Why was Patton so great?

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I wanted to bring to the attention of other forum readers following the current (largely pointless) debate about Charles Whiting that this book by D'Este, described by Von Rom (quite correctly) as

If you are seeking to understand General George S. Patton, then this is the book to read.

actually quotes (without contradiction) from Mr Whiting's 1970 book "Patton". This book is not to be confused with the novel "Kill Patton" which was a work of fiction. For readers interested in which part of Mr Whiting's book it was that Mr D'Este felt incisive enough to quote, please refer to page 634 (in the Harper Collins 1996 paperback edition). This quote is referenced as note 23.

For those without access to this work, Mr Whiting's words (which Mr D'Este does not contradict but rather presents as evidence), are in bold in the following section quoted verbatim from pg 634 (Harper Collins 1996 paperback edition):

Patton's achilles heel (which would be painfully evident later in Lorraine) was that rather than cut his losses, he would attempt to storm his way out of a bad situation in the name of prestige. One of his critics scornfully notes that "the third army's wild rampage through Brittany obscured one central fact - west was precisely the wrong direction...Patton's greatest deficiency as a tank commander was his tendancy to think as a traditional cavalry tactician and to care little what direction he was attacking in, so long as he was attacking." Another biographer has written that Patton was "at his best and most successful only where he could apply his brilliant looose rein cavalry tactics against an already confused and mostly mediocre enemy. This was to be the lesson the Brittany campaign."

I would also add that in his "select bibliography" to be found at the end of his work, Mr D'Este sees fit to list no fewer than four of Mr Whiting's books (for the record, none of them of the SS "pulp" fiction variety).

They are, Patton, Patton's last battle, Bounce the Rhine and 48 hours to Hammelburg.

If anyone needs help defending Mr Whiting, perhaps we can refer to Mr D'Este.

Regards,
IronDuke

It is interesting that those who read and defend Whiting, are also the same people who attack Patton. I am sure Whiting would be pleased with the job he has done.

That Whiting would attack Patton in a so-called "military history" book on the one hand, and then as Kessler, glorify the Waffen SS (Patton's enemies) in cheap pulp novels on the other, should lead anyone to question Whiting's motivation and alterior motives.

As to D'Este having included some of Whiting's books in his Bibliography:

You are aware, are you not, that most major writers use researchers. These researchers in turn, look a wide variety of books and articles. Even if they just glance at a book, they are entitled to include that book in a bibliography, even if it is to find out what some British writers have to say on a subject.

Some writers who write about WW2 also include Hitler's Mein Kampf in their Bibliographies. Yet, what credibility do we give to this book?

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly



Patton burnt up his fuel supplies disobeying orders and heading into Brittany as I have already revealed above.

Heheh

You really need to read up on Patton's activities in Normandy.

Although I can understand your lack of knowlege on these matters if all you are reading is Whiting's books.

Heheh

You really need to read up on Patton's activities in Normandy.

Although I can understand your lack of knowlege on these matters if all you are reading is Whiting's books.

I have grave doubts about how much you actually know about this battle. You say Kevinugly is wrong, but do not use facts to illustrate why he is wrong. In order to put the record straight, (and prove me wrong!) could you actually describe the actions of the third army from it's activation on 1st August (if memory serves). Nothing heavy, just a few words, nothing serious, just what units did Patton have and where did they go?

Regards,
IronDuke

Really. . .

Nothing like baiting me, eh?

I'll bet you can't wait. . .

I have posted a great deal in this thread about Patton. I would refer you the Logistics article on Patton. Have you or Kevinugly even glanced at it?

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Frank
For Western - Allied leaders, he is a good one. For German leaders he was average IMHO.

I was never that impressed with the average German General when it came to leadership ability.

Interesting. I always have. The situations within the respective armies were different, but I always thought the superior training of the pre-war German Officer Corp, allied with greater attrition rates which meant more officers got the chance to command, meant generally they were a more competent bunch than anything the Allies possessed.

Would Any German commander have kept his post if roles had been reversed at Messina etc, or they had taken three months with naval and air supremacy to breakout from Normandy? Ultimately, since only success guaranteed continuing employment, better officers gravitated to the surface in the Wehrmacht.

Regards,
IronDuke

Here again, is another one your lop-sided opinions.

Patton can do no right no matter what he does.

However, everything German officers did is brilliant no matter the circumstances.

Let's take a look at the so-called "brilliant" BlitzKrieg of the early German years, shall we?

The Germans surprise-attacked the unprepared Poles, bombing poor defenceless Warsaw. The Poles attacked German tanks with cavalry. Quite the achievement [8|]

Next, came poor little neutral Belgium. A surprise attack forced its surrender - another brilliant military move.

Next on the agenda was poor, defenceless Denmark - yes quite the military victory.

Then there was Holland - the technique of bombing defenceless Rotterdam is still studied today. . .[8|]

Then of course, there was the surprise attack through the Ardennes at Sedan, when German tanks basically raced for the channel, hardly encountering any opposition. The Germans faced divided, inexperienced, and poorly led Allied forces.

And at Dunkirk, the Germans couldn't even capture all the defenceless Allied soldiers trapped on the beaches [8|]

Yes, yes, all brilliant.

Then of course, the Germans attacked Russia in a surprise attack, surrounding and defeating a poorly led rabble. All those encirclements meant that those German officers encountered very little opposition. And the opposition they did encounter, was carried out by troops with low morale, poor clothing and weapons, and with very poor leadership.

Yes, what stunning successes. . .

[IronDuke_slith]

Disappointing. You fail to answer any of my challenges (which I will list again if you feel you can knock them down but I doubt you will pick up the challenge) and then indulge us with the supreme irony that you think I am here merely to rubbish Patton. You do not see that it is you who brook no argument about his greatness, even in the face of reasoned history backed by leading historians. Whenever presented with evidence you either ignore it (the analysis presented here of the breakout and Sicily), refuse to admit you are wrong (352 VG springs to mind) or reply by printing excerpts from Patton Uncovered which was roundly criticised by D'Este. I have already said several pro-Patton things, you can check the thread if you do not believe me. I just finished saying another regarding Market Garden. So much for my bias.

This is interesting

Contrary to what a few disgruntled individuals may claim, millions of people still LOVE Patton and his achievements, in spite of the attempts of people such as yourself to try and discredit him and them.

because you used to claim it was

When I say everyone, I am referring to almost all the Allied leaders, many of the high ranking German officers, and a great many writers and historians.

