Why was Patton so great?

[IronDuke_slith]

See what I mean about your double standard.

Nope.

EVERY German operation that did not go well has a very valid explanation according to you, and should be understood within that context.

Nope, you haven't mentioned every German operation, just a handful that did have a context worth noting.

However, when it comes to Patton - NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES - it is wrong.

Demonstrably untrue. I have quoted on Patton's strengths at length (like me to quote from the thread as proof?). You have never told us what you feel his weaknesses to be.

If there are mistakes, then Patton is white-washed as a bad general. NO CONTEXT is allowed.

For Patton's examples discussed thus far, the context is often a poor one (as it often is for Montgomery). At Metz, there were no supplies (good context - one I accept) so why attack then?

That is why debating you is utterly fruitless.

Too late, I said this to you first.

It is like digging a hole that goes nowhere. . .

I know the feeling, I can sympathise.

If this is the way you view Patton - then that is your perogative - but it has nothing to do with sensibly discussing Patton or anything he did.

I don't accept the legend. If that makes me not sensible, so be it.

These are not statements about you personally. I am sure you are a fine person. However, you have an extremely jaundiced view about Patton that is at variance with many of the facts. . .

As do you. I, however, do present facts to allow others to judge whether my views are jaundiced.

[IronDuke_slith]

Operation Cobra

Actually, Patton did plan Operation Cobra. He didn't call it that, but aside from some slight differences, it was the SAME plan he had discussed earlier with Bradley.

I would give this more than just a derisory glance if you could quote ONE source outside of Patton uncovered (discredited by D'Este) or the Patton fansites. Just one. As I've said, merely repeating something ad nauseum does not make it true, it just makes it boring.

What 3rd Army did after the gap was turn the wrong way and then head for Falaise when Patton wanted to head for the Seine. If the plan was his, how come he disagreed with it? This is nonsense.

The Third Army staff never doubted that Bradley was making good in France by expropriating their boss's ideas. Patton's aide, Colonel Charles Codman, wrote to his wife, "As of August 1st, General Bradley has adopted practically all of General Patton's plans."

On august 14, 1944, Patton wrote in his diary regarding the St. Lo breakthrough, "It is really a great plan, wholly my own, and I made Bradley think that he thought of it."

Another classic. "I made Bradley think that he thought of it." Patton said this, and so it must be true, eh? As I've said, Patton never wanted Falaise, so if he did give the plan to Bradley, he must have given him the wrong one because Bradley asked him to go to Falaise rather than the Seine. In history, when Person A gives Person B a plan, and Person B then tells Person A to do something not on Person A's plan, we call it using a different plan.

One of Patton's Staff Officers has written a book claiming that Operation Cobra was Patton's idea and plan.

Col. Brenton G. Wallace, a staff officer under Patton wrote a book called "Patton and the Third Army", which claims that Patton was chiefly responsible both for the planning and execution of the famous St. Lo breakthrough, which swept on past Avranches and eventually hurled all the German armies out of France.

The battle plan credit, up until now, has gone uncontested to General Omar N. Bradley, who later commanded the 12th Army Group.

Wallace, who served as assistant chief of staff in G-3 (liaison) for the Third Army writes: "The First Army was given credit, whereas Gen. Patton planned it and executed it and used not only First Army troops but also a number of his own Third Army units."

So, everyone gives the credit to Bradley (you used the word uncontested). A man who worked with Patton says it was Patton's plan. This man did not serve with Bradley so was in no position to know how Bradley formulated the idea. He is a Patton man. It may well be that Bradley conferred with all senior commanders (Collins, Hodges and Patton) before deciding on his plan, Army Commanders often do that. However, as I've said, D'Este says Patton wanted the Seine, so how can it have been his plan if he wanted something other than what Bradley actually asked him to do?????

Ironduke

[Kevinugly]

Patton believed in war you take chances.

At Falaise he could have closed the Gap.

At Metz he could have taken it with few casualties.

At the Bulge, he wanted to close the salient.

Not being allowed to have done any of the above cost many, many more thousands of lives. . .

History and the facts have vindicated Patton's views about the above operations. That is why Patton's military operations are studied in military schools today. He proved he was right.

