Was Eisenhower a "great" general?

Theologator

Enchanter
Lifetime Member
Aug 11, 2015
8,248
15,806
Eisenhower was the right man for the job at that most critical moment. He had the organizational skills to manage an incredibly complex and massive set of responsibilities while managing the political and relational/temperamental realities of the fight. He was wisely chosen over MacArthur and others with more field experience. My opinion, anyway.
 

wrpgator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Sep 6, 2019
8,720
27,585
So glad you brought up the failure to close the Falaise pocket. DG and I were discussing that in the chat box a couple weeks ago. I asked if Market Garden was the biggest mistake in that campaign, was the failure to close the gap the second biggest and why weren’t we able to close it?

We know Zhukov would have closed it but he would have had Soviets on both ends of the pincers and he wouldn’t have cared about casualties (including friendly fire). Ike had Americans and Canadians (two completely different armies and two completely different air forces) with Monty and Patton to deal with and we were far more concerned with casualties (especially friendly fire).
Alex.
Concerned, yes. But we didn't always take steps to prevent friendly fire. Operation Cobra started out a disaster, twice releasing bomb loads short resulting in several hundred U.S. casualties. Bradley and others gave warnings (flying over friendlies to bomb an enemy only a few hundred yards distant) short-shrift and then were 'appalled' at the tragic result after failing to notify all commands of a cancellation due to weather. Those that did launch approached the target from the wrong direction. Wind blew the smoke and debris back over U.S. infantry troops who were supposed to launch an attack. The next day, Cobra launched again with bombers approaching the target from the wrong direction and dropped short again. Planning, coordination and assignments were weak leading up to Cobra (Bradley had culpability here). Cobra did much damage to the German defensive position here and helped the breakout into the Bocage country and Contentin peninsula, but use of heavy bombers in support of ground operations was changed thereafter post Cobra.
 

ThreatMatrix

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 28, 2014
16,540
26,088
It just seems like that post D-Day Ike's M.O. was give Montgomery whatever he wanted. Then Montgomery would eventual fail while wasting resources. Had he listened to Patton the war would've been over in '44 AND he would've pushed the Russians back to Moscow.
 

gatorev12

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 17, 2018
10,167
9,691
You raise a great point. We Americans generally don't know a whole lot about the Antwerp operations because they were primarily a Canadian mission commanded by Monty. We tend to be more interested in what our boys were doing. This particular episode isn't well-known or often discussed here in the US.

I think one of the main reasons we were delayed in Antwerp was because Monty was delayed in taking Caen. It was a domino effect. The men were tied up by Monty at Caen (and the channel ports including Calais, Boulogne, and Dunkirk) for forever so the manpower wasn't readily available and then Market Garden took priority because Monty wanted to beat the Soviets to Berlin.

From my point of view, all that mess is laid at Monty's feet. I don't think Ike could have fired Monty, politically speaking. Could he have nixed Market Garden (and the channel ports) for the Scheldt? Probably, but then Monty AND Bradley/Patton would have all been pissed at him. That's the thing about armchair generalling...hindsight is 20/20. We've just talked about Ike being too timid at Falaise, but in the same breath we say he was too aggressive with approving Market Garden. Patton wanted the supplies to continue his southern thrust (and the speed of his advance did have the Germans off balance). Monty wanted the supplies for Market Garden (a gamble, but one with a potential for a very big payoff). Who was advocating for the Scheldt? Nobody except some limey admiral Monty chose to ignore.

Speaking of the navy...

My question is with air and naval supremacy, why wasn't the allied Navy able to do more to reduce the German defenses? Yeah, yeah, minefields and coastal batteries, I get it, but we're talking 16 inch naval rifles behind thick steel armor with a 20 mile range firing at fixed targets. Even if most of our heavies were busy in the Pacific, the Brits had plenty of 14, 15, and 16 inch guns on their battleships. Why weren't they pounding the fcuk out of the German defenses? It's not like they were needed for convoy escort duty in late '44.

Anyway...

I've often said the best infantry the Brits had weren't Brits, they were Canadian (or maybe Poles). Let's give those Canucks (or Snow Mexicans, as Swonk is fond of calling them) some credit for battling their asses off in the Scheldt. They fought hard and well, and suffered many casualties.


Alex.

Canadians were/are some fierce fighters and I won't argue they probably did better than the Brits on that front.

Had no clue why the Royal Navy wasn't tasked with making mincemeat of the general area and looked it up: the water in that area is fairly shallow and ships had to stay further offshore to prevent getting stuck on mudbanks--and also Walcheren Island at the mouth of the estuary was the most fortified part of the entire Atlantic Wall. The Germans knew how valuable Antwerp was and put numerous heavy fortifications in place with radar-guided guns. The British did make an amphibious assault on the island--and the Royal Navy lost 9 ships sunk; with 11 so heavily damaged that they were written off after getting back to port.

