Why is general Patton regarded a great general?

[Migfan]

Hi all

 

I find it fascinating that Patton is regarded as a great soldier and one of the best generals of WW2.

Why is Patton held in such great esteem?  He saw 5 minutes of action in WW1 before being wounded and not seeing action again in that war.  Then in WW2, (America didn’t enter the war until the end of 1941) and Patton didn’t see any action until 1943 and he only spent about 18 months of WW2 in combat zones.

 

All I see in Patton is just an egomaniac with a huge ego and not much ability. Anyone that carried two shiny ivory handled Colt single action army .45s in cowboy holsters, always organising and generating his own media attention and treated working with his allies as a game or a race to see who would get to a certain place first like operation husky- the invasion of Sicily - when he treated getting to Messina as a race to beat Montgomery instead of following his orders.  Patton allowed kesserling to evacuate thousands and thousands of German and Italian soldiers to escape across the straits of messina as he was to focused on beating Montgomery there disobeying orders.  Not to mention the US casualties incurred by his actions as well.  That’s just one example I see.

 

I fail to see anything that made Patton a good general or soldier.   I welcome anyone that can show why Patton should have this reputation of being a great general and soldier when he was in fact an inexperienced officer with hardly any combat and leadership experience.

 

[RAF4EVER]

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwif1_7tn4OFAxVbhP0HHUDFBJkQFnoECFUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2Fbiography%2FGeorge-Smith-Patton%2FControversies-and-appraisal&usg=AOvVaw2M9Xuuhq50cYBv01sUvxpG&opi=89978449

[Migfan]

That’s just one of many articles written about Patton. Where can it be shown that Patton used and displayed excellent military leadership and tactics in a battle?  If Patton had to gone head to head by himself against Rommel and the Afrika Korps or against Manstein, Guderian or any of the great generals of WW2, Patton would have been beaten in 5 minutes.  Where did Patton ever show outstanding generalship, leadership or use ground breaking tactics to defeat an enemy?  Patton is not even comparable to great generals of WW2

[Andy H]

Well, if you don't mind another of many articles written about Patton, the relief of Bastogne was quite an acheivement in the eyes of his contemporaries...
https://www.historynet.com/pattons-finest-hour/

 

 

[Migfan]

To make my point here is this.  If we look at the great generals of WW2 like Manstein, Rommel, guderian and Montgomery for example.  Manstein created the plan for the invasion of France in 1940 known now as the scicle cut.  A brilliant military plan and was executed brilliantly.  One example of Manstein brilliance.  To note about this plan, Rommel and Guderian played major roles in the successful execution of this plan as field commanders.  
 

An example of Rommel is his commanding the Afrika Korps in North Africa which showed him again and again to be a brilliant general, tactician and leader.

 

Another example of Guderian is his development of blitzkrieg and his commands in France and Russia show this.  Again another brilliant military mind, field commander and leader.  

Montgomery created a plan to defeat Rommel at the Battle of Al Alemain and executed the plan defeating Rommel and thus started the defeat of the afrika korps.  Another example of Montgomery was his plan operation market garden.  Now one might say it ended in defeat.  But it was a magnificent plan and should have worked.  These things showed Montgomery to

Be a leader, planner and his generalship.
 

Then we look at Patton.  I can’t find an example of any great military plans, any great military victories or anything that showed his generalship, leadership or military planning.

 Let’s look at Bastogne.  Patton was faced with an army that was Ill equipped, no fuel for their tanks, no air support and worn out German soldiers (it was not the German soldiers of 1940).  Patton had first class equipment and lots of it.  The fact he could move an entire division that quickly is not really surprising given their kit, mobility and vehicles.  Any general could have done that.

[JohnT]

One suspects that the history of "The Bulge" has been coloured somewhat.  After all history is written by the victors.  I read an interesting take on the campaign in this book

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Bulge-Britains-Untold-Story/dp/0750918691

 

free now on Kindle unlimited and just a few pounds to buy otherwise.

