Montgomery/Rommel/Patton?

[Goanna]

I just watched a biography of Bernhard Montgomery last night and it claimed that he was the best combat commander (I assume this means fighting in the field with his troops) in the entire second world war by a number of those interviewed. I found this a bit hard to take.

My impression is that Rommel was probably the best due to his intuition and innovation (wasn't he the guy that first dug in the 88) plus the fact that he led from the front. He was unduone in N. Africa due to the lack of resupply.

I would like to get the opinions of those in the know here (especially the grogs) on their vote for best commander, and the justification.

Am I treating Monty unfairly just because he is a pom?

------------------

desert rat wannabe

[This message has been edited by Goanna (edited 01-04-2000).]

[Joe Shaw]

Wow! I don't recall seeing any biographies or reading any accounts that gave Monty much credit as a Combat Commander. He did, without doubt, give the British soldier a feeling of confidence by beating Rommel, but most would agree that he was plauged by a terminal case of the slows. Despite that he did come up with one of the most audacious plans of the war, Market Garden, and then managed to screw that up by (among other reasons such as bad intellegence)reverting to form and being too damn slow.

Mind you, perspective is a wonderful thing, I had a distant cousin frostily inform me that the American Civil War should really be called the "War of Northern Aggression" , so one's perspective will color a lot of things.

Joe

------------------

"Son," says I to him, "you're a Dragon. And a Dragon ACTS like a Dragon or he doesn't act at all."

Smrgol, Dragon

[dumbo]

Hmmm as an Englishman while i have respect for Monty I certainly think "best" is a tough call. Its worth remembering that D-Day was his baby not Ikes (Ike was Supreme commander for all of Europe, Monty commanded D-Day).

As for American commanders I would rate Bradley ahead of Patton who I beleive is overrated. The best Feild commander of the British was IMHO O'Connor who gave the Italians such trouble early in the war. Still of all the western commanders if I was a soldier i would want to be under Bradley then Monty in that order as both just wanted to keep thier men alive as the highest priority. The reason for Bradley taking the number one spot is that he was a stable human being unlike Monty or Patton both of whome I cannot but help dislike as human beings.

What disturbs me about most WW2 documentaries made in the west is they seem to beleive the western allies did most of the work which is true in the pacific but obviously wrong in the West. How many times have we laughed at documentaries that say D-Day was the "biggest invasion in history" when I see that i realise that the filmakers are obvious idiots.

If I had to pick a best overall commander of all of WW2 I think Zhukov towers above any other commander bar none. The only close second is Manstein IMHO and Zhukov beat him repeatedly.

Still its all subjective. I would be interested to see others cooments.

[WWIIRulz]

D-Day WAS the biggest invasion in history. This was the largest massing of manpower the world had ever seen.

[Guest JonS]

Largest SEABORNE invasion, maybe, but I think Dumbo refers to the invasion of Russia as being the largest (ie the largest massing of manpower in one place/region) in history. By comparison Overlord was a rinky-dink side show.

Regards

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 01-04-2000).]

[Guest JonS]

Goanna,

"Combat Commander" could have been used to differentiate from "High Commander". Eg, Marshall could be said to have been the best General the Western Allies had, despite the fact he never left the US. Similarly, it could be seen that to describe Eisenhower as a combat commander doesn't really fit with his role. Maybe? Anyway, Joe Shaw's comment about perspective is VERY valid to these kind of 'Best-est' discussions, IMO.

Regards

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[Guest JonS]

just fooling round with the new smilies, sorry...

: D

; )

: )

: (

8 ) 8)

: 0 :0

: o

; D ;D

: b :b

: P

? : ( ?

where does MadMatt get the Joe Cool smily from? Or the puzzled one?

Hah! found it!

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 01-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 01-04-2000).]

[Los]

I too happen to think Patton was overratted and Bradley is also my opinion of a best US general. (The Monty thing hardly deserves comment). I think as a German Panzer Commander he would have been just one of the guys in the pack, but on the US side he was unique. If it wasn't for the Brits, Canadians, Bradley and Hodges (He was Seventh right?), trying down the Germans with their determined grinding attacks Patton wouldn't have gotten very far with his run wild apporach to things.

Though for the life of me I'll never figure out why they all agreed to just grind back the bulge frontally after the German advance was stopped rather than cut it off form the sides like anyone with a modicum of manuever warfare understanding would have done. I mean that was a good 40,000 US casualties right there.

