Patton was right

[Ned]

I think quick victory in Iraq shows the soundness of a war plan premised on bypassing pockets of resistance and going straight for the enemy's capital, using airpower to blast elite enemy formations in the way.

This is what Patton wanted to do in the Summer of '44. He wanted to bag the German army in a great sweep around Paris, and then drive straight for Berlin. With the army of the West captured, the Italian army pinned down, the armies of the East far away and tied down holding off the USSR, the Germans could not have stopped Patton.

Franks clearly has used and vindicated Patton's plan.

Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it.

[Spiffor]

Such a plan depends on the efficiency of the power's collapse when the capital has fallen. If the power has ways to survive the fall of the capital or of the leader, the pockets of resistance will not fall by themselves.

Also, such a plan needs a superior mobility to avoid the enemy to reorganize, or to attack the rushing army, which is more vulnerable by definition.

Maybe this could have applied in the 1944 situation (at least, about the collapse of the regime being swift and resulting in a complete demoralization of the troops and command), but we can't know for sure.

[Alvaro]

It all depends on how rotten the governing body of the country/how demoralized the army & population are.

Germany has long before the arrival of allied armies adapted the semi-closet approach of Hitler kaputt!. Same applied to Saddam's regime now.

The Wehrmacht coughed blood when fighting such pockets during Barbarosa, and that inspite of general collapse of the Red Army in the first 3 months.

All because of a motivated and inspired belief in saving the Rodina, in sacrifcing their lives for the motherland's freedom.

No such thoughts even crossed the minds of the Iraqi army's troops who surrendered to every westerner they saw, even reporters. The germans who resisted in the end did so not because they believed in the rightness of the cause - but because they feared the retribution of the Red Army for what was done to the USSR.

[Sava]

I doubt this applies to the '44 situation. Patton was a great general and motivator, but had he tried his plan, the Allies would have suffered many more casualties and probably not have succeeded with the march.

And comparing today's US military vs Iraq to the Allies vs Nazis is just hilarious

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sava
And comparing today's US military vs Iraq to the Allies vs Nazis is just hilarious

Don't you STILL know Saddam is the new Hitler ?

[Ming]

Gee... I thought all the anti war people were calling Bush the new Hitler

[Alvaro]

Originally posted by Sava
And comparing today's US military vs Iraq to the Allies vs Nazis is just hilarious

What makes you say that? The Shermans had a massive advantage over the Panzers: They lit up with much more ease and burned for ages brightly which helped advance at night

Ofcourse the Panzers had worthwhile armour and a cannon that could actually penetrate a brick wall, but hey, what's that in comparison to a torch at night?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming
Gee... I thought all the anti war people were calling Bush the new Hitler

Both are laughable, but comparing Bush to Hitler is even more ludicrous.

[Ned]

You seem to forget that we had almost as much air supremacy vs. the Germans as we had against the Iraqi's. We blasted the Germans into dust to create the breakout from Normandy in the first place. If the Germans ever made a stand anywhere, our airpower would have again blasted them.

What the use of massed bombers against the Germans in the Normandy breakout proved is that bombing infrantry and armor works. We did that again in Desert Storm, Afghanistan and now Iraqi Freedom. The Germans simply could not have stopped Patton if the airforce paved the way.

We know that the conspirators almost took over the German government in '44 by decapitating the regime. I believe the same might have happened if the US Army drove to downtown Berlin that summer. Germany would have collapse if Hitler was gone.

What I am saying is that Patton's plan has been proven here in Iraqi Freedom.

[DanS]

April 21, 2003 edition...

[DanS]

May 7, 1945 edition...

[Spiffor]

Comparing the end of Hitler with the end of Saddam is absolutely pathetic from a serious source like Time. I'm sure today's hype will be the laughingstock of historians in 50 years.

Edit : besides, the 1945 one looks more professional

[Vanguard]

Actually I think I would argue that Montgomery was right.

Once the Allies were securely ashore, victory was assured. So why pursue a risky strategy that could concievably result in disaster due to supply considerations?

Of course, it is then impossible to excuse Montgomery's ridiculous Market-Garden plan later in the year.......

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned

Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it.

Logistics torpedoed it, Ike couldn't get the GAS & AMMO
& FOOD to him in the interior of France for a highball into
Germany.

