RE: 'No Patton' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:34:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Okay VR, I've done my best but I can see that it's not good enough.[:(]

Good luck (to everyone)


In this entire thread, the ONLY person you singled out was me.

Even though others hurled insults at me (Sarge) and derailed this thread on their own (Sarge and Ironduke), you magically failed to mention anything to them.

So please. . .



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:37:38 PM)

Where VR, where? We had the banter on the other page after you brought up Patton. What did I write that you find so inequitable here?



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:41:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Where VR, where? We had the banter on the other page after you brought up Patton. What did I write that you find so inequitable here?


Pleaase. . .

Your feinted innocence is embarrassing. . .



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 7:48:53 PM)

VR, I presume you mean 'feigned'[;)]

And it isn't[:(]



Sarge -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:05:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


In this entire thread, the ONLY person you singled out was me.

Even though others hurled insults at me (Sarge) and derailed this thread on their own (Sarge and Ironduke), you magically failed to mention anything to them.

So please. . .

Insults [8|] Von I insulted Patton leadership ( ok did say you were in the dark). At any rate I will agree to disagree as long as you answer the quesition what about McAuliffe. And by the way learn what a contradiction is I was trying to imply the needed to be resupplied not saved, come on guy were talking about the 101st not some green line Co. try to keep it real. Anyone is that situation would need help the 101st knew going into the battle they would not be able to hold forever(never even implied that). The 101st bought some very much needed time for the Allies to get their crap together we all here are aware of that fact. So what do you think could you think of a Commander (Allied) that was handed a more desperate of a situation in the ETO. [:)]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:11:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

VR, I presume you mean 'feigned'[;)]

And it isn't[:(]


OK



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:17:50 PM)

No VR, it's not okay. It's not the first time you've made a statement, been asked to back it up, and instead of producing the evidence you've hurled abuse at the other party. Now I've just read every post I've made on this thread and I STILL don't know what you are talking about. So please answer the question, what did I write that you find so inequitable here?



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:18:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


In this entire thread, the ONLY person you singled out was me.

Even though others hurled insults at me (Sarge) and derailed this thread on their own (Sarge and Ironduke), you magically failed to mention anything to them.

So please. . .

Insults [8|] Von I insulted Patton leadership ( ok did say you were in the dark). At any rate I will agree to disagree as long as you answer the quesition what about McAuliffe. And by the way learn what a contradiction is I was trying to imply the needed to be resupplied not saved, come on guy were talking about the 101st not some green line Co. try to keep it real. Anyone is that situation would need help the 101st knew going into the battle they would not be able to hold forever(never even implied that). The 101st bought some very much needed time for the Allies to get their crap together we all here are aware of that fact. So what do you think could you think of a Commander (Allied) that was handed a more desperate of a situation in the ETO. [:)]


Sarge:

McAuliffe's command of Bastogne, and the 101st's defence of it, was magnificent. [:)]

No question.

They stopped everything the Germans could throw at it.

I would even suggest to anyone who has not done so, to read up on it.

As I mentioned previously, I am surprised no movies have been made about it.

However, as you implied, the 101st was going to run out of supplies and ammo eventually. They also needed to evacute their wounded. The Allied High Command did not know how long they could hold out. That's why they sent Third Army to break through to Bastogne.

We can look back in insight and see everything. But at the time, the 101st was fighting some pretty desperate battles in the dead of winter against overwhelming enemy forces.

So you see, we are both in agreement here [:)]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:25:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

No VR, it's not okay. It's not the first time you've made a statement, been asked to back it up, and instead of producing the evidence you've hurled abuse at the other party. Now I've just read every post I've made on this thread and I STILL don't know what you are talking about. So please answer the question, what did I write that you find so inequitable here?


What's the matter with you?

I AGREED with you. I am willing to accept your statement.

However, since you seem intent on re-hashing this, then look back in this thread and you will see that you responded to "side-tracking this thread" ONLY after my posts. ONLY my name was used.

Get it?

You did NOT respond after Sarge's or ID's posts.

As I mentioned earlier, instead of using the personal "you" when addressing more than one person, please use the plural "fellas" or address us each by name. This will avoid any confusion.

And your blanket statement about abuse and not backing up statements is simply misplaced, and unwarranted, and only reveals to me your one-sided approach in this matter.



