Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2?
Young Winston
Banned
redcoat said:
Thank God Monty didn't have to face about a 100,000 strong force, fully equiped and supplied, with excellent German tanks, with decent air cover made up of troops of the 41/42 calibre of Das Reich, Grossdeutscheland, and Liebensdart Adolf Hitler Divisions.
I think even if we still outnumbered them 2 to 1 in troops they would have flogged us at El Alamein.
Bye Bye Cairo.
Strongbow
Banned
redcoat said:
Well redcoat!! I'm going to take back the "50%" and give you just 34%.
This is from "Hitler" by Norman Stone. p.186 paperback edition.
Now they (allied aircraft from Malta) disrupted Rommel's supplies to such an extent that, in August, the British had a half a million tons of supplies where Rommel received thirteen thousand.
By mid-October, Montgomery had assembled enormous weight. He attacked the El Alamein lines on 23 October, with 230,000 men to 80,000 (27,000 Germans), 1440 tanks to 540 (260 German) and, 1500 aircraft to 350. The British Grant tanks were supplemented by Shermans that the Germans could knock out only at very close range. Besides, the German tanks had only three days' issue of fuel instead of thirty.
Virtually all British generals had a habit, when they enjoyed vast material superiority, of of giving up military ingenuity and relying on crushing force in a somewhat unsubtle way. Montgomery did this, too, only, unlike his predecessors, he dealt out his high cards in sensible order.
The book goes on to describe how Monty used a battle of attrition to wear Rommel down. It was hardly an even fight.
Charge-7, I am still waiting to read your posts on even/fair battles that the Western allies won against quality German forces in 1942. Sorry, but Italy and Sicily campaigns were 1943/44.
Young Winston
Banned
Strongbow said:
You're very interesting Strongbow. I wish there was more like you.
Doppleganger?????? Where are you??????
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Perhaps you might want to take it easy there, Strongbow. Awfully heated about all this. I think if you really think about it you'll realize that by "1942" I meant the date at which the US first met German troops and that as Operation Torch took place in November of 1942 it hardly needs to require looking at a calendar to see that Sicely and Italy carried over from that into 1943. I even mentioned in my previous post that the fall of Rome was days before D-Day so I think you can't really argue that I am well aware of the dates.
Also, I said nothing about even or equal. I said they faced quality troops - they did. You would have to be an idiot to say that it was equal as we overwhelmingly outnumbered the Germans in personnel, materiel, and production let alone air power.
Also, I said nothing about even or equal. I said they faced quality troops - they did. You would have to be an idiot to say that it was equal as we overwhelmingly outnumbered the Germans in personnel, materiel, and production let alone air power.
Doppleganger
Active member
I suppose we should bring this back to the topic of the thread - was Montgomery overrated in WW2? Well as far as the man himself is concerned, he got the job done. He was cautious, too cautious, but appeared to place the welfare of his men in high regard, which can't really be faulted. If you ask me he was fortunate that the Germans had never really planned to be in Africa as soon as they were, having to go to the aid of their hapless Italian allies. Deutsch Afrikakorps was never really more than a token gesture in the great scheme of things. It happened to have a very able and charismatic commander in Rommel and it could be argued that the biggest role Deutsch Afrikakorps played was in the propaganda war.
Monty was from the old school. He never really fully embraced the 'lightening war' concept introduced by the Wehrmacht in Sept 1939 and his troops, some of the most spirited in the world, at times laboured in 1944 against stubborn German defenders that were in truth and in the main, no more than 2nd string, a shadow of the Wehrmacht of just 2 years earlier. At Normandy, even such celebrated formations as the 1st SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler", 2nd SS Panzer Division, "Das Reich", the 2nd Panzer Division, Panzer Lehr Division were 1st string names bolstered with 2nd string recruits, old men and teenage boys, luftwaffe personnel and men previously declared unfit for combat. Monty, and his American colleagues with their overwhelming logistical support, industrial output and air superiority, ought to have done much better.
Monty was from the old school. He never really fully embraced the 'lightening war' concept introduced by the Wehrmacht in Sept 1939 and his troops, some of the most spirited in the world, at times laboured in 1944 against stubborn German defenders that were in truth and in the main, no more than 2nd string, a shadow of the Wehrmacht of just 2 years earlier. At Normandy, even such celebrated formations as the 1st SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler", 2nd SS Panzer Division, "Das Reich", the 2nd Panzer Division, Panzer Lehr Division were 1st string names bolstered with 2nd string recruits, old men and teenage boys, luftwaffe personnel and men previously declared unfit for combat. Monty, and his American colleagues with their overwhelming logistical support, industrial output and air superiority, ought to have done much better.
