"Was Monty's finest hour just a pointless bloodbath?" Topic

Being 'green' is an 'excuse' used to explain the slowness. It is not a refutation of the fact they were slow.
On any measure the TORCH armies were slower than the the (only)man being castigated for being 'slow'.

I would be interested to hear what you think Monty could have done differently to ensure Caen was captured by D+1.
Similarly with Italy, which is ideal defensive country and the Germans had some of their best troops there. Of the 2 approaches in Normandy I have always thought Monty's one of shifting the focus of his attacks up,and down his front to keep the Germans guessing and to threaten a breakthrough which obliged them to commit any reserves on the Commonwealth end of the line was the right one.

Hang on it was D+60 by the time Caen was completely subdued. That's a bit of a delay. In that time the Americans actually managed to break out despite being faced with much less tank friendly terrain.

Who knows what Monty could have done? His stated objectives kept changing or were unclear. He certainly didn't deliver what was promised to Eisenhower.

Sure he was facing Panzer divisions (that were arriving piecemeal). But he had the far easier terrain and he initially had the element of surprise.

In typical Monty style he just wasted any advantage.

The Brits then go on that his entire plan was to hold these German divisions all along. Even if that's the case, he was then directly disobeying Eisenhower's orders (which Monty made a habit of)!

The aftermath of El Alamein (ie inability to catch Rommel's key infrastructure and effectively destroy Panzerarmee Afrika) showed the weaknesses in Monty's skills – he was essentially still a WWI style general who when faced with opportunity to breakout and conduct mobile warfare didn't know what to do with it.

Contrasted with Bradley's plodding approach of trying to force his line forward at all points which made for slow progress despite the bulk of German forces opposing Monty. When he did finally concentrate force at one end of his line he finally broke through and thanks to the Commonwealth effort there were no Germans in the area to close the gap once it had been torn open.

And here's the rub:

Instead of breaking out at the easier British side of things as planned (and repeatedly promised by Monty), the Americans had to tear apart the Germans bit by bit and launch a breakout in poor tank territory.

In any case there is no argument that Monty had some brilliant plan and devised to hold German divisions whilst letting the Americans break out. In that case why bleed forces in offensive actions like Goodwood?

Oh and why the hell not communicate with SHAEF instead of promising breakouts?

As for Market Garden much of the blame there lies with the Airborne commanders whose plan it was for the for the drops, including choice of landing grounds.

Did you forget about the bit of an entire Army Corps chugging down a single highway?

In Monty's words this was to be "rapid and violent, without regard to what is happening on the flanks." Instead they were bogged.

Oh and remember the airborne lasted longer than they should've been (because XXX Corps was bogged).

In any case there was a lot of other issues arising from a complicated plan – poor intelligence, lack of aircraft, weather communications etc.

The whole plan was too complicated and too reliant on everything going perfect – and the fault for that lies with Monty who devised it.

And bare in mind that Montgomery's plan removed resources from those fighting in the Scheldt and Montgomery didn't listen to Admirals who told them that the Scheldt needed to be cleared for Antwerp to be useful. Montgomery preferred to waste his First Canadian Army clearing Dunkirk and other surrounded towns – another example of his inability to grasp modern manoeuvre warfare.

(Oh and I am not American so no horse in this race).

7 … 6 … 5 … 4 … 3 … 2 ……

B

Monty: World War II's Most Misunderstood General…

link

Amicalement
Armand

Hang on it was D+60 by the time Caen was completely subdued.

D Day+60 is August. How anyone could claim it took that long to 'subdue Caen is puzzling.

The Brits then go on that his entire plan was to hold these German divisions all along. Even if that's the case, he was then directly disobeying Eisenhower's orders

Fiction. Complete fabrication.
Link or post this 'Eisenhower's order'.

Sure he was facing Panzer divisions (that were arriving piecemeal). But he had the far easier terrain and he initially had the element of surprise

Map of Commonwealth front just before COBRA

[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pnamMVOoj]

Arrayed against Monty:

1st SS
2nd SS
9th SS
10th SS
12th SS
2nd Pz Div
21 Pz Div
116 Pz Div
Tiger Units:
sPzAbt 503
sSS PzAbt 101
sSS PzAbt 102

There is some overlap where German Units face both Armies at the US/UK boundary but of the Panzer Units in Normandy only Pz Lehr not in that line up.

