Vote on favorite war hero, fiction or real

[Renagade 0]

I bet that guys eye would make a brilliant 8 ball

not really heroes but this is my choices

Great at busting the crooks and is not an arse like real cops

also rambo <edit> stupid rambo pic didnt work

and i found this picture while looking for a good rambo one so i put it up cos it looks so stupid,i mean referees aren`t meant to chuck wrestlers out the ring

[scout 0]

u r wrong tex:

1. the decision of what to attack and where was his.

2. he often contradicted the plans of his commanders and done so successfuly

3. the island humping was perfected to an art by him and again, the decisions of what and how was his.

4. he lost 90700~ altogether in WWII dead and wounded.

to compare: battle of the buldge: 109000~ dead and wounded.

5. his decisions in korea were militarily sound. when u interfere politics with tactics thats what u get. just look at Vietnam! there is no such thing "limited war" that an illusion by ppl who havent fought at all.

[Ether Dragon 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bandit65 @ April 18 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One of my personal heros is William Tecumpseh Sherman, of Civil war fame.<span id='postcolor'>

Haha. I was going to quote Gen. Sherman in my post, but forgot to when I was wrapping up. I think the quote perfectly states what war is and how it should be fought.

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over"

[Warin 0]

Hey Scout,

Just to point out...

The US did not suffer 109,000 killed at the Battle of the Bulge. It was closer to 19,000. Even the combined injured and killed is ~99,000.

Macarthur was a decent leader, but he was an egomaniac.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 18 2002,20:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ouch!    I guess I stepped on someones national pride there! If I have learned something here in this forum then it is: Never discuss WWII with Americans (beautyful generalisation, isnt it). There is too much emotion involved.

I respect your point of view. I just think that Patton without all this ideological bla bla of US-ARMY and stuff was a mad-brain and he was eager to invest soldiers just to beat Montgomery. Now "if" a guy like this would have fought on the other side, you would probably call him now a Nazi who dreamed his fanatic dream!

BTW: Rommel did a great mistake, he left his division in the wrong moment to go on vacation in Germany! In such a moment it is definetly mistake!<span id='postcolor'>

So if I disagree with you, I am being blinded by nationalistic pride? That isnt a very good way to approach a discussion about military commanders. If you want to get down to it, because I was not there, I try to view military leaders from an objective viewpoint. Yes, Patton was a prima dona, but just because you dont like his attitude is no reason to disagree that he was a great commander and student of armored tactics. I have an equal amount of respect for any soldier of any nation who proves they can revolutionize the way they do their job. Heinz Guderian was one. He was a Nazi. Carl Doenitz did the same thing for submarine warfare. He was a Nazi. I cant condone their very unfortunate political views, but you cant tell me that they werent great soldiers.

Interestingly enough Patton was less concerned with out shining Monty than with living up to the great military commanders of the past. It would be unfortunate to turn this thread into a "Bloodn'Guts"vs."Monty" thread, because you can easily argue the merits and demerits of both without bringing the other into the picture.

Patton succeeded on many accounts; to say he does not deserve credit for his successes is to judge history from a biased viewpoint.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

oh yeah... Kelly's Heroes is a great movie; Donald Sutherland is hilarious ("Always with the negative waves! Why can't you dig, how beautiful it is out here?")

[KingBeast 0]

Oh coming back to this, i just finished reading Band of Brothers, and i saw the TV series ages ago and I have to say, Dick Winters (of Easy company fame) is a great man indeed and deserves much praise.

Also for anyone else that read the book or knows the history, I quite admire pvt Webster. Its interesting to read about such an obvious intellect crawling through the mud and killing germans alongside normal every day joes.

But yeah this all comes from me finishing the book last night

Now im reading pegasus bridge, so in a couple of days ill be back here telling you all about some British people that should be respected and admired lol.

*note* For once im praising yanks, something must surely be wrong with me

[madmike 0]

is band of brothers out on dvd yet???

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*note* For once im praising yanks, something must surely be wrong with me <span id='postcolor'>

how dare you

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I am gonna get Band of Brothers on DVD the second I can find it. If you havent read the book or seen the series, get yer shit together and watch and read one of the best histories of an infantry company ever written/made

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 18 2002,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 18 2002,20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ouch!  <!--emo&  I guess I stepped on someones national pride there! If I have learned something here in this forum then it is: Never discuss WWII with Americans (beautyful generalisation, isnt it). There is too much emotion involved.

