Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doren who wrote (7661)	3/12/2009 7:21:11 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

yes Patton was like Sherman but also Grant. "Grant was prepared to fight a war of attrition—battles in which the superior Union forces would bleed Lee's army. Both Union and Confederate casualties could be high, but the Union had greater resources to replace lost soldiers and equipment."

To: Doren who wrote (7661)	3/12/2009 8:17:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13062

Patton was like Sherman, for bold concentrated attack deep in to the enemies territory. The German attacks early in the war, or the US attack on Iraq where like that as well. Lightning war. Eisenhower dealt with the politics of keeping the war effort together far better than Patton ever could. He (or mostly the subordinates he picked for the job, but he picked them and oversaw their operations) dealt with keeping people like Patton supplied and supported. Patton probably would have been lousy at the political side of Eisenhower's job, and might not have been great at the rest either. But why Patton was at times over aggressive, I think he had some things right, and not just on the scale of the II corps or Third Army commands he held. Strategically we probably would have done better not spreading our attack effort so broadly across the whole front.