World War Two Politics and Command (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter OzDigger
- Start date
panda1gen
Major
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,206
Louis Badolato said:
Dear Louis / Shannon / Ozdigger
Shall we change the name of the thread to 'historical agreements'
OK - We seem to agree O'Connor was 'cool', Slim was 'subtle', Wavell was 'wsome', Patton was 'pits', Bradley was the 'biz', Eisenhower was 'eyewash', MacCauley was a 'big Mac', Taylor was 'terrific', Guderian was 'gud', rommel was 'rapid', Manstein was 'massive', Freyberg was 'frightening', Ritchie was 'rubbish', Zhukov was 'ze man', Stalin was 'sh*t' and Hitler was 'hopeless'
.....the real issue might be can we put it into lyrics for 'the Generals song' to the tune of 'I'm a lumberjack', walsing Matilda, the philosophers' song or other notable entries......
And do you know, if you tell kids today how Monty beat 2 million gerries using only an empty gun, a tin of bully beef and a foghorn, they just don't believe you....
LOL
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,364
Pandagen (Kevin),
I love the Monty Python references. I'll get the song started (to the toon of the lumberjack song):
I'm a general and I'm okay, I sleep all night and I brag all day,
I hold press conferences, I take all credit, I blame everybody but me,
On Wednesdays I go yachting, and have the Prime Minister to Tea . . .
I love the Monty Python references. I'll get the song started (to the toon of the lumberjack song):
I'm a general and I'm okay, I sleep all night and I brag all day,
I hold press conferences, I take all credit, I blame everybody but me,
On Wednesdays I go yachting, and have the Prime Minister to Tea . . .
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,364
Pandagen,
With that as a chorus, it would have to be Generals Patton, Bradley or Ike we were singing about (after all, I'm only a Second Lieutenant).
With that as a chorus, it would have to be Generals Patton, Bradley or Ike we were singing about (after all, I'm only a Second Lieutenant).
OzDigger
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,348
From the top:
I'm a general and I'm okay, I sleep all night, and I brag all day,
I hold press conferences, I take all credit, I blame everybody but me,
On Wednesdays I go yachting, and have the Prime Minister to Tea.
On Thursdays I go hunting, and shoot Montgomery.
I'm a General and I'm okay, I pray all night, and I kill all day.
I dress in fancy outfits, I slap sick grunts, I swear fluently.
I've got ivory handled pistols, but they look butch to me.
My voice is like a girlie, not like George C Scott's, tee hee.
I'm a general and I'm okay......
I'm a general and I'm okay, I sleep all night, and I brag all day,
I hold press conferences, I take all credit, I blame everybody but me,
On Wednesdays I go yachting, and have the Prime Minister to Tea.
On Thursdays I go hunting, and shoot Montgomery.
I'm a General and I'm okay, I pray all night, and I kill all day.
I dress in fancy outfits, I slap sick grunts, I swear fluently.
I've got ivory handled pistols, but they look butch to me.
My voice is like a girlie, not like George C Scott's, tee hee.
I'm a general and I'm okay......
Last edited:
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,364
This is getting good! Who is going to write the third verse?
panda1gen
Major
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,206
Sorry to digress and get back to thread but I have had chance to read the excellent article on Monty that ozDigger pointed out
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=2240&page=1
Louis, before you mount your horse, try this for size, you may like him more than you think - definately one up the establishment...
OzDigger thanks for this and some of the other links.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=2240&page=1
Louis, before you mount your horse, try this for size, you may like him more than you think - definately one up the establishment...
OzDigger thanks for this and some of the other links.
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,364
Panda,
I read the article, every word. I saw an excellent indictment of the pre-war British Army, and an accurate assessment of Monty's miserable personality, and a lot of vague references to his qualities as a general, but other than the fact that he believed in fitness for those under his command and looked after his men's welfare, I didn't see any evidence of any of these qualities. His "first order" about not retreating any further was a classic example of Monty playing to the press: Of course they weren't retreating any further, the German's were at the end of their tether in North Africa (and thanks to Ultra, the Allies knew this), there was an excellent plan in place to destroy the Afrika Corps., and Monty's predecessor, who had put the plan in place, and was waiting for the delivery of 500 Sherman and Lee tanks to execute it, had been sacked by Churchill for refusing to attack sooner. Thus, Monty's one great victory was not based on his own planning, but his merely being in the right place at the right time. Panda, given the (1) extreme domininace in quality and quantity of Armor (Rommell had 127 tanks, 100 of which were crappy Italian tanks), (2) extreme dominance in amounts of supply (Rommel couldn't get 1/5 of the fuel and ordinance he needed, and his supply lines were stretched to the limit, while Monty had more than adequate supplies and short supply lines), (3) air supremecy, and (4) knowledge of Rommel's plans (again thank's to Ultra), I think you could easily have won this battle. Show me some evidence of a successful battle planned and executed by Monty from start to finish, where the odds were even or stacked against him, and I might change my opinion. All the article did was confirm my opinion of Monty: his own people thought he was a complete jerk, so why shouldn't I?
