Jump to content


The Truth.... As We Know It


  • Please log in to reply
332 replies to this topic

Donward #261 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 08:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 03 2015 - 22:15, said:

 

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"

 

I'm not bad mouthing Clausewitz or Sun Tsu even. I've got both of their books on my shelf.

 

It's just the notion that we can take the Ouija board and channel Sun Tsu's ghost to somehow judge a pair of very successful generals who lived 24 centuries after he died. When in fact there are very many successful generals who have entirely different personalities. 

 

Particularly when someone THEN makes the nebulous claim that Rommel is comparatively "better" than either of those two generals. That's with Rommel breaking the common military maxim of outrunning his supply lines, focusing on smaller tactical battles instead of the bigger picture and overall fighting on bad ground and battles that he shouldn't have fought.

 

And the nation that Sun Tsu fought for in the Spring and Autumn period did lose if I remember correctly. At least Prussia wound up on the winning side of the Napoleonic Wars, after some terrible political decisions.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Donward, Feb 04 2015 - 08:20.


KrasnayaZvezda #262 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 08:36

    Major

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

Wu did lost to Yue once because of king Helu YOLOing against Yue despite of Sun Wu's objection. Too bad that he couldn't save his king, but I think it's hard to say he's to blame.

 

Sun Wu actually avenged him by helping Fuchai, son of Helu, conquering Yue.



Rides_with_Death #263 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 15:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 35734 battles
  • 2,543
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011
Not that I have a massive history back ground.. But from everything I have read about some of the axis/allies leadership.. Patton, Rommel whatever.. I would venture to say you could swap the axis/allies leadership in ww2 and the allies still would have won.  

Dunfalach #264 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 15:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 18757 battles
  • 4,787
  • [S-F] S-F
  • Member since:
    01-07-2012

View PostDonward, on Feb 04 2015 - 02:15, said:

Particularly when someone THEN makes the nebulous claim that Rommel is comparatively "better" than either of those two generals. That's with Rommel breaking the common military maxim of outrunning his supply lines, focusing on smaller tactical battles instead of the bigger picture and overall fighting on bad ground and battles that he shouldn't have fought.

 

I wanna lead off by saying I'm addressing only your comments on Rommel himself, not arguing your point about the comparison to other generals.

 

When judging Rommel's actions, you have to remember that he did not have full discretion over the bigger picture. Berlin simultaneously set excessively large goals and made promises about supplies that it didn't/couldn't keep but expected him to attain their goals all the same. Rommel's general vision of things (which proved accurate enough overall) seems to have been that Germany could not outproduce the allies, so it must win quickly before a war of attrition killed it. He seems always to have felt, and perhaps rightly so, that he was fighting the clock and Berlin as much as fighting the British. You have to look at what a general has to work with not merely in men and equipment but in government support, lack of support, and/or interference.



kmanweiss #265 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 15:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 14718 battles
  • 2,645
  • [CRIT] CRIT
  • Member since:
    03-08-2014

View PostDonward, on Feb 03 2015 - 23:36, said:

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.

 

Such a simple and naive view of history.

 

Wars a lost of all kinds of reasons, and the commander of the forces is a relatively small part in the overall picture.

 

Rommel had no chance to win WWII because the people in control of the overall war effort were idiotic at best.  They picked fights with too many people at once.  They failed to provide him with ample equipment and troops.  They failed to provide him with quality troops and equipment.  etc etc.

 

Take the American Civil War as another example.  The generals of the North are generally seen as poor leaders all around.  They lacked the skill and charisma needed to lead troops effectively.  Some were cowards, others incompetent.  Lincoln was constantly shuffling leaders around trying to find someone of competance to lead his troops.  The South on the other hand had great military leaders.  The south suffered from many other issues though.  Poor supply lines, random assortments of weapons making logistics a nightmare, outnumbered (2 to 1), lack of a navy.  The fact that the South was able to stay in the fight for 4 years and do as well as they did rested solely on the difference in leadership between the two armies.



WanderingGhost #266 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 18:14

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15167 battles
  • 710
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

View PostDunfalach, on Feb 04 2015 - 09:31, said:

 

I wanna lead off by saying I'm addressing only your comments on Rommel himself, not arguing your point about the comparison to other generals.

