Name history's top 5 generals:

[Jaybe]

Well, Patton may have been the first American to realize the full potential of tanks.

Otherwise, I am sure that Will9 was speaking from either ignorance or arrogance. OTOH, Patton was much better than Montgomery, of course (leaving myself open to the arrogance label).

Patton was quite satisfied to put his armor through the meat grinder whenever he was forced to go up against German armor. He advocated the mass production of Sherman tanks rather than the development of new tank types.

[Will9]

Originally posted by TheStinger


You are jocking aren't you

At one point, during the battle of Bulge, Patton personaly took command of a tank and lead from the front.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Will9


At one point, during the battle of Bulge, Patton personaly took command of a tank and lead from the front.

So? Plenty of commanders during plenty of wars have led from the front.

Patton was certainly a good general, but to say he was the first to realize the potential of the tank is way over the top, and a bit silly given the huge armored battles going on in the Eastern Front well before the US got to France. Heck, I think its pretty clear the Germans and Brits had figures out the potential of the tank in their little see-saw African campaign.

[Drake Tungsten]

Given that Patton was the commander of the US Tank Corps in WWI and was pushing for an expanded armored force and publishing articles on tank tactics in the 20's, I fail to see what relevance actions on the Eastern Front and in Africa ~20 years later have to determining Patton's proper place in the timeline of early innovators in armored warfare...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Given that Patton was the commander of the US Tank Corps in WWI and was pushing for an expanded armored force and publishing articles on tank tactics in the 20's, I fail to see what relevance actions on the Eastern Front and in Africa ~20 years later have to determining Patton's proper place in the timeline of early innovators in armored warfare...

Not much in particular, though Will9 made no mention of Patton's pre-WW2 actions, and it is still quite a statement (and probably incorrect) to state that he was the first to see the true uses of tanks.

[Drake Tungsten]

though Will9 made no mention of Patton's pre-WW2 actions

Originally posted by Will9
Patton- America's first tank comander. The first to relieze the full potenial of tanks.

That's a pre-WW2 reference right there...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

though Will9 made no mention of Patton's pre-WW2 actions

Originally posted by Will9
Patton- America's first tank comander. The first to relieze the full potenial of tanks.

That's a pre-WW2 reference right there...

Fine.

I used all my energy in an arguement with Kuci.

[Drake Tungsten]

Pretty poor showing for the energy expended, if you ask me...

[Will9]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Given that Patton was the commander of the US Tank Corps in WWI and was pushing for an expanded armored force and publishing articles on tank tactics in the 20's, I fail to see what relevance actions on the Eastern Front and in Africa ~20 years later have to determining Patton's proper place in the timeline of early innovators in armored warfare...

Exacly what I meant.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Pretty poor showing for the energy expended, if you ask me...

Well, I did win

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't think anyone wins in that embarassing display.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, I did win

[TheStinger]

Surely the fact that the British were the first to use a massed armour attack at Cambrai means that Patton was beaten to the punch there.

There were plenty of generals who advocated use of Tanks in the 1920's.

Unless of cousre the fact that he was the fisrt American to adovate the correct use of tanks means he is more important than the actual 1st person

[Drake Tungsten]

The real issue is what "the full potential of tanks" actually is. Depending on your interpretation of that vague phrase, Patton could or could not be the first man to realize it. Pretty pointless thing to argue about, IMO, but this is Poly...

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Alexander of Macedon

The Duke of Marlborough

Belisarius

Hannibal

Eugene of Savoy

Why would any list that includes Hannibal not also include the man who beat Hannibal? Hannibal was able to beat the Romans until they themselves had a competent commander. Earlier armies he beat were lead by some real buffoons as were the troops Alexander beat until he ran into Porus, who beat him.

But I agree with you about Marlbourough.