Was Monty Right?

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Could Monty have won ww2 if he could have lit his farts on fire and killed Hitler from afar? we will never know...

WTF,

That line cleansed my sinuses with wine and cost me a keyboard

[decaro]

TwoTribes was mistaken that anyone could have predicted the radios wouldn't work in Holland, or that they were ill-configured; it was probably local wx/atmospherics coupled w/the hilly terrain that caused the commo problems.

As for planning, meticulous or detailed:

SHAEF Planning Drafts, 3 and 30 May 44, in SHAEF SGS File 381,I:
Eisenhower to Marshall, 22 Aug 44, in SHAEF Cable Logs; Ltr, Eisenhower
to Montgomery, 24 Aug 44, in SHAEF SGS File 381, I; Eisenhower to
Marshall, 5 Sep 44, copy in OCMH files.

I don't know who in SHAEF did the planning, but apparently Monty, Ike and Marshall were all briefed on these plans. I also assume they had some input.

But if anyone has a copy of Crusade in Europe, pse look up p. 345.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

TwoTribes was mistaken

Yes, that was my point. What did Montgomery have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. Since when do Field Marshals become responsible for battalion-level signals operations? In other words, why blame Montgomery? It is non-sensical.

I don't know who in SHAEF did the planning

Yes, you've posted three times now to prove it, too! [:D] My point being, again, that the detailed tactical planning was not Montgomery's. The same argument has been made about Dieppe - that both he and Mountbatten were responsible for the disastrous result of the raid because at some point they had been involved in the planning. At some point, though, the commanders in the field need to take ownership of what happened. Market-Garden's downfall was a combination of things - bad weather, which delayed the reinforcements, and notably poor intelligence (and a willingness to believe it!) regarding German armour. There were other little details that added up to big details - the lack of signals equipment, for example, though why that detail keeps being held up to scrutiny is beyond me. The radios didn't work well in Normandy, either. In fact, having served in a part-time infantry regiment for the last 20 years, I'm kind of gobstopped that our radios still don't work with flawless precision - as if we've learned nothing at all since Arnhem. Some things in life are given - death, taxes, and faulty communications - just ask Jimmy.

I have a wonderful book written by an infantry signaller who served in the Scheldt; the common theme is how cruddy the radios were. It was no great surprise to anyone in September 1944, I don't think, and it seems to me that while perhaps the planners should not have laid such importance on the radios working perfectly, do we really have a clear idea of what their expectations were? Reading battalion histories from as recent (to September 1944) as Normandy, failing wireless comms seems to be a recurring theme. I know it was played up in the movie, but how accurate is that perception, really?

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I guess it comes down to a simple question if you had to have a commander who would you want in the following circumstances

1. to prepare an army for battle
2. to command a set piece battle
3. to command a pursuit/exploit
4. to have as a subordinate
5. to be your commander

who would you choose ?

My list would be

1. Monty
2. Monty
3. Patton
4. Anyone but Patton or Monty
5. Monty

For me,
1. Chesty Puller
2. Chesty Puller
3. Chesty Puller
4. Chesty Puller
5. Chesty Puller

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

TwoTribes was mistaken

Yes, that was my point. What did Montgomery have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. Since when do Field Marshals become responsible for battalion-level signals operations? In other words, why blame Montgomery? It is non-sensical.

Granted, that most planning is done by the ranks of Major through Colonel. But over all command means overall responsibility. If Market garden had been a victory everyone would be singing Monty's praises as at El Alamein. Therefor, the reverse must hold true and Monty deserves some lumps over Market Garden as does Ike who was breifed and did approve the plan.

This is all basic chain of command stuff that anyone who has served can verify.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Could Monty have won ww2 if he could have lit his farts on fire and killed Hitler from afar? we will never know...

WTF,

That line cleansed my sinuses with wine and cost me a keyboard

I thought John Wayne did this to win WWII in ETO and PTO.[:D]

[decaro]

The point of posting the SHAEF plan info twice -- the second time w/bold type for emphasis -- was to call attention to the fact that whomever in SHAEF did the "detailed, meticulous" planning of MG, those plans were shared/sent from Ike to Marshall and Monty, who all signed-off on them. Sorry I didn't make this more obvious [&o]

And no matter who exactly did the planning for MG, the responsibilty for it and all such plans always rests -- if not remains -- w/the commanders who approved the final draft.

As for communications, although I haven't had a crystal set since I was a child, I've been a radio amatuer (KA1CQ) for years; w/sunspot cycles, wet wx and different day/night propogation characteristcs for different bands/frequencies, not to mention the "dead zones" w/FM line of sight transmissions -- and I think this was how the radios in Holland worked, or didn't work in the hilly Dutch terrain -- wireless commo can be a crap shoot at best.

And no one can blame Montgomery for that!

[madorosh]

Granted, that most planning is done by the ranks of Major through Colonel. But over all command means overall responsibility. If Market garden had been a victory everyone would be singing Monty's praises as at El Alamein. Therefor, the reverse must hold true and Monty deserves some lumps over Market Garden as does Ike who was breifed and did approve the plan.

This is all basic chain of command stuff that anyone who has served can verify.

And anyone who has served can verify that the Field Marshal probably wasn't out in the lines of the airborne signal regiment checking the sets, or packing them for delivery to the drop zones...Some things can be laid on his shoulders; the radio stuff cannot.

There was a giant "to-do" about the inclusion of a reference to tying the hands of German prisoners on the Dieppe Raid; it was included in the operational order, and Brigadier Southam carried his copy, against orders, onto the beach, where it was captured. The Germans read through this detailed and horribly long plan, saw the paragraph on tying hands of prisoners, and ordered Allied POWs to be handcuffed in German camps as a reprisal. Yet nowhere along the line have I ever seen Montgomery (or Mountbatten) blamed for the handcuffing incident. Why? Because they didn't write the operational plan.

