Patton V. Montgomery

[elxaime]

I have WITE but have not yet gotten WITW, so I have a question for those who have.

How did the developers resolve - once and for all time, beyond a shadow of a doubt, immune to revision, reconsideration, review or renegotiation, the question that has baffled and befuddled the wisest minds since the beginnings of time:

Who was better, Patton or Montgomery? The numbers will not lie...

[Denniss]

Montgomery is a tad overrated by some. Wasn't Market Garden his baby?

[Joel Billings]

In the game, Montgomery has higher political and admin ratings, while Rommel has higher initiative, mechanized and infantry ratings.

[elxaime]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

In the game, Montgomery has higher political and admin ratings, while Rommel has higher initiative, mechanized and infantry ratings.

Rommel was that magnificent bastard whose book Patton had read, but what of Patton?

[chaos45]

Dont have it yet either, but Rommel should have very high initiate, mech, infantry, and morale....and probably average for German 5-6 Admin...

As he was a superb infantry platoon/company commander in WW1 and served in the 100k army all the way up to the start of WW2...including as an instructor at their military academy if I remember right.

I know many will say company level isnt the big picture but he obviously grasped it all....aside from admin...if you read books by members of his staff that was probably their biggest complaint about him.


As to Patton he should be better than montgomery in the combat skills but lacking in political- which really is a who cares stat....I would even say patton might be better at admin in all honesty lol.

[KWG]

Patton

Political 6
Morale 7
Initiative 8
Admin 5
Mech 8
Infantry 7
Air 1
Naval 1

Monty P7 M7 I6 A8 M5 I7 A1 N1

Rommel P3 M7 I9 A5 M8 I8 A1 N1

Bradley P9 M8 I7 A7 M5 I7 A1 N1

Hope I got'em right.

Patton should have a higher morale, look how he trained with his troops before the war and how he was during the war. Higher Armor. Politcal should be lower so he gets fired easier, but with so many allied admin points you can get him back easy. A 9 Initiative? he's a slapper!... he puts the square peg in the round hole

Rommel Looks good, maybe lower morale. Left Normandy on eve of invasion FOR wife's birthday.... YEA, right! Plus didnt he have to leave Africa for tummy problems? Did his low morale for those running Germany influence his morale for those lower?

There is a legend in the Town near me that before WW2 Rommel walked the streets of the small town of Clifton, Tennessee on the banks of the Tennessee River and studied the tactics of Nathan Forrest. Forrest was a master of combat and deception and look how Rommel was, good combat numbers... maybe 9s

Monty Admin 8 thats good, higher morale maybe? Polictical higher?
combat wise, init good, good Infantry. If only a way to give him higher, but BAD Initiative

But dont forget Bradley he is Patton's rudder and significant other. maybe higher admin?

In my current war I kept Patton and Bradley in mediterranean for Sicily and the first part of Italian Invasion. Come January I sent Patton, Bradley, 82Abn and 2nd USArmor back to England.

Bradley is in command of 1st Army prepping Infantry for the Invasion of North Europe. Patton is head of a empty 3rd Army until the week before the invasion where he will assume command of XX Corps, under Bradley, and he will lead the Invasion of Europe at Corps level.

82Abn is in Snowdonia, Wales (with 508th PIR) for rest, refit training.
2nd US Armor is at Warwick Castle for rest, refit training.

(yes I have a crush on those units)


Patton and Bradley BAM BAM

Remember stats can change during the game.

Now...... Do you LIKE IKE!

[chaos45]

Honesty they are look pretty close to how I would rate them. Maybe one point difference here an there but close enough to about what their abilities were in comparison to other generals and a 1-9 scale.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Montgomery is a tad overrated by some. Wasn't Market Garden his baby?

Wheras Rommel managed Alam Halfa, Medinine Crusader, The Easter attempts on Tobruk 2nd Alamein

[JeffroK]

If I was an Army commander, I'd have Monty leading my Infantry heavy Corps breaking into the enemy lines and Patton driving the Armour heavy Corps in the breakout out.

Horses for courses.

[IslandInland]

Patton was the better general for the Americans and Montgomery the better general for the British. That may sound trite but by that I mean given the huge amount of men and materiel the Americans had they could afford to throw armies and armoured corps at the Germans. The British were suffering a manpower shortage and reducing casualties was always at the forefront of Monty's thinking.

Market Garden might have been a defeat but it was an attempt to shorten the war, thus saving lives.

