Patton/ Montgomery discussion (1 Viewer)

[uksubs]

Trouble is Chris it always does turn into an attack doesn't it, and I think you probably knew it would. Always negative attacks on people who actually took on the enemy in that War and beat them. So many SBG's its not true.(Sofa bound Generals) The War changing victories these men enjoyed are so easily dismissed and quickly dismissed so the SBG's can get to slating and direspecting men who actually fought for our two countries. The ' selfish Jerks' remark is not only laughable but highly disrespectful to two men who contributed to overall victory. Terry used the term ' Despite their achievements' , this is used in a similar way to the term ' I'm not being funny but....' which implies no disrespect but is full of it.

No one on this forum and I mean no one has any REAL idea what the fighting was like in Normandy or North Africa, SBG's can read every book ever read on the subject but their boots were never on the ground there,have never faced the enemy and have never led men into such fighting as took place in these areas.

It does also appear that anyone who does not agree with post War character assassination of people who were actual Soldiers in this conflict are thought to be hero worshipping, this is quite unfair just because we don't happen to agreee .

The glossing over of the victory at Alamein is what really gets my goat. To be honest I think some may have either a personal dislike of Monty or in what I believe is more common a total disbelief that the one and only Rommel could be beaten by this dapper, small, socially removed man with the odd voice. And this is the point about Monty you either don't realise or wish to ignore, his arrival in the desert when the morale of the British was at an all time low was a major factor in the 8th army believing it not only could beat Rommel but would beat Rommel, whatever resources you have will not be enough if the the guys on the ground do not have the superior morale to win. Mr H Goering learned this in a long summer over southern England if I recall.

We all know both Patton's and Monty's faults and there were plenty of them and both made many mistakes,they were human like every one of us, but if you do not properly acknowledge the victories your argument tends to start to sound like a deliberate bias based on personal ill feeling.

Finally, as you order take away tonight, kick back with a cold beer and hit the plasma tv button, thank god it wasn't you.

Rob

Great post Rob

 

[Mitch]

Thing is that is half the problem we look back at events from WWI and WWII with a modern approach to military doctrine and thinking and many use the modern equivalent to judge those events and, IMO you cannot do that. the casualties from both wars are constantly repeated by some as condemnation of those at a different time without taking into account all the other factors. To do this is missing the whole point and thats how we arrive at knee jerk reactions for the death penalty and all the other emotional baggage which, has no bearing.
Mitch





QUOTE=Arnhemjim;402114]Hello to all,

It suffices to say that neither Patton nor Montgomery would have survived over a nano second in the currently extreme P.C. (politically correct) environment that exists in both the United States and British Armies, IMO.

With regard to the soundness (or lack there of) of Montgomery’s concept and planning for Operation Market-Garden, I’m not going to review/reiterate the detailed analysis I have previously presented to this forum during the debate on Great Britain’s most famous general. In due deference and with apologies, it’s not worth the stress or adrenaline expenditure. I’m certain Louis remembers my analysis, as he discussed it at the time. For those who don’t, and are so inclined, you can either read it and/or download it, in excruciating detail, on my blog page; http://www.arnhemjim.blogspot.com. Just click on ‘Operation Market-Garden’ in the top menu bar for openers. Enough said.
Best regards,
Arnhemjim
Arizona Territory (dam—d colonials)[/QUOTE]

 

[lancer]

I find this thread very interesting. I have a decent knowledge of Patton's good and bad points, not so much with Montgomery. Mostly know about his NWE stuff but very little about North Africa as I have not really made a detailed study of that campaign, beyond the basics. I actually know more about the earlier NA campaigns involving O'Conner and Wavell, and Rommel's actions, than I do Montgomery's. I think Rob's statement about needing to take the whole package of any general's accomplishments into a given critique is a good and necessary point when trying to place that general into historical perspective. Condemning a general on one campaign when he was involved in many, can be very shortsighted. We've had this argument before involving Haig and others. If one was to judge Napoleon on the Waterloo campaign, he certainly wouldn't be as admired as he is. Historical writing is full of examples where the author has an axe to grind, a point to make, and partial or incomplete facts are standard fare in these cases. We amateur historians would do well to heed the warning that one can't believe everything one reads and that many sources and viewpoints are neccesary to form even somewhat accurate studies of the subject in question. This is especially true where the subject is controversial. We all have dirty laundry, heroes most of all. As Rob also said, we weren't there, so any and all "criticism" needs to be tempered by that very important fact and judgment rendered accordingly. I do love these discussions.:smile2: -- Al

