Check out "The Moment in Time: THE MANHATTAN PROJECT" here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qqukyc9-ps-4oLA.html

After 30 years in service I think Ricks has a damn good point about why our WWII generals were more successful than our contemporary generals. Too many field grade officers I've watched either ridiculously micromanage or go to great lengths to never rock the boat. The senior officers that truly demonstrated both proficiency at their branch and position, and also leadership where the soldiers both know and trust you, were the exception.

@ArmoredNeko

7 жыл бұрын

Finally of all the comments this one is on point. Here have an upvote.

@MrChickennugget360

7 жыл бұрын

i know right. here you get a good lecture about an important topic and 90% of the people commenting are mouth-breathing morons.

@MrChickennugget360

7 жыл бұрын

i know right. here you get a good lecture about an important topic and 90% of the people commenting are mouth-breathing morons.

@brianf467

2 жыл бұрын

I also served and I disagree. Government legislation has our military services fighting with both hands behind their backs with all the legislation so every is scared of repercussions. Every order goes down the chain and punishment will go up to whoever gave the order so it becomes a CYA situation.

Santa sure knows a lot about ww2.

@genghisgfunk

8 жыл бұрын

+Tors Hammer No thanks i have no need for paranoid delusions or crypto fascist bullshit.

@glutinousmaximus

8 жыл бұрын

+Tors Hammer What a tarrydiddle!

@Datruth330

6 жыл бұрын

Genghis gFunk and he literally made a list and checked it twice! He knows which generals were naughty and who were nice!

@jamesrawls4426

3 жыл бұрын

Santa flew a B17 and dropped bombs on all the bad little girls and boys

@bjlecorno8468

2 жыл бұрын

HE DOESN’T KNOW SHIT! He has never been to war, and he mentions nothing about Patton, who without we might have lost, if nothing else we would have taken one hell of a beating. Nothing but shit coming out of his mouth.

He makes some very good points about personality traits, but these have to be set against the following backdrop: 1) The Allied armies in the West faced 60 German divisions whereas the Russians in the East faced 200 divisions: 2) The German divisions in the West had already been wearied by 4 yrs of war before the Normandy invasion: 3) The Germans facing the Allies were scaping the bottom of the available manpower barrel: 4) The Allies in the West had overwhelming airial support 5) most importantly the Allies combined were industrially out producing the Third Reich in material hardware lityerally faster than the Germans could destroy it: EXAMPLE - by the end of the war the Americans were producing an aircraft every 5 minutes, and one ship a day: the Russians were producing one tank every 5 minutes. The se fugures are cited by historian Paul Kennedy in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". Generalship was secondary to all of these factors because the Allies had unlimited resources.

@joshh3304

Ай бұрын

I beg to differ. By this logic ww2 US generals should feel no motivation to take risk. After all, why risk one's career when victory is assured through sheer materiel? Yet the generals and admirals are frequently relieved as Rick shared as they are held accountable for their performance all the way from the top - by Marshall. Good generalship has a force multiplier effect which we shouldn't too quickly discount as secondary. Take for e.g. Battle of Midway. Bad Japanese admiralship driven by their bushido sense of honor led the last carrier to take unaffordable risk leading to its loss as well. The Kido Butai may be fearsome but its capability is nullified to zero as a consequence of the Admiral's decision.

@richardduplessis1090

Ай бұрын

@@joshh3304 At a slight tangent consider the report of eminent historian and military analyst BH Liddel Hart, whose careful analysis of the Wehmacht's battle perfomance though the whole of WW2 revealed some interesting data. His research revealed that whether the Germans were attacking of defending, whether on foreign soil or on home soile, they always achieved a 50% higher kill rate than their adversary. The Russians in the East simply ignored the causal;ty rate and pushed on regardless. The Western Allies were more cautious, but towards the end there was greater incentive for the Germans to surrender to the approaching Americans than the advancing Russians, which would also have undermined their resistance which would have been greater had not the Russians pressed them so hard in the East.

@joshh3304

Ай бұрын

@@richardduplessis1090 I just realise your earlier comment was 6 years ago. Thanks for taking time to read mine and to also reply :)

@richardduplessis1090

Ай бұрын

@@joshh3304 My pleasure, - you raised a valid point.

Great lecture from a man who really knows what he's talking about and isn't afraid to voice it. I wish the UK had a Tom Ricks.

@Chewable396

4 жыл бұрын

Andrew Moody We do. His name is Gwynn Dwyer. He teaches at Sandhurst.

@tuckhorse

3 жыл бұрын

You kids are funny keep listening to these people who make a career off of other people's dime

@bjlecorno8468

2 жыл бұрын

@@tuckhorse YEAH. HE’S A REAL MAGGOT. PATTON DID MORE TO WIN THAT WAR THAN ALL THOSE IDIOTS PUT TOGETHER. I had a great uncle who was a tank commander under general George S Patton. I’ll bet on everything I hold dear that I know more about that war than he does.

While many of my views on this subject have already been said in the comments I would just like to point out one big thing. WWII generals took actions that would be unacceptable by today's standards. They bombed cities into oblivion, that attacked civilian heavy targets with overwhelming force, and the war ended with 2 nukes being dropped on Japan.

@nathanielhellman6952

7 жыл бұрын

Sigourney Fotheringham Yeah that's what I said.

@MrChickennugget360

7 жыл бұрын

"nukes were off the table" ya think.

Back then It was the Navy Department and the Department Of War. We now have The Department Of Defense. It should be the Department Of Offence. That would clarify the mission.

@agnidas5816

2 жыл бұрын

Department of defence - as in defending the caravans of drugs coming from over there :)

I think one of the good points he makes is the importance of success. "Relief" has two important roles. First it assures that people who don't have success are moved out of the way. Second it opens paths for successful people to have more opportunity and responsibility. It's creative destruction. If you don't burn out the forest every now and again, it doesn't open up space for the forest to renew itself.

WWII Generals only had one single order and that is to win the war ...latter conflicts were halfhearted wars with too many restrictions to preserve the geopolitics.WWII was a slugfest with clearcut objectives.

@teb4513

7 жыл бұрын

Well, there is the fact that congress hasn't constitutionally declared war since WW2. Every "war" since then has been a conflict. This could have nothing to do with it however, but I also like to mention this everywhere I can because the thousands of men and women who died in the middle east weren't fighting a war, and that's really dumb.

@DAREDEVILBKLYN

6 жыл бұрын

USS INDIANAPOLIS Captain did not want to leave port with out a escort forced to go after the delivery of A BOMB. USS INDIANAPOLIS sunk hundreds died. Captain blamed court martial unjustified committed SUICIDE later on in life. Example of not so great leader ship by USA Generals and Admirals during WW2.