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:37:24 PM)

Excuse me VR but firstly I'm not here 24/7 and the debate moves on even when I'm not here. Thus I respond to what I see. Secondly, if you are going to find slights in posts where there are none intended it makes it very difficult to sustain a discussion. Thirdly, you were the first person to bring up Patton on this thread after I specifically requested that he be avoided. Now I've tried to deal with everything with a modicum of good humour and in a civilised manner but my patience is wearing thin (and not just with you VR). I have no intention of getting myself banned on account of anyone elses sensitivities, just my own thankyou very much[:)]. Now I'm off for an evening out![:D]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:47:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Excuse me VR but firstly I'm not here 24/7 and the debate moves on even when I'm not here. Thus I respond to what I see. Secondly, if you are going to find slights in posts where there are none intended it makes it very difficult to sustain a discussion. Thirdly, you were the first person to bring up Patton on this thread after I specifically requested that he be avoided. Now I've tried to deal with everything with a modicum of good humour and in a civilised manner but my patience is wearing thin (and not just with you VR). I have no intention of getting myself banned on account of anyone elses sensitivities, just my own thankyou very much[:)]. Now I'm off for an evening out![:D]



Nice try [8|]

So it is quite convenient then that you show up and respond ONLY after I have posted. [;)]

What a coincidence [;)]

As I have continually repeated, address us by NAME or in the PLURAL. This way there is no confusion.

Since over the past month you have continually joined in with a couple of others in arguments against me, do you really expect me to believe that you are NOW going to start to be even-handed with me in THIS thread [8|]

So please drop this feigned approach. . .



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 8:53:54 PM)

Kevinugly:

In my book actions speak louder than words.

If you wish us to believe that you are NOW even-handed, then don't just say it to me with smooth words, show us through your actions.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 9:03:51 PM)

Sarge:

I'd like to hear some stories about your Grandfather's experiences at Bastogne sometime.



*********Removed by Administrator***********

We don't support piracy............that is still a licensed software. Note....that link you provided even stated it was a "CD-rip version".



a19999577 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 9:07:28 PM)

Oh boy...[:(]

Please Von Rom, I think we are all more than willing to swap ideas with you, as you display as much WW2 knowledge as the next guy. But please tell us how to phrase any disagreement with you in such a way to avoid getting stinging replies like "Your explanation of <enter issue here>, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy" and such. I have seen the Dietrich thread as well, and I really don't know how to go about this [I'll grant you the whole Sarge intervention though, as he did come in rather heavy-handedly].



VicKevlar -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 9:38:14 PM)

Note: I edited Von Rom's last post and removed the links to his supposed 'free' software. Empire Interactive is quite alive and kicking. Shrapnel games is also quite alive. In no way was his link to ripped version of the game "free".



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 9:40:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Sarge:

I'd like to hear some stories about your Grandfather's experiences at Bastogne sometime.



*********Removed by Administrator***********

We don't support piracy............that is still a licensed software. Note....that link you provided even stated it was a "CD-rip version".


I bow to your wishes [&o]

Actually, the 101st wargame is out of print.

CD Rip simply means it was taken from an existing CD of the game - so that the complete game would be made available.

But NO company produces the 101st any longer.

If anyone can find the game other than at the UDs, all the power to them.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 9:55:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

Oh boy...[:(]

Please Von Rom, I think we are all more than willing to swap ideas with you, as you display as much WW2 knowledge as the next guy. But please tell us how to phrase any disagreement with you in such a way to avoid getting stinging replies like "Your explanation of <enter issue here>, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy" and such. I have seen the Dietrich thread as well, and I really don't know how to go about this [I'll grant you the whole Sarge intervention though, as he did come in rather heavy-handedly].



quote:

Please Von Rom, I think we are all more than willing to swap ideas with you



How nice to hear.


quote:

But please tell us how to phrase any disagreement with you



I don't know you.

Yet the very first remark you made to me in this thread was an insulting one, where you jumped into the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with you.

You mentioned that you have seen the Dietrich thread, and you are complaining to me? [8|]

If you cannot figure out how to have a decent discussion, then try this:

1) Show some respect when addressing others.

2) Provide sources for your ideas (if that information is not well known or widely accepted as fact).

3) Be civil.

4) Practice "fairplay"

Do I even have to point all this out to you?



