>mfw reading Bernard "Market Garden" Montgomery

>>33505653
Monty was a faggot and he should have felt like one

>>33505681
This. But in fact Market Garden wasn't a bad plan, if they had spent more time and effort on intel and enemy disposition and then actually fucking payed attention to the intel they had they either would have reworked it or at least not have been fucked over so badly.

File: Operation_Lumberjack_map.jpg (2MB, 1500x2507px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x2507px

>>33505886
>
> deep penetration airborne drop
> by light parachute infantry with almost no anti-tank capability
> relieving Allied armored units must travel down a single road
> that’s raised up above the wet marshy Dutch countryside
>
> But in fact Market Garden wasn't a bad plan

Thank Mars that the U.S. captured the bridge at Remagen, because Monty’s plan for crossing the Rhine was the same as all his other plans; build up a shit load of men and material and just keep throwing them at the Germans until we drown them in our blood.

The guy would have made an excellent Soviet general…

>>33506600
Better than Patton. All the films make it seem like the Germans feared him, but it was more like 'literally who..?'

File: Operation Cobra.jpg (180KB, 1030x724px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1030x724px

>>33506618
>Better than Patton.

Thousands of Germans escaped Falaise Pocket because in typical Monty fashion, he was too slow to reinforce the Poles who were desperately trying to be the cork in the bottle.

It's easy to put the blame on Monty. But he does not deserve it all. By the fall of 44, there were literally thousands of allied agents on German held territory. They had access to radio, either personally or within their local group. The intel that the SS panzer was regrouping in the area could not possibly have been a surprise to anyone including Roosevelt. They did not ignore one report, but more likely a hundred. And while airborne don't pack a lot of armor support in their parachutes they could have packed bazookas. Instead they brought inferior gear like PIAT rockets which is so short range they practically had to be taped to the target, and antitank rifles which had been useless even at Dunkirk. As for the tank column along the only working dutch road - no. The whole concept was flawed on the top leadership level.

>>33505653
The truth is that Eisenhower was more of a politician than General. He had a tough job managing US and British demands.

>>33507999
>The truth is that Eisenhower was more of a politician than General.

Any position O-6 and above is essentially political in nature, with an O-10 leading a large multilateral ground campaign especially so.

>>33508022
and to think he started the war as a Lt Col.

>>33508039
peace time the dicksuckers advance, when war comes they are shown to be incompetent and the real leaders rise.

>>33507999
At the level he was at, managing other generals is probably the most important part of the job. He had to get the Air Forces to agree with the Navy to agree with the Army to do anything. But for all its uncertainties, Overlord was executed beautifully. There were a lot of hiccups and a lot of problems, for sure, but it could have been so much worse given the technology of the time.

Eisenhower was so detailed in his planning that he even had commando geologists take soil samples of the beaches to make sure they were adequate for their tanks and landing craft.

File: MacArthur-Eisenhower.jpg (34KB, 652x300px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 652x300px

>>33508039

MacArthur was Ike's boss in the Philippines between the wars.

File: eisenhower-was-the-best-clerk-i-ever-had-douglas-macarthur-307914.jpg (43KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 850x400px

>>33508618
>
>Eisenhower
>incompetent

>>33508694
>MacArthur
>Competent

>>33508679
Reading about Overlord gives me boners, everything about it was monumental; the planning, the secrecy and deception everything. It was one of the greatest undertakings in history, and that's before talking about the results.

>>33508694
And Ike said he studied theatrics for years under MacArthur.
>most epic rap battles in history

>>33508679
>At the level he was at, managing other generals is probably the most important part of the job.

Indeed, Eisenhower had to be the chief executive officer or the Allies Inc.

>>33508747
Yeah man, I've been reading Stephen Ambrose's D-Day. Got it for 2 bucks at a used book store and it's honestly such a great book. Of course, it's kind of "rah rah USA USA USA" because it's Stephen Ambrose we're talking about, but even if you get past the tone of the book the facts remain that it was a colossal affair.

>>33508679
>commando geologists
holy fuck kek

>>33507434
Hey now the Boys anti tank rifle by that stage had been accidentally pushed into an antipersonnel role. When the projectile bounced off the tanks it could take out the infantry near it

>>33508694
>Douglas "The Chinks/japs Are Chickenshits, and Incompetent to Boot OHFUCKOHFUCKOHFUCK" MacArthur

>>33508816
>Douglas "Nuke them all by dinnertime and fuck the consequences" MacArthur

>>33508788

Sure. But that role could also have been fulfilled by a brick.

My point is that while the Brits had shit antitank gear, the Americans had already deployed bazookas - who were based on panzerfausts. And it wasn't as if the Brits were afraid of utilizing other American weapons, like the Thompson. "Do you think the Germans might have armor? Nah....."

>>33508890
PIAT, my dude

>>33508022
>Eisenhower
>a politician
Bald-ass nigga had Nixon do 100% of his campaigning for him. If he was more of a politician than a general, then he must have been Arab-tier shit as a general.

