Page generated in 0.028 seconds
Total duration
782 users online
640,931 hits today, 1,872,792 yesterday
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
Love the chapter especially the general Patton quote 🥾🥾
Look like everything's coming together. The start of a long war is coming.
Exciting stuff, everything is coming together.
Hmm, these sieges and current tactics seems to be similar to the Zulu Kingdom.
Also, how big are these kingdoms and the landmasses they are on? Or, how does the world look, if they even have a World Map to begin with?
So Ismat and Adil will take awhile to reach Iuny, while the majority of Isubiso's forces will meet up with Nyah's and attack Wete... though likely there will be a shite ton of blood, so far they haven't stepped on any pitfall traps yet... and I'm still waiting for that one pitfall trap on the hill to make an appearance.
10562668
There is a map, crude, but its a map. Check my fimfic blog post and follow the information.
10562724
Well it would be rather boring if Adil's forces were close enough to actually save Wete, would make for a very short story hm?
10562150
Glad you liked it, thought it was rather fitting since this is supposed to be a story about a warlord.
cool. the setup was interesting but I am more than ready to get to the warlording.
Pretty decent chapter.
So, seems Weete going to be the center of the main clash too after a far longer siege
While Patton.. was very good at PR, he wasn't a good commander as he cared more for lines n a map than the lives of his men or the strategic situation.
the longer the chapter the better
10563254
He was still far better than Omar Bradley, that guy was worthless. Also, most of what caused Patton trouble, remained his extremely feudal view of how things should operate. As such, the men under him were assets to be expended and he was renown for demanding insane requirements in the field such as always being spit polished even during heavy fighting. He was SO feudal he became the brunt of army jokes, such as Bill Mauldin who enjoyed poking at him. On the other hand, he did have a good grasp of things and understood that speed was key to victory. He exchanged lives in order to gain that speed and history has poked at him viciously for it but he proved to be wiser than most wanted to admit. As for PR? Mixed bag, on the one hand the public loved him because he won while everyone else choked (like Bradley and Montgomery) but the Allied command HATED him beyond reason because he wanted to buck them off and go his own way.
Another major issue people have with Patton that is ill founded is that while he was the embodiment of a Napoleonic officer, he really did know how to read a map. As such he understood just how important those lines were such as during the Italian campaign and even more so during the Falaise Pocket, he saw what was going on and screamed and hollered for resources to close the gap but Allied command shunted him on the spot. He was proven right of course.
The catch is in warfare, a good officer must understand and accept that losses are to be expected because in war young men die. That is the cold, absolute, truth. You exchange lives for objectives. Today, so many are pampered with the idea that just ten casualties a day is beyond horrific they forget just how savage war really is when both sides can hit just as hard as the other. History likes to make fun of him for that, and while I do agree his flittant attitude with soldiers lives was abnormal, it was not entirely unjustified all of the time. Sometimes you just get into a fight where you have to accept some very hard blows and losses to come out on top, not with numbers, but for the bigger picture. So to say he was ignorant of the strategic situation is a misnomer, the man proved to be more aware than anyone else and as a student of WW2 and military history in general, he was proven absolutely right. He understood what was going on, the strategic situation, he knew what the enemy was thinking, anticipated them, successfully I might add, and urged his superiors to seize opportunities that were immediately passed up.
While I may not "like" Patton, I do like him as a commander, a general. He knew how to make decisions, was not afraid to butt heads with those higher than him and kept the bigger picture in mind while everyone else played politics rather than war. Had it not been for his Napoleonic attitude towards the men under his command I would respect him even more, but I will always say I will never respect Montgomery, Bradley nor Eisenhower. They played politics and played it safe, that cost more lives than Patton ever did such as Operation Market Garden and the battle of Huertgen Forest which was entirely Bradley's mistake.
To understand a ranking officer is to have perspective. Never harass an officer off hand because while some certainly deserve it, some are just making the best of a bad situation as Patton was with his inferior tanks, supply lines, a command structure that blocked him more than the enemy and "allies" that proved twice as dangerous as the Germans.
