Best general

[RifleMan20]

Who do you think is the best american general.

[RifleMan20]

Just put up a poll.Its my first time doing this,and if I forgot a general,very sorry

[GermanSoldier]

Maybe you should put another one as other. Then they can tell you who their like in there reply.

[GermanSoldier]

I meant in the poll.

[jacobtowne]

I'm unsure how I'd go about comparing a tactician like Patton, who held field command, with a strategist like Eisenhower.

JT

[GermanSoldier]

I'm unsure how I'd go about comparing a tactician like Patton, who held field command, with a strategist like Eisenhower.

JT


That probably is a hard question for you. ( At least it sounds like it.) If you can not decide at all will you please tell us why you would choose the two as the same.

[GermanSoldier]

General Patton
http://i19.tinypic.com/3307hpc.jpg
General Patton was the ultimate Allie General. He led many attacks and was a great commander. He never liked Russia and Montgomery during World War 2. He was eager to beat Montgomery to Berlin and other strongheld citys by the Axis soldiers. By now Montgomery is disagreeing with Pattons plans in Europe. Patton however will not take orders from him. He goes by his own rules. (At least most of the orders, except when the war department recommends he do it.) So this is why Patton is the greatest General of World War 2 on all allied fronts.
Here is a picture of Patton with his dog.
http://i19.tinypic.com/2ex99mt.jpg

[alephh]

Ah, at least I'm not voting for Patton, who speaked so much about killing that his soldiers murdered POWs, and who beat/slapped his own soldiers, and who said about blacks "I have no faith in the inherent fighting ability of the race", and who used army resources for saving his son-in-law, and who looted nazi objects and turned them over to the Huntington Library... and so on...


_

[Chevan]

I have never consider Patton as the Best Allies General. This madman dreamed to continie the war in 1945 agains Soviet Union. It's obvoius his get to much pleasure for the war as a process.
I vote for D.Eisnhower.

[pdf27]

Patton was an excellent self publicist and a reasonable general. Same for MacArthur. Eisenhower wasn't all that good as a general, but was absolutely superb as a Field Marshal (i.e. in his job of commanding a multinational force in immense operations). I do not think there was another general on any side in WW2 (with the possible exception of Bill Slim) who could have commanded Overlord and the following operations until the defeat of Germany so effectively and with so little friction between allies. Eisenhower was also (in my opinion) one of the greatest presidents the US has ever had.

[32Bravo]

Just put up a poll.Its my first time doing this,and if I forgot a general,very sorry


Eisenhower gets my vote. He was less controversial than the other two, and, though they each performed different roles, I would say that his performance was more effective than was that of the other two.

Was Nimitz the one you forgot?

[RifleMan20]

but "Old Blood and Guts" was a great tank commander and and great general,yea he might be crazy byt he still is the best general in my my eyes.

[RifleMan20]

Was Nimitz the one you forgot?

I guess so.

[32Bravo]

but "Old Blood and Guts" was a great tank commander and and great general,yea he might be crazy byt he still is the best general in my my eyes.


I can't say I know enough about Patton, beyond the hype, to comment. So I'm not disagreeing with you.

I would suppose that if one wants to be really meaningful about choosing who was the best General, then it would be better to begin by describing the sine qua non of a good General?

Then perhaps transfer this to the general discussion thread (please excuse the pun) and compare with others such as Zhukov etc - or has that been done already??

Rifleman, I have to applaud you. You always deliver simple, yet interesting, ideas for discussion that everyone appears to be able to get their teeth into.

[Ace Tankkiller]

I believe Patton was an Excellent General and tactician.Everybody has there quirks and you gotta remember Patton's father was in the confederate calvary in the civil war,so obviously they are gonna be racist to a point because that was how he was brought up.As for the slappings I believe he went overboard,he had some excuses I know,but that still does not make up for it.As for Russia,generals do not decide where we go to war,they just tell us how to win it(or so they are supposed to).LOL Mcarthur wanted to nuke Korea so he had his quirks too!Eisenhower,I can't say he was as good a general,but I though he was very good at handling his lower generals.

[32Bravo]

I believe Patton was an Excellent General and tactician.Everybody has there quirks and you gotta remember Patton's father was in the confederate calvary in the civil war,so obviously they are gonna be racist to a point because that was how he was brought up.As for the slappings I believe he went overboard,he had some excuses I know,but that still does not make up for it.As for Russia,generals do not decide where we go to war,they just tell us how to win it(or so they are supposed to).LOL Mcarthur wanted to nuke Korea so he had his quirks too!Eisenhower,I can't say he was as good a general,but I though he was very good at handling his lower generals.