 

When judging Rommel's actions, you have to remember that he did not have full discretion over the bigger picture. Berlin simultaneously set excessively large goals and made promises about supplies that it didn't/couldn't keep but expected him to attain their goals all the same. Rommel's general vision of things (which proved accurate enough overall) seems to have been that Germany could not outproduce the allies, so it must win quickly before a war of attrition killed it. He seems always to have felt, and perhaps rightly so, that he was fighting the clock and Berlin as much as fighting the British. You have to look at what a general has to work with not merely in men and equipment but in government support, lack of support, and/or interference.

 

When it comes to Rommel, this is pretty much spot on. There were several cases where Berlin or others that had authority over him either failed to deliver on promises of supplies or would not allow him to act as he wanted or give him the full backing he needed such as additional tanks and man power to use in some of his attacks. If memory serves one instance is actually that he had far broader plans when he attacked Kassarine Pass but wasn't given the forces for it. Decisions made in Berlin by several people systematically crippled Germany's chances at winning as well as when it came to the "Blitz krieg" tactics and such, they just didn't have the means to keep pace with supply lines, something that the allies and Patton ran in to later.

 

One also has to look at the fact that after North Africa, when the allies started planning the Normandy landings, for a good while everything there was unprotected. And they started huge disinformation campaigns to point toward the obvious choice of landing at Calais. Rommel was put in charge of coastal defense against the then inevitable invasion, and suddenly, you had obstacle's to block tanks and landing crafts, more gun positions, pikes to stag paratroopers and destroy gliders, fields flooded for the same reason. The allies thought that perhaps the plans had been leaked when it was just Rommels choice, despite Hitler's adamant stance they would attack Calais. In some regards, Rommel and Yamamoto were similar particularly in that both knew that US entry in to the war in a coordinated effort would be disastrous because at that time, we had the production capability to replace any tanks, guns, ships, or planes lost in fighting. Plane makes a crash landing on a carrier, by the time they get to port theres a replacement. lose 30 bombers in day light raids theres 100 that came of the assembly lines in the last 24 hours. Both knew decisive blows to end it quick had to be delivered. 

 

When you take a step back, Most commanders had their strengths and weakness's and did excellent jobs considering what they had, what they knew, and what they could do. 

 

Everyone knows Patton and Montgomery because they both loved being in front of a camera and making a name, and both in their own ways earned it, Everyone knows "The desert fox" because Rommel went against both and had done an excellent job, They know Yamamoto because of the attack on Pearl and the infamous quote attributed to him and the movies. You get a few others in there like MacArthur, Halsey, Bradley, but those are generally the first names that come to mind when you ask "Generals and Admirals in WWII". Realistically - there are lots of commanders on various levels who don't get half the credit the deserve. 



The_Chieftain #267 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 19:24

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostDonward, on Feb 04 2015 - 07:15, said:

 

I'm not bad mouthing Clausewitz or Sun Tsu even. I've got both of their books on my shelf.

 

 

 

You might miss my point. Clausewitz was generally given low visibility in the 19th Century because he tended to have happened to have been on the losing side.



Daigensui #268 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 20:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 32000 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 04 2015 - 10:24, said:

You might miss my point. Clausewitz was generally given low visibility in the 19th Century because he tended to have happened to have been on the losing side.

 

Quite true, he was only visible among the Germans until pretty much after WW2.



Donward #269 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 21:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View Postkmanweiss, on Feb 04 2015 - 06:41, said:

 

Such a simple and naive view of history.

 

Wars a lost of all kinds of reasons, and the commander of the forces is a relatively small part in the overall picture.

 

Rommel had no chance to win WWII because the people in control of the overall war effort were idiotic at best.  They picked fights with too many people at once.  They failed to provide him with ample equipment and troops.  They failed to provide him with quality troops and equipment.  etc etc.

 

Take the American Civil War as another example.  The generals of the North are generally seen as poor leaders all around.  They lacked the skill and charisma needed to lead troops effectively.  Some were cowards, others incompetent.  Lincoln was constantly shuffling leaders around trying to find someone of competance to lead his troops.  The South on the other hand had great military leaders.  The south suffered from many other issues though.  Poor supply lines, random assortments of weapons making logistics a nightmare, outnumbered (2 to 1), lack of a navy.  The fact that the South was able to stay in the fight for 4 years and do as well as they did rested solely on the difference in leadership between the two armies.

 

If you want to waggle your finger at simple history, waggle it at the guy I was responding to with the Ouija board channeling Sun Tsu and judging Patton and Montgomery based on some nebulous claims that both of them were "bombastic".

