Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But

60 years ago this day the Battle of the Bulge started with a German barrage ending with 6 German Armies storming through the Ardennes.
This battle involved over a million soldiers from Germany, France, Britain, Belgian, Canadian, US and a few other countries. The setting was during the coldest winter in memory at that time. When it was all said and done a few months later the US alone had suffered over 80,000 casualities(dead and wounded) and 20,000 plus PoWs.Now this brings me to the point about Iraq. The US and it's allies in Iraq have yet to suffer a tenth of the casualties we did during the Ardennes offensive. What is going on in Iraq is but a skirmish.Now before you all get upset about me calling it a skirmish, let me tell you I do think human life is precious.
Regards,
Erik Pierson
Sacramento, Cawww.sacramentolocomotiveworks.com
You can find information about SLW upcoming releases at the following links
Elvas Tower Forums
3dTrains Forums

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But ....., sstyrnol, Dec-17-04, 06:05 AM, (1) RE: Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But ....., DRGWK36, Dec-17-04, 07:19 AM, (2) RE: Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But ....., muskokaandtahoe, Dec-17-04, 01:09 PM, (3) RE: Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But ....., DRGWK36, Dec-17-04, 03:33 PM, (4) RE: Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But ....., muskokaandtahoe, Dec-17-04, 05:56 PM, (5) RE: Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But ....., Gixxer86g, Dec-17-04, 06:32 PM, (6) RE: Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But ....., DRGWK36, Dec-17-04, 09:01 PM, (7) RE: Alot Of You Think Iraq Is a Big Deal, But ....., muskokaandtahoe, Dec-18-04, 07:40 PM, (8) Market Garden, century242, Dec-18-04, 08:02 PM, (9) RE: Market Garden, muskokaandtahoe, Dec-19-04, 00:30 AM, (10) RE: Market Garden, century242, Dec-19-04, 05:18 AM, (11) RE: Market Garden, Gixxer86g, Dec-19-04, 05:57 AM, (12) RE: Market Garden, century242, Dec-19-04, 12:02 PM, (13) RE: Market Garden, NW_611, Dec-19-04, 03:27 PM, (14) RE: Market Garden, century242, Dec-19-04, 04:51 PM, (15) RE: Market Garden, NW_611, Dec-19-04, 05:40 PM, (17) RE: Market Garden, Mattaf, Dec-19-04, 05:19 PM, (16) RE: Market Garden, Gixxer86g, Dec-19-04, 06:46 PM, (18) RE: Market Garden, century242, Dec-19-04, 06:48 PM, (19) RE: Market Garden, chucksc, Dec-19-04, 07:23 PM, (20) RE: Market Garden, century242, Dec-19-04, 08:10 PM, (21) RE: Market Garden, NW_611, Dec-19-04, 09:24 PM, (22) RE: Market Garden, Gixxer86g, Dec-20-04, 05:53 AM, (23) RE: Market Garden, muskokaandtahoe, Dec-20-04, 12:49 PM, (24) RE: Market Garden, Gixxer86g, Dec-20-04, 05:15 PM, (25)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Yet you are trying to play it down. While 600 KIA's is for sure considerably less than 80,000 KIA's, it still is a tragedy for the parents loosing their son or daughter.Also even if it is not a large-scale battle but rather urban "skirmish", it is bound to be horrid for the individual soldier on-site. And I doubt that they'd feel relieved to hear that what they are fighting is nothing against the Battle of the Ardennes.Besides, IMHO, the battle of the Ardennes was as useless as anything in a war. It was the impressing but futile attempt of the retreating German Army to avoid the inevitable. The only reason why they could block the Allies advance was IMHO the bad weather / visibility which stopped the Allies from using their Air Force at full scale.Finally I may say, that every KIA in battle is a KIA too much, on every side, be it friend or foe. Cheers!Sebastian

Visit my "sebastian's trains pages" at http://www.freewebs.com/sstyrnol ...