Okay, I hear what you're saying. I know little of Patton. I wasn't aware that his father was in the Confederate Cavalry, or that he was tinged with Racism.
I would argue that Macarthur wanting to 'Nuke' the Chinese displays a flaw in his character. However, if we step away from Korea and into WW2, what would you describe as being his flaws or his strengths in that conflict or, rather, what made him a good (or bad) general in that conflict.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Eisenhower was good at identifying those traits in his subordinates. But there is far more to good generalship than diplomacy, tactical skills or even charisma. For example: a general can do nothing without consideration for his logistical supply and lines of communication.

Of course, Napoleon argued that he would take a lucky general above all, but that was rhetoric.

I merely mentioned Zhukov as an example of introducing an international flavour to the debate. Within the British Army, there is great emphasis placed on trianing. Zhukov stated "Train hard! Fight easy!". It has become ingrained within the 'soldier-culture' of the British Tommy. So, we like Zhukov. Then again, this is an American thread and we shouldn't impinge on that.

As I have commented, I know little of Patton, so I would be looking for an explanation as to why he was such a good general.... was he lucky?

By the way, some of us Brits also rather like Omar Bradley.

[RifleMan20]

Rifleman, I have to applaud you. You always deliver simple, yet interesting, ideas for discussion that everyone appears to be able to get their teeth into.

well thank you sir bravo

[32Bravo]

well thank you sir bravo

You're welcome, sir!

Incidentally, is that a picture of your good-self, dressed as Patton?

[RifleMan20]

You mean my avatar no sir if so its an actual picture of "Old Blood & Guts"Am younger then you think

[32Bravo]

You mean my avatar no sir if so its an actual picture of "Old Blood & Guts"Am younger then you think

I wasn't thinking of your age. It could easily have been the result of a heavy session down the pub. ;)

[RifleMan20]

Well sir if you think a 12 year old boy is drinking in a pub maybe corona or scotch or even a magirita then it might happen LOL am to young to do that stuff but i have to wait 9 more years

[32Bravo]

Well sir if you think a 12 year old boy is drinking in a pub maybe corona or scotch or even a magirita then it might happen LOL am to young to do that stuff but i have to wait 9 more years


9 years? That's positively criminal. Move to England, you'd only have to wait six.

What about Patton, do you still think him the best General, or was he the most charismatic?

[GermanSoldier]

What about Patton, do you still think him the best General, or was he the most charismatic?
I still think he is the best general on the allied side and nothing can change my mine on that one.

[32Bravo]

I still think he is the best general on the allied side and nothing can change my mine on that one.

If you close your mind how, then, do you know whether he is the best or not?

What qualities did he possess, as a General, that set him above all others?

[Ace Tankkiller]

If you close your mind how, then, do you know whether he is the best or not?

What qualities did he possess, as a General, that set him above all others?

I think he meant it would take a very good arguement to change his mind,and I myself have not seen one good enough to change my mind about it.

[32Bravo]

I think he meant it would take a very good arguement to change his mind,and I myself have not seen one good enough to change my mind about it.

Okay. What is it about Patton that makes him a better general than the other two?

[GermanSoldier]

Okay. What is it about Patton that makes him a better general than the other two?

He is the one that advanced the US army to Germany. Patton was a great General the other two because he was the one that was in the battles and lived it. So this is why he is the best of the best because he knew what REAL action was like.

[32Bravo]

He is the one that advanced the US army to Germany. Patton was a great General the other two because he was the one that was in the battles and lived it. So this is why he is the best of the best because he knew what REAL action was like.


So this made him a great leader, because he led from the front.
The implication here, is that he was also a great tactician.

Do you think that if he had been, say, a five star General on D-Day( let's say he had Eisenhower's job), that he would have been as affective a General as Eisenhower was?

[32Bravo]

He brought to the direction of his army a special quality of leadership that was as rare as it was effective. His men admired his dash and spirit, the energy and stamina, the force and determination, the verve and panache. It was in these qualities that his greatness lay. His features were those of the fighting soldier; but he was a fighting soldier. And his troops recognised him as one. He shared their hardships; he spoke to them in words they could understand. He was a General but showed that he understood the feelings and aspirations of common men. He was not excitable, neither wildly elated in victory nor obviously dismayed by defeat, and he never gave way to hysteria or panic. His calm and contemplative eyes became terrifying when he was angry, but his anger did not rise without good cause. He was stern, relentless, even implacable but his soldiers found him just and he was a man of his word; he succeeded in imparting to them much of his own dedicated enthusiasm and moral fervour. They respected him and obeyed him. He was masterful, decisive and competent with a sense of authority that was at once impressive and reassuring. He was, in short, a natural leader of men.