Monty was definitely tunnel-visioned with Market Garden...AND he knew the politicos wanted to utilize the airborne forces, so he definitely ignored securing the area...somewhat offhandedly writing in his memoirs that he thought the Canadians could take care of it and noting he wasn't ordered to take the area as his first priority. Ducking responsibility? Yea, probably. But ultimately, it is/was Ike's call and he didn't order a more concentrated effort when the opportunity was there in September. Partly, it was because the British/Canadians moved too quickly in advancing and capturing Antwerp--it caught everyone off-guard.
 

AlexDaGator

Founding Member
The Hammer of Thor
Lifetime Member
Jun 19, 2014
12,698
31,626
Founding Member
Canadians were/are some fierce fighters and I won't argue they probably did better than the Brits on that front.

Had no clue why the Royal Navy wasn't tasked with making mincemeat of the general area and looked it up: the water in that area is fairly shallow and ships had to stay further offshore to prevent getting stuck on mudbanks--and also Walcheren Island at the mouth of the estuary was the most fortified part of the entire Atlantic Wall. The Germans knew how valuable Antwerp was and put numerous heavy fortifications in place with radar-guided guns. The British did make an amphibious assault on the island--and the Royal Navy lost 9 ships sunk; with 11 so heavily damaged that they were written off after getting back to port.

Monty was definitely tunnel-visioned with Market Garden...AND he knew the politicos wanted to utilize the airborne forces, so he definitely ignored securing the area...somewhat offhandedly writing in his memoirs that he thought the Canadians could take care of it and noting he wasn't ordered to take the area as his first priority. Ducking responsibility? Yea, probably. But ultimately, it is/was Ike's call and he didn't order a more concentrated effort when the opportunity was there in September. Partly, it was because the British/Canadians moved too quickly in advancing and capturing Antwerp--it caught everyone off-guard.

Does your source describe the ships lost? I can't imagine those were capital ships. Minesweepers, landing craft, sure, but not battleships.

Alex.
 

gatorev12

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 17, 2018
10,167
9,691
Does your source describe the ships lost? I can't imagine those were capital ships. Minesweepers, landing craft, sure, but not battleships.

Alex.

It didn't, no; but I checked on Wikipedia a list of Royal Navy vessels lost and didn't see any capital ships sunk in and around those dates.

No idea which ships were written off though and would imagine a few destroyers were damaged.
 

Gator By Marriage

A convert to Gatorism
Lifetime Member
Dec 31, 2018
14,773
27,944
It didn't, no; but I checked on Wikipedia a list of Royal Navy vessels lost and didn't see any capital ships sunk in and around those dates.

No idea which ships were written off though and would imagine a few destroyers were damaged.
@AlexDaGator this thread lead to some renewed self-interest into the Battle of the Scheldt estuary. Turns out the vessels in question were landing craft, including some rigged to serve as anti-aircraft platforms, the others were described as "gun boats" with no further description I can find anywhere. In other materials I've read, on other engagements, British Motor Torpedo Boats (think a British version of the US PT boats) were often referred to as "gun boats." The important take away of course, was no capital ships were among those sunk.

I did come across one interesting tidbit though that may shed a little light on the non-indiscriminate use of naval artillery: Walcheran Island at the mouth of the estuary was the last German strong hold and given its' geographic position, probably the best suited for naval gunfire accompanying the Canadians assault. The Germans, however had refused to allow the island's Dutch residents to evacuate. I have yet to find a source to confirm or further dive into this, but one wonders if the potential human shields made the Brits reluctant for any saturation naval gunfire? In other battles in the Netherlands, they did seem reluctant to cause any "unnecessary" civilian casualties. I will continue to see what I can find! (I have discovered new found respect for the fighting abilities of our northern neighbors - this was definitely a tough nut to crack.)
 

AlexDaGator

Founding Member
The Hammer of Thor
Lifetime Member
Jun 19, 2014
12,698
31,626
Founding Member
@AlexDaGator this thread lead to some renewed self-interest into the Battle of the Scheldt estuary. Turns out the vessels in question were landing craft, including some rigged to serve as anti-aircraft platforms, the others were described as "gun boats" with no further description I can find anywhere. In other materials I've read, on other engagements, British Motor Torpedo Boats (think a British version of the US PT boats) were often referred to as "gun boats." The important take away of course, was no capital ships were among those sunk.

I did come across one interesting tidbit though that may shed a little light on the non-indiscriminate use of naval artillery: Walcheran Island at the mouth of the estuary was the last German strong hold and given its' geographic position, probably the best suited for naval gunfire accompanying the Canadians assault. The Germans, however had refused to allow the island's Dutch residents to evacuate. I have yet to find a source to confirm or further dive into this, but one wonders if the potential human shields made the Brits reluctant for any saturation naval gunfire? In other battles in the Netherlands, they did seem reluctant to cause any "unnecessary" civilian casualties. I will continue to see what I can find! (I have discovered new found respect for the fighting abilities of our northern neighbors - this was definitely a tough nut to crack.)

