Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2?

Fox said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you want a true understanding of the relationship between Patton and Monty (or Patton and anybody else for that matter) do not rent the movie 'Patton', its pure Hollywood, and has no basis in fact.
 
redcoat said:
If you want a true understanding of the relationship between Patton and Monty (or Patton and anybody else for that matter) do not rent the movie 'Patton', its pure Hollywood, and has no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

Oh...okay.
 
zander_0633 said:
Thansk redcoat, BTW, which country do you come form?
Click to expand...
I'm a Brit 8-)

ps, About the Patton v Monty issue, it quite annoys me.
Patton and Monty were both excellent generals, of that there is little doubt.
So why fans of Patton, and the fans of Monty seem to spend all their time insulting each other is baffling.
 
redcoat said:
I'm a Brit 8-)

ps, About the Patton v Monty issue, it quite annoys me.
Patton and Monty were both excellent generals, of that there is little doubt.
So why fans of Patton, and the fans of Monty seem to spend all their time insulting each other is baffling.
Click to expand...
They pretty much hated each other, so I guess some of that carries over.
 
I suppose we could turn the discussion on its head and ask was Patton overrated??

He did well in the break out but not so well towards the end of '44. I am thinking before the bulge in Germany.
 
zander_0633 said:
What do you all mean Overrated? Care to explain further?
Click to expand...
Essentially, the question being posed is "Is Field Marshall Montgomery remembered as a better general than he really and truly was?"

Reiban said:
I suppose we could turn the discussion on its head and ask was Patton overrated??
Click to expand...
Yes of course he was. I think he was a better battlefield commander than Montgomery though.
 
zander_0633 said:
ok, Why do you think Patton is a better general than monty? Any eg.?
Click to expand...

My view is it depends what type of battle you need to fight.
if its a set piece battle against a well prepared enemy, like El Alemein or D-day, Monty is far better.
However if the battlefield situation is more fluid, then Patton is probably a better bet.
I put this down to their different military backgrounds, Monty came from the infantry, Patton the cavalry.

ps, my dream team for the North Western European campaign would have been Monty-Patton ( despite what the movie Patton showed, on a professional level Monty and Patton worked well together).
Instead of Monty-Bradley as it was, as I consider Bradley the true over-rated Allied general of that campaign.

ps, Again unlike what the movie 'Patton'* showed, Bradley and Patton disliked each other as much as they disliked Monty

* Bradley was an advisor on the Patton movie, he made sure that the PR spin was favourable to him.
 
Last edited:
Reiben said:
I suppose we could turn the discussion on its head and ask was Patton overrated??

He did well in the break out but not so well towards the end of '44. I am thinking before the bulge in Germany.
Click to expand...

Because Patton slapped one of his soldier for coward. So, I guess Einsehower kick him out of his place for slapped one of his soldier. I think. Let's back to Monty's thread.
 
redcoat said:
my dream team for the North Western European campaign would have been Monty-Patton
Click to expand...

Its not a football team you know;)

Comparison is fair though between the two generals as a measure of their ability. Monty was probably the master of the set piece battle. British artillery is recognised as the supreme arm of that army in WW2. British Army tactics in the desert didnt appreciate the power of the anti tank gun. The german tactic was to use some armour to draw british tanks onto their anti tank guns. Monty always tried to fight his battles with the advantage of number of minimise risk.

There was concern within the British army in WW2 that they could not ask the soldiers to take the casualties and hence risks taken in WW1, they thought that the british soldier would not accept the same casualties. However Normandy casualties where comparable to those in WW1.

It still an interesting comparison Monty v Patton.
 
Reiben said:
There was concern within the British army in WW2 that they could not ask the soldiers to take the casualties and hence risks taken in WW1, they thought that the british soldier would not accept the same casualties. However Normandy casualties where comparable to those in WW1.
Click to expand...
Before Normandy, Monty was warned by the British government that there was a manpower shortage, and that he had to be careful with casualties, as there would be difficulty in replacing them. In fact a number of British units had to be disbanded after Normandy, due to these shortages.


ps, re WW1,
Monty fought on the Somme. He was badly wounded in the chest, and was forced to hide under the body of one of his own men for nearly 24 hours in no-mans land to avoid capture.
He swore after that, if he was in charge, he would never let any troops go into battle as untrained, ill-equipped and badly supported as they were in that battle.
 
Fox said:
Because Patton slapped one of his soldier for coward. So, I guess Einsehower kick him out of his place for slapped one of his soldier. I think. Let's back to Monty's thread.
Click to expand...
He actually did it twice.
The first time the High Command was able to cover it up, the second time the American press found out, and broke the story.
Einsehower did his best to protect Patton, and in fact, it was only thanks to him that Patton wasn't sent back to the USA in disgrace
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top