Incidentally, my father agrees with you!

[GermanSoldier]

Incidentally, my father agrees with you!
Is that a good thing?:shock: I do not think Patton would of did good job as Eisonhower did. Good point on that one 32Bravo. Patton is the best commander on the battle front of World War 2 on the allied side.

[32Bravo]

Is that a good thing?:shock: I do not think Patton would of did good job as Eisonhower did. Good point on that one 32Bravo. Patton is the best commander on the battle front of World War 2 on the allied side.


My father and I always disagree! :cool:

I agree with you, in principle. As they say, Horses for courses!

One could reverse the question: Would Eisenhower have performed as well as Patton did, in Patton's position?

He was never really tested in combat.

[GermanSoldier]

Would Eisenhower have performed as well as Patton did, in Patton's position?

He was never really tested in combat.
There is no way Eisenhower could of done a good of a job as Patton did. I think Eisenhower would have struggled on the battle front on the Western front. Guess I officially just took your dads side.:cool:

[32Bravo]

There is no way Eisenhower could of done a good of a job as Patton did. I think Eisenhower would have struggled on the battle front on the Western front. Guess I officially just took your dads side.:cool:

Blimey, you're so fickle! :)

[32Bravo]

So, okay, each of these Generals have their strengths and weaknesses, and some clever person at the Pentagon, was clever enough to put the right person in the right place (perhaps he was the best General? :) )

Perhaps on the general discussion thread,we should try to discover who was the best all-round General?

[RifleMan20]

Perhaps on the general discussion thread,we should try to discover who was the best all-round General?

That is a brillant idea sir bravo ill start one up only if there is one already. :cool: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :cool:

[32Bravo]

That is a brillant idea sir bravo ill start one up only if there is one already. :cool: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :cool:


Okay, I would suggest, as a title: Who were the best Generals?

[RifleMan20]

Man i was too quick that is a better title then my current one :(

[32Bravo]

Man i was too quick that is a better title then my current one :(


Not to worry. It's all rather academic, really.

[Croat]

generals were all cowards they had knowledge about strategies, but the real heores were the soldiers dieing on the front lines, german,american,russian ect.soldiers were real heroes.when the easy company fought against nazis on the ardens it was they task to hold any atack,they did it and then in the last days comes patton and takes the credit,and every privat,sargend and even captain winters said:we didn't need any help from patton we stopped every attack. he dishonored a US company,not any but one of the best.

[alephh]

generals were all cowards.

That's propably why most of them fought in the very front lines during WWI, that's why there were wounded (some many times), and that's why they earned highest military awards available to human being?

Which one takes more nerves: Making a decision about your own life and maybe couple of your comrads, or making a decision about life of 20,000 soldiers?

People often blame the highest decision makers "unsensitive" and "not-emotional" - hell, if you're leading an army and you cry like a river 14 days after somebody gets a bad cut by a letter from home - I have a feeling that you're not going to be very successful decision maker. :-D



_

[AllHailCesar]

I'm gonna cheat here and say all three!
They served in different theaters at different levels and filled niches that worked well for each. It would be very interesting to jumble them around and see how things would have turned out differently.

[Croat]

that's true too but they can make decissions for 20 000 soldiers, but the soldiers can't make they own decissions. Everyone should get the respect they erned and i respect a simple soldier more than a general.

[AllHailCesar]

There's alot to be said about that.

[32Bravo]

that's true too but they can make decissions for 20 000 soldiers, but the soldiers can't make they own decissions. Everyone should get the respect they erned and i respect a simple soldier more than a general.

This far too simplified. :D

In modern times, when it comes down to making big decisions, for a general to have become a general he has to have proven that he is man of quality. In the British Army, if an officer doesn't make the grade within five years, he recieves his marching orders i.e. he is dismissed. To achieve field rank and progress to Lieutenant Colonel he must succeed at staff college. To complement the academic side of soldiering, he must follow a certain career path which will enable him to gain the practical experience required to command large bodies of men in war. Not many achieve it. As one rises up to the apex of the pyramid, it becomes narrower. The whole process is about proving ones ability.

Soldiers, on the other hand, are trained to operate to a high standard. Those who demonstrate they have leadership ability are promoted to become junior NCOs. Once the rank of lance corporal is achieved, they can only progress by passing certain courses such as weapons instructor and tactical courses such as junior and senior NCOs courses which are extremely gruelling and tactically testing. The pressure is applied to to put them through their paces. Junior NCOs from armies all over the world, including the US Army, partake in these courses which are considered to be as tough as they come. Once qualified, an NCO can lead a platoon, and be raised to the rank of sergeant and upwards to Regimental Sergeant Major. It takes a lot of time to gain the experience to excell on these courses and it is reflected by the calibre of those who pass through them. Failure is not an option.

