bradley wisely demurred, recognizing that the outnumbered Americans might be "trampled" by the German divisions racing for the gap. "I much preferred," Bradley recollected subsequently, "a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise."


Did you mean to post this one?

Regards,
IronDuke




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:45:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

We should perhaps agree to disagree, or let someone else have a go.


Fair enough.

I think we are digging a hole going nowhere.

You hold your beliefs and I will hold mine.

No hard feelings [:)]

Cheers!


No hard feelings. [:)]I apologise if anything I said almost created any. Have a good evening, and maybe we'll cross swords on something else in the future. Hopefully, we'll agree next time, and save us both a lot of time and effort [;)].

Best wishes,
IronDuke




Jane Doe -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 6:39:47 AM)

Give Patton a hundred lives and a hundred chances to lead an army in the east front as a german or arussian, or even a german army in the west, and he would have been executed a hundred times for sheer incompetence.




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 6:42:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Last one, I'm off to bed, I couldn't leave, though, without quoting this from one of the websites you're quoting:

quote:

Patton, ever aggressive, pleaded with Bradley for clearance to cut across the narrow gap, in front of retreating German forces, from Argentan north to Falaise. But Bradley wisely demurred, recognizing that the outnumbered Americans might be "trampled" by the German divisions racing for the gap. "I much preferred," Bradley recollected subsequently, "a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise."


Did you mean to post this one?

Regards,
IronDuke


Yes I did mean to post it.

One quote out of 14 agreed with Bradley. As I mentioned elsewhere - Bradley had his apologists. That does not mean that either he or his supporters were right - only that they were making excuses for his decision.

Now imagine if you can Patton's Third Army of tanks and vehicles being "trampled" by the retreating German army - heheh

Kind of like the Spanish "Running of the Bulls", only this would be "Falaise Style" - heheh

Had Patton given such an answer, he would have been laughed out of Europe. . .

Yet, that is the excuse Bradley gave for halting Patton. Unbelievable but true.

Bradley's decision would later cost a lot more Allied lives. . .

Cheers!




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 6:44:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

We should perhaps agree to disagree, or let someone else have a go.


Fair enough.

I think we are digging a hole going nowhere.

You hold your beliefs and I will hold mine.

No hard feelings [:)]

Cheers!


No hard feelings. [:)]I apologise if anything I said almost created any. Have a good evening, and maybe we'll cross swords on something else in the future. Hopefully, we'll agree next time, and save us both a lot of time and effort [;)].

Best wishes,
IronDuke


Have a good night's sleep [:)]

Cheers!




freeboy -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 9:01:35 AM)

quote:

Give Patton a hundred lives and a hundred chances to lead an army in the east front as a german or arussian, or even a german army in the west, and he would have been executed a hundred times for sheer incompetence

Are you baiting? Do you want to cite incompetence by specifics?




IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 5:41:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Last one, I'm off to bed, I couldn't leave, though, without quoting this from one of the websites you're quoting:

quote:

Patton, ever aggressive, pleaded with Bradley for clearance to cut across the narrow gap, in front of retreating German forces, from Argentan north to Falaise. But Bradley wisely demurred, recognizing that the outnumbered Americans might be "trampled" by the German divisions racing for the gap. "I much preferred," Bradley recollected subsequently, "a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise."


Did you mean to post this one?

Regards,
IronDuke


Yes I did mean to post it.

One quote out of 14 agreed with Bradley. As I mentioned elsewhere - Bradley had his apologists. That does not mean that either he or his supporters were right - only that they were making excuses for his decision.

Now imagine if you can Patton's Third Army of tanks and vehicles being "trampled" by the retreating German army - heheh

Kind of like the Spanish "Running of the Bulls", only this would be "Falaise Style" - heheh

Had Patton given such an answer, he would have been laughed out of Europe. . .

Yet, that is the excuse Bradley gave for halting Patton. Unbelievable but true.

Bradley's decision would later cost a lot more Allied lives. . .

Cheers!


I don't want to reopen this, honest, but the above post illustrates your method. You have decided that someone who supports Bradley was an apologist for Bradley. Why, therefore, is someone who supports Patton not an apologist for Patton? You also continue to quote selectively. On another of the fourteen sites, I found this:

quote:

Of course, Patton did commit some terrible and astonishing blunders as an American military commander. As D'Este points out, Patton's extensive study of military history should have alerted him to the folly of conducting siege warfare during the Lorraine campaign--when Third Army's rapid progress came to a near complete halt thanks to dreadful weather conditions, and Patton's inability to adjust to them. While the target city of Metz eventually fell to Third Army, Patton's leadership was scorned as "weak and timid," and cited as the major reason why German forces were able to hold out so long. Then there was the raid on a German POW camp in Hammelburg--a raid which cost many American lives due to poor planning and execution, and which was likely conducted because Patton learned that Lt. Col. John Knight Waters--Patton's son-in-law--was interned at the camp.


