Why was Patton so great?

[Huskalator]

It seems like Patton is considered one of the great US heros but I am having trouble finding anything he did tactically or strategically great. It just seems to this amateur WWII buff that if you look at Manstein, Rommel, Montgomery, or Konev they did things that were true feats and Patton just pushed back a defeated army faster than the rest out of pure gusto and agressiveness rather than military genius.

Any comments?

[dinsdale]

If you don't know what he did, perhaps you need to read a little about the man.

Anyway, short version one example: Try disengagement from a battle, 90 degree turn and march to relieve Bastogne, in winter and the space of a few days. If the man did nothing else, then that maneuver would put him among the greats. One of the men you compared him to, Montgomery, though closer to Bastogne informed Eisenhower that he could do nothing to help.

You might also want to read about the performance of the US th army in Africa before and after Patton took command.

Funny, Rommel repeatedly had his arse kicked from Africa to France and he's considered a genius. [8|] After spending an entire year using resources to create fortresses, gun emplacements, minefields, beach obstacles and anti-aircraft, his great defensive works were bypassed in 8 hours, and in some areas, less than an hour. [:D]

[Von Rom]

Yes, I would suggest reading a good biography of Patton. It makes for fascinating reading.

A few highlights:

1) Patton was in the 1912 Olympics in the Pentathalon.

2) He became a Master Swordsman and was the first Master of the Sword of the United States.

3) He founded and trained the US's first tank army, writing almost all of its manuals and tactics himself.

4) While stationed in Hawaii in 1932, he wrote a paper that detailed almost exactly how the Japanese would eventually attack Pearl Harbor in December, 1941.

5) Patton believed passionately that it was his destiny and purpose to lead a great army in a desperate battle.

6) The Germans believed that Patton was the Allies' best general and they actually feared him. . .

7) When Patton was finally turned loose in Normandy, he and his Third Army moved across more land, liberated more towns and cities, captured and killed more of the enemy, in a short period of time, than any other army in history.

8) Had Patton not been ordered to halt his advance, he would have successfully closed the Falaise Pocket, thus preventing 75,000 German soldiers from escaping, and in all likelihood, would have been in Berlin long before the Soviets.

9) When he died, Patton was buried at the head of the fallen soldiers of his beloved Third Army.

[2ndACR]

Montgomery? He sucked. Eisenhower? Politician. I would not rank them among the greats, but that is a personal opinion.
Just like I would not rank Powell as anything special. Shwartzcoff will always have my respect.

Patton, Bradley were the best commanders on the allied side in Europe.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

If you don't know what he did, perhaps you need to read a little about the man.

Anyway, short version one example: Try disengagement from a battle, 90 degree turn and march to relieve Bastogne, in winter and the space of a few days. If the man did nothing else, then that maneuver would put him among the greats. One of the men you compared him to, Montgomery, though closer to Bastogne informed Eisenhower that he could do nothing to help.

Relieve Bastogne [8|] 101st was doing just fine, they didn't need Frickin Patton . Patton just happend to be the first one to show up. The 101st held that ground and would have kept holding.

[Mangudai]

Here is a nice short bio of patton

http://www.pattonhq.com/pattonbio.pdf

[Hexed Gamer]

Most general get famous by lady luck picking them out of a long string of candidates.

Stormin Norman and the word respect though, the words don't combine well if you ask me.

Loud, offensive, abusive, those words might apply. Ask anyone that every had the "pleasure" of working for him.

Montgomery, I can't think of anything he did worth mention.

Wavel did all the work in the desert. He was robbed of forces for Greece, and then robbed of credit for the longgest advance in history.

The men who get famous, are the men that get to be there when their side wins.

[freeboy]

Funny, Rommel repeatedly had his arse kicked from Africa to France and he's considered a genius. After spending an entire year using resources to create fortresses, gun emplacements, minefields, beach obstacles and anti-aircraft, his great defensive works were bypassed in 8 hours, and in some areas, less than an hour

Well cannot fault rom too much as all his armor first.. close to the beaches idea got axed.. if he where in charge the french would probably be speaking russian.. hehe

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

If you don't know what he did, perhaps you need to read a little about the man.

Anyway, short version one example: Try disengagement from a battle, 90 degree turn and march to relieve Bastogne, in winter and the space of a few days. If the man did nothing else, then that maneuver would put him among the greats. One of the men you compared him to, Montgomery, though closer to Bastogne informed Eisenhower that he could do nothing to help.

You might also want to read about the performance of the US th army in Africa before and after Patton took command.