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Dec-17-04 AT 07:22 AM (EST)

Erik - your bit of history brings up a lot of points about Iraq, not just the fact that there have been many fewer casualties. We actually have suffered over a tenth of the casualties now - according to one of those liberal commie pinko sites (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/), it's at 9844 (and 1299 deaths) as of 12/15. That includes non-combat deaths and injuries - the "official" count of combat deaths is 1023. CNN (another liberally biased group?) has their count at 1307 US (1456 coalition) dead and 9756 US wounded in action. I think the differences are based on when the count starts. In any case, it's more than 10% of the 80,000 for the Battle of the Bulge.From an historical perspective, this is a much lower casualty count than was suffered on many single days in World War II. The key point - this war is clearly not as critical to the survival of the US as was World War II. With all the rhetoric about sacrifice from the President, the sacrificing is largely being limited to a much, much smaller military and their friends and families. In World War II, the US had literally millions of men in uniform (and women, too, but their roles were generally much less reduced compared to today, and much farther removed from combat zones). Pretty much everyone, whether in the military or not, felt some significant restrictions on what they could do because of the war. Contrast that with the level of sacrifice the vast majority of us feel today because of Iraq - almost zero.Although the US philosophy of using technology instead of manpower to win wars was fully in place in World War II, the technology used today is much more effective in both killing the enemy and keeping US military alive. So the relative casualty rates between the Iraqis and the US are much greater than the relative rates between the Germans and the US in WWII.Another point to make is that the ratio of KIA to WIA is much lower now, due to vastly improved medical care and evacuation capabilities. Today there are roughly 9 wounded for every death, which was more like 3 wounded for every death in WWII. Finally, it's interesting to make another historical comparison. If you look at where the US was 1191 days following the attack on Pearl Harbor (the number of days between 12/15/04 and 9/11/01), by March 3, 1945 the Allies in Europe had invaded Africa, Italy, and Normandy, and were on the verge of crossing the Rhine (the famous Ludendorff Bridge was captured on March 7, 1945). All this while conducting a second major war in the Pacific.So I get back to my first point, with a bit of expansion. This war clearly isn't seen as critical to the survival of the US, so the level of effort is enormously lower. Two questions then have to be raised. If it's not critical, why fight it? If it is that critical, then why are we not fighting it with everything we've got?The soldiers (Marines, airmen, etc.) still deserve our respect and admiration for their willingness to go into combat, both then and now. That's a separate issue from whether the leadership deserves respect for the decisions they make to put those people in the position to kill and be killed.Andy(edited to add the point about nonmilitary sacrifice)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Dec-17-04 AT 01:18 PM (EST)

> This war clearly isn't seen as critical to the survival of the US, so the level of effort is enormously lower. Two questions then have to be raised. If it's not critical, why fight it? If it is that critical, then why are we not fighting it with everything we've got?Very fair questions and I think generally there is a lot of depth to the issues behind them. So this will be a long answer, appolgies in advance.So how to answer.... Well, let me start with this: Terrorism is not the enemy, it is meerly the tactics used by the enemy. Saying this is a war against terrorism is a bit like Winston Churchill saying in June 1940 "This is a war against dropped bombs". It's just nonesense to say such things and I regret President Bush continues to do so.WWII was a war against Germany and Nazi Facism, not dropped bombs and today it is a war against a non-state actor highly motivated by a nilistic, world-encompasing ideology, some of which is religious, some of which is cultural, and some of which is simply anti-modern. Perhaps the closest similar situation were the various fringe marxist groups in Europe 1870-1900 who did things like assassinate the Tsar. Those lunatics were a problem but not to the same degress as Al Qaeda as they had much more simple technology available to use. But of course once they got control of a state (1917 in Russia) and were able to use the resources of that state, it became a large problem for much of the world.There are many difficulties dealing with non-state actors, but the obvious one is it's hard to find such organizations. Al-Qaeda (which means The Base in arabic) had bought their way into Afganistan and the Taliban of course knew of it, being paid well for that aid. Neither of them ever dreamed the US would come and hunt them down. But when we did and Al-Qaeda simply picked whatever they could and ran, leaving their former freinds, the Taliban, swinging in the breeze. We fought there because we could and we knew we would win.WWhen that happened the important questions were "Where will they go?" and "Will that government help them?". Now reasonable people can look at the facts and come to different conclusions but I think all can agree the high probability that quite a few people trying to answer those questions would have purt Iraq on the list for discussion. And at the time, right or wrong, every intellegence agency in the world had concluded that Saddam has chemical weapons, probably had biological weapons, and certainly had a nuclear weapons program (but not such weapons). Even the French said so.Surely there were other countries on that list (e.g., Iran) but when you think about all the possibilities I think all could agree that from the US perspective, Iraq was worst possbile place for Al-Qaeda to go to. See, in any assessment of threats you have to look at both intent and capability. For instance, the UK has nuclear weapons (high capability) but has very warm relations with the US (low intent). So they are not a threat to the US. OTOH Al-Qaeda had low capability and high intent; Saddam had high intent and unknown but possibly very high capability, as well as an well established pattern of poor decision making, support of other terrorists, and waging war. Put those Al-Qaeda and Saddam together and you've got a really nasty combination.So to prevent that from happening, we went into Iraq and changed the regime. We fought there because we could and we knew we would win.