There are at least two things that could make for lightning: one, military superiority; and two, military inferiority on the part of the opposition.
How much of this vaunted German lightnin' was a function of a weak Polish military, or the French military and its useless, but ever so expensive, fortifications?
How many horses did the German army consume once encircled at Stalingrad? Why did they have horses in a mechanized army?
How many German horses did the Polish kill? What was the role of all these horses in a "mechanized" aarmy?
In 1942, was the German army was a high-school-aged bully kicking ass at a grade school?
How much of this vaunted German lightnin' was a function of a weak Polish military, or the French military and its useless, but ever so expensive, fortifications?
How many horses did the German army consume once encircled at Stalingrad? Why did they have horses in a mechanized army?
How many German horses did the Polish kill? What was the role of all these horses in a "mechanized" aarmy?
In 1942, was the German army was a high-school-aged bully kicking ass at a grade school?
Doppleganger
Active member
Zucchini said:
Are you asking questions or making statements? I'm not sure which.
Ask yourself this. If you believe your last statement to be true. How did the army of one relatively small nation, get to be a high-school bully in the first place? Hmm? After all, the French Army was equally as well equipped and comparable in size (in fact, it had better tanks and more of them). The French Army in 1940 was generally considered to be one of the finest in the world. It had the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) alongside it, as well as the Dutch and Belgian armies. The BEF was one of the best trained armies in the world. Let's rewind a bit. The Polish Army was the 4th largest standing army in the world in 1939. And moving forward, the Red Army in 1941 numbered nearly 5 million men and had 18000 tanks (many of them better than anything the Germans had). Yet the Wehrmacht swept them all aside and for 3 years no army could stand against it.
Let me ask you a question. Why was that?
godofthunder9010
Active member
The end of the role of the horse on the European battlefield had long since arrived, but your military traditionalists couldn't bear the thought of anything replacing the horse on the battlefield. The Cossacks and Polish both tried to use old-school cavalry with horses and all, and were decimated on the World War II field of battle. Britain and France were no different. The greatest factor that allowed for armies to remain "mechanized" was railways. NOBODY was fully mechanized. Every WW2 army had people who were determined to maintain the horse on a battlefield that had become completely unsuitable for them.Zucchini said:
Charge 7
Master Gunner
In the case of the Germans and the Poles, however, the horse was kept because of military necessity. They didn't have enough mechanized transport. In the case of the British, that was largely WWI that the old school officers wouldn't let go of the ideal of the dashing cavalryman, by WWII that feeling was gone.
It should be noted that outside of Europe - in the CBI theatre the horse, or more often the mule, was an essential mode of transport thru jungle hill country where no mechanized vehicle could go. So in Europe they were passé but in Asia they were quite appropriate,
It should be noted that outside of Europe - in the CBI theatre the horse, or more often the mule, was an essential mode of transport thru jungle hill country where no mechanized vehicle could go. So in Europe they were passé but in Asia they were quite appropriate,
Young Winston
Banned
Charge_7 said:
I can see why Strongbow had "his Broad-sword half way out of the scabbard"!!!!!!! :lol:
Operation Torch and the battles in Tunisia- didn't the Germans give the allies much pain and frustration before the Germans were overcome in about April/May 1943 :?:
I don't think Monty was on the top of his game during this period. Was he distracted by his involvement in the planning of the Sicily campaign :?:
Young Winston
Banned
Charge_7 said:
Sure did.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Apparently not too closely if you made this statement:
"Operation Torch and the battles in Tunisia- didn't the Germans give the allies much pain and frustration before the Germans were overcome in about April/May 1943 :?: "
When I had said:
"I think if you really think about it you'll realize that by "1942" I meant the date at which the US first met German troops and that as Operation Torch took place in November of 1942 it hardly needs to require looking at a calendar to see that Sicely and Italy carried over from that into 1943. I even mentioned in my previous post that the fall of Rome was days before D-Day so I think you can't really argue that I am well aware of the dates. "
"Operation Torch and the battles in Tunisia- didn't the Germans give the allies much pain and frustration before the Germans were overcome in about April/May 1943 :?: "
When I had said:
"I think if you really think about it you'll realize that by "1942" I meant the date at which the US first met German troops and that as Operation Torch took place in November of 1942 it hardly needs to require looking at a calendar to see that Sicely and Italy carried over from that into 1943. I even mentioned in my previous post that the fall of Rome was days before D-Day so I think you can't really argue that I am well aware of the dates. "
I wasn't really referring to horses being used for traditional assault vehicles, though the Poles apparently mounted machine guns and anti-tank guns on their horses. The German Cavalry (some of it still on horseback) had great success in the invasion of France.
