|
Post by quincannon on Dec 23, 2015 17:00:58 GMT
Just like there are humans from other walks of life that perplex us. You cannot remove the human makeup from the study of war, any more than you can remove the rifle. War is a fascinating study of human endeavor, and the root of any study of war is the human.
If interest in the Italian Campaign grows we can shift from this thread to a dedicated thread just as we switched this one from linages.
We may eventually get around to exploring the Western Desert as well for the cavalry minded and find that there was no cavalry there, just motorized and mechanized main battle forces.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 23, 2015 17:36:52 GMT
Chuck, Dave asked about Monte and Patton, their dust ups. I think the root of which stemmed from Sicily, as I can find no other/earlier root cause.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 23, 2015 17:52:08 GMT
Tom I realize that Monty and Patton had the problem of hubris and they tangled in Sicily over who entered Messina first If I recall correctly. But did Bradley have a ego as large as the other 2? With his promotion over Patton would he clash as much with Monty? I remember reading somewhere that Patton and possibly Bradley felt Ike gave in too often to Monty. I suppose Ike had so much trouble with all the Alpha males under his command as well as working with the British to concentrate on fighting the Germans not each other. Look forward to your thoughts and opinions. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 23, 2015 18:04:03 GMT
Actually it started in North Africa, when Patton was designated commander of Seventh Army and learned that 7th Army would play a subordinate role to Montgomery, supposedly limited to protection of Montgomery's flank on the drive straight to Messina.
Patton at the time had relinquished command of II Corps to Bradley, and returned from whence he came I Armored Corps, and been the chief American involved in the Sicily invasion. I Armored Corps planned all of the American participation, and while at sea crossing the Med, I Armored Corps was disbanded and Seventh Army activated. The only such occurrence I know of.
All that as preamble to setting the stage for one gigantic appendage measuring contest that lasted for the rest of the war. I think it was more Patton than Montgomery, and tell you the truth I believe that Patton paid the price for his petulance. Patton's great drawback is that he always thought he was smarter than everyone else. I believe that is what cost him not being named the D Day commander in France vice Bradley, and the slapping incidents and his other childishness only added to it, and were not the cause alone. My opinion only, but I think the record will back that opinion up.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 23, 2015 18:10:33 GMT
Bradley was a kiss ass Dave.
He did a very good job activating the 82nd Infantry Division (later 82nd ABD) and went over to the 28th and tried to clean that mess up, and it was a mess. He was called to Africa before he could complete the job, and that division stunk throughout the war.
His talent was organization and administration. Fighting was something he had little talent for.
In many ways he was worse than either Patton, or Montgomery, and nearly made it to the point where he topped Mark Clark, which is saying something. He was petty and vindictive, and his autobiography "Soldiers Story" is the most self serving piece of trash ever put in print.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 23, 2015 19:26:04 GMT
Dave, I have often felt that if you step down a level or two in the chain of command, you find the brains behind the shining star in command. Quality officers are always proud to promote their best and brightest, as in reality it shines a brighter light on them. Example, Marshall removed Eisenhower from MacArthur and eventually promoted him to his highest and best use. Eisenhower made Marshall look good and he could move on to other tasks. Some stars keep their support systems in the shadows.
Vanity can be a terrible thing, and can slow the success of the overall program. Also fear of failure can cause that failure. I think vanity and fear of failure may have caused some of GAC's issues at the LBH, for example.
Regards, Tom
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 23, 2015 19:58:49 GMT
I was really surprised about Bradley's behavior and pettiness. I have never read a bio of Bradley or much about him so I was shocked that he was such a poor person and commander. Ike had to tend watch over these commanders and still deal with Chruchill and FDR. Never realized how good Ike was with people. It seems Ike and Grant had similar people skills in handling so many prima donnas.
Glad that Marshall acted like any honorable supervisor/boss should when he promoted Ike. I was fortunate in my career to have many professional staff as well as graduate students working with me and certainly enjoyed watching them advance in their careers.
Never thought about it but Custer and Patton did have similar characteristics in that they both were undisciplined but were harsh disciplinarians with their soldiers. They were each seeking glory and military fame and did not hesitate to use others as stepping stones to their goals. They kinda remind me of the old cop joke in that they were sworn to uphold the law not obey it. Thank y'all for the information as I have learned quite a lot in the past few days. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 23, 2015 20:02:48 GMT
Oh, and Marshall promoted a bummer or two, witness Edmund Almond, 92nd ID from 42-45. The Marines in Korea did not think much of him either. I guess everyone is entitled to a mistake or two!
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 23, 2015 20:26:00 GMT
I suppose it would be natural for any US forces sent to North Africa to be shown the ropes so to speak by the British, the Brits had been fighting up and down the coast of Africa since 1940 and knew just how well the Germans could fight, especially Rommel.
But I suppose if England sent an army Corps to Guadalcanal to help the US Marines clear the place of Japanese then the roles would be the same with any British playing second fiddle to any US troops, the US army had no experience in armoured warfare especially in the desert so I would expect that Monty would really ease his allies from the USA into the fight in the same way Gen. Vandegrift would show say Gen. McCarthy of XXXX Corps the ropes in how to handle the crazy Japanese.
I must add that once the US army found its feet it certainly didn’t need its hand holding, initially the Germans used to target the American’s but they soon found out that they would get a bloody nose.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 23, 2015 21:29:21 GMT
Marshall from the time he was at the Infantry School kept a list of those whom he thought to be promising. That list included Collins, Ridgeway, Bradley, and quite a few others that came to prominence in WWII.
