The Worst General?

I just knew I'd find yanks bashing Montgomery..I knew it.

Well on the British front Brooke managed to sack most of the real incompetents by 1942. However some, like Neame and Ritchie, still slipped through. Our worst has to be the utterly incompetent Percival who showed a degree of mental paralysis remarkable in an officer of such high rank.

The Americans? Well Clark should have been taken out and shot. Ike nearly fired him in N Africa but gave him a second chance. It did not help that he was teamed in Italy with Alex, who like Ike was a good alliance commander but lacked military skill. Bradley who went to pieces for 3 days during the Ardennes having his nervous breakdown: US generals and troops suffered because they were never taught what to do when things went wrong. It's interesting to speculate what Patton would have done if he was in Bradley's shoes. I think the bubble of his ego would have burst and he'd reacted worse than Bradley.

The French? Unfair really to pick, they were so indoctrinated in defensive strategy. Still Georges leaving no reserves at all in 1940 deserves at least some censure.

There are dozens of Russians...

But what about Germans? Never mind political appointees, what about Wehrmacht professionals? Were Kluge and Kleist bad or just unlucky?

Jumbo

 

I've read somewhere that the absolute, total, one-hundred-percent worst was the General who was Eisenhower's Quartermaster in '44/'45. What was his name - Lee, or something ?

Sorry, it's too humid here to start digging through my books to find out !

 

Jumbo--add this SOUTHERN Yankee to the list of Monty bashers. I think there were way too many British generals who were much much better than Monty could ever dream of being. Horrocks and Wingate, come to mind.

 

No, no, no, Jumbo.

Géneral Géorges was actually the only man in the French army who knew perfectly the whole situation of the front in May 1940. He would have taken several measures if he would not have been killed in a car-crash just when the situation could have been saved...

Kluge? Von Kleist? Are you kidding me? These two men were genious...

 

Mr Evans

I am not a fan of Montgomery, but I think that his detractors overlook the skills he did possess and concentrate on his failures. I rarely see Americans give a fair summary of any of their senior army commanders and get the impression that most americans think that they were geniuses as compared to the bungling Brits with the crabby Monty.

Wingate was a liar and a fraud. He was not afraid to undermine or smear anyone who got in his way and because he had Churchill's ear he got away with it. Undoubtedly brave, inventive and resourceful but he would have been a nightmare in any position above Brigadier.

Horrocks was brilliant, inspired and competent. But only a Corps commander. Try Bill Slim, Wavell or Cunningham for the good stuff, even have a look at my old mate Jumbo, few people do.

Jumbo

 

I think Montgomery ( of El Alamein as he would like himself to be called ) was a very straight-forwarded general. Actually I think he knew his weaknesses so it was better to attack only when you have all the cards in your hands.Never mind the strategy bit. If you gave the same men for Rommel or Monty I do think the end result would be very bad for the latter.

Also Monty was clever...In Normandy he left all the work and big attacks to US soldiers and let them die with Hitlerjugend men saving the british blood from being shed.

The only operation by Monty that failed was Market garden. I don´t know how it is possible but landing in the middle of SS panzer division is not a good beginning for any allied operation!

Anyway, I am sure there are a lot of bad generals, worse than Monty actually, but he got famous without any other reason than winning battles with absolute overpower.It is like playing chess with two queens, you really got to be dum to lose.

 

There is an old proverb that says:

"You have to promote a person to see how incompetent he is..."

 

Hello Jumbo, I toatlly agree with you on Slim Wavell and Cunningham, and I do think that they were much better than Monty. No I do not hate Monty, nor do I think he was a terrible General--I just think that the British had others who was better than he was.

One of my major irritations to do with monty was the fact that he did his best to claim that he was the one who won the Battle of the Bulge when in fact it was men from Simpsons command, and Patton, who won this fight. Monty was temporarily given command of the US forces that fell into his A.O. ONLY because they could not really be employed.

Surely there were British casualties in the later stages of BoB, and surly they contributed to something, BUT, they did not do the majority of the fighting, dying, and winning of the battle.

I think that many men who are buried in the 3rd Army Cemetary can attest to that, IF they had the pleasure of still being alive.

