Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think the best judge of generals is what the enemy thinks of them. Patton is the only Allied General who the Germans actually feared. They respected him so much that they gave him a German designation.
"Kampfgruppe Patton".
Eisenhower never held a battlefield command, but he knew how to handle the men who did.
The true American military genius of WWII was Gen George Marshall
Pleeeeezzzze!
Careful...you may inspire me to expose George Marshall.....and you won't like it.
"One example of George Marshall's understanding of military science: He was testifying before a Senate committee in the summer of 1940, after the German break-through in France.
A senator asked him whether the army knew how to stop tanks. Marshall said he believed the jeep was the answer to the tank. To the flabbergasted senators, he explained: "As I conceive it, hundreds of jeeps will swarm over the battlefield, each of them towing a 37 millimeter anti-tank gun. That way we will put the tanks out of business."
As it turned out, the 37 millimeter anti-tank guns Marshall was talking about wouldn't stop a light tank at close range, but that was beside the point. What the German tiger and panther tanks might have done to a fleet of jeeps racing out on a battlefield would have been a spectacle."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 118-119
At the time 37mm anti tank guns were standard in both the US and German forces, the conventional wisdom of the time was rapidly evolving as mobile combined arms warfare was still in it's infancy. But you probably knew all that already.
Not true. By 1940 the Germans had upgraded to the 5cm PaK 38 and were upgrading their tanks as well.
Incorrect, the 5cm was barely entering service, most infantry units were still equipped with the 3.7cm at the time France fell.
I wonder what gave Gen. Marshall such crazy ideas.
37MM AT gun?
Can you name one German tank that the 37MM could pen?
I can name several, in fact in 1940 that would be most German tanks. The Panzer 1, Panzer II, Panzer III, Czech Lt-35 and Lt-38, everything in the German arsenal at the time except the frontal armor of a Panzer Mk 4.
That's actually a good answer! And had we fought the Germans in 1940, that would have been effective.
Also, Rommel had suggested that instead of concentrating on building tanks, the Germans should have build more towed 8.8 to fight the Russians who had the habit of charging head long into kill zones
By the time we actually crossed swords with them in 1943 we needed the 76 to pen the Mark IV's and the 90mm to have a chance at a Tiger (in service since 1942). I always thought it was negligent that we sent the Shermans into combat knowing they were under-armored and outgunned. It was Patton and the armor commanders that made the difference
Fortunate that we didn't go to war with the Soviets as Patton suggested at the time.....the T-34 was superior to the Sherman and the IS-2 would have defeated the new Pershing tanks.
Irrelevant.
US Army Air power would have turned Soviet armor into target practice. They would have cried "unfair" all day and night, but they'd still be smoking heaps on the battlefield
The true American military genius of WWII was Gen George Marshall
Pleeeeezzzze!
Careful...you may inspire me to expose George Marshall.....and you won't like it.
"One example of George Marshall's understanding of military science: He was testifying before a Senate committee in the summer of 1940, after the German break-through in France.
A senator asked him whether the army knew how to stop tanks. Marshall said he believed the jeep was the answer to the tank. To the flabbergasted senators, he explained: "As I conceive it, hundreds of jeeps will swarm over the battlefield, each of them towing a 37 millimeter anti-tank gun. That way we will put the tanks out of business."
As it turned out, the 37 millimeter anti-tank guns Marshall was talking about wouldn't stop a light tank at close range, but that was beside the point. What the German tiger and panther tanks might have done to a fleet of jeeps racing out on a battlefield would have been a spectacle."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 118-119
At the time 37mm anti tank guns were standard in both the US and German forces, the conventional wisdom of the time was rapidly evolving as mobile combined arms warfare was still in it's infancy. But you probably knew all that already.
Not true. By 1940 the Germans had upgraded to the 5cm PaK 38 and were upgrading their tanks as well.
Incorrect, the 5cm was barely entering service, most infantry units were still equipped with the 3.7cm at the time France fell.
The gun was developed in 1938 and yes, due to slow production it wasn't common until 1941, but the Germans had already figured out that they needed to go bigger. In fact the 7.5cm PaK 40 came out less than a year later.
Worst American General of WWII
This worn out old story promoted by arm chair generals with 20/20 hindsight vision only makes sense to those who ignore the plain facts that have been omitted to make it seem feasible. It is one of those fantasies that get regurgitated over and over. So, here is what is being omitted.15. And, for speaking the truth......
