Patton was right

[Ned]

I think quick victory in Iraq shows the soundness of a war plan premised on bypassing pockets of resistance and going straight for the enemy's capital, using airpower to blast elite enemy formations in the way.

This is what Patton wanted to do in the Summer of '44. He wanted to bag the German army in a great sweep around Paris, and then drive straight for Berlin. With the army of the West captured, the Italian army pinned down, the armies of the East far away and tied down holding off the USSR, the Germans could not have stopped Patton.

Franks clearly has used and vindicated Patton's plan.

Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it.

[Spiffor]

Such a plan depends on the efficiency of the power's collapse when the capital has fallen. If the power has ways to survive the fall of the capital or of the leader, the pockets of resistance will not fall by themselves.

Also, such a plan needs a superior mobility to avoid the enemy to reorganize, or to attack the rushing army, which is more vulnerable by definition.

Maybe this could have applied in the 1944 situation (at least, about the collapse of the regime being swift and resulting in a complete demoralization of the troops and command), but we can't know for sure.

[Alvaro]

It all depends on how rotten the governing body of the country/how demoralized the army & population are.

Germany has long before the arrival of allied armies adapted the semi-closet approach of Hitler kaputt!. Same applied to Saddam's regime now.

The Wehrmacht coughed blood when fighting such pockets during Barbarosa, and that inspite of general collapse of the Red Army in the first 3 months.

All because of a motivated and inspired belief in saving the Rodina, in sacrifcing their lives for the motherland's freedom.

No such thoughts even crossed the minds of the Iraqi army's troops who surrendered to every westerner they saw, even reporters. The germans who resisted in the end did so not because they believed in the rightness of the cause - but because they feared the retribution of the Red Army for what was done to the USSR.

[Sava]

I doubt this applies to the '44 situation. Patton was a great general and motivator, but had he tried his plan, the Allies would have suffered many more casualties and probably not have succeeded with the march.

And comparing today's US military vs Iraq to the Allies vs Nazis is just hilarious

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sava
And comparing today's US military vs Iraq to the Allies vs Nazis is just hilarious

Don't you STILL know Saddam is the new Hitler ?

[Ming]

Gee... I thought all the anti war people were calling Bush the new Hitler

[Alvaro]

Originally posted by Sava
And comparing today's US military vs Iraq to the Allies vs Nazis is just hilarious

What makes you say that? The Shermans had a massive advantage over the Panzers: They lit up with much more ease and burned for ages brightly which helped advance at night

Ofcourse the Panzers had worthwhile armour and a cannon that could actually penetrate a brick wall, but hey, what's that in comparison to a torch at night?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming
Gee... I thought all the anti war people were calling Bush the new Hitler

Both are laughable, but comparing Bush to Hitler is even more ludicrous.

[Ned]

You seem to forget that we had almost as much air supremacy vs. the Germans as we had against the Iraqi's. We blasted the Germans into dust to create the breakout from Normandy in the first place. If the Germans ever made a stand anywhere, our airpower would have again blasted them.

What the use of massed bombers against the Germans in the Normandy breakout proved is that bombing infrantry and armor works. We did that again in Desert Storm, Afghanistan and now Iraqi Freedom. The Germans simply could not have stopped Patton if the airforce paved the way.

We know that the conspirators almost took over the German government in '44 by decapitating the regime. I believe the same might have happened if the US Army drove to downtown Berlin that summer. Germany would have collapse if Hitler was gone.

What I am saying is that Patton's plan has been proven here in Iraqi Freedom.

[DanS]

April 21, 2003 edition...

[DanS]

May 7, 1945 edition...

[Spiffor]

Comparing the end of Hitler with the end of Saddam is absolutely pathetic from a serious source like Time. I'm sure today's hype will be the laughingstock of historians in 50 years.

Edit : besides, the 1945 one looks more professional

[Vanguard]

Actually I think I would argue that Montgomery was right.

Once the Allies were securely ashore, victory was assured. So why pursue a risky strategy that could concievably result in disaster due to supply considerations?

Of course, it is then impossible to excuse Montgomery's ridiculous Market-Garden plan later in the year.......

[Ozz]

Re: Patton was right

Originally posted by Ned

Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it.

Logistics torpedoed it, Ike couldn't get the GAS & AMMO
& FOOD to him in the interior of France for a highball into
Germany.

That's why the allies wanted ANTWERP, werp.

[Tingkai]

Re: Patton was right

Originally posted by Ned
I think quick victory in Iraq shows the soundness of a war plan premised on bypassing pockets of resistance and going straight for the enemy's capital, using airpower to blast elite enemy formations in the way.

This is what Patton wanted to do in the Summer of '44. He wanted to bag the German army in a great sweep around Paris, and then drive straight for Berlin. With the army of the West captured, the Italian army pinned down, the armies of the East far away and tied down holding off the USSR, the Germans could not have stopped Patton.

Franks clearly has used and vindicated Patton's plan.

Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it.

IIRC, Montgomery also wanted a narrow front attack. It was Eisenhower who was against this idea.

What worked in 2003 cannot be compared to 1944 simply because any comparison between the German military of '44 and the Iraqi military is absurb. The German military at that time was a battle-hardened group of well-trained (for the most part) and well-led soldiers equipped with relatively comparable technology. The Iraqi army was a poorly trained, poorly led mob with outdated technology.