And therefor, I give you Patton: the Napoleonic general, out of his time but with a crisp, clear understanding of maps, lines, objectives and the only general in the allied army who understood armored warfare. A smart man, smarter than most in the war, but he had flaws as all men do.
10563800
I agree on the whole with what you said, but I feel some overstates his skill neglecting to consider the impact of his command staff (this incs the bad he did too).
Patton at times was correct, such as the slow speed of the American forces linking up with the Commonwealth forces to close the pocket.
But he was more focused on his own image and needless concern over moving lines on a map than consider the strategic or tactical issues. I do not believe he was a smart man, he just was focused on making the fastest/largest movements- to the detriment of Logistics of the entire Western Front.
To put it another way, he was a loose cannon who always believed he knew best. My issue with Patton is more he is over-hyped/exaggerated in his skill & impact. He was competent enough and was fairly typical of the more aggressive Allied commanders.
I do have a general that I have little time for: General Mark Clark. Especially due to his (likely desperate) actions during the Italian campaign.
10563140
That would instantly end the story, if Adil and his army ever reached Wete, they found the sudden village having defenses and walls, and question then drag Verik back to the capital. Anyway, awesome chapter still, can't wait for the next one to come!
10564084
I disagree. As it can be spun for simply improving the capacity of the village- the temporary walls can be put as having forewarning from fleeing refugees
10563824
I disagree with your assessment of Patton, it was his boldness and hotheaded attitude on the western front that showed all the faults. The original American plan was a two pronged assault into France that would divide the already weakened Wehrmacht, and the plan stood to! It was a very good plan that was to take the strain off supply issues and Patton was to invade southern France, but out of the blue... Eisenhower changed his mind in favor of what BRITAIN wanted which was a WW1 trench fight of locking shoulders across a continent and then slowly marching forward. Again, the original American plan was to just blast a hole in the enemy lines and go for the kill because everyone KNEW the Germans would blow all the bridges over the Rhine, but not if WE got there FIRST! Patton was FURIOUS at this blatantly pro-British change and lambasted Eisenhower throughout the entire war for it because it cost us a tremendous amount of lives that need not have been lost. And, it was because of this that so much pressure built up around Patton, he still wanted to get back to the original plan and create massive breakouts that would sever the enemies supply lines, but was blocked every step of the way by Eisenhower and Bradley, but also Montgomery who despised him for being "too rash." I would venture to say that his attention to public image was due to the fact that Monty, Bradley and Ike were out to get him at every turn and he understood (willingly or otherwise) that his only lifeline remained the American public. By keeping himself in the limelight at all times it made it physically impossible to sack him and allowed him to keep his command and keep fighting. Even Bradley admitted he would have enjoyed nothing more than to destroy Patton, and gods knows he tried!
To some, such as you, this makes him a horrible loose cannon. But to others, such as myself, it makes him a very knowledgeable and wise general who know how the deck was being stacked and tried to break free of it before it cost everyone. And it did. It was not just that he was right so often (as opposed to your belief that he was sometimes right) but also that he refused to play ball with the political crowd that gave him a bad name. He saw command and conquest as the foremost duty of an officer with politics having no part in anything. He did LEARN that importance, starting when he was a young man under Pershing, but he never really dove into it like Ike, Monty or Bradly who breathed politics instead of war.
One must also remember that a lot of flack Patton gets is also because of the mistakes of others who gave him bad orders (Italy, he realized it and saved Montgomery to his ever lasting shame but Monty refused to his dying days to admit he had been proven wrong) or just cut him off. A major reason Patton suffered casualties that makes people choke these days is because every time he made a major break through Monty would demand and howl that he needed all that fuel for his own tanks so he could have the glory for the British Empire. And it COST them everything too I might add! As such, Patton was hamstrung constantly by high command and as he proved himself to be more dangerous than all other allied commanders combined, the Wehrmacht actually gave up anticipating the other snail generals and focused on him. The end result was a great deal of German effort was placed in stopping Patton over the others as they once had a general like that themselves: Rommel. They understood just how dangerous this kind of commander was and if allowed to run free, the kind of damage he would do. Result? Patton had to take on far more than the others. Hell, Monty in his botched (and OH do I mean BOTCHED! HORRIBLE planning! If any!) Operation Market Garden was stuck fighting burned out formations that were being yanked because they could no longer fight and he STILL lost. Why? Those reinforcements were bound for the Eastern Front or towards wherever they believed Patton would pop up.
