MacArthur

[xj900uk]

Re MacArthur's $500k, that payment (and I think another officer or two got some substantial sums as well) was known about and approved by the US government.  Not that this necessraily makes it right, of course!
 
IMO MacArthur's biggest asset (other than his own ego) was probably his understand and courting of PR - very few other generals/war leaders with the possible exception of Goebbels devoted so much time and effort to it

[TulliusDetritus]

But what should matter are his statistics (in the game that is, because this IS a game) [8D]

Lets face it. We have literally thousands of leaders. How many of them were nutters? 5%? 10%? So? [:D]

P.S.: needless to say I keep him in charge. No matter his Jack D. Ripper moment [8D]

[xj900uk]

Nobody's said that MacArthur was a 'nutter'.  Egotist, maybe...

[TulliusDetritus]

Oh yes, only egotist, thats why they want him to charge into the enemy machine guns... with no bayonet [:D]

[moonraker65]

I think the greatest example of his stage managed PR is when he stepped back on to the Philippines off of that Landing Craft with his Pipe and Sunglasses. Pure class.

[DrewMatrix]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

IMO MacArthur's biggest asset (other than his own ego) was probably his understand and courting of PR

Hehehe. IMO that was his biggest defect.

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

... we gave Mac high ratings in skill and aggressiveness (because even contemporaries who hated his guts admitted that he was brilliant; and he was certainly one of the most aggressive US Army commanders in the Pacific), we tried to reflect his shortcomings (egomania, disdain for allies, mis-conduct of the PI campaign, unfairly blaming subordinates for not achieving his unrealistic expectations at Kokoda and Buna) with low inspiration and mediocre land combat ratings.

Yes. Nice way to handle that in game terms.

[DrewMatrix]

I think MacArthur improved a lot during the course of the war. I'm not aware he did much of note before WWII. He was a capable administrator. In WWI he didn't have much scope to show (or practice) independent command.

In his first Phillipine campaign he was worse than terrible. You could argue that at least the British in Malaya/Sinapore had the wit to retreat towards, not away from, their supply lines. And in the early part of the New Gunea campaign he was almost as bad, concocting plans that were almost impossible to execute successfully and throwing snit fits when they hung fire.

But during the New Guinea campaign he improves rapidly (maybe because he has, finally, some experience at independent command). By the end of the New Guinea campaign he is very good and the second PI campaign and Inchon are brilliant (but flawed by his ego as a character flaw).

Part of the "problem" may be the US military's career path, spending a lot of time at Lieutenant and Captain before moving up and not getting any independent command experience until the end of one's career (Mac's was extend to such an old age that he actually did, eventually, have years of experience at that level).

The 18th/19th century British army and navy had a rather different method. If you think about it they promoted rapidly to high command based on a totally random factor (how rich and how noble your father was). Having a rich father didn't mean you were competent at high command but also didn't mean you were incompetent. What it did was to put a small number of people into the rank of Post Captain or General in their twenties, sometimes in their early twenties. And you didn't have to use everyone of Post Captain or Admiral rank. So you got a system where 95% of the (very rare) people with the talent to command a corps or a fleet never got the chance, but where 5% of those with that talent got 20 years experience in that role.

Drew Sullivan (for once, ie not "Beezle" who is rather more sarcastic <G>)

[sfbaytf]

Just be sure you don't take the wrong turn off end end up in the wrong part of town. Things could get ugly. The flatlands of Oakland can be deadly if you're not careful...

For all the talk of how "liberal" the SF Bay Area is, many would be surprised at how many past combat vets live in the area. Its not as "liberal" as many conservative commentators make it out to be-for obvious political reasons. The liberal areas are concentrated in a few locations. Many of the outlying areas are moderate to conservative in nature.

There are also lots of WW2 stuff to see. The USS Hornet is at Alameda. A WW2 sub the USS Pampanito is near Fishermans Warf. There is also an air museum at Alameda-I've never been there though. If you're willing to hike a little you can still see the foundations that mounted the gun emplacements that guarded the Golden Gate Bridge in WW2...

A while back a Liberty ship was docked in SF and a WW2 exibit where stuff like tanks, jeeps, trucks and other stuff like a 40mm borfos was on display for the weekend at Alameda.

ORIGINAL: Beezle

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

... and turns into a park that Richard Harris can sing about.

He turns into a freeway in Oakland where it takes two hours to advance 2 miles.

(Local geography:

The east bay (SF Bay area) has two freeways. The one along the shore is "The Nimitz" and the one inland is "The MacArthur". Cute, huh?)

[Shark7]

There were definately better choices for theatre commander available, the problem was they were all in the European theatre.