>>33508921
He means a politician in the war room, dealing with all these different nations' shitheaded leaders

>>33508872
>>33508816
>douglas "the only thing more shocking than my victories are my defeats" mcarthur
>douglas "why am I surrounded by enemy forces" macarthur
>douglas "the first U.S. general to lose a war BEFORE politicians stepped in" macarthur
>douglas "where's my troops? the chinks ate them" macarthur
>douglas "if you see a chink just give them a wink" macarthur
>douglas "the reports of my success has been greatly exaggerated" macarthur
>douglas "can't spot two million chinamen across a bridge ten meters wide" macarthur
>douglas "five star general is just another name for governor anyways" macarthur
>douglas "I fucked up so bad congress passed a bill to maintain a fixed size for the marine corps forever to make sure they have a backup plan in case I come back from the dead" macarthur

>>33508895

Which I mentioned about ten posts earlier. PIATs suck. They are near lethal to load and have shorter range than a damn hand grenade.

>>33509017
>shorter range than a hand grenade
>100 yards or so effective range
>damn near lethal

Nigga wtf are you smoking

>>33508895
The PIAT was shit though. The fucking thing required you to more or less stand on it to cock it, like it's 15th century crossbow. Kicked like a mule too. Not to mention that the charges only detonated about 75% of the time and were inaccurate as all hell beyond fifty yards.

Though there was one hilarious record of a British Captain at Arnhem who got the VC for walking up to German panzers and repeatedly firing a PIAT at them while standing in the open until they died or retreated.

>>33509039
There's at least two recorded testimonies from British soldiers who engaged German tanks from 20 to 30 yards because they had no confidence in the weapon to hit the target beyond that distance.

>>33508993
>Douglas "The Japs are here? Wait did I scramble the fighters yet?" MacArthur
>Douglas "Stand and fight so I can catch this PT Boat out of here" MacArthur
>Douglas "I fucked up so bad that an Admiral was put in charge of the Army in the Pacific" MacArthur
>Douglas "My failures are because Truman didn't want to let me fight harder" MacArthur
>Douglas "I shalllllll retuuuuurrrn [after the Marines and Army secure most of the Pacific and then I'll handle my little sector in the Philippines] MacArthur
>Douglas "I'll overstretch my Marines and leave a gigantic flank open because the Chinamen are pussies anyway" MacArthur
>Douglas "I managed to abandon my men TWICE in Asia" MacArthur
>Douglas "I got lucky at Incheon and was barely competent in the Philippines so people remember me as a great general" MacArthur
>Douglas "I can't get my way, so I'm going to bitch to the press about the president and undermine the trust between the politicians and the military" MacArthur

>>33509050
>There's at least two recorded testimonies from British soldiers who engaged German tanks from 20 to 30 yards because they had no confidence in the weapon to hit the target beyond that distance.

Yes yes. And the ping of Garand was audible at combat distances too

>>33508872
Macarthur kinda objected the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki tho

>>33508890
>the Americans had already deployed bazookas - who were based on panzerfausts
?????
My understanding is that the Panzerfaust and Bazooka were developed independently, while the Panzershreck was developed with influence from captured bazookas.

>>33508895
You like spring loaded,mortar like anti tank weapon? I don't

>>33509061
"12 June 1944: Rifleman Ganju Lama of the 7th Gurkha Rifles used a PIAT to knock out two Japanese tanks attacking his unit at Ningthoukhong, Manipur, India (given as Burma in the official citation). Despite sustaining injuries, Ganju Lama approached within thirty yards of the enemy tanks, and having knocked them out moved on to attack the crews as they tried to escape. When asked by his Army Commander, William Slim, why he went so close, he replied he was not certain of hitting with a PIAT beyond thirty yards."

"On 20th September a Tiger tank approached the area held by his company and Major Cain went out alone to deal with it armed with a Piat. Taking up a position he held his fire until the tank was only 20 yards away when he opened up. The tank immediately halted and turned its guns on him, shooting away a corner of the house near where this officer was lying. Although wounded by machine gun bullets and falling masonry, Major Cain continued firing until he had scored several direct hits, immobilised the tank and supervised the bringing up of a 75 mm. howitzer which completely destroyed it."

>>33508872
I think the more modern histories say he didn't really want to nuke them, but he wanted to fight a war without limitations on where he can send troops on the map. But Truman couldn't do that because certain areas of the map (like the Chinese border for example) were basically tripwires for nuclear war.

If MacArthur had pushed to the Chinese border, and formally forced the Chinese into the war instead of fighting millions of Chinese """""""volunteers"""""", the Soviet Union would have probably acted in China's defense due to their defense pact.

>>33509086
DIdn't Jeremy Clarkson's Grandpa-in-law kill a panzer while needing to use like 3 Piats? It was in his Victoria Cross documentary.

>>33509086
This is way too anecdotal to be taken with the amount of credibility that you are lending to it, other than that it confirms you bias

>>33509056
People give patton a lot of shit, but BOY do they not understand what "fictitiously glorified" means.
That Douglas "I have the balls to defend myself in front of congress after losing entire divisions to dirt farmers" Macarthur wasn't at least sidelined after phillipines but was PROMOTED AND GRANTED A MEDAL OF HONOR is one of those things in military history that makes you wonder whether you were reading pre-mongol shit.

>>33509086
>>33509112
Wait I think major Cain actually is Jeremy Clarkson's grandpa in law

>>33509121
>after losing entire divisions to dirt farmers

You have also consider that not once did the thought cross MacArthur's mind that "huh, the chinks have a few million WW2 vets sitting across the Yalu. Those guys might be able to put up a fight."

>>33509115
I pulled that text directly from Robert Cain's Victoria Cross citation. It's not anecdotal, that's literally what they said in the medal citation.