[:D]

[:)]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

If you don't know what he did, perhaps you need to read a little about the man.

Anyway, short version one example: Try disengagement from a battle, 90 degree turn and march to relieve Bastogne, in winter and the space of a few days. If the man did nothing else, then that maneuver would put him among the greats. One of the men you compared him to, Montgomery, though closer to Bastogne informed Eisenhower that he could do nothing to help.

Relieve Bastogne [8|] 101st was doing just fine, they didn't need Frickin Patton . Patton just happend to be the first one to show up. The 101st held that ground and would have kept holding.

Yes, you are right: looking back in history we can now see what happened.

However, as everyone knows: every airborne operation or encircled army must be either re-supplied or relieved, or else the operation will become a failure. That is why Market Garden was called "A Bridge Too far", and why the German 6th Army capitulated at Stalingrad.

Even the bravest men cannot fight without bullets or food.

Complete encirclement of Bastogne placed the 101st Division squarely behind the eight-ball for supplies. Airborne artillery shells had to be rationed.

Food became scarce. Screaming Eagles sought clear skies -- flying weather not only for air re-supply, but for planes to keep the Luftwaffe down.

Evacuation of wounded became a pressing problem. But they had to wait -- there was no way out of the town.

Airborne troopers hoped that US armor would crack open a path for movement of supplies and evacuation of wounded.

No other Allied Commander offered to do, or could do, what Patton did: To disengage an army of 250,000 men already fighting the enemy, turn it 90 degrees in freezing, miserable winter weather, advance 100 miles in 48 hours, and then, without rest, engage and fight a major battle, thus opening the road to re-supplying and relieving Bastogne.

[EricGuitarJames]

Rommel - his reputation is largely based on what he achieved in North Africa. Considering the lack of resources at his disposal, it was remarkable. His use of armour and the 88mm Flak Guns were strokes of genius. It's a shame that his abilities as a defensive commander were not tested in the way that they could have been with the restrictions placed upon him by Rundstedt and Hitler and the injuries he sustained prior to the 'Cobra' breakout.

Bradley - very poor commander. The battle for the Huertgen Forest - http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/combat/HuertgenForest.html - reveal him to be as callous and inflexible as any of the so called 'Donkeys' of the British WW1 army. His reaction to the German offensive Wacht Am Rhein also showed his weaknesses when pressured.

Montgomery - Had 'Market Garden' succeeded (and, let it be said, it came very close to) then he would rightly been hailed as a true master. True, he had an ego as colossal as Pattons but he was a superb planner and was unflappable under pressure - his reaction to Wacht Am Rhein when compared to Bradley's says a lot. He also had the ability to project cool self-confidence which in turn was passed down to his men.

Patton - a master of manoeuvre and the offensive battle, he was also a great improvisor. He was less successful in the type of 'set piece' that Montgomery excelled in - the time and casualties spent cracking the Siegfried Line and capturing Trier show this. He was also never tested in a defensive battle.

Von Manstein - possibly the best commander of the war, his Fall Gelb plan was a masterpiece and his achievements fighting the Soviets through '43 and early '44 when faced with incredible odds were remarkable. Had Hitler given him control in the East, Manstein would probably have been able to prolong the war against the Russians for at least a year, maybe more.

There were many commanders who showed signs of greatness in WW2 but were in the wrong place (Slim in SE Asia comes to mind) or at the wrong time (Wavell in North Africa). Guderian was at least as good as Rommel in the application of Blitzkrieg but fell out with Hitler at the end of 1941 and when he returned to favour his skills were applied elsewhere.

[IronDuke_slith]

I don't think Patton had enough substance when you got beyond all the aggression and noise. His great sweep through Sicily was strategically pointless, and since there were only 57 US dead incurred during it, largely a pleasant stroll. The breakout looks impressive, but was largely an exercise in traffic management (which Patton did excel at), as was the headlong charge through France.

As for Bastogne, my understanding was that Patton already had plans prepared for the change of his axis of advance before he told Eisenhower he'd only need 48 hours. I understand his chief of Staff had become suspicious the Germans were up to something and prepared them in advance. His actual drive into the German flank wasn't especially impressive. If memory serves, he drove on a fairly broad front against a weak German front line, that contained a number of Volksgrenadier units. He also took a few days to do it, I think it is famous, but does not display any particular tactical or operational genius.

Bradley (like Montgomery) was relatively solid but (like Montgomery) could make mistakes and occasionally be a little timid. The fact that overwhelming superiority in everything meant the Western Allies always won in the end, ensured that such competent (as opposed to outstanding) Officers remained at their posts throughout the war.