@DAREDEVILBKLYN

6 жыл бұрын

A bomb ended Japan's " boshido code" warrior ways. The leadership failed the Japaness people and the 2 A bombs could hace been prevented. Leaderships needs to know when it's game over and play NICE ! WW2 was HELL and cruel were the Japaness and so HELL came to find the DEVIL, peace.

@roywarne1767

6 жыл бұрын

Manny Boy p

@marktercsak5580

6 жыл бұрын

First it did not start with World War II, U.S. Generals. It started in 1774, over the decades the Armed Forces if you will, built a house, And In addition we built the Military Academy's and military classes and of coarse there were wars, then they took these wars apart, what went right and more importantly what went wrong. It soon became apparent that leadership skills , take charge, Commanding presence,

29:50. The Allied triumph in Tunisia in ‘43 wasn’t the first major victory in the west. That distinction goes to El Alemein.

@Ricardo15009

2 жыл бұрын

He's referring to American victories

I thought I had watched this video before. Kept hearing things I thought sounded familiar. Walked into my study and I have his book "The Generals" on the shelf. Funny. It's a good book.

I'm a veteran. Ricks hits the nail on the head. Accountability. For a modern day pair of examples of the consequences of no accountability see our ineffectual and substandard public schools and our "systemic failure" Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mark Clarke Italy June 1944. Disobeyed a order and appeared to be more concerned with the kudos of capturing Rome than cutting off and surrounding. a retreating German Army. Certainly in this instance not a team player. Why did he avoid being relieved?

@oswaldchai9865

4 жыл бұрын

@carmine paola Didn't the English beat the combined German and Italian armies at Northern Africa?

@oswaldchai9865

4 жыл бұрын

@carmine paola Even with superior numbers, any force can be repelled without good leadership. The British at the start and mid points of the war had bad army commanders and their tactics had not evolved like the Germans had. Much like the Germans fighting and winning against the combine British/French armies and the much bigger Soviet armies.

he forgets that nuclear bombs come into play and then generals became not only fighting but political people also

The young officer at the end asked a good question.

"Why our Generals Were More Successful in World War II" Because they were allow to do their job. politician were mostly kept out of the war.

@TogetherinParis

9 жыл бұрын

wayneyd2 Yes, victory by consensus in action evolves inevitably with improving communication. When they can communicate, they will. Sure mediocrity prevails over risk taking's outcome variability necessarily. Genius is neither encouraged nor tolerated. As a for instance, a pheromone, 1/4th gram of healthy adult male facial skin surface lipid, the grease on an officer's face, cures feelings of jihad, ADHD, heroin addiction, and sexual perversions. All that is needed is to wipe the pheromone onto chewing gum in a three day collection span to insure sufficient quantity. The collection and oral administration is easier than brewing tea, so losses are taken unnecessarily from suicide/PTSD/ADHD of troops. Sadly, this great idea was defeated by the "confederacy of dunces" unable and unwilling to learn a few simple lessons in biology. Exocrinology the Science of Love, Amazon.

@chairforcegamer3571

Жыл бұрын

@@TogetherinParis what?

@TogetherinParis

Жыл бұрын

@@chairforcegamer3571 I'm just saying success is relative. Our present-day generals are allowing our troops to die when the cure for ptsd and suicide is on the generals' noses, literally. All they need to do is wipe the clear, odorless, colorless, tasteless pheromone usually passed in kissing onto chewing gum or some other food vehicle, then blow off the volatiles (which are "emotionally dangerous"), then give the pheromone-laced vehicle to the disturbed troops to cure them instantly.

@chairforcegamer3571

Жыл бұрын

@@TogetherinParis where can I learn more about this?

To look smart: take the glasses off, put them back on, repeat infinitely...

High Professor!!

Interesting.

The finest allied commander during ww2 was William Slim, what he did it turning the British 14th army around and routing 2 entire Japanese armies was amazing

@davidcolley7714

7 жыл бұрын

As a Brit I have to take issue with your view that Slim was the "finest allied commander". This is patently false and there many reasons why but instead I will say the it was Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov who was instrumental in defeating the Axis Armies that deserves the accolade as the finest allied commander.

@iandavies6575

7 жыл бұрын

Zukhov had the numbers, It's Slim for me

@papasha408

7 жыл бұрын

David Colley, Zhukov was a very competent general. His understanding of strategy and tactics as well as logistics was solid, but his methods at times was suspect. Soviet losses were horrendous during many battles simply because they were many and expendable. Slim was good general but my favourite British general was Auchinleck. The Auk demoted by Churchill, was the one who took the wind out of Rommel's saails during the first battle of el alimein.

@anorthernsoul5600

7 жыл бұрын

My Great Uncle, sadly no longer with us served under both Auk in Egypt, and Uncle Bill in India and Burma. He admired both Generals, but for him it was always Uncle Bill Slim as being the finest general in the British Army. It was the care and thoughtfulness he bestowed on the troops that served under him that stood out as an absolute. Also he took on the Japanese at their own game and defeated them, gave the nod for Wingate and his Chindit expeditions when nearly every other top ranking general labelled Wingate as a dangerous maverick. All this was achieved with an army that was almost an after thought when compared to those that fought in the campaigns of Europe, N. Africa, and the Pacific. Simply the best quote on leadership I have read: "I tell you, as officers, that you will not eat, sleep, smoke, sit down, or lie down until your soldiers have had a chance to do these things. If you hold to this, they will follow you to the ends of the earth. If you do not, I will break you in front of your regiments!" - Field Marshal Sir William Slim

@iandavies6575

7 жыл бұрын

Slim was a wonderfull General

Does Ricks misspeak at 36:Commanders with names beginning with M: he says MacArthur and Marshall. Seems he meant to say MacArthur and Montgomery?

@mikecimerian6913

3 жыл бұрын

I was surprised too. Ricks speaks very highly of Marshall so it had to be a slip of the tongue.

Highly educational & interesting. I especially liked Marshall's requirements of General-ship list * good common sense * professionally educated * physically strong * cheerful & optimistic * energetic * extreme loyalty * determined.

Patton was lousy in the defense? No, Patton didn't believe in defense because it makes you a sitting duck.

@bjlecorno8468

2 жыл бұрын

PATTON WAS THE BEST! I had a great uncle who was a tank commander under him. Learned a lot more about that war from my great uncles who fought in it than I did from the history books. This guy is a maggot. I think we all know what this dog shit who is talking is.

@David-ln8qh

2 жыл бұрын

@@bjlecorno8468 You sound SO trustworthy...

The American strategic situation was extremely favourable to begin with. They had more industrial capacity, manpower and technological capacity than any nation to begin with. All while having an unthreatened homefront and plenty of time to plan their actions. The WW2 generals would not have done better in the other wars fought by the US, like Vietnam.

