![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Since I was asked to look at this article, I would like to say it looks good. Informative and neutral. I would be interested to know a little more about the relationship between Bradley and Patton, especially when Bradley became Patton's commander rather than vica versa. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) you should read his autobiography I did it will tell you why it is 632 pgs
It's too bad, we don't have a colored photo of Bradley as a 'General of the Army' (five-star). The 'four star' is cool, but it's not the pinnacle (rank wise) of his Army career. GoodDay 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I met General Bradley in 1971 while I was in the Air Force as a Medic working at the March Air Force Base Hospital. He was having surgery. He was most warm and friendly and barring the fact that I was an airman in rank (the bottom of the barrel) and he a "General". Of course when he saw my name tag said 'Bradley' probaly broke the ice, when He spoke first saying, "Good morning Airmen Bradley, How are you young man?" and I said," Fine Sir". Our conversation continued for the next half hour as though I was talking to my grandfather.
In the time of war [compasion] is an element that is sorely missed. I know to this day that Omar was that balance struck to temper Patton and his exccessive aggresiveness.
Sgt. Bradley USAF 21 Feb 09
Bradley and Patton were never friends or knew each other before WW II but they got along fine during the war because both hid their real feelings.
As shown by his diaries, Patton thought he was better man and general than Bradley. To his face, however, Patton was the loyal subordinate. The same is true of Bradley. He never criticised Patton during WWII for conduct of the Sicily campaign.
Its only after Patton's death and his publication of his papers/diaries that Bradley went public with his feelings.
As for true feelings. Bradley thought Patton while willing to take risks, great at pursuit, and a "thruster" was a sloppy administrator and adverse to detailed planning. Further, he thought Patton was too interested in public publicity. Patton, OTOH, thought Bradley had no vision or imagination, feel for the enemy, and was unwilling to take risks.
IMO, the men worked best when Patton was boss. Bradley could temper Patton recklessness, and was able to perform the detailed planning neccessary to implement his ideas.
Further, Bradley was an example of the peter principle. He natural ceiling in my opinion was Army Commander. He no ability to "feel" the enemy or understanding of what an enemy could do or couldn't do. For example:
1) Prior to D-day he thought that the landings would be easy, the tough part would be stopping the enemy counterattack ala Salerno or Anzio. Completely wrong.
2) He completely missed the significance of the Hedgerows on military operations.
3) After the breakout he contantly reined Patton in, and forced him to provide flank guards, completely misreading the ability of the Germans to counterattack. The failure to close the gap at Falsaise is his fault.
4) Having overestimated the germans during the Normandy breakout, he went the other extreme and considered the war won in late August and early September. Advancing on a broad front, he threw away any chance of reaching the Rhine.
5) He continued to underestimate the Germans throuhout Sept-Dec 1994. Launching penny packet attacks all along the front, he incurred thousands of casualities while accomplishing nothing. He was taken surprise during the Battle of the Bulge because he thought the German could never counterattack.
6) After the Bulge, he went back to Overestimating the Germans. Demanding that the ENTIRE Rhine west back be occupied before any further advance. Holding up Patton. Demanding the Ruhr pocket be elminated before any further advance into Germany, etc.
7) Finally, it should be noted that Bradley was against Patton's landing in Sicily, even though this was correct strategy and hastened the germans withdrawl. The only thing wrong with them, if fact, was that weren't done sooner and in bigger strenght. But Bradley didn't like to take risks.
xxxxx
As per (7) above, Patton's plan for separate landings wasn't adopted. Patton, at Montgmery's insistence, was made to land in the Gulf of Gela alongside Monty's Eighth Army, because otherwise the risk of the piecemeal defeat of the Allied armies was too great (IMO probably rightly, however it may look in hindsight or in a wargame, in real life Ike and Alex couldn't afford the risk of such a disaster). Bradley may well have disapproved of Patton's subsequent thrust via Palermo to Messina, which probably did speed up the German withdrawal.