I respect your point of view. I just think that Patton without all this ideological bla bla of US-ARMY and stuff was a mad-brain and he was eager to invest soldiers just to beat Montgomery. Now "if" a guy like this would have fought on the other side, you would probably call him now a Nazi who dreamed his fanatic dream!

BTW: Rommel did a great mistake, he left his division in the wrong moment to go on vacation in Germany! In such a moment it is definetly mistake!<span id='postcolor'>

So if I disagree with you, I am being blinded by nationalistic pride? That isnt a very good way to approach a discussion about military commanders. If you want to get down to it, because I was not there, I try to view military leaders from an objective viewpoint. Yes, Patton was a prima dona, but just because you dont like his attitude is no reason to disagree that he was a great commander and student of armored tactics. I have an equal amount of respect for any soldier of any nation who proves they can revolutionize the way they do their job. Heinz Guderian was one. He was a Nazi. Carl Doenitz did the same thing for submarine warfare. He was a Nazi. I cant condone their very unfortunate political views, but you cant tell me that they werent great soldiers.

Interestingly enough Patton was less concerned with out shining Monty than with living up to the great military commanders of the past. It would be unfortunate to turn this thread into a "Bloodn'Guts"vs."Monty" thread, because you can easily argue the merits and demerits of both without bringing the other into the picture.

Patton succeeded on many accounts; to say he does not deserve credit for his successes is to judge history from a biased viewpoint.<span id='postcolor'>

Just because they were comanders on the german side doesnt mean they were nazis (of course if they were wearing an SS sign with pride and forbid the soldiers to play american jazz, well then then they were Nazis).

No, ,maybe what I said sounds a bit too harsh!   I dont care if a general has a fucked up brain as long as his performance convinces. But for me a great general is somone who beats facts. Something like the battle of Troja! History knows many commanders that won with less material and less manpower against an iron enemy. Patton for me is spoiled commander, he got what he ordered and I think he even got it in time. When Patton moved into France Germany wasnt some kind of imortal tiger, but a confused crowd of leftovers. There were not only problems with supplies but the soldiers were lead by terribly opposing commanders. Some highly fanatic Nazis; some willing to give up and safe lifes. It sounds pretty naive what I write, I know but I dont have space here to realy go into debth. So for me Patton was playing for the strong side and he played against a side which was getting weaker every day, and finally: he wasnt playing alone against Hitler. I which time he reconquered france is of no importance to me to judge him!

[KingBeast 0]

Albert i quite agree with what you say about the state of the German Army nearing that middle/end period of the war. Although individually there were many many trained and veteran troops still left, I guess they lacked the good leadership and direction that could have made things plenty more difficult for the Allies.

Makes you wonder when the hundreds/thousands of germans had surrendered and were just marching along no longer fighting, how much longer would the War have gone on if those soldiers had continued to be led by competent commanders and fought to the very last, like the pockets of fanatics did.

But yeah Patton did great things, but with the resources he had i expect there are many others that could have done the same.

I believe that when a commander has limited resources or has to fight against insurmountable odds and still manages to pull through, then he deserves a hundred times more the respect than that of a commander who achieves even more than him but with all the supplies/resources he asks for.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 19 2002,00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just because they were comanders on the german side doesnt mean they were nazis (of course if they were wearing an SS sign with pride and forbid the soldiers to play american jazz, well then then they were Nazis).

No, ,maybe what I said sounds a bit too harsh!   I dont care if a general has a fucked up brain as long as his performance convinces. But for me a great general is somone who beats facts. Something like the battle of Troja! History knows many commanders that won with less material and less manpower against an iron enemy. Patton for me is spoiled commander, he got what he ordered and I think he even got it in time. When Patton moved into France Germany wasnt some kind of imortal tiger, but a confused crowd of leftovers. There were not only problems with supplies but the soldiers were lead by terribly opposing commanders. Some highly fanatic Nazis; some willing to give up and safe lifes. It sounds pretty naive what I write, I know but I dont have space here to realy go into debth. So for me Patton was playing for the strong side and he played against a side which was getting weaker every day, and finally: he wasnt playing alone against Hitler. I which time he reconquered france is of no importance to me to judge him!

<span id='postcolor'>

Guderian and Doenitz were definitely Nazis, especially Doenitz.