Therefor, one must also realize that while Patton had faults, and that NO general can win all of his battles nor make the correct decision 100% (Or even 80%) of the time, he had a very good winning streak to his name. He gained ground, scared the enemy, fought off two enemies at once: his own superiors and the enemy. And, on top of it all made more advances than anyone else. It is all of these things that makes Patton such a hotbed of contention for historians and the military: because no matter how you word things, it remains a fact he received the short end of the stick, had more shit heaped on him than anyone else, was cut off by his own superiors constantly, the focus of the enemy while cut off and the list keeps extending the deeper you travel down the Patton Rabbit Hole. So, I shall say it again: He was an outstanding general, but one in a very bad position on all fronts with just as many knives poised to strike from his supposed allies as from the enemy.
Now, I want to remark on the importance of moving lines on a map. Look up the Battle of Huertgen Forest, that is a prime example of why you need to keep battle lines moving. Bradley was 100% at fault for the disaster that happened because American forces had already taken the German defenses but he ordered them to abandon the Siegfried line and to stand down as the Germans moved in, dug in deeper and brought in the big guns. Any good general knows that if you permit the enemy time to rest and the lines to settle they will begin digging in and the next battle will be twice as hard. I will never consider it "pointless" nor anything less than all important to focus on where battle lines are drawn because if you dont get the enemy off of that line you will be in deep trouble. Especially if it is a darn good defensive position such as Monte Cassino or Huertgen. Do not be quick to dismiss lines because inevitable lines are drawn based upon terrain and logistics, the later being where the true war lay: in cutting them off from fuel, ammo and supplies! Patton grasped this and it was a major focus of his, to keep blasting the enemies lines and keep their logistics line in shambles.
All this talk of Patton and mention of Bradley reminds me of a story I wish to share just for the hell of it as it shows who Bradly really was when put on the spot (It makes we wonder how Patton would have behaved!): During Huertgen, Bradly visited the lines and showed up in full pomp and circumstance, a captain nearby tried to warn him off as the Germans were slipping snipers through but Bradly had a major sitting in the jeep with him scream down the captain for not saluting and having the other men nearby jump to attention. Well, there just happened to BE a sniper watching the commotion and as Bradly sat there furious with the captain while the major shouted, the sniper fired. The major dropped dead onto Bradly and the might general lost his mind and started screaming at the driver to get him away, oh how the mighty had been cut down to size. This was not the only case during the battle where something similar happened but I thought I would share it with you, as I stipulated it makes me wonder how Patton would have behaved had it been him. Another general (cant remember his name) nearly suffered the same fate while trying to show off and fell flat in the mud screaming like a girl while a nearby group (rifle company reduced by casualties, some companies had only 12 men left during Huertgen yet were ordered to attack anyway!) watched with mouths open in disbelief.
Also, my favorite general remains one no one has ever really heard of but what a fellow! General Merrill, fought in the Pacific theater, oh what a genius when it came to advancing war theory by a century even while his superiors did their best to get him offed. I really suggest you look him up as it is a damn fine story to read about Merrill's Marauders. All a bunch of misfits, washouts, criminals, bottom of the bucket according to the war department and just downright worthless by everyone else's account or just declared "no longer useful." But my god did they kick the Imperial Army in the balls and make them howl! Look them up! It is a worthy read.
10564915
That plan would not have taken the strain off the supply issue.
