yeah, the last thing it has done is grow up.... now we have perfectly reasonable people telling me the President was talking about blood irradiation in that Thursday presser 1 week ago.... like we didnt all watch the spectacle ourselves..... Patton was a great general, and a born leader.... but he wasnt a man of his own times....
I think he meant a world without politicians and bankers and lawyers was a much better world....I agree! He also meant a time when chivalry was still alive and where men WERE men and they loved their women who knew how to be women and MEN protected their women and children..and fought and strove for what was normal and good...today our world is in turmoil and it seems like one big mentally confused mess....the world grew up...and grew dark..where humanism/modernism has a death grip on humanity...what a shame!
The subtlety is lost on you folks in these comments. The implication is that for all the values of the modern world, the so called “grown up” world of materialistic value and the death of transcendence is a false victory. The world grew up out of what was collectively assumed to be a childish and ignorant past, but the irony of course is it lost its soul. “For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?”
That's why Patton has been my favourite film for 45 years. But if you ever get a chance, check out his performance as Juror #3 in the 1997 remake of Twelve Angry Men. Lee J Cobb's still the template, but Scott ... jeez.
Rommel and Patton Have something else in common Rammell was assassinated by the German government and Patton was assassinated by the American government
@@hamandjam8664 He technically wasnt INVOLVED but one of the would be rebels spoke with rommel about the plan so guilt by assosiation. He had a choice to either fight the charges in court and risk being executed along with his wife and child or take the L and be burried with full mulitary honors.
actually this time 100 years ago we had already been through the 1st world war and a far far deadlier plauge as well as having no modern medicine IE:Antibiotics and such most of the world live in absolute poverty and life expectancy was far lower like it or not your pessimism cannot deny we live the most prosperous and peaceful, healthy and overall free time in human history have things been perfect no there is war and terrorism Coronavirus and crime but we as humans today are better off overall than anyone anytime ever in human history and that is something to smile and proud about
@@cowboyjohnn Somehow I don't think Gen. Patton was thinking in terms of material wealth and technological advances but in terms of moral lassitude and political corruption. Looking at the current state of affairs it doesn't appear that the 21st century is any improvement and is destined to be much, much worse.
@@jeffreythomson2979 I don't think that's true either. Corruption in politics has always existed, only now, it's both more publicized and more sensationalized. Back in the 20th century, you needed to wait to hear about major scandals in the newspaper, on the radio or in the later half on the news. Nowadays, you get stories and breaking news in the snap of a finger any time a certain politician farts. Also, speaking in terms of the perspective of America, it's hard to say things are anything but MUCH better, considering segregation and racist laws no longer exist, we aren't spending the first half of the century seeing thousands of men die fighting 2 world wars and spending the second half in a nuclear standstill with the Soviets and fending off the fear mongering of the red scare.
@@SuperSparrow45 I must humbly disagree. The moral fiber of this nation and indeed most of the western world has far degraded from those times. The examples are myriad and disturbing.
Scott was the exact person in this film Patton would have given an arm to be... but that's what made Scott incredible, he portrayed the exact personality Patton strived every single day to be.
Both Patton and Rommel were warriors of a different time. They both held the point of honor very high, and they respected the soldiers from both sides. The incident when Rommel posthumously celebrated an American soldier for his bravery in a certain battle with a ceremony, no less, was amazing to all. I wonder was Hitler thought of that, but no matter. It was his sense of honor that never excluded honor accorded to his foes. Damn, that really got me.
It's funny reading about Patton and Rommel. We know that they respected each other, I think if they could have sat in a room after the war, the knowledge we all could have gained is lost to the ages.
...asked for a more complete commander and a dedicated soldier like Gen Patton. He set the example for his men and loved all them, too. He was trained well. Thank God!!!👍
@757WN Rommel was writing from personal experience, after attacking 3 French soldiers with an empty rifle. At least one of the French soldiers still had ammunition and shot Rommel.
Ancients from every tribe and nation always considered a fight between champions prior to battle or to solve a battle. Aristocrats of that time and nobility all put themselves in the thick of the action. These days they are a bunch of cowards
Well modern leaders all live in ivory towers and throw out rhetoric to get political momentum. Back then Alexander the Great positioned himself right at the apex of the cavalry charge against a massive formation of Persian Immortals elite infantry and his men would follow him into Hades in the thousands. And that is just one of many many examples of historical kings and leaders that were the alpha warriors.
I’ve said that for years. I have repeatedly said (and have been called a fool for it) that if I had been George W. Bush, I’d rather be aboard the first M1A1 to enter Baghdad; not sitting comfortably in the Oval Office. I would rather be a President who rides with his troops than stuff my face like Lord Denethor did during Faramir’s cavalry charge in Return of the King.
Just want to point out the fact that in the modern era, the first in usually is first to die. That is why leaders no longer lead charges or attacks. But at least be like Eisenhower just before d day. He didn't spend his time dining with TOP brass. He did not telegram his family or see a British Mistress to de stress. He went to spend time with his real family, the men who were about to parachute in darkness over Normandy. Because he knew in his heart, he was about to send them on their final voyage, never to return home alive. I think it is the duty of the leader to at least be there for the men, and see everyone of them no matter how many thousands of them occasionally because they left behind their loved ones and they are fighting for the easer and the nation. The modern politician has neglected this duty and forgot to appreciate the fulcrum in which nations are built, over the lives and blood of young men and women on the alter of freedom
One of my favorite movies. No one could have done a better job of playing Patton than George C Scott that i can think of. George C Scott is convincing enough in the movie to be a General.
WW2 weapons still needed some skill, and you were relatively close to the enemy. Now you have sniper guns that can explode tanks from miles away, and drones that can just zap enemies with the touch of a button. Of course, you still need some skill and training, but it is less... Heroic I think.
@@UltimoGames Heroic thing? War isn’t heroic, while going out to defend your country and help people is noble the concept of war isn’t at all heroic, it is humans killing humans and that is it , most of them could have got along under different circumstances.
