Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2?

[redcoat]

[

One thing that Monty did do very well was to be concerned for the welfare of his men. Perhaps this explains some of his cautiousness for which he is to be applauded. However, the fact remains that as a commander he was solid rather than inspirational and he did not appear to fully understand how to exploit the use of armour.

I put down his problems with armour to two thinks.
Firstly, British armor in WW2 never showed itself to be fully in tune with the idea of all arms warfare. Its record of close co-operation with the other arms was not good.
Secondly Monty was an infantry general, he had worked his way up from the command of a platoon in infantry regiments. So unlike a cavalry man like Patten he was not trained in the art of breakout, but unlike Patten( ie Metz) he knew how to fight set-piece battles, like D-Day.

I must agree he was overrated.

By a number of Brits, yes, but with a number of Americans I would say he's underrated. I've seen too many claim he was a bad general, when the question should be on how good he was.

But, then again, so are many of the other senior commanders of the Western Allies. We as victors of WW2 were able to somewhat write the history of what happened. We've given ourselves too much credit and given the Soviet Union not enough for winning WW2 in Europe.

Very true

 

[Young Winston]

He also wrote a book of memoirs in which he claimed to have single-handedly have won the war in Europe himself. After that none of his former colleagues among the Americans and more than a few of the British, would ever talk to him again. Not that wise a man.

His personality was an interesting one!!!

Monty always had to have the upper hand in relationships with others.

Unfortunately he made alot of enemies.

The Americans have put him down more than he deserves.

 

[Lord Londonderry]

"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.

What rubbish!!!!!

I think you better read over the details of Operation Torch.

Italy in 1942????????

 

[SHERMAN]

1943, than. dose it make a diffrence as to the main claim that the Americans faced the same quality of troops as did the British.

 

[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.

What rubbish!!!!!

I think you better read over the details of Operation Torch.

Italy in 1942????????

I suggest you read page 9 of this thread for my answer to that one.

 

[Lord Londonderry]

"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.

What rubbish!!!!!

I think you better read over the details of Operation Torch.

Italy in 1942????????

I suggest you read page 9 of this thread for my answer to that one.

Then use your edit button.

 

[Strongbow]

"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.

What rubbish!!!!!

I think you better read over the details of Operation Torch.

Italy in 1942????????

I suggest you read page 9 of this thread for my answer to that one.

Then use your edit button.

Come off it Baby700. I think Charge has made himself clear enough.

Build a bridge my good chap!!!

 

[Charge 7]

Edit schmedit! You don't edit conversations. Reading the thread before jumping in is always a good idea.

 

[LeEnfield]

Market Garden is one of those battles filled with ifs, if it had taken place just ten days earlier then a Division of SS troops would not have been there refitting after a long spell on the Russian front. If all planners had not got so over confident as they could see the end of the war was in sight. If they had decided to drop the troops closer to the town rather than ten miles away from their objective it would have been taken. It was a bold stroke that went badly wrong, had the dice rolled in our favour then every one would have been saying what a brilliant plan it was, but no it worked out into a tragedy.

 

[Young Winston]

Market Garden is one of those battles filled with ifs, if it had taken place just ten days earlier then a Division of SS troops would not have been there refitting after a long spell on the Russian front. If all planners had not got so over confident as they could see the end of the war was in sight. If they had decided to drop the troops closer to the town rather than ten miles away from their objective it would have been taken. It was a bold stroke that went badly wrong, had the dice rolled in our favour then every one would have been saying what a brilliant plan it was, but no it worked out into a tragedy.

Good point.

 

[Charge 7]

...if Montgomery had listened to Dutch Resistence intelligence and photographic reconnacence...

 

[LeEnfield]

Charge 7......Was Montgomery informed of the information from the Dutch underground and just information had military intelligence had given him re these matters.

 

[Young Winston]

Charge 7......Was Montgomery informed of the information from the Dutch underground and just information had military intelligence had given him re these matters.

You may have to do some research here Mr Charge.

 

[Charge 7]

And it couldn't just be possible that it is you in need of some research?

 

[Young Winston]

And it couldn't just be possible that it is you in need of some research?

Why don't you answer LeEnfields question?

 

[Strongbow]

And it couldn't just be possible that it is you in need of some research?

Mr Charge is correct but the dear man seems to be a bit tardy in showing his sources (a forum rule). I’ll try and help him out.

“the road to Nijmegen and beyond was very exposed, and could easily be swept by fire from anti-tank guns. Montgomery was advised about this by the Dutch, but decided to ignore the warning. The US 1st Army, under Hodges, were supposed to cover the right flank; afterwards, Dempsey in particular pointed to their inability to do so as one of the main causes of failure. But Hodges and his men were stuck in the difficult area round Aachen. Their assistance, while useful, should never have been counted on.”

an extract from Montgomery of Alamein (p.293) by Alun Chalfont. ISBN 0 417 01910 6.

 

[Charge 7]

Forum rules do not require you to backup what is common knowledge. It's in all the histories of Market Garden. I didn't feel I had to back up the statement, but I thank Strongbow for the assist nonetheless.

 

[LeEnfield]

As far Montgomery goes as a General I would only rate him as average, he did breathe life into the 8 th Army in North Africa. Montgomery was not the first choice for the job but as the chap who did get the job was killed when his plane was shot down en route for North Africa thus giving Monty the job. Now the best thing Monty ever did was to stand up to Churchill and refused to attack until he was ready, this had Churchill spitting nails. Churchill had painted him self into a corner by his interference in the North African campaign, he ordered his Generals to attack before they had enough men and equipment to carry out a massive assault and when it failed he blamed and sacked them. As Churchill had got through so many Generals that Monty refused to attack until he was ready Churchill was stuck with him. The benefit from this was a stable and positive leadership from Monty and his Commonwealth Generals, the troops were retrained reequipped and made to feel that when they attacked then they would win. Montgomery's prediction on just how long the battle would last was correct to the day at AlElmein, after that he became a press Icon and like a few other Generals I think it affected his performance

 

[Charge 7]

Now the best thing Monty ever did was to stand up to Churchill and refused to attack until he was ready, this had Churchill spitting nails.

I wholeheartedly agree. Monty's been criticized many times for moving too slowly and deservedly so at times, but that was one time when he was doing quite the correct thing. General Ritchie didn't do that and paid the price. It may be that Monty's pension for digging in his heals may have its roots in just that instance. Taking his time won him the battle and his fame. It could be understood if recalling that was ever on his mind.

 

[FO Seaman]

I have always considered Monty to be an excellent "defensive" general but believed he lacked something in attack mode eg Operation Market Garden.

What do others think?

Yes