Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2? - Page 34




 
--
 
April 9th, 2007  
RFOWELL
 

Topic: B. MONTGOMERY OVERRATED?


FEW HISTORIANS HAVE POINTED OUT HIS MISTAKES. OVERRATED? MOST LIKELY JUST THE WRONG MAN FOR THE JOB. APPOINTED TO COMMAND THE LAND FORCES ON D-DAY BY EISENHOWER FOR POLITICAL REASONS, HE WAS NOT AS AGGRESIVE AS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. TOO CAUTIOUS, ALWAYS WANTING TO HAVE A 3 TO 1 ADVANTAGE COST THE ALLIES TIME AND LIVES. MONTGOMERY BELEIVED IN BROAD FRONT ADVANCES. PATTON BELIEVED IN NEVER GIVING THE ENEMY TIME TO REGROUP AND ORGANIZE DEFENSES. PATTON NEVER SLOWED DOWN IF HE HAD THE MATERIAL AND MANPOWER, WHICH HE WAS OFTEN SHORT OF. HE ADVANCED EVEN WHEN HIS FUEL AND AMMO HAD BEEN DIVERTED TO SUPPORT MARKET GARDEN, MONTGOMERY'S BIGGEST AND MOST COSTLY BLUNDER. PATTON HAD TO USE CAPTURED FUEL SUPPLIES AND WEAPONS THAT OMAR BRADLEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT. WHEN TOLD TO HOLD HIS POSITION PATTON ATTACKED ANYWAY. WHEN ASKED, HE CALLED THESE ADVANCES "SCOUTING IN FORCE".

COMPARED TO PATTON, MONTGOMERY COMES IN A CLEAR AND RESOUNDING 2'ND PLACE.

April 9th, 2007  
The Other Guy
 
 
I think they were both overrated. I know that patton went out of his way to liberate towns that would have been left anyway.

And RFOWELL, please press the CAPS LOCK key once.
April 9th, 2007  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFOWELL
FEW HISTORIANS HAVE POINTED OUT HIS MISTAKES. OVERRATED? MOST LIKELY JUST THE WRONG MAN FOR THE JOB. APPOINTED TO COMMAND THE LAND FORCES ON D-DAY BY EISENHOWER FOR POLITICAL REASONS, HE WAS NOT AS AGGRESIVE AS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. TOO CAUTIOUS, ALWAYS WANTING TO HAVE A 3 TO 1 ADVANTAGE COST THE ALLIES TIME AND LIVES. MONTGOMERY BELEIVED IN BROAD FRONT ADVANCES. PATTON BELIEVED IN NEVER GIVING THE ENEMY TIME TO REGROUP AND ORGANIZE DEFENSES. PATTON NEVER SLOWED DOWN IF HE HAD THE MATERIAL AND MANPOWER, WHICH HE WAS OFTEN SHORT OF. HE ADVANCED EVEN WHEN HIS FUEL AND AMMO HAD BEEN DIVERTED TO SUPPORT MARKET GARDEN, MONTGOMERY'S BIGGEST AND MOST COSTLY BLUNDER. PATTON HAD TO USE CAPTURED FUEL SUPPLIES AND WEAPONS THAT OMAR BRADLEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT. WHEN TOLD TO HOLD HIS POSITION PATTON ATTACKED ANYWAY. WHEN ASKED, HE CALLED THESE ADVANCES "SCOUTING IN FORCE".

COMPARED TO PATTON, MONTGOMERY COMES IN A CLEAR AND RESOUNDING 2'ND PLACE.

I would thoroughly recommend reading up on Task Force Baum then as Patton clearly blew that one big time and all to rescue his son in law who would have been freed within 2 weeks anyway.
--
April 10th, 2007  
senojekips
 
 
If we are talking about "show ponies", they both tried their hardest, but I think Patton wins on points. His loud and aggressive manner makes him the superior show pony without much doubt.

Both would have been far better commanders if they could have left their egos at home.

If you put two bulls in the one yard, niether of them does his job.
April 14th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Monty's problem was largely is own ego. He had this monumental distain for just about every other General (especially American and French) out there.

It was clear he envied Eisenhower, he is famously qouted as refering to Eisenhower as

"Good chap, No soldier!".

He also had a dislike for Patton (thought he was a lunatic), Leclerc, de Gaulle, (they were French) FDR (thought of him as an amateur), and even Churchill whom he never forgave for giving the command of SHEAF to Eisenhower.

On the Battlefield he was only average. He did well against the Germans in the Afrika campaign, but the Market Garden which was entirely his brainchild was a fiasco. The idea itself was sound, but the planning was just terrible.

As for Patton

Patton didn't just have an ego, he was a narcissistic meglomanic. I was probably a bit looney as well. I have read his diaries, in them he refers to himself as only true person capable of winning the war. Not his troops, not the allies, him personally.

On the Battlefield he described his actions as bold, most people would consider him reckless. Espicially when he drove so far head of his supply lines in Eastern France his tanks ran out of gas and sat their immobilized for 3 days. Had the Germans launched a single counterattack it would caused the collapse of the entire army. And why did he take such a risk? So that HE personally could be the first to Berlin.

His relievement of command couldnt have come amny faster.
April 19th, 2007  
RFOWELL
 
When Patton had to stop fro three days it was because his supplies had been cut off to support Market Garden. His supply line, the "Red Ball
Express", while streched, was doing a fantastic job. But even then, Patton continued a limited advance using fuel and even weapons that his army had captured from the retreating Germans.
April 19th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFOWELL
When Patton had to stop fro three days it was because his supplies had been cut off to support Market Garden. His supply line, the "Red Ball
Express", while streched, was doing a fantastic job. But even then, Patton continued a limited advance using fuel and even weapons that his army had captured from the retreating Germans.
Not quiet accurate. Your talking about the Lorraine Campaign. What really happened that he moved forward so fast that his supply couldn't keep up. he spent those 3 days waiting for the tanker trucks to refuel his tanks.

You know we piss alot on Market Garden, but the idea wasn't bad. It was the planning that messed up, had it been planning been better the war would have ended 6 months earlier.
May 12th, 2007  
Young Winston
 
 
Monty was an excellent planner, very methodical when his mind was on the job but I do agree several German generals stand out way above Monty. How about Model?
May 25th, 2007  
Strongbow
 
 
Monty did a great job in the Battle of the Bulge but let himself down afterwards. He just got too full of himself.
June 29th, 2007  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow
Monty did a great job in the Battle of the Bulge but let himself down afterwards. He just got too full of himself.

His personality was a problem.