Through the travail of the ages, Midst the pomp and toil of war, I have fought and strove and perished Countless times upon this star. So as through a glass, and darkly The age long strife I see Where I fought in many guises, Many names, but always me. -George S Patton
Patton was the very definition of the Warrior Poet. The complete text of this work is as stirring as any I have ever read; and I have read many. Through a Glass, Darkly By: General George S. Patton, Jr. "Through the travail of the ages, Midst the pomp and toil of war, I have fought and strove and perished Countless times upon this star. In the form of many people In all panoplies of time Have I seen the luring vision Of the Victory Maid, sublime. I have battled for fresh mammoth, I have warred for pastures new, I have listened to the whispers When the race trek instinct grew. I have known the call to battle In each changeless changing shape From the high souled voice of conscience To the beastly lust for rape. I have sinned and I have suffered, Played the hero and the knave; Fought for belly, shame, or country, And for each have found a grave. I cannot name my battles For the visions are not clear, Yet, I see the twisted faces And I feel the rending spear. Perhaps I stabbed our Savior In His sacred helpless side. Yet, I’ve called His name in blessing When in after times I died. In the dimness of the shadows Where we hairy heathens warred, I can taste in thought the lifeblood; We used teeth before the sword. While in later clearer vision I can sense the coppery sweat, Feel the pikes grow wet and slippery When our Phalanx, Cyrus met. Hear the rattle of the harness Where the Persian darts bounced clear, See their chariots wheel in panic From the Hoplite’s leveled spear. See the goal grow monthly longer, Reaching for the walls of Tyre. Hear the crash of tons of granite, Smell the quenchless eastern fire. Still more clearly as a Roman, Can I see the Legion close, As our third rank moved in forward And the short sword found our foes. Once again I feel the anguish Of that blistering treeless plain When the Parthian showered death bolts, And our discipline was in vain. I remember all the suffering Of those arrows in my neck. Yet, I stabbed a grinning savage As I died upon my back. Once again I smell the heat sparks When my Flemish plate gave way And the lance ripped through my entrails As on Crecy’s field I lay. In the windless, blinding stillness Of the glittering tropic sea I can see the bubbles rising Where we set the captives free. Midst the spume of half a tempest I have heard the bulwarks go When the crashing, point blank round shot Sent destruction to our foe. I have fought with gun and cutlass On the red and slippery deck With all Hell aflame within me And a rope around my neck. And still later as a General Have I galloped with Murat When we laughed at death and numbers Trusting in the Emperor's Star. Till at last our star faded, And we shouted to our doom Where the sunken road of Ohein Closed us in its quivering gloom. So but now with Tanks a’clatter Have I waddled on the foe Belching death at twenty paces, By the star shell’s ghastly glow. So as through a glass, and darkly The age long strife I see Where I fought in many guises, Many names, but always me. And I see not in my blindness What the objects were I wrought, But as God rules o’er our bickerings It was through His will I fought. So forever in the future, Shall I battle as of yore, Dying to be born a fighter, But to die again, once more."
Patton was a great General but I can also think of other generals that led in combat that in my opinion were equal to him. Matthew Ridgeway is one man that comes to mind.
Schwarzkopf was close but not quite. I would take either one. My Uncle served under Patton during the Battle of the Bulge. Patton jumped on my Uncle's tank. My Uncle told his men to get Patton off the tank any way possible because Patton's ivory handled pistols could be seen for miles. My Uncle thought they would be targeted by the German Panzers or snipers. He joked how he "fired" Patton from his tank for the rest of his life.
I do it all the time in games, scares the hell outta people every time and the poor son of a bitch that thinks they can flip the odds - well they are gravely mistaken.
Mainly because the vast majority of tanks are designed to be crewed by at least three men and usually more. A commander, a driver, and a gunner. There are a few tanks that could be crewed by one man, but they're not nearly as impressive as the big tanks.
What are you talking about? The Tigers in N Africa were a cliff note more than anything. The sherman is more than capable of taking a panzer 3 or 4. Stop being a Wehraboo
Why every single time there is one mention of Patton they write this? And sometimes not even when Patton is mentioned just the Holocaust or other horrible things the Germans did .
No one wants to kill another fellow man I believe. But if we must do battle. In the same breath striking gallantry, respect, fear, and terror all in the same moment to the winner into the losers dying eyes is not only noble and respectful, but shameful and haunting at the same time.
The Tiger was a better armored tank than the Sherman, no doubt. In a head to head battle; the Tiger wins 100/100 times. So in true Sun Tzu fashion, Patton had to turn the Tiger's strength against it. While better armored, the Tiger was less maneuverable. So Patton had to deploy a "hit and run" strategy. Patton and Rommel were both great Generals. However, Patton gets the slight edge and history proves this out. Germany used "brute force" and lightning speed to its advantage during the start of WW2. However, the German army was not equipped for a defensive stand. It took Germany years to conquer Europe. It took the Allies less than a year. I have a unique story. My Uncle served under Patton during the Battle of the Bulge. He was a Tank commander and they were told to hold up just before that attack. He found himself a 16 year old French girl. When the battle began, my Uncle and his crew considered going AWOL. Then to top it off, my Uncle was the lead tank and Patton jumped on his tank to lead the men. My Uncle told his crew to find a way to get Patton of their tank. Why? Patton carried his Ivory pistols that could be seen for miles against the Olive Drab green camouflage. My Uncle feared the German's would target Patton and thus his tank. He knew the Sherman could not take a direct hit from the Tiger's 88mm gun. Germany only built about 1300 Tigers while the US built almost 50,000 Sherman's. So while the Tiger was a better tank one on one; the Sherman won the war.
seeing it's open desert if it happened at a distance the battle would be over quickly, although seeing this is a fair sport they'd be placed where both tanks would be in range of each other wherein the sherman can use it's pros against the tiger's cons
@@robertthomas5906- He deeply believed things for which there was absolutely no evidence; Patton was crazy, full stop. He was a good general, but one of his main strengths was having the logistical support of American production behind him... and having few real rivals for limelight in the field.
The world indeed grew up. Back in the day, we would contest each other in glorious and honorable combat of strenght. We're used to romanticize those times, because we are fed up with smartasses trying to outsmart other smartasses for nearly a century now. Instead of code of honor - cold bureaucracy. Instead of strenght - wits and information. The world got more complex, but thats the part of growing up. The other option is to die dreaming about youth.
That would be one shitty fight as they both wrestled ineffectively to simultaneously drive, locate each other, load the gun, aim and fire in tanks designed for 3 or even 4 people to operate.
