Montgomery/Rommel/Patton?

[Guest Zigster]

Spook.

Canals are funny things. They ain't wide, but man are they deep! No nice beaches or shallows or gently sloping banks either.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that Monty did everything right in Normandy. Far from it. Hell, Caen was a Day 1 objective. But it's hard to keep to one's offensive timetable when one's pesky opponent keeps counterattacking, however unsuccessfully.

Over the years I've had occasion to speak with many Canadian vets who served under Monty (four of them in my own family) and they all, every last one of them, had this to say: Not much of a soldier but a great commander and they wouldn't trade him for anybody. And he wasn't even that popular among Canadians. Whether that kind of loyalty was media/propaganda inspired, or whether the man actually earned it matters little. He had the trust of his troops and ultimately got the job done in a competent manner, or at least a not incompetent manner.

Yes, 15th Army was a horrendous boo-boo! We had to meet them again in the flooded polders, and it wasn't pretty for anyone...

[Spook]

I guess the question comes to what bridging equipment you have for the canal, and how well the canal is covered by the defense. (I assume you're talking about that which paralleled the Orne River from Caen.) Sure, it was an obstacle, but I don't recall that it was the blood-spiller like the other terrain that I noted. And the success of the Pegasus Bridge battle ensured that at least SOMEWHERE, the Commonwealth forces were on both sides.

A commander doesn't have to be popular with his troops to be successful, as you've noted. Rather, it helps if the commander is trusted enough by his troops for their self-confidence. Given Monty's reputation for meticulous planning and detail, as well as an aversion to incur unnecessary casualties, I find it completely understandable that your relatives had high regard for him.

Be it noted in history, however, that Gen. Mclellan of the Union side in the ACW had similar traits. He was averse to sacrificing soldiers, was good at organization, and was very popular with his troops at the time. He was also indecisive and very averse to risk. ACW historians have never ranked him among the great ACW commanders.

Monty was good at fighting a set-piece battle with proper gathering of warfighting resources. He was in his best element at Normandy, and he was appropriately needed there. But at times in war, a calculated risk is needed to either salvage a critical situation or exploit a potential advantage into a large payoff (like encircling whole armies as both sides regularly did on the East Front). Like Mclellan, Monty was usually averse to risk, with the notable exception of Market-Garden. In that battle, he proved far too optimistic about the timetables and logistics that could be handled in a "single-road" advance, but that's understandable given the "victory fever" felt by most Allied commanders at the time. Only Ike realized the impending supply lag if Antwerp wasn't opened ASAP.

I should defer to the opinion of veterans, Zig, but all too often, it's unlikely that the front-line soldiers can objectively assess their commander's abilities. They're just too far removed, unless their heavy losses are continually the result of their commander's poor planning.

To me, a better way to objectively view a commander is to consider how he might have done in an alternate situation than was the historical case. If Monty's material & logistical advantages were reversed at El Alamein, how would he have fared? If plopped down on the Eastern Front (either as a German or Russian leader) with its rapidly changing front lines, highly-stressed logistics circumstance, vicous climates and horrifying attrition, could he have adapted? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, it's left to our conjecture. The great commanders of history are the ones who were able to adapt.

[Major Tom]

The McClelland/Montgomery comparison only goes so far. They both liked overwealming numbers, but, Monty knew when enough was enough and was willing to commit them in order to win. McClelland always retreated back home after the slightest defeat. Even if his force still severely outnumbered his enemy he would always withdraw. He always believed the false reports of enemy strength, whined to Washington DC for reinforements and allowed his enemy to build up their foreces and prepare for the attack, or to attack themselves. Monty, however, was a better strategist as well as a good creater of a powerful army.

If McClelland was at El Alemain he would have retreated to Alexandrea after the first battle. British casualties were high, it looked as if the position might be breeched, but, the German position wasn't too good either.

[Spook]

BTW, Zigster, it's been a desire of mine for some time to work up a TOAW scenario allowing Monty to try for his "single thrust" to Berlin. (It's an operational what-if that few have explored so far.) If you're interested in supporting this in the future, I could drop an e-mail your way.

