Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2?

[Zucchini]

In June of 1944 my Uncle's first action took him to Hill 192, where his units encountered German parachute units. This claim was met with total disbelief up the chain of command. He was severely wounded leading one of the first attacks against Hill 192, a major obstacle in breaking through to St. Lo. He had argued for a much different type of attack, but was overruled - by men who refused to believe they were facing crack German units. The area where he was wounded became known as Purple Heart Draw.

Hill 192 was not taken for another month.

I think Patton was a brilliant combat General, but I also think the 3rd Army had been magnificently trained and prepared by General Krueger, who was snatched away by Mac to Australia to lead the 6th Army in the Southwestern Pacific.

 

[Young Winston]

Thank you for your insights, AussieJohn.

One point however:

"There air superiority had crippled the German attempts to mount a counter-attack; in the approach marches, the formation for attack, and the attack itself. The only hope was to bring in sufficient infantry to hold the line, thus releasing the panzer forces for another more concentrated effort. If the attack was to be mounted it should be against the weaker Americans".

By "weaker" it could just as easily mean weaker in that specific area of the battle, and not mean _anything_ about the Americans as a whole. Without the full context that observation is just conjecture.

On June 10th, Rommel considered the Americans to be the weaker of the allied forces at that stage. He was hoping to be able to direct most of his armour at the Americans but was unable due to the reasons I and others have already stated. I think Rommel had it right.

Obviously the American strength changed dramatically from early June to mid July, 1944.

 

[Strongbow]

Aussie, you're right about Patton.

The Allies went to great lengths to conceal what Patton was up to prior to the Normandy landings.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Can't understand what all the fuss is about. The USA and UK combined to tie up a maximum of 30% of Germany's forces and were only actively involved in Europe for about a year and a half. Two for the UK if you count "the Phony War" and 40 days worth of getting the crap beaten out of you in France. The USA and UK can bicker and quarell about their tiny overall impact on World War II Europe, but what is the point? The Soviet Union paid the all important price in blood, iron and human suffering. They stopped Germany. Nobody else did. The USA and UK were there as sideshows to support and distract. The Russian People won it.

 

[Strongbow]

Can't understand what all the fuss is about. The USA and UK combined to tie up a maximum of 30% of Germany's forces and were only actively involved in Europe for about a year and a half. Two for the UK if you count "the Phony War" and 40 days worth of getting the crap beaten out of you in France. The USA and UK can bicker and quarell about their tiny overall impact on World War II Europe, but what is the point? The Soviet Union paid the all important price in blood, iron and human suffering. They stopped Germany. Nobody else did. The USA and UK were there as sideshows to support and distract. The Russian People won it.

I agree with you up to a point but Normandy was hardly a "sideshow" .

:horsie: .

 

[Charge 7]

Stalin _demanded_ it. So I wouldn't say it was inconsequential to the Russians either.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Can't understand what all the fuss is about. The USA and UK combined to tie up a maximum of 30% of Germany's forces and were only actively involved in Europe for about a year and a half. Two for the UK if you count "the Phony War" and 40 days worth of getting the crap beaten out of you in France. The USA and UK can bicker and quarell about their tiny overall impact on World War II Europe, but what is the point? The Soviet Union paid the all important price in blood, iron and human suffering. They stopped Germany. Nobody else did. The USA and UK were there as sideshows to support and distract. The Russian People won it.

I agree with you up to a point but Normandy was hardly a "sideshow" .

:horsie: .

Remembering that the Western Powers never managed to divert anymore than 30% of German forces at anytime ... "sideshow" may be too the wrong word. It shouldn't matter so much as long as you get my point: The Russian People were the biggest player by far in defeating Nazi Germany. Normandy was one of the few tastes the West had of the mamoth battles that were happening on the Eastern Front nonstop.

 

[Doppleganger]

Can't understand what all the fuss is about. The USA and UK combined to tie up a maximum of 30% of Germany's forces and were only actively involved in Europe for about a year and a half. Two for the UK if you count "the Phony War" and 40 days worth of getting the crap beaten out of you in France. The USA and UK can bicker and quarell about their tiny overall impact on World War II Europe, but what is the point? The Soviet Union paid the all important price in blood, iron and human suffering. They stopped Germany. Nobody else did. The USA and UK were there as sideshows to support and distract. The Russian People won it.

I agree with you up to a point but Normandy was hardly a "sideshow" .

:horsie: .

