Wars and Conflicts聽 permalink
Was Monty Over-rated?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Hi All,
Ok, I know this is a massive can of worms I'm opening, but never mind! I'm interested in everyone's views on this one, the question as to whether Field Marshal Montgomery was indeed a great military leader, or was he just average? I'm asking this one for the reason that I had always thought him to be pretty good, but am now doubting his ability in a big way!
if you look at El Alamein, you see a methodical, careful planner, who defeated one of Germany's finest ever Generals, Erwin Rommel, yet when you look at total cock-ups like Operation Goodwood (the disastrous attack by 7th Armoured in Normandy) or Market Garden, he seems to have totally lost the plot.
In Goodwood for example, he took a veteran division, and basically threw it away. 7th Armoured lost 400 tanks and 6000 men in a period of a couple of days, and gained only 7 miles (and all this with the mass of tactical air support available during this campaign), a total disaster. There are those who argue that Monty's intention was to draw in the German reserves around Caen, so the US in the west could breakout and start the push into France, and there is no denying that this was the outcome, but I don't buy it. I think that Monty blew it, he wasted most of his "Desert Rats" on a poorly planned, pathetically executed attack on a highly defended position, with little chance of success. If this was a mere diversion, you'd use your weaker forces, not your best.
As for Market Garden, recklessness to the extreme, and poor conceptual planning. A massive advance to relieve surrounded, lightly armed forces is one thing, but DOWN A SINGLE ROAD??? Pathetic!
Cheers
DL -
Message 2
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Friday, 18th November 2005
I'm not any kind of expert on military matters -but that doesn't stop anyone else pontificating on these MBs
- so here goes.
I think that Monty got lucky in North Africa. He benefitted for Rommel's various absences in Berlin and from the Afrika Korps' mistake of vastly over-extending their lines of communication and supply (don't know if this was down to Rommel or not).
The Market Garden debacle proves that he was completely out of his depth as a strategic thinker. -
Message 3
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Can of worms......you're not kidding
. I was a Monty worshipper, as my Grandad was a veteran of the desert and Arnhem. Now I'm older and wiser, I doubt he was quite the genius he's often portrayed as being, and I know for a fact he was pretty unpopular amongst many of his brother officers. The basic idea behind Market Garden is sound, but for many reasons it just didn't come together as Monty envisaged. I'll leave it to the experts to chew this one over, should be interesting. -
Message 4
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
I was of the same opinion, but the more you look at some of his plans, the more you just think "Muppet!". Market Garden in particular was just too reckless, and I think his plan was influenced far too much by criticism from other Allied Generals for being over-cautious.
In all military planning, relying on one simgle route is just crazy, and leaving the flanks of an advance so ridiculously exposed it just plain suicidal! IMO he lost the cautious, thorough planning element that won El-Alamein due to criticism, and as a result, his men paid the price.
Cheers -
Message 5
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 18th November 2005
We're basically in agreement so far, but was the rushed approach not influenced by the race to Berlin?? The Eastern front was rapidly collapsing and (I think) the Allies desparately wanted to get to Berlin first. Things had pretty much stalled because of supply problems and Monty was trying to get the ball rolling. The US were not keen on Market Garden and took a lot of persuading. I'm reluctant to get involved in this one, 'cos its a bit of a touchy subject with some people. Besides, I need to revise my facts a bit first. Catch you later.
-
Message 6
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Friday, 18th November 2005
I thought Market Garden failed because of faulty intelligence.
Panzers round Arnhem and a lot more troops facing the advancing troops than expected.
But for that might we be saying what a bold and imaginative stroke it was? -
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Did it fail though? Arnhem wasn't held, but the other two bridges were captured by the Americans and provided useful Rhine crossing points.
If the British may not have captured the bridge which was the primary objective, but they certainly stopped the German tanks from counter-attacking elsewhere.
But I still don't think Monty is that great. He has a reputation for beating Rommel, who, in my opinion, is also extremely over-rated. -
Message 8
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Hi DL,
If you look at many plans that worked in the Second world war, many of them could easily gone either way..
The line behind gambling genius and muppet can sometimes be such a fine line.
In my opinion, no military operation should factor in 'luck' into the planning.
Even (IMO ) the best of WW2 generals Gudarian made such gambles, but some of his paid off, the only difference between them.
The effect Monty had on his troops in North Africa can鈥檛 be ignored, turning a beaten Army into a winning one, albeit with dominance in all areas, but is that not how the Germans won many of their victories? Also remember his 鈥楽aving鈥 of the US forces in 1944 (Which almost split the Allies).