If you are familiar with the concept of "chain of command" you will realize that a commander has a million things to worry about, and the higher in rank, the more to worry about. So he takes on faith 99% of what he is told by his staff officers. If his chief signaller says that the communications plan is workable, he says "good, carry on" and trusts that his subordinates will be able to carry out what they said.

So what is the true story of the radios? Did everyone simply "forget" that the radios didn't work well in Normandy? I find that unlikely. I think any conversation about the radios has probably been lost to time, or perhaps - like the intelligence about the German tanks - no one wanted to "rock the boat". That wouldn't be Montgomery's fault either. If your subordinates are withholding information from you vital to the success of the operation, it is hard to proceed. I'd be very interested to know if detailed research into that aspect was ever done, or if current understanding is based on some anecdote Cornelius Ryan uncovered back in the 60s.

The point of posting the SHAEF plan info twice -- the second time w/bold type for emphasis -- was to call attention to the fact that whomever in SHAEF did the "detailed, meticulous" planning of MG, those plans were shared/sent from Ike to Marshall and Monty, who all signed-off on them. Sorry I didn't make this more obvious

I got it the first time; it was just irrelevant all three times as far as who was responsible for the communications. Like you say, it is a crap shoot. I have a hard time believing everyone simply forgot that between August when they were still in Normandy and struggling with the radios, and September, when they needed to use them.

[morvwilson]

Either Monty was in charge of the Market Garden operation or he was not. History records that he was. While I doubt a Feild Marshal will personally check every radio set in his command, he still has overall responsibility. How come there was no back up plan for instance just in case the radio's went down?
 
How come no one is trying to find some one else to blame in 8th army command for the victory at El Alamein?
 
 

[Yogi the Great]

If you are familiar with the concept of "chain of command"

 
And would that not also include the concept that the commander is utlimately responsible for the success and/or failure of the plan?
 
A good supervisor gives credit where credit is due, but also take the blame for failure. 

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

If you are familiar with the concept of "chain of command"

And would that not also include the concept that the commander is utlimately responsible for the success and/or failure of the plan?

A good supervisor gives credit where credit is due, but also take the blame for failure. 

Well put![&o]

The best leaders I have run across NEVER take credit for successes, they always pass it along to their people, and NEVER pass the blame along to their people for failures but keep that for themselves.

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

If you are familiar with the concept of "chain of command"

And would that not also include the concept that the commander is utlimately responsible for the success and/or failure of the plan?

A good supervisor gives credit where credit is due, but also take the blame for failure. 

Aww... not that old "The buck stops here" thing again. This is SO outdated, you know?

Now, take a piece of chalk, go to the blackboard and write 100 times: "It is ALWAYS someone else´s fault - ALWAYS!"

[;)]

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

If you are familiar with the concept of "chain of command"

And would that not also include the concept that the commander is utlimately responsible for the success and/or failure of the plan?

A good supervisor gives credit where credit is due, but also take the blame for failure. 

Aww... not that old "The buck stops here" thing again. This is SO outdated, you know?

Now, take a piece of chalk, go to the blackboard and write 100 times: "It is ALWAYS someone else´s fault - ALWAYS!"

[;)]

Bologne!
you just wanted to post the spanking again! lol

[HansBolter]

Dorosh, you come across more and more like a Monty fanboi with every post.

You provide detailed post after detailed post descrying why none of the the things that went wrong with Monty's operations were Monty's fault.

You want evidence of my claim that Patton did a better job of instilling a desire to win in his men.......take a long hard look at the performance of his army.

I have been a wargamer for 34+ years as well as an incorridgible book worm with a decided bent toward military history. My beliefs regarding Patton and Montgomery are NOT based on Hollywood fantasy. Try slinging that mud at something it has a chance of sticking on.

[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....

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I guess it comes down to a simple question if you had to have a commander who would you want in the following circumstances

1. to prepare an army for battle
2. to command a set piece battle
3. to command a pursuit/exploit
4. to have as a subordinate
5. to be your commander

who would you choose ?

My list would be

1. Monty
2. Monty
3. Patton
4. Anyone but Patton or Monty
5. Monty

My answers:

1. Patton
2. Monty
3. Patton
4. Bradley
5. Patton

The main reason I pick patton over Monty for number one is that sitting on one's duff while the rear area commandos stockpile supplies for one, althewhile whining for yet more supplies, does not constitute "preparing an army for battle". Preparing them for battle constitutes instilling in them a desire to win. Patton did a much better job of that than Monty.

[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.

[Twotribes]

When the Bulge happened what was Monty's response to when he could redirect forces to contain and collapse it? What was Patton's? Further what did Monty have to say when he heard of Patton's response? And Patton delivered on his promise.

[Neilster]

Monty was quite possibly a hommer (as in, a bit light on his feet, if you know what I mean [;)]). Aside from the other factors given above, this may be another reason why he was extremely careful with the lives of his men.

As has been mentioned, he was an excellent trainer and motivator (doing invaluable work inspiring industrial workers in personal appearances too) but often lacked dash.

Cheers, Neilster

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Dorosh, you come across more and more like a Monty fanboi with every post.

You provide detailed post after detailed post descrying why none of the the things that went wrong with Monty's operations were Monty's fault.

You want evidence of my claim that Patton did a better job of instilling a desire to win in his men.......take a long hard look at the performance of his army.

I have been a wargamer for 34+ years as well as an incorridgible book worm with a decided bent toward military history. My beliefs regarding Patton and Montgomery are NOT based on Hollywood fantasy. Try slinging that mud at something it has a chance of sticking on.

In other words, instead of evidence all you have to offer is feigned indignance. Well played. [:-]

[madorosh]

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.