Patton V. Montgomery

[KWG]

Pyrrhus was a great military commander.... In a pyrrchic way.

[paullus99]

I've always thought that Montgomery's conservative tactics in Normandy resulted in more overall Allied casualties than less - his reliance on tank-heavy attacks, when a more balanced approach with closer integration with the infantry formations would have paid dividends, resulted in one botched operation after another.

Churchill, himself, told Ike that he would support the removal of "any" British commander, regardless of rank, if he felt it was in the best interest of the war effort - he never liked Montgomery & certainly, Monty was his own worst enemy - constantly over-promising and under-delivering on his operational efforts.

Of course, the removal of Monty would have been a heavy blow to British morale, so unless something dramatic happened, it wasn't going to happen. But, the lack of movement in Normandy eliminated any chance that he would have remained as overall Allied Ground Commander in Europe.

Patton was also an excellent motivator of troops - but even he couldn't overcome the general weaknesses of the US Army in Normandy (i.e. formations tended to perform no better under Patton than other US commanders in set-piece battles). Where he excelled, was pushing armored formations to exploit breakout and pursuit to the maximum.

These issues can and will be argued day in and day out, but in general, I think you can find pros and cons for both. But, I will say, cooperation and overall skill at the army level for the allies was certainly better than what occurred on the German side.

[KWG]

paullus99

"These issues can and will be argued day in and day out, but in general, I think you can find pros and cons for both. But, I will say, cooperation and overall skill at the army level for the allies was certainly better than what occurred on the German side."

True, pros and cons like so many things. Do you think the Germans had better cooperation and overall skill at the smaller unit level? Maybe due to places like Bad Toelz and overall training.

[mariandavid]

There was nothing even remotely conservative about Monty's tactics in Normandy: Unlike Hollywood generals he understood that fighting Germans on the defensive required utter care in approach otherwise the Allies would lose a battle of attrition. Note that the US forces were 'losing' - through not fault of their own - on the western flank. The solution was artillery heavy, tank supported infantry 'bounces'. And as for lack of innovation note that it was only under Montgomery that the Allies made night attacks, massed tank attacks, and surprise penetration attacks. Not all, by any means succeeded, but all meant that the infantry casualty rate was low. Far, far lower in fact than those of very conservative (and frankly unimaginative) endlessly repeated attacks made by the US further west.

In all this I am not suggesting that Montgomery was a genius - he was not and in addition was an egotist with miserable social skills. But he was a superb battlefield craftsman much appreciated for this by his troops who had previously suffered under amateurish leaders. In contrast Patton was despised, even hated to extreme by his troops (of course his generals wrote fawning approvals). After all what soldier could possibly admire a general whose prime concern was to ensure his men wore pretty scarves in combat and who insisted that all officers and men paint their rank in white on the front of their helmets. A little more interest in logistics might have been more helpful.

[chaos45]

Mariandavid-----having spoken to, in person an actual veteran tanker from Pattons 3rd army........at least in this mans opinion Patton was loved, this man had nothing but good things to say about being in Pattons 3rd Army.

So i dont know where you get saying his Troops despised him, as this man in giving a talk to our Class in high school as a guest speaker had only good things to say....and even working for his family later and talking to him after work never had a bad word to say about serving under patton.

Now did he make it out like things were great being a tank in WW2....no, but from the conversations I had with this man he was proud to have served under patton and would have prefered to serve under no other American general at the time.

This leaves me to believe that obviously he did something/ingrained something to the average US Soldier fighting on the frontline in his Army in Europe.

[mariandavid]

I am sure he meant what he said - he was a tanker and the imbecilic rules Patton inflicted on his foot sloggers did not (obviously) apply to men in tanks. And of course the publicity from the movie created a halo effect around the man and created achievements that never really existed.

But in truth I care little about how good Patton was - I just object with passion to the undeserved glorification generated that submerged the talents of far greater American generals in Europe.