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 10:47:35 PM)

I managed to get the colour out.

quote:

ID:

Bastogne


BTW, in case you weren't aware of it, your mentioning of Bastogne and Patton has also derailed this thread. [;)]


My apologies, but I thought the thread was derailed after this post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

THE BEST ALLIED COMMANDER:


Wait for it. . .


[&o][&o]GENERAL GEORGE PATTON [&o][&o]


[sm=00000054.gif][sm=00000054.gif][sm=00000054.gif][sm=00000054.gif]


Bastogne is not the preserve of Patton, it can be discussed for reasons other than his attack, and I went out of my way to avoid using his name. However, if you feel what I said ranks with the intervention quoted above, whatever.....

quote:

Your explanation of Bastogne and the Bulge, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy, and fails, as did Ike, to see the Bulge in its entirety, and where the KILLING blow SHOULD have been dealt.

As a result of the Bastogne strategy (Sarge claims the 101st didn't need to be saved) the Allies lost many more thousands of lives in pushing the Germans back in FRONTAL battles. Yet this seesm to have missed your attention.

Patton's strategy of moving east behind the German salient would have cut them ALL off from retreat; would have cut them off from supply; would have captured most of the Germans; and would have resulted in far fewer Allied casualties.


Once again, you make it more offensive than it needs be including phrases such as "as usual". The above comments lack several things. Firstly, without evidence, they are really just words. You keep quoting the Patton Papers quote, but this merely tells us what Patton's intentions were initially, it doesn't offer any evidence to suggest it was the right thing to do. In my defence, I pointed out why Bastogne was important, why Ike would have feared it falling, and why cutting off the bulge was impractical. You haven't addressed any of those points (I will ask you to later, in order to end this conversation ala the Dietrich thread). You merely make statements. This is not history, it is just making statements.

quote:

Patton never failed to accomplish any mission given to him.


This one I like, because I can't think of many Allied Generals of 44-45 that did. Monty eventually took Caen, Alexander eventually took Cassino. It's relatively meaninless. At Metz, it took several weeks and a couple of attempts to accomplish his mission. It took almost a month to remove German forces from positions near Bastogne. When cutting off hundreds of thousands of German troops, time would have been important, so Patton was perfectly capable of failing this mission if past performance was anything to go by.

quote:

Even so, Patton wanted to push for Bastogne AND get behind the salient.


This is the very best bit of the post. Patton attacks with 3 divisions. Here you're telling us that the Great Man wanted to drive through 7th Army to relieve Bastgone and at the same time encircle several hundred thousand German troops. Later in this thread, in an attempt to wrap it up, I will ask how you think this would have been achieved.

You also seem to be contradicting yourself freely and then criticising anyone who dares to mention this. For example, within this thread we have had:

quote:

Von Rom
So please calm down and read this post carefully.

I have said this before but somehow you keep missing it:

Patton NEVER considered Bastogne to be a key objective. NEVER.

He wanted to cut-off the Germans at the salient and bag them all.

However, he was ORDERED by Ike and Bradley to relieve Bastogne. Patton argued AGAINST it. But to no avail.

Did you understand that?

Let me repeat:

Patton was ORDERED by Ike and Bradley to relieve Bastogne.

Patton NEVER considered Bastogne to be a key objective. NEVER.


Then we get this.

quote:

However, as you implied, the 101st was going to run out of supplies and ammo eventually. They also needed to evacute their wounded. The Allied High Command did not know how long they could hold out. That's why they sent Third Army to break through to Bastogne.

We can look back in insight and see everything. But at the time, the 101st was fighting some pretty desperate battles in the dead of winter against overwhelming enemy forces.

So you see, we are both in agreement here


Are you saying Patton's plan to attack the Bulge salient was wrong, then, as I haven't seen this criticism from you in this thread (as far as I can recall). D'Este points out that as late as Dec 20th, Patton's diaries reveal he was considering abandoning Bastogne. Thus, does this little passage mean you support SHEAF's order and consider Patton wrong to have considered leaving Bastogne and attacking further east? If you are going to repeat the argument Patton wanted to do both, then we will need to know which divisions from the three that attacked Bastogne you feel he would would have sent eastwards to encirle the Bulge with. We would also have needed to know whether you think splitting his three divisions into two forces would have enhanced or decreased their chances of breaking through 7th Army in one attack, and encircling two Panzer Armees and an infanterie Armee in the other.

