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: Why was Patton so great?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Why was Patton so great? Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 1:55:27 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Are you not aware I was writing quickly?

BTW, I'm still waiting for your PROMISED analysis of Germany's brilliant blitzkrieg victories against inferior countries between Sept/39 to Jan/42.


I wasn't aware actually since you've made similiar statements of similiar length on three or four occasions.

How about...

The Germans beat Poland.

They then invaded Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France, and beat them all.

Ironduke



Yes, truly brilliant victories by Germany's MIGHTY armies.

The part about beating little Belgium and Denmark is classic.

So, where is your in-depth analysis of these brilliant victories?


Why does my defence of them have to be in depth, when your attack can be written quickly?

Why should I spend hours writing a defence, when the charges against them are so simplistic? If you are willing to criticise them properly, I shall respond, but you brought the German victories up. If you don't like them, give us your in depth analysis and critique, and I'll defend where I think it is fair to do so, and where I feel I can. Otherwise, I'll spend the effort you have on them.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 601
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:00:29 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

"I never felt I'd have to say things like this on this forum, but your last post asking me to post Whiting's comments for you was most disappointing. I spent a little time trawling through this thread looking for all the times I had challenged you. It was quite a task.

Above, you draw conclusions about Whiting (who'm you have never read) because I refused to reply. I preferred to quote back at you two comments you had made to others when they had asked for sources to back up your extravagant claims. It is hypocritical to push me for info when I have tried and failed to push you for some over 12 long frustrating pages.

You asked me whether I had read anything, yet refused to list what sources you had read about Normandy despite repeated requests. This is hypocrisy, particularly since I listed six of the dozen works I had read. I am challenged above, yet any one who has followed this thread will know the number of unanswered challenges I have posed. I will list a few. I will happily answer your challenge if you answer mine:

I asked for a short precis of what you knew about the battle of Normandy and Patton's part in it. Not material coped verbatim from a fansite
You were silent.

I asked for a source for your erroneous claim the 352nd was a veteran formation.
You were silent (although that didn't stop you repeatedly saying it was. You lack of grace on this matter has been astounding).

You called the 5th Parachute division a veteran formation. I demonstrated otherwise.
You were silent.

I asked for a list of sources you were using about Normandy, and named the six (of the dozen I have read) that I was using to research my words.
You were silent.

I asked you to name where on the drive through France Patton did any serious fighting.
You were silent

I asked for a source on your assertion that Rommel was hamstrung in Africa by Jodl and Keitel.
You said nothing.

I asked you why we should take seriously websites capable of committing gross errors such as where Patton was around Falaise, and who gave the order to halt (Your website claimed SHAEF)
You never explained why, although without admitting anything was wrong, you asked me why it mattered, as you were presenting merely an oveview of facts (which was wrong becuase facts are correct, these weren't)

You told us "You really need to read up on Patton's activities in Normandy."
Then refused to tell us what you had read.

I asked you why you had posted the same 3 or 4 bits of information over and over again.
You never said

I quoted from several historians about Patton, then watched as you ignored all the major players to launch a diversionary raid on Whiting. We spent page after page debating your thoughts on him (a man you never actually read) whilst all the time you refused to say anything about D'Este, Hastings, Weigley, Carr, Neillands and a host of others. You chose one inconsequential quote, and seeing a potential weakness, went after it so you didn't need to face up to answering Patton's other critics, whose credentials you could not impugn.

I offered to withdraw Whiting if you would analyse the reputation of the six others I had cited:
You were silent

I asked again what you knew of the major historians I was citing, and what you thought of these men as historians
You again remained silent

The one time you even acknowledged I had made a request, you said:
"And no I am not doing any investigation.
or
Do I have to find everything for you?

Do some reading. . ."

You accused me of lacking critical thinking skills, then posted verbatim from Patton's homepage, Patton Society website, the Patton museum and Patton uncovered.

You printed several times a list of German officers who had said nice things about Patton, and never included the ones who had criticised him.

You consistently used the phrase many historians when telling us who agreed with you.
You were silent when asked to name them

You claimed time and agin to be merely telling us about Whiting and leaving for us to decide. I quoted several of your utterances which proved otherwise.
You did not admit your agenda.

I asked which history book you had used to gain information about Patton's drive on Bastogne.
I received no response.

Every time I pointed out your fatcs were wrong (Sicily on page 5 is a further example), you accused me of being nitpicky, without realising no opinion is right if the facts upon which it is based are wrong, superficial or one sided.
You were silent when challenged to admit these facts were wrong.

You listed sites that made gross factual errors about basic things, and never admitted the errors when challenged.

You invented a story (without evidence) that D'Este used researchers and didn't read everything he quoted to get around the fact he had quoted whiting. No evidence has been forthcoming, you have made no retraction.

You took a thread about Patton's drive on Bastogne and instead chose to post information about units that didn't even belong to him (106th) or weren't even part of the drive (35th).

You accused me of only wanting to state one side then copied huge chunks of the Patton home page and other Patton fan sites into the thread as if they ever stated anything else.

You patronise by stating things like "I am posting this only for the more thoughtful reader" insinuating critics of Patton are not thoughtful readers (despite the fact we've clearly read more serious history than you have).

You accused me of only wanting to state one side, then never once admitted Patton was guilty of anything, despite the fact I made several references to his skills. Even on the Hammelburg incident I elicited only a couple of lines from you that I could sue Patton if I was unhappy about the shameless waste of life.

You slap Patton on the back for his surprise flank attack at Bastonge and then write long lists of reasons why the German victories of 1940 were poor because they suprised their enemies.

Your basic tactics seem to be to hide behind long chunks of text copied from the web (see above for numerous examples), to ignore, patronise or tease when challenged (Did you not know this, do some reading, I can not believe you seriously believe this, I was only being facetious) or when in a corner, invent (D'Este's imaginary researchers, and his inability to read books he quotes from).

I am sorry it has come to this, this was at times most enjoyable. I will post my thoughts on Patton once more (although I am not arrogant enough to believe many will be interested) then move on.

Ironduke"

As I've said, I am more than happy to answer your challenges about Whiting, if you answer mine....After all, I did ask first.....



This is all a red-herring. I was trying to answer you and 4 other people. These requests were made by you to slow me down.

ON the OTHER hand, YOU PROMISED an analysis of Germans' early victories.

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 602
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:02:28 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Here I'll help you with Poland:

How did Germany achieve such an overwhelming victory over Poland in 1939?

While the German Army had been developing new tactics and building new fighting vehicles to implement these tactics, the Polish Army, like many others in Europe, had stayed with a World War One mentality.

A comparison of both armed forces clearly indicates the problems faced by Poland.

Germany had 11 tank divisions compared to Poland’s 1;

Germany had 40 infantry divisions compared to Poland’s 30;

Germany four motorised divisions compared to none in Poland;

Germany had one cavalry brigade compared to Poland’s eleven, some of who can be seen below.


