Foreign Policy
National Security
-
Leadership
A Silver Bullet to Solve Sexual Assaults
-
War Dogs
Postcard from Bagram
-
Obama
The Neo-Nixonian Presidency
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 7:00 AM
Share
Patton's diary, July 5, 1944: "Why an American Army has to go with Montgomery, I do not see, except to save the face of the little monkey."
December 27, 1944: "I wish Ike were more of a gambler, but he is certainly a lion compared to Montgomery ... Monty is a tired little fart. War requires the taking of risks and he won't take them."
This is torture! :-)
Engarde, and Touche. Ah have at thee. GSP was also an accomplished fencer and one of the youngest Masters of the Sword for the US Army. Also designed the 1913 issue Sabre and nearly medaled in the 1912 Stockholm Olympics.
He was a pretty damn amazing dude...if a bit crazy.
OK OK, I wish we had a million like him - well maybe not.
Many moons ago, when I was a hobbyist fencer, I was part of a club here in San Diego whose Master was a former Naval officer. He was in the process of developing a sabre fencing program for disabled individuals based on Patton's cavalry manual.
Picture two people in wheelchairs wearing fencing gear and facing each other at, say, 30 paces. Suddenly they rush at one another, starting with their weapons in their laps until they get up the required head of steam. When they get close, they grab their sabres and there is a brief explosion of action as they flash past. Freakin' brilliant. In your face, Murderball!
I have been out of fencing for a long time and don't know what ever happened with that program. I sincerely hope it continues to thrive. I would pay money to watch that.
Keep the daily dose of Patton coming - sure he was nutty, but in a fascinating and illuminating way.
Yes, keep it coming. Highly entertaining.
You can sure see he wouldn't have made it past O-5 in today's military, though.
He was quite accident prone and some have attributed his mental instability later in life to those accidents. Particularly, falls from his horses. He once wrote to his wife, "I've had my yearly accident..."
One of his biographers (it may have been d'Este) has a pretty good section on his Olympic experience. Maybe Tom might want to summarize that in a post. It illustrates better than anything Patton's never say die, damn the torpedo's and full speed ahead attitude.
Patton from what i read was responsible for choosing the Sherman tank over the Pershing tank. Can anybody confirm this? He was full of himself but he was right about Monty.
It wasn't solely Patton. The delay of the Pershing tank has its roots in a number of causes, to include input from a number of commanders - to include Patton - following the campaign in Sicily and initial landings in Italy thatShermans were completely capable of dealing with any German tank. A number of other causes include an over complicated procurement system. There was a lot of "who's lane is this" going on between Army Ground Forces and other agencies (I hesitate to mention them because I don't want to get their names wrong, but it was essentially automotive command and Armor Branch). There also wasn't a huge push to get it into service by D-Day because nobody thought we needed it, based on reports from previous campaigns, and the approach taken was "if it ain't broke don't fix it." It wasn't until July/August that commanders started screaming for something better to fight the Germans with. A final reason I'll mention is doctrine. Going into World War II, Army doctrine stressed that tanks were for exploitation, while tank destroyers would handle the business of killing enemy tanks. The entire tank destroyer concept would be found to be faulty doctrine. A great book on the topic is "Faint Praise" by Charles Baily. Hard to find a copy, but when you do it's worth a read.
Lt. Gen. Leslie J. McNair was responsible for the poor state of U.S. armor late in the war. His post was CG of 'Army Ground Forces', overseeing the development of the equipment used by the combat forces. He retarded the development of larger tanks. A request for 500 of the M-36 tank destroyers with the 90mm gun was held up until he was accidentially killed in the Cobra bombing!
McNair was one of the highest ranking Americans killed in the war.
90mm guns were needed. The 76.2mm gun was touted as being able to handle the heavy German tanks, but a test in August, 1944 against a captured Panther showed it to be little better than the 75mm gun of the standard Sherman.
