The generalship of Mark Clark

[Meyer]

Chistopher Bassford's response to Tony Corn's article: http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/OnCornyIdeas.htm

[JWB]

Rich Wed 28 Nov 2007 2020

Riiiight. Like the Russian Federation, China, Iran....

The vast majority of the worlds military power exists in proper republics.

 

That is quite possibly the silliest statement you have made in an absolute blizzard of silliness. The American Civil War, World War I and II were won by the opposite of a direct attack?

WW2 was one by attacking across cumulative frontage greater than Germany had manpower to hold. That is not a direct attck.

 

Clausewitz thought reserves were "foolish"?

 

Chapter 11:

"The best strategy is to be very strong; first in general, and then at the decisive point. Apart from the effort needed to create military strength, which does not always emanate from the general, there is no higher and simpler law of strategy than that of keeping one's forces concentrated. No force should ever be detached from the main body unless the need is definite and urgent. We hold fast to this principle, and regard it as a reliable guide."

 

If reserves are "good" how can they stay with the main when it attacks and remain a reserve?

 

So if the force is to remain concentrated how did the Allies win by spreading their forces far and wide?

[Jim Martin]

The above is so ignorant of military strategy, I don't even know where to begin.

[KingSargent]

You, a military historian are accusing me of mental masturbation? Pot calling kettle.......pot calling kettle......

 

I refuse to answer them because they are irrelevant. Military historians are all the same. The obsessive pursuit of trivial details results in intellectual compression making it impossible to understand anything else. The construction of facilities can be done with resources inside of Italy itself in a matter of several days to a couple of weeks. And if you argue against that statement it simply means that you have no understanding of construction. Do you know why it would be easier to produce concrete in Italy than to produce concrete in the UK then ship it to Italy? Did you know that parachute drying can be carried out with towers made from telephone poles that were already in Italy by the million? Do you know how to determine the change in drop velocity of a paratrooper based upon is all-up weight and parachute diameter?

They are irrelevant because they blow your fantasies to Hell?

FYI, BillB is quite experienced in construction, probably with several decades more experience in the trades that you have been alive.

Do YOU know that much of the transport that you imagine was available was bringing food to feed Italians? Do you know how bad the destruction and dislocation of the Italian infrastructure was? List for us the OPERATING concrete-producing firms in Italy in 1943. Provide a list of operating railroads and roads that will move your Italian-produced concrete to the sites where it is needed. Include lists of what areas will not receive food because you are moving concrete with the pitiful remains of a transport infrastructure that wasn't too great before it was bombed to Hell.

Do you suppose your training bases will be built by indigenous labor composed of starving women and orphans? Or are you going to use the Engineers who were struggling to build supply routes to support the men freezing their butts off in the mountains?

I wonder if all those telephone poles might have been carrying military communication traffic? Do you supposed some frontline commander might become a tad incensed with you if you remove the pole supporting the wire he needs to call artillery fire?

 

I could post a list of C-47s in Italy on January 18 1944 and you would respond by demanding to know the names of the pilots or the detailed repair reports of the aircraft or the tail number of the aircraft or other such historical rubbish and folly. Historians are like a forester pointing to a grove of trees and proclaiming " Hey look, a tree."

Just because the "historical rubbish and folly" exposes your inane foolishness for what it is is no reason to become vitriolic.

 

Yet another perfect example of tour confusion of what I have written:

Yes the 82nd was still in Italy in early Nov. 1943 when SHINGLE was planned and would be able to help train the FNGs.

Sure. Right after being pulled out of the line at Anzio, they are going to become parachute instructors. Why don't you find out just what kind of shape a troop is in after months of front-line combat?

 

How do you know all of that training was actually needed for paras carrying only a Garand, helmet and water bottle?

And you have no conception of how useless a soldier is in modern combat "carrying only a Garand, helmet and water bottle;" with no heavy weapons support, no ration supply chain, no ammo resupply, no communications network, no medical facilities (especially necessary after a paradrop of untrained troops)? The support weapons for a normal infantry division wouldn't even fit into a C-47 or a 1943 glider. Why do you think paras used small pack howitzers for artillery? The infantry divisional artillery bns are supposed to shrink-wash their 105s down to 75mm size?

 

Not many lives in Italy. Over the cousre of the entire war yes. Now can you tell us why the Allies invaded Italy.

Because they were too dumb to cooperate on a strategy and the Brits were terrified of facing Jerry in France - they might have had reason to be terrified, but can anyone seriously argue that they were NOT terrified?

 

Because Anzio harbor was already clogged.

And if the harbor is clogged, where are the rations to feed the extra men "dropping in" going to come from?