The horses in the German army were mostly used to transport supplies and equipment (like artillery,) and they used them in huge numbers until the surrender. They were still a WWI-style, horse-based military in terms of ultimate movement capabilities.
Also, I've read Hitler was restoring Cavalry units in 1944 because they missed their combat effectiveness. Horses still provided a mobile infantry component, and probably, in certain terrains, still could.
And the Americans, still lovers of horses (though they seldom used them in WWII,) treated German horses taken as POWs better than the Russians and the British and the French treated them. They basically ate the POW horses. The Americans fed them and watered them and returned them to Germany.
The horses in the German army were mostly used to transport supplies and equipment (like artillery,) and they used them in huge numbers until the surrender. They were still a WWI-style, horse-based military in terms of ultimate movement capabilities.
Also, I've read Hitler was restoring Cavalry units in 1944 because they missed their combat effectiveness. Horses still provided a mobile infantry component, and probably, in certain terrains, still could.
And the Americans, still lovers of horses (though they seldom used them in WWII,) treated German horses taken as POWs better than the Russians and the British and the French treated them. They basically ate the POW horses. The Americans fed them and watered them and returned them to Germany.
redcoat
Active member
Strongbow said:
Sorry, but my figures are from the book.
'Pendulum Of War, The Three Battles of El Alamein' by Niall Barr. (a book about the actual battle, not a study of AH)
For the 23th October 1942
His figures are;
British Commonwealth forces.
220,476 troops
1,029 serviceable tanks (170 Grants, 252 Shermans, 216 Crusader II's, 78 Crusader III's, 119 Stuarts, 194 Valentines)
Artillery 892 guns
A/T guns 1,451.
Axis Forces
108,000 troops (53,736 German)
548 serviceable tanks (249 German- 31 Mk II's, 85 Mk III's, 88 Mk III Special's, 8 Mk IV's, 30 IV Special's)
Artillery 552 guns
A/T guns 1,063.
I suppose over 2000 meters is very close range for an '88'
This is often claimed for Monty, however its not correct. The battles Monty fought were in Rommels own words 'battles of Material'. Monty used his overwelming firepower, not brute numbers. to wear down the enemy. In fact Monty is famous for his caution when it came to risking the men under his command.
A good general always makes sure it isn't.
war isn't a video game
Young Winston
Banned
There was also a few other places as well, Strongbow, when he was not performing at his best. 
I have found that idea that Monty really took more care with his troops lives a bit "hard to swallow". He gave some rousing pep talks to his troops. Certainly, many of his troops loved him. I accept that his WW1 experiences had an affect on his approach to a battle.
I'm sure Rommel would have liked a bit more of a chance at Al Alamein but "his hands were tied" by Hitler. Yes, good generals always make sure they have the winning edge when they get the opportunity and support.
I have found that idea that Monty really took more care with his troops lives a bit "hard to swallow". He gave some rousing pep talks to his troops. Certainly, many of his troops loved him. I accept that his WW1 experiences had an affect on his approach to a battle.
I'm sure Rommel would have liked a bit more of a chance at Al Alamein but "his hands were tied" by Hitler. Yes, good generals always make sure they have the winning edge when they get the opportunity and support.
Strongbow
Banned
aussiejohn said:There was also a few other places as well, Strongbow, when he was not performing at his best.
I have found that idea that Monty really took more care with his troops lives a bit "hard to swallow". He gave some rousing pep talks to his troops. Certainly, many of his troops loved him. I accept that his WW1 experiences had an affect on his approach to a battle.
I'm sure Rommel would have liked a bit more of a chance at Al Alamein but "his hands were tied" by Hitler. Yes, good generals always make sure they have the winning edge when they get the opportunity and support.
I'd like to hear about them Sir. Although Monty cannot be blamed, Kasserine Pass was a disaster for the US forces who lacked experience and better coordination.