With Patton in mind...

[historyguy99]

Patton as a boy played out the civil war battles with John Morsby who was a frequent visitor to the Patton ranch in California. This provides strong evidence that Patton was influenced by Morsby. However, Patton stated many times his favorite General was Thomas Jackson. He had virtually memorized G.E.R. Henderson's biography of Jackson and was quoted as asking out loud "what would Jackson do" on on several occasions.
An article in Infantry Magazine April 2004, further supports the opinion that Jackson and Patton were cut from the same cloth as two of America's greatest tacticians.

[goesh]

It appears I am the only one who voted for Sun Tzu, who was more about civil affairs than sabre.

[MattC86]

Wasn't Patton his own favorite general? I think he would have picked himself as the best small wars commander.

In all seriousness, while I don't think he had the political skills for a COIN environment, Patton never, in the words of Once an Eagle's George Caldwell, allowed his mind to atrophy. He kept thinking and working, even when he was stuck back in the horse cavalry after WWI, on tanks and armored warfare. He was relentlessly innovative and always seeking mastery of his craft, whatever it was.

It might have taken him a few years, but Patton could have learned to be an effective COIN officer.

And yes, I voted for Mosby as well, though Sun Tzu might be a better vote, as Goesh said.

[Jayhawker]

I realize this thread has gone a bit cold, and all may have moved on, but I've some news on this matter. Patton's 3rd Army had an OSS organization in his G-3 called a Special Forces Detachment. Each of Ike's numbered armies had such an organization. Patton's was led by Lt Col R. I. Powell and his mission was to link the 3rd Army with the SOF guys (The Jedburghs and others) who were out with the resistance groups. I don't want to scoop myself too much here, but Powell and SHEAF's allied SOF coordinated with various French resistance groups to cover Patton's southern flank. They requested air dropped weapons, met with various FFI leaders, and Powell was back and forth to London to coordinate activities. I've nothing with Patton's writing on it giving me any indication how he felt about the FFI capabilities, (this is one of the great sadnesses of my life at the moment) but I know the SOF guys briefed him up on stuff. I just have yet to find any words of his regarding how he felt about the whole issue. But I suspect he was doing his "Big war" thing and happy to have someone running a small war that covered his flank.

[Cavguy]

Patton as a boy played out the civil war battles with John Morsby who was a frequent visitor to the Patton ranch in California. This provides strong evidence that Patton was influenced by Morsby. However, Patton stated many times his favorite General was Thomas Jackson. He had virtually memorized G.E.R. Henderson's biography of Jackson and was quoted as asking out loud "what would Jackson do" on on several occasions.
An article in Infantry Magazine April 2004, further supports the opinion that Jackson and Patton were cut from the same cloth as two of America's greatest tacticians.

This brings up something interesting I have pondered for awhile ....

Like many, I have read extensively on both WWII and the Civil War (esp. the Army of Northern Virginia).

I have begun to notice a symmetry between Patton and Jackson (and many other successful tactical commanders). Both Patton and Jackson were largely disliked, even hated, by the men in their commands (read "Day of Battle", and "Lee's Lieutenants") while they were commanding. Their military sainthood was largely born after each of their deaths (although Patton and Jackson were media darlings to the public during their lifetimes - people love a winner), but their peers and subordinates had extreme doubts about their methods and even their sanity. Few questioned their tactical ability, but their humanity often was questioned.

Jackson had several of his division and brigade commanders up for court martial on a regular basis for petty issues. Jackson's southern "foot cavalry" nearly mutinied more than a few times in 1862 due to his harsh treatment. Lee was forced to step in and temper his subordinate's conduct many times.

Patton was disliked and even hated by most of his peers and subordinates, especially during the Italy campaign where it was perceived he was throwing away lives on personal glory quests. He didn't get "redeemed" from this image until the Normandy breakout and Bastogne counterattack, and much of the "I served with Patton" nostalga developed much later in the war.

