Alexander not Montgomery in Normandy?

I have just been thinking would it made a difference in both Normandy and Italy if if Monty's and Alexander's role had been reversed and Alex had bcome GOC 21st Army Group and Monty GOC 15th Army Group. We all now Monty was a master at the set piece battle, so he may have had better success at Cassino, he also may have been able to control, or at least stand up to Leese much better than Alexander did, but what would Alexander have been like in NW Europe. Your thoughts?

Ross

 

Now that I read about the different tactics of battle between the US and the British troops I wonder whether the problem faced by the British that no unnecessary men losses should occur was the real problem in Normandy. In Alamein the infantry did carry the responsibility and met huge losses but the battle was won in the end thanx to that. In Normandy the tanks were sent without necessary infantry cover to avoid infantry losses and tank losses were huge and the gained area was not that remarkable.

So with the same kind of orders I think Alexander would not have reached any better results, he would have had his hands tied as well.

As a motivator of men ( with his strict discipline orders...) Monty was probably the best so I guess I´d still put him in Normandy first ( although as a person I´d prefer Alexander I guess ).

 

I'm no expert on this, but I too feel that Alex would have been 'too nice' to be effective in the NW Europe campaign.

He was certainly more socially skilled with his Allies than Monty ( it would have been difficult, maybe, to be less... ) but would he have had the necessary determination ?

 

Kai,
The British Infantry losses at Alamein were not that high. Most of the Infantry in the assault Corps were Australian, New Zealander, Sth African & Indian. Even the 51st Div were Scottish (at least by name)

Monty would have been far superior to Alex & Mark Clark in Italy, though the resources available may still have created deadlocks. Leese would have done what he was told.

Alex in Europe, I would imagine that the Army ommanders in 21st Army Group would have got more of there way, wheter that would be positive or not is hard to say.

 

In Normandy the tanks were sent without necessary infantry cover to avoid infantry losses and tank losses were huge and the gained area was not that remarkable.

I think are refering to Goodwood Kai?

Alot of people think Goodwood was JUST another attempt by Monty to break out, yes of course it would have been been great if the armour had of done. But Goodwood was really intended to be the start of Operation Cobra, to keep the German armour on 2nd armies front (although Cobra was put back). German divs were being transfered from 2nd armies front to the US sector and of course Monty knew that if these formations engaged the Americans while they were preparing, it would be disastrous. Goodwood had to be done and its real purpose was achieved. Ground taken during Goodwood is really irrelevant in regards to Cobra being successful.

I really recommend the book, "The pendulum of battle" operation Goodwood, by Chris Dunphie.


As far as Monty or Alex goes, Monty for me everytime.


Andy

[ 11. August 2005, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: ham and jam ]

 

Yes, Andy,

I guess Goodwood is the example of this although with a little more luck ( or without Hans von Luck really...) it might have been a great success really...

BTW, when was it precisely ordered that Monty should not lose more men because the home front would not tolerate any more losses ? At the time of Goodwood?? Or earlier?

[ 16. August 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]