In terms of air power, the Germans had 850 bombers and dive-bombers (the JU-87) and 400 fighters. The Polish Air Force numbered 210 bombers and 150 fighters – though many of these were obsolete and clearly no match for the modern Luftwaffe that destroyed the Polish Air Force within two days of the first attack.

The Polish Navy consisted of four destroyers, five submarines, two gunboats, a mine-layer and six mine sweepers – which meant that any German attack from the sea could not be repulsed. Despite the terms of Versailles, Germany had built a modern navy that totally outclassed the Polish Navy.

Such a massive superiority of modern weaponry could only lead to one result – a swift and decisive victory for the Germans.

When the Russians invaded eastern Poland on September 17th, the defeat of Poland was sealed. On September 24th, Warsaw was bombed by 1,150 German aircraft, killing thousands of Polish civilians. On September 27th, Warsaw surrendered. The last Polish troops to surrender did so on October 6th.

Quite the BIG victory over Poland


Even with those lop-sided forces, here are the results of the battle for Poland:

The Polish campaign cost the Germans 8,082 men killed, 27,279 wounded and 5,029 missing in action. German tank losses included 217 destroyed and the Luftwaffe lost 285 planes destroyed and 279 damaged beyond repair - about 25% of all German planes in September 1939. In total, 90,000 Polish military personnel escaped to either Hungary or Rumania and a number of Polish airman fought with distinction in the Battle of Britain.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 4:42:01 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 603
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:07:24 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

This post was addressed to Kevinugly.

Do you really think he is so inadequate, that he cannot address these issues on his own?

BTW, the Lorraine Campaign discussion is between "Kev" and I.

Even so, here again, you completely ignore the fact that what I have written is based on the facts. These can be confirmed by anyone.

And, as always, you simply twist the facts.


My apologies, I understood this to be a public forum.

Everything I wrote was quoted from D'Este. If it is not factual, feel free to correct me with quotes and sources of your own. I have correctly analysed the situation using several historical sources. It would make for better debate if instead of merely claiming I was wrong, you quoted the incorrect bits and then quoted information of your own to refute me.

quote:

BTW, when are going to see that analysis of the German blitzkrieg victories you promised?


Already done it?

quote:

You may cling to conspiracy theories; I don't.


Why post about them. I never mentioned the conspiracy theories until you brought up the "Everybody wanted to get Patton" stuff, and brought up the runwaway ox cart.

quote:

Simple fact of the matter is, with Patton dead, everyone involved tried to present themselves in a good light.


Which is exactly what I said. You claimed they all conspired to destroy Patton's memory. I can find quotes to prove this if you wish? I said they all had a go at each other, seeking to put themselves in the best light. Are you agreeing with me now?

quote:

Where are the big investigations of Lee, Ike, Bradley, Monty, Alexander, etc, etc?


This thread is about Patton, as I understand it. You could start one about these Gentlemen if you wish. I've got some pretty critical things to say about some of them as well.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 604
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:16:24 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

This is all a red-herring. I was trying to answer you and 4 other people. These requests were made by you to slow me down.

ON the OTHER hand, YOU PROMISED an analysis of Germans' early victories.


I can see it's time to call it a night. My list of questions were culled from 11 pages of challenges. I had asked them all before, and been ignored. Now, however, you consider it vitally important your two challenges are answered, but feel happy to ignore my dozens.

Whiting is another straw man. The description of the German units he faced is repeated in MacDonald and Ellis and I could probably find more in Weigley. You've pulled him out and gone after him, because a couple of Amazon readers didn't like him, and he writes novels. I am happy to withdraw him. Your problem is that Whiting was only the seventh or eighth Historian I've used. You've not mentioned the others. I am unsure why. Critical forum readers shall make up their own minds.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 605
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:21:32 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

This post was addressed to Kevinugly.

Do you really think he is so inadequate, that he cannot address these issues on his own?

BTW, the Lorraine Campaign discussion is between "Kev" and I.

Even so, here again, you completely ignore the fact that what I have written is based on the facts. These can be confirmed by anyone.

And, as always, you simply twist the facts.


My apologies, I understood this to be a public forum.

Everything I wrote was quoted from D'Este. If it is not factual, feel free to correct me with quotes and sources of your own. I have correctly analysed the situation using several historical sources. It would make for better debate if instead of merely claiming I was wrong, you quoted the incorrect bits and then quoted information of your own to refute me.

quote:

BTW, when are going to see that analysis of the German blitzkrieg victories you promised?


Already done it?

quote:

You may cling to conspiracy theories; I don't.


Why post about them. I never mentioned the conspiracy theories until you brought up the "Everybody wanted to get Patton" stuff, and brought up the runwaway ox cart.

quote:

Simple fact of the matter is, with Patton dead, everyone involved tried to present themselves in a good light.


Which is exactly what I said. You claimed they all conspired to destroy Patton's memory. I can find quotes to prove this if you wish? I said they all had a go at each other, seeking to put themselves in the best light. Are you agreeing with me now?

quote:

Where are the big investigations of Lee, Ike, Bradley, Monty, Alexander, etc, etc?


This thread is about Patton, as I understand it. You could start one about these Gentlemen if you wish. I've got some pretty critical things to say about some of them as well.

Regards,
IronDuke



You can write what you want, especially if you feel you must safeguard this thread and must answer EVERY post, whether it is addressed to you or not.

I guess you feel that "Kev" needs all the help he can get. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 606
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:27:51 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

This post was addressed to Kevinugly.

Do you really think he is so inadequate, that he cannot address these issues on his own?

BTW, the Lorraine Campaign discussion is between "Kev" and I.

Even so, here again, you completely ignore the fact that what I have written is based on the facts. These can be confirmed by anyone.

And, as always, you simply twist the facts.


My apologies, I understood this to be a public forum.

Everything I wrote was quoted from D'Este. If it is not factual, feel free to correct me with quotes and sources of your own. I have correctly analysed the situation using several historical sources. It would make for better debate if instead of merely claiming I was wrong, you quoted the incorrect bits and then quoted information of your own to refute me.

quote:

BTW, when are going to see that analysis of the German blitzkrieg victories you promised?


Already done it?

quote:

You may cling to conspiracy theories; I don't.


Why post about them. I never mentioned the conspiracy theories until you brought up the "Everybody wanted to get Patton" stuff, and brought up the runwaway ox cart.

quote:

Simple fact of the matter is, with Patton dead, everyone involved tried to present themselves in a good light.


Which is exactly what I said. You claimed they all conspired to destroy Patton's memory. I can find quotes to prove this if you wish? I said they all had a go at each other, seeking to put themselves in the best light. Are you agreeing with me now?

quote:

Where are the big investigations of Lee, Ike, Bradley, Monty, Alexander, etc, etc?


This thread is about Patton, as I understand it. You could start one about these Gentlemen if you wish. I've got some pretty critical things to say about some of them as well.

Regards,
IronDuke



You can write what you want, especially if you feel you must safeguard this thread and must answer EVERY post, whether it is addressed to you or not.

I guess you feel that "Kev" needs all the help he can get. . .


