The Story of the Legendary General George S. Patton
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
Cedric
Master Class
I've read 48 Hours to Hammelburg, though it's been several decades. There is no leader that I know of who hasn't made mistakes intentional or unintentional. This was a pretty sad state of affairs. One thing I don't remember, it the involvement or not of the 4th Armored Division chain of command. TF Baum was commanded by a Captain, Abe Baum. As far as getting the orders and coordinating for support, what were the actions of his battalion commander, the combat command (what we call a brigade now) commander, the division commander? That an aspect I'd like to revisit.
Icepick Mike
Operator
Pure warrior, something sorely lacking in today's Army. You don't make general unless you play politics. Have a one star as a good friend, he is a warrior and I watched him rise through the ranks. Never got another star for that reason, didn't play the political games.
Icepick Mike
Operator
That's called discipline, some folks in the military think they are exempt of orders and SOPs.
That is so true! He wasn't going to let anyone not follow his orders, didn't matter who! If that same discipline today we might not have had the end of every war we have been involved in since WW2! We let generals in the Pentagon call the shots and not give a hoot about the bloodshed of our soldiers, take my generation, we could have easily won Vietnam a number of times, but at the last minute the bombing and shelling was called off and the troops were left exposed! Seemed like nobody. in country was able to make a decision without pentagon approval!
Vietnam Vet
Alpha
As a Vietnam vet, I can attest to that. The military was never allowed to prosecute the war the way it should have. There is no doubt that we could have won the war. US forces, whether they were Army, Marines, or Navy ever lost an engagement. During the Tet offensive by the North Vietnamese, we literally destroyed the Viet Cong and they never were an organized fighting force after Tet. The war was run completely from the oval office with LBJ running the show.As far as the politicians were concerned we were not supposed to win the war, but rather to maintain the status quo. The reason I say that is we were not allowed to cross the DMZ and hold territory. And as far as the bombing of North Vietnam goes, it was completely controlled by LBJ while sitting at his desk in the oval office.
Cedric
Master Class
So, let me make sure I've got this right.
Ike sent Gen (ret) Ridgeway to VN to get an assessment of the situation and upon his return said it would take 500,000 troops committed soonest and meanwhile send in the New Jersey battle group and start shelling Haiphong harbor. Ike said no land war in Asia and maintained the level 500 advisors.
- JFK based on the advice from his best and brightest, increased the "advisors" to 15,000 not including aviation support. The escalation starts.
- LBJ introduced troops into theater, never declared a national emergency to enact stop loss so units went into battle at half-strength. Strength peaked at about 540,000 (Ridgeway was pretty correct in his estimate), but again these came in piece meal. The military hierarchy had no synchronized strategy or ops. It is correct that LBJ picked out bombing targets since the generals went into his office and offered his the opportunity to do so. I would have fired the lot of them, especially Westmoreland.
- Nixon gets elected, puts Gen. Creighton Abrams in charge and the Army attacks into Cambodia and conducts one of the most successful large scale offensives in history. Problem was it should have been done in 1965 not 1970. The purpose of the offense was to push back the enemy to give us breathing room to negotiate for peace and start our withdrawal. The war at this point was unsustainable from a political and public opinion standpoint. Every casualty became fodder in the evening news with no progress to show for it.
So, Ike kept us out, JFK started sneaking us in, LBJ and know nothing generals made this a strategic and operational circus. Nixon and Abrams pushed back and gave us breathing room to withdraw. Winning was effectively off the table in 1966. BTW, we did the same thing in Iraq with the surge having initially invaded with an outnumbered force ill suited for a long campaign.
Final point - the "we didn't lose a single engagement" is a myth. Look up LZ Mary Ann and LZ Albany. Both were slaughters.
Ike sent Gen (ret) Ridgeway to VN to get an assessment of the situation and upon his return said it would take 500,000 troops committed soonest and meanwhile send in the New Jersey battle group and start shelling Haiphong harbor. Ike said no land war in Asia and maintained the level 500 advisors.
- JFK based on the advice from his best and brightest, increased the "advisors" to 15,000 not including aviation support. The escalation starts.
