Patton 360

I've been watching this series as each episode comes out On Demand.

Much of the series seems to focus on local actions and Patton serves as the backdrop to weave it together but...

Now they are approaching Metz and how he felt Eisenhower and Bradely left him in lurch by diverting supplies to Montgomery for Operation Market Garden.

I can almost feel for him(I remember one old boss saying "Do something even if it's wrong")and here is a hard charging general being forced to halt.

One neat bit though was hearing from a seargent about using himself as an aiming stick for tank destroyers,and it took me a minute to realize that it was the same guy from a Call of Duty game unlockable content.

I don't know what i'm tyring to say here as i know alot of people hate Patton and others revere him.

I guess the best thing to say about him was that he believed in taking the initiative(right or wrong).

my grandfather recorded the entire season (10+ hours). at some points its interesting, but sometimes i find that it drags on. but overall a good series, and i liked the way they presented the battles.

on topic, i think Patton was brushed aside too often, like in market garden. id bet a lot of money that had it been patton who was commanding the armored drive to Arnhem, they would have made it.
montogmery was a fool and incompetant commander. just look at Operation Goodwood.
one victory and they all think that hes the greatest thing since sliced bread. he was over-catious but yet still wanted to be in command of bold moves, like Market-garden.
yea sorry for the rant i just really hate monty.

Montgomery had a different approach than Patton.

That being said..The series made it seem like Omar and Eisenhower had more to do with the German army reconstituing itself after their disaster in France.

different approach? bah! he was just an overly-cautious commander who was way to bold with his moves.
any competent commander should have known that having a main assault rely on a single road is a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

different approach? bah! he was just an overly-cautious commander who was way to bold with his moves.
any competent commander should have known that having a main assault rely on a single road is a disaster.

---

Patton and Montgomery had two very different approaches to warfare.

It is what it was for good and ill concerning the both.

I didn't start this for Montgomery or Patton bashing..just a better understanding of why Patton is held in such esteem.

The show quoted Pattons diary,after learning that his supplies were being sent to Montgomery,as telling his officers to use WWI tactics to reach Metz.

Though i guess Metz would have held a special meaning for any US officer who had fought in WWI as they were stopped from taking the city by the armistice.

On an aside Joyce Kilmer was killed outside of Metz,while serving under "Wild" Bill Donovan during WWI:

Trees
(For Mrs. Henry Mills Alden)

I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth's sweet flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in Summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.
- Joyce Kilmer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

different approach? bah! he was just an overly-cautious commander who was way to bold with his moves.

---

Here Here!

As a commander, few can call him anything less than adequate. But without question, he was not going to advance past his Corps, for his personality was far too American for any ally, or underling to bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

Here Here!

---

Start a He-Mans Montogomery Haters club thread.

Montgomery was an ass but so was Patton.

One of the strange things about the series was that it pointed out that alot of soldiers blamed things on Patton that were due to Bradley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

As a commander, few can call him anything less than adequate. But without question, he was not going to advance past his Corps, for his personality was far too American for any ally, or underling to bear.

---

Sorry but i have to take exception to a particular comment.

What do you mean his personality "was far too American for any ally"?

Eisenhower was the quintensencial American forging bonds,giving credit to allies,and allowing their troops to "liberate" cities that american units had already all but did.

Patton was a different beast then your average american.

Patton not only wanted to win..but he wanted the credit for it.

The stereotypical American, I meant. He was everything that Monty (And thus, the British and French generals) disliked incarnate, and Patton didn't give two :daisy:s if they did think that. Monty was just as problematic, but he simply happened to the the British army's poster boy. Meanwhile, Eisenhower and Bradley already gave the Americans two capable commanders without the infamy that followed Patton around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

The stereotypical American, I meant. He was everything that Monty (And thus, the British and French generals) disliked incarnate, and Patton didn't give two :daisy:s if they did think that. Monty was just as problematic, but he simply happened to the the British army's poster boy. Meanwhile, Eisenhower and Bradley already gave the Americans two capable commanders without the infamy that followed Patton around.

---

Bradley and Eisenhower allowed the germans to escape Falaise.

A stereotypical american,then as now,would be someone from the midwest..self-depricating,uncomfortable with attention,hard as nails,friendly and welcoming.

Patton was the anti-american with his quest for attention.

I really wish everyone would quit thinking all Americans are from New York or Los Angeles with their attitudes.

You know theres about 300,000,000 million of us in-between the two cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John the Mad

You know theres about 300,000,000 million of us in-between the two cities.