File: 1488500997321.jpg (207KB, 692x960px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 692x960px

>>33509121
>Medal of Honor in the Philippines
>Went above and beyond the call of duty by telling his men to fight to the death in some corner of jungle while he chilled on an island before escaping by PT boat

Kek

>>33509080

Best I can do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka

>>33509081

We had the PIATs postwar in my country's army. They were very unpopular and caused many users to be wounded.

>>33509138
The interesting thing is that according to PBSs chosin documentary, the Chinese lost millions in that operation. Their army basically ceased to exist because mao threw everything he had into it. That apparently sowed the seeds for the Chinese generals doubting maos competence in conventional war.

>>33509141
It's one guy saying that, with another citation of where the PIAT was used at close range. The fact that someone wrote down this particular quote does not make it any less anecdotal

>>33509080
You'd be right.

>>33509115

"Anecdotal." Any blood that wasn't spilled on the ground in front of you didn't happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganju_Lama

Ganju Lama was nineteen years old, and a rifleman in the 1st Battalion, 7th Gurkha Rifles, in the Indian Army during World War II when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross:

On 12 June 1944, near Ningthoukhong, India , 'B' Company was attempting to stem the enemy's advance when it came under heavy machine-gun and tank machine-gun fire. Rifleman Ganju Lama, with complete disregard for his own safety, took his PIAT gun and, crawling forward, succeeded in bringing the gun into action within 30 yards of the enemy tanks, knocking out two of them. Despite a broken wrist and two other serious wounds to his right and left hands he then moved forward and engaged the tank crew who were trying to escape. Not until he had accounted for all of them did he consent to leave to his wounds dressed.[2]

Keep in mind that the Brits would give away gold bricks rather than medals. There would have to be witnesses, some of which of higher rank, before anyone were given those pieces of worthless metal.

>>33509200
I'm not disputing the incident, you retard.

I'm saying that one PIAT user saying "The PIAT was ineffective beyond 30 yards" is not enough evidence to conclude that it was, in fact, ineffective beyond 30 yards

>>33509174
Millions?
MILLIONS?
So you's tellin me
>*smacks lips*
we conducted
>*heats gutter oil*
FIVE OFFENSIVES
>*fries lice*
after losing
>*slants eye*
MILLIONS
>*watches anime*
in the FIRST
>*smokes opium*
OFFENSIVE?

>>33509218
Sorry, got that wrong. Thousands. Idk why I thought millions. But they lost 60,000 men and half of them not even due to combat but because of starvation and freezing. They were sent in without much winter gear and were expected to "live off the land" in the middle of the mountains in winter.

>>33509209
During these trials, a skilled user was unable to hit a target more than 60% of the time at 100 yards (90 m), and faulty fuses meant that only 75% of the bombs fired detonated on-target.

Citation being a book I do not have access to.

The Bazooka on the other hand was good enough to be fired from low-flying aircraft and still kill tanks.

>>33506670
>he was too slow to reinforce the Poles

Are those the same Poles that got fucked over by being blamed for the over-run of the airborne troopers at Arnhem? The one Churchill specifically called out as a shameful lie?

Fucking bongs man

>>33509283
Man, they say Russian history can be summed up with "And then, things got worse" but that is just as true for Poland in the 20th century.

>>33507434

The AT rifles weren't entirely retarded - the Germans didn't have very much armor, and even less heavy armor. A great deal of the German armor you were likely to encounter was either half-tracks with light guns, or at worst a StuG gun. Against those (the halftracks especially) the Boys and such could be somewhat effective.

However a bazooka was a lot more effective, and a hell of a light lighter, too. The PIAT wasn't *bad* per-se - no backblast issue, didn't give away its position when firing - and besides, that was the British weapon, and what the British were trained in using. However if there's one place where Special Forces gets special privileges compared to their regular army counterparts, its in the freedom to use more esoteric/specialized gear (and be trained in its use) that's not issued to the general forces. It seems there was little real preparation for the airborne troops to hold against concentrated assault, because it was assumed that one fucking highway through the flooded Dutch fields was NOT gonna be one big artillery target - despite Monty having had the same fucking problem invading Sar-fucking-Dinia in the med a year or two prior GOD DAMMIT JESUS FUCK I HATE HIM

>>33509080

Yeah, you're correct. The Germans wisely upgunned it to 88mm. We wisely followed their lead by making the postwar Super Bazooka 90mm.

>>33509283

Dude. The British fucked their Polish allies up again and again. Arnheim is nothing. During the victory parades in London in 1945 the only allied units not allowed or able to participate were the Polish pilots, navy guys and soldiers. See, the first thing Churchill did was put them on a boat to Poland where Churchill's ole buddy Stalin was waiting. They were sent into camps and most were never seen again. Rule Britannia. Even if it is by floating on the blood of their allies.

>>33509261
Factually false. Every chinese offensive was prematurely halted at the 8 days mark due to logistical reasons. Hard to get bullets from the land, they don't grow on trees last I checked.
>>33509283
I'm fairly sure British historians are actually just lawyers that were so talented they never had to take the BAR to write bullshit.

>>33509276

Do remember that the Bazooka had a max theoretical range of 300 yards, too. Guess what range most troops actually engaged at? Yeah, around 100 or so. Because the chances of scoring a hit at 300 yards were pretty low - even against a stationary target, much less a moving one.

