Rommel was one of those 'dashing' panzer commanders that catches the spirits of most people who like history, but he did not care at all about his extremely poor logistical situation, like every other German general and even Hitler himself.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That is a weak definition. Because if we take Monty out and just fit any other British general right in the chances are that he would have done at least just as well and wouldnt have launched Market Garden.
AlexanderG said:
Eh no, becuase the other Generals like the Aucklecks of this world were not trusted by Churchill and Alan-Brooke the way Monty was. Thus would not of got the support for the grinding attrition battles Normandy which Monty did get.
Exactly. Montys 'skill' or 'genius' had less to do with his actualy military performance and more to do with his PR.
Well the basic problem was that the support forces had only one road to move on, which made the plan very vulnerable.w_mullender said:
I know of the problems with the plan, but if it had worked the gains would have been immense. And imo it was possible and not more riskier than for example D-day itself.Aetius said:
AlexanderG said:
In addition to what King pointed out, every general fucks up, thats the nature of war when the other guy does the unexpected or perfoms better than predicted or any number of circamstances that cause the fuck up.
Thats not the same as undertaking an operation without proper planning and preperation, something you cannot fault Monty with.
Men die in war, thats the price they pay to allow the Generals concept of operations to come to fruition, in a sense every death is needless but equally every death is needed to prosecute the engagement, the difference is between extremes such as Cold Harbour that saw needless loss of life for no material or pratical benifit in both tactical and strategic terms and those that do.
Not all countries accept that heavy loss in life in war is undesirable or unavoidable, just as not all Generals in history have waged war in terms of economy of lives, that alone does not make them bad, if they are successful.
Allowing men to escape is no criteria for scorn, war is not about killing only, the killing serves a purpose, that purpose is to pursuade the oposistion to acept your demands, a good general wins his engagements with as least loss in life, on both sides, where practible, as circamstances allow. Monty operated for much of the war under those constraints from Churchill.
One could easily get the impression you have no idea what your talking about from what you post, please try to post more thoughtfully.
HB
AlexanderG said:
Thats how he got the top job for Overlord, with US approval and endorsement due to his unmattched ability to concieve and execute the "set piece" battle?, a good PR can make a moderate into a Good, but Monty had a Good record. He didnt need a PR job nor did he acept the need to justify his wartime record, it speaks for itself.
Perhaps you know of official repremands for his performence?.
HB
True, but don't forget, they nevertheless DID reach the rhine and (kind of) successfully linked up with the 1st Airborne, although only to evacuate its remnants and way behind schedule...Aetius said:
Admitted, the planning according the advance of the Ground element to Arnhem within 3 days on such a (literally) narrow axis of advance was way too ambitious and Monty is to blame for that, but, if Arnhem roadbridge had still been in hands of british airborne forces, when 30th Corps finally arrived, the latter would have quite easily crossed the rhine and Market Garden would still have been a great (albeit very costly) success.
But, the bulk of 1st Airborne Division never managed to get to the bridge for several reasons (dropzones too far away from objectives, temporary breakdown of command and control due to radio failures and Urquharts "enforced absense", bad intelligence disregarding dutch underground reports about the presence of II. SS-Panzerkorps in the area, etc.). For most of these reasons, however, Browing and Urquhart are much more to blame than Montgomery, their C-in-C, himself, imho.
What Monty IS to blame for, imho, is his stubborn and ludicrous insistence in his claims, that MG was a "90% success", since its outcome did not promote the allied task to overthrow the Third Reich in any way, in fact, it turned out to be an immense waste of blood and resources only. He never admitted t(his) blunder, and that, imho, does not give a very favourable testimony to his character.
Ah, Ye Olde Montgomery Debate with the usual Rommel/Patton spice. Haven't seen that in a while ...
Anyway, here's my usual take on it:
Alamein:
It's the hallmark of strategic brilliance to deny the enemy the use of her strengths while forcing her to fight a battle that makes full use of your own strengths.
Montgomery did exactly that by forcing Rommel to fight a set-piece battle with a "neat" field against overwhelming numbers, where Rommel's probably superiour ability to improvise in fluid situations was nullified.
There was no need for dashing British manouvers that would give the enemy a chance to turn the tables. Montgomery fought the battle, as it should be fought.
