Supreme Commander Montgomery

Enji_Daimyo

Banned
Nazi's hold out till 46, hitler dead and SS running things.

Soviets in charge of europe, unless ss go with sucicide assassination plot on Stalin.

You might see a japanese attack on Russia.

Someone will sue for peace.

Why, Patton gone. Of course it might be President Patton.
 
Monty is made Supreme Commander instead of Ike. What happens?

While inspecting American troops in June 1945 along the stalled Normandy front, Montgomery is inadvertently bombed by 1,000 American heavy bombers, accidentally overrun by the 300+ tanks in the 2nd ‘Hell on Wheels’ Armoured Division, unintentionally shot several times by Bradley while cleaning his gun and given a deadly amount of cyanide by mistake by his own orderly.
 
Nazi's hold out till 46,

Uhuh, whatever.

Montgomery was a supremely competent general, and certainly far superior to any of the American army or army group commanders in NW Europe. He did lack their massive PR machines that have so misled historians since.

He also completely saved the Americans at the Bulge.

The problem was that he said all this at the time, and this is why he would be no good, he simply annoyed too many people.
 
Uhuh, whatever.

Montgomery was a supremely competent general, and certainly far superior to any of the American army or army group commanders in NW Europe. He did lack their massive PR machines that have so misled historians since.

He also completely saved the Americans at the Bulge.

The problem was that he said all this at the time, and this is why he would be no good, he simply annoyed too many people.

Wow, what have you been smoking? Even his staunchest supporter wouldn’t say Montgomery was supremely able.

Montgomery was capable enough, in an unimaginative way. What put him apart from other British senior commanders was that he realized that British soldiers weren’t particularly good at fighting the Germans. The only way to defeat them was to assemble overwhelming superiority in equipment and men and then slowly hammer them to defeat in set piece battles. Montgomery knew that whenever the British tried anything more adventurous than a slow, methodical, plodding advance, the Germans would outthink, outmaneuvre and then outfight the Brits.

Much of his slowness and lack of decisive results in 1944 are down to his great appreciation that England was running out of infantry replacements. He effectively had to juggle the need to keep casualties down with the need to appear a viable fighting force to secure political influence for Britain in a post war world.
I can recommend Colossal Cracks as a fine read about Montgomery and the 21st Army Group.

Politically, there was no way Montgomery could become Supreme Commander. England barely provided 1/3 of the manpower for the Western campaign and that was including all the satellite forces associated with them such as the Canadians, Dutch, Belgians, Polish etc.

America was running the war by then and having an unpopular Brit in command of their troops was never going to fly in Washington, let alone in the American heartland.

But suppose he was in command, he would still need to use the Americans to do the actual fighting while giving choice assignments to his own troops to keep their profile high. That would never be accepted by the Americans and his removal would be swift….


As an aside, claiming Montgomery did not blow his own horn is ridiculous. Montgomery was fully aware of the power of the media and p.r. and used it lavishly. Monty and Patton both played to the gallery in an unseemly fashion, especially compared to such as Bradley, Simpson, Devers and even Eisenhower. In fact, it is because of Eisenhower's modest nature that these prima donna's could get away with their blatant self aggrandizement.
 
Wow, what have you been smoking?

History books, only I read them first...
Even his staunchest supporter wouldn’t say Montgomery was supremely able.
Funny, the German generals did after the war.

Montgomery was capable enough, in an unimaginative way. What put him apart from other British senior commanders was that he realized that British soldiers weren’t particularly good at fighting the Germans. The only way to defeat them was to assemble overwhelming superiority in equipment and men and then slowly hammer them to defeat in set piece battles. Montgomery knew that whenever the British tried anything more adventurous than a slow, methodical, plodding advance, the Germans would outthink, outmaneuvre and then outfight the Brits.

Do you think you could be ever more generalised and vague in your analysis?
You could also substitute Allied for British at practically every point.

Much of his slowness and lack of decisive results in 1944 are down to his great appreciation that England was running out of infantry replacements. He effectively had to juggle the need to keep casualties down with the need to appear a viable fighting force to secure political influence for Britain in a post war world.

That's true, it tells us little about Montgomery as a tactical commander. And misses out the massive point that he was very keen to preserve lives.

Politically, there was no way Montgomery could become Supreme Commander.
I agree with this and what you said. However, we do have the example of what happened in the Bulge when he took command of much of the front. The US corps commanders largely found him excellent to work with, and he was able to manage things when Ike and Bradley literally did not have a clue. If not for Montgomery the Meuse crossings would not even have beenblocked.


The difference on the blowing their own trumpet front is that US generals were more allowed to and the historical memory records, for instance, Montgomery and Patton quite different. The former a plodder the latter a dasher, in a manner quite divorced from historical reality.
 
Much of his slowness and lack of decisive results in 1944 are down to his great appreciation that England was running out of infantry replacements.

Though apparently Wales had loads of them....

