Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2?

Young Winston said:
I have always considered Monty to be an excellent "defensive" general but believed he lacked something in attack mode eg Operation Market Garden.

What do others think?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "Super General" they all are humans and make mistakes. I would rate him in the group of the better Generals of that time. Marked-Garden failed due to different reasons. Not taking the Reports of the dutch Resistance serious, the quality of the pictures made by reconnaicance planes was just bad, underestimating the difficulties of the dutch landscape and overestimating the own abilities (one bridge to far), Beside all these points, there is, atleast in modern times, no military operation planne by ONE man only. Of course, in the end, always ONE is choosen to be responsible and take the blame in case of a failure and to share the glory in case of a success.There have been mistakes we can say, now, after it hapened, could have been avoided. But, they didnt have high resolution spy sattelites, the reports from the dutch resistance have been bogus a few times before AND there was a race going on between the western allies and the russians.
If some officer was suggested to join the Prussian Army, or to be promoted, Federick the Great used to ask: Does he have Luck. Luck, beside good planning, well trained soldiers and good hardware is the most important for a commander.
I personally think Montgomery, and others, should be judged by their overall archivement, not by a single failed operation.
So, I come back to the start of my post, I think he was surely one of the better generals in WWII.
 
cisco said:
I personally think Montgomery, and others, should be judged by their overall archivement, not by a single failed operation.
So, I come back to the start of my post, I think he was surely one of the better generals in WWII.
Click to expand...

But I think if we judged Montgomery on his overall achievements he would be painted in a far worse light than if we look at his individual achievements, lets face it his greatest achievement's were leading an army and taking the German surrender.

Yet if we analyse individual battles:
El Alamein - While successful took much longer than was planned to the point that it was nearly called off, encountered far greater casualties than was planned and in reality had it not been for a massive superiority in men and material would have failed horribly, its outcome was really not decided by the superior commander.

Sicily - Was pretty much a non-event and should not have taken as long as it did on top of that they allowed the German defenders to evacuate the island with all its stores, armour and heavy weapons.

Caen, Goodwood etc. - I am a little bemused about this one, on one hand you have the view that the British and Commonwealth forces in the region were just trying to draw of the Germans to allow Operation Cobra to be successful and let Patton toot his own horn, on the other hand Montgomery himself claimed that Goodwood was to draw in German armour and reserves and breakout.
He certainly achieved the aim of drawing in reserves and armour and but failed to breakout and in the process suffered huge casualties in both men and material I find this especially interesting as pretty much everyone involved seemed to go to great pains in pointing out the flaws with the plan.

Market Garden - Well we all know the outcome there but I guess to be nice we can say it achieved three quaters of its objectives.

On the whole I don't think Montgomery was a bad General (There were certainly a lot worse Mark Clark for example) but I don't believe he was a great one either.
 
>But I think if we judged Montgomery on his overall achievements he would be painted in a far worse light than if we look at his individual achievements, lets face it his greatest achievement's were leading an army and taking the German surrender.<

Not something many got to do, like taking a french or italian surrender :)

Yet if we analyse individual battles:
El Alamein - While successful took much longer than was planned to the point that it was nearly called off, encountered far greater casualties than was planned and in reality had it not been for a massive superiority in men and material would have failed horribly, its outcome was really not decided by the superior commander.

There have been many battles resulting in greater casualities than predicted and for nearly calling it off, even a general has superiors who make decisions at the green table. I suppose you'll harly find any commander who, one time or another, hadnt to face more casualities or neded more time to be successfull. In the end he was, that's what counts, isnt it?

Sicily - Was pretty much a non-event and should not have taken as long as it did on top of that they allowed the German defenders to evacuate the island with all its stores, armour and heavy weapons.

Well, neither Norway nor barbarossa shouldnt have taken that long. But, all the nice planning usually has to face reality. He was, in the end, successfull there too, wasn't he?