Normandy:
The grand plan for Overlord was to let the British force pin down the German armour while the US forces attempted a breakout on the right wing. And that's exactly what happened. Montgomery did not break through, but he fulfilled his role by engaging the bulk of German armour thus facilitating the US breakout exactly as planned.
Market Garden:
The plan was dashing and it could have worked. Turned out it didn't. But had it worked, Montgomery would have been hailed as a genius. Bad things happen in a war. This was one of them.
And the endless Patton/Montgomery debate:
In my humble opinion the major Allied mistake in 1944/45 was Eisenhower's decision to go with a broad front strategy. It allowed Patton to continue with a bloody, futile, stubborn and costly frontal assault against a dug-in defender in a forested/hilled terrain that favoured the Germans. Had the British forces under Montgomery been given the supplies needed to actually get their armour rolling, they could have blitzed through the scattered German defenders in terrain that a) favoured motorised formations and b) was far closer to the Ruhr - the heart of Germany. As a tank general Patton knew that a left wing armoured hook was the way to go, instead of the broad front advance that was Eisenhower's compromise, but he let his ego and hate og Montgomery get in the way. That made the war last longer and it cost more lives.
Feel free to disagree.
cheers/EoE
Anyway, here's my usual take on it:
Alamein:
It's the hallmark of strategic brilliance to deny the enemy the use of her strengths while forcing her to fight a battle that makes full use of your own strengths.
Montgomery did exactly that by forcing Rommel to fight a set-piece battle with a "neat" field against overwhelming numbers, where Rommel's probably superiour ability to improvise in fluid situations was nullified.
There was no need for dashing British manouvers that would give the enemy a chance to turn the tables. Montgomery fought the battle, as it should be fought.
Normandy:
The grand plan for Overlord was to let the British force pin down the German armour while the US forces attempted a breakout on the right wing. And that's exactly what happened. Montgomery did not break through, but he fulfilled his role by engaging the bulk of German armour thus facilitating the US breakout exactly as planned.
Market Garden:
The plan was dashing and it could have worked. Turned out it didn't. But had it worked, Montgomery would have been hailed as a genius. Bad things happen in a war. This was one of them.
And the endless Patton/Montgomery debate:
In my humble opinion the major Allied mistake in 1944/45 was Eisenhower's decision to go with a broad front strategy. It allowed Patton to continue with a bloody, futile, stubborn and costly frontal assault against a dug-in defender in a forested/hilled terrain that favoured the Germans. Had the British forces under Montgomery been given the supplies needed to actually get their armour rolling, they could have blitzed through the scattered German defenders in terrain that a) favoured motorised formations and b) was far closer to the Ruhr - the heart of Germany. As a tank general Patton knew that a left wing armoured hook was the way to go, instead of the broad front advance that was Eisenhower's compromise, but he let his ego and hate og Montgomery get in the way. That made the war last longer and it cost more lives.
Feel free to disagree.
cheers/EoE
I don't think anyone would call Monty a genius (although if Market Garden had worked........maybe )
But he did what he had to with the resources that he had at the time. He was less well provided with manpower resources and hence his tactics did appear uninspired at times. But he was working in the context of a general reluctance to incur disproportionate British casualties. So he tended to be a "set them up and knock them down" general rather than a general based on maneuver.
I'm sure that if he had had the right intel prior to Market Garden he either would not have launched the operation or would have scaled back the scope. The whole operation was not in his nature.
If we are talking genius or idiot I think Zhukov is a much more interesting topic
)But he did what he had to with the resources that he had at the time. He was less well provided with manpower resources and hence his tactics did appear uninspired at times. But he was working in the context of a general reluctance to incur disproportionate British casualties. So he tended to be a "set them up and knock them down" general rather than a general based on maneuver.
I'm sure that if he had had the right intel prior to Market Garden he either would not have launched the operation or would have scaled back the scope. The whole operation was not in his nature.
If we are talking genius or idiot I think Zhukov is a much more interesting topic
Derek Pullem said:(...)If we are talking genius or idiot I think Zhukov is a much more interesting topic
Ha, ha... Touche!
You have opened big can of worms now...
And my 0,02$ about Monty and Erwin
Montgomery:
Not a genius, but definetely no "idiot" neither.
