"Monty"

i read before that monty said that market garden was a 90% victory, :roll:

 

Technically it was, except that without that last 10% the whole thing had been pretty much for nothing. Continuing the broad front strategy would have gotten the Allies to the Rhine but not over it, which is exactly why Market-Garden was initiated.

 

Yep. And I, for one, do not believe in so-called "partial successes". Bloody stupid euphemisms... :angry:

 

Monty was arrogant, abrupt, he alienated his allies, rankled his superiors, vacillated and appeared inflexible. In addition he was of small stature, had a shrill squeaky voice and comical knobbly knees. Despite all these faults he managed to inspire confidence and loyalty in his troops at a time when morale was at an all time low. Before Monty arrived Rommel had acquired an almost supernatural reputation for invincibility amongst British and CW troops. It was no mean achievement for Monty to have raised morale and moulded his troops into an effective fighting force again.

Also, lack of fuel and supplies for the DAK was part of the overal strategy of the British. Interdiction of supply ships by the RN and attacks on land convoys by the desert air force played an important role in eventual victory.

I think Market Garden was an audacious attempt to shorten the war but was poorly planned. It's another one of those 'what if' scenarios, not just considering the deaths that could have been prevented but also the changes to the post war map of Europe and world politics. Then again -

 

Market Garden was indeed audacious; one reason Eisenhower okayed it was that he was delighted to get something this aggressive from Monty. But the planning for this operation sucked, which was unusual for Montgomery, and there was nowhere near the attention to detail necessary for such an operation visible in the preparations. In fairness, however, I believe that 'Boy' Browning bears much of the blame for how the operation was set up and run.

 

I believe that you can't really blame anyone for failing to plan a succesful operation when given only ten days to do it in.

 

There is that, I suppose. However, both Monty and Browning were totally certain that the plan would succeed, so the limited time apparently did not conern them overmuch.

 

Alhough the plan failed, it only required 2 or 3 more days for the British to ho´ld out and 39 corps would have joined up. With all the things that went wrong only a few needed to go right for the possibility of success. If for example the communications had been good then Frost could have been resupplied and held out longer, If communications had been good the rest of the división could have been dropped in the right place, etc etc. The biggest mistake and this is with hind sight was communications. Had radio sets been dropped in and testest the maybe things may have been different, However, (no offence intended to our Dutch friends, het spijt mij) although there was a lot of resistance there was also a lot of collaboration, I presume the risk was taken not to recce too much and this may have been the down fall of Market Garden. IMHO

 

In the end Mongomery must take responsiblility for the lack of planning, which is very much out of character for a man who had built his career on merticulas attention to detail. I think Market Garden could have worked, and was well worth the try but in the end it didn't and the man in charge must carry the can. I am a very big admirer of Mongomery's but he was certainly not at his best over several aspects of the Arnhem operation.

 

No offence taken, but it was definitely a mistake of the Allies not to take adantage of the help the Dutch resistance in the area was offering. It could, for example, have given the 1st Airborne vital knowledge of the Oosterbeek ferry.

 

True, though I think that we have already covered the potential risks involved with basing battle plans largely on info from the resistance movement.

 

I totally agree with you, hindsight is great. The people on the ground have to make a judgement quickly, be it right or wrong. Not being privy to the intel at the time I can't give a answer for. However, the people on the ground did and they have to answer for it. Monty gave his plan which was, IMHO, good. No commander can take into account every eventuality and as we know no plan survives contact with the enemy.
With Market Garden Although it was Monty's plan and it failed, Monty should take responsibility for it.

As outsiders and with hindsight we have to look at the whole picture, then look at what he had.

3 forces lots of planes, not as many gliders as one would like, equipment and intel.

The plan was workable as the arrival of 30 Corps showed. There was local intelligence given to the British (we know today it was good, did they) The British had some heavyish anti tank weaponry, It didn't all make it to the right place. The took radios which proved not to be up to the job, Who chose the radio network? When to later drops occurred the DZ. was hotter than a hot thing on fire (even Lucifer would have turned the thermostat down). These things were, to a certain extent out of his control, Had the initial regrouping been successful, things may have been different.

The point I am trying to make here is, yes Monty should take responsibility for the failure. On the similar line so should Ike. He oked it, so I think the plan was thought out. The only thing that could have made it better was more time and maybe trusting the resistance more. That is with hindsight, neither Monty nor Ike had that luxury.

 

Monty

Monty has come in for a lot of bad press because he was seen to be in competition with Patton. It has to some degree become a nationalistic issue.

His record is remarkebly successfull and most of his detractors complain about details like the failure to complete a battle or the battle not going exactly to plan. His successes include North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, and the invasion of north Germany.

Part of the reason he is not understood is American pop culture like the movie Patton which was about as accurate as Braveheart, that is not at all. Watching the movie you see Patton exaulting about how he out thought Rommel. Reality was that the Germans planned two feints to keep the allies off balance so they could reorganize. It was only after the American force unexpectedly collapsed that they continued on. Patton was able to stop the collapse but it has to be remembered this was only a feint . In fact the movies shows move German tanks being loss than was the case in the actual battle 9 to be exact. When the Germans did attack the British Monty had anticipated the attack and gave the Germans a thumping such that the British recaptured considerable booty which consisted of captured American supplies. He did this without committing the troops set aside for his advance, so if anyone out thought Rommel it was Monty. One thing Monty did that was very wrong during north Africa was he told American reporters about Pattons failure to meet his objectives in fact not getting within artillery range of them forcing Monty to take them.

A similar error in the movie is made regarding Messina. The movie portrays Patton beating the British to the city which is true. What it doen't tell is that Monty had decided he wanted to command the Italian invasion(he didn't get it) and to do that he intentionally gave Patton one of the few roads into the city which if had kept it it more likely the British would have captured it.

Regarding D Day, Montgomery was responsible for over all planning and command of all ground forces not just British forces. It is true that the British Canadians under Dempsey I beleive failed to take their objects but they were far closer than Americans under Bradly. Much is made about Montgomery's claim that keeping Caen as a pivot was part of the original plan. While there are arguments both ways about this even if you accept that he wasn't being truthful, it just means that the battle didn't go exactly to plan which is almost true of every battle fought in history. To put it into perspective the British/Canadian failure to break out from Caen you have to consider the resources and opponents. The British front had 3 to 4 times the amount of German armour as the American portion. Additionally the Americans only broke out after they had considerably more resources than the British or the Germans. Howeveer you look at it Monty planned and commanded one of the most complex and successful battles in history.

Regarding Market Garden Monty's failure in my opinion was not abandoning the project and concentrating on Antwerp when Eisenhauer delayed the plan giving the resources to Pattons ultimately stopped drive. If the attack went ahead as originally planned there was a good chance of success, success would have meant the Rhur and 65% of Germany's industrial capacity. But by continuing the attack after a wait he ended up landing on a Grman reforming armoured division. When the timing was delayed he should have looked else where even if stategically Arenm made sense. US troops were not the only ones who loss by lack of supplies. The failure to hold the Germans in the Ardennes, the subsequent recovery and Pattons fruitless attemps to pass the Geramn start line meant that Venerable had to go in the mud rather over rozen ground.

Monty's strengths were excellent understanding of ground and resources, good anticipation of what his opponents could and might do, care for his troops, understanding of the importance of image and personal contact with his troops(he was generally very popular with those who served under him), great use of resources, hard working and excellent stategic vision(he had warned the Americans that Ardennes was coming partly based on his personally developed intelligence system).
His weaknesses were he didn't have a good sense of the fluidity of battle, distrusted anything that was not planned in detail, pompus, arrogent, insensitive(I'm not sure he always insulted people on purpose), and he didn't have the drive of a Patton. I don't think he was particularly causious but he did beleive in detailed planning whiich often caued him to appear caucious. Additionally he was in a command structure he didn't fit. He was an aecetic while there was a great deal of the boys club within the American general officers. He had far more experience than the officers he was subordinated to and came from the country that was the minor partner. In contrast Patton was a master of fluid war haviing almost an intuitive feel for it and had tremendous drive. On the surface Patton was poor strategically with examples like Parlamo and south Germany but I suspect it had more to do with ego, that is the front he happened to be on became the only one of importance despite having little strategic value. in this way Monty was different he beleived strongly that a narrow front should be taken to capture the strategically important Rhur even volunteering to place himself under Bradley's command. Patton on the other hand even went as far as undermining Eisenhauers commands to maintain the attack in his sector.

Both these generals were very good generals but not one of the great generals o history and probably not equal to the greatest in the Germany's army like von Manastain.
regards

 

he's to cautus He dose what to kepp his men alive but I like Dempsy and alexander more then him in my opnion he whats to fight ww1 type of battle bye how he goes so soooooooo slow the idea of takeing Caen is pathetic give it some one like patton he could do it

 

market garden was a 5% victory 90% victory my foot look at the britsh 6th airborne around the city of arnhem murder they faught well but under teriable commaned the brit armored was way to slow to come up to reinforce the brits and americans on Hell's high way

 

the guy who's making fun of patton you desgrace all canadians i have alot of canadian it's just anther way for u guess 2 blast america i have nothing against the brits but common monty wasn't any good at any thing the only reason he won the battle of el almein was becouse he out numbered Rommel like 2 to one then he say's during the battle of the bulg "i'm ganna clean this place up like every one else is wrong but u my friend have ill founded info the person who wrote be fore me i wouldn't care if you made fun of patton but all your duing is dissing the us all monty dose IS TAKE CREDIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I hadn't noticed anyone making fun of Patton. It is not making fun of Patton to believe or suggest that Montgomery was the better general (an opinion I hold myself), the two had very different styles - I doubt very much Patton could have commanded D-Day and the Normandy campaign, Montgomery though dei, in the words of Eisenhower - "no-one else could have got us there. It was his kind of battle. Whatever they say about him, he got us there". Patton certainly was an able general but I doubt very much he could have commanded an operation like Overlord or for that matter Alamein.

 

Patton had remarkable similarities to Rommel in some ways - a fantastic 'manouver' general, but one who tended to get over-extended & forget about things like logistics.

 

This is not true. Market Garden was a 90% victory because more than 90% of the objectives were taken, including 11 out of 12 bridges (10 of them intact). However, all this meant nothing because the last bridge remained in German hands, resulting in a corridor leading nowhere useful. Strategically it was therefore a 100% failure, at the cost of about 17,000 men; however tactically it was really a 90% victory.

The British division at Arnhem was the 1st Airborne by the way; they hadn't been used before this operation.

I've posted around here somewhere on the reasons why the British armour was slow to advance, apart from the obvious fact that advancing a tank column over a 10-meter corridor is a tactical impossibility.

 

As market garden has become topical again this is an interesting sight. I haven't read the lot yet but I am getting there.

http://www.marketgarden.com/