Why was Patton so great?

[Kevinugly]

Von Rom wrote (of me)

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.

[Jane Doe]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Golf33

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

General Patton's Prayer

That's just too funny [:D]

Regards
33

Patton was a deeply religious man.

You would mock a man's prayer to God?

Are you on a Jihad?!

[IronDuke_slith]

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 [X(][>:][:(][8|]. Although I note you have mysterioiusly left out the ones from guderian, Simon and Balck I found for you [:D][:D].

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

[IronDuke_slith]

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.

[IronDuke_slith]

This colour thing is really neat.

I didn't know you could do this.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom wrote (of me)

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?

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Jane Doe

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Golf33



That's just too funny [:D]

Regards
33

Patton was a deeply religious man.

You would mock a man's prayer to God?

Are you on a Jihad?!

[8|]

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. . .

[Von Rom]

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 [X(][>:][:(][8|]. Although I note you have mysterioiusly left out the ones from guderian, Simon and Balck I found for you [:D][:D].

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 [:D]

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

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

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. . .

[Von Rom]

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. . .

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

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 [X(][>:][:(][8|]. Although I note you have mysterioiusly left out the ones from guderian, Simon and Balck I found for you [:D][:D].

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 [:D]

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

Von Rom,
Its time to call it a day. This is childish. I have never been challenged with such a silly post so bereft of serious analysis.

You give the impression you are determined to ignore the truth, yet win by shouting the loudest. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. This is so far removed from proper analysis, that I am quite frankly shocked that anyone claiming an interest in military history would even post it. It is a bleak day for this forum.

I spend hours dissesting and correcting you, and you side step my points each time, and either post the piece afresh hoping someone will think it is new, or give two or three cheap comments without addressing anything I've said.

Golf 33 has pointed out how you create straw men like Whiting, because your own arguments do not stand up. You clearly read nothing that is said to you, because you do not answer the points raised. Quite frankly, this thread deserves better, but clearly isn't going to get it. I am confident anyone reading this thread will see which of us has the better argument. They won't be fooled by discredited posts repeated ad nauseum. As experienced forum users, they will recognise evasion when they see it, and also recognise nonsense.

They will also recognise desparation, such as the time you blamed Patton's dyslexia for making him write that he felt his son in law was in Hammelburg when he didn't know he was there, or the time you told us he launched the Metz campaign incurring 50 000 casualties in order the keep the Army's morale up.

Frankly, when you are wrong, you won't admit it and come up with ridiculous reasons from the planet fantasy to explain why; When faced with unpalatable facts, you ignore them; when your posts are shown to be incorrect, you ignore the correction, and simply post the material again.

This isn't debate, but I can at least retire safe in the knowledge that having stuck with this mess for nineteen pages, I will have gotten out of you plenty of evidence for the thread readers to see, to illustrate what I am saying here is the truth.

And now, after all this, I am expected to go through another 19 pages and several hours of my life dissecting your latest batch of google offerings on German victories in 1939-41. I am expected to watch you misrepresent my position, ignore facts, ignore everything I say, present errors and refuse to publicly admit them when challenged, and watch whilst my serious historians are challenged by partisan fan sites and customer reviews from Amazon. (I also particularly enjoyed it when you quoted some Patton fan words from a re-enactment site, very scholarly). If I felt for a second you would debate properly, I'd do it, but you won't, and what's more you'll try and make it look like my fault.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. I also blame myself for your transition to this person resplendent with signed photos and quotes from the seat of Military thinking that was the WWII Moroccan government. This clearly means so much to you, I don't have the heart to continue to take it away.

So, post away your with your pages of errors, your one sided collections of quotes and thumbnail shetches of military operations. I'm off to debate Monty with a Gentlemen who gave every indication he wanted a serious discussion.

Have fun,
IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


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 [:D]

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

Von Rom,
Its time to call it a day. This is childish. I have never been challenged with such a silly post so bereft of serious analysis.

You give the impression you are determined to ignore the truth, yet win by shouting the loudest. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. This is so far removed from proper analysis, that I am quite frankly shocked that anyone claiming an interest in military history would even post it. It is a bleak day for this forum.

I spend hours dissesting and correcting you, and you side step my points each time, and either post the piece afresh hoping someone will think it is new, or give two or three cheap comments without addressing anything I've said.