And I'm with Wozza on this one - Monty was a tool of the first degree, but he knew what he was doing. The British were generally no worse than the Americans in battlefield performance, although a nod must go to the Canadians and Poles, who were both pretty good, as were the other Commonwealth troops. All were worse than the Germans in small-unit tactical encounters, but the idea of the British being "out-thought & out-manoeuvred" is ludicrous in the context of NW Europe.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranoncles
Wow, what have you been smoking?

History books, only I read them first...

Genius.

Personally with regards to the war not much changes. Its possible there is a major blow-up in Anglo-American relations, argueably that came very close in OTL, but Churchill and Montgomery both know the Americans are running the Allied war effort so are unlikely to push things to breaking point. As for it being politically impossible for him to become supreme commander, its highly unlikely, but then Foch was made supreme commander for WW1 at the time when French influence was at its lowest.

Its possible, although not likely, that Montgomery would be alot less abrasive with the Americans had he been Supreme commander. After all instead of being a peer he would effectively be their chief, thus you wouldn't have the Montgomery/Patton rivalry and split which has gone on since the war.
 
Though apparently Wales had loads of them....

And I'm with Wozza on this one - Monty was a tool of the first degree, but he knew what he was doing. The British were generally no worse than the Americans in battlefield performance, although a nod must go to the Canadians and Poles, who were both pretty good, as were the other Commonwealth troops. All were worse than the Germans in small-unit tactical encounters, but the idea of the British being "out-thought & out-manoeuvred" is ludicrous in the context of NW Europe.

Market-Garden is a perfect example of Montgomery trying to do anything other than his party piece trick. And being "out-thought & out-manoeuvred" is practically the story of the British/Commonwealth campaign in NWE. Time and time again, advances were halted by small quick reacting German forces, allowing the Germans to piece together yet another defensive line. The battle around Caen is a perfect example, as is the fight for Walcheren.

Considering their resources in men and equipment, the 21st Army group seriously underperformed. And since Montgomery was very much a 'hands on' commander, he must bear the blame for this.

Montgomery was excellent at planning but besides El Alamein it is hard to find any other battle he really performed beyond the lowest level of expectation.

For a IMO well researched view on Montgomery I refer you to Armchair General's article by well known author Carlo D'Este
Monty: World War II’s Most Misunderstood General, Part 1
 
the story of the British/Commonwealth campaign in NWE.
Are you seriously implying that there are significant differences in the level of weakness between the Commonweakth and American campaigns? Are you seriously implying that Eisenhower or Bradley were better generals?

I guess I am. One can argue that with a little more boldness or talent, the allied commanders in NWE could have wrapped up the war by Christmas '44. After all, they had ENIGMA and should have known how weak the Germans really were. Yet they exhibited caution beyond basic military soundness.

Was Eisenhower a better general? Yes, very much so. Eisenhower's battlefield performance was never put to the test but he performed his role as international theatre commander in a way no other theatre commander did. MacArthur is a perfect example of a theatre commander who totally ignored political-national relations and was therefore cordially hated by his own Australian generals. It could be argued that few other than Eisenhower could have done as well in that particular role in the most important theatre.

Monty could never play well with others and it would have been that quality he would have needed to command American forces. Even after the Bulge when he had American forces, he is not know for having "saved" the northern shoulder but for pissing off the Americans with his ill-advised showboating.

Montgomery simply lacked the sensitivity to survive in a political environment. As long as he was protected against his own nature by Brooke and Eisenhower, he could function. Left alone, he would have made too many enemies. So yes, Eisenhower was better.

Was Bradley better? Well, he did do better breaking out of Normandy ;). And he managed to make use of the windfall at Remagen in a way that Bernard "let's tidy up the battlefield and move so slowly the Jerry's might die of old " Montgomery never could have.
Bradley would also not have cocked up Market-Garden in such an appalling manner. So yes, Bradley was probably better :).
 
I guess I am. One can argue that with a little more boldness or talent, the allied commanders in NWE could have wrapped up the war by Christmas '44.

Possibly, but surely then the Supreme Commanders must take responsibility for that failure.

Was Eisenhower a better general? Yes, very much so. Eisenhower's battlefield performance was never put to the test .
And with good reason. I notice that Eisenhower did not take active command during the Bulge for instance but left it to Montgomery.

Was Bradley better? Well, he did do better breaking out of Normandy ;). And he managed to make use of the windfall at Remagen in a way that Bernard "let's tidy up the battlefield and move so slowly the Jerry's might die of old " Montgomery never could have.
Bradley would also not have cocked up Market-Garden in such an appalling manner. So yes, Bradley was probably better :).

To compare Normandy is ridiculous. It is like comparing a man who punches through a paper bag to one who slams his fist against a steel door whilst saying that they are similar because the two events happen in the same room.

Again the real test is when the armies are under pressure. Montgomery had to take command of Bradley's forces. Neither Eisenhower nor Bradley did anything to cover the key strategic ground, Montgomery had to do it.

Man management, also a key issue in generalship, is another matter where Bradley scores poorly, US troops were often not properly looked after in the way Montgomery looked after his.

