Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2?

LeEnfield said:
As far Montgomery goes as a General I would only rate him as average, he did breathe life into the 8 th Army in North Africa. Montgomery was not the first choice for the job but as the chap who did get the job was killed when his plane was shot down en route for North Africa thus giving Monty the job. Now the best thing Monty ever did was to stand up to Churchill and refused to attack until he was ready, this had Churchill spitting nails. Churchill had painted him self into a corner by his interference in the North African campaign, he ordered his Generals to attack before they had enough men and equipment to carry out a massive assault and when it failed he blamed and sacked them. As Churchill had got through so many Generals that Monty refused to attack until he was ready Churchill was stuck with him. The benefit from this was a stable and positive leadership from Monty and his Commonwealth Generals, the troops were retrained reequipped and made to feel that when they attacked then they would win. Montgomery's prediction on just how long the battle would last was correct to the day at AlElmein, after that he became a press Icon and like a few other Generals I think it affected his performance
Click to expand...

I agree. :)
 
great defensive general. but i hav to think about offensive. he was pretty cautious. plus he had air force help which bombed about like 70 percent of Rommel's forces
 
i think u guys should leave monty alone he might'nt have been the beat commander of the war but neither was eisenhower and patton monty didn't lose the war for the allies so what are you complaining about and i would like to see some of you guys do what he did it was not britain or the usa that won the war it was russia and without them even eisenhower would be insulted. i belive that alexander should have been put in command of the entire western europe he was a much better general than eisenhower and the usa should even thank themselves lucky britain even agreed to participate in d day without the british leadership the usa would have made it a disaster so hang off mont he was an exelent defensive general and he did a superb job on d day.
 
Eisenhower was a great manager, who had the difficult tasks of controlling different Generals with over sized ego's. Ike delegated out out jobs and let people get on with it, and to be quite honest I don't think there was any one around who could have done a better job.
 
Uncle_Sam said:
Romell was the greatest German general of WWII with a few others, (Ewald von Kleist, Guderian, ....)
Click to expand...
There is a view that Rommel was a great divisional commander and corps commander. However I dont think he was the best german general of WW2. I would have to say that Von Manstein was the best german general. Lost Victories by Von Manstein is a good book to read about the eastern front in particular. The Hitler Book gives an interesting spin on german strategy and Hitler.


redcoat said:
Is Monty overrated ????
By the British, yes !
However, by the US he is underrated.
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree more. Lot of nationalism in the Monty debate and not just by the ppl posting.

Doppleganger said:
They also never faced the same level of quality as by 1944, the quality of new German recruits was in most cases very low. Even the elite Panzer and SS Panzer Divisions assigned to the West were in many cases battered units sent from the Eastern Front for refit and were in some cases rebuilt almost from scratch. Their combat replacements in terms of men were of the same low quality.
Click to expand...
The western front was regarded as a rest area for german units to refit after the eastern front. But the units did contain a core of battle experienced troops. To call the elite units low quality is a diservice if not totally untrue. Certainly there was low quality units in France but there were quality units too. Besides often those units in France went back to the eastern front to fight the soviets. It is also worth pointing out that although the germans were expecting an invasion and need to protect their western front.

With regards to Monty, I would say not a great as some people and not as bad as others think.

The Auk prepared a plan for Alam Halfa and Monty took the credit. If the Auk had the time and resources Monty had the germans may have been defeated earlier. Afterall the Auk was the first general defeat Rommel. Pity he let Cunnigham and Richie command the army and not when he had to, but C-in-C has a lot to do. The Auk constantly had to put up with Churchill pushing for battles before he was ready. Monty got more time and more resources.

O'Connor and the Auk are the two british (western) generals I am interested in. I always remember O'Connor saying on the World at War that he blamed himself for not pushing the italian/germans out. Well troops where diverted to support a strategy made by Churchill and it wasnt O'Connors fault. I can understand why Churchill wanted to support Greece, but it was a big mistake.

Pity O'Connor was captured.
 
