Worst generals

It is good for the sharing of different personal & national viewpoints.
Long Live www.military.cz/panzer !

 

It has also been suggested that part of the reason Ike accepted Market-Graden was because he was delighted to get something this aggressive from Monty, and because it gave the Allies a chance to use their airborne troops for something potentially useful.

 

mountbatten

 

Reasons please.

 

because he wa no goodin any force and the army just dumped him in the least important place

 

Never looked into Mountbatten but will have too.

 

az iz

Mountbatton, in the Army?Don't think so, Lord Louis?I think you'll find he was in the Royal Navy, the British Royal Navy.The veterans who served with him thought he was ok , but then again, what did they know?

 

Veterans may know perfectly well whether a commanding officer is to be trusted and respected, but of military quality I think they can judge only very little because they didn't have the asset of hindsight, back then. It was also much less of a factor for them, IMHO. When you serve under someone, I'd reckon you'd be happier with someone who inspires you and tries to keep you alive than with someone who makes all the gains in battle. The best example of this is soldiers under Monty (popular but often criticized after the war) vs. soldiers under Patton (hardly respected, unpopular, but greatly appreciated by historians).

 

Mountbatton was in overall command of the campaign in Burma. My grandfather seved in Burma and as far as I know he had a lot of respect for him.

http://www.socc.ie/~smurray1/Biographie ... atton.html

 

Patton. Couldn't even breach the French/ German border against weak enemy divisions!

 

Indeed, but he didn't get the supplies he wanted. Some of this failure is to blame on Montgomery again with his selfish attitude.

 

Ah roel I remember you saying monty only won at el alamein because of numbers. patten couldn't do that.

 

Sorry, I'm not too knowledgeable on the command structure.
How could Monty block Patton's supplies?

 

I keep hearing this but I don't know to what extent this really mattered or if it is also somewhat of an excuse. The supply lines weren't that long or difficult to replenish and the Americans had supplies in abundance. I think he probably had enough to do more than he did. It wasn't as if he was facing the SS Panzer Korps. Look what the Germans had! The Germans in that area facing Patton were mostly not top rank divisions, were fewer in number, had no air cover whatsoever and probaby even less supplies etc etc but still there wasn't any breech or big advance forward in this area. I also feel Patton's quick advance across France from Normandy was simply due to little opposition and not because of his brilliance. I really don't understand why Patton is held in such high regard. What did he achieve that was so great?? It beats me. He wasn't exactly Erich von Manstein.

(Not that I rate Monty any higher than Patton.)

 

His quick turn-around of a division to enable it to attack the flank of the Ardennes bulge during the BotB is one reason.

One reason not to is Kesserine Pass! (sorry, must stop the foul blows)

 

Patton was not in control of the American troops at Kassarine Pass, Fredendall was (and then relieved). Patton came in to reorganize the mess afterwards.

The supply picture as the Allies approached Germany was nowhere near as rosy as Lyndon would suppose. To be brief, there was only enough supplies for one area of the front to mount a serious offensive. Of course both Monty and Patton wanted these supplies. For awhile, just to keep peace, Ike split the supplies among the fronts and let them fend for themselves. Then Monty proposed his grand plan (some say just to get the supplies) and sucked the supplies dry.

 

Poor patton was he bullied by Monty.

 

No if anyone was bullied it was Ike. Or more likely vexed into submission.

 

Naughty, naughty Monty, picking on poor little Ike like that. :evil:

 

Well, I don't want to give the impression that I think the supply issue was rosey but nor do I think it was such the bad state that a lot of people say it was. If you want to talk about supply problems then consider what the Germans faced. I don't understand how there could be all these supply problems for the western Allies and I never will and it wasn't as if the weather was a big factor. Besides, Market Garden began in late Sept. That still left months and months (5 or 6 months) until any decent breech in the area of the French/German border was made.

Perhaps I should state that I really don't think that Patton was a bad general but just that I think he was vastly overratted (just as Monty is with the British). He rarely faced really strong top line German divisions, the Bulge excepted, but even this seems to be given more prominence than it should. Bastogne wasn't the deciding factor of the Bulge.