I have sometimes wondered what would have happened had Rommel not bene implicated in the July plot and forced to off himself and if Patton had not been in that crash after VE day. Imagine the conversations he'd have demanded to have with (a POW) Rommel after the war.
yes it grew up: it got thousand of nuke warheads and have them pointed at each's country, just one or two needed to ruin the environment for decades. Nice, that growing-up thing.
@@flyboy152 What I meant “air”head is both love(d) our country and are (were) true Patriots. No doubt you find Uncle “Joe” more courageous than either... 😂
@@guysalzmann9302 "Airhead" is an actual word, you don't need to put quotes around part of it. But, given your delusional devotion to a traitorous, racist, sexist, grifter, who fucked over the working class in this country every chance he got, it's hardly surprising that the basics of spelling and grammar elude you.
The world grew up. He knew soon we wouldn't need soldiers or heroes. Machines would be only things left. Or people who had become machines, like Nazis. Humanity itself would be obselesent. Peace at long last on earth 🌎 and no-one to share it
Rommel wasn't as genius as he was. He was ok, but not genius nor invincible. He was constantly handicapped by his own Fuhrer and logistic lines and lack of support. Allied commanders uprated his abilities to hide their on deficiencies in command. It happened a lot in WW2 across all the various fronts. One thing is true, Rommel was an honest commander, and he respected his opponents and was an honest fair man.. He never allowed war crimes, and he was gentleman in victory to his POW's.
I mean no disrespect but when the "real" George S. Patton is seen in actual film-footage of the time, along with sound of his voice, he comes-off as a disappointment---but only in comparison to Scott's magnificent-portrayal, including his gravelly, authoritative-voice. The "real" Patton knew his physical & verbal-shortcomings undercut his effectiveness as a commander, among his troops & to the press & public, as well as his personal-image of what a general should look & sound-like, so he compensated by using rough, salty language, a certain theatricality, and a laser-like stare so severely-cold it put chills down an errant-subordinate's or soldier's spine. I've read this of Ike, too---when displeased, he could stare a hole through a man. I guess commanders need this quality; in fact, I'm sure they do. When push came to shove, they couldn't shrug-off or just-take excuses for failure or errant-behavior. Monty's main-gripe against Ike was that the Man from Abilene had no combat-experience, although he came to thoroughly-trust & both see & admire Ike's strong-points. Ike, in his turn, learned how to placate the prickly-Brit, who was wildly-popular among his countrymen. I happened to pick-up a copy of Bradley's WW2 memoirs today at the local-library, which I've never-read. I perused the book & it looks very-interesting. I now would like to take a peek at "The Patton Papers" by Martin Blumenson, as well as the general's-own "War as I Knew It". Should be fascinating!
I'm pretty sure that Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and oh yeah... Hitler probably would have objected to the fate of the war hanging on a single tank joust. It's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback almost 80 years later, but I'd expect the actual leaders of the belligerent nations wouldn't approve or comply. "Welp... Patton lost because his tank threw a tread... Okay everybody, pack it up and go home!"
I think patton would win, rommel was never a tank commander like patton was durig ww1. Rommel was a briliant strategist but probably not a good tank commander. I would rather see Heinz Guderian vs patton because Hanz Guderian acually had experiance with tanks and developed the consept of bliztkrieg.
"Bkitzkrieg" is a misnomer. Its really just combined arms with a propaganda campaign...especially when your enemy agrees with it to cover up their shortcomings...
@@bthorn5035 He only did that during the invasion of France in 1940....in North Africa he rode in his command car, and did the same when he was back in France in 1944.
@@stevenm3823 Name one other general who *ever did that. Furthermore, Rommel was well known for being close to the front all the times to get timely information and make adjustments on the spot. He was never a rear area "leader" like most other equivalent ranks. As far as the original argument goes, Rommel was very skilled in maneuver warfare and tank tactics. His original specialty may have been infantry, but he adjusted to the panzer corps brilliantly and used his meager supplies in the best possible ways. He was extremely clever, using methods and tactics that were far outside the box. He already had years of wartime experience before Patton even came onto the scene. To say that Patton was a more capable or experienced tank division commander is ludicrous.
I tend to not be a big fan of George Patton. I read his book "On War" which I think others helped put together after his death in 1945 due to a vehicle accident on a hunting trip. Patton was a decent leader. Yet, we need to remember other WW2 Generals were much more low key, less egotistical, and just did their jobs. Courtney Hodges, Omar Bradley and many other American leaders fall into this category. General Patton had a flare for open field tactics. But much of the land fighting in Europe only had relatively brief periods of open field running such as the breakout of Normandy after Operation Cobra. The bulk of the time was slow, methodical positional combined arms warfare of an attritional nature on a broad front. So we need to be careful about glorifying Patton too much. Patton was dealt some pretty good blows at Metz from skillful German defenders. Yes, very long supply lines and logistics were an issue for Patton in the fall of 1944. This supply problem was only alleviated by the clearing of Antwerp of mines and German troops just in time for the start of the Battle of the Bulge. The crossing of the Rhine and the invasion of German would have been completely impossible without Antwerp supplying Allied Armies with fuel, food, ammunition, and all the necessary supplies for modern combined arms mechanized warfare. Modern warfare isn't about dueling or individual combat. Modern warfare is absolutely about the proper business management of logistical networks. It is also about applying proper engineering principles for the construction and maintenance of logistical infrastructure of those logstical networks to achieve efficient business management of those supply networks.
The modern field commanders were Bomber Harris, Eisenhower and Von Clausewitz. Harris was geared towards total destruction of the enemies factories, civilian population and military, a total war. Von Clausewitz was geared towards combined arms tactics with rapid movements. Eisenhower was a master of logistics. The old school idea of gentlemanly warfare was dead and had really died out in the middle of WW1.
Grew up ? My hairy white a$$ it grew up , it grew SENILE . When honor means nothing and standing up for no reason other than you are a man and (fill in the blank) needs opposed does not happen anymore because of fee-fees . Grew up ? NO We went collectively insane .
Here's an interesting thought what would General Patton thought of the character Shannon from the book the dogs of war part of me thinks he might have actually admired him did anyone agree
lets say the year is 1943 and both of them will have 20 tanks the Patton's 20 tanks would be made of M3 Lee and M4 Sherman while Rommel would have Panzer IV, Stug III, and of course the Tiger 1. good luck with that.
