Patton 360

[King Kurt]

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

[John the Mad]

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

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

[Marshal Murat]

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.

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.

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.

[MAJR]

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.