"At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria. That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield. In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views.
But Patton despised the politically driven circus and the media minions that carried out their dirty work. Still, he continued to speak out against the Russians as an American witness to their brutality during and after the war. As Stalin devoured Eastern Europe, Patton remarked,“I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”
In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians.
British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail.
Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come. Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact. In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags.
At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”
As with Prague, Patton’s request to secure Berlin was denied. Sadly, after Patton finally reached the ravaged city, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945,” for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”
In the end, yes Patton was a genius commander such as are many today within the purged ranks of military leadership but never forget, Roosevelt was ultimately the string puller and hence, Russia got its way and the libtards destroyed the face of the planet for the next 50 years until the dissolution of the Soviet machine."
The Foresight of Patton FrontPage Magazine
a. "Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? We are going to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation. Why not do it now while our Army is intact and the damn Russians can have their hind end kicked back to Russia in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the German troops we have, if we just arm them and take them with us. They hate the bastards.[92]
These actions were all Eisenhower could handle; he could not cover this one up and had no choice but to relieve Patton of his command. Patton was personally hurt by the loss."
Military History Online
Patton was correct.
Roosevelt not.
As the old saying goes, the only place to find 'justice' is the dictionary, or the cemetery.
37MM AT gun?
Can you name one German tank that the 37MM could pen?
I can name several, in fact in 1940 that would be most German tanks. The Panzer 1, Panzer II, Panzer III, Czech Lt-35 and Lt-38, everything in the German arsenal at the time except the frontal armor of a Panzer Mk 4.
That's actually a good answer! And had we fought the Germans in 1940, that would have been effective.
Also, Rommel had suggested that instead of concentrating on building tanks, the Germans should have build more towed 8.8 to fight the Russians who had the habit of charging head long into kill zones
By the time we actually crossed swords with them in 1943 we needed the 76 to pen the Mark IV's and the 90mm to have a chance at a Tiger (in service since 1942). I always thought it was negligent that we sent the Shermans into combat knowing they were under-armored and outgunned. It was Patton and the armor commanders that made the difference
Fortunate that we didn't go to war with the Soviets as Patton suggested at the time.....the T-34 was superior to the Sherman and the IS-2 would have defeated the new Pershing tanks.
Irrelevant.
US Army Air power would have turned Soviet armor into target practice. They would have cried "unfair" all day and night, but they'd still be smoking heaps on the battlefield
What do you suppose the Soviet Air Force would be doing? They defeated the other half of the Luftwaffe.
Would the American people have gone along with Patton's plan to enlist Germans and start a new war with the Russians? More board games, I move my pawn....15. And, for speaking the truth......
"At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria. That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield. In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views.
But Patton despised the politically driven circus and the media minions that carried out their dirty work. Still, he continued to speak out against the Russians as an American witness to their brutality during and after the war. As Stalin devoured Eastern Europe, Patton remarked,“I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”
In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians.
British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail.
Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come. Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact. In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags.
At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”
As with Prague, Patton’s request to secure Berlin was denied. Sadly, after Patton finally reached the ravaged city, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945,” for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”
In the end, yes Patton was a genius commander such as are many today within the purged ranks of military leadership but never forget, Roosevelt was ultimately the string puller and hence, Russia got its way and the libtards destroyed the face of the planet for the next 50 years until the dissolution of the Soviet machine."
The Foresight of Patton FrontPage Magazine
a. "Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? We are going to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation. Why not do it now while our Army is intact and the damn Russians can have their hind end kicked back to Russia in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the German troops we have, if we just arm them and take them with us. They hate the bastards.[92]
These actions were all Eisenhower could handle; he could not cover this one up and had no choice but to relieve Patton of his command. Patton was personally hurt by the loss."
Military History Online
Patton was correct.
Roosevelt not.
As the old saying goes, the only place to find 'justice' is the dictionary, or the cemetery.
I can name several, in fact in 1940 that would be most German tanks. The Panzer 1, Panzer II, Panzer III, Czech Lt-35 and Lt-38, everything in the German arsenal at the time except the frontal armor of a Panzer Mk 4.
That's actually a good answer! And had we fought the Germans in 1940, that would have been effective.
