https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3hVXp5RzQ4
Agents and double agents are absolutely necessary. Control of narrative is life or death. Therefore once this tool exists, we can't live without it. Directed initially against the Soviet Union and its allies. But also by spying on our own allies, whose communications might also prove informative.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 05:09:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3hVXp5RzQ4
Agents and double agents are absolutely necessary. Control of narrative is life or death. Therefore once this tool exists, we can't live without it. Directed initially against the Soviet Union and its allies. But also by spying on our own allies, whose communications might also prove informative.
This tool has existed for all time. And it is a fact that this country collects intelligence on every country in the world. I've seen some of the data--it's stored in volumes that look like the periodical guides that most libraries have; they are constantly added to. I'm sure that they are stored in computers now, tho. And the Army has the world divided into AO's (areas of operation) with battle plans drawn up--enemies and allies alike.
Hoover's secretary of state, and FDR's last secretary of war, Henry Lewis Stimson, said in the 1920s, "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail." In 1940 he was quite happy to read "Magic" and "Ultra."
Control of the media ... yesterday and today. Can you believe any of it? Hence the need to make all independent media on Internet ... cease and desist. You have to have a press pass, from the CIA, like Mr Woodward.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 18, 2019, 06:59:33 PMAnd the Army has the world divided into AO's (areas of operation) with battle plans drawn up--enemies and allies alike.
And that's bad? Because drawing up plans to react to any foreseeable international crisis even among allies (allies don't always stay allies, just ask Russia and China) and assinging Areas of Responsibility and Areas of Operations seems pretty reasonable to me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 18, 2019, 09:19:12 PM
And that's bad? Because drawing up plans to react to any foreseeable international crisis even among allies (allies don't always stay allies, just ask Russia and China) and assinging Areas of Responsibility and Areas of Operations seems pretty reasonable to me.
I did not mean to imply that that was bad. It seemed a reasonable thing to do then and now. And what I was able to read was a fun read. Plus in the ebb and flow of history, one cannot always be sure of who is an enemy or friend down the road. And even if the friend is still a friend, that friend may have been taken over by some other power and being familiar with the terrain and other factors would be a great aid if we were to come to that friend's defense. Gathering intelligence seems a necessary evil.
Ah, okay. I might've read too much between the lines there, cause it seemed like an accusation of nefarious/belligerent intent rather than cautious vigilance.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 18, 2019, 09:29:47 PM
I did not mean to imply that that was bad. It seemed a reasonable thing to do then and now. And what I was able to read was a fun read. Plus in the ebb and flow of history, one cannot always be sure of who is an enemy or friend down the road. And even if the friend is still a friend, that friend may have been taken over by some other power and being familiar with the terrain and other factors would be a great aid if we were to come to that friend's defense. Gathering intelligence seems a necessary evil.
It is more than gathering intelligence. Politic-economics is war by other means. That is why we are in both hot war and economic war. The US is based on the British Empire, which is based on the Spanish Empire, which is based on the Roman Empire. Aggressive it is, that is what Russia/China is complaining about.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2019, 10:15:49 PM
It is more than gathering intelligence.
Yes and no. To not gather intelligence is to stay blind. That can be dangerous. Gathering too much intelligence, too aggressively can also be dangerous. It is a fine line that needs to be threaded. Even back in the day when I was a Military Intelligence Agent, we had too many agencies gathering intel and not sharing it. I dealt with Naval, Air Force, NSA, FBI and every now and again, CIA agents. They were a closed mouth batch. Every request was met with 'Well, I'll have to see if I can release that to you.' I thought that we had too many agencies gathering the same type of intel; to day that has been compounded. That can, and does, lead to happenings like 9-11. We had the intel to stop it, but the agencies just don't share intel with one another.
As for Russia/China complaining about it, that is their job. Almost all other countries complain about out intel gathering; and we complain about theirs. Sort of like Amazon competing with IBM or Microsoft or Walmart. That's their job.