Having been challenged to name the historians (please say D'este and I can quote at length from that excellent book he wrote on Patton) you have chosen not to. I've named at least six. You claimed the Allied leaders, yet any perousal of D'Este will show that Bradley detested Patton, and Eisenhower distrusted him. As Kevinugly wrote, that is very odd. (Want me to provide the quotes to support this?) You said German officers, and have provided five quotes of varying quality, repeated three times. (Not fifteen Offciers, just five repeated three times). I've analysed some of the operations they were talking about, and you have ignored this, and instead given us more from Patton uncovered or repeated the quotes.

As for

I keep re-posting what German officers say, because people keep asking what the opinions of Germans were of Patton.

On which page of this thread has this been asked?

You say...

Many readers on these forums do not share your uncritical approach to writers.

...then you quote freely (and usually verbatim) from the Patton homepage, his museum, Patton uncovered and the Patton Society, without realising (or refusing to realise) that these have a vested interest in the Patton legend that serious historians do not have. You will find little or no criticism of your man on these sites. That is the very definition of bias.

You say

You have made it quite clear that your intent is to basically destroy any shred of evidence that points to Patton's abilities. That is NOT discussing the issue.

Where did I say this? The simple truth is I haven't said it. Discussion is where two people with (if necessary) diametrically opposing views engage in conversation about the subject in hand. How can we debate or discuss this if I agree with you? Time and again I appeal to you to discuss specifics rather than just copy bits out of Patton fan sites. You have ignored me when asked to explain (in detail) why Patton could have closed the Falaise gap, or even why he should. I have quoted from three of the leading historians on this subject to illustrate my argument. You used Patton uncovered, a work discredited by Carlo D'Este.

I have asked you why you thought Patton's drive on Bastogne was particularly good. I haven't seen a response yet.

You did get into specifics about the 352 VG. several times, you claimed you had shown this was a division made up of veterans from other disbanded divisions. Not once did you cite a source. I showed that this division was in fact a very poor one with few if any veterans using Nafziger, MacDonald and Mitcham. You then told me who cares about the 352 before saying again (without sources) that you had demonstrated etc...This was sad because it did not look good.

You have (to your credit) touched briefly upon Metz and Hammelburg. My thanks, and I'll address those comments shortly.

As for:

If Patton was to say the sky is blue, you would no doubt claim that he was wearing sunglasses, that he was facing the sky near dusk, and that the rate of movement in Arc degrees, would make it appear that the sky was not blue, but was rather a DARK blue. And not just the colour blue, as Patton had first described.

With respect, this isn't worthy of serious comment.

Your intent is solely to destroy Patton's reputation, no matter what you have to do, no matter how nitpicky you have to get, no matter what anyone writes, and no matter to what ridiculous extent you must go to, to do so.

It is not nitpicky to examine the events that form the Patton legend. It is called history. You have quoted numerous innaccuracies from the quality of the 352 to the position of Patton's men at the so called battle of the Falaise gap. You have made clearly incorrect statements on Bradley's feelings towards Patton. You told Kevinugly he needed to read more about the Battle of Normandy after he pointed out Patton went into Brittany wasting gas after the breakout, yet this is clearly what happened.

Contrary to what a few disgruntled individuals may claim, millions of people still LOVE Patton and his achievements, in spite of the attempts of people such as yourself to try and discredit him and them.

You have a nice line in adjectives. What on earth am I disgruntled about? My point (which I have illustrated with quotes from numerous serious historians) is that Patton's achievements have passed into legend, and that people are familiar with the legend, but not the achievements. I have said continually he could drive tanks hard, provided there was no serious opposition. Normandy and Siciliy clearly demonstrate this. What I have also said, is that if you look at those operations, whilst they look good on the surface (which is what millions of people have noticed) they are a little more mundane underneath. I have also pointed out that Patton's record outside of the legendary moments is quite ordinary.

Patton's achievements are still studied in military academies

All Generals are, it doesn't mean they are good. Serious students investigate all military records looking for answers.

But Patton's achievemnts still stand, even after 50 years. .

No, I don't think they do, not amongst serious students. Amongst serious students, opinions are more cautious. Patton is rightly praised for his qualities, but students also point to his numerous failings. D'Este listed many faults (shall I quote a few). You hail this book as the best on the subject, but deny much of what it says.

Onto Metz and Hammelburg....

Respect and regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

Exellent, we are again onto specifics.

It is interesting that those who read and defend Whiting, are also the same people who attack Patton. I am sure Whiting would be pleased with the job he has done.

That Whiting would attack Patton in a so-called "military history" book on the one hand, and then as Kessler, glorify the Waffen SS (Patton's enemies) in cheap pulp novels on the other, should lead anyone to question Whiting's motivation and alterior motives.

As to D'Este having included some of Whiting's books in his Bibliography:

You are aware, are you not, that most major writers use researchers. These researchers in turn, look a wide variety of books and articles. Even if they just glance at a book, they are entitled to include that book in a bibliography, even if it is to find out what some British writers have to say on a subject.

Some writers who write about WW2 also include Hitler's Mein Kampf in their Bibliographies. Yet, what credibility do we give to this book?

What did you think then of his quoting Whiting as evidence? We both agree D'Este is a major historian of a very high quality. He passed the quote into his record without comment. He must have agreed with it.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Disappointing. You fail to answer any of my challenges (which I will list again if you feel you can knock them down but I doubt you will pick up the challenge) and then indulge us with the supreme irony that you think I am here merely to rubbish Patton. You do not see that it is you who brook no argument about his greatness, even in the face of reasoned history backed by leading historians. Whenever presented with evidence you either ignore it (the analysis presented here of the breakout and Sicily), refuse to admit you are wrong (352 VG springs to mind) or reply by printing excerpts from Patton Uncovered which was roundly criticised by D'Este. I have already said several pro-Patton things, you can check the thread if you do not believe me. I just finished saying another regarding Market Garden. So much for my bias.

This is interesting

Contrary to what a few disgruntled individuals may claim, millions of people still LOVE Patton and his achievements, in spite of the attempts of people such as yourself to try and discredit him and them.

because you used to claim it was

When I say everyone, I am referring to almost all the Allied leaders, many of the high ranking German officers, and a great many writers and historians.

Having been challenged to name the historians (please say D'este and I can quote at length from that excellent book he wrote on Patton) you have chosen not to. I've named at least six. You claimed the Allied leaders, yet any perousal of D'Este will show that Bradley detested Patton, and Eisenhower distrusted him. As Kevinugly wrote, that is very odd. (Want me to provide the quotes to support this?) You said German officers, and have provided five quotes of varying quality, repeated three times. (Not fifteen Offciers, just five repeated three times). I've analysed some of the operations they were talking about, and you have ignored this, and instead given us more from Patton uncovered or repeated the quotes.

