galley / trireme, preferably with a ram.
they must have seen Ben Hur or whatever, by this age.
Best general
-
Anyone who wants to use Nukes is bad in my book. Also, I think that Mac would of Nuked China if he had been in place much longer.
I say he was responsible for losing a lot of lives because he incited China into much more than they were originally going to do.
-
If I had a fresh new weapon like nukes i’d want to use them too.I really like Mac and I’d like it if everyone layed off.
-
The Chinese had determined to commit troops if the “UN” forces crossed the 38th parallel. When they did it was not Macarthur’s decision. The US gov. (CIA) believed that the Chinese would stay out of Korea. They expected the Chinese to build a defensive line at the border.
The decision to use nukes was made by Truman. It was determined, when the front stabilized near the 38th Parallel, that if large numbers of Chinese or Russian troops were moved in to Korea, nukes would be used on specific targets in Manchuria.
Macarthur did very little out side of his orders. He was told to use only ROK units within a certain distance of the Chinese border. ROK units were of very low quality for the most part, so Mac used his judgment to the counter of his orders here.
Macarthur wanted to attack what he saw as a threat. That’s what Generals do. I don’t think the conflicts between him and the US Gov. make him any less of a General. Maybe if some of the German Generals were a little more like Mac and Patton they would have had a chance to show their true abilities in WWII.
-
If I am not mistaken (though it is a possiblity, the Korean War is not my area of expertise), Mac rushed to the <insert name=“” here=“”>River which was closer to China than the US government told him to go. Much closer in fact, close enough for a full alert of Chineese troops. I believe this is the reason he got thrown out by Truman.</insert>
-
I am sorry, but you are mistaken.
The US government on advise from the CIA adopted a “Roll-Back” strategy during the offensive campaign, which was determined, would end communism in Korea. The Chinese feeling a dept of gratitude to their comrades who had just helped them win a revolution, decided to assist them long before troops came near the Chinese border. The problem here was that Western intelligence has historically been unable to guess what Asians will do in a given military/political situation.
But hey, lets get back to World War 2. :wink:
-
______ ends Korean war discussion _______
-
I am in the belief that monty’s perceived lack of aggression stems from britain’s dire manpower shortage by the end of the war. Market-Garden was an example of this desire to end the war with minimal loss in life. Even if the british people had a blood and guts general like Patton, they would not favor him because this attitude would be perceived as carelessness with the live of soldiers.
-
I don’t see why that pointless Korean war discussion happen on a website about a ww2 board game.
-
Hey Patton-
I don’t recall Patton kicking the crap out
of Rommel. However, Patton did read Rommel’s book on
Tank warfare. You are going against the grain
on this one. -
What are you talking about? Patton defeated Rommel’s 10th Panzer at El Guettar (BTW: Patton is my favorite General). Patton was the most dangerous General on all fronts, N. Africa, Sicily, Northern France, and finally Germany. Quite possibly Patton could’ve ended the war by Sept. 1944 if not for arch rival Monty.
-
I thin MacArthur was the best general also.
And As far as getting thrown out of Koriea, Truman thought he was a rival for president, So thats why.
-
I hate to burst your bubble Moses, but Patton arived in Africa and took over command on the 4th of March 1943, and Rommel was relieved and returned to Germany on the 5th of March 1943. The big stories of Patton defeating Rommel are a propaganda myth. Patton along with the rest of the allied army in Africa faced Colonel-General von Arnim. Not familiar with him? History doesn’t remember loosers.
I agree the Patton was a great General, one of histories best, however he never realy went head to head with Rommel.
-
Well of course I knew that Rommel wasn’t present during Patton’s victory. However it is undoubtably true that Rommel planned the battle. If you beat Rommel’s plans, didn’t you defeat Rommel? Plus, Patton’s greatest victory wasn’t even against Rommel. Patton was the person who saved the Allies’ hide in WWII at BotB.
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-02-21 19:19 ]
-
However it is undoubtably true that Rommel planned the battle. If you beat Rommel’s plans, didn’t you defeat Rommel?
Not really, If a general is not present at a battle, they can not addapt their plans for things the enemy does.
-
As I have stated before lets not debate over
an issue like this. Why not see what Patton
thought about Rommel?
PATTON, SAID " ROMMEL IS THE MOST MAGNIFICENT
SON OF A BITCH I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ALL MY
LIVES" Patton thought he lived many lives
including being in battles in the Civil War
and wars back during the Greek period.
You see if Patton himself believes this
and so do most experts/historians why
even debate it? However, Patton was an
awesome leader so I respect your passion
for him.
-
Don’t worry, I never said Rommel anything that would try to discredit or tarnish his reputation. (BTW in the present era many generals are not “present” at the actual battles simply because the size of armies has evolved from Ceaser’s 5,000 man legions to Patton’s 3rd Army numbering almost 500,000). Rommel was one of the best generals the Germans had during WWII and for any other time. His actions in North Africa and the stubborn defense of Normandy was nothing short of brillant due to the superior forces of his opponent.
-
Umm…. Rommel was a Field Marshall.
-
Marshal
-
In America there is no rank of Field Marshal since it is a European term for an Armny Officer. I’m pretty sure if there was, Patton would’ve attained such a position.
-
Normandy landings:
very little point in judging a general by this success as Germany had already lost the war. it was only a matter of time. After the failed russian campaign effectively ending at the battle of kursk and the north african failure -the germans were retreating. Russia wanted the invasion of france to happen a whole year before it actually did, but the allies declined - seeing fit to pursue the war on the easier target of southern italy - possibly a good decision there as it would have been less heavy on casualties than a normandy invasion. On the other hand, the war could have been brought to a swifter end had they attaked in 1943…possible?? who knows, history can’t be decided on ifs and buts… It is certainly true that the russians bore the brunt of the war and should be praised for doing so even if stalin proved to be as callous, evil and ruthless as hitler. anyway, not enough room here to post my historical perspective of the war.
Suggested Topics