Moving swiftly onto:

quote:

Patton's strategy of moving east behind the German salient would have cut them ALL off from retreat; would have cut them off from supply; would have captured most of the Germans; and would have resulted in far fewer Allied casualties.



The one thing your wilder (or more correctly, what I consider to be your wilder) claims about Patton fail to address is whether something was possible. Moving eastwards would have been a wonderful strategy, but so far, you haven't told us how this would have been achieved with the forces at his disposal. You merely keep repeating this was what he wanted to do, and taking it as read it was a good idea. He initially deployed a Corp (3 Divisions), with a second to follow. This first Corp spent five days fighting through hasty German defences past indifferent opposition to Bastogne, and yet here you suggest they would have encircled two Panzer Armees and an Infanterie Armee without problem.

I found the way to end our threads in the Dietrich thread, so I will apply the rules I learnt there to this situation.

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke.

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 11:03:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It was directed at everyone. Stop being so ****ly! If I wish to direct a comment at your good self I'll address it 'to VR' or similar[;)].

Seriously guys, when Vic locked the Dietrich thread he mentioned setting an 'example'! Now I'd rather it wasn't me, Von Rom, Iron Duke, Sarge or anyone else who has contested (is that the best word?) the last few big threads. Now I blame no-one but I see this thread heading the same way as the Patton threads and the Dietrich one. Now I've said all that I need to say about Patton and all that I can say about Dietrich at present. Now let's draw a line, make a fresh start and leave Patton etc. behind us. That was my purpose in starting this thread.[8D]



Personal insults were hurled my way in this thread by several individuals.

And I am being silly?

Please address your remarks to EVERYONE in the future, and not just after I post, and with the word "you".

If this thread is closed, it is because of the complete lack of civility and manners that some seem unable to express here.


This is a purely personal observation, so I trust it will not land me in trouble. It is also made with the best of intentions. (seriously [:)]) Particularly, as this was Kev's thread, and it has gone the same way the others did despite his best efforts.

However, I can think of six people off the top of my head who have had rowdy (a nice euphemism) encounters with you, in the last two to three threads. I am far from being alone in this regard, but freely admit to being one of your chief protagonists. The one constant, is that on one side of the argument has been stood your good self. On the other side have stood several others.

My personal observation is this. In these circumstances, if I was constantly in arguments against lots of different people, arguments whose vehemence meant they were continually locked up, I would think hard about the situation, and at least take time to consider if there was anything I was doing that meant strangers I didn't know continually took up arms against me. I did this after the Patton thread turned sour, but took no action as I didn't feel I had upset more than one person in that thread. I did wonder if I could have softened the criticisms, or shown more patience, but since several of us had been arguing with you in that thread, I regret that I neglected to change anything.

This is merely a personal observation, and I have taken a leading role in the threads in question, so happily accept some of the blame for the way they went. Likewise, I'd accept half the blame if I observed I was the only one to argue with you, but I'm not, which has prompted this comment.

Act or Ignore it as you see fit.

Regards,
IronDuke



a19999577 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 11:15:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



A brief remark about Bastogne, it took five days of fighting to reach, and a couple of weeks to clear the Germans away from. It was the key road hub to the southern thrust of the Bulge offensive. Without it, the Germans would not achieve their Operational objectives and as such, it had to be defended to the last. This made it the correct operational objective for 3rd Army (That's as close to the P**** word as I shall come). In retrospect, the defence by 101st was such that the Germans could not take it in time to make it useful, but I don't think SHAEF would have anticipated that the 101st would have done what they did. The 101st performed exellently in Normandy, but I don't think SHAEF had a right to expect any Allied Division to hold out at Bastogne for very long, so without hindsight, the decision to go for Bastogne was the correct one.

Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on. I personally think it would have stopped the German offensive as they'd have looked nervously over their shoulder, but it would have run into major difficulties as the German units which historically were withdrawn from the north to fight for Bastogne, would have been diverted against it's exposed flanks instead.

Regards,
IronDuke


quote:

Your explanation of Bastogne and the Bulge, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy


VR: This seemed like a pretty civil intervention to me, so I was surprised when you snapped at him.

quote:

you jumped into the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with you.



As far as I know, this is a public forum, which gives everyone the right to intervene, but someone please correct me if I am wrong, and please point out whose authorization I have to request in order to be considered worthy of being listened to. Besides, it was obviously more a comment on the Dietrich thread spilling over to this one.

quote:

You mentioned that you have seen the Dietrich thread, and you are complaining to me?