BTW, there were a number of other things going on that prompted the US to move faster rather than slower (and French actions were part of that) and I'm going to skip that by just noting that stopping Al-Qaeda from going to Iraq wasn't the only reason the US had. But now Iraq is going to get a different government and Al-Qaeda is still on the run.It is in the interests of the US to continue to ensure that Al-Qaeda does not receive state sponsorship again. It's possible that no government today will allow it. That is good. It's also possible that two would offer support (Iran and North Korea) as well two places where Al-Qaeda could take advantage of local troubles to do another Afgani-style base (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). All 4 of those places are being very closely watched by the US. IMO the chances for any one of those four scenarios are low.So I think US policy will look like this: Huge amounts of resources will be available to ensure Al-Qaeda does not obtain nuclear or biological weapons. But it might not be obvious that it all must be spent or for what is spent, how it was spent. Keeping them on the run is one way. Ensuring that North Korea understands the consequences of selling one of their bombs is another. Ditto for Iran. If those two countries understand those consequences and keep their high-capability weapons to themself there will not be a military overthrow of those regimes -- that's a low cost solution. And then work with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and encourage them to do a better job of making life decent for their citizens. The alternative is to conclude that one or any combination of those states are as likely as we thought Saddam was to use Al-Qaeda against the US. Therefore we see the need to take them out. But it seems today that the US has conclused that possibility is remote and so the military solution is not the #1 plan.OTOH, what Iran is doing right now is extremely dangerous for all concerned. One misstep and things could get really, really expensive really fast. Let's all hope it doesn't go that way. And over in North Korea, they're all still mad lunatics up there -- the place is falling apart. We might be able to simply wait and see that government disintegrate, much in the way East Germany did. Again, another low-cost solution. But still extremely dangerous.So with that long introduction, my answer: The US will spend whatever it needs to successfully accomplish it's objectives. It presently believes it can do that w/o going to war with any other countries but have no doubts that the option for another war is on the table and will be used if the situation requires it. Finally there are 4 places that bear close watching; IMO right now only one of those four is getting more worrisome.And just so you know, a public poll was piublished today that said 72% of all Americans believe the recent election has given President Bush a full mandate to continue to conduct this war as he has. Dave NelsonWP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 100% complete;
SP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 20% complete;
Aug 1950
Protect the Public Domain from Micky Mouse laws
http://eldred.cc/

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Dave:>The US will spend whatever it needs to successfully accomplish it's
>objectivesThis is where you and I differ. Bush (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) has yet to really push the country to do anything that can't be done with existing resources. Meaning, there has been no movement to increase the number of troops (which are clearly needed), to increase the amount of money available (in fact Bush reduced the revenues by cutting taxes on those who could very easily afford to pay), to reduce the amount of money flowing to the countries supporting radical Islamist teachings and activities (by cutting back on oil imports via higher prices at the pump), or to get serious about sweeping the Pakistan-Afganistan border to flush out Al Qaeda and Taliban refuges (scattered patrols and incursions by Special Ops and Pakistani troops aren't quite the same).My issue is exactly that Bush won't do those things, because he knows they're bad for elections. I'm not so much against the war as I am against the fact that it's being run to make several points that are not connected to national security or the elimination of terrorism. Such as Rumsfeld's crusade to make the military lighter and more mobile - at the expense of the troops needed to keep the peace after the fall of Baghdad. Such as the view that we (the US) can do whatever we want, wherever we want, without the help of anyone else - OK, we can, but that means we'd better have the people to do it, which means an expanded military, which could well mean a draft. Otherwise, we'd better be willing to work with others. There's a ton of arrogance coming out of the White House and Pentagon, and it's costing the ground troops dearly. For better or worse, for most of us that means a few unpleasant news reports and a few arguments here and there. But in terms of sacrifice? There's not much being asked of us. So I get back to my original point. If this is a matter of true national security, why are we not treating it as such? If it's not a matter true national security, then why are we there? I believe it is in fact a matter of national security, and the first war since World War II that is (Korea and Vietnam really were not). So why then are we fighting this war in such an incompetent way? My cynical view is that the answer is driven by people like Karl Rove - an all out fight against terrorism would not be good for the political future of Bush and his successor. And that's an attitude that has no place in the White House, in my view. The voters have spoken, however, and we'll have to wait for a few years to speak again. I just hope we have a legitimate choice in 08.Andy