Lack of operational ports, rolling stock and the destruction of the US assigned Mulberry harbour hamstrung the French front in terms of logistics. And no, it was most certainly not a "ww1" strategy being employed but a more cautions approach to prevent being encircled (as the Germans always counterattcked the fist change they got) and due to the logistical chokepoints in the system.
He was opposed by the other generals because he IGNORED orders & chain of command, regularly ruining the strategic level for tactical gains.
The difference, is that taking key point are important, as he highlighted with the Falase Pocket he also wanted them moved just for the sake of moving regardless of the tactical/strategic situation. Costing excessive lives and wasted resources.
Again, he only cared out his front, not the strategic picture. He was not only crippling the British but other American fronts with his hyper aggressive style.
Operation Market & Operation Garden were a failure in their overall objective. It was done to justify the Army sitting in the UK twiddling it's thumbs. There are plenty of books out there that already cover the failures and success of it inc the planning- such as the extreme distrust of resistance intelligence as the "French" resistances were utterly utterly unreliable in everything they did. It did provide for what it cost, however, a strong base to clear southern Netherlands which greatly helped the supply issues.
The biggest failures of the entire operation was the inability to have all the transports to deliver all the men on day 1, and the American commander wanting to sit on a hill outside of Nijmegen rather than push to the bridge as ordered- resulting in 30 Corp having to fight for the bridge themselves.
He was not a outstanding General, nor was he given the short end of the stick. Simply he failed to do his job and failed to follow command ignoring the strategic picture for his own personal fame. He was not incompetent, but his lust for glory is what drove him regardless of the damage he did to everybody else.
So no he was not cut off by his fellow officers and they were not out to get him, he alienated and cut himself off from his fellow allied commanders.
It is clear you most certainly support hyper aggressive stance he took. But all it did was cost more lives and material than necessary. Patton, was not incompetent, but you most certainly give him too much credit.
I still stand by General Mark Clark being one of the worst allied commanders.
10564981
I disagree entirely and whole heatedly with what you have said. The British did favor a WW1 type advance and the lack of ports was a result of massive Allied failures in bothering with the various ports available, such as western France, whose German garrisons were left alone for most of the war despite the need for extra ports. Yes, the plan of invading southern France would have brought in a much needed second supply line as was proven without doubt in the failures after D-Day to bring in needed support. There were just not enough roads, pipes or rail to move what was needed and they were so slow to move that the Germans blew key ports hamstringing efforts.
Just because an enemy is going to counter attack does not mean you turtle up and slow your pace favoring their situation, it means you counter act it as Patton did with rear guard units (old military tactic that works) and keep pressing them hard. So long as the enemy remains pressed they will be unable to prepare defenses nor be able to make a worthy counter attack. It is when you sit and slowly drag yourself forward in fear of enemy retaliation that you get a Falaise Pocket situation, the Germans knew they had no chance but they counter attacked knowing their enemy would fall back to safety thus buying them time. That is exactly what Patton understood, that the Germans were finished, were making desperate attacks to buy time and that it was time to push harder and end things. Yes, you take casualties for it but the trade off is do you take your losses now or lose more later on? He did not want forces moved for the sake of it either, getting troops on the move to anywhere other than doing nothing is important and as he was circling the Falaise pocket he kept demanding more troops to act as rear guard, sealing off egress while he advanced. Instead, allied command either left them where they were or threw them blindly in a straight on engagement rather than complete the circle. He was the only general taking ground and sealing them off and it was entirely allied commands fault for not recognizing this fact and cutting off his access to the resources he needed to finish the job. The only ones ruining tactics and strategy were the other commanders, not Patton, he favored the flank and cut off not the blind head on assault that took place.
Patton cared only about his front because he knew what he had going for him: openings. War is not about big long lines but making holes and exploiting them to the best of your ability. He proved he was more than capable of making those holes and exploiting them only he was never given the chance to fully take advantage of it. He ruined nothing, now Monty and Bradly? They ruined things badly on several occasions. The resources those two squandered is proof of it.