If the harbor is too clogged to bring in reinforcements, it is too clogged to support reinforements brought in another way. For one minor thing, who is supposed to unload the supplies for the extra men - begging the question of actual existence of 'extra' men and supplies?

 

Filling in as Troll-Feeder for the vacationing Rich

[Rich]

The vast majority of the worlds military power exists in proper republics.

 

Uh-huh? Like The Russian Federation, China, and Iran? Or does the US plus the EU equal a "vast majority"?

 

WW2 was one by attacking across cumulative frontage greater than Germany had manpower to hold. That is not a direct attck.

That is quite possibly the most fatuous statement I have ever read.

 

Chapter 11:

"The best strategy is to be very strong; first in general, and then at the decisive point. Apart from the effort needed to create military strength, which does not always emanate from the general, there is no higher and simpler law of strategy than that of keeping one's forces concentrated. No force should ever be detached from the main body unless the need is definite and urgent. We hold fast to this principle, and regard it as a reliable guide."

 

How does that support your contention theat Clauswitz "thought" that reserves were "foolish"? Where in fact does that address reserves at all? He is talking about the principal of the concentration of force in Chapter 11, not reserves. Trying reading Chapter 13 in Book 3 as I suggested two weeks ago.

 

If reserves are "good" how can they stay with the main when it attacks and remain a reserve?

A "reserve" is any force or part of a force held uncommitted under the control of a commander, it may be with the main body (in Clauswitz's frame of reference) or may be a completely separate entity, it may be a squad in a platoon, a platoon in a company, a company in a battalion, a battalion in a regiment, and etc, or any combination thereof.

 

So if the force is to remain concentrated how did the Allies win by spreading their forces far and wide?

 

Spreading them far and wide? Are you truly that clueless or just having us all on?

 

BTW, I had a wonderful cruise, passing my time by not giving a single thought to this discussion, good to see that I did have my priorities straight.

[JWB]

KingSargent Posted Mon 3 Dec 2007 0358

FYI, BillB is quite experienced in construction, probably with several decades more experience in the trades that you have been alive.

Bill was a bricklayer not a concrete producer. Do you know what ingredients were used to make concrete in the WW2 period? Bill could not possibly be in his 90s.

 

Provide a list of operating railroads and roads that will move your Italian-produced concrete to the sites where it is needed.

There will be little movement needed because the ingredients for producing concrete existed almost everywhere in that country. And the amount of concrete is not that great to begin with.

 

Or are you going to use the Engineers who were struggling to build supply routes to support the men freezing their butts off in the mountains?

Nope. Male Italian civilians. The Allies were liberating them and feeding them the least they could do is work.

 

I wonder if all those telephone poles might have been carrying military communication traffic? Do you supposed some frontline commander might become a tad incensed with you if you remove the pole supporting the wire he needs to call artillery fire?

Preposterous. Telephone wire doesn't even need to be 30 feet off the ground only high enough that it doesn't get interfered with.

 

Sure. Right after being pulled out of the line at Anzio, they are going to become parachute instructors. Why don't you find out just what kind of shape a troop is in after months of front-line combat?

There was no fighting at Anzio in Nov 1943. So I will treat that as a typo like I have made when writing "Monty" when I meant to write "SHAEFE" or "Kesselring" when i meant to write "Senger". So it appears mine sre not the only malfunctioning fingers here.

 

And you have no conception of how useless a soldier is in modern combat "carrying only a Garand, helmet and water bottle;" with no heavy weapons support, no ration supply chain, no ammo resupply, no communications network, no medical facilities (especially necessary after a paradrop of untrained troops)? The support weapons for a normal infantry division wouldn't even fit into a C-47 or a 1943 glider. Why do you think paras used small pack howitzers for artillery? The infantry divisional artillery bns are supposed to shrink-wash their 105s down to 75mm size?

 

And you have failed to realize that the majority off destruction is inflicted by artillery. The infantry is there to force the defending enemy to expose himself to the artillery. Conventional airborne brings their own artillery because there is no friendly artillery nearby after they land behind enemy lines. At Anzio they would land behind friendly lines where there was no shortage of cannons but there was a shortage of cannon fodder. And as cannon fodder there really is little need to supply them as most of them would be dead in a few days anyway. So would an approximately equal number of Germans. We are still talking attrition warfare here remember? Or are you going to be like the pointy headed academics who seek to win a near bloodless stylish war of maneuver?

 

Because they were too dumb to cooperate on a strategy and the Brits were terrified of facing Jerry in France - they might have had reason to be terrified, but can anyone seriously argue that they were NOT terrified?

