Patton or Rommel

Even 65 years ago a general hitting a soldier under medicial care was unacceptable in the US army.

Patton was a remarkable general, but outside the battlefield he was often his own worse enemy

 

Never said it WAS acceptable. And of course Patton wouldn't "make it" in todays society if he did that. Many officers who served in the war would not "make it" nowadays also. But he still did "make it" in the society of the 40s.And many of those who served under him and with him respected and loved the man. So it really had no bearing or effect on his Generalship. He still went on to serve and help win the war.

 

Can you be a General officer without, at the very least, a substantial ego? Common sense says it's not absolutely essential, but even the most apparently mild mannered can snarl like tigers in their memoirs when some decision is perceived as controversial. Many of the ones I see as 'effective' have the balls of steel required to issue orders that may mean the deaths of hundreds and understand fully what that means; with that horrendous responsibility there has to come a certain fire in the belly and strong sense of self-belief.
Or does there?

Any exceptionally mild-mannered 'combat' Generals out there? With no eccentricities or 'unusual' traits. Few immediately spring to mind apart from some vague thoughts on the likes of Heinrici and his rather serious caste (who certainly had their own forms of 'Prussian' personal display... a culture that sees duelling scars as a fine thing is hardly conventional), but I don't really know enough on him to be sure... perhaps because one tends to read more depth on the entertaining characters.

Thinking about it... Alanbrooke and GC Marshall were both very straight militarily and privately. Perhaps in Alanbrooke's case to such an extent as to be as unusual when compared to the rest of humanity as Patton can seem.
Though Chiefs of Staff maybe don't count... somebody has to be the Headmaster.
(No substantial skeletons or man-sized frilly knickers in Marshall's closet were there? Not read as much on him.)

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Im still waiting for examples of Patton being a "terrible" General.The Hammelberg raid and Task Force Baum may be one. But what others?

 

My heavens!....


..... what a fun thread!

On the American side, Bradley springs to mind.

(I really just wanted to show off my stylish new avatar.)

-whatever

-Lou

---------------------------
PATTON ROCKS!!! (He was American, you know!)
(...and anyone that doesn't agree is a cross-eyed farty-pants!...)

 

I always like reading about General Heinrici and his affection for wearing a beat up old leather overcoat.

 

I was just thinking of Bradley too Lou. Though I suppose even he had his boiling point & 'ego moments' in the postwar slanging match over Normandy he couldn't really be described as 'strange'.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Ok maybe I was a little quick to defend you in the other thread mate, statments like this will surely casue friction and start arguments.

So again I say, please read some books, or the posts here and then, and only then reply some posts here.

Please feel free to stay, we do not mean to scare you away, but such silly questions can, well, you can see what they do.

 

Adam i hope you didn't laugh too much !!!

Lucky for us we had Patton and his amazing Football Helmet to lead the charge at Cambrai in 1917 , how lucky the British were that he arrived in time to lead us to Victory and then unbelievably he had to come back during the Second World War to do it again as the British Generals still didn't know what they were doing !!!!!

Seriously though more good research JCF now we know he was an observer at Cambrai.

But the other version sounds much better from Pattons egotistical point of view i'm sure he would have loved it.

regards

Paul

 

Patton wasn't a 'terrible general' but the least successful campaign of Patton's was probably the Lorraine Campaign, where the German's held the Third Armys attempts to break through, and caused 50,000 US casualties

 

Indeed, and a lot of it was started by Patton himself.
Take for example his famous General Order Number 98, issued the day after the end of the war, when he stated that his Third Army 'had advanced further in less time than any other army in history'-just over 1,300miles in 281 days.

Anybody want to guess who's army actually travelled faster and for further than this in WW2

 

Errr . . . the Japanese?

 

Von Bock, Guderian and Hoth in Barbarossa?

 

Ok, I'm waiting...

 

No.
If they had travelled as fast as this army in its first 18 days of advance they would have been in Moscow on the 16th day

 

Not the same distance, but could we be talking about the rate of Anglo-Canadian advance towards Belgium after the normandy breakout?

 

Vladivostok 2 weeks later

 

Mild mannered?

Lloyd R. Fredendall ? and look what a "Rousing" success he was.

 

The advance of 21st Army group after the break-out was indeed remarkable (250 miles in four days IIRC), but the advance I'm looking at was over a distance of 1,850 miles

 

Patton - 1,300miles in 281 days = 4.63 mi/day


The Long March - Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) and the Red Army of the Chinese Communist Party

Reportedly traveled 8,000 miles in 370 days (21.6 mi/day) - but, that's the stuff of legends.



-whatever

-Lou