 

And the fact that the South stayed in the war for four years owed more to do with geography and politics in the North and not the war fighting prowess of the South. Also, outside of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Confederacy was plagued by incompetent leadership both military and political as evidenced by the campaigns in the west where the Confederacy lost thousands of square miles of territory and tens of thousands of casualties. 

 

In case of Rommel in North Africa, he exceeded his original command authority and disobeyed orders with the hubristic idea that the whole of North Africa could be conquered on a shoe-string budget. So rather than simply shoring up the Italians in their African colonies, the Germans were sucked into a morass where they continued to funnel valuable and finite tanks, transport, planes and precious fuel and hundreds of thousands of men into a worthless quagmire when they were needed on the Soviet Front. Worse, Rommel continued to fight on a battlefield that favored the British and - eventually - the Americans. So the initial tactical success of Rommel were the worst possible thing that could have happened because it created a mirage that Germany could plant the Swastika flag on the Pyramids and cross the Suez Canal when they would have been better off just helping Italy fortify their Libyan colony and slowly evacuate North Africa while focusing their resources on the Eastern Front where the key battles of the war were fought.

 

So take your simple view of history elsewhere.



Donward #270 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 21:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 04 2015 - 10:24, said:

 

You might miss my point. Clausewitz was generally given low visibility in the 19th Century because he tended to have happened to have been on the losing side.

 

This is often the case with military theorists who are better at writing treatises as opposed to winning battles.

Daigensui #271 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 22:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 32000 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostDonward, on Feb 04 2015 - 12:03, said:

This is often the case with military theorists who are better at writing treatises as opposed to winning battles.

 

What, the Battle of Wavre wasn't enough for you?

Zinegata #272 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 03:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View Postkmanweiss, on Feb 04 2015 - 22:41, said:

 

Such a simple and naive view of history.

 

Wars a lost of all kinds of reasons, and the commander of the forces is a relatively small part in the overall picture.

 

Rommel had no chance to win WWII because the people in control of the overall war effort were idiotic at best.  They picked fights with too many people at once.  They failed to provide him with ample equipment and troops.  They failed to provide him with quality troops and equipment.  etc etc.

 

Take the American Civil War as another example.  The generals of the North are generally seen as poor leaders all around.  They lacked the skill and charisma needed to lead troops effectively.  Some were cowards, others incompetent.  Lincoln was constantly shuffling leaders around trying to find someone of competance to lead his troops.  The South on the other hand had great military leaders.  The south suffered from many other issues though.  Poor supply lines, random assortments of weapons making logistics a nightmare, outnumbered (2 to 1), lack of a navy.  The fact that the South was able to stay in the fight for 4 years and do as well as they did rested solely on the difference in leadership between the two armies.

 

The North's generals, with the exception of McClellan, fought far better than normally thought. McDowell completely outflanked the Confederate Army at Bull Run, and only didn't win because his troops coordinate well enough to storm a hill despite having a 2:1 numbers advantage. Hooker did fine in the West and was a standout at Antietam. Burnside lost Fredricksburg, but because he knew he wasn't army commander material. As a Corps commander, he was actually very good - he actually completely outfoxed Longstreet in a Corps vs Corps battle in Tenessee. Grant and Sherman meanwhile were both excellent. Only McClellan was the real loser as a warfighter, but as a builder of armies he had few equals.

 

Lee meanwhile was terribly overrated. He actually constantly gambled that his numerically inferior troops would carry the day. That worked in Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville, but with a little more luck and a few less Union regiments breaking both battles could have left the ANV surrounded and wiped out. That he did so poorly at Gettysburg was not because he had a bad day - it was a reflection of his gambling mentality and growing overconfidence, which resulted in Pickett's Charge.

 

Of the Confederate Generals, Johnston and Longstreet had the most sense since they quickly grasped that technology now favored being on the defensive at the tactical level. Jackson had a lot of dazzling successes, but it owed more to the fact that he knew the terrain when the Union Army often didn't even have good maps of the areas they fought in. Outside of Virginia and the land he knew well, he was a flop.

 

But it isn't the solid, every day performances that excite people. They want the gamblers and the risk-takers. That's fine if you win, but as Lee proved at Gettysburg you can't keep gambling and expect to win all the time.


Edited by Zinegata, Feb 05 2015 - 03:30.