[HMSWarspite]

Must resist.... MUST RESIST. ARGGGG! Here goes:

The whole Montgomery Patton thing is a real dead end as a discussion on most forums, even this one. The generally perceived wisdom is derived from a range of sources, often films, but even when derived from contemporary newspapers is very very misleading.

Please can we have a debate using genuine academic sources and analysis not the usual stereotypical generalisations.

Having said which, this debate is a lot better than many I have seen on other sites.

Ironically (given the way that this debate usually goes), the two were not that different at the very deepest level. They (IMHO) were both sadly flawed individuals with some important skills. I will have to do more reading before I comment further

[chaos45]

I agree there were some other very good US Generals and Patton paid for his bombast with more or less being reduced in rank and subordinated to what used to be his subordinate......thats a pretty massive hit to the pride if your a military man I assure you.

The thing that Patton understood very well despite all of his flaws was what we term in modern military- "Violence of Action" - Basically what it boils down to is a make a decision and take action in the quickest possible method so you keep the initiative and keep the enemy off guard. At the smallest element level its a term used from the section all the way up the chain. Hit the enemy hit him hard and hopefully defeat him before he can react.

Another thing I think Patton understood and why he was the perfect man for the Breakout- was with complete mastery of the Air he really didnt need to worry that much about his flanks. The Germans ability to mass and move to counterattack swift american advances and attacks would be so limit that the quicker the US forces moved the better as US forces could react/move faster than German forces in France 1944.

Think about this- even if say 3rd Army was cut off in the real war- could the Germans mass the firepower/units to destroy----I would say no. The Allied airforces were so massive and overpowering by 1944 that the airlift capability would easily keep the army in fighting shape and most likely just result in the encircling German forces being counter-encircled and destroy. The luftwaffe airlifts in Russia kept numerous pockets fighting for months and its capabilities were far less than the allies of 1944.

The Germans in the early war were very, very good at this. The issue is to execute this type of warfare takes a fairly highly trained and motivated combat force.

[KWG]

HMSWarspite

"They (IMHO) were both sadly flawed individuals with some important skills."


Yes, and they were great because they lead great people. Hey its hard to soar with eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys.


To say which is better is trying to say which is great, greater, greatest or as we say in the south - greaterest. Its most interesting to look at what Georgie and Monty did, see why they did it and why they did it that way.

One can look at the Willie and Joe cartoons of of the time to see how some felt about Patton and his rules. And when I was in 2nd Armor we still called a by the book Jackass, "Patton".

Patton was theatrical and it was for the troops. He seemed to have really cared and worried most for the green troops. During the Sicily campaign atrocities were carried out by the Americans and the Goerings on each other. Several groups of Americans were facing charges, which were approved by Patton, and they claimed it was Patton's pep speeches which fired them up to commit the acts. Patton denied it and after that was dismmissed and the press dropped it is when Ike said "George, you talk too much."

I think it shows, when Patton said something to the effect of "If the Germans want to win the war they should give us more Jeeps and Halftracks."
The Jeep could go anywhere but it flipped easy at high speeds(>40mph) and troops were treating the halftracks as if they were tanks. These casualties concerned him.

Monty felt that he had pinned the Germans in June, July and August while the Americans, mainly Patton, could exploit. So it was his turn and he was willing to included the "5th US Army" in his plans, while the "other" US Army was the pinning board.


Patton knew that the manner of Monty's careful preparation and hoarding of supplies would result in that 3rd Army might get a razor and a can of fumes.

So they stoled each other's "stuff" and then the two kids played the Parent "IKE". Monty, who may have felt it should have been his job, pulled no punches and in one meeting blasted Ike with a tirade that gathered fury and when Monty stopped to catch his breath, Ike placed a hand on Monty's knee and clamly said "Steady Monty! You cant speak to me like that. I'm your boss."

