Preview or how to kill 17 Shermans with one Panther

[Vark]

What is it with the Americans and Monty, can someone explain?

[JonS]

He was successful. And right.

They hate that.

[dan/california]

Well there was that little error called Market Garden, but no ones perfect.

[Vark]

Ah, one of the great what if's of WWII, (looking forward to the module covering that period). Trouble is I have seen Americans attack him for the initial operations around Caen, three months before.

[JonS]

I said he was successful, not perfect.

[Peregrine]

Well there was that little error called Market Garden, but no ones perfect.

A general critcism by the Americans was that he was too slow and methodical and the planning of this operation sort of flew in the face of that which didn't help their cause

[Peregrine]

Magpie Oz,

No, I can't accept that Monash had such a very large impact on his own. He didn't arrive in France till 1917. So by that time lots of lessons had been learned the hard way. He was a very good general, but he "didn't crack the dead-lock of the trenches". That was an effort beyond any single man and Monash wasn't even an army commader, only a corps commander (so there was another level between him and Haig).

His late arrival assisted as the troops under him were for the most part experienced and just as importantly fresher than the bulk of the other ally troops so they punched above the weight for these reasons. It definitely wasn't a one man show though.

[Peregrine]

And the honest British, probably the Germans and maybe even a few of the allied commanders (not Americans) serving under him. >:-D Yeah I know I am probably biased, but I don't think that is purely about being American. I have some of the same regard for Patton, but at least Patton understand the role of speed in modern combat.

All the generals understood "speed" and when there was no organised defense in front of them and logistics allowed they all moved quickly.

After Normandy all the allied generals argued pretty loudly that their army should by given priority so they could make a "speedy" thrust and end the war sooner rather than later. The reality is that it was always going to be a grind and there was no magical lightning thrust that was going to finish things simply.

[sburke]

What is it with the Americans and Monty, can someone explain?

I can only speak for myself, but Montgomery pretty much seems to have become THE MAN after he was appointed to N African command and implemented a plan already in motion. Victory became it's own Mantra and after that Monty could do no wrong with Churchill's backing. He then proceeded to allow Rommel to retreat all the way back to Tunis

His constant stoking of his own legend through Normandy, taking credit for American success in the Ardennes and his ignoring of a strategic goal of getting Antwerp open as a supply source for the Allies probably prolonging the war, they just add up to a poor review. He just adds up to me as mostly being the guy in the right place at the right time, but not necessarily the right guy.

(The bit about the Ardennes was a real public media fiasco and so bad that not only did Monty finally have to apologize, but so did Churchill to prevent it harming the Allied Alliance. That kind of says it all about how out of whack he was to the allied situation.)

The Germans aren't likely to be the best judge of Allied Commanders, but their lack of regard for Monty speaks volumes. An unimaginative commander will spend a lot of his soldiers lives unnecessarily. Monty was far from the only commander to fit that bill, but he certainly contributed his share.

His ego was unbearable even to many of his British compatriots. Not that Patton didn't have an ego, if anything it was likely worse, but Patton was a different type commander and probably rose to the pinnacle of his capability. Monty as head of an Army Group and from his own view the rightful theater commander was well past his.

Contrast that to Omar Bradley as his peer. He understood the chain of command and what he should or shouldn't be saying in front of the media. He did his job as he was asked and he did it well. He understood his commander's intent and did his best to accomplish the mission as decided instead of constantly trying to undermine his commander. Monty just seemed to create more issues than he was worth. If it hadn't been for his favor amongst the British population who needed a winning leader after years of reversals I expect he would have been sacked. Okay that last bit is purely my own opinion on what should have been. :-P

[JonS]

So much fail in one post

I can only speak for myself, but Montgomery pretty much seems to have become THE MAN after he was appointed to N African command and implemented a plan already in motion. Victory became it's own Mantra and after that Monty could do no wrong with Churchill's backing. He then proceeded to allow Rommel to retreat all the way back to Tunis

Montgomery became THE MAN in WWI. His performance in France in 1940 was exceptional, as was his performance in the UK in 1940-42.

His constant stoking of his own legend through Normandy,

Not in Normandy. I will grant that post-war he did a little - ok, a lot - of retrospective editting to make things look better. Which is a shame, because they were brilliant enough on their own merits.

taking credit for American success in the Ardennes

Seems you need to read what was actually siad, and compare that to hwo it was reported. His comments were perhaps gauche, but he was paying genuine comments to the US Army at that conference. His opinion of the US command was more acerbic, although fully justified, and left a lot of them badly butthurt. Being such good sports they held the grudge, and used the media to poison to get some revenge at the expense of inter-Allied unity.