No offence meant and hope none taken. I admit to being a bit rude sounding as I am in a rush to post before leaving for work.

 

Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, lord of El Alamein was not a bad commander and doesn't deserve to be included in this thread. He was not like that stupid British general that abandoned his troops in Singapore. But he was not the best of the British generals at all. In Africa, by example, sir Archibald Wavell, Neil Ritchie, sir Claude Auchinleck and (I don't remember his name) O'Connor were awesome leaders and they were the guys that put the seeds and roots of the victoroius VIII Army at El Alamein. Unfortunately and unfairily, Monty took all the credit for it.

 

Mr Evans

Montgomery behaved outrageously after the Bulge, in a characteristic self-publication exercise which, typical of his innocence in this respect, could not understand why the US was pissed off. His inability to understand how damaging these statements were runs like a red thread throughout his career. Brooke frequently wearily comments in his diaries that he is often picking up the pieces because of a classic Monty outburst.

Nobody produced a flawless General. The problem with guaging US Generals is that they rarely had to deal with things going wrong. I think that this is a true test of a Commanding Officer: when the chips are down can you keep your head, keep your formation together and keep your lads alive?

The Brits and Commonwealth troops had a lot of practice in going backwards in the first part of the war, exposing weaknesses in men and materiel. The US entered the war with an advantage in equipment (our experience with your kit enabled your army to enter the war better prepared that it otherwise would have been) and gained experience in N Africa.

The interesting thing for me is what happens when US forces are hit hard and have to go backwards. All soldiers run away, nobody is saying anything else. Rather the doctrinal issues surrounding US officer training in retreats is fascinating. There are only two major instances: Kasserine and the Bulge (I suppose the Phillipines in the Pacific) and the senior command structure did not respond well to either of them, similarly a few years later in Korea which was far worse. I'm not sure that this has been looked into. It would not be the place for any non-US historian (they would be accused of being anti-American) but has any US historian mentioned this?

Jumbo

 

To follow up I've just found a Hasso manteuffel quote regarding Monty and the Bulge.

"..he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a cler and definite plan"

Somewhat less than Monty claimed but somewhat more than he is usually accepted as by US detractors. Neither of which should be a surprise to anyone.

Jumbo

 

Well, nice thoughts.

But I still saying: Monty should not be in this thread. He was not such a bad general.

Hey! Another one comes to my mind: General der Panzertruppen Georg Stumme, chief of staff of Panzergruppe Afrika. He had a nervous collapse while the battle of Alam Halfa and El Alamein, until he was unfortunately KIA.

 

"Also Monty was clever...In Normandy he left all the work and big attacks to US soldiers and let them die with Hitlerjugend men saving the british blood from being shed."


Errr....How many panzer divisions were facing the US army in Normandy and how many were facing The British at the time of Cherbourg???? Old old tale that most want to ignore, Monty brought the brunt of the early reinforcements onto the British and Canadian sector while the US got on with the Peninsular.

 

As to allowing the US and Gemans to bleed at Normandy that statement is quite an insult, have a look at the British replacement numbers after the Normandy battles. The British army bled in Normandy.

 

Urgh!

I may want to insult Monty but not the British soldiers!!!By cautious movement Monty actually lost the advantage when he could have spearheaded the lines and pushed through...That´s what I mean!

"The Germans knew they could count on Montgomery’s limitless caution. For Rommel says,

“I was quite satisfied that Montgomery would never take the risk of following up boldly and overrunning us, as he could have done without any danger to himself. Indeed, such a course would have cost him far fewer losses in the long run than his methodical insistence on overwhelming superiority in each tactical action, which he could only obtain at the cost of his speed.”

Montgomery never advanced quickly because he insisted on having three times the necessary number of supplies and then moving forward “with caution.” “War requires the taking of risks,” as Patton said, “and Monty simply won’t take them.”

