Why Bernard Montgomery?

Discussion in 'North Africa & the Med' started by Slipdigit, Aug 24, 2008.

  1. boykin530

    boykin530 Junior Member

    >>He gives data showing the French air force out numbering the Germans >>>

    HUH ? The author is a bit confused. The Germans had more than twice the numbers of aircraft as the French. Even adding in BEF aircraft, the Allies were still numericaly inferior.
    Copy and paste below:

    "The only respect in which the Allies were markedly inferior was in the air, but here German superiority has sometimes been exaggerated. German air strength in May 1940 was as follows: 1, 016 fighters, 248 medium bombers, 1, 120 bombers, 342 Stuka dive-bombers, and 500 scout planes, a total of 3, 226 aircraft. The French air force then possessed only some 1, 120 modern aircraft of which 700 were fighters, 140 bombers, and 380 scout planes"
     
  2. WotNoChad?

    WotNoChad? Senior Member

    In addition it's also worth considering Monty's time commanding the 8th Inf Div, with some success, in Palestine during some of the '36-'39 Arab revolt.
     
  3. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    >>He gives data showing the French air force out numbering the Germans >>>

    HUH ? The author is a bit confused. The Germans had more than twice the numbers of aircraft as the French. Even adding in BEF aircraft, the Allies were still numericaly inferior.
    Copy and paste below:

    "The only respect in which the Allies were markedly inferior was in the air, but here German superiority has sometimes been exaggerated. German air strength in May 1940 was as follows: 1, 016 fighters, 248 medium bombers, 1, 120 bombers, 342 Stuka dive-bombers, and 500 scout planes, a total of 3, 226 aircraft. The French air force then possessed only some 1, 120 modern aircraft of which 700 were fighters, 140 bombers, and 380 scout planes"

    Best I can figure is that "There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."

    He gives the French Air Force as having 2200 fighters, but that they only committed 580 to the fight (pg.137). You'll have to argue with him over the numbers, they are his and not mine.
     
  4. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    All very well to say that the "Blitzkrieg" was a fallacy against larger formations and that Monty had noted Morshead;s tactics at Tobruk - but Monty couln't wait to apply it with 8th army in the desert as his first order was to have Harding construct a "Corps de chasse" a three Armoured Division - 1st - 7th and 10th unit for Blitzing - but was hamstrung by both the Armoured leaders - Lumsden et al plus the Air Force's Tedder and Conninghm and it was not until he had gotten rid of those that we had the first British Blitzkreig at El Hamma followed by another at Medjez - Tunis - Cap Bon.

    Monty then still applied his three armoured Divs - 7th - 11th and Guards in the breakout from Caen and also the "swan" to Brussels - so it was used to good measure - not only by the Germans - whose Blitzkreig was invariably supported by horse transport !
    Cheers

    My apologies for not responding Tom as I just noticed your post. "Fallacy" was in the terms of a "ad hoc" response from Morshead to go along with his statement that "Blitzkrieg" was "A highly limited tactical manoeuvre".

    Morshead learnt his trade under Sir John Monash in that you use every means at your disposal in a coordinated manner. Morshead had studied Rommels' tactics and simply out thought him at Tobruk.

    Rommels' tactics are said to be brilliant however he was known at times to be strategically inept. He knew there was an Australian General in Tobruk and possibly thought he could crush them with a tactic he had used many times before.

    With respect to Monty, much of his success came from using all of the components of Blitzkrieg correctly. Where and when he was ready with the forces he deemed adequate to do the job as well as out thinking his opponent.

    Monty did have great respect for Morshead and the 9th division and the British government fought tooth and nail that they not be allowed to return to Australia as the Australian Prime Minister had requested. Churchill arranged with Roosevelt that an American division would be sent to Australia instead to provide security against the Japanese threat.
     
  5. Herakles

    Herakles Senior Member

    Monty did have great respect for Morshead and the 9th division and the British government fought tooth and nail that they not be allowed to return to Australia as the Australian Prime Minister had requested. Churchill arranged with Roosevelt that an American division would be sent to Australia instead to provide security against the Japanese threat.

