Patton v Rommel....

[renrich]

A comparison of Rommel and Patton reminds me a little of comparing Lee and Grant. Lee and Rommel both were usually outnumbered and had limited resources, while Patton and Grant knew they had practically unlimited men and materiel. Lee and Rommel had to rely on audacity and the elan of their troops( in Rommel's case, part of his troops in North Africa) and knew that time was against them and favored the enemy. Both of them were hamstrung by mobility problems. Lee by animals and fodder, Rommel by supplies(gasoline) and lack of air control. Patton and Grant mostly did not have that problem. Lee and Rommel had to make chicken salad out of chicken feathers, Grant and Patton, the opposite.

 

[Messy1]

Great post TO. I was unaware of much of that. Thanks for the info.

 

[ToughOmbre]

Great post TO. I was unaware of much of that. Thanks for the info.

You're Welcome Messy!

TO

 

[ToughOmbre]

A comparison of Rommel and Patton reminds me a little of comparing Lee and Grant. Lee and Rommel both were usually outnumbered and had limited resources, while Patton and Grant knew they had practically unlimited men and materiel. Lee and Rommel had to rely on audacity and the elan of their troops( in Rommel's case, part of his troops in North Africa) and knew that time was against them and favored the enemy. Both of them were hamstrung by mobility problems. Lee by animals and fodder, Rommel by supplies(gasoline) and lack of air control. Patton and Grant mostly did not have that problem. Lee and Rommel had to make chicken salad out of chicken feathers, Grant and Patton, the opposite.

Good analogy ren!

TO

 

[Lucky13]

Great stuff guys! Never mind going off topic! I don't think that you can discuss Patton, Rommel and not mention Montgomery....
Have often wondered how far Rommel would have gone with the proper assist in troops, tanks, aircraft etc. etc.

 

[Messy1]

I will not pretend that although Patton maybe my favorite, that he did not have his negatives and quite simply could be a pain in the arse just like Montgomery could.

 

[m kenny]

Towards the end of battle, Montgomery held a press conference, broadcast throughout Britain by the BBC, in which he announced that he had led the British Army to the victory and had saved the day for the Americans. The British press used banner headlines to report that Monty had rescued the Americans from certain defeat.....................

Nothing, however, would ever reduce the ill-will Monty had spread throughout the U.S. command by demeaning the battle quality of the American soldier.

Monty's press confrence:

Teamwork Stopped Huns: Monty

By the Associated Press.

Twenty-first army group headquarters, Jan. 8—Field Marshal Sir Bernard L. Montgomery Sunday said Allied team work and especially the inherent "courage and good fighting quality" of American troops has halted the German drive into Belgium.

The battle is "far from over," he asserted, but the Germans "have been halted, then sealed off, and we are now in the process of writing them off," with the initiative in Allied hands.

At his first press conference in months, the colorful Briton, commanding four armies north of the German bulge told how Field Marshal Karl von Rundstedt's thrust developed, and how he moved to meet it.

Time and again he stressed that above all it was the fighting ability of American doughboys and their "tenacity in battle that makes a great soldier" that has really saved the situation by the stands at St. Vith, Bastogne, and south of Monschau.

He singled out two American armored divisions, the 2d and 7th, and two United States airborne division, the 82d and 101st, and the 106th infantry as doing a great job. He also lauded the United States 7th corps, and praised Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's leadership.

"What was Von Rundstedt trying to achieve? I don't know," Marshal Montgomery said in an hour-long talk. "The only guide we have is his order of the day which told his soldiers they must go all out on this last big effort.
"One must admit that he has dealt a sharp blow and he has sent us reeling back, but we recovered and he has been unable to gain any great advantage. He has therefore failed in his strategic purpose, unless the prize is smaller than his men were told.

"Von Rundstedt attacked on December 16," he said. "He obtained a tactical surprise. He drove a deep wedge into the center of the 1st army and split American forces in two. The situation loomed as if it might become awkward. The Germans had broken right through the spot and were heading for the Meuse.

"As soon as I saw what was happening, I took certain steps myself to insure that if the Germans got to the Meuse they could certainly not get over that river. And I carried out certain movements so as to provide balanced dispositions to meet the threatened danger."

Marshal Montgomery at the time had command only of the British 2d and Canadian 1st armies, and on his own he shifted some troops south to meet the threat.

"Then the situation began to deteriorate, but the whole Allied team rallied to meet the danger. National considerations were thrown overboard; General Eisenhower placed me in command of the whole northern front."

