'No Patton'

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Okay VR, I've done my best but I can see that it's not good enough.[:(]

Good luck (to everyone)

In this entire thread, the ONLY person you singled out was me.

Even though others hurled insults at me (Sarge) and derailed this thread on their own (Sarge and Ironduke), you magically failed to mention anything to them.

So please. . .

[Kevinugly]

Where VR, where? We had the banter on the other page after you brought up Patton. What did I write that you find so inequitable here?

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Where VR, where? We had the banter on the other page after you brought up Patton. What did I write that you find so inequitable here?

Pleaase. . .

Your feinted innocence is embarrassing. . .

[Kevinugly]

VR, I presume you mean 'feigned'[;)]

And it isn't[:(]

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


In this entire thread, the ONLY person you singled out was me.

Even though others hurled insults at me (Sarge) and derailed this thread on their own (Sarge and Ironduke), you magically failed to mention anything to them.

So please. . .

Insults [8|] Von I insulted Patton leadership ( ok did say you were in the dark). At any rate I will agree to disagree as long as you answer the quesition what about McAuliffe. And by the way learn what a contradiction is I was trying to imply the needed to be resupplied not saved, come on guy were talking about the 101st not some green line Co. try to keep it real. Anyone is that situation would need help the 101st knew going into the battle they would not be able to hold forever(never even implied that). The 101st bought some very much needed time for the Allies to get their crap together we all here are aware of that fact. So what do you think could you think of a Commander (Allied) that was handed a more desperate of a situation in the ETO. [:)]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

VR, I presume you mean 'feigned'[;)]

And it isn't[:(]

OK

[Kevinugly]

No VR, it's not okay. It's not the first time you've made a statement, been asked to back it up, and instead of producing the evidence you've hurled abuse at the other party. Now I've just read every post I've made on this thread and I STILL don't know what you are talking about. So please answer the question, what did I write that you find so inequitable here?

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


In this entire thread, the ONLY person you singled out was me.

Even though others hurled insults at me (Sarge) and derailed this thread on their own (Sarge and Ironduke), you magically failed to mention anything to them.

So please. . .

Insults [8|] Von I insulted Patton leadership ( ok did say you were in the dark). At any rate I will agree to disagree as long as you answer the quesition what about McAuliffe. And by the way learn what a contradiction is I was trying to imply the needed to be resupplied not saved, come on guy were talking about the 101st not some green line Co. try to keep it real. Anyone is that situation would need help the 101st knew going into the battle they would not be able to hold forever(never even implied that). The 101st bought some very much needed time for the Allies to get their crap together we all here are aware of that fact. So what do you think could you think of a Commander (Allied) that was handed a more desperate of a situation in the ETO. [:)]

Sarge:

McAuliffe's command of Bastogne, and the 101st's defence of it, was magnificent. [:)]

No question.

They stopped everything the Germans could throw at it.

I would even suggest to anyone who has not done so, to read up on it.

As I mentioned previously, I am surprised no movies have been made about it.

However, as you implied, the 101st was going to run out of supplies and ammo eventually. They also needed to evacute their wounded. The Allied High Command did not know how long they could hold out. That's why they sent Third Army to break through to Bastogne.

We can look back in insight and see everything. But at the time, the 101st was fighting some pretty desperate battles in the dead of winter against overwhelming enemy forces.

So you see, we are both in agreement here [:)]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

No VR, it's not okay. It's not the first time you've made a statement, been asked to back it up, and instead of producing the evidence you've hurled abuse at the other party. Now I've just read every post I've made on this thread and I STILL don't know what you are talking about. So please answer the question, what did I write that you find so inequitable here?

What's the matter with you?

I AGREED with you. I am willing to accept your statement.

However, since you seem intent on re-hashing this, then look back in this thread and you will see that you responded to "side-tracking this thread" ONLY after my posts. ONLY my name was used.

Get it?

You did NOT respond after Sarge's or ID's posts.

As I mentioned earlier, instead of using the personal "you" when addressing more than one person, please use the plural "fellas" or address us each by name. This will avoid any confusion.

And your blanket statement about abuse and not backing up statements is simply misplaced, and unwarranted, and only reveals to me your one-sided approach in this matter.

