Matrix Games Forums

[font=calibri]

ORIGINAL:  golden delicious[/font]
[font=calibri]

ORIGINAL:  Trick37[/font]
[font=calibri]As far as over-rated goes, he was better than Monty hands-down.  (No offense.)

[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Better at pushing forward as quickly as possible against weak opposition- which Montgomery was appalling at, and which was critically important in certain phases of the late war. However Montgomery excelled at training and organising armies, and at managing a set peice battle, such as the one which he oversaw in Normandy.

[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]

ORIGINAL:  wolflars[/font]
[font=calibri]

ORIGINAL:  a white rabbit[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]..and i feel Mongomery was better than given credit for, not exciting but given the situation, the soldier for the job..[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]

[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Poor Monty.  I agree.[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]I think his bad rep in the USA is because of the movie "Patton".  How's his reputation in the UK Ben?

[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]I would assume that Monty’s reputation in the UK is good, considering he was knighted after the war ended.[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri]Monty was too timid for my liking.  He would attack and then pull back to “consolidate,” thus having to fight for the same property more than once.  He also liked to dig in too much, instead of pressing the fight.  I know it drove Patton nuts (not just in the movie, but from his diaries), and it’s the same poor style of fighting that we employed in Vietnam---pay a heavy cost in lives for the land, and then give it back, only to fight for it again.[/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]
[font=calibri] [/font]

ORIGINAL: wolflars
You don't think he excelled at corps command? Why not?

He was pretty good, but his staff kept on discovering that he was off leading some regiment when he was needed at corps. If he hadn't had such a good staff, the Afrika Korps would have been less successful.

ORIGINAL: wolflars

I think his bad rep in the USA is because of the movie "Patton". How's his reputation in the UK Ben?

Pretty good, but I don't think the public awareness of figures like Montgomery exists in the UK as it does over there. Those who have much of an opinion at all are aware of the scholarship- and have probably seen Patton.

ORIGINAL: Trick37

I would assume that Monty’s reputation in the UK is good, considering he was knighted after the war ended.

Not to mention being made CIGS and later a life peer. That was at the time, though.

it’s the same poor style of fighting that we employed in Vietnam---pay a heavy cost in lives for the land, and then give it back, only to fight for it again.

You didn't have the manpower to hold every square inch of Vietnam, and it would have been a mistake to pay the cost of national mobilisation to do it.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: wolflars

I think his bad rep in the USA is because of the movie "Patton". How's his reputation in the UK Ben?

Pretty good, but I don't think the public awareness of figures like Montgomery exists in the UK as it does over there. Those who have much of an opinion at all are aware of the scholarship- and have probably seen Patton.

I meant to mention this before, but I kept forgetting.

One thing that we need to remember is that the movie, itself, was overseen during production by General Bradley and Patton's family, including his son and wife. There's a lot of accuracy to it, including his disdain for Monty and the way he fought.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37
it’s the same poor style of fighting that we employed in Vietnam---pay a heavy cost in lives for the land, and then give it back, only to fight for it again.

You didn't have the manpower to hold every square inch of Vietnam, and it would have been a mistake to pay the cost of national mobilisation to do it.

True about not having enough men to hold the whole country (damn, that sounds familiar....). As far as a full mobilization, you're right about that because that would've entailed federalizing the National Guard, which was our trump card against a Soviet attack in Europe during this time. Had we done that, we wouldn't even have ahd a prayer in Europe.

ORIGINAL: Trick37

One thing that we need to remember is that the movie, itself, was overseen during production by General Bradley and Patton's family, including his son and wife. There's a lot of accuracy to it, including his disdain for Monty and the way he fought.

No doubt. However, having read Rommel's "damn book" wouldn't have allowed Patton to understand his performance as a combined arms leader, as it was a book on infantry tactics.

Patton's certainly an impressive figure. He's admirable for his no-nonsense style.

ORIGINAL: Trick37

True about not having enough men to hold the whole country (damn, that sounds familiar....). As far as a full mobilization, you're right about that because that would've entailed federalizing the National Guard, which was our trump card against a Soviet attack in Europe during this time. Had we done that, we wouldn't even have ahd a prayer in Europe.

Actually, I meant that it would have been a mistake to sacrifice your liberal society in order to keep the South Vietnamese government in power. Even if the Soviet Union had been no direct threat, this still would have been a colossal mistake.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

One thing that we need to remember is that the movie, itself, was overseen during production by General Bradley and Patton's family, including his son and wife. There's a lot of accuracy to it, including his disdain for Monty and the way he fought.

No doubt. However, having read Rommel's "damn book" wouldn't have allowed Patton to understand his performance as a combined arms leader, as it was a book on infantry tactics.

Interesting. Still, it might have given him some insight in to Rommel's thinking, and possibly on defensive tactics against armored attack....?

I can imagine Patton's disappointment when he found out that Rommel wasn't in the battle at El Guetar.....

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Patton's certainly an impressive figure. He's admirable for his no-nonsense style.

I think we can agree on that....... [:)]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Trick37

True about not having enough men to hold the whole country (damn, that sounds familiar....). As far as a full mobilization, you're right about that because that would've entailed federalizing the National Guard, which was our trump card against a Soviet attack in Europe during this time. Had we done that, we wouldn't even have ahd a prayer in Europe.