Los

P.s. and what about that poor US Seventh Army? They hardly got credit for anything. It's like nothing ever happened south of the 3rd Army.

[Hundminen]

WWIIRulz:

I beg to differ.

In terms of manpower, Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, involved almost 4,000,000 axis soldiers, over a 1,000 mile front.

I believe the initial D-day invasion, Operation Overlord, involved only 250,000 allied troops over a 60 mile front. More allied troops flowed into France later, but the invasion was no where near the size of Barbarossa.

However, you may be correct in asserting Overlord was the largest "sea-borne" invasion in history.

Hundminen

[This message has been edited by Hundminen (edited 01-04-2000).]

[scoop88]

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, it's impossible to pick who's "best" because each commander had a role to fulfill, and some roles weren't as glamorous as others (Marshall vs. Patton, for example). Also, our judgment is clouded by nationalistic tendencies. Monty was intensely disliked by many American commanders, who thus downgraded his performance. He was probably better than that, although certainly not the best.

People in this thread mentioned Bradley, Zhukov and von Manstein. Heinz Guderian also deserves mention. He built the German panzer forces in the 1930s and commanded panzer corps and panzer armies that made slashing breakthroughs and breathtaking advances and encirclements in France in 1940 and Russia in 1941. He also had the nerve to stand up to Hitler late in the war and argue his case for the most sensible defense on the Eastern Front in late 1944 and early 1945 ... for which, amazingly, he only lost his job instead of his life!

[Mike Oberly]

In my opinion,Zhukov was the best 'strategist' of the war,though I wouldn't argue with someone who would bring up a few other names.Bottom line is that Zhukov performed miracles of organisation,was rarely bested on the field,and could swiftly grasp the essentials of the overall situation.IMO,he was the man most responsible for the Soviet's victory in the East.

Mike

[Zamo]

Gentlemen, I am afraid I must speak up in defense of Gen. Patton. Too many of you here seem to fall victim to EXACTLY the same sort of hoopla that waged at the time regarding the "Slow and steady/few casualties" or the "Grab 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass/risky" argument. Every time I read a book on the life and commands of Geo. Patton Jr., I can't help but admire the man more. Of course, as a former Marine tanker, perhaps I understand and endorse his willingness to attack aggressivly more so than my more reserved colleagues. Like him I think the best defense is a strong offense, on any level, and I think Patton's flair for just that reaffirms the point. I believe that he was the tantimount combat commander. Granted he would never have succeeded in a higher role, his grasp of politics speaks for itself there, but I believe we were discussing just such a combat command. Did he take risks with the lives of his boys? You bet. Did he sieze more ground than any other American commander up to desert storm? You bet. Was he a prima donna? You bet. Did he do more for US Armor than any person to date? You bet. Would I have been happy to serve under him? You bet! I honestly think all the other Allied commanders pale in comparison.

My two-bits...

CHS

[Berlichtingen]

Monty gets my vote for the most over rated general of the war... if they called him an idiot, I'd think that was over rating him.

Patton was a prima donna... Bradley was without a doubt the Best US general.

Rommel... somewhat over rated. Don't get me wrong, Rommel was good, its just that the Germans had generals that were better. Top of my list is Erich Manstein (best general of the war... either side). Following Manstein, we have Guderien, Rundstedt and Model (on defence).

------------------

---

Dan Brown

dbrown@owc.net

[dumbo]

JonS yup thats what i was refering too.

WW2Rulez sorry man but D-Day doesnt even come close to Barbarossa it may even be smaller than the Russian Invasion of Manchuria in 45 but I could be way off there.

Zamo interesting points on Patton although you have to agree the fact that he was, well a bit unstable would concern you as a soldier maybe? Btw I have nothing against his spirit of the offensive I just think it was carried out better by such folk as Guderian for example. Still good points.

Its very hard to get over the notions we were brought up with, when I grew up all the movies I saw involved gallant brits defeating germany on thier own with maybe an american plane helping out every now and again. Russian war movies are (perhaps with some justification) even more lopsided not even mentioning the huge amount of materiel support from the west that helped thier victory. As for US movies, well we all know about them.

Berlichtingen, while I think Rommel, manstein and Guderian are obsiously generals of greatness, they did lose to Zhukov and Monty. Monty by his own admission won by sheer materiel (which is just fine in my view) but Zhukov won often outnumbered and having inferior equipment. While the german disadvantages on the Eastern front are well documented I fear the myth of the vastly outnumbered germans fighting with tenacious skill deserves to be studied more closely. I give full credit to Zhukov and others for thier stunning victories after basically having most of the entire soviet army wiped out and starting from scratch. After 1943 IMHO Russian tactics and combined arms operations were superior in many ways to the germans. Of course this isnt to underrate the effect on germany on having to suffer the terrible (and often in my view criminal) bombings on civillian cities and other infrastructure.

