Over/Under Rated: Patton, Montgomery, Rommel

H

hardlec

Active member
Patton had a "Best Picture" Best Actor movie made about him. He came off as the best general ever, and his nemesis, Montgomery came off as a schnook.
Any WWII movies I've seen that included Montgomery have made him look like a schnook.
Rommel comes off as the worthy adversary, the tragic figure.

Now, from reading history:

Patton started the war as a division commander, took an army of recruits into combat with a tough foe, and managed to get victories. If he'd kept his hands to himself in Italy, he would probably have been "commander, Ground Forces, US Expeditionary forces, Europe. In true tragic format, he was not as tough as a truck.
Rommel was a "field marshal" but never had the resources to merit that rank. He got some early victories but when he faced organized opposition, he was routinely defeated. IMHO, Rommel was a good corp commander, and it might be an interesting exercise to speculate: What if Rommel was at Stalingrad and Von Paulus was in command of the DAK? He was not as significant a factor in the war as his "publicist" made him out to be.

Montgomery had ups and downs. El Alamein, Market Garden. His legacy seems a bit tainted, as Market Garden and Canne seem more to more than offset his desert victories. Montgomery was a schnook. Okay: He was a pompous schnook. When duty called, he answered. He was not a "great" general, but he was "good enough."
 
Patton is seen as the best general other than Eisenhower because Eisenhower prferred him over Montogomery. As you said, Eisenhower saw Montgomery as s shnook.

Now I see Montgomery as a rather exceptional general. His character may not have been likeable but his skills in the field of battle were good. I'm no expert but of course his desert campaign was exceptional and, despite what people think, Operation Market Garden was a relative success. 90% success in fact. yes, more live than expected were lost and we never got Arnhem but we got most of what we went for and the counter-attack afterwards helped us breakthrough. Montgomery got a bit greedy but the idea was genius and frankly worked. it was just shobby reconnisance (i forgot how to spell it) skills on his command side that really ruined it.

Now I will admit. I think that Rommel is very much a ruined general. But of course at the end of the day the victors write and history and Rommel didn't win. But his desert campaign went rather successfully, until of course Montgomery got him. And to be totally frank, other generals he was working with were very peculiar or stupid and Hitler was able to override any operations he didn't like. if anything, Rommel was really on the wrong side.
 
Rommel was not well thought of by his German Army contemporaries, especially by his boss in North Africa, Albert Kesselring. " Smiling Al" kept pointing out to Rommel that N. Africa was not the decisive theatre of war for Germany, Russia was! As proof, The Germans surrendered in N. Africa early in 1943 and the war went on for two more years. Rommel's job was to tie down as many Allied troops as possible and to keep the Italians from collapsing and to do it with minimum resources. Kesselring wasn't interested in Rommel's grandiose schemes of conquest. Rommel was a favorite of Hitler so he couldn't be reined in. Rommel caused far too many resources to be allocated to a an unimportant theatre.
 
Remington 1858 said:
Rommel was not well thought of by his German Army contemporaries, especially by his boss in North Africa, Albert Kesselring. " Smiling Al" kept pointing out to Rommel that N. Africa was not the decisive theatre of war for Germany, Russia was! As proof, The Germans surrendered in N. Africa early in 1943 and the war went on for two more years. Rommel's job was to tie down as many Allied troops as possible and to keep the Italians from collapsing and to do it with minimum resources. Kesselring wasn't interested in Rommel's grandiose schemes of conquest. Rommel was a favorite of Hitler so he couldn't be reined in. Rommel caused far too many resources to be allocated to a an unimportant theatre.
Click to expand...
I wonder what if Italy opened to War taking Malta, the DAK would have had secure communications and the recourses to possibly/probably have taken the Suez Canal. Then what? Perhaps the free flow of raw materials from the Japanese to Germany & technology to the Japanese instead of smuggling small amounts in subs. Japanese certainly needed updated tech. As it was their copy of the Me-262 was too late to be deployed, radar and other tech would have made things more costly. Also possibly could have pinched off supplies of Persian Gulf oil & disrupted supplies to India, maybe with Japan taking India. But yeah, Rommel may have made a significant impact on the Eastern Front and then maybe not.
 
Seems like we left out MacArthur pompous he was , his greatness came during the Korean War With his Inchon landings . Monty had the slows as seen in his action to take Caen , Patton was full of shit and should have been sent home , Ike was all politics .
 
Let's not overlook what an extraordinarily difficult job all the Allied commanders had. It was a job that can't be done by an ordinary man. It takes a person of incredible inner strength and physical stamina to stand up to the stress and pressures of command at a high level. All the men mentioned has spent a lifetime in military service and had received the best training their countries could offer. Try going for days with no or little sleep under constant pressure to make instant decisions involving the lives of thousands. The pressure cracked more than one good man. The Allied commanders at least were working to an agreed-upon and fairly well thought out strategy which was more than the Axis commanders had going for them. They also had less political interference, (except in the case of Churchill). They eventually had material resources that insured success.
 