Remembering that the Western Powers never managed to divert anymore than 30% of German forces at anytime ... "sideshow" may be too the wrong word. It shouldn't matter so much as long as you get my point: The Russian People were the biggest player by far in defeating Nazi Germany. Normandy was one of the few tastes the West had of the mamoth battles that were happening on the Eastern Front nonstop.

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.

 

[Charge 7]

"They also never faced the same level of quality"

Wrong. We were in Africa, Sicely, and Italy in 1942. We faced "quality" units then and defeated those too.

 

[godofthunder9010]

"They also never faced the same level of quality"

Wrong. We were in Africa, Sicely, and Italy in 1942. We faced "quality" units then and defeated those too.

I thought we were talking about Europe?? Also, the Afrika Korps were a tiny fraction of Germany's military strength. That were good, sure. We also outnumberd them by a huge margin. Not much for making a fair fight, but such is war. You win however you can.

Tying all this back to the original topic, the West tends to pat themselves on the back and give themselves far too much credit. Quibbling over who was the most important Western Power is just silly.

"Was Montgomery over rated?" Lets face it, everything the West did is over rated. This is not intended to instult anyone's swelling pride in their respective countries. Its just being realistic.

 

[Charge 7]

If you can toss out our discussion about Montgomery in favor of Russia I can talk about Italy

 

[Doppleganger]

"They also never faced the same level of quality"

Wrong. We were in Africa, Sicely, and Italy in 1942. We faced "quality" units then and defeated those too.

I'll give you that but I was referring to the general quality level of the German forces on the Western Front in 1944, which was of a poorer quality than German forces stationed on the Eastern Front. For a greater understanding the following article may prove interesting.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/default.aspx

 

[Charge 7]

No arguement there. I was just making sure you clarified that he he.

Noticed we're flying the same flags now. We ought agree more. :lol:

 

[Doppleganger]

No arguement there. I was just making sure you clarified that he he.

Noticed we're flying the same flags now. We ought agree more. :lol:

Take a look at the article I linked if you haven't already. It deals with the claims and counter-claims about the quality of both the US and German forces in the Western European theatre in WW2. It's a long read but a very well researched and balanced document.

One telling statement is:

"Nonsensical as well, and for the same reasons, are Mansoor's comments about the "cream of the Wehrmacht" and the "average German infantry division." Anyone who has read the present work carefully will realize that the U.S. army did not encounter either the "cream of the Wehrmacht " or the "average German infantry division" in Western Europe in 1944-1945. Both the "cream" of the German army and its "average" divisions were buried in Russia, where the Red Army had been hard at work grinding them up for three years before a single American soldier set foot on European soil. It is, nevertheless, true that the Western Allies encountered formidable resistance from many German formations, which fought well and bravely almost to the end. "

 

[Strongbow]

No arguement there. I was just making sure you clarified that he he.

Noticed we're flying the same flags now. We ought agree more. :lol:

Take a look at the article I linked if you haven't already. It deals with the claims and counter-claims about the quality of both the US and German forces in the Western European theatre in WW2. It's a long read but a very well researched and balanced document.

One telling statement is:

"Nonsensical as well, and for the same reasons, are Mansoor's comments about the "cream of the Wehrmacht" and the "average German infantry division." Anyone who has read the present work carefully will realize that the U.S. army did not encounter either the "cream of the Wehrmacht " or the "average German infantry division" in Western Europe in 1944-1945. Both the "cream" of the German army and its "average" divisions were buried in Russia, where the Red Army had been hard at work grinding them up for three years before a single American soldier set foot on European soil. It is, nevertheless, true that the Western Allies encountered formidable resistance from many German formations, which fought well and bravely almost to the end. "

I really enjoy reading your posts Sir! You have an excellent understanding of the German forces. Thanks for the great article.

The Western Allies were very fortunate to not have face the full weight of the German forces of 41/42 calibre in 1944.

Godofthunder, we have a lot to thank the Russians for. Sure, Lend Lease was a big help to them.

I read somewhere that Monty's force at Al Alamein faced an enemy force of only about 10% German. They had also cracked the enemy codes so Monty always new what the enemy plans were.

In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Godofthunder, we have a lot to thank the Russians for. Sure, Lend Lease was a big help to them.

Wouldn't it be great if both countries could finally mutually say a big "Thank you for saving our sorry asses!" to each other?? Seriously, the USA+UK and the former USSR have both been rather chilldish by not bothering to express any gratitude. USA and UK tend to downplay the importance of the USSR's role in victory. They never bother to say or imply, "Thank you Russia for saving us from Germany. You stopped them where nobody else could." Russia never bothers to say, "Hey thanks for all the free stuff and thanks for helping out."