::::1) Prior to D-day he thought that the landings would be easy, the tough part would be stopping the enemy counterattack ala Salerno or Anzio. Completely wrong.
::::2) He completely missed the significance of the Hedgerows on military operations.''
::::3) After the breakout he contantly reined Patton in, and forced him to provide flank guards, completely misreading the ability of the Germans to counterattack. The failure to close the gap at Falsaise is his fault.
::::4) Having overestimated the germans during the Normandy breakout, he went the other extreme and considered the war won in late August and early September. Advancing on a broad front, he threw away any chance of reaching the Rhine.
::::7) Finally, it should be noted that Bradley was against Patton's landing in Sicily, even though this was correct strategy and hastened the germans withdrawl. The only thing wrong with them, if fact, was that weren't done sooner and in bigger strenght. But Bradley didn't like to take risks.
xxxxx
::::As per (7) above, Patton's plan for separate landings wasn't adopted. Patton, at Montgmery's insistence, was made to land in the Gulf of Gela alongside Monty's Eighth Army, because otherwise the risk of the piecemeal defeat of the Allied armies was too great (IMO probably rightly, however it may look in hindsight or in a wargame, in real life Ike and Alex couldn't afford the risk of such a disaster). Bradley may well have disapproved of Patton's subsequent thrust via Palermo to Messina, which probably did speed up the German withdrawal.
This article does not mention his first wife, Mary, or second wife, Esther. Both are shown on the headstone. Nor does the article mention whether he had any children. The German version of the article at least mentions Esther "Kitty" Buhler. Group29 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
ANB says he was appointed an alternate for his congressional district, but the man directly appointed failed his qualifying exam, which is not the same story. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why Omar? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've always wondered why one of America's most famous generals held an Arabic first name. I always figured he was of Arabic ancestry, but this does not seem to be the case. Does anyone have a reliable source saying why his parents chose to give him the Arabic name "Omar"? — Gabbe 08:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Gabbe, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_name#Modern_and_regional_variations. I guess his parents simply thought it to be a good name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.0.59 ( talk • contribs) January 30, 2006
Well, according to the Omar disambiguation page, Omar is a German name as well. I think this sounds more plausible. -- Inahet 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
According to his autobiography he was named for Omar D. Gray a local newspaper editor his father admired. Jackfork ( talk) 04:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
General Bradley wrote how he had to vigorously insist on being given Heavy Bomber support during operations against German Panzer Tanks. He said; 'the command seemed to think they could win the war simply by bombing Germany into the ground. They never stopped to consider the effect this was having on German civilians. Churchill wanted the V rockets attacks stopped on London. Bombing alone could not snuff out the V Rockets, we had to have control of the ground they were fired from'. General Bradley got the Air Support he needed and his strategy against the Panzer's was an outstanding success, without any German Civilian losses. Johnwrd ( talk) 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the post nominal letters KCB, referring to his honorary status as Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, from the introduction of this article as Mr. Bradley was not closely associated with the United Kingdom in the sense required by the Manual of Style for biographies. The full style guidelines for the use of post nominal letters can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Post-nominal_initials. TrufflesTheLamb ( talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE INFO ON HIM
What is the story with him being made General of the Army after World War II ?
The "dates of rank" table at the bottom lists him going from Lt. General in 1943, to Colonel in November 1943, to full General in 1945. What's up with the demotion? Is this an error, or? It doesn't seem to be a post-war demotion, given the date of November 43. Perhaps it should be explained somewhere if this actually correct. The text seems to emphasize the fact this was "regular army", but the war wasn't over. Is this some post-war demotion that is incorrectly dated (and ordered), or something else?
