Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2?

Rommel didn't exactly have a huge reserve of either of those so that can pretty much me discounted. Everyone General says they don't have enough of everything, even the Soviets said the same thing when they were sending 7 million Red Army soldiers against one million men of the Whermacht.
 
Yes, quite true they all did complain that they were short of men and equipment, but Rommel's army hadn't lost nearly 70% of their gear at Dunkirk. It wasn't just Montgomery, it was the whole British Army.
 
Regarding the lack of men and equipment, I am not so sure, although the lack of men is often quoted.

After the Mediterranean campaign in NW Europe the Allied armies were spoilt for equipment although the quality of the Armour and some firearms were inferior to the Germans. In terms of men it is said that the British held back because they could not afford to take the losses, hence the American army, being relatively fresh into the war, were more offensive in nature. This excuse is something I have never understood.

Compared to the Russians and Germans, Commonwealth forces never suffered proportionately very high casualties at any stage of WW2. Perhaps it was that many of their best men had been killed at that stage and the remaining ones had good hopes of getting back home alive? There also seemed to be a reluctance by the British to engage in a war of attrition,it must have seemed to be developing a bit like like WW1 during June 1944 in Normandy.

The Russians, and Germans were driven by hatred and desperation, whilst the Americans were highly self confident as many new armies are.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Regarding the lack of men and equipment, I am not so sure, although the lack of men is often quoted.

After the Mediterranean campaign in NW Europe the Allied armies were spoilt for equipment although the quality of the Armour and some firearms were inferior to the Germans. In terms of men it is said that the British held back because they could not afford to take the losses, hence the American army, being relatively fresh into the war, were more offensive in nature. This excuse is something I have never understood.

Compared to the Russians and Germans, Commonwealth forces never suffered proportionately very high casualties at any stage of WW2. Perhaps it was that many of their best men had been killed at that stage and the remaining ones had good hopes of getting back home alive? There also seemed to be a reluctance by the British to engage in a war of attrition,it must have seemed to be developing a bit like like WW1 during June 1944 in Normandy.

The Russians, and Germans were driven by hatred and desperation, whilst the Americans were highly self confident as many new armies are.
Click to expand...


The Americans and British had quite high casualty figures in their combat units for 1944-45. They were running out of well trained troops. Training programs were shortened to bring in more fighting troops as the war in Europe dragged on.
 
Young Winston said:
The Americans and British had quite high casualty figures in their combat units for 1944-45. They were running out of well trained troops. Training programs were shortened to bring in more fighting troops as the war in Europe dragged on.
Click to expand...

The US Military had some 16 million people in the Service during World War II, with over 70 Infantry Divisons counting Airborne... the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 17th 24th 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th, 45th, 63rd, 65th, 66th, 69th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd, 83rd, 84th, 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th, 100th, 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 106th and the 1st Cav.which was used as Infantry.


Not too shabby if you ask me.

By the time 1944 rolled around the US Military was just hitting its stride as far as training and combat operations, and had the War drug on the US Military would have grown even more to meet the need.
 
This puts it into perspective

These are deaths as a % of the population in WW2 (excluding serious casualties).

US 0.32% UK 0.94% Soviet Union 13.77% Germany 10.77%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Then consider that perhaps only about 25% of a population at the start of a war are reasonably fit fighting men and some of these are essential industrial workers.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Compared to the Russians and Germans, Commonwealth forces never suffered proportionately very high casualties at any stage of WW2. Perhaps it was that many of their best men had been killed at that stage and the remaining ones had good hopes of getting back home alive? There also seemed to be a reluctance by the British to engage in a war of attrition,it must have seemed to be developing a bit like like WW1 during June 1944 in Normandy.

The Russians, and Germans were driven by hatred and desperation, whilst the Americans were highly self confident as many new armies are.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's because the Russians and Germans fought on an entirely different scale from the US or Commonwealth forces. Moreover, their war became a desperate struggle for actual survival rather than as a means of projecting political will.
 
mob242_1131040789.jpg

Last known communication between Churchill and Monty.
:)
 
Gator said:
The US Military had some 16 million people in the Service during World War II, with over 70 Infantry Divisons counting Airborne... the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 17th 24th 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th, 45th, 63rd, 65th, 66th, 69th, 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd, 83rd, 84th, 85th, 86th, 87th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st, 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, 96th, 97th, 98th, 99th, 100th, 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, 106th and the 1st Cav.which was used as Infantry.


Not too shabby if you ask me.

By the time 1944 rolled around the US Military was just hitting its stride as far as training and combat operations, and had the War drug on the US Military would have grown even more to meet the need.
Click to expand...

Yes, they had plenty of personnel but well trained, experienced combat troop strength was under great pressure in the later stages of the war in Europe and in the Pacific. You must read a book called "The sharp end of war" i think it is. I'll look it up.

Part of the problem of the Okinawa battle (and there were plenty of others) was the lack of experienced US combat troops due to the horrible type of fighting that took so many casualties in the Pacific theatre leading up to it. Yes ,they had plenty of fighting men but alot had little or no fighting experience at the time Okinawa. As a result their were higher caualties, many with battle fatigue (it was huge number). :drill:
 
Yes, casualties were high due to lack of experienced combat troops in the fighting units. The US certainly didn't lack overall troop numbers and firepower.

Monty didn't lack for much at El Alamein but he was still a great leader of men. The soldiers respected him. He told them what he was going to do. The NZ soldiers and Aussie 9th were terrific.
 
Last edited:
B. MONTGOMERY OVERRATED?