 

[Currahee Chris]

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the kind words where offered. I was kicking this thread around for a few days understanding that it was a potential landmine, though I was hoping that I could craft it in a way that discussed what I am most interested in understanding by studying the actions of the two men involved here- motivation. I do very much enjoy reading studies that look at management/ leadership in part to make myself better at what I do. I have seen the personality struggles between these two individuals essentially shape the very world in which we all live. I just often wonder- from a leadership/personality perspective- if it were two different individuals- how would things have been different- was the personality conflict a good thing- and several of you have been quite candid about your assessments and opinions.

 

[Rob]

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the kind words where offered. I was kicking this thread around for a few days understanding that it was a potential landmine, though I was hoping that I could craft it in a way that discussed what I am most interested in understanding by studying the actions of the two men involved here- motivation. I do very much enjoy reading studies that look at management/ leadership in part to make myself better at what I do. I have seen the personality struggles between these two individuals essentially shape the very world in which we all live. I just often wonder- from a leadership/personality perspective- if it were two different individuals- how would things have been different- was the personality conflict a good thing- and several of you have been quite candid about your assessments and opinions.

You crafted it very well Chris!. The good thing is that we can all discuss it in an open minded and polite fashion whether we agree or disagree. This is quite a hot potato as it were and will no doubt return in the future, good to read all opinions.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Trouble is Chris it always does turn into an attack doesn't it, and I think you probably knew it would. Always negative attacks on people who actually took on the enemy in that War and beat them. So many SBG's its not true.(Sofa bound Generals) The War changing victories these men enjoyed are so easily dismissed and quickly dismissed so the SBG's can get to slating and direspecting men who actually fought for our two countries. The ' selfish Jerks' remark is not only laughable but highly disrespectful to two men who contributed to overall victory. Terry used the term ' Despite their achievements' , this is used in a similar way to the term ' I'm not being funny but....' which implies no disrespect but is full of it.

No one on this forum and I mean no one has any REAL idea what the fighting was like in Normandy or North Africa, SBG's can read every book ever read on the subject but their boots were never on the ground there,have never faced the enemy and have never led men into such fighting as took place in these areas.

It does also appear that anyone who does not agree with post War character assassination of people who were actual Soldiers in this conflict are thought to be hero worshipping, this is quite unfair just because we don't happen to agreee .

The glossing over of the victory at Alamein is what really gets my goat. To be honest I think some may have either a personal dislike of Monty or in what I believe is more common a total disbelief that the one and only Rommel could be beaten by this dapper, small, socially removed man with the odd voice. And this is the point about Monty you either don't realise or wish to ignore, his arrival in the desert when the morale of the British was at an all time low was a major factor in the 8th army believing it not only could beat Rommel but would beat Rommel, whatever resources you have will not be enough if the the guys on the ground do not have the superior morale to win. Mr H Goering learned this in a long summer over southern England if I recall.

We all know both Patton's and Monty's faults and there were plenty of them and both made many mistakes,they were human like every one of us, but if you do not properly acknowledge the victories your argument tends to start to sound like a deliberate bias based on personal ill feeling.

Finally, as you order take away tonight, kick back with a cold beer and hit the plasma tv button, thank god it wasn't you.

Rob

Completely agree. It's easy to sit back, with the benefit of hindsight and pontificate, quite another to have been on the scene and suffer the fog of war.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

There was no attempt to gloss over the great accomplishments of either Monty or Patton and then denigrate one or both of them. Chris asked whether the rivalry spurred on and aided the Allied war effort or were Allied war efforts hindered to some degree (and lives lost) because of the rivalry.

Both Monty and Patton had great successes. Monty revitalized the 8th Army at a low point/critical time and used a winning tactic at El Alamein for a great strategic victory and inflict serious attrition losses on Rommel. He also made a good job of the Normandy landings of 3 divisions, and gave the Germans very heavy losses at the Falaise Gap. Patton resurrected the failing US effort in Tunisia, made dramatic advances toward Germany after Normandy and made a spectacular relief effort at Bastogne and later a strong drive into Germany.