Actually, I meant that it would have been a mistake to sacrifice your liberal society in order to keep the South Vietnamese government in power. Even if the Soviet Union had been no direct threat, this still would have been a colossal mistake.

The war itself force dus to sacrifice a lot of things. My uncle was Marine in Vietnam, and he was harassed when he came home. My dad wasn't in Vietnam, but he was in the middle of his naval career then, and he was spat on frequently, called a baby killer a lot, and even had red paint thrown on his uniform (I won't tell you what he did to the Hippy that did that....) [X(]

ORIGINAL: Trick37
The war itself force dus to sacrifice a lot of things. My uncle was Marine in Vietnam, and he was harassed when he came home. My dad wasn't in Vietnam, but he was in the middle of his naval career then, and he was spat on frequently, called a baby killer a lot, and even had red paint thrown on his uniform (I won't tell you what he did to the Hippy that did that....) [X(]

Mm. That sort of treatment really is despicable.

ORIGINAL: Trick37

As far as over-rated goes, he was better than Monty hands-down. (No offense.) Patton and Rommel were on the same level of tactical, armored and combined arms genious. (I'd even put Zukhov into that field.)

I tend to be dubious about such claims of 'genius.' That is to say, sure if you consistently enjoy substantial to overwhelming material superiority, you'll win -- but it's not necessarily 'genius.' Grant, Foch, Montgomery, Patton, Eisenhower, Schwartzkoff -- I see little reason to concede that any of them were great generals. Sure, they may all have been competent -- but that's about all they proved. It's like if I decide to join in one of my son's Pop Warner league football games. Maybe I could run back that kick-off for a touchdown. Wouldn't say we've proven I'm a great athlete.

Graziani conducted a bang-up campaign against Senussi rebels in Libya in the thirties. He didn't do so hot when it came to fighting the British. Who knows how great Patton really was? Since he was never given a losing hand, we'll never know.

...Patton was also convinced that he was the reincarnation of Hannibal Barca. The man just wasn't all there...

Either that -- or he was the reincarnation of Hannibal Barca.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..that i can agree with, Rommel was/is over-rated too..[:)]

Sort of. Probably the best armoured division commander of the war. The problem was he kept on getting promoted.

Personally, I've never understood these criticisms of Rommel. They just don't seem to have any substantial basis. He performed brilliantly as a commander at all levels: from company to army. Consider, for example, his victory at Gazala in mid-1942: what limitation? About the only serious criticism of him as a general I can see is that he had serious health problems.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: wolflars
You don't think he excelled at corps command? Why not?

He was pretty good, but his staff kept on discovering that he was off leading some regiment when he was needed at corps. If he hadn't had such a good staff, the Afrika Korps would have been less successful.

If he hadn't been there the Afrika Korps would have been less successful. Given a less talented general, the British would have driven the Axis out of Libya by the end of 1941. The Germans had to do incredible things in North Africa to keep from losing for as long as they did -- and Rommel was the man who did them.

He was outstanding, and if his lead from the front style imposed its costs, it yielded still greater rewards. That was true from Avesnes through Gazala.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Personally, I've never understood these criticisms of Rommel. They just don't seem to have any substantial basis. He performed brilliantly as a commander at all levels: from company to army. Consider, for example, his victory at Gazala in mid-1942: what limitation? About the only serious criticism of him as a general I can see is that he had serious health problems.

You've read Mellenthin- the guy's pretty clear about Rommel's problems with commanding above the level of division.

I'm also not aware of any unique flare in his 1944 campaign. I would think there were a dozen other officers in the Wehrmacht who could have done the same or better. Certainly Manstein could have. Naturally, the standard in the Wehrmacht was high. I'm just not convinced that Rommel exceeded this standard at the army level.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If he hadn't been there the Afrika Korps would have been less successful.

I dunno. I think Rommel wins a lot of fame for having been the one commander the Allies were fighting between June 1940 and sometime in 1943. Obviously, this was the heyday of the Wehrmacht- and he basically personifies that period in the minds of the west.

He was outstanding, and if his lead from the front style imposed its costs, it yielded still greater rewards. That was true from Avesnes through Gazala.

It would have been a disaster if his staff was not capable of commanding a corps without him.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Grant, Foch, Montgomery, Patton, Eisenhower, Schwartzkoff -- I see little reason to concede that any of them were great generals.

At least we can compare Grant, Monty, & Patton to, say, McClellan, Cunningham, & Fredendall. They fare well in that comparison. Plenty of commanders on their sides were dealt the same hand that they were and didn't compare.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Personally, I've never understood these criticisms of Rommel. They just don't seem to have any substantial basis. He performed brilliantly as a commander at all levels: from company to army. Consider, for example, his victory at Gazala in mid-1942: what limitation? About the only serious criticism of him as a general I can see is that he had serious health problems.

One thing I've found: When Rommel's a factor in the scenario, you need to provide a positive shock bonus to his side. That's been true in both North Africa & Normandy. Pretty good sign of a great commander.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
He was pretty good, but his staff kept on discovering that he was off leading some regiment when he was needed at corps. If he hadn't had such a good staff, the Afrika Korps would have been less successful.

He was outstanding, and if his lead from the front style imposed its costs, it yielded still greater rewards. That was true from Avesnes through Gazala.

Exactly. The commander shouldn't get bogged down with the details - that's what the staff is for. Rommel handled the big picture and the elan stuff. Most of the critisizm that I've read about him tends to be based upon perfect 20:20 hindsight.