Zinegata #273 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 03:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

Also, I have to note: Monty's reputation for cautiousness is totally unwarranted. Monty was simply the sort of commander who would not back down when the fighting started; which is why he kept attacking at El Alamein even though his subordinates were asking for a pause and bemoaning their losses. In fact he was a touch reckless with the way he deployed his armor, culminating in Market-Garden which was one of the ultimate high-stakes operation of the war.

 

That Patton keeps getting promoted as a speedster really goes to show how Hollywood can terribly jilt the public's perception of history.



Dunfalach #274 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 04:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 18757 battles
  • 4,787
  • [S-F] S-F
  • Member since:
    01-07-2012

View PostZinegata, on Feb 04 2015 - 21:28, said:

Lee meanwhile was terribly overrated. He actually constantly gambled that his numerically inferior troops would carry the day. That worked in Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville, but with a little more luck and a few less Union regiments breaking both battles could have left the ANV surrounded and wiped out. That he did so poorly at Gettysburg was not because he had a bad day - it was a reflection of his gambling mentality and growing overconfidence, which resulted in Pickett's Charge.

 

Of the Confederate Generals, Johnston and Longstreet had the most sense since they quickly grasped that technology now favored being on the defensive at the tactical level. 

 

By all the accounts I've seen, Pickett's Charge was not hubris but lack of information regarding what he was truly up against. Gettysburg was an encounter battle...fought in a place that the two armies met. rather than a pre-determined battle plan. Lee was a gambler, yes. But a calculated gambler of necessity. The South could not turtle up and wait it out on the defensive; they lacked the manpower and industrial power to win a long war of attrition against the north. While the tactical situation may have favored the defense, the strategic situation did not.

 

For every historian that credits Johnston and Longstreet with vision and justifiable caution, there's another that credits them with lost opportunities and sluggish obstinacy. It's a constant debate. What we do know is that the north offered Lee command of the Union Army before he resigned his commission to return to Virginia, and he seems to have remained respected by his opponents.



Rosha_ #275 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 22:09

    Sergeant

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

View PostDonward, on Feb 04 2015 - 00:36, said:

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.
 
You completely missed the point.  Generals who lead and make decisions based on their egos and how those decisions will be perceived are not a "jewel" ( as valuable) rather the general who lets the strategic/tactical factors make the decisions.  Imho this is more of a description of Bradly then either Monty or Patton & Clark.  They lead by force of personality and I strongly suspect it was there subordinates effectiveness rather then any brilliance on their part that lead to their success.

 

.

 

What do you mean "Sun Tsu"(if he existed)?  

 

View PostDonward, on Feb 04 2015 - 15:00, said:

In case of Rommel in North Africa, he exceeded his original command authority and disobeyed orders with the hubristic idea that the whole of North Africa could be conquered on a shoe-string budget. So rather than simply shoring up the Italians in their African colonies, the Germans were sucked into a morass where they continued to funnel valuable and finite tanks, transport, planes and precious fuel and hundreds of thousands of men into a worthless quagmire when they were needed on the Soviet Front. Worse, Rommel continued to fight on a battlefield that favored the British and - eventually - the Americans. So the initial tactical success of Rommel were the worst possible thing that could have happened because it created a mirage that Germany could plant the Swastika flag on the Pyramids and cross the Suez Canal when they would have been better off just helping Italy fortify their Libyan colony and slowly evacuate North Africa while focusing their resources on the Eastern Front where the key battles of the war were fought.

 

This is only partially true.  Rommel's orders were to bolster the Italians in Italy.  It was not  a heuristic idea that the whole of North Africa should or could be conquered on a shoe-string budget., but rather that the best defence is a good offence.  It wasn't a quagmire as you put it as those supplies weren't coming. It wasn't Rommel's choice of battlefield and that had he received the forces promised they could have pulled Italians bacon out of the fire as they did in Greece!  If this had been done it would have closed off the Mediterranean and loss of Suez canal would have been a crippling blow to England.  It would also have freed the Italian and Germans for duty on other fronts . Your idea that  they should have gone on the defencive and evacuate North Africa was 1) just your opinion and 2) not his decision to make rather it was  Grand Strategy and not his decision  to make!  Point of fact considering the fact that German forces were willing and able to support their allies that unity was kept and why Italians, Hungary and Roumania  put troops on the Russian front.

