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?
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?
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?
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?
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!
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! 
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.
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.
Blimey, you’re so fickle! 
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?
That is a brillant idea sir bravo ill start one up only if there is one already. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Okay, I would suggest, as a title: Who were the best Generals?
Man i was too quick that is a better title then my current one 
Not to worry. It’s all rather academic, really.
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.
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. 
_