General Montgomery

[Joe Perkowski]

Was he a liability to the allies or a help? From what I've read many of his plans ended up costing lives and lost ground...?????

(Joe Perkowski @ Dec 29 2005, 08:37 PM) [post=43756]Was he a liability to the allies or a help? From what I've read many of his plans ended up costing lives and lost ground...?????
[/b]

That is certainly Patton's opinion. He believed that Monty got many of the British and also the American's killed because after dislodging the enemy he would "regroup" giving the Germans time to dig right back in. He constantly claimed how remarkably timid Monty was for a commander. Patton would be on a breakthrough ready to go across the Siegfried line and Monty would request Patton stop and wait for him and pressured ike into forcing Patton to stop, killing Patton’s offensives where the Germans were on the run. Monty would also try to force him to strip his divisions and send them to Monty to help get him moving again. Patton wanted the British and the Americans separated because he was afraid that Monty would get his groups killed by forcing them to fight “dug in” enemies.

Personally, if the British divisions were put under Patton, I believe there would have been a fraction of the deaths and they would have been in Berlin by Christmas. That’s the impression you get by reading Patton’s diary where he is about to tear through to the Rhine and could have crossed it with all the bridges intact because the Germans were retreating so fast. One captured German general said that they were terrified that Patton would show up somewhere and hit them blind as he was accustomed to doing. Patton’s success is tied both to his vast experience and understanding of tactics which he studied constantly his whole life and the fact that Pershing had taught him that you “attack, attack, attack, and when you are finished attack again. There were times that Patton was caught by surprise by a German offensive sent against him that his recon didn’t see forming and because he was attacking at the time, it not only saved them but split up the attack and cut the attacking Germans to pieces. Patton was the only field general that gave proper credit to tactical air. He told his press corps not to speak of a victory of Third Army without mentioning XIX TAC (Weyland) as a part of it.

If you really want to know what the deal is on Patton, I would recommend you get “The Patton Papers” by Martin Blumenson where his diary and letters to and from Patton are compiled with commentary. Blumenson was a part of Patton’s general staff and it is a mesmerizing book. In his diary he documents virtually every order, every attack, every problem he had with any group, his feelings on matters and his plans. He was planning for his troops to go across the Rhine in September 1944 because of the rate of movement of the Germans who could not get any rest from the relentless assaults. Patton said he was 10 days from being inside Germany on the other side of the Rhine and Siegfried Line when the plug was pulled on him. Patton never retreated or pulled back. He would never stop short of a city or a river.

Based on the Hollywood movie Patton, I had a poor opinion of Patton and it didn’t improve much with reading his biography, but reading “The Patton Papers”, I am of the opinion he is more like a Napoleon or an Admiral Nelson type of general. He had no equal in WWII, not even Rommel who I respect very much.

[mattgibbs]

Are you asking this question because you don't know anything about Montgomery as a General Officer or because you want to compare him to the other General Staff Officers of the war? It would help to know this because then its easier to know what to post.

I don't think anyone could have persuaded the British that not having their General Staff in command of their troops was a good idea. [I don't believe you cannot easily look baack from 60 plus years when this world has changed so much and attitudes are different].

Jim, with respect you've mostly told us about Patton, apart from your first sentence. And also, with respect and to be fair, Patton was not the only general to talk about the qualities of air support. How about Slim, Wingate and Wavell?
Attack, Attack, Attack is ok when your supply situation is such that you can move forward constantly with good logistics, this isn't however always the case.
The barest dates of the 7 months up to the Allied victory in North Africa after Monty took command.
23rd October 1942 Operation Lightfoot. Stalled by Afrika Korps.
1st November attack at Kidney Ridge
3rd November AK ordered to pull back.
4th November 8th Army moves forward again.
12th November Tobruk back in Allied hands, 50,000 Axis troops captured, wounded or KIA. 13,500 Allied casualties.
23rd January 1943 Tripoli falls.
11th May Axis forces surrender.
[thats 200 days any one got day to day comparitive casualty figures and tactical gains/mileages won/lost?]

A quote of Montys PUBLISHED thoughts on Air support:

I believe that the first and great principle of war is that you must first win your air battle before you fight your land and sea battle. If you examine the conduct of the campaign from Alamein through Tunisia, Sicily and Italy you will find I have never fought a land battle until the air battle has been won. We never had to bother about the enemy air, because we won the air battle first.

The second great principle is that Army plus Air has to be so knitted that the two together from one entity. If you do that, the resultant military effort will be so great that nothing will be able to stand against it.

The second great principle is that Army plus Air has to be so knitted that the two together from one entity. If you do that, the resultant military effort will be so great that nothing will be able to stand against it.

