Monty's point about esinhower

Was Monty right or wrong about esinhower desicoun to take charge of the Allied forces in late 44?
Was patrons opinion of Monty correct?
Was Montys opinion of Patton or Omar correct?

That's why Ike was in charge of the starship and not the first officers
 
But Ike was while not God.. He wasnt a bad choice for what his job title was

The problem was that his job title was Supreme Allied Commander. Not Commander Allied Land Forces, which he effectively appointed himself as after 12th Army Group was stood up. It was Eisenhower's poor decision-making in the latter role that Monty had a problem with.
 

Ian_W

Banned
The problem was that his job title was Supreme Allied Commander. Not Commander Allied Land Forces, which he effectively appointed himself as after 12th Army Group was stood up. It was Eisenhower's poor decision-making in the latter role that Monty had a problem with.

Said poor decision making being essentially 'But he gave Patton some supplies too'.

Both Monty and Patton were right in that, if they were correctly supported (ie got *all* the supplies), their army could have won the war.

But Ike was absolutely correct that the Germans only chance to win the war would be to try and counter-attack the flank of any unsupported single army driving into Germany.

Therefore, a broad front attack so as to not give them the opportunity.

And then when that counterattack finally came at the Bulge, Ike, Monty and Patton roflstomped it together - with both Patton and Monty refusing to wait for orders before doing the right thing of redirecting reserves to counter-attack.
 
What this discussions often miss is that itwas never a case of Monty Vs Patton (except in the media) it was a case of Monty Vs Bradley vs Devers. Ike biggest mistake was failing to exploit the opportunities created by Devers success in the South and bowing to media pressure and egos.
 

Ian_W

Banned
What this discussions often miss is that itwas never a case of Monty Vs Patton (except in the media) it was a case of Monty Vs Bradley vs Devers. Ike biggest mistake was failing to exploit the opportunities created by Devers success in the South and bowing to media pressure and egos.

Much as I want to agree with you, the war in the West was all about the Ruhr and Berlin, and Devers was just too far from both.
 
Ike had his weak points - but he managed to get Monty, Patton and Bradley working together, while managing upwards with those shrinking violets Churchill, Roosvelt and de Gaulle.

Alexander had all the same qualities as Eisenhower, but also had the inestimable advantage of being an extremely capable general in his own right. Just because Montgomery didn't like his style of command doesn't detract from that. Alexander completely out-generalled Kesselring twice, and was only deprived of a crushing victory in June 1944 by Clark's egotism.
 
Much as I want to agree with you, the war in the West was all about the Ruhr and Berlin, and Devers was just too far from both.
Germany is not big enough for ignoring an allied penetration in the south without change of focus.
 
Both Monty and Patton were right in that, if they were correctly supported (ie got *all* the supplies), their army could have won the war.

But Ike was absolutely correct that the Germans only chance to win the war would be to try and counter-attack the flank of any unsupported single army driving into Germany.

No, that was not the argument that applied in 1944 when the focus was on achieving a Rhine bridgehead.

The planning for the western front identified the Aachen gap as the best main thrust of advance, which was in US First Army's sector. Bradley lobbied for priority for a thrust through the Saar (US Third Army ie Patton's sector), Montgomery for a joint thrust by British 2nd Army and US First Army through Belgium. Eisenhower effectively let his subordinates do what they wanted.

As to supplies, Montgomery had his own supply organisation (although there was some overlap for POL). The argument about allocation of supplies was between US First and Third Armies ie between Aachen gap and Saar thrusts. In theory US First Army was given priority for a few days at the start of September, but supplies were generally split evenly (as far as can be told as the record keeping by the Armies of supplies delivered was poor). Both thrusts were stopped at Aachen and Metz, and there is an argument that giving one or the other priority would have been more successful.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Both thrusts were stopped at Aachen and Metz, and there is an argument that giving one or the other priority would have been more successful.

Yep.

And then Watch on the Rhine slams into it's flank.
 
Yep.

And then Watch on the Rhine slams into it's flank.

No

The forces for Watch on the Rhine were only able to gather (by December) because German defensive efforts using minimal units against the weak split thrusts were so successful. A more concentrated and successful attack would both chew up German units and be more likely to reach the Rhine.
 

Ian_W

Banned
No

The forces for Watch on the Rhine were only able to gather (by December) because German defensive efforts using minimal units against the weak split thrusts were so successful. A more concentrated and successful attack would both chew up German units and be more likely to reach the Rhine.

Nahh.

Ike was right - the German theory of 'defense by counterattack' would be more successful against a single strong thrust, as opposed to a broad front advance that took advantage of the Allies' "more stuff" approach.

It doesn't count if you got across the Rhine and were then cut off by a Panzer Army hitting you in the flank.
 
Ike was right - the German theory of 'defense by counterattack' would be more successful against a single strong thrust, as opposed to a broad front advance that took advantage of the Allies' "more stuff" approach.

Eisenhower was not concerned about German counterattacks when he took over in September 1944 - have you read his letters? He was not expecting to be stopped short of the Rhine, but was not planning for large thrusts beyond the Rhine until the Allies had closed up to the Rhine all along its length.

As to Panzer Armies they effectively did not exist in September 1944.
 
Yes I am absolutely sure you fly’s are correct. The war would have easily been won by England France and Russia all by themselves with out the aid of the US. And in fact probably done so faster...

I swear do you folks actually LISTEN to yourselves?
England hasn't existed as a separate country since 1707. It's Britain or the UK.
 
Top