Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Operation Goodwood...Montgomery...?

Discussion in 'Western Europe 1943 - 1945' started by KJ Jr, Dec 15, 2014.

  1. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    I have been on a Normandy breakout binge lately and figured I would throw this out there.

    Throughout my reading and research, I find that I am still stuck in the middle of the debate on whether or not Goodwood was a success or failure. In the grand scheme of things, it did not gain as much ground as it was "first" meant to have achieved (although supposedly the objectives were recalculated before jump off by command) but it clearly kept Panzer Divisions stuck on the east flank while Op. Cobra was being finalized in the west. In that respect, it would seem as though the plan, although not reaching the desired objective, enabled the Allies to sweep in down the west coast. The Germans felt Caen was pivotal to their defense of the region, hence keeping the 1st SS and 21st Panzer Divisions to fight back the British and Canadian forces, which they basically did.

    Anyway, I will stop rambling and get to the original question. Would you call Goodwood a success or failure taking into account the overall success of the campaign and Montgomery's modified objectives?
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Even without the modified objectives Goodwood clearlly set up the Breakout which ended up with the allies actually surpassing their projected time table by early August. Tactially it may not have been what was hoped for but strategically it was a resounding success.
     
  3. Smiley 2.0

    Smiley 2.0 Smiles

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    180
    Location:
    The Land of the Noble Steed
    I agree. Despite it not achieving as much ground as was planned, The fact that the British and Canadians, managed to keep the 21st and 1st SS Panzer divisions away from Operation cobra, seems to me to count it as a, maybe "tactical" /strategic victory, since that (Operation Cobra) is where the big breakout from Normandy was happening.
     
  4. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    Everyone has their own opinions of the man, but Montgomery was a political genius. I think he knew from the jump there was no way, especially from the opposition and the congestion of mobile units, that they would reach the Bourguébus Ridge. Changing his objective right before the offensive without informing Eisenhower of the modifications eased the blame. Sneaky but smart.
     
  5. Smiley 2.0

    Smiley 2.0 Smiles

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    180
    Location:
    The Land of the Noble Steed
    (I know this is about a book but I felt that this was an appropriate place to put it regarding its link to this topics subject matter) I came across a book by Hans von Luck called Panzer Commander. Its the author's memoirs from the war. He was the commander of the 21st Panzer Division at the time of Goodwood and he has a whole chapter about it that gives a little insight into the German side of Goodwood. Have you read it KJ Jr? Its an interesting read.
     
  6. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Interesting topic and overall, I'd agree with the consensus. Strategically, an important step in the ultimate defeat of German forces in Normandy, but tactically, less so. It's also rather too easy to sit in an armchair and think 'Oh, the Allies could afford to lose all those Shermans/Cromwells' and not to think of what is was actually like to crew one of those tanks advancing across cornfields toward German 75mm or 88mm weaponry.

    There is now much reading available about Goodwood and I'd recommend to anyone truly interested, Ian Daglish's 'Over The Battlefield : Operation Goodwood' ( Pen & Sword 2005 ) which looks at the battle from many viewpoints and discusses many factors - including a survey of the mini-controversy over von Luck's legendary 'Cagny 88s'.
     
  7. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    I have not, sounds interesting.
     
  8. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    A "political genius" is the last thing I'd call Monty. Changing your objectives when they have been agreed upon by your commander is not "smart" it may be necessary but it is not "smart". There's also debate as to when the objectives "changed" some have suggested that it was after the fact.
     
  9. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    That's my point. Politics is about deception. Through the Normandy campaign he repeatedly mislead his chiefs, double talked and played his hand to further promote his progress towards Caen in as a positive a light as he could. Now, one can argue, regardless of his failures he may or may not have been relieved of command, it was clear that he was dragging his feet to gain his eastern flank objective. However, he was encountering stiff resistance which also can argued hampered his ability to lead a breakout. I think he played it well in is he own interest.
     
  10. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    I have seen that argument as well.
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    It most emphatically is not. Politics is in essence the mechanism by which groups acomplish things as groups rather than individuals. Deception may play a part in getting some objectives set but making excessive or unnecesary use of it is bad politics because it tends to make things harder for the individual in question later on. In this case all Monty would have had to do was inform Ike that due to the resistance the goals needed to be modified a bit and he would have had his buy in which would have been politically much stronger. I don't think he "dragged his feet" there at all, indeed from some of what I've read he pushed too hard given the resistance he encountered.
     
  12. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,045
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Location:
    Alabama
    I agree.
     
  13. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    I do not wish to make this a debate on politics, and I guess I opened those floodgates :) Your take on politics is spot on, there is no use debating that. It is the group over the one. However, you used the word "essence" in your post which was a good word to use, considering what government bodies throughout history have done with those offices. I should have used the phrase "Montgomery was adept at using the tool of deceit." This is arguable, but by the accounts I have read, Montgomery's idea of a quick capture of the Norman capital was wishful thinking, especially considering the bombardments lack of success, the beachhead along with the stiff resistance. His modified objectives, without telling SHAEF, was used to further his image in the public eye. I have read accounts where this is debatable whether he reaffirmed his objectives after the attack on Caen, but I tend to side with former. IMO this was a political aim. Bad politics for sure, but self preserving.

    Why do you think he did not? Lack of time, Ike's and others impressions thus far...?
     