---

My God it must be crowded in the wide open plains:laugh4:

As for the Monty/ Patton debate - well nobody is likely to agree about that. Monty was a cautious grinder style of general - but he did consistentantly win with a careful application of resources. His biggest failure was Market Garden - but that was the time he acted most "Un-Monty". Patton was a gung-ho, damn the torpedoes style of general - great PR, but you do wonder how good he really was. Like many an up and coming heavyweight fighting a series of bums, his victories, on the whole, were against the lesser German generals and inferior troops. I wonder how well his style would have fared on the Eastern Front against the first division Germans.... or the Russians who he seemed so keen to fight as well.

In my view both did OK, but neither were truelly stellar. The problem is they had probably the best PR machines. If I had to choose one to serve under, I would choose Monty because I think he would be more cautious with my life than Patton ever would - a man who showed his true feelings for his troops by slapping a man with shell shock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Kurt

My God it must be crowded in the wide open plains:laugh4:

As for the Monty/ Patton debate - well nobody is likely to agree about that. Monty was a cautious grinder style of general - but he did consistentantly win with a careful application of resources. His biggest failure was Market Garden - but that was the time he acted most "Un-Monty". Patton was a gung-ho, damn the torpedoes style of general - great PR, but you do wonder how good he really was. Like many an up and coming heavyweight fighting a series of bums, his victories, on the whole, were against the lesser German generals and inferior troops. I wonder how well his style would have fared on the Eastern Front against the first division Germans.... or the Russians who he seemed so keen to fight as well.

In my view both did OK, but neither were truelly stellar. The problem is they had probably the best PR machines. If I had to choose one to serve under, I would choose Monty because I think he would be more cautious with my life than Patton ever would - a man who showed his true feelings for his troops by slapping a man with shell shock.

---

Patton impressed his troops with his elan, Montgomery impressed his troops with his professionalism. Patton was impressive in leading an army, but Montgomery's talents were probably more scaleable. Given the strengths the Allies had, Montgomery-types were probably more suitable for what they had to work with.

Patton was unique in that, he would push his troops hard, but would never make them do something he wouldn't do himself. Kind of an Admiral Nelson of WWII. On the tactical level, he was quite capable, but brash and impetuous, which led Eisenhower to believe he was a liability so he put the guy where he could get in the least amount trouble, right in the middle. I'm not so sure he could have done any better than Montgomery on Market Garden, there were only so many bridges that one could take, and with Patton's style he would have rushed everything he had, just in time for the Germans to blow the bridge behind him, which could have caused an Arnhem on a much larger scale.

I don't know Waki. I think if Patton had his way there wouldn't have been a market garden, just Berlin by Christmas if the supplies kept rolling in. He was steam rolling what? 30 miles a week through hedge row country. I also believe that should he have been in command of market garden he would have done things a lot differently than Monty.

In Monty's defense though, with an elite SS corp resting around the Area market garden was supposed to take place not many generals would have had a chance.

Also think if Patton had rushed it and gotten the main portion of troops across the bridges in Market Garden. I don't think the Germans would have been able to blow the bridges. For he would have relieved the airborne and taken the major towns. I think it was Monty's we cant destroy the towns attitude that could have lost the operation for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John the Mad

Patton was a different beast then your average american.

Patton not only wanted to win..but he wanted the credit for it.

---

I don't think Patton's want for credit is anything but pure American.

Also a lot of people support Patton because he didn't lead like a WW1 general, like Monty. He lead his troops in a more Civil war fashion. He was always with in viewing range of the battle and not sitting at the back waiting for relay's. There was a time when his tanks couldn't find a way across the river in Sicily and so he drove across in his jeep to show them how to get to the other side.

AVSM what is the stereotypical American that the French and British hated?

I guess i just don't understand why so many people have to have their X favorite general/army being greater than Y's favorite one.

To me you don't build up something by tearing down something else but by trying to understand the merits and minuses of X and Y.In a way the Monty vs Patton debate reminds me of the German army versus the Western Allied army debate.By tearing down one you are not enhancing the other.

You are only diminishing the accomplishments of both.

It's almost like treating your favorite one as the Patriots and the other as the Lions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Kurt

My God it must be crowded in the wide open plains:laugh4:

As for the Monty/ Patton debate - well nobody is likely to agree about that. Monty was a cautious grinder style of general - but he did consistentantly win with a careful application of resources. His biggest failure was Market Garden - but that was the time he acted most "Un-Monty". Patton was a gung-ho, damn the torpedoes style of general - great PR, but you do wonder how good he really was. Like many an up and coming heavyweight fighting a series of bums, his victories, on the whole, were against the lesser German generals and inferior troops. I wonder how well his style would have fared on the Eastern Front against the first division Germans.... or the Russians who he seemed so keen to fight as well.