Another sidestep. I made no mention of Kev, so clearly your shot at him is nonsense. Has it come to this?
I'll reply wher you start answering points. Otherwise, we're just heading for another chat with Vic with this sort of stuff. I've asked questions, you've failed to answer them. Answer them, and I'll reply.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 607
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:30:08 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

This is all a red-herring. I was trying to answer you and 4 other people. These requests were made by you to slow me down.

ON the OTHER hand, YOU PROMISED an analysis of Germans' early victories.


I can see it's time to call it a night. My list of questions were culled from 11 pages of challenges. I had asked them all before, and been ignored. Now, however, you consider it vitally important your two challenges are answered, but feel happy to ignore my dozens.

Whiting is another straw man. The description of the German units he faced is repeated in MacDonald and Ellis and I could probably find more in Weigley. You've pulled him out and gone after him, because a couple of Amazon readers didn't like him, and he writes novels. I am happy to withdraw him. Your problem is that Whiting was only the seventh or eighth Historian I've used. You've not mentioned the others. I am unsure why. Critical forum readers shall make up their own minds.

Regards,
IronDuke


You made the requests of me.

But it was YOU who had PROMISED to analyze early German victories.

You accuse Patton of having fought inferior foes, and yet you shy away from looking at the inferior forces faced by German armies in 1939-1941.

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 608
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:31:44 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

This post was addressed to Kevinugly.

Do you really think he is so inadequate, that he cannot address these issues on his own?

BTW, the Lorraine Campaign discussion is between "Kev" and I.

Even so, here again, you completely ignore the fact that what I have written is based on the facts. These can be confirmed by anyone.

And, as always, you simply twist the facts.


My apologies, I understood this to be a public forum.

Everything I wrote was quoted from D'Este. If it is not factual, feel free to correct me with quotes and sources of your own. I have correctly analysed the situation using several historical sources. It would make for better debate if instead of merely claiming I was wrong, you quoted the incorrect bits and then quoted information of your own to refute me.

quote:

BTW, when are going to see that analysis of the German blitzkrieg victories you promised?


Already done it?

quote:

You may cling to conspiracy theories; I don't.


Why post about them. I never mentioned the conspiracy theories until you brought up the "Everybody wanted to get Patton" stuff, and brought up the runwaway ox cart.

quote:

Simple fact of the matter is, with Patton dead, everyone involved tried to present themselves in a good light.


Which is exactly what I said. You claimed they all conspired to destroy Patton's memory. I can find quotes to prove this if you wish? I said they all had a go at each other, seeking to put themselves in the best light. Are you agreeing with me now?

quote:

Where are the big investigations of Lee, Ike, Bradley, Monty, Alexander, etc, etc?


This thread is about Patton, as I understand it. You could start one about these Gentlemen if you wish. I've got some pretty critical things to say about some of them as well.

Regards,
IronDuke



You can write what you want, especially if you feel you must safeguard this thread and must answer EVERY post, whether it is addressed to you or not.

I guess you feel that "Kev" needs all the help he can get. . .


Another sidestep. I made no mention of Kev, so clearly your shot at him is nonsense. Has it come to this?
I'll reply wher you start answering points. Otherwise, we're just heading for another chat with Vic with this sort of stuff. I've asked questions, you've failed to answer them. Answer them, and I'll reply.

Regards,
IronDuke


Yet, you feel you must step in for him, even though the Lorraine campaign was between him and I.

I don't blame you though, his argument was sinking fast.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 12:33:02 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 609
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 2:45:49 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Ironduke:

I'll help you to look at France:

German Blitzkrieg against inferior and ill-prepared French forces in 1940

You state and accuse Patton of having fought against inferior forces, yet clearly, early German victories were against inferior forces.

You are too simplistic in believing that just comparing numbers between opposing forces is enough to define the extent of fighting, especially in the Battle of France in 1940, between French and German forces.

When an old house is given a fresh coat of paint, it may look new, but it is still an old, ramshackle house. This is the state the French army was in when Germany attacked in 1940.

Because of France's "Maginot" mentality, its poor leadership, its out-moded tactics, its "defeatist/defensive" mindset, its poorly trained troops, its lack of aircraft pilots, etc, France was defeated before the Germans even attacked in 1940. It was a modern, well-trained army (Germany) pitted against a less modern, less trained army (France).

Here are just a few thoughts:

* In France, most of the Allied armies were never engaged against the Germans. While there was some fighting, essentially German armoured speaheads merely bypassed most resistence and raced for the channel to trap the Allied Armies. With the bulk of Allied forces forward in Belgium and without any operational reserves, the French were unable to contain the main German offensive pouring through the lightly-defended Ardennes region. By the evening of 15 May, the Germans had ruptured the Allied front completely. By 20 May, the German panzer corps had reached the English Channel and had successfully entrapped the Allied armies in Belgium. After the frantic withdrawal of the Allied forces through Dunkirk, the rest of the campaign was a stroll for the Germans. Although there were some initial tenacious resistance, the French defences soon collapsed. On 22 June 1940, just six weeks after the invasion, France capitulated.

* In essence, the French military degenerated into a tragic state of inertia after the Great War. In this state of inertia, the French military minds were closed to new innovations and new tactics. Technological advances, which had made possible faster planes, heavily armoured tanks and radio communication, were received with much scepticism. Other than the conversion of five infantry divisions and a cavalry division into light mechanised divisions, the French military of 1940 had virtually shown no progress since the last war.

* For France, the Great War was practically a brutal demonstration on the effectiveness of modern firepower. In that war, France lost 1.4 million soldiers. Another 4.2 million were seriously maimed. Following these terrible losses, post-war France was bent on abandoning the philosophy of offensive à outrance in favour of a more balanced emphasis on defence. The French were determined that the holocaust of 1914 to 1918 caused by excessive emphasis on the offensive should never again be repeated in future wars. Moreover, the 10-month battle at Verdun in 1916 had convinced the French that a continuous line of trenches and an immense amount of firepower could hold out against any attack. These lessons had convinced post-war France that defence was the only feasible strategy, not only to win the next war, but also to prevent the mindless slaughter of her youths.

Consequently, the terms of military service were reduced in 1921, 1923 and 1928 to two years, 19 months and one year respectively. This effectively halved France's standing army from 41 divisions in 1922 to only 20 divisions in 1928. With only a small standing army, the French army could only hope to hold back any surprise German invasion while awaiting the mobilisation of its reservists.

* France was prepared to go to war with doctrines formulated based on her WW I experience. In short, the French military in 1940 was organized, equipped and trained to fight a war similar to that of the western front in 1918. Naturally, the French doctrines, which emphasised static defence and "methodical battle", were ill-suited and too rigid for the hectic and often intense pace of mobile warfare that the Germans unleashed upon them in 1940.