Generals are groomed for their job as soldiers are groomed for theirs. No one should consider either as being cowards or slackers (that's an individual affair). Each as his duty to perform, and his responsibility either to his soldiers or to his mates/buddies.

When in a combat situation, individual soldiers have ample opportunites to use their initiative. If their leaders are killed in action, then the most senior or competent of the soldiers will have to take command.

For a practical example try reading up on Corporal Abols of 2 Para at Darwin Ridge in the Flalklands, after Colonel 'H' jones was killed.

[AllHailCesar]

There's alot to be said about that.

And Bravo just said it.

[Nickdfresh]

I have never consider Patton as the Best Allies General. This madman dreamed to continie the war in 1945 agains Soviet Union. It's obvoius his get to much pleasure for the war as a process.
I vote for D.Eisnhower.

But those were his good points!:)

[Nickdfresh]

Seriously, Patton was way overrated. Bellicose rhetoric does not a great general make. And that goes double for "Dug-out Doug" MacArthur.

This poll is seriously flawed. I like Ike, but others need to be considered. I'd take Omar Bradley over anyone...

[Rising Sun*]

Seriously, Patton was way overrated. Bellicose rhetoric does not a great general make. And that goes double for "Dug-out Doug" MacArthur.

Nor does relentless self-promotion through a heavily censored press, which was Doug's specialty, make a great general. Except in the enduring public mind whose knowledge comes from such carefully managed sources. Mac was good, but he was a better politician and self-promoter than general.

This poll is seriously flawed. I like Ike, but others need to be considered. I'd take Omar Bradley over anyone...

Yes.

The poll also reflects a knowledge limited to publicly well known generals, rather than all effective generals.

For a great performance I think Gen Robert Eichelberger at Buna in Papua in December 1942 is hard to beat.

The US 32nd Infantry Division, an inexperienced, under trained, poorly supplied, racked by hunger and illness and not brilliantly led National Guard division had stalled at Buna. Some of the troops were so undisciplined and badly led that they had laid down their arms and were lounging about in the field, refusing to fight. Eichelberger was sent in by MacArthur to retrieve the situation. He did so. To convert a largely useless division into a moderately effective fighting force in a week or two is an outstanding achievement. To do it in the field with so many disadvantages is a brilliant achievement. Eichelberger did it by, among other things, personal leadership in things such as leading what might be the most highly ranked infantry reconnaissance patrol with various officers of staff and field rank into Japanese lines.

A few sidelines.

The 32nd Div, the Red Arrow Division, http://www.32nd-division.org/history/ww2/ww2.html went on to give great service. It was formed from Wisconsin and Michigan members. I believe it spent more time in combat than any other American Division in WWII.

When MacArthur told Eichelberger to take over (there are various versions of these events so I’ll stick to the common elements) he had Eichelberger and Eichelberger’s chief of staff before him. Mac told Eichelberger to sort out the 32nd by, if necessary, putting lieutenants (or sergeants) in charge of battalions and sergeants (or corporals) in charge of companies, as long as they would fight. Then he told Eichelberger that Eichelberger would succeed or not come back alive. Then Mac pointed to Eichelberger’s chief of staff and said “And that goes for your chief of staff, too.”.

Eichelberger recounts, somewhat derisively, in his book “Our Jungle Road to Tokyo” how Mac told him that if he was successful Mac would release his name to the press. It says all we need to know about Mac’s values and obsession with publicity.

[tankgeezer]

Truth is, they were all important to the winning of the war,each in their own way, Though my personal favorite among the WWII Generals is Patton, Ike had his hands full trying to maintain cooperation between allies, and our own branches of service. Patton was the Pitbull "can do "guy.And Bradley kept the other two from strangling each other lol They all had tough jobs, and we cant interchange the man with the job. I would choose as "best General" for modern times, Gen. Smilin' Jack Mountcastle. One of the flaming swords of the 1st. Armored Div. - Baron Raspenau -

[Sobel]

erm , i would have to say patton , that would be my choice

[RifleMan20]

can you explain your choice i tottaly agree with you though but what is your reason

[royal744]

Oh well. In the long run, seething self-promoters and bible thumping Pro-consuls like Macarthur will get history's due. Patton was a horrible man but a great and aggressive general, proof that when the bullets start flying, that at least some of the bastards will be around to forge the point of the spear. Patton was a seriously, deeply seriously, flawed man, also with visions of grandeur, but he was fairly prodigious on the battlefield. Montgomery was fastidious and thorough to a fault. He was usually, but not always victorious, Market Garden being an example. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands said of Montgomery, "We can't afford too many of these victories." It is instructive to remember as well that at El Alamein, Montgomery easily outnumbered Rommel by factors of 4-5 to one in almost every category of arms. But his troops seemed to have liked him a great deal. Eisenhower was not a field commander so the arguments hardly apply. Bradley was and he was solid, steadfast and successful.
This is an interesting discussion. I wonder how it will end up?