Reiben said:


There is a view that Rommel was a great divisional commander and corps commander. However I dont think he was the best german general of WW2. I would have to say that Von Manstein was the best german general. Lost Victories by Von Manstein is a good book to read about the eastern front in particular. The Hitler Book gives an interesting spin on german strategy and Hitler.
Click to expand...


Agreed re Rommel. Regarding Manstein he was probably the best strategic commander of WW2, IMO. Guderian was a very solid strategist too - he could have made a big difference to Germany's fortunes on the Eastern Front if Hitler had allowed him to get on with his job as OKH Commander. Because of his experiences as Inspector of Panzertruppen and Chief of Staff of OKH, his great tactical skill as a Panzer Army commander and the fact he developed the Panzerwaffe, which was the prime reason for Germany's early victories, Guderian also has a good claim to being the best overall German commander of WW2.
Reiben said:
The western front was regarded as a rest area for german units to refit after the eastern front. But the units did contain a core of battle experienced troops. To call the elite units low quality is a diservice if not totally untrue. Certainly there was low quality units in France but there were quality units too. Besides often those units in France went back to the eastern front to fight the soviets. It is also worth pointing out that although the germans were expecting an invasion and need to protect their western front.
Click to expand...
I did not actually call the elite units low quality. What I said was that even the elite divisions were receiving low quality combat replacements. It is also true that some of the, in name, elite divisions were almost built from scratch, with a core of vastly experienced officers and NCOs attached to even things out. For example, some of the newer Waffen SS divisions fell into this category.

It's true that the Germans were expecting an invasion, but by the time it actually happened the numbers of experienced German troops were not nearly enough to go around. The Germans lost most of their best soldiers on the Eastern Front from 1941 to 1943 - the combat replacements the Wehrmacht received thereafter were never of the same quality.
 
Doppleganger said:


Agreed re Rommel. Regarding Manstein he was probably the best strategic commander of WW2, IMO. Guderian was a very solid strategist too - he could have made a big difference to Germany's fortunes on the Eastern Front if Hitler had allowed him to get on with his job as OKH Commander. Because of his experiences as Inspector of Panzertruppen and Chief of Staff of OKH, his great tactical skill as a Panzer Army commander and the fact he developed the Panzerwaffe, which was the prime reason for Germany's early victories, Guderian also has a good claim to being the best overall German commander of WW2.

.
Click to expand...
I do not doubt Guderians abilities or his claim to being one of the best german commanders. From late December 1941 to late July 1944 Guderian held no command. Von Manstein commanded armies in the key phase of the battles on the eastern front. If Hitler had listerned to his strategy, what would have happened on the eastern front. Von Manstein was one of the architects of the plan used in the invasion of France. Von Manstein in lost victories was modest about his role, but it could be argued that it was his plan. The plan that Guderian helped successfully implement. In the run up to the war he served as Deputy Chief of Staff (Oberquartermeister I ) to the Chief of the Army General Staff.

Doppleganger said:
I did not actually call the elite units low quality. What I said was that even the elite divisions were receiving low quality combat replacements. It is also true that some of the, in name, elite divisions were almost built from scratch, with a core of vastly experienced officers and NCOs attached to even things out. For example, some of the newer Waffen SS divisions fell into this category.

It's true that the Germans were expecting an invasion, but by the time it actually happened the numbers of experienced German troops were not nearly enough to go around. The Germans lost most of their best soldiers on the Eastern Front from 1941 to 1943 - the combat replacements the Wehrmacht received thereafter were never of the same quality.
Click to expand...

As the war continued the quality of droops was not as good as in the earlier years (agreed). This was true of the russians as well as the germans. There were some quality german units on the western front. With in some cases better weapons. If your point is that the germans effectively broke the back of the german army, I agree. The western allies destroyed the german airforce. The ultimate question we are leading to is would the russians defeated the germans without the western allies.

I take it you realise that your avatar is Von Manstein:cheers: :salute2:
 
Reiben said:
I do not doubt Guderians abilities or his claim to being one of the best german commanders. From late December 1941 to late July 1944 Guderian held no command. Von Manstein commanded armies in the key phase of the battles on the eastern front. If Hitler had listerned to his strategy, what would have happened on the eastern front. Von Manstein was one of the architects of the plan used in the invasion of France. Von Manstein in lost victories was modest about his role, but it could be argued that it was his plan. The plan that Guderian helped successfully implement. In the run up to the war he served as Deputy Chief of Staff (Oberquartermeister I ) to the Chief of the Army General Staff.



