Military History

#78
#78
Grand Vol said:
Guy was a straight boss. Going through the rest of the war with two cracked discs in his spine?

I still think they should have named the M113 after him. Or as a minimum a future combat vehicle.
Click to expand...

He was among the first people my grandfather ran into on the ground in Normandy, and naturally through the fight at La Fiere. So of course I always got a positive view of the guy growing up.
 
#79
#79
Toujours Pret said:
He was among the first people my grandfather ran into on the ground in Normandy, and naturally through the fight at La Fiere. So of course I always got a positive view of the guy growing up.
Click to expand...

There really isn't anything negative to say about the man. He was a soldier's soldier that got the job done. And very forward thinking in his application and the future of airborne troops.
 
#81
#81
Another one I might throw out there is Field Marshal Manstein. I don't really fault him for the losses on the eastern front, that was doomed for defeat regardless of who was in command.
 
#82
#82
Yama****a's Singapore campaign was impressive, but the nature of the Pacific war didn't give him much of an overall body of work.

Of course, Percival's conduct in Singapore would make John Pope look good.
 
#85
#85
Grand Vol said:
Carrying over from the heroes to jerks thread in the PF.

Greatest Flag Officer of WWII? Could include General, Admiral or Field Marshall.

I'd have to go with one of the following:

General George Patton. His ability to format a plan of action along with surrounding himself with great leaders that would make it work was key to the African, Sicilian and Western theater. And many of those leaders would go on key roles or even surpass him like Abrams, Truscott and Bradley. And of course he was instrumental in liberating massive amounts of territory and his invasion into Germany. And very likely could have bashed his way deep into Germany in 1944 had Eisenhower thrown the support towards 3rd Army rather than Montgomery for Market-Garden.

The other, and likely as equal, would be Marshall Georgy Zhukov. Between breaking the Axis at Stalingrad and the eventual counteroffensive there and the Battle of Kursk, his was a master at waiting on his opponents to toss themselves onto his defensive works and then going in for the kill when they exhausted themselves. And of course the Eastern Front culminated with the Battle of Berlin in which the Germans finally surrendered.

For Patton's aggressiveness, you had Zhukov's patience. And without the two, I think the war in Europe might have drug on even longer.

Dark horse category certainly goes to Admiral Raymond Spruance. For being tossed into command of a carrier group less than a week prior to the Battle of Midway to the Battle of the Philippine Sea, his grasp of modern naval warfare and the application of carrier tactics were instrumental in retaking the Pacific. And the utter destruction of the Japanese fleet as an effective fighting force. While the Battle of Leyte Gulf was larger, the Japanese had run out of seasoned pilots by then and resorted to kamikaze attacks against the US Fleet. And due in large part to the previous engagement in the Philippine Sea where their naval air had been decimated. Spruance was seen as cautious, but made the right decisions at the right time of when and where to engage. And more often than not, those decisions were spot on allowing lopsided victories on the part of his forces.
Click to expand...

I don't list Patton among the best. he definitely GSD but IMO was a luckier version of Montgomery. I would like to hear your take on which battles were won because of Patton that one of his contemporaries couldn't have performed as well. him constantly running tanks until they had no fuel imo is a dumb as dumb got. yes there were supply issues, but he knew about them.
 
#86
#86
LouderVol said:
I don't list Patton among the best. he definitely GSD but IMO was a luckier version of Montgomery. I would like to hear your take on which battles were won because of Patton that one of his contemporaries couldn't have performed as well. him constantly running tanks until they had no fuel imo is a dumb as dumb got. yes there were supply issues, but he knew about them.
Click to expand...

The reason I say the war might have drug on longer was the lack of aggressiveness on the part of the contemporaries of Patton like Clark and Hodges. Nothing against either of them and my comparisons are limited to the ETO since the PTO was a completely different kind of war. Sure Patton pushed too far and sometimes too much. But there is no denying he (and by proxy his staff who would go on to great things as well) could find the weaknesses in the enemy's defenses and exploit them with a huge advantage. And I applaud the man for putting ego in check by picking a staff that was smart and just as eager as he was. A lot of people like to consider him an egoist. And he was. But he also knew how to motivate the talent underneath him.

And don't get me started on Montgomery. He was aggressive, but tended to bite off more than he could chew. Or attempted to downgrade the role of the other nations during operations to support the British main role. I've always wondered if Patton might have reached Berlin before the Russians had the support been swayed towards him instead of Monty in September of 1944.

I won't deny Patton had his faults. But WWII needed Patton just like Patton needed WWII. (And might have entered the Allied-German vs Soviet phase of WWII had he had his way lol) But overall, it would be hard to find a commander that could have replaced him in the 3rd Army.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnm53108 and MWR
#87
#87
Patton was JEB Stuart for the folks at home, exciting, inspiring, and pretty effective.

In baseball he's Dustin Pedroia
 
#88
#88
LouderVol said:
I would like to hear your take on which battles were won because of Patton that one of his contemporaries couldn't have performed as well.
Click to expand...

Sicily for one. Without someone as aggressive at the helm, the fighting might very well have drug on for even longer before a breakout could be had.

Battle of the Bulge as another. No other commander would touch trying to relieve Bastogne.

Falaise pocket could be argued since his methods of combined arms warfare with logistics helped break through the front in Normandy.
 
#96
#96
Cpt Ed Freeman passed. He made 13 trips into LZ Xray, pulled 29 casualties out after the medevacs had been waved off. Medal of Honor awarded for that day. RIP.

Edit: The story I saw didn't list the date of his death, found out later it was in 2008.
 
Last edited:
#98
#98
YorkVol said:
Cpt Ed Freeman passed. He made 13 trips into LZ Xray, pulled 29 casualties out after the medevacs had been waved off. Medal of Honor awarded for that day. RIP.

Edit: The story I saw didn't list the date of his death, found out later it was in 2008.
Click to expand...

Talked at length to Bruce Crandall several times. :salute:
 
#99
#99
Grand Vol said:
Sicily for one. Without someone as aggressive at the helm, the fighting might very well have drug on for even longer before a breakout could be had.

Battle of the Bulge as another. No other commander would touch trying to relieve Bastogne.

Falaise pocket could be argued since his methods of combined arms warfare with logistics helped break through the front in Normandy.
Click to expand...

sicily agreed, but wasn't that a airborne force he was fighting? airborne on the ground is infantry without any heavy support. (might be thinking Cyprus but i think it was a large majority german airborne)

the bulge, weren't Bradley's guys like a day or two behind coming in from the more contested north? Patton was in overall command, get there fast, but Bradley commanded his own troops. (this does show one of your points about having good commanders beneath him) I don't credit the relief as a great thing as it would have happened almost as fast without Patton. The air cover is what broke the German advance not Patton's tanks.

falaise is an interesting tale. it had to happen for the invasion to work. our whole effort was thrown into it, failing was not an option. and what ultimately became the pocket there was a fortuitous circumstance based on Patton rushing around. The Germans were there too long because they were wanting to take advantage of Patton over stretching himself. by the time Hitler approved the plan it was too late for them. and how much of the combined arms success was Patton an actual part of? I really don't know the answer to that.

generally i think Patton was just in command of the most able American Army group in the ET. basically i don't think Patton deserves as much credit as he got.

and for the most part the success of the Allied advance was more tied to the failures of the German military (Hitler, gas & oil, troop numbers/deployments etc) than any particular success of our generals. all jmo. you have to remember the Germans fighting the Americans were 'on break' from the Western Front.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top