"I employed the whole available power of the British group of armies. This power was brought into play very gradually and in such a way that it would not interfere with American lines of communications. Finally it was put into battle with a bang, and today British divisions are fighting hard on the right flank of the United States 1st army . . This is a fine Allied picture.

"We have halted the Germans, sealed them off, and are now writing them off. German divisions have suffered heavily, but I say this about a battle. It is a very great mistake to think it is over. The worst parts are over, but a great deal more must be done.

"There are two main reasons why Von Rundstedt was sealed off from achieving what he was after, The first of these is the good fighting qualities of the United States soldier, and the second is Allied teamwork.

"I formed a very high opinion of the American soldier in Italy and Sicily," Marshal Montgomery continued earnestly. "I have spent my life with the British soldier and I love the British soldier, but I have formed a great affection for the American soldier, who is a very brave fighting man who has that tenacity in battle which makes a great soldier.

"He is basically responsible for stopping Von Rundstedt from what he set out to do. "He held out at Elsenborn there south of Monschau (the 1st, 2d, 99th and 30th infantry divisions) when the great blow hit him and he stopped those SS panzer divisions.

"At St. Vith many United States troops were cut off and isolated but in little groups they fought and held on to those vital road junctions, forcing the Germans to halt. It was a very fine performance that the 7th armored division and the 106th infantry division borne division at Bastogne which put up a great performance.

"On December 20-21, I consulted General Hodges (Lieut. Gen. Courtney Hodges, United States 1st army commander) and suggested we must get those fine fighting men out of the St. Vith area and back in our lines

"The 82d American airborne division moved forward and got in contact with these elements and we pulled them back behind our lines. Then we ordered the 82d back to better positions but they did not want to come and they protested, but I assured them they had accomplished their mission and could withdraw with honor.

"I take my hat off willingly to such men."

Discussing Allied teamwork, Marshal Montgomery said, "It was to me a remarkable thing how in the time of danger the Allied team rallied together. This thing of Allied solidarity is terribly important. Teamwork wins battles and battle victories win wars.

"On our team the captain is General Ike. I am devoted to him. We are great friends. We are all in this fight together and we must not allow any wedges to be driven between us. As an illustration of our friendship, the other day my plane was damaged, and I asked Ike for another, and he sent his own at once."
In questions after the conference, Marshal Montgomery said the Germans still were "fine soldiers" and formidable enemies. He cited the January 1 attack of the Luftwaffe on Allied airfields as an example of German potentialities, saying "the enemy pulled a fast one on us."
But this does not mean the German has air superiority, he continued, and "the biggest terror of the German soldier is our air force. On good days they shoot up everything behind the German lines."
The field marshal, in contrast with his press conferences last summer, declined to go into any predictions as to how long the war would last, or to estimate German capabilities.
But "in the balance, I don't see how Von Rundstedt has gained very much." he said




Can anyone point to where Monty can be said to be 'demeaning the battle quality of the American soldier' or claiming he 'rescued the Americans from certain defeat'

 

[Marcel]

Have often wondered how far Rommel would have gone with the proper assist in troops, tanks, aircraft etc. etc.

He would probably run out of ammunition and fuel after first outrunning his supply troops.

 

[comiso90]

Nice post m kenny but i wonder how much of those words/thought s were actually Monty's. By that time in the war, the military PR machine was finely tuned. It is certain that Monty was briefed on what to say and what to stress... or at least how to spin it. Not just for the sake of the Allied morale but so that Germans perceived nothing but total unity and solidarity in the Anglo - American alliance.

Press conferences are prepared events


.

 

[m kenny]

If he was dismissive of US troops and their abilities then where can we see it? As far as I am aware no one has ever posted any 'speech' where he makes disparaging remarks-everyone just 'knows' he said it and takes it as fact without ever seeing the proof.

 

[ToughOmbre]

If he was dismissive of US troops and their abilities then where can we see it? As far as I am aware no one has ever posted any 'speech' where he makes disparaging remarks-everyone just 'knows' he said it and takes it as fact without ever seeing the proof.

You cite one press conference (source?) and that "proves" Monty was a team player? Hardly. As comiso stated, press conferences are "spin" events.

TO

 

[Juha]

Hello TO
Quote:" During the relentless fighting over 19,000 American and 100,000 German soldiers were killed. The British dead amounted to just over 200."