[Kevinugly]

Excuse me VR but firstly I'm not here 24/7 and the debate moves on even when I'm not here. Thus I respond to what I see. Secondly, if you are going to find slights in posts where there are none intended it makes it very difficult to sustain a discussion. Thirdly, you were the first person to bring up Patton on this thread after I specifically requested that he be avoided. Now I've tried to deal with everything with a modicum of good humour and in a civilised manner but my patience is wearing thin (and not just with you VR). I have no intention of getting myself banned on account of anyone elses sensitivities, just my own thankyou very much[:)]. Now I'm off for an evening out![:D]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Excuse me VR but firstly I'm not here 24/7 and the debate moves on even when I'm not here. Thus I respond to what I see. Secondly, if you are going to find slights in posts where there are none intended it makes it very difficult to sustain a discussion. Thirdly, you were the first person to bring up Patton on this thread after I specifically requested that he be avoided. Now I've tried to deal with everything with a modicum of good humour and in a civilised manner but my patience is wearing thin (and not just with you VR). I have no intention of getting myself banned on account of anyone elses sensitivities, just my own thankyou very much[:)]. Now I'm off for an evening out![:D]

Nice try [8|]

So it is quite convenient then that you show up and respond ONLY after I have posted. [;)]

What a coincidence [;)]

As I have continually repeated, address us by NAME or in the PLURAL. This way there is no confusion.

Since over the past month you have continually joined in with a couple of others in arguments against me, do you really expect me to believe that you are NOW going to start to be even-handed with me in THIS thread [8|]

So please drop this feigned approach. . .

[Von Rom]

Kevinugly:

In my book actions speak louder than words.

If you wish us to believe that you are NOW even-handed, then don't just say it to me with smooth words, show us through your actions.

[Von Rom]

Sarge:

I'd like to hear some stories about your Grandfather's experiences at Bastogne sometime.



*********Removed by Administrator***********

We don't support piracy............that is still a licensed software. Note....that link you provided even stated it was a "CD-rip version".

[a19999577]

Oh boy...[:(]

Please Von Rom, I think we are all more than willing to swap ideas with you, as you display as much WW2 knowledge as the next guy. But please tell us how to phrase any disagreement with you in such a way to avoid getting stinging replies like "Your explanation of <enter issue here>, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy" and such. I have seen the Dietrich thread as well, and I really don't know how to go about this [I'll grant you the whole Sarge intervention though, as he did come in rather heavy-handedly].

[VicKevlar]

Note: I edited Von Rom's last post and removed the links to his supposed 'free' software. Empire Interactive is quite alive and kicking. Shrapnel games is also quite alive. In no way was his link to ripped version of the game "free".

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Sarge:

I'd like to hear some stories about your Grandfather's experiences at Bastogne sometime.



*********Removed by Administrator***********

We don't support piracy............that is still a licensed software. Note....that link you provided even stated it was a "CD-rip version".

I bow to your wishes [&o]

Actually, the 101st wargame is out of print.

CD Rip simply means it was taken from an existing CD of the game - so that the complete game would be made available.

But NO company produces the 101st any longer.

If anyone can find the game other than at the UDs, all the power to them.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: a19999577

Oh boy...[:(]

Please Von Rom, I think we are all more than willing to swap ideas with you, as you display as much WW2 knowledge as the next guy. But please tell us how to phrase any disagreement with you in such a way to avoid getting stinging replies like "Your explanation of <enter issue here>, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy" and such. I have seen the Dietrich thread as well, and I really don't know how to go about this [I'll grant you the whole Sarge intervention though, as he did come in rather heavy-handedly].

Please Von Rom, I think we are all more than willing to swap ideas with you

How nice to hear.

But please tell us how to phrase any disagreement with you

I don't know you.

Yet the very first remark you made to me in this thread was an insulting one, where you jumped into the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with you.

You mentioned that you have seen the Dietrich thread, and you are complaining to me? [8|]

If you cannot figure out how to have a decent discussion, then try this:

1) Show some respect when addressing others.

2) Provide sources for your ideas (if that information is not well known or widely accepted as fact).

3) Be civil.

4) Practice "fairplay"

Do I even have to point all this out to you?

[IronDuke_slith]

I managed to get the colour out.

ID:

Bastogne


BTW, in case you weren't aware of it, your mentioning of Bastogne and Patton has also derailed this thread. [;)]

My apologies, but I thought the thread was derailed after this post:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

THE BEST ALLIED COMMANDER:


Wait for it. . .


[&o][&o]GENERAL GEORGE PATTON [&o][&o]


[/color]

Bastogne is not the preserve of Patton, it can be discussed for reasons other than his attack, and I went out of my way to avoid using his name. However, if you feel what I said ranks with the intervention quoted above, whatever.....