It is worth reflecting on the very different backgrounds of Montgomery and Eisenhower/Bradley. He had simply done vastly, vastly more actual soldiering at all levels.

No, he will never win marks for dash, and few for flair. But few generals do and that is only one syle of generalship, and reflects one aspect of the role. A competent and clear grasp of the picture is the key strategic skill.

I will read the Carlo D'Este article you posted at one point though. I am only familiar with the outlines of his work.
 
Possibly, but surely then the
I will read the Carlo D'Este article you posted at one point though. I am only familiar with the outlines of his work.

Please do, D'Este has also written articles on Eisenhower and Patton which are available at Armchair General. It provides an interesting view on those generals.
 
I think it is clear that there was no realistic possibility of Montgomery becoming Supreme Commander and IMO he would have been disastrous, he was no politician.

What was perhaps possible would be for him to have remained commander of all Allied ground forces even after the victory in Normandy.

IMO Montgomery's admittedly self-serving analysis, that there should be a single ground forces commander directing the battle and that Eisenhower was too distant and occupied with wider issues, was correct.

IIRC Montgomery offered to serve under Bradley if necessary (although that may have been disingenuous as he was the man in possession).

The 'broad front advance' and the lack of coordination between the British/Commonwealth Army Group and the American Army Groups IMO were exactly what Montgomery warned against (e.g. political considerations outweighing military) and lead directly to the Allied failure to maintain momentum after Normandy and hence to the Battle of the Bulge.
 
Without stepping into the bees nest of hindsight superiority, Montgomery being Supreme commander means either he does not go for the press like Patton, or the allies decided a field commander is better for the job then the excellent micromanger which was Ike. Ike said attack here, made sure supplies got there, and for the most part trusted his generals to do it. I could see Montgomery doing the same, but taking a greater interest in how the battle was fought.

But just to throw it in. Look at North Africa to see what kind of commander Montgomery was. Some say he was slow, but he stopped Rommel. His actions worked well to destroyed the invicibility myth of the blitzkreig. Some could argue how it was just a giuven that one would figure out how to use forces to stop rapid movement, but Montgomery did it when no one else did.

Also some make being prepared seem like a hinderence. Think about the Germans who adapted on the fly to a Allied forces slowly moving, never going farther then supplies allow them. Sounds like it would take a long time, but in such a fight I'd put money on the prepared ones over the adapting ones any day.
 
If Monty is Supreme Commander in Europe, can I assume that America is pursuing a Japan-first strategy? This does have some rather serious effects...
 
Nazi's hold out till 46, hitler dead and SS running things.
Soviets in charge of europe, unless ss go with sucicide assassination plot on Stalin.

You might see a japanese attack on Russia.

Someone will sue for peace.

Why, Patton gone. Of course it might be President Patton.

Some of the opinions here on Monty here are practically disgraceful. What kinds of crap do somepeople read or watch?

Montgomery won North Africa against Rommel, using slow tactics. He fought the war he wanted and did not allow Rommel or London to rush him into an ill prepared offensive. He as an Organiser was 1st class. If he had not fought the way he did. He could of easily been pushed back just like so many offensives in the desert. Taking it slow and knowing your limits is defiantly not going to seize the headlines in the Blitzkrieg era. However he made it to Tripoli with 8th army where others had failed.

Yes Monty had a problem with the press and his opinions however I don't think there was a better leader of men in the Western theatre in WW2. He made sure every man was involved and knew his role in the battle. He built morale effectively and encouraged his men in possibly the darkest times of the war.

When Monty took over the 8th Army Morale was low. He immediately starting touring the units and filling the men with purpose and a vision for victory. He made it clear to his men. Men, which were frustrated with officer’s miles behind the lines and always ordering them to retreat. Many had never even seen their commander before Monty arrived. Monty made it clear that this was “The line in the sand”. There was no fall back position after El Alamein and the Axis would be stopped there. He did want London asked and more in North Africa.


He was slow? So he cared about the lives of his men. What a crime! He was actually aware of Britain’s manpower limit and tried to save his men’s lives when he could. I am sure those troops who survived due to Monty been a cautious general would of wanted to die for a few days forward in miles.

It’s very easy for people to comment now on Montgomery with that fantastic quality of Hindsight however Montgomery I firmly believe for all his faults was a top class General and should not have his reputation tarnished by generalised statements.

_______________________________________________________________

To actually answer the threads question, which has been hi-jacked.

Monty was many things however a supreme commander of the Allied Collation? He was not. Eisenhower had many flaws as a military leader however the one thing he had was the diplomatic touch something if you look at Monty he would not have.

It would be horrible with Monty as Supreme Commander. With Churchill having an early trip to France to tell him he is getting the sack.

Brooke summed it up for me with this quote:

He is probably the finest tactical general we have had since Wellington. But on some of his strategy, and especially on his relations with the Americans, he is almost a disaster.” Alan Brooke.
 
Top