Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 68135	2006-04-19 02:29:00	Brigadier attacks the John Wayne generals	Scouse (83)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
447452	2006-04-19 20:55:00	There is no doubt that in general the US army has traditionally been trained to fight conventional battles with mass firepower and personnel. So the first Gulf War fell more nearly into that pattern. I am not sure at all about the Balkans, a real mess up I'd say. But the real problem of tackling a war situation when the "enemy" blend in with the population is the 'co-lateral' damage factor. The US can do it the right way, "Merrills Marauders" in Burma knew how, but unfortunately they were decimated and crippled by the paranoic behaviour of General "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell, so much so that they would cheerfully have shot him. Patton was the one who drew his pearl handled pistol and threatened to shoot a shell shocked soldier for slacking :)	Terry Porritt (14)
447453	2006-04-19 21:19:00	Patton was the one who drew his pearl handled pistol and threatened to shoot a shell shocked soldier for slacking :) Yes, old "Blood and Guts George" was quite a character. My father was in the D Day invasion, under General Bradley. My dad disliked Patton, but had a lot of respect for Bradley, who was referred to as "A Soldier's Soldier" since he cared for his men in a way that apparently saved lives and lessened casulties. But by God, Patton got the job done. If he had his way, I do think VE day would have been sooner and the Russians would have had less of Eastern Europe and not even Berlin. This thread makes me want to refind the blogs by American soldiers in Iraq. Great reading. Many of them know that Sadam was not involved in 9-11, and many are well aware of how the US lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.	Strommer (42)
447454	2006-04-19 23:38:00	Right, Patons drive would certainly have got things moving faster, especially if he had had more supplies. But he kept operating faster than available supplies could keep up. Bradley was the diplomatic gentleman, as was Eisenhower. There was a too much pulling in different directions, by the competing armies, and despite Montgomery being the Brits hero, generally speaking, he held things back, and was past his use by date. Too overated IMHO. The Americans should have been given the supply wherewithall to forge ahead at top speed, and left the Brits to mop up in the rear.	Terry Porritt (14)
447455	2006-04-20 01:45:00	I am no historian,but I thought Monty wanted a direct to Berlin route but the Yanks wanted a broad front.	Cicero (40)
447456	2006-04-20 02:07:00	I am no historian,but I thought Monty wanted a direct to Berlin route but the Yanks wanted a broad front. That is indeed what Montgomery himself said (in retrospect) in his History of Warfare, but as ever, his tendendency for self glorification has to be taken into account. The fact was that supplies, fuel ammo, logistic support etc were in short supply, and Monty did his fair share of claiming supplies for his side venture Market Garden. Eisenhower had to reconcile all the competing claims whilst trying to be unscrupulously fair. I think he bent over backwards to accomodate Montys quirks.	Terry Porritt (14)
447457	2006-04-20 02:28:00	If Market Garden had been successful, then it would have been quite a different story. Supplies could have come in much sooner via Antwerp, which could have fuelled a more rapid drive through Germany. But anyway in the end, the division of Germany had been agreed at Yalta, so whoever reached Berlin first would not have made much if any difference to the map of post war Europe.	Terry Porritt (14)
447458	2006-04-20 03:48:00	I am no historian,but I thought Monty wanted a direct to Berlin route but the Yanks wanted a broad front. Monty doing a Blitzkrieg a la General Guderian. In fact I thought it was Patton who adopted Guderian's tactic of lightning war. But never mind that, we tend to forget that the Allies were fighting the Wehrmacht. The German Army were seasoned soldiers, not pussycats. A spear thrust for Berlin would have left the flanks of the advance dangerously vulnerable to a Wehrmacht counterattack. Just consider the Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge) which the Germans nearly won in December 1944.	Winston001 (3612)
447459	2006-04-20 04:42:00	Here is what a maybe somewhat biased excerpt from a book, "Patton Uncovered" by B.E.Boland has to say about Rommels view of Montgomery: "Montgomery never advanced quickly because he insisted on having three times the necessary number of supplies and then moving forward “with caution.” “War requires the taking of risks,” as Patton said, “and Monty simply won’t take them.” Rommel commented, “Montgomery had an absolute mania for always bringing up adequate reserves behind his back and risking as little as possible.” Rommel had exploited Monty’s “mania” to the full. Compare Rommel’s notes on Montgomery with his comments on Patton. “We had to wait until the Patton Army in France to see the most astonishing achievements in mobile warfare.” Clearly the Germans regarded Patton as a modern commander who fully understood the British-invented blitzkrieg, whereas Montgomery was an old-school WWI commander who would plod bloodily from battle to battle." [ Just a note there, it was Liddell-Hart who "invented" the concepts of lightning tank warfare between the wars, the Germans, Guderian in particular, read his papers and books, the Brits didn't] Funny really, this thread started with slating American generals, and is now backing them :) You know, during the 40s Monty was every British boys hero, but I worked with two guys during the 60s who had been through the war, including one who had "copped a packet at Falaise" and had been through many theatres with Monty, the other never fired a shot in anger but had been through every course imaginable including a synthetic jungle up in Scotland. Neither had much good to say about Monty, it made me wonder why, I knew the Yanks disparaged him, and I knew he was an arrogant vainglorious man who belittled those he disliked. Over the years I have come to a similar viewpoint. Still. there are those who think he was brilliant, so it all depends on where you stand.	Terry Porritt (14)
447460	2006-04-20 05:06:00	Wonder what Churchill thought of Monty.	Cicero (40)
447461	2006-04-20 05:09:00	For those here interested in this topic I can highly recommend a book by Antony Beevor. Berlin The Downfall 1945 Facinating reading.	Safari (3993)
1 2 3 4