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Dec-17-04 AT 06:09 PM (EST)

> I just hope we have a legitimate choice in 08.You make that sound like "I hope we elect the other guy" rather than just having a choice. We had a choice in '04. Unfortunately for some, apparently for you too (but that's a guess), one guy was (a) a lousy candidate with (b) virtually no track record and what he had on record was (c) the moral judgment of an left-wing isolationist (i.e., America is corrupt so to save the world from that corruption....), you know that view, it has completely dominated one of our national parties for, oh, 25-30 years. Had John Kerry been elected I truely believe he would have cut and run within a year. And most of the national Democrats would have lionized him for doing so.George Bush didn't run from his record and Karl Rove didn't hide it from anybody: Bush stood there in front of everybody and said 'you know what you have and what you'll get'. For better or worse. And then he increased his take of votes (relative to 2000) in every demographic group in the country. Yeah, he's not perfect. Nobody is. He's just a whole lot better than the alternative was.Dave NelsonWP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 100% complete;
SP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 20% complete;
Aug 1950
Protect the Public Domain from Micky Mouse laws
http://eldred.cc/edited for clarity.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Back to the Bulge,I wouldn't call it useless,it helped end the war sooner.Of course those troops would have been better placed on the Eastern Front.Maybe if the Russians were slowed enough the western Allies could have reached Berlin first?US forces in the Ardennes were actually in very poor shape logistically at the beginning of the Battle.I feel that was more important than lack of air cover.That German force was quite powerful and the US Army was mostly green and ill-equipped to stop them,with the exception of forces in and around Bastogne.But even there,US troops of the 101st went into battle without rest and often without rifles.I strongly suggest "Seven Roads to Hell" by Donald R. Burgett.He was in the 101st at Bastogne and it's an awesome read.

"Hold tight,feel the drivers bite,hear the whistle moan.Engine rockin' to the left and right,vibratin' in my bones.Once the locomotive steals your soul,you got a Casey Jones!"---Ian"Lemmy"Kilmister

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Dec-17-04 AT 09:08 PM (EST)

>George Bush didn't run from his record and Karl Rove didn't hide it
>from anybodyYou're absolutely correct, Dave. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Bush ran a very smart campaign. Emphasized what people liked, and stayed away from trouble spots.I guess I should have said that I'd like to see someone I'd like to vote for in 08. And back on the Battle of the Bulge, I agree that it was quite useful for the Allies. Once the line stabilized, the counterattack largely wiped out what was left of the elite troops and the armor. In a defensive posture, those assets would have been extremely difficult to penetrate, especially if they were located opposite of any Rhine crossing. The difficulties in Normandy before the breakout showed how hard a few German troops on the defensive could make things for the Allies. I'm sure it would have been that much worse with shorter supply lines and the motivation of defending the home ground.I'm in the process of reading Band of Brothers again, and am just getting through the chapter on Bastogne. Another excellent read.Andy

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> Once the line stabilized, the counterattack largely wiped out what was left of the elite troops and the armor.That describes it alright. Another perspective to use is that the Bulge was effectively the Germans own version of Market Garden: Everything had to go their way for it to work. Not enough did and so it failed. Dave NelsonWP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 100% complete;
SP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 20% complete;
Aug 1950
Protect the Public Domain from Micky Mouse laws
http://eldred.cc/