Hardly suggests genius. I would also implore you to read the two best histories of the Normandy campaign: D'Este and Hastings. D'este was described as "The best researched, best written account of the Normandy landings I have ever read" by the New York Times book review. These exellent well regarded works are both sympathetic to Bradley's decision. Simply because some Patton fansite tells us George could have closed the gap, doesn't make it so. It alkso doesn't mean it would have been wise to do so. D'Este is very sympathetic to Patton in his auto-biography, he is clearly not a Bradley apologist, yet he sides with Bradley on the question of closing the gap. He says:

"With an uncovered opening of some fifty to seventy five miles between V Corp and Collin's VII Corp, any further movements in the direction of Falaise would be fraught with danger to Haislip's forces."

As for the tanks of Patton's being trampled underfoot, tens of thousands of desparate Germans would have hit Haislip's men, who would have been spread out (not concentrated in force) to stop them. One of his divisions was the moderately performing 90th Infantry, not an armoured division. There is every chance (as Bradley, Monty and Ike agreed) that they would have suffered badly. They therefore decided to push for the Seine and trap all Germans in Normandy, not just those in the Falaise pocket. Had Patton pushed on, a great victory could have been turned into a bloody mess. Why take the risk? Bradley was looking at the bigger picture.

I don't want to reopen this, but there is a world of difference between some of these websites, and the best historical works on the subject. The truth of what went on in and around Falaise is far more complicated (and interesting) than the Patton fan sites allow. Please read D'Este and Hastings, and if you still feel the same way, well I've done all I can.

Best wishes, I sincerely hope our truce holds.

Best regards,
IronDuke




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 6:37:20 PM)

IronDuke:

I do not wish to re-open the Patton debate again. [:)]

I was intrigued by this author and quote you provided though:

quote:

I only had to open up another book to find a sixth. Charles Whiting in "The battle of the Bulge".

"Indeed, Patton with three full divisions, one of them armoured, plus overwhelming air and artillery support at his disposal, was stopped by three inferior German divisions, one of which its commander (as we have seen) didn't even wish to take beyond the German border. He wasted his men's lives because he threw them into battle hastily and without enough planning, making up his strategy from day to day. Most important was that Patton, the armoured Commander, who should have known much better attacked on a 25 mile front across countryside that favoured defending infantry on account of its many natural defensive spots. Instead of a massed armour-infantry attack on some concentrated, ole blood and guts , the supposed dashing cavalry General, slogged away like some long in the tooth hidebound first world war infantry commander."


I found it odd that I had never heard about this bit of information because it sounds like some interesting and important information, especially since some people are basing their views about Patton on information such as this.

In this book, Whiting claims it was the British who won the Battle of the Bulge, and of course claims Patton was unskilled and went up against inferior German units.

So I did a little digging.

This what I found out about Charles Whiting - the "military historian":

Charles Whiting is a popular and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form.

Charles WHITING is a pseudonym for:

* Duncan Harding

* John Kerrigan

* Leo Kessler



Who is the REAL Charles Whiting?

Is he a German named Leo Kessler?

As Leo Kessler, he is the author of WW2 pulp novels that glorify the virtues of the Waffen SS!

Did you know that?

Here is a list of those books:

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/authors/Leo_Kessler.htm

He has also written a novel entitled "Kill Patton!"

Why would a serious "historian" (which he is not) need to use pseudonyms?

Here are some opinions about "Charles Whiting's" writings:

*******************************************************************

The Other Battle of the Bulge: Operation Northwind (West Wall Series) > Customer Review #1:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Whiting

Reading the other posts about this book compels me to say a few things about the author. Charles Whiting is a popular, readable and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form. If you have read more than one of his books you will recognize the following:

1) lack of any kind of endnotes and few footnotes: where is this material coming from?
2) quotes from interviews with the author, which are not in any way anotated at the end of the book
3) praise of the common US soldier but uniformly harsh criticism of all senior U.S. leadership, especially Eisenhower
4) comparisons with Vietnam which, while occasionally interesting (he points out that William Westmorland fought in the Huertgen Forest without learning its lessons) usually border on the ridiculous
5) plagarism from his own works, including entire chapters, some of which have not even been re-written, but simply included whole in different books
6) where are the @and*#and! maps?

This book, like his "Ardennes: The Secret War" posits that Operation Nordwind was a bigger threat than the Battle of the Bulge to the Allies because it nearly defeated the Alliance politically at a time when they had already won the war militarily. It is an interesting conjecture, but it is tainted by the half-hidden glee that Whiting seems to feel over any disaster involving American troops and particularly their leadership. Everything he writes is written through that distoring lens. In any endeavour, if you want to find fault, you will, and in war this is particularly easy. Eisenhower was an armchair warrior and a true mediocrity as a strategist, but he was a superb military politician, maybe the only man who could have kept such a contentious alliance together until final victory. He deserves credit for holding it all together.