The Canadians were excellent riflemen; tough, outdoorsy types, lots of kids who grew up hunting, worked as lumberjacks, miners, farmers, fishermen, etc.

They fought well in WWI too, and they had the advantage of lots of French speakers.

Something happened after WWII and the Canadians morphed from rugged outdoorsy types into soft, whiny pajama boy types.

If you think about the British Army in WWII, you think of the Gurkhas, the Poles, the Canadians, the Aussies, the Kiwis...

I get the impression the Brits were a bit more profligate with Canadian and commonwealth blood than they were with English blood. Remember the fiasco at Dieppe? The vast majority were Canadians.


Alex.
 

gatorev12

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 17, 2018
10,167
9,691
@AlexDaGator this thread lead to some renewed self-interest into the Battle of the Scheldt estuary. Turns out the vessels in question were landing craft, including some rigged to serve as anti-aircraft platforms, the others were described as "gun boats" with no further description I can find anywhere. In other materials I've read, on other engagements, British Motor Torpedo Boats (think a British version of the US PT boats) were often referred to as "gun boats." The important take away of course, was no capital ships were among those sunk.

I did come across one interesting tidbit though that may shed a little light on the non-indiscriminate use of naval artillery: Walcheran Island at the mouth of the estuary was the last German strong hold and given its' geographic position, probably the best suited for naval gunfire accompanying the Canadians assault. The Germans, however had refused to allow the island's Dutch residents to evacuate. I have yet to find a source to confirm or further dive into this, but one wonders if the potential human shields made the Brits reluctant for any saturation naval gunfire? In other battles in the Netherlands, they did seem reluctant to cause any "unnecessary" civilian casualties. I will continue to see what I can find! (I have discovered new found respect for the fighting abilities of our northern neighbors - this was definitely a tough nut to crack.)

I'd read that too (that the Germans weren't letting civilians leave) and that was also a reason why the Allies didn't allow saturation bombing either. There were a few aerial raids (usually after advance notice was given to the civilians), but they didn't do much damage (prior notice and all), so eventually they stopped.
 

gatorev12

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 17, 2018
10,167
9,691
Something happened after WWII and the Canadians morphed from rugged outdoorsy types into soft, whiny pajama boy types.

Urban Canadians, sure; but the ones who serve in their armed forces are still the outdoorsy type that's not afraid to mix it up. Their snipers were in heavy demand over in Afghanistan and were some of the best NATO had.
 

AlexDaGator

Founding Member
The Hammer of Thor
Lifetime Member
Jun 19, 2014
12,698
31,626
Founding Member
Urban Canadians, sure; but the ones who serve in their armed forces are still the outdoorsy type that's not afraid to mix it up. Their snipers were in heavy demand over in Afghanistan and were some of the best NATO had.

I'm talking about the general population. There is no denying the wussification of our northern neighbors.

Alex.
 

AlexDaGator

Founding Member
The Hammer of Thor
Lifetime Member
Jun 19, 2014
12,698
31,626
Founding Member
Sadly, creeping over here too..

If by "creeping" you mean a fcuking tidal wave of estrogen engulfing the young men in this country who are being excoriated daily for toxic masculinity, then yeah, sure.

Alex.
 

Detroitgator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jul 15, 2014
28,229
46,733
I've posted about it before, but I read a book while in Afghanistan called "Who Killed the Canadian Military?" About the fall from WW2 through the disbanding of the airborne regiment after their incident in Somalia (they fukked up peacekeeping! ;) )... basically, Canada is now left with JTF2 and a minesweeper.
 

gatorev12

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 17, 2018
10,167
9,691
I've posted about it before, but I read a book while in Afghanistan called "Who Killed the Canadian Military?" About the fall from WW2 through the disbanding of the airborne regiment after their incident in Somalia (they fukked up peacekeeping! ;) )... basically, Canada is now left with JTF2 and a minesweeper.

Their politicians.
Cutting "excess capacity" and refusing to commit to new purchases. Their procurement process makes ours look sane (and ours is fcvcked up).

Their personnel are usually quality professionals from what I've seen/heard; but they're stripped to the bare bones.
 

Detroitgator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jul 15, 2014
28,229
46,733
Their politicians.
Cutting "excess capacity" and refusing to commit to new purchases. Their procurement process makes ours look sane (and ours is fcvcked up).

Their personnel are usually quality professionals from what I've seen/heard; but they're stripped to the bare bones.
Yup, the first big thing was combining of services/one uniform, then mandatory bi-lingual French for officers. The bilingual requirement literally killed a generation of officers preventing them from being promoted
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.