@@cliffowens3629 Shermans had to work in teams to beat a single Tiger. Their guns weren't powerful enough for the front armour. The only allied tanks that could go one on one with a Tiger would be a Pershing or a Centurion.
@@Malky24 It was tank doctrine that stated the platoon vs one tank because they always wanted numerical superiority. Also both the Sherman Firefly and Sherman armed with the 76mm can penetrate the front of a Tiger tank here's a video to help: th-cam.com/video/bNjp_4jY8pY/w-d-xo.html
@@cliffowens3629 You can't have a single person run a tank. Maybe one round, fired from the turret and both from the gunners seat. Even a Panzer IV had 7.5 cm gun same as the Sherman. I wouldn't gamble on winning.
I would not like to go up against a Mark IV Special with a Sherman. And your chances drop to slim to none if up against a Tiger I. Patton should have challenged Rommel to pistols at dawn ...which Rommel would have have had little chance of winning.
Patton was the original "DRIVE ME CLOSER I WANT TO HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD"
Og commisar.
And he designed that sword!
I think Rommel would have agreed to it.
Of course. Granted he'd look for any and every outlet to WIN, just as Patton would've.
@J But they will be fithing tank vs tank, patton drove and commanded tanks during ww1 rommel was footsoldier. Rommel never commanded a tank
@J Actually in WW2, My great uncle never fired his bullets, he only used the bayonet with his anger from PH
No bet he commanded a panzerdivision and later a panzerarmy, he learned.
If Rommel had survived the war, Patton probably would have invited him to dinner.
"The world 'grew up'". What an irony-filled line.
yeah, the last thing it has done is grow up.... now we have perfectly reasonable people telling me the President was talking about blood irradiation in that Thursday presser 1 week ago.... like we didnt all watch the spectacle ourselves..... Patton was a great general, and a born leader.... but he wasnt a man of his own times....
Hell of a shame...
Just backwards
I think he meant a world without politicians and bankers and lawyers was a much better world....I agree! He also meant a time when chivalry was still alive and where men WERE men and they loved their women who knew how to be women and MEN protected their women and children..and fought and strove for what was normal and good...today our world is in turmoil and it seems like one big mentally confused mess....the world grew up...and grew dark..where humanism/modernism has a death grip on humanity...what a shame!
The subtlety is lost on you folks in these comments. The implication is that for all the values of the modern world, the so called “grown up” world of materialistic value and the death of transcendence is a false victory. The world grew up out of what was collectively assumed to be a childish and ignorant past, but the irony of course is it lost its soul. “For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?”
George C Scott really entrenched himself into this role as Patton.
He was Patton better than Patton
Some times I forget that he is not the general Patton.
Scott was born to play that role. Like no other
That's why Patton has been my favourite film for 45 years. But if you ever get a chance, check out his performance as Juror #3 in the 1997 remake of Twelve Angry Men. Lee J Cobb's still the template, but Scott ... jeez.
Big thing I love about this film is that Patton and Rommel never actually meet.
Rommel was already out of Africa, it was shown in this movie.
Rommel and Patton Have something else in common Rammell was assassinated by the German government and Patton was assassinated by the American government
@@hamandjam8664 He technically wasnt INVOLVED but one of the would be rebels spoke with rommel about the plan so guilt by assosiation. He had a choice to either fight the charges in court and risk being executed along with his wife and child or take the L and be burried with full mulitary honors.
what he was in the where??
Philip Howard Patton wasn’t assassinated by the US Government. You’re referring to a conspiracy theory that has been debunked multiple times.
This man was way ahead of his time...what insight he had in 1945. As if he could predict the future.
A man of many ages...
@@SamhainBe But always him
Next line was "How I hate the 20th century." More bad news. The 21st hasn't been any better.
actually this time 100 years ago we had already been through the 1st world war and a far far deadlier plauge as well as having no modern medicine IE:Antibiotics and such most of the world live in absolute poverty and life expectancy was far lower like it or not your pessimism cannot deny we live the most prosperous and peaceful, healthy and overall free time in human history have things been perfect no there is war and terrorism Coronavirus and crime but we as humans today are better off overall than anyone anytime ever in human history and that is something to smile and proud about
Right on!!!
@@cowboyjohnn Somehow I don't think Gen. Patton was thinking in terms of material wealth and technological advances but in terms of moral lassitude and political corruption. Looking at the current state of affairs it doesn't appear that the 21st century is any improvement and is destined to be much, much worse.
@@jeffreythomson2979 I don't think that's true either. Corruption in politics has always existed, only now, it's both more publicized and more sensationalized. Back in the 20th century, you needed to wait to hear about major scandals in the newspaper, on the radio or in the later half on the news. Nowadays, you get stories and breaking news in the snap of a finger any time a certain politician farts. Also, speaking in terms of the perspective of America, it's hard to say things are anything but MUCH better, considering segregation and racist laws no longer exist, we aren't spending the first half of the century seeing thousands of men die fighting 2 world wars and spending the second half in a nuclear standstill with the Soviets and fending off the fear mongering of the red scare.
@@SuperSparrow45 I must humbly disagree. The moral fiber of this nation and indeed most of the western world has far degraded from those times. The examples are myriad and disturbing.
Scott was the exact person in this film Patton would have given an arm to be... but that's what made Scott incredible, he portrayed the exact personality Patton strived every single day to be.
Patton was like this, and more.
Watched Patton at the theater 1971 or 1972 8 or 9 years old with my Pops!!
Both Patton and Rommel were warriors of a different time. They both held the point of honor very high, and they respected the soldiers from both sides. The incident when Rommel posthumously celebrated an American soldier for his bravery in a certain battle with a ceremony, no less, was amazing to all. I wonder was Hitler thought of that, but no matter. It was his sense of honor that never excluded honor accorded to his foes. Damn, that really got me.
It's funny reading about Patton and Rommel. We know that they respected each other, I think if they could have sat in a room after the war, the knowledge we all could have gained is lost to the ages.
...asked for a more complete commander and a dedicated soldier like Gen Patton. He set the example for his men and loved all them, too.