- LBJ introduced troops into theater, never declared a national emergency to enact stop loss so units went into battle at half-strength. Strength peaked at about 540,000 (Ridgeway was pretty correct in his estimate), but again these came in piece meal. The military hierarchy had no synchronized strategy or ops. It is correct that LBJ picked out bombing targets since the generals went into his office and offered his the opportunity to do so. I would have fired the lot of them, especially Westmoreland.
- Nixon gets elected, puts Gen. Creighton Abrams in charge and the Army attacks into Cambodia and conducts one of the most successful large scale offensives in history. Problem was it should have been done in 1965 not 1970. The purpose of the offense was to push back the enemy to give us breathing room to negotiate for peace and start our withdrawal. The war at this point was unsustainable from a political and public opinion standpoint. Every casualty became fodder in the evening news with no progress to show for it.
So, Ike kept us out, JFK started sneaking us in, LBJ and know nothing generals made this a strategic and operational circus. Nixon and Abrams pushed back and gave us breathing room to withdraw. Winning was effectively off the table in 1966. BTW, we did the same thing in Iraq with the surge having initially invaded with an outnumbered force ill suited for a long campaign.
Final point - the "we didn't lose a single engagement" is a myth. Look up LZ Mary Ann and LZ Albany. Both were slaughters.
Vietnam Vet
Alpha
Let me rephrase my statement. The U.S. military never lost a set piece battle/ engagement. As far as the battle at LZ Albany goes, it is considered part of the overall battle known as the battle of the Ia Drang Valley which lasted from 11/14/65 through 11/18/65. The troopers of the 2/7 cavalry at LZ Albany were caught flat footed on 11/17/65. Although this action was considered a defeat, overall battle in the IA Drang valley was considered a U.S. victory. Unfortunately, the troopers 2/7 Cavalry did not set-up security when the got to LZ Albany and were regrettably beaten by a larger force of NVA.
Regarding the battle of LZ Mary Ann, it is really FSB Mary Ann. FSB is Fire Support Base and the battle took place on 3/27/71 and was garrisoed by Co. C, 1/46 Inf. of the 196th Light Infantry Brigade, assigned to the 23rd Infantry Div. The FSB had been garrisoned by Co. A of the same unit. Co. C was transferred in from Chu Lai the day of the attack. I never like to disparage any unit unless I have first hand knowledge of events. From what I have read (which is all public), the men of Co. A were a known bunch of dope heads, using everything from marijuana to heroin. Due to the heavy drug use by them, they had let the FSB's defenses go to hell. The VC and NVA had plenty of time to check and find the weaknesses of the FSB. On arrival, Co. C troops started to fix and repair the defenses, but they were hit by the enemy before much had been fixed. Enemy sappers were into the FSB before anyone knew it and caused quite a bit of damage. Also, all but 2 howitzers had been removed from the FSB, along with all their starlight scopes and ground radars. They had all been sent to the rear for maintenance. Considering Co. C was handed a FSB that did not have adequate defenses including no LP's or trip flares and rattle cans in the wire, Co C did an exemplary job at defending FSB Mary Ann. Co C suffered 33 KIA and 83 WIA. Even though it has been counted as a defeat, U.S. troops maintained control of the FSB.
Vietnam was a different type of war. We did not go out and take real estate and then hold it as in prior wars. At the same time, we did not lose FSB Mary Ann. Yes it was over run, but we beat the enemy back and held our Fire Base. Although I was not a grunt in Vietnam, I was on River Patrol Boats (PBR'S) in the Mekong Delta and got into fire fights on a daily basis. Each crew operated 12 hrs. on and 12 hrs. off. I'll call the battle at FSB Mary Ann a victory. I really don't see any difference between FSB Mary Ann and the Battle of the Bulge.
Icepick Mike
Operator
Read some unfiltered history.................................
I wholeheartedly agree. Remember that FDR & the OSS (CIA) installed Mao and the communists in China.
Moreover, there were at least two Soviet agents that were high level aides to President Roosevelt. I have no doubt that the OSS was involved in assassinating Gen. Patton.
Patton was popular, well spoken and a clear threat to what FDR was building in China and the further push left in the United States.