Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2? - Page 31




 
--
 
October 25th, 2006  
Prince
 
 
i do believe he was overrated. i think patton was a better general in the same area
October 26th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
From everything I have heard about Montgomery he sounds like an ideal defensive commander, the need to wait till he has his unit at maximum strength to attack, sound military tactics, if you're on the defensive. A commander does not win by going on the offensive through superior strength alone, but rather by doing the unexpected. A smaller force can defeat a larger force by simply using the element of surprise, plus when you are on the defensive you typically stretch your forces out over a large front while the attackers can simply mass their forces at the location of their choosing while leaving a smaller force to protect the rest of the front. Someone like Montgomery is not going to make a great offensive general simply because he is too predictable where as Patton was a great tactician simply because he did things his counterparts did not expect, he was reckless and border irresponsible but these traits made him a great general.
November 2nd, 2006  
Lord Londonderry
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
Which ones ?


"Enfidaville" for a start.
--
November 2nd, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
Montgomery was a good defencive General but he was also also good on the attack. When he broke the Germans At El-Alemien he forecast to the day just how long it would take before he won the Battle. Now he had refused to attack even when Churchill pressed him to attack. The reason he would not attack was that he would only do it when he thought it was right and when he had enough men, guns and tanks to win, rather than attack to early then to be broken by a counter attack as had had in North Africa in the past.
November 4th, 2006  
Strongbow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Montgomery was a good defencive General but he was also also good on the attack. When he broke the Germans At El-Alemien he forecast to the day just how long it would take before he won the Battle. Now he had refused to attack even when Churchill pressed him to attack. The reason he would not attack was that he would only do it when he thought it was right and when he had enough men, guns and tanks to win, rather than attack to early then to be broken by a counter attack as had had in North Africa in the past.

No, he wasn't a good attacking general. Even Rommel knew that. Check out "Montgomery of Alamein" by Alun Chalfont
November 4th, 2006  
Dean
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hurlbert
As supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, let’s also not forget that he commanded the most powerful force ever assembled under one man. He is one of the few generals ever to command major naval forces; he directed the world's greatest air force; and other than Generals Schwarzkopf and Franks, Eisenhower was the first man ever to command successfully an integrated, multinational alliance of ground, sea, and air forces.
Actually, I think that honour belongs to General Alexander Vasilevskiy, who was the commander of the Far East Military District at the time of Operation August Storm, the invasion of Manchuria, Sakhalin, and Korea. His armies of well over 1.5 million men crushed the Japanese Kwantung Army in less than a week. It was the greatest military operation ever accomplished of any kind, while Overlord was the greatest amphibious operation ever.
November 5th, 2006  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow
No, he wasn't a good attacking general. Even Rommel knew that.
Still, he was good enough to beat Rommel everytime they fought.
November 5th, 2006  
perseus
 
 
Surely all the victories have to judged by the standards of the opposition they faced.

In the Manchurian case the Japanese had little experience of armoured warfare and were faced with the latest Stalin tanks. Even the Germans had problems cracking these open.

Montgomery was in the fortunate position for the first time of having access to substantial quality material against an experienced but underequipped force on the end of a tenuous supply chain with the commander on sick leave.

I suspect the previous sacked British commanders felt hard done by. They did what they could with the forces available.
November 7th, 2006  
Lord Londonderry
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
Still, he was good enough to beat Rommel everytime they fought.

I reckon I could have beaten Rommel with the numerical/material advantages Monty had over the Africa Korp.

Seriously Monty was good but he was so concerned about keeping his "balance" in the desert that he was too slow at times in taking the initiative when chasing Rommel across North Africa. Even Rommel knew that. Lots have been written about Monty's shortcoming in attack. It's no trade secret.
November 8th, 2006  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean
Actually, I think that honour belongs to General Alexander Vasilevskiy, who was the commander of the Far East Military District at the time of Operation August Storm, the invasion of Manchuria, Sakhalin, and Korea. His armies of well over 1.5 million men crushed the Japanese Kwantung Army in less than a week. It was the greatest military operation ever accomplished of any kind,
Woah, hang on a bit, that's quite a claim. The greatest military operation ever? As Persus stated the relative success of operations have to be judged by certain criteria, one of which is the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the forces in question. You'll have a hard time convincing me that August Storm was indeed the greatest miltary operation ever accomplished. Do you really believe it tops Hannibal's campaign against the Roman Empire, Julius Caeser's conquest of Gaul and even something like Fall Gelb?