 

Certainly my late father who was there or thereabouts was not beyond mentioning that it wasn't just Patton that pulled the chestnuts out of the fire.  The author above says that Montgomery was granted command of most of Bradleys forces but was on a keep it quiet as it wouldn't look good a Brit in charge of US troops.  Fat chance of that with Monty in charge.  That said the Brit contribution to stopping the German offensive does rather get swept under the carpet.  The author certainly gives Bradley a poor review.

 

An interesting debate might be who had the bigger ego  Monty or George?  I reckon it would be a close run thing.

 

On the list of WW2 generals that made really poor decisions for dubious reasons Mark Clark must rate highly though I have read that his troops were pretty exhausted so chasing the Germans in Italy further would be inviting trouble whereas the attractions of Rome, well........... his fame as the liberator of Rome lasted 24 or 48 hours I think when greater events took center stage..

[Giorgio N]

4 hours ago, JohnT said:

 

An interesting debate might be who had the bigger ego  Monty or George?  I reckon it would be a close run thing.

 

To which we may add a debate on who had the better PR machine! Both generals were pretty good at having their image boosted well above their actual merits. So much that their names are celebrated even today... yet IMHO they were both mediocre at best

[Migfan]

The battle of the bulge lasted 5 weeks and is written about by the Americans like it was the greatest battle in history.  This it was not.   Operation « Watch on the Rhein » was an unachievable fantasy dreamt up by Hitler.  It’s objectives were not achievable by the German army in 1944 as the German army at this time was facing defeat in the war and the units involved were Ill equipped, had no fuel, no air support and as I said before, the German soldiers involved were not the young fit well equipped, well led, well trained German soldiers of 1940.  
 

Montgomery did take over command of Bradley’s forces because basically Bradley was too slow to realise what was happening and too slow reacting to the German opening phases of the battle.  Montgomery only weeks before the German offensive had reinforced the 60km weakly defended line and around the Meuse river as he (like Bradley) had received intelligence warnings of a German build up in these areas and Bradley had done nothing.  Then when the German offensive began, Bradley had a poor grasp of the situation and it required an immediate response so Montgomery quickly had to step in and do this.  Bradley was certainly not one of the great generals of WW2.

 

Everyone also talks about the great siege of Bastogne.  This siege only lasted 6 days.  What about the siege of Tobruk?  This lasted nearly 8 months!!!!!  The Australians were there under siege (the 9th Division) and had to put up with great hardships far worse than Bastogne in living conditions, food and water rations, the heat, being bombed everyday by the Luftwaffe and Italians and Afrika Korps ect  The commander at the siege of Tobruk, was the commander of the Australian 9th division, Lieutenant General Sir Leslie Morsehead who refused to let the Australians get a siege mentality.  Morsehead gave orders for nightly patrols to go out and harass the Germans on the siege line.  So effectively still taking the war to the germans still, even though being under siege.  Morsehead showed initiative, excellent leadership and control.  The markings of a good general.  Some of the things the Australians would do is tie a white string around the barbed wire of a German machine gun post while the Germans slept and in the morning the Germans would find this and it played a mental game on the Germans to scare them.  Morsehead was a great general commanding the 9th Australian division as part of the British 8th army.  Interestingly Morsehead served throughout WW1 and had been promoted to lieutenant Colonel by the end of the First World War and was a school teacher between the wars.  Rommel was once asked what he thought of the Australian and New Zealand soldiers.  He responded saying « if I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and I would use the New Zealanders to hold it »

 

Im glad you brought up Mark Clarke.  Another glory seeking American general with a huge ego and not much else.  After all the plans and efforts to encircle the German units in Italy around the gustav line and the battles at monte casino not to mention all the allied effort put into this together with the high casualties, Clarke decides to divert all his troops to take Rome thus disobeying direct orders from his boss general Alexander.  Clarke even made sure the press were in Rome to see him.  Clarke then acting surprised when met by the press.  So effectively to feed his massive ego he diverted to Rome wanting to look like some conquering Roman emperor and get his face on every newspaper in the world.  And as people have said, his big day of glory lasted about 24 hours because the next day the biggest sea invasion in history took place, D day.  Thus making Clarke yesterdays news and quickly forgotten about.