Your explanation of Bastogne and the Bulge, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy, and fails, as did Ike, to see the Bulge in its entirety, and where the KILLING blow SHOULD have been dealt.

As a result of the Bastogne strategy (Sarge claims the 101st didn't need to be saved) the Allies lost many more thousands of lives in pushing the Germans back in FRONTAL battles. Yet this seesm to have missed your attention.

Patton's strategy of moving east behind the German salient would have cut them ALL off from retreat; would have cut them off from supply; would have captured most of the Germans; and would have resulted in far fewer Allied casualties.

Once again, you make it more offensive than it needs be including phrases such as "as usual". The above comments lack several things. Firstly, without evidence, they are really just words. You keep quoting the Patton Papers quote, but this merely tells us what Patton's intentions were initially, it doesn't offer any evidence to suggest it was the right thing to do. In my defence, I pointed out why Bastogne was important, why Ike would have feared it falling, and why cutting off the bulge was impractical. You haven't addressed any of those points (I will ask you to later, in order to end this conversation ala the Dietrich thread). You merely make statements. This is not history, it is just making statements.

Patton never failed to accomplish any mission given to him.

This one I like, because I can't think of many Allied Generals of 44-45 that did. Monty eventually took Caen, Alexander eventually took Cassino. It's relatively meaninless. At Metz, it took several weeks and a couple of attempts to accomplish his mission. It took almost a month to remove German forces from positions near Bastogne. When cutting off hundreds of thousands of German troops, time would have been important, so Patton was perfectly capable of failing this mission if past performance was anything to go by.

Even so, Patton wanted to push for Bastogne AND get behind the salient.

This is the very best bit of the post. Patton attacks with 3 divisions. Here you're telling us that the Great Man wanted to drive through 7th Army to relieve Bastgone and at the same time encircle several hundred thousand German troops. Later in this thread, in an attempt to wrap it up, I will ask how you think this would have been achieved.

You also seem to be contradicting yourself freely and then criticising anyone who dares to mention this. For example, within this thread we have had:

Von Rom
So please calm down and read this post carefully.

I have said this before but somehow you keep missing it:

Patton NEVER considered Bastogne to be a key objective. NEVER.

He wanted to cut-off the Germans at the salient and bag them all.

However, he was ORDERED by Ike and Bradley to relieve Bastogne. Patton argued AGAINST it. But to no avail.

Did you understand that?

Let me repeat:

Patton was ORDERED by Ike and Bradley to relieve Bastogne.

Patton NEVER considered Bastogne to be a key objective. NEVER.

Then we get this.

However, as you implied, the 101st was going to run out of supplies and ammo eventually. They also needed to evacute their wounded. The Allied High Command did not know how long they could hold out. That's why they sent Third Army to break through to Bastogne.

We can look back in insight and see everything. But at the time, the 101st was fighting some pretty desperate battles in the dead of winter against overwhelming enemy forces.

So you see, we are both in agreement here

Are you saying Patton's plan to attack the Bulge salient was wrong, then, as I haven't seen this criticism from you in this thread (as far as I can recall). D'Este points out that as late as Dec 20th, Patton's diaries reveal he was considering abandoning Bastogne. Thus, does this little passage mean you support SHEAF's order and consider Patton wrong to have considered leaving Bastogne and attacking further east? If you are going to repeat the argument Patton wanted to do both, then we will need to know which divisions from the three that attacked Bastogne you feel he would would have sent eastwards to encirle the Bulge with. We would also have needed to know whether you think splitting his three divisions into two forces would have enhanced or decreased their chances of breaking through 7th Army in one attack, and encircling two Panzer Armees and an infanterie Armee in the other.

Moving swiftly onto:

Patton's strategy of moving east behind the German salient would have cut them ALL off from retreat; would have cut them off from supply; would have captured most of the Germans; and would have resulted in far fewer Allied casualties.

The one thing your wilder (or more correctly, what I consider to be your wilder) claims about Patton fail to address is whether something was possible. Moving eastwards would have been a wonderful strategy, but so far, you haven't told us how this would have been achieved with the forces at his disposal. You merely keep repeating this was what he wanted to do, and taking it as read it was a good idea. He initially deployed a Corp (3 Divisions), with a second to follow. This first Corp spent five days fighting through hasty German defences past indifferent opposition to Bastogne, and yet here you suggest they would have encircled two Panzer Armees and an Infanterie Armee without problem.

I found the way to end our threads in the Dietrich thread, so I will apply the rules I learnt there to this situation.

