I lost Monty.

[MisterBoats]

As I started to assign Field Marshal Montgomery to 21st Army Group, I could not find him in the available officer list. I checked the CR and saw that he was KIA! It appears that he must have met his end in an air raid in southern Italy, while commanding 8th Army. Damn the luck. I have a very high regard for Monty, and I looked forward to watching him lead 21st AG to the ultimate victory. General Leese has taken over the 21st.

I have debated whether or not to put Brooke in command of SHAEF, but I'll probably use Eisenhower. Bradley may get 1st Army, with Patton in command of 12th AG. I enjoy the opportunity to shake up the higher commands a bit.

[Nico165b165]

Someone else lost Bradley on its first turn. Talk about bad luck [:D]

Not too sure about putting Patton in charge of an AG. He's better at mech/inf than political/admin, and I think those become more important at higher level HQ's.

[Smirfy]

In the scenarios like Italy should generals not get transferred like units it feels a bit odd Having Monty until the end of the war there

[Davekhps]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

In the scenarios like Italy should generals not get transferred like units it feels a bit odd Having Monty until the end of the war there

Ditto. I played through Italy 43-45 and all the generals were available throughout the campaign-- Monty, Patton, Bradley, etc. If the actual units get rotated out of theater, figure the generals should too, no?

[MisterBoats]

Someone else lost Bradley on its first turn. Talk about bad luck

I lost Mark Clark in an earlier campaign, so now my score stands at two army commanders KIA.

As for Patton, it's just a personal wish. I know I should go by the numbers alone, but I wanted to see Patton and Montgomery advance side by side on a narrow front.

[Fallschirmjager]

Now your war might end six months earlier.

[MisterBoats]

Lol, FJ. No -- I am one of the few Americans who has mainly good things to say about Montgomery. He ruined his relationships with the U.S. high command, no doubt, but the U.S. troops admired and respected him. He had the military imagination that Eisenhower and Bradley sorely lacked. Patton had it, too. I like a lot of self-assurance in commanders; I hate the idea they need to see themselves as "one of the guys." Eisenhower had the right job at SHAEF, but I agree with Montgomery that there should have been a single ground force commander between Ike and the army groups, willing to make hard choices about strategy.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: MisterBoats

Lol, FJ. No -- I am one of the few Americans who has mainly good things to say about Montgomery. He ruined his relationships with the U.S. high command, no doubt, but the U.S. troops admired and respected him. He had the military imagination that Eisenhower and Bradley sorely lacked. Patton had it, too. I like a lot of self-assurance in commanders; I hate the idea they need to see themselves as "one of the guys." Eisenhower had the right job at SHAEF, but I agree with Montgomery that there should have been a single ground force commander between Ike and the army groups, willing to make hard choices about strategy.

I read a book by Jonathan W. Jordan called Brothers, Rivals, Victors and it was very interesting to see the dynamics between Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton and there were times when Ike felt like dropping Patton and a time when Bradley thought Patton should be sent home but there was ONE thing they ALWAYS agreed upon and brought them together: their intense dislike of Montgomery.

Dispite their dislike they agreed he knew what he was doing but they just thought (like most Americans and believe it or not the British assigned to SHAEF HQ) that he came across as obnoxious.

[barkman44]

And who was he nominating for the job?That's really a no-brainer considering the man.
I don't know about the imaginative part,his plan for Market-garden was considered out of character for him
and ended in disaster.
El-Alemain was a set piece battle that really didn't take to much imagination to implement.
Egotism is probably a trait of a good commander but he took it too far imho.
As you can tell I'm not a monty fanboy.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

And who was he nominating for the job?That's really a no-brainer considering the man.
I don't know about the imaginative part,his plan for Market-garden was considered out of character for him
and ended in disaster.
El-Alemain was a set piece battle that really didn't take to much imagination to implement.
Egotism is probably a trait of a good commander but he took it too far imho.
As you can tell I'm not a monty fanboy.

Eisenhower, Patton and Bradly all mentioned that Montgomery only won one battle.

Unfortunately for Eisenhower the high command positions for Overlord (Ground Forces Commander, Air Commander, etc) were assigned by others and he had no say in it.

I'm not much of a Montgomery fan boy either (and in WITP I'm no McArthur fanboy and leave him to get captured in the Philippines. I've had the cyber-Japs offer to surrender if I take him back but I always refuse [:D]).