 

Clarke also played a part in the Anzio landings being almost pushed back into the sea.  He advised General Lucas (another incompetent American general) that the Italian campaign was a sideshow and not to stick his neck out in trying to achieve success and to make sure Lucas made decisions to cover his own bottom.  So Lucas landed the troops at Anzio and there was no resistance encountered from the beach and taken the Germans by complete surprise.  A recon unit was sent out in a jeep and got to the outskirts of Rome without any enemy contacts.  Now Lucas should have immediately taken the initiative and quickly solidified his beach head and pushed directly inland to cut off the Germans lines of communication and push on to encircle and cut off the Germans around monte casino as per the plan.  But for some stupid idea, Lucas wanted to spend time securing his beach head.  The initiative then went to Kesselring who counter attacked the Anzio beach heads and almost pushed them back into the sea.  This caused months of fighting at the beach heads and no breakout.  The Anzio landings due to Lucas’ incompetence can be viewed as a complete failure.

 

i think the problem with  these American generals is they were all egomaniacs and lacked combat experience.  They were given commands because it was a sweetener to get US involvement or because the majority of the forces involved were American. The competent generals in the German army, British army, Australian army ect had all had extensive military service, combat experience and extensive experience commanding at all levels from platoon to divisional level.  Generals like Patton, Clarke, Lucas ect had seen limited action maybe in the Mexican wars, they maybe saw 8 weeks of total frontline experience in WW1 and when they entered WW2 they have no experience commanding at battalion, regimental, brigade or divisional level.  Eisenhower is the classic example.  He had no combat experience or any experience commanding at any level.  Yet he was put in command of operation overlord.  But his decisions were made on the advice of the generals like Montgomery and very experienced officers which Eisenhower had to be guided by.  He was a planner and an administrator.

 

But going back to the original topic of Patton, I can’t understand how he can be compared to the great generals. What action shows him to be one of the best generals of WW2?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hoppy]

Have a read about Douglas McArthur and the debacle in the Philippines. Known as Dugout Doug by Australian servicemen.

[Pig of the Week]

Tbh I've never really heard Patton as being punted as a "great general" anyway.. more just known for being a bit of a "character" with the daft cowboy guns and all.. 

Wasn't his death via car accident thought to be a bit, erm, sketchy? 

[Migfan]

Ah Général Douglas McArthur.  Another of generals with a big ego and not much else. When McArthur took command of the south west pacific and moved to his new HQ in Brisbane, Australia, the Australians had been fighting on the kokoda track to block the Japanese attempting to cross the Owen Stanley ranges and take Port Moresby.  The Australians were militia meaning all part time soldiers and all very young.  Some as young as 17.  All the Australian army units were deployed to the Middle East and the only available soldiers left were the Australian militia units.  The Australian government was able to deploy the militia units to New Guinea as New Guinea was an Australian protectorate.  The law at the time did not allow soldiers under 18 to serve outside Australia so they were able to use the loop hole of New Guinea being an Australian protectorate and as such was Australian soil.  This allowed their deployment.  These australian soldiers had the minimal militia training, the barest of equipment but excellent officers.  They faced the Japanese marines on the kokoda trail and these Japanese soldiers were some of the best that Japan had and ruthless.  The battle of the kokoda track was one of the most fierce fought in the pacific campaign of WW2.  The battle saw Australians advance then have to retreat, then advance and the battle seesawed like this.  The Australian soldiers proved to be every bit as good as regular army soldiers and achieved a fierce reputation from the Australian regular soldiers

 

Whilst this battle was raging, McArthur ordered the Australian commander General Blamey to being about a quick end to this campaign.  However it was not that easy and the campaign dragged out longer.  This prompted McArthur to say « The qualities of the Australian fighting soldier is questionable ». He was virtually calling Australian soldiers cowards useless soldiers.  A bit rich coming from McArthur who ran away from the Philippines while the American and phillipino soldiers were still fighting the Japanese!!!!