He was trained well. Thank God!!!👍
''In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine,'' -Erwin Rommel
-Former 11b4p 82nd Abn. 1/504 '71---'74
@757WN Rommel was writing from personal experience, after attacking 3 French soldiers with an empty rifle. At least one of the French soldiers still had ammunition and shot Rommel.
@@RobertBrown-jh4xe wounded him in the leg if i remember correctly without looking it up
Still, I like the romantic aspect of doing battle that way.
Yeah it gave meaning to an honorable fight
Intimiate
Ancients from every tribe and nation always considered a fight between champions prior to battle or to solve a battle. Aristocrats of that time and nobility all put themselves in the thick of the action. These days they are a bunch of cowards
Sending their youth off to die after minding their minds to believe it's thr noble thing to do
Well modern leaders all live in ivory towers and throw out rhetoric to get political momentum.
Back then Alexander the Great positioned himself right at the apex of the cavalry charge against a massive formation of Persian Immortals elite infantry and his men would follow him into Hades in the thousands. And that is just one of many many examples of historical kings and leaders that were the alpha warriors.
I’ve said that for years. I have repeatedly said (and have been called a fool for it) that if I had been George W. Bush, I’d rather be aboard the first M1A1 to enter Baghdad; not sitting comfortably in the Oval Office. I would rather be a President who rides with his troops than stuff my face like Lord Denethor did during Faramir’s cavalry charge in Return of the King.
You are correct, real kings, pirates, motorcycle club presidents ,and the like were first in,
Just want to point out the fact that in the modern era, the first in usually is first to die. That is why leaders no longer lead charges or attacks. But at least be like Eisenhower just before d day.
He didn't spend his time dining with TOP brass. He did not telegram his family or see a British Mistress to de stress. He went to spend time with his real family, the men who were about to parachute in darkness over Normandy. Because he knew in his heart, he was about to send them on their final voyage, never to return home alive.
I think it is the duty of the leader to at least be there for the men, and see everyone of them no matter how many thousands of them occasionally because they left behind their loved ones and they are fighting for the easer and the nation. The modern politician has neglected this duty and forgot to appreciate the fulcrum in which nations are built, over the lives and blood of young men and women on the alter of freedom
One of my favorite movies. No one could have done a better job of playing Patton than George C Scott that i can think of. George C Scott is convincing enough in the movie to be a General.
Man if Patton thought the 20th century was bad, can you imagine what he’d think of the 21st century if he had lived to see it
Yeah, I think he’d be incredibly pissed off at the way war is conducted in the nuclear age.
Excellent comment ...the PC sissified world of today he wouldn’t believe it
WW2 weapons still needed some skill, and you were relatively close to the enemy.
Now you have sniper guns that can explode tanks from miles away, and drones that can just zap enemies with the touch of a button.
Of course, you still need some skill and training, but it is less... Heroic I think.
Excellent point Sir!
@@UltimoGames Heroic thing? War isn’t heroic, while going out to defend your country and help people is noble the concept of war isn’t at all heroic, it is humans killing humans and that is it , most of them could have got along under different circumstances.
Through the travail of the ages,
Midst the pomp and toil of war,
I have fought and strove and perished
Countless times upon this star. So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.
-George S Patton
Patton was the very definition of the Warrior Poet. The complete text of this work is as stirring as any I have ever read; and I have read many.
Through a Glass, Darkly By: General George S. Patton, Jr.
"Through the travail of the ages,
Midst the pomp and toil of war,
I have fought and strove and perished
Countless times upon this star.
In the form of many people
In all panoplies of time
Have I seen the luring vision
Of the Victory Maid, sublime.
I have battled for fresh mammoth,
I have warred for pastures new,
I have listened to the whispers
When the race trek instinct grew.
I have known the call to battle
In each changeless changing shape
From the high souled voice of conscience
To the beastly lust for rape.
I have sinned and I have suffered,
Played the hero and the knave;
Fought for belly, shame, or country,
And for each have found a grave.
I cannot name my battles
For the visions are not clear,
Yet, I see the twisted faces
And I feel the rending spear.
Perhaps I stabbed our Savior
In His sacred helpless side.
Yet, I’ve called His name in blessing
When in after times I died.
In the dimness of the shadows
Where we hairy heathens warred,
I can taste in thought the lifeblood;
We used teeth before the sword.
While in later clearer vision
I can sense the coppery sweat,
Feel the pikes grow wet and slippery
When our Phalanx, Cyrus met.
Hear the rattle of the harness
Where the Persian darts bounced clear,
See their chariots wheel in panic
From the Hoplite’s leveled spear.
See the goal grow monthly longer,
Reaching for the walls of Tyre.
Hear the crash of tons of granite,
Smell the quenchless eastern fire.
Still more clearly as a Roman,
Can I see the Legion close,
As our third rank moved in forward
And the short sword found our foes.
Once again I feel the anguish
Of that blistering treeless plain
When the Parthian showered death bolts,
And our discipline was in vain.
I remember all the suffering
Of those arrows in my neck.
Yet, I stabbed a grinning savage
As I died upon my back.
Once again I smell the heat sparks
When my Flemish plate gave way
And the lance ripped through my entrails
As on Crecy’s field I lay.
In the windless, blinding stillness
Of the glittering tropic sea
I can see the bubbles rising
Where we set the captives free.
Midst the spume of half a tempest
I have heard the bulwarks go
When the crashing, point blank round shot
Sent destruction to our foe.
I have fought with gun and cutlass
On the red and slippery deck
With all Hell aflame within me
And a rope around my neck.
And still later as a General
Have I galloped with Murat
When we laughed at death and numbers
Trusting in the Emperor's Star.
Till at last our star faded,
And we shouted to our doom
Where the sunken road of Ohein
Closed us in its quivering gloom.
So but now with Tanks a’clatter
Have I waddled on the foe
Belching death at twenty paces,
By the star shell’s ghastly glow.
So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.
And I see not in my blindness
What the objects were I wrought,
But as God rules o’er our bickerings
It was through His will I fought.
So forever in the future,
Shall I battle as of yore,
Dying to be born a fighter,
But to die again, once more."
Thank you for posting this , I always love that scene where Scott recites it 🙏🏻♥️‼️‼️‼️‼️
Great cinematography, making events that were almost contemporary seem mystical.
