Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: General Douglas MacArthur

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: General Douglas MacArthur Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 4:48:46 PM   
morganbj


Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline 		The British had a general named Montgomery?  Really.  What did he ever do?  Was he a general contractor, or a real general, as in "Army General?"  Just curious.



(A shamefully obvious attempt to pick a fight with an Anglophile of any nationality or an actual Brit.  These "my general is better than your general" arguments are always so entertaining, comparing, as they are wont do, dissimilar fruits.  That's apples-to-oranges for you Texans out there.   Alas, my fight-picking will probably fail, as it should.)

(in reply to Long Lance)
Post #: 31
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 5:20:09 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance
Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them.

Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference.

But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc.

He was the Gen', he gets the blame.

(in reply to Long Lance)
Post #: 32
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 6:06:20 PM   
Javakamp


Posts: 172
Joined: 2/17/2004
From: Lakeland, FL.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance
Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them.

Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference.

But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc.

He was the Gen', he gets the blame.


I think the Allied High Command were victims of their own success in Market Garden. After the breakout from Normandy pretty much everything they tried worked their way. They expected the same thing in Holland, and it bit them in the rear.

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 33
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 6:20:20 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Possibly. However, Monty was not a Great Captain, even though he saw himself as one, and I can guarantee you that he was quite willing to expend his men ruthlessly to achieve his objective. So his "caring nature" was probably a result of pro-Monty propaganda.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Javakamp)
Post #: 34
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 6:33:31 PM   
Long Lance


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance
Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them.

Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference.

But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc.

He was the Gen', he gets the blame.


Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops.
Anyway, the result is the same.

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 35
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 6:34:27 PM   
Long Lance


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Javakamp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance
Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them.

Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference.

But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc.

He was the Gen', he gets the blame.


I think the Allied High Command were victims of their own success in Market Garden. After the breakout from Normandy pretty much everything they tried worked their way. They expected the same thing in Holland, and it bit them in the rear.


Agreed

(in reply to Javakamp)
Post #: 36
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 6:34:40 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Javakamp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance
Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them.

Bad recon ? He dismissed the photographs showing panzers ! He, the most careful, cautious, hell-of-a-"we'll-wait-a-bit-more-to-be-sure", near-cowardest general of the British Army, embarked in a dangerous gambit. He did not use them as cannon fodders intentionnally ? he could have, for all it mattered. Would not have made any difference.

But it's not all. Planning was bad, and way too naive. Drops far away from the bridges targetted. No plan B in case Horrocks' Corps was delayed in its too optimistic timetable. Airdrops spread over several days. Etc, etc.

He was the Gen', he gets the blame.


I think the Allied High Command were victims of their own success in Market Garden. After the breakout from Normandy pretty much everything they tried worked their way. They expected the same thing in Holland, and it bit them in the rear.


Market Garden: Strategy to end the war in the west? A bid for assets, logistics and lead role for his army group? Or both?

(in reply to Javakamp)
Post #: 37
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 7:07:54 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Personally I always try to get him killed



Me too. Dugout Doug is at the top of my overrated, undercapable, general rodent's rectum list.




Which still makes him better than Eisenhower, Bradley, Gerow, Clark, Patch, Hodges, Devers and most every other US army commander.


What was wrong with Eisenhower?


Sorry, missed it the first time.

Off the top of my head: failing to emphasize the capture of Tunis/Bizerte as the goal of Torch and pushing Anderson east quickly enough to get to there before the weather changed/Germans reinforced, although most properly Alexander's fault (Ike was still in charge of AFHQ until 1/44) failing to hustle Monty to get to Salerno, along w/ others failing to oversee the closing of the Falaise Gap, failing to take command quickly enough after the breakout, ordering Market Garden instead of clearing the Scheldt estuary, failing to control Bradley while he butchered 1st Army in the Hurtgen Forest (sorry, no idea how to do umlauts), along w/ others getting caught w/ his pants down at the Bulge, failing to take advantage of the Bulge by pushing it back instead of trying to cut it off and alllowing Monty to waste vast amounts of resources and time overproducing Plunder/Varsity instead of just getting across the damn river.

Never had a problem w/ some of his other supposed shortcomings, such as the the broad front strategy in the eto and not wanting to get to Berlin.

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 38
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 7:53:56 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

Mdiehl and T agreeing? Why is the room suddenly cold? Should I be scared?

I don't know. Are you in hell and seeing icicles?

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to thegreatwent)
Post #: 39
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 7:55:36 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops.
Anyway, the result is the same.


Sure. And he never sent the 9th Armoured Bde in a frontal attack, against dozens of AT guns, including a lot of 88. Where they lost 75% of their tanks and half their complement. Which he did in full knowledge.

Sure, he never deliberately sacrificed his men. No general ever did that. But he certainly did not hesitate to send his men to near-certain death, against unfavorable odds, in order to get a possible advantage. What's the definition of "sacrifice" again ? Perhaps you should review your earlier statement, don't you ?

He was a glory-seeker. An egotistical maniac. A bad planner. As someone said, the best WWI general fighting in WWII.

(in reply to Long Lance)
Post #: 40
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 7:56:29 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Anyone who thinks Eisenhauer was a mediocre general hasn't read much about him. He had a keen grasp of the most important aspects of any military problem. And yeah, he was a consummate politician too. He had to be, given some of the people, especially Montgomery and Patton, whose egos he had to constantly stroke in order to get them to execute orders.