* An indispensable part of the French doctrine was its step-by-step approach to battle, termed the "methodical battle". The "methodical battle" closely resembled the WW I procedures. Under this method, all units and weapons were carefully marshalled and then employed in combat according to strictly schedules timetables and phase lines. Under the "methodical battle", decision-making was centralised at higher level command so as to co-ordinate the actions of the numerous subordinate units. There was little need for decentralisation and lower-level officers were expected to display obedience rather than initiative and flexibility. Therefore, the French military leaders were simply too slow to respond to "Lightning" warfare.

* After siphoning off a disproportionate share from the military's coffers during the lean depression years of the 1930s, the Maginot Line turned out to be no more than an engineering feat of questionable military value in the 1940 Campaign. The trouble with the Maginot Line was that it was in the wrong place. In the 1940 Campaign, nearly HALF of the French Army was deployed in support of the Line, and they remained there only to be bypassed by the Germans attacking through the Ardennes. Therefore, the German forces never engaged HALF of the French troops that were available.

* Unfortunately, the quality of the French soldiers in 1940 was a far cry from that of their forefathers who had died willingly by the thousands in the infernos of the Great War. Poor training, inadequate battle preparation, inept leadership and complacency resulting from the "Maginot Line complex" had adversely drained the morale, cohesion and discipline of the troops.

* The key difference between the two countries was not in the quantity or the quality of their tanks, but rather, the tactical employment of these tanks. Although, France recognised the tank as one of the most important weapons indroduced since WW I, they firmly believed that the primary function of the tank was to augment the firepower of the infantry. The first two French armoured divisions were created in January 1940, while a third was only added in April 1940. Unfortunately, these hastily formed divisions suffered a lack of equipment and training. Not only were these tanks dispersed in "Penny Packets", but they also lacked radios and co-ordination.

* As with the tanks, the French failed to develop a viable doctrine for the deployment of airplanes. Little thought had been given to air co-operation with the ground forces. Probably, the most serious fault with the French air doctrine during the inter-war period was its failure to appreciate the importance of dive-bombers despite the lessons from the Polish Campaign. As at May 1940, France possessed a mere 50 dive-bombers.

* While France had a large number of aircraft, there were not enough aircrews or ground crews to man them. Thus the air force was not organized for battle. The regular air force had only half again as many units as during its peacetime nadir in 1932. As the battle opened, 119 of 210 squadrons were ready for action on the decisive northeastern front. The others were reequipping or stationed in the colonies. The 119 squadrons could bring into action only one-fourth of the aircraft available. These circumstances put the Allied air forces in a position of severe numerical inferiority vis-à-vis the Luftwaffe.

* As a consequence of the political struggles between the officer corps and the political left, between the army and the air force, and between the air force and the government, the French Air Force entered combat with an incomplete ground infrastructure, insufficient personnel to man its aircraft, and a doctrine so completely at variance with the army's doctrine that the two services were destined to fight largely independent wars.

* Finally, the French leadership was horribly demoralized. For example, in the book, "The Collapse of the Third Republic", the author notes that the top two leaders of France were convinced of the ultimate defeat of France by Germany long before it became feasible for Germany. And of course civilian leadership was completely lacking both during Hilter's move into the Rhineland, and later during the German occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia. In the 30's, both far left and far right forces were convinced that the Third Republic had to be taken down and were actively undermining it. Finally, there were many French (in positions of power) who welcomed the German occupation. Apparently it was widely thought that rule under a German tyranny was better than under the old Republic.

Ultimately, the French defeat in the 1940 Campaign is attributed to her ill-conceived strategy which was based on fallacious assumptions, her poorly-led military forces, and her obsolete tactical and operational-level doctrines which were inadequate for the mobile war Germany thrust upon her in 1940.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 4:54:13 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 610
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 7:35:16 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Patton in the Lorraine Campaign


Here is the situation faced by Patton and Third Army by September, 1944, before the commencement of the Lorraine campaign.


Introduction

After the initial breakout, Patton's army pursued German forces deep into France. Armored spearheads led the way, with infantry riding the backs of the tanks. Overhead, fighter-bombers patrolled the flanks and attacked any German unit that took to the roads in daylight. With the remnants of two German army groups in full retreat, the Supreme Allied Commander, GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower, noted in his diary on 5 September, "The defeat of the German Army is complete."

As Third Army neared the French border province of Lorraine, Third Army's intelligence sources seemed to confirm that the war was virtually over. The top-secret interceptions known as Ultra revealed that the Franco-German border was virtually undefended and would remain so until mid-September. A corps reconnaissance squadron reported that the Moselle River, the, last major water barrier in France, was also undefended. Patton issued orders to his corps to seize Metz and Nancy, sweep through Lorraine, and cross the Rhine River at Mannheim and Mainz.

Yet, just as Patton was about to seize Metz and Nancy, and then sweep through Lorraine to the German border, fuel shortage caused Third Army to stop dead in its tracks.

When Patton's tanks sputtered to a halt, the German forces defending Lorraine totaled only 9 infantry battalions, 2 artillery batteries, and 10 tanks. During the first week in September, while Third Army was immobilized, German forces flowed into Lorraine from the northern sector of the front, from southern France, and from Italy. The headquarters charged with the defense of Lorraine was Army Group G, under the command of GEN Johannes Blaskowitz. First Army, Nineteenth Army, and later Fifth Panzer Army were Blaskowitz's major forces.

When Patton's troops received enough gasoline to resume their advance towards the Moselle on 5 September, after a delay of nearly a week, the troops quickly discovered that the great pursuit was over. Instead of running down the fleeing fragments of shattered German units, soldiers all along Third Army's front encountered enemy soldiers who contested every foot of ground and who counterattacked viciously to recover lost positions.

Why did Patton bother with Lorraine at all?

The REASON is that Patton WAS ORDERED to take Lorraine.

Did you catch that?

That's right, Patton and Third Army were ORDERED to attack along the Moselle Front:

"Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, made up his mind to destroy as many German forces as possible west of the Rhine. Omar Bradley, Patton's immediate superior as commander of 12th Army Group, concurred. All Allied armies were ordered to press ahead on a broad front.."

Ike odered ALL Allied Armies to attack along a broad front. Bradley in turn ordered Patton to attack along the Moselle Front. Patton in turn attacked at Nancy and Metz because they were the KEYS to the entire Moselle front.

Why? Nancy, but especially Metz, contained vital road and railway networks that were vital for Third Army if it was to breakthrough the Moselle Front and exploit a breakthrough through the muddy, heavily wooded and hilly countryside.


It seems in the Lorraine Campaign that the Germans had an unwitting ally - the Allied High Command. What the German armies were incapable of doing - stopping Patton - the Allied High Command did it for them.

Read on:


SITUATION OF THIRD ARMY ALONG THE MOSELLE FRONT


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

Shortage of Fuel

Although gasoline was plentiful in Normandy, by August 31, Third Army received NO gasoline at all. With fuel tanks running dry, Patton's spearheads captured Verdun and crossed the Meuse River.

For the next 5 days, Third Army was virtually immobilized.

Why?

Eisenhower granted logistical priority to the British and American armies farther north, leaving Third Army with about one-quarter of its required daily gasoline allotments.