    Churchill never asked the Australians that the 9th go to Burma. He simply ordered them there. Australian PM Curtin had to demand 3 times that they return to fight Australia's wars. By the time they were diverted to Australia, they were half way to Burma.

    And then the troop ships had to travel to Australia without any escort.
     
  6. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Spidge -
    I would agree that Rommel was not the strategist that he was portrayed to be but rather an excellent tactician and not only Morshead - Auckinleck and Monty had his measure - Morshead at Tobruk - the Auk for pulling him back to El Alamein and Monty at Wadi Alam Halfa "the swine would not come out" - Monty was supposed to chase after him onto the massed 88.mm's - as the previous Armour commanders were wont to so do!
    It was indeed a sad day for 8th army when the Aussie's were pulled back for New Guinea - but Rommel had to be pleased !
    Cheers
     
  7. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Churchill never asked the Australians that the 9th go to Burma. He simply ordered them there. Australian PM Curtin had to demand 3 times that they return to fight Australia's wars. By the time they were diverted to Australia, they were half way to Burma.

    And then the troop ships had to travel to Australia without any escort.

    Hi Herakles,

    It was not the 9th Division he attempted to divert to Burma. Churchill attempted to divert the 6th and 7th divisions in early 1942. Some 64,000 troops.

    The 9th division fought at El Alamein July-November 1942 and returned to Australia in 1943.

    336 Mr John Curtin, Prime Minister, to Lord Cranborne, U.K. Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs

    Cablegram 127 [1] CANBERRA, 17 February 1942
    MOST IMMEDIATE MOST SECRET



    (II) That, if possible, all Australian forces now under orders to
    transfer to the Far East from the Middle East should be diverted
    to Australia. These forces are the 6th and 7th Divisions and
    accompanying Corps base and line of communication troops, in all
    64,000: and there is also a British armoured brigade of about
    3,000. They would prefer that all these forces should be
    concentrated in Australia but are mindful of the fact that the
    strategic position of Burma may necessitate some reinforcement
    there until other troops are available from elsewhere:
    (III) That Darwin is the first place in Australia that should be
    reinforced out of the troops being transferred:
    (IV) There call of the 9th Division of the A.I.F. which is at
    present in Syria requires early consideration as this would entail
    further redistribution of the forces of the Allied nations.
    2. The Government accordingly requests that urgent arrangements be
    made for:-
    (a) The diversion to Australia of that portion of the A.I.F. now
    at Bombay and en route to Java.
    (b) The diversion of the remaining two flights to Australia.
    (c) The recall of 9th Australian Division and remaining A.I.F. in
    Middle East at an early date.
    3. In regard to the opinion of the Chiefs of Staff in sub-
    paragraph 1 (II), the Government will be glad to know whether it
    is possible also to divert the British Armoured Brigade to
    Australia.

    CURTIN



    1 Repeated to General Sir Archibald Wavell, Allied Supreme
    Commander of the A.B.D.A. Area, as no. 33, to the N.Z. Prime
    Minister as no, 61 and to the Special Representative in the United
    Kingdom as no. 26.
    2 Winston Churchill.
    3 Dispatched 15 February. On file AA:A816, 52/302/142. It conveyed
    to Churchill the substance of Document 334.
    4 Lt Gen V. A. H. Sturdee.
    5 Lt Gen Sir John Lavarack. For the appreciations referred to in
    this sentence See AA:A2671, 106/42.
     
  8. Union464

    Union464 Member

    The "fallacy" of blitzkrieg was proven first by the Australian General Sir Leslie Morshead at Tobruk in April 1941 when he delivered the Germans their first land defeat of the war.

    Quite so. Morshead was and is arguably Australia's greatest military leader and general. He was at least the equal of Monash if not his outright superior, in my opinion, anyway.
     

Share This Page