@cptant7610

7 жыл бұрын

***** There is no such threat as during ww2 so its a completely unfounded statement. Remember the US was very isolationist with basically no army before their involvement in the world wars.

@kharnthebetrayero9036

7 жыл бұрын

Lexington73300 yeah japan thought the same way about the United States citizens before pearl harbor look what happened to them

@MrChickennugget360

7 жыл бұрын

you people are all stupid. The defining factor for a democracy like the US going to war is political support, keeping political support when taking heavy losses means having a clear mission that the people believe is worth fighting for. It also means having a clear idea as to what it will take to win, and the understanding that Victory is getting closer. That is why the US was has struggled since WW2, almost all US conflicts since WW2 have had unclear goals with out a clear understanding as to what Victory will be. clear mission and public support are critical to winning a war.

@MrChickennugget360

7 жыл бұрын

"The American strategic situation was extremely favourable to begin with. They had more industrial capacity, manpower and technological capacity than any nation to begin with. All while having an unthreatened homefront and plenty of time to plan their actions. The WW2 generals would not have done better in the other wars fought by the US, like Vietnam." you do realize that Vietnam also had "more industrial capacity, manpower and terminological capacity" with "an unthreatened homefront" basically the evidence you cite has no bearing on your argument.

@cptant7610

7 жыл бұрын

With more manpower and industrial capacity I meant the part of it that was actually devoted to the war effort. Point is that you had to be pretty fucking incompetent to mess up WW2 as an Allied general.

A lot to think about.

The reason our Generals were more successful because the Goal Of The Country Was Victory

Right you are and the wars we fight now the stakes aren't as big as WWII was.

I am no expert, but from the German point of view the American leaders were extremely timid, lacked initiative, and were excessively cautious-- except Patton. When you read German accounts of major battles they often wonder out loud why the Americans didn't pursue the attack but stopped, right when the Germans were at their weakest.

@stevecochrane3491

9 жыл бұрын

The problem was that General George Marshall would pick friends and old associates who's main qualifications for higher command were personal loyalty to him rather then millitary expertise. He would put personal friends like Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Mark Clark and Bedal Smith all of which did not see combat during the First World War into the top posts in the European Theater Of Operations and he would micromanage there actions and decisions which caused an atmospher were they were reluctant to change there battle plans to meet changing situations on the battlefield. This almost caused a huge disaster during the Anzio campaign and it also allowed 100,000 German troops to escape from Normandy at the Battle of The Falaise Pocket in which Patton commanding the US Third Army wanted to advance to the town of Falaise and cut off and trap Models German forces, but Omar Bradley his superior refused to allow him to close the trap because it was not part of Eisenhower's grand strategy for the Normandy campaign and Bradley was worried that if it failed he would incur the wrath of Ike who in turn would be dressed down by Marshall. The best American Generals in the European Theater in my opinion were at the Division and Corps command level, not the army or Theater command level. Men like Lucian Truscott who commanded the Third Infantry Division in Sicily and Southern France or Matthew Ridgeway who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division or Lightning Joe Collins who commanded an Armored Corps during the allied race to the Siegfried Line. And Patton was the only real decent field army commander like you said. It should also be said that the British had the same problem as well. Montgomery was a good war planner but a slow implementer of his plans and Harold Alexander was for the most part an empty suit. To me the best allied commanders during the war were in the Asia Pacific Theater, mainly because the US and British governments were so obsessed with defeating Germany that they largley ignored the war against Japan and this gave more freedom of action to allied commanders in that theater who knew the situation better. US General Douglas MacArthur was abel to defeat a larger Japanese force in New Guinea and during the reconquest of the Phillipines and British General William Slim defeated a Japanese force nearly three times his size in Burma using an Army mostly made up of Indian conscripts. Also on the Eastern Front Soviet Marshal Zhukov managed to stop the German advance on Moscow with a grand counteroffensive in one of the few battles of the eastern front in which the Soviets were outnumbered by the Germans. In my personal view the best allied commanders of the war were 1.Zhukov, USSR 2.MacArthur, USA 3.Slim, UK 4.Patton, USA 5.Montgomery, UK And the best Axis commanders 1.Manstein, Germany 2.Yamashita, Japan 3.Mannerheim, Finland 4.Gudarian, Germany 5.Rommel, Germany

@reichsfuehrerniveacreme

9 жыл бұрын

Steve Cochrane Interesting. Never heard that before.

@petarmaric3762

9 жыл бұрын

Patton wa not overly agressive or anything he fits perfecktly to Marshals profile of officers. he had a unique personalitie and tolerated no slackery of any kinde but was never a glass cannon. he is what MacArthur always inspired to be.

@johnburns4017

9 жыл бұрын

Reichsfuehrer Nivea Creme The Americans did not have to gamble. If a tricky battle was ahead they could hold back and reinforce. They had far more men and materials. Then they would move forwards like a rolling steamroller. Less men were killed this way.

@johnburns4017

9 жыл бұрын

Steve Cochrane "2. MacArthur, USA" Are you serious. He was an egotistical buffoon.

The value of US Navy vessels took part in Marianas operation even without their immense logistic chain of transport vessels and smaller landing vessels was incredible during that time - about $3 billion. Comparing the value of German war machine in Kursk we understand it better. German armor, artillery, smaller weapons, aircraft, trucks had value less than $250 million. It tells how techno American war machine in Pacific was compare those armies of Germany and Soviet Union.

Starts at 4:00

the brittish officers were comlete badasses by the way. there's story's of them strolling around a battlefield like it was a sunday afternoon with bullets wizzing around them and not being fazed one bit.

