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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Redbeard

Banned
Imagine, someone being worried about Monty's ego pick Patton instead! :eek:

Monty (or any other top leader) wasn't there to be nice around a coffee table but to get results - that he did.

IMHO Monty was the perfect general for the allied - a systematic type rarely getting out on a limp but cleverly utilising the allied superiority in numbers and materiel, and not at least in gaining the confidence of his men. That some of his closest subordinates and colleagues felt intimidated I really couldn't care less about. They're at war, not on a date!

Patton was much closer to the German ideal - ie. a dashing type always looking for opportunities to exploit - and with prospect of big wins or huge defeats. On German side a huge defeat would not bring anything about you wouldn't have anyway without the gamble but on allied side it was about not being caught off balance but investing your regular paycheck instead of gambling it.

An when opportunities showed up for exploit Monty also could see them like at Market Garden. At very low risk an opportunity to end the war soon was taken, but failed due mainly to bad intel.

And as others have already said, Monty commanded an Armygroup - that is in an entirely different class from commanding an Army.

BTW I think Eisenhower was perfect in his role - because he was a splendid diplomat and that was mainly what was needed in that job. Monty (or Patton) would have been disastrous in Eisenhowers job. I could have seen Alanbrooke in it however.
 
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.

Put Z in M's shoes in 1942 Egypt, and Z would have got to Tunisia ahead of Rommel.
 
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

Disastrous is a bit strong it was an objective failure but it wasnt a defeat and casualties compared to some western battles were relatively light.
 
Put Z in M's shoes in 1942 Egypt, and Z would have got to Tunisia ahead of Rommel.

There was a big difference, the British Army itself wasn't in a hurry to end it in '42 in North Africa. They saw the war there as a honorable war between them and other Europeans and world powers over colonies and didn't think they were ready to be able to make a successful landing on continental Europe in '42 anyway.

They didn't at all see it in modern thinking about WW2 or Eastern Front thinking about the war. Neither did the Germans or Italians.
 

Deleted member 1487

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
Sure, but Patton really was only able to do it when he ran for open country because the breakout battles were already fought and he was inserted after it was possible to race out in the open. He didn't do so hot when he hit prepared defenses like in Lorraine.
 
Sure, but Patton really was only able to do it when he ran for open country because the breakout battles were already fought and he was inserted after it was possible to race out in the open. He didn't do so hot when he hit prepared defenses like in Lorraine.
I was under the impression that was just what the Americans were like in general, really gung-ho, I always attributed it to them not being I'm the war as long as the rest of us.
 

Deleted member 1487

I was under the impression that was just what the Americans were like in general, really gung-ho, I always attributed it to them not being I'm the war as long as the rest of us.
No, many US generals were more cautious and steady. Omar Bradley for instance.
 
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?
...

My take is the German Army intelligence did not pay a lot of attention to individual commanders. They spent a lot more attention on evaluating units. Which division or corps was more effective. This seems to reflect the old Prussian army & more modern Wehrmacht philosophy that the individual commander is less important than a highly capable staff. Or to put it another way they judged the team, not the captain. Hitler & some individuals in the senior nazi heirarchy were more focused on personalities, which makes sense since they were less capable of team effort.
 
My take is the German Army intelligence did not pay a lot of attention to individual commanders. They spent a lot more attention on evaluating units. Which division or corps was more effective. This seems to reflect the old Prussian army & more modern Wehrmacht philosophy that the individual commander is less important than a highly capable staff. Or to put it another way they judged the team, not the captain.

German Army intelligence had some issues on tracking units e.g. Before D-Day they grossly overestimated the number of Allied divisions in the UK, and they often lost track of how the UK swapped armoured brigades around.
 
Sure, but Patton really was only able to do it when he ran for open country because the breakout battles were already fought and he was inserted after it was possible to race out in the open. He didn't do so hot when he hit prepared defenses like in Lorraine.

Indeed. Patton was effectively the allies' answer to Rommel - brilliant as an armoured commander with an objective to achieve and someone holding his leash, but out of his depth if given an independent command. Monty, on the other hand, was an entirely different type, probably the finest set-piece commander of the war, and in his element in operations like Alamein, Neptune and Plunder. The post-Alamein follow-up and Arnhem are prime examples of what happened when he tried to react to events, instead of having time to conduct detailed planning.
 
German Army intelligence had some issues on tracking units e.g. Before D-Day they grossly overestimated the number of Allied divisions in the UK, and they often lost track of how the UK swapped armoured brigades around.

Hell its hard nowadays to follow the track of UK brigades even with the help of google and wiki
 

Deleted member 1487

Indeed. Patton was effectively the allies' answer to Rommel - brilliant as an armoured commander with an objective to achieve and someone holding his leash, but out of his depth if given an independent command. Monty, on the other hand, was an entirely different type, probably the finest set-piece commander of the war, and in his element in operations like Alamein, Neptune and Plunder. The post-Alamein follow-up and Arnhem are prime examples of what happened when he tried to react to events, instead of having time to conduct detailed planning.
The difference is that Rommel actually won against overwhelming odds repeatedly, breaking open British lines repeatedly. Patton has none of the successes Rommel racked up, though I agree as a corps commander and up he was over his head.

As to Monty being the best set piece commander of the war...I really suggest you read up about the Eastern Front. The Soviets have at least a dozen commanders that put Monty to shame there.
 
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

2nd British Army that made the dash from Normandy to Antwerp was under Monty's command - i'd say that op was pretty daring!
 
The difference is that Rommel actually won against overwhelming odds repeatedly, breaking open British lines repeatedly. Patton has none of the successes Rommel racked up, though I agree as a corps commander and up he was over his head.

As to Monty being the best set piece commander of the war...I really suggest you read up about the Eastern Front. The Soviets have at least a dozen commanders that put Monty to shame there.

They had something Monty did not. Lots of Lives.
 
My take is the German Army intelligence did not pay a lot of attention to individual commanders. They spent a lot more attention on evaluating units. Which division or corps was more effective. This seems to reflect the old Prussian army & more modern Wehrmacht philosophy that the individual commander is less important than a highly capable staff. Or to put it another way they judged the team, not the captain. Hitler & some individuals in the senior nazi heirarchy were more focused on personalities, which makes sense since they were less capable of team effort.
Right. Hitler rated individuals/personalities - and Hitler is ultimately in command of the German war machine?
So if Hitler believes that Montgomery is the best commander that the Western Allies have, can the Western Allies do anything other than park Montgomery in southeast England, if they want Hitler to keep the forces at Calais and elsewhere pinned down, waiting for an attack that isn't going to come, as with the original timeline deception operations?
If Hitler thinks that Montgomery is the Western Allies' best commander, and sees him in Normandy, isn't Hitler going to believe that Normandy is the main attack, and act accordingly?
 

Deleted member 1487

Right. Hitler rated individuals/personalities - and Hitler is ultimately in command of the German war machine?
So if Hitler believes that Montgomery is the best commander that the Western Allies have, can the Western Allies do anything other than park Montgomery in southeast England, if they want Hitler to keep the forces at Calais and elsewhere pinned down, waiting for an attack that isn't going to come, as with the original timeline deception operations?
If Hitler thinks that Montgomery is the Western Allies' best commander, and sees him in Normandy, isn't Hitler going to believe that Normandy is the main attack, and act accordingly?
Interesting perspective. So who replaces Monty in Normandy and what do they do differently?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top