Yup, and I've found the following gems in that thread and this one:

quote:

Now I know why Whiting has become popular, and why you guys believe some of the nonsense you do.

Have fun telling each other what you want to believe - LOL

Deep, thorough analysis as usual. [8|]

So please have this "reasonable discussion" with a few of the others here, and where you can all pat yourselves on the back for believing in the same nonsense and in turning logic on its head.

THE BEST ALLIED COMMANDER:


Wait for it. . .


GENERAL GEORGE PATTON


Pleaase. . .

Your feinted innocence is embarrassing. . .



So I agree with IronDuke's observation:

quote:


My personal observation is this. In these circumstances, if I was constantly in arguments against lots of different people, arguments whose vehemence meant they were continually locked up, I would think hard about the situation, and at least take time to consider if there was anything I was doing that meant strangers I didn't know continually took up arms against me.


Cheers



a19999577 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 11:20:12 PM)

Getting back to the "5 worthy Italian Commanders" idea, wasn't there a battle known as the "African Stalingrad" or "Desert Stalingrad" or something like that in Italian East Africa where Italian troops fought steadfastly? What was the name of their commander?



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/30/2004 11:30:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

Getting back to the "5 worthy Italian Commanders" idea, wasn't there a battle known as the "African Stalingrad" or "Desert Stalingrad" or something like that in Italian East Africa where Italian troops fought steadfastly? What was the name of their commander?


Kev? Any ideas? You quoted the operational narrative for the Italian armour, I think that classes you as the forum expert in all things Commando Supremo. [;)]

I would have thought (on first glance), a19999577, that this referred to the last stand in Tunisia in 43, but as you can probably tell, I'm not in my element here [;)]. The last stand in Tunisia also doesn't fit the description of the action you give so I'm probably way out (not for the first time). Anyone else know much about this? It sounds like some colonial campaign if it was East Africa, didn't the Italians have colonial holdings in the Sudan area?

Regards,
IronDuke



a19999577 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 12:15:29 AM)

Here are a couple of leads we might want to explore (coming from www.comandosupremo.com)

July 4 [1940]- The start of a series of first moves by Italy that led to humiliating defeats of the British. Lt. Gen Guglielmo Nasi struck westward from Ethiopia into Sudan. They capture several border towns and arrive within 300 miles of Khartoum. Within 6 weeks, Nasi conquered British Somaliland, causing the British to evacuate from the Sea at Berbera.

August 3 [1940]- British Somaliland surrenders to Italy.

November 6 [1940]- The British mount their counteroffensive in the Sudan town of Gallabat. 7,000 troops under the command of Sir William Slim storm Gallabat with tank and infantry. Without air cover, he was unable to achieve his goals. The Italian Air Force shot down 5 gladiators and bombed his troops, killing 42 and wounding 125. The attack on Italian forces ended with a British withdrawal.

ERITREA

February 3 [1941]- The British attack Keren with a force of 30,000 against 23,000 Italians made up of 3 Brigades of Colonial Levies and 3 Brigades of Savoia Grenadiers. After attacks and counterattacks, the Italians were able to push the Indian Infantry Brigade back. Then the Scottish attacked and were also repelled by the Italians. Finally, on March 27, the British were able to push the Italian forces back from Keren after 7 weeks of fighting. In this battle, 3,000 Italians die and 500 British die with 3,000 wounded.


It seems the Duke of Aosta was a major protagonist of this campaign, so I nominate him for inclusion in the "Fab Five" of the Italian Armed Forces

Cheers



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 1:17:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]


As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.



KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 1:30:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It was directed at everyone. Stop being so ****ly! If I wish to direct a comment at your good self I'll address it 'to VR' or similar[;)].

Seriously guys, when Vic locked the Dietrich thread he mentioned setting an 'example'! Now I'd rather it wasn't me, Von Rom, Iron Duke, Sarge or anyone else who has contested (is that the best word?) the last few big threads. Now I blame no-one but I see this thread heading the same way as the Patton threads and the Dietrich one. Now I've said all that I need to say about Patton and all that I can say about Dietrich at present. Now let's draw a line, make a fresh start and leave Patton etc. behind us. That was my purpose in starting this thread.[8D]



Personal insults were hurled my way in this thread by several individuals.