Yes, supposedly 17 different Federal spy agencies now. Not only every department wants their own spy department, but their own law enforcement arm.
Sometimes historical narrative gets improved ... how did Bletchley Park help sink the Bismarck?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJeI5_9c29s
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 18, 2019, 09:29:47 PM
I did not mean to imply that that was bad. It seemed a reasonable thing to do then and now. And what I was able to read was a fun read. Plus in the ebb and flow of history, one cannot always be sure of who is an enemy or friend down the road. And even if the friend is still a friend, that friend may have been taken over by some other power and being familiar with the terrain and other factors would be a great aid if we were to come to that friend's defense. Gathering intelligence seems a necessary evil.
People make a fuss about "Plan Red", war with the British and Commonwealth. The War Colleges created these plans, one per "school year". They were studies. The US-Canadian border is fascinating, rivers and wide waterway, small "oceans", a wide open plains border, and mountains. All that needs defended, or attacked over, as the case may be. Fifty-five hundred, twenty-five miles of border that is unfortified. How do you defend all of that? DO you defend all of that?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 25, 2019, 02:47:55 PM
People make a fuss about "Plan Red", war with the British and Commonwealth. The War Colleges created these plans, one per "school year". They were studies. The US-Canadian border is fascinating, rivers and wide waterway, small "oceans", a wide open plains border, and mountains. All that needs defended, or attacked over, as the case may be. Fifty-five hundred, twenty-five miles of border that is unfortified. How do you defend all of that? DO you defend all of that?
Those are fascinating studies. And those are good and valid questions. And I would imagine they are still being asked and answered every so often by all the branches of the military.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 25, 2019, 02:47:55 PM
People make a fuss about "Plan Red", war with the British and Commonwealth. The War Colleges created these plans, one per "school year". They were studies. The US-Canadian border is fascinating, rivers and wide waterway, small "oceans", a wide open plains border, and mountains. All that needs defended, or attacked over, as the case may be. Fifty-five hundred, twenty-five miles of border that is unfortified. How do you defend all of that? DO you defend all of that?
Great Britain is the Great Satan! Who burned Washington DC? As late as WW II, lots of Americans hated Britain.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 25, 2019, 06:31:15 PM
Those are fascinating studies. And those are good and valid questions. And I would imagine they are still being asked and answered every so often by all the branches of the military.
Including plans for Federal troops to invade Texas over to California. Can't imagine why?
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2019, 07:09:50 PM
Including plans for Federal troops to invade Texas over to California. Can't imagine why?
It would be nice if you could make sense every now and again. What the fuck did you just say??????
I think he's in chat bot mode, Mike, so he streams his consciousness all over the place.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 25, 2019, 08:28:50 PM
It would be nice if you could make sense every now and again. What the fuck did you just say??????
War plans. Plan for war against New Hampshire for example, and the there 49 states. The oath sworn is against ... all enemies, foreign and domestic. Perhaps we should have done this in the 60s, rather than invade Vietnam.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 25, 2019, 08:41:46 PM
I think he's in chat bot mode, Mike, so he streams his consciousness all over the place.
Stream of consciousness is better than stream of unconsciousness ;-) Also it is the literary technique of James Joyce.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 18, 2019, 09:19:12 PM
And that's bad? Because drawing up plans to react to any foreseeable international crisis even among allies (allies don't always stay allies, just ask Russia and China) and assinging Areas of Responsibility and Areas of Operations seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yes, always be prepared... Sometimes allies change...
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 19, 2019, 09:16:31 AM
Yes and no. To not gather intelligence is to stay blind. That can be dangerous. Gathering too much intelligence, too aggressively can also be dangerous. It is a fine line that needs to be threaded. Even back in the day when I was a Military Intelligence Agent, we had too many agencies gathering intel and not sharing it. I dealt with Naval, Air Force, NSA, FBI and every now and again, CIA agents. They were a closed mouth batch. Every request was met with 'Well, I'll have to see if I can release that to you.' I thought that we had too many agencies gathering the same type of intel; to day that has been compounded. That can, and does, lead to happenings like 9-11. We had the intel to stop it, but the agencies just don't share intel with one another.