I suspect Patton would have fared a lot worse in more even circumstances. In his favour, he was exceptionally aggressive (not a trait shared by Allied Commanders on the whole) and he had the sort of drive and push that inspires men. I think an Armoured Corp was the command he was born for, give him an objective and let him loose.

Regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

5) Patton believed passionately that it was his destiny and purpose to lead a great army in a desperate battle.

Never trust a man who believes this. It gets people killed. Patton was also not the only man who believe he was heading for destiny during WWII

6) The Germans believed that Patton was the Allies' best general and they actually feared him. . .

There was little competition and they recognised in him traits that would have served him well in the Wehrmacht. He was their kind of Commander.

7) When Patton was finally turned loose in Normandy, he and his Third Army moved across more land, liberated more towns and cities, captured and killed more of the enemy, in a short period of time, than any other army in history.

I don't have the figures to hand, but I think you probably have to be exceptionally liberal about the way you interpret things to be able to say this. Patton did indeed charge across France (as did 21st Army Group under Montgomery) but there was little or nothing standing in his way. The Germans gave up France because they had nothing to defend it with, we didn't fight our way across it.

I'd also be very surprised if the captured enemy fact was true. The germans encircled 600 000 at Kiev, hundreds of thousands more at Minsk and Smolensk. Falaise cost the Germans tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands, and to get these solely into Patton's tally you have to ignore the efforts of the the Poles and Canadians who formed the other arm of the pincer. As for killed more of the enemy, I'd love to see your figures/sources for this. I didn't remember this much combat in the breakout. I would have thought the highest casualty figures for a smallish area over a few days probably occur earlier in Normandy, or around the Gustav line. Even these figures pale against say the southern wing of Kursk for a week in July 43.

8) Had Patton not been ordered to halt his advance, he would have successfully closed the Falaise Pocket, thus preventing 75,000 German soldiers from escaping, and in all likelihood, would have been in Berlin long before the Soviets.

Bradley stopped him because he felt that the pocket could not have been closed by the forces at Patton's disposal. He was nervous that the Americans would be spread so thin, that ad hoc German battlegroups would break through and hurt him in the process. I think he was wrong, and agree Patton should have been allowed to close the gap, but I think the battle was won, and Allied Commanders were relaxing a little having done the hard work.

Regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Deep Breakfast

It seems like Patton is considered one of the great US heros but I am having trouble finding anything he did tactically or strategically great. It just seems to this amateur WWII buff that if you look at Manstein, Rommel, Montgomery, or Konev they did things that were true feats and Patton just pushed back a defeated army faster than the rest out of pure gusto and agressiveness rather than military genius.

Any comments?

As a Brit, I've always tended to defend Monty, but the more I learn the less I'm impressed. He loved the set piece, but his slowness and deliberation meant he had to fight more of them than he should have had to had he moved quicker and showed more daring. I don't think he was particularly clever in his use of armour, and although Market Garden was brilliant in conception, I'm not sure how much was his and how much was his staffs, and in the week before it, Monty seems to have been curiously disinterested in the detail (not like him at all) and several rather key mistakes were made as a result.

Rommel was good, but deeply flawed. I don't think he had the full range as a Commander. he was overambitious, often lacked a plan B, and as a result ended up in corners he shouldn't have been in. In contrast to the later poster, I think his plan for Normandy was the only one that could have worked, the idea of a central Panzer reserve to counterattack the bridgehead ala Rundstedt was a non starter.

Manstein was a military genius, although not a magician. His powers ran out of steam (like the wehrmacht) in early 44. To have delayed the inevitable in the east wouldhave required him being given in command by Jan 43 at the latest. Anything later and I don't think he could have done much.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Rooster]

The more I learn about Monty the more there is to admire. He was frequently up against the cream of the German crop and had the tough assignments. Yes he was as big a publicity hound as the others and, you never learn much about his plan "B" victories because after they succeeded he felt compelled to tell the world that plan B had been plan "A" from the beginning. But he was good at abadoning a fruitless course of action and varying the line of thrust to keep the enemy off balance. He did it on the way to Tunis and in the fighting around Caen. The Germans may have payed lip service to "Patton is their best" but when it came down to committing men and steel to stop someone, they committed their best against Monty.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I don't think Patton had enough substance when you got beyond all the aggression and noise. His great sweep through Sicily was strategically pointless, and since there were only 57 US dead incurred during it, largely a pleasant stroll. The breakout looks impressive, but was largely an exercise in traffic management (which Patton did excel at), as was the headlong charge through France.