You're not seeing it in context. Try and put yourself into the supreme commanders shoes at the time with the intel available at the time and reconsider.

Operation Cobra

Actually, Patton did plan Operation Cobra. He didn't call it that, but aside from some slight differences, it was the SAME plan he had discussed earlier with Bradley.

The Third Army staff never doubted that Bradley was making good in France by expropriating their boss's ideas. Patton's aide, Colonel Charles Codman, wrote to his wife, "As of August 1st, General Bradley has adopted practically all of General Patton's plans."

On august 14, 1944, Patton wrote in his diary regarding the St. Lo breakthrough, "It is really a great plan, wholly my own, and I made Bradley think that he thought of it."

One of Patton's Staff Officers has written book claiming in fact that Operation Cobra was Patton's idea and plan.

Col. Brenton G. Wallace, a staff officer under Patton wrote a book called "Patton and the Third Army", which claims that Patton was chiefly responsible both for the planning and execution of the famous St. Lo breakthrough, which swept on past Avranches and eventually hurled all the German armies out of France.

The battle plan credit, up until now, has gone uncontested to General Omar N. Bradley, who later commanded the 12th Army Group.

Wallace, who served as assistant chief of staff in G-3 (liaison) for the Third Army writes: "The First Army was given credit, whereas Gen. Patton planned it and executed it and used not only First Army troops but also a number of his own Third Army units."

I doubt whether any plan can be wholly accredited to one person. Senior commanders will discuss plans with their subordinates (even if Bradley and Patton didn't get on personally I'm sure they had a healthy respect for one another as generals), take on board their opinions and adjust if they feel it's necessary. I would be certain Patton had some input on Cobra, as would have Montgomery, Eisenhower, the participating Corps commanders, various G2s and probably some divisional commanders too. Also bear in mind that, unlike Manstein's plan, Cobra was only part of an overall strategy - to break out of Normandy.

When Patton wrote

"It is really a great plan, wholly my own, and I made Bradley think that he thought of it."

it is quite possible that several other commanders were thinking exactly the same thing, Bradley included.


Regarding 'Bodenplatte', strategically it was a failure but again you need to put yourself into the Allied Generals' shoes. Suddenly the Luftwaffe has put around 1,000 aircraft into the air and attacked Allied air bases, achieving total surprise again! They wouldn't have known the extent of German losses, especially those that went down in 'friendly fire' incidents.

[Error in 0]

IronDuke
It has been most educational and interesting reading your comments. I am most impressed that you keep your cool when fighting this unfair battle. keep it up!





----------------
Never ever give up fighting ignorance.

[IronDuke_slith]

The Bulge:

Patton believed in war you take chances.

At Falaise he could have closed the Gap.

Historians don't believe he could. Weigly thinks he might, but D'Este and Hastings think he wouldn't have. D'este also points out he didn't want to be anywhere near the gap in the first place, and only got upset about it when he was denied the Seine and ordered to argentan.

At Metz he could have taken it with few casualties.

Listen to what you're saying. This is based on the assumption that given gas Patton could have reached and taken Metz when there were no defenders. By this method, any General is a good one, because all Generals will take cities that have no defenders. Stalingrad was undefended in September, full of Russians when the Germans reached it. However, once an opportunity is missed, a good general re-assesses the situation and acts accordingly. Judge Metz by what he did, not by what might have been.

At the Bulge, he wanted to close the salient.

Something I pointed out to you, first. I can quote from the thread if you wish to prove this. You were telling us how the drive on Bastogne was so good, and now you're actually telling us that his genius was not the drive on Bastogne but the fact he saw he could attack further east and cut all the Germans off. I pointed this out, yet downplay all his achievements, apparently.

Not being allowed to have done any of the above cost many, many more thousands of lives. . .

Hindsight, and not very good hindsight. Many of the lives were lost in frontal assaults on the city.

History and the facts have vindicated Patton's views about the above operations. That is why Patton's military operations are studied in military schools today. He proved he was right. And history proves he was right.

The legend's view of history proves he was right, as I consistently point out, Major historians don't view him as right at all. Some believe he had some good qualities, all think he had some problems. All except you, who are yet to breakdown Patton's weakenses for you.

I could quote my "Patton's strengths" comments if it starts you off.