 

[Doppleganger]

No arguement there. I was just making sure you clarified that he he.

Noticed we're flying the same flags now. We ought agree more. :lol:

Take a look at the article I linked if you haven't already. It deals with the claims and counter-claims about the quality of both the US and German forces in the Western European theatre in WW2. It's a long read but a very well researched and balanced document.

One telling statement is:

"Nonsensical as well, and for the same reasons, are Mansoor's comments about the "cream of the Wehrmacht" and the "average German infantry division." Anyone who has read the present work carefully will realize that the U.S. army did not encounter either the "cream of the Wehrmacht " or the "average German infantry division" in Western Europe in 1944-1945. Both the "cream" of the German army and its "average" divisions were buried in Russia, where the Red Army had been hard at work grinding them up for three years before a single American soldier set foot on European soil. It is, nevertheless, true that the Western Allies encountered formidable resistance from many German formations, which fought well and bravely almost to the end. "

I really enjoy reading your posts Sir! You have an excellent understanding of the German forces. Thanks for the great article.

The Western Allies were very fortunate to not have face the full weight of the German forces of 41/42 calibre in 1944.

Godofthunder, we have a lot to thank the Russians for. Sure, Lend Lease was a big help to them.

I read somewhere that Monty's force at Al Alamein faced an enemy force of only about 10% German. They had also cracked the enemy codes so Monty always new what the enemy plans were.

In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily.

Cheers For me there's a little too much bias towards the Western Front and how D-Day won the war etc etc. Nothing could be further from the truth and it's important to see things for what they were. The US and UK Armies faced a gutted Wehrmacht that had little or no mobility, very poor combat replacements, very little air support or cover and wholly inadequate logistics. The Allied Armies did their job but on the face of it, should have probably done it a little better given the state of the enemy that they faced, a shadow of the army that marched into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941.

 

[Charge 7]

"In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily."

That was exactly my point. I was disputing the idea that we never had faced serious German opposition from quality troops. My case was that we had indeed - in 1942 - and that we defeated these also. So we were capable of defeating either the best or the lesser quality troops. It was never my statement that it was done _easily_ in Italy.

What really told the difference wasn't even so much our skill in battle or the British skill in battle or the Russian skill or even the German skill. What told the difference was that Germany could not match the industrial might of the allies as a whole. The majority of which was borne by the Americans although the Soviets certainly did a great deal in that regards. The fact is that the Soviets as well as the British were dependant on Lend Lease while America was dependant on British intelligence work and Russian men at arms. The fact these were the main contribution for each of the Allies in no way lessens the value of the other contributions they made. American manpower and intelligence were essential, British industry and manpower were essential, and Russian industry and intelligence were essential. All three nations' contributions were essential to defeating the Third Reich and it is this truth more than any other that calibrates the power of the Wehrmacht.

 

[Strongbow]

"In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily."

That was exactly my point. I was disputing the idea that we never had faced serious German opposition from quality troops. My case was that we had indeed - in 1942 - and that we defeated these also. So we were capable of defeating either the best or the lesser quality troops. It was never my statement that it was done _easily_ in Italy.

What really told the difference wasn't even so much our skill in battle or the British skill in battle or the Russian skill or even the German skill. What told the difference was that Germany could not match the industrial might of the allies as a whole. The majority of which was borne by the Americans although the Soviets certainly did a great deal in that regards. The fact is that the Soviets as well as the British were dependant on Lend Lease while America was dependant on British intelligence work and Russian men at arms. The fact these were the main contribution for each of the Allies in no way lessens the value of the other contributions they made. American manpower and intelligence were essential, British industry and manpower were essential, and Russian industry and intelligence were essential. All three nations' contributions were essential to defeating the Third Reich and it is this truth more than any other that calibrates the power of the Wehrmacht.

1942.......an interesting year.

How often did we beat quality German units in 1942 when it was reasonably even and the Western Allies demonstrated superior skill over the Germans?

Axis forces in Africa were made up of about 10% German around the time of Al Alamein. Rommel had been ill.

 

[redcoat]

Axis forces in Africa were made up of about 10% German around the time of Al Alamein.

Nonsense.
The Axis forces at El Alamein consisted of 200 German and 300 Italian tanks, and 53,000 German and 55,000 Italian troops.