Patton vs MacArthur

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Japan
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:45 pm
Location: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Japan »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Japan

@Ok Jim D Burns, here is the point, if you read the souses i sent you, you will see what Soviet wanted and to large degree used the trucks for in 1943, you will get surprised.

Here is the point in my meaning, Soviet had received so much already by 43, that from there on they would be good, the Trucks they got from late 43+ did to a very large degree not see any military or logistical use, but simply aided the process of re-building Soviet Union, and the work had already started in late 43. Read the books i referred to above, and you will get suprised how little "in %" of the Trucks and Trains they received after Mid 43 who actually ever saw military or military support use.

And due to that is why I say that from 43 they could done it alone (and of course that includes the equipment they had in 43, who was a lot, and also a lot more then what they ever would need for military operations, and yes a lot of it comed from the west) But Logistic recourses sent to them from Early 44 was more "rebuild Soviet" type of support, simply because they had all the Trucks they ever would need for the Army by then. That is why they would been able to do it alone from late 43, point again is that Operation Overloard was not necessary.
Regarding raw materials this was something Soviet indeed needed within several areas due to lack of logistics, and they did receive this support. See the bocks i referred to above if you want more details about this.



Well assuming after 1943 that all lend lease aid was stopped, then it is a good bet that a significant portion (80% or more perhaps) of the following USSR production would not have occurred due to severe shortages of Rubber, Sulphur and Molybdenum (used in the production of steel alloys).

Soviet Production for 1944:

Tanks and self propelled guns: 28,963
Trucks: 52,600
Military aircraft: 40,246

Soviet Production for 1945:

Tanks and self propelled guns: 15,419
Trucks: 68,500
Military aircraft: 20,052

A case could be made that things like artillery pieces and machine guns would also have been affected, but that is debatable. The above items though, there can be no debate, without lend lease aid Russia would not have been able to produce them in such numbers.

Too many people try and equate lend lease aid with actual finished military equipment sent. But as an earlier link I provided shows, only 20% of the total lend lease aid was actual finished goods. The other 80% allowed Russia's industry to achieve the massive production numbers of modern equipment that it did. Without that *other* 80%, Russia's industry would have been a fraction of what it was.

Jim



I agree in most of that yes. Soviet Industry would not be a fraction of that, but it would in 1944 be 29,16% less.
But It would not changed the point, they still would been able to take on the Germans alone from late 43, meaning that the main point still stands, Operation Overloard was not needed, but I'm sure it was appreciated, and I'm sure it was important for the future, as in how history would look on the Allies in WW2.
But the overall point remeins the same as in my previus 9 post debating this with you, this is a topic i know very much about, and the "facts" do not change.
The Soviet Army in 1944 was un-stopeble, its not more to it then that, they had what they needed already and could have walked to south spain if they wanted to. (If we assume there was no nuks arround at the time). So, the point is the same.
In addition to their Soviet capabilities comes of course also large amounts of manpower and industry of the captured nations that they walked over in their pursuit for destroying Nazi Germany, those resourses are not Evan included in this calculation.





AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&
User avatar
rjopel
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by rjopel »

ORIGINAL: Termite2

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html

Lend lease material sent to Russia from the US; only open if you have taken your ritalin today.

2 billion cans of Spam!!! no wonder the Russians hated us.


I'd like to know who got the 2 pianos and the 1 pipe, tobaco.
Ryan Opel
User avatar
Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Secret Underground Lair

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Anthropoid »

ORIGINAL: rjopel

ORIGINAL: Termite2

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html

Lend lease material sent to Russia from the US; only open if you have taken your ritalin today.

2 billion cans of Spam!!! no wonder the Russians hated us.


I'd like to know who got the 2 pianos and the 1 pipe, tobaco.

Wow. That is an astoundingly long list. Almost reads like a shopping list for a "Setup Your own Communist Dictatorship Kit" from Kerblamo.
The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ ... playnext=3
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Big B »

Who was a better General, MacArthur or Patton.[/align]  [/align] MacArthur; he is gleefully flaid alive today for two reasons. His Ego (totally un-pc) and his handling of the 1942 Philippines campaign.[/align] What about the man?

[/align] Douglas MacArthur scored the highest points in West Point history - second only to Robert E. Lee (no mean feat).

[/align] As a young officer in 1916, he displayed bravery and initiative of the highest order during the Mexican Punitive Expidition under 'Black Jack' Pershing.[/align] In the Great War, MacArthur rose to command the 42nd 'Rainbow' Division (one of the USA's 4 premier divisions in France), and Pershing named him the "greatest leader of men we have"....no small praise comming from Pershing.

