Jump to content


NATO Survey, 1943 Pt 2


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

Xlucine #41 Posted Jan 15 2015 - 00:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View Postgeneralbunbun, on Jan 13 2015 - 11:03, said:

If you look at FM 17-10, Armored Force Field Manual: Tactics and Technique, tanks were not supposed to battle enemy tanks directly.

 

FM 17-10, page 193

Medium tanks may be used as the assault echelon or to assist the attack of the light tanks, primarily by neutralizing or destroying hostile antitank weapons, and secondarily by protecting the light tanks against the attack of hostile tanks.

 

Page 203

(2) Targets.-Tanks engage targets in the order of importance to themselves and their unit. The order of importance is:
(a) Hostile tanks, the weapons of which are effective against our own tanks.
(b) Hostile antitank guns.
© Hostile armored vehicles, the weapons of which are not effective against our tanks.
(d) Hostile personnel and weapons, the destruction of which will materially effect our maneuver.

 

C'mon man, I'm an undergrad and even I understand that sources should support your points.



_0din_ #42 Posted Jan 15 2015 - 02:58

    Private

  • Players
  • 9006 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    09-19-2012

Quote

Patton was right and under his command 3rd Army was one of the most feared Allied forces in the war and the most successful.

 

Someone Jacked my post. Having served in 2nd Armor Division "Patton's Own" I am aware of his history and he was loved and hated by his men but none of then ever discounted his abilities as a general even the ones that hated him loved him because they knew he was their best chance at winning the war and getting home. That was said by a Former  WWII Sherman tank gunner who counted himself as one of the people who did not care for him.

 

I will be checking my posts more often to make sure this does not happen again. Thanks All


Edited by Vintois, Mar 22 2015 - 21:57.


The_Chieftain #43 Posted Jan 15 2015 - 17:31

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17669 battles
  • 10,004
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I apologize. I accidentally clicked "edit" vice "quote" for Vintois's post. I don't know if I can reverse that

Blackhorse_Six_ #44 Posted Jan 15 2015 - 17:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 71115 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

Among the former Wehrmacht and SS men with whom I became acquainted, respect for Patton was fairly universal.

 

That Patton was a name not unfamiliar to lower ranks should be an indication of that.

 

Every service has a rumor mill - we're all human after all ...



The_Chieftain #45 Posted Jan 15 2015 - 18:29

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17669 battles
  • 10,004
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jan 15 2015 - 16:40, said:

Among the former Wehrmacht and SS men with whom I became acquainted, respect for Patton was fairly universal.

 

That Patton was a name not unfamiliar to lower ranks should be an indication of that.

 

Every service has a rumor mill - we're all human after all ...

 

The problem is that you probably started speaking with them after the war. The question is how much was known of the man -during- the war, and it seems reasonable to conclude, 'well, not that much, actually'

Blackhorse_Six_ #46 Posted Jan 15 2015 - 18:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 71115 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 15 2015 - 12:29, said:

The problem is that you probably started speaking with them after the war. The question is how much was known of the man -during- the war, and it seems reasonable to conclude, 'well, not that much, actually'

 

No offense intended with this question, but how many have you interviewed?

 

One of the fellows I knew had been a Brandenburger.

 

Those were war-time recollections - granted, probably tainted by age and distance ...

 

In truth, I can never really believe everything they've told me, what with that whole avoidance of responsibility thing ...



The_Chieftain #47 Posted Jan 15 2015 - 19:07

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17669 battles
  • 10,004
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

y It is a problem which Yeide expressed when I was talking to him about his book. A lot of the post-war interviews of German commanders, which d'Este, amongst others rely on, seem unsupported by the documentation of the time, and if I recall, in the book itself he gives specific examples.. He views it either as unintentional contamination due to post-war influence, or as post-facto justification, even if subconsciously, to explain their loss.

 



Donward #48 Posted Jan 15 2015 - 23:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011
Considering that 80-90 percent of the Germans were stuck fighting on the Eastern Front, I doubt the name of one American Lt. General really stood out. I'd wager Montgomery had more street cred.

AIIurai #49 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 00:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 213 battles
  • 260
  • Member since:
    08-27-2014

[content removed - spam]

~Moderation Team



favrepeoria #50 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 02:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36618 battles
  • 1,718
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostDonward, on Jan 15 2015 - 16:30, said:

Considering that 80-90 percent of the Germans were stuck fighting on the Eastern Front, I doubt the name of one American Lt. General really stood out. I'd wager Montgomery had more street cred.