That's why the allies wanted ANTWERP, werp.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
I think quick victory in Iraq shows the soundness of a war plan premised on bypassing pockets of resistance and going straight for the enemy's capital, using airpower to blast elite enemy formations in the way.

This is what Patton wanted to do in the Summer of '44. He wanted to bag the German army in a great sweep around Paris, and then drive straight for Berlin. With the army of the West captured, the Italian army pinned down, the armies of the East far away and tied down holding off the USSR, the Germans could not have stopped Patton.

Franks clearly has used and vindicated Patton's plan.

Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it.

IIRC, Montgomery also wanted a narrow front attack. It was Eisenhower who was against this idea.

What worked in 2003 cannot be compared to 1944 simply because any comparison between the German military of '44 and the Iraqi military is absurb. The German military at that time was a battle-hardened group of well-trained (for the most part) and well-led soldiers equipped with relatively comparable technology. The Iraqi army was a poorly trained, poorly led mob with outdated technology.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai


IIRC, Montgomery also wanted a narrow front attack. It was Eisenhower who was against this idea.

What worked in 2003 cannot be compared to 1944 simply because any comparison between the German military of '44 and the Iraqi military is absurb. The German military at that time was a battle-hardened group of well-trained (for the most part) and well-led soldiers equipped with relatively comparable technology. The Iraqi army was a poorly trained, poorly led mob with outdated technology.

Actually, the relative quality of the German Army vs. the Iraqi Army has virtually nothing to do with this. The issue is speed of advance of the ground attack and the use of overwhelming airpower to blast through elite formations. The rapid advande is designed to prevent an organized resistance and to cut off bypassed troops that can be reduced by follow-on forces. Airpower kills any enemy that tries to dig in and block the advance. Airpower also disrupts resupply and redisposition, and prevents counterattacks on the flanks.

We saw all this in Frank's plan. It is the same plan as Patton's.

[Ned]

The only drawback to this plan was the same problem we had in Iraqi Freedom: supply. Patton outran his and had to slow down. Ditto Franks.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, the relative quality of the German Army vs. the Iraqi Army has virtually nothing to do with this. The issue is speed of advance of the ground attack and the use of overwhelming airpower to blast through elite formations.

Without the comparative edge in military hardware, how could such speed be achieved?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned


Actually, the relative quality of the German Army vs. the Iraqi Army has virtually nothing to do with this. The issue is speed of advance of the ground attack and the use of overwhelming airpower to blast through elite formations. The rapid advande is designed to prevent an organized resistance and to cut off bypassed troops that can be reduced by follow-on forces. Airpower kills any enemy that tries to dig in and block the advance. Airpower also disrupts resupply and redisposition, and prevents counterattacks on the flanks.

We saw all this in Frank's plan. It is the same plan as Patton's.

If that's what you're talking about then it is not Patton's plan. Guderian was arguably the first to develop the concept of the Blitzkreig. The Russians copied the idea at Stalingrad and elsewhere. Montgomery used this strategy in North Africa.

Patton was simply following the crowd.

As well, the relative strength of the opponent is important. A well-led army can counter the blitz by cutting off the primary attack at its base, or by counterattacking into the enemy's line with a counter-blitz which is what the Israelis effectively did in 73.

The US strategy in Iraqi assumed the enemy would collapse without a fight. That assumption was slightly incorrect although it only caused a slight delay.

Eisenhower operated on the assumption that the German could and would put up a fight so saying the Iraqi war proves him wrong is unfair.

[gsmoove23]

Airpower wasn't anywhere near as effective as it is today, at the mercy of weather conditions, frightfully inaccurate bombing technology, far more vulnerable to German AA... Frankly, the forces were far to equally matched for this to be possible and the Germans were far too adept at these tactics and their counters. We would have been offering too many vulnerabilities to an enemy who was all too able to capitalize.

...and yeah, supply was a problem even without a rapid advance.

[Master Zen]

Umm... first of all the great sweep was at Falaise and it was very successful: two entire armies wiped out and 10,000 germans killed. Airpower, of course, nowhere near as effective today was quite an important factor, as most German testimonies will atest too, dozens of tanks were destroyed during Typhoon strikes for example.