Ironduke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Ironduke:

Actually, what you are reading was written in 1992 by a retired US Army General. His writing about Patton reflects his study of Patton's use of combined arms.

This paper was published by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. If you are unaware of this school, then I just wanted to mention that it was founded in 1882 and is THE most prestigious military command school in the USA and the world. All of the great military leaders were educated here: Ike, Patton, Bradley, etc, etc. . . Only those selected for higher command attend it.

You compare these military papers and studies to Whiting's writing.

These military papers do not have an agenda like Whiting does. Instead they examine the military accomplishments of Patton, and they are studied at the command school by military leaders.

Why did he mention McNair yet not tell us what McNair said about the excerises, then? Does that not make them unbalanced? D'Este is a retired Army Officer. Whiting served in the armed forces as well. The fact someone is a soldier does not make them a good or unbiased historian. This gentlemen is honest, I'm sure, but his opinion goes into the pot with everyone elses. Credentials are earned in history. People read what you say, and your reputation is created on the basis of it. I would look at whiting's work the same as this Gentleman's and apply the same criteria when deciding their qualities. Rank or position does not impress me, just someone's history. If it impresses you, then your reading is destined to be one dimensional.

There were actually several exercises and training programs throughout the US from 1939 to 1942. During these exercises, mistakes were made. But that is what exercies and training are for - to learn from mistakes. Obviously what Patton's critics latch onto are McNair's comments about the earlier field exercises. What you are reading from this included article, are those later exercises where many of the mistakes have been avoided.

I would be interested to hear of the list of exercises undertaken. Can you provide it? Convenient that the Writer chose not to mention McNair's comments about the earliest excerises if this is indeed what they were. Can you quote us something from General McNair about the later exercises? Perhaps illustrating that he felt Patton had learned from his mistakes. If you can't, then your last sentence above is an invention.

As to Patton's encirclements:

Heheh

You will stand on your head defending the Germans at Kursk (one of the biggest, collossal blunders in military history by the way), and yet, when it comes to clear evidence about Patton's study and use of combined arms, you will dig for the most obscure piece of material, and expand it into some wide-sweeping criticism about Patton's ability.

Kursk was a colossal strategic blunder. The battle should never have been fought, ultimate responsibility rests with the man who decided to attack. It cannot be compared to an operational matter at Army level.
It is wrongheaded for you to do so. You have so far provided no analysis of Patton in the field. The piece you quote concerning combined arms mentions very little about it (and I don't believe you prove your point simply repeating ad nausum that Patton was good at combined arms). Feel free to analyse the drive on Bastogne, and we can discuss it's qualities as a combined arms operation.

Just as the Germans in France by-passed most of the French armies, and sought instead to encircle their foes, Patton's Third Army also swept through France to encircle the German armies trapped inside the Falaise Gap.

The crucial difference, is that the Germans did this on day one of the campaign. Guderian made the break through himself at Sedan. Patton moved his troops through the gap created by first army, after First Army had won a grim battle of attrition amongst the bocage. Once through the gap, Patton turned the wrong way into Brittany. As I've said, it is the supreme irony of unblinking, unthinking acceptance of the Patton legend that the good General himself never wanted to go to falaise, but wanted to go the Seine. It was Bradley who sent him to Falaise, yet you have never admitted this. Why? Becuse to do so detracts from the Patton myth.

Do I really need to say this? Is your hatred for Patton so deep that you are simply incapable of looking logically at ANY of his accomplishments?

To which I would reply:

Do I really need to say this? Is your love for Patton so deep that you are simply incapable of looking logically at ANY of his accomplishments?

What you have written above is just another example of why I stopped debating with you.

I love this. I stopped debating with you if memory serves, after publishing my list of unanswered questions. If you have quotes from the Patton thread to support you, post them. A la the Patton legend, it is now you who tired of me, and to hell with reality.

There is NO debate. Your only goal is to destroy Patton's reputation regardless of the circumstances, regardless of how well he did, or regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Your only goal is to preserve the Patton legend regardless of the circumstances, regardless of how well he did, or regardles of any evidence to the contrary.

If Patton mentioned the sky was blue, you would write post after post trying to prove that Patton did not see a blue sky.

