Ladies and Gents,

As one of the final parts of my course, I have to write a paper on the command and leadership of a 20th Century commander. Being a sucker for punishment, I chose FM Montgomery.

I have not quite finished it (there is one more section in Part 3, and Part 4, the conclusion, is non-existent. But I'm going away for the next 5 days, and it's due next Wednesday (just in time essay).

Sooo, I would appreciate it if anybody would like to have a read and offer some criticsim (or maybe even some atta-boys?)

http://www.users.bigpond.com/mkitchi...mery_DRAFT.pdf

BTW, I'm new to the site and found it while researching for the paper. Well done to the admins et al.

Cheers

ANZAC

The 1st Airborne landed almost entirely in gliders. They didn't use parachutes much as they didn't believe in them.

"The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) an allied French armies were up against incredible odds, not simply in numbers. but also in terms of quality of training and equipment." I see one very big problem right there. At the point of the German invasion of the Low Countries and France, Germany had: Fewer tanks, fewer men, and barely had the advantage in combat aircraft. The best of the French tanks were better armored than the best German tanks, though Germans were more mobile. The French and British just didn't have the good sense to consolidate their armor forces, so their superiority in numbers was wasted on the idea: "the tank is best used as a support unit for the infantry". And the overhyped Luftwaffe was not the primary factor in the rapid German success, the Panzers were. In fact, the Luftwaffe's lack of glory was foremost in the reasons that the land forces were ordered to stop and not take Dunkirk: to leave the BEF and surviving French forces to the Luftwaffe. Obviously, it didn't go well for the German Luftwaffe.

Originally Posted by ANZAC

Ladies and Gents,

As one of the final parts of my course, I have to write a paper on the command and leadership of a 20th Century commander. Being a sucker for punishment, I chose FM Montgomery.

I have not quite finished it (there is one more section in Part 3, and Part 4, the conclusion, is non-existent. But I'm going away for the next 5 days, and it's due next Wednesday (just in time essay).

Sooo, I would appreciate it if anybody would like to have a read and offer some criticsim (or maybe even some atta-boys?)

http://www.users.bigpond.com/mkitchi...mery_DRAFT.pdf

BTW, I'm new to the site and found it while researching for the paper. Well done to the admins et al.

Cheers

ANZAC

I had a quick look at it, a bit bigger than I was expecting and unfortunately I don't have the time to read it properly (or I'd be able to pass a degree course on Monty if I did I think!). So as far as presentation goes it looks very good, although personally I would have broken it up a little more and had my reference notes at the end of each chapter. Nonetheless a professional presentation.

As far as content goes I'd have to read it properly to be able to comment. I'm not a great expert on Monty (my expertise is more geared towards some of the more notable German commanders) but I do have decent general knowledge of WW2. Maybe if I get more time I can read it fully.

Just to back up Godofthunder's point. It's a common misconception that the German forces that invaded France and the Low Countries in 1940 were superior in numbers and quality of equipment. They weren't. Many of the German Panzer battalions were using Panzer IIs and IIIs, little more than training machines in the case of the Panzer II. Certainly the French Army had some very well armored (for the time) tanks but they committed them piecemeal and always in support of the infantry. The Germans won because of tactics, strategy, superior training, close co-operation between the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe and the element of surprise. It's wrong to say that the Allied Armies were up against incredible odds. In fact, they had the advantage of numbers, terrain choke points and well developed static defence positions (the Maginot Line). They *should* have won but they hadn't realised that the Germans were fighting to a new set of rules, namely Blitzkrieg, combined arms and mobilty.

Thanks for the replies. I know it's long - oh boy do I know it's long. But I appreciate that you have had a look and provided some feedback.

I think my job over the weekend is to shorten it down a little. I'll also change my reference to the German equipment capabiity during 1940. I was not trying to portary that it was top notch, but (and noting the comment of Frnch tank quality) the British equipment was not that flash, there was not enough of it, and most importantly, they were CRAP at using it for the most part.

Thanks again. Still more than happy to take comments if you wish to.

ANZAC

Its a hard read. Please repost the revised version ... but just paste it or something. I hate reading large items in adobe.

I'll put it up again this Sunday night, when it is finished. By hard read, do you mean the general length, or does the writing style bog you down?
ANZAC

You need to work on chronology and flow a bit. Avoid unnecessary repetition. Never assume that your reader automatically knows what your talking about <-- this one tends to be a pain in the ass. Also, your thesis statement could use a tad more clarity.

The hardest part about reading it is that ... I just hate reading in Adobe.