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm far from an expert on Monty so this a rather uninformed opinion. I think he held off making those modified goals official as long as he could because he still hoped to acomplish the original ones. Monty was concious of his image (indeed IMO overly consious of it) but he also at least appeared to be consious of what the goals were and what the British could afford to pay to get there. When he officially informed SHAEF that the goals needed to be reset is an open question as far as I can tell but Ike had access to enough intel info to know that the going was both tougher and slower than originally hoped for. Ike however was a superb politician and I suspect saw little positive to come from critising Monty in this case especially since it would have been undeserved.
     
  15. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    failure --with command of the air and naval, I'd expect total success
     
  16. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    I remember reading that there were quite a few communication problems coordinating air cover for advance.
     
  17. FalkeEins

    FalkeEins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    75
    I think you can argue that Goodwood achieved one of Monty's stated aims in 'writing down' German strength around Caen

    Didier Lodieu in his book '45 Tigers..' compares Goodwood to Kursk - with the Germans establishing the sort of in-depth echeloned defences that stymied them in that battle. As luck would have it, the zone south of the Paris-Vimont rail line was not targeted by the bombardment that took place during the early hours of 18 July were the majority of 21 Pz. Div's units were located..[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

    During the air raids over 40 of Pz.Rgt. 22's 50 Panzer IVs were put out of action- the carpet bombing effectively disabled some 20% of s.Pz.Abt 503 Tigers (the first Tiger II was lost in 'combat' later on the 18th). By 20 July the armoured forces of LXXXVI A.K. had been whittled back to the 29 Tigers of the s.Pz.Abt. 503 - of which only nine were still serviceable- and Hauptmann von Gottberg's twenty two Panzer IV tanks, from the ninety four tanks that had been on strength on the eve of Goodwood. The bombardment, its aftermath and the subsequent thrusts of the British VIII Corps inflicted 67% losses. BTW the Cagny 88s also accounted for another two Tigers (Martin's post 6 above)..The Germans deployed over 300 artillery pieces during Goodwood, virtually all lost. In the course of the battle 16. Lw.Feld.Div lost 2,500 of a strength of 9,354 men and "effectively ceased to exist.."...another unit annihilated by Goodwood was Lw.Jg.Rgt. 46.

    von Rosen of s.Pz.Abt. 503 quoted in Lodieu;

    ".. 18 July ranks as our worst day of the war - my company sustained its heaviest losses at any point of the conflict - even compared to our bloodiest engagements on the Russian Front where we were committed against large numbers of tanks and Pak fronts. We didn't fear the British armies ranged against us but the terrible bombardment of the early hours shattered our nerves and either disabled or crippled the majority of our Tigers..".
     
  18. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    now that you mention it, I would think that would be common...maybe I'll start a thread on communication between ground and air
     
  19. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    Which SHAEF objectives did Montgomery change to cover his 'failures'.


    I believe this is the 1,000,0000th attempt to claim Montgomery lied about CAEN and altered the record to cover the fact.
    It is an argument born of ignorance. The claim that CAEN was a D-Day objective is true. But then so were a lot of other places. Fact is every single beachead failed to gain all its objectives. Every single one. Why is the 'failure to take CAEN any more of a 'failure' than the failure to take CHERBOURG to timetable? How much more of a problem was the 'failure' to take BREST' in a timely fashion? Why is that failure not used as a stick to constantly beat Bradley/Eisenhower?
    Up to the crossing of the SEINE every single Allied objective/timline/planning assumption was a 'failure'. Monty was not the only General running behind schedule but only he gets a kicking.
    If I had the inclination I would re-post the talks/orders given by Monty that clearly states his objective was to draw the German mobile forces on to the CAEN flank in order to facilitate a breakout on the US flank. I have posted them before but it seems no one takes a blind bit of notice. Take it as a fact there are references that pre-date the invasion by months that clearly set out this strategy. Claims Monty altered the record in order to cover his 'failure' are mendacious and complete fabrication.
    Further to that his orders for June 6th itself clearly state that CAEN is not to be taken at all costs. He includes a caution "should the enemy forestall us as Caen" so he was well aware that it was not a certainty that CAEN would fall on June 6th. That is another fabrication.



    If you follow through this line of reasoning then every Allied setback in 1944-45 was a 'failure'.
    The thing with Montgomery is his 'failures' are judged harshly whilst every other General gets a pass. On the same rules as are applied to Montgomery Bradley failed badly at St Lo. Patton failed badly at Metz and US forces failed badly in the Bulge. There are other examples but I just used the better known ones. Now tell me Montgomery's 'failure' is of an order so much greater that he alone deserves constant and repeated castigation?


    It is not widely known that GOODWOOD was planned as a two pronged offensive. 2 Army Groups were to attack the same day (July18) to shatter the German Front. However one Army was not ready and asked for a delay..................
     
  20. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    seems like they took a big loss of men and material just to pin enemy... [ in multiple operations?with air and naval power ] so, he was trying to breakthrough<>fail, or he was trying to pin enemy<>fail...weren't Brit losses signifcantly more than Germans? and, the Germans were at the break point anyway, [ at Cobra stage ] .....the Germans couldn't hold both flanks...inevitable the Allies would breakthrough at that time, either on the Brit or US side....the Allies were landing more men/supplies/vehicles
     

Share This Page