Jump to content


The Truth.... As We Know It


  • Please log in to reply
332 replies to this topic

thandiflight #241 Posted Sep 30 2012 - 22:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 93284 battles
  • 4,508
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    07-10-2011

View PostKoyangi, on Sep 30 2012 - 06:06, said:

I think there's a part on that on Patton 360. Where the operation went wrong?

1) There were ten times the number of prisoners than they expected in that POW camp.
2) Patton's son-in-law got shot during the taking of the camp and couldn't be moved for a short period of time, delaying the force falling back.

They didn't have enough trucks for everyone, so most got re-captured.

Task Force Baum: ill-conceived, poorly managed, under-manned exercise in futility. 300 men involved in the operation with 32 killed and only 35 making it back - the rest captured. As an operation it was a failure. If its intention was to distract and divert German forces from the northern advance and persuade them that the attack would be to the east, then some success can be claimed. As it stands Eisenhower was furious.

isaacalmeida #242 Posted Sep 30 2012 - 23:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16800 battles
  • 1,289
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
do Rommel next time :D

_Freddy_ #243 Posted Oct 03 2012 - 10:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 412 battles
  • 827
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011

View PostKoyangi, on Sep 30 2012 - 06:20, said:

Interesting topic. I recommend Greatest Tank Battles:
http://www.amazon.co...at tank battles

This series contains interviews with American, British and German tankers who were there. In terms of WoT, it is interesting to see people complain about the M3 Lee in the game. The German tankers driving the Panzer 3 in Africa seemed to fear nothing, until the lend-lease Lee showed up in Brit hands. They didn't like that 75mm at all.

As for Montgomery, in Africa he had such a build-up of men and material, while Rommel's supplies kept getting intercepted in the Med, or destroyed by planes on the long desert road, I don't see Monty's win there as proof of his skill as a General.

Field Marshal Montgomery resisted the pressure from the politicians who had berated previous commanders and forced them to attack when not ready or send troops and equipment to other theatres when needed by themselves. He restored the morale of the British 8th Army and built it back up to ensure a victory.

He was not particularly a gambling leader preferring a secure logistical base to support operations.

Despite all the detractors of him in North Africa (especially El Alamein) I have yet to see anyone come up with a better plan with the resources he had against the fixed, in depth, built up defences with secure flanks that could be turned that he faced.

He is vilified for never taking risks yet he is also vilified for Market Garden (which had a chance of success) as being risky (it was by no means a total failure either), he  can't win.

Fire_Horse #244 Posted Oct 03 2012 - 10:54

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3861 battles
  • 854
  • Member since:
    01-12-2012
good post.

the history they teach in school is incomplete if not selective.  since high school (30 years) I've been reading histories and biographies written by the enemy, as well as our own, to get a better sense of the whole story.  I recommend this approach for anyone serious about studying history.

Skraeling #245 Posted Oct 03 2012 - 16:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9340 battles
  • 2,409
  • [MWM] MWM
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010
Did we actually HAVE anyone the Germans feared?

rabid_forest #246 Posted Oct 03 2012 - 17:48

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22 battles
  • 481
  • Member since:
    10-03-2011

View PostSkraeling, on Oct 03 2012 - 16:05, said:

Did we actually HAVE anyone the Germans feared?
Henry Ford :Smile_trollface-3:

_Freddy_ #247 Posted Oct 04 2012 - 09:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 412 battles
  • 827
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011

View Postrabid_forest, on Oct 03 2012 - 17:48, said:

Henry Ford :Smile_trollface-3:

Well apart from the modern Ford truck plants in Germany building vehicles for the Wehrmacht, Ford along with a few others actually helped Germany modernise and improve its production facilities as well as investing in the country. So maybe not so scarey for them.

thandiflight #248 Posted Oct 04 2012 - 23:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 93284 battles
  • 4,508
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    07-10-2011

View Post_Freddy_, on Oct 03 2012 - 10:01, said:

Field Marshal Montgomery resisted the pressure from the politicians who had berated previous commanders and forced them to attack when not ready or send troops and equipment to other theatres when needed by themselves. He restored the morale of the British 8th Army and built it back up to ensure a victory.

He was not particularly a gambling leader preferring a secure logistical base to support operations.

Despite all the detractors of him in North Africa (especially El Alamein) I have yet to see anyone come up with a better plan with the resources he had against the fixed, in depth, built up defences with secure flanks that could be turned that he faced.

He is vilified for never taking risks yet he is also vilified for Market Garden (which had a chance of success) as being risky (it was by no means a total failure either), he  can't win.

