Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patton instead of Monty?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Patton instead of Monty?

    As the Normandy breakout began to lose some steam, Eisenhower asked Monty and Patton for their plans for a continued offensive. Montgomery argued successfully for what became Market-Garden, while Patton felt that the 3rd Army should be given the materials and support needed to take Metz and continue on into the Saarland.

    How would things have changed if Eisenhower had agreed with Patton, and turned down Market-Garden in favor of the 3rd Army?
    "What are we holding on to, Sam?"

    "That there's still some good in the world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."

  • #2
    was there a simulation in a recent S&T on that?

    had Patton got priority on supplies, he would have trapped a german army retreating from South of France, and got to the Rhine before German forces could have gathered strenght again... and possibly they would have collapsed and war would have ended so much sooner... and about 10 million european lives spared....
    but that is with hindsight as Allied commanders had just fought so hard in normandy that the sudden Patton "run" had the risk of overxtending their flanks... and Monty, a ww1 commander by excellence, did not like mobile warfare too much...
    "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

    Comment


    • #3
      This comes up soooooo often.

      Patton had outrun the capacity of the Allied supply lines to keep him going. Giving him priority would not have changed that (there were only so many trucks and so many suitable roads and they were all running at capacity anyway).

      'Market-Garden' offered up the best opportunity to outflank the German border defences. If it had succeeded then the whole German defence plan would have been 'unhinged' at the very least.

      Monty, a ww1 commander by excellence, did not like mobile warfare too much...
      Hardly. Like a lot of his contemporaries he dreaded the war degenerating into the kind of static warfare he had seen in WW1. Examine his career in WW2 in some detail and it reveals a general who was very keen to employ the concepts of 'mobile warfare' at every opportunity.
      Signing out.

      Comment


      • #4
        Besides what was posted above there is also the fact that the Germans would have thrown the same reinforcements they used against M-G at Patton's attack. Using Patton also overlooks the fact that by Sept. Patton's army had been reduced to only some 6 divisions and his role was to protect the flank of the main drive by 1st US Army. Third Army was a flank guard, not a main attack force.

        Perhaps the question should be asked whether it would not have been better to give the M-G resources to 1st US Army (and the soon to be activated 9th US Army) north of the Ardennes.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Given that Montgomery had priority yet still could only move one Corps instead of the intended three in the 'Garden' phase I don't think it would have made much difference to Bradley. The airborne forces were useful in M-G because they didn't make demands on the overstretched Allied supply network. Thus, Montgomery was able to launch a six division attack using the resources of only three. I don't think the circumstances facing Patton, Hodges or Bradley would have allowed them to do the same.
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • #6
            Full Monty, I disagree on Monty... but that's for another thread..
            (overly discussed I think!!)

            but on Patton outrunnign his supplies. one could argue that more trucks loaded with supplies could have been sent to it's divisions.. but yeah, it would have been risky....
            "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by piero1971
              Full Monty, I disagree on Monty... but that's for another thread..
              (overly discussed I think!!)
              Too true!

              For a harshly critical view of Monty I'd suggest John Ellis - 'Brute Force', for a favourable portrayal then Jon Latimer's 'Alamein' would do the trick. 'Armageddon' by Max Hastings falls somewhere in the middle. I regard all three as being worth reading whatever your view of Montgomery but 'Armageddon'. which deals with the closing months of WW2 in Europe, is one of the best books on any aspect of WW2 that I've read.

              but on Patton outrunnign his supplies. one could argue that more trucks loaded with supplies could have been sent to it's divisions.. but yeah, it would have been risky....
              From my understanding of Patton's situation the supply routes ('Red Ball Express') were already packed with trucks 24/7. The only way he could resume his advance was to stop and re-stock. What complicates the situation is that in stopping for lack of fuel his artillery started using much more ammunition. This meant that the supply trucks had to bring up more ammunition slowing the restocking of fuel.
              Signing out.

              Comment


              • #8
                What they should of done is replaced monty with a more ambitious general Monty wasn't that great of general he just waited until no matter how good the general he was facing the sheer number of units and supply he had it could overpower the opposing army if monty was on the losing side he would of been replaced within the first two battles

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Knight's_Cross
                  What they should of done is replaced monty with a more ambitious general
                  Who would you have had replace Monty?

