'No Patton'

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



This post (IMHO) illustrates one of the reasons you get into the arguments you do. Firstly, I asked several questions in my post, which if you wanted to debate with me, you could have answered. However, you seem to have completely ignored all my difficult questions:



Instead, you've gone back a page or two and pulled out this, or rather the sentiment, not the quote (or context) which you didn't reproduce.



The phrase "It would have looked a bit like Kursk" was comparing the shape of the battlefield. My point was that without an attack from the north, any success Patton had in the south would have been like Kursk where (if you are familiar with this battle) the SS Panzer Corps penetrated in the south as far as Prokhorovka, but Model's troops in the north made no ground, leaving the southern pincer (as Patton's would have been) dangling in the air. This entire piece from you, therefore, seems like a straw man. You seem to have deliberately taken the wrong context for my words, and then argued against something I never said in order to hide the fact you don't want to answer the real points in my post.

This is what frustrates forum users, because you've avoided my valid points, and instead made up an argument about Kursk to insult me with. My real points are above, if you want to continue this debate.



I took the morning of the 22.12.1944 as day one (let me know if you dispute the dates I'm using). A tenuous link (but a link non-the-less) was established to Bastogne around 17.00 on 26.12.1944. This was day five of the offensive if 22.12.1944 was day one. It's a moot point, but the actual time for the offensive was around 4 and a half days. I suppose it depends on whether you round up or down.



In addition to the questions above, I have another. How can you be mobile and be low on fuel? Doesn't having no fuel somewhat restrict the mobility of mechanised forces? In addition, can you tell us which of the forces that faced Patton's drive on Bastogne were mobile (whether with or without fuel?)



Makes you wonder why it took four or five days to break through, then.



[&:] Are you suggesting here, that wintery weather meant all German vehicles had to be on the roads, but that Patton's vehicles (his trucks for example) could go cross country quite happily in the weather prevalent at that time? Some of the heavier (and in terms of deployment, statistically small) German tanks (Tiger II for eg) didn't like the Ardennes very much at all. However, all vehicles seems a little harsh. Would Patton have been better off on the roads in these conditions? If so, wouldn't his attack have come across the same problems of bottlenecks that the German attacks did?



Very tenuous, since my Kursk argument seems to have been manufactured to avoid the following, which I'll ask again:



IronDuke

What are you trying to say ID?

Soviet defenses at Kursk were mostly STATIC. In the Bulge, the German forces were all mobile, with the main muscle of the Germans being north with 6th SS Panzer and Peiper pushing for the Meuse.

You prsent NO valid argument.

Hence, Patton's plan to cut-off the Germans at the salient was the CORRECT one.

Ike was too timid at the Bulge, just as he was at Falaise.

The Allied High Command was the best friend the German army had in Europe.

Which translates as I'd rather keep up this Kursk straw man rather than answer your real points, because I have no answers to your real points. Fair enough, I should have known better after the Dietrich thread, but never mind. I present lots of valid arguments (and questions) you just find it easier to say I have no argument, because then you don't have to answer it.


PLEASE look and quote my comparison with Kursk (I dare you), as others have pointed out (yet another forum poster seems to have joined my side, I get a new friend every week arguing with you, yet no one seems to take your side...strange, that) I never went on about specifics, I merely said that Pattons strike would have looked like Mansteins, one arm of a pincer stretching northwards with nothing to link with, I never talked about fixed defences, mobile units (you no longer seem to mention the low on fuel comment, you seem to have dropped it rather than answer it) or anything specific. As I said, Forum posters should be in no doubt that this straw man is a tactic designed to hide the fact you have no answer sto my real questions. Your subsequent detour on to Dietrich again, is another attempt to hide this. This topic was locked, why drag it all up again and upset the moderator?

I repeat:

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

For you to reply to very detailed questions like this with the superficiality of this is astounding.

What are you trying to say ID?

Soviet defenses at Kursk were mostly STATIC. In the Bulge, the German forces were all mobile, with the main muscle of the Germans being north with 6th SS Panzer and Peiper pushing for the Meuse.

You prsent NO valid argument.

Hence, Patton's plan to cut-off the Germans at the salient was the CORRECT one.

Ike was too timid at the Bulge, just as he was at Falaise.

The Allied High Command was the best friend the German army had in Europe.

Your comments about Kursk indicate one thing.

1. You're hiding from my real points.

You can keep going on about the Kursk straw man if you wish, but ultimately we both know you concentrate on this because you have nowhere else to go. It is very sad.