His ego was unbearable even to many of his British compatriots.

True, but he was head and shoulders over pretty much everyone else. Cause. Effect.

Contrast that to Omar Bradley as his peer. He understood the chain of command ...

Bradley!?

Yee gods. That man did more to derail the Allies in NWE than even the Germans. He actively ignored - or allowed to be ignored - the orders of his superiors. He was also wildly unimaginative. "Attack! Yar! Everywhere! Yar! All the time! Yar!" looks good on newsprint, but nowhere else.

Jon

Edit: wait, was your post an attempt at meta-humour? Because, as I read it again, it looks like nothing more than a compilation of all the usual Ambrose-inspired Seppo twaddle.

[sburke]

All the generals understood "speed" and when there was no organised defense in front of them and logistics allowed they all moved quickly.

After Normandy all the allied generals argued pretty loudly that their army should by given priority so they could make a "speedy" thrust and end the war sooner rather than later. The reality is that it was always going to be a grind and there was no magical lightning thrust that was going to finish things simply.

Well that seems to be something Monty didn't get in N Africa. He didn't have the instinct to go for the throat when he had Rommel on the ropes and instead let him slip away back to Tunisia. Nor was he able to match Patton's speed in Sicily despite taking over routes that had been assigned to the American command.

Not to make too much of Patton, his ego in Sicily likely cost more lives of his soldiers than was necessary and his performance in front of Metz was surely lacking. However not too many commanders could have pulled off the shift that Third Army made in December 1944.

With his history of "tidying his front" the odds that he would have thrust as many divisions as Patton (and more so his commander Bradley) did down a single road without regard to what the Germans might do just doesn't sound likely.

[JonS]

This is farcical.

Well that seems to be something Monty didn't get in N Africa. He didn't have the instinct to go for the throat when he had Rommel on the ropes and instead let him slip away back to Tunisia.

An interesting way to describe the longest, fastest, most sustained advance in all of WWII. El Alamein to Enfidaville is about the same distance as Paris to Moscow. But there's only one road, and no rail. Montgomery covered that distance in less than six months.

Nor was he able to match Patton's speed in Sicily despite taking over routes that had been assigned to the American command.

Exactly. He totally should have been able to match Patton's feat of 'attacking' into a vacuum (and in a pointless direction), even though he was faced by very difficult terrain ... oh, and an actual enemy force

With his history of "tidying his front" the odds that he would have thrust as many divisions as Patton (and more so his commander Bradley) did down a single road without regard to what the Germans might do just doesn't sound likely.

MARKET-GARDEN?

OTOH, I don't really consider thrusting multiple divisions down the Kall Trail a particularly stellar example of the general's art.

[sburke]

This is farcical.

An interesting way to describe the longest, fastest, most sustained advance in all of WWII.

Exactly. He should have been able to match Pattons feat of 'attacking' into a vacuum (in a pointless direction), even though he was faced by very difficult terrain ... oh, and an actual enemy force.

MARKET-GARDEN?

LOl I think we may just have to agree to disagree here. Though you have sparked my interest in taking a look at the 1940 campaign. For what it's worth, this isn't reflective of an opinion of the British army, just Montgomery.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The 2nd French Armoured Division (2e Division Blindée) was organised and equipped exactly like a US Armored Division. Well .. almost exactly. I have a sneakling suspicion their A-Tk Bn may have been a little different. Actually, that they even had an AT Bn was organisationally different ... but still, almost exactly. The other French divisional sized units that ended up in 6th Army Group were equipped and organised like US units.

On the other hand, there were French Commandos who landed on D-Day on SWORD beach who were exactly like British Commandos, and French SAS units that were like any other SAS unit.

Excepting the fact that they spoke French fluently.

Regards

KR

[Magpie_Oz]

Montgomery is guilty of one thing and one thing only, zero ability to play politics.

He was however employed as a soldier and I do not think that it is too much of a stretch to say that he played an integral part in every Western Allied victory from about 1942 on. El Alimain and the sweep through North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, the Ardennes Offensive , Rhine Crossing, Ruhr Pocket and the final advance into Germany where it was he who took the surrender of the German Army

I always find it odd that all of these achievements are nullified by Market Garden, which was an ambitious plan that may have yielded disproportionate results. We rush to lay blame solely on Monty. Lt-Gen Brereton or Brigadier Gavin are rarely mentioned.