Actually the Germans were always more fearful of Patton than Montgomery. They recognized him as the best General that the Allies had on either front. He may have not been the great politician that Montgomery was which led him into many unpleasant meetings with Eisenhower, eventually leading to his dismissal as commander of the Third Army. The route of advance of Operation Watch on the Rhine was specifically chosen for a couple of reasons one of which being it was thought to be too far for Patton to take any part. 



Grand_Cookie #51 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 05:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26249 battles
  • 800
  • Member since:
    11-06-2013

View PostBoggins, on Jan 14 2015 - 16:22, said:

I saw an interview with Dr. Ronald Barr concerning the diesel engine in the M4. He stated that the decision not to produce more diesel shermans was based on the logistics of providing adequate fuel supplies for the tanks. It just made more practical sense to go with the gas engine for the Normandy invasion since there were more tanks already equipped with that engine rather than providing 2 dissimilar fuel types. 

And now everyone bemoans a turbine that doesn't have this problem.



The_Chieftain #52 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 05:49

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17669 battles
  • 10,004
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postfavrepeoria, on Jan 16 2015 - 01:27, said:

Actually the Germans were always more fearful of Patton than Montgomery. They recognized him as the best General that the Allies had on either front. He may have not been the great politician that Montgomery was which led him into many unpleasant meetings with Eisenhower, eventually leading to his dismissal as commander of the Third Army. The route of advance of Operation Watch on the Rhine was specifically chosen for a couple of reasons one of which being it was thought to be too far for Patton to take any part. 

 

Was it 'Patton', or was it just 'the majority of the Americans' in general? I'd be curious to see the source for this, given that it would have been important to any attacking force to try to attack more or less where two different armies meet to reduce the chances of co-operation. Remember that the defense was effectively in the British sector, which is why Montgomery was given overall command of the operations to stop the attack and US First Army transferred to Monty's control. Yeide's research into the German planning process  showed that of the two, the German focus was on where Montgomery was. Granted, he does not say it's because the Germans happened to fear Monty's leadership more than anyone else's (Though he does say that for much of this time the Germans didn't know who Patton was or where he was anyway), but because his forces were always in the more threatening position from the German point of view. Closer to the supply ports in North Africa, with more experienced forces. Closer to the escape route in Sicily. Closer to the channel ports in Northern Europe. Closer to the German industries in Eastern France. The Germans dealing with the Western Allies apparently always dealt with the British first, and whatever was left over once that was done was sent to stem the Americans.

favrepeoria #53 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 06:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36618 battles
  • 1,718
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 15 2015 - 22:49, said:

 

Was it 'Patton', or was it just 'the majority of the Americans' in general? I'd be curious to see the source for this, given that it would have been important to any attacking force to try to attack more or less where two different armies meet to reduce the chances of co-operation. Remember that the defense was effectively in the British sector, which is why Montgomery was given overall command of the operations to stop the attack and US First Army transferred to Monty's control. Yeide's research into the German planning process  showed that of the two, the German focus was on where Montgomery was. Granted, he does not say it's because the Germans happened to fear Monty's leadership more than anyone else's (Though he does say that for much of this time the Germans didn't know who Patton was or where he was anyway), but because his forces were always in the more threatening position from the German point of view. Closer to the supply ports in North Africa, with more experienced forces. Closer to the escape route in Sicily. Closer to the channel ports in Northern Europe. Closer to the German industries in Eastern France. The Germans dealing with the Western Allies apparently always dealt with the British first, and whatever was left over once that was done was sent to stem the Americans.

It wasn't the reason just a reason among the many other strategic reasons. I would need to find he primary source of this but I was just reading "Killing Patton" for leisure so maybe I could find but my German isn't so good so chances are low of me finding the primary. Which by the way is a fairly interesting book about Patton. Would have been interesting to see how things would have happened if he wasn't held up by lack of supplies and politics. We shall never know. It is too bad that he dug his own grave essentially too with the way he did handle politics. 



Donward #54 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 09:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011
Why in the world would you read anything "written" by Bill O'Reilly and use it as a source? Other than as a source of amusement?

The_Chieftain #55 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 16:48

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17669 battles
  • 10,004
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Why would you discount it? Even if he's a bit of a shock jock and leans politically one way or the other, why should that affect his ability to do historical military research? I don't think most of you know which way I lean on the political spectrum, for example.

 

i make no statement as to if Killing Patton is a good book on its own merits, or if any of it is well researched. Neither I, nor anyone whose opinion I value on such things, have read it as far as I know.