This Captain was a really classy good captain. I was sad to see him go.
he was an ass kisser
I am from Canada and this is one of my favorite movies!!
A man like Patton won't be around again for a thousand years. The best General this nation ever had.
Grant was a horrible General by ever metric lol what’re you on about?
Patton was a great General but I can also think of other generals that led in combat that in my opinion were equal to him. Matthew Ridgeway is one man that comes to mind.
Schwarzkopf was close but not quite. I would take either one.
My Uncle served under Patton during the Battle of the Bulge. Patton jumped on my Uncle's tank. My Uncle told his men to get Patton off the tank any way possible because Patton's ivory handled pistols could be seen for miles. My Uncle thought they would be targeted by the German Panzers or snipers. He joked how he "fired" Patton from his tank for the rest of his life.
:@@SadieEnword692 : Most historians would disagree with you.
Tank jousting. why is this not a thing?
I do it all the time in games, scares the hell outta people every time and the poor son of a bitch that thinks they can flip the odds - well they are gravely mistaken.
Girls und Panzers... the foretelling...
@@donaldmeaker3627 damn it, you beat me to it
The world grew up
Mainly because the vast majority of tanks are designed to be crewed by at least three men and usually more. A commander, a driver, and a gunner. There are a few tanks that could be crewed by one man, but they're not nearly as impressive as the big tanks.
I hereby accept your invitation. Seeing as we're both dead, Valhalla will have to do for the duel.
True spirit and heart of a warrior.🗡🦅🇺🇲👑🦁🍷
A single man running a main battle tank by himself? That would be a neat trick.
Lookup! It went over your head!
A WWII era battle tank normally had a four man crew: commander, driver, asst. driver, loader and gunner. I suppose Patton would be the commander.
patton is a multi-tasker. i learned this in Armor School at Knox. ;)
Aside from that, his Sherman tank wouldn't have won against Rommel's tanks at that time. He would have been a crispy critter.
What are you talking about? The Tigers in N Africa were a cliff note more than anything. The sherman is more than capable of taking a panzer 3 or 4. Stop being a Wehraboo
This movie had some great moments like this; the other is when he is talking about reincarnation and quotes his own poem.
"It was here, the battlefield was here." My favorite scene in a movie FILLED with remarkable scenes
I liked where he said "God, how I hate the 20th century"... what a line!
I wish Patton was here now.
We need him. For the coming war with Russia.
They never met but fought each other in the 1st WW and in the 2nd WW.
Patton..🫡.A great General Brazil needs Patton to put the country on the right path. 👏👏
"WE DEFEATED THE WRONG ENEMY!" Patton was murdered for speaking the truth
Why every single time there is one mention of Patton they write this?
And sometimes not even when Patton is mentioned just the Holocaust or other horrible things the Germans did .
There could have been no better choice to play the role of Patton.
Meanwhile....Kelly and Otto are emptying the bank vault of it's gold. Odd Ball buys a Tiger tank..
now that's the battle of the generals
there a lot of comments saying how Patton's Sherman would have lost to Rommel's Tiger but Rommel did not command any Tigers in Africa.
"The world grew up...helluva' shame." - So right General!
Depending on the tank models chosen, that single combat could turn out to be either legendarily heroic or recklessly foolhardy.
Exactly. If Rommel chose a Tiger I, then Patton’s Sherman would be torn like paper.
Two great great Generals with honor!
This idea would be a great way to solve international disagreements.
Rommel!!! You magnificent bastard...I read your book!!!!
I do wonder what Patton would think of the Abrams. I know it consumes a lot more fuel but that main gun hits HARD.
He would have gotten a kick out of the Abrams tank it goes faster and hit harder
An engraved invitation in iambic pentameter is a hell of a touch
No one wants to kill another fellow man I believe. But if we must do battle. In the same breath striking gallantry, respect, fear, and terror all in the same moment to the winner into the losers dying eyes is not only noble and respectful, but shameful and haunting at the same time.
Great movie
Isn't that captain Holden from Blade runner?
Just checked. YEP!
Good eyes!
You know what a turtle is?
He's been assigned to see if Patton's a replicant.
Leon: What desert?
Holden: The one where Patton and I stood contemplating the "what if."
I think the young officer is played by the actor who plays John Wayne's son in one of the few war movies equal to Patton: In Harm's Way.
Yes, it is ashame that such Men, who have intellect for honor in history are made fun of.
General Patton would've blown up handily because,
"I read the book!". He was a hand full, no doubt, but one couldn't have asked
It really is a hell of a shame.
Patton in a Sherman, and Rommel in a Panzer Tiger? Patton would be blown to bits within the first 10 seconds
HaHa don't matter 3rd army go boom.
Yes, if the Panzer had a direct hit. But the Sherman could out maneuver the Panzer so it was a battle of strategy more than brute strength.
@@thonatim5321 no thyy could not - the US crap were sitting ducks for the Tigers.
The Tiger was a better armored tank than the Sherman, no doubt. In a head to head battle; the Tiger wins 100/100 times. So in true Sun Tzu fashion, Patton had to turn the Tiger's strength against it. While better armored, the Tiger was less maneuverable. So Patton had to deploy a "hit and run" strategy.
Patton and Rommel were both great Generals. However, Patton gets the slight edge and history proves this out.
Germany used "brute force" and lightning speed to its advantage during the start of WW2. However, the German army was not equipped for a defensive stand.
It took Germany years to conquer Europe. It took the Allies less than a year.
I have a unique story. My Uncle served under Patton during the Battle of the Bulge. He was a Tank commander and they were told to hold up just before that attack. He found himself a 16 year old French girl. When the battle began, my Uncle and his crew considered going AWOL. Then to top it off, my Uncle was the lead tank and Patton jumped on his tank to lead the men.
My Uncle told his crew to find a way to get Patton of their tank. Why? Patton carried his Ivory pistols that could be seen for miles against the Olive Drab green camouflage. My Uncle feared the German's would target Patton and thus his tank. He knew the Sherman could not take a direct hit from the Tiger's 88mm gun.
Germany only built about 1300 Tigers while the US built almost 50,000 Sherman's. So while the Tiger was a better tank one on one; the Sherman won the war.
