"Worst Allied general of the war?" Topic

Speaking as a confirmed, intractable, American Monty hater (well, disliker) it is my considered judgement that the Inquisitor has been put to flight and driven from the field. Well done to the Davies twins.

Monty was well short of greatness, but compared to his competition, he has no business in the "worst general" sweepstakes. For example it's true that at El Alamein he had huge advantages, but his predecessors lost a LOT of battles with similar advantages. Monty won those battles.MG cost the Allies a fine division, but other did much, much worse. People forget how close MG came to success. I'm not praising the operation; it was an error; but others did far worse.

I'd put Monty on a par with Macarthur; he managed not to screw up when giving overwhelming advantages. This is more than one can say for Irwin, Ritchie, Clark, Fredendahl etc They were truly bad.

While Clark, Percival even Buddeny made bad bad bad mistakes and lost battle Gamelin lost a COUNTRY and shamed the French for evermore!!! Not having even a telephone let alone a radio in his HQ and relying on dispatch riders is almost Horse and Musket strategy!!!

Rumours about tetiary syph maybe true but still don't excuse him….

THAT'LL TEACH YOU INQUISITOR! NEVER, EVER SPEAK A WORD AGAINST THE BRITISH TMP PARTY LINE.

HEIL MONTY!

ODWBB,

Don't be a prat.

In any case, Huw isn't British – he's Australian. There are other commentators here who are American, yet have pointed out IT's factual errors.

As has been said, we'll happily discuss Monty's manifest shortcomings, but if an argument consists purely of hyperbole, ignorance, badly-formed opinion, a complete lack of actual facts and an absolute unwillingness to accept primary facts when they are presented (leavened with a dash of childish petulence and ing), there is little point.

I have NEVER seen anyone here on TMP declare Monty to be the greatest general – he wasn't. But he wasn't bad. He certainly was not the worst, which is what the suggestion is here. I agree (almost) entirely with Nikator's comments above.

Huw R Davies "Way to go Thaken. !"

Etc., ad infinitum

Whatever the merits of the arguments, he did not resort to name calling, your brother or clone or sock puppet or whatever he is and others on your side did that.

It's a pity Bill lacks the guts to enforce the rules on this forum. I'd have left too.

One Day etc. Why wade in to what is already a shouting match?

Now, anyone ELSE who attempts to defend Montgomery without solidly answering each of the above will simply be ignored by me.

And the facts ignored if they don't agree with your preceptions.

2) This old canard! Most of the armour that descended upon Arnhem was shipped in from elsewhere.

A: Wrong. The 9th and 10th SS panzer divisions were both there for refit. BTW: "This old canard" evidently translates into "you have me completely beaten, so I'll simply rely on mantras to defeat you."

Reasoned debate at its best?

Okay, all I can do with the rest of this is claim sophistry, to keep my head from exploding from mounting BS pressure. Go on believing what you want to believe. Leave the uncomfortable facts to themselves.

Which were presented where? BS presumably is a universal acronym. And where is there any sophistry being demonstrated? sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone Or you might prefer this alternative definition

The controversial method of an opponent, distinguished from one's own by superior insincerity and fooling.

Sigh. Unlike many TMP members, I do not feel compelled to answer again and again what history has already answered quite nicely. I'm bored. I'm going onto another forum to argue against the flat earthers. They have more compelling arguments.

A slghtly more subtle term of abuse than troll, I grant you. But some of us do understand the meaning of big words ……

Called on my statements? Look, everything I have said is well known, and has been for the last 65 years, revisionist British historians notwithstanding. Monty screwed up ROYALLY (pun intended) with Market-Garden, cost a lot of lives on a totally needless adventure, gave the Germans time to assemble the Ardennes offensive, and quite frankly should have been shot and dumped in an unmarked grave along with Mark Clark for criminal negligence. He likely extended the war by 6 months with politically motivated nonsense.

And you decline to debate them, resorting to insult & innuendo & advocating the murder of soldiers. You might like to contemplate what would be the response if someone was to advocate shooting Gen Schwartzkopf because he failed to 'finish off' Saddam in 1991. For someone to suggest such a thing is beneath contempt.

