Matrix Games Forums

https://www.youtube.com/@UnauthorizedHistoryPacificWar

Man they have some great stuff... I didn't think it was possible to loathe MacArthur more but after watching that podcast I do.

Yeah, they often have Jon Parschall, one of the co-authors of Broken Sword on as a guest. Seems like the more I hear about MacArthur the gladder I am that Eisenhower was running the war in Europe.

I have been listening to the Unauthorized War in the Pacific for a few months now, Almost to 2024. Really great podcast, I listen when I go workout at the gym three times a week. Those three guys are awesome.

Platoonist wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2024 1:27 am Yeah, they often have Jon Parschall, one of the co-authors of Broken Sword on as a guest. Seems like the more I hear about MacArthur the gladder I am that Eisenhower was running the war in Europe.

*nitpick on* You mean Jonathan Parshall and Shattered Sword- *nitpick off*

Sardaukar wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2024 8:54 am

Platoonist wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2024 1:27 am Yeah, they often have Jon Parschall, one of the co-authors of Broken Sword on as a guest. Seems like the more I hear about MacArthur the gladder I am that Eisenhower was running the war in Europe.

*nitpick on* You mean Jonathan Parshall and Shattered Sword- *nitpick off*

A great book by the way....GP

btd64 wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2024 1:30 pm

Sardaukar wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2024 8:54 am

Platoonist wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2024 1:27 am Yeah, they often have Jon Parschall, one of the co-authors of Broken Sword on as a guest. Seems like the more I hear about MacArthur the gladder I am that Eisenhower was running the war in Europe.

*nitpick on* You mean Jonathan Parshall and Shattered Sword- *nitpick off*

A great book by the way....GP

Shattered Sword is one of the essential reading books about Pacific War and especially Midway. .

Platoonist wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2024 1:27 am Yeah, they often have Jon Parschall, one of the co-authors of Broken Sword on as a guest. Seems like the more I hear about MacArthur the gladder I am that Eisenhower was running the war in Europe.

+1

Roosevelt tried to keep him out of the way as much as possible, and I think he did a pretty good job there.

If you want some...opinions...about MacArthur, ask Australians.

He is about universally loathed in that country.

But to be fair, his New Guinea and Solomons campaign was pretty good, considering. Mac just had totally disparaging attitude towards allies and about as narcistic ego as Montgomery had. Would have been interesting if those two had been in same theatre...

Sardaukar wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2024 4:22 pm If you want some...opinions...about MacArthur, ask Australians.

He is about universally loathed in that country.

But to be fair, his New Guinea and Solomons campaign was pretty good, considering. Mac just had totally disparaging attitude towards allies and about as narcistic ego as Montgomery had. Would have been interesting if those two had been in same theatre...

Overall Operation Cartwheel was an excellent concept. Unfortunately, MacArthur had a bad habit of not leaving his plush office in Australia enough to see the gawdawful ground conditions the Aussies and Americans had to fight over to achieve his map sweeping motions. Especially, the wretched terrain and suberb Japanese defenses around Buna-Gona. His comment to General Eichelberger "to take Buna or not come back" just makes him sound like a bad actor playing a bit part in a grade B war movie. The barely trained and poorly supported 32nd Division was his choice for the battle.

Sardaukar wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2024 4:22 pm ... Mac just had totally disparaging attitude towards allies and about as narcistic ego as Montgomery had. Would have been interesting if those two had been in same theatre...

Now that is something that I would have loved to have seen. I woulda' bought a ticket to that show!!

So the Aussies loathe Mac as much as we Americans loathe Monty?

Backing Monty instead of Patton was the single biggest mistake Ike made during the war.

HansBolter wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2024 10:58 am So the Aussies loathe Mac as much as we Americans loathe Monty?

Backing Monty instead of Patton was the single biggest mistake Ike made during the war.

Monty and Mac shared a lot of same characteristics. I don't think ANYONE really liked either...

HansBolter wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2024 10:58 am So the Aussies loathe Mac as much as we Americans loathe Monty?

Backing Monty instead of Patton was the single biggest mistake Ike made during the war.

Ike was dealing with politics as well as military strategy. And at the key time Patton got himself removed for slapping as soldier. Ike did not have much room for his preference here.

BBfanboy wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2024 8:11 am

HansBolter wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2024 10:58 am So the Aussies loathe Mac as much as we Americans loathe Monty?

Backing Monty instead of Patton was the single biggest mistake Ike made during the war.

Ike was dealing with politics as well as military strategy. And at the key time Patton got himself removed for slapping as soldier. Ike did not have much room for his preference here.

Monty almost managed to get himself removed from command by Eisenhower and US High Command but even he was finally perceptive enough to issue apology for his statements. Monty was especially appalled that he was going to be replaced by Alexander...who had excellent relations with US commanders but probably was not as good military commander.

BBfanboy wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2024 8:11 am

HansBolter wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2024 10:58 am So the Aussies loathe Mac as much as we Americans loathe Monty?

Backing Monty instead of Patton was the single biggest mistake Ike made during the war.

Ike was dealing with politics as well as military strategy. And at the key time Patton got himself removed for slapping as soldier. Ike did not have much room for his preference here.

My reference was in regard to Ike backing Monty for Market Garden while turing off the supplies to Patton in order to be able to do so. By this time, Monty was so jealous of Patton that he desperately needed some great success to upstage him. By this time, Patton had clearly demonstrated he had learned the techniques of Lightning Warfare from the Germans. Something the British never learned.

I sometimes wonder what might have happened if the Normandy invasion had been conducted with the US Army placed on the Allied left or western flank instead of the right. The circumstances that put the British on the left seemed so overriding that the necessity of doing it wasn't questioned during the war. Since US reinforcements and supplies came from the west across the Atlantic, so the Americans occupied the western flank. But that meant the more mobile and eventually more armored of the two principal American armies initially faced terrain far lousier for mobility and armored warfare in the hedgerows and flooded areas at the base of the Cotentin Peninsula. Perhaps with positions reversed and the US Army operating in the flat country around Caen and eventually the Low Countries instead of Alsace-Lorraine and the Ardennes, would the breakout and advance have come sooner? Would the mistake of capturing the port of Antwerp still leaving the Scheldt estuary in German hands have been made? Would Patton have done any better operating in the arena of rivers and canals that Montgomery did?

However, I imagine the relative experience levels between the two principal Allied armies probably necessitated the deployment that was chosen historically. That deployment also meant the US Army didn't have to face the major brunt of German armored reinforcements as the British-Canadian armies did.