I don't have a problem with their stats in the game. I do have a problem with some of the German generals whose stats seem to be inflated purely because they are German. War In The East also seems to suffer from this.

[chaos45]

Hmm as to saving manpower for the British...he sure engaged in some extremely costly/attritional style attacks in Normandy if he was trying to conserve British manpower. Also by normandy not so sure Monty was the best for British Morale for troops on the line many units were starting to have an attitude of we have done our part its someone elses turn.

From what i have read on most of the Generals of WW2 I dont feel Monty really grasped WW2 tactics. If you look at almost all of his battles he really just relied on superior logistics and material build-ups to achieve results over any great plan or outside the box thinking. More like WW1 thinking/tactics with WW2 equipment and capabilities. Which IMO is probably why he failed repeatedly in Normandy and again at Market Garden. He had a way of thinking the enemy was what he wanted and wouldnt operate outside the box he put them in.

Even in North Africa it was mainly logistics and a build-up of material started by his predecesor that gave him the success there....might even could be said that he got the glory for someone elses early hard work. When you have 3:1+ superiority in almost all assets and the enemy is out of fuel and ammo hard not to win is kinda how I see his "victory" in North Africa. The big question might be how did he fail to destroy Africa Corps when he had all the advantages? So was it really a big win or yet another failure due to lack of initiative/thinking in modern warfare terms?

[KWG]

Market Garden was out of the box(for one side), quick thinking, brilliant and a perfect example of Airborne strategy. If it were not for that damn 2SSPanzer Corps. And being dropped was it 8 miles from the Arnhem bridge? Plus the 3 day drop, bad radio crystals, one good road for the relieving armor forces and ...

[chaos45]

Yes but all of these things aside from the radio crystals were known issues.....and they still executed.....its been proven allied intelligence informed Monty about the SS Panzer corps

Again why I feel Monty as a great commander is dubious......great at Politics and making sure his name got out there for success I would agree with.....

[KWG]

Market Garden, that was all stated with a Wink[;)]. Alexander the Great was Great because he had a lot of great people with him. A single leader has direction and final say but its a team effort and you need the right people around you, and plans and planners have to adapt to the changing field of battle.

A leader that lives in his own world "He had a way of thinking the enemy was what he wanted..." and is disconnected from the field of reality can be more dangerous to his own side.

[Beilisarius]

Alexander the Great was "Great" in his own right. He is widely considered the greatest military commander of all time. His innovative use of combined arms and psychological warfare as well as his use of engineers was groundbreaking. He conquered the known world by age 24, was never defeated in battle, and always fought against forces that were greater than his own, with some ancient sources claiming by as much as 10:1. His planning was brilliant but he also led from the front and was able to exploit weaknesses when they developed. He also had the undying affection of his men. He was blessed with very able commanders but that also reflects his talent for finding the best people to carry out his vision. He made them "great", and not the reverse.
To say he was Great "because he had a lot of great people with him" is a very uninformed statement which diminishes his talents and which can find no support in any the vast record of writings about him.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: Beilisarius

Alexander the Great was "Great" in his own right. He is widely considered the greatest military commander of all time. His innovative use of combined arms and psychological warfare as well as his use of engineers was groundbreaking. He conquered the known world by age 24, was never defeated in battle, and always fought against forces that were greater than his own, with some ancient sources claiming by as much as 10:1. His planning was brilliant but he also led from the front and was able to exploit weaknesses when they developed. He also had the undying affection of his men. He was blessed with very able commanders but that also reflects his talent for finding the best people to carry out his vision. He made them "great", and not the reverse.
To say he was Great "because he had a lot of great people with him" is a very uninformed statement which diminishes his talents and which can find no support in any the vast record of writings about him.

That is all a obvious given, and nothing I could say or not say would diminish it and those around called him great. He was SPECIAL But he was one person, leading the right group of people. Iam not saying just his lieutenants were great. Alexander's Army was great down to the lowest stable boy. And he died before his Waterloo. He could rally people or they could have just turned and walked away or eventually just put bad water in his wine. Hermann Balck was great, Hannibal was Greater. What is great? yes iam uninformed on parsing words. It is very uninformed to call Alexander merely Great, Alexander was Awesome.

