Comments on: I like Monty—sort of. http://www.historynet.com/i-like-monty%e2%80%94sort-of.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:30:06 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: joe http://www.historynet.com/i-like-monty%e2%80%94sort-of.htm/comment-page-1#comment-219460 joe Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:23:34 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681090#comment-219460 Oh Please. He was timid to the point of being reckless and causing more casualties due to letting the enemy escape. He was intimidated by Rommel and wouldn't take ANY risks. Maybe that was good, because he didn't have the talent to pull it off. Case 1 - Alamein and pursuit. Rommel had a shell of an army with no fuel. He let all but some of the unomotorized Italians escape. These escaped troops caused more Brit casualties down the road Case 2 - Italy with the Americans under fire at Salerno, he plodded up the toe with no hurry, with virtually no opposition. this caused more American casualties Case 3 - Goodwood - the coordination between the infantry and the armor was pathetic. The logistics of getting the troops across the bridges was poorly planned and executed. Granted he faced tough German troops, but they were at far less than full strength. Case 4 - Falaise - There was a need for quick action to trap the German armies. Something Monty was incapable of. These escaped troops caused more Brit casualties down the road Case 5 - Amsterdam - Took the city, but failed to realize that the city was worthless without the approaches. Actually, failed to realize it although he was told this was the case. Instead of taking the Scheldt when it was there for the taking, he delayed causing more casualties to the Canadians in slogging through the river areas AND the resulting longer supply lines also lengthened the war. Personal opinion, the guy was good at one thing. Waiting until he had an overwhelming amount of force and then bludgeoning his way through. No creativity at all. The ONE thing I will give him was stopping Rommel at Alam Halfa. He judged correctly that Rommel would attack from the south and judged the terrain correctly in placing his troops along the ridge. Of course, having enormous supply advantages and a narrow attack corridor made his job much easier than his predecessors. Oh Please. He was timid to the point of being reckless and causing more casualties due to letting the enemy escape. He was intimidated by Rommel and wouldn't take ANY risks. Maybe that was good, because he didn't have the talent to pull it off.

Case 1 – Alamein and pursuit. Rommel had a shell of an army with no fuel. He let all but some of the unomotorized Italians escape. These escaped troops caused more Brit casualties down the road

Case 2 – Italy with the Americans under fire at Salerno, he plodded up the toe with no hurry, with virtually no opposition. this caused more American casualties

Case 3 – Goodwood – the coordination between the infantry and the armor was pathetic. The logistics of getting the troops across the bridges was poorly planned and executed. Granted he faced tough German troops, but they were at far less than full strength.

Case 4 – Falaise – There was a need for quick action to trap the German armies. Something Monty was incapable of. These escaped troops caused more Brit casualties down the road

Case 5 – Amsterdam – Took the city, but failed to realize that the city was worthless without the approaches. Actually, failed to realize it although he was told this was the case. Instead of taking the Scheldt when it was there for the taking, he delayed causing more casualties to the Canadians in slogging through the river areas AND the resulting longer supply lines also lengthened the war.

Personal opinion, the guy was good at one thing. Waiting until he had an overwhelming amount of force and then bludgeoning his way through. No creativity at all. The ONE thing I will give him was stopping Rommel at Alam Halfa. He judged correctly that Rommel would attack from the south and judged the terrain correctly in placing his troops along the ridge. Of course, having enormous supply advantages and a narrow attack corridor made his job much easier than his predecessors.

]]> By: Rob Citino http://www.historynet.com/i-like-monty%e2%80%94sort-of.htm/comment-page-1#comment-125348 Rob Citino Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:27:02 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681090#comment-125348 Tim-- All good points. Perhaps in terms of "style points", Monty wasn't the world's greatest field commander. Then again, wars are not won on style points. Tim–

All good points. Perhaps in terms of "style points", Monty wasn't the world's greatest field commander. Then again, wars are not won on style points.

]]> By: Tim http://www.historynet.com/i-like-monty%e2%80%94sort-of.htm/comment-page-1#comment-125121 Tim Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:33:45 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681090#comment-125121 Rob I agree with you. Monty has been somewhat maligned by the wider public, Americans especially. The viscount absolutely had some personality flaws, but he was an able tactician and an excellent command officer. The sheer firepower the Germans had arrayed around Caen meant that any of the British operations in that area were going to be slow, bloody and painful. Had the roles been reversed I don’t think Patton would have done any better. But the fact is the Germans had to react to Monty’s moves, if the Normandy line had broken around Caen the road to Paris would have lay at Monty's feet. The whole German army in Normandy would have been enveloped and its lines of communication cut, a situation more catastrophic than the disastrous withdrawal through Falese to the Rhine; likely the total destruction of the German forces in the west and the end of the war. Monty drew Wehrmacht strength in around Caen and the Germans had no choice but to concentrate there. Without this Patton would not have been able to break out in the west. Additionally I don’t think you can criticize a Commander for an individual trait without examining the situation. Being cautious (or reckless for that matter) is not in itself a bad thing if the tactical situation calls for caution. I am yet to see an operation where Monty’s cautious style negatively affected the final outcome. Indeed his one major operational failure was the only time he rushed; a more cautious approach would have probably saved Market Garden. When facing an enemy with the aggression and flair for bold manoeuvre of Rommel someone who is a fundamentally sound tactician with an aptitude for set piece engagements and a cautious nature would seem to fit the bill perfectly. Seat of your pants double envelopments and deep penetrations are always more appealing to the average Joe, but against the afrika corps the 8th army would have been flanked and outmanoeuvred quick smart if it tried too much of that caper. Monty played to his strengths in Egypt and Libya; he pinned Rommel down and mauled him. Monty was an egocentric narcissist and apparently hell to work with, but that shouldn’t detract from his achievements. Rob I agree with you. Monty has been somewhat maligned by the wider public, Americans especially. The viscount absolutely had some personality flaws, but he was an able tactician and an excellent command officer. The sheer firepower the Germans had arrayed around Caen meant that any of the British operations in that area were going to be slow, bloody and painful. Had the roles been reversed I don’t think Patton would have done any better. But the fact is the Germans had to react to Monty’s moves, if the Normandy line had broken around Caen the road to Paris would have lay at Monty's feet. The whole German army in Normandy would have been enveloped and its lines of communication cut, a situation more catastrophic than the disastrous withdrawal through Falese to the Rhine; likely the total destruction of the German forces in the west and the end of the war. Monty drew Wehrmacht strength in around Caen and the Germans had no choice but to concentrate there. Without this Patton would not have been able to break out in the west.

