'No Patton'

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

Post Reply
a19999577
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lima, Peru

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by a19999577 »

Getting back to the "5 worthy Italian Commanders" idea, wasn't there a battle known as the "African Stalingrad" or "Desert Stalingrad" or something like that in Italian East Africa where Italian troops fought steadfastly? What was the name of their commander?
IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by IronDuke_slith »

ORIGINAL: a19999577

Getting back to the "5 worthy Italian Commanders" idea, wasn't there a battle known as the "African Stalingrad" or "Desert Stalingrad" or something like that in Italian East Africa where Italian troops fought steadfastly? What was the name of their commander?

Kev? Any ideas? You quoted the operational narrative for the Italian armour, I think that classes you as the forum expert in all things Commando Supremo. [;)]

I would have thought (on first glance), a19999577, that this referred to the last stand in Tunisia in 43, but as you can probably tell, I'm not in my element here [;)]. The last stand in Tunisia also doesn't fit the description of the action you give so I'm probably way out (not for the first time). Anyone else know much about this? It sounds like some colonial campaign if it was East Africa, didn't the Italians have colonial holdings in the Sudan area?

Regards,
IronDuke
a19999577
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lima, Peru

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by a19999577 »

Here are a couple of leads we might want to explore (coming from www.comandosupremo.com)

July 4 [1940]- The start of a series of first moves by Italy that led to humiliating defeats of the British. Lt. Gen Guglielmo Nasi struck westward from Ethiopia into Sudan. They capture several border towns and arrive within 300 miles of Khartoum. Within 6 weeks, Nasi conquered British Somaliland, causing the British to evacuate from the Sea at Berbera.

August 3 [1940]- British Somaliland surrenders to Italy.

November 6 [1940]- The British mount their counteroffensive in the Sudan town of Gallabat. 7,000 troops under the command of Sir William Slim storm Gallabat with tank and infantry. Without air cover, he was unable to achieve his goals. The Italian Air Force shot down 5 gladiators and bombed his troops, killing 42 and wounding 125. The attack on Italian forces ended with a British withdrawal.

ERITREA

February 3 [1941]- The British attack Keren with a force of 30,000 against 23,000 Italians made up of 3 Brigades of Colonial Levies and 3 Brigades of Savoia Grenadiers. After attacks and counterattacks, the Italians were able to push the Indian Infantry Brigade back. Then the Scottish attacked and were also repelled by the Italians. Finally, on March 27, the British were able to push the Italian forces back from Keren after 7 weeks of fighting. In this battle, 3,000 Italians die and 500 British die with 3,000 wounded.


It seems the Duke of Aosta was a major protagonist of this campaign, so I nominate him for inclusion in the "Fab Five" of the Italian Armed Forces

Cheers
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke

Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]


As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.



KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
ORIGINAL: Von Rom
ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It was directed at everyone. Stop being so prickly! If I wish to direct a comment at your good self I'll address it 'to VR' or similar[;)].

Seriously guys, when Vic locked the Dietrich thread he mentioned setting an 'example'! Now I'd rather it wasn't me, Von Rom, Iron Duke, Sarge or anyone else who has contested (is that the best word?) the last few big threads. Now I blame no-one but I see this thread heading the same way as the Patton threads and the Dietrich one. Now I've said all that I need to say about Patton and all that I can say about Dietrich at present. Now let's draw a line, make a fresh start and leave Patton etc. behind us. That was my purpose in starting this thread.[8D]


Personal insults were hurled my way in this thread by several individuals.

And I am being silly?

Please address your remarks to EVERYONE in the future, and not just after I post, and with the word "you".

If this thread is closed, it is because of the complete lack of civility and manners that some seem unable to express here.

This is a purely personal observation, so I trust it will not land me in trouble. It is also made with the best of intentions. (seriously [:)]) Particularly, as this was Kev's thread, and it has gone the same way the others did despite his best efforts.

