Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2? - Page 40




 
--
 
July 16th, 2009  
LeEnfield
 
 
Yes Monty lost a lot of troops in Normandy, yet he was facing 6 German Divisions and the Americans were facing 3 German Divisions. While trying to break through at Caen the Germans built up one line of defence after another. When his troops broke through one line of German Defence they ran slap into the next one that is why we lost some 30.000 men trying to take Caen and then to break out from that area. When the Americans broke out from the Cherbourg area they only had to break through three lines of German defences manned by just 3 German divisions then it was open country. Also I am not decrying the efforts and the loses it took the Americans to do this, but I am just trying to point out why the Americans did so much better than the troops around Caen.
July 18th, 2009  
mkenny
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Great at killing his men and putting forth excuses, his blunders in Normandy
Blunders like crossing the Seine ahead of schedule?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Montgomery was an incompetent moron who cared only about his reputation.
I think someone calling an Army Commader a 'moron' has serious credibilty issues of his own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
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.
Afraid to advance? What was the drive into Belgium in late '44? Was that too slow for you?

Monty was to catious, he never took risks.......
Monty failed at Arnhem, he should never have took the risk...........

Heads I win tails you lose!
July 19th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Blunders like crossing the Seine ahead of schedule?
Blunders like bleeding his men at Caen or sending paratroopers to their deaths despite several para Generals including Kopański openly telling that idiot that the operation amounts to a death sentence.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
I think someone calling an Army Commader a 'moron' has serious credibilty issues of his own.
I can stomach commanders who make mistakes, i cannot stomach commanders who make mistakes only to dig their heads into their own asses afterwards.

Like at Caen "Hey my squandered the lives of my men, got several regiments worth of infantry killed in a half assed assault without remote perspective of success but Americans got through."

The guy didnt know and did not plan for yanks to punch through he just used it to avoid admitting he fracked up, he was not only incompetent but as a man, cowardly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Afraid to advance? What was the drive into Belgium in late '44? Was that too slow for you?
Your example only underlines how pathetic he was, advance into Belgium was the pursuit of German forces broken under and around Calais, it had nothing to do with a regular engagement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Monty was to catious, he never took risks.......
Monty failed at Arnhem, he should never have took the risk...........
Montgomery was an incompetent coward, his only achievement was defeating Rommels forces, i'm writing Rommels forces because Rommel himself was not present, if he were then Montgomery would be kicked in the ass so hard he'd be spitting kidneys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Heads I win tails you lose!
Thats not a competition, opinions are like *******s, everyone has one i'm basing mine on Montgomerys operational record which after the initial success is a line of failiures covered by half truths or outright lies by the man.

Apart from poor generalship the guy was not a peoples person (which is important) the way he treated Eisenhower or his dick waving contest with Patton only add to the mans pettiness.
--
July 19th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Blunders like bleeding his men at Caen or sending paratroopers to their deaths despite several para Generals including Kopański openly telling that idiot that the operation amounts to a death sentence.

Like at Caen "Hey my squandered the lives of my men, got several regiments worth of infantry killed in a half assed assault without remote perspective of success but Americans got through."
You are incorrect, if anything Montgomery's "over cautious" flaws were a result of attempting to minimise casualties.

If you read the likes of:
Montgomery and "Colossal Cracks" by Stephen Hart.
The Bitter Woods By John S. D. Eisenhower.

You will see that the general consensus was that Montgomery's actions were consistent with war aims and material resources.

I am not going to argue that Montgomery was a shameless self promoter but the argument that he squandered the lives of his men without regard is not borne out by either historians or the men that served under him.
July 19th, 2009  
mkenny
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Blunders like bleeding his men at Caen or sending paratroopers to their deaths despite several para Generals including Kopański openly telling that idiot that the operation amounts to a death sentence.
What 'bleeding' at Caen? There were a number of Offensives before Caen itself was taken. I aways thought they were responsible for pushing the German back until eventualy the line cracked and they bolted for the border.
I think you will find that Eisenhower was in command by the time of Arnhem so how does that figure in your rant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Like at Caen "Hey my squandered the lives of my men, got several regiments worth of infantry killed in a half assed assault without remote perspective of success but Americans got through."
There you go again! Where did he 'squander' lives at Caen? (wherever you seem to place Caen)
If you are talking about Cobra then you should also remember Monty was the Ground Force Commander at the time so any success you try and say was 'given' to him was actualy his by right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
The guy didnt know and did not plan for yanks to punch through he just used it to avoid admitting he fracked up,
He did plan 'for the yanks' He was the ground Commander in Normandy. All the results, good or bad, are due to him