I read the article, every word. I saw an excellent indictment of the pre-war British Army, and an accurate assessment of Monty's miserable personality, and a lot of vague references to his qualities as a general, but other than the fact that he believed in fitness for those under his command and looked after his men's welfare, I didn't see any evidence of any of these qualities. His "first order" about not retreating any further was a classic example of Monty playing to the press: Of course they weren't retreating any further, the German's were at the end of their tether in North Africa (and thanks to Ultra, the Allies knew this), there was an excellent plan in place to destroy the Afrika Corps., and Monty's predecessor, who had put the plan in place, and was waiting for the delivery of 500 Sherman and Lee tanks to execute it, had been sacked by Churchill for refusing to attack sooner. Thus, Monty's one great victory was not based on his own planning, but his merely being in the right place at the right time. Panda, given the (1) extreme domininace in quality and quantity of Armor (Rommell had 127 tanks, 100 of which were crappy Italian tanks), (2) extreme dominance in amounts of supply (Rommel couldn't get 1/5 of the fuel and ordinance he needed, and his supply lines were stretched to the limit, while Monty had more than adequate supplies and short supply lines), (3) air supremecy, and (4) knowledge of Rommel's plans (again thank's to Ultra), I think you could easily have won this battle. Show me some evidence of a successful battle planned and executed by Monty from start to finish, where the odds were even or stacked against him, and I might change my opinion. All the article did was confirm my opinion of Monty: his own people thought he was a complete jerk, so why shouldn't I?
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,435
You guys can't accuse me of starting this debate again. I haven't had a chance to read the articles yet. I tried to print them out of work but the firewall wouln't allow it. However, I think that Rommel had more than 27 German tanks. That just doesn't make sense. Monty had several advantages, that's true. It's one thing to have all these advantages and it's quite another to parlay them into a victory. I'm sure there was many a general who had a surfeit of advantages and couldn't get a victory out of them. It's akin to a person having enormous potential. Just because you have it doesn't mean you succeed to the fullest. It's only if you use what you have. I've seen plenty of matches where a football (soccer) side will go a man down but somehow persevere over the superior side, no matter the disadvantage. I think Monty's skill was to marshall all those assets into a plan, use them to their fullest, and bring out the victory.
However, it seems we need to stick to our pledge of moving on because pro Monty people have their beliefs and anti Monty people have their beliefs and I don't think we'll change anybody's mind.
However, it seems we need to stick to our pledge of moving on because pro Monty people have their beliefs and anti Monty people have their beliefs and I don't think we'll change anybody's mind.
OzDigger
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,348
panda1gen said:Sorry to digress and get back to thread but I have had chance to read the excellent article on Monty that ozDigger pointed out
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=2240&page=1
Louis, before you mount your horse, try this for size, you may like him more than you think - definately one up the establishment...
OzDigger thanks for this and some of the other links.
No worries Panda, here are some links on El Alamein, including the correct order of battle of Axis tanks as being about 300 German and 200 Italian (I think it includes the 27 of Louis)
Btw, the Allies tanks were: 285 Shermans, 246 Grants and 421 Crusaders = 952 All fairly useless for a variety of reasons and soon obsoleted apart from the Sherman which should have been.
Australian POV:http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/el_alamein/reading.htm
Axis POV?:http://forum.axishistory.com/viewto...&start=0&sid=7b579bfa06170261359ce10dad83b39b
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battle_el_alamein_01.shtml
Geocities: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/5433/elalamein.html
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Alamein
History Learning Site: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/WW2.htm
Last edited:
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,364
Sorry Ozdigger, I have to call you out on this one. The "correct order of battle" you are citing to includes all of the out of service tanks. Rommel had less than 130 in fighting trim. As Panda says, back to the song.
binder001
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,729
Btw, the Allies tanks were: 285 Shermans, 246 Grants and 421 Crusaders = 952 All fairly useless for a variety of reasons and soon obsoleted apart from the Sherman which should have been.