And I am being silly?

Please address your remarks to EVERYONE in the future, and not just after I post, and with the word "you".

If this thread is closed, it is because of the complete lack of civility and manners that some seem unable to express here.


This is a purely personal observation, so I trust it will not land me in trouble. It is also made with the best of intentions. (seriously [:)]) Particularly, as this was Kev's thread, and it has gone the same way the others did despite his best efforts.

However, I can think of six people off the top of my head who have had rowdy (a nice euphemism) encounters with you, in the last two to three threads. I am far from being alone in this regard, but freely admit to being one of your chief protagonists. The one constant, is that on one side of the argument has been stood your good self. On the other side have stood several others.

My personal observation is this. In these circumstances, if I was constantly in arguments against lots of different people, arguments whose vehemence meant they were continually locked up, I would think hard about the situation, and at least take time to consider if there was anything I was doing that meant strangers I didn't know continually took up arms against me. I did this after the Patton thread turned sour, but took no action as I didn't feel I had upset more than one person in that thread. I did wonder if I could have softened the criticisms, or shown more patience, but since several of us had been arguing with you in that thread, I regret that I neglected to change anything.

This is merely a personal observation, and I have taken a leading role in the threads in question, so happily accept some of the blame for the way they went. Likewise, I'd accept half the blame if I observed I was the only one to argue with you, but I'm not, which has prompted this comment.

Act or Ignore it as you see fit.

Regards,
IronDuke



Well, ID thanks for being so even-handed in your appraisal [8|]

The fact is that the same handful of people seem to follow you around and stick up for you.

The 5 or 6 of you certainly share the same beliefs; they are most certainly NOT my beliefs. [;)]

As to those threads being closed, I would suggest contacting the mods to get their input into the matter. Since I have been personally attacked by the same six people going back to the original first thread, including by you, I would suggest that you consider curtailing your own input into these threads.

So thanks for the "Charlie Brown" analysis [8|]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 1:39:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Cheers


Ah, yes, so I think a very clear picture is emerging here. Obviously, you seem to have some connection with Ironduke I am not aware of [;)]

Let's see:

1) You read the Dietrich thread.

2) Then you come to this thread and immediately dump on me.

In the Dietrich thread, you must be in agreement with ID and kev over the fact that they believe those Nazis thugs who murdered hundreds of unarmed American POWs in the Ardennes are innocent. Yes?

So that would explain your defense of ID and your dumping on me [;)]

That's fine. I just wanted to get the situation straight.

Therefore, you are NOT just a casual forum browser [;)]

Great - join the party [:D]



a19999577 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 1:48:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]

As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.

KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]


Surprise certainly is an important factor in a successful counteroffensive. But ID's guestion was mostly on what resources Patton counted on for this surprise counterstroke, what paths he would have take, what German defences were in the area and what possible countermeasures could have been implemented to prevent him from accomplishing the goal of cutting off the entire offensive.

Your plan sounds GREAT, with the information available to Patton at the time. But so did Market Garden. Now, we all know there were additional German units in the Netherlands, unknown to Allied Command. So, what we'd like to know is what German units were covering the base of the Bulge and what their possible responses could have been.

Cheers



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 1:56:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]

As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.

KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]


Surprise certainly is an important factor in a successful counteroffensive. But ID's guestion was mostly on what resources Patton counted on for this surprise counterstroke, what paths he would have take, what German defences were in the area and what possible countermeasures could have been implemented to prevent him from accomplishing the goal of cutting off the entire offensive.

Your plan sounds GREAT, with the information available to Patton at the time. But so did Market Garden. Now, we all know there were additional German units in the Netherlands, unknown to Allied Command. So, what we'd like to know is what German units were covering the base of the Bulge and what their possible responses could have been.

Cheers


Well, well, well,

Answering ID's replies as well, I see [;)]


Patton mentioned that he already had three plans worked out for ANY contingency in the Bulge, while the other Allied commanders had NONE.

ID's own research indicated that the 352 VGD was on the southern flank.

Patton said he could have sent 50,000 men to Bastogne AND sent another 50,000 men behind the salient.

Even Bradley started to come around to Patton's thinking AFTER he had seen what Patton could do.

The Germans were well into the bulge.

