Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2? - Page 39




 
--
 
January 19th, 2009  
errol
 
 
I must check Hasting's book again as I thought Wittman kicked arse that day!!!
February 15th, 2009  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papasha40
I think there were no Tiger 2's in Normandy. Not at that time anyway. .
At least 2 Tiger II's were lost in Operation Goodwood, one after being rammed by a British Sherman !!!!!
February 28th, 2009  
errol
 
 
Wittman did rather well that day.
--
March 1st, 2009  
Partisan
 
 
This is a great thread, but I have a question - what are the criteria for rating these generals?

Number of men, level of training, fighting spirit (how quantified), planning capability (this is done by their staff, the general gives direction, states the desired end state & says get to it) victories, defeats, control of phases of the battle, ability to translate from defence to attack and back again, logisitics capability, +ive PR? The list goes on, or are we just using gut reaction (which I like)?

It would be interesting to come up with some criteria so we "armchair amateurs" could start compiling a list of the great, the mediocre and the downright useless, throughout history.

Some thought required on this.
April 10th, 2009  
errol
 
 
That's a tough one. Not sure anyone would agree on the marking criteria.
July 15th, 2009  
rustybolt25
 
Monty had some issues but he was a great leader.
July 15th, 2009  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustybolt25
Monty had some issues but he was a great leader.
My uncle Charlie was in North Africa as part of the LRDG, he thought a great deal of Montgomery.
July 15th, 2009  
Del Boy
 
Same here on the Uncles front - Desert Rats. And certainly he was popular with the troops.
July 15th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
It is funny but history seems to be painting Auchinleck as the architect of the allied victory in North Africa and Montgomery as a man who pretty much stole Auchinleck's accolades.I am not sure how I personally feel about this as uncles etc. that fought under Montgomery had nothing bad to say about the guy but then they didn't say anything bad about Auchinleck either.

I do however believe that Auchinleck's qualities were highlighted when he became CnC India, a view that is supported at the time by General Slim who wrote:
"
It was a good day for us when Auchinleck took command of India, our main base, recruiting area and training ground. The Fourteenth Army, from its birth to its final victory, owed much to his unselfish support and never-failing understanding. Without him and what he and the Army of India did for us we could not have existed, let alone conquered"
July 16th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustybolt25
Monty had some issues but he was a great leader.
Great at killing his men and putting forth excuses, his blunders in Normandy and at Market Garden would get him sacked if the US-UK relationship was not so steeped in politics, he's beaten Rommels forces mainly because of his absence.

A great leader is a general who cares for his troops, can plan and carry out an operation and find his ass without a map, Montgomery was an incompetent moron who cared only about his reputation.

I like to compare him to Patton, another overrated idiot however Patton could and did cover his inefficiencies with awesome agression, he was not afraid to advance or take political flak, Montgomery lacked even in this department.