Bernard Law Montgomery

Monty?

  • Positive and I'm British

    Votes: 26 15.9%
  • Negative and I'm British

    Votes: 4 2.4%
  • Mixed and I'm British

    Votes: 16 9.8%
  • Positive and I'm American

    Votes: 11 6.7%
  • Negative and I'm American

    Votes: 19 11.6%
  • Mixed and I'm American

    Votes: 35 21.3%
  • Positive and I'm neither British or American

    Votes: 21 12.8%
  • Negative and I'm neither British or American

    Votes: 12 7.3%
  • Mixed and I'm neither British or American

    Votes: 16 9.8%
  • Thande was Britains best Field Marshall(don't care/other)

    Votes: 4 2.4%

  • Total voters
    164

Thande

Donor
As the image of a general, he's perfect...in the business of being a general, I have a more mixed opinion. Not unlike Patton, in fact.

What was that line from Churchill and the Generals? Something like...

Monty (just about to leave for North Africa, staring off into the distance musingly) : Sad, isn't it, how such a long and distinguished militawwy caweer can end in disaster and disgwace.

Liddell Hart: Oh, why so pessimistic, sir?

Monty (giving him an irritated look) : What do you mean? I was talking about Wommel!

:D
 
As the image of a general, he's perfect...in the business of being a general, I have a more mixed opinion. Not unlike Patton, in fact.

What was that line from Churchill and the Generals? Something like...

Monty (just about to leave for North Africa, staring off into the distance musingly) : Sad, isn't it, how such a long and distinguished militawwy caweer can end in disaster and disgwace.

Liddell Hart: Oh, why so pessimistic, sir?

Monty (giving him an irritated look) : What do you mean? I was talking about Wommel!

:D

Monty spoke like Walter the Wobot? :D
 
Of all the major allied commanders, Montgomery is one that I find the least fault in (possibly because he waged war in the same manner I play strategy games;)). He was better than any American general, and I'm probably the only man in Texas who thinks that. The real heroes were the enlistees and junior officers, anyway. Yeah, it's cheap, but so are many of my other opinions. :p
 
Generally positive. Yes, he could be over cautious but that was, to a large extent, a product of his WW1 experiences. that said, he could be bold if the occasion warranted it. 8th Army's attack at the Mareth Line for example. He also was instrumental in expanding the COSSAC plan, which he thought too limited, into the successful OVERLORD plan.

Yes, MARKET-GARDEN failed -it was, oddly, a most un-Monty like plan but, possibly, worth the effort - hindsight would suggest freeing the Antwerp approaches would have been better but in 1944 it looked like Germany was on the verge of defeat and one small push would achieve victory.

Also, don't forget the Huertgen Forest and Patton in front of Metz - similar examples of allied failures in the Autumn of 1944.

For what it is worth, my particular favourite for top British General in WW2 would be "Bill" Slim with the CGS Alanbrooke as an almost tie with Monty.
 
Going by the poll, looks like I've proved my point with regards to a divergance of opinion between the Brits and the Americans on this. Funnilly the non-uk/us members seem more divided in their opinion(positive or negative).
 

Larrikin

Banned
US opinion of Montgomery

was shaped two main circumstances:
1. His claim to have been the be all and end all of winner at the Bulge
2. Patton's pathological jealousy of him.

Georgie boy was a nutter, pure and simple... in any modern force they drum him out and have the civilian authorities lock him up for a couple of years while they treated him for paranoid schizophrenia. For all that, he moved troops very well, but the jury will always be out on him as a truly great general because he never had to fight under adversity, he never fought a defensive battle, and he never fought a real meatgrinder. The closest he came was at Metz, and he didn't do too well. On top of that, he was an insubordinate, backstabbing, glory hungry, egomaniacal son of bitch, with absolutely no real comprehension of the citizen soldiers under his command.

Monty was only mildly nuts, which is not surprisiing given his mother and going through WWI under people like French and Haig. The two failures people like to throw at him, Goodwood and MarketGarden were creative attempts to use the resources had available in ways that hadn't been used before. To use heavy bombers as a supplement to artillery in the way they were used for Goodwood was a first, and it's failure was more a factor of the topography than anything else. MarketGarden was a brilliant concept that almost worked, and failed for a trio of reasons; the poor planning and excution by the 1st Airborne Army's commanders, the luck that the Germans had in dumping a couple of refitting SS Panzer Divs in exaactly the right place, and Patton's directive to his divisional commanders to get involved in fights so that they would have to be resupplied when he had been ordered to hold where he was by Eisenhower.
 