What I would agree with, without question, is that being politically skilled is an important quality in a high ranking general and Eisenhower had that for sure. It's what the general uses their political skill to accomplish that determines whether its good or bad. Being politically adept is a good thing.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 41
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 8:00:39 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

Market Garden was a failure mainly due to bad recon. Montgomery didn't use his paras deliberately as cannon fodder or thought he could achieve a great victory by sacrifcing them.

I agree that the para's were not intended as cannon fodder, whether he accurately assessed the risk vs success, and how much ego might have played into the weighting of those would be a different argument.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Long Lance)
Post #: 42
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 8:18:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops.
Anyway, the result is the same.


Sure. And he never sent the 9th Armoured Bde in a frontal attack, against dozens of AT guns, including a lot of 88. Where they lost 75% of their tanks and half their complement. Which he did in full knowledge.


He sent them in expecting the brigade to be completely destroyed. 100% casualties.



_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 43
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 8:29:29 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops.
Anyway, the result is the same.


Sure. And he never sent the 9th Armoured Bde in a frontal attack, against dozens of AT guns, including a lot of 88. Where they lost 75% of their tanks and half their complement. Which he did in full knowledge.


He sent them in expecting the brigade to be completely destroyed. 100% casualties.


Amazing. What was the reason, the advantage sought?

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 44
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 8:43:13 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

Yes, blame him for incompetence, I agree. But not for DELIBERATELY sacrificing his troops.
Anyway, the result is the same.


Sure. And he never sent the 9th Armoured Bde in a frontal attack, against dozens of AT guns, including a lot of 88. Where they lost 75% of their tanks and half their complement. Which he did in full knowledge.


He sent them in expecting the brigade to be completely destroyed. 100% casualties.


Amazing. What was the reason, the advantage sought?


The action in question was Tel Al Aqaqir, and the mission was to break through an enemy PAK front which had been holding back the whole advance. Why Montgomery chose a brigade equipped entirely with light Valentine tanks, sent in without meaningful artillery and infantry support, is a mystery. Sending tanks to break through an anti-tank gun line, not to mention poorly-armoured Valentines, is about the worst you can do.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 45
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 8:57:39 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Valentines? Didn't they have a 2lb'er gun that didn't have an HE round?

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 46
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 9:23:56 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Well, so did all other British tanks at the time.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 47
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 9:32:22 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		My guess is he was showing higher ups WHY he needed better tanks. Seriously.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 48
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 9:34:01 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		For what I know he actually send there 9th Bde AND entire 1st Armd Div... It wasn't Montgomery's fault that armoured division came late.

quote:


Well, so did all other British tanks at the time.

Most of cruiser tanks [edit: at the time] were 6pdr versions. Only Valentines and few Crusaders II had 2pdrs.

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 10/23/2008 9:38:29 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 49
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 9:44:37 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline 		Ah! hind site.  What a wonderful thing it is

(in reply to Long Lance)
Post #: 50
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 9:50:02 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Wrong on both counts. 9th Armoured Brigade was specifically ordered to make a frontal charge against the German PAK-front, and General Freyberg, who briefed Brigadier Currie (the 9th's commander) specifically said that Montgomery would be willing to accept the complete destruction of the brigade. 1st Armoured Division was to be held back for the follow-up phase, exploiting the 9th's breakthrough.

Montgomery committed a cardinal sin of mobile warfare (akin to cavalry charging headlong at machineguns), and the 9th Armoured Brigade paid for his arrogance.

As for six-pounder tanks, they were coming into service, true, but the vast majority of non-2pdr tanks were Grants and Shermans.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 51
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 10:04:16 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		Which American Civil War General said that having command of an army required that you be willing to destroy the very thing that you loved?  

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 52
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 10:27:12 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		Well this one was derailed pretty fast.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 53
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 10:27:25 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Which American Civil War General said that having command of an army required that you be willing to destroy the very thing that you loved?  

Robert E Lee

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 54
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 10:47:25 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Which American Civil War General said that having command of an army required that you be willing to destroy the very thing that you loved?  

Yes, but there is being willing to sacrifice the thing you love and then there is willy-nilly impaling yourself on your enemies bayonet because it seemed the thing to do at the time.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 55
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 11:04:54 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Well....Lee did some willy-nilly impaling for sure.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 56
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 11:20:42 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Well....Lee did some willy-nilly impaling for sure.


Sure, but he had several successes using these tactics early in the war, when the Union troops more easily broke and ran. By the time Lee learned that it wouldn't work anymore, the size of the battles had grown exponentially. (And he had to face a Union general with more men at his disposal, who didn't mind using the same tactics)

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 57
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 11:37:36 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
W.N.I. was pretty much the standard tactic of the time.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 58
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/23/2008 11:51:52 PM   
thegreatwent


Posts: 3011
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline 		True, forming line abreast and advancing at the route step towards cannons would have been a terrible thing to be a part of. Not sure I could have done it probably would have stained my shorts

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 59
RE: General Douglas MacArthur - 10/24/2008 12:08:10 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Well....Lee did some willy-nilly impaling for sure.

As did Burnside and Hooker.

Perhaps the difference between the two ultimately is luck.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: General Douglas MacArthur Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.969