 



The_Chieftain #276 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 22:39

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostZinegata, on Feb 05 2015 - 02:34, said:

Also, I have to note: Monty's reputation for cautiousness is totally unwarranted. Monty was simply the sort of commander who would not back down when the fighting started; which is why he kept attacking at El Alamein even though his subordinates were asking for a pause and bemoaning their losses. In fact he was a touch reckless with the way he deployed his armor, culminating in Market-Garden which was one of the ultimate high-stakes operation of the war.

 

That Patton keeps getting promoted as a speedster really goes to show how Hollywood can terribly jilt the public's perception of history.

 

I will agree to this. 

Monty was strategically cautious. He didn't launch his offensives until he was damned well good and ready, and his troops knew that if he moved, it was well thought out and would be worth it. That said, -operationally-, he was aggressive. It's not as if he said "OK, we'll go forward a mile here, we'll batter them there a bit." His operational principles were as aggressive as anyone else's.



ryan345 #277 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 22:46

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9640 battles
  • 136
  • [OWNAT] OWNAT
  • Member since:
    10-09-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 05 2015 - 15:39, said:

 

I will agree to this.

Monty was strategically cautious. He didn't launch his offensives until he was damned well good and ready, and his troops knew that if he moved, it was well thought out and would be worth it. That said, -operationally-, he was aggressive. It's not as if he said "OK, we'll go forward a mile here, we'll batter them there a bit." His operational principles were as aggressive as anyone else's.

 

what are  we talking about.....:confused:

sirericbreheny #278 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 23:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12666 battles
  • 1,274
  • [GRIP_] GRIP_
  • Member since:
    03-12-2013

View PostBravo_Zulu_000, on May 22 2012 - 16:48, said:

It's good to see a US historian challenge the US version of history. What made Patton stand out from his contemporaries was that he was a "diva", constantly needing to have attention and have his ego stroked. In fact, he was a master at being a "media [edited]", willing to say or do anything to keep himself in the press. Perhaps kim Kardashian could take a few lessons from ol' Blood and Guts?

Sadly both George Patton and Montgomery were Media [edited]or even Newspaper [edited]whom had to keep in the Public Eyes.   "The Bridge Too Far" illustrates exactly when things went wrong for both the Americans and the British Armies as well as their nearsighted armed forces when they each created problems with Hog Glory Idiolization of people believing themselves to be nearly demigods.   Montgomery even remarked that "This mission will be a 'piece of cake' !"   The ironic truth was not lost on the captured British Infantry whom afterward stayed in several German POW camps untill WW2 was over, one POW Prisoner even sent Monty an piece of cake with a note that Montgomery never mentioned and when he wrote his diary memories remarked, "I am uncertain where the idea arose that I in my musings at the briefing meetings ever mentioned 'Lads things will be a piece of cake!'.   Neither I nor the other Chiefs Of Staff never used that term.   However it was possible someone did mention it but the mind forgets and the ones hurt by what is said should forgive the misturned musings of great men when some plans fail."   Of course I have extrapolated what I have read about Patton and Montgomery, however alot of POWs certainly did remember when both men were at the Allied Mission Briefings of Market Gardens and certainly remembered the very words both said, I doubt that even Patton would not toss certain jokes about the possible winning of A Bridge Too Far the Allies could achieve.   I have seen the movie "A Bridge Too Far" quite a few times and the game map I have when played has 2 outcomes either the Allies bathe themselves in glory or the Germans correctly steamroll them.   The town of Arnhem has 3 quarters and a side area where the Germans circled around the British and Americans.   One side or the other must hold the outter defensive ring around the town of Arnhem, that is the key to winning the game map.....also winning the actual battle.

 

The British and the Americans whom briefed their allied forces at the briefing underestimated the German Forces that protected Arnhem, especially the British when their own analyzers could not accept the fact that the Germans had created the biggest grouping of infantry and armored vehicles at Arnhem to stop the Allies at all costs, unfortunately would never later be able to mount such forces again.   The losses at "The Battle Of The Bulge" showed that the Germans were beaten from American, British and Allied planning there after when the later analyzers later accepted their own intelligence gathering finally not wanting to put their men's lives at risk.   In the movie of A Bridge Too Far, it is shown that in the British Headquarters that the British Command Staff even glossed over their own superiority in dismissing warnings from people near Arnhem whom were contacting Allied sources trying to tell them that the Germans had massed such forces as they had there.



sirericbreheny #279 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 23:23

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12666 battles
  • 1,274
  • [GRIP_] GRIP_
  • Member since:
    03-12-2013

View PostZinegata, on Feb 04 2015 - 22:34, said:

Also, I have to note: Monty's reputation for cautiousness is totally unwarranted. Monty was simply the sort of commander who would not back down when the fighting started; which is why he kept attacking at El Alamein even though his subordinates were asking for a pause and bemoaning their losses. In fact he was a touch reckless with the way he deployed his armor, culminating in Market-Garden which was one of the ultimate high-stakes operation of the war.

