Posted on 12/22/2013 10:26:40 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets
Edited on 12/22/2013 10:43:18 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
On the morning of December 19, 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower strode into the gloomy school building in Verdun that housed the main headquarters of General Omar Bradley
(Excerpt) Read more at americanheritage.com ...
More good guys die in the offense than the defense in war. However, it is the only path to victory.
The attack on Metz was an unnecessary spilling of American blood, wasting men’s lives in a vainglorious show, where, at the end, all that was needed was a 175mm cannon.
True. No war was ever won through defensive tactics. The European landscape is littered with the bones of shattered defenses going back for centuries. Sooner or later, you’ve got to come out from behind the fortifications and fight.
“Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man. If mountain ranges and oceans can be overcome, then anything built by man can be overcome.” - General Patton
Patton was certainly an interesting person. I enjoyed “Lucky Forward” by Lt. Col. Robert S. Allen.
Where are you George Patton!!!
Hadn’t heard about John’s passing. Thanks for the info, and thanks for the outstanding article he wrote about Patton.
MacArthur’s command was vast, and he fought the Japanese whose tactics were often futilely suicidal. The Kamikaze planes were an effective, and frightening, tactic. Banzi charges simply spilled blood. In Guadalcanal, Japanese tactics could have hardly have been better chosen to insure the maximum number of Japanese causalities. Still some of the elements of his command must have suffered a better ratio of friendly to unfriendly casualities than others, so at least some of his subordinates would have had to have outshone him in that statistic.
Patton did manage to create or exploit dynamic situations, were the enemy was in retreat, which is the best time to inflict high casualty ratios. He is is probably also credited with casualties caused by Air Force units, attacking German units he faced. When the Germans tried to run on the road in daylight they were sitting ducks.
While in Mexico(The Punitive Expedition),Lt. Patton had an unfortunate mishap with a Model 1911 that nearly cost him his “Manhood”.From thence(onward)he carried a”Single-Action Army”on his right hip along with a .357Magnum and various other guns.
Thank you for posting this. John D. Eisenhower’s “The Bitter Woods” is one of the 3 best books on the Battle of the Bulge. the other two are Charles MacDonald’s “A Time for Trumpets” and the official Army history “The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge” by Hugh M. Cole.
Cole’s Ardennes volume is available online from the US Army Center of Military History website at: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_CONT.HTM
And for xone, I concur with Hiddi about Patton being quite conscious on avoiding casualties for his own soldiers. Dennis Showalter goes into this in his “Rommel & Patton” volume.
Metz was a key location that had to be taken. The extensive forts there, the rivers and rain, and Ike giving Monty priority on gasoline, inhibited flanking attacks and left frontal assaults as the only course of action. It had been hoped that the forts would not have been heavily manned, but the Germans poured in reinforcements into that sector because they saw Patton as the primary threat, not Monty to the north. Read the chapters on this by Dennis Showalter in his book “Patton And Rommel: Men of War in the Twentieth Century”
“more good guys die in offense than defense” usually true but it also depends upon how you do your offense. WWI trench type, over the top and into machineguns, or do flanking attack as in Manstein’s French Invasion, or the Bradley/Patton breakout of Normandy.
What you said was equally true of the other American field generals in Europe. Patton wasn’t fighting a retreating army in North Africa where is changed the whole dynamics of the American invasion of Casablanca. He did a number on attaching (not retreating) German armor at the Battle of El Guettar in Tunisia. I won’t go into Sicily where he outran Montgomery, or his roll in halting the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge. Using the tools available and creating or exploiting dynamic situations is what make a great general and saves troops.
MacArthur’s strategy of bypassing Japanese held islands, cutting off their supply, then going back and mopping them up was responsible for his success.
The Navy distinctly did not want to invade the Philippines, some attribute the decision to MacArthur’s vanity. (”I shall return.”) Nimitz was as responsible for island hopping as much as MacArthur. It was an obvious strategy. There was absolutely no reason to attack isolated and cut off Japanese garrisons, which is what the Philippines would have been without the invasion. And that was Nimitz recommendation.
I am not minimizing Patton’s skill and initiative, and I did not necessarily say I agree with the assessment that Patton was careless with his soldier’s lives. I think tactics used at Metz must count against him in this score, at a minimum.
ping
Another George, McClellan, was careful with the lives of his troops. Careful to the point of complete non-action. And he was soon replaced after dithering endlessly, recognized as the feckless miscast that he was.
Ask the 101st surrounded at Bastogne which one they would have asked for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.