For the record I've never even met Mark, although we've had many entertaining & informative discussions without the need for any vitriol.

Hmm. How can I answer such a scintillating display of intellectual prowess?

Oh yeah,

Huw R Davies "Way to go Thaken. !"

Keep hiding behind your pseudonym…….

And now a clone calls me a clone?

Okay. You go ahead and have the last word. I'm out of here too.

Such a loss…

ANother round of scintillating conversation right here on TMP, all for you folks! For the record, Monty's over-rated, and Tharken is indeed a .

The real grand general for the British in WWII remains Sir Claude John Eyre Auchinleck.

Oh, and the allies worst, at least among 'name' players, is MacArthur.

'Sup Kyoteblue.

um… What happened in here?

Haven't we done this one before and aren't there a larger number of folks around here with DHing scars and stifles as a direct result?

Yup, same result as last time, seems the only correct move is to simply not play!

seems the only correct move is to simply not play!

Words of wisdom from Joshua/WOPR.

Don't feed the large green regenerating humanoids.

As to the II SS Panzer facing MG, the sources disagree on the details, but I've never seen one state that the SS panzer divisons did not have tanks, although all state that the units were heavily depleted due to the fighting in France. The numbers cited usually add up to about 40 panzers, jagdpanzers and sturmgeschutze, roughly 20 tanks and 20 other heavy AFVs. This does not include armoured cars and halftracks.

That does not include the full-strength 506 sPzAbt, which was in the vicinity, in Model's reserve, which had recently been fitted out with the Tiger II and proved to be an overwhelming force against the paras.

It also does not include heavy panzer company "Hummel", which was in the area, about 2-3 hours away, and was attached to 10SS when it arrived. It was fitted out with about a dozen Tiger Is, though many of these broke down due to the forced march to Arnhem (but were fed into the battle as they were rapidly repaired). Tigers needed to maintain low road speeds and to take frequent maintenance halts or they broke down.

It's interesting to note that, because of losses, but quick replacement of infantry weapons, the infantry forces remaining to the two SS units were very heavily armed in proportion to their numbers, having many MGs and mortars per-company for instance.

The OP mentioned Mark Clark for Cassino, but what should be especially noted is that general's performance at the Battle of the Rapido River, making him forever a hated man in Texas.

Monty was no Hannibal, but what he understood was that WWII had become a war of attrition, and he understood this well enough to marshal his greatly superior forces to methodically ground Rommel down, something no one else had been able to do although also possessed of superior forces. It reminds me in some ways of the Grant-Lee faceoff in Virginia -- few would doubt that Lee was the greater tactician, but Grant understood the numbers, and that's what he needed to win.

Monty!

PR,

I broadly agree with you. 9SS's intervention was decisive, but absolutely not for the reasons usually cited (and believed by IT and his ilk). If you're going to learn from the lessons of history, you may as well learn the correct lessons!

9SS PD had handed its tanks over to 10SS, which managed to accumulate 20-24 Pz IV, Panther and StuG from the two divisions. 9SS retained approx 2x Jagdpanzer IV and 3x Mobelwagen. 10SS also had a small company of Jagdpanzer IV and a battery of Wespe, but these were down south at Valkenswaard.

The Allied planners were fully aware of these strength levels and judged it an acceptable risk. Remember that 6th Airborne Division had jumped into 21st Panzer Division's front yard in June and had completed its missions, despite a much greater armoured threat than that posed by II. SS Panzer-Korps in Arnhem. This must have played a large part in their assessment of the risk. However, they overlooked the fact that 6th Airborne Division had in the main, landed pretty-much on top of their objectives, whereas 1st Airborne had a desperately flawed plan of not only having to defend the LZs & DZs at considerable distance from the objectives, but also having to attack toward those objectives. Thus the few German infantry in the area, backed up by the handful of available armoured cars (roughly a mixed company from Graebner's weak recce battalion – the other half had gone south to Nijmegen), halftracks, the two jagdpanzers (possibly) and mobile flak guns, were able to cause havoc.