Eisenhower served under MacArthur in the Philippines before the war, he was a far better commander in the inspiration department.

[DrewMatrix]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

For all the talk of how "liberal" the SF Bay Area is, many would be surprised at how many past combat vets live in the area.

There used to be more. Nimitz lived about two blocks from our old house (Berkely about 1950 or so). I would see (as a little kid) him and his wife taking walks in the evening.

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: ckammp

... this is a game, and in this game, MacArthur is a good leader. Leave him in command, you'll get good results.

WITPAE is not a game, it is a life style. Hence, such issues are not as trivial as you assume.

Regards,
Feltan

What isn't modeled in the game is the disroptive effect Mac had on everything else. If you are King or FDR do you keep using Mac because of his combat skills (most of which are truly there but which not really known early in the war) or fire him because he won't act as a subordinate and keeps trying to do end runs to get more resources for "his" war?

Hehehe. Imagine if every turn you got told things like "You tried to upgrade the 217th fighter group but actually they didn't upgrade because MacArthur managed to divert the aircraft to his theater" or "you have to stop your attacks in the central pacific where you are about to have LBA covering all approached to the Japanese home islands and send 1/3 of the units to the Phillipines even though _you_ aren't actually interested in retaking the PI because _Mac_ is interested in retaking the PI"

I bet then people would spend the 200PP in a hurry <G>
That's the sort of decisions in RL you had to make at the very top.

I think the standard (R. Frank) book onk Guadalcanal brings out this interplay. In the opening chapters, Mac throws two or three fits that lead to Marshall's and King's dividing up the Theater..which sorta worked for Guadalcanal and New Guinea.
I usually play the Japs, but I can see (as if in a Raising Arizona style dream of the future) a game where the allies have trouble spending the
admin points to divide up the theater...of course the Japs had even worse Army-Navy coordination problems.

[wpurdom]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


If you are FDR, the reason you keep him around is so that your political opponents don't run him as your opponent in the next election. Any skills he may have were really a distant second consideration for him.

Regards,
Feltan

There are quite a few FDR historians that postulate that FDR treasured MacArthur during the war for his political ambitition and political ineptitude rather than feared him as a rival candidate. The most isolationist, least cooperative right-wingers tended to coalesce around Mac. The Republican folks FDR could work with, not so much. Putting a disruptive egomaniac at the fartherest reaches is viewed by many as being sort of a baited trap for his opponents to keep them from playing with more dangerous fires such as the alliance with the Brits and the Soviets. It is similarly thought by many that the bribe from Quezon to MacArthur was welcomed as a secret flaw that would help disable MacArthur as a serious opponent.
Of course FDR was never open about his motives and loved misdirection, so who knows? All we're really sure of is that FDR despied him, thought that he had no commitment to democratic values, and coddled him nonetheless.

[DrewMatrix]

ORIGINAL: MengCiao
I usually play the Japs, but I can see (as if in a Raising Arizona style dream of the future) a game where the allies have trouble spending the
admin points to divide up the theater...of course the Japs had even worse Army-Navy coordination problems.

I dimly remember a huge board game of the New Guinea/Solomons Campaign, probably from around 1975 or so. It had four sides: Allied/Solomons, Allied/Australia New Guinea, Japanese Army, Japanese Navy. VPs for various things (like, for the Japanese, "having the largest victory in the month of the Emperor's Birthday" which in addition got you a larger chunk of IJ replacement points for the coming months so both IJN and IJA strove to have the action peak that month).

Anyone remember that? It was "third world" (not S&T and not Avalon Hill).

You could do the same thing here with a PBEM with two players/side. It would be hilarious. And "hilarious" is always good.

[anarchyintheuk]

I wouldn't characterize them as fits, nor why MacArthur is shown as the sole source of those fits. Both he and King came up with plans for reducing Rabaul. Mac assumed that included any route from coming from NZ through the New Hebrides. He assumed wrong. JCS thought otherwise probably because of interservice issues more than character conflicts. No way was King allowing Mac use or control of carriers to help reduce Rabaul and Marshall was tired of seeing the army's forces dispersed to provide the navy's Pacific garrison force instead of building up ETO. So a compromise was reached: USN controlled Watchtower and agreed to support the Mac-led later two phases. Imho King reneged on that support.

The first stage in reducing Rabaul represented not only the first US offensive in the Pacific, but just as importantly to Mac and King, control of direction of the war effort in that area and the combat and support forces associated with that effort. Neither one wanted to budge.

I don't know about how well he got along w/ Ghormley but Mac and Halsey were cordial.

Thanks for the Raising Arizona reference. I preminisce no return to the salad days.