As for

I keep re-posting what German officers say, because people keep asking what the opinions of Germans were of Patton.

On which page of this thread has this been asked?

You say...

Many readers on these forums do not share your uncritical approach to writers.

...then you quote freely (and usually verbatim) from the Patton homepage, his museum, Patton uncovered and the Patton Society, without realising (or refusing to realise) that these have a vested interest in the Patton legend that serious historians do not have. You will find little or no criticism of your man on these sites. That is the very definition of bias.

You say

You have made it quite clear that your intent is to basically destroy any shred of evidence that points to Patton's abilities. That is NOT discussing the issue.

Where did I say this? The simple truth is I haven't said it. Discussion is where two people with (if necessary) diametrically opposing views engage in conversation about the subject in hand. How can we debate or discuss this if I agree with you? Time and again I appeal to you to discuss specifics rather than just copy bits out of Patton fan sites. You have ignored me when asked to explain (in detail) why Patton could have closed the Falaise gap, or even why he should. I have quoted from three of the leading historians on this subject to illustrate my argument. You used Patton uncovered, a work discredited by Carlo D'Este.

I have asked you why you thought Patton's drive on Bastogne was particularly good. I haven't seen a response yet.

You did get into specifics about the 352 VG. several times, you claimed you had shown this was a division made up of veterans from other disbanded divisions. Not once did you cite a source. I showed that this division was in fact a very poor one with few if any veterans using Nafziger, MacDonald and Mitcham. You then told me who cares about the 352 before saying again (without sources) that you had demonstrated etc...This was sad because it did not look good.

You have (to your credit) touched briefly upon Metz and Hammelburg. My thanks, and I'll address those comments shortly.

As for:

If Patton was to say the sky is blue, you would no doubt claim that he was wearing sunglasses, that he was facing the sky near dusk, and that the rate of movement in Arc degrees, would make it appear that the sky was not blue, but was rather a DARK blue. And not just the colour blue, as Patton had first described.

With respect, this isn't worthy of serious comment.

Your intent is solely to destroy Patton's reputation, no matter what you have to do, no matter how nitpicky you have to get, no matter what anyone writes, and no matter to what ridiculous extent you must go to, to do so.

It is not nitpicky to examine the events that form the Patton legend. It is called history. You have quoted numerous innaccuracies from the quality of the 352 to the position of Patton's men at the so called battle of the Falaise gap. You have made clearly incorrect statements on Bradley's feelings towards Patton. You told Kevinugly he needed to read more about the Battle of Normandy after he pointed out Patton went into Brittany wasting gas after the breakout, yet this is clearly what happened.

Contrary to what a few disgruntled individuals may claim, millions of people still LOVE Patton and his achievements, in spite of the attempts of people such as yourself to try and discredit him and them.

You have a nice line in adjectives. What on earth am I disgruntled about? My point (which I have illustrated with quotes from numerous serious historians) is that Patton's achievements have passed into legend, and that people are familiar with the legend, but not the achievements. I have said continually he could drive tanks hard, provided there was no serious opposition. Normandy and Siciliy clearly demonstrate this. What I have also said, is that if you look at those operations, whilst they look good on the surface (which is what millions of people have noticed) they are a little more mundane underneath. I have also pointed out that Patton's record outside of the legendary moments is quite ordinary.

Patton's achievements are still studied in military academies

All Generals are, it doesn't mean they are good. Serious students investigate all military records looking for answers.

But Patton's achievemnts still stand, even after 50 years. .

No, I don't think they do, not amongst serious students. Amongst serious students, opinions are more cautious. Patton is rightly praised for his qualities, but students also point to his numerous failings. D'Este listed many faults (shall I quote a few). You hail this book as the best on the subject, but deny much of what it says.

Onto Metz and Hammelburg....

Respect and regards,
IronDuke

Your challenges?

Please. . .

Your only goal is to destroy Patton's reputation. Period.

You certainly will not let any evidence to the contrary interfer with that goal. And debate in your eyes is simply to say you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You read D'Este's book too (or so you claim), and obviously you have ignored a great deal in his book about the excellent things Patton did.

I know all about Patton's faults, but I don't have to point them out since you are obviously more than happy to do so, rightly or wrongly. . .

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Von Rom



Heheh

You really need to read up on Patton's activities in Normandy.

Although I can understand your lack of knowlege on these matters if all you are reading is Whiting's books.

Heheh

You really need to read up on Patton's activities in Normandy.

Although I can understand your lack of knowlege on these matters if all you are reading is Whiting's books.

I have grave doubts about how much you actually know about this battle. You say Kevinugly is wrong, but do not use facts to illustrate why he is wrong. In order to put the record straight, (and prove me wrong!) could you actually describe the actions of the third army from it's activation on 1st August (if memory serves). Nothing heavy, just a few words, nothing serious, just what units did Patton have and where did they go?

Regards,
IronDuke

Really. . .

Nothing like baiting me, eh?

I'll bet you can't wait. . .

I have posted a great deal in this thread about Patton. I would refer you the Logistics article on Patton. Have you or Kevinugly even glanced at it?

I have, it's actually a very good article about Patton the logistician. I would not agree with one or two of it's conclusions, but it is detailed concerning 3rd Army logisitics. You may recall on page one of this thread (I think) I called Patton a great logistician, so I was ahead of you here. It doesn't actually say much about combat or the operational situation in Normandy, though. To be sure of this, after reading it, I copied it into a word document and used the word search facility to look for "Falaise" and "Argentan". Guess how many hits I got?

I'm not baiting. I just want to know what you know of this battle, so we can discuss it without having to trawl through thousands of other people's words. My apologies if I give the impression of baiting, I will try and soften my words.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Exellent, we are again onto specifics.

It is interesting that those who read and defend Whiting, are also the same people who attack Patton. I am sure Whiting would be pleased with the job he has done.

That Whiting would attack Patton in a so-called "military history" book on the one hand, and then as Kessler, glorify the Waffen SS (Patton's enemies) in cheap pulp novels on the other, should lead anyone to question Whiting's motivation and alterior motives.

As to D'Este having included some of Whiting's books in his Bibliography:

You are aware, are you not, that most major writers use researchers. These researchers in turn, look a wide variety of books and articles. Even if they just glance at a book, they are entitled to include that book in a bibliography, even if it is to find out what some British writers have to say on a subject.

Some writers who write about WW2 also include Hitler's Mein Kampf in their Bibliographies. Yet, what credibility do we give to this book?