So, you talk about Patton like some idiot brought off the street could have done as well as he did. Id like to mention that the Allies had their own logistical problems, and the inferior armor and armament of Allied AFVs didnt make life a walk in the park for them either. You are looking at everything in the wrong perspective. Noone thinks that Patton won the war singlehandedly, but that doesnt change the fact that he refined the art of armored warfare to where it began to look like what we do today. I didnt vote for him in this dumb-ass poll, Im just trying to get you to realise that someone can be an excellent commander without being an underdog, or going up against a fierce, implacable enemy. You are putting me in the position of making excuses for Patton as to why he was going up against a weaker foe. In war you dont lament lopsided odds; you thank God for them and then go about seeing how you can best exploit them! Despite everything you may have heard, German field commanders were top notch (although somewhat lacking in initiative); they had excellent weapons; and they had plenty manpower to get the job done. However, your brilliant Rommel mauled his force to the breaking point by ordering constant, unsubstantial counter-attacks in the bocage, instead of coordinating his forces. So when Bradley finally broke through, Patton was right where SHAEF intended him to be: on the Southern Flank ready to roll up and encircle the German Army (which almost happened at the Falaise Gap). However, you try to make Patton out to be less of a commander because Hitler was a military blunderer on an epic scale.

Finally, I have found no evidence to suggest that Patton was mentally unstable. Quick tempered? definitely. Crazy (or fucked up brain, as you put it)? No. A commander has to be able to send troops to their death; especially Generals. Hell, thats why they give em so many stars; to make the tough decisions.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 18 2002,23:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh yeah... Kelly's Heroes is a great movie; Donald Sutherland is hilarious ("Always with the negative waves! Why can't you dig, how beautiful it is out here?")<span id='postcolor'>

Damn, I should make a Kelly's Heroes type mission, I thought I was the only fan out there

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 19 2002,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, you talk about Patton like some idiot brought off the street could have done as well as he did....

Finally, I have found no evidence to suggest that Patton was mentally unstable. Quick tempered? definitely. Crazy (or fucked up brain, as you put it)? No. A commander has to be able to send troops to their death; especially Generals. Hell, thats why they give em so many stars; to make the tough decisions.<span id='postcolor'>

Well nice exageration! I remember that this discussion is actually about the greatest war-heroes. My point was that I dont consider Patton as one of the greatest war heroes (neither Rommel) because there are some points which darken his image and because he doesnt fit into my picture of a man who turns the table through brilliant strategy or heroic deeds! But I see you are getting emotionally involved otherwise you would not try to put my arguments into the 'extreme opinion' corner. But maybe you should look deeper into this character! Just analyse him seperate from the whole WWII issue! Then you will find out the following (I guess those things don appear in the History Class in the US-Army but they do in books of historical scientists)

Not only did Patton needlessly sacrifice the lives of his men to beat Montgomery to Messina, Patton caused more unnecessary deaths and injuries in March of 1945 when he attempted to free his son-in-law from a prisoner of war camp deep in enemy territory. This endeavor, motivated by personal concerns, was unsuccessful, reckless and foolhardy. Patton's son-in-law was seriously wounded in the raid but not freed. (2) Patton was anti-Semitic. (3) After the war Patton failed to implement the de-Nazification program as military governor of Bavaria. (4) Patton thought that General Dwight Eisenhower (who was his friend and who often intervened to protect him) was "yellow." (5) Patton's expressed hatred of the Russians (at that time our ally and the country which had suffered far more casualties and greater destruction from Nazi aggression than any other) caused serious diplomatic problems. (6) Patton would subject his troops to ranting tirades. One historian who reviewed this film (US film for teaching purposes) had been a junior officer in Patton's command. Upon being subjected to a "vainglorious Patton harangue," he remembers remarking, "What an ashley!"

If subordinates say this maybe then Patton has been slightly over-gloryfied in the US, cause soldiers who served Rommel always spoke positively about 'their leader'. Furthermore, in my consideration does a War-hero not need to be a direct general on the front. My warhero of WWII was Churchill, the man with nerves made of steel!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Hehe, I found a thread in a different forum which discusses the same issue. Actually there are some smart comments to be found! Have a look, it is fun

Skalman.mv forum on THE BEST GENERAL OF WWII

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Hey you lazy bastards! when a discussion goes into debth you all surrender. You old pieces of sirloin steak, you fake pieces of "made in China" in a BMW, you dogs that are afraid of cats, you people that buy shoes with fake leather, you people that sympathise with girls..

Provokation usually always works good to get responses! Or am I just destroying my reputation? (which reputation?)

[KingBeast 0]

Good choice of hero Albert

Will be a long time before the world sees another Churchill