WW2: What if the Germans rate Montgomery as the best W. Allied commander in 1943?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What happens if, after the conclusion of operations in N. Africa and the invasion of Sicily, in 1943, the German high command rates Montgomery as the most dangerous western allied commander, and this becomes known to the planners for D Day in the UK?
For the sake of deception, do Patton and Montgomery get swapped over in roles, with Montgomery being kept back in charge of the decoy army, in southeastern England (which is supposedly going to cross the straits to attack Calais), whilst Patton has control of the forces in Normandy?
 
Good luck having it be Montgomery who is seen as the best General, a Canadian war hero by the name of Leo Major refused to accept a distinguished conduct medal he was awarded because he was going to be presented to him by Montgomery.
If a man fails to gain the respect of his allies it's doubtful he will have the respect ofvhis enemies either.
 
Good luck having it be Montgomery who is seen as the best General, a Canadian war hero by the name of Leo Major refused to accept a distinguished conduct medal he was awarded because he was going to be presented to him by Montgomery.
If a man fails to gain the respect of his allies it's doubtful he will have the respect ofvhis enemies either.

The Germans didn't have to deal with Montgomery on a personal level, they'd be well insulated from his ego. :)
 
What happens if, after the conclusion of operations in N. Africa and the invasion of Sicily, in 1943, the German high command rates Montgomery as the most dangerous western allied commander, and this becomes known to the planners for D Day in the UK?
For the sake of deception, do Patton and Montgomery get swapped over in roles, with Montgomery being kept back in charge of the decoy army, in southeastern England (which is supposedly going to cross the straits to attack Calais), whilst Patton has control of the forces in Normandy?

Patton was a doer not a planner - he could be trusted to lead an army Brilliantly - the actual planning of large ops etc and the judgement required - not so much.

Also Patton commanded an 'Army' Monty commanded an Army Group

In many respects he is like Rommel - utterly brilliant in commanding an army - so long as someone else is handling the boring stuff.

I cannot see him planning Overlord!
 
I just dont get the modern thing about Montgomery being a bad general. Ok he had an ego that would have filled an Opera House and he loved the sound of his own voice but name me a general who wasnt the same. Patton is considered to be a god by Americans but his commands kept running out of fuel and ammo which isnt the sign of greatness, its a sign of poor planning. Look at Rommel a genius many say but he ran up and down the coast of North Africa and failed to achieve his target even though he sometimes got to read the Allied battle plans before the Allied Battalion commanders.

Montgomery in 5 years screwed up once at Market Garden which wasnt even his plan though he was enthusiastic about it. Market Garden wasnt even a particulary important battle if it hadnt been for the use of paras it would barely be remembered.
 
I'd add botching the followup to El Alamein, letting Rommel escape intact to Tunisia, screwing up at Caen, Halting his troops at Falaise, not clearing the approaches to Antwerp...

Botching the followup to El Alamein, letting Rommel escape intact to Tunisia

Well I would say that is like criticizing your football team for beating your opponent 6 nil when you think it should have been 7 nil - it was still a massive win - part of the reason was that Montgomery did not trust his armoured forces to run off and get themselves shot up...again.

screwing up at Caen

Well the plan didn't survive contact with the enemy (I blame the Germans) - but that being said the actual battle for Normandy was over far far quicker than planners had expected or anticipated (I blame Montgomery)

not clearing the approaches to Antwerp

Well here's the thing - Antwerp fell on the 2nd Sept after a spectacular and quite unanticipated advance by Br 2nd Army mere days after German Army Group B had only just retreated across the Seine effectively ending the Battle of Normandy (Operation Overlord) on the 30th Aug.

Basically the British were not in a position to clear the Approaches before their supply train had caught up and the specialist vehicles and equipment necessary to conduct ops in the area - they had quite spectacularly outrun their supplys

With hindsight maybe the op could have been started in late Sept instead of Operation Market Garden -but that would have left a large area to the East of subsequent Scheldt operation in German Hands which in itself may have further delayed the Scheldt Estuary anyway.

All that being said I doubt very much that the Battle to clear the Scheldt could have started much before the 2nd Oct 44 and the operation to clear Walcheren Island required a lot of specialist equipment and the units that would conduct the seaborne assaults

Many of those units had been in action from D-Day till Early Sept (No4 Commando for example was in action for 82 days - had 14 days RnR back in the UK before training and absorbing replacements for this op)
 
Perhaps they were just better at hiding their egos?;)

eg AFAIK Eisenhower never admitted publically to any mistakes

Slim, at Burma army reunions, referred to the accomplishments of the army as "You did these things." Not I or we. George McDonald Fraser describes Slim pretty well in Quartered Safe Out Here.
 
I'd add botching the followup to El Alamein, letting Rommel escape intact to Tunisia, screwing up at Caen, Halting his troops at Falaise, not clearing the approaches to Antwerp...

Before Monty took charge Britain and her Allies had done nothing but be defeated by the German Army. In North Africa 2 years of going up and down the coast got the Allies nowhere, after Monty took over his armies cleared the Axis from Africa in 9 months. Montgomery was similar to Zhukov he didnt move an inch unless it was on his own terms and after 1942 neither general did anything but move the front line nearer to Berlin.
 
Perhaps they were just better at hiding their egos?;)

eg AFAIK Eisenhower never admitted publically to any mistakes
Well, he was more a coordinator and delegator. And he DID manage to get a disparate set of nations to work together and pulled off the biggest naval landing in history AND even reigned in Patton. So yeah, Eisenhower did his job well.
 
I've always made the mental comparison between Monty and Patton as different gridiron football styles. Monty was the goal-line "3 yards and a cloud of dust" style in that he does advance but at a very methodical and thus slow pace, he will reach his goal but it takes him a while to get there. Patton was more the end around-open field type runner in that speed and misdirection made for a faster and more exciting advance. Monty was known for meticulous planning and did well in set-piece battles but the one time he tried to be daring it ended in the disastrous Operation Market-Garden
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top