Warthog32 ( talk) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
What about the redeployment of General Rokossovsky's 2nd Belorussian Front (A whole army group) in April 1945? It disengaged from fighting the remnants of Army Group North in East Prussia, crossed Poland and redeployed north of General Georgy Zhukov 1st Belorussian Front on the Oder in two weeks, ready for the start of the Battle for Berlin. Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an exaggeration and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.199.4 ( talk) 08:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you can prove that there are any Germans in Sicily, go ahead... . I think what's meant to be said is the German Wehrmacht and the Italian Fascists were driven out of Sicily, which is a true statement. Unless you can find Wehrmacht and Fascist soldiers there. In all seriousness, the Italians were sick of the war already, and the Germans knew they had to defend Germany. What did they care about Italy? The war had turned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 ( talk) 02:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit suggested Bradley skipped the rank of Colonel. The following, from [1], p. 199 would seem to contradict. (Note: Ward is called Lt. Col.)
--John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 06:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The Wiki page on the Navy Distinguished Service Medal says that Omar was issued one. Should this be added to awards or explaned how a Army Man gets a Navy medal?
I cannot understand how Bradley ever made 5 star General. The disaster at the Falaise Pocket, when Bradley let so many Germans escape, and more pointedly the Hurtgen Forest campaign which is considered to be an American defeat and is also the single longest battle in the history of the US Army, clearly indicate ineptitude. I find Bradley to be pedestrian and mediocre. He interfered with Patton, who was one of the best generals of the war. If I was Eisenhower I would have relieved Bradley of command. Does anyone know why Bradley was given command responsibility when he clearly lacked the genius that was required? Was it politics? Did he manipulate people? Was he a boot licker? Was he a back stabber? Have any psychological studies been made of him? Any books been written on this matter? How did such an inept commander rise to such importance? History is replete with accounts of incompetent generals who obtained rank through politics and personal connections, was Bradley one of these? What were his political connections? Few people know about the Hurtgen Forest disaster, I can think of only one movie made about it--"When Trumpets Fade" (an excellent movie, by the way, much better than that clown cartoon "Saving Private Ryan"). You can view "When Trumpets Fade" on Youtube, by the way. Was the Hurtgen Forest debacle covered up? I think a section dealing with this matter would clarify things, illuminate who Bradley really was and improve the article. 71.139.247.247 ( talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Reading this lead me to believe someone who had a Historical Ax to grind against Bradly has edited this article. There is a lot of dialog between editors apparent in the article and that classic point counter point my facts trump your facts style here. It really fails to be objective, although it doesn't seem to have a voice. Is there truly the need to constantly compare Bradly to Patton here at every step, and how is the invasion of Sicily just left out? I haven't the time to fix this, but articles like this are seriously what makes Wikipedia so easy to attack. I really abhor people who want to flame historical figures with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.145.4 ( talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The article contains quotes by S. L. A. Marshall. Given revelations about his "research methods," is he considered reliable?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a good write up, however I think there is a discrepancy with the dates of Gen. Bradleys rank. In this article, Gen. Bradley held the rank of Brig. General prior to COL. This is not possible as a COL (06) is lower ranking than a 1 star. In addition, according to this article, Gen. Bradley held two officer ranks COL 1943, and Lieutenant General 1943, this is also not possible ABN96B ( talk) 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Was Omar Bradley's father a Mormon and was he born into the Church of LDS? I have heard this but can't confim it. Tricolour1789 ( talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
I reverted the insertion of the link to the web image of Bradley's home (headquarters?). There was no accompanying text establishing the facts.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
We're currently feeding into Archive 4 but the box on this page seems to be referring to Archive 1. I don't know how to fix that.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
counter=4
to counter=1
2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (
talk)
03:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Can someone with access to the source confirm the Dates of Rank? Specifically, "Colonel, Regular Army: October 1, 1943", followed by "Brigadier general, Regular Army: September 1, 1943", doesn't make sense. - theWOLFchild 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The discrepancy is due to an made by Colputt on Jan 3rd of this year. Perhaps he could re-check his "source" on this... ? - theWOLFchild 13:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
