Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We will need to agree to disagree on this point [:D][:D]

Monty's training exercises for his men were legendary in rebuilding the morale and professionalism of the Army in England in 41/42, 3rd Div was the best performing British Div in France in 40 when he commanded and he rebuilt shattered morale of the 8th Army and led them to victory - whatever the logistical superiority the army still had to use it and for that they needed leadership he organised them to fight and win. In large degree it was as a trainer of soldiers (and officers) that Monty was at his best.

Now I am not saying Patton was bad at it (far from it - post Kasserine he also rebuilt shattered morale and prepped a green army to beat the enemy at their own game and did it at a speed that surpised a British Army that had taken two or more years to learn lessons the US forces absorbed in months)
I read Monty's opinions of US forces in Sicily and he rated them very highly indeed especially the manouverability which 8th Army lacked I cannot remember which book it was in but he underestimated US forces and by the end of Sicily was a convert. Given that was what 4 months after Kasserine no one can say Patton wasnt good in this area.

I guess I pick Monty because of the impact he had on the forces he took over and the training he instilled and the confidence he built.

Patton was a lot more fire and brimstone which was probably better just before battle but Monty edges it for me in the weeks and months before that for prepping men to fight - but the fact is whichever you pick you don't win without training the weapon and they both won....

A very fair assessment. I highlighted in bold the sentence you provided that best sums up why I would pick Patton over Monty. He had a penchent for accomplishing in a fraction of the time what other commanders took far, far longer, if ever, to achieve.

And how do their butcher's bills compare?

How long did it take to subdue Metz?

How many times did he try to turn the flanks on the north coast of Sicily?

I'm not putting him down, but somewhere in that vast library you pretend to have read, isn't there something in there about the type of opposition 8th Army was facing in the mountains on Sicily, or 21st Army Group faced in Normandy?

Personally, I think it's idiotic to compare Patton vs. Montgomery since they were similar in their approach, and commanded very different armies in very different situations. Only someone small minded would take praise of one as criticism of another. There's plenty of praise, and plenty of criticism, to be spread around for both.

But if you're trying to convince us that in your vast scholastic career of "reading books" you've gotten a handle on the respective abilities of each, you haven't demonstrated it with your huffy pronounciamentos.

You don't even seem to be remotely aware how easily you were just manauvered into taking this petty, spiteful tact. [8D]

A while back some one posted a thread with a link to comic depictions of the various "types" of forum posters. You seem to be the embodiment of the "compulsive responder". How much time to you waste dredging up documentation in an effort to "come out on top" in every debate? I find it rather comical. I, personally, post from work, where I neither have access to colection of literature, nor the time to waste dredging up simple facts to reute your barrage of umimpressive "facts".

The barrage alone is comical. Try making arguments on your own merits rather than relying on the veracity of others to prop you up. You might actually find it enjoyable.

The silliness of making a comparison at all is without a doubt the most intelligent thing you have had to say. However, BOTH of us allowed ourselves to be drawn into this silliness.


p.s. Sorry, my recollection of the naming of the comic depictions of forum users was amiss, I wouldn't want to get my facts wrong. It is the Tireless Rebutter you remind me of: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... butter.htm

Let's not stray into the personal - keep on topic and focus on the discussion itself.

Personally, I take Michael's point. Both Month and Patton had successes and stretches where they were not as successful. I think that can be fairly said about any good general. But in the end you have to fit each general to the situation that suits his strengths.

Let's go to an alternate reality here for a second and ask the following question - if two weeks before Market-Garden, you swap Monty for Patton (assuming in this alternate reality that the swap is instantanous, no up to speed time required), do things go better, worse or about the same?

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Let's go to an alternate reality here for a second and ask the following question - if two weeks before Market-Garden, you swap Monty for Patton (assuming in this alternate reality that the swap is instantanous, no up to speed time required), do things go better, worse or about the same?