As for Russia/China complaining about it, that is their job. Almost all other countries complain about out intel gathering; and we complain about theirs. Sort of like Amazon competing with IBM or Microsoft or Walmart. That's their job.
Within a nation, all intelligence should be shared. But that means a central agency and that can get out of hand. Better to have several and share as much "as possible".
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 25, 2019, 06:31:15 PM
Those are fascinating studies. And those are good and valid questions. And I would imagine they are still being asked and answered every so often by all the branches of the military.
Preparation is vital. Dwight David Eisenhower was being groomed for an important spot in 1939. Gen. George Catlett Marshall wanted him to take over in the top job in the US Army. Marshall wanted someone competent to replace him so he could go fight the war in Europe. Eisenhower was a Lt. Col. in 1939. Five years later he was a five star general.
(Marshall's plan fell through when FDR refused to let him go play soldier. The fact that Marshall was an bit of an anglophobe played in that decision. I've always thought that the idea he couldn't rise above that was a discredit to Marshall.)
Marshall was an excellent organizer. That doesn't make him good at combat. The first American commander in N Africa, had been the head of West Point, and failed. Patton was called in to replace him.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 26, 2019, 06:44:17 AM
Preparation is vital. Dwight David Eisenhower was being groomed for an important spot in 1939. Gen. George Catlett Marshall wanted him to take over in the top job in the US Army. Marshall wanted someone competent to replace him so he could go fight the war in Europe. Eisenhower was a Lt. Col. in 1939. Five years later he was a five star general.
(Marshall's plan fell through when FDR refused to let him go play soldier. The fact that Marshall was an bit of an anglophobe played in that decision. I've always thought that the idea he couldn't rise above that was a discredit to Marshall.)
I did not know the details of Eisenhower's advancement. It makes sense that skill can be quickly recognized, though. If I recall accurately through history, though, organizers make good leaders. Robert Lee was a Quartermaster at the start, Grant kept supply lines operating, and Eisenhower was both an organizer and a consensus-maker. Someone more knowledgable than I would have to tell me about his tactical skills.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2019, 08:04:50 AM
I did not know the details of Eisenhower's advancement. It makes sense that skill can be quickly recognized, though. If I recall accurately through history, though, organizers make good leaders. Robert Lee was a Quartermaster at the start, Grant kept supply lines operating, and Eisenhower was both an organizer and a consensus-maker. Someone more knowledgable than I would have to tell me about his tactical skills.
Eisenhower was a superb supply officer, plan maker, politician in uniform. Just what was needed at his level. Being in the field carrying a rifle, wasn't his calling.
I have read of his advancement ... Marshall kept a little black book of young Army officers he thought had promise, going back decades before WW II. And he used it when the opportunity arose. For selected reasons, different people were advanced way past where they were in the seniority list (how the Army usually did things). Other people were forcibly retired. Marshall founded the Pentagon and cleaned house at the outset.
Patton was originally higher in seniority than Eisenhower, and before the war started Eisenhower polled him on help getting a job in the coming war. Patton's forte was as a trainer, not a combat officer. A more practical version of the guy who lost the first US army battle with the Afrika Corp. Bradley on the other hand, wasn't an aristocrat like Patton, and was better with people in general, so he was put in charge of the American part of Overlord, and interacting with the difficult Field Marshall Montgomery. Of course all the generals made mistakes during the war, and other men paid for it with their lives ... cest le guerre.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2019, 01:11:44 PM
Eisenhower was a superb supply officer, plan maker, politician in uniform. Just what was needed at his level. Being in the field carrying a rifle, wasn't his calling.
