Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Never spoke against Monty's ability to defend, but that's all he was terribly good at. Overall, he was lousy on the attack. To rate as a "great military leader", I feel that demonstrating a level of brilliance on attack is essential. Monty's attack settings: Mediocre, Poor and Blunder. I can't think of any outstanding successes of his. In Africa, he went on the attack much later and more hesitantly that he ought and won with overwhelming numbers and supplies. Not much of a brilliant military leader needed to pull that off. He was an obstacle for Eisenhower to launch Overlord. His love of hesitating is shown. Market Garden was a operational catastrophe. That was his baby.

Monty could'nt attack?

That's why they put him in charge of the biggest amphibious operation in history.
Monty's original plan for the Battle of Normandy decreed that crossing of the Seine would be the official end of the battle.This was set for D plus 90,it took place on D plus 75.
This ,Thunder, is an 'outstanding success'

It's funny Monty bothers Americans so much.Why is that?

Because we've watched Patton one too many times and if we gotta put up with a primadonna it's gonna be our Primadona not one from across the pond.

Was D-Day planned, conceived and organized by Monty? Was he in charge of all forces landing? I was under the impression that Eisenhower and his staff had a lot more to do with the planning of D-Day.

What I'm looking for is an offensive operation that was HIS OPERATION that was a brilliant success. If you know of a good example, please do share.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Was D-Day planned, conceived and organized by Monty? Was he in charge of all forces landing? I was under the impression that Eisenhower and his staff had a lot more to do with the planning of D-Day.

What I'm looking for is an offensive operation that was HIS OPERATION that was a brilliant success. If you know of a good example, please do share.

Normandy was'nt concieved by Monty,but by Lieutenant General Frederick Morgan,he was the original planner of Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Europe. It was changed by Monty,and yes Monty was in charge of the 21st army group.

The 21st army group consisted of the U.S first army and the British second Army (surely you knew this?).

Monty commanded the whole operation in Normandy till the end,and I consider ths an offensive battle,and very successful.

I, for one, get a little tired with the Monty bashing from (mainly) the USA. Incidentally, I am not anti-American by any standards having served alongside US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and erm Alaska, but there seems to be a lot of revisionist type history produced in the US
Monty was not a bad general full stop, end-ex, period, no questions allowed.
He was, of course, arrogant, opinionated (Patton anyone?) with a monstrous ego. However comma Monty was a product of the carnage of the 1WW and he was equally aware of the limited manpower resources that Britain and her Empire could deliver in anyone theatre.
Monty demonstrated at El Alamein that perhaps he wasn't the greatest exponent of manouevrist warfare but he delivered a crushing blow that proved a turning point in the war and, perhaps more significantly, improved morale back home.
Yes, Monty altered the OVERLORD/D-Day plan and, yes, he was the overall Land forces commander for D-Day. Eisenhower didn't take over until afterwards.
Montys plan at Caen was brilliantly executed and he drew in tremendous German reserves which allowed the US to exploit the gap further south.
Monty also commanded 2 US Army Groups (I need to check but 2nd and 9th ring a bell) during the Battle of the Bulge and played a major part in crushing the German offensive (And I agree, he shouldnt have showed off after the event).
Arnhem was a dreadful failure but it was a bold initiative that even the participants agreed was a worthwhile risk.
Monty was a cautious but careful commander who was loved by his men and loved by the Americans who served under him during the Ardennes offensive. Rude, conceited also but a brilliant man and one of the finest generals of WW2

Originally Posted by spymaster

I, for one, get a little tired with the Monty bashing from (mainly) the USA.

I can start bashing "great" American generals just as easily. Want me to?

I'm not making the case that Monty was a BAD General, but very few Allied Generals and Field Marshalls managed to achieve victory in the face of having the numbers and circumstances stacked against them. The two most important secrets of D-Day success were: Hitler being a moron again and the misdirection of German forces thinking the invasion would be at Calais.

I probably should clarify my position on things. I don't believe that there were ANY Allied military commanders in World War II that could be considered among the greatest of all time. Bull Halsey and ... I can't think of his name, but the man who pulled off the miracle for the RAF in the Battle of Britain ... those two are MAYBE exceptions. I can't think of any other allied commanders to beat the odds stacked against them.

Dowding

Yeah, that's the one! Anyways, Allied commanders vs German commanders ... well the Germans are at a whole different level. If you had a brutally honest list of the top 20 battlefield commanders in World War II, you'd be hard pressed to get any allied commander to land on that list.

EDIT: Allow me to elaborate on the above. Take the best and brightest generals from wherever you like in World War II and give each of them 100,000 men, 1,000 tanks, 1,000 aircraft and 3,000 artillery pieces. The following Generals would never lose to ANY allied commander under such circumstances:
Heinz Guderian
Eric Manstein
Fedor von Bock
Erwin Rommel
Sepp Dietrich
Walter Model
Herman Hoth
Hans von Kluge
Ewald von Kliest

naw, there's just too many to list, I give up.

Field Marshal Slim is the only one I can think of immediately

Errr ... the only what?