@TheFreshman321

4 жыл бұрын

Lexington73300 Patton was clown and utterly overrated. US army's verdict on Patton: XX Corps at Metz, 5-25 September 1944 On 7 September, 5th Infantry Division opened the assault on Metz, ignorant of the fact that it was attacking the most strongly fortified city in Western Europe. For a week one of its regiments was chewed to pieces among the forts west of the Moselle, which were manned by students of an officer candidate school. Even when reinforced by a combat command of the U.S. 7th Armored Division, the American attack made little progress. Incidently, this action took place on the same ground upon which two German, field armies were mauled in equally unsuccessful assaults during the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. Third Army Operations in Lorraine (The failings). From September to December, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton had their sights set firmly beyond the Rhine. Consequently, they underestimated the obstacles and opposition that their soldiers would have to overcome along the way. Thus, a difference in outlook arose between the higher commanders who drew large arrows on maps and the tactical units fighting for yards of muddy ground. General Patton can also be faulted for neglecting to practice economy of force. We have noted several instances in which Third Army's forces were spread out on a broad front in an attempt to be strong everywhere with the result that they were decisively strong nowhere. In retrospect, the important battle in September was XII Corps' fight around Nancy, and in November, the main effort was XX Corps' assault against Metz. And yet Patton failed to concentrate Third Army's resources in reinforcement of the corps engaged in decisive operations. Furthermore, Patton never made an attempt to punch through the German defenses with divisions in column, even though he received approval for such an operation from his superior, LTG Bradley. One rule of thumb for mechanized forces that emerged from World War II was to march dispersed but concentrate to fight. In Lorraine, Third Army fought dispersed. The Lorraine campaign taught us some lessons in combined arms warfare. The tank and the airplane, two weapons which were commonly believed to have revolutionized warfare, were an unbeatable combination during the pursuit, leading up to Lorraine. But when the enemy dug in and the weather turned bad, infantry, artillery, and engineers reemerged as the dominant arms. The critical shortage of infantry fillers demonstrated that the American high command had failed to anticipate this development. The American armored elements were not at their best in Lorraine either. Much of this can be attributed to the weather, but some of the blame must be given to the army commander for binding his armored divisions into infantry-heavy corps. Patton's reluctance to mass his armor came as a pleasant surprise to the Germans, who believed that their panzer divisions were just as useful in creating breakthroughs as they were in exploiting them. At a lower level, the combat command concept provided great tactical flexibility through decentralized control, but it also tempted Patton's corps commanders to break up the armored division and parcel it out by combat commands, a policy that further diluted Third Army's armored punch. In addition, American tank crews repeatedly paid a heavy price for a doctrinal decision made before the war that declared tanks to be offensive weapons not intended for defensive combat against other tanks. As a result of this official policy, the M-4 Sherman tanks in Lorraine were badly outgunned by German panzers that mounted superb antitank pieces. Was the Lorraine campaign an American victory? From September through November, Third Army claimed to have inflicted over 180,000 casualties on the enemy. But to capture the province of Lorraine, a problem which involved an advance of only 40 to 60 air miles, Third Army required over 3 months and suffered 50,000 casualties, approximately one-third of the total number of casualties it sustained in the entire European war. Ironically, Third Army never used Lorraine a s a springboard for an advance into Germany after all. Patton turned most of the sector over to Seventh Army during the Ardennes crisis, and when the eastward advance resumed after the Battle of the Bulge, Third Army based its operations on Luxembourg, not Lorraine. The Lorraine campaign will always remain a controversial episode in American military history. Interested parties may read the text in its entirety here: www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources.

Axis was vastly outnumbered and war was fought on the Axis's land not on America's land.

Excellent presentation. Ricks is entirely correct about Marshal. A very helpful review about what Marshal achieved. One thing that has bothered me about the Marshal legacy is how he could have possibly thought a cross-Channel invasion was possible in 1942 or even 43. This became a major upset with the Brits. Does anyone know how a man of Marshal's caliber could have been so totally wrong?

@Hibernicus1968

11 ай бұрын

It's not really hard to see how he might have thought that before Dieppe. There is an interview with Lord Louis Mountbatten in the outstanding "The World at War," documentary series, about the lessons learned from the failed Dieppe raid, perhaps the most important of which was that you would need to capture a major port in order to bring in the amount of supplies necessary to support your beachhead and not get thrown back into the sea, _but_ that the defenses around such ports were so formidable that it simply wasn't possible to capture one without subjecting it to such a heavy bombardment, meant to destroy those defenses, that you also ended up destroying the very facilities you needed to capture. This is why the British invented the Mulberry harbors. Prior to Dieppe, Marshall was simply one of many generals who didn't appreciate just how hard it was going to be to take a port and sustain a beachhead, and probably thought we could build up sufficient force to do it by 1943, which brings me to the next point... Donald Nelson, director of priorities of the United States Office of Production Management, learned from the people working for him that the initial production goals set were infeasible, even for an industrial juggernaut like the U.S. -- a 200 division army and a rapid build up that _would_ have gotten us enough of a build up potentially to have enough force for a cross-Channel invasion by the beginning of July1943. Toward the end of 1942, Nelson, with the support of the White House, was finally able to persuade Marshall and the rest of the army that they would have to settle for the more attainable goal of a 90 division army, and a build up that would be completed by early June of 1944; almost a full year later than what Marshall and the army wanted. Marshall wasn't an economist or industrialist, and I think he can be forgiven for not realizing that between the need to allocate a lot of our industrial output toward the navy and air force, and the need to avoid complete disruption of the civilian economy, the original goal of expanding the army to 200 division size by mid-1943 wasn't realistic, and a more achievable 90 division army would still not be available until the next year. If it had been possible to give Marshall the huge army he wanted by 1943, a cross Channel invasion probably _would_ have been feasible by then, but economic reality meant that wasn't possible, so the invasion took longer.

@dennisweidner288

11 ай бұрын

@@Hibernicus1968 Thanks for your assessment. I agree with everything you say. Marshall never really explained his change of mind. But the 90 Division Gamble you spell out is just what occurred. The Americans are often criticized by the Russians for not doing more of the fighting sooner. But Nelson was absolutely correct. If you take more men out of the factories you reduce war production and at the name time increase the need for supplies and equipment., meaning there would have been less Lend Lease for the Brits and Soviets. My assessment is that Marshall's initial concept is based on his World War I experience. Within a year of declaring war in 1917, the Americans went into combat in France in 1918. And America was even less prepared for World War I than for World War II. He at first assumed that this could be replicated. Dieppe as you say may well have been a factor. Torch was another factor. Also, American war production did not really ramp up until 1943. The few Shermans built in 1942 went to the British and not the Americans. Torch which Marshall opposed was also eye-opening. One historian (Andrew Roberts) believes his push was a bargaining ploy with the British who were not anxious to come to grips with the Germans in France. I am not sure to what extent Marshall entirely changed his mind about 1943, but the realities on the ground dictated postponement until 943. The Germans did not surrender in Tunisia until May 1943. And by then there was no way to move the men and equipment to Britain in time for cross Channel invasion in 1943. As it was, Eisenhower did not receive the landing boats he needed until just before the June 1944 invasion. I see it as the efficient if stormy workings of the war-winning Anglo-American alliance. The Americans in 1942-43 were not fully aware of the potential of the German military. The British with all too much experience were. And the British as a result were too timid in 1944. Thus the British prevented disastrous early action and the Americans insisted on action when it was finally possible.

He forgot to mention that Buckner had loaned Grant some money some years before when Grant was hard up. That's another reason why I Buckner was upset by the "no terms" response.