So the PIAT, like the Bazooka, only had an effective range of about 1/3 its max theoretical range, which isn't unusual considering the kinds of weapons and technology being employed. On the other hand the PIAT had some advantages - it was just a big-ass spring catapult hurling an AT hand grenade, basically, so it was quiet (compared to the Bazooka, at any rate,) and gave off no backblast, meaning operators could take advantage of cover and concealment a Bazooka team just couldn't. You could get real, real, REAL intimate with the earth while using one, enough to get close to actually use it. It was superior in many ways inside cities and close quarters - again, the kind of terrain that suited its range the best.

Yeah, it was no world-beater, but it did the job. The Bazooka doesn't look so swell when you hold it up to the Panzerschreck, - 88mm diameter projectile instead of 66mm. A lot more punch. Some Americans liked it so much they used captured ones. As I mentioned above, we'd later formalize the up-gunning ourselves with the 90mm Super Bazooka. When you consider the cost and weight of the weapons, compared to the overall war situation and the alternatives - well, they weren't bad at all. Only the Panzerfaust really did better.

>>33509342
>See, the first thing Churchill did was put them on a boat to Poland where Churchill's ole buddy Stalin was waiting. They were sent into camps and most were never seen again.

I don't have a reaction image suitable for this. I had no fucking idea they literally sold out the Free Polish forces to the same motherfuckers who had already murdered the majority of the Polish military officers that didn't escape the country.

>>33509384
It's almost as though America picked the wrong side.

>>33509347

Let's think, who is the main British historian of the modern era. I'll give a hint.

"During an interview a reporter asked Winston Churchill if he was worried about how history was going to treat him. Churchill replied 'No, not at all. You see I intend to write the history books myself'."

And he did.

File: __hieda_no_akyuu_and_shameimaru_aya_touhou_drawn_by_shiroshi_denpa_eshidan__30af7d493193c5c845b1654f84e33f7b.png (194KB, 600x601px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 600x601px

>>33509396
>It's almost as though America picked the wrong side.

stormfags get out

>>33509342
>>33509384

>The formation was finally disbanded in 1947, many of its soldiers choosing to remain in exile rather than to return to communist-controlled Poland, where they were often seen by the Polish communists as 'enemies of the state', influenced by the Western ideas, loyal to the Polish government in exile, and thus meeting with persecution and imprisonment (in extreme cases, death). Failure of allied Western governments to keep their promise to Poland, which now fell under the Soviet sphere of influence, became known as the 'Western betrayal.' [11][12] The number of Polish ex-soldiers unwilling to return to communist Poland was so high that a special organization was formed by the British government to assist settling them in the United Kingdom: the Polish Resettlement Corps (Polski Korpus Przysposobienia i Rozmieszczenia);[4][13] 114,000 Polish soldiers went through that organization. Since many Poles had been stationed in United Kingdom and served alongside British units in the war, the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 allowed all of them settle in United Kingdom after the war, multiplying the size of the Polish minority in United Kingdom.[5] Many also joined the Polish Canadian and Polish Australian communities. After the United States Congress passed a 1948 law, amended in 1950, which allowed the immigration of Polish soldiers who were demobilized in Great Britain, a number of them moved to the U.S. where, in 1952, they organized the association Polish Veterans of World War II.

>>33509375
>it was just a big-ass spring catapult hurling an AT hand grenade
And this makes me inclined to ignore everything you said.
PIATs were fired by a cartridge in the tail assembly. The sights were set for up to 350 yards with max possible range of around 750.

>>33509384

Churchill was probably closer to Stalin than most other leaders of the era. In all fairness they were both being attacked by the same enemy. But also England had its share of actual commies, not just among workers but in the secret services as well - which is why the Brits were bleeding NATO secrets to the Soviets for the next few decades.

Some of those Poles who were sent 'home' were veteran aces from the Battle for Britain.

>>33509431

So this story of the Polish pilots, with the interviews of the actual pilots, is not to be believed? You can focus on the last five minutes where they deal with the aftermath and the being denied to march with the victors, and the being sent home and so on.

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

Anyway it is less interesting to see what happened from 1948 when the 'only a dead red is a good red' propaganda kicked in full.

>>33509276
Ammunition problems aside (since those do not dictate the effective range), 60% at 100 yards sounds about right for the often-quoted 100-110 yard effective range.

This supports my statement of an effective range of 100-ish yards, because "PIATs engaged targets at 100 yards or less" is supported by the data you provided.

Your data does not support your claims that the PIAT was ineffective beyond 20-30 yards. Or at least, it's bigger claim that needs more evidence than one operator out of the thousands of PIAT operators said so.

>>33509484
Hey man idk, I'm just posting something I found. I really hope what you said isn't true because holy fuck perfidious albion

>>33509534

Pick a Mosin up. With iron sights only. The bullet can go what, 2000 meters? Now what's the distance you feel you can reliably shoot down bean cans?

>>33509593
I don't see your point.

>>33509417
>Patton get out

>>33509581

It's always more complicated than one given document or movie says. It's okay. The trick is to hate the top leaders and be forgiving with the people lower on the ladder, because that's where most people are.

>>33509593
>mosins are inaccurate, therefore implications
Please make an attempt to be less dumb.

>>33509604

Just saying that theoretical range and practical range are two different things. Here's a 30 pound crossbow shooting a six pound rock on a ballistic curve, how close would you want to stand to hit anything?

>>33509631

Fine. Pick any other service rifle with iron sights and reconsider the question, nitpicker.