In order to make a significant difference one would have to go back further than 2 weeks and also replace the ground contingent with one possessed of the necesary "drive" to make it to the finish line. The failure of Market Garden can be layed as much at the feet of XXX corps as it can at anyone's.

To please posters with a penchant for a need for outside corroboration, try taking a look at It Never Snow in September. The Germans were as incredulous over the British refusal to "drive on" with all appropriate speed and verve and dash and all those other adjectives applied to hard charging formations as the Americans were. The 82 Airborne were particularly incensed over the British inaction following their heroic cross river assault to take the Nijmegan bridge and free up the route. The Germans had almost nothing between Nijmegan and Arnem but a scratch infantry force and couldn't believe their incredible luck at the apparently inexplicable failure of the British to exploit the opportunity.

XXX Corps "stopped to brew tea" when they should have been throwing caution and the "playbook" that insisted the tanks could not advance until the infantry caught up, to the wind.

Simply replacing Monty with Patton and saddling Patton with the stodgy, decidely not hard charging XXX Corps would likely not have had led to a significantly different outcome. Not unless Horrocks responded to Pattons bluster and "got on the stick" , Even then, I just don't think an overnight transfoprmation of the British army into a hard charging formation was doable.

Put Patton in command with Creighton Abrams and the 4th Armored Division leading an American corps on the ground and now you have a recipe for potential success. I say potential, because I really don't thinsk any formation in the Allied Army had the ability to pull off the ground elements tasks. Manstein and the SS Panzer Corps circa Kharkov 1943 would be MY choice for a force capable of pulling of the ground assignement.

Hard to say IMO
 
Patton was better at pushing soldiers so its possible leading an Armoured Corps (which IMO is Patton's best role) on an operation like MG would have been a better tactical success.
 
Although by the time XXX Corps had reached Holland it had already outstripped its logistics and tank repairs (as had all allied formations) so its hard to be sure if Patton could really have achieved much in 2 weeks (remember British Armour had taken heavy losses on Normandy and had followed it up with an advance of fairly hefty proportions themselves to get to Antwerp and the Dutch border.
 
All armies on the front needed consolidation time British and US. Werent the US breaking up logistics units to provide riflemen and diverting Divs from pacific at this point ?
 
Patton in this type of exploiting drive forward whatever the cost battle is at his best - get into broken field and run for the ball was his game and he was great at it.
 
BUT the importnant command in this instance is an Army or Corps command not an Army Group command so the question is more would I rather have Miles Dempsey or Horrocks than Patton (IMO Monty and Patton are not really comparable in this instance as one commanded an Army the other an Army Group.)
 
Like it or not Patton was never tested as an Army Group commander commanding allied troops so its hard to know whether his methods would have worked.
 
Personally for me Patton leading an American Corps or XXX Corps probably gets the edge over Horrocks its just a better type of battle for Patton. It would play to his strengths although I suspect his flanks would have been more vulnerable than Horrocks.
 
(I guess I would give Patton more chance to get to the bridge earlier but also more chance of a disaster if the Corps gets cut off getting there)
 
Andy
 
 

In reply to Erik's hypothetical scenario,

Getting back to my original idea, I think that there might have been a two-pointed thrust through Belgium and the Netherlands, with 2nd and 3rd armies operating side by side. MG under Monty could have been supported by a thrust by Patton, in charge of the 3rd Army or another commander (Collins?), presuming Patton had been in command of 12th Army Group. I think the supply situation would have been improved had the armies have stayed closer to the coast, allowing for a one-two punch. A lot would have depended on the capture of Antwerp and the clearing of the estuary on time.

In replacing Monty with Patton alone -- I'm not sure. I think he might have replaced corps and division commanders pretty quickly in order to move things along, but I'm not certain the operation would have succeeded, given the other factors. It's a great hypothetical, though. I'm sure the culture clash would have been significant, but I think Patton was far more understanding of European (including British) cultures than many of his American compatriots. I think that's one thng about Patton that is widely misunderstood. One of his staff officers said that Patton, when not in the spotlight, resembled a college professor rather than a gunfighter.