These accomplishments were made under conditions where there was relatively little direct rivalry. Add some serious, direct rivalry at Messina and Rome as Louis described, Market Garden vs 3rd Army's continued advance, and IMO the Allied effort was hurt in those instances and lives lost needlessly.

Terry

 

[Rob]

There was no attempt to gloss over the great accomplishments of either Monty or Patton and then denigrate one or both of them. Chris asked whether the rivalry spurred on and aided the Allied war effort or were Allied war efforts hindered to some degree (and lives lost) because of the rivalry.

Both Monty and Patton had great successes. Monty revitalized the 8th Army at a low point/critical time and used a winning tactic at El Alamein for a great strategic victory and inflict serious attrition losses on Rommel. He also made a good job of the Normandy landings of 3 divisions, and gave the Germans very heavy losses at the Falaise Gap. Patton resurrected the failing US effort in Tunisia, made dramatic advances toward Germany after Normandy and made a spectacular relief effort at Bastogne and later a strong drive into Germany.

These accomplishments were made under conditions where there was relatively little direct rivalry. Add some serious, direct rivalry at Messina and Rome as Louis described, Market Garden vs 3rd Army's continued advance, and IMO the Allied effort was hurt in those instances and lives lost needlessly.

Terry

Now THIS is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. A well rounded opinion taking in the good and the bad in a balanced view of the events. Not one person can deny that not only did Monty (in particular) have some serious inter personal defects but his decisions did cost lives, however on the other hand he inflicted great loss on the enemy and inspired his men.

I think both mens efforts in WW2 deserve an all round view when talking about them, things are not always black and white.

Rob

 

[panda1gen]

Is this the right room for an argument?

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Bernard_Montgomery%2C_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein.htm

I recommend this excellent (IMO) article for a detailed and broad look at Montgomery - can anyone recommend similar on Patton?

 

[Currahee Chris]

Has anyone heard any mention of the influences the first world war had on the approach both men took into WW2? Clearly technology had forced the battlfield into more action/manuever. Does anyone feel that due to the experiences these men witnessed in WW1 that forced them to take calculated risks or simply "expend men" in order to keep pressure on the Germans- for fear of a possible stalemate??? Am I reaching here?? Colin Powell is always highly praised for his doctrine during Desert Storm and he credited that doctrine in large part to his experiences in Nam.

 

[Rob]

Has anyone heard any mention of the influences the first world war had on the approach both men took into WW2? Clearly technology had forced the battlfield into more action/manuever. Does anyone feel that due to the experiences these men witnessed in WW1 that forced them to take calculated risks or simply "expend men" in order to keep pressure on the Germans- for fear of a possible stalemate??? Am I reaching here?? Colin Powell is always highly praised for his doctrine during Desert Storm and he credited that doctrine in large part to his experiences in Nam.

Good question Chris. I wonder if what Monty saw in WW1 may have influenced the hesitancy we saw in Normandy?. I believe in like for like numbers the casualty rate in Normandy was similar to WW1. Monty himself had quite a war I understand, it included hand to hand fighting in the trenches and being so badly wounded that no one expected him to survive. I remember one humorous anectdote in which when reaching a German Trench and finding his gun jammed he was confronted by a huge German who towered over him, all he could do was kick the German between the legs and down he went!. I think he also had somewhat of the Nelson 'Kill the French' type attitude. Isn't there a line in the film 'The Kings Speech' in which he tells our young future Queen that Alamein was very good as 'we killed lots of Germans'.

Fascinating subject Monty as he was loved by his men but loathed by British underlings and American officers alike . I think his cool determination and self assurance got him a long way.

Rob

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Has anyone heard any mention of the influences the first world war had on the approach both men took into WW2? Clearly technology had forced the battlfield into more action/manuever. Does anyone feel that due to the experiences these men witnessed in WW1 that forced them to take calculated risks or simply "expend men" in order to keep pressure on the Germans- for fear of a possible stalemate??? Am I reaching here?? Colin Powell is always highly praised for his doctrine during Desert Storm and he credited that doctrine in large part to his experiences in Nam.

