- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Normandy
Posted by Brad Sallows from Burnaby BC Canada on April 22, 1999 at 13:55:49:
In Reply to: Re: Brad posted by Rob Thompson on April 22, 1999 at 01:42:23:
Patton may arguably have been a better tactician I don‘t know how
one could argue he was a better strategist since he never made any
decisions on that level. Disregard anything Mountbatten has to say
he was hardly a notable warrior and in any event had much reason to
dislike Montgomery, who said of Mountbatten: "A very gallant sailor.
Had three ships sunk under him. Three ships sunk under him. Doesn‘t
know how to fight a battle."
Did you really mean to assert that Montgomery had no part in Overlord
planning? Montgomery had command over Bradley Bradley had command
over Patton. In fact Montgomery had a great deal to say about adapting
the plans prepared by Morgan COSSAC, and it was Montgomery‘s concepts
of battle that were employed for the initial assault and buildup and
subsequent operations up to the point at which the Normandy campaign
concluded when Allied forces reached the Seine in strength. Montgomery
never had to push to expand his role his role was as large as it could
be in that he had command over all ground forces.
I‘m fully aware of Monty‘s personality problems I think it‘s in "The
Generals" by Granatstein where the phrase "nasty little ****" is
mentioned as a term then used in reference to Monty. So what? Patton
had personality problems, too. All it means is that one should read
carefully any accounts by people with a transparent dislike of Monty.
The timetable for the seizure of Caen was workable regrettably, the
opportunity was lost when 7 Armoured‘s drive on Villers Bocage failed.
Once that happened, and with 4 German panzer divisions sitting in front
of them, there was no hope for anything but an attrition battle on the
Allied left flank - there was nowhere to manoeuvre.
I think the only disaster Montgomery presided over was Market-Garden,
and compared to losses sustained elsewhere it doesn‘t even rate.
Posted by Brad Sallows from Burnaby BC Canada on April 22, 1999 at 13:55:49:
In Reply to: Re: Brad posted by Rob Thompson on April 22, 1999 at 01:42:23:
Patton may arguably have been a better tactician I don‘t know how
one could argue he was a better strategist since he never made any
decisions on that level. Disregard anything Mountbatten has to say
he was hardly a notable warrior and in any event had much reason to
dislike Montgomery, who said of Mountbatten: "A very gallant sailor.
Had three ships sunk under him. Three ships sunk under him. Doesn‘t
know how to fight a battle."
Did you really mean to assert that Montgomery had no part in Overlord
planning? Montgomery had command over Bradley Bradley had command
over Patton. In fact Montgomery had a great deal to say about adapting
the plans prepared by Morgan COSSAC, and it was Montgomery‘s concepts
of battle that were employed for the initial assault and buildup and
subsequent operations up to the point at which the Normandy campaign
concluded when Allied forces reached the Seine in strength. Montgomery
never had to push to expand his role his role was as large as it could
be in that he had command over all ground forces.
I‘m fully aware of Monty‘s personality problems I think it‘s in "The
Generals" by Granatstein where the phrase "nasty little ****" is
mentioned as a term then used in reference to Monty. So what? Patton
had personality problems, too. All it means is that one should read
carefully any accounts by people with a transparent dislike of Monty.
The timetable for the seizure of Caen was workable regrettably, the
opportunity was lost when 7 Armoured‘s drive on Villers Bocage failed.
Once that happened, and with 4 German panzer divisions sitting in front
of them, there was no hope for anything but an attrition battle on the
Allied left flank - there was nowhere to manoeuvre.
I think the only disaster Montgomery presided over was Market-Garden,
and compared to losses sustained elsewhere it doesn‘t even rate.
