Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2?

redcoat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Monty did have a high regard for the men under his command, much more so than the impression given by 'Old Blood and Guts' Patton. Mind you it's hard to get any worse than some of the WW1 command decisions by the British Army.
 
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.



Yes, there were quality units such as the Das Reich Panzer Division but really not enough to go round.

Most of the German armoured units were in the wrong place on D-Day.

It is interesting to note that captured Russian prisoners were used in German units on D-Day. Just shows what a critical manpower problem they had at the time.

Monty and Patton by mid 1944 (fortunately for the Allies) were not facing the Germans at their very best.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Strongbow said:
It is interesting to note that captured Russian prisoners were used in German units on D-Day. Just shows what a critical manpower problem they had at the time.
Click to expand...
The conflict on the Eastern Front bled both armies almost white. What is not generally known is how critically low the Red Army was on manpower too. For example, in 1943 and 1944 alone the Red Army lost 14,736,144 men from its ranks, including 4,076,320 men KIA/MIA or made POW (figures taken from G.F. Krivosheev, "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses").

Overall, the Red Army lost over 29 million men in the Great Patriotic War.

Those are absolutely staggering figures. I think it shows where the war was really won in WW2.
 
Last edited:
Doppleganger said:
The conflict on the Eastern Front bled both armies almost white. What is not generally known is how critically low the Red Army was on manpower too. For example, in 1943 and 1944 alone the Red Army lost 14,736,144 men from its ranks, including 4,076,320 men KIA/MIA or made POW (figures taken from G.F. Krivosheev, "Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses").

Overall, the Red Army lost over 29 million men in the Great Patriotic War.

Those are absolutely staggering figures. I think it shows where the war was really won in WW2.
Click to expand...

Amazing figures Doppleganger!! It really shows that how much we owe the Soviets in defeating the Germans in WW2. Even taking into account Lend Lease from the US (which we here so much about on this forum!!!)

Do you have a breakdown of the KIA ( it thought it was around 9 million!!) to wounded figures for the Soviets, Doppleganger?

I think Monty (and the Americans) would have appreciated the extra heat taken off them by the USSR.

I read somewhere a while ago that the Russians had a much larger proportion of population of younger men to draw on than the Germans.

Great to read your posts Doppleganger.
 
Young Winston said:
Amazing figures Doppleganger!! It really shows that how much we owe the Soviets in defeating the Germans in WW2. Even taking into account Lend Lease from the US (which we here so much about on this forum!!!)

Do you have a breakdown of the KIA ( it thought it was around 9 million!!) to wounded figures for the Soviets, Doppleganger?

I think Monty (and the Americans) would have appreciated the extra heat taken off them by the USSR.

I read somewhere a while ago that the Russians had a much larger proportion of population of younger men to draw on than the Germans.

Great to read your posts Doppleganger.
Click to expand...
Yep. Accoring to Krivosheev (who incidentally is upheld by almost all experts as being the definative source for Soviet combat losses in WW2), the Red Army lost 29,629,205 men in WW2, of which 11,285,057 were irrecoverable losses (KIA, MIA and POW).

The Red Army tank losses were staggering too. In 1944 alone, at a time when the Red Army was pushing back the Germans, they lost 13,800 T-34s in combat. Although, with indirect help from the Western Allies, they managed to push the German invaders from their soil, it's clear that they paid a very heavy price indeed in doing so. IMO there's NO way that victory in WW2 could have been achieved without this Soviet sacrifice, short of nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
zander_0633 said:
What do you all mean Overrated? Care to explain further?
Click to expand...
:type: I guess a good way to look at this question would be through the eyes of the soldiers that served under him.

:tank:
Patton's men absolutely hated Patton's guts, but would charge the gates of hell and spit in the Devil's eye (and did on more than one occasion). Patton's forces were the only forces during the entire war that could break off an offensive midwinter ... turn 180 degrees ... march 100s of miles and go directly into another winter offensive. Monty wouldn't have been able to even come close to matching this feat.

:tank:
Monty's men also hated his guts but didn't resoundingly support Monty in his tactics ... after all ... Monty's butcher bills for the ground gained was quite high. Without Patton and other US forces taking some of the pressure off Monty's forces ... Monty would have been in for a very real drubbing at the hands of Rommel's forces.

:m1: If Patton would have been able to keep his mouth shut (even with the slapping incident), Patton would have gotten greater recognition for his service to his country than he did.
 
Monty's men also hated his guts
Click to expand...
Sources please....
I've actually met a number of men who served under Monty in WW2, and to a man they held him high regard, and I've never read any accounts of the men who served under him hating him either.
Plenty of senior officers hated his guts, but the rank and file gave him their full support.


Without Patton and other US forces taking some of the pressure off Monty's forces ... Monty would have been in for a very real drubbing at the hands of Rommel's forces.
Click to expand...
Seeing that Patton never fought in any of the battles against Rommel your statement is total nonsense :cens:
 
There were NINE German Divisions in Normandy, and SIX of these were around Cean. It was the British and Canadians that were keeping the pressure of the Americans, and in doing so allowed Patton to break out. The British and Canadian forces lost 27,000 men in the fighting around Caen in the weeks that it took take the place. The SS Juniors Division which was made up from children fought to death and only 3 where ever taken prisoner during this battle. The Canadians suffered very heavy casualties fighting this Children's division as they just did not give ground and fought until they they died.

Redcoat....Patton took over the American Division at Kaseren pass in Africa and fought Rommel there
 
LeEnfield said:
Redcoat....Patton took over the American Division at Kaseren pass in Africa and fought Rommel there
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing out the obvious......by the way ... Patton kicked Rommel's ass and then went on to kick the German's butts all the way back to the sea ...

I guess 'prig' 'pompous' and other terms are terms of respect ... these descriptions and much worse were used by many junior enlisted men under 'dear old Monty' ... his butcher's bills did not sit well with many British soldiers (and not just the officer corps) ........... read some of the biographies written by senior and middle grade enlisted and officers who served with and under Monty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top