But, according to the dates in the table, Bradley was made a permanent Brigadier General in the regular army BEFORE he was made a permanent Colonel in the regular army. I'm looking for a clear reason as to why. What you posts her doesn't explain that. Do you have any sources that clearly explain this? - theWOLFchild 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded snarky. Didn't mean to. It seemed most of the discussion here was explanation piecing together the original lists. I DID see the one reference that seemed to explain it and would expect (as you have now, I think) that used as the source of the explanation or there be a discussion of the suitability of the source. I didn't dig in enough to get beyond that. I think your suggested wording is good. Sorry if I added to your aggravation. --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 03:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with adding a simple asterisk or note, stating that one of the dates is backdated. We can simply add "see talk page" is you guys think something more is needed. Thanks for the follow-up comments Bill, once you mentioned "backdated" and "postdated", things began to make sense. - theWOLFchild 05:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I notice a quickly reverted edit changed the years of service in the info box to 1915–1953 from 1915-1981. I understand arguments on both sides of this. "years of service" can cover "years paid as a soldier" or it could mean "years actively soldiering." To me, the second is more useful in the info box. That he was getting paid until his death seems less useful to describe there - and the footnote could still explain "he retired in 1953, but as a GA continued to receive his full salary until his death in 1981." Thoughts? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 23:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've referred this discussion to the community at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Years of service and asked for comments.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I plan to update all the 5-star ranks to consistently have the "years in service" listed in the info box end when they "retired" - i.e. stopped "going to the office" - rather than their death (when they stopped getting paid) and have a footnote explaining the pay situation. Gives more information (the box already has the date of death!). Let me know if you have objections (I don't see any above). --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Paragraph on Funnies is informative but overlong, and hard to read. Anyone feel like condensing it? Notreallydavid ( talk) 16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The rumor is that he had an affair with Dietrich. Should this be a part of this article, or, in the absence of citations, is it to be disregarded? Seems pretty important to me. 173.62.11.254 ( talk) 00:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Can someone with more knowledge of the subject and Wikipedia's guidelines correct the footnote on the issue of dates of rank? Using an archived talk page as the reference is quite confusing.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Since I was asked to look at this article, I would like to say it looks good. Informative and neutral. I would be interested to know a little more about the relationship between Bradley and Patton, especially when Bradley became Patton's commander rather than vica versa. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) you should read his autobiography I did it will tell you why it is 632 pgs
It's too bad, we don't have a colored photo of Bradley as a 'General of the Army' (five-star). The 'four star' is cool, but it's not the pinnacle (rank wise) of his Army career. GoodDay 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I met General Bradley in 1971 while I was in the Air Force as a Medic working at the March Air Force Base Hospital. He was having surgery. He was most warm and friendly and barring the fact that I was an airman in rank (the bottom of the barrel) and he a "General". Of course when he saw my name tag said 'Bradley' probaly broke the ice, when He spoke first saying, "Good morning Airmen Bradley, How are you young man?" and I said," Fine Sir". Our conversation continued for the next half hour as though I was talking to my grandfather.
In the time of war [compasion] is an element that is sorely missed. I know to this day that Omar was that balance struck to temper Patton and his exccessive aggresiveness.
Sgt. Bradley USAF 21 Feb 09
Bradley and Patton were never friends or knew each other before WW II but they got along fine during the war because both hid their real feelings.
As shown by his diaries, Patton thought he was better man and general than Bradley. To his face, however, Patton was the loyal subordinate. The same is true of Bradley. He never criticised Patton during WWII for conduct of the Sicily campaign.
Its only after Patton's death and his publication of his papers/diaries that Bradley went public with his feelings.
As for true feelings. Bradley thought Patton while willing to take risks, great at pursuit, and a "thruster" was a sloppy administrator and adverse to detailed planning. Further, he thought Patton was too interested in public publicity. Patton, OTOH, thought Bradley had no vision or imagination, feel for the enemy, and was unwilling to take risks.
IMO, the men worked best when Patton was boss. Bradley could temper Patton recklessness, and was able to perform the detailed planning neccessary to implement his ideas.