He made mistakes, as did Patton, MacArthur, Rommell, and the other 鈥榞reats鈥 of that conflict...
IMO he was a decent General, not legendary, but I can't think of any Generals in the western Theatre that would be put along side the all time greats. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Hi Mani,
Hope all is well.
Agreed that Monty did a good job in North Africa, and he did after all defeat Rommel, and Rommel can undoubtedly be classed as an outstanding military tactician. However, if he was facing a Rommel who had a fully operational force, with adequate supplies and equipment, not the force whose supplies were at the bottom of the Mediterranean thanks to Enigma, would Monty have had the same result?
With Market Garden, the whole plan was flawed from day one, and the fact that they had photo recon showing a big lump of armour hiding in the woods and ignored it is quite simply criminal. Then the signals cock-up, sending radio equipment that didn't work is equally stupid, and combine it with a plan which involved a single straight line advance through enemy held territory, whose objectives are blindingly obvious (just follow the road, and the airborne drops) even before that idiot staff officer took the complete battle plan into action with him. Incompetence from beginning to end, and a tragic waste of outstanding troops. Much more muppet than gambling genius mate! As you rightly said, no operation should be relying on luck to succeed, in fact should be planned for the worst possible luck, so that alone is enough to justify promotion to the rank of Muppet!
Monty's action in the Battle of the Bulge, hmmm that is a bit tricky, since he did stabilise one flank of the battle, but took his time before counter-attacking (probably back to being cautious again after the previous year's cock-ups), so didn't play a part until much of the fight was over.
Cheers
DL
cheers
DL -
Message 10
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Hi DL,
Not too bad, looking forward to another weekend of Babysitting!!!
"However, if he was facing a Rommel who had a fully operational force, with adequate supplies and equipment, not the force whose supplies were at the bottom of the Mediterranean thanks to Enigma, would Monty have had the same result?"
I think rather than a direct answer, a more realistic response would be another question;
Had Rommell a fully operational force, with adequate supplies and equipment, not the force whose supplies were at the bottom of the Mediterranean thanks to Enigma, the war would be completely different, been fought in different areas. Had that been the situation, would El Alamain been plausible as a place where two armies met? Would we even be in North Africa, had we not had Enigma, the war would unfold differently.
But if we take it as they did fight, would Monty not held out for greater re-enforcements? Invariably, few Armies that meet each other in Battle are equal.
In regards to Operations Market and Garden, were all of the mistakes down to Monty, or his subordinates? You know as well as most of us that Victory isn't just due to the commanding officer, it's about us blokes on the ground, and our direct commanders etc. Failure is much the same.... -
Message 11
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Hi Mani,
Good point! If you view it with Enigma not being broken, then the war is completely different, with the most likely outcome a negotiated peace due to the U-Boat campaign, so I guess that argument is out the window!
If we take it as a full strength Afrika Korps, I would imagine that Rommel would have kept attacking, and probably taken the Suez canal before Monty had even got to Africa, since it was only when his supply lines were over extended that Rommel's attacks petered out.
Going back to Market Garden, I cannot see how the troops on the ground can be blamed for the operation not succeeding. All you need to do is to look at the treatment of captured paras by the SS during the battle. They were captured expecting that the SS would do their usual and shoot their prisoners, yet instead they were treated as fellow elite warriors by the Waffen SS, and treated with great respect. This on its own says a great deal about the conduct, bravery and fighting ability of the airborne troops.
On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for the conduct and ability of middle-ranking officers (we always end up slagging the Rodneys off!!!), particularly on Monty's staff. If we go back to the "Panzers in the woods" bit alone, how on earth could the knowledge that heavy armour was in the area be suppressed? Anyone with the slightest common sense knows full well that an airborne assault against armoured units is suicide! How that idiot simply dismissed them as irrelevant is worthy of the rank of "Supreme Muppet-In-Chief"! If Market Garden was indeed Monty's baby, then he must have realised that an advance on such a narrow front is asking for trouble, and his staff failed him by not advising to that effect, and failed him again with the "I see no tanks" episode. So yes, I must concede that Monty's staff must bear some responsibility but the buck stops with him. The soldiers on the ground fought to the best of their ability, and with outstanding bravery and skill and IMO can't be blamed for the failure of Market Garden.
Oh hang on, what am I doing? Glorifying Paras to a Para? Noooo!!! Fatal error!!!