Patton's original plan would have had the Allies roll back with the German attack, and get them stuck further in.

We all know the supply situation faced by the Germans in the Bulge. Patton would then have moved in behind them.

If Patton said he could do it - I believe him.

And Monty was NO Patton.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 3:05:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]


As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.



KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]


This post (IMHO) illustrates one of the reasons you get into the arguments you do. Firstly, I asked several questions in my post, which if you wanted to debate with me, you could have answered. However, you seem to have completely ignored all my difficult questions:

quote:

Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


Instead, you've gone back a page or two and pulled out this, or rather the sentiment, not the quote (or context) which you didn't reproduce.

quote:

IronDuke
Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on.


The phrase "It would have looked a bit like Kursk" was comparing the shape of the battlefield. My point was that without an attack from the north, any success Patton had in the south would have been like Kursk where (if you are familiar with this battle) the SS Panzer Corps penetrated in the south as far as Prokhorovka, but Model's troops in the north made no ground, leaving the southern pincer (as Patton's would have been) dangling in the air. This entire piece from you, therefore, seems like a straw man. You seem to have deliberately taken the wrong context for my words, and then argued against something I never said in order to hide the fact you don't want to answer the real points in my post.

This is what frustrates forum users, because you've avoided my valid points, and instead made up an argument about Kursk to insult me with. My real points are above, if you want to continue this debate.

quote:

As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.


I took the morning of the 22.12.1944 as day one (let me know if you dispute the dates I'm using). A tenuous link (but a link non-the-less) was established to Bastogne around 17.00 on 26.12.1944. This was day five of the offensive if 22.12.1944 was day one. It's a moot point, but the actual time for the offensive was around 4 and a half days. I suppose it depends on whether you round up or down.

quote:

The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.


In addition to the questions above, I have another. How can you be mobile and be low on fuel? Doesn't having no fuel somewhat restrict the mobility of mechanised forces? In addition, can you tell us which of the forces that faced Patton's drive on Bastogne were mobile (whether with or without fuel?)

quote:

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.


Makes you wonder why it took four or five days to break through, then.

quote:

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.


[&:] Are you suggesting here, that wintery weather meant all German vehicles had to be on the roads, but that Patton's vehicles (his trucks for example) could go cross country quite happily in the weather prevalent at that time? Some of the heavier (and in terms of deployment, statistically small) German tanks (Tiger II for eg) didn't like the Ardennes very much at all. However, all vehicles seems a little harsh. Would Patton have been better off on the roads in these conditions? If so, wouldn't his attack have come across the same problems of bottlenecks that the German attacks did?

quote:

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.


Very tenuous, since my Kursk argument seems to have been manufactured to avoid the following, which I'll ask again:

quote:

Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


IronDuke



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 3:09:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Excuse me VR but firstly I'm not here 24/7 and the debate moves on even when I'm not here. Thus I respond to what I see. Secondly, if you are going to find slights in posts where there are none intended it makes it very difficult to sustain a discussion. Thirdly, you were the first person to bring up Patton on this thread after I specifically requested that he be avoided. Now I've tried to deal with everything with a modicum of good humour and in a civilised manner but my patience is wearing thin (and not just with you VR). I have no intention of getting myself banned on account of anyone elses sensitivities, just my own thankyou very much[:)]. Now I'm off for an evening out![:D]



Nice try [8|]

So it is quite convenient then that you show up and respond ONLY after I have posted. [;)]

What a coincidence [;)]

As I have continually repeated, address us by NAME or in the PLURAL. This way there is no confusion.

Since over the past month you have continually joined in with a couple of others in arguments against me, do you really expect me to believe that you are NOW going to start to be even-handed with me in THIS thread [8|]

So please drop this feigned approach. . .


Square the above with this from earlier in this thread


quote:

I see you have to have the last word too, so welcome to the club.

Therefore, you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing

You jumped into the middle of a conversation, expressing highly selective comments, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with you.

If your gratutious comments make you look recalcitrant, then you have only yourself to blame.

And yes, I am a very "happy go lucky guy"

The comments between Kevinugly and myself were all expressed in good fun. We have bantered quite a bit in the past, so we are used to each other.

Have a nice day.


Emphasis added by myself

Makes you very difficult to discuss anything with since I never know quite how you are going to react to anything. Both of these posts refer, more or less, to the same debates. No wonder I'm confused[&:]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.296875