Them's fighting words

was shaped two main circumstances:
1. His claim to have been the be all and end all of winner at the Bulge
2. Patton's pathological jealousy of him.

Georgie boy was a nutter, pure and simple... in any modern force they drum him out and have the civilian authorities lock him up for a couple of years while they treated him for paranoid schizophrenia. For all that, he moved troops very well, but the jury will always be out on him as a truly great general because he never had to fight under adversity, he never fought a defensive battle, and he never fought a real meatgrinder. The closest he came was at Metz, and he didn't do too well. On top of that, he was an insubordinate, backstabbing, glory hungry, egomaniacal son of bitch, with absolutely no real comprehension of the citizen soldiers under his command.

Monty was only mildly nuts, which is not surprisiing given his mother and going through WWI under people like French and Haig. The two failures people like to throw at him, Goodwood and MarketGarden were creative attempts to use the resources had available in ways that hadn't been used before. To use heavy bombers as a supplement to artillery in the way they were used for Goodwood was a first, and it's failure was more a factor of the topography than anything else. MarketGarden was a brilliant concept that almost worked, and failed for a trio of reasons; the poor planning and excution by the 1st Airborne Army's commanders, the luck that the Germans had in dumping a couple of refitting SS Panzer Divs in exaactly the right place, and Patton's directive to his divisional commanders to get involved in fights so that they would have to be resupplied when he had been ordered to hold where he was by Eisenhower.

You sure make some heavy charges, don't you? Perhaps you're post should have listed your post as "British opinion on Patton", except most of the Brits haven't made Patton sound like an insane asylum patient.

Patton was never on the defensive? No, he just turned around to race to the Battle of the Buldge, and started his WW2 battle career turning the US II Corps from pre Kasserine Pass to something that could take down the great Rommel, though of course none of that counts as "adversity".

He never fought a meatgrinder? That's because he knew better than to, and was effective at using Armor hard and fast. Most of Patton's casualities came from when he was forced to move slowest, not quickest.

Blaming Market Garden (planned by Monty) on Patton and the 101st Airborne? You'll have to work to convince me that 1. the 101st created a disaster by poor planning on their part, and that 2. Patton shouldn't have been given the resources instead of Monty. I'm even malleable on 2 because if Market Garden had been better, it could have shortened Europe's Theatre by months. But Patton had been on the roll before his resources were sucked away for Monty's failure, and you'll have to give me a reason as to why a better supplied Patton wouldn't have kept running loose against the Germans. Perhaps not as good as a successful Market Garden, but easily much better than what did happen.

On one part we are in agreement. Patton would not exist in today's military, not least because Patton forced the creation of the "Generals shut up" rule. However, I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, as political toy generals of nowadays often lack the controversial pushing that characterized people like Patton and Curtis Lemay. And will you tell me that Patton was wrong in declaring that the USSR would be our next foe? Impolotic, yes, but wrong?
 
Curtis Le May was replaced by the biggest nutter in the cold war, whom I have heard of, namely Thomas Power, who famously uttered the line about Nuclear Restraint.

Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win'.

Hardly a toy general, hell he inspired the movie Dr.Strangelove. Even Le May, who wanted to invade Cuba after the Cuban missile crisis thought he was unhinged. le May was off the wall, Power was insane.
 
You sure make some heavy charges, don't you? Perhaps you're post should have listed your post as "British opinion on Patton", except most of the Brits haven't made Patton sound like an insane asylum patient.

Why do you accuse Larrikin of having a British opinion? Are therefore all of the people who were positive about Montgomery, I was not one of those, British?

Patton was never on the defensive? No, he just turned around to race to the Battle of the Buldge, and started his WW2 battle career turning the US II Corps from pre Kasserine Pass to something that could take down the great Rommel, though of course none of that counts as "adversity".