Cheers
DL -
Message 12
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 18th November 2005
I appologize for interrupting but as a Yank I think that Monty is HIGHLY over rated. There is no record of him defeating anyone unless he had at least a 6:1 advantage. While Rommel attacked even when he was out number and still won. Plus there is always the question of his sexuality.
Your best WWII general by far was Slim. -
Message 13
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
I think that most armies who defeated German troops in battle had a similar numerical advantage, so not much new there.
As for his sexuality, I can't recall anything about that, and if I remember correctly he was married (and widowed quite young) with children. However, homosexuality has never really hampered a general, just look at Alexander! He seems to have been not particularly fussy as to the gender of his partners, and he wasn't exactly a poor leader!!!
Cheers -
Message 14
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 18th November 2005
"Highly Over-rated" jesw1962?? I respect your opinion, but no attacking force engages the enemy in a defensive or mobile position unless they have a minimum 3:1 advantage, if I remember rightly. The same applies today, although the technological advantages of developed countries makes that a little flexible if your opponent doesn't have the same kind of capability. Rommel's Afrika Korps was effectively cut loose by Berlin and fought like a Dobermann with its nuts on fire. The US had some more than capable CO's, the 101st at Nijmegen were outstanding although names escape me at present. You have to admit, Mark Clark was a little suspect wasn't he??
-
Message 15
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Friday, 18th November 2005
We can't say Monty wasn't a good commander. He cared for the welfare of his troops, waited for a classical 3:1 advantage most of the time and he also planned the D-Day landings. However, he was not the great British Commander in the war. Of course, that accolade goes General Slim but without Monty, I think that (this'll get chants of anti-americanism) Britain would have been forced to play a more minor role to America.
-
Message 16
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Agreed,
Mark Clark can also be granted the rank of "Muppet", his "Let's charge into Rome and let the main German force escape" plan was pure stupidity, and worthy of Kermit the Frog.
SL -
Message 17
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Agreed,
Mark Clark can also be granted the rank of "Muppet", his "Let's charge into Rome and let the main German force escape" plan was pure stupidity, and worthy of Kermit the Frog.
厂尝听
DL: I could not agree with you more. General clark knew that D-Day was the sixth of June and he wanted to take Rome before then. He know that once the second front was opened, no one would remember Italy. He wasn't even used during the Korean War.
IMO, all the really good British and American commanders were in the Pacific. While this may get under some skins, I think McArthur was brilliant. I grant, a HUGE ego. -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 18th November 2005
hi John
I agree regarding McArthur, he may have had a seriously high opinion of himself, but he was a good general, from both a tactical perspective and the view of his troops. More importantly, he will always have many bonus points for keeping his promise regarding the Phillipines, he did return, and kick the Japanese out, exactly as he promised.
Strange though that the Germans and Russians had all the star generals, Zhukov, Koniev on the Soviet side, Manstein and Rommel on the German side.
Cheers
DL
PS yes the boards have gone somewhat down the pan recently, though they are improving again. -
Message 19
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 18th November 2005
DL: With respect, I have a low respect for the Russian Generals. IMO their idea was "Send in a million men, when they are killed second in the second million and destroy the enemy. If you ever have the chance I recommend the movie "Enemie at the gates."
-
Message 20
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 18th November 2005
DL, hi,
I'd give Monty a rating of 6.5 out of 10, better than average but not the great general he was made out to be during and immediately after WW2. You've already made out the case why. El Alamein and subsequent actions in N Africa, Sicilly and Italy made his reputation. To criticise him for not attacking until he had overwhelming superiority is quite bizarre to my mind as that's what good generals do if they can.
To criticise him for being over cautious, this of the man who planned Market Garden, who said on the eve of D Day, "I'd say go". (I'll draw a discreet veil over Market Garden now).
Indeed his reputation is sustained until June 6th 1944. Here is where it starts to fall apart. Here we see when met with reverse he attempts to "spin" his way out of the situation. The failure to take Caen on D Day, despite him saying prior to D Day that was his objective he maintains after that it was not an objective. (To my mind if he'd just come out and said it was an objective we failed to take it wouldn't have mattered. No forces took their assigned objectives on D Day.)
Goodwood, classic spin, breakout objective, changed to draw the German Armour in front of me. I just wish my boss was so forgiving as to let me change my targets to what actually happens.
Then we come to his relationship with Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley. It's just as well that Bradley was geographically between Patton and Montgomery, possibly the best decision Eisenhower made. The comments that Montgomery made were unforgivable in almost any other situation, it's no wonder the Americans have a particular dislike of him. (On this note I rate Bradley as the best General in Western Europe, on the basis that he managed (somehow) to deal with the egos of Patton and Montgomery, their constant sniping and generally keep his temper).