What did you think then of his quoting Whiting as evidence? We both agree D'Este is a major historian of a very high quality. He passed the quote into his record without comment. He must have agreed with it.

Regards,
IronDuke

Here again, is another example of you not seeing the forest because of the trees.

You seem quite capable of forgeting the fact that Whiting writes cheap novels glorifying the SS, while trying to discredit Patton. You conveniently forget that many readers of his books claim faulty research and poor writing . . . [8|]

So Whiting included something in some of the books he wrote that is worth using. At least I would hope so.

He is after all claiming to be a military historian. And D'Este's researchers may very well have been able to use something. Although, D'Este himself may not have actually seen the books in question.

So?

Hitler's Mein Kampf is also quoted in books.

I looked at some of Whiting's "history" books and they are not for me, at least the ones I looked at. He injects gratuitous racial and ethinc slurs that have no place in serious books.

Many other readers have problems with several of his other books.

I have no doubt that he must have done some research in the history books he writes. But I simply do not have enough faith in him, to rely on him for solid historical facts.

His books just seem to be aimed at a younger age bracket. There are much better books we can spend our money on.

I would never buy one of his books.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke




I have grave doubts about how much you actually know about this battle. You say Kevinugly is wrong, but do not use facts to illustrate why he is wrong. In order to put the record straight, (and prove me wrong!) could you actually describe the actions of the third army from it's activation on 1st August (if memory serves). Nothing heavy, just a few words, nothing serious, just what units did Patton have and where did they go?

Regards,
IronDuke

Really. . .

Nothing like baiting me, eh?

I'll bet you can't wait. . .

I have posted a great deal in this thread about Patton. I would refer you the Logistics article on Patton. Have you or Kevinugly even glanced at it?

I have, it's actually a very good article about Patton the logistician. I would not agree with one or two of it's conclusions, but it is detailed concerning 3rd Army logisitics. You may recall on page one of this thread (I think) I called Patton a great logistician, so I was ahead of you here. It doesn't actually say much about combat or the operational situation in Normandy, though. To be sure of this, after reading it, I copied it into a word document and used the word search facility to look for "Falaise" and "Argentan". Guess how many hits I got?

I'm not baiting. I just want to know what you know of this battle, so we can discuss it without having to trawl through thousands of other people's words. My apologies if I give the impression of baiting, I will try and soften my words.

Regards,
IronDuke

I'm glad you enjoyed the article [:)]

My apologies if I give the impression of baiting, I will try and soften my words.

Ahhh, the words change, but the intent remains the same, n'est pas?

Obviously you feel that you know all about Falaise, yes? Be happy in your own knowledge. . .

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

I was never that impressed with the average German General when it came to leadership ability.

Interesting. I always have. The situations within the respective armies were different, but I always thought the superior training of the pre-war German Officer Corp, allied with greater attrition rates which meant more officers got the chance to command, meant generally they were a more competent bunch than anything the Allies possessed.

Would Any German commander have kept his post if roles had been reversed at Messina etc, or they had taken three months with naval and air supremacy to breakout from Normandy? Ultimately, since only success guaranteed continuing employment, better officers gravitated to the surface in the Wehrmacht.

Regards,
IronDuke

Here again, is another one your lop-sided opinions.

Patton can do no right no matter what he does.

However, everything German officers did is brilliant no matter the circumstances.

Let's take a look at the so-called "brilliant" BlitzKrieg of the early German years, shall we?

The Germans surprise-attacked the unprepared Poles, bombing poor defenceless Warsaw. The Poles attacked German tanks with cavalry. Quite the achievement [8|]

Next, came poor little neutral Belgium. A surprise attack forced its surrender - another brilliant military move.

Next on the agenda was poor, defenceless Denmark - yes quite the military victory.

Then there was Holland - the technique of bombing defenceless Rotterdam is still studied today. . .[8|]

Then of course, there was the surprise attack through the Ardennes at Sedan, when German tanks basically raced for the channel, hardly encountering any opposition. The Germans faced divided, inexperienced, and poorly led Allied forces.

And at Dunkirk, the Germans couldn't even capture all the defenceless Allied soldiers trapped on the beaches [8|]

Yes, yes, all brilliant.

Then of course, the Germans attacked Russia in a surprise attack, surrounding and defeating a poorly led rabble. All those encirclements meant that those German officers encountered very little opposition. And the opposition they did encounter, was carried out by troops with low morale, poor clothing and weapons, and with very poor leadership.

Yes, what stunning successes. . .

You let yourself down here. Please point out where I said everything the Germans did was brilliant. I merely said they were generally better. [:-]

Patton can do no right no matter what he does.

Did I actually mention Patton in this piece?

The Germans surprise-attacked the unprepared Poles, bombing poor defenceless Warsaw. The Poles attacked German tanks with cavalry. Quite the achievement [8|]

Agreed, German losses were relatively light, German operational doctrine was better, the Poles chose to defend the entire country and were never strong enough where it mattered as a result. You overplay the surprise. The Germans had tactical surprise, but not strategic surprise.

Next, came poor little neutral Belgium. A surprise attack forced its surrender - another brilliant military move.

Can you show me one person (apart from you judging from this) who were surprised the Germans attacked Belgium rather than go through the Maginot line?

Then there was Holland - the technique of bombing defenceless Rotterdam is still studied today. . .[8|]

As are the Paratrooper assaults that secured several strategic bridges and fortresses here and in Belgium such as Eben Emael. Have you heard of these operations?

Then of course, there was the surprise attack through the Ardennes at Sedan, when German tanks basically raced for the channel, hardly encountering any opposition. The Germans faced divided, inexperienced, and poorly led Allied forces.

And at Dunkirk, the Germans couldn't even capture all the defenceless Allied soldiers trapped on the beaches [8|]

Again, I don't think you understand the German attack in the west (it is a current topic of study of mine because of a scenario I'm helping design). The French knew the Germans were going to attack at some point, so why criticise the Germans when despite this they still managed to achieve complete operational surprise? Is this not good? I find it astonishing you are criticising someone for coming up with an operational plan that drew the enemy into exactly the position required for a devastating surprise attack.

You also don't seem to be familiar with the crossing operations at Sedan (or the other places nearby such as Dinant where the Germans got across the river). German tanks only crossed the river after German infantry had captured the far bank, this wasn't a tank battle. Casualty rates amongst some German assault units reached fifty per cent in this operation, it wasn't a walkover. Some of the German crossings around Sedan were thrown back at first, this was an exellent tactical performance.

