Best general

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#61

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

#62

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

#63

Well said… your judgement is correct.

#64

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.

#65

Ike,…

#66

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

#67

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

#68

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

#69

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

#70

Well, we British do enjoy a nice cuppa.

The taking of Longstop.

[i]…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.[/i]

The Guards always were a worthless lot. :slight_smile:

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?

#71

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?

#72

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.

#73

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

#74

In their Rosie?

#75

Probably their steel canteen cups…

#76

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/

#77

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.