Preview or how to kill 17 Shermans with one Panther

[Barkhorn1x]

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

Gee, that’s a difficult one. I chalk it up to this:

- Condescending attitude

- Promising much and always delivering less

- Refusing to let things be

- Propagating blatant falsehoods regarding his role post war

Yea, that’s about encapsulates it.

Tis a shame that after Marlborough and Wellington all you Brits had was that guy.

[Splinty]

Wow! This is fasinating, I still learn new stuff here.

[MengJiao]

Gee, that’s a difficult one. I chalk it up to this:

- Condescending attitude

- Promising much and always delivering less

- Refusing to let things be

- Propagating blatant falsehoods regarding his role post war

Yea, that’s about encapsulates it.

Tis a shame that after Marlborough and Wellington all you Brits had was that guy.

Doesn't Alan Brooke count? And anyway, for the most part Monty seems to have done very well. Apparently somebody mentioned earlier that the final D-Day plan was a Monty Plan.

[MengJiao]

I agree. There was an event that took place after the hard fought battle in the Wilderness in 1864 - Grant's first battle in the east - that sums it up nicely. The leading column of the II Corps came upon a key north/south crossroads and the troops thought that they would turn north as they always did after a big fight to regroup/reorganize and the cycle would repeat itself yet again. But the officer at the crossroads pointed south and the troops realized at that moment that there would be no retreat this time and even tho' there were some horrific battles down the road, the war would finally end as they had commander who had the strategic vision - and will - to make it happen.

Right. And about that time Grant supposedly said something like, "I'm going to whip Bobby Lee if it takes all summer."

Something I used to say in HTH Civil War board games even if I was the Southern Commander in question.

It's just such a great sentence.

[dieseltaylor]

Monty also kicked ass on the Sicily landings getting it into some sort of order. Probabbly very unlikeable but he did seem fairly bright on some things.

[Fetchez la Vache]

History hasn't been kind to Montgomery, but I personally put it down to all stemming from personal issues. Probably a bit of hubris on his part, probably a bit of condescension on the US part. When things get acrimonious negatives get highlighted, positives are downplayed and facts become distorted. That's history folks.

Did he deserve all the credit he took? No.

Does he deserve all the opprobrium he has received since? No.

[Blackcat]

Other means,

Tanks first used in 1915? Is that a typo, Mr. Means? The first use of tanks that I know about was on Friday 15th September 1916.

Interestingly, Haig, who has so ofen been criticised as a hide-bound, traditionalist cavalryman (two machine guns per battalion etc.), was a champion of the tank arm and was thinking about the problems of command, control and coordination involved in using them in combat many months before they appeared on the front.

As for the rolling barrage (as opposed to planned "lifts"), that was, as you say, a viable and wll practiced procedure by the end of 1916. The problem was communication. Once the infantry went in there was no reliable means of them communicating with their HQ to adjust the atrillery to match the speed of thje infantry advance.

Even Magpie Oz hasn't claimed that Monash solved the biggest problem facing WWI commanders - knowing where their troops were and what they were doing.

[wesselholt]

Ah, spændende artikel. Deler minderne fra de første spil...

[Vark]

I thought the Somme was an allied victory, costly, in the initial stages, but overall the Germans lost operationally, which was, after all the objective. "Mud Blood and Poppycock" is an interesting book that seeks to challenge the conventional "Lions led by Donkeys" school of thought.

As for Monty, all the 8th Army veterans, I have had the honour to talk to, spoke very highly of the man, in comparison to their previous commanders. Chap at Shrivenham College was researching a book about his 2iC, as he thought his role had been neglected, don't know if anything came of it though.

Finally, Market Garden, although based on a previous plan, was put together in I believe 11 days, for it to have nearly succeeded was a testimony to the Allied forces involved. I never forget my visit to the Oosterbeek museum that luckily coincided with a big veterans tour, they filled in the back story to a lot of the photographs in the museum, made a big impact on a 15 year old, as did the Allied war cemeteries.

[MengJiao]

I thought the Somme was an allied victory, costly, in the initial stages, but overall the Germans lost operationally, which was, after all the objective. "Mud Blood and Poppycock" is an interesting book that seeks to challenge the conventional "Lions led by Donkeys" school of thought.

There's no doubt that the first day of the Somme offensive was a major disaster for the British Army. After that things were generally a bit better, though perhaps actually even worse in spots, though on the other hand proportionately no worse than say the German performance at First Ypres which led Haig (according to Wikipedia anyway), who defended Ypres, to make a mental note not make the mistake of calling off an offensive too soon.