[/align] He was tasked with dispersing the Bonus Marcher's (a stain on his good name), became superintendant of West Point, and the Commanding General and creator of the Philippine Army upon his retirement in the late 1930's.

[/align] In WWII as the re-instated commander of USAFFE, he failed to get all of the supplies available into the Bataan perimeter, and failed to make best use of the AAFFE on the opening day of war....this is his greatest criticism.

[/align] I personally believe that he was acting under 'confidential' orders from the White House/War Department that he was not to respond initially to any Japanese aggresion - which is why he made sure that the Philippines were caught just as unprepared as PH that day - and he has been excoriated ever since.

[/align] Bad as the PI campaign went - his forces held out far longer than anyone could have expected (Singapore, with more resources, surrendered much earlier), and they even held out longer than the DEI.

[/align] For the rest of his career, MacArthur stabilized New Guinea, went over to the offensive when resources permitted, and fought and won the Pacific War - suffering less casualties in total than Eisenhower did just in the Battle of the Bulge alone.

[/align] MacArthur wins his Pacific War 'cheaply', has enlightened administration of Japan Post War, defends Korea successfully under uncertain conditions,...and is adored by his countrymen. Then he does not run for political control of his country.

[/align] Given the above - what do we judge him by as a poor commander/citizen patriot? By what standard?[/align]  [/align] George S. Patton is anable and very aggressive commander in the traditional cavalry style, and father of the US Armored Forces.

[/align] He meets MacArthur one day on the Argonne Front in 1918, when Patton's tanks are leading Mac's Infantry forward during an assault. German artillery causes everyone to go to ground - leaving Mac' and Patton alone standing stalk-still casually talking during a rolling German artillery barrage. Mac' tells the younger Patton "it's no use ducking...if their going to get ya - they'll get ya". The artillery barrage passes, and both men go on their way.[/align]  [/align] Patton goes on to become "Patton".  What can you say about such men?

[/align] How can one say which or who is a better commander unless we discuss their tactical commands during the First World War, when they were shuffling troops and artillery barrages to take objectives? And then compare those results to their contemporaries?[/align]  [/align] I can say one thing for sure, both were successful, and both left their stamp on world history.[/align]
User avatar
88l71
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:01 am

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by 88l71 »

I don't know who was "better."

Patton was a ground force commander while Mac's operations made greater use of combined arms as naval and air assets had a much greater impact on ground combat in the PTO. In Europe much of the Allied air power was devoted to the strategic bombing campaign and naval ops were (except for Normandy, where Patton wasn't involved anyway) primarily about logistics, rather than offensive in nature.
OldCoot
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:31 pm

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by OldCoot »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
ORIGINAL: Termite2
I agree with those that say the Soviet Union could have defeated Germany by itself without a western military presence and they were mainly responsible for the German defeat.  In the absence of Alled Lend lease; it would have been a riskier proposition;

I'm not sure how you can say this. Without massive lend lease rubber and sulphur imports, Russia could not make tires or rubber sealing gaskets in any significant quantities. Just these two items alone would have almost shut down Russia's wartime production of any kind of vehicles from planes to tanks and jeeps.

Sulphur was needed for use in the vulcanizing process for the rubber, without which, rubber alone would be useless. There is no way Russia could have ever achieved the massive production numbers it did for the things it did produce without allied lend lease.

Jim



The first lend lease convoys to Russia did not start until late 1941. During 1941 the Russians produced over 6,000 armored vehicles including 2800 T-34 tanks - more than twice the German production that year - so somehow they managed without massive lend lease rubber and sulfur imports. Come to think about it, the Germans seemed to do pretty well without lend lease also. No doubt lend lease aided the Russian war effort greatly, but, to my mind, Germany lost WW2 on June 22nd 1941

2.5 million German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front. Total German KIA for western Europe, Italy, and Africa was about 220,000. The Wehrmacht was gutted in Russia, and that would have happened with or without the allies.





User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by pasternakski »

ORIGINAL: Big B
I can say one thing for sure, both were successful, and both left their stamp on world history.
Thanks for some sanity among the drivel. Excellent post.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: OldCoot
The first lend lease convoys to Russia did not start until late 1941. During 1941 the Russians produced over 6,000 armored vehicles including 2800 T-34 tanks - more than twice the German production that year - so somehow they managed without massive lend lease rubber and sulfur imports. Come to think about it, the Germans seemed to do pretty well without lend lease also. No doubt lend lease aided the Russian war effort greatly, but, to my mind, Germany lost WW2 on June 22nd 1941

2.5 million German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front. Total German KIA for western Europe, Italy, and Africa was about 220,000. The Wehrmacht was gutted in Russia, and that would have happened with or without the allies.