 

They had very good reason to be terrified. An attempt to invade the Cotentin would have ended up like Dieppe on a grand scale. The Allies simply didn't have the phib lift to launch a large enough invasion across a broad enough invasion front aginst such a powerfull enemy defense. The Italian campaign was launched to force Hitler into redeploying divisions from France and the USSR making it easier for the Reds to advance and for the Blues to invade Normandy at all. People have claimed that it was impossible to invade the Reich from the south. But if this is so then why did Hitler and his generals agree that fighting the Allies tooth and nail resisting the Allied advance up the boot was vital? If crossing the Alps was impossible then why did the German high command decide to resist all Allied advances? So if Hitler and his generals believed Italy to be so vital then every german casualty in that campaign would have to be replaced. Those replacements had to come from other theaters or the replacement depot in Germany itself...... Every dead German in Italy meant one fewer German available to fight against the Allies in France or the USSR.

[Jim Martin]

You know, once upon a time this thread was interesting to read.

[Rich]

You know, once upon a time this thread was interesting to read.

 

Come on Jim, it's still interesting, if you enjoy reading surrealistic fantasy? Or lunatic non sequiters?

[JWB]

Rich Posted Tue 11 Dec 2007 0104

Uh-huh? Like The Russian Federation, China, and Iran? Or does the US plus the EU equal a "vast majority"?

The USA, EU, India, Latin America (other than Cuba)......... That list also includes the majority of the worlds population.

 

Spreading them far and wide? Are you truly that clueless or just having us all on?

 

OK Swami explain how the Normandy and Italian fronts were close together.

 

Clausewitz does not, therefore, appear to have had a significant direct influence on formal military education or doctrine in the United States before World War Two, and indirect influences--particularly in the army--were often distorted and incoherent. Further suggestions that Clausewitz was in fact a major factor in American institutional military thinking will have to be better substantiated than heretofore.

 

That is not proof of obsolescence, it is a commentary on the degree of his influence at a certain point in time.

It is evidence that Clausewitz is obselete because valid theories don't go in and out of fasion like women's apparel.

 

Now explain how Clausewitz was correct in his views on night attacks, deception, and much of the technology involved.

 

Rich Posted Wed 28 Nov 2007 2050

I see, just as you obviously "intentionally misquoted" me by claiming I used the word "squirm" rather than "flail"? Or perhaps the incidents where I directly quoted you and you simply said you never said it?

 

Squirm and flail are synonymous and are defined as "involuntary movements". Doctors call it dyskinesia

 

 

 

"And what in Gods name does Clark's "megalomania" have to do with deployments of British Eighth Army?"

Where in Sam Hill did I ever write anything like that at all? You need to learn to read!

 

QUOTE(JWB @ Sat 20 Oct 2007 1850)

I blame the failure of the 3 separate assaults on Clark's megalomania "

 

Absolutely none of that makes sense or even belongs together. Clark does deserve consideral blame for those failed assaults because he did very little to help out. As commander of A5thA it was his responsibility to actually do something instead sulking around his command post because he couldn't get his way.

 

 

And honest as ever I see, what about when you stated (21 October) that, "You can be suspicious all you want but that only proves you are factually incorrect. I will believe Hogg before I will believe anything you post." Or later the same day when your reply to data indicating that your reliance on Hogg was possibly misplaced was, "So what", and on 22 October clarifying that with this gem "The reason I say "so what" is because you are using government statisics which are rarely reliable."?

I had justification to doubt your info because:

Rich Mon 22 Oct 2007 1400 -- I suspect the "135,000 155mm WP rounds" may actually be the total number of all CS rounds fired along the Fifth and Eighth Army front, which, given that the total fired in the six days was over 1.5-million isn't really unusual.

essentially admits that I am probably correct.

 

BTW, if you believe military historians are "all the same" what are you doing quoting Hogg? Or using any other source? And then what should be used, Dr. Seuss?

"All the same" doesn't mean useless or incorrect. It simply means historians fall into the same patterns of quoting each other without using proper evidence. The "proofs" that historians use cannot be considered properly scientific. All history that cannot be verified by film footage, video tape, and/or archeology and forensic examinations should be considered questionable. We have exellent knowledge of what happened during WW2 because of the vast film footage shot and the examination of old battlefields by scientific methods. But as far as consumption of fuel, ammo, bombs, etc we cannot be so sure because it is impossible to do a recount for obvious reasons.

[Rich]

The USA, EU, India, Latin America (other than Cuba)......... That list also includes the majority of the worlds population.