Another gem. Actually, I would indeed dispute this, if the source you had provided to support your contention that Patton had seen a blue sky was of your usual standard. I want only fact. I believe nothing until the evidence shows it.

IronDuke

Why did he mention McNair yet not tell us what McNair said about the excerises, then? Does that not make them unbalanced? D'Este is a retired Army Officer. Whiting served in the armed forces as well. The fact someone is a soldier does not make them a good or unbiased historian. This gentlemen is honest, I'm sure, but his opinion goes into the pot with everyone elses. Credentials are earned in history. People read what you say, and your reputation is created on the basis of it. I would look at whiting's work the same as this Gentleman's and apply the same criteria when deciding their qualities. Rank or position does not impress me, just someone's history. If it impresses you, then your reading is destined to be one dimensional.

I did not mention McNair here, because the portion I posted is part of a much, much longer paper the General is writing about on Combined Arms. I only wanted to include excerpts about Patton. He did mention the earlier exercises, and some of the problems learned from them. What do you think training is for?

The later period of the exercises - all went well because of the lessons learned from the previous ones.

So what?

Why do you think athletes and armies train? [8|]

Again, you are picking out the specks on the beach, while ignoring the planets floating by. . . [8|]

I would be interested to hear of the list of exercises undertaken. Can you provide it? Convenient that the Writer chose not to mention McNair's comments about the earliest excerises if this is indeed what they were. Can you quote us something from General McNair about the later exercises? Perhaps illustrating that he felt Patton had learned from his mistakes. If you can't, then your last sentence above is an invention.

Why don't you list all the mistakes made by the German army when they did field exercises in 1936-1938?

It has as much relevance.

Again, mistakes made in earlier training are learned from.

Kursk was a colossal strategic blunder. The battle should never have been fought, ultimate responsibility rests with the man who decided to attack. It cannot be compared to an operational matter at Army level.
It is wrongheaded for you to do so. You have so far provided no analysis of Patton in the field. The piece you quote concerning combined arms mentions very little about it (and I don't believe you prove your point simply repeating ad nausum that Patton was good at combined arms). Feel free to analyse the drive on Bastogne, and we can discuss it's qualities as a combined arms operation

Heheh

No double-standard?

The Germans crashed into prepared defences - and lost.

At least at Metz, Patton won.

You allow context for Kursk; but do not allow context for Metz.

If you discuss Metz, then discuss Kursk.

The crucial difference, is that the Germans did this on day one of the campaign. Guderian made the break through himself at Sedan. Patton moved his troops through the gap created by first army, after First Army had won a grim battle of attrition amongst the bocage. Once through the gap, Patton turned the wrong way into Brittany. As I've said, it is the supreme irony of unblinking, unthinking acceptance of the Patton legend that the good General himself never wanted to go to falaise, but wanted to go the Seine. It was Bradley who sent him to Falaise, yet you have never admitted this. Why? Becuse to do so detracts from the Patton myth.

Heheh

Here you are arguning for argument's sake.

I was wondering how long you were going to be able to stay away from tackling one of my posts - heheh

Bradley stopped Patton from closing the Gap. What are you arguing about?

Later Bradely admitted not closing the Gap was a mistake.

I stopped debating with you if memory serves

Then why start again?

Your only goal is to preserve the Patton legend regardless of the circumstances, regardless of how well he did, or regardles of any evidence to the contrary

Heheh

History and the facts of history speak for themselves, regardless of those who would try to destroy his memory and what he accomplished.

Another gem. Actually, I would indeed dispute this, if the source you had provided to support your contention that Patton had seen a blue sky was of your usual standard. I want only fact. I believe nothing until the evidence shows it.

My stanadard?

I'm still waiting for the source from Whiting's book about that quote you used about the quality of forces Patton faced at the Bulge.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

IronDuke
It has been most educational and interesting reading your comments. I am most impressed that you keep your cool when fighting this unfair battle. keep it up!

----------------
Never ever give up fighting ignorance.

Thank you very much. It's nice to have been mentioned in your first post! Welcome to the Matrix forums. If you like Military history and/or war games, you've found the perfect place to be. If you don't, well I think you'll still like it.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I mis

Contrary to the critic you cited, Patton did NOT believe in capturing territory; he believed in destroying the enemy. Your cited source, in saying this, displays his complete lack of understanding of Patton's military philosophy.