 

eventually the Australians pushed the japanese back to coast and McArthur’s plan was to then send troops in Buna and Gona to block their escape by sea.  Further Australian units and an American unit, the 32nd infantry division.  The American 32nd division was criticised for its slow progress and poor performance.  The 32nd division was an American national guard unit I think from memory and were poorly trained, Ill equipped and poorly led.  This caused a decision to be made which saw the Australians deployed into the American lines and push the Americans resulting in the defeat of the Japanese.  I saw a Japanese soldier interviewed who was fighting the Americans and he said the Americans threw down their rifles and ran away.  So if that was the case, maybe McArthur should have looked at his own soldiers first before criticising the Australian soldiers saying he questioned their fighting abilities.

 

While  on the South Pacific war, id like to also point out the battle of Milne Bay in 1942.  This was an important airfield at the eastern top of Papua with an Australian Garrison and two Royal Australian Air Force kittyhawk fighter squadrons stationed there.  The Japanese Marines landed forces here and attacked Milne Bay in August of 42 as part of their plan to take Port Moresby.  It was here that the Japanese suffered their first defeat on land at the hands of the Australians.  My grandfather was there and I have his war diary.  Guadalcanal WAS NOT the first land defeat of the Japanese as McArthur and others would have you believe.  The battle of Milne Bay was.

 

McArthur was another general who was a blowhard and an ego maniac of average ability.  To get a good understanding of McArthur one just has to look at him submitting plans during the Korean War to president Truman to use atomic weapons on Chinese cities to knock them out of the war.  The guy was a nut case.  Thank god Truman was the president at the time and vetoed his plans sacking McArthur.

[John Tapsell]

The role of a general is not just about their previous combat experience or acumen (although that is important), it's about their ability to inspire and lead troops. It's also about their value as a public relations tool to sell to the general public during a war.

 

Generals like Patton and Montgomery were loved or hated by their troops in equal measure, but both attracted strong loyalty and the troops had confidence in them. Troops will fight better for a general they have confidence in. Patton was a confident (sometimes over-confident) strategist and lacked tolerance for subordinates who didn't fight the way he did, but his troops achieved great successes. The real issue with Patton, Montgomery, McArthur, Mark Clark and a few others was that they fully understood the value of self-promotion and had highly organised public relations teams around them - there is nothing new about 'celebrities' manipulating public perception. It doesn't mean they were bad generals but it does tend to cloud the value of other equally good, or better commanders.

 

For me, the likes of Omar Bradley, Bill Slim and Chester Nimitz were better strategic commanders, but they didn't actively court publicity in the way that many others did and that means they were never as well known. I include Nimitz because although he was an Admiral, he had command of all forces in the Western Pacific, including air force and army, on an equal footing with McArthur in the South West Pacific.

 

Very few Generals are truly 'great' in all aspects of their careers but dismissing them on the basis of part of their performance rather than assessing their greater contribution to the war is simplistic.

[Migfan]

A good general must have a lot of qualities.  These include but not limited to intelligence, excellent leadership ability, excellent understanding of planning and logistics, fast decision making abilities, always talking into account the welfare of the men under his command, always ensuring minimum casualties, the ability to quickly analyse a situation or multiple situations at once and quickly adjust to changing circumstances, excellent situation awareness, the ability to use his assets and men to their maximum capabilities, have an excellent understanding of his enemy and their tactics the ability to appoint capable officers to positions under his command and in his staff.  This is jus a few of the qualities a good general has to possess.  A good general thought must have experience at all command levels to ensure all parts of his plans, objectives and orders he gives from  platoon level to divisional level are realistic and achievable by the officers under his command. Combat experience is essential as is any job that requires leading people under your leadership.  An example is the police force.  A uniform inspector who has never worked as a detective does not have the training, experience or knowledge to lead a major criminal investigation.  The same as a general who has not had the training, experience or knowledge of leading a battalion, regiment or brigade.  A  good general who is charismatic, a strong public speaker and well liked by those under his command, does not need a PR machine.