He did indeed turn the US II Corps into an effective fighting force, but, here comes the rub, it did not take down the not so great Rommel. I think the British 1st and 8th armies and the French Army Corps of two divisions had a minor part in that campaign.

He never fought a meatgrinder? That's because he knew better than to, and was effective at using Armor hard and fast. Most of Patton's causalities came from when he was forced to move slowest, not quickest.

He was fortunate in not being confronted by consolidated defensive positions or fully equipped armoured forces. Do you honestly think his Sherman tanks would have fared any differently from say Polish, Canadian or British manned Sherman tanks charging hard and fast at PAK 88s in defensive positions or engaging Panthers and Tigers at 1,000yds plus? He didn't have to because they were mainly at Caen.
 
Last edited:

Larrikin

Banned
You sure make some heavy charges, don't you? Perhaps you're post should have listed your post as "British opinion on Patton", except most of the Brits haven't made Patton sound like an insane asylum patient.

<<Patton's the bloke who spent the between war years practicing his war face in the mirror, he's the only Allied General officer of the war who should have been court martialled for assaulting ORs, he's the loon that insisted his men wear ties into combat and tried to charge a don r form the 5th Army when he turned up during the Bulge with out a tie on, he's the idiot who insisted his officers and NCOs wear their ranks on the front of their helmets in nice bright colours so that the Germans knew who to shoot first. I could go on, but that just the starter.>>

Patton was never on the defensive? No, he just turned around to race to the Battle of the Buldge, and started his WW2 battle career turning the US II Corps from pre Kasserine Pass to something that could take down the great Rommel, though of course none of that counts as "adversity".

<<The 3rd Army wasn't on the defensive in the Bulge, the German offensive was north of them, and he drove a counter offensive into the flank of an ill conceived salient. By the time he took over at Kasserine the Germans were stopped dead and pulling back, and had been stopped by the British 1st Army, not II Corps.>>

He never fought a meatgrinder? That's because he knew better than to, and was effective at using Armor hard and fast. Most of Patton's casualities came from when he was forced to move slowest, not quickest.

<<He was never in a situation to have to fight an ElAlamein, assault the Gothic Line, dogfight his way through the thickest of German defenses. The 3rd Army didin't even come ashore in Normandy until the German defenses had been cracked, and they passed through a defensive line that had been broken by the 5th Army.>>

Blaming Market Garden (planned by Monty) on Patton and the 101st Airborne? You'll have to work to convince me that 1. the 101st created a disaster by poor planning on their part, and that 2. Patton shouldn't have been given the resources instead of Monty. I'm even malleable on 2 because if Market Garden had been better, it could have shortened Europe's Theatre by months. But Patton had been on the roll before his resources were sucked away for Monty's failure, and you'll have to give me a reason as to why a better supplied Patton wouldn't have kept running loose against the Germans. Perhaps not as good as a successful Market Garden, but easily much better than what did happen.

<<Montgomery conceived MarketGarden, the planning was done by Barret and Browning, who screwed it up - nothing to do with 101st's performance. In the British Army the Army Group GOC tells his Army GOC what is to be done, and the planning and execution is at Army, Corps, and Div levels. 1st Airborne screwed MarketGarden, and weren't helped by lackadaisacal work by Horrocks at 30Corps.

As for the resources, 3rd Army was aimed at nothing, the south of Germany wasn't crucial to the war effort, the north was. However, the error there was Eisenhower's and his broad front approach. Motgomery went to Ike and told him he should go for one or the other side of the advance, in other words, support him, or support Patton, but don't try and do both at once. That's not something Patton was capable of doing.>>

On one part we are in agreement. Patton would not exist in today's military, not least because Patton forced the creation of the "Generals shut up" rule. However, I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, as political toy generals of nowadays often lack the controversial pushing that characterized people like Patton and Curtis Lemay. And will you tell me that Patton was wrong in declaring that the USSR would be our next foe? Impolotic, yes, but wrong?

Patton would not even be accepted into West Point or as a direct entry officer these days, and was bloody lucky to be accepted when he was. These days, even if the political strings that were pulled to get him in were tugged again, the Army psychs would have him back in civvies so fast even his giant ego would spin.
 