Golf 33 has pointed out how you create straw men like Whiting, because your own arguments do not stand up. You clearly read nothing that is said to you, because you do not answer the points raised. Quite frankly, this thread deserves better, but clearly isn't going to get it. I am confident anyone reading this thread will see which of us has the better argument. They won't be fooled by discredited posts repeated ad nauseum. As experienced forum users, they will recognise evasion when they see it, and also recognise nonsense.

They will also recognise desparation, such as the time you blamed Patton's dyslexia for making him write that he felt his son in law was in Hammelburg when he didn't know he was there, or the time you told us he launched the Metz campaign incurring 50 000 casualties in order the keep the Army's morale up.

Frankly, when you are wrong, you won't admit it and come up with ridiculous reasons from the planet fantasy to explain why; When faced with unpalatable facts, you ignore them; when your posts are shown to be incorrect, you ignore the correction, and simply post the material again.

This isn't debate, but I can at least retire safe in the knowledge that having stuck with this mess for nineteen pages, I will have gotten out of you plenty of evidence for the thread readers to see, to illustrate what I am saying here is the truth.

And now, after all this, I am expected to go through another 19 pages and several hours of my life dissecting your latest batch of google offerings on German victories in 1939-41. I am expected to watch you misrepresent my position, ignore facts, ignore everything I say, present errors and refuse to publicly admit them when challenged, and watch whilst my serious historians are challenged by partisan fan sites and customer reviews from Amazon. (I also particularly enjoyed it when you quoted some Patton fan words from a re-enactment site, very scholarly). If I felt for a second you would debate properly, I'd do it, but you won't, and what's more you'll try and make it look like my fault.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. I also blame myself for your transition to this person resplendent with signed photos and quotes from the seat of Military thinking that was the WWII Moroccan government. This clearly means so much to you, I don't have the heart to continue to take it away.

So, post away your with your pages of errors, your one sided collections of quotes and thumbnail shetches of military operations. I'm off to debate Monty with a Gentlemen who gave every indication he wanted a serious discussion.

Have fun,
IronDuke

Heheh

Yeah, and you never skewed the discussion, eh? [;)]

Don't worry, you fellas have handed me plenty of silly posts bereft of common sense. . . [8|]

There was NO discussion about Patton with you - your ONLY goal was to tear him down - and usually against the facts.

Heheh

And that info about the Lorraine Campaign - it's ALL TRUE!

The whole time it has mainly been me defending Patton - against 4 or 5 people at a time. . .

Are 5:1 odds not good enough for you?

It seems that even though there are a few here who would seek to tear down and destroy Patton's reputation, they simply can't face the truth that Patton not only won ALL his campaigns; that Patton not only captured more prisoners, covered more ground, and liberated more cities, towns and villages, than ANY other army in WW2, but Patton is absolutely GUARANTEED a place in military history.

Those are ALL facts.

ALL of the Allied leaders and German leaders acknowledged Patton's expertise in war and battle.

Those are ALL facts.

Patton's supremacy and mastery of Combined Arms is legendary and is exemplified by its expertise in battle.

Those are ALL facts.

The few here may try to destroy Patton's reputation, but the verdict of history, the facts, the public, the veterans of Patton's Armies, the German Generals, the Allied Leaders, and many, many historians, all acknowledge how wrong you are, and how right Patton's tactics and strategies were. . .

Unfortunately, we will NEVER, ever see his like again. . . no. . . not ever. . .

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

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. . .

I'm not mocking Patton's belief - which, incidentally, is not demonstrated by 250 000 cards with a printed piece of PR on them - I just find it funny that anyone would take such an obvious stunt seriously. Is there any evidence that the soldiers actually liked this stuff?

Giving a man a piece of paper with a prayer on it, and ordering him to read it, does not constitute a genuine prayer on the part of that man.

Regards
33

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

snip

IronDuke

Good discussion, well argued, and I've learned a good deal - plus some excellent recommendations for places to improve my knowledge.

I look forward to reading your dissection of Montgomery - I tend to be a fan of his and look forward to a discussion of the evidence either way! If you do decide to produce a discussion of 'blitzkrieg', I'll be reading that with interest as well.

Regards
33

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


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 [:D]

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

Von Rom,
Its time to call it a day. This is childish. I have never been challenged with such a silly post so bereft of serious analysis.

You give the impression you are determined to ignore the truth, yet win by shouting the loudest. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. This is so far removed from proper analysis, that I am quite frankly shocked that anyone claiming an interest in military history would even post it. It is a bleak day for this forum.

I spend hours dissesting and correcting you, and you side step my points each time, and either post the piece afresh hoping someone will think it is new, or give two or three cheap comments without addressing anything I've said.