I have read of his advancement ... Marshall kept a little black book of young Army officers he thought had promise, going back decades before WW II. And he used it when the opportunity arose. For selected reasons, different people were advanced way past where they were in the seniority list (how the Army usually did things). Other people were forcibly retired. Marshall founded the Pentagon and cleaned house at the outset.
Patton was originally higher in seniority than Eisenhower, and before the war started Eisenhower polled him on help getting a job in the coming war. Patton's forte was as a trainer, not a combat officer. A more practical version of the guy who lost the first US army battle with the Afrika Corp. Bradley on the other hand, wasn't an aristocrat like Patton, and was better with people in general, so he was put in charge of the American part of Overlord, and interacting with the difficult Field Marshall Montgomery. Of course all the generals made mistakes during the war, and other men paid for it with their lives ... cest le guerre.
This is why they keep you around. ;) But I disagree about Patton being a trainer rather than a combat officer. It seems to me the opposite.
References would be greatly appreciated please?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 01, 2019, 04:51:08 PM
This is why they keep you around. ;) But I disagree about Patton being a trainer rather than a combat officer. It seems to me the opposite.
References would be greatly appreciated please?
https://www.amazon.com/Patton-Rommel-Men-Twentieth-Century/dp/0425206637
Rommel was a brilliant infantry officer (as a young man) that became mobile. Patton was a brilliant cavalry officer (as a young man) that became motorized. Both did combat, as young men, not as generals. They weren't special berserker warriors at that level, but thinkers. As generals you have to get other people do to things. The failings of Patton were directly related to his aristocratic background, his being from cavalry (Bradley was infantry), and his histrionic way of training. He was one of the leaders of the huge Army games in Southern America just before WW II, when they had to pretend with logs in place of artillery. He led the Army out to Ft Irwin in the Mohave, to teach his corp cadre how to survive in the desert (he had foresight). He was good at motivating men, who are open to his drama queen style of leadership. But he was a disaster with the press ... not a politician at all. Dual bios are interesting (Rommel was middle class), because you can see how Rommel would have been better in the US Army, and Patton would have been better in the German Army (my opinion). Until Patton got the US 3rd Army, he didn't have the right group of officers and men who could dance to his tune. Earlier he was tied to Monty. When he did, he performed miracles. But you have to match the conductor to the orchestra. And of course ... the US had absolute air superiority for the French and German campaign, that helps a lot.
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2019, 06:20:15 PM
https://www.amazon.com/Patton-Rommel-Men-Twentieth-Century/dp/0425206637
Rommel was a brilliant infantry officer (as a young man) that became mobile. Patton was a brilliant cavalry officer (as a young man) that became motorized. Both did combat, as young men, not as generals. They weren't special berserker warriors at that level, but thinkers. As generals you have to get other people do to things. The failings of Patton were directly related to his aristocratic background, his being from cavalry (Bradley was infantry), and his histrionic way of training. He was one of the leaders of the huge Army games in Southern America just before WW II, when they had to pretend with logs in place of artillery. He led the Army out to Ft Irwin in the Mohave, to teach his corp cadre how to survive in the desert (he had foresight). He was good at motivating men, who are open to his drama queen style of leadership. But he was a disaster with the press ... not a politician at all. Dual bios are interesting (Rommel was middle class), because you can see how Rommel would have been better in the US Army, and Patton would have been better in the German Army (my opinion). Until Patton got the US 3rd Army, he didn't have the right group of officers and men who could dance to his tune. Earlier he was tied to Monty. When he did, he performed miracles. But you have to match the conductor to the orchestra. And of course ... the US had absolute air superiority for the French and German campaign, that helps a lot.
That is a very interesting interpretation of Patton's skills. I don't disagree that he was a very good disciplinarian General (but crossed over to local dictatorship habits when not watched carefully (as in not comprehending "battle-shock" on occasion).
But driving soldiers to exhaustion by force of will is not the same thing as training. Your statement about "he didn't have the right group of officers and men who could dance to his tune" demonstrates that. "Dance to his tune" is not the same thing as training.