[Spook]

Your're right that such a comparison only goes so far, Major. It was made on the note that popularity or trust from the lower ranks only goes so far, in turn, when making an objective assessment of a historical commander. There were quite a few ACW generals like Polk or Sigel who were very popular with their troops but still incompetent on the battlefield.

And sure, I'd take Monty over McClellan any day. (Have I finally spelled "Little Mac" right, LOL?) But even constraining to WW2, would I take him over others like Zhukov, Rossokovsky, Konev, Manstein, Auchinleck, Rommel, etc.? Nope. Monty was a good commander, and deserves his historical due. But he'll never rate "great captain" in my view, even when held up only against all of the WW2 leaders.

[Major Tom]

Spook, I am not certain I spelled McClellan correct either. However, he, like Polk, was very beloved by his troops. Why else would he have been called back after being dismissed? Of coure, Lincoln didn't have too many other choices!

I would rank Montgomery to be about as good a commander as Patton. There were much better generals on all sides of the war, and there were many more worse ones. It just happens that these two were in the right place at the right time.

Actually, General Aukinlek (I have NO idea how to spell his name) was the mastermind behind the winning army of El Alemain. He was only removed from command because he refused to be bullied by Churchill to prematurely launch his offensive. He was replaced with Monty, who, followed Aukinlek's plan to the tee. Monty also refused to attack early, but, wasn't sacked by his protest. Auk commanded the Army in the desert since Crusader, and has only suffered defeat where any other British commander would have. He is probably the equal to Montogomery. Many sacked Generals were as good, if not better commanders than those famous ones who replaced them.

[Goanna]

Coincidently, Major Tom, the show that started all this thread did cover the fact that Gen. Auk did devise the plan that Monty used and also said that it was followed precisely by Monty. It also said that Gen. Auk was sacked over his apparent lack of initiative, and replaced by Churchill primarily because of the need for a morale boost at home. They needed a hard charger in there who would give them some good press. Unfortunately the guy he chose (forget name - help me out here grogs) was killed when his plane was shot down while delivering him. So, Monty, which the documentary said was in many was similar to Gen. Auk got his shot.

I would suggest that Monty was well liked by his troops due to his comprehensive focus on training. I know that from my experience in the army if you do a lot of training for some task it makes you feel a lot more comfortable about the upcoming task (like battle), whether ot not you are truly equipped to win.

Now another question. If McLellan is considered to suck by historians, how come there is a base (Fort McLellan, AL) named after him? One of those name all the forts in the south after northern generals things?

Thanks for all of the very knowledgeable posts on this thread. I thought the question on "who's the best" was a bit frivolous, but it has generated a good discussion, which is what I was really after anyway.

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

desert rat wannabe

[This message has been edited by Goanna (edited 01-12-2000).]

[Guest Zigster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

To me, a better way to objectively view a commander is to consider how he might have done in an alternate situation than was the historical case...If plopped down on the Eastern Front (either as a German or Russian leader) with its rapidly changing front lines, highly-stressed logistics circumstance, vicous climates and horrifying attrition, could he have adapted? ...The great commanders of history are the ones who were able to adapt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My knowledge is stretched to the limit here, but didn't he serve as a Divisional commander in the low countries in 1940? It is my understanding he held up very well under those "rapidly changing front lines and highly stressed logistics."

I think the McClellan comparison is a valid one. Men will work for a commander they trust.

[This message has been edited by Zigster (edited 01-12-2000).]

[Spook]

MajorTom:

Incredible, you were reading my mind in your comment that often a famous leader becomes famous by being at the right place at the right time.

I THINK that the correct spelling to "Auk" is Auchinleck (the first name being Claude), but I'm not absolutely certain. I might also recall that Auk hailed from Australia or New Zealand.

Actually, Auk was a theater commander (one level above army command) and was later replaced in this role by Alexander. But with the crises that popped up in 1942, Auk had to effectively double as 8th Army commander at times too. Indeed, Auk was given a short shrift in the laurels of WW2, given that he was the first to actually defeat Rommel with the Crusader battle. (The 8th Army leader at that time, Cunningham, started to falter at the critical point of that battle, and Auk took over and persevered.) And his prediction for the time needed to build for an 1942 offensive at Alamein ultimately proved spot-on, even though he was relieved. He MIGHT have been given some command in the Indian theater or the Mideast after North Africa.

