Best WW2 General

[privatehudson]

you cant compare the british and canadian beaches to Omaha

Why not? you criticise Montgomery's performance later in Normandy without commenting on the fact that the British faced 3 times the number of tanks the Americans did...

Terrain wise, no you can't, but also the British had learnt from their previous landings and used to great effect the "funnies" tanks that they developed for amphibious assaults. Using those kind of vehicles saved time and lives on the British beaches, had they been used at Omaha, it could have been easier than the infantry style engineer teams they tried to use. The British also adopted on Gold beach the principle of running their DD tanks right up to the beachead rather than launching them in heavy seas like at Omaha and Juno, something that proved deadly effective.

On the terrain though, some of the British beaches were hardly walkovers either. Gold for one had a fortified town on the beach. Whilst it's partly down to the terrain that caused such problems, some of them would have been lessened had they adopted better strategies. You can hardly fault the British for selecting the right strategies and beaches for their landings now can you? Perhaps that says something of their ability...

Paw-Paw:

I thought it was Utah they missed the correct beach on?

 

[Sarevok]

still, monty wasnt very good.

 

[privatehudson]

Base on Arnhem? Please, forward some more reasons that don't include him being in a worse military position than those who did better than him and you might have a point, but in my book he did alright. He was cautious and arrogant, not to mention a glory hunter, but you go too far, he certainly was not as bad as you make out.

 

[Sarevok]

He sucked in sicily, he wasnt very good at normandy, and he bombed arnhem. not to mention gettling lots of men shot up trying to cross the rhine.

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Sarevok
He sucked in sicily, he wasnt very good at normandy, and he bombed arnhem. not to mention gettling lots of men shot up trying to cross the rhine.

Oops, you seem to have missed the following bit:

forward some more reasons that don't include him being in a worse military position than those who did better than him

Which is suprising considering he was facing considerably more tanks than the Americans in Normandy as I mentioned, so it's not like that battle was fought on equal terms is it? Arnhem I will give you, fair enough, he should not have lauinched such an attack, neither though should Ike have ever considered that the Northern flank was even remotely suitable for such a move. Plus he was hindered by Ike not releasing control of transport priorities leading up to the campaign, delaying the advances of the corps on the flank of XXX corps and causing inummerable problems.

Scilly is hardly fair either, given that the best formation (1st airborne) on the island faced the British and the terrain there was severely restrictive. Even so he was only just beaten to Messina by Patton. The rhine crossings I know little about, but at least they suceeded...

Hell I'm not calling him the best commander in the war, but instead of just saying "he did badly" you might take a little time to consider just why he did badly, or usually not as well as his fellow officers rather than badly. Generals should be judged on how they did given the situation, not how they did compared to people in better situations.

 

[Sarevok]

i didnt say he did badly, I said he was totally overrated.

 

[privatehudson]

Funny, your post above that one seems to indicate otherwise...

Besides, overated needs some basis for what he's rated as, since most people here don't consider him much more than capable, I'd say he's rated quite fairly.

 

[Sarevok]

i say he gets way more attention than he deserves.

 

[Adler17]

Sarevok is right. Most of the fame Monty got is for El Alamain. And there he lost the battle nearly. Only when the German lack of surprise got critical, he won. Some other operation he had bigger difficulties but if he was so good he would have won at least one with a glorious victory. But he didn´t. Even though when he planned he was not so good: Arnheim was a disaster. So his fame is unjustified beiing so great. He wasn´t bad but compared with Patton, Guderian, Manstein and Rommel he was playing in a lower league.

Adler

 

[Sarevok]

Well put. Thats the point I was trying to make.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Sarevok
you cant compare the british and canadian beaches to Omaha.

As Hudson points out, you most certainly can. Some of the British and Canadian beaches were every bit as well defenced as Omaha, but British tactics proved superior then the tactics employed by the Americans (who had foolishly turned down a British gift of large numbers of the specialised tanks which were to prove so useful). If the Americans had used the methods the British used then taking Omaha would have been a lot easier.

Incidnetly, Montogomery's contribution to the Overlord plans (which he was in charge of for the critical six months before the invasion) and the inital phases of the battle's execution was imense and highly positive. To criticise his contribution here is to display ignorance.