>>33509639
The theoretical max range of the PIAT is never quoted as 100-110ish yards. That is the often quoted effective range, and if data supports that a skilled user would hit 60% of the time at 100 yards, that supports the notion that the PIAT had an effective range of roughly that distance.

Do you not understand logic?

>>33509050
There was a Canadian VC in Italy who knocked out 2 Mk IV s firing a piat from the hip while running across a road. His platoon mates joked he earned the VC just for firing it from the hip. He only just died a couple of years ago.

>>33509622
Wisdom.

>>33509674

"During these trials, a skilled user was unable to hit a target more than 60% of the time at 100 yards (90 m)"

Not that he would hit in 60% on average. Or that there were a lot of users that could do that well. Only that the best of their users could only do slightly better than a coin toss' chance to hit at that distance. How close would YOU stand to feel 'certain' that you could hit?

>>33509797
You seem to be placing a lot of trust in those figures.
What's their source?

>>33509797
>Not that he would hit in 60% on average
Granted, but effective range is a matter of shoot at ranges >= this number

>Or that there were a lot of users that could do that well. Only that the best of their users
Unsupported, full stop. In what world does "skilled" mean the best. A reasonable interpretation is above average proficiency, which could be anywhere from top 50% to top 30%, which even at low end is a significant minority.

>How close would YOU stand to feel 'certain' that you could hit?
Fuck off. That has no bearing on this.

>>33509953
Should have written it out.

*shoot at range of less-than-or-equal-to this number

>>33506600
All of Monty's plans were to wait until he had enough soldiers and ammo to zerg rush the Germans frontally until they ran out of ammo. It's how he won in Africa, and it was his plan in Europe also. He's literally what the Russian stereotype is.

File: 57x441mm_Brit-6pdr-Normdy.jpg (173KB, 900x889px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 900x889px

>>33508890
>the Brits had shit antitank gear

The British 6pdr (57mm) anti-tank gun was almost as good as the U.S. 3”/76mm guns, which were much bigger and heavier and of course everybody knows about the 17pdr, (76mm) that was on par with the German Panther’s 75mm gun.

The British PIAT and American (60mm) bazooka weren’t all that much different, as far as engagement range and penetration; both were only good out to about 100 yards with at best, 100mm of penetration and were last ditch anti-tank weapons (the Panzerschrek/faust being more or less the same).

>>33509937

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT

I may not be a good researcher but whoever wrote that article put in a lot of work and a lot of quotes into it. I have other sources but not online and not in front of me.

>>33508921
Eisenhower wanted Nixon off the ticket after he got btfo by Kennedy on national tv, Eisenhower being a war hero won him the presidency.

>>33510131
The same article that quotes the effective range as 100 yards or so, that one.

File: CautiousWonder.jpg (3KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 200x200px

>>33509396
yeah, nah. I enjoy living in a place where people are not put into gas chambers because of their religion.

File: korean_w.gif (33KB, 296x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 296x300px

>>33509056
>Douglas "My failures are because Truman didn't want to let me fight harder" MacArthur

Korea was wholly Truman’s failure and MacArthur fell on his sword to protect the President’s legacy (though he had to be dragged there kicking and screaming).

Sure, MacArthur should have known something was up when Chinese “volunteers” started appearing in the fall of 1950 as he pressed onto the Yalu but then the U.S. State Dept., which should have been advising him, had no fucking idea what was going on in China after WWII.

It’s the State Dept’s job (i.e. the President’s) to keep the generals up-to-date on what’s going on politically and regionally and they gave MacArthur no heads-up but then you have to remember, the China-Burma-India Theater was the least relevant of WWII and everybody figured the Chinese were just barefoot peasants with pitch-forks.

As fas as nuking China, that was just MacArthur covering his ass but he was absolutly correct about taking the war to China, or at least bombing the fuck out of their supply lines and staging areas within China (for which conventional bombing was more than enough).

Unfortunately, Truman the Haberdasher was completely out-of-his-league (he was just a “place holder” VP, as nobody expected FDR to croak) and got suckerd by Stalin into agreeing to a cease fire in the summer of 1951, right when the Communist forces in Korea were spent and broken and couldn’t resupply and reinforce their troops in the Korea peninsula in the face of American airpower.

The result of Truman’s fuck up was two more years of brutal WWI style trench warfare, only to end up right were they started…

>>33509129
His ex wifes dad.

>>33510209
How about you fuck right off

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/redacted-testimony-fully-explains-why-general-macarthur-was-fired-180960622/?utm_source=smithsoniantopic&no-ist

>The rule of excision in the hearings was to delete testimony that might compromise American security. Such testimony included remarks related to American knowledge of Chinese and especially Soviet arms and war readiness; revealing what the American side knew might tip the communists as to how the Americans knew it. Democrat Harry Byrd of Virginia asked Omar Bradley about Russian strength in the vicinity of Manchuria and North Korea. Bradley responded forthrightly, “There are 35 Russian divisions in the Far East. Nine of them are in the Vladivostok area; four in the Port Arthur-Dairen area; three in Sakhalin; two in the Kurile Islands; one near Kamchatka; and 16 others scattered along the railway from Lake Baikal on east.”

>“About 500,000 in all?” asked Byrd.

>“Thirty-five divisions, plus supporting troops, run probably something like 500,000 or more,” Bradley replied.

>Bradley’s comments were deleted when the transcript was released.