I missed this section, although I know I won't get a response so I post it just for the hell of it.

Your proof? As I said, I don't believe this merely because you've said it. I want a source that analyses Patton's campaigns (as my historians did Weigly and Farago for the record) and explains why Patton liked encirclements.

IronDuke

If you don't know this about Patton, then this shows that you and your sources know nothing about Patton's military philosophy.

Even if I was to post a dozen sources, it would fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. . . [:-]

[Kevinugly]

Before I go to bed (it is gone 2.00 a.m. here as I write[>:]) I wanted to move on to Metz and the Battle for Lorraine.

Again I wanted to put some context into this. It is true that had Patton been given logistical priority he could have taken Metz quite easily and pushed on to the Siegfried Line in mid-to-late September 1944 but this was never going to happen. We must put ourselves into Eisenhower's shoes in early September 1944. Intel is that the Germans in the West are beaten, streaming back towards Germany in a disorganised rabble, their next line of defence is the Siegfried Line, a formidable barrier still even if manned by old men and boys. Our lines of communication are seriously stretched and we cannot supply three army groups (seven armies plus ancillery forces etc.) maintaining offensive action. We would like to achieve victory quickly and at minimal casualties. Suddenly, Field-Marshal Montgomery comes in with a plan that promises just that, bouncing the Rhine in Holland, sweeping around the Siegfried Line to the north, crushing the last of the German armies by pinning them up against the Rhine. Denying Monty and giving the precious supplies to Patton is not an option because even if Third Army takes Metz it still has to slog its way through the Siegfried Line, certainly incurring heavy casualties. As Von Rom wrote

Patton believed in war you take chances.

and this was a chance that Eisenhower had to take.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

See what I mean about your double standard.

Nope.

EVERY German operation that did not go well has a very valid explanation according to you, and should be understood within that context.

Nope, you haven't mentioned every German operation, just a handful that did have a context worth noting.

However, when it comes to Patton - NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES - it is wrong.

Demonstrably untrue. I have quoted on Patton's strengths at length (like me to quote from the thread as proof?). You have never told us what you feel his weaknesses to be.

If there are mistakes, then Patton is white-washed as a bad general. NO CONTEXT is allowed.

For Patton's examples discussed thus far, the context is often a poor one (as it often is for Montgomery). At Metz, there were no supplies (good context - one I accept) so why attack then?

That is why debating you is utterly fruitless.

Too late, I said this to you first.

It is like digging a hole that goes nowhere. . .

I know the feeling, I can sympathise.

If this is the way you view Patton - then that is your perogative - but it has nothing to do with sensibly discussing Patton or anything he did.

I don't accept the legend. If that makes me not sensible, so be it.

These are not statements about you personally. I am sure you are a fine person. However, you have an extremely jaundiced view about Patton that is at variance with many of the facts. . .

As do you. I, however, do present facts to allow others to judge whether my views are jaundiced.

I, however, do present facts to allow others to judge whether my views are jaundiced.

Heheh

This is priceless.

It should be framed.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Operation Cobra

Actually, Patton did plan Operation Cobra. He didn't call it that, but aside from some slight differences, it was the SAME plan he had discussed earlier with Bradley.

I would give this more than just a derisory glance if you could quote ONE source outside of Patton uncovered (discredited by D'Este) or the Patton fansites. Just one. As I've said, merely repeating something ad nauseum does not make it true, it just makes it boring.

What 3rd Army did after the gap was turn the wrong way and then head for Falaise when Patton wanted to head for the Seine. If the plan was his, how come he disagreed with it? This is nonsense.

The Third Army staff never doubted that Bradley was making good in France by expropriating their boss's ideas. Patton's aide, Colonel Charles Codman, wrote to his wife, "As of August 1st, General Bradley has adopted practically all of General Patton's plans."

On august 14, 1944, Patton wrote in his diary regarding the St. Lo breakthrough, "It is really a great plan, wholly my own, and I made Bradley think that he thought of it."

Another classic. "I made Bradley think that he thought of it." Patton said this, and so it must be true, eh? As I've said, Patton never wanted Falaise, so if he did give the plan to Bradley, he must have given him the wrong one because Bradley asked him to go to Falaise rather than the Seine. In history, when Person A gives Person B a plan, and Person B then tells Person A to do something not on Person A's plan, we call it using a different plan.

