The First Bank & Trust Friday Q&A: The VMI Game, DQ Smith, And More

19 Comments

1. 

   HokieTC September 5, 2026 at 12:31 PM

   Why does TSL have a lounge board and then mix everything from movies to war in the football articles?
   1. 

      middletennhokie September 5, 2026 at 4:51 PM

      Because it's cool
2. 

   Mapmaker September 5, 2026 at 11:25 AM

   Enjoyed the responses almost as much as the article. Guderian fan myself. Chris, I think another round of 'Favorite Generals' is due for the War of Northern Agression, but you should break it down as year-by-year to give the northerners chance at some print.
3. 

   VTVOICE September 5, 2026 at 3:34 AM

   Here are a few more Generals omitted: Chester Nimitz (Admirals): If Yamamoto is brought into the discussion, Admiral Nimitz must be mentioned. Nimitz commanded the vast Pacific Theater, orchestrated the island-hopping campaign, and managed complex joint Navy-Army-Marine logistics across thousands of miles of ocean with virtually flawless strategic vision. George C. Marshall: Often forgotten because he stayed in Washington, Marshall was the grand architect of the entire U.S. war effort, selecting top commanders (including Eisenhower) and managing global logistics. Albert Kesselring: On the German side, if looking for defense against Allied invasions, "Smiling Albert" Kesselring's grueling, highly effective defensive delay up the Italian peninsula was arguably the most impressive defensive campaign waged by any German commander in Western Europe. Walther Model: Known as "Hitler's Fireman," Model was the German master of emergency defense on the Eastern Front and at Market Garden, often stabilizing collapsing fronts when all seemed lost.
4. 

   Federal Hokie September 4, 2026 at 9:04 PM

   Thanks for taking my question. I know that you’re a great student of history, and I thought you might enjoy opining on something non-VT related. From the responses, looks like others enjoyed it as well. I was thinking Erwin Rommel might be mentioned, given his success in North Africa. Another General who had a falling out with Hitler (surprise, surprise). Another might be George Patton. I believe the Germans respected him the most. But he was somewhat of a loose cannon, so maybe that factors in as well. Finally, George Marshall was apparently so instrumental in running things back home (at least from Roosevelt’s perspective) that he deferred to Eisenhower to command the D-day operation, and receive the visibility and accolades that came with that success (including the Presidency?). He put country before his own personal ambition, which I think is pretty special. As you note, no real right answer, and varies by individual. Maybe during the slow months, you can do a history feature or chat, or something like that? Seems like a lot of subscribers here would enjoy that, and it might help take your mind off of negativity associated with VT performance and direction (although hopefully most of that is coming to an end).
5. 

   GO_HOKIES_GO September 4, 2026 at 5:15 PM

   My two selections for generals are Douglas MacArthur and George Marshall - both for their contribution to the war effort as well as their leadership in the post-war period. It is possible that no two men have had more influence on what happened in Asia and Europe after WWII than these two gentlemen.
6. 

   vtswan September 4, 2026 at 4:36 PM

   Looking at the Pacific war, which usually doesn't get the attention the European Theater does, you would have to list Marine Corps Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller. The most decorated Marine in the Corps history, he was born in West Point Virginia and attended VMI, though he left after a year to enlist in the Marines. From Private to Lieutenant General, he served 37 years and commanded troops in both WW II and Korea. His life story is well worth a read.
7. 

   JDods123 September 4, 2026 at 3:36 PM

   I guess I’m only commenting on non-football matters these days. I don’t know if admirals count but Admiral Yamamoto fascinates me. He was brilliant and was vocally against attacking the U.S. - he had spent lots of time here and understood our industrial capacity better than Japan’s political leaders. But he didn’t get to set policy and was tasked with coming up with a plan to execute an attack he thought was a bad idea. He knew Japan couldn’t outlast us in a drawn out war, so his plan, that could theoretically neutralize that advantage, was to knock out our Pacific fleet before we knew we were at war, buying Japan time to set up an enormous defense perimeter and seize enormous industrial capacity of their own in SE Asia. Then, the hope was that America would decide a re-conquest of the Western Pacific was too costly, Japan would get to keep most of its perimeter, and we’d negotiate a peace from a weakened position. By a stroke of luck our three Pacific carriers weren’t at Pearl Harbor. But aspects of the plan still worked. He did buy Japan time before we were able to bring the war to them (unless you count the largely symbolic Doolittle bombings). And they did set up an enormous defensive perimeter. While he didn’t underestimate our industrial power, he did underestimate our will to engage in a brutal war of attrition in brutal terrain. One wonders if our ultimate victory would have been a fait accompli had he succeeded in taking out our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. I suppose as long as we had the will and capability to build new carriers, it would have eventually followed a similar trajectory.
8. 

