Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Germany just couldn't produce enough tanks of sufficient quality to really compete against the storm of metal, the Allies were putting against them.
Okay, probably the wrong word, but still I am saying that they were still fielding early tanks late into the war that were intended as training tanks and that these tanks didn't have the same ability in combat to match the later Shermans and the churchills. Also the Italians kept requesting help to dig them out of bad situations like North Afrika, and Greece. This therefore led to Germany having to divert their attention from other theatres.
....these tanks didn't have the same ability in combat to match the later Shermans and the churchills...
It was a matter of quanity vs quality. Germany had the superior tanks just not enough of them.
What a waste and Monty continued to use those chips mercilously after the operation failed.
I was reading a book last night that claimed the invasion of Greece was the biggest mistake. Although a pretty swift victory, it nonetheless delayed Barbarossa by critical weeks. In the author's view, if it wasn't for this they could've been in Moscow by the time winter set in, and the war could've been very different. Opinions?
I'm no great fan of Montgomery (when I start of a posting like that on this board, I know I'm asking for it but...) but I think the guy did Ok given his circumstances. He did win the first All British (colonial allies and other countries included) straight battle against the Germans at El Alamain and followed it up with a successful campaign that ended the Axis presence in Africa. Gotta give him credit for that (American troop landings of Operation Torch were very important to the win but his was the main fight for most of it).
I agree Monty's importance in North Africa.
I thought he started his 'failure to achieve' rep in Sicily when he failed to cut off the German troops across the Straits of Messina - then compounded by a.) Caen and b.) failing to close the trap at Falaise Pocket - after he petitioned Ike to stop Patton then REALLY compounded his 'failure to achieve' reputation at Market Garden. Having said all of the above he did an excellent job during and after the Bulge
Sicily and Italy, so-so. Competent.
Normandy he gets a bad wrap. Depending on your perspective, either rightfully so or he is maligned. He did plan to take Caen in the first day (if not the first several days) of Overlord. Took much longer. Changed his PR from "Being the lead in the offensive" to "taking the German brunt while the Americans broke out". Some of this was Montgomery's ego talking (lead in the offensive) and some of it was the plan (pushing while the US broke out) but when it came to the plan actually being "The Plan" is a good guess. I've heard it both ways (Monty was the lead and Monty holds the flank).
Monty specifically politicked Ike and Bradley to prevent Patton from running North to 'meet' him and then failed to punch south to close the trap at Falaise - most of those surviving troops helped stop him at Market Garden
But he also had a big problem on his hands. His forces were not going to get any larger after Normandy. From June 6 onwards, his forces get steadily weaker while the US forces get stronger. In short, the Brits were running out of men. Yet he had to keep a position in the Allied forces that would not force the Brits aside as a junior partner. He had to husband his manpower and still fight (and win) battles. He did that by fighting set piece battles and using firepower whenever possible. He didn't rush it. He didn't take un-needed chances.
Montgomery's real failing was his ability to piss off just about anybody he met that he didn't win over. He had a powerful ego (most of the leadership on both sides did) that got the better of him. In a force that was a mixture from all places and races, that can easily be constituted as arrogance and contempt. Not good for an Allied force.
I'm no great fan of Montgomery (when I start of a posting like that on this board, I know I'm asking for it but...) but I think the guy did Ok given his circumstances. He did win the first All British (colonial allies and other countries included) straight battle against the Germans at El Alamain and followed it up with a successful campaign that ended the Axis presence in Africa. Gotta give him credit for that (American troop landings of Operation Torch were very important to the win but his was the main fight for most of it).
Sicily and Italy, so-so. Competent.
Normandy he gets a bad wrap. Depending on your perspective, either rightfully so or he is maligned. He did plan to take Caen in the first day (if not the first several days) of Overlord. Took much longer. Changed his PR from "Being the lead in the offensive" to "taking the German brunt while the Americans broke out". Some of this was Montgomery's ego talking (lead in the offensive) and some of it was the plan (pushing while the US broke out) but when it came to the plan actually being "The Plan" is a good guess. I've heard it both ways (Monty was the lead and Monty holds the flank).
But he also had a big problem on his hands. His forces were not going to get any larger after Normandy. From June 6 onwards, his forces get steadily weaker while the US forces get stronger. In short, the Brits were running out of men. Yet he had to keep a position in the Allied forces that would not force the Brits aside as a junior partner. He had to husband his manpower and still fight (and win) battles. He did that by fighting set piece battles and using firepower whenever possible. He didn't rush it. He didn't take un-needed chances.
Montgomery's real failing was his ability to piss off just about anybody he met that he didn't win over. He had a powerful ego (most of the leadership on both sides did) that got the better of him. In a force that was a mixture from all places and races, that can easily be constituted as arrogance and contempt. Not good for an Allied force.
I'm no great fan of Montgomery (when I start of a posting like that on this board, I know I'm asking for it but...) but I think the guy did Ok given his circumstances. He did win the first All British (colonial allies and other countries included) straight battle against the Germans at El Alamain
I think General Alexander never got the credit he deserved for El Alamain
and Montgomery was happy to receive all the praise being the prima donna he was.
Patton wasted men where it wasn't necessary, he was overly aggressive.