I don't think Rommel had tigers. This was what, '42 or '43 in Tunisia. He had lighter tanks. I think primarily Panzer IIIs.
Hell of a shame is right.
This exact scenario happens in the movie Robot Jox, all wars are fought by 1 man in a robot suit. Great movie, highly recommended.
My dad, another tankman, worked for this guy
Kd este clássico dos clássicos do cinema mundial? Como encontra-lo? É uma obra de arte. Que Pena!
Romel in his Panzer VI Tiger and Patton in his Grant or Sherman . . . that "joust" would have been over very quickly.
Lets say it's a M-26 Pershing tank, instead of a regular medium sherman.
Patton would have speed and manuverbility on on his side.
seeing it's open desert if it happened at a distance the battle would be over quickly, although seeing this is a fair sport they'd be placed where both tanks would be in range of each other wherein the sherman can use it's pros against the tiger's cons
It would’ve been a Panzer III or IV against a Grant or Sherman. Rommel has Tigers yes, but their numbers were dwarfed by the Panzer IIIs & IVs
@@suba1030 The Pershing tank appeared only in 1945 - two years after this purported conversation took place.
"Rommel's out there somewhere... waiting for me... and here I stand... crazy as a loon. Don't tell the men."
He wasn't crazy. He was probably among the best Generals that ever lived.
@@robertthomas5906- He deeply believed things for which there was absolutely no evidence; Patton was crazy, full stop. He was a good general, but one of his main strengths was having the logistical support of American production behind him... and having few real rivals for limelight in the field.
Ya crazy but a brilliant cammander
Quoting history along with his personal be. Not crazy.
@@Malt454 find your biological parents.
There are no Generals like that around today.
What about Mattus? Colonel MAYHEM?
Norman Schwartzkopf?
20th century: The world grew up
21st century: We are reverting back
The world indeed grew up. Back in the day, we would contest each other in glorious and honorable combat of strenght. We're used to romanticize those times, because we are fed up with smartasses trying to outsmart other smartasses for nearly a century now. Instead of code of honor - cold bureaucracy.
Instead of strenght - wits and information. The world got more complex, but thats the part of growing up. The other option is to die dreaming about youth.
Hmm I think he was actually waiting for Monty and his 8th army General dream on .
Here in 2021. Hell of a shame is right...
Patton was so right it was scary. That’s why Montgomery got promoted.
0:07 - I remember watch that scene and immediately came to mind, “The hell they end up on Tatooine?”
would love to see rommel and patton meeting for a Jousting match
That would be one shitty fight as they both wrestled ineffectively to simultaneously drive, locate each other, load the gun, aim and fire in tanks designed for 3 or even 4 people to operate.
Rommel's book was about infantry tactics.
We fought the wrong enemy.
well, we may just get that chance in the next few months with the Red Army running hogwild through Ukraine at the moment.
No we didn’t
I have sometimes wondered what would have happened had Rommel not bene implicated in the July plot and forced to off himself and if Patton had not been in that crash after VE day. Imagine the conversations he'd have demanded to have with (a POW) Rommel after the war.
Rommel was the perfect opponent for Patton.
Nice scene. Love the idea of a WW2 tank-joust, perhaps settling only the desert-war in Africa, but cool nonetheless!
yes it grew up: it got thousand of nuke warheads and have them pointed at each's country, just one or two needed to ruin the environment for decades. Nice, that growing-up thing.
better at military strategies then ike ever could be...
Watching this scene with my Dad and he said, "Patton is in the wrong tank to try that."
Patton & Trump. One of a kind...
You compare a hard-charging, courageous warrior to a chickenhawk that got his daddy to buy his way out of Vietnam? What a way to insult Patton.
@@flyboy152 What I meant “air”head is both love(d) our country and are (were) true Patriots. No doubt you find Uncle “Joe” more courageous than either... 😂
@@guysalzmann9302 "Airhead" is an actual word, you don't need to put quotes around part of it. But, given your delusional devotion to a traitorous, racist, sexist, grifter, who fucked over the working class in this country every chance he got, it's hardly surprising that the basics of spelling and grammar elude you.
The world grew up. He knew soon we wouldn't need soldiers or heroes. Machines would be only things left. Or people who had become machines, like Nazis. Humanity itself would be obselesent. Peace at long last on earth 🌎 and no-one to share it
Patton would lose, he would show up in a Sherman and Rommel would show up in a Tiger. The end.
Rommel to High command: Any of those Tigers available?
High command: lol no
Meanwhile the tigers are just uselessly sitting around in france
Rommel wasn't as genius as he was. He was ok, but not genius nor invincible.
He was constantly handicapped by his own Fuhrer and logistic lines and lack of support.
Allied commanders uprated his abilities to hide their on deficiencies in command.
It happened a lot in WW2 across all the various fronts.
One thing is true, Rommel was an honest commander, and he respected his opponents and was an honest fair man.. He never allowed war crimes, and he was gentleman in victory to his POW's.
Field Marshal Erich von Manstein was Germany's best General - Rommel was at his best when commanding just a Division, not an Army or an Army Group.
Rommel in his Tiger tank and Patton in his Sherman?.....Patton is a dead man.
tiger would break down or run out of fuel lol
Tigers weren’t even invented by 1941 m8.
It would have been Rommel in a Pz. 4 and Patton in an M4 Sherman.
I wonder if Rommel would've taken him up on the challenge
WHAT'S REALLY CRAZY IS I'M A LIVING EXAMPLE OF WHAT PRECENSIT MEANS
what
We duel at 50 paces, me and the enemy General for all the marbles.
Choice of weapons: Flame Thrower
Any Questions?
Want to go to luxemburg and see general pattons cemetery
Uh, Panzer 4 vs a Sherman? Nah, I'm not taking that bet.
Rommels tiger tank would shoot holes in pattons sherman.