However, I don't really see how Slim (and regular readers of my nonsense will know of my total support of Slim) would have done anything differently tactically (except possibly not sanction Market Garden, he had a healthy mistrust of special forces), however Slim would have left our American Alies with a much improved attitude towards the British Army command. Montgomery in Burma though........, I'm struggling to find the words for the disaster that would have been.
Cheers AA. -
Message 21
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 18th November 2005
Was Monty overrated? As compared to whom? Monty was of course a shining star in the U.K. Every country needs its hero. Especially when its overall contribution is perceived in proportion to his success. Was he overrated compared to Slim. I would say a solid yes. But Slim was not given the responsibilities of Monty. Therefore his aura is not quite so bright.
That positive opinion of his endeavors did not cross the Atlantic in strength. When you hear the name Monty, images of a barking duck come immediately to mind. In short with many of us he is thought of (rather unfairly) as a sort of cartoon character. My opinion is he was an above average British General. Not one of the greats, but not bad.
He had a certain charisma normally lacking in a British general. He used that to lift the spirits and moral of an army that was in dire need of just that. He would attack only from strength. I do not consider that a weakness unless it鈥檚 to the determent of a favorable dynamically developing situation. Clark being a solid example. Patton perhaps overeagerly at the other end of the scale.
He appears to be getting the Lions鈥 share of blame for Market Garden in this thread. I should think in this instance there is plenty of blame to be spread around. Starting with Churchill, and dare I say it. The supreme allied commander himself. This was not a minor exercise. What I don鈥檛 get is the total screw up in communications that still appears so rife in the British military. Dark you have noted the lack of flank security with the armored column. That may be a bit unfair. This was not a regular ww2 punch up. It was as you know a unique and bold idea to accomplish a lot fast and cheap. Had it been successful. We never would have heard the end of it, and rightly so. It could have ended the war by Christmas 1944.
The History channel did some lab tests with the soil from the sides of the road used. (By the Irish Guards I think) Had a tracked vehicle came off the hardtop it would have been stopped cold by the soil makeup and weather conditions. Monty should have listened to Maj.Gen.Stanislaw Sosabowski. I have started a separate thread on this gentleman. A remarkable soldier and General, who was treated like an old boot by the British high command. -
Message 22
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 18th November 2005
expat,
Are you Okay?, or are you taking the Michael? I must confess I never thought this would be your contribution.
Cheers and astounded / shocked / perplexed, Best Wishes, AA. -
Message 23
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Saturday, 19th November 2005
Morning DL,
"Going back to Market Garden, I cannot see how the troops on the ground can be blamed for the operation not succeeding" Sorry DL, I didn't make my point clear. I meant the subordinate planners, logistal corps etc. Granted, Monty would not have planned the finer details, but he had the final nod, so be it on his back.
When I was in stationed in Germany, I frequented a bar near Hamburg where I regularly met several ex German troops from the Second world war, these old chaps would often buy the 'red devils' ales out of respect for the regiment alone. Naturally, I'd end up picking the tab up for them.... They were all retired, my logic being they couldn't afford it, until I found out how much they got on their pensions, somewhat more than here!! -
Message 24
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Saturday, 19th November 2005
Mani, as I mentioned earlier my old boy was at Arnhem and was one of the 600(?) or so that actually made it to the bridge, so I was interested to read your post regarding ales with the former foe. 'Gramp' was with 2 Para, one of Jack Grayburn's boys. He was wounded in an attempt to get across the bridge and secure the south(?) approach. After a spell in the cellar of a house with hand to hand fighting going on upstairs, he was given up to the Germans for Medical treatment along with many others when the situation was getting unbearable. He told me he was not ashamed to admit he was absolutely terrified at the 'treatment' they were going to get from their captors. However, generally speaking, the ordinary German troops treated them with great respect and eventually he was seen by a Medic who did everything he could to help. On arrival at Limburg XIIa, things changed a little, but thats a different story. He had nothing but praise for the US forces and the sacrificies they made to open that corridor to Arnhem, and he was insistent Monty's plan was basically sound. Rightly or wrongly, he always laid the blame on XXX Corps and their "leisurely" drive to break through to Arnhem. The Guards in particular were always referred to as "toy soldiers". It broke his heart when I joined the Hussars!. I guess from your post you're an ex para, so Market Garden and Monty will undoubtedly be of personal interest to you. WOAH MOHAMMET!!!!!