Also, Rommel had suggested that instead of concentrating on building tanks, the Germans should have build more towed 8.8 to fight the Russians who had the habit of charging head long into kill zones
By the time we actually crossed swords with them in 1943 we needed the 76 to pen the Mark IV's and the 90mm to have a chance at a Tiger (in service since 1942). I always thought it was negligent that we sent the Shermans into combat knowing they were under-armored and outgunned. It was Patton and the armor commanders that made the difference
Fortunate that we didn't go to war with the Soviets as Patton suggested at the time.....the T-34 was superior to the Sherman and the IS-2 would have defeated the new Pershing tanks.
Irrelevant.
US Army Air power would have turned Soviet armor into target practice. They would have cried "unfair" all day and night, but they'd still be smoking heaps on the battlefield
What do you suppose the Soviet Air Force would be doing? They defeated the other half of the Luftwaffe.
Soviet Air Force? They'd be doing next to nothing.
Pleeeeezzzze!
Careful...you may inspire me to expose George Marshall.....and you won't like it.
"One example of George Marshall's understanding of military science: He was testifying before a Senate committee in the summer of 1940, after the German break-through in France.
A senator asked him whether the army knew how to stop tanks. Marshall said he believed the jeep was the answer to the tank. To the flabbergasted senators, he explained: "As I conceive it, hundreds of jeeps will swarm over the battlefield, each of them towing a 37 millimeter anti-tank gun. That way we will put the tanks out of business."
As it turned out, the 37 millimeter anti-tank guns Marshall was talking about wouldn't stop a light tank at close range, but that was beside the point. What the German tiger and panther tanks might have done to a fleet of jeeps racing out on a battlefield would have been a spectacle."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 118-119
At the time 37mm anti tank guns were standard in both the US and German forces, the conventional wisdom of the time was rapidly evolving as mobile combined arms warfare was still in it's infancy. But you probably knew all that already.
Not true. By 1940 the Germans had upgraded to the 5cm PaK 38 and were upgrading their tanks as well.
Incorrect, the 5cm was barely entering service, most infantry units were still equipped with the 3.7cm at the time France fell.
The gun was developed in 1938 and yes, due to slow production it wasn't common until 1941, but the Germans had already figured out that they needed to go bigger. In fact the 7.5cm PaK 40 came out less than a year later.
So had everyone else, the out of context remarks regarding Gen. Marshall are essentially meaningless.
This worn out old story promoted by arm chair generals with 20/20 hindsight vision only makes sense to those who ignore the plain facts that have been omitted to make it seem feasible. It is one of those fantasies that get regurgitated over and over. So, here is what is being omitted.15. And, for speaking the truth......
"At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria. That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield. In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views.
But Patton despised the politically driven circus and the media minions that carried out their dirty work. Still, he continued to speak out against the Russians as an American witness to their brutality during and after the war. As Stalin devoured Eastern Europe, Patton remarked,“I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”
In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians.
British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail.
Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come. Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact. In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags.
At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”
As with Prague, Patton’s request to secure Berlin was denied. Sadly, after Patton finally reached the ravaged city, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945,” for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”
In the end, yes Patton was a genius commander such as are many today within the purged ranks of military leadership but never forget, Roosevelt was ultimately the string puller and hence, Russia got its way and the libtards destroyed the face of the planet for the next 50 years until the dissolution of the Soviet machine."
The Foresight of Patton FrontPage Magazine
a. "Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? We are going to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation. Why not do it now while our Army is intact and the damn Russians can have their hind end kicked back to Russia in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the German troops we have, if we just arm them and take them with us. They hate the bastards.[92]
These actions were all Eisenhower could handle; he could not cover this one up and had no choice but to relieve Patton of his command. Patton was personally hurt by the loss."
Military History Online
Patton was correct.
Roosevelt not.
As the old saying goes, the only place to find 'justice' is the dictionary, or the cemetery.
At the time that Patton was promoting the continuation of the war in Europe with a confrontation with Russia, a battle was being fought in the Pacific. The meeting of the US and USSR armies at the Elbe River took place on the 25th of May. The battle for Okinawa had begun on the 1st of April and was just in it's finishing phase. Casualties at Okinawa were huge. Over 38,000 men were wounded and 12,000 were killed in action. Troops that Patton wanted to use to fight the Russians were needed to fight the Japanese. Even with these troops the military planners were counting on the Russians joining in the war against Japan and holding down and defeating the Japanese forces stretching from the Russian Chinese border to the sea. The ability of the Japanese to move those forces to mainland Japan to help defend against the American invasion would be a disaster that would drastically increase allied casualties and lengthen the war.
