Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Blixs....As a Brit I think that Ike was the right man for the job, he was not a brilliant General tactically but he was a great a man manager and kept the Allies working as a team, and he picked a good team and gave them their heads to get on with planning the war. Now you say he gave Montgomery to much power for bad ideas, and what bad ideas were these?. Now what about Ike covering for Generals like Mark Clark, this General changed the orders given to the landing forces at Anzino with out telling the General in charge General Alexandra. He told the landing forces that they should not advance until they had their full strength a shore, and by then the Germans had reacted turning the beach head in to a killing zone. Then he ignored his orders to cut of the retreating German troops from Monte Casino, and decided instead to take Rome and let the Germans go and doing so prolonged the war in Italy. Now have you ever read about Mark Clark's attack on Hargimont Forest in 1944, now that was a classic.

Indeed he was good at management,MacArthur even said of Ike:

"The best clerk I've ever had."

But he was a poor military general,he used Patton's success,like many Allied generals,to boost his fame and further his career.

As for Montgomery,an able general,but not brilliant,often glorified by the press for propaganda reasons,he fell in love with his own legend.

He was a poor general and this showed in the battlfield,most noted was Operation Market Garden and his dagger like thrust idea over the Rhine.

I personally believe that Patton was a far better general than these two combined.He foresaw the gap in the German line,that had he had the oil,would have arrived at Berlin long before the Soviets came close.He was highly feared and respected by the German High Command for his abilities as a commander and general.

I like this. "The Generals in charge of the allied forces were incompetent." Tell me, who won the war?

All keep in mind that if Patton had his way we would have kept going over the Elbe and attacking the Soviet forces. If MacArthur had things his way we would have invaded China in 1951.

Originally Posted by Obvious

For not dropping an atomic bomb on Stalingrad.

I hope it was a joke.

If not, could you, please, elaborate a little, what kind of benefits it could(would) bring to the US?

Originally Posted by Blixs

I personally believe that Patton was a far better general than these two combined.He foresaw the gap in the German line,that had he had the oil,would have arrived at Berlin long before the Soviets came close.He was highly feared and respected by the German High Command for his abilities as a commander and general.

Patton was a great offensive general. I dont think he could have dealt with the Russians as for example Von Manstein did. Patton great offensive general, but not sure about his defensive ability.

Originally Posted by Obvious

For not dropping an atomic bomb on Stalingrad.

Atomic havn't made until about 1945. Battle at Stalingrad was in late 1941 to early 42.

Please, explain us more why you think it is biggest mistake for USA not to bomb on Stalingrad?

Atomic havn't made until about 1945. Battle at Stalingrad was in late 1941 to early 42.

Please, explain us more why you think it is biggest mistake for USA not to bomb on Stalingrad?

Why not Moscow to while were at it, we had the nukes the russiand didnt we should of blasted it to hell, smart people in the US saw what was comeing next.

Originally Posted by Reiben

Patton was a great offensive general. I dont think he could have dealt with the Russians as for example Von Manstein did. Patton great offensive general, but not sure about his defensive ability.

Patton could be daring, but his ego could make him extremely reckless. For example his entire 3rd Army ran out of gas at Meuse because he wouldnt wait for his supply lines to catch up. Had the Germans counterattacked he would have been a sitting duck. He was generally a abhorrant person distrusted by by the enlisted personnel and the senior staff.

Ike was right to put him in a broom closet, personnaly I prefer Omar Bradley.

Originally Posted by Fox

Atomic havn't made until about 1945. Battle at Stalingrad was in late 1941 to early 42.

Please, explain us more why you think it is biggest mistake for USA not to bomb on Stalingrad?

Battle of Stalingrad was from August 1942 until February 1943

Let's get back on topic!
Which is this:

Following on from German mistakes, what about the U.S.A., did they make many blunders in the categories below.

Battlefield (i.e.specific battles, campaigns or operations)
Non-Battlefield (i.e. production decisions, etc.)
Political (alliances, promotions, demotions, etc.)

Originally Posted by Rabs

Why not Moscow to while were at it, we had the nukes the russiand didnt we should of blasted it to hell, smart people in the US saw what was comeing next.

I think, this suggesstion is:

1. beyond the scope of the question (USA has not obtained the nukes until after VD-E(5/8/1945) and those few bombs had another destination. Did you forget that at that time Japan has not surrendered yet and the US needed the Soviet help(to fight in Manchjuria and, possibly, in Japan?)
2. What about the outright treachery - to nuke an ally(even as evil as it was) as soon as the common goal is achieved? And that nation just lost more than 20 million people fighting the common enemy...
3. USA didn't have enough bombs to bring the USSR to it's knees in 1945.
In the same time, Red Army, would wipe the Americans from Continental Europe within a month - so vast the superiority was in their troop strenth, tanks, artillery and front line aviation.

If Patton was serious when he was talking about starting a new war - against the Russians in 1945, then he was just a madman, IMO.