Caen, Goodwood etc. - I am a little bemused about this one, on one hand you have the view that the British and Commonwealth forces in the region were just trying to draw of the Germans to allow Operation Cobra to be successful and let Patton toot his own horn, on the other hand Montgomery himself claimed that Goodwood was to draw in German armour and reserves and breakout.
He certainly achieved the aim of drawing in reserves and armour and but failed to breakout and in the process suffered huge casualties in both men and material I find this especially interesting as pretty much everyone involved seemed to go to great pains in pointing out the flaws with the plan.

Definitely not one of his "great" archivements, but than again, happened to all commanders. Even napoleon had a set back once in a while.

Market Garden - Well we all know the outcome there but I guess to be nice we can say it achieved three quaters of its objectives.

As I said, I think it's a bit unfair to blame that all on him. He didn't plan it all on his own, reconn technices havent been that developed than, the dutch intel was, no offense to the dutch, a bit bogged a few times before, the dutch landscae wasnt any helpfull...
Well, maybe it could have been better prepared, but still I think he was not overrated. Or, nut that much overrated. I think there is no WWII general or field Marchall who hadn't flaws and setbacks, and verall, Monty was successfull.
 
cisco said:
As I said, I think it's a bit unfair to blame that all on him. He didn't plan it all on his own, reconn technices havent been that developed than, the dutch intel was, no offense to the dutch, a bit bogged a few times before, the dutch landscae wasnt any helpfull...
Well, maybe it could have been better prepared, but still I think he was not overrated. Or, nut that much overrated. I think there is no WWII general or field Marchall who hadn't flaws and setbacks, and verall, Monty was successfull.
Click to expand...

If he claims credit for these actions then surely he must accept responsibility for their failures as well?
 
of cours

if he claims the glory he has to suffer the responsibility as well.But than, a blown up ego doesnt mean he was a bad general. Just not a perfect one. But Nobody is perfect:).
I suppose we won#t come to an agreement about him. Wich doesn't matter since this forum is for exchanging what we think, not neccesarrily changing someones mind. Even if I have to admit, you have quite a few good points there. It might be as well, that we just come from a different point of view. I don#t know where you are from. It may be, the english look, or did look, at him like some sort of suberhero, I am from germany and I think he was just a good, more than average, general.
Btw, who I think was really overrated, but still a magnificent commander, is Rommel, But for that I might get some belting from my fellow countrymen :)
 
cisco said:
if he claims the glory he has to suffer the responsibility as well.But than, a blown up ego doesnt mean he was a bad general. Just not a perfect one. But Nobody is perfect:).
I suppose we won#t come to an agreement about him. Wich doesn't matter since this forum is for exchanging what we think, not neccesarrily changing someones mind. Even if I have to admit, you have quite a few good points there. It might be as well, that we just come from a different point of view. I don#t know where you are from. It may be, the english look, or did look, at him like some sort of suberhero, I am from germany and I think he was just a good, more than average, general.
Btw, who I think was really overrated, but still a magnificent commander, is Rommel, But for that I might get some belting from my fellow countrymen :)
Click to expand...


Hehe well oddly enough I am not a Rommel fan either, I think he has been somewhat romaticised since the war, I have however grown into General Slim, Morshead , Hoth, Heinrici and von Manstein supporters and oddly enough the more I learn about Montgomery the more I like Field Marshal Auchinleck.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
If he claims credit for these actions then surely he must accept responsibility for their failures as well?
Click to expand...
As he was the overall Ground Commander at the time of Cobra then it follows (using your reasoning) that the credit for Cobra is his.
In 8 weeks the German Army in Normandy was completely broken. It fled leaving all its equipment behind and yet we have claims that it was a bad performance! I really do not understand the logic of it all.
This has nothing to do with claims that Montgomery was a good, bad or indifferent General. I have yet to find a thread started by anyone claiming Monty was 'the best'. ALL the threads are started by those who claim he was bad/slow/useless. The detractors find every possible combination of of reasons to illustrate his flaws but completely ignore the effect he had upon the Germans. His 'Colossal Cracks' method worked to a 'T' so why the complaints? Endless parroting of ' he always outnumbered his opponents' ignores that this deliberate. He made sure he had all the advantages. Why is that considered a flaw? Should he have fought using only a fraction of his forces so the Germans had a chance?
He had no more a numerical advantage than ANY Allied General.
 