                  Monty wasn't that great of general he just waited until no matter how good the general he was facing the sheer number of units and supply he had it could overpower the opposing army


                  Nonsense. Apart from the bit about him not being that great - he was just better than most of his mediocre contemporaries.

                  if monty was on the losing side he would of been replaced within the first two battles
                  Which battles are you referring to?
                  Signing out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Incidentally, Carlo D'Este has contributed a three part article on Montgomery to ACG, click on the 'Carlo D'Este' link on the left hand toolbar to get to a list of the articles.
                    Signing out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      We've had a ton of Patton vs Monty threads and they all turn out about the same. Someone writes something bad about Montgomery and then Full Monty ably defends him. Nothing ever gets resolved. Most Americans would probably agree with the esteemed historian, Martin Blumenson, in his estimation of Montgomery as the most overated general of the war (I know I do, sorry, I couldn't resist the dig ), while most British subjects would argue that Montgomery was the best of the Allied generals in Europe. There is a fair amount of evidence that someone could use to argue both points of view. One's opinions on such subjective matters as rating military leaders depends a lot on the perspective one is looking at the subject with.

                      Rather than rehashing old material, how about we try something new like Crerar vs. Simpson, Dempsey vs. Patch, or Truscott vs. Leese? After all, there were other commanders in Europe. Or we could do corps commanders. Horrocks vs. Lightning Joe Collins, or Browning vs. Ridgeway sound interesting. If we really wanted to break boundaries we could stay within nationalities and do a Bradley vs. Devers thing.

                      What will most likely happen, however, is most people will ignore me and my post (don't worry, I'm used to being ignored. I'm married) and get on with what they were doing before. That could be interesting to, so never mind me.
                      "The legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace." General William T. Sherman , 20 July 1865

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        LOL.

                        so let's assume that Patton would have gotten the supplies in good quantity?
                        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pmririshman
                          We've had a ton of Patton vs Monty threads and they all turn out about the same. Someone writes something bad about Montgomery and then Full Monty ably defends him.
                          Unless Gerry (The Purist) gets in first! I'll take the compliment though.

                          Most Americans would probably agree with the esteemed historian, Martin Blumenson, in his estimation of Montgomery as the most overated general of the war (I know I do, sorry, I couldn't resist the dig ), while most British subjects would argue that Montgomery was the best of the Allied generals in Europe. There is a fair amount of evidence that someone could use to argue both points of view.
                          The problem is that for many there are no shades of grey. It's the same with discussing Patton or Rommel. All three had their strengths and weaknesses, all three courted fame and so get far too much attention, all three overshadow countrymen who were far more able commanders than they were. But all three still inspire interest in WW2 and for that, I suppose, we should be grateful.
                          Rather than rehashing old material, how about we try something new like Crerar vs. Simpson, Dempsey vs. Patch, or Truscott vs. Leese? After all, there were other commanders in Europe. Or we could do corps commanders. Horrocks vs. Lightning Joe Collins, or Browning vs. Ridgeway sound interesting. If we really wanted to break boundaries we could stay within nationalities and do a Bradley vs. Devers thing.
                          Trouble with a lot of them is they are just boringly competent. Apart from Browning and Ridgeway - Browning being a truly poor soldier whose real talent lay in manipulating internal army politics, and Ridgeway who was probably the best US Corps commander of the war but whose time really came in Korea

                          What will most likely happen, however, is most people will ignore me
                          Who are you again?
                          Signing out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by piero1971
                            LOL.
                            Beer!

                            so let's assume that Patton would have gotten the supplies in good quantity?
                            Okay, when? That is very significant imo.
                            Signing out.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Full Monty
                              1. Who would you have had replace Monty?



                              2. Nonsense. Apart from the bit about him not being that great - he was just better than most of his mediocre contemporaries.



                              3. Which battles are you referring to?

                              I think they're talking about during the breakout from the hedge grow after Normandy I agree with the Purist though while Patton would have gone far just his army was to small to go far enough

                              to respond to Full Monty
                              1. I don't know I haven't researched into who I would replace him with

                              2. true monty was an excellent organizer and so on but he always waited to long to really do damage to the enemy while in some areas this caution might have saved him but in most areas you can just see missed opporunities and yes you must admit that was better than a lot of other generals

                              3. I wasn't thinking about specific battles maybe El Alamien and Gazala
                              Last edited by Knight's_Cross; 18 Apr 06, 16:32.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X