Marshall also had a problem with keeping names straight, Van Fleet for one, confusing him with a sodden drunk, who will remain nameless here. Van Fleet took a regiment ashore on D-Day as a Colonel, when all his classmates had two or three stars. Ike wanted to promote Van Fleet based upon his performance, and Marshall said no. Once Ike got the name confusion sorted out the Colonel of D Day was a corps commander by Aril 45.
Bradley despite his obvious deficiencies had value. The only American in theater that could in my opinion do a splendid job as a commander of 12th Army Group across the board was Matt Ridgeway, then a fairly senior Major General.
Bradley and most of the rest had no use for Devers, the 6th Army Group commander either. Never have known why but there was something that went way back.
This country of ours has produced only six GREAT generals - Washington, Marshall, Grant, Pershing, Eisenhower, and Lee. There have been many near greats, some that thought they were great, and some that had the press and their own publicity machine convince the general public they were great, but those six stand above all of them in the order of merit listed
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 23, 2015 22:01:27 GMT
Well it is just like you can't have sweet tea without a lemon! There will always be a few disappointments when you deal with large numbers of folks. Almond was a whiner who blamed everyone for any failure he ever encountered. I knew of him from my past readings of George and Fox companies exploits in Korea and 2 bios of Chesty Puller. He was very disliked (nice PC word for how they felt) and not respected by the Marines. It always happens that some who do not deserve promotion get it while the deserving go without the recognition they deserve and promotion. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 23, 2015 22:18:42 GMT
Almond was a complete ass, who outlived his usefulness in about the third grade.
He was given command of the 92nd Buffalo Infantry Division on the basis of being from Virginia, and it was thought he knew how to handle "them coloreds". Such were the times. I worked at the Census Bureau as a young man just off active duty, and prior to going back on. It was my honor to have the desk next to a man I respected and admired more than most in this life, Andrew Franklin Travis, a wartime member of the 92nd Infantry Division. He was full of Almond stories, every one of them bad.
Almond also was not only the commander of X Corps in Korea, he was retained as MacArthur's Chief of Staff while commanding that corps. MacArthur and Walker never got along. Walker would most often give MacArthur the finger. To get around this MacArthur made X Corps a separate entity in Korea, not part of 8th Army. If you want to understand Chosin, and the First Phase Chinese Offensive and why we got our ass handed to us, consider your favorite football team where eight of the 11 listen to the play instructions from the quarterback, and the other three are led by the left tackle, who only listens to the team owner calling his own plays from the executive box seats. That was Korea from late 1950 until MacArthur was fired and Ridgeway took over.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 23, 2015 22:27:57 GMT
Folks, I hope Steve/AZ picks up on this thought. I wish he would contact Dan and the two of them would take us through Marine Corps Basic through their time in SE Asia. This is not to talk about blood and guts, rather training and command structure. Would require sep. thread. I could talk about club Med at Lackland and support state side, would bore you to death. Chuck and maybe a recruit to be named, maybe Will could discuss the US Army and how things flowed in their experience. I think we would find that much was different and much would be the same. All at some point had a mission and it came first. It is an off the wall thought and not the history most come to these boards for, but it is our history.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 23, 2015 22:50:18 GMT
I agree about Steve, his insights would be much better than any of those in some book.
The BIGGEST advantage the Marines have in my opinion are two 1) They are first and foremost Marines and their loyalty is to the Corps, not to regiment division, battalion, company, or squadron, 2) They are, and consider themselves riflemen first, and whatever else they do second. The Army can never approach them in this regard.
Organizationally they are the finest combined arms organization ever fielded on this planet.
Switch:
I want to say something more about what makes a great commander. I believe it is the ability to administer an army. He should be a sound tactician and practitioner of the operational arts. He must change strategy into operational maneuver seamlessly. He must completely understand logistics, especially the limitations logistics place on the possible. He need not be a show boat, and I don't know any of the greats who were. Operational and tactical competence hold second and third places respectively to the ability to administer, that meaning a talent for getting what is needed and turning that need into positive action.
Washington lost nearly every battle he fought, but is chief among the greats in that he held that army together, and led it to final victory, when no one with any sense gave him a snowballs chance in hell of doing it. Grant was no tactician, well not really, but he had the operational arts down pat. That and his ability to administer and coordinate the actions of all of the Union Armies was a work to behold. Lee makes the list not for his tactical and operational skill, but again his ability to hold together an army that was shot by the fall of 63. He by force of personality kept them fighting when good sense said go home. A remarkable man.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 24, 2015 0:15:22 GMT
Ok, I am off the deep end with this thread. But, earlier I mentioned people making their bosses looking good, this dude even got a tank named after him! He may have even have touched on the Bulge! You bet.
B) Abrams, Creighton W., USA - Awarded: SS - World War II (B) Abrams, Creighton W., USA - Awarded: SS - World War II (B) Abrams, Creighton W., USA - Awarded: SS - World War II (S) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DDSM, 1st Award - (S) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DDSM, 2d Award - (C) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DSC, 1st Award - World War II (C) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DSC, 2d Award - World War II (S) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DSM-A, 1st Award - (S) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DSM-A, 2d Award - (S) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DSM-A, 3d Award - (S) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DSM-A, 4th Award - (S) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DSM-A, 5th Award - (S) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: DSM-AF - (B) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: SS - World War II (B) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: SS - World War II (B) Abrams, Creighton Williams, Jr., USA - Awarded: SS - World War II
And I thought someone named Thomas J. Tubman with one DSC in the Army Air Corps was hot shit, unfortunately not closely related, but he must have been something special!
|
|