Montgomery and Patton

[gman]

In the ETO during WWII, generals Bernard Montgomery and George S. Patton were the two most controversial allied general officers. Aside from sharing the dubious distinction as being prima Donna’s, what’s your take? I’d be especially interested in any of our United Kingdom and commonwealth members views.

 

[Jredbaron96]

In the ETO during WWII, generals Bernard Montgomery and George S. Patton were the two most controversial allied general officers. Aside from sharing the dubious distinction as being prima Donna’s, what’s your take? I’d be especially interested in any of our United Kingdom and commonwealth members views.

Patton was overrated but still a good tactician and armored commander. He was in a lot of ways the opposite of Montgomery. Monty was a strategist and administrator first and foremost but a subpar tactician.

 

[gman]

Patton was overrated but still a good tactician and armored commander. He was in a lot of ways the opposite of Montgomery. Monty was a strategist and administrator first and foremost but a subpar tactician.

How was Patton overrated?

 

[Grand Mal]

We know where this is going.

 

[Bodecea]

In the ETO during WWII, generals Bernard Montgomery and George S. Patton were the two most controversial allied general officers. Aside from sharing the dubious distinction as being prima Donna’s, what’s your take? I’d be especially interested in any of our United Kingdom and commonwealth members views.

The ultimate prima donna was MacArthur.

 

[Jredbaron96]

How was Patton overrated?

He gets treated like one of the best American generals in history. He wasn't even the best American general in the ETO.

Patton was a good tactician but his performance declined the higher in rank he went.

 

[gman]

We know where this is going.

Where is it going? Like I said, they were both controversial. But if you have an opinion then back it up.

 

[Questerr]

In the ETO during WWII, generals Bernard Montgomery and George S. Patton were the two most controversial allied general officers. Aside from sharing the dubious distinction as being prima Donna’s, what’s your take? I’d be especially interested in any of our United Kingdom and commonwealth members views.

Wildly overrated. Patton was useless at anything but simple, straightforward offensives in open terrain. Monty was myopic about his own “genius” and took little concern of practical issues like logistics and weather conditions.

Patton should never have gotten a third star and Monty should have been put in charge of training troops in Britain.

 

[gman]

The ultimate prima donna was MacArthur.

Probably so, this isn’t about him.

 

[gman]

He gets treated like one of the best American generals in history. He wasn't even the best American general in the ETO.

Patton was a good tactician but his performance declined the higher in rank he went.

His biggest screwup was the battle of Metz. He should’ve bypassed the city instead of causing costly losses to his own troops. This was the same post war opinion of the Germans.

 

[Questerr]

His biggest screwup was the battle of Metz. He should’ve bypassed the city instead of causing costly losses to his own troops. This was the same post war opinion of the Germans.

But Patton had committed himself to the idea that fixed fortifications couldn’t withstand modern warfighting techniques and technology and he was willing to kill as many of his own men as he had to in order to prove himself right.

 

[Jredbaron96]

His biggest screwup was the battle of Metz. He should’ve bypassed the city instead of causing costly losses to his own troops. This was the same post war opinion of the Germans.

Yes, but you could see the limitations of his command earlier than that. His performance in sicily and Italy his limitations as an operational level commander.

 

[gman]

Wildly overrated. Patton was useless at anything but simple, straightforward offensives in open terrain. Monty was myopic about his own “genius” and took little concern of practical issues like logistics and weather conditions.

Patton should never have gotten a third star and Monty should have been put in charge of training troops in Britain.

Monty admitted he was not concerned about the small practical issues. However, he was very concerned about logistics and wouldn’t move unless he felt he had overwhelming advantage in tanks and artillery. But like Patton his hubris made enemies of not just the Americans but also most of the British general staff he came in contact with.

 

[gman]

But Patton had committed himself to the idea that fixed fortifications couldn’t withstand modern warfighting techniques and technology and he was willing to kill as many of his own men as he had to in order to prove himself right.

His own hubris at work.

 

[Questerr]

Monty admitted he was not concerned about the small practical issues. However, he was very concerned about logistics and wouldn’t move unless he felt he had overwhelming advantage in tanks and artillery. But like Patton his hubris made enemies of not just the Americans but also most of the British general staff he came in contact with.