Patton's sweep through Sicily was strategically pointless?

There were only 57 American dead?

It was a pleasant stroll?

Here is some info:

Sicily

9 July-17 August 1943

On the night of 9-10 July 1943, an Allied armada of 2,590 vessels launched one of the largest combined operations of World War II: the invasion of Sicily. Over the next thirty-eight days, half a million Allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen grappled with their German and Italian counterparts for control of this rocky outwork of Hitler's "Fortress Europe."

With the exception of those units which had taken part in the Tunisia Campaign, especially the 1st and 9th Infantry Divisions, few American formations employed in Sicily began the campaign with any combat experience, and their abilities were still unknown. But the American troops had done well. After landing on a hostile shore, they had repelled several counterattacks, forced the enemy to withdraw, and relentlessly pursued him over sun-baked hills until the island was theirs. In thirty-eight days the Americans and their British colleagues had killed or wounded approximately 29,000 enemy soldiers and captured over 140,000 more. In contrast, American losses totaled 2,237 killed and 6,544 wounded and captured. The British suffered 12,843 casualties, including 2,721 dead.

Patton in particular, without orders, drove to Palermo, thereby cutting off 53,000 Italian soldiers, and then headed east. Had the Allied planners listened to Patton in the beginning, he probably could have bagged all the Germans and Italians on Sicily. But because of Allied cautiousness, tens of thousands of Axis troops escaped, who would later fight Allied troops in Italy.

One has to consider how many more casualties the Americans might have taken, and how many MORE Axis troops might have escaped to Italy, had Patton followed orders and covered Monty's flank, instead of pushing to Palermo and then Messina.

A full examination of the Sicily Campaign can be found here:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/72-16/72-16.htm

As for Bastogne, my understanding was that Patton already had plans prepared for the change of his axis of advance before he told Eisenhower he'd only need 48 hours. I understand his chief of Staff had become suspicious the Germans were up to something and prepared them in advance. His actual drive into the German flank wasn't especially impressive. If memory serves, he drove on a fairly broad front against a weak German front line, that contained a number of Volksgrenadier units. He also took a few days to do it, I think it is famous, but does not display any particular tactical or operational genius.

A brilliant commander always prepares; thus Patton already had a plan in place for this maneuver.

Everyone outside of Third Army thought what Patton wanted to do was impossible. So it seems your assessment of Patton's achievement is far, far less than that of almost every other Allied Commander. [&:] Most historians who have studied this period, consider Patton's achievment to be brilliant. Patton achieved his victory in the worst winter weather to hit that area in a hundred years.

I suspect Patton would have fared a lot worse in more even circumstances.

Well, this is your opinion.

However, Patton had faced the German soldier (on defense) in North Africa, Sicily and Europe, who were led by Rommel, Kesselring, and von Kluge, among others, and had bested them all.

And remember, Patton accomplished all of this with relatively inexperienced troops. However, he trained them well, instilled in them a tough discipline, and imbued in them a fighting spirit and a will to win.

[Golf33]

If you want to give credit to Patton for the Normandy breakout, then you have to give even more credit to Montgomery, whose plan it was. The continuous British/Canadian attacks against not only the bulk of German forces in Normandy, but against the toughest of them, ensured that the Germans placed only a relatively light screen in front of the Americans and did not recognise the St Lo breakout for what it was until two or three days after it started. This demonstrates Monty the manoeuvre commander at his best - while Eisenhower wanted to waste lives and resources 'attacking everywhere, all the time', Monty was prepared to fight a more patient battle, combining attrition with deception and manoeuvre, in order to 'hold the enemy by the nose and then kick them in the pants'. One would have thought Patton would have approved of the plan - perhaps if it had been his idea he might?

Note also that under Montgomery, the Allied armies not only achieved their objective - the Seine - but achieved it early.

This is not to gloss over Monty's undoubted failings as a human being - his foolish press releases (like claiming a breakout after the first day of Goodwood, when one had neither happened, nor indeed had even been intended) during the fighting, and perhaps worse, his claims after the battle that his plan had worked perfectly in all respects. This was of course not true at all, and in fact a large part of Montgomery's skill lay in recognising when a plan needed modification and in carrying out the required changes. By claiming otherwise, he played down one of his greatest strengths, and handed ready ammunition to his enemies by displaying one of his greatest weaknesses.