In fact, he always he proved to be a solid and careful, not overly ambitious planning, although somewhat "uninspired" tactician, who would rather stick to executing his own plan to the letter than exploit favourable opportunities which he had not predicted. However, this way of handling things enabled him to achieve nearly always his own predefined goals and gained him the trust and support of his superiors, without no general could ever have succeeded. Only when he acted "not as himself" amboitious and somewhat daring, like at Market Garden, he managed to achieve defeat...
So, Monty was surely no genius, but a cautious, skillful, well planning and therefore usually successful general, and for these qualties, i personally would prefer him to command my Armies in a major war over any napoleon-style military genius...
And finally, responding to this old "prefered handsome young men"-rumours: What the heck is THAT supposed to have to do with his professional abilities???
Rommel:
Well, surely no idiot, but his qualities and his obvious weaknesses are buried deep under his personal legend. He was undoubtly an excellent leader on division- and even corps-level, where his tendency to sacrifice having a secure line of supply and communication for relentlessly pursuing a disorganized retreating enemy as well as his heroical (in John Keegan's definition of the Phrase) "at the frontline" leadership did not jeopardise, but in fact most of the time boosted a successful outcome.
These "qualities" for the subaltern Division and Corps leader Rommel could have proven to be very dangerous weaknesses for the Army oder Army Group Commander, though. But since Rommel actually saw only very few operational action in this capacity before he was wounded early during the battle of Normandy, this remains controvertable...
If questioned, whether Rommel was a better general than Montgomery, i (although being german myself) would refrain from repeating the old whiningly arguments of german Rommel (and Wehrmacht) apologists like Paul Carell, that he was hampered by being inferior in numbers, by having the "treacherous and cowardly" italian troops in his ranks, by the british controlling the med. sea sinking nearly all of his supplys, having better intelligence due to breaking the Enigma-codes, etc. (On the bottomline, if you ask these apologetic idiots, Monty and the brits only overcame "the best soldiers of the world [i.e. the Wehrmacht] under their finest commander [i.e. Rommel]" in a very unsporting manner. :wacko: :rofl: )
Rommel and Montgomery met on the field of battle, Rommel lost, Montgomery won. PERIOD.
Sidenote: What i am interested in, nonetheless, is why on earth Rommel is still so pupular amongst many british people i know (mostly wargamers). In germanies WWII-wargaming community (or at least in the fraction of it that is not politically outer right wing) Rommel is quite popular due to the fact that, being marginally involved in the July 20th-conspiracy and ordered to commit suicide after its failure, he was not a nazi, and therefore even a german can be somewhat proud of him without "feeling guilty". But, why are so many of the british still so faszinated by his name?
Montgomery:
Not a genius, but definetely no "idiot" neither.
In fact, he always he proved to be a solid and careful, not overly ambitious planning, although somewhat "uninspired" tactician, who would rather stick to executing his own plan to the letter than exploit favourable opportunities which he had not predicted. However, this way of handling things enabled him to achieve nearly always his own predefined goals and gained him the trust and support of his superiors, without no general could ever have succeeded. Only when he acted "not as himself" amboitious and somewhat daring, like at Market Garden, he managed to achieve defeat...
So, Monty was surely no genius, but a cautious, skillful, well planning and therefore usually successful general, and for these qualties, i personally would prefer him to command my Armies in a major war over any napoleon-style military genius...
And finally, responding to this old "prefered handsome young men"-rumours: What the heck is THAT supposed to have to do with his professional abilities???
Rommel:
Well, surely no idiot, but his qualities and his obvious weaknesses are buried deep under his personal legend. He was undoubtly an excellent leader on division- and even corps-level, where his tendency to sacrifice having a secure line of supply and communication for relentlessly pursuing a disorganized retreating enemy as well as his heroical (in John Keegan's definition of the Phrase) "at the frontline" leadership did not jeopardise, but in fact most of the time boosted a successful outcome.
These "qualities" for the subaltern Division and Corps leader Rommel could have proven to be very dangerous weaknesses for the Army oder Army Group Commander, though. But since Rommel actually saw only very few operational action in this capacity before he was wounded early during the battle of Normandy, this remains controvertable...