The numbers speak for themselves. In Operation Goodwood, Montgomery had 1,500 tanks and 250,000 men attack the German defenses which, due to over a month of Monty’s inactivity, had hardened around Caen. 45,000 shells were dropped on the 2nd SS Panzer Corps alone. Over 800 fighter bomber missions flew to support Montgomery’s men while 1,800 RAF and RCAF squadrons flew against German tanks and artillery emplacements. At the end of the operation, Caen, the largest northern harbor in Europe was still uncaptured and desperately needed for Bradley’s ever extending lines. Seven thousand tons of bombs had been dropped in the most elaborate bombing of enemy front-line positions ever accomplished and Montgomery had only managed to take seven miles!"

http://www.pattonuncovered.com/html/montgomery.html

-------------

After the failure of Operation market Garden Montgomery began to question the strategy developed by Eisenhower and as a result of comments made at a press conference he gave on 7th January, 1945, he was severely rebuked by Winston Churchill and General Alan Brooke, the head of the British Army.He came close to being sacked.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmontgomery.htm

 

Accept, I may have read wrongly as to regards British troops not being brunt of your critisism, apologies. Monty was a complicated man, as any of the biographies written over the years relate.

Difficult on personal relations definately, but maybe thats a Brit trait anyway....

The Alanbrooke diaries give us a real view of the man as put foreward by Britiains chief soldier and Monty supporter at the time.

On the Caen note, what are your personal views on why Epsom and Goodwood etc, failed, these attacks were put in to after the initial failures on D day and with what seems to be sufficient numbers and support....In my view Montys problems with Caen were his personal attachment to officers that were allowed to command divisions that he should have replaced sooner rather than later as he did...The attacks in this area were under the overall control of the OC but if his men at the top were not up to the occasion...should we hold him responsible for their failures...?

If so, then Eishenhower is at fault too and Churchill and especially Allanbrooke for allowing Monty command?

Brings to mind the pre invasion planning and the oft quoted report that Monty assured Caen and advance lines would be under control by certain dates....Dates which he never actually committed too but were allowed to pass into history...

On Market Garden, he made a mistake that cost dearly, but again this was not a fault all of his own making, we could and im sure you have debated on here many times...talk of intelligence lapses on a grand scale...Supply patterns that althogh agreed were ignored by him of the pistols...Im sure im not the first or last to ask the question of how far does the OC get involved once the stategic desicion is made, does he go down to the level of making sure his generals dont take airlift capacity that could have been used to fly in an additional battalion greatly needed on day one and stop them from flying in a HQ instead? Browning...Does he have to map out the landing zones and sort out the RAF on their flack worries?? If so then again Eisenhower has to take the blame too for either not looking at Montys plans or allowing him the lee way..How far does a commander at strategic level have to get down to the day to day running and planning of an operation?

Monty served in ww1 as you know, this is the reported reason for the idea behind the 3-1 ratio in forces or overwhealming force idea he is so greatly reported as believing in as he did not want to see the numbers killed in battless of ww1 repeated on his watch...

This after all is what Nato believed to be true in its doctrine on the mainland of Europe in the cold war....We were told so often over the years of the cold war of how an attacker needed to have a 3-1 ratio for success, and this was thrown at us right up to the Gulf war...

As to being conservative in his actions....we cant have it both ways....The Market Garden plan...? Conservative and not bold???

 

There are indeed reasons for Monty´s warfare to be found as well:

From its base population of some forty-five million, Britain had to maintain not only an army but its huge navy, merchant marine and air force, as well as its industrial base and agricultural output.
by mid-1944 British manpower could no longer cover British losses and Britain’s armies in the field became a wasting asset. If Napoleon was right about God’s preference for big battalions, British generals lacked the wherewithal to ensure His constant good will.

The most important part of that past was of course the terrible experience of the Western Front during World War I. The casualties that conflict inflicted on Britain, and the trauma those casualties caused, need no underlining.

He had been warned of a shortage of infantry replacements well before D-Day. During July, the British Adjutant General had underscored the point by personally travelling to Normandy to notify him of some British battalions which had already been divided to fill gaps in the line, and that divisions might be next.


-----------

When the Allies were unable to take Caen in the first rush of D-Day, the tactical shape of the battle changed. It was necessary to hold the German divisions off balance and keep them committed to holding the front. This extended the length of the German defence line, and prevented them from concentrating their attack on the American attempt on Cherbourg. But it also made the Allied advance slow, which in turn led Eisenhower and other senior commanders to question Montgomery's performance.