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

While it was a brilliantly conceived plan by Monty, he should have listened to the reports of German Armor in the area of Arnhem. I know history gives us all the ability to have 20/20.
This operation was a favorite of mine to study, but alas spending too much time working and not enough reading I have forgotten alot of the facts.
I do however recall reports of 30 Corp. pulling over for tea when they should have been pressing on. Then there were all the bridge problems at Nijmegan (sp?). Boats and bridging material held up in the rear of the 30 mile traffic jams.
All in all had there been a few more items go correct, such as the Brit's Airborne having working radios, I think the Allies could have finished the war a bit earlier. Regards,
Erik Pierson
Sacramento, Cawww.sacramentolocomotiveworks.com
You can find information about SLW upcoming releases at the following links
Elvas Tower Forums
3dTrains Forums

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> ...30 mile traffic jams....Germans had the exact same problems with Watcht am Rhein.> All in all had there been a few more items go correct, such as the Brit's Airborne having working radios,
> I think the Allies could have finished the war a bit earlier.
I think all the difference of having working radios would have been knowing they failed sooner. I doubt that XXX Corp could have ever crossed that last distance south of Arnhem had there been any meaningful German resistance there -- the only route was almost entirely on a raised road and the tanks would have siloutted against the sky from virtually every angle. You think they couldda done it? I dunno.Dave NelsonWP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 100% complete;
SP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 20% complete;
Aug 1950
Protect the Public Domain from Micky Mouse laws
http://eldred.cc/

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I dont know. but for the most part the whole trip was on a raised two lane roadRegards,
Erik Pierson
Sacramento, Cawww.sacramentolocomotiveworks.com
You can find information about SLW upcoming releases at the following links
Elvas Tower Forums
3dTrains Forums

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Maybe with different leadership.I've never been a big fan of Monty.

"Hold tight,feel the drivers bite,hear the whistle moan.Engine rockin' to the left and right,vibratin' in my bones.Once the locomotive steals your soul,you got a Casey Jones!"---Ian"Lemmy"Kilmister

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I agree with you there, Patton or Bradley would have been good choices. I can not recall any other Field Marshalls or Generals the Brits had, who was that Bedel guy?Regards,
Erik Pierson
Sacramento, Cawww.sacramentolocomotiveworks.com
You can find information about SLW upcoming releases at the following links
Elvas Tower Forums
3dTrains Forums

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

The "Beetle" that George C. Scott refers to in Patton was General Walter Bedell Smith, U.S. Army. He served as General Eisenhower's chief of staff for the duration of the war in Europe. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wbsmith.htm
http://search.eb.com/normandy/articles/Smith_Walter_Bedell.html

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Thats right, there must have still been alcohol in the brain when I wrote that this morningRegards,
Erik Pierson
Sacramento, Cawww.sacramentolocomotiveworks.com
You can find information about SLW upcoming releases at the following links
Elvas Tower Forums
3dTrains Forums

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Well, just as long as it was of high quality. I bet Smith hated being called 'Beetle'.

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Maybe with different leadership.I've never been a big fan of
>Monty. Why not?!? He's one of the greatist generals ever known!

Sea View Investigation Reports: New website and reports coming in 2005! Stay tuned!
The Sea View Group
The Sea View Forum

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

He's by far the most over-rated military of all time.

"Hold tight,feel the drivers bite,hear the whistle moan.Engine rockin' to the left and right,vibratin' in my bones.Once the locomotive steals your soul,you got a Casey Jones!"---Ian"Lemmy"Kilmister

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

That may be true, but he did hand the Germans a defeat in AfricaRegards,
Erik Pierson
Sacramento, Cawww.sacramentolocomotiveworks.com
You can find information about SLW upcoming releases at the following links
Elvas Tower Forums
3dTrains Forums