90mm gun tanks could easily been available much sooner if the proper measures had been taken in hand, and McNair was the man who refused to take them.
Walt
The Ordnance Board did see a need for heavier tanks earlier, but they were rebuffed by AGF. Seems like 30 Tiger tanks were deployed to Tunisia and some of those were available for examination. There was no excuse to have the 75mm Shermans as the main tank in June, 1944.
It is true there had been little or large scale tank fighting against German armor by U.S. forces prior to D-Day.
Walt
I am aware that the British did have the Firefly version the Sherman which I think used the 6 pounder gun. It was a tight fit from what I read. Thank you everyone for your replies to my question.
The Brit Firefly tank used a 17 pounder gun, which was 77mm. The 6 pounder was a 57mm gun.
The U.S. used the 57mm gun in the towed anti-tank role where in NW it was very outclassed. The towed 76.2mm gun was much better, although still not really adequate either in towed or mobile form to penetrate the front armor of the Mk V and Mk VI tanks or the many SP guns the Germans deployed.
The 76.2mm gun had some hotter ammo with a tungsten core that made it more effective, but that ammo was in short supply and was not normally isssued to the armor units, only to the tank destroyer units.
Walt
The U.S. used the 57mm gun in the towed anti-tank role where in NW -Europe- it was very outclassed.
I am not here to defend Monty but one very important consideration must be taken into account when evaluating Monty’s performance. All things being equal (which they never are) unit for unit the British Army like the U. S. Army never did generate the fighting power of a similar Wehrmacht or SS unit. The British Army in particular from 1943 was in a manpower crisis and did not have infantry replacements of sufficient quantity to make up for casualties. As a matter of fact by July 1944 the process of breaking up battalions, brigades and divisions had begun in order to fill out combat casualties and that process would continue right through to the end of the war. Monty was very conscious of this fact (pounded into his head by the CGIS Alanbrooke) and tailored his tactical methods (usually WW1 type set piece and logistically well supported attacks) particularly in the Normandy bridgehead (Caen) where the British faced the largest number and most formidable fighting units of the German defense such as the II SS Panzer Corps. The Americans had a replacement crisis also by the autumn of 1944 but not because they had shortages of manpower but because they had over allocated to non-combat support and aviation units. For the Americans it was merely a matter of changing priorities and channeling more people into infantry MOS’s, which is precisely what, happened. Not so the British who reached the bottom of the manpower barrel by the conclusion of the North African campaign. So Monty’s hesitancy, and caution is somewhat understandable. What is not understandable or forgivable was his tactless arrogance and puffery for what was essentially a career of average to mediocre generalship particularly when compared to any random lot of Wehrmacht general officers.
Good summary of Monty. I'd just add that his inability or unwillingness to get along with his American allies is another major negative.
Thanks,
Tom
As characterized by the movie...
...(which is not necessarily true to history). Scott as Patton [paraphrased] said "I know I am a primadonna, the thing is, so is Monty, he just won't admit it."
I think primadonna (which can be gender neutral) is the better term over diva (which is decidedly feminine).
Sorry, just your pedantic thought of the day. (Largely propogated by the less than compelling vision of either Patton or Monty in drag).
The two British generals with the best reputations in the war, Montgomery and Arthur "Bomber" Harris were both very very poor Captains.
If you ever watch "The Dam Busters", the 1954 movie about wrecking the Ruhr dams with special bombs, it is Harris' support that gets the project rolling - in the movie. In the real event, Harris opposed the whole idea.
Walt
Picture two people in wheelchairs wearing fencing gear and facing each other at, say, 30 paces. Suddenly they rush at one another, starting with their weapons in their laps replica TAG until they get up the required head of steam. When they get close, they grab their sabres and there is a brief explosion of action as they flash past. Freakin' brilliant. In your face, Murderball!
I have been out of fencing for a long time and don't know what ever happened with that program. I sincerely hope it continues to thrive. I would pay money to watch that.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(19)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE