Hey...
If anyone has a question about the North African Campaign, Afrika Corps, Rommel 'The Desert Fox' or anything perttaining to Italy in North Africa or the Brits...feel free to ask or start up a conversation about it.

Mussolini.

I don't have any questions...

tension, tension, heehee

Rommel is over-rated, Montgomery rulz

hehe,

yeah, that's a debate that will never end

According to many US generals however, I'm sure they would rather have had Rommel than Monty fighting with them. From Overlord onward.

I'm going to agree with Rommel (of the discussion group) on this one. Richard, if you're a Rommel nay-sayer or Monty fan, take some time out to read A Bridge Too Far. Yes, its fiction but based on facts and gives some insight into the Allied Generals' decision making.

I'd have to agree with Rommel to, espically with the militatary exploits the Real Life rommel carried out with what he had. I doubt any british or american commander could utilize tanks and mobile troops the way Rommel could. Even what he did in France was great...using speed and the power or tanks even if he got isolated every now and then.
ALso, in Africa Rommel was usually outnumbered by the Allies tank and didnt have the neccesary supplies. Rommel was problary the greatest tank commander ever.

Mussolini.

I think Patton compared to Rommel in his ability to get his soldiers going, and his tank strategies were very strike and attack. Although he never had the freedom to mount a large scale battle like Rommel did in smaller contexts you could compare Rommel and Patton. They both Liked eachother. Rommel was pissed when he found out it wasnt Rommel he was fighting in North Africa, his replacement.

------------------
Out side is America!

Oh I agree that Rommel was a good tank tactician but that in itself was not sufficient. Rommel's big failing was his inability to maintain the momentum of his attacks and to achieve strategically significant objectives. The British and Commonwealth forces only achieved a significant numerical superiority from around mid 1942, in 1941 it was Rommel who held all the aces.

I an aware of the Montgomery-U.S. difficulties but to hold M. solely accountable is unrealistic. It is easy to say that R. would have been a preferable ally but he had a history of going his own way. Don't think that would have sat too well with Ike.

Sorry-i have to disagree with you about monty. Monty took the credit for defeating the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge. Ask any G.I. vet who fought there, and tell them that monty was the man wqho won the battle almost singlehandedly, and I bet you will get a very colorful reply.

Certainly, there were many better generals in the British army than monty. How about Sir Auchenleck and whats his name-the fellow in charge in Burma. Certainly they were alot better then monty.

I have to say Monty was successful only when he had material superiority and that was the only time he would attack. He was very conservative, with the exception of Market-Garden, and that cost the allies additional casualties because Monty waited to long to advance onto Caen. His success in Alamain was because of the narrow front Rommel had to confine his attack on. Whomever initiated the attack would more than likely have lost that battle. The only masterstroke performed by Monty was all in his head. Patton and Rommel knew and practiced the concepts of armoured campaigns. Just look at how they both push their men and machines beyond the limits. Nope, Monty is not the man.

------------------
Tschuss

It's amazing how many people dislike Monty! I admit he's no favourite of mine but WOW! Everyone is sniping him. Does anyone here actually like Montgomery?

[This message has been edited by Otto (edited 06 January 2001).]

Nothing personal but I don't believe there is anybody out there who would like someone who puts himself up on a pedastel without truely deserving it or earning it.

------------------
Tschuss

I cant say I do not like Monty but, what I don't like is: That he takes all the credit, even if he had just a minimal part in an operation.

Monty might be a good Divisional CO, and maybe a fair Corps CO, but in charge of a whole Army--Nah!

If Montgomery was a glory hog, what were Mark Clark and Dougout Doug Macarthur?

Patton obviously saw M as a rival for the credit he, P, thought should be all his. I think M carried an enormous burden of responsibility on behalf of the British, he was virtually their only hero. Militarily, given his length of service at the top, I suggest any objective examination of his performance would place him very highly.

You've got apoint there richard. Monty is often attacked because he is a glory hound, but Patton and MacArthur were constant press seekers. Rommel is fairly well known for his media management skill as well.

I have to admit I am a "bit" prejudiced on this subject. My father (who served in the 6th Army under Walter Krueger in the Pacific)had absolutely NO LOVE for McArthur. I served as an US Armor officer for 20 years, so you should know how I feel about Patton. Therefore, it isn't too hard to figure out how I feel about "Monty."

Dear Richard: I agree with you when you say that Mark Clark and Mac Arthur were glory hogs. I had an uncle who served under Mac, and he hated the man. Admirals Chester Nimitz, "Bull" Halsey, and Frank Jack Fletcher, didn't like Mac either. If it even matters-Patton hated Macs name.

Mark Clarks problem was that he was an A*****E. He was a glory hound and thought he was "IT" as a General. Thats not so bad when you compare his ego with Macs ego. At least Mark Clark didn't think he was God.

Mark Clark made a few really big and dumb errors. For instance "The Bombing of Monte Cassino" ~~~and~~~ "The Battle of San Pietro" which were basically--massacres of allied soldiers.

You can put Mac/Monty and Clark into the same catagory-they all had huge egos. The differences were that Mac-and Clark, kept chargiong forward, while Monty would take his sweet time, finally win some ground, and then "tidy" his battlelines by pulling back units just to straighten his lines on the maps. In the meantime, the Germans would filter in what they could, and retake ground without cost.

American commanders figured that if you captured ground, why give it up? Why should they pay for the same ground twice? It doesn't make sense to lose more men to regain what you had, had then not been pulled back.

If you think I have a hate campaign for Monty-I do not. Even the Brit Paras-The Red Devils, have admitted that the Brit FM and Generals betrayed them at Arnhem.

Hope I haven't offended you, its not meant. Take care.

I disagree. Facts are facts. Monty was not even the first choice to take over. He took over after the original choice of Gott I believe was killed in an airplane accident. If you read more about it, you will find that even the British commanders did not like Monty because of his conservative manner of conducting operations. I always judge people by actions. England had limited ground forces and their contribution was minor compared to the American contribution.

------------------
Tschuss

If you're going to defend Montgomery you have to have a thick skin and if we all agreed there would'nt be much discussion, eh. So, no problem.

Yes, Gott was to replace Auchinleck but IMHO a Brit armour man was not what the Brit/Com army needed in North Africa. I don't know that Montgomery was liked but he was respected by his contempories in the Brit/Com forces, at least in NA and unlike his predecessors. Undoubtedly his way of waging warfare was different to the US way but it does'nt follow that his way was wrong or less effective. The British generally were more effective in defence than in attack, their caution in attack may be attributable to some degree to their training and the relationship between officers and men. Their organisation also seemed to function more effectively in defence. Over all this was the fact that some units had been fighting over a long period of time and the few remaining vets had developed caution as a form of life preservation which was contagious.

Undoubtedly when the US entered the war they made the greatest contribution from then on. But don't forget that others before then had contributed heavily to destroying Axis war capacity and to holding ground that otherwise would have to have been retaken in order to defeat the Axis.


------------------
sand digger

Drae PzJgr: I agree, and in my longhanded way, I did say that Monty was too cautious-not unlike US Army General Lucas was at Anzio. Only difference was that Lucas was sacked, monty was not. Churchill made a statement of: "I had thought we had landed a tiger, but all we got was a stranded whale" or words to that effect.

I am aware that Brit commanders disliked Monty too, and it was because of his attitude on presented facts. Monty thought he was above listening to his junior commanders, and felt he was brillient just like Adolf Hitler thought the same about hisself.

Darn good points you made Richard, I agree with what you said.

Montgomery no doubt made enemies amongst the British, when he first took over in NA he sacked quite a few senior officers. At a guess, success seems to have gone to his head later on. But early on he carried out quite a few organisational and operational reforms eg abolished the box defence concept and the breaking up of divisions to form ad hoc battle groups which had resulted in poorly balanced and uncordinated attacks.

Probably the best British General in NA was Richard O'Connor who had blitzkreiged the Italians but was captured soon after Rommel appeared. He was bold and not afraid to exploit any weakness by moving around resistence to attack the rear.

As you are probably are aware, M though highly of Lightning Joe Collins, apparently the two got on well together.

------------------
sand digger

I agree on you about Monty. I wasn't aware that Monty and Lightning Joe, even knew each other. Collins was a good general, Monty would have made an excellent Platoon Commander.

O' Connor. Now there is a commander worth bragging about. If you look at the whole picture, The German army performed great feats not because it's commanders waited for numerical superiority. On the contrary, it can be said the Wehrmacht was used to fighting against the odds. O'Connor had those qualities.

------------------
Tschuss