Regards
33

[Von Rom]

Never trust a man who believes this. It gets people killed. Patton was also not the only man who believe he was heading for destiny during WWII

The difference for Patton is: He DID lead a great army in a desperate battle (actually more than once). So Patton DID fulfill his destiny. Isn't that amazing [;)]

7) When Patton was finally turned loose in Normandy, he and his Third Army moved across more land, liberated more towns and cities, captured and killed more of the enemy, in a short period of time, than any other army in history.

*****

I don't have the figures to hand, but I think you probably have to be exceptionally liberal about the way you interpret things to be able to say this. Patton did indeed charge across France (as did 21st Army Group under Montgomery) but there was little or nothing standing in his way. The Germans gave up France because they had nothing to defend it with, we didn't fight our way across it.

I'd also be very surprised if the captured enemy fact was true. The germans encircled 600 000 at Kiev, hundreds of thousands more at Minsk and Smolensk. Falaise cost the Germans tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands, and to get these solely into Patton's tally you have to ignore the efforts of the the Poles and Canadians who formed the other arm of the pincer. As for killed more of the enemy, I'd love to see your figures/sources for this. I didn't remember this much combat in the breakout. I would have thought the highest casualty figures for a smallish area over a few days probably occur earlier in Normandy, or around the Gustav line. Even these figures pale against say the southern wing of Kursk for a week in July 43.

Little or nothing standing in Patton's way?

Third Army liberated something like 10,000 towns and cities, freed 89,000 square miles, and killed or captured 1,443,000 enemy soldiers. Any good reference book will have these figures.

As to the German victories in the opening weeks of Barbarossa: there were MANY German armies achieving these numbers against ill-prepared, ill-equipped and low morale Soviet troops, and not just ONE army, as in Patton's case.

The British and Canadians did do their part. But it was Patton's tactics and sheer aggressiveness that pushed the Germans back. Patton moved Third Army 600 miles in just a few weeks, completely by-passing many German divisions. . .

However, Allied commanders interferred with Patton, by ordering him to stop, thereby enabling von Kluge to extricate most of his army from the Falaise Gap. These same German troops would later re-group, and inflict even more casualties on the Allied armies. . .

Many historians agree that NOT closing the Falaise Gap when Patton wanted to, was a costly mistake.

[Cmdrcain]

On This:

"4) While stationed in Hawaii in 1932, he wrote a paper that detailed almost exactly how the Japanese would eventually attack Pearl Harbor in December, 1941."


I don't see whats so amazing here, well before 1941 Three times USA wargamed attacks and three times Pearl was successful attacked, People like Turner etc in the Navy argued that Japan likely would be able to attack Pearl.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

On This:

"4) While stationed in Hawaii in 1932, he wrote a paper that detailed almost exactly how the Japanese would eventually attack Pearl Harbor in December, 1941."


I don't see whats so amazing here, well before 1941 Three times USA wargamed attacks and three times Pearl was successful attacked, People like Turner etc in the Navy argued that Japan likely would be able to attack Pearl.

Hi [:)]

I just presented a few highlights about Patton. This was just one paper he wrote among many.

A person really has to read a good Bio of Patton, to truly appreciate what he accomplished in his life: his military career; his writings; the battles he won, etc. . .

However, wargames are one thing, but to know that Japan's opening move would be to attack Pearl, is quite another matter.

Many American military leaders felt a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was beyond their capability; Patton always believed Japan's opening move would be to attack PH (nine years before it happened).

Here is Turner's conclusions about Japan's actions (Note - nowhere does he mention an attack on Pearl Harbor):


The Director of the War Plans Division of the Navy Department (Turner) to the Chief of Naval Operations (Stark), July 19, 1941 [The Possible Effects of an Embargo].



7. Conclusions.

(a) Present export restrictions, plus reductions of available ship tonnage for use in Japanese trade have greatly curtailed both exports and imports.

(b) The effect of an embargo would hamper future Japanese war effort, though not immediately, and not decisively.

(c) An embargo would probably result in a fairly early attack by an [sic] on Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies, and possibly would involve the United States in early war in the Pacific.

If war in the Pacific is to be accepted by the United States, actions leading up to it should, if practicable, be postponed until Japan is engaged in a war in Siberia.

It may well be that Japan has decided against an early attack on the British and Dutch, but has decided to occupy Indo-China and to strengthen her position there, also to attack the Russians Siberia.

Should this prove to be the case, it seems probable that United States could engage in war in the Atlantic, and that an [sic] would not intervene for the time being, even against the British.

8. Recommendation.

That trade with Japan not be embargoed at this time.

R. K. Turner

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/turner.htm