soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article <47eaab42$0$10620$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
Haydn wrote:
>"David Thornley" wrote:
>
>> Now, if you want comparable positions, try Sicily. I'm more
>
>An autopilot in stead of both Patton and Montgomery would have achieved more
>or less the the same result as the historical outcome of the campaign.
>
True.

>Nay, an autopilot might have performed better than Patton - by giving up the
>glitzy Patton ride to Palermo and seriously helping Montgomery by closing in
>on the retreating Axis and try bagging some Germans before they could be
>shifted to the east.
>
Now, what do you mean by this?

Should Patton have attacked east, into Montgomery? Northeast, over
Mt. Etna? North to the coast? Well, actually, he did that.
Palermo was a bit to the west of the best route to the north,
but it was a strategic target in itself, being useful later on
as a port.

Montgomery had no choice but to attack east of Etna, Patton no
choice but to go north, and the Germans were in a superb position
to manage a fighting retreat.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-