Problem with all these types - Patton, McArthur, Monty, Rommel, is that they were basically media whores with an inflated idea of their own abilities. Monty I think was an OK general - better than many of the British ones, and at least concerned for the welfare of his men.

I'd say the likes of O'Connor as a good candidate for best junior general. And don't forget that Monty was technically under the command of Auchinleck in Egypt - some of the credit for Alamein must surely also go to him?
 

Larrikin

Banned
Monty and the Auk

Problem with all these types - Patton, McArthur, Monty, Rommel, is that they were basically media whores with an inflated idea of their own abilities. Monty I think was an OK general - better than many of the British ones, and at least concerned for the welfare of his men.

I'd say the likes of O'Connor as a good candidate for best junior general. And don't forget that Monty was technically under the command of Auchinleck in Egypt - some of the credit for Alamein must surely also go to him?

Montgomery was under Alexander in NA, the Auk got sacked completely from the ME, with BLM taking over 8th Army, and the Hon Harold taking over the ME.

Alexander is the most under rated, often ignored, British general of WWII. He commanded the withdrawal of the BEF in 1940 to Dunkirk, then got sent out to try and hold the line in Burma in early 42, and fought an extremely well executed fighting withdrawal there. When he took over in Cairo he gave Monty his basic instructions, let him have his head, and ran interference with Churchill. He continued to to a good job in senior positions through the rest of the war.

In may was he was the only other officer capable of doing the essentially political job that Eisenhower did, but not being American was never going to get it. He did it's equivalent in Italy instead.
 
Montgomery was under Alexander in NA, the Auk got sacked completely from the ME, with BLM taking over 8th Army, and the Hon Harold taking over the ME.

Alexander is the most under rated, often ignored, British general of WWII. He commanded the withdrawal of the BEF in 1940 to Dunkirk, then got sent out to try and hold the line in Burma in early 42, and fought an extremely well executed fighting withdrawal there. When he took over in Cairo he gave Monty his basic instructions, let him have his head, and ran interference with Churchill. He continued to to a good job in senior positions through the rest of the war.

In may was he was the only other officer capable of doing the essentially political job that Eisenhower did, but not being American was never going to get it. He did it's equivalent in Italy instead.

Ah. Alexander was who I meant - I get them mixed up!
 
The Monty-Patton thingie...

Oh, dear, the old debate of whether Monty was a lucky dimwitted primadonna or not once again turned into a Patton versus Monty contest! Well, my opinion is clear, Monty was at best a mediocre army commander and more or less a catastrophe at higher levels.

As mentioned already, Alexander did play a rather important role in Monty’s success in North Africa. Not surprisingly Monty did his best to claim all the credit. Monty as a general had a nasty habit of taking credit for other people’s work and plans – one of the reasons why he was fairly unpopular among his peers. As did the fact that the British finally stopped (to the best of my knowledge, that is) using all-armoured brigades and shifting brigade from division to division unendingly. And to be quite frank, at Al-Alamain Monty only did what Rommel had done to the British on numerous occasions, meaning that he held back and let concealed guns take out the enemies tanks and then counter-attacked (with an overwhelming advantage). So nothing really ground breaking here… not like say, Patton and Ike experimenting with armoured warfare in the US pre-war or using mechanized warfare to win the big Louisiana manoeuvres or commanding a training centre or… well, you get the point…

Anyway, with an impressive superiority in men, guns, tanks, planes and supplies, Monty nonetheless took a good awful long time to cross North Africa, in spite of the Germans running, more or less, for dear life. Always been a bit slow, that Monty… Oh, and the Mareth-line, yes, that was not exactly the most well defended place in the world, and Monty kinda just drove around it, which I suppose is the least you can expect of a general.

What have we then, oh, yes, Sicily. Monty did as good a job as any, I suppose, but again he had Alexander to hold his hand and Patton to show how you should do things. Still, with a battle hardened army of veterans I think it strange that Patton and his relatively green troops should outperform Monty’s Brits… Could it be, that Patton was more flexible and capable and his staffers generally more open-minded?

