Should I watch Patton?

[Weirddave]

[QUOTE=Aquila Be]
What a load of horse Spielberg!

Palermo is on the West end of Sicily. You’re thinking of Messina (that’s on the East end of Sicily closest to the Italian mainland) which was left empty for the allies take. The parade scene in that tripey ‘Patton’ movie never took place.

Messina had been successfully evacuated across the strait (except for a small number of deserters) of all Axis troops and vehicles, transport and combat, thereby handing a strategic victory to the Axis. For this we can thank the bumbling incompetence of “Ike”, the most inept and buffoonish Field Commander of WWII.

Ike made no plans to cater for the blindingly obvious possibility that the enemy just might try to escape across the Messina strait unless some effort was made to interdict them with air and naval forces (although General Alexander can share some of the blame for that).

As for the Falaise pocket, Patton’s advance was stopped on the orders of that other incompetent General, Omar Bradley, not that Patton would have been capable of advancing much further, despite that blowhard’s endless talent for Braggadocio, for reasons having much to do with his having run out of supplies.

You really should make an effort to not confuse Hollywood Spielberg with reality
[/QUOTE]

I said the scene was brilliant, not that it was 100% historically accurate.

You seem to have a real difficulty distinguishing between field commanders and theater commanders.

Finally, the Falaise gap was no more than 20 miles across, Patton had plenty of supplies to close it. He was stopped to avoid crossing an artificial line on a map into Montgomery’s area of operations, Monty took 2 weeks to close the gap, over 100K German troops escaped the trap as a result. Operation Cobra was a brilliant plan, well executed, that failed because Bradley didn’t have the moxie to push it to it’s conclusion, and Monty didn’t have the ability to do his part, since the Germans he was facing were not exhausted at the end of hopeless supply line across a desert.

Finally, my degree in history dealt with reality, TYVM.

[Aquila_Be]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I said the scene was brilliant, not that it was 100% historically accurate.

You seem to have a real difficulty distinguishing between field commanders and theater commanders.

Finally, the Falaise gap was no more than 20 miles across, Patton had plenty of supplies to close it. He was stopped to avoid crossing an artificial line on a map into Montgomery’s area of operations, Monty took 2 weeks to close the gap, over 100K German troops escaped the trap as a result. Operation Cobra was a brilliant plan, well executed, that failed because Bradley didn’t have the moxie to push it to it’s conclusion, and Monty didn’t have the ability to do his part, since the Germans he was facing were not exhausted at the end of hopeless supply line across a desert.

Finally, my degree in history dealt with reality, TYVM.
[/QUOTE]

Actually I do know the difference but in the context of Eisenhower it doesn’t really matter whether he was a Theatre Commander or Field Commander. He was unfit for either position. Perhaps the rank of colonel in an administrative role somewhere might have suited him better.

The Tunisian campaign was supposed to have taken 6 weeks. Under Ike’s utterly useless generalship, where he spent too much time playing diplomat with the Vichy French, it took seven months and even involved Eighth Army forces which had to travel 1800 miles across North Africa to help finish the task. The advance across North Africa by the Eighth Army was not as easy as you, and all too many US “historians” try to make out.

As for the Messina scene not being 100% accurate but “brilliant” try 0% accurate and “trash” which is as high a standard that this pathetic travesty of a movie managed to achieve. Even the movie’s opening scene concerning the supposed lack of air cover over Patton’s sector left out a crucial paragraph from Coningham’s message that highlights what a stupid, lying blowhard Patton was:

LINK

The incident is reported in Ladislas Farago’s book Patton, in the movie of the same name, and in Gen. Omar Bradley’s A Soldier’s Story. In all three cases, however, a key paragraph of Air Vice Marshal Coningham’s message was omitted.
In it, the air commander noted that, on April 1, 1943, a typical day in the campaign, fewer than thirty enemy aircraft managed to overfly General Patton’s II Corps area. In contrast, Coningham’s aircraft flew 362 fighter missions that day against the Germans–with 260 of these missions coming over Patton’s area. The air commander further noted that only four II Corps troops had been killed as a result of enemy aircraft attacks.