Even though when he planned he was not so good: Arnheim was a disaster.

Even though it came extreamly close to working? If the British 1st Airborne had had slightly better luck and XXX corps had displayed a little more aggression, Market-Garden would have ended in a great victory. After the war all the major players in the battle still considered the risk that was taken in lauching the attack as being worthwhile. I tend to agree.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Case

Even though it came extreamly close to working? If the British 1st Airborne had had slightly better luck and XXX corps had displayed a little more aggression, Market-Garden would have ended in a great victory. After the war all the major players in the battle still considered the risk that was taken in lauching the attack as being worthwhile. I tend to agree.

If, if, if. Market Garden was Monty's baby and because of that he has to wear the consequences of it's failure. that part of Holland wasn't very good tank country due to the low water table.
There was a bit of bad luck involved though I do admit. Who would have thought the boys from the Frundsberg and Hohenstauffen SS divisions would be waiting for them? I think Monty would have proceeded anyway even if he did have that information.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Adler17
He wasn´t bad but compared with Patton, Guderian, Manstein and Rommel he was playing in a lower league.

Adler

No, He was playing Hardball against the best the Reich could offer, Patton never faced a dug in enemy, that hadn't been
pre-beaten by the British, guess if you put Monty down enough you can make old "Blood & Guts" look good with enough PR.

 

[privatehudson]

Well said ozz, though I'm not sure of whether that comment about never facing dug in enemies is right, the sentiment is there. Thank you case for pointing the info on D-day out, in this case, if we are counting pluses, I'd say the sucess of an operation as vital as D-day is a pretty big mark in Monty's favour.

Arnhem I still have a bugbear about, if I had been Ike I would have handed Patton the role, not because I consider Patton better than monty, I don't, but Patton faced better terrain in some ways and was more suited to a quickly organised offensive relying on brute strength of character than Monty was. Mongomery's type of battle was Alamein, planned and meticulous, Arnhem was planned to fast and it showed. Add that to RAF intransigence, Ike's refusal to shift transport and supplies to Montgomery properly, the terrible terrain and the woefull bad luck throughout the campaign, and it is a compliment to ALL those involved that it came so close to suceeding.

I still would have given the job to Patton though.

Personally I rate Patton and Montgomery on the same level for two reasons. Firstly, at first glance Patton seems beter, he achieved more. Further glances show that he faced better situations than Montgomery did, so this is a moot point. I rate them after that as equal mainly because they had two very different, often very effective styles. Montgomery was a cautious planner, who you could rely on more often than not when he had time to think things through. Patton was a gambler, a risk taker, someone you could ask to launch offensives almost at the drop of a hat and expect at least some degree of sucess by blind luck and force of will.

So whilst you might say he was overrated for Arnhem and other battles, he certainly was the right man available at the time for both Alamein and Normandy. Different generals have different abilities, and suit different situations, I don't think Patton would have done as well at either Alamein or Normandy, they weren't his style. Does that make him a bad general, or is it more a case of different style again?

 

[Sarevok]

Monty was the type for brutal attrition battles, but when the enemy was on the run, patton was the guy to call.

 

[privatehudson]

Right after the British had done 90% of the hard work, only for Patton to take 100% of the glory

Monty does at least though deserve more credit than being labelled an attritional general IMO

 

[Sarevok]

I dont like saying he was the great victor of el alamein though because he had double the forces Rommel had and far more supplies and oil.

 

[privatehudson]

That was his way though, certainty of victory and planning that ensured sucess in the long run rather than rash and costly offensives that might temporarily suceed, but migh also fail later. It wasn't a marvelous victory, but neither was Patton's in Normandy or Scilly to be frank.

 

[Sarevok]

Patton did really good in france... until he ran out of gas.

 

[privatehudson]

Yes, BUT after the British and commenwealth forces had drawn against themselves 3 times the number of tanks Patton faced, so it's hardly suprising that Patton did well really is it? The race across France was no shock either, there was next to nothing left of the Wermacht in the west after Falaise, and to be frank Patton hardly outpaced Montgomery in the advance either.