The Germans faced divided, inexperienced, and poorly led Allied forces.

They faced an equal number of sometimes divided, just as inexperienced (Remeber Poland only lasted two weeks) and poorly led (at most levels) men.

And at Dunkirk, the Germans couldn't even capture all the defenceless Allied soldiers trapped on the beaches [8|]

Because they were ordered to stop by Hitler, who was afraid their flanks were becoming over exposed. Were you aware of this? When the Germans started to attempt to capture the Allied troops, Dunkirk was already under way. Coupled with tenacious defence, the operation didn't have enough time.

Then of course, the Germans attacked Russia in a surprise attack, surrounding and defeating a poorly led rabble. All those encirclements meant that those German officers encountered very little opposition. And the opposition they did encounter, was carried out by troops with low morale, poor clothing and weapons, and with very poor leadership.

Do you know how many casualties the Germans suffered in the first six months of Barbarossa whilst brushing aside this very little opposition? Do you know anything about the opposition encountered by Guderian north of Smolensk (if memory serves) as one example? If you would like to open a separate thread to debate this aspect, we can do so there, without having to bore everyone else presently here. I don't think you really understand or are being fair to this campaign as you wouldn't talk of it in such terms if you did.

regards,
Ironduke

[Von Rom]

DP

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



Interesting. I always have. The situations within the respective armies were different, but I always thought the superior training of the pre-war German Officer Corp, allied with greater attrition rates which meant more officers got the chance to command, meant generally they were a more competent bunch than anything the Allies possessed.

Would Any German commander have kept his post if roles had been reversed at Messina etc, or they had taken three months with naval and air supremacy to breakout from Normandy? Ultimately, since only success guaranteed continuing employment, better officers gravitated to the surface in the Wehrmacht.

Regards,
IronDuke

Here again, is another one your lop-sided opinions.

Patton can do no right no matter what he does.

However, everything German officers did is brilliant no matter the circumstances.

Let's take a look at the so-called "brilliant" BlitzKrieg of the early German years, shall we?

The Germans surprise-attacked the unprepared Poles, bombing poor defenceless Warsaw. The Poles attacked German tanks with cavalry. Quite the achievement [8|]

Next, came poor little neutral Belgium. A surprise attack forced its surrender - another brilliant military move.

Next on the agenda was poor, defenceless Denmark - yes quite the military victory.

Then there was Holland - the technique of bombing defenceless Rotterdam is still studied today. . .[8|]

Then of course, there was the surprise attack through the Ardennes at Sedan, when German tanks basically raced for the channel, hardly encountering any opposition. The Germans faced divided, inexperienced, and poorly led Allied forces.

And at Dunkirk, the Germans couldn't even capture all the defenceless Allied soldiers trapped on the beaches [8|]

Yes, yes, all brilliant.

Then of course, the Germans attacked Russia in a surprise attack, surrounding and defeating a poorly led rabble. All those encirclements meant that those German officers encountered very little opposition. And the opposition they did encounter, was carried out by troops with low morale, poor clothing and weapons, and with very poor leadership.

Yes, what stunning successes. . .

You let yourself down here. Please point out where I said everything the Germans did was brilliant. I merely said they were generally better. [:-]

Patton can do no right no matter what he does.

Did I actually mention Patton in this piece?

The Germans surprise-attacked the unprepared Poles, bombing poor defenceless Warsaw. The Poles attacked German tanks with cavalry. Quite the achievement [8|]

Agreed, German losses were relatively light, German operational doctrine was better, the Poles chose to defend the entire country and were never strong enough where it mattered as a result. You overplay the surprise. The Germans had tactical surprise, but not strategic surprise.

Next, came poor little neutral Belgium. A surprise attack forced its surrender - another brilliant military move.

Can you show me one person (apart from you judging from this) who were surprised the Germans attacked Belgium rather than go through the Maginot line?

Then there was Holland - the technique of bombing defenceless Rotterdam is still studied today. . .[8|]

As are the Paratrooper assaults that secured several strategic bridges and fortresses here and in Belgium such as Eben Emael. Have you heard of these operations?

Then of course, there was the surprise attack through the Ardennes at Sedan, when German tanks basically raced for the channel, hardly encountering any opposition. The Germans faced divided, inexperienced, and poorly led Allied forces.

And at Dunkirk, the Germans couldn't even capture all the defenceless Allied soldiers trapped on the beaches [8|]

Again, I don't think you understand the German attack in the west (it is a current topic of study of mine because of a scenario I'm helping design). The French knew the Germans were going to attack at some point, so why criticise the Germans when despite this they still managed to achieve complete operational surprise? Is this not good? I find it astonishing you are criticising someone for coming up with an operational plan that drew the enemy into exactly the position required for a devastating surprise attack.

You also don't seem to be familiar with the crossing operations at Sedan (or the other places nearby such as Dinant where the Germans got across the river). German tanks only crossed the river after German infantry had captured the far bank, this wasn't a tank battle. Casualty rates amongst some German assault units reached fifty per cent in this operation, it wasn't a walkover. Some of the German crossings around Sedan were thrown back at first, this was an exellent tactical performance.

The Germans faced divided, inexperienced, and poorly led Allied forces.

They faced an equal number of sometimes divided, just as inexperienced (Remeber Poland only lasted two weeks) and poorly led (at most levels) men.

And at Dunkirk, the Germans couldn't even capture all the defenceless Allied soldiers trapped on the beaches [8|]

Because they were ordered to stop by Hitler, who was afraid their flanks were becoming over exposed. Were you aware of this? When the Germans started to attempt to capture the Allied troops, Dunkirk was already under way. Coupled with tenacious defence, the operation didn't have enough time.

Then of course, the Germans attacked Russia in a surprise attack, surrounding and defeating a poorly led rabble. All those encirclements meant that those German officers encountered very little opposition. And the opposition they did encounter, was carried out by troops with low morale, poor clothing and weapons, and with very poor leadership.

Do you know how many casualties the Germans suffered in the first six months of Barbarossa whilst brushing aside this very little opposition? Do you know anything about the opposition encountered by Guderian north of Smolensk (if memory serves) as one example? If you would like to open a separate thread to debate this aspect, we can do so there, without having to bore everyone else presently here. I don't think you really understand or are being fair to this campaign as you wouldn't talk of it in such terms if you did.

regards,
Ironduke

Ironduke, I am surprised that you did not give a better analysis.

Those small countries in the west were simply over-run. . . They didn't stand a chance. . .

Marvelous planning and attack strategies. . .[8|]

All those soldiers that were sitting at Dunkirk - tsk, tsk. . .