Not his plan, Chink Dorman-Smith's. Not first choice for command, Gott was. It was not just the fiasco that was Market Garden but also the performance at Caens (infantry with no armour, armour with no infantry). Monty's legend was created by Monty himself although I will not deny him the credit for raising morale in North Africa. He got away with delaying the assault not because he was such an effective commander and orator but because he was one of Alan Brooke's mates. It is not what you know but who you know. Monty was not bad, he was average. And for the British Army at the time maybe that's what made him good. Bill Slim he wasn't.

PzKpfw_1 #249 Posted Oct 05 2012 - 01:39

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 42
  • Member since:
    10-04-2012

View PostDingBat, on May 23 2012 - 14:09, said:

This is another campaign that has been done dreadful damage by the movie.

Here are some realities about Market-Garden

5. The movie claim that the British didn't know where Bittrichs 2 SS Pz Korp was is bullshit. The British knew very well as XXX Corps had been pursuing them since the breakout

Allied inteligence, tracked II SS Pz.Korps from France to the Eindhoven - Arnhem area. On Sept 4th they lost track of II SS Pz.Korps. Intel then identified 1st Fallschrim Army, HQ near Hertogenbosch, & Army Group B near Arnhem. SHAEF believed II SS.Pz.Korps had moved to the vicinity of Kleve, east of Nijmegen, instead of moveing north. So no they did not know where II.SS.Pz.Korps was. Its interseting that when the 9th SS.Kg Walther made contact, they identified the OPFOR as 'Canadian troops'. While the 10th SS.Kg.Frundsmberg made contact & reported OPFOR armor as 'American' instead of an Guards Armoured Division.


Quote

6. Despite the name, the 2 SS Pz Korp was a joke. 1 division was little more than a headquarters cadre. The other could field one battalion sized battle group. Of the German tanks destroyed by 1AB in Arnhem, none were from 2 SS Pz Korp.

As of 12.09.44 II SS.Pz.Korps reportedly had 12 operational tanks. 9th SS.Pz.Div formed SS- Kampfgruppe Hohenstauffen under SS Obersturmbahnfuhrer Walther Harzer. It consisted of 1 Co of PzKpfw IV, & 1 Co of PzKpfw V, 2 batty of Jadgpanzer IV, a recce Co, an understrength PzGr Regt, & & Arty Bn, with 12 tubes.  Add in Harmels 10th SS-Kampfgruppen with a small number of PzKpfw IV, & JagdPz, Reece Bn, PzGr Regt, & 2 Arty Bns you get around 3000 effectives, with an overabundance of heavy weapons & LMGs. A lil more then say, an HQ cadre, and alot more then a joke, especialy since these men, were elite as well, & used to fighting understrength, in adverse conditions.

Regards, John Waters

Edited by PzKpfw_1, Oct 05 2012 - 12:07.


lisajackus #250 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 06:50

    Private

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012
I remember in the 1st Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) the US Army and US Marines moved so quickly that the fuel and supply forces had a hard time keeping up.  It was one of the limiting factors in how quickly Coalition Forces could advance.




________________________________________________________________________
WoW gold|diablo 3 gold|Guild Wars 2 gold

Magick #251 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 16:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 3631 battles
  • 2,833
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011
Chief, I actually live (well my room mate and I do) near a gentleman that served with Patton.  He's in his late 80's, smokes like a freight train and curses like a sailor.  Yep, old school Army all the way.

OhSlowpoke #252 Posted Dec 12 2012 - 20:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12006 battles
  • 370
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    07-04-2010

Skraeling, on Oct 03 2012 - 16:05, said:

Did we actually HAVE anyone the Germans feared?

The British island, and American Factories. We had a huge strategic advantage over the other nations. We didn't share a land border with the Germans.

Gave us time to build up and fight on our own terms.

SabreGunner #253 Posted Dec 12 2012 - 22:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7676 battles
  • 389
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

acmarines12, on May 22 2012 - 23:53, said:

The British and Canadian armies had little resistance on the beaches and through the hedgerow country  COMPARED to the Americans. I am not saying they didn't encounter heavy resistance. But compared to U.S. forces, they encountered much lighter resistance, U.S. casualties totaling 5,000 on Omaha ALONE compared to 2,500 British, Canadian, and Polish forces on their 3 Beach-heads COMBINED.

Well, what if the situation was different and the british/canadian/ and polsihed landed at omaha and the americans landed on sword, juno, or gold.  The brits/canadians and polish forces would have suffered heavy casualties, and the US would have the lower numbers.  It all comes down to deployment.  The Uk/canadian/Polish were assigned those beaches and because of either tactics or lighter resistance in this area of the normandy coast suffered less casualties.