However, I can think of six people off the top of my head who have had rowdy (a nice euphemism) encounters with you, in the last two to three threads. I am far from being alone in this regard, but freely admit to being one of your chief protagonists. The one constant, is that on one side of the argument has been stood your good self. On the other side have stood several others.

My personal observation is this. In these circumstances, if I was constantly in arguments against lots of different people, arguments whose vehemence meant they were continually locked up, I would think hard about the situation, and at least take time to consider if there was anything I was doing that meant strangers I didn't know continually took up arms against me. I did this after the Patton thread turned sour, but took no action as I didn't feel I had upset more than one person in that thread. I did wonder if I could have softened the criticisms, or shown more patience, but since several of us had been arguing with you in that thread, I regret that I neglected to change anything.

This is merely a personal observation, and I have taken a leading role in the threads in question, so happily accept some of the blame for the way they went. Likewise, I'd accept half the blame if I observed I was the only one to argue with you, but I'm not, which has prompted this comment.

Act or Ignore it as you see fit.

Regards,
IronDuke


Well, ID thanks for being so even-handed in your appraisal [8|]

The fact is that the same handful of people seem to follow you around and stick up for you.

The 5 or 6 of you certainly share the same beliefs; they are most certainly NOT my beliefs. [;)]

As to those threads being closed, I would suggest contacting the mods to get their input into the matter. Since I have been personally attacked by the same six people going back to the original first thread, including by you, I would suggest that you consider curtailing your own input into these threads.

So thanks for the "Charlie Brown" analysis [8|]
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: a19999577

[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Cheers

Ah, yes, so I think a very clear picture is emerging here. Obviously, you seem to have some connection with Ironduke I am not aware of [;)]

Let's see:

1) You read the Dietrich thread.

2) Then you come to this thread and immediately dump on me.

In the Dietrich thread, you must be in agreement with ID and kev over the fact that they believe those Nazis thugs who murdered hundreds of unarmed American POWs in the Ardennes are innocent. Yes?

So that would explain your defense of ID and your dumping on me [;)]

That's fine. I just wanted to get the situation straight.

Therefore, you are NOT just a casual forum browser [;)]

Great - join the party [:D]
a19999577
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lima, Peru

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by a19999577 »

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]

As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.

KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]

Surprise certainly is an important factor in a successful counteroffensive. But ID's guestion was mostly on what resources Patton counted on for this surprise counterstroke, what paths he would have take, what German defences were in the area and what possible countermeasures could have been implemented to prevent him from accomplishing the goal of cutting off the entire offensive.

Your plan sounds GREAT, with the information available to Patton at the time. But so did Market Garden. Now, we all know there were additional German units in the Netherlands, unknown to Allied Command. So, what we'd like to know is what German units were covering the base of the Bulge and what their possible responses could have been.

Cheers
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: a19999577
ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]

As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.

KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]

Surprise certainly is an important factor in a successful counteroffensive. But ID's guestion was mostly on what resources Patton counted on for this surprise counterstroke, what paths he would have take, what German defences were in the area and what possible countermeasures could have been implemented to prevent him from accomplishing the goal of cutting off the entire offensive.

Your plan sounds GREAT, with the information available to Patton at the time. But so did Market Garden. Now, we all know there were additional German units in the Netherlands, unknown to Allied Command. So, what we'd like to know is what German units were covering the base of the Bulge and what their possible responses could have been.

Cheers

Well, well, well,

Answering ID's replies as well, I see [;)]


Patton mentioned that he already had three plans worked out for ANY contingency in the Bulge, while the other Allied commanders had NONE.

ID's own research indicated that the 352 VGD was on the southern flank.

Patton said he could have sent 50,000 men to Bastogne AND sent another 50,000 men behind the salient.

Even Bradley started to come around to Patton's thinking AFTER he had seen what Patton could do.

The Germans were well into the bulge.

Patton's original plan would have had the Allies roll back with the German attack, and get them stuck further in.