@TogetherinParis

9 жыл бұрын

Yaesu Kita Grant had the right idea. He viewed the Confederacy as rebellion, an inexcusable offense especially given its consequences. Of course if Honest Abe had handled his first campaign properly, there might have been no war at all, at least for several more years. Grant was not an ingrate, and a jurist might have obtained a loan from the condemned man some years before, yet the sentence would remain unmitigated by personal loyalties. Loyalty to the country is always the paramount duty of soldiers of all ranks.

Germany invested only 30%, western allies 20-25% and Japan 15% for armies and land battles. Average some 75% of war production of big powers went on air and sea warfare and armies played minor role than people and historians are generally thinging of. It's honest to say that Germany was not beaten by US, Royal or Red Army. Instead Germans lost the war because western allied air and sea power. Also it's well known fact that commanders of navies and air forces has better understanding for strategic warfare and so called "super battlefield" than commanders of land armies. The great names of WW2 were Nimitz, King, Leahy and Portal. U-boats of Dönitz were only thing Germans really could shake western allies.

@PoorSong

8 жыл бұрын

+GNU/LINUX The contribution to the victory of "Western allies" was barely noticeable. 70-80% of soldiers and military equipment of germany and its allies (the whole of Europe) have been destroyed by the Red Army.

@PMMagro

8 жыл бұрын

+GNU/LINUX Yes The Western allies won the naval war, before it even started. The main war that Germnay had was on land though...

54:21 Hear, hear a turtle only moves forward when it sticks its neck out.

Soviets did most inflicting casualties to the Germans, while China did most inflicting casualties to the Japanese. It made all things easy and less casualties to US.

explain what happens to general sasobowski?

The Americans can afford to be cautious being too far away from the theaters of war, they had huge military hardware production facilities and the Soviets were busy slugging it out with the Germans. It was the Soviets that defeated Germany while the British and Americans played supporting roles.

@stevecochrane3491

8 жыл бұрын

+Alan A A lot of Soviet hardware was built by America. Marshall Zukov himself said it would have been impossible for the USSR to defeat Germany on the eastern front without the thousands of trucks supplied by the US and built by Ford and Studabaker. And lets not forget those American and British bomber crews that flew and destroyed Germanys production facilities. Without that Albert Speer would have built enough panzars to push the Soviets passed the Ural mountains and beyond.

@alana1563

8 жыл бұрын

Steve Cochrane Those are nice assumptions but it was Soviet blood that decimated 80% of the Wehrmacht KIA. It's like saying that Wellington beat Napoleon and not his disastrous Russian Campaign.

@stevecochrane3491

8 жыл бұрын

Alan A There not assumptions if there true. Zukov stated that in his autobiography. Besides if America did not get involved in the war there would have never been a second front because the British just did not have the manpower to land an invasion force in Europe. If that were the case then the best the Soviets could hope for would be a stalemate similar to the Iraq Iran war of the 1980's.

@markaspachomovas1576

8 жыл бұрын

+Steve Cochrane The second front didn't do shit, it was only brutal because American soldiers were all nublets with no experience. 9th Army was entirely dissolved and decimated, they were going to lose anyhow, the question would be is when.

@stevecochrane3491

8 жыл бұрын

+Kill me please. By September 44 the American armies in the west were mostly battle harden veterans. During the Battle of the Bulge they tied up half a million German troops that would have been used to defend East Prussia from Soviet attack. And if it wasn't important for the US and UK to establish a second front then why was Stalin bitching to Roosevelt and Churchill to establish one? You would think a guy like Stalin would prefer to have Europe all to himself after the war and establish puppet regimes in France and Italy as well as Eastern Europe.

Patton should have been relieved? What bullshit. I suppose the next thing he'll say is that Chesty Puller should have been relieved.

one wonders what MacArthur or who MacArthur new to keep his job after the abject failure in the Philippines

@StephenPaulTroup

4 жыл бұрын

I think you should review Marshall's list for qualities of a good commander starting at 16:00

Douglas MacArthur had his mettle tested both in WW2 and in Korea facing dire situations where the massive US war making capacity was delayed in making an impact. Stilwell was a failure with limited resources, being forced out of Burma after wasting the best units of the Chinese army. Wainwrite surrendered when there was no hope of resupply. No other US army commander ever had to face a crisis that could not be mastered by simply throwing more men and material at it. I wonder how Patton would have performed if he had been in command of German 9th Army in December of 1941 when that army was fighting for it's life against forty or so fresh Russian divisions.

Marshall is the man! He was the US in WW2.

Marshall is also the main person responsible for China's fall to Mao in '49, and he did not perform too well before, during, and after Pearl Harbor on 12-07-41. In fact, General Marshall was held to have been derelict in his duties by the very first Army board of inquiry on the Pearl Harbor attack. Look it up yourself, because you will never hear that from sell-out historians like Mr. Ricks. Webster Tarpley has a good book on this subject called "The Real Pearl Harbor Conspiracy".

@shooter7a

2 жыл бұрын

#1 - He was following Truman's direction. #2 - The well had already been poisoned. Chiang Kai-shek already felt betrayed by the US when FDR was not able to come though on promises in WWII due to resource limitations. #3 - The well had already been poisoned. All the anti-communist fervor back in the US made it impossible for Marshall to mediate anything with the communists. The US had basically been written off by both Mao and Chiang at that point. Marshall was not there to force a military solution. He was there as a diplomat, and the die had already been cast.

The subject shoukd be...Why did the Allied generals study from German generals in post war.Especialy from Erich von Manstein and Hasso von Manteufel

''Why our Generals Were More Successful in World War II'' ~ because german had at best about 20% of it's peak power left when US dare to land in Normandy

@TheBespectacledN00b

7 жыл бұрын

Tjecktjeck He means relative to more recent US wars

@georgbergsten6050

3 жыл бұрын

relative to us wars after not relative to german generals

@Tjecktjeck

3 жыл бұрын

It doesn't matter. For example in Korea & Vietnam US armed forces was less effective because they were matched against heavily underdeveloped but well motivated forces in a harsh landscape. On the otherhand Germany was totally destroyed and outnumbered by the time US set their foot in EU. I am far from a wehrmacht fan, but it would be strange if US generals wouldn't be effective at that time, given all the advantages they had and the type of War it was.

@tuckhorse

3 жыл бұрын

@@Tjecktjeck I like reading with you kids right a lot of entertainment value here. But take time to do some more research if you want to get serious

@Tjecktjeck

3 жыл бұрын

@Wind Rose Pacific theatre was mainly about naval operations and american admirals did a good job indeed. As for japanese land forces, they were only threat to chinese peasants and small colonial units. They lost every major land battle to US and Soviets smashed their Kwantung army in less than 4 weeks.

Why???? Because they had to Soviet Union in the Eastern front....

How about Mark Clark, why wasn't he fired?

@puffstanley4442

2 жыл бұрын

its a question he himself asks.