I am reminded of the movie in which Tom Selleck portrayed Eisenhower. Patton came off as a buffoon and Monty a martinet. I really don't think Monty went around adjusting his soldier's badges; I'm sure if it bothered him he would have had a subordinate handle it. He and Patton got where they did by ability and years of hard work and dedication to professionalism. Character flaws dogged them both -- I think Brooke was much more forgiving of Monty than Eisenhower was of Patton. But that may be just the difference between the British Army culture and that of the US Army.

ORIGINAL: MrBoats

Character flaws dogged them both -- I think Brooke was much more forgiving of Monty than Eisenhower was of Patton. But that may be just the difference between the British Army culture and that of the US Army.

A very good point. The culture of the American army was to sideline a commander who failed, never giving anyone a chance to learn from their mistakes. The Briish high command was far more forgiving and understanding. I vaguely recall reading something recently regarding this phenomenom which related it to the basic cultural differences whereby we Amis are an impatient lot wanting immediate action and immediate success. IIIRC the writing compared the styles of the American and British armies to teh stlyes of our approach to business ventures. We Amis had a particular distaste for the Britich penchant for wanting to tidy up the battlefield in preparation for the "next operation". We chafed at the bit to "get on with the task". Basic cultural differences go all the way to the roots.

Just an old wargamers thoughts (assuming some of the games on the topic were at least somwhat reasonable simulations)  and my useless opinion.  I am certainly no expert on such matters nor have I done the historical educational investigation of some of the other posters.
 
1)  Could another army group have done better then 30 corps? - possibly and more likely probably.
 
2)  Could Patton have done better then Monty? - most likely
 
3)  Would either the above have resulted in the full success of the operation? - very likely not
 
The problem was a poor plan over the wrong type or terrain.  I suppose we can add the intelligence failure (or ignoring of it if you prefer).  The plan was perhaps just a recipe for disaster.  I have to admit though that I have always been impressed with the daring, gallentry and risk of it all, especially coming form someone who many considered as generally too cautious.  Almost as if they were able to come up with the daring plan, but then didn't have the resolve to carry it out.
 
So I would add to the hypothetical question - would Patton have ever considered such a plan if he were in charge, or would an entirely different type of plan have been made?

I agree with Yogi to some extent
 
1. Not sure I agree all allied Corps were on fumes and low on servicable units arguably British Armour was overcautious by this stage of the war after everything they had been through (although 11th Armoured Div did superbly well so perhaps not all British Armour) - but thats an argument for another day over beer not here and now
 
2. I disagree on reflection despite my answer above because Patton as Army Gp commander would have been acting as Corps commander and not taking the overview - but again a debate for another day
 
3, 100% agree the premise of the operation to get accross the Rhine severely underestimated the German Armies recovery speed and also the logistical issues at Antwerp.
 
Whoever was in command and whether they crossed the Rhine is irrelevant to some extent because the logistics to exploit the breach did not exist, the Germans were stronger than expected and German morale would NOT collapse just because the allies are accross the Rhine
 
Most of this is 20 20 hindsight sitting safely in an office but I suspect very few if any of us would argue that even if the MG had succeeded 100% would it have achieved what the allies hoped it would. Logistics and German strength were greater than anticipated and it was never going to be the war winning panacea that some hoped.
 
Yes the later Rhine crossing would have been saved but actually the logistical pause required to allow the Rhine crossing would have been required anyway - all Allied forces were on their logisitcal last legs.
 
Did they have to try MG or something similar given what they knew on the ground in 1944 - probably yes the airborne army was there and ready, the Germans were in retreat they had to try something bold somewhere they would all have been condemmed as overcautious had they not - did it have much chance of strategic as opposed to tactical success even if they succeeded I think its fair to say probably not from 60 years distance.
 
The strategic factors mitigating against success at macro level were just to much.
 