The Allied planners completely failed to appreciate just how well the Germans could meld a hotch-potch of disparate units together into a fighting force, and as you say, 9SS were very strong in infantry weapons, which is something that would not be apparent to intelligence analysts when looking at raw strength figures. The Allies had already broken a great many such hotch-potch defences in their drive across France and Belgium, so they were clearly over-confident in that respect.

As it happens, 10SS's collected panzers did not fight at Arnhem – they were shipped across the Neder-Rijn to fight on Bettuwe, as they correctly judged that containing XXX Corps' advance was far more pressing.

sPzAbt 506 was not at full strength – the HQ, plus one Heavy Panzer Company and the Light Company were sent south to Alsace-Lorraine, while the remaining two companies were shipped to Arnhem. They were far enough away to require rail transport and they arrived far too late to participate meaningfully in the battle.

sPzKp Hummel similarly had to be moved by rail and then had a long road march, resulting in a handful participating in the battle right at its end.

The first two German armoured units to get stuck in were StuG-Brigade 280 (10x StuGs) and Panzer-Kompanie 'Mielke' (6x PzIII, plus 2x PzIV borrowed from 10SS) – both of which were brought in by train from some distance away. One of the major Allied failures in the battle was the failure to interdict German reinforcement routes, which they had done so successfully in France.

I think Mark has covered it more than adequately.

I wish Lord Carrington had a chance to punch everyone on the nose who accused his troop of 'stopping for tea' at the end of Nijmegen Bridge, although I suspect he'd have a rather sore hand by now.

Patton!

Gort.

wow, missed this one (probably a good thing)

How about Stillwell? Admittedly he had to deal with the rather pragmatic Chinese nationalist generals, who were more than happy to choose their fights, which would drive anyone batty, but even so, talk about some real brain explosions. It was a wonder he wasn't slotted post-war by one of Merrill's men.

t reminds me in some ways of the Grant-Lee faceoff in Virginia -- few would doubt that Lee was the greater tactician, but Grant understood the numbers, and that's what he needed to win.

Don't get me started.

I'm really surprised to see names such as Montgommery or McArthur, as both, though not perehaps the flashiest achievers, were competent enough to keep their campaigns on track till eventually won…

No, I'll take none of this, and will decisively award the worst WW2 general award to our very own Gamelin. Not for the reasons dsiplayed by archstanton 73 :

Gamelin lost a COUNTRY and shamed the French for evermore!!! Not having even a telephone let alone a radio in his HQ and relying on dispatch riders is almost Horse and Musket strategy!!!

Gamelin was in fact guilty of several capital sins in terms of generalship.

1/ failure to correctly assess the terrain. Everyone knows of his blunder (by far the most important one ) ascribing the Ardennes mounts as unpassable for motorised divisions. You'll tell me that he was surprised there, so one can expect he had not done his homework for that one. But the same kind of mistake happened where he was expecting to fight : he overestimated the impregnability of the waterways in Belgium, waterways he was relying on to stop the German attack. No such thing on the German side, who had well assessed howo cross them. Rommel's crosing of the Meuse comes to mind, but the same is true of the Dyle, where the main battle was supposed to take place. While the Allied GHQ was befuddled with Belgian neutrality, the OKH took the matter in their hands and used some "tourists" to reconnoiter the battlefields. That Gamelin never bothered for such a simple device speaks volumes

2/ Unrealistic manoeuver. The Dyle Breda manoeuver was devise to keep both Belgian and Holland fighting ion the Allies' side. There were serious doubts about the possibility to beat the Wehrmacht to reach Breda, so the most capable and motorized parts of the French forces were earmarked for it. Even then, and despite naval support, it ended in failure. To Gamelin's discharge, he'd assumed the Eben Emael fort would be holding upo the German forces for some time, giving him time enough for his plan. But failing to anticipate its fall, and keeping ton his plan after it, cannot be excused. At any rate, the manoeuver was discarding the defensive positions worked out during the Phoney War, and putting the whole left wing in danger of being surprised on the move.