Not that anybody cares, however, the comparison to Bulgarian army is interesting - Bulgaria at the point of WW1 had the biggest ratio of army:population - higher than any other country in the world.

us generals had great help from german trader generals like GENERAL HANS SPEIDEL, EDUARD TOHMAS, AND MANY MORE WITHOUT DOSE MEN NO VICTORY IN NORMANDIE

Obvious, we had Ultra and knew their plans before they did, broke their codes in the Pacific, and simply overwhelmed them both logistically.

@lucasner463

3 жыл бұрын

Read a book about Ultra...we definitely did NOT always know what they were doing. Ever hear of the Battle of the Bulge for 1 example.

@Rohilla313

3 жыл бұрын

@@lucasner463 that’s something that couldn’t have been avoided. The Germans maintained perfect radio silence in the weeks leading up to Herbstnebel. I’m not sure what Ultra could have done in a situation like that.

@JDWDMC

2 жыл бұрын

Both Marshall and Eisenhower understood that logistics was the key to winning WWII. But you still needed competent leaders to use that equipment correctly. Marshall especially, understood that too.

Well ...Jerries mess with the wrong guys: Patton and Zukov.

German generals > US and other allied generals . The advantage to the US was resources and (well) resources.

the one thing you need to have this relief policy is a leadership, on the level of the white house and congress, that is concerned with the war more than with political intrigue. Firing people is not popular and stirs up political drama. Fire too many people and you might create enemies in Washington that get you fired too. And you can't have the leadership be concerned with a war they are not really afraid of losing.

You should have listened. He is comparing how our generals did in WWII to how they have done since 1951.

This is a stupid question. If you consider the fact that the United States produced more steel during the war than any other nation this capability provided a number of key advantages to American armed forces. Among them was deploying the biggest navy in the world, and fielding a larger number of tanks, artillery and other armored vehicles in comparison to her adversaries. American armed forces also possessed the biggest air force in the world and that critical asset proved to be the determining factor between victory or defeat. In effect, what the United States enjoyed a luxury of riches which included not only possessing the biggest navy and air force but also one of the largest armies. On top of all this, one must never overlook the fact that the United States could afford to wait until the most propitious moment to launch the second front as a consequence of the Soviet Union's success in repulsing the German offensive. At the time of the Normandy invasion until the conclusion of the war, the German army dedicated more than two thirds of it manpower to the Eastern Front.

I'm only 23 minutes into this lecture and am puzzled as to why Patton is omitted from mention as a regular serving General officer that survived Marshall's axe to replace Fredenhal in Tunisia? I recall from Omar Bradley's memoirs "A General's Life," that Marshall was so disgusted by a display of unhinged abuse Patton levied on a junior officer demonstrating landing craft, that Bradley said in that moment Marshall decided that Patton would never gain high Command. He would be held to Corps Command. Never Army Group Command or Theater Command.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

Omar Bradley's memoirs "A General's Life," is a a memoir, it was written after Bradley died.

He probably did mean Montgomery.

10 to 1 in tanks controlled the skies and seas with the French, British, Canadian Australian, Russian, and many other countries armies fighting with them and the Germans still making their presents very hard for the alies

Um because the enemy were easy to find - they always wore uniform. The war being fought for was valid reason and therefore total anihilation of everything infront of you was allowed. Two capital cities was what you aimed you entire arsenal at. The Nation was 100% devoted to the destruction of two enemies - Berlin and Tokyo. Generals do well or rather should do well in total war, Generals trained in convential total war do well in convential war. Conversely Generals trained in convential war tend to not do so good in asymetrical war. Especially when your overwhelming application of fire power kills the civilians you are supposed to be protecting.

Whether this guy is all out right or wrong I cannot judge. However, for your sake, understand that you can have the best army, the best troops and best equipped troops available and still lose battles and wars because the generals and commanders are inept. Because that brigade commander, that division commander and that corps commander may face an opposing general that is not mediocre and who can use his resources better than your general. This can cost you lives: soldiers and the civilians your army is to protect. A sergeant crashing a tank into a canal won't affect the outcome of a battle. A general ineffectively wielding his division will.

It is an interesting theory, but not more than that. It is good that George C, Marschall gets the credits he deserves. It is a long enumeration of facts and events which lead to a sudden recommendation, without any evaluation and solid conclusion. Therefore link between the the events described by the speaker and his recommendation is completely missing. There were too many differences between World War II and and the later conflicts, to make this comparison. One of the major differences which helped the Allied generals to be more successful, than in later conflicts, was the fact the that in most cased the Allied forces liberated occupied countries. Just to illustrate how fragile Mr Ricks's theory is: According to this theory the dekulakisation should be considered the Russia's best preparation for WWII.

So it will be up to the people .people that have balls.sence our military leaders don't seem to have any .

Supplies.

Air power and firepower.

Alone and confused in Vietnam..

I'd sum it all up in one word: Ultra. When you know the whole picture of the enemy's position, in all levels from operational to strategic better than what the enemy high command does (and there were times that it was just like that with Ultra/Magic) things get a lot easier for the generals at the front, rather than having them guessing about the enemy's intentions, assets, and plans. there are other reasons why things were different in Korea or Vietnam than in WWII but the main one and the primordial advantage the allies (and by extension the US) had over the Axis was that they had Ultra. Without it things would've been far more difficult and the performance of the allied armies (not just the US armed forces) would've been far less effective.

@The_Essential_Review

4 жыл бұрын

What is Ultra??

Of course we won, we had General Motors and General Electric!

@agnidas5816

2 жыл бұрын

Fun fact General Motors funded nazis and lobbied against joining the war.

They were better educated The were tough They were independent thinking n creative. They believe in there goal to victory

Very few leaders that aren't just "Polididiots or Presstitutes" polishing knobs .......

because they had the British generals to show them how it is done

Why wasn't MacArthur fired?

The generals were much more sucessful because 2nd world war soldiers did not shout "They do it like this on COD II) 2nd world war soldiers didnt cry their feet hurt and call their moms on iphones for food and money during training 2nd world war UNITED the entire allied nations against common enemies, a bond still as strong today 2nd world war presidents were not called G W BUSH, 2nd world war soldiers did not cry "are we there yet" while driving through enemy territory. 2nd world war soldiers were fitter and better trained and risked everytrhing. Thats why, give the nation guns today and 90% will injure themselves.

@robertmaybeth3434

8 жыл бұрын

They never said "Rush B Cyka Blyat" even on the eastern front

@eraldidisho4325

6 жыл бұрын

So, basically, you just called all the veterans from the Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam (etc) Wars wishy-washy children. Nice.....