Patton's troops captured some gasoline from the Germans, hijacked some from First Army depots, and received some gasoline by air, but when gasoline receipts finally increased to the point that the advance could be resumed, the opportunity of sweeping through Lorraine unopposed had passed.



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

Shortage of Supplies


The gasoline shortage was followed by a shortage of ammunition, particularly in the larger artillery calibers that had not been in great demand during the fluid pursuit. By 10 September, Third Army's artillery batteries received only one-third of a unit of fire per day. Other shortages would crop up as the campaign progressed. At one time or another, rations, clothing, mattress covers, coffee, tires, tobacco, antifreeze, winter clothing, and overshoes would all be in critically short supply.



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

Shortage of Intelligence

Third Army's intelligence sources began to run dry at the same time as its gas tanks. As Third Army approached Lorraine, Ultra provided less and less information of an operational and tactical nature. Free French sources had cooperated actively with Third during the pursuit, but Lorraine, with its partially hostile population and its swelling German garrison, was not a favorable setting for Resistance activities. Military intelligence interpreter teams found fewer knowledgeable natives willing to be interviewed, and the barrier posed by the Moselle River prevented the easy flow of both civilian agents and combat patrols. Moreover, the corps commanders did not receive Ultra at all. Their corps intelligence assets could, at best, see only 15,000 yards behind the enemy's front.



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

Shortage of Troops


At the same time that the Germans received reinforcements, Patton's Third Army was being trimmed down. In the pursuit across France, Third Army had controlled four far-flung corps, but during September two of those corps were REMOVED from Patton's command.

Just before the Battle of Metz, Patton's Third Army was cut in half.

"For most of the Lorraine campaign, Third Army would consist of two corps, the XX and the XII. Four to six infantry divisions and two or three armored divisions would carry the bulk of the burden for the next 3 months."



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

Shortage of Air Power

Patton's arsenal for the Lorraine campaign was the XIX Tactical Air Command (TAC), which had cooperated with Third Army throughout the pursuit across France. Fighter-bombers from the XIX TAC flew 12,000 sorties in support of Third Army during August, but in September, TACs efforts would be divided between the Lorraine front and the battles being waged to reduce the German fortresses still holding out along the French coast. As the autumn wore on, XIX TAC would be increasingly frustrated by poor weather.

Therefore, before the Battle for Metz began, Patton lost HALF of his airforce!



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

In Addition

In addition to all of the above, Third Army faced torrential rain downpours and freezing rain and terrible muddy conditions during those three months in the Lorraine.

Plus, Third Army suffered 18,000 casualties from Trench Foot and other diseases alone, almost the same number of casualties as those suffered from the Germans.




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

Conclusion


Thus, at the outset of the Lorraine campaign, which Patton WAS ORDERED to pursue, Third Army was logistically starved, depleted in strength, and denied the full use of its air assets.

On 10 September, 12th Army Group (Bradley) ORDERED Third Army to advance on a BROAD FRONT and seize crossings over the Rhine River at Mannheim and Mainz.


Imagine being a football coach and you are about to play an important game. However, before starting the game, you learn that you will lose half your players, there will be no water for your players that do remain, some of your players will have no helmets, shoulder pads or shoes, and that you will be playing the entire game on a very muddy field in torrential rains. Further, as coach you MUST play the game.

This is the situation Patton found himself at the end of August, 1944.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 5:36:47 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 611
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 7:45:25 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Summation of General Patton's Strategies


What a few people seem to miss, and what seems to escape their limited view of Patton, is this:

1) Had Patton been given the fuel and supplies when he reached the Mosselle, he would have taken Metz and Nancy quickly. Both places, but especially Metz, was the hub of major railways and road networks (much as Caen was). Not only were the Germans using these railways and roads to move in reinforcements, but these were absolutely vital for any army in order to move through the heavily wooded and hilly terrain of Lorraine. Add in the rains, and moving anywhere but by road or rail, would have been a logistical impossibility. That is why Metz was a vital objective.

In fact, both Nancy and Metz were the KEYS to the entire Moselle Front. Their vital road and railway networks were needed by Third Army in order to travel through the Lorraine countryside which contained numerous fields, heavy woods and hills. The three months of rain had turned the Lorraine countryside into a quagmire.

2) Most historians (Liddell Hart, Kemp, D'Este, Blumenson, et al), plus most military professionals, agree that Patton had the German forces on the run in September, 1944, and could have been at the Siegfried Line by mid-September.

3) Had Patton and Third Army been given the supplies that went to Monty (for his failed Market Garden), Liddell Hart agrees that the war in Europe could have ended in late 1944.

To Bradley's credit, he did argue with Ike against the Broad Front strategy. He wanted Ike to give supplies to 1st and 3rd Armies so that they could punch through the German lines and strike for the German border.

However, Ike refused, preferring the Broad Front strategy of "pushing" the Germans back. It was also Ike, who commanded all Allied ground forces by September 1, 1944, who ordered ALL Allied armies to attack on a broad front. Patton's forces were along the "Mosselle Front" and so he attacked at Nancy and later at Metz, to secure their road networks, which were absolutely vital due to the terrible mud and rains that struck Lorraine in the fall of 1944.

Ike's strategy resulted in thousands more Allied and German soldiers dying.

4) Had Patton's advice been heeded, and the war ended in late 1944, then the following would have been the result:

a) Countless tens of thousands of Allied and Axis soldiers' lives would have been spared.

b) There would have been no Battle of the Bulge

c) Countless Holocaust victims' lives would have been spared

d) There would have been no need to bomb German cities in 1945 thus sparing hundreds of thousands of civilian lives

e) The Soviets would not have taken Berlin

f) etc, etc, etc. . .

5) Patton's tactics and strategy WERE correct:

a) At Falaise he wanted to close the Gap - Allied timidity on Bradley's part caused over 100,000 German soldiers to escape, who would later turn up in the Battle of the Bulge and at Lorraine (Metz). To Bradley's credit he later admitted that NOT closing the Gap was a big mistake.

b) In the Bulge, had Patton been allowed to close off the salient behind the German thrust, most of the Germans would have been caught. But due to Allied timidity (Ike), the Allied armies were forced to push back the Germans, resulting in many thousands of needless deaths.

c) In Siciliy, Alexander's strategy allowed the bulk of Axis forces to escape to Italy (some of which would later re-appear in Lorraine to fight Patton again). Even with a two week delay imposed upon him, Patton STILL beat Monty to Messina, conducting lighting armoured thrusts and amphibious operations to by-pass entrenched Germans in mountainous terrain.

6) After the war, there has been a concerted effort on the part of Ike, Bradley, their supporters and biographers, to try to paint Patton as being less than he was.