>Bradley answered: “Should Russia come in with this army strength, her naval strength, which is quite strong in submarines, and her air power, which is quite strong in the Far East—if she should come in with all of those, we might have a hard time supplying our troops in Korea and would even, under certain circumstances, have difficulty evacuating them.”

File: Operation_Uranus.gif (69KB, 720x713px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 720x713px

>>33509976

That's the hell of it too. Once the Soviets got their shit together, they weren't that stereotype at all.

>>33510131
So what's the source then?
Wikipedia cites a book. Where did he get that info from?
Not being able to actually track the claim to the source material is the sign of a lazy or stupid researcher.

>>33510352
>Omar Bradley responded that George was quite mistaken—and, by implication, that MacArthur was quite misleading. The Chinese were not fighting all out, not by a great deal. “They have not used air against our front line troops, against our lines of communication in Korea, our ports; they have not used air against our bases in Japan or against our naval air forces.” China’s restraint in these areas had been crucial to the survival of American and U.N. forces in Korea. On balance, Bradley said, the limited nature of the war benefited the United States at least as much as it did the Chinese. “We are fighting under rather favorable rules for ourselves.”

>George Marshall, the secretary of defense and a five-star general himself, made the same argument. Marshall, insisting on “the greatest concern for confidentiality,” said he had asked the joint chiefs just hours before: “What happens to the Army if we do bomb, and what happens to our Army if we don’t bomb in that way.” The chiefs’ conclusion: “Their general view was that the loss of advantage with our troops on the ground was actually more than equaled by the advantages which we were deriving from not exposing our vulnerability to air attacks.”

>The statement was silent, of course, on the secret testimony of Marshall, Bradley, Vandenberg and Collins. MacArthur thereby escaped the injury the testimony would have done his reputation, but the secrets badly eroded his support among those who should have been loudest on his behalf. Alexander Wiley, Styles Bridges and the other Republicans were compelled by the revelations about America’s vulnerability to rethink their endorsement of MacArthur and the belligerent course he favored. They didn’t recant in public; they wouldn’t give Truman that satisfaction. But they no longer looked to MacArthur as a credible alternative to Truman on military strategy or in politics.

>>33510169

Maybe we are at an impasse, then? Well, here's a different article that seems decent. Here, one user says he considered its range to be 50 yards - at most.

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/ordnance-the-british-piat-projector-infantry-anti-tank-gun/

>>33510389
From your same article

>Officially, the PIAT’s range extended to 750 yards, but the men who used it considered it reasonably dependable only to about a hundred.

And that 50 yard thing still does not contradict the commonly stated 100 yard effective range. Because the edge of an effective range is where things get rough for an average user.

File: Polish Spitfires.jpg (643KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1280x800px

>>33509283
> Are those the same Poles that got fucked over by being blamed for the over-run of the airborne troopers at Arnhem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal

“After the collapse of France in 1940, a large part of the Polish Air Force contingent was withdrawn to the United Kingdom. However, the RAF Air Staff were not willing to accept the independence and sovereignty of Polish forces.

Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding later admitted he had been "a little doubtful" at first about the Polish airmen. The British government informed General Sikorski that at the end of the war, Poland would be charged for all costs involved in maintaining Polish forces in Britain. Initial plans for the airmen greatly disappointed them: they would only be allowed to join the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, wear British uniforms, fly British flags and be required to take two oaths, one to the Polish government and the other to George VI; each officer was required to have a British counterpart, and all Polish pilots were to begin with the rank of "pilot officer", the lowest rank for a commissioned officer in the RAF.”

Thought this had less to do with Churchill (who was a romantic at heart) and the post-war bullshit was more FRD’s fault, who literally couldn’t stop sucking Stalin’s cock and saw the U.S.S.R. as some kinda Slavic version of the U.S.A.

>>33510162
You're conflating three different elections and two different Nixon kerfuffles.

>>33510209
>but he was absolutly correct about taking the war to China, or at least bombing the fuck out of their supply lines and staging areas within China

Which under the intel of the time would draw the Soviets into the war and spark WW3 you fucking moron.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ussr-and-prc-sign-mutual-defense-treaty

>>33508921
Campaigning and managing as a president/politician are very different things though. Even if what you said was true, President Eisenhower did a lot of great things and was able to balance the interests of many competing parties during the nuclear age.

File: truman stalin.jpg (88KB, 910x594px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 910x594px

>>33510352

The U.S. had better knowledge about the U.S.S.R. then we did China, which had been a back-water during WWII and with the Communist victory over the nationalists, a mysterious black hole.

But Stalin would never have invaded Korea anyway, as the Soviet’s simply couldn’t carry it off, seeing as how the U.S.S.R. was still completely fucked up from WWII and Korea was on the ass end of the continent.

The U.S. could more easily support operations across the entire breadth of the U.S. and the Pacific Ocean, then the Soviets could to Vladivostok. Not to mention that the Soviets had only detonated their first prototype nuke in late 1949, while the U.S. already had hundreds by 1950.

Face it, Truman was a weak, vacillating President and the worst choice at the worst time; he was more then happy to let MacArthur do what he wanted as long as we were winning but at the first bump in the road, he behaved like a typical Democrat and collapsed like a house of cards, allowing thousands of Americans (and bazillions of Koreas) to die for nothing.

>>33509050
The PIAT was considered the most effective small arms weapon by Canadian and British Officers. It was far from shit.

File: Boeing B-29 Superfortresss.jpg (2MB, 3000x1950px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1950px

>>33510578
>Which under the intel of the time would draw the Soviets into the war and spark WW3 you fucking moron.