[PindarsLight]

Seriously, Patton was way overrated. Bellicose rhetoric does not a great general make. And that goes double for "Dug-out Doug" MacArthur.

This poll is seriously flawed. I like Ike, but others need to be considered. I'd take Omar Bradley over anyone...

Agreed I love the hell out of this man, Primarly because he possessed qualities that I feel a general needed to possess more so a field general, Ike was a great man who cared about his guys too however bradley to my knowledge visited and cared for his troops on a level that many did no understand, He was cool ,collective and observant. I think he lead each battle he commanded with tact and a sort of foeshadow in mind thinking of ever possible outcome or possibilities.

I personally think Ike was a brilliant tactiction, considering the men under him i.e patton, macarthur.

I have a signed framed picture of Omar when he visited the Sgt Majors academy Fort Bliss when my father was a young buck sgt, then my mother was training supervisor of said acadmey and arranged the meeting between my father and the general, My father tells me he was very down to earth a well mannered kind man. I only wish I was around to meet him before he passed away.

[royal744]

MacArthur was a contemptible individual. Aside from his outzsized ego - General Marshall said to him, "General, you don't have a staff; you have a court" - he was probably OK, but just OK as a field commander. His performance in the Philippines, however, in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor was so strikingly incompetent that it merited courts martial. His performance in Korea really wasn't much better - he never spent a single night in Korea during the time that he commanded AMERICAN troops there. It is also instructive that for all his ballyhooing, the heavy lifting in the Pacific War was done by the marines - they were the point of the spear, not the army. Comparing Patton to Eisenhower is apples to oranges and doesn't really belong here in this discussion. Patton also had a titanic ego, but he performed in the field.

[Cavalry Gunner]

Patton did well in North Africa but was under Mark Clark in the Italian campaign and under Omar Bradley from Normandy to the end of the war but a great Field Commander.
Ike and MacArthur ran the shows in Europe and the Pacific campaigns and what about George Marshall ? Below is a King Tiger with an American Hole In It ....

[Firefly]

Eisenhower for the simple fact that out of the 3 he was the best man for the job of cammanding a multi national multi army force with the least friction and most diplomacy. Both Patton and MaCarthur were self promoters who would do things for themselves and their Commands over the good of the cause as a whole.

[kallinikosdrama1992]

for me the best general was eisenhower no question asked . but from what i know only operation overlord was his plan . but also he use to talk to his men and this used to make their morale up . this is something that a good leader not only a good general has to do

[RifleMan20]

yea, but he was like a moral support general, but he was also i think the commanding officer of the whole army, not sure i have to look it up, but he was a higher ranking general then patton

[Nickdfresh]

Patton did well in North Africa but was under Mark Clark in the Italian campaign and under Omar Bradley from Normandy to the end of the war but a great Field Commander.
Ike and MacArthur ran the shows in Europe and the Pacific campaigns and what about George Marshall ? Below is a King Tiger with an American Hole In It ....


I think the strategic and organizational genius of General George Marshall cannot be overlooked, as it all too often is. Although he never really had a combat command in the War, he was indispensable in building an American Army from a constabulary force of less than 200,000 soldiers in 1939 to a juggernaut of 11 million+ men. I guess he very well could have commanded D-Day if Ike had fumbled...

[Dallas]

None of the above. You are mixing a General more concerned with Tactical matters (Patton) with Generals more concerned with Strategic/Political matters. You must also bear in mind that behind every great General is a great staff, turning his decisions into fact. At the Strategic/Political level I would vote for General of the Army George C. Marshall as the best of the war. He was Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army during the war and thus oversaw the U.S. ground war worldwide and coordinated strategy with our Allies. On the Tactical level I would choose either General J Lawton Collins a Corps commander (who commanded a Diviison in the Pacific) or Generals Simpson or Courtney Hodges both of whom were Army commanders (9th and 1st respectively). Alll three served in Europe in 1944-45.