What escaped from the Falaise pocked were shattered remnants with little heavy equippment and posed no threat to the Allied armies until mid/late september when the front consolidated itself again, the Germans actually called it a "miracle".

I am not sure what you are referring to with this wide sweep around Paris, after Falaise the Germans were in full retreat, and the Allies marching at full speed, there was hardly no front whatsoever so it is difficult to imagine how a wide sweep could have bagged enough troops. Once Patton ran out of fuel it was worthless too, and by that time the Allies had bypassed Paris by much so it is wrong to say Montgomery killed the plan since the plan was dead already.

[Ned]

Eisenhower prolonged the war due to his "conservative" strategy if the alternative would have worked. I think it is quite obvious that it would have worked - given adequate supplies. If we advanced rapidly enough, the Germans would have had a very hard time finding divsions to defend the capitol. We could have taken it before help arrived. The war would have been over as the Nazi regime collapsed.

Also, think of what we lost by choosing Eisenhower's low risk strategy. All of Eastern Europe would still be in the Nazi's hands at the time of their surrender. Poland, Hungary, Romania - all would have been liberated from the Nazi's but would not have fallen into slavery to Stalin.

Perhaps, though, we seen some politics beyond Montgomery in Eisenhower's go slow approach.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Umm... first of all the great sweep was at Falaise and it was very successful: two entire armies wiped out and 10,000 germans killed. Airpower, of course, nowhere near as effective today was quite an important factor, as most German testimonies will atest too, dozens of tanks were destroyed during Typhoon strikes for example.

What escaped from the Falaise pocked were shattered remnants with little heavy equippment and posed no threat to the Allied armies until mid/late september when the front consolidated itself again, the Germans actually called it a "miracle".

I am not sure what you are referring to with this wide sweep around Paris, after Falaise the Germans were in full retreat, and the Allies marching at full speed, there was hardly no front whatsoever so it is difficult to imagine how a wide sweep could have bagged enough troops. Once Patton ran out of fuel it was worthless too, and by that time the Allies had bypassed Paris by much so it is wrong to say Montgomery killed the plan since the plan was dead already.

Patton's plan was to sweep West and South of Paris then North to Holland to link up there with the Brits. This was a much greater sweep than was approved. I believe the problem was that de Gaul wanted to be the one to liberate Paris. Also Monty argued for a more conservative approach.

[Master Zen]

I understant what you're getting at Ned, I think, basically I think the issue is not so much the sweep around Paris but rather the Patton vs Monty idea of an Allied offensive in mid September. These are my views.

Market-Garden was a sound plan, destroyed by faulty intelligence and bad luck. If the Brits had been able to get reliable intel about the 2 panzer divisions in the area they would not have launched the attack. As it was, it was a complete failure for that reason IMO.

Now, the Germans expected Patton to lead the Allied charge so perhaps they would have been better prepared down south. Anyway, there's no way to confirm this as it is all speculation.

As for the capital, that's another story whatsoever. The supply problem as during August/september, after that it was a hard slog through the winter under not so favorable terrain. The Rheinland campaign pitted the entire Allied armies against the Germans with very small advances, add to this the German counterattack and you can get the picture.

Eisenhower could have gotten to Berlin quickly after the Rhine crossings however I agree. However, he did have a point in not wanting to risk casualties as the demarcation line between east and west was already drawn during Yalta. So what if the Allies had advanced more and taken Berlin? It might not have made a difference.

BTW, the Allies actually did penetrate much farther to the east than the eventual "line", as far as Leipzig and Pilsen which were all well into the Soviet zone. In that sense Ike wasn't so much as being conservative but unwilling to risk casualties for nothing.

BTW, most allied generals and historians actually applauded the wide-front strategy post-war.

[gsmoove23]

...given adequate supplies.

This is the key phrase. We just didn't have them, remember our supply lines were strung out across the Atlantic entering Europe through what were, in the early stages, very limited port facilities. The great sweeping maneuvers previously practised by Germany and Russia were done in much different situations.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned


Patton's plan was to sweep West and South of Paris then North to Holland to link up there with the Brits. This was a much greater sweep than was approved. I believe the problem was that de Gaul wanted to be the one to liberate Paris. Also Monty argued for a more conservative approach.