Martin Blumenson (in "Patton: The Man Behind the Legend") wrote this:

"Eisenhower invited the four American army commanders to lunch on May 10. He spoke 'very confidentially' of the need for them all to maintain a united and solid front if called to testify before congressional committees that might later investigate the conduct of the war. To Patton, Eisenhower's talk sounded like 'covering up probable criticism of strategical blunders which he unquestionably committed during the campaign.'" (p.269)

They have to destroy Patton's reputation, because if they don't do so, then the light is then directed towards them, and the costly mistakes they made:

a) Attacking on a Broad Front by Ike - led to needless waste of lives and the inability to supply all armies properly

b) The failure to close the Falaise Gap by Bradley - due to timidity

c) The failure to give Third Army the supplies to drive into Germany

d) The failure to allow Third Army to close the salient behind the German army at the Bulge.

Anyone can read about these things.

When viewed by a far-minded person, it can easily be seen that Patton's strategy WAS CORRECT, and that the strategies proposed by Ike (Broad Front; giving Monty supplies for Market Grden), Bradley (failure to close the Falaise Gap), Monty (Operaton Market Garden; failure to seize the Schelt Estuary before the Germans occupied it, etc), were WRONG.

Patton wasn't perfect - he was flawed - as we all are - as Ike, Bradley, Monty, etc were. . .

But Patton was a fighting general, and he knew how to fight. He knew how to strike for the enemy's juggular.

That is why the German High Command feared him, and NOT Bradley, Ike, Monty, Alexander, etc. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 612
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 4:32:55 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Selected Quotes -- General George S. Patton Jr.

Source: Patton, by Martin Blumenson, 1985

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

Do your damndiest always.

Always do more than is required of you.

The poorer the surroundings, the more important it is to keep up your standards.

No machine is better than his operator.

A general should not live to explain a defeat.

An imperfect decision executed at once was worth more than a perfect solution later.

Success in war depended on speed, simplicity, and boldness.

A commander was never defeated until he admitted it.

The fog of war covered the enemy also.

Death in war is incidental: loss of time is criminal.

The purpose of an attack was to inflict death, wounds, and destruction on the enemy troops in order to obtain both physical and moral ascendancy over them. The gaining of ground is simply an incident; not an object.

The best method to fight the enemy was to grab him by the nose and kick him in the pants.

After being observed praying before a polo match, he was asked "What are you praying for? -- To win the game?" Patton answered: "Hell no - I'm praying to do my best."

Advise to his son who was in prep school: Raising hell was foolish and running with a gang shows a lack of self-confidence.

If brevity is the soul of wit, repetition is the heart of instruction.

An armored division is the most powerful organization ever devised.

Find the enemy, hold him, and get around him. Always moving, do not sit down, do not say I have done enough. Keep on , see what else you can do to raise the devil with the enemy.

Advice to his son on receiving a nomination to West Point: Work hard - Do your damndest in an ostentatious manner all the time. Always be the best-dressed cadet. Always be ahead of time. Never make excuses. Never knowingly break a regulation. Dispense with friends and be a lone wolf. Avoid harmless larks for they show an unstable mind. Fix firmly on what you want and get it.

Words to Eisenhower about his landing in North Africa: ... intend to succeed or die in the attempt.

Wars are only won by risking the impossible.

I can't decide logically, if I am a man of destiny or a lucky fool.

Remarks to his troops after victory in North Africa: Your deeds have proven that you are fine soldiers. Look the part.

War is very simple, direct and ruthless. It takes a simple, direct and ruthless men to wage war.

Everyone is afraid, but only the coward lets his fear overcome his sense of duty.

God deliver us from our friends, we can handle the enemy.

If a man has done his best, what the hell more is there?

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 613
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 4:46:18 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
As Martin Blumenson, a leading authority, has recently noted:

It took some years after the war for the fullness of Patton's stature to emerge. Unlike most of his contemporaries, whose reputations have steadily declined since the war, Patton's has continued to rise. This phenomenon has occurred despite the relatively low role he held in the chain of command.

http://www.sunflower-univ-press.org/books/memoirs-artillery.html

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 614
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 4:53:01 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
GENERAL PATTON NEVER LOST A CAMPAIGN

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 2:54:44 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 615
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 4:58:38 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
1944 - 1945


Facts and Figures of Third Army's Accomplishments




Reduced to cold, statistical figures, the feats of the Third Army were astonishing. The Army liberated or captured 81,522 square miles of territory. An estimated 12,000 cities, towns, and communities were liberated or captured, including 27 cities of more than 50,000 in population.

Third Army captured a total of 1,280,688 German soldiers.

The enemy lost an estimated 1,280,688 captured, 144,500 killed, and 386,200 wounded, adding up to 1,811,388. By comparison, the Third Army suffered 16,596 killed, 96,241 wounded, and 26,809 missing in action for a total of 139,646 casualties. Third Army's losses were only 12.97 percent of the German losses. That is only about 13 American soldiers for every 100 German soldiers.

Third Army aircraft and artillery dropped or dispersed by shell 31,552,700 psychological warfare leaflets to enemy troops.

XIX Tactical Air Command completed 1,767 tactical reconnaissance missions and 77 photo reconnaissance missions which resulted in 3,205,670 aerial photographic prints being distributed.

XIX Tactical Air Command flew 7,326 missions and 74,447 sorties during the 281 days of fighting.

Third Army's air support dropped 17,486 tons of bombs, 3,205 napalm tanks, and launched 4,599 rockets.

The Air Command destroyed 1,640 enemy planes and only lost 582 of it's own from all causes.

Targets destroyed or damaged by the XIX Tactical Air Command included:

Tanks and armored cars 3,833

Motor vehicles 38,541

Locomotives 4,337

Railroad lines cut 2,585

Marshaling yards 974

Towns and villages 816

Factories 3,664

Supply dumps 220

Military installations 1,730

Gun installations 2,809

Highway and railroad bridges 285

Miscellaneous naval vessels 654

Miscellaneous targets 3,010

Third Army artillery fired 5,870,843 rounds of ammunition during the fighting.

Tank destroyers with the Third Army knocked out 648 enemy tanks and 211 self propelled guns. At the Maginot Line and the Siegfried Line, they eliminated 801 pillboxes. They fired a total of 101,178 rounds of ammunition on direct fire missions and 231,998 rounds on indirect fire missions.

Within the Army area, 2,186,792 tons of supplies were transported a total of 141,081,336 miles by trucks in the transportation pool. A total of 2,092 miles of railway track was reconstructed and placed into operation.

The Army repaired 99,114 general purpose vehicles, 21,761 combat vehicles, 11,613 artillery pieces, 125,083 small arms, and 32,740 instruments.

Third Army Engineers constructed 2,498 bridges with a total footage of 255,520 feet, almost 48 and one half miles of bridging. They built or maintained an average of 2,240 miles of road.

Third Army's nine chemical mortar companies expended 349,097 rounds of 4.2 inch mortars, including 189,095 rounds of high explosive and 160,002 rounds of white phosphorous. Chemical warfare supplies included 32,454 gallons of flame thrower fuel and 335,944 grenades.

Third Army Signal Corps personnel laid 3,747 miles of telephone wire. The Third Army message center handled a total of 7,220,261 code groups and switchboard operators handled an average of 13,968 telephone calls daily.