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
he was not only incompetent but as a man, cowardly.
How does that sit with his WW1 record and the wounds he recieved there?
Plainly you are woefully ill informed. Best keep your big mouth closed until you get better references.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Your example only underlines how pathetic he was, advance into Belgium was the pursuit of German forces broken under and around Calais, it had nothing to do with a regular engagement
Broken 'under and around Calais'?
Who broke them?
Why did they break and run?
Did any of Monty's actions have an influence on the Germans breaking and running?
Were any of these actions 'regular engagements'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
opinions are like *******s, everyone has one i'm basing mine on Montgomerys operational record which after the initial success is a line of failiures covered by half truths or outright lies by the man.
I strongly reccomend you change your references. Perhaps approaching the subject with an open mind (as opposed to an open mouth) would help you more than moronic bombastic nationalistic rants.
July 19th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
What 'bleeding' at Caen? There were a number of Offensives before Caen itself was taken. I aways thought they were responsible for pushing the German back until eventualy the line cracked and they bolted for the border.
I mean Goodwood specifically, of course Germans would be pushed back, the numerical superiority alone could do it, eventually.

Not only did he make his own troops advance through their own minefield which had to be cleared, he subsequently lost the element of suprise.

He has chosen an absolutely nightmarish place to attack given the huge amount of villages, he has failed to locate and neutralize German artillery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
I think you will find that Eisenhower was in command by the time of Arnhem so how does that figure in your rant?
Commander in chief of the armed forces cannot plan it all out, the plan was Montgomerys brainchild conceived in order to regain lost reputation after he got firmly spanked in Normandy.

Montgomery ignored reports of tanks sighted in the area, concerns by veteran paras officers about not being able to land in force, in fact he ignored every single bit of advice that would put his insane plan in a bad light, he was an incompetent out on the quest for fame and glory at the expense of his soldiers lives and strategic goals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
There you go again! Where did he 'squander' lives at Caen? (wherever you seem to place Caen)
If you want to play nitpicking, Goodwood took place east of Caen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
If you are talking about Cobra then you should also remember Monty was the Ground Force Commander at the time so any success you try and say was 'given' to him was actualy his by right.
So if i'm the commanding officer on the ground and plot out an attack then my commander gets the credit? Sorry things dont work that way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
He did plan 'for the yanks' He was the ground Commander in Normandy. All the results, good or bad, are due to him
No he did not, he stated the goals clear enough, nowhere did he claim that it was an attempt to ease the pressure on the Americans, that was not his intended goal and he simply used it to show that he got any results despite his failiures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
How does that sit with his WW1 record and the wounds he recieved there?
There's more than one kind of cowardice, it often easier to get shot up then to take responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Plainly you are woefully ill informed. Best keep your big mouth closed until you get better references.
Plainly i am, bowing before your awesome knowledge i ask you how was Goodwood or Market Garden in any way justified?



Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Broken 'under and around Calais'?Who broke them?
Falais, typos will happen, Americans, British and Poles, to be specific the pocket was made possible by the rapid American advance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Why did they break and run?
Did any of Monty's actions have an influence on the Germans breaking and running?
Nope, Patton overruning their rear did. Germans faced being cut off from the low countries, this is when they packed up camp and run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
I strongly reccomend you change your references. Perhaps approaching the subject with an open mind (as opposed to an open mouth) would help you more than moronic bombastic nationalistic rants.
Whats there to be nationalistic about? Montgomery got bogged down at Caen plotting one offensive after another while Americans broke out into open country and threatened the German rear which subsequently caused the German withdrawal.

