Kenny,

You have just proved that I should install a breathalyser on my PC to prevent further posting after too much scotch. I gave off the impression that I would be enthusiastic about serving in a field army during WWII. Actually I would not "like" to serve anywhere during WWII. But in wars you go where you are told.

I would stand by the statement that Patton was not wasteful of the lives of his men in comparison to Hodge or Bradley. During the Battle of Hurtgenwald Hodge severely damaged two of the army's best divisions, the 1st and 9th and nearly destroyed two more veteran divisions, 4th and 28th, for a worthless piece of property. Patton's battle in Lorraine was bloody and messy, but he was fighting for an invasion route into Germany as old as history and his units, like the 35th and the 80th, did not suffer anywhere near that kind of damage sustained by the assault divisions in the First in Hurgentwald.

The Lorraine Campaign was also fought amongst ancient fortresses that dated back to the Roman Empire. Lorraine's defensive belt had been constantly upgraded since the 18th century to keep its weaponry abreast with modern technology by its German and French occupiers. Russel Weigley judged Lorraine the most heavily fortified sector on the German border eclipsing even the Sigfried Line.

No Allied General was keen on getting their men killed. In practice, Monty was probably the best General serve under as he was particularly frugal with the lives of his men and made few mistakes.