Topic: Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2? 22

U.S. Cavalry

FAQ/Rules - Search - Military Photo Gallery

  International Military Forums > Military History Forums > World War 1 to World War 2 Forum
User Name
Password

 
January 8th, 2006   Post 211
zander_0633
Milforum Gnat
 
 
Gear

What do you all mean Overrated? Care to explain further?
__________________

- Ready To Strike -
 
January 10th, 2006   Post 212
godofthunder9010
Tribunus Laticlavius
 
 
Gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
What do you all mean Overrated? Care to explain further?
Essentially, the question being posed is "Is Field Marshall Montgomery remembered as a better general than he really and truly was?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiban
I suppose we could turn the discussion on its head and ask was Patton overrated??
Yes of course he was. I think he was a better battlefield commander than Montgomery though.
__________________
"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee
Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!!

"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase
 
January 11th, 2006   Post 213
zander_0633
Milforum Gnat
 
 
Gear

ok, Why do you think Patton is a better general than monty? Any eg.?
 
January 11th, 2006   Post 214
redcoat
Centurion
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zander_0633
ok, Why do you think Patton is a better general than monty? Any eg.?
My view is it depends what type of battle you need to fight.
if its a set piece battle against a well prepared enemy, like El Alemein or D-day, Monty is far better.
However if the battlefield situation is more fluid, then Patton is probably a better bet.
I put this down to their different military backgrounds, Monty came from the infantry, Patton the cavalry.

ps, my dream team for the North Western European campaign would have been Monty-Patton ( despite what the movie Patton showed, on a professional level Monty and Patton worked well together).
Instead of Monty-Bradley as it was, as I consider Bradley the true over-rated Allied general of that campaign.

ps, Again unlike what the movie 'Patton'* showed, Bradley and Patton disliked each other as much as they disliked Monty

* Bradley was an advisor on the Patton movie, he made sure that the PR spin was favourable to him.
__________________
If in doubt...... Panic!!!!!!!!

Last edited by redcoat; January 11th, 2006 at 11:11.
 
January 11th, 2006   Post 215
Fox
Can you hear me now?
 
 
Gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiben
I suppose we could turn the discussion on its head and ask was Patton overrated??

He did well in the break out but not so well towards the end of '44. I am thinking before the bulge in Germany.
Because Patton slapped one of his soldier for coward. So, I guess Einsehower kick him out of his place for slapped one of his soldier. I think. Let's back to Monty's thread.
__________________
Why should I have to "Press 1 for English?"
--Every American

 
January 11th, 2006   Post 216
zander_0633
Milforum Gnat
 
 
Gear

ok of course!
 
January 11th, 2006   Post 217
Reiben
Optio
 
 
Gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
my dream team for the North Western European campaign would have been Monty-Patton
Its not a football team you know

Comparison is fair though between the two generals as a measure of their ability. Monty was probably the master of the set piece battle. British artillery is recognised as the supreme arm of that army in WW2. British Army tactics in the desert didnt appreciate the power of the anti tank gun. The german tactic was to use some armour to draw british tanks onto their anti tank guns. Monty always tried to fight his battles with the advantage of number of minimise risk.

There was concern within the British army in WW2 that they could not ask the soldiers to take the casualties and hence risks taken in WW1, they thought that the british soldier would not accept the same casualties. However Normandy casualties where comparable to those in WW1.

It still an interesting comparison Monty v Patton.
 
January 11th, 2006   Post 218
redcoat
Centurion
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiben
There was concern within the British army in WW2 that they could not ask the soldiers to take the casualties and hence risks taken in WW1, they thought that the british soldier would not accept the same casualties. However Normandy casualties where comparable to those in WW1.
Before Normandy, Monty was warned by the British government that there was a manpower shortage, and that he had to be careful with casualties, as there would be difficulty in replacing them. In fact a number of British units had to be disbanded after Normandy, due to these shortages.


ps, re WW1,
Monty fought on the Somme. He was badly wounded in the chest, and was forced to hide under the body of one of his own men for nearly 24 hours in no-mans land to avoid capture.
He swore after that, if he was in charge, he would never let any troops go into battle as untrained, ill-equipped and badly supported as they were in that battle.
 
January 11th, 2006   Post 219
redcoat
Centurion
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Because Patton slapped one of his soldier for coward. So, I guess Einsehower kick him out of his place for slapped one of his soldier. I think. Let's back to Monty's thread.
He actually did it twice.
The first time the High Command was able to cover it up, the second time the American press found out, and broke the story.
Einsehower did his best to protect Patton, and in fact, it was only thanks to him that Patton wasn't sent back to the USA in disgrace

Last edited by redcoat; January 11th, 2006 at 20:30.
 
January 12th, 2006   Post 220
zander_0633
Milforum Gnat
 
 
Gear

haha,I see!