Of course Montgomery and the Brits joined in with the closing of the pocket but instead of admitting Patton wiped his ass Montgomery suddenly for the first time since the start of the war in France claimed this was his intention all the time.
July 19th, 2009  
mkenny
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Commander in chief of the armed forces cannot plan it all out, the plan was Montgomerys brainchild conceived in order to regain lost reputation after he got firmly spanked in Normandy.
Sorry but in all the books I read it was the Germans who got spanked-well and truly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
If you want to play nitpicking, Goodwood took place east of Caen.
How about a bit of detail instead of using buzz words and assuming we all know what you mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
So if i'm the commanding officer on the ground and plot out an attack then my commander gets the credit? Sorry things dont work that way.
So if it went right it was in spite of Monty.
If it went wrong it was Monty's fault!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
There's more than one kind of cowardice, it often easier to get shot up then to take responsibility
If you say so.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Plainly i am, bowing before your awesome knowledge i ask you how was Goodwood or Market Garden in any way justified?
Goodwood and Cobra were intended to be 2 parts of the same coin. The heavy rain prevented Cobra from starting on the 21st July and it was delayed until the 25th. Another critical difference is that after the German lines were breached during Cobra there was no reserves and no armour to counter attack. 'Goodwood' was defended in depth because it was the key to the German position in Normandy . .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Falais, typos will happen, Americans, British and Poles, to be specific the pocket was made possible by the rapid American advance.
And here is me thinking a hammer is no good unless it has an anvil at the other side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Nope, Patton overruning their rear did. Germans faced being cut off from the low countries, this is when they packed up camp and run.
Would this be the same Patton who was ORDERED not to try and attack the retreating Germans because it was believed (rightly) that he would have been flattened by them? Patton was not considered capable of dealing with these remnants. He was not good enough!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Montgomery got bogged down at Caen plotting one offensive after another while Americans broke out into open country and threatened the German rear which subsequently caused the German withdrawal.
So the German reaction to Goodwood:
releasing the the last uncommitted Panzer Division (116th) to the Caen sector............
the moving of Hohenstauffen and Frundsberg from the west bank of the Orne to the east..............
moving of 2nd Panzer Division to support 272nd Infantry Division.........
the concentration of 8 of the 10 Panzer Divisions opposite 2nd Army (Monty)................
200 German tanks against 1st US Army v 650 against 2nd Army (Monty) on 25/7/44...................
the addition of an extra 2 German Divisions against 1st US Army 10-25 July compared to 4 added to the 2nd Army front in the same period..........

had no impact of their ability to counter Cobra?

Even with the main part of the German Army facing Caen it took Bradley 4 days to capture the same amount of ground Monty took in 2 days.
July 19th, 2009  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker


Montgomery was an incompetent coward,
.

Would you care to substantiate this accusation?
July 20th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Sorry but in all the books I read it was the Germans who got spanked-well and truly.
Oh yes they got so mauled in Normandy that they managed to regroup at Siegfrieds line and give the allies a bloody nose, or did you mean by Russians?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
How about a bit of detail instead of using buzz words and assuming we all know what you mean?
If i have to describe Goodwood in detail then you're clearly out of place in a Montgomery thread, google is your friend.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
So if it went right it was in spite of Monty.
If it went wrong it was Monty's fault!
Only Goodwood and Epson were brainchildren of Montgomery, Epson was a mild failiure while Goodwood was a catastrophy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
there was no reserves and no armour to counter attack.
So "Das Reich" and 17th Panzergrenadiers were all riding donkeys when they counterattacked yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
'Goodwood' was defended in depth because it was the key to the German position in Normandy . .
But Saint Lo was not?



Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
And here is me thinking a hammer is no good unless it has an anvil at the other side.
It doesnt matter one bit, if Patton simply sat their Germans would ran out of fuel within days since he managed to cut most of the supply routes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Would this be the same Patton who was ORDERED not to try and attack the retreating Germans because it was believed (rightly) that he would have been flattened by them? Patton was not considered capable of dealing with these remnants. He was not good enough!
Patton repeatedly proven that he knew better, examples are his campaigns in Italy or his reinforcement at Ardennes.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
So the German reaction to Goodwood:
releasing the the last uncommitted Panzer Division (116th) to the Caen sector............
the moving of Hohenstauffen and Frundsberg from the west bank of the Orne to the east..............
moving of 2nd Panzer Division to support 272nd Infantry Division.........
the concentration of 8 of the 10 Panzer Divisions opposite 2nd Army (Monty)................
200 German tanks against 1st US Army v 650 against 2nd Army (Monty) on 25/7/44...................
the addition of an extra 2 German Divisions against 1st US Army 10-25 July compared to 4 added to the 2nd Army front in the same period..........