Patton "demanded" obedience, "trainers" teach skills. That is very different.
That is a dialectic. You have to push soldiers to win, but you have to have trained them first to be able to perform under stress. The natural position of any soldier is with his head between his legs.
Quote from: Baruch on March 04, 2019, 05:13:40 AM
That is a dialectic. You have to push soldiers to win, but you have to have trained them first to be able to perform under stress. The natural position of any soldier is with his head between his legs.
Patton did not train any soldiers. He demanded his subordinates did without having any skill to do it himself. That in itself is not exactly a weakness on his part; he commanded well. But he never "trained" anyone at any level well. I'm just saying you should recognize the difference...
Indeed, his inability to actually "train" subordinates is well-documented. As a fierce fighter, he could not understand "battle fatigue" and was never good at leading individuals in warfare. I offer a wikipedia page discussing that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents].
I do not hesitate to say that he was a skilled commander and tactician. His quick recognition and planned responses to the Battle Of the Bulge (for example) are impressive. But it was his LACK of ability to train soldiers that lead to his temporary removal from command afterwards.
Yes he was returned to command for his tactical skills after Operation Overlord, but that was the reason subordinates became his superiors in rank.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 04, 2019, 08:07:29 AM
Patton did not train any soldiers. He demanded his subordinates did without having any skill to do it himself. That in itself is not exactly a weakness on his part; he commanded well. But he never "trained" anyone at any level well. I'm just saying you should recognize the difference...
Indeed, his inability to actually "train" subordinates is well-documented. As a fierce fighter, he could not understand "battle fatigue" and was never good at leading individuals in warfare. I offer a wikipedia page discussing that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents].
I do not hesitate to say that he was a skilled commander and tactician. His quick recognition and planned responses to the Battle Of the Bulge (for example) are impressive. But it was his LACK of ability to train soldiers that lead to his temporary removal from command afterwards.
Yes he was returned to command for his tactical skills after Operation Overlord, but that was the reason subordinates became his superiors in rank.
You demonstrate irrational contention and ignorance. You are on ignore ;-)
https://www.nps.gov/articles/pattonmojave.htm
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2019, 08:04:50 AM
I did not know the details of Eisenhower's advancement. It makes sense that skill can be quickly recognized, though. If I recall accurately through history, though, organizers make good leaders. Robert Lee was a Quartermaster at the start, Grant kept supply lines operating, and Eisenhower was both an organizer and a consensus-maker. Someone more knowledgable than I would have to tell me about his tactical skills.
He has a staff to formulate strategy. (They were in place before he was chosen, when SHAEF was as yet unchosen.) The field commanders were the ones who formulated tactics.
Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years a 8 part series, from 1981 ... is a much fuller exploration of the lead up to WW II.
The Gathering Storm, from 2002 is a more recent but lengthy treatment.
Darkest Hour really only covers a very short but crucial period after he returned to government service.
The darkest truth about the appeasers in GB and the US, is that they were philo-German at a bad time. And more than a few were anti-Semites.
Videos have no real depth. I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich when it first came out in paperback. Needed a serious dictionary.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 05, 2019, 06:59:11 AM
Videos have no real depth. I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich when it first came out in paperback. Needed a serious dictionary.
Yes, I read that too, way back. This is also good ...
Adolf Hitler by John Toland (1976) and more recently ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Garden_of_Beasts
These convinced me of the total depravity of mankind.
Toland was a fluffy.
Quote from: Baruch on March 04, 2019, 12:43:27 PM
You demonstrate irrational contention and ignorance. You are on ignore ;-)
https://www.nps.gov/articles/pattonmojave.htm
From you, I consider that high but reluctant praise.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 04, 2019, 06:57:09 PM
He has a staff to formulate strategy. (They were in place before he was chosen, when SHAEF was as yet unchosen.) The field commanders were the ones who formulated tactics.