With what, the one (1) nuke the Soviets would have by Sept. 1951?

>>33510646
And the gigantic standing army that would have marched to Utah Beach. They had Europe and especially Berlin in a hostage situation, numbnuts.

>>33510614
>The U.S. had better knowledge about the U.S.S.R. then we did China

The greatest American failure of the Cold War was a complete inability to understand its opponents.

The CIA couldn't get their hands on a Moscow phonebook until the end of the 1950s. China is still a mystery.

>>33510614
>which had been a back-water during WWII and with the Communist victory over the nationalists, a mysterious black hole.

But obviously somewhere above the nationalists.

>But Stalin would never have invaded Korea anyway, as the Soviet’s simply couldn’t carry it off, seeing as how the U.S.S.R. was still completely fucked up from WWII and Korea was on the ass end of the continent.

That's a big assumption. How would you prove this was the case in 1950?

>Not to mention that the Soviets had only detonated their first prototype nuke in late 1949, while the U.S. already had hundreds by 1950.

Did you read the article? The Soviets did not need to go nuclear, in the assessment of Bradley, Marshall, et al to seriously hinder operations in Korea.

>Face it, Truman was a weak, vacillating President and the worst choice at the worst time; he was more then happy to let MacArthur do what he wanted as long as we were winning but at the first bump in the road, he behaved like a typical Democrat and collapsed like a house of cards, allowing thousands of Americans (and bazillions of Koreas) to die for nothing.

If you consider listening to Marshall, Bradley, et al making reasonable arguments for why escalating in Korea was a bad idea, and by proxy consider them to weak and vacillating, be my guest.

You're still retarded

What is it?

>>33510209
Truman was a placeholder, because everyone expected him to croak. FDR's previous vp was a very popular far left liberal, that the party bosses didn't have any sway over, so they forced Truman through because he was super safe politically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace

>>33510620

The most effective one by officers whose only alternatives were useless antitank rifles, yeah.

It's not as if the PIAT was worthless. But compared with all other comparable weapons of the war it fell short.

>>33510759
They ranked it above the Bren in terms of effectiveness, the thing about the PIAT is that it's useable as not only an AT weapon but as a anti-infantry and emplacement weapon as well. Its like a short ranged mortar that can kill a tank.

>>33510774

And a short range mortar is a wonderful thing. But when it weights 30 pounds and is meant for one man carry - afaik - that's a bit rough. Even the M1 bazooka and the heaviest panzerfaust model only weighed half of that.

>>33510620
found the worthless canadian faggot

>>33510006

The 6 pdr had similar anti-armor performance to the 75mm, not the 3" or 76mm.

>>33509396
Oh grow up.

>>33509449
Churchill despised Stalin. His entire life he had distrusted Communists. His attitude was the enemy of my enemy is my friend and he was right. Hitler was the bigger ,more immediate threat. So, make "friends "with Joe for now. The bit about deporting Poles after the war, disgraceful.

Monty was by far the best General of World War 2, not only was he a superior tactician compared the Germans, he lead from the front, he fought with his men and he done god's work. A true gentlemen. Truly the victor of World War Two.

>>33510614
>But Stalin would never have invaded Korea anyway, as the Soviet’s simply couldn’t carry it off, seeing as how the U.S.S.R. was still completely fucked up from WWII and Korea was on the ass end of the continent.
>implying stalin hadn't been eyeing the far east since fucking pre-ww2 russio-japan conflicts
>implying the uyghur region wasn't a clusterfuck of russians vs muslims vs chingchongs for hundreds of years
>implying roosevelt didn't have to sign multiple agreements specifically telling russians to fuck off from manchuria and don't fight the kmt while they were at it
>implying russians didn't already passive aggressively give aid to mao when american muhreens acted like retards in the port arthur area
>implying the first bomb dropped past the yalu wouldn't be the go signal for august storm 2.0

>>33512971
Shitfuck, Monty's ghost has access to computers.

Anyone played Starcraft against a complete incompetent lately? Maybe the old fuck is hiding in your C drive. Check the porn folders.

>>33513461

>Monty's Ghost
>Implying he isn't locked in hell with all the men he got killed

>>33505653
Monty was an incompetent moron who only got command positions because he was buddies with higher ups.

>>33509064
Yeah, he wanted to invade.

File: lmfao.png (58KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 256x256px

>>33505653
>giving a flying fuck about generals

File: 6pdr.jpg (82KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1280x720px

>>33510846
>The 6 pdr had similar anti-armor performance to the 75mm, not the 3" or 76mm.

The British 6 pdr (57mm L/43-50) had 80-90mm of penetration, while the U.S. M3 75mm (75mm L/40) did 70mm and the U.S. 3” and 76mm guns (76mm L/50-52) was around 95mm.

File: Churchill.jpg (1MB, 1503x2200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1503x2200px

>>33511257
>Churchill despised Stalin.

Indeed, it was FDR, whose administration was infested with communists, who actually thought Stalin was a good boy who dindu nothing.

But there was nothing Churchill could do about it, as the UK was fucked after the war and needed the U.S.

File: Otto Skorzeny.jpg (63KB, 700x1010px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x1010px

>That time during the Ardennes Offensive, one of Otto Skorzeny's men posed as Monty for several days, and when the real Monty went through a checkpoint the impostor used hours prior, he had his wheels shot out and was arrested for several hours until they could confirm his identity.