 

I see that your knowledge of world populations is about as extensive as your knowledge of military history. The populations of North, Central and South America, the EU, and India combined, is roughly 40 percent of the world population. And the degree of democracy in some of those is questionable.

 

OK Swami explain how the Normandy and Italian fronts were close together.

Why do I need to? What does proximity of Normandy and Italy have to do with developing concentration of force at a decisive point?

 

"The best strategy is to be very strong; first in general, and then at the decisive point. Apart from the effort needed to create military strength, which does not always emanate from the general, there is no higher and simpler law of strategy than that of keeping one's forces concentrated. No force should ever be detached from the main body unless the need is definite and urgent. We hold fast to this principle, and regard it as a reliable guide."

 

The "decisive point" initially for the western Allies was North Africa, where they were able - by concentration of force - to develope supuriority over the Axis that they could not have on the continent at that time and thus gain an advantage and - more importantly - the initiative. Those available forces remained concentrated for the invasion of Sicily and Italy, so the principal was maintained. However, the strategic thrust and the decisive point in Europe was shifted by the Allies in spring 1944 to France and again forces were concentrated for that purpose. But the alternatives in the Med at that time then would have been to withdraw all forces to the "main body" and abandon all the gains to the Axis again, which I rather suspect falls under the "need is definite and urgent" clause.

 

Alternately it could be siad that "Europe" was the decisive point and that the principal of concnetration was followed through the "Germany First" policy. And there again, forces deployed against Japan fall under "need is definite and urgent."

 

It is evidence that Clausewitz is obselete because valid theories don't go in and out of fasion like women's apparel.

 

What in that quotation indicates that Clausewitz went "in and out of" fashion? It simply states that the evidence is that he was not "in fashion" prior to World War II. It makes no commentary on his validity, lack of validity, currency, or obsolesence. However, he has been in considerable "fashion" for about the past 60 years in western military circles, which is quite a good run for any fashion.

 

Now explain how Clausewitz was correct in his views on night attacks, deception, and much of the technology involved.

Why? Did I ever argue he was correct in those views? Or, for that matter, have you ever argued that he was incorrect in those views?

 

Squirm and flail are synonymous and are defined as "involuntary movements". Doctors call it dyskinesia

 

Yes, and you're pretty good at them.

 

Absolutely none of that makes sense or even belongs together. Clark does deserve consideral blame for those failed assaults because he did very little to help out. As commander of A5thA it was his responsibility to actually do something instead sulking around his command post because he couldn't get his way.

 

What part of "he was commander of the Fifth Army" have you failed to grasp? Which takes him entirely out of the chain of responsibility for all except "first" Cassino (of which SHINGLE was a part). So what exactly does your pointy head think he was "responsible" for in the sector of Eighth Army when they took over that front and the offensive?

 

I had justification to doubt your info because: essentially admits that I am probably correct.

I see. So you accept data when you think it supports your notions, but reject data when it contradicts your notions? Whhat a charming use of the scientific method.

 

Anyway, your original claim was:

 

JWB Thu 18 Oct 2007 0343:

 

The first, second, and third assaults failed because they were across fronts that were too narrow or the attacks themselves were uncoordinated. DIADEM worked because it was across a wide enough front and made use of far greater amounts of screening smoke. Victory in WW2 was achieved by wide front offensives against confused defenders.

 

Your claims for why DIADEM suceeded are all incorrect, which is a statement that is not contradicted by my saying that the amounts that were fired "isn't really unusual" (your claim that it was acheived by wider fronts is rubbish as well).

 

"All the same" doesn't mean useless or incorrect. It simply means historians fall into the same patterns of quoting each other without using proper evidence. The "proofs" that historians use cannot be considered properly scientific. All history that cannot be verified by film footage, video tape, and/or archeology and forensic examinations should be considered questionable. We have exellent knowledge of what happened during WW2 because of the vast film footage shot and the examination of old battlefields by scientific methods. But as far as consumption of fuel, ammo, bombs, etc we cannot be so sure because it is impossible to do a recount for obvious reasons.

 

What fatuous nonesense. I suppose you think that until "film" and "video" came along that nobody maintained records? And do you believe that an archeological or forensic "examination" is more valid than a simple examination of the written record? What a truly monumentally silly prat you must be? I think you're going permanently on the ignore list. With any luck you'll eventually go the way of PFCEM and Rossiman.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Rich

[JWB]

I am reading Rick Atkinson's excellent book THE DAY OF BATTLE, and must say that my opinion of Mark Clark has lowered even further than it was previously. I wonder how a better commander such as Bradley, Devers, Truscott, or even Ridgeway would have done in the Italian theater. Also it seems that the British sold the US a load of goods when they forced the Italian strategy upon the allies. If you haven't read the book, get it, its excellent.