All major powers had stockpiles of strategic materials when the war started, so I have no problem at all with Russia producing on its own without significant aid for a year or so, but the levels of production needed to sustain a winning war effort were massive.

Russian tank losses for the war were:
1941... 20,500
1942... 15,000
1943... 22,400
1944... 16,900
1945... 8,700

Compare this to Germanys losses:
1941... 2,758
1942... 2,648
1943... 6,362
1944... 6,434
1945... 7,382

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/wwii/production.asp

So production levels needed by Germany were nowhere near what Russia needed to sustain to keep their army supplied with sufficient tanks to take on Germany. Russia had a powerful industry on its own, but it could have never reached and sustained levels that it did without the massive lend lease aid pouring in from the US and Britain.

It could have put up a good fight on its own, but with the losses it was sustaining, it could have never won on its own. Especially once the rubber and steel alloy reserves were gone.

And you are overlooking the effect of the massive allied air campaign over Europe. Germany produced 55, 727 fighters during the war and a total of 189,307 airframes of all types. Without the massive allied air effort in the west, these planes would have decimated Russian military formations in the east.

Jim
User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The Bismarck was a well-designed super-ship

The P-40 was better than the Zero

The Zero was better than the Wildcat

Yamato would beat New Jersey, any day

Long Lance was a super weapon with few weaknesses

The US forced Japan to start the Pacific War

BOOM!

Am I missing any?[:'(]


Bismark sucked
Zero was better
Wildcat was better
New Jersey sucked, Tennessee was better (a little home cooking there )
US torps could have been even better, but we didn't care
We needed the war to bail out our economy and FDR conspired with Churchill

so there.
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
User avatar
Japan
Posts: 754
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:45 pm
Location: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Japan »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
ORIGINAL: OldCoot
The first lend lease convoys to Russia did not start until late 1941. During 1941 the Russians produced over 6,000 armored vehicles including 2800 T-34 tanks - more than twice the German production that year - so somehow they managed without massive lend lease rubber and sulfur imports. Come to think about it, the Germans seemed to do pretty well without lend lease also. No doubt lend lease aided the Russian war effort greatly, but, to my mind, Germany lost WW2 on June 22nd 1941

2.5 million German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front. Total German KIA for western Europe, Italy, and Africa was about 220,000. The Wehrmacht was gutted in Russia, and that would have happened with or without the allies.

All major powers had stockpiles of strategic materials when the war started, so I have no problem at all with Russia producing on its own without significant aid for a year or so, but the levels of production needed to sustain a winning war effort were massive.

Russian tank losses for the war were:
1941... 20,500
1942... 15,000
1943... 22,400
1944... 16,900
1945... 8,700

Compare this to Germanys losses:
1941... 2,758
1942... 2,648
1943... 6,362
1944... 6,434
1945... 7,382

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/wwii/production.asp

So production levels needed by Germany were nowhere near what Russia needed to sustain to keep their army supplied with sufficient tanks to take on Germany. Russia had a powerful industry on its own, but it could have never reached and sustained levels that it did without the massive lend lease aid pouring in from the US and Britain.

It could have put up a good fight on its own, but with the losses it was sustaining, it could have never won on its own. Especially once the rubber and steel alloy reserves were gone.

And you are overlooking the effect of the massive allied air campaign over Europe. Germany produced 55, 727 fighters during the war and a total of 189,307 airframes of all types. Without the massive allied air effort in the west, these planes would have decimated Russian military formations in the east.

Jim






I don't think you saw the post above Jim D Burns so I will repeat it. Soviet Union would won by its own from Late 1943, I don't understand why you keep posting about the subject, your question have been answered several times, and by several people, and if you keep saying the same over and over it will not make it more correct anyway. Your question have been anwsered already sevreal times.



The Land Lace provided Soviet Union with 29,16% of its general Industrial Raw Materials of all sorts, a few key materials up to 44%. MACCA estimates that without Land Lace in 1944 Soviet would had +/- 30% less industrial capability. It is not more to it then that, regardless of how many numbers and figures you present, the fact's do not change.


As of Late 1943 Soviet had more then what they needed, and would won the war with or without your America starting Operation Overloard. Overloard helped to make it go faster, but was not neccesary to win WW2. Claiming anything different is absurd!