Further, Bradley was an example of the peter principle. He natural ceiling in my opinion was Army Commander. He no ability to "feel" the enemy or understanding of what an enemy could do or couldn't do. For example:
1) Prior to D-day he thought that the landings would be easy, the tough part would be stopping the enemy counterattack ala Salerno or Anzio. Completely wrong.
2) He completely missed the significance of the Hedgerows on military operations.
3) After the breakout he contantly reined Patton in, and forced him to provide flank guards, completely misreading the ability of the Germans to counterattack. The failure to close the gap at Falsaise is his fault.
4) Having overestimated the germans during the Normandy breakout, he went the other extreme and considered the war won in late August and early September. Advancing on a broad front, he threw away any chance of reaching the Rhine.
5) He continued to underestimate the Germans throuhout Sept-Dec 1994. Launching penny packet attacks all along the front, he incurred thousands of casualities while accomplishing nothing. He was taken surprise during the Battle of the Bulge because he thought the German could never counterattack.
6) After the Bulge, he went back to Overestimating the Germans. Demanding that the ENTIRE Rhine west back be occupied before any further advance. Holding up Patton. Demanding the Ruhr pocket be elminated before any further advance into Germany, etc.
7) Finally, it should be noted that Bradley was against Patton's landing in Sicily, even though this was correct strategy and hastened the germans withdrawl. The only thing wrong with them, if fact, was that weren't done sooner and in bigger strenght. But Bradley didn't like to take risks.
xxxxx
As per (7) above, Patton's plan for separate landings wasn't adopted. Patton, at Montgmery's insistence, was made to land in the Gulf of Gela alongside Monty's Eighth Army, because otherwise the risk of the piecemeal defeat of the Allied armies was too great (IMO probably rightly, however it may look in hindsight or in a wargame, in real life Ike and Alex couldn't afford the risk of such a disaster). Bradley may well have disapproved of Patton's subsequent thrust via Palermo to Messina, which probably did speed up the German withdrawal.
::::1) Prior to D-day he thought that the landings would be easy, the tough part would be stopping the enemy counterattack ala Salerno or Anzio. Completely wrong.
::::2) He completely missed the significance of the Hedgerows on military operations.''
::::3) After the breakout he contantly reined Patton in, and forced him to provide flank guards, completely misreading the ability of the Germans to counterattack. The failure to close the gap at Falsaise is his fault.
::::4) Having overestimated the germans during the Normandy breakout, he went the other extreme and considered the war won in late August and early September. Advancing on a broad front, he threw away any chance of reaching the Rhine.
::::7) Finally, it should be noted that Bradley was against Patton's landing in Sicily, even though this was correct strategy and hastened the germans withdrawl. The only thing wrong with them, if fact, was that weren't done sooner and in bigger strenght. But Bradley didn't like to take risks.
xxxxx
::::As per (7) above, Patton's plan for separate landings wasn't adopted. Patton, at Montgmery's insistence, was made to land in the Gulf of Gela alongside Monty's Eighth Army, because otherwise the risk of the piecemeal defeat of the Allied armies was too great (IMO probably rightly, however it may look in hindsight or in a wargame, in real life Ike and Alex couldn't afford the risk of such a disaster). Bradley may well have disapproved of Patton's subsequent thrust via Palermo to Messina, which probably did speed up the German withdrawal.
