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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deleted member 1487

I don't know; my initial thought/post was could/would a Montgomery and Patton exchanging roles thing be done, but if that's not plausible, then I'm open to other suggestions?
Patton wouldn't be in the position, he was considerably more junior than Monty and the British sector was set in the East to drive on Caen; it would have to be another British commander.
 
If Montgomery were replaced it need not be by a British general. A Canadian for example would also be possible. After all, Jan Smuts not only fought against the British in the 2nd Boer War but then became a British Field Marshal, a member of the War Cabinet and was regarded favourably as the man who would take over from Churchill as British Prime Minister should Churchill become unable to continue in the post so a non British General would not be a problem in itself. Not that I am suggesting whom it might be but just to air the possibility.
 
El Alamein - Tunis is about 25% further than Moscow - Berlin and was achieved in 6 months.

But unlike Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Poland there's only really one route to get from Egypt to Tunis.
Just admit that Monty did one of his plodding advances.
 

Deleted member 1487

But unlike Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Poland there's only really one route to get from Egypt to Tunis.
Just admit that Monty did one of his plodding advances.
Englishman John Ellis in "Brute Force" gets into the North African campaign and really excoriates Monty for not taking multiple chances to cut off and destroy Rommel and even charging into his guns in Tunisia on more than one occasion and letting the Axis front survive for months longer than it should have.
 
I thought the reason Patton was given command of the "phantom" army was part punishment, part rehabilitation after he was relieved because of the slap incident.
 

Deleted member 1487

I thought the reason Patton was given command of the "phantom" army was part punishment, part rehabilitation after he was relieved because of the slap incident.
He was technically in charge of the 3rd Army at this point and was training new soldiers, so they needed to try and make some use of him while he was cooling his heels, so FUSAG was a cover for what he was really doing in the meantime, training the army he would use to breakout in Normandy.
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
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)

Screw up at Falaise stopping his tanks early
The Canadian and Polish tanks were stopped early because they could not trust the Americans to look before they shoot their allies!
 
Screw up at Falaise stopping his tanks early
The Canadian and Polish tanks were stopped early because they could not trust the Americans to look before they shoot their allies!

You think the US Army didn't know what LL Shermans and Cromwells looked like, being all dark green with white stars on them?
Cromwell_Tanks_Netherlands_zps54376b56.jpg


Vs German tanks, in Tan camo with green and rust colored blotches, armor skirts and black Balkenkreuz painted on?
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
You think the US Army didn't know what LL Shermans and Cromwells looked like, being all dark green with white stars on them?
Cromwell_Tanks_Netherlands_zps54376b56.jpg


Vs German tanks, in Tan camo with green and rust colored blotches, armor skirts and black Balkenkreuz painted on?

Spray and pray the American way!
 
Englishman John Ellis in "Brute Force" gets into the North African campaign and really excoriates Monty for not taking multiple chances to cut off and destroy Rommel

It's really not possible to cut off mobile forces in the Desert; the Italian Army got captured because they were on foot.

Probably the best example is 50th Division at the Gazala line; German armoured forces were up to 50 miles behind them, but they broke out westward and escaped.
 

hipper

Banned
The Endless Monty vs Patton debate is fascinating, I think it reflects something quite deep in American culture. I'm not entirely sure they have produced many warts and all histories of world war 2. The best I've read is Rick Atkinsons trilogy. However there is one amusing trait in this book, whenever a US failure is described a similar British failure is also described. It's as if he thinks his audience cannot take descriptions of US failure unless ballenced by similar tales from allies. Most of the rest of US military history seems to froth at the mouth when Montgomery is mentioned. Presumably this is because he was in command of US forces on two occasions both entirely successfully. The Normandy Campaign was one of the most successfull allied battles of WW2, His command of the Northern Shoulder of the Bulge was entirely Successfull and probably saved Hodges from being relieved, This seems to have been unforgivable in American eyes.
 

hipper

Banned
It's really not possible to cut off mobile forces in the Desert; the Italian Army got captured because they were on foot.

Probably the best example is 50th Division at the Gazala line; German armoured forces were up to 50 miles behind them, but they broke out westward and escaped.

The Italians at Breda Fomm were indeed motorised it's the inability to repeat that success that monty was being criticised for. However you are correct it was the Italian failure to realise they could bypass the defenders of Breda Fomm that caused their surrender I doubt the Germans would do the same.
 
Screw up at Falaise stopping his tanks early
The Canadian and Polish tanks were stopped early because they could not trust the Americans to look before they shoot their allies!

It wasn't like the Germans just waltzed out of the encirclement - there was a major battle - dare I say it a heroic effort by some German units to keep the gap open - for example Hill 262 where the Polish took very heavy casualties

As for the ability to close the gap earlier - yes no doubt Patton could have closed it with his 4 divisions but it would have meant spreading his forces thinly vs the remains of a dozen or more German Divisions many of them comprised of Veteran troops who had but one aim which was to GTFO.

In anycase Bradley was the one in Command of Patton's forces and it was he who Halted Patton - great quote on Wiki

Although Patton might have spun a line across the narrow neck, I doubted his ability to hold it. Nineteen German divisions were now stampeding to escape the trap. Meanwhile, with four divisions George was already blocking three principal escape routes through Alencon, Sees and Argentan. Had he stretched that line to include Falaise, he would have extended his roadblock a distance of 40 miles (64 km). The enemy could not only have broken through, but he might have trampled Patton's position in the onrush. I much preferred a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise.

— Bradley

I think that says it all
 
Monty had something they didn't: unlimited material and time. Oh and facing far fewer much more poorly supplied Germans, with a majority of the combined Axis force being Italians.

In North Africa Yes - but elsewhere it was often peer or peer plus opposition

Also in North Africa it was no happy accident or through no little effort that he was so well supplied given that his supply lines were far longer than Rommel's or for that matter these Russian Generals fighting in their own country for the most part with a railhead supply system directly from their Factories / depots.
 

Redbeard

Banned
The Endless Monty vs Patton debate is fascinating, I think it reflects something quite deep in American culture. I'm not entirely sure they have produced many warts and all histories of world war 2. The best I've read is Rick Atkinsons trilogy. However there is one amusing trait in this book, whenever a US failure is described a similar British failure is also described. It's as if he thinks his audience cannot take descriptions of US failure unless ballenced by similar tales from allies. Most of the rest of US military history seems to froth at the mouth when Montgomery is mentioned. Presumably this is because he was in command of US forces on two occasions both entirely successfully. The Normandy Campaign was one of the most successfull allied battles of WW2, His command of the Northern Shoulder of the Bulge was entirely Successfull and probably saved Hodges from being relieved, This seems to have been unforgivable in American eyes.

I can recognise the observation, and I'm not even Anglo-Saxon (although I do have forefathers in Angel/Slesvig and in Saxony/SE Germany).

Many years ago I used to be active over on the Battleships vs Battleships board but had to stop posting and lurking there, simply because it damaged my general high respect of America and the American people! Other nations could be quite tedious too, incl. a few British, but I often wondered how much this anti-British attitude appeared to just hide a huge inferiority complex!!!! Like if they feared King George III could show up any day and declare it was all just a dream and now we're back to good ol' times in His Majestys Service. I mean come on USian fellows, you're grown up now - and welcomed BTW!

But if reuniting the two great nations could mean a compromise between the US attitude and the often almost masochist British self-critique it perhaps would be a good idea. How about Trump and May getting married? She need a new "lover" after she dumped Juncker and the first lady in USA doesn't appear that interested in the job. :)

BTW the British often appear "quite American" when the subject is Napoleonic wars...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top