Shogun Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I will say one thing about the American soldiers in the second world war that is that they were very brave in the Pacific fighting the Japs that was hard fighting that took a lot of guts the Japs never gave an inch and every fight was to the death, I don't think we could have fought them as the Americans did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I will say one thing about the American soldiers in the second world war that is that they were very brave in the Pacific fighting the Japs that was hard fighting that took a lot of guts the Japs never gave an inch and every fight was to the death, I don't think we could have fought them as the Americans did. They are as good as any today. I would match any member of an elite outfit such as the Rangers, Special Forces, Marines and SEALs against any of his equals any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 They are as good as any today. I would match any member of an elite outfit such as the Rangers, Special Forces, Marines and SEALs against any of his equals any time. What about the unequals, the Taliban, when every western country leaves Afganistan they will be back in charge. No matter what ability any army has in weapon power, the terrorists will always win because they don't wear uniforms so they are to all intent and purpose anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 What about the unequals, the Taliban, when every western country leaves Afganistan they will be back in charge. No matter what ability any army has in weapon power, the terrorists will always win because they don't wear uniforms so they are to all intent and purpose anybody. These kind of wars are more or less unwinnable in the long run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I'd place Bradley and Patton above Mark Clarke. Patton didnt mess around. He copied Rommel's tactics, hit em hard and fast and dont give em time to regroup, keep em on the run. Montgomery was also a first class General. A bit on the cautious side. Always wanted to make sure he had overwhelming superiority when hitting the enemy. Rommel was out tanked and out gunned in the end but he gave Monty a run for his money Mark Clarke was a bad general, his determination to grab the glory entering Rome first, in direct contravention of his orders probably caused about 100,000 allied casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Mark Clarke was a bad general, his determination to grab the glory entering Rome first, in direct contravention of his orders probably caused about 100,000 allied casualties. It's generally acknowledged that Russian General Georgi Zhukov was the best amongst the allies. He had the ability unlike his western counterparts to be able to move millions of troops at a time along a huge front stretching hundreds of miles.. He was also a master strategist of defence tactics and was universally respected and adored by his soldiers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Mark Clarke was a bad general, his determination to grab the glory entering Rome first, in direct contravention of his orders probably caused about 100,000 allied casualties. I don't think Clark was a bad General he ran into Rome to fast and the German 10th army escaped to the Gothic line just putting the fight off with them for a bit longer, he severed with distinction in the rest of the war and also in the Korean war he was in command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Italy was largely a sideshow. There had been differences among the allied leaders as to where to strike the Germans after they were finished in North Africa and Stalin was calling for a second front. I think invading Sicily and pushing into Italy was largely Churchill's idea while Eisenhower wanted to concentrate on landing in France and conserving all the manpower for that operation. Quite interesting how these allies managed to keep together considering all the differences and personal conflicts which existed. Montgomery and Patton despised each other and both of them held Eisenhower in contempt. Poor old Ike had to keep both those Prima Donnas happy as well as deal with Churchill and De Gaulle, neither of them easy personalities to get along with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Both would lose long term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 It might have been a side show Harley but we would have to have dealt with it sooner or later, I have never been a fan of Churchill I think he was just the right man at the right time, he was good at getting the Americans going so I could give him some cred for that,it could have been a lot different if Halifax or someone else like that had run things here,Ike was great leader and he was the man of the moment,I think when the British Canadians and Americans get together we are the best fighting power in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.