Wild Bill Wilder Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Some of you may be aware that I have a monthly column on the Wargamer. The theme this month is the "Why of War." In addition, on the cover page you'll find an article on the turning point battle of the war in the desert at El Alamein. For those wanting some quick background on this battle and to get even more into the mood for Combat Mission Afrika Korps, I recommend its reading. As always, any comments, good or bad, are always appreciated. http://www.wargamer.com/ Thanks, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrocles Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Nice article! A few maps would have helped me understand the situation better. Was the British attack at El Alamein Montgomery's plan? IIRC someone on this forum said the plan was forumulated by the previous general and that Montgomery merely put his "stamp of approval" on it. Is this true? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Klutz Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 monty ofton took other peoples plans, modified them a bit and put his name on them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Herr Klutz: monty ofton took other peoples plans, modified them a bit and put his name on them. Name one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Is this true?no. [ September 29, 2003, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melb_will Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 At the risk of completely hijacking this thread Winston Churchill wanted something more immediate. Fearful of yet another North African disaster or impasse, he began to question Monty's ability to get the job done. Montgomery was approaching the battle carefully, methodically I have always been fascinated by the African/Mediteranian Campaigns largely because of the role that Commonwealth forces played. I remember a History Teacher in grade 9, who was obsessed with the Australian role in El Alamein and Greece. Anyway of particular interest lately has been the widely differing views people hold about the skill and effectiveness of Montgomery. In particular in the Scilly landings. It seems that the Americans in particular were upset by his methodical 'read slow but sure' approach. But from reading Bil's article it seems even Churchill, who lets face it was responsible for Gallipoli and as such was hardly a tactical genius. Was annoyed by Monty's approach. Opinons? And don't degenerate into a Monty was a fool, Patton was a hero. Put some thought into your answers. Will 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by melb_will: At the risk of completely hijacking this thread </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Winston Churchill wanted something more immediate. Fearful of yet another North African disaster or impasse, he began to question Monty's ability to get the job done. Montgomery was approaching the battle carefully, methodically I have always been fascinated by the African/Mediteranian Campaigns largely because of the role that Commonwealth forces played. I remember a History Teacher in grade 9, who was obsessed with the Australian role in El Alamein and Greece. Anyway of particular interest lately has been the widely differing views people hold about the skill and effectiveness of Montgomery. In particular in the Scilly landings. It seems that the Americans in particular were upset by his methodical 'read slow but sure' approach. But from reading Bil's article it seems even Churchill, who lets face it was responsible for Gallipoli and as such was hardly a tactical genius. Was annoyed by Monty's approach. Opinons? And don't degenerate into a Monty was a fool, Patton was a hero. Put some thought into your answers. Will </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darknight (DC) Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by melb_will: It seems that the Americans in particular were upset by his methodical 'read slow but sure' approach. But from reading Bil's article it seems even Churchill, who lets face it was responsible for Gallipoli and as such was hardly a tactical genius. Was annoyed by Monty's approach. A little bit further off-topic, but I hardly think Churchill could be blamed for any tactical failure at Gallipoli....although, as 1st Lord of the Admiralty (I think that's correct), he was responsible for Gallipoli from the strategic side of things..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Klutz Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Herr Klutz: monty ofton took other peoples plans, modified them a bit and put his name on them. Name one. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortinbras Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 well for one the battle of el al itself, then later the invasions of sicely and italy and so on...he was however the man who put the polish on the plans, organised the armies and encouraged the men-just the plans wern't all "his" brilliant invntions he thought up at his desk one day. Agreed... Market-Garden was the kind of brilliance Monty came up with when he was sitting behind a desk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Herr Klutz: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Herr Klutz: monty ofton took other peoples plans, modified them a bit and put his name on them. Name one. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Well I've read the accusation from the anti-Monty camp that his plan for the attack at El Alamein was initially Auchinleck's plan, but I've also read from the pro-Monty camp about how he turned Auchinleck's defeated and demoralised 8th Army around and meticulously planned the counter-attack. The Monty vs. Patton stuff in France usually ignores the fact that Patton was pursuing an enemy falling back on the Rhine, whilst the British and Canadians were attempting to sieze the well defended Channel ports, as well as ignoring that Monty and Patton were at different levels of command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The initial landings in Sicily were actually bigger than the Normandy invasion, by the way. Since you brought it up, do you mind expounding on that just a bit more? On a side note, in my mind I've likened Monty with the ACW General George Brinton McClellan - but that is based on limited reading about McClellan, and even less on Monty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 More ships, more soldiers, bigger frontage. OVERLORD ultimately landed more men, of course, but HUSKY was bigger in the initial stages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: More ships, more soldiers, bigger frontage. OVERLORD ultimately landed more men, of course, but HUSKY was bigger in the initial stages. More assault divisions, too, if I'm not mistaken. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Herr Klutz: monty ofton took other peoples plans, modified them a bit and put his name on them. Name one. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Herr Klutz: monty ofton took other peoples plans, modified them a bit and put his name on them. Name one. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I think Montgomery will always spark controversy because he was a complex man. Like Patton, who similarly sparks controversy, he was very good at certain things and truly awful at others. His partisans tend to focus on his assets and his critics on his deficits, but you need to understand both to really know the man. It is undeniable that he was able to breathe renewed confidence into 8th. Army after he took over, an achievement of inestimable value. His handling of his division (the 3rd.?) during the retreat to Dunkirk in 1940 was superb according to the accounts I have read. He apparently did a creditable job in organizing Southeast Command, though since it was never tested in combat, that is a little hard to measure. But his handling of troops as an army and then army group commander is uneven. Sometimes he did quite well, as at Medenine or the pursuit across France and Belgium. But most of the rest of the time, his performance was distinctly lackluster. He was adequate, in that his armies won eventually, but uninspiring. And his relations with his allies, a vital factor in high command in coalition warfare, was simply abominable. He was at best condescending toward other commanders, at worst openly contemptuous. This attitude was intensified toward other nationalities. In fairness, it must be said that this attitude was reciprocated and often with no greater justice. But on this issue he seemed incapable of opening his mouth without putting his foot into it all the way up to the hip. Even his British superiors lost patience with him. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Good stuff, Michael. Montgomery was also, as I've pointed out before, and excellent trainer of men. The fact that South East Command (which he renamed South East Army, incidentally, and without permission) did not see combat is irrelevant. They most certainly did, later, or at most of its component parts did. But Monty had a very firm hand in guiding the units through their training. He inspected every Canadian battalion under command, for example, and made snap judgements on who was fit to lead and not - this included RSMs, battalion COs, and Company commanders. General Crerar, in command of the Canadian Corps (later Canadian Army) at this time accepted many if not most of Monty's recommendations. And Monty's judgements seem to have been fairly accurate (if not a little harsh) and proven later on after D-Day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.