Not having read a whole lot about just Monty, never less, I've always been inspired by him even as a kid reading about the Afrika Korps. He should have a 9 morale maybe.

You have to give it to any leader that can keep everyone from saying " To hell with it Iam going home" while still keeping them feed and in good morale



chaos45

Yes,

"Death in battle is a function of time and effective hostile fire. You reduce the hositle fire by your fire. You reduce the time by rapid movement."

[warspite1]

Montgomery vs Patton – who was better?

Here’s one of those debates guaranteed like ‘was the Bismarck sunk or scuttled?’ and ‘were the atomic bombs justified?’ to get the trolls out (though thankfully not here).

Fact is – in my opinion – it’s not a question that can ever be answered, and nor does it really need to be. The two men fought in different armies (albeit on the same side) and, although their objectives were often broadly the same, the circumstances that governed their actions were not always so – and iirc, Sicily aside, they commanded formations of differing size and so had different roles and responsibilities.

Both men have similarities – loved by their supporters and hated by their detractors. Both could be insufferable in their need for self-promotion and adulation – no matter the effect on others. But both were brave men – having proved themselves in combat before taking up higher command.

The two men made mistakes (Arnhem and Lorraine respectively being the obvious candidates) and so neither has an unblemished record – but both were ultimately successful. They did their job and they did it well. It is easy to cite the material superiority that the CW forces were building in the Western Desert when Monty became 8th Army commander, but this was an army that had been beaten – regularly – by Rommel, and morale was extremely low when he took charge. Monty transformed the army and made them believe victory was possible. For Patton there can be no greater accolade than being respected and feared by your adversary as someone who knows their business. The Germans saw Patton as the best Allied commander.

Both can be thankful they had Eisenhower in charge; a man who could recognise the need for their brilliance and reign them in (just!) enough to allow them to do what they were paid to do without compromising the ultimate goal or seeing them sent home in career ending disgrace (although Patton was closest to that, Monty really pushed Eisenhower on more than one occasion).

I saw an article the other day on the top 20 commanders. This list brought home just how difficult it is to make a meaningful list. I mean Zhukov? Incredible, absolutely incredible war record from Nomonhan to Berlin, but how do you judge Zhukov against, for example Monty or Patton? Zhukov had (and was not afraid to lose) a plentiful supply of bullet stoppers. Monty faced a real challenge in 1944 with an army that had literally run out of men. For Patton too, in charge of a US army, he could not simply incur losses without regard – that’s not the way a democracy operates.

The only way to definitely know who was best - Monty or Patton - is to have them fight the same battle against the same enemy and see who achieves the best results. But that of course is impossible. Instead we should just be grateful that we had two such leaders at the time we needed them.

[mariandavid]

Fair enough - I should have cited my sources for my comment. And perhaps "Patton or Simpson' or 'Montgomery or Slim' would be more reasonable speculations that would at least avoid the national acrimony(not present here) that has poisoned the Monty/Patton debate.

Mind you I am a heretic in these matters - I think a dozen of more World War One generals had harder tasks and achieved greater generalship than either!

[HMSWarspite]

I wouldn't disagree with you there. Whilst Patton and Monty both have their misleading sources, all the WW1 Allied generals get coated with the universal tar brush of 'donkey'. There were some brilliant commanders (even on the Western Front). The 'donkeys' were just not brilliant, and could not get past the defensive superiority that machine guns created. Read up the British offensives from after Amiens to the end of the war. Absolutely text book (in fact were the text book for 1939!) and very successful.

The problem with objective accounts extends to RN commanders as well. We could start a Jellicoe vs Beatty debate, and have just the same effect as a typical Monty/Patton. The only difference is you need to go to a naval site to get the depth of discussion

For the record I think Jellicoe was very capable and (necessarily) conservative - he had to be as he couldn't win the war but he could certainly lose it. Beatty was a self centred opinionated arrogant egotist who was sloppy and lazy. Now, who does this remind you of? [8|]