Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2? - Page 33




 
--
 
January 9th, 2007  
Damien435
 
 
Rommel didn't exactly have a huge reserve of either of those so that can pretty much me discounted. Everyone General says they don't have enough of everything, even the Soviets said the same thing when they were sending 7 million Red Army soldiers against one million men of the Whermacht.
January 9th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
Yes, quite true they all did complain that they were short of men and equipment, but Rommel's army hadn't lost nearly 70% of their gear at Dunkirk. It wasn't just Montgomery, it was the whole British Army.
January 9th, 2007  
perseus
 
 
Regarding the lack of men and equipment, I am not so sure, although the lack of men is often quoted.

After the Mediterranean campaign in NW Europe the Allied armies were spoilt for equipment although the quality of the Armour and some firearms were inferior to the Germans. In terms of men it is said that the British held back because they could not afford to take the losses, hence the American army, being relatively fresh into the war, were more offensive in nature. This excuse is something I have never understood.

Compared to the Russians and Germans, Commonwealth forces never suffered proportionately very high casualties at any stage of WW2. Perhaps it was that many of their best men had been killed at that stage and the remaining ones had good hopes of getting back home alive? There also seemed to be a reluctance by the British to engage in a war of attrition,it must have seemed to be developing a bit like like WW1 during June 1944 in Normandy.

The Russians, and Germans were driven by hatred and desperation, whilst the Americans were highly self confident as many new armies are.
--
January 29th, 2007  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
Regarding the lack of men and equipment, I am not so sure, although the lack of men is often quoted.

After the Mediterranean campaign in NW Europe the Allied armies were spoilt for equipment although the quality of the Armour and some firearms were inferior to the Germans. In terms of men it is said that the British held back because they could not afford to take the losses, hence the American army, being relatively fresh into the war, were more offensive in nature. This excuse is something I have never understood.

Compared to the Russians and Germans, Commonwealth forces never suffered proportionately very high casualties at any stage of WW2. Perhaps it was that many of their best men had been killed at that stage and the remaining ones had good hopes of getting back home alive? There also seemed to be a reluctance by the British to engage in a war of attrition,it must have seemed to be developing a bit like like WW1 during June 1944 in Normandy.

The Russians, and Germans were driven by hatred and desperation, whilst the Americans were highly self confident as many new armies are.

The Americans and British had quite high casualty figures in their combat units for 1944-45. They were running out of well trained troops. Training programs were shortened to bring in more fighting troops as the war in Europe dragged on.
January 29th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young Winston
The Americans and British had quite high casualty figures in their combat units for 1944-45. They were running out of well trained troops. Training programs were shortened to bring in more fighting troops as the war in Europe dragged on.
The US Military had some 16 million people in the Service during World War II, with over 70 Infantry Divisons counting Airborne... the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 17th 24th 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th, 45th, 63rd, 65th, 66th, 69th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd, 83rd, 84th, 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th, 100th, 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 106th and the 1st Cav.which was used as Infantry.


Not too shabby if you ask me.

By the time 1944 rolled around the US Military was just hitting its stride as far as training and combat operations, and had the War drug on the US Military would have grown even more to meet the need.
January 29th, 2007  
perseus
 
 
This puts it into perspective

These are deaths as a % of the population in WW2 (excluding serious casualties).

US 0.32% UK 0.94% Soviet Union 13.77% Germany 10.77%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Then consider that perhaps only about 25% of a population at the start of a war are reasonably fit fighting men and some of these are essential industrial workers.
February 3rd, 2007  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
Compared to the Russians and Germans, Commonwealth forces never suffered proportionately very high casualties at any stage of WW2. Perhaps it was that many of their best men had been killed at that stage and the remaining ones had good hopes of getting back home alive? There also seemed to be a reluctance by the British to engage in a war of attrition,it must have seemed to be developing a bit like like WW1 during June 1944 in Normandy.

The Russians, and Germans were driven by hatred and desperation, whilst the Americans were highly self confident as many new armies are.
I suspect it's because the Russians and Germans fought on an entirely different scale from the US or Commonwealth forces. Moreover, their war became a desperate struggle for actual survival rather than as a means of projecting political will.
February 3rd, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 

Last known communication between Churchill and Monty.
February 24th, 2007  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gator
The US Military had some 16 million people in the Service during World War II, with over 70 Infantry Divisons counting Airborne... the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 17th 24th 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th, 45th, 63rd, 65th, 66th, 69th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd, 83rd, 84th, 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th, 100th, 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 106th and the 1st Cav.which was used as Infantry.


Not too shabby if you ask me.

By the time 1944 rolled around the US Military was just hitting its stride as far as training and combat operations, and had the War drug on the US Military would have grown even more to meet the need.
Yes, they had plenty of personnel but well trained, experienced combat troop strength was under great pressure in the later stages of the war in Europe and in the Pacific. You must read a book called "The sharp end of war" i think it is. I'll look it up.

Part of the problem of the Okinawa battle (and there were plenty of others) was the lack of experienced US combat troops due to the horrible type of fighting that took so many casualties in the Pacific theatre leading up to it. Yes ,they had plenty of fighting men but alot had little or no fighting experience at the time Okinawa. As a result their were higher caualties, many with battle fatigue (it was huge number).
March 25th, 2007  
Lord Londonderry
 
Yes, casualties were high due to lack of experienced combat troops in the fighting units. The US certainly didn't lack overall troop numbers and firepower.

Monty didn't lack for much at El Alamein but he was still a great leader of men. The soldiers respected him. He told them what he was going to do. The NZ soldiers and Aussie 9th were terrific.