Ironduke

Well, you continue to defend your Kursk and Bulge analogy. [8|]

So it's you and one other person. Two whole people?

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator.

Von Rom
Your use of "willfully incorrect" is interesting. I suppose you can read my mind as well?

No, I don't think anyone could read your mind. I merely surmised that deliberately making a statement that clearly wasn't true, made the statement wilfully incorrect. Do you have a better word for it?

Von Rom
Instead, shouldn't you spend more time in re-evaluating the ridiculous comparison you made between the Bulge and Kursk?

NEVER, have I ever seen this comparison made before.

Why re-evaluate, it is a straw man invented by yourself to avoid answering my challenges, because you couldn't answer them. This is not my problem.

Oh, and Patton made it to Bastogne in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated. I don't know how you tell time, but a 24 hour day commenced from the time Third Army left for Bastogne. Example: Third Army leaves at 7:00 am on Dec 22, and 24 hours later its 7:00 am Dec 23.

Therefore, FOUR days, NOT FIVE.

Dec 22, Dec 23, Dec 24, Dec 25, Dec 26.

How many days do you see?

IronDuke

1) By stating my action was "willful" means that you could read my mind.

As I seem to recall, you did call yourself "Ironpsychic", so perhaps there is some truth in this assertion. [8|]


2) kursk - You continue to defend an analogy that simply doesn't apply.

3) Counting days -

Here's a quiz for you Ironduke:

If I leave on a trip at 7:00am on Dec 22 and arrive at my destination at 7:00am on Dec 23, How many days (hours) did it take me to get to my destination?

Your voodoo math in the Ardennes simply doesn't hold water. . .

[IronDuke_slith]

Well, you continue to defend your Kursk and Bulge analogy.

So it's you and one other person. Two whole people?

I can think of about seven who have had "discussions" with you over the last three threads. I will end this as I ended the Dietrich thread. If you can answer my points, then we have an ongoing discussion. Ignore them, and I guess I win by default, however, in it's present vein, we're just asking for this to be locked.

I reprint my challenges below for your convenience.

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

Answer the above, and I might accept Patton's strategy had a chance. Without it, it's fantasy. I don't accept the argument "Patton thought he could do it, so it must be true." I'd rather we discussed it ourselves, and came to our own conclusions.

I will gladly address anything further from you on this line of argument you started.

IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

1) By stating my action was "willful" means that you could read my mind.

As I seem to recall, you did call youurself "Ironpsychic", so perhaps there is some truth in this assertion.

I cannot read your mind.

2) kursk - You continue to defend an analogy that simply doesn't apply.

So if Patton had a northward thrust with no thrust coming south to meet him, the situation wouldn't bear a passing resemblance to Mansteins thrust which went northward and had no thrust coming south to meet him. Okay, have it your way [8|]

3) Counting days -

Here's a quiz for you Ironduke:

If I leave on a trip at 7:00 am on Dec 22, and arrive at my destination at 7:00am on Dec 23. How many days (hours) did it take me to get to my destination?

Your voodoo math in the Ardennes simply doesn't hold water. . .

Hmmm, so you are saying Bastogne was relieved at 7.00AM on 26th, are you? I guess you must be, because if it wasn't, then it was clearly more than four days. Can you tell us what time on 26th Bastogne was relieved, I didn't see this in my sources.

IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Well, you continue to defend your Kursk and Bulge analogy.

So it's you and one other person. Two whole people?

I can think of about seven who have had "discussions" with you over the last three threads. I will end this as I ended the Dietrich thread. If you can answer my points, then we have an ongoing discussion. Ignore them, and I guess I win by default, however, in it's present vein, we're just asking for this to be locked.

I reprint my challenges below for your convenience.

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

Answer the above, and I might accept Patton's strategy had a chance. Without it, it's fantasy. I don't accept the argument "Patton thought he could do it, so it must be true." I'd rather we discussed it ourselves, and came to our own conclusions.

I will gladly address anything further from you on this line of argument you started.

IronDuke

I can think of about seven who have had "discussions" with you over the last three threads.

But only TWO - you and one other - over the Kursk analogy.

So, despite your voodoo math - it's STILL two.

I will end this as I ended the Dietrich thread.

You didn't leave the Dietrich thread; it was locked.

In one of your last posts in that thread you accused me of refusing to provide you with Dietrich's testimony. But anyone can read that for themselves.