Now the figures I have seen all stated, that Germans lost max 100,000 soldiiers, if LW losses were included, and that is total losses (KIA, MIA, DOW. WIA and POW), not only those who died, which was naturally much lower figure.

Quote:" Historian Carlo D'Este later characterized Monty's plan as, "…the most ill-conceived major operation of World War II."

IMHO that reveals much more on D'Este than on the quality of Market-Garden plan. Do you think that that plan was worse than the German attack plan in Ardennes in Dec 44, the plan of Himmler's counter attack in Pommeria in early 45 which collapsed during its first day, or the plan of the last relief attack towards Budapest, which ended to collapse of German front in Hungary, one could go on but here 3 for the beginning. The plan of Market-Garden has many errors but D'Este seems to be even more anti-Monty than I have thought.

Juha

 

[imalko]

I have to refresh my knowledge about Market-Garden operation, but I seem to recall about reading somewhere that planers received reports from Dutch resistance about presence of two Waffen SS divisions in the Arnhem area. This was apparently confirmed by aerial recconaisance, but the planers chose to disregard this information!?

 

[Juha]

IIRC correctly Allied got the word on presence of thanks in the area, maybe some PR photos when a PR Spit was sent to check the info, which was suspected to be partly wrong, "to civilians every AFV looks like a tank" was the opinion of many intelligence officers. Even pictures were suspected, "were those combat ready or only wrecks"

Now the both SS-divs were badly depleted and in reality significant part of armour in near vicinity of Arnheim were ex French Char Bs which didn't achieve much against para's. IIRC much of the effective armour used against paras arrived farer away but the armoured cars of one of the SSPzAufklAbtn in the area effectively slowed down para's advance towards Arnheim bridges. Also the SS NCO school in the area was a bad surprise.

Juha

 

[m kenny]

You cite one press conference (source?) and that "proves" Monty was a team player? Hardly. As comiso stated, press conferences are "spin" events.

And you cite none to back your claims.
I have put up the Associated Press version of the press conference. Until such time as another confrence is posted confirming the disparagement then there is no case to answer.

 

[renrich]

I read an auto biography of Monty once, long ago, and he stated the three greatest influences on his life were his father, Churchill and Eisenhower. Perhaps ingratiation(is that a word?) but that is what he said. Another point which should be remembered about Monty was that he knew the Brits were running out of manpower and the British public were very sensitive to casualty rates. The bloodletting in WW1 was never far from the minds of the Brits which was undestandable.

 

[comiso90]

. Until such time as another confrence is posted confirming the disparagement then there is no case to answer.

There is no basis for your assertion. It is not valid evidence.

As stated before.. press conferences are useless.. they are PR tools of the media.

Do you really believe everything that is said when someone calls a Press Conference?

I'm not saying you're incorrect about Monty but it is definitely is wrong to quote what comes out of a press conference and use it as evidence of someones true opinion.

You could be 100% correct but I'd believe memoirs or statements by his contemporaries first.


.

 

[B-17engineer]

"Some officers criticized for Montgomery's lack of aggressiveness for not counter-attacking when the Axis forces backed off in defeat, but the victory nevertheless began to build his reputation as an able commander. Montgomery later argued that his troops were not ready to go on an offensive at that time. He would only launch his men on an offensive when he was sure that victory was certain, and that victory would have to be decisive."

Bernard Montgomery | World War II Database

 

[Glider]

Bernard Montgomery | World War II Database[/url]

When the enemy are on the back foot as they were after Alamein it could be argued that by only launching his men in pursuit when he was sure of victory you will ensure that the victory would not be decisive.

 

[m kenny]

There is no basis for your assertion. It is not valid evidence.

As stated before.. press conferences are useless.. they are PR tools of the media.

Let me get this straight.
The original claim states:

"Towards the end of battle, Montgomery held a press conference, broadcast throughout Britain by the BBC, in which he announced that he had led the British Army to the victory and had saved the day for the Americans. The British press used banner headlines to report that Monty had rescued the Americans from certain defeat

and it is accepted as gospel. The claims said to have been made at this press confrence are considered good enough to condem Monty for:

"announcing that he had led the British Army to the victory and had saved the day for the Americans.....
and demeaning the battle quality of the American soldier"

However when I post a US report of this press confrence it is now claimed that:

"Do you really believe everything that is said when someone calls a Press Conference


Double standards at work here.
I ask again where is the transcript of the press conference where Monty disparaged the American soldier?

You could be 100% correct but I'd believe memoirs or statements by his contemporaries first.

But only if they reflect badly on Monty?