Military personnel in the Third Army were paid a total of $240,539,569 from the 1st of August, 1944 until the 30th of April, 1945.

The forward echelon of the Third Army (code named Lucky Forward by General Patton) traveled 1,225 miles while making 19 complete moves during combat.

The decorations awarded to soldiers of the Third Army were:

Medal of Honor 19

Distinguished Service Medal 44

Distinguished Service Cross 291

Legion of Merit 159

Silver Star 4,990

Soldier's Medal 247

Bronze Star 29,090

Normal promotions numbered 6,464; battlefield promotions totaled 1,817; and combat appointments totaled 848.

The correspondents of the Third Army and soldier correspondents wrote 30,326 stories totaling 7,010,963 words. They submitted 7,129 photographs about the Third Army's combat fighting.

A total of 11,230,000 soldiers attended motion picture shows at the Third Army. The USO shows played to 650,000 soldiers, and the soldier talent shows played to a total of 625,000 soldiers.

General Patton was right when he said, "It sure takes a lot to kill a German."

In this way, the Third Army played it's proud part in helping to crush the Nazi war machine. When men talk of the Second World War the name of the Third U.S. Army and of it's commander will awaken a special thrill of courage and adventure.

Perhaps more than any other group of soldiers in the European Theater, the soldiers of the Third Army deserved the praise of the Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower when he said, "Working and fighting together in a single indestructible partnership you have achieved perfection in unification of air, ground, and naval power that will stand as a model in our time."

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 3:01:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 616
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 5:04:28 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
General Patton's Prayer



On December 17th, 1944 General Patton gave the order to swing the Third Army from an eastward attack to a northward attack. At the time his order was issued, a blizzard was raging in the Ardennes. Because of the added difficulty faced by this bad weather, Patton called for his Chaplain, Colonel James H. O'Neill. When O'Neill arrived, he was ordered by the General to write a prayer asking for good weather to fight the Germans. O'Neill was concerned about this, saying, "Sir, surely you don't want me to ask for divine assistance in killing people." General Patton replied, "I want a prayer for good weather and I want it now." The Chaplain left the General's office and wrote the prayer.

General Patton had both the prayer and a special Christmas greeting printed on 250,000 wallet-sized cards that were given to every soldier in the Third Army. Patton believed the prayer must have worked because on the 20th of December the sky cleared and the XIX Tactical Air Command's planes began flying and raising havoc with the Germans. Third Army's soldiers could now get on with their job of winning the war.

To show his appreciation, General Patton awarded the Bronze Star Medal to Chaplain O'Neill.


Here is the full text of the Prayer:

PRAYER

ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech of Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen.

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 617
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 5:08:56 PM   
Golf33

 

Posts: 1962
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

General Patton's Prayer


That's just too funny

Regards
33

_____________________________

Steve Golf33 Long

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 618
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 5:22:00 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
German and Allied Officers Praise General Patton:


High Ranking German Officers Praise Patton:


The Germans respected Patton’s strategy and admired its genius, calling him the Allies' "most modern" commander.


1) German Major General Schimpf of the 3rd Paratroop Division called Patton’s campaign in the Palatinate "phenomenal."

2) Field Marshal Erwin Rommel wrote that, "We had to wait until the Patton Army in France to see the most astonishing achievements in mobile warfare."

3) Field Marshal von Rundstedt simply called Patton our "best." (Blumenson, Patton: The Man Behind the Legend, p.296)

4) German Army Group B Commander, Guenther von Kluge, reported the success of Patton: "As a result of the breakthrough of the enemy armored spearheads, the whole Western Front has been ripped wide open."

5) General Fritz Bayerlain, the able commander of the Panzer Lehr Division and a veteran of North Africa, assesses the escape of Rommel's Panzer Armee Afrika after Alamein: "I do not think General Patton would have let us get away so easily (as Monty had)" (D'Este, Patton: A Genius for War, p.815).


6) 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..."

7) "A German senior officer captured in March [1945] revealed: 'The greatest threat.... was the whereabouts of the feared U.S. Third Army. General Patton is always the main topic of military discussion. Where is he? When will he attack? Where....? How? With what?... General Patton is the most feared general on all fronts. The successes of the U.S. Third Army are still overshadowing all other events of the war, including the campaign in Russia.... The tactics of General Patton are daring and unpredictable.... He is the most modern general and the best commander of armored and infantry troops combined.'" (Blumenson, Patton: The Man Behind the Legend, p.296)



Allied Officers Praise Patton:


Supreme Commander Eisenhower Praises Patton:

1) In his book Crusade in Europe, Eisenhower praises Patton’s mobility in Sicily: "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."(Eisenhower, Dwight D. Crusade in Europe. New York, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1948; p.176)


2) Also in a letter to Marshall, Eisenhower praised Patton: "His rehabilitation of the II Corps in Tunisia had been 'quickly and magnificiently done,' and his leadership in Sicily was 'close to the best of our classic examples.' Patton thought 'only in terms of attack' and had a 'native shrewdness' about logistics. He was a 'truly aggressive commander' with brains." (Blumenson, Martin. Patton: The Man Behind the Legend 1885-1945. New York, N.Y.: William Morrow and Company Inc., 1985; p.216)


General Bradley Praises Patton:

Of Patton's drive in the Battle of the Bulge, General Omar N. Bradley stated it was "one of the most astonishing feats of generalship of our campaign in the west". Patton turned his forces quickly northward at ninety degrees, travelled 100 miles in 48 hours in the worst winter weather to hit the Ardennes in decades, and then engaged the southern flank of the bulge and helped contain the enemy. (Pogue, Forrest C. The Supreme Command. Washington D. C.: Center of Military History, United States Government Printing Office, 1989; p.381.)

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 3:29:56 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 619
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 5:23:20 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

General Patton's Prayer


That's just too funny

Regards
33


Patton was a deeply religious man.

You would mock a man's prayer to God?

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 3:24:03 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Golf33)
Post #: 620
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 6:08:07 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
Von Rom wrote (of me)

quote:

Yet, you feel you must step in for him, even though the Lorraine campaign was between him and I.

I don't blame you though, his argument was sinking fast.


I don't see how you can say that since you haven't addressed the conclusions of the study that I posted. I will summarise (rather than reprint) these conclusions.

1) Patton failed to practice economy of force in both the September assault on Nancy by XII corps and the November assault on Metz by XX Corps.

2) Patton 'parceled out' his armour in small 'penny packets' rather than concentrating them for a decisive push as the German commanders in Lorraine feared he would.

3) By taking logistical shortcuts to maintain the advance in late August in neglecting the need for ammunition in favour of petrol he contributed heavily to his own logistics problems in the Lorraine campaign. This from a man quoted as saying - "Gentlemen, the officer who doesn't know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless."