We all know the supply situation faced by the Germans in the Bulge. Patton would then have moved in behind them.

If Patton said he could do it - I believe him.

And Monty was NO Patton.
IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by IronDuke_slith »

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
ORIGINAL: IronDuke



[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke

Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]


As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.



KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]

This post (IMHO) illustrates one of the reasons you get into the arguments you do. Firstly, I asked several questions in my post, which if you wanted to debate with me, you could have answered. However, you seem to have completely ignored all my difficult questions:
Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

Instead, you've gone back a page or two and pulled out this, or rather the sentiment, not the quote (or context) which you didn't reproduce.
IronDuke
Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on.

The phrase "It would have looked a bit like Kursk" was comparing the shape of the battlefield. My point was that without an attack from the north, any success Patton had in the south would have been like Kursk where (if you are familiar with this battle) the SS Panzer Corps penetrated in the south as far as Prokhorovka, but Model's troops in the north made no ground, leaving the southern pincer (as Patton's would have been) dangling in the air. This entire piece from you, therefore, seems like a straw man. You seem to have deliberately taken the wrong context for my words, and then argued against something I never said in order to hide the fact you don't want to answer the real points in my post.

This is what frustrates forum users, because you've avoided my valid points, and instead made up an argument about Kursk to insult me with. My real points are above, if you want to continue this debate.
As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

I took the morning of the 22.12.1944 as day one (let me know if you dispute the dates I'm using). A tenuous link (but a link non-the-less) was established to Bastogne around 17.00 on 26.12.1944. This was day five of the offensive if 22.12.1944 was day one. It's a moot point, but the actual time for the offensive was around 4 and a half days. I suppose it depends on whether you round up or down.
The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

In addition to the questions above, I have another. How can you be mobile and be low on fuel? Doesn't having no fuel somewhat restrict the mobility of mechanised forces? In addition, can you tell us which of the forces that faced Patton's drive on Bastogne were mobile (whether with or without fuel?)
2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

Makes you wonder why it took four or five days to break through, then.
3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

[&:] Are you suggesting here, that wintery weather meant all German vehicles had to be on the roads, but that Patton's vehicles (his trucks for example) could go cross country quite happily in the weather prevalent at that time? Some of the heavier (and in terms of deployment, statistically small) German tanks (Tiger II for eg) didn't like the Ardennes very much at all. However, all vehicles seems a little harsh. Would Patton have been better off on the roads in these conditions? If so, wouldn't his attack have come across the same problems of bottlenecks that the German attacks did?
Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

Very tenuous, since my Kursk argument seems to have been manufactured to avoid the following, which I'll ask again:
Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

IronDuke
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Kevinugly »

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Excuse me VR but firstly I'm not here 24/7 and the debate moves on even when I'm not here. Thus I respond to what I see. Secondly, if you are going to find slights in posts where there are none intended it makes it very difficult to sustain a discussion. Thirdly, you were the first person to bring up Patton on this thread after I specifically requested that he be avoided. Now I've tried to deal with everything with a modicum of good humour and in a civilised manner but my patience is wearing thin (and not just with you VR). I have no intention of getting myself banned on account of anyone elses sensitivities, just my own thankyou very much[:)]. Now I'm off for an evening out![:D]


Nice try [8|]

So it is quite convenient then that you show up and respond ONLY after I have posted. [;)]

What a coincidence [;)]

As I have continually repeated, address us by NAME or in the PLURAL. This way there is no confusion.

Since over the past month you have continually joined in with a couple of others in arguments against me, do you really expect me to believe that you are NOW going to start to be even-handed with me in THIS thread [8|]

So please drop this feigned approach. . .

Square the above with this from earlier in this thread

I see you have to have the last word too, so welcome to the club.

Therefore, you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing

You jumped into the middle of a conversation, expressing highly selective comments, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with you.

If your gratutious comments make you look recalcitrant, then you have only yourself to blame.

