Patton

[charlotte49er]

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=146997

Gen George S. Patton on the Mid-East!

[Speed]

Patton the movie was great. I have a copy. In the movie, reporters ask "General Patton, we noticed a Bible by your bed. Do you read the Bible?" His reply (in the movie) "Every god dam day." According to the movie, IMO, he was the Nathan Bedford Forrest of WWII.

[Mr. Scot]

It's the age old question. Who's the better military commander: The good guy who puts the welfare of his men first or the jackhole who doesn't care about anything but winning?

Commander #1 might have the stones to do what needs to be done, but he might not. If he does, his men will follow him into the gates of Hell. If he doesn't, he'll be replaced by someone who does.

Commander #2 isn't short on guts, but isn't always long on brains either. He'll get you results, but he might also get you in trouble with allies, families, etc. When dirty work needs done (and sometimes it does) he's the man. But if you've got a relative in the military, you pray to God every night that they don't serve under this guy.

Both can be effective, but each has their pitfalls as well.

[Delhomeboy]

It's the age old question. Who's the better military commander: The good guy who puts the welfare of his men first or the jackhole who doesn't care about anything but winning?

Commander #1 might have the stones to do what needs to be done, but he might not. If he does, his men will follow him into the gates of Hell. If he doesn't, he'll be replaced by someone who does.

Commander #2 isn't short on guts, but isn't always long on brains either. He'll get you results, but he might also get you in trouble with allies, families, etc. When dirty work needs done (and sometimes it does) he's the man. But if you've got a relative in the military, you pray to God every night that they don't serve under this guy.

Both can be effective, but each has their pitfalls as well.

In my opinion, you need both, if only to force a kind of compromise. You need commanders that are only worried about getting the job done and you need commanders that put the men first...Bradley was pretty much the perfect foil to Patton, on that account.

But I will say this about Commander #1...if he'd been in charge during the last two years of the Civil War instead of Hiram Ulysses, then we'd be split into two countries at the moment. Yes, I know it was a long ass time ago, different kind of war, etc, but, you know, it's a valid point.

[Davidson Deac II]

In my opinion, you need both, if only to force a kind of compromise. You need commanders that are only worried about getting the job done and you need commanders that put the men first...Bradley was pretty much the perfect foil to Patton, on that account.

But I will say this about Commander #1...if he'd been in charge during the last two years of the Civil War instead of Hiram Ulysses, then we'd be split into two countries at the moment. Yes, I know it was a long ass time ago, different kind of war, etc, but, you know, it's a valid point.

I don't think that Grant was like either Patton or Bradley. If anyone in the Civil War was similar to Patton in style and personality, it was Sheridan.

[Delhomeboy]

I don't think that Grant was like either Patton or Bradley. If anyone in the Civil War was similar to Patton in style and personality, it was Sheridan.

I don't think Grant was like Patton either, but he was more like Commander 2 in Mr. Scot's scenario.

But if we're comparing to Patton directly, yeah, Sheridan would probably be most similar. but I think Grant had the same sort of ideas Patton had, even if he was lacking a bit on the tactical master side.

[shinner]

But I will say this about Commander #1...if he'd been in charge during the last two years of the Civil War instead of Hiram Ulysses, then we'd be split into two countries at the moment.

George Gordon Meade, anyone?

[Delhomeboy]

George Gordon Meade, anyone?

Bastard got lucky lol.