Monty

hardlec said:
Patton had a "Best Picture" Best Actor movie made about him. He came off as the best general ever, and his nemesis, Montgomery came off as a schnook.
Any WWII movies I've seen that included Montgomery have made him look like a schnook.
Rommel comes off as the worthy adversary, the tragic figure.

Now, from reading history:

Patton started the war as a division commander, took an army of recruits into combat with a tough foe, and managed to get victories. If he'd kept his hands to himself in Italy, he would probably have been "commander, Ground Forces, US Expeditionary forces, Europe. In true tragic format, he was not as tough as a truck.
Rommel was a "field marshal" but never had the resources to merit that rank. He got some early victories but when he faced organized opposition, he was routinely defeated. IMHO, Rommel was a good corp commander, and it might be an interesting exercise to speculate: What if Rommel was at Stalingrad and Von Paulus was in command of the DAK? He was not as significant a factor in the war as his "publicist" made him out to be.

Montgomery had ups and downs. El Alamein, Market Garden. His legacy seems a bit tainted, as Market Garden and Canne seem more to more than offset his desert victories. Montgomery was a schnook. Okay: He was a pompous schnook. When duty called, he answered. He was not a "great" general, but he was "good enough."
Click to expand...

Monty was nearly discharged for his poor generalship in Normandy. He repeatable attacked Caen and the surrounding area with long columns of armored vehicles numbering in the hundreds, while the well entrenched Germans on the high ground had tanks and guns that could far outrange Monty's armor. Hundreds of tanks and tank destroyers, etc. were destroyed with little damage to the Germans. He attempted this several times with similar results. Some of the worse Allied losses of the war occurred as a result of these attacks.
 
Last edited:
Ike came very close to sacking Monty , Ike had talked it over with Churchill , Churchill said if you must then do so , problem was there were no other British Generals who were any better .
 
Rommel and Patton were true commanders. They could defeat their enemy with a smaller force. Montgommery couldn't do that. He was always slow and waited until he had the superior forces to attack. What he did in Africa any other allied commander could have done that. Just wait unti your forces are more powerfull than your adversary. The allies had massive quantities of material. Montgommery only waited until he had enough of them.
Patton would have attacked the retreating Germans. Rommel would have done the same if he was the allied commander.

I won't call Montgommery a schnook. In my point of view he was a cunning guy. In Sicily he wanted Patton to take care of his flank so he could get all the honors. Unforunately for him Patton went his own way and his troops were in Messina just ahead of Montgommery's. In Italy, the US invasion went terrible wrong. Montgommery was ordered to help. he was late. Fortunately for the Americans, their desperate attack worked.

Both Montgommery and Patton wanted to be first in Berlin. Patton was put aside to command a ghost army. Montgommery was weeks ahead of him. His troops were in Normandy. Ever wondered why his troops had the northernmost part of the invasion? It was closer to Berlin, Patton was not there yet and the Americans had to turn south. Unfortunately for him, the German defense of Caen was more than he could handle. Then came Patton, a rapid steamroller. He knew how to use the advantages of the Sherman tank, something Montgommery never did. Patton was on his way to Berlin, only hampered by supply shortages. Then Montgommery was working on his opeartion Garden to get to Berlin. He didn't open up the waterway to the port of Antwerp, which was intact. And it was not his intention to do so because otherwise Patton would get the supplies he wanted through France and he might had to wait until the ships sailed into the harbor. Then he got word about Brereton and Patton wanting to drop paratroopers on the east side of the Rhine river. That's when Montgommery also wanted an operation Market. Together Market Garden. All supplies where for his operation, he also needed all the paratroopers. Worst case for him was a status quo best case he was in Berlin first. He had nothing to lose. The operation turned out to be a disaster. The objective was never met. No Arnhem and no freeway to Berlin. Worse, the Germans were able to keep the allies at bay and even counterattack through the Ardennes. Montgommery didn't see that comming, Patton did. He had already send armor to help the Americans when the call came for help. He said:"They're already on their way." Also, the first ships arrived in Antwerp two months after Market Garden. More than two valuable months lost. Patton could have been close to Berlin in that time.
 
Tetvet--"Seems like we left out MacArthur pompous he was , his greatness came during the Korean War With his Inchon landings . Monty had the slows as seen in his action to take Caen , Patton was full of shit and should have been sent home , Ike was all politics ."

Patton was full of shit? Bet the troops in the battle of the bulge didn't think so. He was the best General in the war.
Ike's job was to run the war, he did an exemplary job of it with many tough decisions.

Montgomery?- Well he was the best the English had. I am still not sure about him. The fact that Eisenhower wanted to replace him says a lot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top