had no impact of their ability to counter Cobra?
Absolutely none, they countered Cobra with very significant forces and got rolled over, also you ignore the fact that all of these German divisions are paper units by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny
Even with the main part of the German Army facing Caen it took Bradley 4 days to capture the same amount of ground Monty took in 2 days.
But he achieved his objectives where Montgomery did not, also Cobra was conceived by Bradley during Goodwood seeing how forces were concentrated, Montgomery objected to the draft at first only to claim the credit later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
Would you care to substantiate this accusation?
Market Failiure, the pig headed bastard was warned by rank and file that there were tanks on the ground, that there were strong concentrations of troops and that partial landing means FUBAR of the entire operation.
July 20th, 2009  
mkenny
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Oh yes they got so mauled in Normandy that they managed to regroup at Siegfrieds line and give the allies a bloody nose, or did you mean by Russians?
No I mean exactly what I originaly said. The destruction of 2 complete Fronts in 1944 (East and West) meant Germany was finished by late 1944,
They never had the remotest chance of survival. It was a pity they decided to fight to the end and ensured the deaths of over a million of her own citizens. Nothing but mindless insanity.
Interesting facts: Germany had more of her tanks deployed in the West in 1944 than on the Eastern Front (more so if you include the Italian totals) and Germany lost more tanks/SP's in France in the summer of 1944 than they did in the Russian summer Offensives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
If i have to describe Goodwood in detail then you're clearly out of place in a Montgomery thread, google is your friend.
I am very well aquaited with the detail of Goodwood. I see you mentioning 'Goodwood' as if the word on it's own explains everything. It would seem you are loath to debate specific examples that reference your childish taunts. One could be forgiven for thinking you are being deliberately vague to cover your ignorance.
Please humour me and get specific. If you lose me with your detailed explainations I can always get Google to help me out!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
So "Das Reich" and 17th Panzergrenadiers were all riding donkeys when they counterattacked yes?
17th SS might as well have. They were down to 10 Stug. by 23rd July.
You seem confused though. Did you not realise Lehr were in the US sector by the time of Cobra?

US Sector July 23rd.

Lehr 46 tank/Stug
2nd SS 103 tank/Stug
17th SS 10 Stug.

total 159

UK sector July 23rd
1st SS 109
9th SS 58
10th SS 24
12th SS 58
2nd PD 80
21st PD 22
116th PD 88
Tigers
SS 101 13
SS 102 20
Heer 503 20
Jagdpanthers
PzJgr Abt. 654 21
total 513

Now the list is not complete (being an expert you will realise sundry small Units are omitted) but the figure will not change much if they were all included.
116th PD was sent to the US sector on July 28th but we are talking about how the figures were at the Start of Cobra. Feel free to squeal and say I missed them out on purpose!
The totals above are the 'in service' figures. At any one time up to a third of AFV's could be 'in repair' and thus not available for combat.

Now tell me again about:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
they countered Cobra with very significant forces and got rolled over, also you ignore the fact that all of these German divisions are paper units by now.
I believe you are saying that the Units facing Monty were 'paper Units' and thus 'insignificant' but that the ones facing Bradley were 'significant forces'?
Why am I not suprised at your double standards!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
But Saint Lo was not?
check the armour figures above and tell me what you think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
It doesnt matter one bit, if Patton simply sat their Germans would ran out of fuel within days since he managed to cut most of the supply routes.
It does matter. Patton was judged not able to take on the fleeing German Units becuase it was realised they would roll right over him. His own superiors saw that he was not up to the job.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Patton repeatedly proven that he knew better, examples are his campaigns in Italy or his reinforcement at Ardennes.
Yet more rubbish. Why is it that every Patton devotee HAS to put Monty down?
Why are they so scared of him?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
But he achieved his objectives where Montgomery did not, also Cobra was conceived by Bradley during Goodwood seeing how forces were concentrated, Montgomery objected to the draft at first only to claim the credit later.
Are you seriously saying Bradley planned Cobra AFTER July 18th?

Please share more of your wisdom with us. Just keep repeating the words 'Goodwood' and 'failure'. and fill the rest of your post with bile and venom directed at Monty.
Who knows, someone might get confused and assume you know what you are talking about.