Andy

Speaking of Tom Selleck, I saw him interviewed the other day and in a miracle of the cosmetic surgeon's craft, he barely looks any different to his Magnum P.I. days. Good to see he's still got the moustache too.

Speaking of which, the American Moustache Institute (AMI) has been formed to fight for the rights of the moustachioed. A recent poll found more than half of American women would refuse to kiss a man with a moustache and last year the US Supreme Court ruled that it was permissible for a trial lawyer to throw someone off a jury if he had a moustache. That's outrageous! [:@] The AMI have pinpointed the demise of the on-screen mow to the retirement of Walter Cronkite (the most trusted moustache on television [:D]) and the end of Magnum P.I. America has not had a moustachioed president since Theodore Roosevelt a century ago.

But the tide is turning, my hairy-lipped brothers. I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in Australia "Movember", where blokes grow a moustache in November to raise money for men's medical research is huge. I've been sporting a very sleazy looking soup-strainer on and off for several years now and it's amazing the positive feedback I get. Guys confess that they'd love to grow one but they can't/aren't allowed to by the missus/haven't got the guts, indicating a pent-up yearning for free-range top-lips.

Also, the wheel of fashion inevitably revolves and the moustache is creeping back into vogue. My current one has been getting big-time respect and you'd be amazed how many young girls admit to liking it, especially when they're drunk and more liable to cast off the strictures of society's conventions. [:'(] I was out last weekend and some friends of my mate were saying stuff like "Nice mowie mate", and "That's awesome" but the telling comment was from the gorgeous young blonde Simone who was with us, who said "It's definitely a very sexy moustache". Nuff said! [:'(]

Sorry this is a bit off topic. Feel free to start a new thread if you too feel strongly about this topic. (Edit. Bah! I might as well) [;)] Something tells me the wargaming community might be one of the last strongholds of the moustache. [:)] :{P

Cheers, Neilster

This was from last year. My current one is way more sleazy. Think Lemmy from Motorhead [:'(]

So the question is, would Monty have done better if he didn't have a moustache? [&:]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

So the question is, would Monty have done better if he didn't have a moustache? [&:]

Well, it was a bit of a shocker, but on principle I'll say "never!" [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

So the question is, would Monty have done better if he didn't have a moustache? [&:]

Well, it was a bit of a shocker, but on principle I'll say "never!" [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

What about Patton then?
What if Ike had a mustache??
What if the entire allied army had mustaches???
Its too much for my tiny brain to contemplate!!!![X(]

But then didn't Hitler have a small mustache?

Neilster I greatly admire your talent for deflection.

I assumed all along that your avatar picture was a a depiction of some tank commander from history. Now, since the unmuostachioed painting bears such a striking resemblence to the photo you provided, I have to wonder if you or a friend painted a portrait of you as a tank commander.

The reason I wonder is that one of the hobbies of my youth was portrait painting. I once took a theme from a cover of an Avalon Hill General magazine which depicted Rommel with a scene from north Africa in the background and used it in the creation of a portrait of my best friend and wargaming buddy putting him in his pharmacy lab coat in the place of Rommel and depicting him at work daydreaming about the campaign in north Africa.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Neilster I greatly admire your talent for deflection.

I assumed all along that your avatar picture was a a depiction of some tank commander from history. Now, since the unmuostachioed painting bears such a striking resemblence to the photo you provided, I have to wonder if you or a friend painted a portrait of you as a tank commander.

The reason I wonder is that one of the hobbies of my youth was portrait painting. I once took a theme from a cover of an Avalon Hill General magazine which depicted Rommel with a scene from north Africa in the background and used it in the creation of a portrait of my best friend and wargaming buddy putting him in his pharmacy lab coat in the place of Rommel and depicting him at work daydreaming about the campaign in north Africa.

Actually I chose the avatar because I liked the picture. It was only later that I realised that I do look a bit like the dude. He's definitely a handsome man. [:'(] I'm not sure how many panzer commanders had armband tattoos though. Probably about none.

Cheers, Neilster