Instead of breaking out at the easier British side of things as planned (and repeatedly promised by Monty),

A straight-up invention:

Montygomery Notes for address to General Officers of the Four Field Armies, 7 April 1944:

"Op Thunderclap"

"Second British Army
To assault to the west of the R. Orne and to develop operations to the south and south east, in order to secure airfield sites and to protect the eastern flank of First U.S. Army while the latter is capturing Cherbourg.
In its subsequent operations the army will pivot on its left and offer a strong front against enemy movement towards the lodgement areas from the east."

April 7 1944 is long before the invasion.

Below is dated June 11:

Source: WO205/5E –
Exfor Topsec Cipher Message D18/11

From: Exfor TAC 110900B
FROM: EXFOR TAC 110900B
To: Troopers London

M15. TOPSEC. Personal for C.I.G.S. from Gen. Montgomery. First Army going well and have reached airel and Balleroy. My general policy is to pull the enemy on to Second Army so as to make it easier for First Army to expand and extend the quicker. Looking forward to your visit.

The plan was always for the breakout to come from the US sector and all claims that this was an 'excuse' invented post-invasion is a fabrication or at best the product of ignorance.

So you are telling me that a green soldier will perform the same as a veteran? Gosh, I'll have to throw out every set of rules I've ever owned.

First Army only had to advance 50 miles to get to Tunis. Eighth Army had to advance 1,500 miles just to get to Tunisia.

Bit absurd that anyone from the former could accuse the latter of being 'slow'.

Montgomery preferred to waste his First Canadian Army clearing Dunkirk and other surrounded towns – another example of his inability to grasp modern manoeuvre warfare.

I would say it is an even better example of your astonishing ignorance. After initial attempts to storm it failed Monty moved on with his advance and Dunkirk was invested by The Czech Armoured Brigade and only surrendered in 1945. Frankly you are very badly informed on just about every aspect of NWE 1944-45.

Who knows what Monty could have done?

And there is the rub! Armchair generals are fond of saying Monty should have done better, but seem very short of answers as to how! Do you think he didn't attack hard enough? The casualty lists would suggest otherwise. From what I see Monty rammed his divisions hard against a tough German defence. Was there some brilliant strategy he could have employed to force a breakthrough?

Instead of breaking out at the easier British side of things as planned (and repeatedly promised by Monty), the Americans had to tear apart the Germans bit by bit and launch a breakout in poor tank territory.

Having walked both sides of Normandy the British side may have been better in that the distance you need to go to get to good tank country is shorter it is by no means poor defensive country. The Germans also had the advantage for much of the time of commanding high ground which gave them excellent observation of the British forces.

The Brits then go on that his entire plan was to hold these German divisions all along. Even if that's the case, he was then directly disobeying Eisenhower's orders (which Monty made a habit of)!

I would like to see that order too, new one on me.

The whole plan was too complicated and too reliant on everything going perfect – and the fault for that lies with Monty who devised it.

And approved by Eisenhower. Doesn't that make it his fault? You seem happy to blame Monty for the whole failure of Market Garden, while ignoring the poor airborne planning, the poor support from the airforce etc.
I find it odd how Monty gets blamed for things that were others responsibility and which were outside his control. He is blamed for not capturing Caen by D+1. What was he supposed to do lead the assault himself? He gets blamed for Dieppe despite having nothing to do with operation long before it is launched.

I find it odd how Monty gets blamed for things that were others responsibility and which were outside his control

Monty is unique in that his critics berate him for things he did not do rather than his actions. His victories are too big to criticise directly so we have a horde of Hollywood referenced critics who construct scenarios where total victory is always in his grasp but he fails to reach for it. Some of their claims here are comical and it is clear that they have very little in the way of references for their calumny and they are just repeating claims they believe to be true for no other reason than they heard Sam Malone say it.

Oh and remember the airborne lasted longer than they should've been (because XXX Corps was bogged).

Just remind me who it was who failed to secure the Son and Nijmegen bridges?

At least the first assault on Montgomery came from someone who had a reasonable grasp of military history . The ignorance of this second Monty assassin is so astounding that I don't even know where to start. On second thoughts, I don't think it even deserves a response. I initially thought it was just a wind up the comments were so stereotyped. Comparatively speaking It's like some drunk had walked into a university debate and started sounding off.