Patton was a good General, but he was a bull in a China shop. Just about any competent General who was given command of 3rd Army could have overrun France as Patton did. There has been some speculation by Historians and Patton's family members that Patton may have been suffering from some form of brain damage which might explain his bizare behavior problems. Patton was kicked in the head by horses at least twice in the 1930's. I highly recommend you read ALL of Carlo D'Estes books. Especially D'Estes' Patton: A Genius for War and Stanley Hirshon's General Patton: A Soldiers Life and Martin Blumenson's Patton: The Man Behind the Legend.

Both MacArthur and Eisenhower were excellent Strategic level General officers. Between the two I would vote for Eisenhower if for no other reason than that he had not only Strategic considerations to handle but also had to balance a multinational coalition.

[Nickdfresh]

None of the above. You are mixing a General more concerned with Tactical matters (Patton) with Generals more concerned with Strategic/Political matters...

You are correct. My "tactical" choice as best overall US general was Gen. Omar Bradley. He was more effective than Patton as commander in North Africa, after Patton left to plan the Italian campaign and frowned on those seeking glory and to forward personal agendas. However, my larger point was that some of the "best" generals were not given battlefield commands precisely because they were astute enough to deal with the larger strategic matters. World War II was rife with examples of generals that were "promoted to their level of incompetence," and perhaps the contrary is also true in which those that showed a good deal of effectiveness were 'passed over' for larger commands because they had either personal issues with their commanders or due to circumstances beyond their control. Circumstances such as being caught up in rivalries and infighting - or being put in charge of impossible operations and used as scapegoats upon their certain failure.

One fact that tends to get lost regarding Gen. Marshall was that he was not far off from being put in command of Overlord. Had Gen Eisenhower stumbled, and FDR not considered him his right-hand general, he may well have been placed in command of the ETO.

Patton was a good General, but he was a bull in a China shop. Just about any competent General who was given command of 3rd Army could have overrun France as Patton did.

Very good point. Many soldiers feel that Bradley was far more effective in his overall planning and conduct of operations. Patton was very weak when it come to logistics and management of overall strategy (he was one of the factors that prevented US tankers from getting improved Shermans and Pershings by early 1944). He was very aggressive, but was not a 'whole picture' kind of guy. And some of his soldiers felt he was ruthless at their expense, hence his troops play on his traditional nickname of "ol' blood and guts": "our blood, his guts!"

Gen. Patton's uniform fetishes were also absurd and wildly unpopular. One of Gen. Bradley's first acts as commander in North Africa was to rescind Patton's order forcing troops to wear ties into combat!

There has been some speculation by Historians and Patton's family members that Patton may have been suffering from some form of brain damage which might explain his bizare behavior problems. Patton was kicked in the head by horses at least twice in the 1930's. I highly recommend you read ALL of Carlo D'Estes books. Especially D'Estes' Patton: A Genius for War and Stanley Hirshon's General Patton: A Soldiers Life and Martin Blumenson's Patton: The Man Behind the Legend.

Both MacArthur and Eisenhower were excellent Strategic level General officers. Between the two I would vote for Eisenhower if for no other reason than that he had not only Strategic considerations to handle but also had to balance a multinational coalition.

Thank you for the biographies list, I shall grab these at some point. I haven't read on Patton extensively, and have only read peripheral sources on him though I have heard something of the mule kick story. I've also read that some members of the press corp, and indeed one of the "cowardly" soldiers he slapped in the field hospital in NA, felt that Patton was suffering from the same battle fatigue that the two soldiers struck were. From what I've read of Patton, he seems almost to be a Jekyll and Hyde sort. His personality indicating hyper ruthlessness at one moment (such as essentially ordering a good man, General Orlando Pace, to his death as by ordering him to personally take command of his frontline troops in a failed offensive in Tunisia, I believe - as essentially a LT, which nearly got him killed. He was then relieved, unfairly, but would later help lead the charge into Germany). Then Patton seemed to express extreme guilt over his actions, such as openly weeping with his wounded soldiers...

I also recall watching a History Channel "Old West Technology" in which they featured a story in which Patton, as a young lieutenant, was involved in a 'wild West' style gunfight with Pancho Villa's Mexican bandidos during the Punitive expedition of 1916. This is something I'd like to read more about..

I'm not sure I totally agree with the statement on Macarthur. I think he as a bit prone for taking credit for other peoples' work and made too many errors of judgement, such as his slow reaction to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and in Asia, coupled with his blunders in Korea (Inchon not withstanding) reduce "dugout Doug's" stature a bit to me...


Excellent first posts, and welcome...

Cheers

[snake64]

eisenhower dealt with both political and strategic decisions.Patton dealt with decisions on a divisional basis.although Patton did well in the field, Eisenhower was the grand strategist and uniter.I doubt that Patton would be able to hold together the allies the way eisenhower did

[h2so4]

eisenhower dealt with both political and strategic decisions.Patton dealt with decisions on a divisional basis.although Patton did well in the field, Eisenhower was the grand strategist and uniter.I doubt that Patton would be able to hold together the allies the way eisenhower did

Well said..... your judgement is correct.