Good thread gents.

_dumbo

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 01-04-2000).]

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Monty gets my vote for the most over rated general of the war... if they called him an idiot, I'd think that

was over rating him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curiously,when Liddell Hart(himself a blowhard,but I won't get into that) spoke with German generals following the war,they almost unanimously voted Monty the best American/British general,some commenting because 'he never lost a battle'.Guess they were forgetting Market Garden.

Mike

[Neutral Party]

Given the caveat that questions pertaining to "who was the best..(x)" where x = (general, boxer, nosepicker etc.,) are intrinsically pointless and only of interest to sad buggers with nothing better to do , I think people are overly dismissive of Montgomery as a commander.

It is true that he was slow (o.k. plodding), methodical and came across as very arrogant - when he claimed that whatever happened (even if was relatively disastrous) was all part of his master plan to win the war. However these qualities were perhaps those required by the British at the time of El alamein - given that they had been run ragged by Rommel. At this point in the war Britain desparately needed a victory and that is precisely what Montgomery gave them. Although of small import militarily, it had an enormous impact on morale on the home front. It also meant that politically, Bernard Montgomery became close-to-unremovable.

One must also bear in mind that the British were generally ultra-cautious when it came to commiting their army to battle and had to be pretty much dragged kicking and screaming to the Invasion of France, to the intense frustration of the Americans. This was partly related to their experiences in the Great War, which left a massive scar on the nations' psyche, and meant that massive numbers of casualties were politically unacceptable. It was also partly a product of their traditional approach to continental warfare which was a peripheral strategy of "nibbling at the edges".

Montgomery was devoted to training and preparation and was, on the whole, parsimonious with the lives of his troops. For the British, this was a welcome change from the likes of Douglas Haig and his ilk.

In terms of the intial post, I think that Montgomery has to be up there with the other "greats" (Zhukov, Eisenhower, Marshall, Nimitz, Kesselring, etc.,).

Very entertaining thread.

Joe

P.S. re: members and junior members - I am inclined to agree with Marx (Groucho not Karl) that I would not wish to be a member of any club that would have me as a member.

[dumbo]

Neutral party: Thats a very good point. Another thing to mention is that Monty made a LOT of enemies after D-Day by his tirades about the American beaches. He was so guilt racked about the appalling casualties on those beaches he annoyed many American commanders by forcing them to understand why the Candian and Brit beaches went better by use of "funnies" and other gimmicks that the yanks didnt use. From his point of view he wanted to help prevent further American casualties (after all at the time they had been under his command so he felt to blame), from the American point of view this after action debate was yet another example his him "gloating" or blaming others for his mistakes. Its a shame that the man (like patton) was so poor at diplomacy.

Whats the Churchill qoute about Monty?

"In Battle, unbeatable. In victory, unbearable."

As you rightly point out, Monties overriding aim was to avoid another WW1 which wiped out a generation of Brits , in this regard he succeeded, many British vets literally owe their lives to him.

_dumbo

[Major Tom]

Well, each general has their own strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, Patton and Montgomery were very similar, which is probably why they hated eachother so much. Each of them had similar plans of a small thrust into Germany to end the war quickly, the only difference is who would make the thrust! However, Eisenhower decided on a broad front advance which may seem dull and non-victory oriented, but, the battle of the bulge nonwithstanding it didn't leave the line as vulnerable as one big pincer.

Judging Montgomery soley on his actions 1942+ is neglecting much of his earlier actions. Indeed, he didn't have any spectacular victories, but, as the commander of the 3rd British Division in France he was able to retreat in good order to have the most complete formation evacuated from Dunkirk in 1940. I can't respect Patton for his fascist political idea's, and for causing tensions with the USSR (lucky for the world he died in his 'accident' before sparking WWIII!), however, he is a brilliant military commander. Being cautious and looking out for the wellbeing of your soldiers as Montgomery was known for can actually result in larger casualties, as you don't take risks which could end the war sooner. Market Garden was an uncharacteristic risk for Montgomery, it did fail to achieve all of it's goals, but, they did succeed in securing every bridge but for Arnheim and tied up and inflicted many casualties on 2 SS Panzer divisions who were trying to get their rest.