And most of those poorly equipped Russian soldiers simply surrendered without a fight when they were surrounded.

What wonderful victories. . . [8|]

Here's more:

Even with a 3:1 superiority in aircraft, Germany lost the Battle of Britain. To compensate, Hitler bombed defenceless British cities. . .

Brilliant achievement. . . [8|]

Then, when the Allies caught their balance, and levelled the playing field, the brilliant German officers and soldiers fell onto the defensive, and began retreating.

Yes, astounding tactics. . .

Those poor, inferior Russia soldiers re-grouped, and gone were the early and cheap victories. . .

When those veteran Russian Siberian Divisions attacked the German forces outside of Moscow in late 1941 and early 1942, the Germans were thrown back. . .

Let's discuss these brilliant German tactics, shall we?

[IronDuke_slith]

You seem quite capable of forgeting the fact that Whiting writes cheap novels glorifying the SS, while trying to discredit Patton.

I don't think they are any cheaper than the norm. I have no idea whether they glorify the SS (which ones have you read which gave you this impression?). There is nothing wrong with trying to discredit Patton if you have problems with him.

You conveniently forget that many readers of his books claim faulty research and poor writing . . . [8|]

Evidently not D'Este. You did quote some lay readers if memory serves, but I would take D'Este first, over something you or I had posted in amazon. We also can not judge their claims without knowing how knowledgeable they are.

So Whiting included something in some of the books he wrote that is worth using. At least I would hope so.

He is after all claiming to be a military historian. And D'Este's researchers may very well have been able to use something. Although, D'Este himself may not have actually seen the books in question.

You seem to invent things and then take them to great lengths. You first say D'Este might have employed researchers, and now take it as fact and back your argument with it? I just checked D'Este (I own a copy) he does not credit anyone in his book which is the norm when people get help from others. Where did you get the notion about these researchers?

So?

Hitler's Mein Kampf is also quoted in books

.

To illustrate what he thought, not because it is reasoned historical analysis.

I looked at some of Whiting's "history" books and they are not for me, at least the ones I looked at. He injects gratuitous racial and ethinc slurs that have no place in serious books.

Which books, and what are the slurs?

Many other readers have problems with several of his other books.

He sells many thousands. Clearly some readers also like him, his research, his conclusions etc.

I have no doubt that he must have done some research in the history books he writes. But I simply do not have enough faith in him, to rely on him for solid historical facts.

Which books have you read that lead you to this judgement. I have only read two, if we have both read them, then we can discuss him in more detail.

His books just seem to be aimed at a younger age bracket. There are much better books we can spend our money on.

[:D]

I would never buy one of his books.

Because he doesn't like Patton...?

Regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

Ironduke, I am surprised that you did not give a better analysis.

Those small countries in the west were simply over-run. . .

All those soldiers that were sitting at Dunkirk - tsk, tsk. . .

And most of those poorly equipped Russian soldiers simply surrendered without a fight, when they were surrounded.

What wonderful victories. . .

Here's more:

Even with a 3:1 superiority in aircraft, Germany lost the Battle of Britain. To compensate, Hitler bombed defenceless British cities. . .

Brilliant achievement. . .

Then, when the Allies caught their balance, and levelled the playing field, the brilliant German officers and soldiers fell onto the defensive, and began retreating.

Yes, astounding tactics. . .

Those poor, inferior Russia soldiers re-grouped, and gone were the early and cheap victories. . .

When those veteran Russian Siberian Divisions attacked the German forces outside of Moscow in late 1941 and early 1942, the Germans were thrown back. . .

Let's discuss these brilliant German tactics, shall we?

I have to go, but wanted to post this as the starting point for tomorrow. I will return because the superficiality of most of this is somewhat disturbing. I would ask you clarify your point regarding Dunkirk, what does tsk tsk mean?

I love the poorly equipped Soviet soldiers surrendering line, if you could mention which of the German encirclements were like this it might help me zero in tomorrow, or are you saying they all were?

The remarks about the Battle of Britain are scary. I haven't seen the German decision to switch to area bombing described quite like that.

Have a good evening,
Regards,
IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

You seem quite capable of forgeting the fact that Whiting writes cheap novels glorifying the SS, while trying to discredit Patton.

I don't think they are any cheaper than the norm. I have no idea whether they glorify the SS (which ones have you read which gave you this impression?). There is nothing wrong with trying to discredit Patton if you have problems with him.

You conveniently forget that many readers of his books claim faulty research and poor writing . . . [8|]

Evidently not D'Este. You did quote some lay readers if memory serves, but I would take D'Este first, over something you or I had posted in amazon. We also can not judge their claims without knowing how knowledgeable they are.

So Whiting included something in some of the books he wrote that is worth using. At least I would hope so.

He is after all claiming to be a military historian. And D'Este's researchers may very well have been able to use something. Although, D'Este himself may not have actually seen the books in question.

You seem to invent things and then take them to great lengths. You first say D'Este might have employed researchers, and now take it as fact and back your argument with it? I just checked D'Este (I own a copy) he does not credit anyone in his book which is the norm when people get help from others. Where did you get the notion about these researchers?

So?

Hitler's Mein Kampf is also quoted in books

.

To illustrate what he thought, not because it is reasoned historical analysis.

I looked at some of Whiting's "history" books and they are not for me, at least the ones I looked at. He injects gratuitous racial and ethinc slurs that have no place in serious books.

Which books, and what are the slurs?

Many other readers have problems with several of his other books.

He sells many thousands. Clearly some readers also like him, his research, his conclusions etc.

I have no doubt that he must have done some research in the history books he writes. But I simply do not have enough faith in him, to rely on him for solid historical facts.

Which books have you read that lead you to this judgement. I have only read two, if we have both read them, then we can discuss him in more detail.

His books just seem to be aimed at a younger age bracket. There are much better books we can spend our money on.

[:D]

I would never buy one of his books.

Because he doesn't like Patton...?

Regards,
IronDuke

Regarding Whiting:

If you are the lawyer both for the defence AND prosecution, this could be looked at as a possible conflict of interest.

Whiting criticizes Patton in one persona, and then writes novels glorifying the SS in another persona. If you cannot see any possible problems with this. . . [8|]

Researchers:

It is a well known fact that most major writers, Supreme Court Justices, and many, if not most, Professors at universities, employ the use of researchers to do all the leg work, gathering info, etc.

This is not new. Didn't you know this?

The fact that D'Este includes some of Whiting's books in his bibligraphy does not surprise me. Whiting has written enough books, and surely there must be some merit in them?

