"Is this the right room for an argument?"
I believe it is panda
A few of us have had some good 'discussions' here over the past few months haven't we. I've learnt a lot from the posts but it has taken me a lot of time and effort to read websites and check my reference books etc to make sure I had at least some of the info correct. Binder, Louis, Dave et al, will soon point out any errors in a post as they are right into military history.
I've 'read' thousands of military books over the years but I've forgotten most of the information as I mainly just looked at the pretty pictures of the tanks etc. And it doesn't help that my memory isn't what it used to be. I'm not sure if it's just middle age kicking in, or a combination of the alcohol, drugs (not many honest) and accidental electric shocks I've had over the years. Whatever the cause, it's a real bugger walking into a room and thinking, now what the hell was I supposed to do when I got there
Now before you guys blame me for yet another boring Montgomery discussion, don't forget the following is all panda's fault for asking if Monty was lucky
Wasn't it Napoleon that wanted 'lucky' Generals? As for Monty being lucky, all Generals make mistakes, and much depends upon how many soldiers are involved in the battle and the number killed. In addition, some Generals are good at covering up their mistakes, or have people that recognise their use to the war effort and support them.
Montgomery would have been sacked early in WWII if not for the support of General (later Field Marshal) Alan Brooke, and Patton would have been sent home in disgrace early on if not for Eisenhower. And it's ironic to think that Montgomery and Patton are considered to be the best or worst Generals of WWII depending upon your country of origin and the amount of propaganda you have been exposed to. We can't get away from politics can we.
Montgomery lived and breathed the military and was in that way much like Patton. Montgomery saw first hand the success of the German storm trooper and tank penetration tactics of late WWI being an early type of blitzkreig. Despite his efforts after WWI he lacked the personality and old boy network to make any significant changes to established British doctrine that concentrated on infantry and artillery in defensive positions. Therefore unlike Patton he had little to do with tanks throughout most of his career.
He again saw the value of tank and infantry penetration when in France where the Germans used improved bltizkreig tactics to force the retreat at Dunkirk. He noted the early failures in Africa where the British squandered their tanks in pell mell attacks against German defensive positions. He learnt from early mistakes and ordered the tank officers not to do such things again. However in subsequent battles British tank commanders sometimes still got carried away with cavalry type charges causing needless losses up to the end of the war. But no doubt both are to blame for a variety of reasons.
Montgomery understood that the defender always has the upper hand and tried to lure his opponent into attacking wherever possible and subsequently bleed them dry. His greatest hero was Wellington and used many of his ideas which were based on infantry and artillery rather than cavalry.
German Generals (like the Americans) were trained to be attacking Generals. Therefore many German Generals such as Rommel often took the bait resulting in lost battles such as El Alamein. Relatively small numbers of dug in determined troops can hold a defensive position against superior forces as was evidenced by the Australian 9th Division at Tobruk. Earning them the (Desert) Rat description that Rommel gave them as an intended insult.
However Generals can't always have the benefit of a defensive position and when the enemy won't come to you, you must go to them. And this is where politics plays a large part in wars. Montgomery was preparred to sit on his backside and let the Germans bleed dry. The Germans were finding it even more difficult to replace men and equipment than the British who had the considerable support of the American production lines as well as their men. And lets not forget the Russians.
However, static battles do not look good in the press, and the people, and in turn, their President or Prime Minister want to see gains in ground - the larger the better. And when the British and American forces made these 'required' attacks on the defending German forces that's when most allied losses occured, mainly because you can't always just go around an obstacle. This was especially evident towards the end of the war when Hitler allowed the German army to withdraw to defensive lines rather than isolated fortresses as I mentioned earlier.
So once again we come back to the politics and command problem in war. All Generals make mistakes, soldiers loose there lives and Generals loose command. But the President or Prime Minister that caused the problem can usually find someone else to blame and will go to great lengths to remain in power.
Montgomery and Patton both made personal and professional errors of judgement and their pros and cons will continue to be discussed for many years to come. However few could argue that both didn't provide a considerable boost to their respective country's morale by being positive and energetic heros when their country's most needed one (Dunkirk and Kasserine Pass). They may both have been lucky on occassions but we were certainly lucky to have them when we needed them.