At Al Alamein, Monty was faced with WWI like conditions facing miles wide and deep lines of mines, barbed wire, anti-tank guns and Panzers. His attack was based on getting superiority in artillery, tanks and manpower and do a staggered frontal assault with maneuvering inside the length of the batllefield. Some would say a calculated war of attrition to rout the weaker Afrika Korps. My impression of Monty was not as a risk taker but a careful planner who got all his assets in place and establishing material superiority to as much as possible ensure victory. He was less likely to simply keep a push on (i.e. Falaise) or do unplanned attacks. That's why I think Market Garden was a bit uncharacteristic of Monty - it was a risky and complex operation.

As for Patton, he was definitely a keep the pressure on type of General - Don't let them regroup. And he would take chances to achieve a breakthrough.

So Monty and Patton were not only rivals who personally disliked eachother, but they also had quite different approaches to running campaigns.

Terry

 

[Mitch]

Rob..

He was like that also in the uprisings in ireland rather ruthless did what was necessary. we expect our generals to defeat the enemy in front of us and, thats what they did in the greatest conflict the world has seen. I would include patton in this but, most of the loathing I believe was born from Envy at the time and, since, many have made reputations by bad mouthing them with the aid of hindsight.

They did what they thought was right from their training, upbringing, and all the other circumstances of the time, to defeat an enemy that created total war and, who were a determined and well prepared fighting force. As Rob eluded earlier armchair generals who have never fought or planned any operation IMO should refrain from knee jerk PC comments as without men like them its likely we may have lost the second world war
Mitch

Good question Chris. I wonder if what Monty saw in WW1 may have influenced the hesitancy we saw in Normandy?. I believe in like for like numbers the casualty rate in Normandy was similar to WW1. Monty himself had quite a war I understand, it included hand to hand fighting in the trenches and being so badly wounded that no one expected him to survive. I remember one humorous anectdote in which when reaching a German Trench and finding his gun jammed he was confronted by a huge German who towered over him, all he could do was kick the German between the legs and down he went!. I think he also had somewhat of the Nelson 'Kill the French' type attitude. Isn't there a line in the film 'The Kings Speech' in which he tells our young future Queen that Alamein was very good as 'we killed lots of Germans'.

Fascinating subject Monty as he was loved by his men but loathed by British underlings and American officers alike . I think his cool determination and self assurance got him a long way.

Rob

 

[Currahee Chris]

Excellent posts fellas. Interesting and well thought out all around.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Is this the right room for an argument?

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Bernard_Montgomery%2C_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein.htm

I recommend this excellent (IMO) article for a detailed and broad look at Montgomery - can anyone recommend similar on Patton?

It is a great place for an open forum discussion :tongue:

 

[Thompyt]

Difficult area considering just how many atrocities the soviets committed I think its why they have so little sympathy for their war dead.
Mitch

Not quite there,
Atrocities are put on the defeated, not the victorious.

 

[panda1gen]

Has anyone heard any mention of the influences the first world war had on the approach both men took into WW2? Clearly technology had forced the battlfield into more action/manuever. Does anyone feel that due to the experiences these men witnessed in WW1 that forced them to take calculated risks or simply "expend men" in order to keep pressure on the Germans- for fear of a possible stalemate??? Am I reaching here?? Colin Powell is always highly praised for his doctrine during Desert Storm and he credited that doctrine in large part to his experiences in Nam.

Chris

I think Rob and others have already touched on this, but in the books I read about him, he was appalled at the waste of life in WW1 through poor generalship.

Any military leader must acknowledge the butchers bill against any plan. Monty vowed he would not just waste life like that even though both El Alemain and the Normandy landings and breakout were battles of attrition on WW1 scale with WW2 weapons - imagine the impact of the MG42 on the Somme.

Ike was a brilliant chairman and head of SHAEF, but not sure how good he or Patton would have been planning Normandy in comparison to Monty - would he have pushed for a five division assault and the funnies? We will never know.

Some quotes from the link in my earlier post -

Montgomery was a complex person. On the one hand, though far from flawless, he was a great and successful general through hard work, a refusal to conform to dead tradition, and an open, clear and alert mind.

He was a humane man and was capable of inspiring great loyalty among his staff and his troops.