That does not necessarily mean that D'Este actually saw the books in question.

Yes, Whiting sells many books. I looked through a couple. They appear to be aimed at men between the ages of 15-25, especially his novels.

However, I am too old and have read far too much, to care to read his books, when there are far, far better books to read. It has nothing to do with not liking Patton. He has written other books that have nothing to do with Patton.

If people are happy reading Whiting, then all the power to them. At least they are learning something about WW2. Just don't be surprised if these same readers encounter information about WW2 that they have never heard about, or have a different version of.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Ironduke, I am surprised that you did not give a better analysis.

Those small countries in the west were simply over-run. . .

All those soldiers that were sitting at Dunkirk - tsk, tsk. . .

And most of those poorly equipped Russian soldiers simply surrendered without a fight, when they were surrounded.

What wonderful victories. . .

Here's more:

Even with a 3:1 superiority in aircraft, Germany lost the Battle of Britain. To compensate, Hitler bombed defenceless British cities. . .

Brilliant achievement. . .

Then, when the Allies caught their balance, and levelled the playing field, the brilliant German officers and soldiers fell onto the defensive, and began retreating.

Yes, astounding tactics. . .

Those poor, inferior Russia soldiers re-grouped, and gone were the early and cheap victories. . .

When those veteran Russian Siberian Divisions attacked the German forces outside of Moscow in late 1941 and early 1942, the Germans were thrown back. . .

Let's discuss these brilliant German tactics, shall we?

I have to go, but wanted to post this as the starting point for tomorrow. I will return because the superficiality of most of this is somewhat disturbing. I would ask you clarify your point regarding Dunkirk, what does tsk tsk mean?

I love the poorly equipped Soviet soldiers surrendering line, if you could mention which of the German encirclements were like this it might help me zero in tomorrow, or are you saying they all were?

The remarks about the Battle of Britain are scary. I haven't seen the German decision to switch to area bombing described quite like that.

Have a good evening,
Regards,
IronDuke

Ironduke:

The early German BlitzKreig is supposedly known for its great and astounding victories.

Yet, in the early years all this fame was earned against inferior opponents.

Then, when the Allies level the playing field, these same German generals and soldiers are thrown back onto the defense.

I will eagerly look forward to your well-informed and in-depth analysis on all the early German victories from September 1939 to January 1942..

Cheers!

[IronDuke_slith]

Regarding Whiting:

If you are the lawyer both for the defence AND prosecution, this could be looked at as a possible conflict of interest.

Whiting criticizes Patton in one persona, and then writes novels glorifying the SS in another persona. If you cannot see any possible problems with this. . . [8|]

There is a conflict of interest!!!!! About what? How can you say that? A conflict of interest exists only if you are defending and prosecuting the same subject? Where on earth does this come from when he criticises Patton (one subject), and writes novels about the Waffen SS (another subject).

Researchers:

It is a well known fact that most major writers, Supreme Court Justices, and many, if not most, Professors at universities, employ the use of researchers to do all the leg work, gathering info, etc

This is not new. Didn't you know this?.

[:D] Well known to who'm? You keep saying this. Why are you conviently sidestepping my question (which in case you missed it, I'll add again.

"You first say D'Este might have employed researchers, and now take it as fact and back your argument with it? I just checked D'Este (I own a copy) he does not credit anyone in his book which is the norm when people get help from others. Where did you get the notion about these researchers?"

Or is D'Este a good historian but rude man who doesn't name those who aide him?

The fact that D'Este includes some of Whiting's books in his bibligraphy does not surprise me. Whiting has written enough books, and surely there must be some merit in them?

That does not necessarily mean that D'Este actually saw the books in question.

Except you've roundly dismissed all his work previously. Now you think there might be merit in some of them.

Also, have you thought this through? D'Este wrote the Patton book. Are you saying this distinguished historian quoted from a source (Whiting) he had never read? To quote from it, he must surely have understood the context of what Whiting was saying? The only way he could not have read this book is if you believe D'Este's own work was ghost written? How could he not have been familiar with Whiting's work to quote him? Also, historians writing books surely gravitate first to previous efforts on the same subject, as these have most relevance. Whiting's book was called Patton! How would D'Este not have wanted to read this??? [8|]

Yes, Whiting sells many books. I looked through a couple. They appear to be aimed at men between the ages of 15-25, especially his novels.

With respect, this is priceless.

However, I am too old and have read far too much, to care to read his books, when there are far, far better books to read.

With great respect, despite several promptings, this remains unverifyable as you are yet to name any save D'Este. I appeal again, which works (as opposed to websites) are your opinions of Patton based?

If people are happy reading Whiting, then all the power to them. At least they are learning something about WW2. Just don't be surprised if these same readers encounter information about WW2 that they have never heard about, or have a different version of.

We agree, as I would have said the same thing about the fansites.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Regarding Whiting:

If you are the lawyer both for the defence AND prosecution, this could be looked at as a possible conflict of interest.

Whiting criticizes Patton in one persona, and then writes novels glorifying the SS in another persona. If you cannot see any possible problems with this. . . [8|]

There is a conflict of interest!!!!! About what? How can you say that? A conflict of interest exists only if you are defending and prosecuting the same subject? Where on earth does this come from when he criticises Patton (one subject), and writes novels about the Waffen SS (another subject).

Researchers:

It is a well known fact that most major writers, Supreme Court Justices, and many, if not most, Professors at universities, employ the use of researchers to do all the leg work, gathering info, etc

This is not new. Didn't you know this?.

[:D] Well known to who'm? You keep saying this. Why are you conviently sidestepping my question (which in case you missed it, I'll add again.

"You first say D'Este might have employed researchers, and now take it as fact and back your argument with it? I just checked D'Este (I own a copy) he does not credit anyone in his book which is the norm when people get help from others. Where did you get the notion about these researchers?"

Or is D'Este a good historian but rude man who doesn't name those who aide him?

The fact that D'Este includes some of Whiting's books in his bibligraphy does not surprise me. Whiting has written enough books, and surely there must be some merit in them?

That does not necessarily mean that D'Este actually saw the books in question.

Except you've roundly dismissed all his work previously. Now you think there might be merit in some of them.

Also, have you thought this through? D'Este wrote the Patton book. Are you saying this distinguished historian quoted from a source (Whiting) he had never read? To quote from it, he must surely have understood the context of what Whiting was saying? The only way he could not have read this book is if you believe D'Este's own work was ghost written? How could he not have been familiar with Whiting's work to quote him? Also, historians writing books surely gravitate first to previous efforts on the same subject, as these have most relevance. Whiting's book was called Patton! How would D'Este not have wanted to read this??? [8|]

Yes, Whiting sells many books. I looked through a couple. They appear to be aimed at men between the ages of 15-25, especially his novels.