And yes, I am a very "happy go lucky guy"

The comments between Kevinugly and myself were all expressed in good fun. We have bantered quite a bit in the past, so we are used to each other.

Have a nice day.


Emphasis added by myself

Makes you very difficult to discuss anything with since I never know quite how you are going to react to anything. Both of these posts refer, more or less, to the same debates. No wonder I'm confused[&:]
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by IronDuke_slith »

Von Rom
In the Dietrich thread, you must be in agreement with ID and kev over the fact that they believe those Nazis thugs who murdered hundreds of unarmed American POWs in the Ardennes are innocent. Yes?


It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator. It is particularly offensive. I don't think you are worth it.

Another challenge. Can you quote from that thread (it is locked but you can still browse and copy from it) where Kev or I suggest that the Germans were somehow innocent of the massacre? I seem to remember suggesting there was a possibility the massacre had not been premeditated, but that responsibility still lay with the Germans because they should have taken better steps to secure and care for their prisoners.

So, please quote where I suggested (or Kev for that matter) that the Germans were innocent?

If not, will you retract this?

Ironduke
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Kevinugly »

Lord I missed that one! I think we should let it stand though, unless VR chooses to retract the statement. Since neither of us are known for expounding rabid Nazi views I'm sure that most other forum readers will see the post for what it is.

Difficult though it may be ID, I must request that you 'cease and desist' from debating Patton on my 'No Patton' thread. Despite the fact that I have no power to actually prevent you or anybody else from doing so.[8|] I can then attempt to look into all things Italian in some depth[:)]
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
Tombstone
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles, California

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Tombstone »

All the threads in here are lame talking about talking about things threads. You guys are spending an unhealthy amount of time over arguing idiotic details and getting nasty in the process. It looks like its just a few people... perhaps you guys should start a "wasting time is fun" thread? Not that talking about who the best general in X army isn't a particularly masturbatory thread topic... but at least it has a veneer of something interesting.

That said does anyone have any battalion of regimental commanders of note on the allied side? Along with anecdotes of their actions? An easy one would be the 4th Tank bde, that eventually becomes the 1st Guards Tank bde under Katukov. Perhaps Katukov had some big mistakes once he became a tank army commander, but as a smaller unit commander he did a really good job.

Any others?

Tomo
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Kevinugly »

All things Italian!! I have another link (which admittedly I cribbed from the 'Comando Supremo' site[:D]) which has some good photos of the Italian armed forces - http://www.arditi43.com/index.html
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
User avatar
dinsdale
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 4:42 pm

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by dinsdale »

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Well, ID thanks for being so even-handed in your appraisal [8|]

The fact is that the same handful of people seem to follow you around and stick up for you.
Sadly this is as incorrect as any of the numerous accusations you've made in the space of three threads now. I disagreed with your seeming invention of evidence and misuse of a legal term, the fact that Iron Duke happened to be in the same thread had nothing to do with it. Further, prior till now, the only thread I've attempted to discuss anything with you was the Dietrich thread. I use attempt as unfortunately there is no real discussion.

You are a rare example of someone who has a lot of time, plenty of sources, but gets angered and flustered when anyone questions the conclusions you draw from those sources. No doubt you will feel the uncontrollable urge to respond but be reassured that I will not be reading your posts, in fact it's not even worth reading threads that you participate in anymore. They are contaminated by rage and the most verbose sense of self-righteousness I can remember.

Apologies Kevin, but at this stage the thread is pretty much dead anyway and I wished to make it clear that ID has nothing at all to do with my resons for posting.
IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by IronDuke_slith »

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Lord I missed that one! I think we should let it stand though, unless VR chooses to retract the statement. Since neither of us are known for expounding rabid Nazi views I'm sure that most other forum readers will see the post for what it is.