He compares our pre-WW II (and pre-nuke) 190K man Army vs current post-Cold War imperialist interventionist military. It's apples to oranges. OK, so Korea was an extension of WW II, as the aftermath of China's Communist Revolution, which was the final result of Japan's loss of hegemony in 1945. But US politicians & military had confused and unreasonable objectives in Vietnam, and had learned little about post-colonial global development when 9/11 demanded retribution. We still fail to understand Latin / South America as our last colonial quagmire despite the immigrants. But it's so glorious to see the US starting as reluctant underdog and doing the right thing geopolitically under Marshall, Ike, MacArthur and Patton. Nevertheless the the US was a major force in imperial colonial politics between1854 and 1941.

what a silly title!

You may think he's perfectly suited but saying it doesn't make it true and having other people agree with you doesn't make it true either. If I want to know what's going on up at the farm I'll ask the farmer

Success in the Ardennes, for example, has impressed the whole world! And the epic battle for atolloavye islands, is an amazing example for books on military strategy! Fucking shame ...

its easy. usa generals were successfull because of usa's mighty industry. even if they fuck up, its no problem, all the casualties were replaced in double.

Maybe because back in Dub Ya 2, generals were actually allowed to kill the enemy! Winning was the only order of the day, not rules of engagement and civilian lives.

German's generals better than other generals in the ww2

One area he doesnt dot all the I's. He point to marshall wanting team players, but he laments the current trend to conformity. What is the difference between being a team player and a conformist?

Politics. Period.

Generals in WW2 were more successful because the objective was to win and the politicians stayed the fuck out of the warfighters way. The End.

I read at one time that most US divisions only fought for 10 days a year during well,,of course the generals were better

And the Depression ended on 1939 too. How about that?

@rusoviettovarich9221

4 жыл бұрын

No it was 7th December

75 % of gas and steal in the world at start of war .A-bomb production skill at the end .made a aircraft carrier every 2 day = 170 plus in a full year .note all would run out of gas but the US if we went 1 on 1 or any or all of them .

Germany had no chance of winning that war their military capability was severely hindered after ww1 it's amazing what they were able to accomplish with so little against so many!

@shmexygamer

8 жыл бұрын

+Dominic La Rosa It wasnt hitler fault... most of the time he was listening to his generals... and the idea of blitzkrieg wokrs only against small nations, the fatal mistake was atacking USSR. Which was a decision talen by most Nazi general and not Hitler himself.

They were way more successful in Vietnam. You assume they had the same goal but they did not. The mission was way different. Drugs transport being a chief priority ;) It's in the history books at your local library.

Why were our Generals successful in WWII? American Industry, almost unlimited supply of soldiers from US and Russia. Beetle Baily could have won the war. Same reason the North won the civll war.

The only expert on war is our Lord.his will be done,on earth as well in heaven,remember those 5 minutes in the battle of Midway?A True Miracle!

simplistic view on my part. WW2 was a clear cut war with American generals given a clear objective "fucking win this shit at all costs" why did we lose vietnam korea etc etc etc? because the opposing generals were given orders to "win the war at all costs" they were able to execute thier war with a free hand. american generals were told win.. but do not do this.. that this and definetly not this.. unless that occurs. hard to win a fight when your opponent is told to fuck u up any way they can. while u yourself are told.. fight with one hand and do not punch them in the face

Generals Zhukov, Rommel, Monty and Admiral Yamamoto were the best commanding officers in WWII. The Americans had it too easy.

@drjimbomac

Жыл бұрын

Montgomery was a weak and indecisive commander, but I like the rest of your list.

In reality historians should focus more the role of air and sea war of WW2 than land war. American and British think tanks had their own civil war until 1942 Roosevelt and his trusted pro Navy-Air War commanders won that war and men of past (like Marshall was) was pushed to marginal. Roosevelt was right: Navy and Air Force were priorities.

@MrChickennugget360

7 жыл бұрын

no ground war is not marginal. you are an idiot.

For a guy who never bothered to serve himself, even as a lowly E1, Mr Thomas Ricks has a big earful to say about what the military should do.

@rayjr62

7 жыл бұрын

And you served in the U.S. Marine Corps and saw 10 tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, so you would know more...right? Thank you for your service.

@MrChickennugget360

7 жыл бұрын

you don't have to be in the military to understand history. i have known many guys who i served with who don't know shit other than the specific job they do.

@phtevlin

7 жыл бұрын

One of the greatest Roman victories was organized by a man who never once "served" in the military. The Emperor Claudius's victory over the Britons.

It would seem that Marshall didn't follow his own criteria for what qualities a General Officer must possess when he selected and ensured Omar, "I never read a book in my life and I am as dumb as a freaking rock" Bradley became an Army Group commander and CSA after WWII. Good lord, what a pathetic excuse for a senior officer.

General Stillwell hated Madam Chang hai cheks wife. Because he didnt think her opinion on waror her husbands decisions was smart considering over 1.5 millions Japanese troops were expanding in China. They fired a good man. A very fluffy mentioned in this narrative .

Because they had balls, and they didn't distinguish between Nazis and Radical Nazis.

In the case of Vietnam and largely Koreas as well, the generals had little say as to overall strategy, which was set by the White House. In the Vietnamese war,the WH actually provided bombing missions and placed so many controls over what could not be attacked that the generals were little more than errand boys. Nevertheless, when Nixon came along and denied the North Vietnamese the sanctuaries that LBJ had allowed, the war was fairly quickly brought to a successful conclusion. North Vietnam was completely stymied and impotent. However, Nixon was burdened by years of incompetence by LBJ, which had wearied the nation, forcing Nixon to depart before he would have preferred which, combined with his replacement by the wishy washy Ford, gave the North Vietnamese the opportunity to invade the South again without US opposition. Unlike WWII, it's impossible to tell the story of Vietnam and Korea simply by relating what the commanders did or did not do. Their actions were subordinate to the civilians who were actually running the war. The relevant question is "Why were the civilian wartime leaders in WWII more successsful than those who ruled during Korea and Vietnam?"

@jeffmoore9487

10 жыл бұрын

You asked: "Why were the civilian wartime leaders in WWII more successsful than those who ruled during Korea and Vietnam?" 1. WW2 was supported by most folks: They volunteered in droves. Vietnam (VN) had no purpose; We trade happily now - They posed no threat. Hilter posed a actual threat, whereas "winning" in VN had no meaning to Americans. We lost. Defeating Hilterism had a simple defensive meaning. People pitched in and we won. 2. In WW2 our civilian leaders saw the chance to "own" the Middle East and come out with our economy humming in a otherwise shattered world economy. If you like controlling other peoples resources and setting the economic agenda for them, we won. A "win" in Vietnam would have only a fractional similarity as in WW2, or more likely, it would have precipitated a bigger guerilla war (Chinese volunteers for instance) which we would have also lost. As an anti-imperialist war, it had majority support within the VN population. VN was a dumb idea overall regardless. You seem keen enough on war to support it even when in hindsight we know it was: un-winnable in military terms, had shaky domestic support and no defensive basis, and winning couldn't be and isn't defined for the American people, though people patriotically (reflexively) supported our govt in the beginning. WW2 involved lies that we have yet to see through. Vietnam, Iraq, El Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc.........involved lies that are and were easily unpacked, cept perhaps by you and guys like Thomas Ricks. People avoid giving rationals for VN. You can give the usual rationals, but Americans already know they're not true. It was all about imperialism and nothing about defense and certainly our involvement was anti-democtratic.