 

I never said that lack of experience only makes them a bad general.  It is just one thing combined with other things that causes them to be a bad general.

 

The great generals of WW2 like Rommel, Manstein, Guderian and Montgomery just to mention a few, all gained invaluable war time experience starting off as junior officers and then at every rank in WW1 and then as junior staff officers prior to WW2.  Their experience and knowledge they gained from this shaped their leadership ability, leadership style, their ability to identify and appoint good officers in command positions and leadership roles under their command and on their staff.

 

Patton had none of this experience except seeing 5 minutes of combat in WW1 before being wounded and seeing no more action in WW1.  He spent most of his career in training roles.  The infamous incident of Patton slapping a soldier in a hospital bed after calling him a “malingerer” is an incident which showed Pattons poor understanding of the effects of shell shock and the effects of combat on soldiers.   This brings into question Patton’s concern for his men’s welfare, which would have come from his lack of combat experience. A small thing but worth noting.

 

Patton, Clarke, Lucas and these generals all lacked experience and it showed in their actions and decisions they made.  Clarke disobeying orders and going to Rome instead of encircling and capturing the retreating Germans as he was ordered to do so caused the Italian campaign to lengthen resulting in more allied deaths, civilian deaths, equipment loss and all those lives lost in the battles at Monte Casino.  If he had had personal combat experience, then the losses of all those men under his command and allied losses he would have been his priority, not Rome.  If Lucas (in command of the Anzio landings) had had combat experience, he would have immediately acted on his recon  patrols information and  immediately solidified his beach head and moved his forces inland to quickly cut off the Germans and successfully executed his orders.  But he lacked experience and thus hesitated causing the debacle that followed. These examples show how important experience is in being a good general.

 

As anyone who has served in the military or in the police force for example, a commander or boss doesn’t have to be well liked.  If he is a good leader and competent boss who looks after his men, he will have the respect of the men under his command.  If they have the respect of the men under their command, then his men will follow and obey his command.  If he is also well liked, it’s a bonus.

 

As I said, Patton is said to be one of the great generals of WW2.  I can’t find anything that supports this claim.  Also the claim that the German generals feared Patton the most out of all the allied generals.  Who invented this rubbish?  The only thing that could have caused this to be said is made up propaganda by the Americans.

 

As I said there are many examples that showed Rommel, Manstein, Guderian and Montgomery to be great generals, but I can’t find any examples to show Patton in this league.

[ckw]

Battles aren't only fought on the battle field - civilian morale and support is also a factor. I suspect that part of Patton's and MacArthur's reputations were down to the fact that they were good material for the American media - they looked and sounded the part and any professional short comings were ignored in the interests of keeping spirits up.

 

As for the qualities that make a good general ... Napoleon said "I'd rather have lucky generals than good ones." A statement Eisenhower also paraphrased.

 

Cheers

[Migfan]

I find it fascinating that people say he was a great general.  He didn’t even enter the war until 1943 and then was just involved in the Tunisian, Sicily and Italian campaigns, then the relieving of Bastogne and then into Germany.  Patton spent about 5 Minutes in WW2.  The war went for 6 years and Patton probably spent about 11 months of the entire war at the frontline and then is called one of the best generals of WW2.?