Difficult though it may be ID, I must request that you 'cease and desist' from debating Patton on my 'No Patton' thread. Despite the fact that I have no power to actually prevent you or anybody else from doing so.[8|] I can then attempt to look into all things Italian in some depth[:)]

Okay, but I reserve the right to reply if he actually answers some of my challenges. Such a rarity could not go unanswered surely? However, it is likely that I'll be able to safely bow to your request, and move this back to the Italian issues. My apologies for getting sidetracked. However, I thought the Kursk straw man to obvious to go unanswered. As I said, keep asking for evidence and he seems to desist eventually.

So, as I challenged earlier, our resident Commando Supremo expert, what can you tell us about these battles a19999577 referred to? Also, I noted the name William Slim. Is it one and the same as the Gentleman you mentioned earlier, here getting defeated by the Italians? Care to comment? [:D]

I checked his autobiography and he doesn't mention this. He goes straight into the Burma campaigns, so I went looking for final confirmation it was him.

It's one of the fascinating things about the war, tracing careers. Monty starts out as 3rd infantry division Commander. Rommel as an aide of Hitler. Balck as a Commander of an Infantry Brigade in an armoured division. AlanBrook as a Corp Commander in France pre Dunkirk. Here Slim commanding troops in a relative back water. It seems from a chapter in a book "Great Commanders" (coffee table to be sure, but nice pictures) that I have that this is THE Slim. He was wounded in this campaign. Shot three times in the backside apparently. He then spent 12 months commanding an infantry division in Iraq before being transferred to Burma. The book is a tad too gleeful for my liking when it reports that one of the bullets that injured him was "a tracer".

Regards,
IronDuke
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Kevinugly »

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

All the threads in here are lame talking about talking about things threads. You guys are spending an unhealthy amount of time over arguing idiotic details and getting nasty in the process. It looks like its just a few people... perhaps you guys should start a "wasting time is fun" thread? Not that talking about who the best general in X army isn't a particularly masturbatory thread topic... but at least it has a veneer of something interesting.

Tomo

Tell me about it[8|] I wish I could point the finger at a single person and say 'he (or she)'s to blame' but I can't. I despair sometimes.
That said does anyone have any battalion of regimental commanders of note on the allied side? Along with anecdotes of their actions? An easy one would be the 4th Tank bde, that eventually becomes the 1st Guards Tank bde under Katukov. Perhaps Katukov had some big mistakes once he became a tank army commander, but as a smaller unit commander he did a really good job.


I could probably name plenty but off the top of my head I think John Frost has to be up there. He's best known for commanding the Para battalion that reached the Arnhem bridge but he also participated in the Bruneval raid which was instrumental in countering the German radar network. A fine soldier and a brave man.
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
Kevinugly
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:44 am
Location: Colchester, UK
Contact:

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Kevinugly »

Cheers Dins and ID, I do hope we can keep the thread alive and away from the 'nastiness' that seems to pervade these things. Again I have no wish to point the finger since we are all guilty in one way or another. Anyway I'm off to bed! If this thread has died by the time I return to these hallowed portals[:D][:D] I'll probably start a dedicated thread to the Italian armed forces since I appear to have fallen into the role of 'expert' [8D][:D][&o][&o]
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
ORIGINAL: Von Rom
ORIGINAL: IronDuke



[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke

Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]


As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.



KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]

This post (IMHO) illustrates one of the reasons you get into the arguments you do. Firstly, I asked several questions in my post, which if you wanted to debate with me, you could have answered. However, you seem to have completely ignored all my difficult questions:
Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

Instead, you've gone back a page or two and pulled out this, or rather the sentiment, not the quote (or context) which you didn't reproduce.
IronDuke
Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on.

The phrase "It would have looked a bit like Kursk" was comparing the shape of the battlefield. My point was that without an attack from the north, any success Patton had in the south would have been like Kursk where (if you are familiar with this battle) the SS Panzer Corps penetrated in the south as far as Prokhorovka, but Model's troops in the north made no ground, leaving the southern pincer (as Patton's would have been) dangling in the air. This entire piece from you, therefore, seems like a straw man. You seem to have deliberately taken the wrong context for my words, and then argued against something I never said in order to hide the fact you don't want to answer the real points in my post.