   GoneFishin Hokie September 4, 2026 at 3:30 PM

   Loved your answers to the history question, particularly with your choices about the Ostfront and the Great Patriotic War. I've studied WWII for many years, but over the past 10-15, the Eastern Front has garnered most of my attention. I'm currently on my second reading of Craig W.H. Luther's tome, "Barbarossa Unleashed". If you've not read it, it covers AGC from June, and the Bialystok-Minsk Pocket, to the shadow of the Kremlin in December '41. Before that, it was "Leningrad: The Advance of Panzer Group 4, 1941", written by Erich Hoepner's Chief of Staff, Walter Chales de Beaulieu. Both are readable and excellent. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for (perhaps) the U. S. Army historian, David Glantz. I've started reading several of his books, notably, "When Titans Clashed" and "Red Storm over the Balkans...". Both are in my bookshelf, unfinished, and drier than a popcorn cart. My favorite general that did not make your list, General Hasso von Manteuffel. His defense at Targu Frumos is studied at the U.S. Army War College. This battle was my reason for buying Red Storm over the Balkans, because very little is written about this battle. What little there is was more difficult to slog through
   1. 

      GoneFishin Hokie September 4, 2026 at 4:25 PM

      Obviously, I didn't type "cart"... I hate spell check. 🤣
9. 

   Hokebury September 4, 2026 at 3:09 PM

   I'm pretty sure that it was Monty that wanted the Netherlands campaign(Market Garden). It wasn't well thought out or supplied and held up the end for some time. We got our butts kicked too.
   1. 

      Chris Coleman September 4, 2026 at 3:23 PM

      Yes, but his plan was based on faulty intelligence that was not his fault.
      1. 

         GoneFishin Hokie September 4, 2026 at 4:20 PM

         Maybe not knowing that SS Panzer Divisions Hohenstauffen and Frundsberg were refitting near Arnhem wasn't Monty's fault, but allowing the British Airborne landing areas to be 7-8 miles from their objective... smh. Not saying that this was the only reason for MG's failure, but it's a huge part of why 80% of 1st Airborne was wiped out. I know that there weren't enough planes to carry all of the troops in one lift. But it took 4 days to get everyone on the ground. The bigger issue was XXX Corps trying to push 50k troops & 20k vehicles up basically ONE ROAD! They surely had plenty of time for "brew ups", though the movie exaggerates this quite a bit.
         1. 

            Chris Coleman September 4, 2026 at 6:46 PM

            Yeah, you may be right. But the fact that he did that sort of disproves the traditional notion that he was cautious. Market Garden was anything but.
10. 

    Austin Gobbler September 4, 2026 at 2:40 PM

    Agree with your Eisenhower assessment...BTW, if you haven't watched it, the movie Pressure provides great insight to the political "refereeing" that Ike had to do wrt to the US Army meteorologist and the British meteorolgist and the weather forecast for when to launch the D-Day invasion. (Though I'm not sure what I think about Brendan Fraser being cast as Ike.)
11. 

    NokieHokie September 4, 2026 at 2:04 PM

    I have been pointing out the deficiencies in the athletic administration since the mid-to-late 00's. I have been dreaming of this moment for 2 decades! I wasn't negative, just correct...
12. 

    delmarva hokie September 4, 2026 at 2:02 PM

    Interesting answer and insight on my 5 for 5 rule question; this is one reason I'm a subscriber.
13. 

    robby68 September 4, 2026 at 1:45 PM

    The 1998 team should have been 11-0. They blew a game at home against last place Temple, lost on the last play of the game at Syracuse, and blew a big lead and lost to UVA.
    1. 

       Federal Hokie September 4, 2026 at 8:41 PM

       What is that game with Temple of which you speak? I don’t recall it ever happening! 😆