[Blackcat]

Vark,

Thanks for bringing, "Mud Blood and Poppycock" to our attention. I have just ordered my copy from Amazon.

[Vark]

Blackcat, no problems, nice to have a revisionist history book which makes sense, unlike the interminable the Germans won(substitute any battle they historically lost)/could have won/nearly won books.

[Wildman]

Right. And about that time Grant supposedly said something like, "I'm going to whip Bobby Lee if it takes all summer."

Something I used to say in HTH Civil War board games even if I was the Southern Commander in question.

It's just such a great sentence.

It was a Union commander who finally recognized the center of gravity for the Confederacy was NOT Richmond, but Lee's Army.

[Krilly]

I never forget my visit to the Oosterbeek museum that luckily coincided with a big veterans tour, they filled in the back story to a lot of the photographs in the museum, made a big impact on a 15 year old, as did the Allied war cemeteries.

And the Oosterbeek museum is even more impressive to visit now, due to a recent impressive expanison ( all THE interesting hardware is now indoors).

And I never got all the 'monty bashing', it always seemed like people just jumping on the bandwagon to me.

[Vark]

Oh, an expansion, damn, was quite close last year and was dithering about going.

Best story was the one concerning a photo of a large group of Paras, as though they were posing for a school photo. Much chuckling from the veterans who explained to me it was at the height of the Oosterbeek fighting. During a lull, some one suggested they pose for a photo so being paras, during some of the most intense fighting the Brits encountered in WWII, there they were, lined up in the road, smiling for the camera. More chuckling from the ex-paras, minutes later, after the photo, an assault gun, that had broken through, emerged from a side street and turned down that very road. As one veteran said, if they'd have taken the photo a bit later most of their company would have been wiped out, pointing out that the assault gun would have come up BEHIND the soldiers! What did you do? I asked. "Oh, knocked it out and took the crew prisoner" said a veteran in a tone that suggested assaulting an AFV, with precious little in the way of AT munitions, was just a normal activity! Truly, special people.

[Other Means]

Other means,

Tanks first used in 1915? Is that a typo, Mr. Means? The first use of tanks that I know about was on Friday 15th September 1916.

Sorry - developed 1915. Certainly predating Monash.

[Magpie_Oz]

Sorry - developed 1915. Certainly predating Monash.

At what point has it been claimed that Monash invented the tank, rolling barrage, aircraft, wheel, fire and sliced bread ?

So what if they pre-dated him? They also pre-dated Guderian (who was also at the Battle of Amiens albeit in a different capacity), Rommel, Patton, Mongomery (!!!!!), Zhukov, Dyan, Schwartzkopf who are renowned for employing them in a particularly effective way.

It was actually J F C Fuller who planed the tank operations for the Battle of Amiens

Monash was the first to effectively plan, organise and orchestrate an attack that involved a series of interactions of complex mechanism's. His brilliance was the ability to bring all of the elements together in a coordinated manner as needed.

[Other Means]

WWI was won strategically. On the Western front the impact of any tactical commander – even your mate - was minimal. There's good reasons for this: mainly the lack of motorised transport and radio communication. Any tactical advance before the total strategic collapse – as in, against resistance - was unable to go further than a man could walk. You were attacking away from your covering artillery and, more to the point, away from your own rail-heads.

Meanwhile you were walking – walking mind – closer to the enemies logistical concentrations. As you were running out of ammo they were getting theirs quicker. You could be Archangel Uriel with his fiery sword sweeping all before you but unless you also invented the truck you’re out of luck.

Operational victory isn’t about putting together the correct ratio of combined arms it’s about keeping enough men moving and supplied with enough water, beans and bullets to not die and be able to kill what they find.

If you're doing that with mules vs trains, you're not going to win.

[Magpie_Oz]

WWI was won strategically. On the Western front the impact of any tactical commander – even your mate - was minimal. There's good reasons for this: mainly the lack of motorised transport and radio communication. Any tactical advance before the total strategic collapse – as in, against resistance - was unable to go further than a man could walk. You were attacking away from your covering artillery and, more to the point, away from your own rail-heads.

Meanwhile you were walking – walking mind – closer to the enemies logistical concentrations. As you were running out of ammo they were getting theirs quicker. You could be Archangel Uriel with his fiery sword sweeping all before you but unless you also invented the truck you’re out of luck.

Operational victory isn’t about putting together the correct ratio of combined arms it’s about keeping enough men moving and supplied with enough water, beans and bullets to not die and be able to kill what they find.

