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
In some ways because any discussion of Monty will always bring either Patton or Rommel into it it reminds me of discussions I have seen on other boards about piston aircraft engines in service during WWII. Napier and Bristol afficionados will extol the virtue of the sleeve valve due to its inherently more efficent specific consumption (the ratio of HP per hour vs the weight of fuel burned) over the poppet valve designs of the rest of the manufacturers. On the poppet valve side others will labor on about the increased manhours in manufacture and the greater demands that the sleeve valve placed on its designers and builders due to the required accuracy in machining and grinding opperations during the manufacturing process. Along with the increased oil consumption of the sleeve valve vs the poppet designs (as a side discussion the poppet side of the arguement will always side off towards radial air cooled vs inline water cooled).

 

burmafrd

Banned
Got to admit it would have been interesting with Patton as officer in tactical command of market garden. I think its a given that there would have been no tea breaks.
 
Got to admit it would have been interesting with Patton as officer in tactical command of market garden. I think its a given that there would have been no tea breaks.
From what I gather from the Third Army's left wheel from Metz to the Bulge is Patton had few problems with relying on his staff to turn his concepts into reality.
 
I believe he was too cautious. He did care for his men, but at his level of command you have to be willing to sacrifice for the good of the whole.
 
I believe he was too cautious. He did care for his men, but at his level of command you have to be willing to sacrifice for the good of the whole.

There in lies the question. Was he cautious out of choice or he cautious because he had to be?

Unlike the Yanks or the Soviets the British Generals didn't have the manpower resources available to them to be totally offensive/bordering on reckless and had to look after their men more than the others. So one could argue that Monty's cautiousness was forced on him because of the lack of resources available to him manpower-wise.
 
There in lies the question. Was he cautious out of choice or he cautious because he had to be?

Unlike the Yanks or the Soviets the British Generals didn't have the manpower resources available to them to be totally offensive/bordering on reckless and had to look after their men more than the others. So one could argue that Monty's cautiousness was forced on him because of the lack of resources available to him manpower-wise.

Let's take it as a given that British-manpower-being-at-a-premium is the defining charcteristic of not just Monty, but every successful UK commander, at HQ or at the front--Alanbrooke, Jumbo Wilson, Alexander, those out in India. Okay, so it makes sense no British army is thrown into a gamble.

But then why was no American army used in a truly audacious move?
(Patton woulda coulda shoulda arguments don't count.)
I just think the U.S. generals were almost as restrained as the Brits--and we should remember this RE all the comparisons between these two largely identical Allies.

PS: I'm pretty sure Monty was more reckless with Australian troops (casualty wise) at Alamein than MacArthur was in the SWPA, so I guess it's all relative--yet the men of the AIF 9th division liked the former more than the latter.
Wait, Patton v. Monty isn't a popularity contest, is it ?
 
Last edited:
Frankly its generally a myth that the Americans had that much of a manpower pool. They should have done, but I seem to remember that since they had something like 2-3 times as many men in support of every front-line soldier as the Germans or Russians the result was they were actually not that well off. Its well documented that the British were so low on manpower reserves by 44-45 they were breaking up divisions to patch up others. I seem to recall Hasting's Armageddon saying that American front line forces had the same problem as it had been felt the Germans would swiftly collapse. Now nominally the Americans could (and to some extent did) solve this by pressing more men into rifles rather than say logistics or bringing more over from continental America, but such could not be done that swiftly.

I tend to think Monty wasn't that great a general, Slim was better I think, although even thats something of a cliche, but I do fall into that category of British who will defend him to the death the moment Americans start on the Patton wanking.
 
I don't believe Field Marshall Montgomery was bad. He and Patton were in many ways polar opposites. Patton would attack in any circumstance, and his ruthless aggression often gave him victories in situations in which any logical person would have predicted his defeat.

Montgomery may have been cautious to a fault, but he was a very good strategist. He waited until he assembled an overwhelming force, then attacked when his enemies were relatively weak. Perhaps he could have shaved months off the war by pursuing an enemy more quickly, but he would never sacrifice a man unless he thought it necessary.

Both men had their strengths and weaknesses. What the question really boils down to is the never ending debate between strategy and tactics.

In the US we always compare Lee and Grant. Lee repulsed Grant several times, but Grant realized he only had to win once.
 

burmafrd

Banned
As regards senior British Generals Slim had it ALL OVER Monty.

The US COMZ commander John "Almighty" Lee really lorded it over the support command and Eisenhower eventually in late 44 ordered him to pare back the forces so that the infrantry battalions could be brought up to strength. In one of the many stupid decisions made by the Pentagon in mid 1944 was the reduction in replacement placement to make up losses in combat units (like the equally stupid decision of the same time to reduce the production of artillery ammunition) so there was a shortage of infrantry in late 44. Patton was actually the first american commander to start cannibalizing his rear zone to reinforce the combat units. First with supply troops, then with AA units and even MP units.
 
Top