I mean no disrespect but when the "real" George S. Patton is seen in actual film-footage of the time, along with sound of his voice, he comes-off as a disappointment---but only in comparison to Scott's magnificent-portrayal, including his gravelly, authoritative-voice. The "real" Patton knew his physical & verbal-shortcomings undercut his effectiveness as a commander, among his troops & to the press & public, as well as his personal-image of what a general should look & sound-like, so he compensated by using rough, salty language, a certain theatricality, and a laser-like stare so severely-cold it put chills down an errant-subordinate's or soldier's spine. I've read this of Ike, too---when displeased, he could stare a hole through a man. I guess commanders need this quality; in fact, I'm sure they do. When push came to shove, they couldn't shrug-off or just-take excuses for failure or errant-behavior. Monty's main-gripe against Ike was that the Man from Abilene had no combat-experience, although he came to thoroughly-trust & both see & admire Ike's strong-points. Ike, in his turn, learned how to placate the prickly-Brit, who was wildly-popular among his countrymen. I happened to pick-up a copy of Bradley's WW2 memoirs today at the local-library, which I've never-read. I perused the book & it looks very-interesting. I now would like to take a peek at "The Patton Papers" by Martin Blumenson, as well as the general's-own "War as I Knew It". Should be fascinating!
Rommel would have agreed but he would have taken a Tiger 1
he didn't command any tigers in Africa
I'm pretty sure that Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and oh yeah... Hitler probably would have objected to the fate of the war hanging on a single tank joust. It's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback almost 80 years later, but I'd expect the actual leaders of the belligerent nations wouldn't approve or comply.
"Welp... Patton lost because his tank threw a tread... Okay everybody, pack it up and go home!"
I think patton would win, rommel was never a tank commander like patton was durig ww1. Rommel was a briliant strategist but probably not a good tank commander. I would rather see Heinz Guderian vs patton because Hanz Guderian acually had experiance with tanks and developed the consept of bliztkrieg.
"Bkitzkrieg" is a misnomer.
Its really just combined arms with a propaganda campaign...especially when your enemy agrees with it to cover up their shortcomings...
I don't think Patton ever was actually inside a tank during WWI, neither was Rommel who fought the Romanians from the trenches.
Rommel led his men from inside a panzer regularly. He had tank warfare down pat.
@@bthorn5035 He only did that during the invasion of France in 1940....in North Africa he rode in his command car, and did the same when he was back in France in 1944.
@@stevenm3823 Name one other general who *ever did that. Furthermore, Rommel was well known for being close to the front all the times to get timely information and make adjustments on the spot. He was never a rear area "leader" like most other equivalent ranks.
As far as the original argument goes, Rommel was very skilled in maneuver warfare and tank tactics. His original specialty may have been infantry, but he adjusted to the panzer corps brilliantly and used his meager supplies in the best possible ways. He was extremely clever, using methods and tactics that were far outside the box. He already had years of wartime experience before Patton even came onto the scene. To say that Patton was a more capable or experienced tank division commander is ludicrous.
I tend to not be a big fan of George Patton. I read his book "On War" which I think others helped put together after his death in 1945 due to a vehicle accident on a hunting trip. Patton was a decent leader. Yet, we need to remember other WW2 Generals were much more low key, less egotistical, and just did their jobs. Courtney Hodges, Omar Bradley and many other American leaders fall into this category. General Patton had a flare for open field tactics. But much of the land fighting in Europe only had relatively brief periods of open field running such as the breakout of Normandy after Operation Cobra. The bulk of the time was slow, methodical positional combined arms warfare of an attritional nature on a broad front.
So we need to be careful about glorifying Patton too much. Patton was dealt some pretty good blows at Metz from skillful German defenders. Yes, very long supply lines and logistics were an issue for Patton in the fall of 1944. This supply problem was only alleviated by the clearing of Antwerp of mines and German troops just in time for the start of the Battle of the Bulge. The crossing of the Rhine and the invasion of German would have been completely impossible without Antwerp supplying Allied Armies with fuel, food, ammunition, and all the necessary supplies for modern combined arms mechanized warfare. Modern warfare isn't about dueling or individual combat. Modern warfare is absolutely about the proper business management of logistical networks. It is also about applying proper engineering principles for the construction and maintenance of logistical infrastructure of those logstical networks to achieve efficient business management of those supply networks.
The modern field commanders were Bomber Harris, Eisenhower and Von Clausewitz. Harris was geared towards total destruction of the enemies factories, civilian population and military, a total war. Von Clausewitz was geared towards combined arms tactics with rapid movements. Eisenhower was a master of logistics. The old school idea of gentlemanly warfare was dead and had really died out in the middle of WW1.
Grew up ? My hairy white a$$ it grew up , it grew SENILE . When honor means nothing and standing up for no reason other than you are a man and (fill in the blank) needs opposed does not happen anymore because of fee-fees . Grew up ? NO We went collectively insane .
Until the lion learns to write all tales will glorify the hunter....
Because people can't learn anything from those who lose besides their mistakes.
Here's an interesting thought what would General Patton thought of the character Shannon from the book the dogs of war part of me thinks he might have actually admired him did anyone agree
Well a tiger 1 would have torn a sherman to pieces js
One on one? I'd bet on the German tank, certainly at that point in the war.
lets say the year is 1943 and both of them will have 20 tanks the Patton's 20 tanks would be made of M3 Lee and M4 Sherman while Rommel would have Panzer IV, Stug III, and of course the Tiger 1. good luck with that.
Two men settle it or 40 million dead..I think the first is the more advanced
It wouldn't be a pretty duel considering German tanks often had to be outflanked to effectively destroy them
Rommel in a Tiger 1 & Patton in a Sherman? I think Rommel would get the better of that one.
Maybe not. Tiger was quite heavy. Sherman more maneuverable and faster.
@@cliffowens3629 Shermans had to work in teams to beat a single Tiger. Their guns weren't powerful enough for the front armour.
The only allied tanks that could go one on one with a Tiger would be a Pershing or a Centurion.
@@Malky24 It was tank doctrine that stated the platoon vs one tank because they always wanted numerical superiority.
Also both the Sherman Firefly and Sherman armed with the 76mm can penetrate the front of a Tiger tank
here's a video to help: th-cam.com/video/bNjp_4jY8pY/w-d-xo.html
@@cliffowens3629 You can't have a single person run a tank. Maybe one round, fired from the turret and both from the gunners seat. Even a Panzer IV had 7.5 cm gun same as the Sherman. I wouldn't gamble on winning.
I would not like to go up against a Mark IV Special with a Sherman. And your chances drop to slim to none if up against a Tiger I. Patton should have challenged Rommel to pistols at dawn ...which Rommel would have have had little chance of winning.