Omaha was the most heavily defended beach.  Any force attempting a landing would have suffered a high number of losses.

brian333 #254 Posted Dec 12 2012 - 22:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5764 battles
  • 398
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011
My mother's father landed in France three days after D-Day and served in the U.S. First Army. He claimed to have walked from Normandy to Belgium before being assigned as an MP in Paris. (Tough duty, but hey, somebody's gotta do it!)
During the Battle of the Bulge he was somewhere in Flanders, and his unit was under the command of Montgomery at that point. He never said Montgomery's name without some vulgarity attached. He was of the opinion that Monty thought of Americans as undertrained, poorly lead, and expendable.
I only heard him refer to Patton once, after we had seen the George C. Scott movie, as a 'blowhard' who didn't care how many soldiers he had to kill to make himself look good.
Bradley, on the other hand, was his hero. "Bradley won the war, and Ike got to be President."

I realise that the scuttlebutt which soldiers pass around is usually less than accurate, but the general impression of those who served under them says a lot about a leader. Does this make one more effective than another? I don't know. But all else being equal, a soldier who believes his leaders are superior will have higher morale and will be willing to stick to the plan longer and in the face of greater odds than one who has no respect for his leaders.

SabreGunner #255 Posted Dec 12 2012 - 22:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7676 battles
  • 389
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

brian333, on Dec 12 2012 - 22:23, said:

My mother's father landed in France three days after D-Day and served in the U.S. First Army. He claimed to have walked from Normandy to Belgium before being assigned as an MP in Paris. (Tough duty, but hey, somebody's gotta do it!)
During the Battle of the Bulge he was somewhere in Flanders, and his unit was under the command of Montgomery at that point. He never said Montgomery's name without some vulgarity attached. He was of the opinion that Monty thought of Americans as undertrained, poorly lead, and expendable.
I only heard him refer to Patton once, after we had seen the George C. Scott movie, as a 'blowhard' who didn't care how many soldiers he had to kill to make himself look good.
Bradley, on the other hand, was his hero. "Bradley won the war, and Ike got to be President."

I realise that the scuttlebutt which soldiers pass around is usually less than accurate, but the general impression of those who served under them says a lot about a leader. Does this make one more effective than another? I don't know. But all else being equal, a soldier who believes his leaders are superior will have higher morale and will be willing to stick to the plan longer and in the face of greater odds than one who has no respect for his leaders.


+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to this^^^^

Tiger505_ #256 Posted Dec 19 2012 - 12:20

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 27301 battles
  • 300
  • [4ORCE] 4ORCE
  • Member since:
    11-01-2010
I recently had the pleasure of finding a stack of old news papers from 1945. One has an artical about Hodges returning to GA post VE day, and the other has as its headline Erine Pile Killed in Action. The best part was i paid 3 bucks a pop and they are certified authentic. I also found a 1919 july 4th paper outlining Wilson signing the Treaty of Verstille (cant spell it)

Rosha_ #257 Posted Feb 03 2015 - 22:01

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13129 battles
  • 206
  • Member since:
    03-11-2014

I believe that Patton and Montgomery were just bombastic generals with big egos. Neither fit the qualifications of a good general as defined by Sun Tzu.

I can't give a word to word quote (maybe someone else?) but to paraphrase: A general who advances without thoughts of glory and retreats without fear of losing face is a jewel to his king.

I think Rommel fits this description as well as knowing the dangers of direct confrontation and how to win those confrontations when they were forced upon him.  He was also was flexible in his response and how to respond to shifting circumstances and well as thinking outside the box.  

He was an Infantry General  that was also innovated such as using his  AAA forward to the front as anti-tank units!  which now may seem obvious, but his opposition while complaining about the range and accuracy of his 88's never thought to bring their own 90 mm AAA to the front in a similar fashion.

He was loved by his troops as he spent lives like a miser.  He used intelligence, mobility, nerve, pugnacity, daring and stoicism and his men followed his example.

 

 

 

 

 

 



Donward #258 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 06:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011
I like how it's Sun Tsu who is the one that gets to judge modern generals as if both Patton and Montgomery weren't both well-versed in all of the great military theorists.

You know what the difference is?

Patton and Monty won their wars. Sun Tsu (if he existed) and Rommel lost theirs.

The_Chieftain #259 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 07:15

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 15254 battles
  • 9,964
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostDonward, on Feb 04 2015 - 05:36, said:

Patton and Monty won their wars. Sun Tsu (if he existed) and Rommel lost theirs.

 

In fairness, that attitude ended up with Clausewitz being given very little attention, and Jomini being given a lot. It was only decades later that people decided that, "You know, maybe Clausewitz had something to him"



KrasnayaZvezda #260 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 08:13

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10239 battles
  • 2,629
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostDonward said:

Sun Tsu (if he existed) and Rommel lost theirs.

 

Sun Tsu - Sun Wu, to be precise - actually won for the most part of his war career IIRC.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users