 

Why is it that generals named Clark (Mark, Wesley, etc) are completely f**ked up?

All those other GOs would have obeyed orders to block XIV Korps escape up the Liri Valley. In and of that they would have been better than Mark Clark. But that is about it. US GOs weren't very skilled at doing the other things like re-organization, re-constitution, and the other "reees". It wasn't like those activities were impossible they just weren't very good at it it. At least at that point of the war and not even until 79ID under Maj. Gen. Ira T. Wyche actually established an organic training company. In fact the US Army had a hell of a time finding GOs worthy of being in command. In the month following NEPTUNE half of the US Army divisional commanders in France were replaced. So compared to his contemporaries Clark wasn't really that incompetent but he was insubordinate almost to the point of mutinee.

[Rich]

In fact the US Army had a hell of a time finding GOs worthy of being in command. In the month following NEPTUNE half of the US Army divisional commanders in France were replaced.

 

Er, for the moment ignoring the other nonsense, no. "Factoids" like this that contain no facts do little to support your arguments.

 

1st Division, no, Huebner until 11 December 1944

2nd Division, no, Robertson, until the end of the war

4th Division, no, Barton, until temporarily replaced by Blakeley, Bull, and then van Fleet between 18 September and 5 October, before Blakeley took over permanently on 27 December 1944

5th Division, no, Irwin until 20 April 1945

8th Division, yes, Stroh replaced McMahon on 12 July, six days after entry into combat. Except that was over a month after D-Day and the division only entered combat a month after D-Day.

9th Division, no, Eddy commanded until 19 August 1944 when he was given a corps

29th Division, no, Gerhardt commanded until the end of the war

30th Division, no, Hobbs commanded until the end of the war.

35th Division, arrived on 8 July, so shouldn’t be counted, but Baade commanded until the end of the war.

79th Division, no, Wyche commanded until the end of the war.

82nd Division, no, Ridgway commanded until 27 August 1944 when he took over XVIII Corps.

83rd Division, no, Macon commanded until the end of the war.

90th Division, yes, McKelvie was relieved 13 June by Landrum, who in turn was relieved 30 July, evidently the exception that “proves” your rule?

101st Division, no, Taylor commanded until the end of the war.

2nd AD, no, Brooks commanded until 12 September 1944.

3rd AD, no, Watson commanded until 7 August 1944.

 

So in 14 cases (excluding the 8th and 35th Division) we have one that meets your criteria.

[JWB]

And do you believe that an archeological or forensic "examination" is more valid than a simple examination of the written record?

 

Un-intelligent Luddism from somebody afraid the techno geeks will make him obsolete. Science is always better than rumor, hearsay and gossip.

 

History cannot be understood without understanding how science and technology dictate the course of human events. Since you have contempt for science and techology you will never be a top rate historian but just a glorified journalist.

[Rich]

Un-intelligent Luddism from somebody afraid the techno geeks will make him obsolete. Science is always better than rumor, hearsay and gossip.

 

It's amazing how you are able to manufacture non sequiters without effort....wellll, it did take you three weeks. What does that rather bizarre statement have to with my original question to you? "I suppose you think that until "film" and "video" came along that nobody maintained records? And do you believe that an archeological or forensic "examination" is more valid than a simple examination of the written record? "

 

History cannot be understood without understanding how science and technology dictate the course of human events.

What a techno-weenie. Are pompous pronouncements of the perfectly obvious the only other thing you're capable of generating besides a non sequitor? And you might consider adding how art, literature, government, religion, and philosophy have "dictated" - odd word choice that, influenced is a lot more accurate - the course of human events?

 

Since you have contempt for science and techology you will never be a top rate historian but just a glorified journalist.

 

How pray tell do you manage to arrive at that chuckle-headed conclusion?

[R011]

Er, for the moment ignoring the other nonsense, no. "Factoids" like this that contain no facts do little to support your arguments.

 

~

 

So in 14 cases (excluding the 8th and 35th Division) we have one that meets your criteria.

 

Sorry Rich. Unless you can find video footage proving the above, or someone digs up a potsherds inscribed with div commanders' names, we an only assume that whole post is rampant speculation based on unreliable written "records".

[Rich]

Sorry Rich. Unless you can find video footage proving the above, or someone digs up a potsherds inscribed with div commanders' names, we an only assume that whole post is rampant speculation based on unreliable written "records".

 

Well, I do have to admit his posts are getting more entertaining as we go along, but it gets kinda of boring when you can reply via autopilot....