File: 11th Arm_1st Arm veteran.png (631KB, 960x635px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 960x635px

>>33509342
>See, the first thing Churchill did was put them on a boat to Poland where Churchill's ole buddy Stalin was waiting.

This never happened, the troops of Free Polish Army in the West settled throughout the the West after war.

None of them were forced to return to Soviet dominated Poland, though some did of their own accord to reunite with family and such and many of them, were sent to Siberian gulags or simply executed (the Soviets killed at least 100,000 Poles after "liberating" them...)

My Polish mom was in Belgium when it was liberated and immigrated to the U.S. in the early 50s and my dad had escaped to Italy just as the war ended, and immigrated to Canada in the late 1940s.

>>33510578
>>33510735
>>33513295

The Soviets weren't going to risk nuclear annihilation for China, let alone North fucking Korea.

Stalin would have supplied China with arms (as he did) and bitched about expanding the war into China but that's as far as it would have gone.

>>33505886
Then it was poorly executed. Which would mean it was shit

>>33512971

'Best' is a soft term for a general. Is ruthlessness what makes you best, or personal braveness, or strategic skills, or merely wins? Monty, Patton, Bradley, Rommel and Shukov were all though bastards. Bradley is the only one I think actually cared for the welfare of his soldiers.

>>33517578

Right. And your comment on the video I posted earlier and the veterans' statements on what happened? Lying old bastards?

>>33518126
>. Bradley is the only one I think actually cared for the welfare of his soldiers.
Eisenhower was known to go meet with the soldiers regularly while planning overlord to get to know his men and understand who he was sending to war. It's said that when the airborne units took off, he saluted their planes with tears in his eyes.

>>33518246

Eisenhower was a politician. Traveling to the safe back areas to shake hands with random soldiers while the news cameras were running seems kind of... familiar. Turkey dinner, anyone?

>>33518783
Yeah, and he was really shitty when it came to handling his generals. He would give second and third chances to chronically incompetent officers. It astounded the Germans, who would fire their Generals if even a sign of ineptitude was displayed. Meanwhile men like Mark Clark could capture open cities, and allow an entire Army to escape unmolested and get a mere slap on the wrist.

>>33506618
[citation needed]

>>33509115
>get proven wrong
>act like a cunt anyway
wow

>>33509396
>>>>>/pol/

>>33505886
Market Garden was a risky plan. Sure, it could have worked but it just as likely could have failed even worse and given the Nazis back the initiative.

>>33519676
>proven
t. no statistics or logical background

>>33518833
He could not just fire people the way the Germans could. Sure he made mistakes but he had to deal with US demands , British demands, French demands besides the smaller players, Canada, Poles etc. It would be like herding cats.

>>33520325

>there's 2 examples of people saying [this]
>>No there isn't!
>Yes there is, and here's the proof
>>That's too anecdotal
???

>>33520472
>there's 2 examples of people saying [this]
Out of thousands of operators

>Yes there is, and here's the proof
Here's another guy saying in an article that quotes 100 yards as the max effective range

And here's a study that a skilled user had a reasonable chance of hitting a target at 100 yards

So, which is the more likely statement

Effective range<=100 yards
or
Effective range<=30 yards

Use your brain

>>33520492

If you wanted to object to an overall claim about accuracy, you should have done so from the start, rather than questioning the fact that two examples exist instead.
Because now by changing your argument, you've lost any credibility.

>inb4 you say you're someone else
Doesn't matter. The onus of making a fresh argument with that information fell to you, and you failed to do so.

>>33520534
My overall claim was about that anon's claim that the PIAT had an effective range of a hand grenade/20-30m, numbnuts

Operators preferring to engage within 100yards and a study showing that it was reasonably possible to hit targets at 100 yards goes far more to support "effective range <=yards" then "effective range <30 yards."

>>33520581

>My overall claim was about that anon's claim that the PIAT had an effective range of a hand grenade/20-30m, numbnuts

Then you should have quoted that and objected to that.
You've argued against the wrong part and lost because of it.
Be more careful next time.

>>33506618
Patton wasn't getting any traction with the Germans until they learned of the Falaise Pocket push he executed against Monty's wishes. Patton wasn't "feared" until the Ardennes

File: D-Day map.png (2MB, 1265x1011px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1265x1011px

>>33520385
>He could not just fire people the way the Germans could.

Well, yeah he could, that's what being Supreme Allied Commander means (especially when it comes to shit-canning an American officer).

Now FDR or George Marshall could step in and overrule Eisenhower, but something like that would have been left up to him.

That was his job.

But overall, Eisenhower was perfectly suited for the position and did a great job, the few mistakes notwithstanding.

File: naval_bombardments_on_d-day.png (3MB, 1498x1013px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1498x1013px

>>33520671
>Patton wasn't getting any traction with the Germans

Nonsense, the Germans were fully aware of Patton from North Africa, Sicily and Italy and knew he was the most aggressive General the Allies had, thus it made perfect sense to the Germans that Patton would be in command of First Army Group, that was poised in Dover to pounce on Calais (this being a ruse by the Allies, of course).

This threat from Patton caused the Germans to hold their forces around Calais until it was too late and the actual beachhead was established because to the Germans (who had zero experience with amphibious invasions and thought seizing a port city was the only way to do it) thought that was obviously the best place to invade and if you’re going to invade, you want your most aggressive General in charge.