[RedLancer]

As Churchill said: In defeat, unbeatable; in victory, unbearable.

[MisterBoats]

I'd recommend Nigel Hamilton's three volume biography of Montgomery to anyone who is interested in the war. Hamilton makes no apologies for Monty's behavior, and I think he stated that Monty may have been a bit of a psychopath. However, Monty was able to cut through a lot of the unending bs that played such a big part of Allied planning, including Churchill's legendary impatience and hare-brained ideas of strategy. Alan Brooke had that clarity of mind, as well. His War Diaries is a fascinating read.

Market-Garden was rushed and depended too much on everything going exactly right and on time. I think it might have succeeded, but that will always be a "what if?" matter. The Hurtgen Forest offensive was equally -- if not moreso -- flawed. I think the Broad front approach was a big mistake to begin with,and ensured the slow slow progress of the campaign.

El Alamein was set-piece, but it worked. Monty drew in the Axis forces and defeated them at Alem Halfa, then ground them down in the follow-up offensive. By insisting on close cooperation all of all arms, Monty succeeded where many previous commanders had failed. The Germans did not fully recover until they were in Tunisia, and they never pulled off a Kasserine-style victory against the 8th Army there.

Alexander may have been much more likeable to the U.S. brass, but he lacked the extra bit of brilliance that Montgomery possessed.

[Fallschirmjager]

I was being a bit factitious. Montgomery and the 8th British Army scored one of the all time great victories in repeatedly hammering the Axis armies in Africa. But in Tunisia and Sicily they began to show they were not cut out for anything but flat desert.
It has been said that the 8th army was at home in the desert but once they entered hill country they more than met their match.

I have little in the way of respect for Montgomery or Patton both. Both seemed to have little regard for the lives of their men and that is something I cannot respect.

[barkman44]

Yes market garden was rushed,because of monty's delay in clearing the Scheldt estuary and Walcheren island
thereby opening Antwerp to shipping leading to a supply crisis.
His boondoggle was given supply priority grinding the rest of the front to a halt.
Patton{maybe in his own mind}might have been able to reach and cross the rhine,who know's.

As for Macarthur,don't get me started,his treatment of his successor on Bataan post war is disgacefull
for one thing.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

As for Macarthur,don't get me started,his treatment of his successor on Bataan post war is disgacefull
for one thing.

I always thought it was wrong that Short and Kimmel were courtmartialed and MacArthur wasn't when he got his aircraft destroyed on the ground - and he had 12 hours notice. Instead he got a Medal of Honor and a high command probably partly because Roosevelt wanted him as far away from Washington as possible.

What Ronald Spector said in Eagle Against the Sun, pgs xiv-xv is so right in my opinion: "he was unsuited by temperament, character, and judgement for the positions of high command which he occupied throughout the war."

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: MisterBoats

Lol, FJ. No -- I am one of the few Americans who has mainly good things to say about Montgomery. He ruined his relationships with the U.S. high command, no doubt, but the U.S. troops admired and respected him. He had the military imagination that Eisenhower and Bradley sorely lacked. Patton had it, too. I like a lot of self-assurance in commanders; I hate the idea they need to see themselves as "one of the guys." Eisenhower had the right job at SHAEF, but I agree with Montgomery that there should have been a single ground force commander between Ike and the army groups, willing to make hard choices about strategy.

warspite1

Makes a very pleasant change to hear an American say that [:)]

[JeffroK]

IMVHO, A stronger commander in Eisenhower's position would have kept Monty, Patton etc under tighter control and used their energies in a positive direction.

Any Patton fan who brings up Market Garden should have a read on the Metz Campaign.

[warspite1]

http://www.historynet.com/patton-at-bay ... review.htm

Here's a book review on the subject.

[Baelfiin]

Another thing about Alsace Lorraine is that von Balck and von Mellenthin took over Army Group G in September and received some reinforcements.

[Fallschirmjager]

There were several instances in the war where commanders became too fixated on cities and failed to achieve their primary goal. Which should always be destruction of the enemy.
That is one of the things that made Napoleon such an effective commander for a good 15 year run. He zealosly pursued the enemy armies at the expense of taking big name cities/fortresses.

And the times he failed were times he did not do this, such as the siege of Acre.