Last edited:
Because we seem to be arguing two separate points I am arguing basically that yes he was over rated not that he was a bad General, essentially he was an over rated good General unlike Mark Clark who was an over rated bad General.

For Example:
his title is something like Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein and yet his success at Alamein was primarily due to Auchinleck's planning and preparation, Churchill made the statement that "Before Alamein, we had no victory and after it we had no defeats" but this is not accurate as Morsehead stopped Rommel at Tobruk and Auchinlek defeated him at the 1st battle of El Alamein.

It is not that Montgomery was a bad General because he wasn't he is over rated because he not only took other peoples credit he also did all he could to write them out of history.
 
>Hehe well oddly enough I am not a Rommel fan either, I think he has been somewhat romaticised since the war, I have however grown into General Slim, Morshead , Hoth, Heinrici and von Manstein supporters and oddly enough the more I learn about Montgomery the more I like Field Marshal Auchinleck. <

I think there are lots of underestimated generals and even fieldmarshalls.
I also suppose, many of us, I wont exclude myself, are also a bit biased by WWII propaganda we did watch in "history" shows in tv or what granpa and daddy told us.
Rommel is, so I think, in deed a bit romantized for, supposedly, defying Hitler. This of course is not really prooved. And, it makes the victor at el alamain looking better to beat a outstanding general. Well, Neither him nor Monty have been bad, so I think this Monty bashing is a bit harsh. But your collection of commanders is an interesting list of people to ind out some more abouT: Say, how many generals and up served in WWII and how many of them do we know about, not even to say, about how many of them do we talk here? 10% 5%?
 
MontyB said:
El Alamein - While successful took much longer than was planned to the point that it was nearly called off, encountered far greater casualties than was planned and in reality had it not been for a massive superiority in men and material would have failed horribly, its outcome was really not decided by the superior commander.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's complete and utter nonsense. Monty had estimated that the battle would last around 11 days and cost around 13,000 casualties, both were remarkably accurate. There was some disquiet in London about how long it was taking, but at no time did Monty or anyone else consider calling off the attack.
As for massive superiority Monty had a 2:1 advantage in tanks and guns but only a 5:4 superiority in infantry( 86 infantry battalions of 60,000 men against 70 Axis infantry battalions of 45,000 men) and he was attacking a dug in enemy with secure flanks protected by a massive minefield up to 5 miles deep at some points.
 
Last edited:
Umm are you counting the Italians in those Axis numbers?

If so I am sure that you are aware that the only threat the Italians posed was in cluttering the roads as they surrendered emasse.
 
MontyB said:
Umm are you counting the Italians in those Axis numbers?

If so I am sure that you are aware that the only threat the Italians posed was in cluttering the roads as they surrendered emasse.
Click to expand...


One of my uncles who served in North Africa stated that he had a lot of respect for Italian Artillery. As I wasnt there I cannot confirm or deny, but yes I agree the Italians did surrender in their thousands.

Cisco makes a number of fair and reasoned points regarding the abilities of Monty. In my opinion, Monty was a very good Commander, as was Rommel.
 
mkenny said:
What a coincidence. The main Monty-hater has to leave the thread because he made unsupportable claims and a brand new poster with the very same outlook registers to carry on the fight!
Click to expand...
I didnt leave the thread i just stopped responding to you since you lied in virtually every post (btw i checked there's no passages that you quoted, they dont exist, i sort of expected it given your previous blunders but hey).

