How would Eisenhower have done with a field command in WWII?My understanding is that Eisenhower and Patton as junior officers "played" together with tank tactics? Would Eisenhower have given a Patton like performance? Or were there things in his nature that make him a good administrator, but would have prevented him from being a good field commander?Thoughts please.
First off, define Field Commander. Is that anyone exercising operational level command and below?
I'll accept that definition.If you like, to make it easier, I'll even change the question a little. How would Eisenhower had done if he'd held Patton's commands?
He would likely have done better than Patton. Ike had a tendency towards operational finesse rather than Patton's head on bullying style. Don't get me wrong Patton was also good but he was not a war god as many in the US would have us believe. Ike had a hand in several operational decision following D-day ad he showed that he had a light touch and sought to reduce the likelihood of excessive casualties. Ike was big believer in firepower while Patton was a heavyweight boxer type and was willing to tolerate a higher casualty rate than Ike to achieve the mission. That is also the main reason Bradley got 12th Army Group and not Patton.
Ike might not have had the stomach for some of the bloodiest engagements, but then again, he probably would have devised a strategy to prevent those casualties in the first place…however he would have lost time in doing so. Patton understood that sometimes you just have to get your nose bloodied and get the fight over with rather than allow the enemy time for comfort and preparation. Of course he was also in a race for glory and ultimately that was his undoing. Ike was a better balance overall and would have done well regardless. Ike was just too valuable as the overseer to be saddled with anything else.