FEW HISTORIANS HAVE POINTED OUT HIS MISTAKES. OVERRATED? MOST LIKELY JUST THE WRONG MAN FOR THE JOB. APPOINTED TO COMMAND THE LAND FORCES ON D-DAY BY EISENHOWER FOR POLITICAL REASONS, HE WAS NOT AS AGGRESIVE AS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. TOO CAUTIOUS, ALWAYS WANTING TO HAVE A 3 TO 1 ADVANTAGE COST THE ALLIES TIME AND LIVES. MONTGOMERY BELEIVED IN BROAD FRONT ADVANCES. PATTON BELIEVED IN NEVER GIVING THE ENEMY TIME TO REGROUP AND ORGANIZE DEFENSES. PATTON NEVER SLOWED DOWN IF HE HAD THE MATERIAL AND MANPOWER, WHICH HE WAS OFTEN SHORT OF. HE ADVANCED EVEN WHEN HIS FUEL AND AMMO HAD BEEN DIVERTED TO SUPPORT MARKET GARDEN, MONTGOMERY'S BIGGEST AND MOST COSTLY BLUNDER. PATTON HAD TO USE CAPTURED FUEL SUPPLIES AND WEAPONS THAT OMAR BRADLEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT. WHEN TOLD TO HOLD HIS POSITION PATTON ATTACKED ANYWAY. WHEN ASKED, HE CALLED THESE ADVANCES "SCOUTING IN FORCE".

COMPARED TO PATTON, MONTGOMERY COMES IN A CLEAR AND RESOUNDING 2'ND PLACE.

:tank:
 
I think they were both overrated. I know that patton went out of his way to liberate towns that would have been left anyway.

And RFOWELL, please press the CAPS LOCK key once.
 
RFOWELL said:
FEW HISTORIANS HAVE POINTED OUT HIS MISTAKES. OVERRATED? MOST LIKELY JUST THE WRONG MAN FOR THE JOB. APPOINTED TO COMMAND THE LAND FORCES ON D-DAY BY EISENHOWER FOR POLITICAL REASONS, HE WAS NOT AS AGGRESIVE AS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. TOO CAUTIOUS, ALWAYS WANTING TO HAVE A 3 TO 1 ADVANTAGE COST THE ALLIES TIME AND LIVES. MONTGOMERY BELEIVED IN BROAD FRONT ADVANCES. PATTON BELIEVED IN NEVER GIVING THE ENEMY TIME TO REGROUP AND ORGANIZE DEFENSES. PATTON NEVER SLOWED DOWN IF HE HAD THE MATERIAL AND MANPOWER, WHICH HE WAS OFTEN SHORT OF. HE ADVANCED EVEN WHEN HIS FUEL AND AMMO HAD BEEN DIVERTED TO SUPPORT MARKET GARDEN, MONTGOMERY'S BIGGEST AND MOST COSTLY BLUNDER. PATTON HAD TO USE CAPTURED FUEL SUPPLIES AND WEAPONS THAT OMAR BRADLEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT. WHEN TOLD TO HOLD HIS POSITION PATTON ATTACKED ANYWAY. WHEN ASKED, HE CALLED THESE ADVANCES "SCOUTING IN FORCE".

COMPARED TO PATTON, MONTGOMERY COMES IN A CLEAR AND RESOUNDING 2'ND PLACE.

:tank:
Click to expand...

I would thoroughly recommend reading up on Task Force Baum then as Patton clearly blew that one big time and all to rescue his son in law who would have been freed within 2 weeks anyway.
 
If we are talking about "show ponies", they both tried their hardest, but I think Patton wins on points. His loud and aggressive manner makes him the superior show pony without much doubt.

Both would have been far better commanders if they could have left their egos at home.

If you put two bulls in the one yard, niether of them does his job.
 
Monty's problem was largely is own ego. He had this monumental distain for just about every other General (especially American and French) out there.

It was clear he envied Eisenhower, he is famously qouted as refering to Eisenhower as

"Good chap, No soldier!".

He also had a dislike for Patton (thought he was a lunatic), Leclerc, de Gaulle, (they were French) FDR (thought of him as an amateur), and even Churchill whom he never forgave for giving the command of SHEAF to Eisenhower.

On the Battlefield he was only average. He did well against the Germans in the Afrika campaign, but the Market Garden which was entirely his brainchild was a fiasco. The idea itself was sound, but the planning was just terrible.

As for Patton

Patton didn't just have an ego, he was a narcissistic meglomanic. I was probably a bit looney as well. I have read his diaries, in them he refers to himself as only true person capable of winning the war. Not his troops, not the allies, him personally.

On the Battlefield he described his actions as bold, most people would consider him reckless. Espicially when he drove so far head of his supply lines in Eastern France his tanks ran out of gas and sat their immobilized for 3 days. Had the Germans launched a single counterattack it would caused the collapse of the entire army. And why did he take such a risk? So that HE personally could be the first to Berlin.

His relievement of command couldnt have come amny faster.
 
Last edited:
When Patton had to stop fro three days it was because his supplies had been cut off to support Market Garden. His supply line, the "Red Ball
Express", while streched, was doing a fantastic job. But even then, Patton continued a limited advance using fuel and even weapons that his army had captured from the retreating Germans.
 
RFOWELL said:
When Patton had to stop fro three days it was because his supplies had been cut off to support Market Garden. His supply line, the "Red Ball
Express", while streched, was doing a fantastic job. But even then, Patton continued a limited advance using fuel and even weapons that his army had captured from the retreating Germans.
Click to expand...

Not quiet accurate. Your talking about the Lorraine Campaign. What really happened that he moved forward so fast that his supply couldn't keep up. he spent those 3 days waiting for the tanker trucks to refuel his tanks.

You know we piss alot on Market Garden, but the idea wasn't bad. It was the planning that messed up, had it been planning been better the war would have ended 6 months earlier.
 
Monty was an excellent planner, very methodical when his mind was on the job but I do agree several German generals stand out way above Monty. How about Model?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top