If you're doing that with mules vs trains, you're not going to win.

I have never actually suggested that Monash won the war, merely that he was able to devise a way to break the dead lock.

Interesting that you should bring the supply thing up, as one of the novel concepts that Monash thought up was to address exactly that problem.

He resupplied forward elements by air drop as they moved forward and destroyed the enemy artillery to nullify the effect of which you speak of "out running" the guns. Another innovation was to use carrier tanks to bring supplies along with the assault, rather than mules

Of course the assault did run out of momentum and the front re-established which is when, in line with the planning, another assault was launched in a different area, the Battle of Albert, while the supplies were brought forward and the assault continued in the initial sector.

[Other Means]

I have never actually suggested that Monash won the war, merely that he was able to devise a way to break the dead lock.

Yes but he didn't do it did he? He didn't have the tools to do the job.

Interesting that you should bring the supply thing up, as one of the novel concepts that Monash thought up was to address exactly that problem.

He resupplied forward elements by air drop as they moved forward and destroyed the enemy artillery to nullify the effect of which you speak of "out running" the guns.

Of course the assault did run out of momentum and the front re-established which is when, in line with the planning, another assault was launched in a different area, the Battle of Albert, while the supplies were brought forward and the assault continued in the initial sector.

It's not so much outrunning your guns as outrunning your supply line. While supplies were brought forward, they may have had forward supply dumps but you need a flow not a stock and for that you need motorised transport.

This is what you quoted on page 4:

The shape of the world today would have been very different had John Monash, a child of German migrants, not volunteered to fight against his parents' homeland. If he hadn't volunteered, Germany might not have lost World War 1.

That sounds like suggestion to me.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes but he didn't do it did he? He didn't have the tools to do the job.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the battle of Amiens did not break the German line? and his later assault on the Hindenberg line didn't work?

It's not so much outrunning your guns as outrunning your supply line. While supplies were brought forward, they may have had forward supply dumps but you need a flow not a stock and for that you need motorised transport.

Which is what they used, by 1918 there was much greater mechanisation in the Allied forces, also as I edited above he used aircraft and tanks for immediate supply

That sounds like suggestion to me.

Perhaps but it is not my suggestion merely highlighting what others had reported at the time. Not sure if I agree with it per se.

[Blackcat]

Monash was the first to effectively plan, organise and orchestrate an attack that involved a series of interactions of complex mechanism's.

No he wasn't. His main claims to fame took place in the last six months of the war when, because of the stratgegic situation and the technical advances made, ideas that had been developed and used with differing degress of success could now be implemented far more reliably. I have seen nothing, in nearly forty years of reading on WWI, that shows Monash introduced any tactical idea that had not been done before. Even his "peaceful penetration" concept was little more than a rewording of Rawlinson's "bite and hold" updated to take into account the improvements in artillery techiques that had occurred since the spring of 1916. Before 1st July 1916, Haig himself was working hard on how armour/infantry/artillery could be coordinated.

Monash was a very good general, he commanded a corps of very fine fighting men. That is as far as his claim to fame can be based on the facts and, God knows, that ought to be enough.

[Blackcat]

"he used aircraft and tanks for immediate supply"

Really? Tell me more about his airborne re-supply. What aircraft were used? How many tons of ammo and food did they deliver to which units and how? Can you provide a source?

[MengJiao]

It was a Union commander who finally recognized the center of gravity for the Confederacy was NOT Richmond, but Lee's Army.

Abraham Lincoln seems to have known it. Supposedly he said (of Grant, I think) when Grant was accused of being a drunken embezzler: "I can't spare this man; he fights." Another good sentence.

[Magpie_Oz]

"he used aircraft and tanks for immediate supply"

Really? Tell me more about his airborne re-supply. What aircraft were used? How many tons of ammo and food did they deliver to which units and how? Can you provide a source?

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/battlefields/hamel-1918.html

3 Sqn AFC used RE8's to drop ammunition to the troops, I have no idea what the tonnage was, probably not very much given the aircraft capability of the time. They were mainly used at Hamel where a number of innovations were tried which included dropping rifle ammo to the forward troops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918)

this bit :

"There were also to be 580 tanks. The Canadian and Australian Corps were each allocated a brigade of four battalions, with 108 Mark V fighting tanks, 36 Mark V "Star" tanks capable of carrying a squad of infantry armed with a Lewis gun and 24 unarmed tanks intended to carry supplies and ammunition forward."