One of Patton's Staff Officers has written a book claiming that Operation Cobra was Patton's idea and plan.

Col. Brenton G. Wallace, a staff officer under Patton wrote a book called "Patton and the Third Army", which claims that Patton was chiefly responsible both for the planning and execution of the famous St. Lo breakthrough, which swept on past Avranches and eventually hurled all the German armies out of France.

The battle plan credit, up until now, has gone uncontested to General Omar N. Bradley, who later commanded the 12th Army Group.

Wallace, who served as assistant chief of staff in G-3 (liaison) for the Third Army writes: "The First Army was given credit, whereas Gen. Patton planned it and executed it and used not only First Army troops but also a number of his own Third Army units."

So, everyone gives the credit to Bradley (you used the word uncontested). A man who worked with Patton says it was Patton's plan. This man did not serve with Bradley so was in no position to know how Bradley formulated the idea. He is a Patton man. It may well be that Bradley conferred with all senior commanders (Collins, Hodges and Patton) before deciding on his plan, Army Commanders often do that. However, as I've said, D'Este says Patton wanted the Seine, so how can it have been his plan if he wanted something other than what Bradley actually asked him to do?????

Ironduke

Bradley changed the plan and had Patton turn at Falaise.

Even when Patton turned to close the Gap, Bradley then ordered Patton to stop.

And the beauty about diaries is - they can't be changed later (unlike books which can be changed and/or rewritten, which is what Bradley did between his two books).

So you are calling Patton a liar??

Who are you to call General Patton - a man who devoted his entire life to his country - a liar?

Patton was many things - but he believed in honesty.

[Kevinugly]

Von Rom wrote

I'm still waiting for the source from Whiting's book about that quote you used about the quality of forces Patton faced at the Bulge.

From MacDonald p.655 - referring to the 352nd Volksgrenadier Division he states :-

[They were] Reconstructed almost from scratch with a great influx of Luftwaffe and Navy replacements to a strength of 13,000, the division was poorly trained and lacked experienced officers.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Patton believed in war you take chances.

At Falaise he could have closed the Gap.

At Metz he could have taken it with few casualties.

At the Bulge, he wanted to close the salient.

Not being allowed to have done any of the above cost many, many more thousands of lives. . .

History and the facts have vindicated Patton's views about the above operations. That is why Patton's military operations are studied in military schools today. He proved he was right.

You're not seeing it in context. Try and put yourself into the supreme commanders shoes at the time with the intel available at the time and reconsider.

Operation Cobra

Actually, Patton did plan Operation Cobra. He didn't call it that, but aside from some slight differences, it was the SAME plan he had discussed earlier with Bradley.

The Third Army staff never doubted that Bradley was making good in France by expropriating their boss's ideas. Patton's aide, Colonel Charles Codman, wrote to his wife, "As of August 1st, General Bradley has adopted practically all of General Patton's plans."

On august 14, 1944, Patton wrote in his diary regarding the St. Lo breakthrough, "It is really a great plan, wholly my own, and I made Bradley think that he thought of it."

One of Patton's Staff Officers has written book claiming in fact that Operation Cobra was Patton's idea and plan.

Col. Brenton G. Wallace, a staff officer under Patton wrote a book called "Patton and the Third Army", which claims that Patton was chiefly responsible both for the planning and execution of the famous St. Lo breakthrough, which swept on past Avranches and eventually hurled all the German armies out of France.

The battle plan credit, up until now, has gone uncontested to General Omar N. Bradley, who later commanded the 12th Army Group.

Wallace, who served as assistant chief of staff in G-3 (liaison) for the Third Army writes: "The First Army was given credit, whereas Gen. Patton planned it and executed it and used not only First Army troops but also a number of his own Third Army units."

I doubt whether any plan can be wholly accredited to one person. Senior commanders will discuss plans with their subordinates (even if Bradley and Patton didn't get on personally I'm sure they had a healthy respect for one another as generals), take on board their opinions and adjust if they feel it's necessary. I would be certain Patton had some input on Cobra, as would have Montgomery, Eisenhower, the participating Corps commanders, various G2s and probably some divisional commanders too. Also bear in mind that, unlike Manstein's plan, Cobra was only part of an overall strategy - to break out of Normandy.