 

As I’ve said, if Patton had of gone head to head by himself against the great generals like of Rommel, Manstein, Guderian or even Zhukov.  Patton would suffered defeat after defeat.  Patton 

[Pete in Lincs]

1 hour ago, Migfan said:

As anyone who has served in the military or in the police force for example, a commander or boss doesn’t have to be well liked.  If he is a good leader and competent boss who looks after his men, he will have the respect of the men under his command.  If they have the respect of the men under their command, then his men will follow and obey his command.  If he is also well liked, it’s a bonus.

I'm with you there. I've always thought of ANZAC troops as brave fighters. And wasn't it Rommel who said the best Army would have German officers and British troops? I never did have much regard for the American Generals . Monty did well at Alamein, but Market Garden not so much. BTW, one of the best Bosses I had in the RAF was a WRAF officer. She went on to Air Vice Marshal rank 

[JohnT]

Perhaps this sums it up best, after all Napoleon was a pretty good general.  When said the famous lines  “I'd rather have lucky generals than good ones.”

 

On good but unsung generals I'd nominate Bill Slim

[cmatthewbacon]

If we’re naming great Generals, I’m slightly surprised no one’s mentioned Eisenhower. Probably the best of them all at leading at a strategic level, and delivering war-changing, history making impact. He may not have been a just-behind-the-front-line, binoculars in hand _fighting_ general, but at being a war leader as opposed to a field commander he excelled. Vision, planning, strategy, leadership, “stakeholder” management, a full appreciation of everything that’s needed to fight and win a campaign, courage and belief to execute a decisive thrust that depended on an unprecedented, complex first phase being brought off successfully. And the stick at it-ness to keep momentum going for the next year all the way to the gates of Berlin… which of the other names mentioned in this thread could you swap in to THAT role with any chance of success?

best,

M.

[Giorgio N]

43 minutes ago, cmatthewbacon said:

If we’re naming great Generals, I’m slightly surprised no one’s mentioned Eisenhower. Probably the best of them all at leading at a strategic level, and delivering war-changing, history making impact. He may not have been a just-behind-the-front-line, binoculars in hand _fighting_ general, but at being a war leader as opposed to a field commander he excelled. Vision, planning, strategy, leadership, “stakeholder” management, a full appreciation of everything that’s needed to fight and win a campaign, courage and belief to execute a decisive thrust that depended on an unprecedented, complex first phase being brought off successfully. And the stick at it-ness to keep momentum going for the next year all the way to the gates of Berlin… which of the other names mentioned in this thread could you swap in to THAT role with any chance of success?

best,

M.

 

I do agree, Eisenhower was crucial in WW2 and beyond. Patton, Montgomery and the rest may have won a few battles but the work of Eisenhower was not only vital in winning the war, it also shaped postwar Europe, something that none of the others can claim to have done. Of course we could debate that his position was "political" more than military and in a sense it was. He sure excelled at that and his later career confirmed his skills. Ike had a clear vision of the world and where this was going, others did not.

 

Politics are afterall something a top level commander has to deal with and military decisions must also consider political consequences. Clarke's race to Rome may have made little sense from a military point of view but entering Rome at that point was actually way more important in terms of the politics of war. Yes this may have caused more casualties to the allies but it was a move that had an impact in shaping the course of events in Italy during and after the war.

 

P.S. I may add that if we're naming great allied Generals I'm quite surprised that nobody has mentioned Zhukov ! Ok, maybe I should not be surprised since whatever happened on the Eastern Front tends to be forgotten here, even if the scale of the war on that front makes all the rest pale in comparison. Personally I'd rate Zhukov as a miltary commander above Patton or Montgomery by a wide margin. He also had a clear vision of the world, unfortunately he did not manage to reach the top as Eisenhower did. He did however have a part in ousting Beria from power, and this may have been a victory as important as the ones during the war...

[Pig of the Week]

^ Zhukov, a very worthy mention for sure, apparently the only person Stalin actually feared and yet didn't dare try to get rid of! 

As regards the Eastern Front, I was only talking about this, this afternoon with a chap I was working with..