This article does not mention his first wife, Mary, or second wife, Esther. Both are shown on the headstone. Nor does the article mention whether he had any children. The German version of the article at least mentions Esther "Kitty" Buhler. Group29 18:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
ANB says he was appointed an alternate for his congressional district, but the man directly appointed failed his qualifying exam, which is not the same story. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why Omar? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've always wondered why one of America's most famous generals held an Arabic first name. I always figured he was of Arabic ancestry, but this does not seem to be the case. Does anyone have a reliable source saying why his parents chose to give him the Arabic name "Omar"? — Gabbe 08:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Gabbe, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_name#Modern_and_regional_variations. I guess his parents simply thought it to be a good name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.0.59 ( talk • contribs) January 30, 2006
Well, according to the Omar disambiguation page, Omar is a German name as well. I think this sounds more plausible. -- Inahet 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
According to his autobiography he was named for Omar D. Gray a local newspaper editor his father admired. Jackfork ( talk) 04:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
General Bradley wrote how he had to vigorously insist on being given Heavy Bomber support during operations against German Panzer Tanks. He said; 'the command seemed to think they could win the war simply by bombing Germany into the ground. They never stopped to consider the effect this was having on German civilians. Churchill wanted the V rockets attacks stopped on London. Bombing alone could not snuff out the V Rockets, we had to have control of the ground they were fired from'. General Bradley got the Air Support he needed and his strategy against the Panzer's was an outstanding success, without any German Civilian losses. Johnwrd ( talk) 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the post nominal letters KCB, referring to his honorary status as Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, from the introduction of this article as Mr. Bradley was not closely associated with the United Kingdom in the sense required by the Manual of Style for biographies. The full style guidelines for the use of post nominal letters can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Post-nominal_initials. TrufflesTheLamb ( talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE INFO ON HIM
What is the story with him being made General of the Army after World War II ?
The "dates of rank" table at the bottom lists him going from Lt. General in 1943, to Colonel in November 1943, to full General in 1945. What's up with the demotion? Is this an error, or? It doesn't seem to be a post-war demotion, given the date of November 43. Perhaps it should be explained somewhere if this actually correct. The text seems to emphasize the fact this was "regular army", but the war wasn't over. Is this some post-war demotion that is incorrectly dated (and ordered), or something else?
Warthog32 ( talk) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
What about the redeployment of General Rokossovsky's 2nd Belorussian Front (A whole army group) in April 1945? It disengaged from fighting the remnants of Army Group North in East Prussia, crossed Poland and redeployed north of General Georgy Zhukov 1st Belorussian Front on the Oder in two weeks, ready for the start of the Battle for Berlin. Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an exaggeration and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.199.4 ( talk) 08:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you can prove that there are any Germans in Sicily, go ahead... . I think what's meant to be said is the German Wehrmacht and the Italian Fascists were driven out of Sicily, which is a true statement. Unless you can find Wehrmacht and Fascist soldiers there. In all seriousness, the Italians were sick of the war already, and the Germans knew they had to defend Germany. What did they care about Italy? The war had turned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 ( talk) 02:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit suggested Bradley skipped the rank of Colonel. The following, from [1], p. 199 would seem to contradict. (Note: Ward is called Lt. Col.)
--John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 06:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The Wiki page on the Navy Distinguished Service Medal says that Omar was issued one. Should this be added to awards or explaned how a Army Man gets a Navy medal?
I cannot understand how Bradley ever made 5 star General. The disaster at the Falaise Pocket, when Bradley let so many Germans escape, and more pointedly the Hurtgen Forest campaign which is considered to be an American defeat and is also the single longest battle in the history of the US Army, clearly indicate ineptitude. I find Bradley to be pedestrian and mediocre. He interfered with Patton, who was one of the best generals of the war. If I was Eisenhower I would have relieved Bradley of command. Does anyone know why Bradley was given command responsibility when he clearly lacked the genius that was required? Was it politics? Did he manipulate people? Was he a boot licker? Was he a back stabber? Have any psychological studies been made of him? Any books been written on this matter? How did such an inept commander rise to such importance? History is replete with accounts of incompetent generals who obtained rank through politics and personal connections, was Bradley one of these? What were his political connections? Few people know about the Hurtgen Forest disaster, I can think of only one movie made about it--"When Trumpets Fade" (an excellent movie, by the way, much better than that clown cartoon "Saving Private Ryan"). You can view "When Trumpets Fade" on Youtube, by the way. Was the Hurtgen Forest debacle covered up? I think a section dealing with this matter would clarify things, illuminate who Bradley really was and improve the article. 