Slitherine

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


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

As did Burnside and Hooker.

Perhaps the difference between the two ultimately is luck.

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

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

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

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

quote:

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

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

Actually Monty was the best WWI General in WWII.

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


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

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

Truman defended the constitution from MacArthur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


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

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

Truman defended the constitution from MacArthur.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

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

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

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

Amazing. What was the reason, the advantage sought?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


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

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

Truman defended the constitution from MacArthur.

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

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

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

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

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

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

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

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

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

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

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

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

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

I mostly agree with your comments, BUT

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

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

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

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

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

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Menser

Original : AnarchyintheUK


O

quote:

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

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



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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

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

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:


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

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

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

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie