Can someone please explain how Monty who won all his battles except for one minor defeat (which didn't affect the outcome of the war) can be classed as the worst general of WW2 ??????

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

If Montgomery had been listened to, the Allies would have reached Berlin first. Post war Europe and the world would have been a very different place.

Disastrous Dieppe, Did you know the plan's for it were drawn up by Monty.
1st El Alamein, Monty used Auckinleck's plans to halt Rommel, then called them his plans.
2nd El Alemein, Bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, a 3 to 1 advantage, Rommel had very few tanks and little fuel, he would have been forced to retire anyway when the Allies landed in North Africa. He took 12 day's to shift Rommel and then was to slow to catch him, blamed the rain.
Sicily. It cannot be said that he did a good job there, except antagonise the Yanks, he was an expert at that.
Italy. Why did he have the Royal Navy bombard an undefended coast before landing the troops, he then had his army crawl up towards Salerno despite Alexandra's urging speed to help the beleaguered bridgehead.
D Day , Wasn't he supposed to take Caen, well 3 weeks later he did, well done Monty. All his offenses failed to send the enemy reeling, he couldn't even close the Falaise gap.
Antwerp, He got there, but couldn't use the port because he didn't go far enough to trap the 15Th army and he forgot the Scheldt estury needed clearing.
Arnhem. Monty was warned of the Gerry panzer divs in the area, but did he inform the airborne commanders? Horrocks guards tanks had to advance 60 miles on one defended road, an elevated one in places, a German gunners dream come true.
The Ardennes, Monty said it was his most interesting battle and wanted to take all the credit from the Americans, Fact is he wanted Hodge's to withdraw to tidy up the line he said, needless to say Hodge's refused. It was an American victory, the British only managed to fire a few shots.
The Reichswald, A stupid place to fight for, mud and tanks don't mix, I think there was a better opportunity elsewhere, and what did it gain?
Crossing the Rhine. What a build up, what a lot of fanfare, Patton crossed it with no trouble, I admit it was not very wide at his choice of crossing.
I will not go into the blunders he made when he was Chief of the Imperial General Staff, just ask Bill Slim who succeeded him.
I do hope I havn't bored you all? I must admit that during the war I was a teenager and probably thought the sun shone out of Monty's fundamental orifice, Now Ive been educated and know better.

Unfortunately this is true. But thats what you get when questions like this are asked. I have said this many times and try to stay away from them LOL. Now this thread is supposed to be who you consider the "Worst General" of the war. NOT who you don't like as a General. And IMO is there really just ONE?? There were quite a few that should not have reached the rank of General.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

Here is a good canditate for ONE of the "Worst". Lloyd R. Fredendall. Here are a couple of good examples of what others think of him. I thoroughly agree with the second quote.

"On the American side, Lloyd R. Fredendall. His staff disliked him, the British hated him, he splintered his divisions, and he went into some kind of trance when things fell apart at Kasserine. He lost men and equipment when the Allies could not afford it, and gave the U.S. fighting man a bad name among the British ("How Green Was My Ally") that took a long time to erase.

His punishment? A promotion and a ticket home to a hero's welcome."

"Agreed. You'd have to look long and hard to find a more incompetant General than Fredenhall. Before Kasserine Pass he forced all of his Combat Engineers to build a massive, bomb-proof, underground command and control complex for he and his staff. Instead of pursuing and encouraging mobile warfare, he tried to dig in to wage static warfare, ala' WWI on the Western Front. Rommel quickly beat him stupid at Kasserine Pass and sent him packing, leaving Patton to take over."

Worst WW2 General - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

Lots of IFS (COULDA WOULDA SHOULDA) Fact about monty but the facts he didnt and are he wasnt all that great, He was arrogant and INCREDIBLY overrated... Excellent post Grounded!

And maybe Monty wasnt the worst.... But he sure as hell wasnt one of the best...not even close.

Hello redcoat,

Yes, Patton was a loudmouth, or one could term him as a “very outspoken” man, which contributed certainly to his fame, but AFAIK the guy never made a blunder out of a campaign, resulting into others taking the brunt.
Monty IMO did just that all the time – you are correct in saying that he was a very methodical person, but that exactly put the others into trouble. He was a Gent, and as such he is admired and respected by his countrymen – but would that be enough to rate a General on his Battlefield performance?

As for Patton’s or Monty’s claims in regards to being “Blitz” leaders, I would give that kind of statement a grin. I wouldn’t know about how many miles in a more or less straight line, but the Wehrmacht didn’t take 201 or 281 days for defeating Holland, Belgium and France, but something around 50 days. Not to mention the advance into Russia within the first 150 days. And both above mentioned campaigns or advances had far more resistance and numbers in them then what Rommel or the Tunis Front had to offer.

Regards
Kruska

I was thinking the same thing. Very different terrain. The old anology that fighting in the desert was like fighting on the ocean. There were less watercourses, human habitations like villages, cities fortifications and towns,populations,ect to slow down an advance .

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

Sorry its taken a while but here goes
The original plans were, but when the operation was temporally cancelled Monty stated that the operation should be abandoned, but Mountbatton significantly altered the plan (reducing the pre-landing bombardment amongst others) and went ahead with it
Actually Monty was still in England at the time of the first Battle of El Alamein. The first battle Monty fought was the Battle of Alam Halfa. In this battle Auckinleck intended to use a number of successive defensive lines to hold the Germans, Monty’s plan relied on a single far stronger defensive line.

CSI Reprint: Battle Report: Alam Halfa

The odds were 2 to 1 in tanks and guns, but in infantry Monty only had 86 battalions against Rommels 70 infantry battalions, and Rommel was in a strong defensive position with a five mile deep minefield in front of it.

That was nothing to do with Monty, he was just following the orders that Churchill gave him
It took Auckinleck a whole month just to hold Rommel in the First Battle of El Alamein
Rommel left over half his army behind at El Alamein, and those units which escaped left all their heavy equipment behind (so they could run away faster). Its true that Monty didn’t stop Rommel from escaping, but then again Rommel never managed to cut off the British either.
And just for comparison Patton’s 3rd Army advanced through France at an average of 10 miles a day, Monty’s 8th Army in the first twenty days advanced 780 miles, an average of 39 miles per day.

Actually the lack of leadership from Alexander was the cause of most of the Allied problems in this campaign

Monty: World War II’s Most Misunderstood General, Part 2 » Armchair General Magazine - We Put YOU in Command!

He’d have looked even more silly if they hadn’t bombarded the beach and there had been enemy troops there
No. Caen was an objective of the British and Canadian 2nd Army under the command of Lieutenant-General Sir Miles Dempsey. Monty was the Allied ground commander. He was in charge of all the land forces in Normandy, including the US forces.
Operation Cobra took place while he was still Allied Ground Commander

Bradley has admitted that it was his decision to not close the gap due to his fears that the enemy would overwhelm his forces
Main mistake was in not realising the ability of the German armies to so quickly regroup after being smashed in France.
Market Garden was just one of a number of set backs the Allies suffered at this time as the Germans managed to hold the Allies on the borders of Germany.
Hurtgen Forest and Metz were other setbacks the Allies suffered, both with higher Allied casualties than in MG
No, he said it was a most interesting battle (a slight difference)No. Monty paid full credit to the US troops, and stated that the US troops had stopped the enemy before any British troops had got involved.
Sorry but the US 7th Armored division did withdraw from St Vith, an act which saved it from complete destruction
Indeed it was a victory for the US Army, but Monty played an important part in restoring order in the Northern sector, after both Hodges and Bradley had lost control.

Monty: World War II’s Most Misunderstood General, Part 3 » Armchair General Magazine - We Put YOU in Command!

A foothold on the Rhine, ready for the attack on Germany
In the attack on Germany both Monty’s and Patton’s armies travelled almost exactly the same distance in the same time (300 miles)
That was a political job… Monty wasn’t very good at politics
It is a little tiresome to keep reading the same old slurs against Monty, but never mind, it gives me a chance to put the record straight.
Still a long way to go if you want the truth about Monty… which in my view is this…
Not a nice man, but a very good general

Monty: World War II’s Most Misunderstood General, Part 1 » Armchair General Magazine - We Put YOU in Command!

Well posted redcoat. Facts are certainly more useful than opinions.

Try reading up on his campaign around Metz, lots of US casualties for little gain.

ps. I've never ever said Patton was a bad general.... let alone the worst.

I merely pointed out that his claim about the 3rd Army was incorrect

pps; just for amusements sake
It took the Eighth Army 20 days to travel 780 miles, which means the Heer would have reached Moscow in 18 days if they had travelled as fast

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

himmler proved to be quite an incompetent commander in the ends of war. Paulus underestimated the capacity of building a kessel around the 6th panzer army and should have surrendered before to avoid loss of lives.
Monty made a lot of tactical mistakes..yet i dont think he was the worst.

redcoat

It took the Eighth Army 20 days to travel 780 miles, which means the Heer would have reached Moscow in 18 days if they had travelled as fast


Hello redcoat,

"if" the Russians would have been beaten down as the AK it would actually only take 4 days to reach Moscow (average speed at less then 10mph/day) - including sufficient teabreaks with milk and suggar.

Just to get the record straight; I never forwarded and I wouldn't do so in the future to vote Monty as the worst - by no means.

However the following statement by you in an above post makes me wonder; how do you come up with Rommel having had 70 Divisions??? at El alamein.
BTW more then half of Rommels tank were "Italian" and no match against the British tanks not to mention about the 150 Grants/Shermans or the lack of fuel that caused Rommel to strike and not being able to position and await Monty's attack.

To me the worst General of WW2 would still rank Paulus as Numero Uno.

Regards
Kruska

Hello Pvt.Pyle,

Himmler was never a General and AFAIK he never commanded a battle or campaign.
There was no need for Paulus to surrender before, just retreat about 30-50 miles.
IMO Monty didn't do "a lot" of tactical mistakes - just one at El alamein - he was methodical and as such constantly moving in slow motion - in order to avoid mistakes and due to his superiority in numbers and logistics plus his allies he could afford to do just that.

Regards
Kruska

You caught me out... I should have written battalions*
Most times the figure mentioned is 104,000 for Rommel and 195,000 for Monty, but these figures includes everybody in the army, clerks, storekeepers, etc, etc.
In terms of fighting troops, Rommel had 70 infantry battalions, 42 Italian and 28 German, of 45,000 men, against Monty's 86 infantry battalions of 60,000 men



Out of Monty's 900+ tanks only the approximately 250 Shermans and 100 Grants could fire a worthwhile HE shell vital for attacking dug in A/T guns, the majority of the rest were still armed with the 2 pdr gun with no HE shell.

* I've corrected my original post, sorry about the error

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Himmler was given command of Army Group Vistula on the Eastern front in late January 45 until he fled his command in early March claiming 'nervous exhaustion'


He is a genuine contender for worst commander of WW2

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Everyone compares monty to the failure of Market Garden, Ok, but what about his performance in the Desert against the Desert Fox?

Going back to Operation Market Garden, what if the allies had taken the Arnhem bridge, could the war have been finished before Xmas? If they did take the bridge and monyt's plan had worked would you still be using it as a excuse. For a victory is a victory no matter how close to a failure it may have come to, and Operation Market Garden was not a complete Failure, they did manage to liberate key cities in holland and push the Germans further back into Germany.

__________________
For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe the horse was lost, for the want of a horse the rider was lost, for the want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Robert,

In terms of Von Paulus in Stalingrad, you cant say he was a bad commanded because he didn't surrender, if anything he was a good and reliable commander to Hitler. He followed His commanders orders, which is what every soldier does, and is exactly what he would have expected from his lower ranking officers, NCO's and enlisted men. You must also remember that by holding Stalingrad for so long, he bought time to reestablish a German defensive line, and although not wuite a'thorn' in the Soviet side, was still a problem that needed to be crushed before moving on westward.


Sometimes in war the perfect plan from Generals, Field Marshals, or Supreme commanders can quickly turn into tragety at no fault of their own. Eg, A broken radio set on landing ruining communications, and thus allowing the enemy to surround and cut of men. The enemy anticipating your moves and turing your well thought out plan into a massacre. A simple Ambush can quickly turned against you.

Overall Communication is the key to victory, and a commander can only make desicisions based on the information that is available to him at the time. Communication thus means you can adapt to a constant changing situation on the battlefield, but as soon as that communication is lost with the front lines, the battle at hand is no longer up to the Overall commanders but to the Company and Reigmental commanders controlling those points of conflicts, the HQ commanders can scream orders all they want, but if they arnt getting through it means nothing.

Remember that, "If your plan is going well, it is an ambush" Murphy's combat laws
and that "Knowlege is the Key to Victory"

__________________
For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe the horse was lost, for the want of a horse the rider was lost, for the want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Robert,

i would say ervin rommel was bad ,if not worst.he was at best a divisional commander.he was very good at dancing montys tune in africa and normandy,poor fellow.yours,lee.

__________________
"by jove,its nearly 6,0clock old boy".thankyou all,4th wilts.

"Erwin" Rommel suffered badly from lack of supplies and reinforcements from Germany, as well as a complete lack of men for the job at hand. He was ill equipped for facing the 8th Army. Do you expect Robert E Lee,(said to be the best General of his time) to win every engagment just because he is the best?

No you don't, a commander can only do with what he has.

__________________
For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe the horse was lost, for the want of a horse the rider was lost, for the want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Robert,

im sorry,i dont know robert-e-lee,was he a general in the desert?,or the e.t.o or the pacific?
but rommel was certainly dancing montys tune,he did a 1200mile quickstep from alamein to tunisia.yours,4th wilts.

__________________
"by jove,its nearly 6,0clock old boy".thankyou all,4th wilts.

Sorry should have been mor specific with the Robert E Lee statment, he was a confederate General During the American CIvil war and was said to be the best General of his time, but even he still lost many battles.

But again, how could Rommel do any better with the resources he had, who the resources he didn't have would be more specific.

__________________
For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe the horse was lost, for the want of a horse the rider was lost, for the want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Robert,

Hmm. interesting, I didn't know that -thanks for the enlightment- and yes that would make him a genuine and strong contender for wc of ww2

Regards
Kruska

Was he bad as a General though? The war was about to end and he knew it so lke many Germans decided to get out of the Russians way, what is wrong with that.

__________________
For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe the horse was lost, for the want of a horse the rider was lost, for the want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Robert,