Golf 33 has pointed out how you create straw men like Whiting, because your own arguments do not stand up. You clearly read nothing that is said to you, because you do not answer the points raised. Quite frankly, this thread deserves better, but clearly isn't going to get it. I am confident anyone reading this thread will see which of us has the better argument. They won't be fooled by discredited posts repeated ad nauseum. As experienced forum users, they will recognise evasion when they see it, and also recognise nonsense.

They will also recognise desparation, such as the time you blamed Patton's dyslexia for making him write that he felt his son in law was in Hammelburg when he didn't know he was there, or the time you told us he launched the Metz campaign incurring 50 000 casualties in order the keep the Army's morale up.

Frankly, when you are wrong, you won't admit it and come up with ridiculous reasons from the planet fantasy to explain why; When faced with unpalatable facts, you ignore them; when your posts are shown to be incorrect, you ignore the correction, and simply post the material again.

This isn't debate, but I can at least retire safe in the knowledge that having stuck with this mess for nineteen pages, I will have gotten out of you plenty of evidence for the thread readers to see, to illustrate what I am saying here is the truth.

And now, after all this, I am expected to go through another 19 pages and several hours of my life dissecting your latest batch of google offerings on German victories in 1939-41. I am expected to watch you misrepresent my position, ignore facts, ignore everything I say, present errors and refuse to publicly admit them when challenged, and watch whilst my serious historians are challenged by partisan fan sites and customer reviews from Amazon. (I also particularly enjoyed it when you quoted some Patton fan words from a re-enactment site, very scholarly). If I felt for a second you would debate properly, I'd do it, but you won't, and what's more you'll try and make it look like my fault.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. I also blame myself for your transition to this person resplendent with signed photos and quotes from the seat of Military thinking that was the WWII Moroccan government. This clearly means so much to you, I don't have the heart to continue to take it away.

So, post away your with your pages of errors, your one sided collections of quotes and thumbnail shetches of military operations. I'm off to debate Monty with a Gentlemen who gave every indication he wanted a serious discussion.

Have fun,
IronDuke

Heheh

Yeah, and you never skewed the discussion, eh? [;)]

Don't worry, you fellas have handed me plenty of silly posts bereft of common sense. . . [8|]

There was NO discussion about Patton with you - your ONLY goal was to tear him down - and usually against the facts.

Heheh

And that info about the Lorraine Campaign - it's ALL TRUE!

The whole time it has mainly been me defending Patton - against 4 or 5 people at a time. . .

Are 5:1 odds not good enough for you?

It seems that even though there are a few here who would seek to tear down and destroy Patton's reputation, they simply can't face the truth that Patton not only won ALL his campaigns; that Patton not only captured more prisoners, covered more ground, and liberated more cities, towns and villages, than ANY other army in WW2, but Patton is absolutely GUARANTEED a place in military history.

Those are ALL facts.

ALL of the Allied leaders and German leaders acknowledged Patton's expertise in war and battle.

Those are ALL facts.

Patton's supremacy and mastery of Combined Arms is legendary and is exemplified by its expertise in battle.

Those are ALL facts.

The few here may try to destroy Patton's reputation, but the verdict of history, the facts, the public, the veterans of Patton's Armies, the German Generals, the Allied Leaders, and many, many historians, all acknowledge how wrong you are, and how right Patton's tactics and strategies were. . .

Unfortunately, we will NEVER, ever see his like again. . . no. . . not ever. . .

'

Prior to this discussion I had heard many good things about Patton, and I was under the impression that he was a decent commander. However, I now fear this is the impression fanatics like you try to give, and I am absolute SURE you have made more damage of Pattons reputation than any of his so-called enemies (ironduke etc) could ever hope to accomplish. I thank you for this, vonRom.
[:D]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Golf33

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

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. . .

I'm not mocking Patton's belief - which, incidentally, is not demonstrated by 250 000 cards with a printed piece of PR on them - I just find it funny that anyone would take such an obvious stunt seriously. Is there any evidence that the soldiers actually liked this stuff?

Giving a man a piece of paper with a prayer on it, and ordering him to read it, does not constitute a genuine prayer on the part of that man.

Regards
33

You saying what you did shows how little people really know about Patton, and that's why I laugh when I read things like this.

Although it may be hard for you to believe, Patton WAS a very deeply religious man.

All the cuss words, rough exterior, etc was for the men. . . He knew he had to toughen men up for battle.