I pointed out that at the very least 75% of all German casualties occurred fighting against the Soviets, so consider for a moment if that had not happened, and all those men, and their equipment had been available to use against Britain and the western allies, the final result would've fairly certainly been quite different. 

 

[JohnT]

6 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

P.S. I may add that if we're naming great allied Generals I'm quite surprised that nobody has mentioned Zhukov ! Ok, maybe I should not be surprised since whatever happened on the Eastern Front tends to be forgotten here, even if the scale of the war on that front makes all the rest pale in comparison. Personally I'd rate Zhukov as a miltary commander above Patton or Montgomery by a wide margin. He also had a clear vision of the world, unfortunately he did not manage to reach the top as Eisenhower did. He did however have a part in ousting Beria from power, and this may have been a victory as important as the ones during the war...

 

Giorgio I agree with your comments on Eisenhower.  He had to have something to keep Patton and Montgomery on the same side in the same war !  Very much the overarching politician type to manage the others.  He was very good at that

 

I'm not so sure about Mark Clark though at least one historian has said that his troops were pretty much played out after weeks of hard fighting and while taking Rome does look like grandstanding it might have been the better option.  That said he did love his own PR.

 

On the Russian generals while they clearly had skills and talent I think it is difficult to make a fair comparison with western generals.  A Soviet general did not have to worry about the public back home and the body count.  Indeed Stalin was breathing on his neck for results most of the time and failure wasn't retirement to a country home or a supply position.  At times their attacks were heedless of losses as long as the job got done.  Also to get results Stalin played one off against the other - eg Zhukov versus Konev at Berlin.  I suggest that Konstantin Rokossovsky rates too as do others.  The problem in comparisons is that WW2 in the West was a totally different war from the East in almost every respect and was conducted accordingly for the most part under very different circumstances.  Patton and Montgomery and all the western generals would have been dismissed had they been as profligate with their soldiers as happened in the East.  The folks at home would not have stood for a perceived body count.  No such restrictions on a soviet general as long as he got results.  You can see the method of war fighting was very much to use firepower and machines rather than men in the US & Western Allies style of land fighting.  Montgomery and the US generals had to factor a low body count into their style of warfare.  Tends to make it appear more conservative and less adventurous.  That said the soviets got punished hard at times for not being as careful as they should have been Operation Mars for example which had Zhukov in charge.

 

Zhukov perhaps summed up the difference between the two fronts himself when he is quoted as saying "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there."  I think he was being complimentary about their devotion but there is another way of reading it.  And even if intended well it does rather say much about the mindset and conditions that created that mindset and how it was (mis?)used by the system that employed it????

[HL-10]

He should have been sacked the moment he struck and threatened to kill his own men for suffering for combat fatigue!

He was an egomaniac who believed his own press and cost the lives of too many people to improve his image! 

[Pete in Lincs]

I believe I read that Patton used to have Combat soldiers put on a charge for not wearing ties!

[RAF4EVER]

27 minutes ago, Pete in Lincs said:

I believe I read that Patton used to have Combat soldiers put on a charge for not wearing ties!

In fact, Patton once famously admonished Sergeant Earl Hale, a soldier who had his throat slit while taking a half-dozen or so SS officers prisoner. While Hale would receive the Bronze Star for his bravery, he would receive something far more valuable that would cement his place in history: a doctor’s note.
When confronted by Patton, SSG Hale produced the note and left Patton speechless.

Upon being awarded his Bronze Star by then-Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe Dwight D. Eisenhower, the doctor’s note would elicit laughter from “Ike,” who told Hale he “was the only man in the entire European Theater of Operations to pull this one off.”

[Pig of the Week]

42 minutes ago, Pete in Lincs said:

I believe I read that Patton used to have Combat soldiers put on a charge for not wearing ties!

Wonder what he'd have made of Sgt Oddball of Kelly's Heroes fame....