[mariandavid]

One can compare Rommel and Montgomery - they fought each other and held comparable independent command positions. But Patton always held subordinate positions and (if one ever forgets the hagiography that developed after the movie) never achieved much of substance in the war. It is utterly unfortunate that this imaging (pretty uniform and pistols) has meant that some truly great US generals - much superior in competence to him - have been overlooked. In particular just sticking to army commanders in the area and time covered by the game Patch of the US 7th and Simpson of the US 9th Armies were as good as Montgomery as army commanders (and Monty said as much of Simpson) and far more able generals as opposed to publicists than Patton.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

One can compare Rommel and Montgomery - they fought each other and held comparable independent command positions. But Patton always held subordinate positions and (if one ever forgets the hagiography that developed after the movie) never achieved much of substance in the war. It is utterly unfortunate that this imaging (pretty uniform and pistols) has meant that some truly great US generals - much superior in competence to him - have been overlooked. In particular just sticking to army commanders in the area and time covered by the game Patch of the US 7th and Simpson of the US 9th Armies were as good as Montgomery as army commanders (and Monty said as much of Simpson) and far more able generals as opposed to publicists than Patton.

yes, good leaders are helms and rudders each in their own way and many go unknown.

Patton was from a military family. As a kid he would pack a lunch walk in the woods till he found a dead animal then eat his lunch while looking at the carcass. He prepared for combat that young. He was key for building the US tank force.

And he was the only one allowed to see the "big map"

The leader(s) and the lead MAKE each other.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Hmm as to saving manpower for the British...he sure engaged in some extremely costly/attritional style attacks in Normandy if he was trying to conserve British manpower.

The fact they were attritional, doesn't mean it was intentional. Heavy use of firepower, airpower and phased advances was all designed to reduce casualties. He also tended to shut battles down as soon as it became clear casualties were being incurred with little prospect of success.

Also by normandy not so sure Monty was the best for British Morale for troops on the line many units were starting to have an attitude of we have done our part its someone elses turn.

This is overplayed slightly, poor morale or not, British casualties were high throughout these campaigns, that doesn't happen if people aren't fighting. But the fact was Britain had been hard at it for over two years before the USA joined the fight. Nothing Monty could have done would have affected that sort of war weariness. He demonstrated his ability to lift and an Army at El Alamein.

From what i have read on most of the Generals of WW2 I dont feel Monty really grasped WW2 tactics.

What were WW2 tactics? Each Army fights according to its own doctrinal make up. This sort of comment usually implies there was something better about German operational method, but fact was Monty accepted their surrender, not the other way round.

If you look at almost all of his battles he really just relied on superior logistics and material build-ups to achieve results over any great plan or outside the box thinking.

What he did was play to his strengths. This is war, if you have the ability to overwhelm the enemy with superior firepower, why would you adopt any other approach? The object is to win, not get lauded like Rommel. The Germans were weak in logistics and lacked the Allied industrial base to field more material than they did. As a result, they played to their strengths of operational nous and tempo of operations. However, both sides were doing the same thing in essence, fighting in the manner that best suited their particular strengths and hid their individual weaknesses.

More like WW1 thinking/tactics with WW2 equipment and capabilities.

But he won. War is about imposing your mode of warmaking upon the enemy, shaping the battlefield tio suit your style. The Germans did that unil 1942, the Allies generally did it thereafter.

Which IMO is probably why he failed repeatedly in Normandy and again at Market Garden. He had a way of thinking the enemy was what he wanted and wouldnt operate outside the box he put them in.

I disagree. Monty's entire operational method was based on a deep understanding of what the Germans would do. He knew German Operational Method was manoeuvre based and getting into open field meeting engagements with them was playing to their strengths. He knew he had air supremacy, bags of artillery and good logistics. So, he blasted his way forward. All nations left WW1 looking for ways to win without huge loss of life. The British (and American) solution was to save lives with firepower.

Even in North Africa it was mainly logistics and a build-up of material started by his predecesor that gave him the success there....might even could be said that he got the glory for someone elses early hard work. When you have 3:1+ superiority in almost all assets and the enemy is out of fuel and ammo hard not to win is kinda how I see his "victory" in North Africa. The big question might be how did he fail to destroy Africa Corps when he had all the advantages? So was it really a big win or yet another failure due to lack of initiative/thinking in modern warfare terms?

There is more traction here. He certainly built on some good work of his predecessors and I've always felt if there was a time to take a risk, it was in the pursuit after Alamein. However, don't underestimate his achievement at alamein. He prepared properly, trained the men, built up his material, improved morale, and then planned and fought a set piece battle against a strong defensive position in depth. And won.

Regards,
ID.

[chaos45]

ID- understand your points, but I guess my take on it is a more skilled general in the same circumstances with the same assets would have performed better thats the key take away to me.