On the other hand, he was personally a difficult man. Montgomery did not get on with his contemporaries and mostly associated with junior officers. He was insensitive, conceited, and boastful.

He was not an easy man to know socially and not loyal to the staff officers serving immediately under him. His dismissive and occasionally insulting attitude to others often soured opinions about his abilities and personality.

It can be argued that his failures happened when he allowed his desire for personal glory to taint his planning, causing him to abandon his usual caution.

Often it was Montgomery's statements about battles, as much as his actual conduct of them, that formed the basis of controversy.

Brooke was perhaps near the truth when he said of Montgomery,
He is probably the finest tactical general we have had since Wellington. But on some of his strategy, and especially on his relations with the Americans, he is almost a disaster.

Eisenhower commented in his memoirs: "I doubt if Montgomery ever came to realise how resentful some American commanders were. They believed he had belittled them — and they were not slow to voice reciprocal scorn and contempt".

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Bernard_Montgomery%2C_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein.htm

I believe both men may have been bullies with their immediate subordinates and egotists, but the impression I get is that Monty truly identified with his men and was a great leader, trainer and builder of morale. I do not know if Patton always had the welfare of his men ahead of his own sense of destiny and quest for glory - I have not read nearly as much about him.

In the few instances where they were 'together' in the same theatre, I wonder if the worst aspects of both may have been more noticable? They had a number of similar traits IMO. I don't think it was net positive, but think of Clark and others with ego who may have been around. Would it have been better or worse if it were Wavell, O'Connor or Slim on the British side, possibly? Bradley had already leapfrogged his old boss.

I think much of this debate is simply down to both men's poor PR and diplomatic skills. Even debating this face to face with Louis and other US friends, I am always surprised at the depth of animosity, the relative dismissal of his acheivements at the alter of his - thoroughly deserved - very poor PR image with US senior officers.

Monty was best at the set piece battle, Patton seemingly the improvised mechanised battle? Context is also important, the Commonwealth forces were smaller, had been fighting longer and Monty took a longer term view on losses and also respected the German ability for counter attack

He knew if he did not waste his troops in an assault or lose his forces in a counter the Allies would win through attrition no matter what. Remember he was up against Rommel in the desert who had turned the tables on other Generals who were over extended and in Normandy the vast amount of German armour was in his Commonwealth sector.

Meanwhile, for all his faults, one could not imagine Monty slapping his own troops around and I have heard nothing about him mistreating prisoners in WW2.

Put tin hat on and retire to foxhole.......

 

[binder001]

Rob raised several good points. I am not a big fan of Monty, but he was the man the British desperately needed in North Africa. They were gaining on the material side but they were still needing a major reorganization and a boost in morale. Monty did just that. We Americans often criticize Montgomery for the "need to overwhelm" the enemy, but Monty knew just how to use the material superiority to best advantage. Monty also knew the unfortunate fact that the British could lose tanks and other hardware but the country was running short of the men to put in them. It was better to lose a hundred tanks than a brigade of infantry. So Monty was the right man in the right place for his country.

Gary B.

PS - Louis, don't just mark the day, but put it in red!

 

[Louis Badolato]

Chris

I think Rob and others have already touched on this, but in the books I read about him, he was appalled at the waste of life in WW1 through poor generalship.

Any military leader must acknowledge the butchers bill against any plan. Monty vowed he would not just waste life like that even though both El Alemain and the Normandy landings and breakout were battles of attrition on WW1 scale with WW2 weapons - imagine the impact of the MG42 on the Somme.

Ike was a brilliant chairman and head of SHAEF, but not sure how good he or Patton would have been planning Normandy in comparison to Monty - would he have pushed for a five division assault and the funnies? We will never know.

Some quotes from the link in my earlier post -

Montgomery was a complex person. On the one hand, though far from flawless, he was a great and successful general through hard work, a refusal to conform to dead tradition, and an open, clear and alert mind.

He was a humane man and was capable of inspiring great loyalty among his staff and his troops.

On the other hand, he was personally a difficult man. Montgomery did not get on with his contemporaries and mostly associated with junior officers. He was insensitive, conceited, and boastful.

He was not an easy man to know socially and not loyal to the staff officers serving immediately under him. His dismissive and occasionally insulting attitude to others often soured opinions about his abilities and personality.