If you can answer my points, then we have an ongoing discussion. Ignore them, and I guess I win by default,

More dubious reasoning? [8|]

You should add this to your voodoo math for counting days in the Ardennes.

however, in it's present vein, we're just asking for this to be locked.

I have no doubt that you will try to have this thread locked.

I reprint my challenges below for your convenience.

So, you really expect me to answer YOUR challenges? When YOU demand it? [8|]

Earlier in this thread you treated me with contempt when you said:

"You [Von Rom] are not worth it".

I guess someone as worthless as myself may not be worth it.

But I stand up for what I believe.

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

Answer the above, and I might accept Patton's strategy had a chance. Without it, it's fantasy. I don't accept the argument "Patton thought he could do it, so it must be true." I'd rather we discussed it ourselves, and came to our own conclusions.

I will gladly address anything further from you on this line of argument you started.

You and several others hounded me in the Dietrich thread.

You treat me with contempt in this thread.

And you actually expect me roll over and do what you request of me now? [;)]

I may answer this sometime down the road.

But for now, I simply don't feel like it.

I'm in the middle of collecting more research on another topic.

I have reams and reams of it. . .

Wait till you see it. . . [;)]

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

a19999577, I would love to deal with your question about the 'Bulge but to do so would break my own rules (how can I discuss P****n on a thread I started that was intended to not be about him[:D])

I do enjoy reading VR's lengthy posts particularly the ones where he cuts and pastes from my posts on a seperate thread and then selectively edits them to make it look as though I took up a different position to that which I actually did. An interesting, if futile attempt to maliciously smear myself (and Iron Duke on the way) on a public forum. All I can do is repost the link from the original thread which deals predominantly with the Malmedy massacre and the subsequent trial at Dachau.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... medy2.html

I recommend anyone to read the 'Sepp Dietrich' thread to see the full posts made by myself, Iron Duke, Von Rom and others in order to gain a true picture of the context in which the posts were made and the full texts that latterly have been edited. I need say no more on this matter.

"Malicious?"

It's nothing of the sort.

I could have included far more quotes.

Be my guest

You wanted evidence and proof?

I provided just a small sampling here. . .

Shame you couldn't produce when you were originally asked for it.

All you fellas were tripping over yourselves, post after post in the Dietrich thread not only in attempting to prove those SS defendents didn't receive a fair trial (and thus should be set free), but you also dumped on me for NOT making Dietrich's transcript available for your immediate edification.

The site I linked to was the same site you linked to revealing how the Dachau trial was flawed. Do you now deny that it was flawed?

I have far more material with this came from. . .

As if we haven't read that before[>:]

It's all anyway

[IronDuke_slith]

I may answer this sometime down the road.

But for now, I simply don't feel like it.

nuff said, this says it all.

[a19999577]

That's it for me too.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

1) By stating my action was "willful" means that you could read my mind.

As I seem to recall, you did call youurself "Ironpsychic", so perhaps there is some truth in this assertion.

I cannot read your mind.

2) kursk - You continue to defend an analogy that simply doesn't apply.

So if Patton had a northward thrust with no thrust coming south to meet him, the situation wouldn't bear a passing resemblance to Mansteins thrust which went northward and had no thrust coming south to meet him. Okay, have it your way [8|]

3) Counting days -

Here's a quiz for you Ironduke:

If I leave on a trip at 7:00 am on Dec 22, and arrive at my destination at 7:00am on Dec 23. How many days (hours) did it take me to get to my destination?

Your voodoo math in the Ardennes simply doesn't hold water. . .

Hmmm, so you are saying Bastogne was relieved at 7.00AM on 26th, are you? I guess you must be, because if it wasn't, then it was clearly more than four days. Can you tell us what time on 26th Bastogne was relieved, I didn't see this in my sources.

IronDuke

I cannot read your mind.

I believe you.

So if Patton had a northward thrust with no thrust coming south to meet him, the situation wouldn't bear a passing resemblance to Mansteins thrust which went northward and had no thrust coming south to meet him.

I'm not going to enter a debate on this topic other than to say that the majority of Soviet defences at Kursk were entrenched, with interlocking anti-tank pits, etc, etc which took the Soviets MONTHS to prepare.

In the Bulge, however, there were NO entrenched German forces; they were mobile.

ALL or MOST of the German armour had already been committed in the north and with Peiper's advance KG.

The weather and roads alone would have allowed for an easy method to close off the German retreat.