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.

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It was directed at everyone. Stop being so prickly! If I wish to direct a comment at your good self I'll address it 'to VR' or similar[;)].

Seriously guys, when Vic locked the Dietrich thread he mentioned setting an 'example'! Now I'd rather it wasn't me, Von Rom, Iron Duke, Sarge or anyone else who has contested (is that the best word?) the last few big threads. Now I blame no-one but I see this thread heading the same way as the Patton threads and the Dietrich one. Now I've said all that I need to say about Patton and all that I can say about Dietrich at present. Now let's draw a line, make a fresh start and leave Patton etc. behind us. That was my purpose in starting this thread.[8D]

Personal insults were hurled my way in this thread by several individuals.

And I am being silly?

Please address your remarks to EVERYONE in the future, and not just after I post, and with the word "you".

If this thread is closed, it is because of the complete lack of civility and manners that some seem unable to express here.

This is a purely personal observation, so I trust it will not land me in trouble. It is also made with the best of intentions. (seriously [:)]) Particularly, as this was Kev's thread, and it has gone the same way the others did despite his best efforts.

However, I can think of six people off the top of my head who have had rowdy (a nice euphemism) encounters with you, in the last two to three threads. I am far from being alone in this regard, but freely admit to being one of your chief protagonists. The one constant, is that on one side of the argument has been stood your good self. On the other side have stood several others.

My personal observation is this. In these circumstances, if I was constantly in arguments against lots of different people, arguments whose vehemence meant they were continually locked up, I would think hard about the situation, and at least take time to consider if there was anything I was doing that meant strangers I didn't know continually took up arms against me. I did this after the Patton thread turned sour, but took no action as I didn't feel I had upset more than one person in that thread. I did wonder if I could have softened the criticisms, or shown more patience, but since several of us had been arguing with you in that thread, I regret that I neglected to change anything.

This is merely a personal observation, and I have taken a leading role in the threads in question, so happily accept some of the blame for the way they went. Likewise, I'd accept half the blame if I observed I was the only one to argue with you, but I'm not, which has prompted this comment.

Act or Ignore it as you see fit.

Regards,
IronDuke

[a19999577]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



A brief remark about Bastogne, it took five days of fighting to reach, and a couple of weeks to clear the Germans away from. It was the key road hub to the southern thrust of the Bulge offensive. Without it, the Germans would not achieve their Operational objectives and as such, it had to be defended to the last. This made it the correct operational objective for 3rd Army (That's as close to the P**** word as I shall come). In retrospect, the defence by 101st was such that the Germans could not take it in time to make it useful, but I don't think SHAEF would have anticipated that the 101st would have done what they did. The 101st performed exellently in Normandy, but I don't think SHAEF had a right to expect any Allied Division to hold out at Bastogne for very long, so without hindsight, the decision to go for Bastogne was the correct one.

Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on. I personally think it would have stopped the German offensive as they'd have looked nervously over their shoulder, but it would have run into major difficulties as the German units which historically were withdrawn from the north to fight for Bastogne, would have been diverted against it's exposed flanks instead.

Regards,
IronDuke

Your explanation of Bastogne and the Bulge, as usual, is fraught with inaccuracy

VR: This seemed like a pretty civil intervention to me, so I was surprised when you snapped at him.

you jumped into the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with you.

As far as I know, this is a public forum, which gives everyone the right to intervene, but someone please correct me if I am wrong, and please point out whose authorization I have to request in order to be considered worthy of being listened to. Besides, it was obviously more a comment on the Dietrich thread spilling over to this one.

You mentioned that you have seen the Dietrich thread, and you are complaining to me?

Yup, and I've found the following gems in that thread and this one:

Now I know why Whiting has become popular, and why you guys believe some of the nonsense you do.

Have fun telling each other what you want to believe - LOL

Deep, thorough analysis as usual. [8|]

So please have this "reasonable discussion" with a few of the others here, and where you can all pat yourselves on the back for believing in the same nonsense and in turning logic on its head.

THE BEST ALLIED COMMANDER:


Wait for it. . .


GENERAL GEORGE PATTON


Pleaase. . .

Your feinted innocence is embarrassing. . .

So I agree with IronDuke's observation:

My personal observation is this. In these circumstances, if I was constantly in arguments against lots of different people, arguments whose vehemence meant they were continually locked up, I would think hard about the situation, and at least take time to consider if there was anything I was doing that meant strangers I didn't know continually took up arms against me.

Cheers