Right, onwards to Normandy! So D-Day kicks off with Monty in charge, mostly of the Brits and Canadians in the 21st Army Group (I think it was). For some reason the British armour ends up in one big traffic jam on the beaches and are unable to support the fairly unopposed drive inlands.
And now we come to the important part. Some people claim that Monty always intended to tie up the German reserves, so that the Americans could break out in open country. First of all, with Monty personality in mind, I find this highly unlikely. Second Monty was always sticking to the plan, he did not change anything unless it was already too late, so if he intended to keep the Germans occupied and Caen unoccupied, it would have been down in writing (and it is not, not before after the entire Goodwood debacle, that is… hmm, why is that one wonders). Third Caen was to be taken on D-Day+1 (right?), not be fought over for God knows who long to bind enemy reserves. Besides now Monty really show his colours as an old fashioned general with a baggage train stretching back to WW1, he orders a frontal attack on Caen, which fails even though the Brits and especially the raw Canadians fight like mad men. Finally around the 9th Monty calls the thing off and orders Caen enveloped – still to be taken, mind you -, which leads to the 7th Armoured charging in to Villiers-Bocage on the 13th and, well, having their infamous meeting with one herr Wittman, and that was that. Again one can wonder why Monty didn’t funnel all available armour through the gap the 7th had found and exploited for 4 days, but well, Monty always was a slow one… as seen again at the Falaise Gap, where he failed to close the northern part and, apparently, prevented Patton from doing it from the south.
Basically Goodwood was a way to correct something that had already gone wrong. And Goodwood in itself was not a very impressive operation. Again the Brits and Canadians fought hard, but for some reason they couldn’t break the Germans… unlike Patton and the Americans at the West Wall….

And then we have Marked Garden. I have one thing to say, only a total idiot will use ONE road to move an entire armoured corps forward, and not only move forward, but actually fight the enemy at the same time. The very same road that would serve as a supply route as well… sigh, whoever allowed Monty to go ahead with this plan was criminal negligent…

Then we have Patton. Generally speaking, don't give in to the charges-blindly-ahead hype. Patton knew what he was doing (look at his pre-war career fx.).

Patton is often criticized for two things; Metz – well, actually Fort Driant – and the move to free captured Americans in the last days of the war (Opr. Baum, which I won’t really get into as it was more like a commando raid). The fighting along the Rhine and West Wall could have been avoided - I'll contribute the entire thing to Monty's and Ike's general lack of vision and battlefield understanding, and again Monty’s slow ways-, but that said it is important to notice that Patton did better than Hodges, who literally burnt out entire divisions further north, and better than Monty at Caen. Patton and his men did as good, and probably better, than could be possibly expected. Bad weather, few supplies, well-designed fortifications in a build-up area and a heavily mechanized army is not the best of combinations (all this in sharp contrast to Monty at Caen btw). I hope, you all realise that Patton is generally praised for this campaign. Russel Wiegly, whom I usually dislike because of his Ike-obsession, has a fairly balanced view on this campaign. Or a more popular historian might be Stephen Ambrose - I believe it's the D-Day book that has a good account on the storm of Fort Driant and the whole mess around Metz! Or Blumenson's brilliant bio (where one in addition can find a good deal about what really happened regarding Opr. Baum).

Sitting here years later, it is easy to see when an attack should have been called off, but on the spot it's a way tougher call to make. The American and British mess further north is an excellent example. Patton and his 3rd Army broke the West Wall the hard way, what else could they do?! In that regard, I'm pretty confident that they suffered fewer casualties doing so than Hodges and co.

Again, with an under-strength (lacking at least 9,000 combat troops) mechanized army with few supplies - they were down to 7 rounds for the howitzers pr day at one time - little fuel, extremely bad weather and heavy enemy fortifications, it's a wonder the 3rd Army did as well as they did.

Wiggy has a curious remark, I seem to remember it's him at least, that the 3rd Army paid for their hubris at Metz. I take it as an indication that the entire 3rd Army was fired up and saw no obstacle to large to hammer through (Patton was extremely good at building morale, as seen with the US II Corps in NA), and they might have been right had Patton had his way...

The morale thing is btw the reason why Patton demanded that support personelle, MP's, staffers and the like should always be dress according to the book! I can't remember any sources claiming he ordered the same for line units...

All in all Patton did much to generate a certain image among the enlisted men, and the media. Most sources states very firmly that Patton was two men, so to say, one man among this men, and he really thought of them as his, and the media and a second extremely charming and intelligent man among ladies, fellow officers and civilians.