71.139.247.247 ( talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Reading this lead me to believe someone who had a Historical Ax to grind against Bradly has edited this article. There is a lot of dialog between editors apparent in the article and that classic point counter point my facts trump your facts style here. It really fails to be objective, although it doesn't seem to have a voice. Is there truly the need to constantly compare Bradly to Patton here at every step, and how is the invasion of Sicily just left out? I haven't the time to fix this, but articles like this are seriously what makes Wikipedia so easy to attack. I really abhor people who want to flame historical figures with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.145.4 ( talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The article contains quotes by S. L. A. Marshall. Given revelations about his "research methods," is he considered reliable?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a good write up, however I think there is a discrepancy with the dates of Gen. Bradleys rank. In this article, Gen. Bradley held the rank of Brig. General prior to COL. This is not possible as a COL (06) is lower ranking than a 1 star. In addition, according to this article, Gen. Bradley held two officer ranks COL 1943, and Lieutenant General 1943, this is also not possible ABN96B ( talk) 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Was Omar Bradley's father a Mormon and was he born into the Church of LDS? I have heard this but can't confim it. Tricolour1789 ( talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
I reverted the insertion of the link to the web image of Bradley's home (headquarters?). There was no accompanying text establishing the facts.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
We're currently feeding into Archive 4 but the box on this page seems to be referring to Archive 1. I don't know how to fix that.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
counter=4
to counter=1
2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (
talk)
03:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Can someone with access to the source confirm the Dates of Rank? Specifically, "Colonel, Regular Army: October 1, 1943", followed by "Brigadier general, Regular Army: September 1, 1943", doesn't make sense. - theWOLFchild 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The discrepancy is due to an made by Colputt on Jan 3rd of this year. Perhaps he could re-check his "source" on this... ? - theWOLFchild 13:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
But, according to the dates in the table, Bradley was made a permanent Brigadier General in the regular army BEFORE he was made a permanent Colonel in the regular army. I'm looking for a clear reason as to why. What you posts her doesn't explain that. Do you have any sources that clearly explain this? - theWOLFchild 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded snarky. Didn't mean to. It seemed most of the discussion here was explanation piecing together the original lists. I DID see the one reference that seemed to explain it and would expect (as you have now, I think) that used as the source of the explanation or there be a discussion of the suitability of the source. I didn't dig in enough to get beyond that. I think your suggested wording is good. Sorry if I added to your aggravation. --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 03:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with adding a simple asterisk or note, stating that one of the dates is backdated. We can simply add "see talk page" is you guys think something more is needed. Thanks for the follow-up comments Bill, once you mentioned "backdated" and "postdated", things began to make sense. - theWOLFchild 05:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I notice a quickly reverted edit changed the years of service in the info box to 1915–1953 from 1915-1981. I understand arguments on both sides of this. "years of service" can cover "years paid as a soldier" or it could mean "years actively soldiering." To me, the second is more useful in the info box. That he was getting paid until his death seems less useful to describe there - and the footnote could still explain "he retired in 1953, but as a GA continued to receive his full salary until his death in 1981." Thoughts? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 23:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've referred this discussion to the community at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Years of service and asked for comments.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I plan to update all the 5-star ranks to consistently have the "years in service" listed in the info box end when they "retired" - i.e. stopped "going to the office" - rather than their death (when they stopped getting paid) and have a footnote explaining the pay situation. Gives more information (the box already has the date of death!). Let me know if you have objections (I don't see any above). --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Paragraph on Funnies is informative but overlong, and hard to read. Anyone feel like condensing it? Notreallydavid ( talk) 16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The rumor is that he had an affair with Dietrich. Should this be a part of this article, or, in the absence of citations, is it to be disregarded? Seems pretty important to me. 173.62.11.254 ( talk) 00:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Can someone with more knowledge of the subject and Wikipedia's guidelines correct the footnote on the issue of dates of rank? Using an archived talk page as the reference is quite confusing.