From History.com: "Although Eisenhower had never seen combat during his 27 years as an army officer, his knowledge of military strategy and talent for organization were such that Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall chose him over nearly 400 senior officers to lead U.S. forces in the war against Germany.
After proving himself on the battlefields of North Africa and Italy in 1942 and 1943, Eisenhower was appointed supreme commander of Operation Overlordâ€"the Allied invasion of northwestern Europe.
Apparently, he DID have both strategic and tactical skills. I had forgotten that he had successful N African experience. It is easy to forget what he did before D-Day...
He had skills, but his primary duty was getting all those idiots to play nice together. At one point I think he was ready to shoot Montgomery. (During the Battle of the Bulge.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 10:56:08 AM
He had skills, but his primary duty was getting all those idiots to play nice together. At one point I think he was ready to shoot Montgomery. (During the Battle of the Bulge.)
You missed my point. Eisenhower had actual battlefield experience. Again from History.com "In July, Eisenhower was appointed lieutenant general and named to head Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of French North Africa. As supreme commander of a mixed force of Allied nationalities, services, and equipment, Eisenhower designed a system of unified command and rapidly won the respect of his British and Canadian subordinates. From North Africa, he successfully directed the invasions of Tunisia, Sicily, and the Italian mainland"
What? You thought Patton and Montgomery led their forces from the front waving their swords? Sure, they were closer to the troops, but they still did it behind the lines. Subordinate Generals do that. Even 0ne-stars lead from behind...
I read up on Eisenhower in the '70s. He was chosen as SHAEF for his people skills. He never micromanaged the troops in the field.
General Patton did micromanage soldiers in the field, not just the training grounds. He should have delegated that part. He had a way of kicking other subordinate commanders in the butt, which was useful. Otherwise just a prima-donna.
"When things get tough they send for the sons-a-bitches."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 01:04:01 PM
"When things get tough they send for the sons-a-bitches."
That isn't PC today. Wish we had done that in Vietnam. Westmoreland was a political general, not a killer.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 12:01:24 PM
I read up on Eisenhower in the '70s. He was chosen as SHAEF for his people skills. He never micromanaged the troops in the field.
If you are fixated on sword-waving and flag-grabbing, neither did any other general who survived WW2.
I mean face it, that went out with the war that ended all wars. (coff, coff)
And if I'm not fixated? Which I'm not.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 05:13:21 PM
And if I'm not fixated? Which I'm not.
Then neither Patton nor Montgomery meet your definition of battlefield generals either...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 05:22:45 PM
Then neither Patton nor Montgomery meet your definition of battlefield generals either...
Based on a pop culture knowledge of all.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 05:30:10 PM
Based on a pop culture knowledge of all.
Look, I admire Patton for his skills. I admire Montgomery for his skill. I admire Eisenhower for hi skills. But you just aren't getting it. NONE of them went into battle "leading the charge", waving their swords around screaming "follow me, follow me".
And they shouldn't. It takes too much training to develop a really good general (as each was). Give it up... Declare victory and start a new thread or something...
;)
I won't argue physics with Feynman or history with you.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2019, 05:39:37 PM
I won't argue physics with Feynman or history with you.
I'm sure Richard is honored to be mentioned in the same sentence with me. He's a pretty good theorist...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 07, 2019, 06:01:28 PM
I'm sure Richard is honored to be mentioned in the same sentence with me. He's a pretty good theorist...
Our own Joe ... used to diss Feynman because of his fetish for Einstein.
Eisenhower was under the rock of Gibraltar, the whole time the N Africa campaign went on (for US 1943-43). Patton actually was in the field, but well behind the lines, ordering those who were in the field of fire. Patton's combat experience was in WW I, as a tank innovator, trainer, leader. Aside from his adventure against Pancho Villa before WW I, his only war wound was earned when he caught a stray bullet in his butt while leading outside the tanks (you use infantry and tanks combined). He wasn't in the tank when wounded. He did get strafed in N Africa by Axis planes.