Another good example of Patton as a General: he had good men around him - most of them he picked before commanding 7th Army in Italy and brought most of them along with him to 3rd Army -, he did plan ahead, he thought anything was possible if one threw oneself behind it and he had complete faith in his men (and the American soldier in general)!

Patton was in many ways a planner. He helped Ike plan Torch, along with Clark, he helped plan the invasion of Sicily. Apparently he also made the arrangements for the Casablanca meeting. Patton had plans waiting for the Ardennes counter-attack he and his 3rd Army launched, because his staff had smelled the proverbial rat on the 9th of December, 1944, and forewarned Patton, who himself felt the Jerries were up to something. Furthermore he ran the desert training centre and did remarkably well in the great pre-war Louisiana manoeuvres.

The way he fine tuned the 3rd Army’s relationship with their supporting tactical air unit – I can’t remember the unit designation - was also quite impressive.

As noticed before by another poster, Patton did indeed have a speed saves lives doctrine - he fought more or less as the Germans did early in the war and they're praised for it. Patton had a knack for mordern combat that few other, if any, Allied generals had!

Regarding Patton’s temper and the slapping incidents. I think Patton was a weak man who willed himself to be strong – his letters to Beatrice indicates as much – and thus had little sympathy for people who could not overcome their weaknesses as he himself had done. Furthermore with a war going on, everybody who somehow avoided combat would only send another young man to fight in his stead, and I for one find that distasteful, and Patton did too, apparently.

I often think it odd that Patton is portrayed as a lunatic and dilettante, even though he always won his battles and was well-liked by his men despite the typical occasional GI-mutter! And Monty for some reason is the great hero even though he was a fumbling fool, who stole others people’s ideas and took credit for their actions as well, not to mention he caused the North African campaign to go longer than needed, nearly f’ed up the invasion at Caen and finally got a lot of people killed in Marked Garden.

That said, I feel inclined to say that I'm an anglophile of the fist order, and find it annoying beyound belief that men like Wavel, Alexander and especially William (Bill, yes) Slim always comes second in regards to Monty. That is perhaps my real beef wiht Monty...
 
Welcome back, Mr. Bluenote! You've been away a long time
Thank you very much, Kalvan!

Yes, I have, but I got swamped with work, private life and the little fact that I'm back at the University after a looooong pause - can't believe how rusty one's mind becomes!

It's good of you to notice, though! :)

My regards!

- B.
 
Monty as incompetant bungler is not an accurate picture. He may not have been a general of the first class, but the fact is that from 1943 onwards he was the British general always at the sharp end. So he got the most publicity, which he loved. He was, however, a very professional soldier:-

(a) Alamein: I understood that he acquired a plan for Second Alamein from Auchinleck's staff and modified it somewhat (as well as replacing some of the staff.) Not sure where Bluenote gets his stuff about concealed guns - sounds like he's thinking of First Alamein, before Monty took command. It turned out a long and hard battle, ending in the destruction of about two-thirds of the Axis forces, and the headlong retreat of the rest.
(b) Post-Alamein: Monty was not a fool and had looked at the war in the desert so far. It had been continual offensives ending when the apparent victor, disorganised by the chase and short of supplies, ran into an entrenched opponent with short supply lines. This happened not only to the British generals, but also to Rommel. Monty was determined to avoid this trap - hence his slow pursuit. He wanted his people well-supplied and in hand when he came up against the Germans again. He wanted to finish the job.
(c) Mareth: I mention this battle as it showed one of Monty's particular qualities, the ability to smoothly change plan when it was clear the original plan wasn't working (No plan survives reality....) He did this at Alamein too. Some folk think this is a vice - I consider this flexibility to be a military virtue.
(d) Sicily: I don't think this demonstrates anything about Montgomery being a "slow mover." He had the short route to Messina, but it was also the most defended. In particular, there was a very heavily defended river-crossing at Catania. Without this, 8th Army would have been in Messina well before the Americans. Monty could move forces swiftly when he wanted, look at the speed of his advance from Falaise to South Holland. He never wanted to move swiftly where it involved a risk.
 
Top