Most over rated general of the war?

Good points.

 

I agree with your comments on Mac. However, I don't agree about the Phillipine campaign. Perhaps your are correct about the dense population being a facter in Formosa. But I still think it would have been easier to go to Formosa and then Okinawa. Not invade trhe China Mainland. I wasn't aware that that was Nimitz's plan.

FDR gave into MacArthur's whims because he did not want him as a political adversary in the coming elections.

Cowardly act leaving his boys to die in the Phillipines. Nothing he did derserved a MOH that's for sure.

 

Because of majic/ultra. They knew every move that Rommel was making in advance. Level the playing field and Rommel smokes the over-rated monty.

 

This ignores the fact that until Fellers (US Colonel) was removed from the area, Rommel "smoked" the competition. This was because Rommel was using intel garnered from their listening posts, to know where the UK and Commonwealth strengths and weaknesses were to plan his attacks. Intel cuts both ways. He was later "lured" into a terrible situation by false and planted data, and from then on he was not the same "fox".

As soon as those intel briefs were shut off, Rommel became much less "fox like", and more easily defeated. He never had a single success after Col. Fellers was transfered to D.C., and with that transfer all the "good data" from Cairo dried up. When the playing field was "leveled", both sides getting advance data, Rommel lost. Well, he performed an excellent fighting retreat, but no more "lightning strikes" hitting the British and Commonwealth troops in weak areas.

Here is a link to an old post of mine on the subject of Rommel's intelligence input which he had until Col. Bonner Fellers was transferred.

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/24853-i-couldnt-find-appropriate-thread.html

It deals with a bunch of code breaking stuff, but the article on Fellers and Rommel is in there at #6.

 

Yes, but Montgomery had an uninterupted supply of interecpted radio communication due to the broken German codes. Of course my info is gleaned from the book "Marching Orders, the untold story of WW2". It is about the code breaking success of the allies. heres a link.
Marching orders: the untold story of ... - Google Books

He spends a great deal of time in the book detailing how Rommel was handicaped due to monty knowing his every move due to the radio intercepts.

 

As did Rommel (uninterupted supply) until Col. Fellers was transferred to Washington, as soon as he lost his ability to read the British positions "like the morning news" every day, his "foxiness" disappeared. This isn't denigerating either Rommel or Monty for using intel., and it shouldn't be. The real "untold story" is the one which ties the Cario intelligence "leaks" to Rommel's successes. Please do read the post #6 in that link. Intel is a great thing, but should only be credited with an advantage if it is acknowledged that both sides can gain and suffer from its use.

In this case Rommel's loss of good intel did him nearly as much harm as Monty's gaining it.

 

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but Montgomery intercepted and decoded the german messages. Was Rommel able to decode the British messages? If so, I don't believe it was on the same level. Being able to pinpoint enemy positions due to radio signals, while certainly advantageous, it's not nearly as useful as actually intercepting and decoding the actual messages themselves. The british knew what time and location things were happing and was there to intercept and destroy.

 

Monty didn't do that, it was done at Blechley (sp?) Park and then transferred to him as and on a "need to know" basis. The Germans were intercepting both Fellers transmissions from Cairo, and the Operation Condor transmissions from the Nazi spies in Cairo. That is where the Code to Rebecca novel had its base in reality.

I'll find the rest of that story if you are interested. Monty didn't intercept and decode "on site", it was forwarded to him from Great Britain, and it wasn't just enemy positions which Fellers gave away. It was strengths, supply, and flaws in defenses which he transmitted in real time, and were read in Germany at that time and forwarded to Rommel on the front in real time. Ultra hadn't yet been broken at that time, that came later, and so Rommel was getting coded reports on where the Brits were, what they were doing, what their supplies and weaknesses were as of the preceding day.

 

For all the "Monty haters", just a quick question. Do you feel he is Overrated due to his preformances commanding men in battle, or because the US placed a gung ho General like Patton to fight along side of him (and thus, someone to compare him to)?

 

Intelligence and strategy: selected ... - Google Books

 

No, I assume most people's arguments are as simple as "well the only reason he won in Africa was because of Rommel's poor supplies, and then there was Market Garden....yea he sucks"

 

Zhukov did not push his men in human waves. Zhukov's men suffered less casualties then under any other Russian General. Yes, Zhukov was tough and might have very well lost his temper at times resulting in hitting someone, but then again his job was not easy.


Zhukov, took great time in developing his plan and exploiting his adversary's weaknesses. He was meticulous in his assaults and for this reason he was so successful.

 

Right Rommel made him Suffer for a long time and thousands of Miles on That Flammable Sands!! but The OutNumbering Defeated The Courage!! "Some Eastern Proverb" and Finally The Desert Fox got Defeated!! But After The Several Defeats He Inflicted in British Superior Forces!!

 

No in Kursk He made that And Learned the Lesson ,Then as I guess he had made it to Berlin With Much Developed & Smart Tactics!!
Sorry ,but I Respect Gen.Zhukov!! He's The Greatest USSR Tactical Leader!!

 

No manstein or model?i would certainly put them ahead of rommel,rommel was an attacking general and model was a defensive general,thus the glory goes to rommel and not to hitlers fireman,

As for Ike,Ike was a logistical genius,

 

Rommel did okay with the Western wall.

And Ike was also a great diplomat. that's why he was such a good choice for Supreme allied commander. he wonderfully managed the differing personallities of all the commanders involved especially Patton, Montgomery.

 

Have you noticed that the best Generals are the ones everyone knows?

What makes this men the greatest? The amount of casualties or lack of? The Speed of the win, the most enemies captured, the most territory captured?

Tzu Sun says, That the best General is the one who wins the battle without casualties from either side, perhaps that should be considered?

 

Sometimes the best known Generals are best known because of their exploits. MacArthur was the best known american Army General. But IMO he certainly wasn't the best one. He was over-rated.

 

true,still not sure wether i'd go with him or runstead regarding the use of the tanks at normandy.

Thats a fact,i guess the best general is the guy who can best use what he has.i know that can mean anything but thats also why included model above,
Maybe he wasnt the best but he made good use of what he had.

 

Who did MacArthur Fight?? Koreans!! or Vietnameses!! All were unmatchable 4 The US Supreme Forces!!
No ,Gen.Patton Was Greater than MacArthur ,with his less-developed War Machine he did better against a Superior Force=The Germans!!