As for Operation Market Garden, true, there are plenty of books out there covering the details. However, Monty was the one who wanted a dash at glory and the rest was simply his justification for the half baked plan he came up with. It cost men their lives for no good reason, had those men and resources been thrust into the other forces on the move it would have brought much needed relief. Also consider what happened to the Germans in WW1 when they tried a similar maneuver, they were slaughtered; a historical precedence had been set but no one listened, even as the Belgian government in exile screamed at Monty no less.
Yes, I am hyper aggressive, in war you must be for you must never permit your opponent to rest nor regroup. That is why I favor mobile warfare and para-conventional tactics. Patton and Merrill were two generals who embodied this belief and I support them for it, Patton not entirely, but I do support him all the same over the others in the European theater. As the saying goes: "A good offense is the best defense." Or as the Romans said: "When in doubt, attack." It is also clear to me, that you support dragging things out to play it safe rather than take chances and drive the enemy hard. So look at it like this: you are Bradly wanting the comfort of well thought out lines, details, details, details and a slow, cautious approach. I, on the other hand am Patton, favoring smacking the enemy with a baseball bat again and again until they collapse and to hell with neat, orderly maps and caution. To you, the best way is to plot and plan, take your time. Mine is to strike them before they have a chance to plot and plan. You and I are two opposites, because I do not see him wasting resources but doing quite well under the circumstances. You see him as almost useless, a detriment to the army, but he was the only one who utilized mobility to its fullest. We shall never agree, that is obvious as we both are of two different schools, but I will never stand down from saying Patton was a fine general who needed more support than what he got. Compare him to Bradly the lapdog, Eisenhower the dancing politician or Montgomery the twaddler? I will take Patton.
Curiosity though, whom do YOU find the best general of WW2? Merrill is my top choice followed by Patton as you well know (and Rommel a third) despite the fact I would hate him personally if we ever met. Ironically when those who served under Patton were asked, they all hated him as the person but admired him as the general.
10565123
We're going to keep disagreing over this.
You prefer hyper-aggressive at the excessive cost of resources & logistics. I prefer a more methodical approach that reduces costs and does not hamper logistics.
Also, Montgomery was not the one whom came up with the plan for Market Garden, he just rubber stamped it. It is still his fault for not ensuring a more effective plan was produced along with scapegoating the Polish.
Patton cared for advance then his men, Monty cared for the men then the advance.
Ironside, Alan Brooke, Slim, Montgomery (Africa & Normandy) & Guderian
(who was the one who actually developed a British officers idea of combined arms using mechanised forces)Also no, I'm not Bradley, tbh I am closer to Monty than him. Prepare and strike with overwhelming force. Taking time to take in the details and plan, while also not getting so obsessed with the fine detail i miss the strategic or tactical situation.
End of the day, no plan fully survives contact with the enemy.
Tldr love he became the "Barbarin of the desert" for the good old movie of Conan.
Love how the "People" of the village are smart enough to think on their own.
The ultimate climax of the war is about to happen so I wait with atasapaytion of what's to come.
10564848
True, but once word reaches Fareed's ears, he's going to want that village investigated, either way, Verik loses the element of surprise.
10566168
We shall see.
10565361
10565123
I personally favor striking fast and hard, If you let the enemy build up defenses and entrench then it gets much harder to dislodge them and then your stuck wasting men trying to break through. Supply lines are a worry though (See Operation Barbarossa). If rails are incompatible with my trains the only thing todo is design a vehicle specifically for carrying supplies close to the front.
10570628
There is a fine balance.
Wait too long, and they are entrenched like with the botched Salerno landing.
Led by the immensely incompetent Mark W. Clark who failed to do what the entire point of the landings were meant to do- outflank the front line and force it's collapse.
Stike too early, and your own forces are not effective and disorganised- or worse under supplied.
The entire Battle of the Bulge was purely down to Patton overextending himself, leaving the allied lines vulnerable. Simultaneously, the German attack was a desperate and premature attack made out of necessity & political factors.
I love Verik's barbarian impression. XD