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/ISSUE/home.htm

------------

The Battle of Normandy was fought between forces of substantially equal strength. It lasted 75 days. Allied casualties were more than 200,000. Of the 40,000 who died, two-thirds were American.
---------

On battle stats in Normandy:

The statistics showed 60 per cent of Allied tank losses were due to a single round from a 75- or 88-mm gun. The stats also showed that 2/3 of all tanks brewed up when hit.

Only 38 per cent of hits from the Sherman 75-mm or six-pounder-anti-tank gun penetrated German armor. What’s more, German Panther and Tiger tanks often survived one or two hits. The sloping frontal armor of the Panther and the German self-propelled guns prevented penetration of 3/4 of all direct hits.
-------------



And then there was Wittman, of course, to stop them!

Moving forward to defend the same high ground around Hill 213 was German armor, including No 2 Company, 501st SS Heavy Tank Battalion, commanded by the panzer ace Obersturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann, who had already earned himself a formidable reputation on the Eastern Front. During a period lasting no more than about five minutes, Wittmann’s company of four Tigers and one Panzer IV, using every advantage of concealment provided by the hedgerows, carried out a devastating surprise attack on the British column on the road from Villers Bocage. By the end of the day, in this and renewed fighting, Wittmann had knocked out at least 20 Cromwell tanks, 4 Fireflys, 3 light tanks, 3 scout cars and a half track, and inflicted about 150 casualties.

The failure at Villers Bocage was crucial to events over the next few weeks.General Bucknall, soon to be replaced as commander of XXX Corps by the more dynamic and thrusting Brian Horrocks, had cost the British their last real chance of staging a major breakthrough in the Caen sector before German defences solidified

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/foothold.aspx

-----------

http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/normandy/balanceofforces/allies/allied_groundforces.htm

---------
Surely the Americans were aware of the M-4 A4’s drawbacks because they gave 7167 of the 7499 produced to the British—over 95% of the American supply. British tank crews had a very disparaging name for the Sherman: "Tommy Cooker."

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/britisharmor.html
----------
At several articles it is also said that typical British tank tactics even at this time of war was advancing without troops but on their own.No wonder the 88´s were lethal?!


---------
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/britisharmor.html


-----------
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/p92calla.htm
------------

A nice site on Normandy battles:

http://members.shaw.ca/keepinga/smss/pdf/bruscino_smss2001.pdf

 

Not ww2 related but--other lousy Generals include the Union Army's own George B. McClellen and even worse was Gen Ambrose Burnside. These were US Civil War Generals.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Martin. Thomas was a Gunner officer in WW1, and one of those who truly digested the artillery lessons of that conflict and applied them to the battlefield a war later. He was greatly respected and trusted by his men, if a little feared - just as all good leaders should be.

His division was given an impossible task at Hill 112, and morale dropped as a consequence, but it showed its true colours at Mont Pincon, and later in Holland.

The debate over whether 43rd or XXX Corps should have pushed harder will run and run, but you have too see the British view of the Poles in context. Many senior allied commanders (both British and US) wondered what they would do with them when the war was over, and Poland would almost certainly be in Soviet hands.

Just my 2d.

 

Possibly - but I've seen him criticised in several accounts. Be that as it may about the Poles ( and Sosabowski was by no means the easiest soldier to work with ) I think he was treated with gross disrespect, a view shared by Middlebrook ( '... a shameful act by the British commanders' Arnhem 1944 p. 448 ).

And Urquhart is little rough on Thomas, too :

'A few minutes later I was called to the radio and Thomas's voice. I tried to convey to him the critical state in which the Division now found itself.
'We are being very heavily shelled and mortared now from areas very close to our positions', I explained.
To my intense annoyance, Thomas replied with some impatience :
'Well, why don't you counter-mortar them ? Or shell them ?'
Imagining the cosier environment from which he was speaking, I flared up.
'How the Hell can we ?' I retorted. 'We're in holes in the ground. We can't move more than a few yards. And we haven't the ammunition'.
I found his gratuitous advice infuriating. This was just like Thomas, who could sometimes make me very angry....however, I knew that he would do what he could to help us.'
( Arnhem , 1958, p 154 ).

But I guess it's all water under the bridge, now....