Who could replace Montgomery, and others?

MacCaulay

Banned
This is simple: there's a lot of threads about replacing Eisenhower, or Patton. But what about 21st Army Group, the British and Commonwealth forces in Northwest Europe?

Suppose that at any point in 1944, Montgomery had been injured and need replacement. Who could've replaced him? Or Sir Miles Dempsey, the commander or Second British Army. Or Harry Crerar, the Commander of 1st Canadian Army.

Go to it!

I'll start off: the only obvious and worthwhile replacement for command of 1st Canadian Army was Guy Simonds. Period. You put Guy Simonds in command of 1st Canadian Army from the outset at D-Day, and the Falaise Pocket won't be an issue.
 

Markus

Banned
Slim´s not an option at least not an easy one. He was in a backwater until the end of 44 and needed there afterwards, not a likely candidate for 21AG.
 
What about Jumbo Wilson? Might he have been pulled out of the Middle East?

Could Wavell have been given another shot and pulled out of India?
 
There were two possible replacements for Monty if Ike had fired him (and Ike seriously thought about canning Monty during the Normandy Campaign, if Beevor's book on D-Day is correct). Either General Alexander or Field Marshal Brooke were the two likely candidates for the job. Both got along well with Ike, and knew not to antagonize Americans, because Monty had single-handedly made every senior U.S. Army officer in the ETO anti-British.
 
Brian Horrocks - Ike called him "the outstanding British general under Montgomery".

This assumes that Horrocks did not get seriously injured in 1943, allowing him rapidly to progress up the chain of command, higher than the rank of Lieutenant-General he held during the Normandy campaign.
 
There is only one possible replacement for Montgomery as 21st Army Group Commander and that was Harold Alexander. Eisenhower wanted Alex to command 21st Army Group in the first place but Alanbrooke insisted on Montgomery.

The only other alternative is Freddie de Guingand and he would never take the job. He once said, when he learnt that there was a movement to sack Montgomery and put him in command (around the time of the Ardennes Offensive I believe), that he was glad it didn't happen and would have refused if it had.

Alanbrooke, on the other hand, would be retained by Churchill as CIGS for the same reason Marshall was retained by Roosevelt as Chief of Staff - too important to lose to a field command.
 
As much as I liked Freddie de Guingand (Monty really screwed him over), he was a Brigadier, far too junior to be an Army Group Commander
 
There is only one possible replacement for Montgomery as 21st Army Group Commander and that was Harold Alexander. Eisenhower wanted Alex to command 21st Army Group in the first place but Alanbrooke insisted on Montgomery.

The only other alternative is Freddie de Guingand and he would never take the job. He once said, when he learnt that there was a movement to sack Montgomery and put him in command (around the time of the Ardennes Offensive I believe), that he was glad it didn't happen and would have refused if it had.

Alanbrooke, on the other hand, would be retained by Churchill as CIGS for the same reason Marshall was retained by Roosevelt as Chief of Staff - too important to lose to a field command.

Freddie de Guingand?
He was a staff officer with zero command experience at division level or higher. He would never have been appointed army group commander. Think Paulus in khaki....

Wavell would have been a non-starter. He was too deeply embedded in India and wasn't fashionable and considered too old-fashioned. Its rather doubtful he could have coordinated a modern mechanized army and fought succesful against the Wehrmacht. Wavell was more at home against unarmed tribesmen and the Italians.

Auchinleck was another "has been" by that point. Unfairly perhaps but he didn't have the credentials any more to be allowed to face the Germans in Europe.

That leaves Brooke and Alexander. Brooke might have liked the job and he probably would have done well. Although he certainly lacked experience as a field commander, having only briefly commanded a corps in the field. However, it is moot because he would never leave London. He was the only man able to deal with Churchill and with him gone, there would have been numerous bloody brain farts like Gallipoli and Norway.

Which leaves Alexander. A competent man perhaps best suited to the role. He was able to work with the Americans and he allowed his army commanders a lot of leeway.
 
Freddie de Guingand?
He was a staff officer with zero command experience at division level or higher. He would never have been appointed army group commander. Think Paulus in khaki....

Wavell would have been a non-starter. He was too deeply embedded in India and wasn't fashionable and considered too old-fashioned. Its rather doubtful he could have coordinated a modern mechanized army and fought succesful against the Wehrmacht. Wavell was more at home against unarmed tribesmen and the Italians.

Auchinleck was another "has been" by that point. Unfairly perhaps but he didn't have the credentials any more to be allowed to face the Germans in Europe.

That leaves Brooke and Alexander. Brooke might have liked the job and he probably would have done well. Although he certainly lacked experience as a field commander, having only briefly commanded a corps in the field. However, it is moot because he would never leave London. He was the only man able to deal with Churchill and with him gone, there would have been numerous bloody brain farts like Gallipoli and Norway.

Which leaves Alexander. A competent man perhaps best suited to the role. He was able to work with the Americans and he allowed his army commanders a lot of leeway.

The main reason Freddie was a candidate was not because he could do Montgomery's job efficiently or whatever but because he was a very diplomatic man who the Americans liked. It was the height of Anti-Monty feeling amungst the Americans and in SHEAF that led to de Guingand being considered a possible replacement. It was possible but highly unlikely because of de Guingand's lack of command experiance and he was very unlikely to accept it anyway.

As to the others, I agree with you on Wavell, Auchinleck and Alanbrooke but not on Alexander.

Alex was the British Eisenhower. Great diplomatically and politically but not all that good at the military side of his job and relied heavilly on Montgomery, Leese and McCreery to do most of the work for him. Alanbrooke and Monty agreed that Alex, though personally brave and very nice man and very easy to get on with, had no aptitude for strategical or tactical thinking and was always influenced by whoever talked to him last.

To put it bluntly, Alex was a pushover.

The American's liked him because he was a pushover who let them do whatever they wanted and never did anything to get their bad sides. Had he been in given the Ground Forces Commander role for Normandy he would have let Freddie Morgan walk all over him, the OVERLORD plan would never have been created, he would have bowed to any of Churchill or Eisenhower or Tedder fears and changed the plan repeatedly and increase the chance of failure.

Alexander would have been a complete failure as 21st Army Group Commander in everything but relations with the Americans.
 
How about Lt. General Bernard Freyberg? Nobody had more experience in fighting the Germans both in number of years in combat (both wars) and in the variety of circumstances under which he fought them. He won some and he lost some but he appears to be a warrior who learned from his mistakes (which usually were the mistakes of superiors who put him in dumb situations, like Crete and Monte Cassino). Monty thought highly of him--but Monty was not the one who put him in dumb situations. Monty put him in winnable ones.
 
Top