You're a liar buddy.
 
Last edited:
Now there

MontyB said:
Umm are you counting the Italians in those Axis numbers?

If so I am sure that you are aware that the only threat the Italians posed was in cluttering the roads as they surrendered emasse.
Click to expand...

we have something we can agree about :)
 
Panzercracker said:
I didnt leave the thread i just stopped responding to you since you lied in virtually every post (btw i checked there's no passages that you quoted, they dont exist, i sort of expected it given your previous blunders but hey

You're a liar buddy.
Click to expand...

It exists. There is only 1 liar in this thread. If only your brain was as big as your mouth............


You were completely wrong with your numbers and you just have not got the courage to admit it. Here it is again. Note there are 4 sources not one. You claim that they all are fabricated!

1. Date: 7.11.1943 (situation of 15.10.1943)
East: 3,900,000
Finland: 180,000
Norway: 315,000
Denmark: 110,000
West: 1,370,000
Italy: 330,000
Balkans: 610,000
Sum: 6,815,000
Source: Materialien zum Vortrag des Chefs des Wehrmachtführungsstabes vom 7.11.1943 "Die strategische Lage am Anfang des fünften Kriegsjahres", (referenced to KTB OKW, IV, S. 1534 ff.)
---------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5.5.1944 (situation likely of April 1944)
East: 3,878,000
Finland: no figure given
Norway: 311,000
Denmark: no figure given
West: 1,873,000
Italy: 961,000
Balkans: 826,000
Sum: 7,849,000
Source: "Strategische Lage im Frühjahr 1944", Jodl, Vortrag 5.5.1944. (referenced to BA-MA, N69/18.)
--------------------------------------------------------
From Müller-Hillebrand, Heer 3, p. 173:

"Ration strength in the West", 1. March 1944 (referenced to OKW War diary)

Army (obviously both field and replacement army, M.): 806,927
SS and Police: 85,230
Foreign volunteers, mainly Eastern troops: 61,439
Allies: 13,631
Luftwaffe (air force): 337,140
Kriegsmarine (navy): 96,084
Wehrmachtgefolge (auxiliary civil personnel): 145,611
Sum: 1,546,062

-----------------------------------------

. From the MGFA’s "official" campaign history (within the WW2 series, Vol. 7, p. 476/477, referenced to a ration strength report from Hgr. B/OQu., 1. March 1944 at BA-MA)

Army (obviously both field and replacement army, M.): 865,180
Luftwaffe (air force): 326,350
Marine (navy): 102,180
SS and Police: 102,610
Sonstige: 91,110
Wehrmachtgefolge (auxiliary civil personnel): 157,210
sum: 1,644,640

-----------------------------------------------
Summer 1944

West: 1,370,000

East: 3,878,000
 
Panzercracker said:
In other words still no scans? Of course you wont have them because while you quote an existing source the content is your pure invention :)
Click to expand...

I thought you had access to the original book?
Müller-Hillebrand, Heer 3, p. 173:

Show us what is really on page 173.

And tell us again the figures you have for the Eastern Front and The West.
 
mkenny said:
I thought you had access to the original book?
Müller-Hillebrand, Heer 3, p. 173:

Show us what is really on page 173.

And tell us again the figures you have for the Eastern Front and The West.
Click to expand...
Wait, i have to prove Your claims?! It gets better with each your post :)
 
Panzercracker said:
Wait, i have to prove Your claims?! It gets better with each your post :)
Click to expand...

Let me get this right.
You say I am lying.
You PERSONALY checked the book.
You say he information is NOT on page 173

Having this 'proof' you then decline to post it and thus 'expose' me as a fraud?
Yeah right. I believe you.!!!!!!!!
I can't understand why you insist on making a bigger ars* of yourself. If you just let it lie you could sneak back later and start bullying others. All you have done is confirm your calumny.

Did you forget to post the 'real' numbers by the way?
Where are they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top