It is absurd because there have been 60 years of recherche on this subject, and the data is presented and available, the data is verified, re-verified and re-verefied aigan, and several, many individuals, universities, and other institutions have done research on WW2 for over 60 yeas, so instead of talking the numbers up into the sky try to focus on the "actuall" effects instead of presenting paper claims Stick to the facts, and fact are that Land Lace was necessary, but only until Late 1943, and fact is that Soviet Union would won with or without Operation Overload simply due to all the equipment then had already in January 1944.

Regarding the Allied Air Camping, It also helped but it initially might have helped Germany more then Soviet because it made Germany realize that they had to Gear up for war. Based on Albert Spears words in the BBC WW2 By Thems the 8th Airforce made Germany realize that they had to gear up for war a lot earlyer then what they would done without it.
This initialy made the situation far worse for Soviet Union baced on information from MACCA.

Having said that, The 8th Airforce also forced Germany to keep a large amount of 88mm and similer AA Guns in Germany, and it costed huge numbers for the German Airforce.

Total (after Gear Up, numbers from 1944) it costed Germany 9% of its total industrial capability (due to German Indistrual focus on Airforce, and due to Industris destroyed or disabled), most costly for the Petroleum industry, and the effects of that was severely shown once Soviet secured Romania and secured the Romanian Oil Fields.

Did the 8th Airforce win the war? = NO! they did not, they helped out to win it, but Soviet would won with or without it regardless. But then aigan, they did help out, and no one is saying that they did not, only that you could not win a war with Strateagic Bombers alone. (Until the Nuke age).

So, Jim D Burns, if you want things in plain numbers to the best of our knowledge today,
Then the US in 1944 provided 29,16% of the Soviet Industry (via raw material), on the same time as disabling 9% of the German industry. I think that is pretty good, especially for a nation who hardly took any casualties in Europe during the whole war. (Statement is "few losses" when put into context to what kind of losses everyone else took).
None of us here is thinking that your country did nothing sir,



So sir, no one here sir is saying that your nation did not do a good job, We are only saying that Soviet had all they needed from late 1943 to do the job alone.













AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&
User avatar
morganbj
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Mosquito Bite, Texas

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by morganbj »

No.  You're just saying that the US did not need to worry about Europe at all.  There was no need for a second front.  Y'all had it under control by mid-43.  Now that's interesting.
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
User avatar
Iridium
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Jersey

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Iridium »

ORIGINAL: Japan

As of Late 1943 Soviet had more then what they needed, and would won the war with or without your America starting Operation Overloard. Overloard helped to make it go faster, but was not neccesary to win WW2. Claiming anything different is absurd!


So sir, no one here sir is saying that your nation did not do a good job, We are only saying that Soviet had all they needed from late 1943 to do the job alone.


I think what some are saying is that without Lend Lease Russia would be short this. Without all of that Russia would have been hard pressed to continue the fight logistically, let alone tactically. The US supplied Russia with massive amounts of trucks, trains, tracks, communications gear, paper, food...the list goes on. The fast aggressive moves Russia made late war would be due, in no small part, to lend lease.

Not to mention the UK sending hundreds of thousands of tons of rubber and other materials.

Oh, and we can't forget the 2 pianos we sent...[:D]
Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.
Image
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Historiker »

Oh, and we can't forget the 2 pianos we sent...
But what kind of crap were these? Only $30 each, that can't be a really good one [;)]
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
Cpt Sherwood
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:27 am
Location: A Very Nice Place in the USA

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Cpt Sherwood »

ORIGINAL: Historiker
Oh, and we can't forget the 2 pianos we sent...
But what kind of crap were these? Only $30 each, that can't be a really good one [;)]

It says $530.00 total, not $30 each.
“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

No.  You're just saying that the US did not need to worry about Europe at all.  There was no need for a second front.  Y'all had it under control by mid-43.  Now that's interesting.

"Japan" is VERY much in the minority with this very poorly informed view.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Nikademus »

If Mac had been Lend Leased to Russia......would he have still returned?
If Patton had been Lend Leased to Russia.....would he have still felt the need to slap someone silly?

[:)]
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Terminus »

Well, the Russkies shot their own people silly instead...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Nikademus »

They shot em dead actually.

[;)]

uh oh....THREAD HIJACK.

Mac

Patton

Mac

Patton

Burger King

McDonalds

User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Terminus »

Great system, the Stalinist one. They didn't take advantage of their soldiers to further their own post-war position at all, no sir![8|]
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Patton vs MacArthur

Post by Nikademus »

Carlos D'este's book on Patton is a good recommendation for anyone interested in Mr. "Blood n Guts"

Just finished it.
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”