Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maciste Can a man be overrated just because he never were always succesful? I don't think so.
Montgomery was a great defensive commander, and also a good offensive one, but, unlike Rommel, he liked to build up carefully every inch of power he could gather to unleash them all at once against the enemy.
Remember his division was the one which retreated to Dunkirk on perfect formation and carrying all his equipment, because he trained them hard all along the "phony war". He was a good commander, but their colleagues weren't so.
On Africa he managed to rally the demoralized british troops, to train them and to gather anything which could be throw to Germans... and if he didn't destroyed them on Alamein was because of his "neverdaring" nature, which lend him not to run risks at all, and becouse of the mastery of Rommel moving his poor forces (the German ones, 'cos' the Italians were left behind as useless pieces).
Maybe not the best, but much better than some others. |
It's not just one operation. What do You wanna say? That Monty was better General than Romell?, the only ones who could beat him on equal terms is Eisehower, Patton, and a few more. Probably there were some worse than him(Italian...)...
Romell was the greatest German general of WWII with a few others, (Ewald von Kleist, Guderian, ....)
Monty, first overrated himself(maybe he would be better as a drill sgt, as you pointed), than he pursued others to overrate him, 'cause of his carisma, and his steadyness. Those best generals he couldn't fool(Eisenhower, etc.), so he went to chiefs... and than, it was, like, May God help us all!