Monty is apparently also unique in the characterization put forward by his clique of faithful worshippers that he never made a single mistake in his career. Criticism is totally forbidden and even the simplest question is categorized as implied "criticism".

Comical.

B

even the simplest question is categorized as implied "criticism".

Making a 15 day halt into a 54 day halt in order to castigate Monty for standing still for 54 days is not a 'simple question' it is simple falsification.
Thanks for confirming my earlier statement:

My contributions here contain no promotion of Monty but are simple corrections of the more outlandish slurs. However 90% of the people who read this will have me marked down as a slavish adoring fan who is claiming Monty was the best General in WW2.

Sorry to disappoint you, mkenny, but it was just a crossed edit post ….. no matte how much you need to believe otherwise. Feel free to check with the webhoster.

MEANWHILE ….. once again you avoid the real issue. As I said before, comical.

B

Wow. From a simple Alamein question to debate on most of the battles in NW Europe. I've studied those campaigns and gamed a good share of them for over 50 years. I remember early on reading a great book which I believe was titled Caen Anvil of Victory. Over the years I've formed my own opinions which will likely rain down the wrath of many here, but what the heck here goes anyway. I think Monty has been underrated especially in America. Just as Bradley has been overrated. But back to Alamein. The axis position in Africa was doomed when the Torch landings hit the beaches. The only question was how long they could hold out. Montys virtual decimation of the DAK at Alamein ensured it was sooner. Perhaps by as much as 6 months. Change the Allied timetable in Western Europe by 6 months and you might end up with Russian having taken Remagen Bridge and occupying Germany to the Rhine. In short I think Alamein was necessary and well fought. Monty faced the best of the German Army in Normandy. The Americans faced units like the 17th SS and fought out Panzer Lehr. It was Bradley who got stuck in the hedgerows and not Montys failure to take Caen that held up the breakout. And had any other general except Bradly who was Eisenhowers buddy got caught with their pants down like he did during the Bulge they would have gotten sacked. As it was Eisenhower essentially took his Army Group away and turned the fight over to Patton and Monty. Read closely the command structure changes and decisions during The Bulge. It was Montys repositioning of XXX Corp and Pattons relief of Bastonge that slammed the door on any chance of a German victory. Spent hours and hours trying to figure out the real reason for the failure of Market Garden. Whatever chance the plan had was lost when the 82nd Airborne failed to clear Nijmegen and grab the bridge in a timely manner. We Americans will never admit that we didn't win the African campaign all by ourselves. Hence Montys victory at Alamein wasn't necessary. Monty was responsible for delayed Normandy breakout. Could never have been Bradley. And again the US troops performed flawlessly in Market Garden so it must have been Montys fault. Again. Does anyone detect a patten here? Of course since Anerican won WWII single handedly we got to write the history books so they read much as you might expect. Enough. I see the Lynch Mob forming. Cheers! Lee

once again you avoid the real issue. As I said before, comical

I avoid nothing. I positively welcome all the carping and whining about Monty because without fail I can show that it is all fabrication. Give it your best shot and see how you get on. Just don't make it too easy for me by (for example) adding an extra 39 days to one of Monty's halts in order to bolster your fiction. At least make me put some effort into correcting you!

mkenny –
You seem terrified to explore even the simplest question raised about Montgomery's generalship and the reasoning that led him to his operational and battlefield decisions. Every such inquiry is apparently seen by you as a mortal threat which immediately evokes from you a tidal wave of personal attacks and insults. The word "collegial" is apparently unknown to you. As such, you are every bit as bad as the "Monty-bashers" that you so despise; you just dwell at the other end of spectrum. You would have made a terrific grand inquisitor in 15th century Spain.

The most amusing thing is that the answer to my question about Montgomery's cautious pursuit of Rommel after Alamein was found (absolutely no thanks to you BTW) in Montgomery's own words and made perfect sense. Sadly, you were too busy reflexively hurling personal abuse everywhere to volunteer any useful response.

Strictly my opinion – but I find you a most unpleasant person.

B

I think the original question is interesting and the statement:

"The Sahara is cold at night, and for the young soldiers waiting to go into battle, it felt perishing"

Which is odd, since El Alamein wasn't fought in the Sahara!