The atomic bomb did not exist. At the time of Patton's suggestions to continue the war in Europe with a war with Russia, the atomic bomb test at Trinity was months away. It would not come until July. Even those who knew about the Manhattan Project could only hope and speculate about it's success and how it would impact the war.
Patton had the fortunate position of only having to view the battlefield in front of him. He did not have to view or consider the big picture and worry about the battles others would have to fight.
"Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? We are going to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation."
Patton was correct.
Roosevelt not.
.
Pure troll thread to get a response. An opinion.
Would the American people have gone along with Patton's plan to enlist Germans and start a new war with the Russians? More board games, I move my pawn....15. And, for speaking the truth......
"At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria. That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield. In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views.
But Patton despised the politically driven circus and the media minions that carried out their dirty work. Still, he continued to speak out against the Russians as an American witness to their brutality during and after the war. As Stalin devoured Eastern Europe, Patton remarked,“I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them… …the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”
In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians.
British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail.
Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come. Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact. In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags.
At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”
As with Prague, Patton’s request to secure Berlin was denied. Sadly, after Patton finally reached the ravaged city, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945,” for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”
In the end, yes Patton was a genius commander such as are many today within the purged ranks of military leadership but never forget, Roosevelt was ultimately the string puller and hence, Russia got its way and the libtards destroyed the face of the planet for the next 50 years until the dissolution of the Soviet machine."
The Foresight of Patton FrontPage Magazine
a. "Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? We are going to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation. Why not do it now while our Army is intact and the damn Russians can have their hind end kicked back to Russia in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the German troops we have, if we just arm them and take them with us. They hate the bastards.[92]
These actions were all Eisenhower could handle; he could not cover this one up and had no choice but to relieve Patton of his command. Patton was personally hurt by the loss."
Military History Online
Patton was correct.
Roosevelt not.
As the old saying goes, the only place to find 'justice' is the dictionary, or the cemetery.
Pleeeeezzzze!
Careful...you may inspire me to expose George Marshall.....and you won't like it.
"One example of George Marshall's understanding of military science: He was testifying before a Senate committee in the summer of 1940, after the German break-through in France.
A senator asked him whether the army knew how to stop tanks. Marshall said he believed the jeep was the answer to the tank. To the flabbergasted senators, he explained: "As I conceive it, hundreds of jeeps will swarm over the battlefield, each of them towing a 37 millimeter anti-tank gun. That way we will put the tanks out of business."
As it turned out, the 37 millimeter anti-tank guns Marshall was talking about wouldn't stop a light tank at close range, but that was beside the point. What the German tiger and panther tanks might have done to a fleet of jeeps racing out on a battlefield would have been a spectacle."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 118-119
At the time 37mm anti tank guns were standard in both the US and German forces, the conventional wisdom of the time was rapidly evolving as mobile combined arms warfare was still in it's infancy. But you probably knew all that already.
Not true. By 1940 the Germans had upgraded to the 5cm PaK 38 and were upgrading their tanks as well.
Incorrect, the 5cm was barely entering service, most infantry units were still equipped with the 3.7cm at the time France fell.
The gun was developed in 1938 and yes, due to slow production it wasn't common until 1941, but the Germans had already figured out that they needed to go bigger. In fact the 7.5cm PaK 40 came out less than a year later.
So had everyone else, the out of context remarks regarding Gen. Marshall are essentially meaningless.
Actually, Pattons poor understanding of the political aspects of his position are well documented and almost cost him his career. His inability to get along with his superiors and allies are well documented.Militarily, Patton was a genius
Politically, he was a moron
In other words, he doesn't agree with you. LOL. Not agreeing with a moron makes one a moron? Yeah, no...
"Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? We are going to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation."
Patton was correct.
Roosevelt not.
.
Patton was wrong. We didn't fight them sooner or later. I'm not surprised you don't know that.
Actually, Pattons poor understanding of the political aspects of his position are well documented and almost cost him his career. His inability to get along with his superiors and allies are well documented.Militarily, Patton was a genius
Politically, he was a moron
In other words, he doesn't agree with you. LOL. Not agreeing with a moron makes one a moron? Yeah, no...