3/ Despicable disposition and economy of forces. The Dyle Breda manoeuver was in effect committing your most useful reserve to the extreme left wing with no decisive intension in mind (except keeping the Dutch in the war ). Had he kept them as theater reserves, they would have perhaps been able to threaten effectively the extremely long flanks of the PanzerGruppe push towards the Channel. And not only that, but he also kept lots of infantry forces behind the Maginot Line, forces that played no significant part in the campaign, but could have reinforced his center and given the depth needed to mire the German advance.

So, unless someone ups my ante and digs up some obscure Red Army political general of 1941, I don't see how Gamelin could avoid that distinction… ;)

Gamelin's French, it's expected…

Why's that? Are the French, the people who gave us Davout, Soult, and St. Cyr, really such bad generals just by nature of being French?

The French bashing should be taken down a notch IMO. The first serious American face-off against the Germans on land resulted in the Americans taking a beating just like the French troops did when they had their first run-in with the Wehrmacht. The Americans just had the good fortune to have that happen in the desert, instead of inside their own country.

Porfirio,

I agree with your sentiment. Speaking for myself, I am bashing Gamelin, not the French. IMO another Miracle on the Marne, had it occurred, would have prevented many subsequent disasters.

Interesting choice of nom de guerre by the way. Are you are fan of El Caballo?

I'm still sticking with Weygand. Gamelin at least had come up with a plan to cut off the German armored spearheads before he was sacked. Weygand took 2-3 days to actually implement it, by which time it was too late. If he had just gone with it immediately (or if they had left Gamelin in charge) the whole blitzkrieg story could have been a lot shorter.

Duck Crusader is making a joke.
I'm sure he meant nothing by it.
His family have been pro-French since an ancestor of his was turned into duck a la orange.

As already said before, I vote for Ritchie. He makes Monty look like a combination Alexander the Great and G.J. Caesar. His leadership was so bad that he couldn't even devise a plan, stick to it and get his subordinates to obey it. He ran the battle more like a committee spokesman than the Chairman. His shortcomings in executing plans were those of an amateur, not a professional, and as one person said, there was just too much of the "good old chap" amongst the army command. They needed a pretty aggressive ruthless fellow to get them to tow the line and fight together.

Worst: Ritchie. At Gazala Ritchie had:

A bigger army
More tanks
Better tanks
Better logistics
More guns
More planes
Dense fortifications
High level of mobility,

And he got whupped by a tactically bold, but logistically indifferent (both in quantities of and attitudes towards) German general.

raducci-Duck Crusader is making a joke.
I'm sure he meant nothing by it.
His family have been pro-French since an ancestor of his was turned into duck a la orange.

Yer right actually, never liked him anyway.

The French had very little enthusiasm for the war, and a fortress mentality to go along with it. They were by the combination as good as beaten before the first real shots were fired. Gamelin's plan would not have worked even if he'd implemented it immediately because he had the wrong troops for it and they had the morale of a jackrabbit at a hawk convention.

McArthur:

Pulled vital forces away from the thrust which actually finally ended the war for his own personal vanity more than valid military reasons. Does a good general prolong the war by 6-12 months?

Had special lettuce flown in for his salads while his men were starving on the Kokoda trail. (This is a huge one as far as I'm concerned, and forfeits him any consideration of respect.)

Waited for two days to implement the fall back plan to Bataan while he tried to conduct a futile forward defense with troops he knew were not up to the task.

Utterly failed to learn from him mistakes when he over-extended himself a few years later at a certain reservoir in Korea. (let's examine what that little piece of stupidity cost, shall we?) link

Failed utterly to make best use on his naval assets throughout the war, which is again pretty stupid for a man conducting an amphibious campaign.

All in all an even MORE useless, barely competent prima donna than Monty (which is saying something). I could go on for quite some time but if you haven't got the point by now it'd be useless anyway.

General "I'll-Use-A-Code-Known-Only-To-Me" Fredendall