The general you are referring to, Goanna, that died in a plane crash, was "Strafer" Gott.

[Spook]

You are right, Zig, that Monty commanded a division of the BEF in France '40, and performed quite well at that job. It likely was that performance that was Monty's springboard for higher command. Still, what I am primarily referring to here is an operational commander at the army or theater level.

I've posted frequently on this subject of recent because it drifted back to Monty again. Even more than Patton, Monty's name seems to invoke controversy & debate. (Recall the comment in the SPR movie?) I've very rarely seen people wanting to regard Monty in an objective way---they either hold him in high regard or despise him. Even Ambrose was harsh on Monty in his WW2 books. But I'd rather that people try to look more at the gray shades of Monty, because his was a complex personality.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 01-12-2000).]

[Mikeathome]

I have just finished (re-) reading a biography of Conningham, Commander of hte Desert Airforce and Allied Expeditionary Airforce (on Europe & preps from before D-Day).

The man had a considerable amount of time working with Montgomery, and a bit with Patton.

Somewhere in there he says that MontGomery's forte was attacking a stationary foe who he grossly outnumbered on land and air, who had inferior and less equipment, who couldn't/wouldn't run away and who gave him a couple of months to prepare! Severly paraphrased - I can't find the quote now :-(

Now this was from a senior RAF officer (albeit a New Zealander), and hte biography is by a British-born New Zealander lecturing in Early 20th Century (ww1 & 2) history.

Conningham also had the good fortune to fall foul of Patton in Tunis - Patton had left a HQ or OP in one place for 3 days, and the LW duely divebombed it and killed his favourite ADC. His next daily summary railed about the "heavy air attacks" his troops had suffered, despite 2/3rds of the CAP that day being over his corps and this being the only attack documented.

Mike

[Mikeathome]

Auchinlek was Northern-Irish Protestant - the closest he came to the ANZAC's was as CinC of the Indian army at partition and of both Indian and Pakistani armies for a short time after partition (according to Keegan's "Who's Who in Military History)

Mike

[Major Tom]

Cunningham had a nervous breakdown sometime during the North African Campaign. An interesting fact, the unsuccessfull General Cunningham was the brother of the much venerated Admiral Cunningham who commanded the British Medeterranean fleet against overwealming odds? The British typically bred much better Naval Commanders over Army Commanders, just tradition I suppose. British Generals tended to be rather timid in taking risks, but, their Admiral's wouldn't hesitate one bit!

[Guest Zigster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

BTW, Zigster, it's been a desire of mine for some time to work up a TOAW scenario allowing Monty to try for his "single thrust" to Berlin. (It's an operational what-if that few have explored so far.) If you're interested in supporting this in the future, I could drop an e-mail your way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops. Musta missed this one. Don't have Total Art of War. :-( Santa wasn't good to me cuz I was a bad, bad Zig.

[Guest Zigster]

Major Tom:

I believe the quote, if I remember it rightly, is: "It takes three years to build a ship. It takes three hundred to build a tradition."

Quoth Admiral Cunningham.

[Mikeathome]

Conningham's biography includes a cartoon of "the contractors" - Cunningham, Cunningham and Conningham with the caption:

"Removal contractors - armies and navies removed with speed, distance no problem, also skies swept clean".

Alan Cunningham was removed from command of hte 8th within a week of the appearance of the cartoon in the Daily Express on 21 Nov '42.

[von Lucke]

You can argue unto infinity about who the best-of-the-best was in the Field Marshal / General grouping -- but however brilliant the REMF's back in GHQ are, it's the ability of the men on the front line who have to implement those plans that counts! (And isn't that what CM is all about?).

In that spirit of can-do creativity in the face of (almost) insurmountable odds, I nominate the following commanders:

Allied: Ord Wingate

Axis: Otto Skorzeny

Look 'em up...