Hmmm, so you are saying Bastogne was relieved at 7.00AM on 26th, are you? I guess you must be, because if it wasn't, then it was clearly more than four days. Can you tell us what time on 26th Bastogne was relieved, I didn't see this in my sources.

Nope. . .

It was an example of a time period. . . [8|]

[Golf33]

Since we are about right to go back on topic, I nominate Major General Katsimitros (or Katsemetres depending on how you transliterate it) of the Hellenic Land Army. Commanding the reinforced VIII Division on the Albanian front and covering a huge swathe of territory from the sea to the Pindus Mountains, in 1940 he and his men bore the initial Italian attack of three infantry and one armoured divisions. Although the Greek High Command had no plans to hold in his sector, planning instead to withdraw, Katsimitros was determined to defeat the invasion and without support or reinforcement not only contained the initial Italian attack almost in his starting locations, but also was able to launch local counterattacks to drive them back and lay the groundwork for the subsequent smashing Greek counteroffensive.

Regards
33

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

a19999577, I would love to deal with your question about the 'Bulge but to do so would break my own rules (how can I discuss P****n on a thread I started that was intended to not be about him[:D])

I do enjoy reading VR's lengthy posts particularly the ones where he cuts and pastes from my posts on a seperate thread and then selectively edits them to make it look as though I took up a different position to that which I actually did. An interesting, if futile attempt to maliciously smear myself (and Iron Duke on the way) on a public forum. All I can do is repost the link from the original thread which deals predominantly with the Malmedy massacre and the subsequent trial at Dachau.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... medy2.html

I recommend anyone to read the 'Sepp Dietrich' thread to see the full posts made by myself, Iron Duke, Von Rom and others in order to gain a true picture of the context in which the posts were made and the full texts that latterly have been edited. I need say no more on this matter.

"Malicious?"

It's nothing of the sort.

I could have included far more quotes.

Be my guest

You wanted evidence and proof?

I provided just a small sampling here. . .

Shame you couldn't produce when you were originally asked for it.

All you fellas were tripping over yourselves, post after post in the Dietrich thread not only in attempting to prove those SS defendents didn't receive a fair trial (and thus should be set free), but you also dumped on me for NOT making Dietrich's transcript available for your immediate edification.

The site I linked to was the same site you linked to revealing how the Dachau trial was flawed. Do you now deny that it was flawed?

I have far more material with this came from. . .

As if we haven't read that before[>:]

It's all anyway

Like I said:

Be careful what you wish for [;)]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I may answer this sometime down the road.

But for now, I simply don't feel like it.

nuff said, this says it all.

Bye. . .

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: a19999577

That's it for me too.

Bye-bye. . .

[Kevinugly]

Von Rom, please do whatever you are going to do old boy[;)] I have no worries[8D]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom, please do whatever you are going to do old boy[;)] I have no worries[8D]

Jolly good.

Then it's just you and me again [;)]

I'm looking forward to it.

BTW, do you still think there were less than 100 tanks in Lorraine in 1944?

[Kevinugly]

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.

Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to being one-on-one with you [;)]

It all sounds like jolly fun. . . [:D]

Now you get a good night's sleep. . .

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Golf33

Since we are about right to go back on topic, I nominate Major General Katsimitros (or Katsemetres depending on how you transliterate it) of the Hellenic Land Army. Commanding the reinforced VIII Division on the Albanian front and covering a huge swathe of territory from the sea to the Pindus Mountains, in 1940 he and his men bore the initial Italian attack of three infantry and one armoured divisions. Although the Greek High Command had no plans to hold in his sector, planning instead to withdraw, Katsimitros was determined to defeat the invasion and without support or reinforcement not only contained the initial Italian attack almost in his starting locations, but also was able to launch local counterattacks to drive them back and lay the groundwork for the subsequent smashing Greek counteroffensive.

Regards
33

Good call! You wouldn't by any chance be working on a game that deals with the Conquest of the Aegean?[:D]

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.

Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to being one-on-one with you [;)]

It all sounds like jolly fun. . .[8|]



Now you get a good night's sleep. . .

Von Rom, who is this 'you' you're referring to? Are you suggesting that the readers should have all have a good night's sleep? Please be specific[:D]

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.

Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.

To break my own rule, the link you provided showed 114 tanks prior to the Battle of Arracourt (25 available to 111th bde and 89 to 113th bde). Just over double digit then. Absolutely my last word on the matter.