[Magpie_Oz]

His late arrival assisted as the troops under him were for the most part experienced and just as importantly fresher than the bulk of the other ally troops so they punched above the weight for these reasons. It definitely wasn't a one man show though.

I would hardly call June 1917 "late" particularly since he had previously served at Gallipolli

Never suggested that it was a one man show, he did however develop the tactics that carried the day and commanded the forces that formed the spearhead.

[Blackcat]

... he did however develop the tactics that carried the day ...

Really? What new tactics did he develop?

[Magpie_Oz]

Combined arms warfare, principally the use of Armour, Artillery, Airpower and Infantry in a closely orchestrated sequence.

In the main the absence of a preparatory bombardment was used to maintain the element of surprise the idea being for a short barrage to keep the enemy heads down and for tanks to provide the Infantry the cover and support necessary to close with the enemy.

[dieseltaylor]

For leadership I did actually qualify it to divisional. I have no problems with people talking all over the shop but it really makes life easier if we know what scale their "leadership" is being judged against.

I think another one in the frame at divisional level could well be Percy Hobart who was not only a stickler for training but also gifted in seeing what was needed hence the 79th Armoured Division , the largest armoured division - probably ever : )

Army commanders - I am not sure if that is always genuine leadership or more PR. I make a distinction between actual decisions made , and the persona radiated to those under his command.

However it is a huge subject and there are the likes of Wavell., Sitwell, etc who have not yet started the race : )

Anyway here is an academics way of looking at it - for the US:

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/wade2/wade2.asp

[Blackcat]

Combined arms warfare, principally the use of Armour, Artillery, Airpower and Infantry in a closely orchestrated sequence.

In the main the absence of a preparatory bombardment was used to maintain the element of surprise the idea being for a short barrage to keep the enemy heads down and for tanks to provide the Infantry the cover and support necessary to close with the enemy.

I rather think that those elements were well under development in 1916. In fact if you read up on the Battle of the Somme you will find them all being developed in the year before Monash took up his command on the Western Front.

I really do think you are trying to make too much out of Monash's record. He was a good general, he commanded a fine corps of fighting men. He was, however, a Corps commander, a cog in a very large machine, he did not win WWI - the outcome would have been the same had he not been there.

[Magpie_Oz]

I rather think that those elements were well under development in 1916. In fact if you read up on the Battle of the Somme you will find them all being developed in the year before Monash took up his command on the Western Front.

I really do think you are trying to make too much out of Monash's record. He was a good general, he commanded a fine corps of fighting men. He was, however, a Corps commander, a cog in a very large machine, he did not win WWI - the outcome would have been the same had he not been there.

That is like saying Guderian was just a noob who ripped off Liddel Hart.

I don't think referring to the Battle of the Somme is going to uncover any tactical brilliance, it is buried in the mud and drowned in the blood.

I cannot comment on what the outcome might have been had he not been there, others have as I mentioned above.

Sure it was a team effort of the whole allied force but Monash's role was key, far beyond a cog. I am not, have not and will not ever suggest that Monash was the "superman" who won the First World War.

The simple facts are; he was there, he planned the attack, the entire allied command adopted the plan (right up to the Supreme Commander Foch), he lead the attack and the war was won.

How many British commanders were Knighted on the battlefield after the Battle of Amiens? 1, Monash , the first in 200 years. That has to say something surely?

[Blackcat]

"I don't think referring to the Battle of the Somme is going to uncover any tactical brilliance, it is buried in the mud and drowned in the blood."

OK, so the tactical advances you claim for Monash were not all first developed and tried out on the Somme (you have studied that campaign haven't you?) and further refined from the lessons learned at the Battle of Arras in April-May 1917.

Monash was a corps commander, one of many. However, he was a military genius who invented new tactics that nobody had ever thought of before and thank goodness he came along because otherwise the 1918 offensive would never have succeeded.

Happy now?

[Magpie_Oz]

No as you are missing the point entirely and have not read what I have written

[Blackcat]

No as you are missing the point entirely and have not read what I have written

I have, really I have - several times. Perhaps I have not understood what you meant. However, I think we are at, or possibly beyond, the point of boring everyone else so if you want to continue this discussion can I suggest we take it off site? The private messgae system works pretty well.

All the best

[Other Means]

Ironic that the “he planned the campaign and the war was won” argument for Monash could be applied to Montgomery.

Blackcat – threads like this are what the forum was made for

For what it’s worth, I think the main tactical innovations for the Allies in WWI was the use of tanks, first used 1915, and the rolling barrage, which was in effect by the end of 1916. Neither they nor their deployment were affected much by Monash.