@jlawrence6723

10 жыл бұрын

i'm afraid you are full of shit. or very, very young.

@jeffmoore9487

10 жыл бұрын

jlawrence You have anger, but present no ideas beyond bodily functions and guesses. Get some help.

@richarddavis1163

10 жыл бұрын

I agree with your analysis as regards Nixon and his predecessor. Nixon, for all his paranoia, possessed a fine mind and a deep understanding of geopolitics in terms of conflict. In your example politics drove the war and the capacity to wage war properly right into the ground. I would not have mired the U.S. into that war, as I believe it would be pointless in geopolitical terms as to outcome, but no president in all of those years of involvement handled the matter more intelligently. Our system of governance is such that wars are inhibited in execution and in the way that war should be fought. In my opinion wars should only be declared by Congress and then the military should be allowed to bring the war to a conclusion with expediency and by any means.

@jeffmoore9487

9 жыл бұрын

Richard Davis Nixon could not change the fact that Americans themselves did not like this war. The lies in the media were failing to change those feelings. The wars we've won had the backing of Americans themselves. You have to compare the economic - political effect of a popular war to an unpopular one. One where the whole economy is marshalled and one where the war is run independent of the people. A determined adversary cannot win against a unified US economy. A declaration of war is a part of the kind of commitment necessary to winning a tough fight. Nixon, Bush, Clinton, etc....... never marshalled the US economy because their "wars" could not be explained to anyone but the already deluded insider. In a unipolar world, with the US militarily and economically dominant (for now), Americans have scant reason to accept a "War on Terror". They are not engaged much, for or against. The strength that could be brought to bear simply isn't requested or given and the explanations for these wars are thin. We lack the means of determining if we've won or lost and clearly stated goals are absent or just abandoned. The North Vietnamese, the Taliban, and chaos ruled/rule Vietnam, Afgh. and Iraq respectively after our media and leaders declared "victory". All were US losses in classic understandings of win/lose, though the media follow the leaders like pet dogs in foreign policy matters.

In the European theater the simple truth is summed up in one word, Patton. Old blood and guts was the driving force behind the aggressiveness that hammered Germany into submission. He adopted and perfected the German's blitzkrieg warfare style and used it to destroy the enemy. His fighting spirit, energy and intuitive thinking made him the only American general the Germans truly feared. The third army under his command was an unstoppable juggernaut.

@TheFreshman321

4 жыл бұрын

mwilson70201 you drunk the cool aid of his publicity machine 75 year on. Patton was great chasing defeated armies or chasing across France liberating empty space with no opposition. US army's verdict on Patton: XX Corps at Metz, 5-25 September 1944 On 7 September, 5th Infantry Division opened the assault on Metz, ignorant of the fact that it was attacking the most strongly fortified city in Western Europe. For a week one of its regiments was chewed to pieces among the forts west of the Moselle, which were manned by students of an officer candidate school. Even when reinforced by a combat command of the U.S. 7th Armored Division, the American attack made little progress. Incidently, this action took place on the same ground upon which two German, field armies were mauled in equally unsuccessful assaults during the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. Third Army Operations in Lorraine (The failings). From September to December, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton had their sights set firmly beyond the Rhine. Consequently, they underestimated the obstacles and opposition that their soldiers would have to overcome along the way. Thus, a difference in outlook arose between the higher commanders who drew large arrows on maps and the tactical units fighting for yards of muddy ground. General Patton can also be faulted for neglecting to practice economy of force. We have noted several instances in which Third Army's forces were spread out on a broad front in an attempt to be strong everywhere with the result that they were decisively strong nowhere. In retrospect, the important battle in September was XII Corps' fight around Nancy, and in November, the main effort was XX Corps' assault against Metz. And yet Patton failed to concentrate Third Army's resources in reinforcement of the corps engaged in decisive operations. Furthermore, Patton never made an attempt to punch through the German defenses with divisions in column, even though he received approval for such an operation from his superior, LTG Bradley. One rule of thumb for mechanized forces that emerged from World War II was to march dispersed but concentrate to fight. In Lorraine, Third Army fought dispersed. The Lorraine campaign taught us some lessons in combined arms warfare. The tank and the airplane, two weapons which were commonly believed to have revolutionized warfare, were an unbeatable combination during the pursuit, leading up to Lorraine. But when the enemy dug in and the weather turned bad, infantry, artillery, and engineers reemerged as the dominant arms. The critical shortage of infantry fillers demonstrated that the American high command had failed to anticipate this development. The American armored elements were not at their best in Lorraine either. Much of this can be attributed to the weather, but some of the blame must be given to the army commander for binding his armored divisions into infantry-heavy corps. Patton's reluctance to mass his armor came as a pleasant surprise to the Germans, who believed that their panzer divisions were just as useful in creating breakthroughs as they were in exploiting them. At a lower level, the combat command concept provided great tactical flexibility through decentralized control, but it also tempted Patton's corps commanders to break up the armored division and parcel it out by combat commands, a policy that further diluted Third Army's armored punch. In addition, American tank crews repeatedly paid a heavy price for a doctrinal decision made before the war that declared tanks to be offensive weapons not intended for defensive combat against other tanks. As a result of this official policy, the M-4 Sherman tanks in Lorraine were badly outgunned by German panzers that mounted superb antitank pieces. Was the Lorraine campaign an American victory? From September through November, Third Army claimed to have inflicted over 180,000 casualties on the enemy. But to capture the province of Lorraine, a problem which involved an advance of only 40 to 60 air miles, Third Army required over 3 months and suffered 50,000 casualties, approximately one-third of the total number of casualties it sustained in the entire European war. Ironically, Third Army never used Lorraine a s a springboard for an advance into Germany after all. Patton turned most of the sector over to Seventh Army during the Ardennes crisis, and when the eastward advance resumed after the Battle of the Bulge, Third Army based its operations on Luxembourg, not Lorraine. The Lorraine campaign will always remain a controversial episode in American military history. Interested parties may read the text in its entirety here: www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources.

Fire generals and colonels? Refuse book deals? Talk about _not_ your contemporary American military.....