[ozarkgary]

As a new member, this is my 1st post. What do I know - I was born after the war had ended. However, my father who was a paratrooper in the 82nd and involved in the Bulge had no strong feelings about any of the generals in the ETO. However, both he and my mother felt that D. MacArthur was an ego-maniac. The only other strong feelings about WWII that my Dad had were 1) War is HELL and brings out the worse in men and 2) the British were worthless and only interested in stopping for tea. Back to the ETO - in a sense, I think the question really goes to the issue of field general, and Eisenhower is to be considered in a different category. As a student of history, I do believe that Omar Bradley, was truly the common soldiers general. George Patton was a real fighting man AND that is what war is. In war, the idea IS to kill and/or defeat the enemy - Patton understood this fact, more clearly than any other. Finally, in war time, it is not the job of a general to be popular with his men or the public, his job is to manage his troops to accomplish victory.

[gumalangi]

Ike,..

[gumalangi]

wait,. this is an European theatre right?... how come MacArthur there?? if in general,. i would go for Nimitz,..

[Moreheaddriller]

In my opinion id go for patton becuase he was a solid general who although his men feared him he also had their respect and any general who can acheive both fear and respect is a good general in my book and sure he might have wanted to fight the soviets but maybe that would have possibly allowed the us to avoid the cold war down the road but then again who knows but i think he was a damn good general

[OLD RSM]

As a new member, this is my 1st post. What do I know - I was born after the war had ended. However, my father who was a paratrooper in the 82nd and involved in the Bulge had no strong feelings about any of the generals in the ETO. However, both he and my mother felt that D. MacArthur was an ego-maniac. The only other strong feelings about WWII that my Dad had were 1) War is HELL and brings out the worse in men and 2) the British were worthless and only interested in stopping for tea. Back to the ETO - in a sense, I think the question really goes to the issue of field general, and Eisenhower is to be considered in a different category. As a student of history, I do believe that Omar Bradley, was truly the common soldiers general. George Patton was a real fighting man AND that is what war is. In war, the idea IS to kill and/or defeat the enemy - Patton understood this fact, more clearly than any other. Finally, in war time, it is not the job of a general to be popular with his men or the public, his job is to manage his troops to accomplish victory.

Hi
Tell me you think the British were worthless outher than the Tea the Yankes like thier coffee?

[OLD RSM]

As a new member, this is my 1st post. What do I know - I was born after the war had ended. However, my father who was a paratrooper in the 82nd and involved in the Bulge had no strong feelings about any of the generals in the ETO. However, both he and my mother felt that D. MacArthur was an ego-maniac. The only other strong feelings about WWII that my Dad had were 1) War is HELL and brings out the worse in men and 2) the British were worthless and only interested in stopping for tea. Back to the ETO - in a sense, I think the question really goes to the issue of field general, and Eisenhower is to be considered in a different category. As a student of history, I do believe that Omar Bradley, was truly the common soldiers general. George Patton was a real fighting man AND that is what war is. In war, the idea IS to kill and/or defeat the enemy - Patton understood this fact, more clearly than any other. Finally, in war time, it is not the job of a general to be popular with his men or the public, his job is to manage his troops to accomplish victory.

Hi
Tell me you think the British were worthless outher than the Tea the Yankes like thier coffee?
Cheers

[32Bravo]

.... 2) the British were worthless and only interested in stopping for tea.

Well, we British do enjoy a nice cuppa.

The taking of Longstop.

...On the hill itself the Germans, alerted by the short bombardment sent up flares which revealed the ranks toiling up the lower slopes. At once, machine-gun tracers began slashing accross the hillside, often from unexpected places. The strength of the opposiiton startled the Coldstreams but they kept moving, hot and winded by their hard climb which repeatedly took them up the shoulder of a spur, then down into the hollow at the head of a re-entrant, then up the next spur, always climbing a little higher. The company commander went down, mortally wounded, and his second-in-command took over, although much of the fighting had already resolved itself into junior leaders' battles in which platoon and sections employed fire and movement to subdue each German post in turn with automatic fire, grenades or rifle and bayonet. After two hours of fighting and scrambling the Coldstreams reached the summit and were able to recover their breath. They had taken a number of prisoners, mostly wounded, the saddle to the north had also been captured, and Stewart-Brown felt confident enough to send a guide to bring up the Americans....