-
Message 25
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Saturday, 19th November 2005
I appologize for interrupting but as a Yank I think that Monty is HIGHLY over rated. There is no record of him defeating anyone unless he had at least a 6:1 advantage. While Rommel attacked even when he was out number and still won. Plus there is always the question of his sexuality.
Your best WWII general by far was Slim.聽
Er forgive me for straying into personal comment, but in the 21st century does sexuality matter.
In addition there is course Alexander as has been mentioned, as well as many of the people behind the renaisance, without whom we would be tending our farms and hoping that the pox did not get us, not sitting in modern houses speaking across the Atlantic.
The G -
Message 26
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Saturday, 19th November 2005
Re monty
Market Garden was not entirely Monty's fault as the inteligence was incorrect, though he allowed himself to be swayed by the hope of glory and completely ignored the logistical hurdles involved.
Again Goodward is an example of his propensity to be swayed under pressure from on high. He had been expected to hold Caen within 24 hours and feared that his job was on the line if he did not do something.
At El Alemain he had been given everything a Field Marshall could possibly ask for and thus should have won, even against Rommell.
That said he was good but not brilliant, IMO.
The G -
Message 27
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 21st November 2005
Hi Plancenoit,
鈥淚 was interested to read your post regarding ales with the former foe.鈥 I was in my twenties at the time, they must have been in their 60鈥檚/70鈥檚鈥 But they still recognised the insignia!
鈥'Gramp' was with 2 Para鈥 Like all good Para鈥檚!!!!!
鈥淚 guess from your post you're an ex para, so Market Garden and Monty will undoubtedly be of personal interest to you鈥 Some of the older boys were interested in it when I joined up, and naturally, the anniversary is a big day on the Ale, I wouldn鈥檛 say I know everything, but quite a bit!
Hussars you say? God help us -
Message 28
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 21st November 2005
Morning all!
Excellent replies on here guys. I was half expected a few rants to come in, given that Monty is somewhat of a national institution. I spent about 8 months of my army career attached to 7th Armoured Brigade (the modern day desert rats) and their attitude was more that the man was somekind of legend. I found this hard to understand, particularly given the horrendous losses 7th Armoured took during Goodwood.
AA I particularly like that comment about being able to change your targets by your boss, that kind of sums up the assault on Caen. Not a new invention for the British General though, didn't every big attritional battle in WW1 start having a breakthrough as its objective? Then of course the first few waves get massacred and all of a sudden the aim is to "bleed the enemy white" rather than actually accomplish anything. There are some who have described the fighting around Caen as being similar to WW1, with the same atrocious casualties, and the grim, destroyed landscape, but that's another story.
Expat, well I must say I am as surprised as AA! Not the reply I expected at all, I think I was waiting for a scathing attack on old Monty, which never arrived! Going on to the "only attack when you have superior numbers" argument, that is pure military common sense. To attack with an inferior force is not only risky beyond excusing, it is often suicidal, so I wouldn't expect a general on any side to actually attack when they know they have inferior numbers. Market Garden, as you put it wasn't a straightforward WW2 scrap. It had a major flaw as a military operation from the moment it was conceived- no plan B. There was no alternative option to XXX Corps having to advance down a single track road (you were spot on on the terrain being poor for armout), there was no alternate plan, which makes it a poor plan from the outset, being unable to respond to enemy action. Bad planning. A lot of blame for the "on the ground" cock-up with comms has to go to the Royal Signals units attached to the Airborne units at Arnhem. Did they not check their equipment before jumping? Insanity! Probably the major cause of the carnage at Arnhem, especially the subsequent reinforcement drops (which Expat, your Polish general was most worried about-his men having to jump under fire in daylight and getting slaughtered) were the direct result of poor planning on the part of these Signals units.
However, the fact that the plan for Market Garden had no alternatives to the armoured column (almost Napoleonic in its plan, pas-de-charge and all that!) was a disaster waiting to happen, and the fault for this can only be Montys. The fact that the plan, deeply flawed and almost stupid in concept did almost succeed can only be accredited to the men on the ground, the British and US airborne units, and the men of XXX Corps who almost made it to Arnhem to relieve the Paras. They took a ridiculous plan, at short notice and almost succeeded. Had they done so, the western allies would have been roaring into Germany before the end of 1944, and the war would have been shortened, and Germany would have been mainly captured by British and US troops, not the Russians.
Cheers all,
DL
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.