Brilliant commanders have all lost battles. You don't measure a commander by their greatest victory, but, how they handled their worst defeat. Many good commander's failed to recover after some disaster. Rommel never regained his previous zeal after El Alemain. Possibly he realized that he was fighting a lost cause, which will only result in needless deaths?

However, if it must come down to it, I would put my vote towards General Alexander as the best 'Allied' Commander. He has managed to triumph over a multitude of desperate situations. Commander of I Corps in France, had about the same success as Montgomery, helped rationalize the defence of England to practical measures, went to Burma in late 1942 to salvage the situation there, and then commanded the Allied Army Group in Italy until the end of the war. He was known as the man to send to critical situations who would sort them out.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-05-2000).]

[Bullethead]

You know, I'm rather surprised nobody's mentioned the Brit general Slim in all this.

PLUG PLUG PLUG for a CBI/PTO CM <G>

-Bullethead

[Deron]

"Mind you, perspective is a wonderful thing, I had a distant cousin frostily inform me that the American Civil War should really be called the "War of Northern Aggression" , so one's perspective will color a lot of things. "

I've actually seen a monument up here in Boston dedicated to the "Brave men who perished in the War of Southern Aggression." Now that one takes the cake as far as I'm concerned!

[Fionn]

Well, confining myself to the 3 generals listed, none of whom I rate all that highly BTW I'd have to say that..

I'd want Rommel as my divisional commander, Patton as my Corps commander and Monty as my Army commander.

Simple reason... Rommel really didn't have the wherewithal to run entire armies efficiently and in many cases his "lead from the front" attitude got him into more trouble than he really should have. We can see time and again that he failed to "general" his corps but instead ran around like a two bit Colonel leading companies here and there.... NOT a good thing for an Army Commander to do.

Patton would be a good corps leader because while it doesn't have the political posturing involved with Army command (at which Patton was quite simply abysmal) it does give him enough combat power to really drive hard and he showed himself well able to handle a corps.

I'd give Monty my army (rather than either of the other two) simply because while he might not win quickly I also know he wouldn't lose. Remember that the British actually had to disband an entire Infantry Division in late 1944 simply to secure replacements for their other divisions. They did NOT have a manpower reserve to draw from. It was extremely important that Monty not lose many men and so his slowly slowly style was in many ways a necessity given political and higher-military considerations. You can't judge the man adequately until you see the manpower returns of his armies in the ETO and realise the low manpower reserves he constantly had to worry about.

Lastly, I'd have to say that I could choose numerous German Corps and Army commanders I'd rather have then either of the Allied ones. I could also name quite a few Soviet commanders who I would choose instead of Monty and Patton and there's a few US and UK who'd come ahead of them also.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Knaust]

Oh well sirs!....Zhukov, Monty, patton and the likes....great commanders which knew how to use their sheer manpower over the enemy!...and which learnt from their german counterpart how to manage armoured forces.

But think about the 1940 French campaign where 98 German divisions on the offensive confronted 108 French divisions, 8 Brits and 23 Belgians...and the war materiel?...think of Matildas or Char-B1-bis against MkIIs or MkIIIs!

Well...thanks to the genius of Manstein and Guderian (and in this occasion of Hitler too) the bright Fall(plan) Gelb was conceived and French and Brits were crushed in 3 weeks.

Noone in the Allied side would have expected an offensive through the Ardennes ...just the reverse of the Schlieffen plan!

Then, IMHO, Manstein and Guderian are the best commanders.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>think of Matildas or Char-B1-bis against MkIIs or MkIIIs!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I agree with you, I would like to point out that most Matildas avalable were machinegun armed and the Chars were extremely prone to breaking down. On the other hand, even with superior tanks, they didn't have a clue as to how to use them... France and Britain were still fighting WWI

[Guest Stabsfeldwebel]

Zhukov?!? oh come on, he wasn't a great leader, he just threw enough men at the germans untill their front crumbled, the loss rate for the Russians was enormous, I mean it wasn't until 1944 that the russians got smart with using artillery to soften up targets and then and only then using armor with infantry in conjunction.

I'll agree that neither patton nor monty was the "best" but Zhukov isn't even in the same ballpark as those two, a man who showed such dissregard for his own men just doesn't get my vote.

[Das Boot]

I'd have to say von Manstein based on his campaign in the Crimea and the 1943 Kharkov counter offensive. Pure brilliance.