 

That Patton keeps getting promoted as a speedster really goes to show how Hollywood can terribly jilt the public's perception of history.

 

Zinegata, I am also reminded in the movie A Bridge Too Far, as well as from a military newspaper correspondance about Patton being angry about an shellshocked infantryman whom was wounded in a hospital bed....or was that MacArthur?   Patton takes out his sixgun shooters aiming it at the wounded man and would have shot him if not the hospital staff and security staff restrained him.   Apparently Patton and Montgomery never accounted for the horrors of war in the same way that average soldiers, sailors and airmen could be injured and have their minds harmed as much as they were, Patton thought such men were "cowards" even faking such effects as "Shellshock".   It was a real medical condition that hurt alot of frontline personnel that fought it.

sirericbreheny #280 Posted Feb 05 2015 - 23:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12666 battles
  • 1,274
  • [GRIP_] GRIP_
  • Member since:
    03-12-2013

View PostWanderingGhost, on Feb 04 2015 - 13:14, said:

 

When it comes to Rommel, this is pretty much spot on. There were several cases where Berlin or others that had authority over him either failed to deliver on promises of supplies or would not allow him to act as he wanted or give him the full backing he needed such as additional tanks and man power to use in some of his attacks. If memory serves one instance is actually that he had far broader plans when he attacked Kassarine Pass but wasn't given the forces for it. Decisions made in Berlin by several people systematically crippled Germany's chances at winning as well as when it came to the "Blitz krieg" tactics and such, they just didn't have the means to keep pace with supply lines, something that the allies and Patton ran in to later.

 

One also has to look at the fact that after North Africa, when the allies started planning the Normandy landings, for a good while everything there was unprotected. And they started huge disinformation campaigns to point toward the obvious choice of landing at Calais. Rommel was put in charge of coastal defense against the then inevitable invasion, and suddenly, you had obstacle's to block tanks and landing crafts, more gun positions, pikes to stag paratroopers and destroy gliders, fields flooded for the same reason. The allies thought that perhaps the plans had been leaked when it was just Rommels choice, despite Hitler's adamant stance they would attack Calais. In some regards, Rommel and Yamamoto were similar particularly in that both knew that US entry in to the war in a coordinated effort would be disastrous because at that time, we had the production capability to replace any tanks, guns, ships, or planes lost in fighting. Plane makes a crash landing on a carrier, by the time they get to port theres a replacement. lose 30 bombers in day light raids theres 100 that came of the assembly lines in the last 24 hours. Both knew decisive blows to end it quick had to be delivered. 

 

When you take a step back, Most commanders had their strengths and weakness's and did excellent jobs considering what they had, what they knew, and what they could do. 

 

Everyone knows Patton and Montgomery because they both loved being in front of a camera and making a name, and both in their own ways earned it, Everyone knows "The desert fox" because Rommel went against both and had done an excellent job, They know Yamamoto because of the attack on Pearl and the infamous quote attributed to him and the movies. You get a few others in there like MacArthur, Halsey, Bradley, but those are generally the first names that come to mind when you ask "Generals and Admirals in WWII". Realistically - there are lots of commanders on various levels who don't get half the credit the deserve. 

 

Agreed WanderingGhost, your right on the big cake.   It was both Patton's and Montgomery's rivalries that kept both the military media as well as the newspapers backhome in the USA and around the world enthralled with what both did and the inner workings of their planning.   We had our own Canadian Chiefs Of Staff that pulled both Monty's and Patton's rears out of the fire on several occasions, once at Anzio and another time at Salerno, but it seems that the Giants got better press coverage than lesser commanders whom stories were quickly forgotten.   Many times without those that remained a few steps behind Patton and Montgomery such victories the 2 men achieved would be glaring defeats because of both egos they kept in their minds.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users