Additionally I don’t think you can criticize a Commander for an individual trait without examining the situation. Being cautious (or reckless for that matter) is not in itself a bad thing if the tactical situation calls for caution. I am yet to see an operation where Monty’s cautious style negatively affected the final outcome. Indeed his one major operational failure was the only time he rushed; a more cautious approach would have probably saved Market Garden. When facing an enemy with the aggression and flair for bold manoeuvre of Rommel someone who is a fundamentally sound tactician with an aptitude for set piece engagements and a cautious nature would seem to fit the bill perfectly. Seat of your pants double envelopments and deep penetrations are always more appealing to the average Joe, but against the afrika corps the 8th army would have been flanked and outmanoeuvred quick smart if it tried too much of that caper. Monty played to his strengths in Egypt and Libya; he pinned Rommel down and mauled him.

Monty was an egocentric narcissist and apparently hell to work with, but that shouldn’t detract from his achievements.

]]> By: Rob Citino http://www.historynet.com/i-like-monty%e2%80%94sort-of.htm/comment-page-1#comment-116139 Rob Citino Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:44:21 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681090#comment-116139 Andrew-- Given manpower levels, the U.S. Army SHOULD have been ready to pay the greatest cost. It's a simple matter of arithmetic. Andrew–

Given manpower levels, the U.S. Army SHOULD have been ready to pay the greatest cost. It's a simple matter of arithmetic.

]]> By: Andrew Morris http://www.historynet.com/i-like-monty%e2%80%94sort-of.htm/comment-page-1#comment-116076 Andrew Morris Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:06:16 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681090#comment-116076 I'm one to agree as well. I like Mike Hasting's conclusions that everything that made up Monty's personality is what made him such a great leader... and I think across the span of history there is not one great leader who did not have one flaw or another. It's part of what makes them great, in my opinion. Plus, given the British lack of manpower a relatively cautious leader is what they needed at the time. Even if it meant that the advance was painfully slow, it at least occupied the Germans, allowing the Americans and Canadians to cross the Atlantic, get into Europe and start spreading the Germans out and grinding them down to ensure an Allied victory. I'm one to agree as well. I like Mike Hasting's conclusions that everything that made up Monty's personality is what made him such a great leader… and I think across the span of history there is not one great leader who did not have one flaw or another. It's part of what makes them great, in my opinion.

Plus, given the British lack of manpower a relatively cautious leader is what they needed at the time. Even if it meant that the advance was painfully slow, it at least occupied the Germans, allowing the Americans and Canadians to cross the Atlantic, get into Europe and start spreading the Germans out and grinding them down to ensure an Allied victory.

]]> By: Rob Citino http://www.historynet.com/i-like-monty%e2%80%94sort-of.htm/comment-page-1#comment-96365 Rob Citino Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:05:25 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681090#comment-96365 Mike- I agree. I think that at this stage we have to be able to give credit where credit is due. Monty may have been obnoxious, but so what? He did what he could with the hand he'd been dealt. --RC Mike-

I agree. I think that at this stage we have to be able to give credit where credit is due. Monty may have been obnoxious, but so what? He did what he could with the hand he'd been dealt.

–RC

]]> By: Mike Hegarty http://www.historynet.com/i-like-monty%e2%80%94sort-of.htm/comment-page-1#comment-96254 Mike Hegarty Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:12:48 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681090#comment-96254 I agree grudgingly with your comments of Montgomery. If one conducts an analysis of British manpower leading up to the D-Day landings, a bloodletting of the British Army would have disastrous results. It is reasonable to conclude that the manpower shortage facing Monty was critical. The movement of divisions/corps to Monty's Army Group was a tactical and logistical decision. One point of Monty's personality that rubs many the wrong way was his arrogance and Anglocentric outlook. This was a necessary view for Monty to take for morale reasons. Certainly the U.S. had the far greater amount of troops in the theater but Monty had the shortest and arguably more defended route to Germany. A tough road to hoe with manpower and morale issues. I agree grudgingly with your comments of Montgomery. If one conducts an analysis of British manpower leading up to the D-Day landings, a bloodletting of the British Army would have disastrous results. It is reasonable to conclude that the manpower shortage facing Monty was critical. The movement of divisions/corps to Monty's Army Group was a tactical and logistical decision. One point of Monty's personality that rubs many the wrong way was his arrogance and Anglocentric outlook. This was a necessary view for Monty to take for morale reasons. Certainly the U.S. had the far greater amount of troops in the theater but Monty had the shortest and arguably more defended route to Germany. A tough road to hoe with manpower and morale issues.

]]>