As the war continued the quality of droops was not as good as in the earlier years (agreed). This was true of the russians as well as the germans. There were some quality german units on the western front. With in some cases better weapons. If your point is that the germans effectively broke the back of the german army, I agree. The western allies destroyed the german airforce. The ultimate question we are leading to is would the russians defeated the germans without the western allies.

I take it you realise that your avatar is Von Manstein:cheers: :salute2:
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I am a BIG admirer of Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein, hence the avatar photo. ;) It was his plan, commonly known as 'The Manstein Plan', that was responsible for the downfall of France in 1940. And he was responsible for one of the most brilliant bits of strategy in military history. I refer to, of course, the recapture of Khar'kov in early 1943. Manstein undoubtedly saved Army Group South from destruction, aided of course by General Paul Hausser, the best Waffen SS commander of the war and in charge of II SS Panzer Korps, which was heavily involved in the critical stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov

Furthermore, had Hitler listened to von Manstein instead of Halder, the Battle of Kursk would never have been allowed to happen. Manstein instead wanted to utilize the same technique that had brilliantly recaptured Khar'kov, namely his 'backhand' strategy. Manstein wanted to draw in the Soviet South and South-western Fronts and trap them against the Sea of Azov. Another piece of inspired strategy that sadly was never to be. Guderian supported Manstein and called him 'the best' in his own memoirs. Both men thought along the same lines and undoubtedly Guderian would have given Manstein much more freedom of action had the latter still been in command when Guderian became OKH Commander.

I think both Guderian and Manstein are amongst the best commanders in military history. Had Hitler listened to them victory, or at least an armistice, would have been within Germany's grasp even after Stalingrad.
 
Agreed.

Manstein wanted to use manoeuvre to win a sttlement in the east. Hitler wanted to hold ground at all costs. One of Napoleons maxims springs to mind.

Back on topic I think Britain had other commanders that were as good as Monty. They never enjoyed the advantages that Monty had.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
I'm willing to concede that Montgomery was likely within the top 10 battlefield commanders of the Allied powers.
I was under the impression that he was not in command of all allied forces for Overlord, but perhaps I was mistaken.
Click to expand...
Until September 1st 44, Monty was the Allied Ground Commander for D-Day and the following campaign.
As such, he had command of all US, British and Commonwealth land forces in this period.
Monty argued against Overlord though, and that's points against him to be fair.
Click to expand...
There is no record of Monty ever arguing against Overlord.
I suspect you are confusing him with Churchill, who was worried about the dangers.
In all of his victories that I am aware of, he always had numerical superiorty in all categories and usually a very substantial one. For that reason, I cannot see clasifying him as "One of the Greatest Generals of All-Time". He did what needed to be done ... usually later that I think he ought. Many people try to argue that he IS one of the greatest ever. That's a point I'm not willing to concede as I can't think of anything to be overwhelmingly impressed over.
Click to expand...
Monty first came to the notice of the higher command with his handling of the 3rd Division on the retreat to Dunkirk, when he handled his division with skill against a superior force, in fact, his division was the only one from Dunkirk considered combat ready in the days after the evacuation.

Monty wasn't one of the greatest generals in military history, but he was one of the better ones of WW2.
 
zander_0633 said:
I thought he had a "race" with General PATTON to Siciliy?
Click to expand...
No, the race was all in Pattons mind.
While Monty did have an ego the size of a double-decker bus, and wasn't bothered about who he stole the credit for victories from, he was too professional a soldier to play games with his mens lives on silly races.
 
Patton don't like Monty. I don't know why he don't like Monty. Please go rent "Patton" movie, it about between Patton and Monty racing to Sicily.
 
I watched it before on TV. I think Patton thinks that Monty is arrogant "British" who is out the take all the war honors for her country!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top