Monty is supposed to have said as he neared his own death "I need to meet God, so that I can explain all those men I had killed at El Alamein"

Rather than fixating on Caen as the basis of the timing / slow argument has anyone noticed that Paris was liberated to schedule?

Strictly my opinion – but I find you a most unpleasant person.

Like Monty I care nothing about opinions as to my character. Far better to be labelled as 'unpleasant' than be exposed (as you were) as ill-informed and 'economical with the actualite'.

Monty's slowness after Alamein exists only in your imagination and his advance of 1500 miles to help TORCH take it objectives after taking his own is typical of the man. He was always ready to help those less organised Generals rise to his level!

Rather than fixating on Caen as the basis of the timing / slow argument has anyone noticed that Paris was liberated to schedule?

He also completed the battle of annihilation with the Germans well in advance of timetable. The original 'Phase Lines' that are used against Monty up to Paris had the Rhine penciled in for 12 months after D-Day.
As with all Monty critics they are very selective with their fabrications.

The Phase Lines are often used to criticise Monty but they can dispel one of the more blatant lies. Critics claim that Monty only made up the story the breakout was to be from the US sector after his own efforts to break out 'failed'.
The Monty-bashers say he fabricated this story to excuse his own failings. Well lets look at the Phase Lines again,

The blue line is the front line.
The date is the expected date the blue line would be reached.
The orange bit is the Commonwealth sector.
These Phase Lines were just notional because the planners needed something to work towards but even the most crazed myopic Monty-hater can clearly see that the intent was for the US forces to pivot of the 'hinge/shield' of the Commonwealth Armies.
The Phase Lines were set long before D-Day and thus they confirm the intention was always to have the breakout come from the US Sector.

"I care nothing about opinions as to my character."

I know nothing about your character per se, but your attitude and demeanor most definitely require professional attention.

B

I think mkenny's posts have been informative. I was interested to see the proof behind the claim that the notion had always been to pivot on the Commonwealth troops – something which many are quick to regard as an excuse / something which was made up after the fact… indeed, I had thought it was a change of plan, rather than the plan all along, so thanks for dispelling that falsehood from my mind.

One question:
On the map mkenny posted to show the formidable forces facing the Commonwealth sector, the army / corps boundaries suggest that the only corps in the 1st Canadian Army was the 1st British Corps, and that the 2nd Canadian Corps was part of 2nd British Army?
Or is that a mis-print and the boundary of the two armies was actually between the 2nd Canadian Corps and the 12th British Corps?

I have to be honest that I'm a bit surprised that Mkenny is having to explain what I'd always taken to be extremely obvious.

The allies are arrayed in a line west-east more or less. The Axis supply line also runs more or less west-east, back to Germany. Therefore the Easternmost end of the Allied line is, just being there, a threat to that supply line, and must be considered the primary target for the Axis forces, with the added rider that if the Eastern end of that Allied line fell then the Axis forces would be able to cut the allied supply line. The Axis forces cant possibly be expected to throw the bulk of their weight at the western end becuase their supply lines will be effortlessly cut.

Therefore the full weight of the axis response must be made at the eastern end of the allied line, and the Allied line MUST be held.

Additionally the Allied army is bigger..to make that advantage count it must broaden the front and force the Axis to overstretch themselves, so it must breakout somewhere, and given the eastern end will be committed to hold back axis counterattacks that breakout can only come from the western end of the allied line.

Surely I can't be the only one who looked at a map of the 5 beeches across the top of france and didn't instantly reach that conclusion, whether or not Monty did.

The 'plan' was not that The Commonwealth Forces were 'picked'to cover the flank of the US Forces. It was dictated by circumstances. Most US camps were in the west of the UK. Therefore they would attack straight across the channel at the western end of the German held coast. They expected that they could be supplied direct from the USA via the captured ports of Cherbourg and Brest. Furthrmore there was a plan called CHASTITY which had a pre-fabricated Harbour waiting in the UK that was to be towed and erected in Quiberon Bay to allow the US Army to be able to function without ships having to sail to the UK to be unloaded and then for the supplies to be shipped to France through UK ports. Circumstances meant CHASTITY was not put into effect but that is how it was going to be done and this also meant that US troops would be at the western side of The Allied line. It was a simple matter to resolve. The US bases were in the west, UK in the east. Thus US Armies on the west, UK in the east. It really was as simple as that

Never thought of it that way before, but it makes total sense.