And Patton cared deeply about his men. . . men who were about to go into battle and face death. . .

He handed out 250,000 prayer cards so that 250,000 men would be praying the same prayer collectively. Yes, Patton REALLY believed in Prayer and in Divine Intervention.

And. . . the skies DID clear. . . at the Bulge. . .

Did his men believe in it?

Well, the next time you are on the eve of battle - facing death - I think you will be able to answer your own question.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke




Von Rom,
Its time to call it a day. This is childish. I have never been challenged with such a silly post so bereft of serious analysis.

You give the impression you are determined to ignore the truth, yet win by shouting the loudest. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. This is so far removed from proper analysis, that I am quite frankly shocked that anyone claiming an interest in military history would even post it. It is a bleak day for this forum.

I spend hours dissesting and correcting you, and you side step my points each time, and either post the piece afresh hoping someone will think it is new, or give two or three cheap comments without addressing anything I've said.

Golf 33 has pointed out how you create straw men like Whiting, because your own arguments do not stand up. You clearly read nothing that is said to you, because you do not answer the points raised. Quite frankly, this thread deserves better, but clearly isn't going to get it. I am confident anyone reading this thread will see which of us has the better argument. They won't be fooled by discredited posts repeated ad nauseum. As experienced forum users, they will recognise evasion when they see it, and also recognise nonsense.

They will also recognise desparation, such as the time you blamed Patton's dyslexia for making him write that he felt his son in law was in Hammelburg when he didn't know he was there, or the time you told us he launched the Metz campaign incurring 50 000 casualties in order the keep the Army's morale up.

Frankly, when you are wrong, you won't admit it and come up with ridiculous reasons from the planet fantasy to explain why; When faced with unpalatable facts, you ignore them; when your posts are shown to be incorrect, you ignore the correction, and simply post the material again.

This isn't debate, but I can at least retire safe in the knowledge that having stuck with this mess for nineteen pages, I will have gotten out of you plenty of evidence for the thread readers to see, to illustrate what I am saying here is the truth.

And now, after all this, I am expected to go through another 19 pages and several hours of my life dissecting your latest batch of google offerings on German victories in 1939-41. I am expected to watch you misrepresent my position, ignore facts, ignore everything I say, present errors and refuse to publicly admit them when challenged, and watch whilst my serious historians are challenged by partisan fan sites and customer reviews from Amazon. (I also particularly enjoyed it when you quoted some Patton fan words from a re-enactment site, very scholarly). If I felt for a second you would debate properly, I'd do it, but you won't, and what's more you'll try and make it look like my fault.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. I also blame myself for your transition to this person resplendent with signed photos and quotes from the seat of Military thinking that was the WWII Moroccan government. This clearly means so much to you, I don't have the heart to continue to take it away.

So, post away your with your pages of errors, your one sided collections of quotes and thumbnail shetches of military operations. I'm off to debate Monty with a Gentlemen who gave every indication he wanted a serious discussion.

Have fun,
IronDuke

Heheh

Yeah, and you never skewed the discussion, eh? [;)]

Don't worry, you fellas have handed me plenty of silly posts bereft of common sense. . . [8|]

There was NO discussion about Patton with you - your ONLY goal was to tear him down - and usually against the facts.

Heheh

And that info about the Lorraine Campaign - it's ALL TRUE!

The whole time it has mainly been me defending Patton - against 4 or 5 people at a time. . .

Are 5:1 odds not good enough for you?

It seems that even though there are a few here who would seek to tear down and destroy Patton's reputation, they simply can't face the truth that Patton not only won ALL his campaigns; that Patton not only captured more prisoners, covered more ground, and liberated more cities, towns and villages, than ANY other army in WW2, but Patton is absolutely GUARANTEED a place in military history.

Those are ALL facts.

ALL of the Allied leaders and German leaders acknowledged Patton's expertise in war and battle.

Those are ALL facts.

Patton's supremacy and mastery of Combined Arms is legendary and is exemplified by its expertise in battle.

Those are ALL facts.

The few here may try to destroy Patton's reputation, but the verdict of history, the facts, the public, the veterans of Patton's Armies, the German Generals, the Allied Leaders, and many, many historians, all acknowledge how wrong you are, and how right Patton's tactics and strategies were. . .

Unfortunately, we will NEVER, ever see his like again. . . no. . . not ever. . .