In my view both did OK, but neither were truelly stellar. The problem is they had probably the best PR machines. If I had to choose one to serve under, I would choose Monty because I think he would be more cautious with my life than Patton ever would - a man who showed his true feelings for his troops by slapping a man with shell shock.

---

The midwest doesn't include just Kansas and Oklahoma,Iowa,and Illonois.Throw in states like Ohio and parts of others like Pennsylvania and it matches up.

Another thing is that if you took the whole developed area of the US and all its population you would be able to fit both within 5% of its surface area.

Don't laugh so fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John the Mad

I guess i just don't understand why so many people have to have their X favorite general/army being greater than Y's favorite one.

To me you don't build up something by tearing down something else but by trying to understand the merits and minuses of X and Y.

---

But that's exactly how stuff is built. Something must be destroyed in order for another thing to be created or improved upon.

It would like be saying this sucked:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...sigb=11jm9c87g

Because i like this better:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...sigb=11j893gje

Yeah compare and contrast, show the bad points of thing X and you make the good points thing Y so much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John the Mad

The midwest doesn't include just Kansas and Oklahoma,Iowa,and Illonois.Throw in states like Ohio and parts of others like Pennsylvania and it matches up.

Another thing is that if you took the whole developed area of the US and all its population you would be able to fit both within 5% of its surface area.

Don't laugh so fast.

---

The joke was based on your typing error - "You know theres about 300,000,000 million of us in-between the two cities" - as opposed to geography:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Kurt

The joke was based on your typing error - "You know theres about 300,000,000 million of us in-between the two cities" - as opposed to geography:laugh4:

---

Do you know how tired i am of running into euros whom think all of us live in NYC or LA or Chicago?

Quote:

---

Do you know how tired i am of running into euros whom think all of us live in NYC or LA or Chicago?

---

Or Turks trying to sell you wool coats who are convinced you need it for an American "White Christmas" even when you try to tell them you live in tropical Florida.

Quote:

---

I don't know Waki. I think if Patton had his way there wouldn't have been a market garden, just Berlin by Christmas if the supplies kept rolling in. He was steam rolling what? 30 miles a week through hedge row country. I also believe that should he have been in command of market garden he would have done things a lot differently than Monty.

---

As I understand it, once Patton got the tanks he was in the open country beyond Normandy hedge-row, cutting through German rear areas.

Quote:

---

I'm not so sure he could have done any better than Montgomery on Market Garden, there were only so many bridges that one could take, and with Patton's style he would have rushed everything he had, just in time for the Germans to blow the bridge behind him, which could have caused an Arnhem on a much larger scale.

---

Patton played something of a pivotal role since he forced the German commanders to shift SS panzer reserves to Arnhem (if the movie is to be believed).

One has to appreciate Patton simply for motivating his men, driving them onward to do their best. One doesn't denigrate Alexander because he threw his men onto the line against numerically superior Persian foes in lightning cavalry strikes. Montgomery was a methodical general; planning and organizing and supplying and then striking.

Many Americans (especially those who have also studied the American Civil War), we see Montgomery as the "McClellan"- Effective at planning and organizing but when the meat met the metal, his planning often relied on smacking the enemy with artillery and men until he broke them. Patton is easily seen as the "Jackson"- Lightning strikes of men and leadership who outflanked and outpaced enemy forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Many Americans (especially those who have also studied the American Civil War), we see Montgomery as the "McClellan"- Effective at planning and organizing but when the meat met the metal, his planning often relied on smacking the enemy with artillery and men until he broke them. Patton is easily seen as the "Jackson"- Lightning strikes of men and leadership who outflanked and outpaced enemy forces.

---

I'm afriad that the comparison between Montogmery and McClellan is one that rather annoys me because it superficial yet used so frequently as if it were not. Montgomery and McClellan were great at organizing and training and planning and both had a massive ego but Montgomery never lost his nerve, Montgomery never moved slowly once he'd started to move, Montgomery never worried about his enemy but forced them to worry about him, Montgomery was never afraid to throw his army/army group into battle when he felt the time right, when a plan didn't work out Montgomery was always prepared to reasses and change - even if he didn't public admit he had done so - McClellan did none of those things.

If you want to make a American Civil War Comparison for Montgomery then he was George Henry Thomas with D.H. Hill's personality. He, like Thomas, was a supremely effective general at a lower command level, was a master organizer, trainer and planner, he held the well being of his troops as one of the most important aspects of command, he wanted everything as thoroughly prepared as possible before he began an operation but once he began an operation he moved quickly and determinedly and, more often than not, achieved most of what he wanted to achieve. And he, like D.H. Hill, was tactless and unafraid of being completely honest and open with his opinion even if it make him unpopular with all his peers - unlike D.H. Hill he had an advcate in high office.