Oh, where to start!? Let's see Patton knew France very well. He was one, along with Alanbrooke, of the few who actually had a good working relationship with the French, had served there and spoke the language fluently. The hedgerows and terrain in general wouldn't have suprised Patton or his staff - they planned ahead and planned well. He was also very adapt at amphibious operations. He most likely would have appriciated the Funnies and certainly argued against landing in front of the strong defences ect ect. Again, don't give in to the charges-blindly-ahead hype. Patton knew what he was doing (look at his pre-war career) - therefore my respect and belief in a different handling of the matter. The fighting along the Rhine and Westwall could have been avoided - I'll contribute the entire thing to Monty's and Ike's general lack of vision and battlefield understanding -, but that said Patton did better than Hodges, who literally burnt out entire divisons, and as good, and propably better, as could be expected. Bad weather, few supplies, heavy fortifications and a heavily mechanized army is not the best of combinations. You do realise that Patton is generally praised for his campaign, right? Rickard might think otherwise, but Patton did do well. Russel Wiegly, whom I usually dislike because of his Ike-obsession, has a failry balanced view on this campaign. Or a more popular historian might be Stephen Ambrose - I believe it's the D-Day book that has a good acount on the storm of Fort Driant and the whole mess around Metz! Best regards! - B.