It can be argued that his failures happened when he allowed his desire for personal glory to taint his planning, causing him to abandon his usual caution.

Often it was Montgomery's statements about battles, as much as his actual conduct of them, that formed the basis of controversy.

Brooke was perhaps near the truth when he said of Montgomery,
He is probably the finest tactical general we have had since Wellington. But on some of his strategy, and especially on his relations with the Americans, he is almost a disaster.

Eisenhower commented in his memoirs: "I doubt if Montgomery ever came to realise how resentful some American commanders were. They believed he had belittled them — and they were not slow to voice reciprocal scorn and contempt".

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Bernard_Montgomery%2C_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein.htm

I believe both men may have been bullies with their immediate subordinates and egotists, but the impression I get is that Monty truly identified with his men and was a great leader, trainer and builder of morale. I do not know if Patton always had the welfare of his men ahead of his own sense of destiny and quest for glory - I have not read nearly as much about him.

In the few instances where they were 'together' in the same theatre, I wonder if the worst aspects of both may have been more noticable? They had a number of similar traits IMO. I don't think it was net positive, but think of Clark and others with ego who may have been around. Would it have been better or worse if it were Wavell, O'Connor or Slim on the British side, possibly? Bradley had already leapfrogged his old boss.

I think much of this debate is simply down to both men's poor PR and diplomatic skills. Even debating this face to face with Louis and other US friends, I am always surprised at the depth of animosity, the relative dismissal of his acheivements at the alter of his - thoroughly deserved - very poor PR image with US senior officers.

Monty was best at the set piece battle, Patton seemingly the improvised mechanised battle? Context is also important, the Commonwealth forces were smaller, had been fighting longer and Monty took a longer term view on losses and also respected the German ability for counter attack

He knew if he did not waste his troops in an assault or lose his forces in a counter the Allies would win through attrition no matter what. Remember he was up against Rommel in the desert who had turned the tables on other Generals who were over extended and in Normandy the vast amount of German armour was in his Commonwealth sector.

Meanwhile, for all his faults, one could not imagine Monty slapping his own troops around and I have heard nothing about him mistreating prisoners in WW2.

Put tin hat on and retire to foxhole.......

I don't think there is any question that Monty had a greater concern for his men's welfare than Patton. In addition to ordering the 45th Division not to take prisoners during the Sicilian campaign (putting all Allied POW's at risk), he also sent an entire combat command of an Armored Division many miles behind enemy lines without permission from his superiors or any support, on a personal mission to rescue his son and law. Only a handful of men from the combat command (and not a single vehicle) made it back to Allied lines alive, and Patton's son in law remained a POW. I once spoke to a veteran of Patton's third army who told me, "Old Blood and Guts . . . yeah, our blood, his guts."

 

[binder001]

he also sent an entire combat command of an Armored Division many miles behind enemy lines without permission from his superiors or any support, on a personal mission to rescue his son and law. Only a handful of men from the combat command (and not a single vehicle) made it back to Allied lines alive, and Patton's son in law remained a POW.

That was Task Force Baum from the 4th Armored Division. The whole affair was an abortion from the beginning (and this from a Patton admirer!) .

On a side note - there is a surviving Sherman of that mission. The vehicle also happens to be the first tank leading the relief column into into Bastogne in December, 1944. "Cobra King" was its nickname and it was part of Company "C", 37th Tank Battalion, 4th Armored Division. It was of the M4A3E2 Shermans that had double armor. It served through the Bulge with 4th Armored and was reequipped with a 76mm gun and a few other features in a Third Army upgrade program. It went with C-37 TB on the Hammelburg Raid. It was knocked out (most reports say by Panzerfaust) and abandoned along the road. The area of the Hammelburg Raid came under control of Seventh Army as boundries shifted, so when the tank was recovered by US forces it didn't get back to its "owners". The history gets fuzzy then but it ended up as a "gate guard" display vehicle at a base in Germany until a serious tank buff started looking into it. All serial numbers were verified. The tank was returned to the USA and has been undergoing a restoration at the old Patton Museum. It MIGHT go to the new Museum of the US Army when that opens, but no one has seen final plans yet. The vehicle has been beautifully restored to its 12/44 configuration.

Gary B.