I am curious as to how and why you considered these tanks "useless"! The Grant was not "state of the art" but it was far from useless. Yes, the layout and high silhouette were against it, but the 37mm gun could take on most German and Italian tanks at reasonable battle ranges and the 75mm, although limited in traverse" still had something no British-built Cruiser tank could match - an effective HE round. The Crusader was mechanically less reliable than the American vehicles, but the 2-pounder could still take out >75% of Rommels tanks, plus (if I remember correctly) by Alamein some units started to get the new Crusader III with 6-pounder guns. You also forgot the M3 Honey (Stuart) types and the few Matildas still in service. Because the Sherman had bad press from the ETO you might forget that it was a VERY competetive tank in North Africa. The only better 75mm guns were in the handful (<25) PzIV F2's that Rommel had. The armor was good, mobility and reliability was quite good compated to German or British equipment. Properly used it was better than most of what Rommel had for tanks, and again it had that 75mm HE shell.
German armor fans get so excited touting their panzers that they miss one of the big killers of Allied armor - the towed AT gun. The Germans got used their AT guns quite well in most theaters. Remember that one of Rommel's famous tricks was use his tanks to lure British tanks forward into a kill zone of AT guns. Before the Grant or the Sherman the British had few ways to deal with AT guns. They could run, they could hide, the could charge the position with MGs and their 2-pounder (using a cannon firing solid shot to kill men isn't very effective) or they could get infantry and artrillery to deal with them. Unfortunately, too many British tank units were charged into battle like Napoleonic cavalry. Plus, at that point, British combined arms were poorly coordinated. The arrival of the Grant and Sherman allowed the option of standing back and shelling the AT position. The US 75mm weren't designed as tank killers - they were artillery weapons and the 75 was quite effective at killing enemy troops. That's why you didn't see 76mm gunned Shermans in the Pacific or Burma - not only did ETO had first claim on them, but the Marines, etc did NOT want to lose that 75mm cannon!
Anyway, I really don't think the British tanks were "useless". Don't blame the machines for poor tactics and coordination. This applies not only to the British forces, but later to the raw American tank troops in Tunisia.
Gary
I am curious as to how and why you considered these tanks "useless"! The Grant was not "state of the art" but it was far from useless. Yes, the layout and high silhouette were against it, but the 37mm gun could take on most German and Italian tanks at reasonable battle ranges and the 75mm, although limited in traverse" still had something no British-built Cruiser tank could match - an effective HE round. The Crusader was mechanically less reliable than the American vehicles, but the 2-pounder could still take out >75% of Rommels tanks, plus (if I remember correctly) by Alamein some units started to get the new Crusader III with 6-pounder guns. You also forgot the M3 Honey (Stuart) types and the few Matildas still in service. Because the Sherman had bad press from the ETO you might forget that it was a VERY competetive tank in North Africa. The only better 75mm guns were in the handful (<25) PzIV F2's that Rommel had. The armor was good, mobility and reliability was quite good compated to German or British equipment. Properly used it was better than most of what Rommel had for tanks, and again it had that 75mm HE shell.
German armor fans get so excited touting their panzers that they miss one of the big killers of Allied armor - the towed AT gun. The Germans got used their AT guns quite well in most theaters. Remember that one of Rommel's famous tricks was use his tanks to lure British tanks forward into a kill zone of AT guns. Before the Grant or the Sherman the British had few ways to deal with AT guns. They could run, they could hide, the could charge the position with MGs and their 2-pounder (using a cannon firing solid shot to kill men isn't very effective) or they could get infantry and artrillery to deal with them. Unfortunately, too many British tank units were charged into battle like Napoleonic cavalry. Plus, at that point, British combined arms were poorly coordinated. The arrival of the Grant and Sherman allowed the option of standing back and shelling the AT position. The US 75mm weren't designed as tank killers - they were artillery weapons and the 75 was quite effective at killing enemy troops. That's why you didn't see 76mm gunned Shermans in the Pacific or Burma - not only did ETO had first claim on them, but the Marines, etc did NOT want to lose that 75mm cannon!
Anyway, I really don't think the British tanks were "useless". Don't blame the machines for poor tactics and coordination. This applies not only to the British forces, but later to the raw American tank troops in Tunisia.
Gary
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,435
From what I've read the principal disadvantage of the Grants were they couldn't get in effective hull down position because of the way the 37 gun was placed in a Grant. In addition, the Sherman was considered a godsend and a tank that helped to level the playing field.
OzDigger
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,348
Louis Badolato said:
Rommel lost many tanks when he attacked Monty's postions and don't forget that a similar ratio applied to the Allied tanks as well - they lost heaps when they attacked Rommels position. With tanks you only need the gun to fire for them to be handy in a defending postion and the defender always has the advantage.