This is what frustrates forum users, because you've avoided my valid points, and instead made up an argument about Kursk to insult me with. My real points are above, if you want to continue this debate.
As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

I took the morning of the 22.12.1944 as day one (let me know if you dispute the dates I'm using). A tenuous link (but a link non-the-less) was established to Bastogne around 17.00 on 26.12.1944. This was day five of the offensive if 22.12.1944 was day one. It's a moot point, but the actual time for the offensive was around 4 and a half days. I suppose it depends on whether you round up or down.
The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

In addition to the questions above, I have another. How can you be mobile and be low on fuel? Doesn't having no fuel somewhat restrict the mobility of mechanised forces? In addition, can you tell us which of the forces that faced Patton's drive on Bastogne were mobile (whether with or without fuel?)
2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

Makes you wonder why it took four or five days to break through, then.
3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

[&:] Are you suggesting here, that wintery weather meant all German vehicles had to be on the roads, but that Patton's vehicles (his trucks for example) could go cross country quite happily in the weather prevalent at that time? Some of the heavier (and in terms of deployment, statistically small) German tanks (Tiger II for eg) didn't like the Ardennes very much at all. However, all vehicles seems a little harsh. Would Patton have been better off on the roads in these conditions? If so, wouldn't his attack have come across the same problems of bottlenecks that the German attacks did?
Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

Very tenuous, since my Kursk argument seems to have been manufactured to avoid the following, which I'll ask again:
Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

IronDuke


What are you trying to say ID?

Soviet defenses at Kursk were mostly STATIC. In the Bulge, the German forces were all mobile, with the main muscle of the Germans being north with 6th SS Panzer and Peiper pushing for the Meuse.

You prsent NO valid argument.

Hence, Patton's plan to cut-off the Germans at the salient was the CORRECT one.

Ike was too timid at the Bulge, just as he was at Falaise.

The Allied High Command was the best friend the German army had in Europe.
User avatar
Von Rom
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am

RE: 'No Patton'

Post by Von Rom »

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly
ORIGINAL: Von Rom
ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Excuse me VR but firstly I'm not here 24/7 and the debate moves on even when I'm not here. Thus I respond to what I see. Secondly, if you are going to find slights in posts where there are none intended it makes it very difficult to sustain a discussion. Thirdly, you were the first person to bring up Patton on this thread after I specifically requested that he be avoided. Now I've tried to deal with everything with a modicum of good humour and in a civilised manner but my patience is wearing thin (and not just with you VR). I have no intention of getting myself banned on account of anyone elses sensitivities, just my own thankyou very much[:)]. Now I'm off for an evening out![:D]


Nice try [8|]

So it is quite convenient then that you show up and respond ONLY after I have posted. [;)]

What a coincidence [;)]

As I have continually repeated, address us by NAME or in the PLURAL. This way there is no confusion.

Since over the past month you have continually joined in with a couple of others in arguments against me, do you really expect me to believe that you are NOW going to start to be even-handed with me in THIS thread [8|]

So please drop this feigned approach. . .

Square the above with this from earlier in this thread

I see you have to have the last word too, so welcome to the club.

Therefore, you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing

You jumped into the middle of a conversation, expressing highly selective comments, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with you.

If your gratutious comments make you look recalcitrant, then you have only yourself to blame.

And yes, I am a very "happy go lucky guy"

The comments between Kevinugly and myself were all expressed in good fun. We have bantered quite a bit in the past, so we are used to each other.

Have a nice day.


Emphasis added by myself

Makes you very difficult to discuss anything with since I never know quite how you are going to react to anything. Both of these posts refer, more or less, to the same debates. No wonder I'm confused[&:]


Well, remain confused then.

I see since you returned, MY post was the FIRST one you responded to. . . [8|]

Heheh
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”