That’s not logistics. Logistics is carrying about supply, maintenance, etc. Monty didn’t. His invasion of Sicily and Market Garden demonstrate that.

 

[gman]

Yes, but you could see the limitations of his command earlier than that. His performance in sicily and Italy his limitations as an operational level commander.

Patton didn’t go to Italy. Sicily was a mountainous slugfest for the Brit’s as well. There was no easy way in Sicily and it continued on into Italy.

 

[gman]

That’s not logistics. Logistics is carrying about supply, maintenance, etc. Monty didn’t. His invasion of Sicily and Market Garden demonstrate that.

Tanks and artillery need fuel and ammunition, which is all included in logistics. His failure for Market Garden was a huge tactical mistake. The irony of Market Garden and previously in the bloodbath the Brit’s suffered at Caen, is that Monty lied through his teeth about the success of both.

 

[Questerr]

Tanks and artillery need fuel and ammunition, which is all included in logistics. His failure for Market Garden was a huge tactical mistake. The irony of Market Garden and previously in the bloodbath the Brit’s suffered at Caen, is that Monty lied through his teeth about the success of both.

Monty could handle stockpiling supplies for an offensive, what he couldn’t do was make sure those supplies actually moved forward with the offensive. Interestingly Rommel had the exact same problem.

Market Garden was a huge tactical and strategic mistake. The entire plan was flawed from the start. It relied on the plan going entirely perfectly right with zero margin of error.

 

[gman]

He gets treated like one of the best American generals in history. He wasn't even the best American general in the ETO.

Patton was a good tactician but his performance declined the higher in rank he went.

In your opinion, who was the best U.S. general in the ETO?

 

[gman]

Monty could handle stockpiling supplies for an offensive, what he couldn’t do was make sure those supplies actually moved forward with the offensive. Interestingly Rommel had the exact same problem.

Market Garden was a huge tactical and strategic mistake. The entire plan was flawed from the start. It relied on the plan going entirely perfectly right with zero margin of error.

I had never read that Monty had trouble with his trains keeping up with the forward movement. That was one patton’s complaints. There was definitely a problem with having enough of everything for each corps and Army commanders needs in every theater in the war.

 

[Questerr]

I had never read that Monty had trouble with his trains keeping up with the forward movement. That was one patton’s complaints. There was definitely a problem with having enough of everything for each corps and Army commanders needs in every theater in the war.

He did in Sicily and big time in Market Garden. It’s a major reason why the 30th Corps couldn’t reach Arnhem in time.

 

[gman]

He did in Sicily and big time in Market Garden. It’s a major reason why the 30th Corps couldn’t reach Arnhem in time.

The 30th corps was held up due lack of maneuver room and was pretty restricted to one major access road for the armor. It didn’t take a master tactician to properly defend against the offensive. The other reason was the intelligence failure to recognize the 12th SS panzer divisions move to Arnhem.

 

[Jredbaron96]

In your opinion, who was the best U.S. general in the ETO?

Well my personal favorite is Devers, but Eisenhower should probably get the nod.

 

[Rexedgar]

Well my personal favorite is Devers, but Eisenhower should probably get the nod.

Eisenhower was foremost a politician. He never led troops. Patton was that oil and water mix of an excellent field commander, but a terrible garrison soldier. Moving Third Army in relief of Bastogne was probably his zenith.
Montgomery was too timid, the British offensive at Caen showcases that.

 

[Juin]

Monty admitted he was not concerned about the small practical issues. However, he was very concerned about logistics and wouldn’t move unless he felt he had overwhelming advantage in tanks and artillery.

I will say that knocks off some points from Monty as a General. With overwhelming advantage in tanks and artillery even Mother Theresa would be a great general. Excellence in Generalship is the ability to exact the most from what is available. That made Monty a mediocre General. Any of his victories could have been achieved by any other General.
 

But like Patton his hubris made enemies of not just the Americans but also most of the British general staff he came in contact with.

That's a bad General that makes an enemy of his allies. Hannibal was very careful about that.