If questioned, whether Rommel was a better general than Montgomery, i (although being german myself) would refrain from repeating the old whiningly arguments of german Rommel (and Wehrmacht) apologists like Paul Carell, that he was hampered by being inferior in numbers, by having the "treacherous and cowardly" italian troops in his ranks, by the british controlling the med. sea sinking nearly all of his supplys, having better intelligence due to breaking the Enigma-codes, etc. (On the bottomline, if you ask these apologetic idiots, Monty and the brits only overcame "the best soldiers of the world [i.e. the Wehrmacht] under their finest commander [i.e. Rommel]" in a very unsporting manner. :wacko: :rofl: )
Rommel and Montgomery met on the field of battle, Rommel lost, Montgomery won. PERIOD.
Sidenote: What i am interested in, nonetheless, is why on earth Rommel is still so pupular amongst many british people i know (mostly wargamers). In germanies WWII-wargaming community (or at least in the fraction of it that is not politically outer right wing) Rommel is quite popular due to the fact that, being marginally involved in the July 20th-conspiracy and ordered to commit suicide after its failure, he was not a nazi, and therefore even a german can be somewhat proud of him without "feeling guilty". But, why are so many of the british still so faszinated by his name?
Last edited:
My problem with Market Garden (being very narrow) is that Monty went for a kill shot when he had not followed through on clearing the approaches to Antwerp. I think he would have served his cause of shortening the war by limited operations along the Belgium coast.
I also am not convienced the left hook was the way to go like he was advocating. In 1945 when the allies were ready to move on the attack again, it was not through Holland than they went, but almost due east. So much so that Bradly had to loan him the 9th army to help with crossing the Rhine.
My view is that Monty was no genius or idiot. He was cast in a supporting role and he did a good job with it.
I don't think he really had the resources (numbers of men) to do grand moves anyway. There was not enough units to do these narrow front spearheads that he was pushing. Instead of the battle of the Bulge, I think you would have seen Germany pincing off a large British formation with weak flanks.
I also am not convienced the left hook was the way to go like he was advocating. In 1945 when the allies were ready to move on the attack again, it was not through Holland than they went, but almost due east. So much so that Bradly had to loan him the 9th army to help with crossing the Rhine.
My view is that Monty was no genius or idiot. He was cast in a supporting role and he did a good job with it.
I don't think he really had the resources (numbers of men) to do grand moves anyway. There was not enough units to do these narrow front spearheads that he was pushing. Instead of the battle of the Bulge, I think you would have seen Germany pincing off a large British formation with weak flanks.
whatasillyname said:Sidenote: What i am interested in, nonetheless, is why on earth Rommel is still so pupular amongst many british people i know (mostly wargamers). In germanies WWII-wargaming community (or at least in the fraction of it that is not politically outer right wing) Rommel is quite popular due to the fact that, being marginally involved in the July 20th-conspiracy and ordered to commit suicide after its failure, he was not a nazi, and therefore even a german can be somewhat proud of him without "feeling guilty". But, why are so many of the british still so faszinated by his name?
I suspect that alot of it was due to the newsreel footage and the relatively "clean" war in the Western Desert. Rommel as the "Desert Fox" was a romantic figure in the same way as Napoleon and Frederick the Great had been. As for wargamers - everyone wants to win in a decisive coup de main not in a grinding attritional war.
Well, here-what exactly do you mean by Patton frontal assault, and what do you mean by terrain favouring motorised formations (certainly NOT low countries, with its numerous rivers and canals)Emperor of Europe said:And the endless Patton/Montgomery debate:
In my humble opinion the major Allied mistake in 1944/45 was Eisenhower's decision to go with a broad front strategy. It allowed Patton to continue with a bloody, futile, stubborn and costly frontal assault against a dug-in defender in a forested/hilled terrain that favoured the Germans. Had the British forces under Montgomery been given the supplies needed to actually get their armour rolling, they could have blitzed through the scattered German defenders in terrain that a) favoured motorised formations and b) was far closer to the Ruhr - the heart of Germany. As a tank general Patton knew that a left wing armoured hook was the way to go, instead of the broad front advance that was Eisenhower's compromise, but he let his ego and hate og Montgomery get in the way. That made the war last longer and it cost more lives.
Feel free to disagree.
cheers/EoE
Jove said:
In 1945 the opportunity had been lost. But after the catastrophic German defeat in the Falaise Gap operation hardly anything stood between the British and the Rhine. But lack of supply left them dead on their tracks.
Had Eisenhower shifted all resources towards the British front before the Germans could regroup along the Siegfried line in September/October, the Rhine might very well have been crossed in late 1944.
cheers/EoE