This is getting a bit off track for the thread, but I find the attitudes of the soldiers, media, etc. towards Patton very interesting. Patton was known as "Blood and Guts", while Bradley was known as a commander that cared for his soldiers. Yet, if you study the casualty rates, the units with the highest were all in Bradley's army. It is often a curious thing about history that the common perceptions of the time completely defy subsequent attempts of analysis to explain them.
My grandfather served in Bradley's army and I had always believed everything about Patton vs. Bradley. Then I saw the casualty rate for my grandfather's unit (9th ID, over 100%), and started digging.
I'm not sure looking at casualty rates necessarily relates to if a general is considered flippant with his soldiers lives, or not. This is especially noteworthy considering Bradley's roles in Overlord, Market Garden, and the Bulge... the 2 latter he opposed the plans, but was direct by Ike to proceed.
How can you have a casulaty rate OVER 100%? And, if it was the MAXIMUM of 100%, how did your granfather survive?
I'm not sure looking at casualty rates necessarily relates to if a general is considered flippant with his soldiers lives, or not. This is especially noteworthy considering Bradley's roles in Overlord, Market Garden, and the Bulge... the 2 latter he opposed the plans, but was direct by Ike to proceed.
Just to add to the replies previously made, my grandfather was wounded, but survived. Therefore he counted as a casualty despite coming home. (On a side note, I have the VA response letter to his pension application which awarded him $11.50 for neuritis due to shrapnel in his leg and then continues with this gem: "While your scar on end of penis, right thigh and left lower leg are held to be service incurred, it is rated at no percent disabling.")
That's not the point I was trying to make. It is entirely possible/probable that the perceptions were accurately based on the respective attitudes of the generals. I'm merely pointing out that those perceptions are not reflected in the actual results of their campaigns. Perceptions vs. reality in history fascinate me, I think there are lessons to be learned there. In this case, Patton may well have been flippant with his soldiers lives, but his actual methods appear to have saved lives. I realize there are other factors such as you and Woobie point out, it's not cut in stone or anything. I just think it is interesting to compare the results with the perceptions.
He may have mellowed out after the drubbing he got for cowardice incident.
I noticed the one's that served under him in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy tended to despise him but the guy's that served with him from D-Day on tend to love him.....It's weird....
“Please, Ron, forgive me of all my violations of the non-aggression principle and all the times I unwittingly supported a statist agenda.”
[FONT=&]“I swear here and now,taxation is theft!” he added.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The new, remade Coats quickly threw away all his politically conservative reading material and purchased himself a leather-bound study edition of Ron Paul’s End the Fed and The Revolution, sources confirmed.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]At publishing time, the man had committed to tithe 10% of his cryptocurrency and precious metals to The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and made a solemn vow never rest until every human being on earth had heard the good news of libertarianism.[/FONT]
It's easy. Soldiers like to win. I'd take a winning SOB any day over a losing kisser of booboos (that includes someone who 'wins' but kills more of his troops doing it slowly).