Why were attack no defense or sane logistics allowed generals

>>1650418
Because warfare had drastically changed from the 19th century, onwards to the 20th century.

Reuental done nothing wrong.

>>1650418
because there isn't as much glory in defending a position as there is in charging in with saber and horse saving the day.

>>1650418

Can you rephrase that?

File: legend-of-the-galactic-heroes-wolfgang-mittermeyer-and-oskar-von-reuenthal.jpg (435KB, 1852x1794px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1852x1794px

>>1650473
He failed to protect Mein Kaiser.

Still could have solved the problem with a sorry, but no, pride before everything.

>>1650510
Generals and Admirals whose only tactic was trying to achieve a forceful breakthrough and winning by pure chance or luck

>>1650418

Because they appeal to the drama, the heroic sense, the thought of a bold man leading from the front in an exciting adventure. It's what we want war to be, cool and almost like a sport, so it's easy to fall in love with the men who make the illusion possible.


>>1650568

Not him, but to be fair, guys like that often do have a degree of tactical skill, it's not usually brute force or luck. Even they are better than the Clark's and the Leeb's and the Timoshenko's of the world.

>>1650568

It's a tactic that plebs can easily understand and appreciate. Everybody loves the idea of a madman who disregards the rules and gets shit done fast, regardless of the idea's applicability to real-life.

But if I may ask, why are we targeting Patton specifically here? His job was to get to Germany, and he did that. What's the problem?

>>1650418

Like Hannibal?

File: pH2ZJ6y.jpg (59KB, 640x957px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x957px

>>1650580
Tactic that in the end gets your men killed when there are safer tactics that achieve the same or better result.
Patton did achieve what he was ordered to do, but the means in this case were reckless and if they failed whoops, a whole american tank corps down the drain.
Also got swatted like the pleb he was by Rommel when he was fighting Monty

>>1650617

Can we get even more specific? Is there something Patton did that you think was wrong?

>>1650418
Because they succeeded, and their mad heroics and plucky attitudes make them heroes in the eyes of a public who haven't gone to military school to completely understand the foolhardy risks they took. Combined with a wartime culture that despises cowardice in any shape or form, even when completely sensible and well-planned, they can get away with it so long as they keep winning. Even avoidable setbacks and casualties will be reasoned away, like how in LotGH itself it's noted how "only" so many millions had to die for the universe to be united.

File: bitte.jpg (61KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x480px

>>1650668

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfD5jYBFB0M

No nothing at all. Patton was the first name i could think of. He achieved the orders he was given and got personal glory. Just a case of couldn't think anything else.

It's just that usually this type of attack just seems reckless and if THIS ONE general fails then the whole attack crumbles and the battle is lost.

Not many are MADMAN level geniouses that know how and when to enter gaps and succeed in their attacks. Most of the time they end up with their forces routed or destroyed.

>>1650711
>Most of the time they end up with their forces routed or destroyed.
And then they aren't considered great, are they?
>>1650617
>Bernard "15:1 or I'm not fighting" Monty
>somehow good
Also, stop avatarfagging.

File: 1471271332025.png (869KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 960x720px

>>1650730
>implying that bernard "gimme that flying fortress or i'm going to reeeeeee" monty was ever good in som fashion the way aI described him. Just said that Rommels' main opponents were the brits and the american were an afterthought.

>not liking based Bittenfeld