The third principle is that the Air Force command. I hold that it is quite wrong for the soldier to want to exercise command over the air striking forces. The handling of an Air Force is a life-study, and therefore the air part must be kept under Air Force command.

The Desert Air Force and the Eighth Army are one. We do not understand the meaning of "army cooperation". When you are one entity you cannot cooperate. If you knit together the power of the Army on the land and the power of the Air in the sky, then nothing will stand against you and you will never lose a battle.


Regards
Matt Gibbs

PS Out of interest did any of you know this talk was almost purely a might have been? 13/10/1916 he was shot twice by a sniper and left a whole day in no-mans land. He was in such a bad condition a grave was dug for him but when the dressing station came under orders to move he was still not dead and so was ferried by ambulance to the rear.

[colinhotham]

There were two great generals who helped in the allies WINNING WW2.

General Bernard Law Montgomery and General George S. Patton, Jr

Nothing I have read, seen or heard during my 68 years will alter that opinion. We Brits have a saying "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"!

Colin.

[mattgibbs]

Incidentally I forgot to add that i wondered if Patton in the cases cited above actually had a reason for this lightning drive and determination, did he not have higher orders to ensure he suceeded as well as possible. I think its likely he would have lost a lot of personal face if he didn't due to his problems with Eisenhower, he almost got sent back to the US in April 1944.
Regards
MG

[Exxley]

Based on the Hollywood movie Patton, I had a poor opinion of Patton and it didn’t improve much with reading his biography, but reading “The Patton Papers”, I am of the opinion he is more like a Napoleon or an Admiral Nelson type of general. He had no equal in WWII, not even Rommel who I respect very much.


Funny I really thought this thread at first was about Monty.

[mattgibbs]

Yep Exxley I think you're right, so in the spirit of the thread maybe you can enlighten us as to your opinions!
I think Monty was as capable as he could be, compared to a lot of his contemporaries, he learned fast and used all new kinds of technological and tactical developments if he felt they were useful.
Kind regards
MG

[Glider]

My personal view is that I believe Monty to be a good, capable general who could motivate his troops with confidence. However I don't think that he was an exceptional general.

He never fought a major defensive battle on ground not of his choosing, and was always able to fight with Air Superiority as well as having sufficient logistics. Finally the ground he had to fight over was either more or less what he was used to in Europe, or open in the desert.

Finally I don't believe that he used all the new developments available to him which could have made a significant difference.

If I had to pick my personal choice of the Best Allied General, I would choose Slim. Certainly I would rate Slim as being better than Monty.

Apologies, I meant to say
If I had to pick my personal choice of the Best Allied General, I would choose Slim. Certainly I would rate Slim as being better than Monty or Patton

[Exxley]

(Colonel Gubbins @ Dec 30 2005, 12:40 PM) [post=43773]Yep Exxley I think you're right, so in the spirit of the thread maybe you can enlighten us as to your opinions!
I think Monty was as capable as he could be, compared to a lot of his contemporaries, he learned fast and used all new kinds of technological and tactical developments if he felt they were useful.
Kind regards
MG
[/b]

Lol fair enough. I do agree about the fact that Monty was a very capable commander, a very professional one as well (which makes the El-Alamein victory over the amateurish Rommel quite revealing).
He wasnt the kindest person on earth but he did care about his soldiers (hence the low % of KIA/MIA in his armies).
To sum it up: was he one of the best Allied army/army group commanders of WW2 ? Certainly.

[Kiwiwriter]

I have a lot more respect for Montgomery than a lot of Americans, because I put aside the fatal weaknesses of his bullying character and obnoxious nature, to study his battles and command abilities. He certainly boosted morale in his commands, put his men in the picture, and was ruthless -- perhaps overly so -- on those that did not meet his standards. His planning for set-piece battles was meticulous, and he understood that Britain's increasingly frail economic position meant that he could not afford high casualties. It's ironic that his biggest disaste was his boldest operation...and also one in which he did not exercise his usual hands-on management, Market-Garden.

The Patton-Monty rivalry existed mostly in Patton's mind. When Patton slapped the two GIs in Sicily, Monty forbade the British Army newspaper from mentioning it. When the "race to Messina" took place, Monty conceded early, pulling his troops out to prepare for the invasion of Italy. The "race," such as it was, was between Patton and Brig. Currie's 4th Armored Brigade. In any case, it was a hollow victory...most of the German and Italian troops escaped to the mainland.

I have often felt that Monty's real problem was his own big fat mouth. He seemingly could not not open it without trashing someone. If he had not fired off his demands to Ike for a ground force commander at the height of the Bulge, and followed that with his disastrous and condescending press conference, Americans would like him better, and respect his work as a general. He understood planning, logistics, strategy, and man-management. He did not have good people skills, and that is fatal for any human being.