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>That may be true, but he did hand the Germans a defeat in
>Africa
>Well historically that's not true either...
The RN and the RAF choked off his supplies and more importantly the Signals Intelligence Guys were reading Rommel's mail!Given all that Monty still damn near lost El Alamein!The only one that ever thought Monty was brilliant was Monty!Just look at the run up the coast(s) of Sicily and compare him to Patton! Similar terrain and resistance and Patton routinely gained twice as much ground as Monty! IIRC The whole delay in breaking out of the hedgerows at Normandy was Monty being too conservative, again....Unfortunately for the BEF he had the ear of Churchill who desperately wanted a British General to offset Ike....
He was only marginally more effective tactically than De Gaulle and most military historians seem to have reached that consensus! He was risk averse and inflexible along with the monumental ego! Generals like that sometimes kill more of their own men than the enemy does!I think we might want to ask any of the Anzac guys on here whose Dads and Granddads served under Monty what their opinions were....I remember once an old "Cobber" remarking, when I said I had studied in school that Monty was a great General, "Only in comparison to Churchill and the hard headed fool (whose name escapes me at the moment) who master minded Gallipoli"..... Sort of opened my eyes and sent me back to the history books to find out he was right!IIRC a tremendous amount of ANZAC guys died in North Africa and very few Pommes comparatively speaking (in their defense they were being held back to defend against a cross channel invasion - however Australia and New Zealand were stripped bare to support North Africa and defend the Suez and if the US Marines and Navy had not stopped the Japanese at Guadalcanal by the hair on their chinny chin chin, there were only a few regiments of home guards left to defend Australia and New Zealand - and Guadalcanal was supposed to be a major link in the supply chain for that invasion the Aussies would be involuntarily eating sushi and drinking sake).....
Chuck Schneider
Chief Cook, Bottle Washer and (Virtual) CEO

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I suppose I should go read my history books again.Regards,
Erik Pierson
Sacramento, Cawww.sacramentolocomotiveworks.com
You can find information about SLW upcoming releases at the following links
Elvas Tower Forums
3dTrains Forums

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

In defense of Montgomery---not something I thought I'd ever do---his caution was, reportedly, due to political direction. Somewhere, I read that he had been told "There are no replacements" for his combat losses. Apparently, the losses at Dunkirk and elsewhere in the Pacific caused considerable shortages in men and material. Top that off with having to defend literally around the world with a population base already bled dry by World War I, and the Viscount of Alamein might've been doing the best he could.Of course, that doesn't excuse that hair-brained plan for MARKET GARDEN. While a noble goal, I figure that perhaps Patton's ideas might've worked a little better.

____________________________________________________________________
Norfolk & Western’s Radford Division, Pulaski District: Who needs the Marias Pass?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-04 AT 05:57 AM (EST)

Well said Chuck.Technically Rommel fought a successful withdrawal at El Alamein.Rommel had nothing good to say about Monty,but liked Auchenleck.He wrote that Auchenleck was an excellent tactician,and I agree.But he wrote,in the couple of weeks before his death,that the greatest example of mobile armored warfare he had witnessed was by the US Army,specifically Patton's various advances.Another excellent read "The Rommel Papers".And plus,the damage Monty did to US and Brit Airborne troops during Market Garden.He obviously hated paratroopers.

"Hold tight,feel the drivers bite,hear the whistle moan.Engine rockin' to the left and right,vibratin' in my bones.Once the locomotive steals your soul,you got a Casey Jones!"---Ian"Lemmy"Kilmister

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> He obviously hated paratroopers.What makes you say that?As for Monty himself... I think the thing everybody can agree on is that he had an unpleasantly large ego. I mean, who in their right mind would want a boss like that? Ugh. As to whether the size of the ego was justified by the size of his successes, IMO it was not, but I'll concede the point is arguable as clearly he had his fans... and he did rise to the top inspite of his character so there must have been something there that counted.Dave NelsonWP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 100% complete;
SP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 20% complete;
Aug 1950
Protect the Public Domain from Micky Mouse laws
http://eldred.cc/

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-04 AT 05:16 PM (EST)

Members of the 101st and 82nd along with the British 1st and Polish 1st could answer that better than I.Read "Seven Roads to Hell" and get the 101st Airborne's opinion.Monty's the reason they were so ill equipped when sent to Bastogne.He wasted Airborne forces in Market Garden.Monty was a "political" general.Sorta like Ike or Colin Powell.He's not the guy you want on the ground or dictating strategy.But Brits liked him.But still,a Field-Marshall?Ha!Maybe he slept his way to the top.

"Hold tight,feel the drivers bite,hear the whistle moan.Engine rockin' to the left and right,vibratin' in my bones.Once the locomotive steals your soul,you got a Casey Jones!"---Ian"Lemmy"Kilmister

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | How To... | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.