With respect, this is priceless.

However, I am too old and have read far too much, to care to read his books, when there are far, far better books to read.

With great respect, despite several promptings, this remains unverifyable as you are yet to name any save D'Este. I appeal again, which works (as opposed to websites) are your opinions of Patton based?

If people are happy reading Whiting, then all the power to them. At least they are learning something about WW2. Just don't be surprised if these same readers encounter information about WW2 that they have never heard about, or have a different version of.

We agree, as I would have said the same thing about the fansites.

Regards,
IronDuke

Ironduke:

If you cannot decern the possible conflict between what Whiting/Kessler is writing, then I will save my typing fingers the trouble from having to re-type another answer to you.

As to D'Este and researchers:

Most people are aware of the use of researchers. Didn't you know that? It is a very obvious thing.

This is NO big revelation. Even all your very own favourite historians more than likely use researchers to gather material.

Did you know that judges use law clerks to do most of their legal research?

And that lawyers often use articling students to do legal research for them?

And that professors often get graduate students to do a lot of their research and mark student papers?

Whether D'Este looked at Whiting's books or read the material, is for him to say.

I am only telling you what the COMMON practice is regarding the use of researchers.

When I talk about not wanting to buy Whiting's books, and that I prefer to read other books, I am not just referring to books about Patton. I am referring to history books in general.

If you like to read Whiting, then fine. If everyone on this forum likes to read Whiting's books, fine. I cannot stop you. Buy all of his books you want. Have a Whiting book reading class at the local school if you want.

I merely pointed out what I discovered about Whiting writing under other names, and the types of books he writes.

If people don't care, then fine - I have no power to stop you or anyone else from reading/buying his books. It's your money and it's your time.

Just don't be surprised if some things you read in his books, conflicts with what other "serious" historians write.

[Von Rom]

Ironduke:

D'Este and Whiting

I took a look at the Whiting books D'Este had listed in his Bibliography.

Of the four Whiting books listed in D'Este's Bibliograpy, D'Este uses only two of those books.

Sorry to disappoint you - but what D'Este uses from Whiting is basically worthless as far as any evidence or understanding of Patton goes.

These two books by Whiting, Patton and Patton's Last Battle, are used for only three small and harmless quotes. Two of these small quotes are attributed to Patton and one quote describes Patton.

One quote appears at the beginning, and two quotes appear near the end, of D'Este's book. They really don't add anything to our understanding of Patton. And they are so inconsequential, I don't know why D'Este even bothered to use these quotes.

Anyway, these three quotes can be found in your copy of D'Este's book on these pages:

Footnote 1, p. 1

Footnote 28, p. 666

Footnote 23, p. 683

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Ludovic Coval

Cullie,



Well I dont share your view as Monty being a good planner. Both for Caen and Arnhem, he seems to have badly underestimated German capabilities. For Caen, British operations turned to several mini-"Suprcharge" while Market-Garden saw Allied troops stalled without any options but frontal assault on well prepared German defenses (especially at Nijmegen). But finnally it is probably Monty main 'flaw' to be unable to use Patton like war conduct (in both operations). I always wondered how MG would have turned be US XV corps being in charge of exploitation instead of British XXX corps.

LC

You could be right, but it seemed to me his flaws lied in execution and flexibility. To compare, Rommel was much more willing to deviate from his plans when circumstances and planning didn’t agree, while Montgomery seem more determined to stay the course.

This is historical analysis. If you don't stop, I'll report you to the moderator [;)].

[:D]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
I think MG might possibly have gone better with Patton, because it didn't require much thinking about. You give Patton one road, and say break through at all costs. You tell him not to disperse his effort, to allow the flanking formations to do their job, and to stick to the road at all costs. He might well have done better. He wasn't particularly sharp on the offensive against prepared defences, but he didn't need to be here, there was only one strategy and he would quite possibly have drove his boys harder than Horrocks. It's part of the Arnhem story that British tanks stopped, waiting for infantry, just a few undefended miles from Arnhem. I don't think Patton would have allowed that. I've always considered him a Corp Commander, and this mission might have suited him.

That said, it was still only one road, and as Horrocks said "Never try to fight your corp off one road" (quoted from memory so apologies if I've not got the wording precise).

I also believe the Patton would have gotten better results form his men during Market Garden, but conversely he would have done worse than Montgomery at El Alamein.

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
I think Monty was a very good planner (usually) but very unimaginative. Time and again he justs groups his forces and plans the set piece. What he knew how to do, he did alright, but his issue was he didn't know how to do all that much.

I think he was the right man in Africa until Alamein was won. He planned a meticulous battle of attrition knowing he had material advantage. He won it, then didn't have the drive or will to purse the AXIS forces properly. He then drew up against prepared defences and took more time preparing another set piece, only belatedly trying to flank.

I do not disagree, yet I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that Montgomery’s slow purposeful style of battle was better suited to North Africa than the rather pointless blitz of Rommel. Sure those mad dashes that covered thousands of miles looked impressive on the map, but it ignored the realities of logistics in that area. Rommel knew supply was critical, yet repeatedly out run his supply to capture, which in reality was just desert, while depleting his forces. Montgomery would not overextend his forces and allow Rommel the chance to recapture the initiative. By his very nature would have none of that: his advance might be called slow, but it would be irreversible. Operation Torch might speed up the destruction of the Africa Corps, but with or without it General Montgomery was going to slowly grind the German Army into dust.

I feel Montgomery’s abilities and limitations were not well suited for Sicily or France.

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
In Russia, I think he would have been lost. Without superior numbers, his innate caution would have paralysed him, I think. He might at a pinch have led an infantry army, but never a Panzergroup, and certainly not an Army group.

Perhaps, but let me argue differently.

The German plan for operations inside the Soviet Union were poorly thought out and executed: you either go straight for the Soviet jugular (Moscow) forcing them to defend that object, thus destroying them or you plan on a long campaign. The Germans did neither and got crushed.

General Montgomery, if he had planed Barbarossa, would have planned on a multi-year campaign, massive supplies, slowed the advance to keep his troops supplied and from being exposed. A Leningrad/Smolensk/Kiev stop line to allow fortification and resupply for winter, would have preserved the integrity of the German forces and allowed a continuation of a broad front advance in 1942 to Moscow/Rostov… followed by entrenchment/resupply for the winter before continuing in 1943…. Etc.