Eisenhower's best experience was advocating coast to coast highways, just after WW I, for military reasons. That led to the interstate highway system in the 1950s. But he was the one who inspired Route 66 long before that. He was involved in logistics and training, even training tanks for WW I, stateside ... so had that in common with Patton. His combat before WW II, was helping Douglas McArthur burn out the veterans who were protesting outside Washington DC.
Both were great men. But not like the colonels who led from the front during the Civil War (and thus highest casualty rate of any rank).
Quote from: Baruch on March 07, 2019, 06:11:29 PM
Our own Joe ... used to diss Feynman because of his fetish for Einstein.
Eisenhower was under the rock of Gibraltar, the whole time the N Africa campaign went on (for US 1943-43). Patton actually was in the field, but well behind the lines, ordering those who were in the field of fire. Patton's combat experience was in WW I, as a tank innovator, trainer, leader. Aside from his adventure against Pancho Villa before WW I, his only war wound was earned when he caught a stray bullet in his butt while leading outside the tanks (you use infantry and tanks combined). He wasn't in the tank when wounded. He did get strafed in N Africa by Axis planes.
Eisenhower's best experience was advocating coast to coast highways, just after WW I, for military reasons. That led to the interstate highway system in the 1950s. But he was the one who inspired Route 66 long before that. He was involved in logistics and training, even training tanks for WW I, stateside ... so had that in common with Patton. His combat before WW II, was helping Douglas McArthur burn out the veterans who were protesting outside Washington DC.
Both were great men. But not like the colonels who led from the front during the Civil War (and thus highest casualty rate of any rank).
You are apparently obsessed with old-style generals leading charges and commanding forward units. That mostly went out in the US Civil War when it occurred to tacticians that sniping the front officers would pretty much screw up any attack. Obviously, by WWII, no high level generals were anywhere near the front.
As you admit, Patton was never actually near the front. And he shouldn't have been. Neither should Eisenhower been. I can't find evidence of your suggestion that he suggested interstate highway before he became President. Can you provide a link? I would find that interesting.
Patton was often at the front.
And you're right, he shouldn't have been.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 14, 2019, 08:21:23 AM
Patton was often at the front.
And you're right, he shouldn't have been.
Please show me how Patton was really "At The Front"...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 10:14:49 AM
Please show me how Patton was really "At The Front"...
Who relieved Bastogne?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 14, 2019, 11:23:13 AM
Who relieved Bastogne?
You aren't getting it. Patton planned the relief of Bastogne BRILLIANTLY. but he did not lead the troops shooting Germans!
I'll grant that he came damn close and I consider him "up there" with the best of the front line types in modern times, but he was never ever in any danger of taking a bullet, and properly so. He was too expensive to train for that.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 12:31:34 PM
You aren't getting it. Patton planned the relief of Bastogne BRILLIANTLY. but he did not lead the troops shooting Germans!
I'll grant that he came damn close and I consider him "up there" with the best of the front line types in modern times, but he was never ever in any danger of taking a bullet, and properly so. He was too expensive to train for that.
Perhaps in W Europe. But in N Africa he did dodge bullets. Don't think Ike approved that.
Yes, his work with relieving Bastogne was brilliant, but he gave all the credit to the 3rd Army under him. What he had was "leadership" ... impossible to define. Churchill had it too. More often we are led by milquetoasts. But in WW II, while they weren't far from the front, it wasn't like a colonel at Gettysburg.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2019, 12:31:34 PM
You aren't getting it. Patton planned the relief of Bastogne BRILLIANTLY. but he did not lead the troops shooting Germans!
I'll grant that he came damn close and I consider him "up there" with the best of the front line types in modern times, but he was never ever in any danger of taking a bullet, and properly so. He was too expensive to train for that.
/quibbling
Cavebears favorite Star Trek episode ... "Trouble With Quibbles" ;-)