When Patton wrote

"It is really a great plan, wholly my own, and I made Bradley think that he thought of it."

it is quite possible that several other commanders were thinking exactly the same thing, Bradley included.


Regarding 'Bodenplatte', strategically it was a failure but again you need to put yourself into the Allied Generals' shoes. Suddenly the Luftwaffe has put around 1,000 aircraft into the air and attacked Allied air bases, achieving total surprise again! They wouldn't have known the extent of German losses, especially those that went down in 'friendly fire' incidents.

The Allied High Command dropped the ball.

History vindicates Patton's views and plans.

As to the German air attack - another colossal failure that wasted lives and planes for NOTHING.

'Nuff said.

[Kevinugly]

damned software[:D]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

IronDuke
It has been most educational and interesting reading your comments. I am most impressed that you keep your cool when fighting this unfair battle. keep it up!

----------------
Never ever give up fighting ignorance.

Well, well JallaTryne:

You signed up with Matrix Forums and your very first post is to give support to the "down-trodden" Ironduke - heheh

This should also be framed. [:D]

[IronDuke_slith]

I did not mention McNair here, because the portion I posted is part of a much, much longer paper the General is writing about on Combined Arms. I only wanted to include excerpts about Patton. He did mention the earlier exercises, and some of the problems learned from them. What do you think training is for?

The later period of the exercises - all went well because of the lessons learned from the previous ones.

So what?

Why do you think athletes and armies train?

Again, you are picking out the specks on the beach, while ignoring the planets floating by. . .

So, you admit McNair's comment was in there. McNair made a direct comment about Patton after watching him fight the exercise. How can it not have been relevant to Patton? How could you not have considered it an "excerpt about Patton". I am accused of bias and then you admit to leaving out a quote from one of America's most senior Officers that questioned Patton's whole style of command. I give up [8|].

Why don't you list all the mistakes made by the German army when they did field exercises in 1936-1938?

It has as much relevance.

Again, mistakes made in earlier training are learned from.

What relevance to a thread on Patton does this have. Your argument seems to be (whenever I say Patton made mistakes) that the Germans made lots of them as well. How is this relevant?

For the record, the Germans made a number of mistakes. During the Anschluss, Guderian was ordered to drive his tanks to vienna. The German logistical train was so poor, that he had to stop at Austrian petrol stations to refill the Panzers. He also had to leave some tanks at the side of the road where they broke down. As a result, they worked on additional panzer models designed as towing vehicles etc.

However, this is tactical and logistical . Farago (Pattons biographer) quoted McNair to illustrate what he saw in Patton's military career. Otherwise, he would have quoted him and then showed how he improved and learned.

Heheh

No double-standard?

The Germans crashed into prepared defences - and lost.

At least at Metz, Patton won.

You allow context for Kursk; but do not allow context for Metz.

If you discuss Metz, then discuss Kursk.

Patton did win, although he fought at Metz against tens of thousands of Germans. The Germans fought at Kursk for 11 days (IIRC) against well in excess of 1000 000 Russians. Context has a habit of making things appear in a different light doesn't it, it's why I always go on about it.

My point is that both Kursk and Metz were mistakes. The Germans shouldn't have attacked, Patton shouldn't have and if he was going to, he should have done so for better reasons and with better preparation.

Bradley stopped Patton from closing the Gap. What are you arguing about?

Later Bradely admitted not closing the Gap was a mistake.

The argument? Patton never wanted to go to Falaise. Bradley stopped him for good reason when he was ordered there.

I'm still waiting for the source from Whiting's book about that quote you used about the quality of forces Patton faced at the Bulge.

Actually, if you look back, you wanted me to quote from Whiting's book an example of him being nice about Patton. In terms of Whiting's description of the forces facing Patton, so far, I've counted MacDonald, Nafziger, Mitcham, and the OKW War diary being cited as evidence for their quality. Why do you keep harping back to Whiting? He is one of five sources. The other four are unimpeachable. Do you think you can discredit the entire argument by showing that one of the people who make the argument also writes novels?