 



callmecrazy #56 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 17:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 12719 battles
  • 3,022
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 16 2015 - 07:48, said:

Why would you discount it? Even if he's a bit of a shock jock and leans politically one way or the other, why should that affect his ability to do historical military research? I don't think most of you know which way I lean on the political spectrum, for example.

 

i make no statement as to if Killing Patton is a good book on its own merits, or if any of it is well researched. Neither I, nor anyone whose opinion I value on such things, have read it as far as I know.

 

 

But Nick it's a matter of personal perspective. 

 

I've met you in person and watched, probably, all your videos on tanks and read your articles.  My impression is you present a line of thought based on research and any personal opinions you indicate are just opinions. You give credit/blame to where your research came from. You don't seem like a nut ball.

 

O'Reily, I could only listen to part of his radio show before I changed the channel.  He was ranting and saying stuff that was way off base.  I saw a clip of an interview he did with the son of one of the 9/11 first responders - O'Reily didn't like what the guy was saying, so he started trashing the son telling him what his father would think of him. O'Reily never met the father, but this was a normal process for O'Reily. Therefore I can't trust anything that O'Reily says or writes.

 

Based on my preception I find you to be a competent researcher, but O'Reily is not.  You're right about not knowing your politics, you could be Taliban (but not with that hat), but you still come across as a respected, knowledgeable individual.



favrepeoria #57 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 19:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36618 battles
  • 1,718
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

O'reily wasn't the only writer of the book btw. There is not ranting or opinions really at all until then end which is about how they think it was a conspiracy to kill Patton etc and last only like 15 pages out of 320. The rest is just essentially what led up to his death. It follows him through his campaigns in WW2. I Just read it for entertainment value and most of this info within the book is not opinion like I said.

As an aside the circumstances of his death are very strange and what makes it stranger is no one was held accountable and all the paper work of the accident had disappeared even just 3 years after the war

 

Edit:  There is no new information within the book besides the opinion on the end which is just an opinion. One that even Patton's grandson does not agree. It is just all in one nice location rather than having to read multiple books or documents so if you have read about Patton before it will be rather dull



The_Chieftain #58 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 19:12

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 17669 battles
  • 10,004
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I don't know. I view O'Reilly as an entertainer. He makes a living by pandering to his audience, being way the hell out there. There is no need for his work for him to be doing any form of history book at all, it's way out of left field. I can only presume this is due to actually having a personal interest, a bit of a hobby. I've done a few hunts around for reviews on the book, and while I think it's safe to say that the whole conspiracy theory of the death is a bit off, and this is a view shared by most every reputable historian, there is nothing to indicate that they have any issues with the -facts- as opposed to the -conclusions- he holds. Kindof like Cooper's book, really.

favrepeoria #59 Posted Jan 16 2015 - 19:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 36618 battles
  • 1,718
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

I was actually kinda disappointed that there wasn't moreof his conspiracy theory in the book because that's what I wanted to read for the entertainment value. Instead it was like he just grabbed a bunch of history books and ran them together into one book for most of it. I had never read any of his "killing" series before so I guess I should have looked at the reviews first. I will hold that against him cause wasn't entertaining enough lol.

I am going back through the series of books by Cornelius Ryan now because I did like those and has been awhile since I read them. Decided I am gonna go back though some of the books I have so I don't have to buy more now cause physical copies of books are expensive.  I will also throw out there "The Struggle for Europe" by Chester Wilmot is a good read if you want one that goes through the entire war in Europe.  Just be aware it was written long ago and opinions have changed on some events. 

 

I would be welcome to other suggestions for history books also to see if there are any suggestions that I have not read yet. 



Boggins #60 Posted Jan 17 2015 - 14:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20921 battles
  • 44
  • [4HIM3] 4HIM3
  • Member since:
    09-05-2012

View PostGrand_Cookie, on Jan 16 2015 - 04:37, said:

And now everyone bemoans a turbine that doesn't have this problem.

 

When did the Army begin developing multi fuel engines? The deuce and a half I drove in the first desert vacation was a multifuel and being that I was a 19 year old red blooded country boy, I couldn't resist mixing a little gas with the diesel. I had the brilliant idea(from a 19 year old's perspective at least) that this would make my 6 wheel drive (soooo much cooler than a wimpy 4 wheel drive) a SUPER off road truck. Ahhh, the foolish exuberance of youth:izmena:

 






5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users