As much as Patton is essentially the patron saint of my branch, the more I have read on him the more disturbed I am by his conduct - yes he was a grand success - but it was ugly on those who had to serve for him. Finishing "Day of Battle" and reading about how his ego possibly shaped his operations in Sicily made me wince, including his bawling out of competent, hard charging commanders who reached the point of exhaustion. (I'll bypass the slapping incident - that bothered me much less than his treatment of some units)

It reminds me of a statement Hackworth made in "About Face" - that a leader will tolerate almost any amount of insubordination as long as the subordinate gets the job done. I didn't think it was true at the time but 11 years into my military career I have found it more and more true. It seems both were tolerated and loved by their seniors because of that simple fact.

I wonder if these uncompromising, demanding men are revered more in the "rear view" because the heavy demands on their troops produced greater success - Jackson prolonged the war significantly, Patton's breakout and relief of Bastogne prevented a collapse on the west front that could have delayed entry into Germany for several more months. I have wondered if the cruelty and indifference they were accused of inflicting on their soldiers was actually compassion, in the sense that they bore heavier demands and losses so the overall campaign would be shorter and thus less overall casualties for the nation?

I can't argue the results they produced or their tactical acumen, but I have always been disturbed by their leadership methods.

[Gian P Gentile]

As much as Patton is essentially the patron saint of my branch, the more I have read on him the more disturbed I am by his conduct - yes he was a grand success - but it was ugly on those who had to serve for him....

Cavguy:

for whatever it is worth, and I do defer to your knowledge on Patton, a good while back I asked Martin Blumenson (WWII historian and editor of the Patton Papers) for which General, Patton or Bradley, would a staff officer in World War II rather have served under? Blumenson's answer hands down was Patton. He said that Patton was greatly loved by the majority of his staff. Clearly, this does not get at the debth of dislike of Patton throughout the ranks as you point out, but at least within his staff it suggests another side to Patton than the one you offer.

How about Jayhawker's avatar "John Brown" for a nomination? He certainly would have appealed to Patton's side of boldness, even recklessness.

gg

[Ken White]

Cav Guy said:

"I have wondered if the cruelty and indifference they were accused of inflicting on their soldiers was actually compassion, in the sense that they bore heavier demands and losses so the overall campaign would be shorter and thus less overall casualties for the nation?

I can't argue the results they produced or their tactical acumen, but I have always been disturbed by their leadership methods."

Compassion possibly, I think -- there's also perhaps the better possibility that they were minor sociopaths (my phrase for a mental condition that I believe allows better soldiers than non-sociopathic personalities or full sociopaths. It is not IMO an insult, in fact, it's a compliment) and understood that it's a harsh business and that shorter and harder campaigns actually save more lives (military and civilian plus infrastructure damage) than prolonged efforts which drag out the killing and dying.

Something we all too often forget...

You cannot -- or, morally, should not -- try to wage war on the cheap and couch that as a humanitarian approach to war (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one). Even in minor actions, to try to take an 'easy' approach is almost invariably sure to cause more casualties.

I agree both were somewhat harsh in the leadership arena -- but it's hard to fault their performance in the command arena. Some times the two come into conflict. It's far harder to be a commander than it is to be a leader...

Re: Forrest; agree he was one of the greatest if not the greatest tactical commanders, trending into the operational realm as well as did his relative peer, Daniel Morgan.

[Rifleman]

Forrest was disliked by the southern gentlemen, and never was really given opportunity for higher commands until near the end.

Re: Forrest; agree he was one of the greatest if not the greatest tactical commanders, trending into the operational realm as well as did his relative peer, Daniel Morgan.

Funny: I'd bet both were probably a little rough around the edges and lacking in accepted social graces early on.

You know, there they'd be, in a circle of gentlemen and belles - knights and their ladies fair, so to speak - standing there with a mouth full of tobacco and looking for a place to spit, or something like that.