'

Prior to this discussion I had heard many good things about Patton, and I was under the impression that he was a decent commander. However, I now fear this is the impression fanatics like you try to give, and I am absolute SURE you have made more damage of Pattons reputation than any of his so-called enemies (ironduke etc) could ever hope to accomplish. I thank you for this, vonRom.
[:D]

Fanatical?

[8|]

Heheh

So, those who seek to destroy are being good little citizens, are they?

While those who seek to defend are just fanatics?

Heheh

Yeah, I am sure it's not fanatical for a handful of people who try, even against any evidence to the contrary, to destroy a man's (Patton's) reputation.

I stood here all alone defending Patton against MANY people whose sole object was to destroy and tarnish his name and military deeds.

And all I've said IS true. . .

If you're thanking me, then you, too, were hoping to see Patton's reputation destroyed. [8|]

Sorry to disappoint you. . . [:D]

Now scurry along. . .

[Error in 0]

Hi VonRom
Yes, I have been standing on the side line watching for most of the time. You misunderstand me, I have never agreed with you. But it has been typical for your style to believe that if anyone has ANYTHING negative to say about Patton, it is a personal venegance against him. I believe that is a fanatical stand. You have tried to make it clear that you know alot about Patton. If I am in doubt wether Patton deserves all the hero-legends he has gotten or not, you had every opportunity to convince me of that. But you must argue better that just repeating quotes from obscure web-sites, trying to convince people by saying 'it is fact!' (why scould I believe you and not acclaimed historians?), and avoid getting personal. I think Patton deserves a better defence of his name and reputation.

[IronDuke_slith]

Golf, Jallatryne,

After the frustrating experience I've had in this thread trying to get a straight debate, you will never know how much your comments are a lift to me. You wonder (in situations like this) whether anyone is noticing what you are saying when it is consistently ignored, and then wonder if it is missed when it is followed by the same stuff repeated over and over again as if it is an answer, without a thought for analysis, or any of the other things I thought good debate should have. Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated.

Golf,
I've started up the Monty thread, I seem to remember reading in the HTTR forum (I have HTTR and AA)that the engine was going to Normandy after the Aegean expansion, so I'm sure we can broaden the discussion to discuss the campaign as a whole if you're doing a little prep ahead of all that and have some opinions. One of the scenarios I've designed for Battlefields is Operation Epsom, but the campaign as a whole has always been a favourite (not least because the Wife's late Grandfather came ashore at D + 45 mins on Gold beach - Jig Green West.)

Cheers,
IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Hi VonRom
Yes, I have been standing on the side line watching for most of the time. You misunderstand me, I have never agreed with you. But it has been typical for your style to believe that if anyone has ANYTHING negative to say about Patton, it is a personal venegance against him. I believe that is a fanatical stand. You have tried to make it clear that you know alot about Patton. If I am in doubt wether Patton deserves all the hero-legends he has gotten or not, you had every opportunity to convince me of that. But you must argue better that just repeating quotes from obscure web-sites, trying to convince people by saying 'it is fact!' (why scould I believe you and not acclaimed historians?), and avoid getting personal. I think Patton deserves a better defence of his name and reputation.

Well, what a surprise. [8|]

You never agreed with me about Patton.

Who woulda guessed? [8|]

Well, my friend, the next time you are in a debate and are facing 5 to 1 odds most of the time, I will look forward to seeing how many of the dozens of posts that are thrown at you, you are capable of answering, let alone doing any research for.

That is if you can stand the heat. . .

Understand?

I like debate and discussion, too.

But what went on here is nothing of the sort.

The plain fact is that those who jumped into this discussion were out to destroy Patton's reputation. Absolutely NOTHING I said, wrote, produced, or evidence I had, was going to do anything to change their personal agendas.

Make no mistake about it - what went on here was NOT a discussion, and it never was a discussion.

Understand?

When I posted articles, when I repeated posts, etc, it was all done to basically survive the sheer number of posts that were being thrown at me. Plus, it was only one of the few ways I could get out Patton's views on things, or what others' thought of him.

This is what others' were doing to me to drive me out of this thread and discussion.

They were trying to drown me out by the sheer number of posts they could produce. I only retaliated.

I realized early on that this was NOT a discussion about Patton. It had the superficial appearance of being one. However, it was instead a lynch mob, and they were out for blood.

Absolutely NO evidence I could produce would change certain peoples' minds. Show them a roomful of positive evidence, and they'll dig for that grain of negative evidence. And if they can't find that negative grain of sand, then they'll just twist whatever they need to, to make it suit their purpose.

Understand?

If you can't see that, then all your time spent in this thread has been for not. . .