Finally, when trying to close a gap such as Falaise, you’ll find that enemy forces are usually doing their utmost to prevent this happening, and this was the case at Falaise.
Action did not cease by the combined Canadian, Polish and British forces that were trying to close the gap from the north west. Action ceased from Patton’s sector on Omar Bradley’s order. Not because of an artificial demarcation line but because he thought US forces might be overextended and cut off.

[Quercus]

[QUOTE=silenus]
Watch it, if for no other reason than to understand a ton of cultural references.
[/QUOTE]
Specifically, you can now enjoy “Bart the General”, the early episode where Bart mobilizes an army of kids to take on the bully.

[sqweels]

After I saw this movie when I was about 7, it led to years of confusion as to whether “Patton tanks” were used in WWII.

[Askance]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Germany would have had nothing to stop Ike’s troops short of Berlin.
[/QUOTE]
Germany might not’ve, but the Allies did. They had already agreed to stop at the Elbe and let the Russians capture Berlin. Even as it was historically they could have met the Russian on the western outskirts of Berlin but chose to honour their agreement.

Monty certainly had a spotty record, but he was by no means the worst general on the Allied side.

[mlees]

Wiki seems to have a fair article on Monty.

In a nutshell, Monty was very meticulous, and seemed to respect the common soldier a little more than his peers of the time.

@wiki

Montgomery believed that in the 20th century it was essential to explain to troops why they were fighting and that orders and plans must be clear. He therefore tended to appeal more to the common soldiers under his command than to many of the officers who had more direct dealings with him. These men defended him with great passion even after the war, as the British historian Richard Holmes discovered when he was critical of Montgomery.

On the other hand, he was personally a difficult man. Montgomery did not get on with his contemporaries and mostly associated with junior officers. He was insensitive, conceited, and boastful. He was not an easy man to know socially and not loyal to the staff officers serving immediately under him. His dismissive and occasionally insulting attitude to others often soured opinions about his abilities and personality. It can be argued that his failures happened when he allowed his desire for personal glory to taint his planning, causing him to abandon his usual caution.

In stark contrast to his counterpart in East Asia, Field Marshal William Slim, Montgomery rarely ever admitted to making a single mistake during the Second World War. Slim was far more candid about his own mistakes, even in his wartime memoirs, than Montgomery.

Heh.

Patton was more willing to take calculated risks on the battlefield, while Monty was more “cautious” (possibly because of the late war manpower shortages experienced by the UK).

I don’t understand the venom expressed towards Ike, however. Ike had to deal with politics (military interservice friction, as well as the civilian/multi-national kind) a lot more than Monty or Patton did. It’s hard to say how many folks could have had the patience (or fairness) to carry forward through like he did.

[ralph124c]

[QUOTE=mlees]
Wiki seems to have a fair article on Monty.

In a nutshell, Monty was very meticulous, and seemed to respect the common soldier a little more than his peers of the time.

Heh.

Patton was more willing to take calculated risks on the battlefield, while Monty was more “cautious” (possibly because of the late war manpower shortages experienced by the UK).

I don’t understand the venom expressed towards Ike, however. Ike had to deal with politics (military interservice friction, as well as the civilian/multi-national kind) a lot more than Monty or Patton did. It’s hard to say how many folks could have had the patience (or fairness) to carry forward through like he did.
[/QUOTE]

Gen. Slim was one of the unknown heros of WWII-his results in Burma were spectacular, given the resources he had.
Plus, he was a “soldier’s general”-he cared deeply for his men, and was no afraid to admit a mistake.
Montgomery though (look at “MARKET GARDEN”)-and jusdge for yourself!

[Alex_from_CB]

I saw a brief film of Patton speaking at a podium. He was bragging about his guys accomplishments… something like… “We liberated 72 towns, killed 45,000 Germans, covered 850 miles…”

His voice was very high pitched and squeaky. Nothing like actor Scott’s in the film. Nothing at all.

[MovieMogul]

For all the hardcore film nerds out there, here’s an interesting editorial on the failure of the recent bluray issue to accurately transfer the visual integrity of the original 70mm Patton release.

[lissener]

[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
For all the hardcore film nerds out there, here’s an interesting editorial on the failure of the recent bluray issue to accurately transfer the visual integrity of the original 70mm Patton release.
[/QUOTE]

Very interesting and important, but mighty TLDR. I hope a better writer tackles this issue.