Von Rom, you should either address these conclusions directly and in detail or you should fold. We are not dealing with the fictions of 'what if', we are dealing with what actually happened - Pattons command decisions. I will check in regularly to see whether you have taken the time to deal with this.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 621
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 9:35:00 PM   
Jane Doe

 

Posts: 322
Joined: 4/16/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

General Patton's Prayer


That's just too funny

Regards
33


Patton was a deeply religious man.

You would mock a man's prayer to God?


Are you on a Jihad?!

_____________________________

Ainsi dans le courage et ainsi dans la peur, ainsi dans la misère et ainsi dans l'horreur.

"first you need a tear, just a tear of gin......and then a river of tonic"

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 622
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 10:28:20 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
Why on earth do you keep posting things people have seen, have you no new material? The German Officer thread has now appeaered FIVE TIMES . Although I note you have mysterioiusly left out the ones from guderian, Simon and Balck I found for you .

The situation on Metz has already been dissected. If you're going to do this, I'm just going to post my dissection, which you chose to side step by opening up a bit of nonsense about Kev. We'll end up going round in circles (or even bigger circles).

We have dissected all these posts and shown them to be nonsense, do you think that people do not recognise the same material time and time again? Do you think that somehow your posts make more sense the second time around? Do you think that by posting them a second time, people will forget how they were illustrated to be wrong the first time. People will just turn off. Something doesn't become truth simply because you say it over and over again. Something simply becomes legend that way, which is where this mess all started in the first place.

Also, what is happening to you? When you started, you were Von Rom with some picture from what looked like a computer game. Progressively, over the weeks, you started posting with a picture of his helmet, then you added a couple of quotes, then you changed the quotes to some line from the Moroccan government about lions trembling, and now we have a picture of him as well.!!!!!

IronDuke

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 7/26/2004 8:58:27 PM >

(in reply to Jane Doe)
Post #: 623
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 10:37:07 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

GENERAL PATTON NEVER LOST A CAMPAIGN


I like this one.

Neither did Monty (MG was a battle), neither did Bradley. Neither did Ike. Neither did Alexander. I don't think Clark did either, which is saying something. Neither did Hodges, neither did Simpson. Devers, there's another one. Dempsey, Crerand, about two dozen Admirals and Air Marshalls, oh then there's Leese, whoever ran the strategic bombing campaign against Japan, and I don't remember John Wayne losing one either.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 624
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 10:39:26 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
This colour thing is really neat.

I didn't know you could do this
.

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 625
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 11:33:49 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom wrote (of me)

quote:

Yet, you feel you must step in for him, even though the Lorraine campaign was between him and I.

I don't blame you though, his argument was sinking fast.


I don't see how you can say that since you haven't addressed the conclusions of the study that I posted. I will summarise (rather than reprint) these conclusions.

1) Patton failed to practice economy of force in both the September assault on Nancy by XII corps and the November assault on Metz by XX Corps.

2) Patton 'parceled out' his armour in small 'penny packets' rather than concentrating them for a decisive push as the German commanders in Lorraine feared he would.

3) By taking logistical shortcuts to maintain the advance in late August in neglecting the need for ammunition in favour of petrol he contributed heavily to his own logistics problems in the Lorraine campaign. This from a man quoted as saying - "Gentlemen, the officer who doesn't know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless."

Von Rom, you should either address these conclusions directly and in detail or you should fold. We are not dealing with the fictions of 'what if', we are dealing with what actually happened - Pattons command decisions. I will check in regularly to see whether you have taken the time to deal with this.


Kevinugly:

You don't have a leg to stand on even when it comes to the Lorraine Campaign. Not one.

You and Patton's other critics can't even fault Patton at Metz. . .

Why?

Read on:

General Patton Won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was short of supplies:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had no intelligence:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had little gas:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had very little ammo:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its soldiers removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its airforce removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to fight in torrential rains:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army suffered 18,000 cases of Trench Foot:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was counterattacked by Tigers and Panthers:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to assault the most heavily fortified place in Europe:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even with all this against him, General Patton STILL Won the Lorraine Campaign


Are you going to fold?

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 626
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 11:36:11 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jane Doe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

General Patton's Prayer


That's just too funny

Regards
33


Patton was a deeply religious man.

You would mock a man's prayer to God?


Are you on a Jihad?!




Nope. . .

But I would NEVER mock someone's prayer or belief in a Higher Being, which seems to be so casually done here. . .

Especially, when those prayers are done by soldiers who are about to go into battle. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 10:00:44 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jane Doe)
Post #: 627
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 11:39:43 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Why on earth do you keep posting things people have seen, have you no new material? The German Officer thread has now appeaered FIVE TIMES . Although I note you have mysterioiusly left out the ones from guderian, Simon and Balck I found for you .

The situation on Metz has already been dissected. If you're going to do this, I'm just going to post my dissection, which you chose to side step by opening up a bit of nonsense about Kev. We'll end up going round in circles (or even bigger circles).

We have dissected all these posts and shown them to be nonsense, do you think that people do not recognise the same material time and time again? Do you think that somehow your posts make more sense the second time around? Do you think that by posting them a second time, people will forget how they were illustrated to be wrong the first time. People will just turn off. Something doesn't become truth simply because you say it over and over again. Something simply becomes legend that way, which is where this mess all started in the first place.

Also, what is happening to you? When you started, you were Von Rom with some picture from what looked like a computer game. Progressively, over the weeks, you started posting with a picture of his helmet, then you added a couple of quotes, then you changed the quotes to some line from the Moroccan government about lions trembling, and now we have a picture of him as well.!!!!!

IronDuke


Heheh

I thought you would enjoy reading them again.

Well, since I knew you liked Patton so much I thought you would enjoy seeing him on a more regular basis

Regarding the Lorraine Campaign - you and Patton's other critics don't have a leg to stand on:

General Patton Won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was short of supplies:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had no intelligence:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had little gas:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had very little ammo:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its soldiers removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had HALF its airforce removed before battle:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to fight in torrential rains:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army suffered 18,000 cases of Trench Foot:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army was counterattacked by Tigers and Panthers:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even when Third Army had to assault the most heavily fortified place in Europe:
General Patton STILL beat the Germans and won the Lorraine Campaign

Even with all this against him, General Patton STILL Won the Lorraine Campaign

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 7/26/2004 9:44:31 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 628
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 11:41:21 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

GENERAL PATTON NEVER LOST A CAMPAIGN


I like this one.

Neither did Monty (MG was a battle), neither did Bradley. Neither did Ike. Neither did Alexander. I don't think Clark did either, which is saying something. Neither did Hodges, neither did Simpson. Devers, there's another one. Dempsey, Crerand, about two dozen Admirals and Air Marshalls, oh then there's Leese, whoever ran the strategic bombing campaign against Japan, and I don't remember John Wayne losing one either.


It just goes to show you what a winning team the Allies had.

Patton made everyone look good: in Sicily, in France, in the Bulge. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 629
RE: Why was Patton so great? - 7/26/2004 11:42:32 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

This colour thing is really neat.

I didn't know you could do this
.


And if you read up more on Patton, you'll change your mind and see what a great general he was. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Why was Patton so great? Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   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

2.016