I have read five of Whitings books and found most of them to be very entertaining, especially because he tends to focus on American disasters which naturally have not gotten much press since the war, and thus have not been written about extensively. He puts books together like a novel, and is far from a dry writer. But his scholarship would not have met the standards of my high school history teacher, much less those of a true historian. He seems to write about what interest him only, is careless with his statistics and dates, includes facts that suit his opinions, states his opinions as facts, and constantly recycles his own material. You could probably file his books under historical fiction before you could file them under history."

************************************************************

Whiting, Charles. The Battle for Twelveland: An Account of Anglo-American Intelligence Operations Within Nazi Germany, 1939-1945. London, Leo Cooper, 1975. The Spymasters: The True Story of Anglo-American Intelligence Operations Within Nazi Germany, 1939-1945. New York: Dutton, 1976.

Constantinides says this is "a potpourri of fact and fiction, actuality and myth, assumptions, sketchy versions of certain events, contrived tie-ins, and a certain confusion." Nevertheless, the author is "sometimes so accurate as to indicate access to well-informed sources or successful combining of certain versions." There is also "a good segment on SIS's role and the basis of its intelligence successes against Germany."


Whiting, Charles. Gehlen: Germany's Master Spy. New York: Ballantine, 1972.

NameBase: "Charles Whiting's book is somewhat sensational in tone and doesn't cite sources.... There are altogether too many exclamation points, along with direct quotes that appear to be added for effect rather than accuracy. Most of the book concerns Gehlen's career in Germany, particularly after the war, rather than his associations with U.S. intelligence."

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/W_folder/whitf-whz.html

************************************************************


I really did not expect to find this info about Whiting as I truly wanted to learn more about what he had discovered about Patton.

However, his scholarship seems highly suspect. This may be why no serious historians in North America have considered his "evidence".

What sources does he cite for your quote above about Patton?

What are your thoughts?

Am I way off base here?

I think our friends in Britain should be made aware of this, though.

Cheers!




riverbravo -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 7:19:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Montgomery? He sucked. Eisenhower? Politician.


Ike the politician?

Yea he was president but he prefered golfing over running the country.

Monty?....A great excuse maker more than anything.

Patton..A mad man with a lot of drive.IMO he was a border-line loon.At the same time he was a helluva motivator and if someone said it couldnt be done it just drove patton more to accomplish his goal.

Back to Ike...politician as far as keeping balance between allied generals and forces and could make the big decisions...not saying they didnt weigh heavily on him but he still had the nuts to make a call and take the wrap if it failed....."we go"...immortal words on the June 6 landings.




Kevinugly -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 8:05:39 PM)

quote:

This what I found out about Charles Whiting - the "military historian":

Charles Whiting is a popular and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form.

Charles WHITING is a pseudonym for:

* Duncan Harding

* John Kerrigan

* Leo Kessler


Who is the REAL Charles Whiting?

Is he a German named Leo Kessler?

As Leo Kessler, he is the author of WW2 pulp novels that glorify the virtues of the Waffen SS!

Did you know that?



Does it really matter?

Isn't this a case of 'I don't like the message therefore I'll shoot the messenger!'




Kevinugly -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 8:25:44 PM)

deleted due to repetition




Von Rom -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 8:29:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

This what I found out about Charles Whiting - the "military historian":

Charles Whiting is a popular and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form.

Charles WHITING is a pseudonym for:

* Duncan Harding

* John Kerrigan

* Leo Kessler


Who is the REAL Charles Whiting?

Is he a German named Leo Kessler?

As Leo Kessler, he is the author of WW2 pulp novels that glorify the virtues of the Waffen SS!

Did you know that?



Does it really matter?

Isn't this a case of 'I don't like the message therefore I'll shoot the messenger!'


[&:]

Heheh

If Whiting has found new evidence for what he claims, then fine.

I simply stumbled across this info about Whiting.

As a result, I thought it was important to point out that he writes under other names - and he gives opinons without sources about events. As Leo Kessler, Whiting also writes pulp fiction books glorifying the SS.

If you prefer pulp writers from whom you get your history, then all the power to you. But this will surely warp your view on history as well as misinform you about the real facts in question.

Sorry to say: But if you do not care from where you get your information, or from whom you get that information, or who the people are who write these books, then your level of critical reasoning skills is sadly deficient. [:-]

I find it amazing that I even have to write this [8|]

Ah, well. . .




Kevinugly -> RE: Why was Patton so great? (7/12/2004 8:37:09 PM)

No doubt you would slate Iris Murdoch then as a philosopher since she also writes fiction.

I own several books by Whiting. They contain substantial bibliographies, footnotes, endnotes and maps. The sources he quotes are reputable and the facts he uses are verifiable through other authors.

Maybe you should read his work rather than relying on the odd negative comment you've dug up on the 'net.

I find it amazing that I even have to write this[8|]

Ah, well[:-]




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.03125