We need to get in the right room for an argument - but I like the captions Rob. I want to put the fox in the coup, we need turkeys for Christmas.
Let's talk 'acreage' captured and POW's.
At Alamein, there was a narrow, heavily defended WW1 type defense in depth for Monty. Tough going but achieved with relatively low casualties for such a battle. He also threw the AK back hundreds of miles to Tunis, a lot of acres. You could argue he didn't rush, but where were they going and the AK were experts at delay and booby traps on basically one coast road.
In Normandy, the British and Canadians faced the vast majority of German armour, again on a relatively narrow front with defense of the high ground by dug in Germans. The more weakly defended sector was for the US forces, but it was clearly difficult to get to the point of breakout and exploitation due to the bocage, however that was not Patton's main fight.
Patton came in after the Normandy invasion and exploited rather than make his way off the beach, using the superb mechanisation, speed, logistics and reliabilty of the US army to its full when the front had collapsed. A PR dream. He was always facing stretched and relatively weak forces by comparison. When he did bump into something hard, as around Metz for example, he looked quite 'Montyesque' in his progress.
I take nothing away from his superb exploitation and especially the swift wheel north to Bastogne, but on balance did he do any better than say the British and Canadian dash up the channel coast before Market Garden? I don't think so and who would his troops rather serve under, him or Monty? If the roles were changed and Monty was in charge of the US and vice versa would he have been as bold? Looking at August/September 1944 and N Germany in 1945 I would say yes.
Before you start on about Arnhem, the plan was good, the executuion weakened by delay, bad luck, weather and poor generalship in 1st Airborne IMO. And SHAEF went on to underestimate the Germans again in just three months in the Ardennes.
I still think most of this kind of argument comes from the American anti-British agenda at the time and the British struggling with the hand over of total post war supremacy to the US who by late 1944 had several times more divisions in the field. The US culture also seems much better at celebrating and preserving heroes than the British, we seem to see the cracks in the facade more? I also think, reading posts and talking to American friends that Monty was a gift as the best PR disaster since .... Patton? This is important given the power of Hollywood to make or break an image. How many films do you see a snipe at Monty in for no good reason - Private Ryan for example?
Patton had the easier ride IMO.
Tin helmet on, incoming.{sm0}
I do believe he may have some hard questions to answer for regarding Ranger Tillman- not sure that book is closed by a long shot. Unfortunate that a lapse of judgement led to his dismissal.