As for not answering you, shall I re-produce my thread in which I listed all the questions on which I am awaiting an answer from you?

IronDuke

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


The Allied High Command dropped the ball.

History vindicates Patton's views and plans.

As to the German air attack - another colossal failure that wasted lives and planes for NOTHING.

'Nuff said.

Not really, since his plans weren't practical at the time due to the then current intel. Refight Waterloo and give Napoleon the knowledge that the Prussians are coming and the French win every time. Tell Montgomery the SS Panzers are at Arnhem and WW2 ends at Christmas with the British in Berlin.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but tells you little about history.

The air attack - destroyed twice as many planes as it lost, disrupted Allied air operations for much of January. Hardly a colossal failure!

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Before I go to bed (it is gone 2.00 a.m. here as I write[>:]) I wanted to move on to Metz and the Battle for Lorraine.

Again I wanted to put some context into this. It is true that had Patton been given logistical priority he could have taken Metz quite easily and pushed on to the Siegfried Line in mid-to-late September 1944 but this was never going to happen. We must put ourselves into Eisenhower's shoes in early September 1944. Intel is that the Germans in the West are beaten, streaming back towards Germany in a disorganised rabble, their next line of defence is the Siegfried Line, a formidable barrier still even if manned by old men and boys. Our lines of communication are seriously stretched and we cannot supply three army groups (seven armies plus ancillery forces etc.) maintaining offensive action. We would like to achieve victory quickly and at minimal casualties. Suddenly, Field-Marshal Montgomery comes in with a plan that promises just that, bouncing the Rhine in Holland, sweeping around the Siegfried Line to the north, crushing the last of the German armies by pinning them up against the Rhine. Denying Monty and giving the precious supplies to Patton is not an option because even if Third Army takes Metz it still has to slog its way through the Siegfried Line, certainly incurring heavy casualties. As Von Rom wrote

Patton believed in war you take chances.

and this was a chance that Eisenhower had to take.

As history has clearly shown:

Patton was RIGHT and Ike was WRONG.

Not only did the stopping of Patton lead to lives lost taking Metz, but the sending of those supplies to Monty led to the disaster of Operation Market Garden - and MORE lives were needlessly lost.

'Nuff said.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


As history has clearly shown:

Patton was RIGHT and Ike was WRONG.

Not only did the stopping of Patton lead to lives lost taking Metz, but the sending of those supplies to Monty led to the disaster of Operation Market Garden - and MORE lives were needlessly lost.

'Nuff said.

See previous post. You are not seeing this in its proper perspective.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

The Bulge:

Patton believed in war you take chances.

At Falaise he could have closed the Gap.

Historians don't believe he could. Weigly thinks he might, but D'Este and Hastings think he wouldn't have. D'este also points out he didn't want to be anywhere near the gap in the first place, and only got upset about it when he was denied the Seine and ordered to argentan.

At Metz he could have taken it with few casualties.

Listen to what you're saying. This is based on the assumption that given gas Patton could have reached and taken Metz when there were no defenders. By this method, any General is a good one, because all Generals will take cities that have no defenders. Stalingrad was undefended in September, full of Russians when the Germans reached it. However, once an opportunity is missed, a good general re-assesses the situation and acts accordingly. Judge Metz by what he did, not by what might have been.

At the Bulge, he wanted to close the salient.

Something I pointed out to you, first. I can quote from the thread if you wish to prove this. You were telling us how the drive on Bastogne was so good, and now you're actually telling us that his genius was not the drive on Bastogne but the fact he saw he could attack further east and cut all the Germans off. I pointed this out, yet downplay all his achievements, apparently.

Not being allowed to have done any of the above cost many, many more thousands of lives. . .

Hindsight, and not very good hindsight. Many of the lives were lost in frontal assaults on the city.

History and the facts have vindicated Patton's views about the above operations. That is why Patton's military operations are studied in military schools today. He proved he was right. And history proves he was right.

The legend's view of history proves he was right, as I consistently point out, Major historians don't view him as right at all. Some believe he had some good qualities, all think he had some problems. All except you, who are yet to breakdown Patton's weakenses for you.

I could quote my "Patton's strengths" comments if it starts you off.

Ironduke

History proves Patton to have been correct in his views regarding Metz - 'Nuff said.