At about 03.00 on 23 December 1/18th began reaching the summit from an unexpected direction, having missed the guides. The battalion commander was very much a product of the Big Red One and was inclined to dispute his orders, an attitude of which senior American officers were becoming so tired (tyred), that in due course, the division's commander and his deputy were both relieved. After some dispute, Stewart-Brown handed over the summit, and he and the 2nd Coldstreams were ordered to descend form Longstop as they were required elsewhere....

...The Coldstreams had completed their long march back to their base camp and were enjoying what they felt was a hard-earned breakfast (and, perhaps, a cup of tea), when Stewart-Brown received an urgent message from his Brigade Commander. The Americans , it seemed, had been driven off Longstop and, as no one else was available to do the job, 2nd Coldstream Guards would have to retrace their steps and recapture the feature.

AS the guardsmen shrugged into their packs for the march back the Guardsmen's language was unprintable (it would have been even more colourful had they known the context of the second assault)....

..Once again the Coldstreams consolidated their hold on the summit while the 1/18th dug in on the lower western slopes.

The Guards always were a worthless lot. :)

I hope this talk: of re-entrants and spurs; fire and movement; junior leaders' battle, isn't too technical for you- perhaps we could discuss it over tea?

[Rising Sun*]

The only other strong feelings about WWII that my Dad had were ... the British were worthless and only interested in stopping for tea.

Did he form that opinion between 3 September 1939 when Britain dropped its collective tea cup and went to war while America waited until 8 December 1941 to get involved?

Or did he form it between 8 December 1941 and 20 February 1943 when the Yanks ran from their first serious taste of the Germans at the Kasserine Pass, after the Brits had been stopping for tea for several years in a cunning plan to defeat the Germans by trying to suck them up through the bottom of a tea cup?

[32Bravo]

Did he form that opinion between 3 September 1939 when Britain dropped its collective tea cup and went to war while America waited until 8 December 1941 to get involved?

Or did he form it between 8 December 1941 and 20 February 1943 when the Yanks ran from their first serious taste of the Germans at the Kasserine Pass, after the Brits had been stopping for tea for several years in a cunning plan to defeat the Germans by trying to suck them up through the bottom of a tea cup?

Being that both his remarks are somewhat stereotypical, and not those of one that has been at the sharp-end, he'was probably a rear-echelon, storeman-cum-bottelwasher type, that get's off by reading about the experiences of real soldiers.

[Nickdfresh]

And the Yanks typically liked being under British command in Europe and Italy, as they got a rum ration. :cool:

[32Bravo]

And the Yanks typically liked being under British command in Europe and Italy, as they got a rum ration. :cool:


In their Rosie?

[Nickdfresh]

Probably their steel canteen cups...

[32Bravo]

Probably their steel canteen cups...

Cockney Rhyming slang:

Rosie from Rosie Lea = Tea

Apples from Apples and Pears = stairs

Jimmy from Jimmy Little = piddle (piss)

Plates from Plates of meat = Feet.

"Put the kettle on for a cup o' Rosie while I pop up the apples for a Jimmy!"

"Okay, mind you don't splash your plates!"



The Cockney gift to world culture is the phenomenon of Cockney Rhyming Slang - a code of speaking wherein a common word can be replaced by the whole or abbreviated form of a well-known phrase which rhymes with that word.

Cockney Rhyming Slang has been evolving in the East End of London since the sixteenth century. It is thought to have originated from the seamen and soldiers who used the London docks, from the Gypsies who arrived in the fifteen hundreds, from the Irish residents and the Jewish faction and from all the other ethnic minorities which have made up the population of the city.


http://www.phespirit.info/cockney/

[Ashes]

Blumenson says........

Patton’s Third Army achievements were accomplished by an army only three weeks in action and with only 12 divisions, Patton used Germany's own blitzkrieg tactics against them, covering 600 miles in a few weeks.
His effort in turning around his army 90 degrees to attack Bastogne was hailed by many historians as [as well as Eisenhower and his staff, the Brit commanders and a man who loathed him, Bradley] being as good as anything in the war. Everyone outside the 3rd Army had felt this feat was impossible.

"It meant a 90-degree turn that would pose logistical nightmares – getting divisions on new roads in the middle of winter and making sure supplies reached them from dumps established in quite a different context, for quite a different situation. Altogether it was an operation only a master could think of executing,”

The Germans [including Von Rundstedt and Rommel] feared and praised him, and Hitler always kept an eye on him saying ''whats that crazy cowboy General up to now''

I think that Patton was the only Western commander that could have taken on the likes of Guderian, Rommel and other Panzer commanders head on in fast tank operations.

Some of the US Corps commanders were good, Ridgeway and Collins, and Middleton is sometimes overlooked.