Montgomery did not argue for a more conservative. He argued for the narrow front strategy.

You keep trying to blame Montgomery for the broad front approach when it was Eisenhower who wanted to take this approach.

The situation with Paris changed when the Resistance rose up and the Allies had to divert forces to support the fighters. Or are you suggesting it would have been better to let the Germans destroy the resistance?

Yes, the French wanted to be the first into Paris. The decision to let them arrive first had no effect on the war.

One thing that you haven't considered is that Patton was an extremely over-rated general. His army had only faced third-line troops. If he had charged into Germany, he would have gotten himself way over his head.

Of course, Patton would have blamed everyone else if that happened, just as he blamed Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, and everyone else for their supposed failures and his unrealistic demands.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
I think it is quite obvious that it would have worked - given adequate supplies. If we advanced rapidly enough, the Germans would have had a very hard time finding divsions to defend the capitol. We could have taken it before help arrived. The war would have been over as the Nazi regime collapsed.

You are advocating a risky move without much gain. A German counter attack that cuts off supply lines would have bagged lots of Allied troops.

Originally posted by Ned
Also, think of what we lost by choosing Eisenhower's low risk strategy. All of Eastern Europe would still be in the Nazi's hands at the time of their surrender. Poland, Hungary, Romania - all would have been liberated from the Nazi's but would not have fallen into slavery to Stalin.

Suppose they surrender. The question is to whom. Clearly, they wouldn't have surrendered to the US forces, because they were much further away than the Soviets. Once Germany surrendered, the Soviets could just blitzed through and take as much as they did, if not more.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Suppose they surrender. The question is to whom. Clearly, they wouldn't have surrendered to the US forces, because they were much further away than the Soviets. Once Germany surrendered, the Soviets could just blitzed through and take as much as they did, if not more.

Good point. Something exactly like this happend in Korea. The Soviets took surrender of Japanese troops North of the 38th parallel. We still haven't recovered from this. But undoubtedly, the USSR would have occupied large portions of the East in a surrender deal with the Western allies.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
You seem to forget that we had almost as much air supremacy vs. the Germans as we had against the Iraqi's. We blasted the Germans into dust to create the breakout from Normandy in the first place. If the Germans ever made a stand anywhere, our airpower would have again blasted them.

What the use of massed bombers against the Germans in the Normandy breakout proved is that bombing infrantry and armor works. We did that again in Desert Storm, Afghanistan and now Iraqi Freedom. The Germans simply could not have stopped Patton if the airforce paved the way.

We know that the conspirators almost took over the German government in '44 by decapitating the regime. I believe the same might have happened if the US Army drove to downtown Berlin that summer. Germany would have collapse if Hitler was gone.

What I am saying is that Patton's plan has been proven here in Iraqi Freedom.

Ned your comparison is ludicrous. The advantage the US has over Iraq is astronomical compared to the Allied advantage over the Axis. It was also a different kind of war, using different tactics. Look at the kill ratios for instance, the shear amount of ordinance used in attacks... FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, ITS STUPID!

The only point you could make without using such silly comparisons would be to say that the tactics used in the advance were Patton's. And that even isn't that correct. The Coalition advance was equipped to take many more prisoners because of the rate of dessertion of Iraqi forces. The Germans didn't go so quietly. And did you forget about the existing strength of the Axis? Look at the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans were able to mount an effective offensive, though they didn't have the resources to continue it.

This is like comparing Ali vs Frazier and Mike Tyson vs some 5 year old kid.

[Ned]

As to Patton being an overrated general - well, it seems to me that he and his troops performed very well. But the idea with blitz warfare is to destroy enemy divisions with airpower. In order to counterattack, the enemy must move. When they move, they are exposed to airpower and can be destroyed.

Historians noted that Patton's plan was to protect his flanks all the way with airpower. We had a lot of it. This is why I believe, more than any other reason, that the plan would have worked. The use of airpower in this very same manner in Iraqi Freedom has demonstrated that the plan could have worked.

Bad weather could have provided the Germans cover for movement in order to concentrate their forces and counterattack. This worked to their advantage and permitted the Battle of the Bulge. But, how could the Germans plan on bad weather during the summer?